Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 40 of 41 FirstFirst ... 3038394041 LastLast
Results 976 to 1,000 of 1006

Thread: Macedonians

  1. #976
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,146
    Points
    38,710
    Level
    60
    Points: 38,710, Level: 60
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 340
    Overall activity: 80.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    @ Ragnaro no 3

    The Politi-Kalfov protocol-agreement.

    after WW1 among Greece and Bulgaria happened an agreement of exchange population,
    Greeks came from Bulgaria, and Bulgarians from Greece moved to Bulgaria

    Why kingdom of Serbia did not, did this, and later communist Tito?
    why the more than 30% of Monasterion left their homes and moved to Greece and rest Europe and USA
    who force them to leave?
    and if Greek is Fasist, why in some villages SlavoMakedonian are spoken free,
    and Greek does not in Fyrom?

    I suggest think before you speak,

    by Prespes treaty you earned a lot,
    Greece lost a lot,
    it is Time to recogn and come to a protocol like Politi-Kalfov
    recogning the Greek minority that is about 14% today at Skopjie.
    since you have your own state, it is time to stop playing the games of Serbia, Bulgaria, Turkey,
    and face the truth, and make your own treaties, and agreements.


    ΟΘΕΝ ΑΙΔΩΣ OY EINAI
    ΑΤΗ ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ
    ΥΒΡΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΑΤΑΙ
    ΝΕΜΕΣΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣΗ ΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΣΙ ΔΕ

    When there is no shame
    Divine blindness conquers them
    Hybris (abuse, opprombium) is born
    Nemesis and punishment follows.

    Εχε υπομονη Ηρωα
    Η τιμωρια δεν αργει.

  2. #977
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    12-03-12
    Posts
    201
    Points
    6,447
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,447, Level: 23
    Level completed: 80%, Points required for next Level: 103
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Ethnic group
    Greek
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by RagnarofMacedon View Post
    Of course that mean patriot , φιλέλλην, from φίλος - philos, "friend" + Έλλην - Hellen, "Greek , FRIEND OF GREEKS OR GREEK-FRIEND.
    Yes, I know what these two words mean. I take it you are not an expert in the Ancient Greek language. The bottom line is that a philhellene in Ancient Greek could be someone of Greek or non-Greek origin. In modern English and modern Greek it is associated to non-Greeks only. So the connotation has shifted over time.

    As for the Ancient Macedonians. Find me material evidence of a non-Greek language or culture associated to them and you will not convince me, but also the academic community. Someone who claims that Ancient Macedonians were different because they drank different, sat in different positions or we can not find evidence of their non-Greek language because the only scribes where Greek attests to the fact there is no evidence to support otherwise.

    We have material evidence that Illyrians and Thracians were not Greek. Yet we have no such evidence for the Ancient Macedonians who conquered the known world. I would say, if the shoe fits...

  3. #978
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points
    LABERIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-15
    Posts
    2,005
    Points
    5,353
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,353, Level: 21
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 197
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Dianatomia View Post
    Yes, I know what these two words mean. I take it you are not an expert in the Ancient Greek language. The bottom line is that a philhellene in Ancient Greek could be someone of Greek or non-Greek origin. In modern English and modern Greek it is associated to non-Greeks only. So the connotation has shifted over time.

    As for the Ancient Macedonians. Find me material evidence of a non-Greek language or culture associated to them and you will not convince me, but also the academic community. Someone who claims that Ancient Macedonians were different because they drank different, sat in different positions or we can not find evidence of their non-Greek language because the only scribes where Greek attests to the fact there is no evidence to support otherwise.

    We have material evidence that Illyrians and Thracians were not Greek. Yet we have no such evidence for the Ancient Macedonians who conquered the known world. I would say, if the shoe fits...
    I am very curious to know if you greeks have preserved throught the history the memory of Alexander the Great. I mean, do you have preserved his memory in your folk tradition? Do you have any medieval chronicle where you talk about this great man that you consider a Greek?
    Thanks in advance.
    17 Dec.
    Paget to the Council.

    Now the Council's letters seem to imply (words quoted) that the King will keep no strangers save the Albanoys.

    Cales, 17 Dec. 1545. Signed.


  4. #979
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    12-03-12
    Posts
    201
    Points
    6,447
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,447, Level: 23
    Level completed: 80%, Points required for next Level: 103
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Ethnic group
    Greek
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by LABERIA View Post
    I am very curious to know if you greeks have preserved throught the history the memory of Alexander the Great. I mean, do you have preserved his memory in your folk tradition? Do you have any medieval chronicle where you talk about this great man that you consider a Greek?
    Thanks in advance.
    The memory of Alexander had survived within the Greek literary tradition indeed. In fact, if it wasn't for the Greek literary tradition, it is quite likely that we would not have known much of Alexander. Similarly, the same is true for the geographical term 'Macedonia'. It is through Greek culture that this name had survived and has been referred to continuously. In any case, naturally I am not going to do a full research on Alexander in Byzantine literature. But I have come across references of Alexander in later Greek era's quite some times. The one which come to mind was Manuel Palaiologos where he, during the Siege of Thessalonica by the Turks, reminded the citizens of Thessalonica that they are the heirs of Alexander and that they had to defend the city with their lives.

    Alexander also has survived in Byzantine Greek art. Like this 14th century drawing where it shows how Alexander killed Darius:


    You will find many more here:
    https://helios-eie.ekt.gr/EIE/bitstr...-Alexander.pdf

    Here is a book you will find interesting. Though you need access to read it.
    https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9...08.xml?lang=en

    There are also medieval chronicles as you stated. But I have found a link only and it is in Greek.
    https://www.politeianet.gr/books/978...antinon-290731

    It would be nice if I can start a new threat and gather as many referrals as possible about Alexander in Medieval Greek works.

  5. #980
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points
    LABERIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-15
    Posts
    2,005
    Points
    5,353
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,353, Level: 21
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 197
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Dianatomia View Post
    The memory of Alexander had survived within the Greek literary tradition indeed. In fact, if it wasn't for the Greek literary tradition, it is quite likely that we would not have known much of Alexander. Similarly, the same is true for the geographical term 'Macedonia'. It is through Greek culture that this name had survived and has been referred to continuously. In any case, naturally I am not going to do a full research on Alexander in Byzantine literature. But I have come across references of Alexander in later Greek era's quite some times. The one which come to mind was Manuel Palaiologos where he, during the Siege of Thessalonica by the Turks, reminded the citizens of Thessalonica that they are the heirs of Alexander and that they had to defend the city with their lives.

    Alexander also has survived in Byzantine Greek art. Like this 14th century drawing where it shows how Alexander killed Darius:


    You will find many more here:
    https://helios-eie.ekt.gr/EIE/bitstr...-Alexander.pdf

    Here is a book you will find interesting. Though you need access to read it.
    https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9...08.xml?lang=en

    There are also medieval chronicles as you stated. But I have found a link only and it is in Greek.
    https://www.politeianet.gr/books/978...antinon-290731

    It would be nice if I can start a new threat and gather as many referrals as possible about Alexander in Medieval Greek works.
    Excuse me because seems that you have not understand my question and for this reason i am going to repeat it:
    Quote Originally Posted by LABERIA View Post
    I am very curious to know if you greeks have preserved throught the history the memory of Alexander the Great. I mean, do you have preserved his memory in your folk tradition? Do you have any medieval chronicle where you talk about this great man that you consider a Greek?
    Thanks in advance.
    I am asking about Greeks, not Romans.

  6. #981
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    12-03-12
    Posts
    201
    Points
    6,447
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,447, Level: 23
    Level completed: 80%, Points required for next Level: 103
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Ethnic group
    Greek
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by LABERIA View Post
    Excuse me because seems that you have not understand my question and for this reason i am going to repeat it:


    I am asking about Greeks, not Romans.
    So that is where you want to go to. Amazing. You made such a fantastic point. I do not know what to say about that. I am struck.

    What can I say? Perhaps they did not speak English? So they didn't use the word 'G R E E K' . They didn't even have Latin characters. It's very confusing.

    I am kidding obviously. Cheers!

  7. #982
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points
    LABERIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-15
    Posts
    2,005
    Points
    5,353
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,353, Level: 21
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 197
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Dianatomia View Post
    So that is where you want to go to. Amazing. You made such a fantastic point. I do not know what to say about that. I am struck.

    What can I say? Perhaps they did not speak English? So they didn't use the word 'G R E E K' . They didn't even have Latin characters. It's very confusing.

    I am kidding obviously. Cheers!
    Thank you very much for your answer. I got the information that i was interested.

  8. #983
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,146
    Points
    38,710
    Level
    60
    Points: 38,710, Level: 60
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 340
    Overall activity: 80.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    The proud of Argeiad Makedonian Women
    The Helmet, which Alexander allow them to had,
    Living memmory till today.



    It is enough,

    it is even tied on head via a imantas infront neck


  9. #984
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Piro Ilir's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-04-15
    Posts
    1,126
    Points
    5,377
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,377, Level: 21
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 173
    Overall activity: 7.0%






    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    @ Ragnaro no 3

    The Politi-Kalfov protocol-agreement.

    after WW1 among Greece and Bulgaria happened an agreement of exchange population,
    Greeks came from Bulgaria, and Bulgarians from Greece moved to Bulgaria

    Why kingdom of Serbia did not, did this, and later communist Tito?
    why the more than 30% of Monasterion left their homes and moved to Greece and rest Europe and USA
    who force them to leave?
    and if Greek is Fasist, why in some villages SlavoMakedonian are spoken free,
    and Greek does not in Fyrom?

    I suggest think before you speak,

    by Prespes treaty you earned a lot,
    Greece lost a lot,
    it is Time to recogn and come to a protocol like Politi-Kalfov
    recogning the Greek minority that is about 14% today at Skopjie.
    since you have your own state, it is time to stop playing the games of Serbia, Bulgaria, Turkey,
    and face the truth, and make your own treaties, and agreements.


    'Greek minority in Skopje'! . Don't make me laugh that much

  10. #985
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Piro Ilir's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-04-15
    Posts
    1,126
    Points
    5,377
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,377, Level: 21
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 173
    Overall activity: 7.0%






    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianatomia View Post
    Yes, I know what these two words mean. I take it you are not an expert in the Ancient Greek language. The bottom line is that a philhellene in Ancient Greek could be someone of Greek or non-Greek origin. In modern English and modern Greek it is associated to non-Greeks only. So the connotation has shifted over time.

    As for the Ancient Macedonians. Find me material evidence of a non-Greek language or culture associated to them and you will not convince me, but also the academic community. Someone who claims that Ancient Macedonians were different because they drank different, sat in different positions or we can not find evidence of their non-Greek language because the only scribes where Greek attests to the fact there is no evidence to support otherwise.

    We have material evidence that Illyrians and Thracians were not Greek. Yet we have no such evidence for the Ancient Macedonians who conquered the known world. I would say, if the shoe fits...
    Illyrian language wasn't written , but still it doesn't mean Illyrians didn't existed as a separate ethnicity.

    Eteo/Cretans were a distinct ethnicity surviving well through the iron age in Crete, but they also were part of the Hellenic world.
    We know that there were different people of non Greek ethnicity or descent and whether being part of the mighty Greek world.

  11. #986
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points
    LABERIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-15
    Posts
    2,005
    Points
    5,353
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,353, Level: 21
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 197
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Piro Ilir View Post
    'Greek minority in Skopje'! . Don't make me laugh that much
    Until few years before the Congress of Berlin (1878), Greeks considered even Serbs as Greeks.

  12. #987
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    24-02-19
    Location
    Bylazora
    Posts
    48
    Points
    413
    Level
    4
    Points: 413, Level: 4
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 22.0%


    Country: Macedonia



    There is no evidence that ancient macedonian was Greek dialect,It is belived that macedonian was similar to thracian/moesian ,The thing that there was many texts and some coins on koine language in that time internation language (Nowdays Greek) ,because many barbarians like Macedonians accept Hellenism, that was popular thing in ancient time , influence by neighbors , many of barbarians like Macedonians and thracians by Profesor Kenneth W.Harl they accepted Hellenism to can marry Greek woman, coz it was forbidden to non-greeks to marry greek woman unless they accept Greek culture and Language.
    Also there is not trace or evidence for Illyrian language , from many ancient and new historians believes that Macedonians,Thracians,Illyrians and Moesians speaks very similar language, but still there is not evindence for theirs language.

  13. #988
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Aspar's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-07-17
    Posts
    94
    Points
    1,581
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,581, Level: 11
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 269
    Overall activity: 6.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-Y16729
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Macedonian
    Country: Lesotho



    3 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by RagnarofMacedon View Post
    There is no evidence that ancient macedonian was Greek dialect,It is belived that macedonian was similar to thracian/moesian ,The thing that there was many texts and some coins on koine language in that time internation language (Nowdays Greek) ,because many barbarians like Macedonians accept Hellenism, that was popular thing in ancient time , influence by neighbors , many of barbarians like Macedonians and thracians by Profesor Kenneth W.Harl they accepted Hellenism to can marry Greek woman, coz it was forbidden to non-greeks to marry greek woman unless they accept Greek culture and Language.
    Also there is not trace or evidence for Illyrian language , from many ancient and new historians believes that Macedonians,Thracians,Illyrians and Moesians speaks very similar language, but still there is not evindence for theirs language.
    If the ancient Macedonians were Hellenized, than there is no point of discussing whether they were originally Greeks or not since they became Greeks and were spreading Hellenism!

    Why is that some Macedonians like yourself get into the trap so easily of discussing the ancient Macedonians and make a favour to the Greeks of denying our ethnicity?

    Our name and and ethnicity is not bound to the ancient Macedonians.
    We have right to call ourselves as such whether the ancients were Greeks or not.
    End of story!

  14. #989
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    24-02-19
    Location
    Bylazora
    Posts
    48
    Points
    413
    Level
    4
    Points: 413, Level: 4
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 22.0%


    Country: Macedonia



    I came to one conclusion , that how many evindence i will show or someone else there is always butthurt Greeks that will trick your words and make to manipulating with everything, everything what is against their imaginary thats not true , that is said in another context, any way these days there is like 90% of Historians,profesors also many ancient historians and orators who said Macedonians were not Greeks, there is even tons of lectures, but no thats all in another context said...Anyways some stupid records which is i hope IN ANOTHER CONTEXT WRITED , Macedonia is only 1-2% more slavic than Greeks, if we take in account that Greece is like 4 times bigger by population than Macedonia there is conclusion that in Greece is more slavic people than in Macedonia...:)
    Anyways @Yetos knows in what contexts are writen ancient quotes, even i heard something that he was close friend of few ancient historians...
    I really want to know what educational degree you have?

  15. #990
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,146
    Points
    38,710
    Level
    60
    Points: 38,710, Level: 60
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 340
    Overall activity: 80.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by RagnarofMacedon View Post
    I came to one conclusion , that how many evindence i will show or someone else there is always butthurt Greeks that will trick your words and make to manipulating with everything, everything what is against their imaginary thats not true , that is said in another context, any way these days there is like 90% of Historians,profesors also many ancient historians and orators who said Macedonians were not Greeks, there is even tons of lectures, but no thats all in another context said...Anyways some stupid records which is i hope IN ANOTHER CONTEXT WRITED , Macedonia is only 1-2% more slavic than Greeks, if we take in account that Greece is like 4 times bigger by population than Macedonia there is conclusion that in Greece is more slavic people than in Macedonia...:)
    Anyways @Yetos knows in what contexts are writen ancient quotes, even i heard something that he was close friend of few ancient historians...
    I really want to know what educational degree you have?
    hahaha

    No matter all the ancient wrote,
    no matter the evidences,
    the VMRO followers, will always follow the Communistic propaganda,
    Aspar told you something, that you will never understand,
    you even wrote about Isokrates who worship Philipp, but probably you never read him at all,

  16. #991
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Piro Ilir's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-04-15
    Posts
    1,126
    Points
    5,377
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,377, Level: 21
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 173
    Overall activity: 7.0%






    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by LABERIA View Post
    Thank you very much for your answer. I got the information that i was interested.
    Already they remodified the Wikipedia page where is written about 'Alexander I of Macedon', the Philhellene... They have an army of editors there. And well paid either. One is wandering where are going all these German funds...

  17. #992
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    24-02-19
    Location
    Bylazora
    Posts
    48
    Points
    413
    Level
    4
    Points: 413, Level: 4
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 22.0%


    Country: Macedonia



    The ancient Macedonians regarded the Greeks as potentially dangerous neighbors, never as kinsmen. The Greeks stereotyped the Macedonians as "barbarians" and treated them in the same bigoted manner in which they treated all non-Greeks. Herodotus, the Father of History, relates how the Macedonian king Alexander I(498-454 BC), a Philhellene (that is "a friend of the Greeks" and logically a non-Greek), wanted to take a part in the Olympic games. The Greek athletes protested, saying they would not run with a barbarian. Historian Thucydidis also calls the Macedonians barbarians, and so did Thracymachus who called Archelaus a barbarian who enslaved Greeks. Demosthenes, the great Athenian statesman and orator, spoke of Philip II as:"... 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]The Macedonian "barbarian" defeated Greece at the battle of Chaeronea in August 338 BC and appointed himself "Commander of the Greeks". This battle had established Macedonian hegemony over Greece and this date is commonly taken as the end of Greek history and the beginning of the Macedonian era. Greece did not regain its independence until 1827 AD.In 335 BC, Philip's son Alexander campaigned toward the Danube, to secure Macedonia's northern frontier. On rumors of his death, a revolt broke out in Greece with the support of leading Athenians. Alexander marched south covering 240 miles in two weeks. When the revolt continued he sacked Thebes, killing 6,000 people and enslaving the survivors. Only the temples and the house of the poet Pindar were spared.

  18. #993
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    24-02-19
    Location
    Bylazora
    Posts
    48
    Points
    413
    Level
    4
    Points: 413, Level: 4
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 22.0%


    Country: Macedonia



    American Philological Association
    Ancient Macedonians Vs the ancient Greeks Differences cited by modern historians
    Taken from articles on Ancient History published by A.P.A.
    Contributors are:1. D.Brenden Nagle " Macedonian Appropriation of Greek Kulturgechichte"2. Eugene Borza "Who were (and are) the Macedonians"3. Edmund F. Bloedow "Diplomatic Negotiations between Darius and Alexander: Historical Implications of the First Phase at Marathus in Phoenicia 333/332 BC"[1] ".....the appropriation of Greek Kulturgescichte, and the use by non-Greeks for political purposes against Greeks, is less common, and even less well documented. Here I offer an example of highly effective Macedonian use of Greek cultural history to advance propaganda aims of Philip II which had the double aim of blunting Greek criticism of his state-building while at the same time cloaking his work in the legitimizing terminology devised by Greeks for their own, often violent, colonizing and city founding activities.""camouflage the fact that he was creating a wholly new type of state, a consolidation of ethne under a personal monarchy.""That it has continued to confuse interpreters is testament to the hegomonic power of Greek cultural history and the adroitness of the Macedonians in using this powerful tool of self-identification against its devisers."[2] "On the matter of language, and despite attempts to make Macedonian a dialect of Greek, one must accept the conclusion of linguist R.A.Crossland in the recent CAH, that an insufficient amount of Macedonian has survived to know what language it was.""Macedonian and Greek were mutually unintelligible in the court of Alexander the Great""no more proof that Macedonians were Greeks than, e.g., the existence of Greek inscriptions on Thracian vessels and coins proofs that the Thracians were Greeks.[The Greek inscriptions found in Macedonia are not a proof that the Macedonians were Greeks, just like the Greek inscriptions in found in Thrace do not prove that the Thracians were Greek as well. We know for certain that the Thracians were non-Greek nation, therefore, the using of Greek on the territories of Macedonia and Thrace does not prove that the Thracians nor the Macedonians were Greeks]"What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information", writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility."Yet there is much that is different, e.g., their political institutions, burial practices, and religious monuments:[3] "The designation of Macedonia as part of Greece has intrigued modern critics. This, according to Schachermeyr, is enough to 'take one's breath away'. He went so far as to suggest that, however brief, it encapsulates a whole and bold strategy: to counter the Great King's strategy of attempting to exploit the age-old distinction between Macedonians and Hellenes. The reason for including Macedonia as part of larger Hellas was designed to justify Macedonian participation in the so-called war of revenge. Whatever the truth on this point, on the basis of what we know happened in Macedonia in 480, Alexander had no more grounds for carrying out a war of revenge on behalf of Macedonia than he had on behalf of Athens or Sparta. Of course, Macedonians never regarded their territory as forming part of Greece, and certainly the Greek poleis did not regard Macedonia as being another Greek polis. The reason why Alexander here includes Macedonia as being part of Greece may be an attempt to paper over the glaring anomaly between what Philip and he had just done to 'the rest of Greece' and what he is in the process of doing to the Persian empire. The Persians had never done anything significant against the Macedonians. It is noteworthy that Herodotus, although he provides considerable information on Xerxes' activities when he passed through Macedonia in 480, does not record any acts of destruction--- scarcely surprising if Xerxes was instrumental in Macedonia gaining control of Upper Macedonia."[4] "What is more important is the that Chaeronea, Thebes, and Agis make a complete mockery of attempting in this context to suggest that the Greeks in Hellas regarded themselves as willing subjects under legitimate Macedonian kings (Philip and Alexander) or- that the inhabitants of the regions he had just conquered did so entirely of their own will".[We need to refresh our memories about Isocrates' letter to Philip where he, Isocrates, makes clear that: (a) "Philips's ancestors understood that Greeks cannot submit to the rule of a monarch, while non-Greeks actually cannot live without such a regime", and (b) "people of non-kindred race" - was the term used by Isocrates to describe the Macedonians. Obviously, highlighting the distinction between Macedonians and Greeks.]The epitaph composed by Demosthenes for the common grave of the fallen Hellenes at Chaeronea reads as follows:"Time whose o'erseeng eye records all human actions, Bear word to mankind what fate was suffered,how Striving to safeguard the holly soil of Hellas Upon Boeotia's plain we died.""If all the peoples in the regions which Alexander had conquered were willing subjects under the new king, he presumably should not have left any military troops with the satraps he everywhere instated."[What an arrogant bluff by Alexander, to refer to the conquered people as "willing subjects". What Alexander failed to disclose is the fact that he left "no less than one quarter of his forces behind under one of Philip's most tried generals when he set out for Asia!"]

  19. #994
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    24-02-19
    Location
    Bylazora
    Posts
    48
    Points
    413
    Level
    4
    Points: 413, Level: 4
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 22.0%


    Country: Macedonia



    Eugene Borza
    Professor of Ancient History at the Pennsylvania State University
    Makedonika and In the Shadow of Olympus
    The American Philological Association refers to E. Borza as the "Macedonian specialist". In the introductory chapter of "Makedonika" by Carol G. Thomas, Eugene Borza is also called "the Macedonian specialist", and his colleague Peter Green describes Eugene's work on Macedonia as "seminal". Do Ancient Historians hold Eugene Borza in high esteem? Please read what P. Green thinks of Borza's approach to the studies of ancient history, and of his method of abstraction of truth: "Never was a man less given to the kind of mean-spirited odium philologicum that so often marks classical debate. Gene could slice an argument to pieces while still charming its exponents out of the trees."Ernst Badian from Harward University writes: "It is chiefly Gene's merit that recognizably historical interpretation of the history of classical Macedonia has not only become possible, but it is now accepted by all ancient historians who have no vested interest in the mythology superseded by Gene's work. Needless to say, I welcome and agree with that approach and have never disagreed with him except on relatively trivial details of interpretation." Here are some excerpts from Borza's writings regarding the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks. I will offer no interpretations, for none is needed, indeed. On the matter of distinction between Greeks and Macedonians:[1] "Neither Greeks nor Macedonians considered the Macedonians to be Greeks."[2] On the composition of Alexander's army: "Thus we look in vain for the evidence that Alexander was heavily dependent upon Greeks either in quantity or quality."[3] "The pattern is clear: the trend toward the end of the king's life was to install Macedonians in key positions at the expense of Asians, and to retain very few Greeks."[4] "The conclusion is inescapable: there was a largely ethnic Macedonian imperial administration from beginning to end. Alexander used Greeks in court for cultural reasons, Greek troops (often under Macedonian commanders) for limited tasks and with some discomfort, and Greek commanders and officals for limited duties. Typically, a Greek will enter Alexander's service from an Aegean or Asian city through the practice of some special activity: he could read and write, keep figures or sail, all of which skills the Macedonians required. Some Greeks may have moved on to military service as well. In other words, the role of Greeks in Alexander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the services of Xerxes and the third Darius."[5] On the policy of hellenization with Alexander conquest of Asia and the Greek assertion that he spread Hellenism: "If one wishes to believe that Alexander had a policy of hellenization - as opposed to the incidental and informal spread of Greek culture - the evidence must come from sources other than those presented here. One wonders - archeology aside - where this evidence would be." On the ethnic tension between Macedonians and Greeks, referring to the episode of Eumenes of Cardia and his bid to reach the throne: "And if there were any doubt about the status of Greeks among the Macedonians the tragic career of Eumenes in the immediate Wars of succession should put it to rest. The ancient sources are replete with information about the ethnic prejudice Eumenes suffered from Macedonians."[6] On the issue of whether Alexander and Philip "united" the Greek city-states or conquered them: "In European Greece Alexander continued and reinforced Philip II's policy of rule over the city-states, a rule resulting from conquest."[7] "The tension at court between Greeks and Macedonians, tension that the ancient authors clearly recognized as ethnic division."[8] On Alexander's dimissal of his Greek allies: "A few days later at Ecbatana, Alexander dismissed his Greek allies, and charade with Greece was over."[9] On the so called Dorian invasion: The theory of the Dorian invasion (based on Hdt. 9.26, followed by Thuc. I.12) is largely an invention of nineteenth-century historography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archeological or linguistic evidence."[10] "The Dorians are invisible archeologically."[11] "There is no archeological record of the Dorian movements, and the mythic arguments are largely conjectural, based on folk traditions about the Dorian home originally having been in northwest Greece.[12] "The explanation for the connection between the Dorians and the Macedonians may be more ingenious than convincing, resting uncomfortably on myth and conjecture."[13] On the Macedonian own tradition and origin: "As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adopted any existing language, even though they were now in contact with neighboring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues."[14] On the Macedonian language: "The main evidence for Macedonian existing as separate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the train of Alexander the Great, where the Macedonian tongue is mentioned specifically."[15] "The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from ordinary Attic Greek used as a language of the court and of diplomacy."[16] "The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from Greek - do not show the changes expected from Greek dialect."[17] On the Macedonian material culture being different from the Greek: "The most visible expression of material culture thus far recovered are the fourth - and third-century tombs. The architectural form, decoration, and burial goods of these tombs, which now number between sixty and seventy, are unlike what is found in the Greek south, or even in the neighboring independent Greek cities of the north Aegean littoral (exception Amphipolis). Macedonian burial habits suggest different view of the afterlife from the Greeks', even while many of the same gods were worshipped."[18] "Many of the public expressions of worship may have been different."[19] "There is an absence of major public religious monuments from Macedonian sites before the end of the fourth century (another difference from the Greeks)."[20] "Must be cautious both in attributing Greek forms of worship to the Macedonians and in using these forms of worship as a means of confirming Hellenic identity."[21] "In brief, one must conclude that the similarities between some Macedonian and Greek customs and objects are not of themselves proof that Macedonians were a Greek tribe, even though it is undeniable that on certain levels Greek cultural influences eventually became pervasive."[22] "Greeks and Macedonians remained steadfastly antipathetic toward one another (with dislike of a different quality than the mutual long-term hostility shared by some Greek city-states) until well into the Hellenic period, when both the culmination of hellenic acculturation in the north and the rise of Rome made it clear that what these peoples shared took precedence over their historical enmities."[23] "They made their mark not as a tribe of Greek or other Balkan peoples, but as 'Macedonians'. This was understood by foreign protagonists from the time of Darius and Xerxes to the age of Roman generals."[24] "It is time to put the matter of the Macedonians' ethnic identity to rest."[25] "There is other aspect of Alexander's Greek policy, and that is his formal relationship with the Greek cities of Europe and Asia. In European Greece Alexander continued and reinforced Philip II's policy rule over the city-states, a rule resulting from conquest. As for the island Greeks and the cities of Asia Minor, their status under the reigns of Philip and Alexander has been much debated. Fortunately, for my purposes, the status of these cities, whether as members of Philip's panhellenic league or as independent towns, is not crucial, as they were in fact all treated by Alexander as subjects. Much of the debate on this issue, while interesting and occasionally enlightening, has sometimes obscured a simple reality: Greeks on both sides of the Aegean were subjects to the authority of the king of Macedon." Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander's Court. Makedonika[26] "I have not cited several pieces of anecdotal evidence from the sources on Alexander that establish the continuing tension at court between Greeks and Macedonians, tension that the ancient authors clearly recognized as ethnic division. A fuller version of this study will consider these incidents to support my view that Greeks and Macedonians did not get along very well with one another and that this ethnic tension was exploited by the king himself." Makedonika p.158 [27] "What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information", writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility."

  20. #995
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    24-02-19
    Location
    Bylazora
    Posts
    48
    Points
    413
    Level
    4
    Points: 413, Level: 4
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 22.0%


    Country: Macedonia



    Ernst Badian
    Department of History at Harvard University
    Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times
    [1] "There is no evidence of any Macedonian claim to a Greek connection before the Persian war."[2] On Alexander's I attempt to enter the Olympic games: "There were outraged protests from the other competitors, who rejected Alexander I as a barbarian -- which proves at the least, that the Teminid [Greek] descent and the royal genealogy had hitherto been an esoteric knowledge." The Olympic games in Greece were reserved for Greeks only.[3] "With the exception of the single item, no Macedonian king between Alexander I and Philip II is in anyway connected with the Olympic or any other games.[4] The Macedonian king Archelaus founded Macedonian Olympic games which Badian calls it "counter Olympics".[5] "No Macedonian appears on the list of Olympic victors that have survived (a fair proportion of the whole) until well into the reign of Alexander the Great."[6] "Nor do we find the Macedonian people ever regarded as a political entity transacting business with the Greek states."[7] "For political purposes no difference was seen between Macedonians and (say) Thracian and Persian, i.e. other nations under monarchical rule. This may have been a contributing factor in unwillingness to recognize Macedonians as Greek."[8] On Alexander the Great: "Characteristically for Alexander despite his thorough Greek education and obviously genuine interest in Greek literature, was nevertheless a Macedonian king."[9] On Philip, "Greeks never commanded his armies".[10] Alexander's integration of troops: "...interesting to notice that he never - either before or at the time - tried to integrate Greeks into the Macedonian units that were his best military assets, either in the tactical or in the emotional sphere, while at the very end, both for tactical and for political reasons integration of Macedonians and Iranians was important, while integration of Greeks with either was not."[11] On Macedonian language: "The suggestion is surely that Macedonian was the language of the infantry and that the Greek was a difficult indeed a foreign tongue to them".[12] Alexander never tried to impose Greek on his Macedonian infantry, or to integrate it with Greek 'foreign' individuals".[13] On Demosthenes' tirades about Macedonians: "... we are concerned only with sentiment, which is itself historical fact and must be taken seriously as such. In these tirades we find not only the Hellenic descent of Macedonian people (which few seriously accepted) totally denied, but even that of the king."[14] "As regards the Macedonian nation as a whole, (there was as we can see) no division. They were regarded as clearly barbarian, despite the various myths.[15] "Philip had not tried to pass of his Macedonians as Greeks"[16] "He, Philip, never tried to make his Macedonians members of the Hellenic league."[17] "The feeling of being peoples of nonkindred race existed on both side" referring to Isocrates' statement.[18] On Python and the 17,000 Greek soldiers cut down by Macedonian soldiers: " the patent needs of the empire and the oath of their commander were swallowed up in the explosion of what we can only regard as the men's irrational hatred for their Greek enemies."

  21. #996
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    24-02-19
    Location
    Bylazora
    Posts
    48
    Points
    413
    Level
    4
    Points: 413, Level: 4
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 22.0%


    Country: Macedonia



    Peter Green
    Historian and Professor of Classics at the University of Texas
    Alexander of Macedon and Alexander to Actium


    [1] "The Colonels, as it happened, promoted Alexander as a great Greek hero, especially to army recruits: the Greeks of the fourth century B.C., to whom Alexander was a half-Macedonian, half-Epirote barbarian conqueror, would have found this metamorphosis as ironic as I did." [The Greek island on which Peter Green stayed while working on his book, happened to be the same island on which the Greek Colonels, after assuming power in Greece, used it as a dumping-ground for royalist officers and "thinkers with mind of their own".]
    [2] "Macedonia was the first large territorial state with an effective centralized political, military and administrative structure to come into being on the continent of Europe". [p.1]
    [3] "No one had forgotten that Alexander I, known ironically as ‘the philhellene’, had been debarred from the Olympic Games until he manufactured a pedigree connecting the Argeads with the ancient Argive kings". [p.7] [On p.9 Green refers to this Argive link as ‘fictitious’.]
    [4] Isocrates’ letter to Philip II where he, Isocrates refers to Philip "as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom to consider Hellas your fatherland" Green calls this a "rhetorical hyperbole". "Indeed, taken as a whole the Address to Philip must have caused its recipient considerable sardonic amusement". [p. 49] "Its ethnic conceit was only equaled by its naivety" [p.49]
    [5] "And though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage ( a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda-line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his Macedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress." [p.50]
    [6] "The Greeks had done a deal with Artaxerxes, [Persian commander], and if Philip did not move fast it would be they who invaded his territory, not he theirs. In the event, he moved faster than anyone could have predicted." [p.69]
    [7] "The Greek states retained no more than a pale shadow of their former freedom". [p.80] [This is how Philip "united" the Greek states.]
    [8] "The dedication of the Philipeum was a salutary reminder that from now on, whatever democratic forms might be employed as a salve to the Greeks’ self-respect, it was Philip who led and they who followed."[p.86]
    [9] "The Greek states were to make a common peace and alliance with one another, and constitute themselves into a federal Hellenic League. Simultaneously, the league was to form a separate alliance with Macedonia, though Macedonia itself would not be a league member." [p.86]
    [10] "Philip’s Panhellenism was no more than a convenient placebo to keep his allies quiet, a cloak for further Macedonian aggrandizement." [p.87]
    [11] "Most Greek statesmen recognized this only too well. To them, their self-styled hegemon was still a semi-barbarian autocrat, whose wishes had been imposed on them by right of conquest; and when Alexander succeeded Philip, he inherited the same bitter legacy of hatred and resentment - which his own policies did little to dispel." [p.87]
    [12] "The military contingent they supplied were, in reality, so many hostages for their good behavior. As we shall see, whenever they saw the slightest chance of throwing off the Macedonian yoke, they took it." [p. 87]
    [13] "Some 15,000 Greek mercenaries, not to mention numerous doctors, technicians and professional diplomats, were already on the Persian pay-roll; twice as many men, in fact, as the league ultimately contributed for the supposedly Panhellenic crusade against Darius." [p.95]
    [14] "In the early spring of 336, an advance force of 10,000 men, including a thousand cavalry, crossed over to Asia Minor. Its task was to secure the Hellespont, to stockpile supplies, and in Philip’s pleasantly cynicalphrase, to ‘liberate the Greek cities’." [p.98] [The operative word is "cynical phrase" to ‘liberate the Greek cities’.]
    [15] "Only the Spartans held aloof. The traditions of their country, they informed the king, did not allow them to serve under a foreign leader. (So much for Macedonia’s pretensions to Hellenism.) Alexander did not press the point....." [p.121] [The operative word is "a foreign leader" referring to Alexander.]
    [16] [Regarding the news of Alexander’s death.] "If anyone had doubts about the report, he quickly suppressed them: this, after all, was just what every patriotic Greek had hoped and prayed might happen." [p.136]
    [17] "Darius reversed his earlier policy of non-intervention, and began to channel gold into Greece wherever he thought it would do most good. He did not, as yet, commit himself to anything more definite: clearly he hoped that the Greek revolt would solve his problem for him. But the mere thought of a Greek-Persian coalition must have turned Alexander’s blood cold." [p.138]
    [18] "This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the king’s propaganda section continued - for the time being - to present it. No one, so far as we know, was tactless enough to ask the obvious question: if this was a Panhellenic crusade, where were the Greek troops? [p. 157]
    [19] "Indeed, despite the league’s official veto, far more Greeks fought for the Great King - and remained loyal to the bitter end - than were ever conscripted by Alexander." [p.157]
    [20] "What is more, the league’s troops were never used in crucial battles (another significant pointer) but kept on garrison and line-of-communication duties. The sole reason for their presence, apart from propaganda purposes, was to serve as hostages for the good behavior of their friends and relatives in Greece. Alexander found them more of an embarrassment than an asset, and the moment he was in a position to do so, he got rid of them." [p.158]
    [21] "Alexander lost no time in getting rid of the league’s forces which accompanied him - another ironic gloss on his role as a leader of a Panhellenic crusade." [p.183]
    [22] On the subject of "liberating the Greek cities in Asia: "But the euphemism of a ‘contribution’ did not carry the same unpleasant associations; and the whole scheme, with its implication of a united Greek front, must have made splendid propaganda for home consumption." [p. 188]
    [23] On the league’s crews: "Their own crews, he pointed out, were still half-trained (the cities of the league must have been scraping the bottom of the barrel when they chose them); and - a revealing admission - a defeat at this point might well trigger off a general revolt of the Greek states. So much for the Panhellenic crusade. Alexander’s main fear, we need scarcely doubt, was that the league’s fleet might actually desert him if the chance presented itself." [p.190]
    [24] "The truth of the matter seems to have been that Alexander distrusted his Greek allies so profoundly - and with good reason - that he preferred to risk the collapse of his campaign in a spate of rebellion rather than entrust its safety to a Greek fleet." [p.192]
    [25] "The case of Aspendus exposes, with harsh clarity, Alexander’s fundamental objectives in Asia Minor. So long as he received willing cooperation, the pretence of a Panhellenic crusade could be kept up. But any resistance, the least opposition to his will, met with instant and savage reprisals." [p.208]
    [26] "The burning of Persepolis had written finish to the Hellenic crusade as such, and he used this excuse to pay off all his league’s troops, Parmenio’s Thessalians included. The crisis in Greece was over: he no longer needed these potential trouble makers as hostages." [p. 322]
    [27] "But Greek public opinion was something of which Alexander took notice only when it suited him; and the league served him as a blanket excuse for various questionable or underhand actions, the destruction of Thebes being merely the most notorious." [p.506-7]
    [28] "It is significant that two native rising occurred on the news of Alexander’s death, and both of these, as we shall see in a moment, involved Greeks; there were otherwise no ingenuous revolts against the colonial government." [p.6. "Alex. to Actium"]
    [29] "But then, Eumenes was a Greek, and Macedonian troops, especially the old sweats who had served under Philip II, were never really comfortable being led by non-Macedonians." [p.7. "Alex. to Actium".]
    [30] "Nearcus never came to much among the Successors: but then he, like Eumenes, was a Greek; worse still, he was a Cretan, and thus a proverbial liar." [p.7. "Alex. to Actium"]
    One can clearly see the distinction between ancient Macedonians and the Greeks. Modern Greek's assertion that ancient Macedonians were Greeks simply does not hold any water.

  22. #997
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    24-02-19
    Location
    Bylazora
    Posts
    48
    Points
    413
    Level
    4
    Points: 413, Level: 4
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 22.0%


    Country: Macedonia



    A.B. Bosworth
    Professor of Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia
    On the Macedonian language and ethnicity of the Macedonian Army
    [1] Bosworth responds to Hammond regarding the usage of the Macedonian language by Alexander: "I deliberately refrain from adopting any position on the linguistic status of ancient Macedonian. It has little significance outside the nationalistic propaganda of the contemporary Balkan states, in which prejudice and dogma do duty for rational thought. What matters for the present argument is the fact, explicit in Curtius, that Macedonian was largely unintelligible to non-Macedonians. Macedonians might understand Greek, and some Greek (like Eumenes) with experience of Macedon might speak Macedonian. However, even Eumenes took care that a vital message was conveyed to the phalangites of Neoptolemus by a man fluent in Macedonian (MAKEDONI/ZONTA TH]=FWNH]=:PSI 12. 1284,col. ii. 19-20).] "Alexander shouted out in Macedonian, and called the hypaspists in Macedonian." In my view there is nothing at all surprising in the use of Macedonian. Alexander was calling his hypaspists, who were Macedonians, and he addressed them in their native language/dialect."[2] In Hammond's view the soldiers from Lower Macedonia (old kingdom) spoke Macedonian while the soldiers from the Upper Macedonia spoke a dialect of West Greek.Bosworth's response: "The evidence for this hypothesis is decidedly tenuous. Nearly two centuries before Alexander Hecataeus may have described the Orestians as a Molossian tribe, but, as far as I can ascertain, there is no evidence for the language of any or all of the Upper Macedonian people before the time of Alexander, and nothing to suggest that the hypaspists were anything other than linguistically homogeneous." "Alexander's invitation to speak (Curt. 6. 9. 34) presupposes that the entire army spoke Macedonian." "Alexander's challenge presupposes that all the army would understand an address in Macedonian." "He used Macedonian because the troops would instantly understand and (he expected) would react immediately. There is no need for more complicated explanation."It is evident from the text of Arrian, Plutarch, and Curtius Rufus that Alexander's army spoke Macedonian and not Greek. Any other interpretation would be intolerably difficult, if not impossible, to accept.[3] About the Macedonian army: "The turning point in the evolution of Alexander's army appears to have been the year 330. Until then the Macedonian component was progressively reinforced, reaching peaks before Issus and after the arrival of Amyntas' great contingent late in 331. Alexander then thought it safe to divest himself of non Macedonian troops. The forces from the Corinthean League, [the Greek] infantry and cavalry, were demobilized from Ecbetana in the spring of 330; [Arr. III.19.6-7; Plut. Al. 42.5; Diod. XVII.74.3-4; Curt. VI.2.17] even the [Greek] Thessalian cavalry who re-enlisted were dismissed at the Oxus last than a year later (Arr. III.29.5) Alexander now relied on the Macedonian nucleus for front-line work and the mercenaries for support function." [p.271] Conquest and Empire."Alexander had deliberately retained the offsprings of his Macedonian veterans when he demobilized them, promising to train them in Macedonian style.(Arr. VII.12.2; Justin XII.4.2-10.) His ultimate purpose was to weld them into a military force without attachment of race or domicile, loyal to himself alone. The transformation of the Macedonian national army with its regionally based units could not have been more complete." [p.273] Conquest and Empire[4] Bosworth on the allied (including Greek) troops: "The structure of command seems to have been parallel to that of the Macedonian cavalry, with regionally based ilai, but at the head was a Macedonian commander. The rest of the [Greek] allied cavalry, predominantly from central Greece and the Peloponnese, was much less important and effective, fewer in number and less prominent in action. Like the [Greek] Thessalian they were divided into ilai (Tod. GHI no 197.3) under the command of a Macedonian officer." [p.264] Conquest and Empire"The infantry from the allied Greek states is more problematic. They formed a contingent numerically strong, 7,000 of them crossing the Hellespont in 334, and they were predominantly heavy-armed hoplites. But once in Asia they are mainly notable for their absence. There is no explicit record of them in any of the major battles. At Guagamela we may infer that they provided most of the men for the reserve phalanx (Arr. III.12.1), but in the other engagements there is no room for them. They are only mentioned as participants in subsidiary campaigns, usually under Parmenio's command (in the Troad, at the Amanid Gates, in Phrygia, and in the march on Persis), and they never appear in the entourage of Alexander." [p.264] Conquest and Empire[Point of Interest] Are these the Greek troops with Alexander? Are these the same Greek troops with Alexander that went on the Asian conquest? Can Alexander's conquest be called a Greek conquest? Can Alexander's army be called Greek army? There is absolutely nothing in the literature to even remotely suggest that my quest to find and bring forward documented evidence for the ethnic affinity of the ancient Macedonians is losing steam. On the contrary, the conclusion is solidified with avery passing sentence: There was no Greek conquest with Alexander. There was nothing Greek with Alexander or his Macedonians.[5] "There was also the question of loyalty. Alexander might well have been reluctant to rely on men recently vanquished at Chaeronea to face the Hellenic mercenaries in Persian service. It was too much kin against kin, and his Greek allies naturally had less stomach for the task than his native Macedonians." [p.264] Conquest and Empire[6] Alexander's views on the Greeks in Asia. We should never deviate too far from our main focal point to find and present demonstrable evidence where Alexander's actions and policies strongly and convincingly illustrate his innermost feelings and aspirations. Here, you will see that Alexander treated the Greeks in Asia as any other conquered people, and that is a testament, by itself, that, he, Alexander did not view the Greeks as his own people. Judging by his actions, one will be hard press to find any difference between his treatment of the Greeks and that of the barbarians."It is most unlikely that the Greeks of Asia were incorporated in the Corinthian League. This is an issue which has been endlessly debated with surprising intensity, but arguments inevitably founders on the lack of evidence. That silence does have some weight. If the Greek cities had been involved in the League with its symmachical obligations, it is remarkable that there is never any reference to alliance or even to a formal treaty. As we have seen repeatedly, Alexander dealt with them as a victorious despot not as the executive head of an expanding League."[p.255], "As he continued east, the Greeks receded into obscurity and there is virtually no record of them." [p.256] [Conquest and Empire][7] Ancient authors testify that Alexander heavily depended on his Macedonians, whom he called 'his kinsmen', to carry the brunt of his campaign. "Alexander himself seems to have made little distinction in his lastyears between Greeks of Europe or Asia, or even between Greeks and barbarians." [p.257][Point of Interest] And this fact alone, must be constantly born in mind when one ascribes any "greekness" to Alexander. For, Alexander would not put his own people in an equal balance with the barbarians of the East. Was Alexander the Great a Greek King? Does this action suggest anything of a sort? It is morally corrupt, and historically incorrect to even suggest that Alexander the Great belonged to any other nation but Macedonia. He remained loyal to his royal Macedonian heritage to the last day of his life.

  23. #998
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    24-02-19
    Location
    Bylazora
    Posts
    48
    Points
    413
    Level
    4
    Points: 413, Level: 4
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 22.0%


    Country: Macedonia



    N.G.L. Hammond
    Professor of Greek University of Cambridge


    Hammond is one of the modern writers representing the ‘Greek’ position. It’s interesting to note that Hammond had changed his position. His earlier position was that the Macedonians spoke a "patois which was not recognizable as a normal Doric Greek but may have been a north-west-Greek dialect of a primitive kind" (in other words he couldn’t say for sure). Later however, he changed this position and launched his "firm conclusion" that the Macedonians now spoke a dialect of Aeolic Greek, i.e. the ancient Macedonians were Greek, despite of the overwhelming and extensive research done by Badian and Borza which proved the opposite. Interestingly, he had done this ‘transformation’ towards firm Greek origin of the ancient Macedonians, during the period when the modern Greek propaganda intensified in spreading their "Macedonians are Greek" position, a position which was later used against the part of the modern Macedonian nation that was in a process of getting independence (today’s Republic of Macedonia). It may look like Hammond is a ‘Greek agent’ whose writings reflect the wishes of modern Greece and it’s propaganda, however, in that process he proved that he was obviously ignorant to many of the ancient sources that do not conclude what he concludes. He is also ignorant to many modern sources as well, particularly the ones of Borza, Green, and Badian which have proven in-depth that the Macedonians could not have been Greek. It should be pointed out that Hammond had been proven incorrect in many matters (not just the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians) regarding the history of Macedonia, specifically by the Macedonian specialist Borza. His views are nowadays corrected and regarded as outdated.Although Hammond believes that the Ancient Macedonians had a Greek origin, he however, contradicts himself in few passages where he clearly separates the ancient Macedonians from the ancient Greeks:"We have already inferred from the incident at the Olympic Games c.500 that the Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not to be Greeks. Herodotus said this clearly in four words, introducing Amyntas, who was king c.500, as 'a Greek ruling over Macedonians' (5.20. 4), and Thucydides described the Macedonians and other northern tribes as 'barbarians' in the sense of 'non-Greeks', despite the fact that they were Greek-speaking. (Thuc. 2. 80. 5-7; 2. 81. 6; 4. 124.1) When it comes to political controversy, it was naturally good invective to call the king a barbarian too. Thus a Greek speesh-writer called the Thessalians 'Greeks' and Archelaus, the contemporary Macedonian king, 'a barbarian'. Demosthenes spoke of Philip II as 'the barbarian from Pella'."Point of Interest: I will stop Hammond here and analyze his last words. He begins by saying that the Macedonians were considered non-Greek. At the end he says that the Macedonians, including their kings were called barbarians i.e. non-Greeks, but he implies that they were really Greek, and were called non-Greek only due to "political controversy". This is not convincing at all. If the ancient Greeks referred to the Macedonians as barbarians only because of political conflict, then why other Greek tribes are not called barbarian or non-Greek by the ancient Greeks. That never happened, during any of the so many political conflicts, "controversies", and wars among the Greek city-states, not involving the Macedonians. Furthermore, the ancient Greeks referred to the Persians as barbarians too. According to Hammond’s logic the Persians are therefore Greek too, but were called non-Greek only because ancient Greece was in "political controversy" with Persia. Hammond’s words obviously make no sense. The ancient Greeks called very clearly all non-Greeks barbarians (Macedonians and Persians included), and any try to change the meaning of that word only in the case of the Macedonians, is ridiculous and can be ascribed as siding with the modern Greek propaganda. Now let’s examine the rest of Hammond’s words:"Writing in 346 and eager to win Philip's approval, Isocrates paid tribute to Philip as a blue-blooded Greek and made it clear at the same time that Macedonians were not Greeks. (Isoc. 5. 108 and 154) Aristotle, born at Stageira on the Macedonian border and the son of a Greek doctor at the Macedonian court, classed the Macedonians and their institution of Monarchy as not Greek, as we shall see shortly. It is thus not surprising that the Macedonians considered themselves to be, and were treated by Alexander the Great as being, separate from the Greeks. They were proud to be so."Interesting (inadvertent) reversals in Hammond narrative: "Philip and Alexander attracted many able foreigners, especially Greeks, to their service, and many of these were made Companions (e.g. Nearchus a Cretan, Eumenes a citizen of Cardia, and Sitalces a member of the Odrysian royal family). Some of them, if they served in the King's Army, were given Macedonian citizenship, which apparently was in the gift of the king." The Macedonian State p.141Points of interest: These phrase alone claims that:(a)Macedonia was a not a Greek land, and(b)that Macedonians were not GreeksOne does not attract foreigners from his own country, and second, one cannot be called a foreigner in his own country."These instances show us that even Philip II and Alexander III introduced very few Greeks into the Assembly of Macedones. They wanted the 'Macedones' to have their own esprit the corps; and those of them who came from Lower Macedonia continued to speak the Macedonian dialect among themselves and to address the king or a commander in that dialect as a sign of affection."[53-an ordinary soldier is represented as speaking in the Macedonian dialect to the dying Alexander in Ps-Callisthenes B 32. 14 (ed. Kroll), and the Macedonian soldiers greeted Eumenes in the Macedonian dialect when he came to command them (Plu. Eum. 14. 11). [p.64]"The name of the ancient Macedonians is derived from Macedon, who was the grandchild of Deukalion, the father of all Greeks. This we may infer from Hesiod's genealogy. It may be proven that Macedonians spoke Greek since Macedon, the ancestor of Macedonians, was a brother of Magnes, the ancestor of Thessalians, who spoke Greek."Response to Hammond's conclusion that the Macedonians were Greek:[1] There were many tribes in Macedonia. If we accept Macedon to be the progenitor of his tribe, where is the connection for the rest of the Macedonian tribes? What about the Lynchestians, Elimiotes, Eordians, Orestians etc., etc.. Besides; In the 'Catalogue of Women', the eponymous founder of Makedonia, Makedon, was the son of Zeus and Deukalion's daughter Thuia. This line of descent excludes him from the Hellenic geneology - and hence, by implication, the Makedonians from the ranks of Hellenism." (Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, by J.Hall, p.64)[2] Professor Borza who is credited as Macedonian specialist and who had completed an extensive research on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, had proven that Hammond's conclusions that the Macedonians were Greek are inaccurate:"Hammond's firm conclusion that the Macedonians spoke a distinctive dialect of Aeolic Greek is unconvincing to me, resting as it does on an interpretation of a bit of myth quoted by Hellanicus, who made Aeolus the father of the legendary progenitor Macedon". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.92.)"The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from a Greek - do not show the changes expected from a Greek dialect. And even had they changed at some point it is unlikely that they would have reverted to their original form". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.93.)"As a question of method: why would [Macedonia] an area three hundred miles north of Athens - notcolonized by Athens - used an Attic dialect, unless it were imported? That is, the Attic dialect could hardly be native, and its use is likely part of the process of Hellenization. To put the question differently: if the native language of the Macedonians is Greek, what is its Macedonian dialect?"The above passage showed us clearly that Hammond, no mater how firm he stands on his ‘Greek’ position, still contradicts himself by saying that the Macedonians and the Greeks are two separate ethnic groups. The lines of Professor Eugene Borza, had put an end to the Hammond’s speculations of the supposed Greek origin of the ancient Macedonians, and proven on many instances (not just on the ethnicity issue) in In the Shadow of Olympus and Makedonika, that Hammond’s work on the Macedonian history is inaccurate and as such should be rejected.

  24. #999
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    24-02-19
    Location
    Bylazora
    Posts
    48
    Points
    413
    Level
    4
    Points: 413, Level: 4
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 22.0%


    Country: Macedonia



    Werner Jaeger
    Demosthenes
    Here, in these excerpts from Jeager's book, you will find Demosthenes' hatred for Macedon not only readily displayed and exercised, but its Hellenic descent categorically excluded and implicitly denied. The fact that some modern authors ascribe Hellenic affinity to the ancient Macedonians should come to no great surprise because of the impact left by Johan Gustav Droysen on early nineteenth-century historian where Macedon is depicted as a natural "unifier" of the Greek city-states, the same role played by Prussia and Savoy in German and Italian unification in the nineteenth century. "On this false analogy the whole of Greek history was now boldly reconstructed as a necessary process of development leading quite naturally to a single goal: unification of the Greek nation under Macedonian leadership".Demosthenes and most of his contemporaries did not see it that way; to them the leadership of Macedon was seen as the 'death of Greek political liberty' Some people dismiss Demosthenes' outbursts as a political rhetoric, others hold his political abuse of Philip from Macedon as historical facts, undeniably blunt and truthful. His sentiments are, in this case, fundamental historical documents, which testify to the simmering hate and the undamped contempt for the Macedonian conqueror. The hands of the sculptor are being replaced by his sharply cutting tongue. At the end the features emerge to the surface unpretentiously clear and aggressive. Demosthenes unlike Isocrates does not mask his national ideals with "Panhellenistic union" against the Persians, but boldly and aggressively calls his Hellenic nation to an uprising against the barbarian from the north -the Kingdom of Macedon and its king Philip.Demosthenes' cries and pleas are not intended for his beloved Athens only, but to every liberty loving Hellene, and even the Persians themselves. He calls on the Persians to join the Hellenes in the war against Macedon, and at the same time he warns them that if they leave the Greeks in the lurch, they would be next Philip's victim. As destiny would have it, Demosthenes was right. Here we go:[1] "On the Symmories, namely, that Demosthenes originally stood close to a group of politicians who were vigorously combating the radical democratic influence; indeed, it is only to this degree that he can be said to have come from any one party at all. It is true that in later years, when he is coming to grips with the danger of Macedonia's foreign yoke, he naturally appeals to the lofty ideal of Greek liberty." [p.93][2] "It is not until Demosthenes is fighting the "tyranny" of the Macedonian conqueror that the idea of liberty takes on its true color for him and becomes significant as a great national good." [p.93][3] "Even then this watchword of "liberty" serves solely to promote his (Demosthenes' foreign policy; but by that time it has really become an essential factor in his envisagement of the world about him, in which Greece and Macedonia are polar opposites, irreconcilable morally, spiritually, intellectually." [p.93-4][4] "Thereupon all Thessaly submitted to him of its own accord. He was acclaimed as a deliverer and named commander-in-chief of the Thessalian confederacy. He would have marched at once into central Greece as a conquering hero and would probably have brought the war to an end there with a single blow, had not the Athenians and Spartans bestirred themselves to send auxilary troops to Thermopylae, thus shutting against him this gateway to Hellas." [p.114][5] "In the Panegyricus he [Isocrates] had urged an understanding between Sparta and Athens, so that the Greeks might unite in a common expedition against the Persian empire. Nothing of that sort was any longer thinkable. But the policy of which he now had such high hopes offered a surprisingly simple solution for the distressing problem that lay heavily on all minds the problem of what was to be the ultimate relationship between Greece and the new power in the north." [p.152][6] "If Philip was not to remain a permanent menace to the Greek world from outside, it was necessary to get him positively involved in the fate of Hellas; for he could not be eluded. Of course in the view of any of the Greek states of the period, this problem was comparable to that of squaring the circle." [p.152][7] "But for Isocrates that was no obstacle. He had long since come to recognize the impossibility of resisting Macedonia, and he was only trying to find the least humiliating way to express the unavoidable submission of all the Greeks to the will of Philip. Here again he found the solution in a scheme for Macedonian hegemony over Greece. For it seems as if Philip's appearance in this role would be most effective way to mitigate his becoming so dominant a factor in Greek history; moreover, it ought to silence all Greek prejudices against the culturally and ethnically alien character of the Macedonians." [p.153][8] "With the help of the role that Isocrates had assigned to him, he had the astuteness to let his cold-blooded policy for the extension of Macedonian power take on the eyes of the Greeks the appearance of a work of liberation for Hellas. What he most needed at this moment was not force but shrewd propaganda;and nobody lent himself to this purpose so effectively as the old Isocrates, venerable and disinterested, who offered his services of his own free will." [p.155][9] "Philip now had the problem of compelling the Athenians to recognize the Delphic resolutions aimed against Phocis; and he sent ambassadors to Athens, where strong opposition prevailed. However, with the Macedonian army only a few day's march from the Attic border and in good fighting trim, Athens was quite defenseless, and even Demosthenes advised submission." [p.157][10] "When Demosthenes draws up his list of Philip's transgressions, it includes his offense against the whole of Greece, not merely those against Athens; and Demosthenes' charge of unbecoming remissness is aimed at all the Greeks equally- their irresolution, and their failure to perceive their common cause." [p.171][11] "Therefore he (Demosthenes) urges them to send embassies everywhere to call the Greeks together--to assemble them, teach them, and exhort them; but the paramount need is to take the necessary steps themselves and thus perform their duty." [p.171][12] "In this appeal to the whole Greek world Demosthenes reached a decisive turning point in his political thought................He was still thoroughly rooted in Athens's governmental traditions, never overstepping the bounds of her classical balance-of-power policy for the interior of Greece. But the appearance of the mighty new enemy from beyond the Greek frontier now forced him to take a different track." [p.171-2][13] "Looking far beyond the actualities of the Greek world, hopelessly split asunder as it was, he (Isocrates) had envisaged a united nation led by the Macedonian king." [p.172][14] "Quite apart, however, from any theoretical doubts whether the nationalistic movement of modern times, which seeks to combine in a single state all the individuals of a single folk, can properly be compared with the Greek idea of Panhellenism, scholars have failed to notice that after the unfortunate Peace of Philocrates Demosthenes' whole policy was an unparalleled fight for national unification. In this period he deliberately threw off the constrains of the politician concerned exclusively with Athenian interests, and devoted himself to a task more lofty than any Greek statesman before him had ever projected or indeed could have projected. In this respect he is quite comparable to Isocrates; but an important point of contrast still remains. The difference is simply that Demosthenes did not think of this "unification" as a more or less voluntary submission to the will of the conqueror; on the contrary, he demanded a unanimous uprising of all the Greeks against the Macedonian foe." [p.172][15] "His Panhellenism was the outgrowth of a resolute will for national self-assertiveness, deliberately opposed to the national self-surrender called for by Isocrates - for that was what Isocrates' program had really meant, despite its being expressed romantically as a plan for a Persian war under Macedonian leadership." [p.172-3][16] "As the success of his appeal was to show, he was correct in his estimate of the actual political prospects of a really national uprising now that direct hostile pressure was felt. Since the days of the Persian wars Hellas had at no time been seriously endangered from without." [p.173][17] "The foe and the emergency [Macedon and its king Philip] had now appeared; and if the Greeks still had a spark of their fathers' sense of independence, the fate that was now overtaking them could not but bring them together. The Third Philippic is one mighty avowal of this brand of Panhellenism; and this is entirely Demosthenes' achievement." [p.173][18] "The task that confronted Demosthenes demanded utterly gigantic powers of improvisation; for the Greek people had not been making preparedness an end in itself for years as the enemy had done, and they also found it hard to adjust themselves spiritually to their new situation. In the Third Philippic Demosthenes' prime effort was to break down this spiritual resistance, and everything hinged on his success." [p.174][Greek people on one side, and the enemy on the other. Were Macedonians seen as Greeks by the ancient Greeks? Did the Greeks have the enemy from within their own kin? Were there some Greeks who were making preparations for a war, and other Greeks who were not? It is a clear no, since the Macedonians were not Greek][19] "Demosthenes speaks of embassies to be sent to the Peloponnesus, to Rhodes and Chios, and even to the king of Persia, to call for resistance against the conqueror." [p.177][Point of Interest] Greeks were sending embassies to the king of Persia to ally with them against the conqueror from the north - Macedonia and its king Philip. One needs not be a scholar to see through the lies propagated by today's Greeks when they claim that Macedonia was a part of Greece and Philip was their king. "It is an illusion to think that ancient Macedonians were Greeks". [Karagatsis - a Greek writer][20] Demosthenes' call for a national uprising was slowly gaining strength; Corinth and Achaea went over to the Athenian side, Messenia, Arcadia and Argos were won over and lined themselves behind the program. In March of the year 340 the treaty was formerly concluded at Athens. Even Athens and Thebes reconciled and joined his national program. "The true greatness of these achievements -- achievements for which the citizens of Athens honored Demosthenes with a golden crown at the Dionysia of 340 - was rightly appreciated by the ancient historians." [p.178][21] "If the Persian leaves us in the lurch and anything should happen to us, nothing will hinder Philip from attacking the Persian king." [Fourth Philippic] [p.181][22] "For historians of the old school, Greek history ended when the Greek states lost their political liberty; they looked upon it as a closed story, mounting to a heroic finish at Chaeronea." [p.188][23] "For if any non-Greek power, whether Persian or Macedonian, were to achieve world dominion, the typical form of the Greek state would suffer death and destruction." [p.188][24] "Anyone who had assured himself that Macedonian hegemony would lead to the inner unification of the Greeks, was bound to be disappointed. Philip surrounded Athens with four Macedonian garrisons placed at respectful distances, and left everything else to his supporters and agents in the cities." [p.191][25] The first resolution passed by Synedrion at Corinth was the declaration of war against Persia. "The difference was that this war of conquest, which was passionately described as a war of vengeance, was not looked upon as a means of uniting the Greeks, as Isocrates would have had it, but was merely an instrument of Macedonian imperialism." [p.192][26] "But although the Greek people thus came to play a uniquely influential role as pioneers of culture and, to that degree, as inheritors of the Macedonian empire, politically they had simply dropped out of the ranks of free peoples, even if Philip abstained from formally making Hellas a Macedonian province. The Greeks were themselves aware of this." [p.192][27] "Outwardly, the "autonomous" city-states kept their relations with Macedonia on a fairly strict level of rectitude. Inwardly, the time was one of dull pressure and smoldering distrust, flaring up to a bright flame at the least sign of any tremor or weakness in Macedonia's alien rule - for that is how her surveillance was generally regarded. This excruciating state of affairs continued as long as any hope remained. Only when the last ray of hope was exctinguished and the last uprising had met disaster, did quiet finally settle down upon Greece -- the quiet of the graveyard." [p.192][28] (Aeschines attempt to triumph over Demosthenes for the last and final round backfires with Demosthenes' heroics in "The Crown". Demosthenes at the end received the crown.) "But though Athens was powerless against the might of her Macedonian conqueror, she retained her independence of judgment and declared that no history could confute Demosthenes." [p.196][29] "Then when Alexander suddenly died in the flower of his age, and Greece rose again for the last time, Demosthenes offered his services and returned to Athens. But after winning a few brilliant successes, the Greeks lost their admirable commander Leosthenes on the field of battle; and his successors was slain at Crannon on the anniversary of Chaeronea; the Athenians then capitulated, and, under pressure of threats from Macedonia, suffered themselves to condemn to death the leader of the "revolt"." [p.196]Demosthenes died from a dose of poison on the island of Calauria, in the altar of Poseidon. Forty years later Athens honored him for eternity. Such was the destiny of a man whose ideals were his people, his country and their liberty. When modern Greeks dismiss him (in order to divert the stinging truth of his oratory) as a mere politician and his arousing oratory against Macedonia and the Macedonian conqueror as a political rhetoric, they, the modern Greeks, denounce the true Greek spirit, devoid of which, they, themselves, are.[30] "The dispute of modern scholars over the racial stock of the Macedonians have led to many interesting suggestions. This is especially true of the philological analysis of the remains of the Macedonian language by O. Hoffmann in his Makedonen etc. Cf. the latest general survey of the controversy in F. Geyer and his chapter on prehistory. But even if the Macedonians did have some Greek blood- as well as Illyrian- in their veins, whether originally or by later admixture, this would not justify us in considering them on a par with the Greeks in point of race or in using this as historical excuse for legitimizing the claims of this bellicose peasant folk to lord it over cousins in the south of the Balkan peninsula so far ahead of them in culture.It is likewise incorrect to assertthat this is the only way in which we can understand the role of the Macedonian conquest in Hellenizing the Orient. But we can neglect this problem here, as our chief interest lies in discovering what the Greeks themselves felt and thought. And here we need not cite Demosthenes' well-known statements; for Isocrates himself, the very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates the people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil.108. He purposely avoids the word barbaroibut this word is one that inevitably finds a place for itself in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of every true Hellene. Even Isocrates would not care to have the Greeks ruled by the Macedonian people: it is only the king of Macedonia, Philip, who is to be the new leader; and the orator tries to give ethnological proof of Philip's qualifications for this task by the device of showing that he is no son of his people but, like the rest of his dynasty, a scion of Heracles, and therefore of Greek blood." [p.249][Point of Interest](a) Macedonians cannot be considered as Greeks even if they had some Greek blood in their veins.(b) Macedonia's conquest of the Orient should not be contingent upon Greek culture.(c) Isocrates places the Macedonians with alien races and hitherto, outside the Hellenic world.(d) Isocrates takes care of this "alien race" not to be seen as leaders of Greece. He isolates their king Philip as not of the same race as the people over which he governs.Note: The speech On the Chersonese was, to be sure, delivered in a specifically Athenian emergency; but the interest of the Greeks as a whole is never left out of sight. The Third Philippic is entirely dedicated to the danger that threatens all Greece. Similarly, when the past and future are compared, it is the whole of Hellas that is considered, not Athens alone.Once again, it is not surprising that Jeager places the ancient Macedonians outside the Greek ethnic world. Fact is that when an author follows the writings of the ancient biographers it is almost impossible for anybody to come to a different conclusion.

  25. #1000
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    24-02-19
    Location
    Bylazora
    Posts
    48
    Points
    413
    Level
    4
    Points: 413, Level: 4
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 22.0%


    Country: Macedonia



    History of Macedonia
    George Rawlinson M.A, Canon of Canterbury and Camden Professor of Ancient history at the University of Oxford
    Ancient History of Chaldaea, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Lydia, Phoenicia, Syria, Judaea, Egypt, Carthage, Persia, Greece, Macedonia, Parthia, and Rome., The Colonial Press, New York, 1899.

    PART I (ca. B.C. 700 to B.C. 323)From the Commencement of the Monarchy to the Death of Alexander the GreatAccording to the tradition generally accepted by the Greeks, the Macedonian kingdom, which under Philip and Alexander attained to such extraordinary greatness, was founded by Hellenic emigrants from Argos. The Macedonians themselves were not Hellenes; they belonged to the barbaric races, not greatly differing from the Greeks in ethnic type, but far behind them in civilization, which bordered Hellas upon the north. They were a distinct race, not Paeonian, not Illyrian, not Thracian; but, of the three, their connection was closest with the Illyrians. The Argive colony, received hospitably, gradually acquired power in the region about Mount Bermius; and Perdiccas, one of the original emigrants, was (according to Herodotus) acknowledged as king. (Other writers mentioned three kings anterior to Perdiccas, whose joint reigns covered the space of about a century.) The period which follows is one of great obscurity, little being known of it but the names of the kings (p.164-165)

Page 40 of 41 FirstFirst ... 3038394041 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Albanians (OFFTOPIC Macedonians)
    By Besir Bajrami in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 04-09-14, 23:07
  2. New claim that Macedonians invented cement
    By DejaVu in forum European News & Hot Topics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26-05-11, 20:13

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •