Why some people believe that Alexander the Great was not Greek when ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
In my opinion the Ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of Greek, although a rather divergent one. The most crucial difference is that *pʰ, *tʰ, *kʰ of Archaic Greek were pronounced as *b, *d, *g in Ancient Macedonian. The best example for this the place name "Berenikē" (now Benghazi in Libya), which is ancient Macedonian in origin and means "bearer of victory" (Pherenikē). In modern Greek is "pherō" (the word "pheromone" comes from this), and in ancient Macedonian this would have been *berō. You might argue - by a bit of a stretch - that this was due to an adstratal influence from another Indo-European language branch, as in all northern European branches of IE *bh, *dh, *gh became *b, *d, *g (not just Slavic, but also Albanian, Baltic, Celtic and Germanic).
that's interesting, I think an example of this would be the word φίλε, file, fila (Greek) - dude,brother(English) - vela, vella (Albanian). It seems the soft "f" in Greek corresponds to its stronger vocal version "v" in Albanian.
 
Using language to define ones ethnicity is stupid, today, tomorrow and in the ancient past. Language does not define ethnicity.

Speaking Greek does not make you Greek.
Speaking slavic does not make you a slav
Speaking latin does not make you a Roman.

I hope we do NOT believe that the people who speak English today, all around the world are ethnically English!

To conclude - Alexander was Macedonian ethnically, stated Macedonian.............The Macedonian of Alexanders time has disappeared from the face of history, it does not exist, it is gone, can we agree with this instead of bringing up the stupidity of today's nationality in reference to the ancient past.
 
Using language to define ones ethnicity is stupid, today, tomorrow and in the ancient past. Language does not define ethnicity.

Speaking Greek does not make you Greek.
Speaking slavic does not make you a slav
Speaking latin does not make you a Roman.

I hope we do NOT believe that the people who speak English today, all around the world are ethnically English!

To conclude - Alexander was Macedonian ethnically, stated Macedonian.............The Macedonian of Alexanders time has disappeared from the face of history, it does not exist, it is gone, can we agree with this instead of bringing up the stupidity of today's nationality in reference to the ancient past.

That is a quite nice saying.
Alexander Macedon was an Old Macedonian.
No one knows what happened to Old Macedonian people.
Sure, no one denies that they were speaking a dialect of Ancient Greek.
Today Greek language is born from Ancient Greek language.
According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedon
Macedon was gave to that country meaning maybe tall people.
Were not the native people from there conquered by some Greek language and after switched to Greek language?
Later,were not they conquered by other Greek speakers and maybe changed their Greek dialect again?
I do not know.
But I think rather the people who ruled that place changed ,maybe some Slavic speakers conquered the people there.
 
Shouldn't the solution belong to the people in a democratic way? If anything Greek history should teach you this.

Please study Greek history thoroughly and try to understand Isocrates.
 
Greeks were a mixture of more people,speaking same language,when Alexander Macedon was living.
When East Roman Empire took birth and adopted Greek as language,you can say for sure that Greek native speakers became a very various gathering of people.
I think they were calling themselves rather Romans,than Greeks.
However,some Turks conquered East Roman Empire and lots of population switched to Turkish.
The people that remained on the area that today belongs to Greece,or so were also quite mixed.
So what are you telling here ,that Alexander Macedon is of same ethnicity with today Greek speakers is just nonsense.
Alexander Macedon was not speaking today Greek language,he was speaking ancient Greek which is not exactly same language with today Greek.
What are you saying,that "Alexander Macedon was Greek" is as true as you would say that ancient Romans were same as today inhabitants of Italy or to say,Trajan was Italian or to say ,Augustus was Italian.
Now,go read more and stop preaching non-sense.
And to add one more thing,people of Macedonia have all the right to use that name,as North Germany is still called Prusia and Latvia and Lithuania are not saying Prusia is name that belongs to Balto-Slavic speakers,as Russians are still use the name Russia and Sweden are not telling Russia should stop using that name,because is linked to Rus,which is named of Swedes,how they were called some 1000 years ago and so on.

Do you understand that your arguments have no scientific proof. It is quite goofy to say that Neohellenic is not the same with Ancient Greek. Of course it is not the same the way you see it! Do you expect a language to be exactly the same after 2500 years? The point is that modern Greek have ancient roots, and it is precisely this part that links modern Greeks with the Ancients.

You said that quite a lot of people mixed with Turks(or other races). Please, provide evidence about the magnitude of admixture. Just saying it is naive.

Was Alexander Greek just because he spoke the same language with the rest of the Greeks? Just because of that someone would say no, nonetheless it is not only the language, but rather a plethora of characteristics, some of them have been mentioned before. Just look at the name of his friends and generals, this will give you an insight I suppose.
 
Using language to define ones ethnicity is stupid, today, tomorrow and in the ancient past. Language does not define ethnicity.

Speaking Greek does not make you Greek.
Speaking slavic does not make you a slav
Speaking latin does not make you a Roman.

I hope we do NOT believe that the people who speak English today, all around the world are ethnically English!

To conclude - Alexander was Macedonian ethnically, stated Macedonian.............The Macedonian of Alexanders time has disappeared from the face of history, it does not exist, it is gone, can we agree with this instead of bringing up the stupidity of today's nationality in reference to the ancient past.

Your statement indicates correlation and not causality. If you understand the pieces of the "puzzle" you will understand the causality as well.
 
Your statement indicates correlation and not causality. If you understand the pieces of the "puzzle" you will understand the causality as well.

That's quite a cryptic statement. Care to elaborate?

As Sile has pointed out, Alexander was fluent in both Macedonian and Greek, because of his education. That didn't make him Greek until he conquered most of the known world as the Greeks understood that term. The Macedonians seem to have considered themselves to be cousins of the Greeks but the Greeks seem to have considered the Macedonians to be barbarians, although they wouldn't have said that in front of Philip or Alexander. Therefore the idea of ancient Macedonian as a very divergent dialect of Greek (or possibly even a cross between ancient Greek and some other Balkan language) makes sense to me.
 
That's quite a cryptic statement. Care to elaborate?

As Sile has pointed out, Alexander was fluent in both Macedonian and Greek, because of his education. That didn't make him Greek until he conquered most of the known world as the Greeks understood that term. The Macedonians seem to have considered themselves to be cousins of the Greeks but the Greeks seem to have considered the Macedonians to be barbarians, although they wouldn't have said that in front of Philip or Alexander. Therefore the idea of ancient Macedonian as a very divergent dialect of Greek (or possibly even a cross between ancient Greek and some other Balkan language) makes sense to me.

He is basically saying,
that since Alexanders father Philip II conquered Greece , then his greatness/glory made him Greek in Greek eyes...........but if he never attacked Greece, he would not be great and then would never be known as a Greek , but instead a lowly Macedonian ( barbarian )
 
That's quite a cryptic statement. Care to elaborate?

As Sile has pointed out, Alexander was fluent in both Macedonian and Greek, because of his education. That didn't make him Greek until he conquered most of the known world as the Greeks understood that term. The Macedonians seem to have considered themselves to be cousins of the Greeks but the Greeks seem to have considered the Macedonians to be barbarians, although they wouldn't have said that in front of Philip or Alexander. Therefore the idea of ancient Macedonian as a very divergent dialect of Greek (or possibly even a cross between ancient Greek and some other Balkan language) makes sense to me.

A dialect does not mean a different language. I do not agree that Attic Greek is that different from Macedonian Greek to a level that people from these places would not understand each other.

Understand this first:
"μέλλω γάρ σοι συμβουλεύειν προστῆναι τῆς τε τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὁμονοίας καὶ τῆς ἐπὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους στρατείας: ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν πείθειν πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας συμφέρον, τὸ δὲ βιάζεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους χρήσιμον." Isocrates, "Philip (6)".

More or less Isocrates tells Philip to start war against the barbarians because it will be best for all Greeks. Clearly he does not consider Macedonians as barbarians!
 
A dialect does not mean a different language. I do not agree that Attic Greek is that different from Macedonian Greek to a level that people from these places would not understand each other.

Understand this first:
"μέλλω γάρ σοι συμβουλεύειν προστῆναι τῆς τε τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὁμονοίας καὶ τῆς ἐπὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους στρατείας: ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν πείθειν πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας συμφέρον, τὸ δὲ βιάζεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους χρήσιμον." Isocrates, "Philip (6)".

More or less Isocrates tells Philip to start war against the barbarians because it will be best for all Greeks. Clearly he does not consider Macedonians as barbarians!

Ask any professors of languages and they will state that there is no such thing as a language, they are ALL dialects. The term language is only used by nations as a form of status for that nation. We still see this today......pre 2006 Montenegrin was a dialect, they then became a nation and Montenegrin dialect became Montenegrin language overnight. This is how its worked in the past and will work in the future.
 
And also recall where the house of Greek Gods, that is Mount Olympus, is at.
 
He is basically saying,
that since Alexanders father Philip II conquered Greece , then his greatness/glory made him Greek in Greek eyes...........but if he never attacked Greece, he would not be great and then would never be known as a Greek , but instead a lowly Macedonian ( barbarian )

That's my reading of history, yes. In one of his speeches, the Third Phillipic, Demosthenes, the 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..". However, after Phillip defeated Greece at the battle of Chaeronea in August 338 BC, he appointed himself "Commander of the Greeks". Of course, the fact that the Greeks claimed that Macedonians were barbarians doesn't prove they weren't related, but it's worth noting that during the long war between the Macedonians and the Persians, far more Greeks fought for the Persians than for the Macedoneans.
 


That's my reading of history, yes. In one of his speeches, the Third Phillipic, Demosthenes, the 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..". However, after Phillip defeated Greece at the battle of Chaeronea in August 338 BC, he appointed himself "Commander of the Greeks". Of course, the fact that the Greeks claimed that Macedonians were barbarians doesn't prove they weren't related, but it's worth noting that during the long war between the Macedonians and the Persians, far more Greeks fought for the Persians than for the Macedoneans.

I like you bro, I really like you ... Why you do not cite Isocrates as well, hmm, why?
Now, to the point. Are you talking about the Greeks of the Asia Mino who at that time were under the Persian rule?

And by the way, Demosthenes was supporting for the superiority of Athens as the ruler of the Greeks, although signs of "demise" have appeared many years ago.
 
I like you bro, I really like you ... Why you do not cite Isocrates as well, hmm, why?
Now, to the point. Are you talking about the Greeks of the Asia Mino who at that time were under the Persian rule?

And by the way, Demosthenes was supporting for the superiority of Athens as the ruler of the Greeks, although signs of "demise" have appeared many years ago.

Ah, yes, Isocrates saying to Phillip "why don't you try to appease us, instead of slaughtering or enslaving us". An old man's hope for peace. And of course there were differences of opinion among the Greeks as to how to response to Phillip. If they weren't hopelessly divided in a crisis, they wouldn't have been behaving like Greeks.
 
Ah, yes, Isocrates saying to Phillip "why don't you try to appease us, instead of slaughtering or enslaving us". An old man's hope for peace. And of course there were differences of opinion among the Greeks as to how to response to Phillip. If they weren't hopelessly divided in a crisis, they wouldn't have been behaving like Greeks.

Are you a historian?
 
Are you a historian?

No, I'm just a simple, semi-literate woodcutter, although I have learned a lot from Wikipedia. Why do you ask?
 
No, I'm just a simple, semi-literate woodcutter, although I have learned a lot from Wikipedia. Why do you ask?

I like the sarcasm ...

I am asking this for should you were a historian you probably know more about this specific topic, this would also put more weight in your statements (and mine of course). I am not historian either. I like to call myself a lover of history though.
 
Last edited:
I like the sarcasm ...

I am asking this for should you were a historian you probably know more about this specific topic, this would also put more weight in your statements (and mine of course). I am not historian either. I like to call myself a lover of history though.

I'm not a historian but it's something that's always interested me, so I have read quite a bit of it and even took some history courses in university, although it wasn't my major. My interest in DNA and genetics is much more recent, so I'm much less well read in that area.
 
ok heres a tongue in cheek theory, sort of.

while makedos means the tall ones in greek, the etymology ia quite simple ie the "macs" by the "don" aka the clan by the river. oddly called "mac/mak"

as the illyrians were likely indo-european invaders moreso of the celtic variety, hence albanian being related to P celtic then its not out of the question to think that the MAC'DON were celtic derived also. Did they swing around claymores and wear kilts ? maybe alexander the great was irish, Alex McDon.

he was supppsed to have blondish hair and to be quite pale. no population that is E and J is throwing up blonde and pales.
sorry for being a culture vulture feel free to shut me down, im no expert on ancient greek history/culture aside from what ive read on these sites over the years, and movies.



Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 58775 times.

Back
Top