Alexander the great, Macedonian or Greek? [Archive]

macsen rufus

11-01-2007, 14:12

AFAIK Alexander considered himself to be descended from Hercules, and this (profoundly Greek) habit of claiming descent from various mythical heroes and Olympian gods makes all claims to heredity suspect in the region, as so much of it is pure propaganda ("Well, my divine ancestor was on Olympus before your divine ancestor... ner ner ner..." :laugh4: ).

Ultimately "Greek" is a LINGUISTIC term, not an ethnic one. That Macedonians spoke a Greek language/dialect seems pretty clear, as did the Ionians and Dorians. However, that does not necessarily confirm a common ethnicity. The whole field of historiography is littered with the wreckage of failed attempts to force linguistic and ethnic maps to coincide. They don't, any more than material cultures and ethnicities do.

So the Macedonian/Greek question is loaded from the outset, as it means a "position" has to be taken from which to answer it. Sure, the southern Greeks looked down on the Macedonians as semi-barbarous, and Macedonia needed the "Hellenic" tag to assert their authority and legitimacy to rule the conquered Greeks, and aspired to the cultural values of the other Greeks.

And Alexander may well have been "Greek enough" for the Olympics, however the other competitors weren't "prince enough" for him, so he still refused to go :beam:

Spino

11-01-2007, 22:35

Had the ethnic Greeks of that day (Athenians, Thebans, Spartans, Corinthians, etc.) not considered Macedonians to be one of them then they would never invited them to participate in the Olympic games. It is far more likely that the various city states of the south considered Macedonians to be uncouth country bumpkins; farmers, shepards, miners and the like, than uncivilized barbarians who embraced Greek language and culture. Seriously now, there were probably numerous Thracian tribes in the Balkans who were on friendly terms with the Greeks; tribes who traded with the Greeks, fought along side them, and in some cases even intermarried with them. No doubt there were also numerous Thracians who were fluent in Greek and familiar with Greek customs. And yet as far as I know there is no record of any Thracian tribe ever being granted the honor of being allowed to participate in the games. So why make an exception for a non-Greek Macedonia? Had the Macedonians not been considered to be of the same stock as the rest of Greece their inclusion in the games would have caused a scandal and such a ruckus certainly would have found its way into the history books.

Had the Macedonians been non-Greeks it is also highly doubtful that Aristotle would have wound up being Alexander's most celebrated teacher. Not to discount the idea that Aristotle's services couldn't be bought by a barbarian king for the right price but old Ari was about as big an ethnocentrist and cultural elitist as one could find back then. Had Alexander been of non-Greek stock you can bet Aristotle and every other Greek man of learning would have made a point of mentioning his 'proper Greek education' in their writings and letters. What a way to promote Greek civilization and further propagandist thought for their culture! That a barbarian chieftan could see weakness of his own culture and look beyond his ignorance to seek to educate his young son in the ways of the superior Greeks. Not a word written about any of this.

rotorgun

11-01-2007, 23:01

One thing that is intersting to note is that Aristotle, the tutor of Alexander the Great, was also himself a Macedonian, being born in central Macedonia in Chalcidice. He also spent his youth in the Macedonian court under one of the Macedonian Kings. As Aristotle thought of himself as a Hellene, I am sure that his contemporary Macedonians thought of themselves in a similar way. That is supposition on my part, but a notion arrived at logically.

Here is a good link to check out on Aristotle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

It is my conclusion that the Macedonians were, or considered themselves of Greek decent. Modern Macedonia has been much changed, ethnically speaking since those days. It is rather disingenuous, IMHO to project our twenty-first century picture of this fascinating country into such a distant past. We must be careful not to politicize our view.

KrooK

11-02-2007, 00:24

He was definitely Macedonian.
Macedonia that times was military stronger than Greece but they were until influence of Greek culture. Philip, father of Aleksander, forced greek cities do admit that Macedonians are Greeks too but they definitely were not Greeks.

Watchman

11-02-2007, 02:04

I've long been under the impression the "Greeks proper" - that is, the inhabitants of Hellas itself and their outliers around the Med - basically allowed the Macedonians "into the club" as it were, if only by technicality, but very much looked down on them as barely civilised rustics and country bumpkins - which by what I've read of the socioeconomics of the place at least before the Hellenistic period was a valid enough opinion. By all accounts Macedon was, after all, even more of a semi-pastoral feudal backwater than Thessaly, and spent a lot of time having the Persians or one powerful poleis or another meddling in its affairs. And getting raided by those pesky northern tribes to boot.

The Macedonians, no doubt, in return entertained a fair few insulting opinions concerning their more urbane southern cousins in the fine manner of poor neighbourly relations everywhere... :beam:

Anyway, Alex himself was actually half Illyrian or something wasn't he ? I understand that put him in a somewhat precarious position as a heir-apparent should a full-blooded Macedonian candidate happen to be born of one of Philip's many wives - which by what I've read indeed happened, and likely not very coincidentially not too long before Daddy Philip had an unfortunate encounter with an assasin's knife...

Ah, the joys of royal heredity games. Always good for family loyalties.

RabidGibbon

11-02-2007, 02:20

The best way to answer the question posed in the thread title is, to my mind, ask how people at the time would have answered it. Was Alexander III Macedonian or Greek?

Appealing to Herodotus is a bit like me appealling to Edward Gibbon to prove my points, that particular historian was long dead by now. However how Herodotus speaks of Macedonians may well be revealing.

The "Greeks" only ever saw themselves as a unified body to the extent that they spoke the same language (with different dialouges) and worshipped the same gods(With different names in different regions!). So if the Macedonians followed Greek custom, spoke the same language and worshipped the same gods then who has the right to say they were not Greeks?

Perhaps the Greeks? Who couldn't even identify themselves? Lots of people have a lot of trouble working out just were the borders of greekdom lie.

The Wizard

11-03-2007, 01:03

I believe Alexander was half Epirote, Watchman. Now, seeing as a large part of that kingdom seems to have been in modern Albania, and the fact that the people who inhabit that place seem to descend from the ancient Illyrians, you may have quite the point there.

In fact, speaking of Epirus... what did the Greeks think of that place? There was an ancient holy site there (Dodona) plus a major colony... but what about your average Epirote? Greek, barely Greek country hick, or savage barbarian?

edyzmedieval

11-03-2007, 09:29

I think(not fully sure) they consider it something in between. Greeks, but a bit barbaric, though it was not quite the case, especially after Pyrrhos.

He is consider Alexander of Macedon, but at that time, they were considering themselves Greeks. Pella is in modern day northern Greece.

The Wizard

11-03-2007, 16:56

Yeah, but most of modern Greece would've been savage barbarian territory -- or, at the very least, extremely backwards rustic country -- to most inhabitants of ancient Hellas, especially the urban ones. In that aspect the Romans were radically different from the Greeks, since the idealized image of "the perfect Roman" was a rural man.

King Jan III Sobieski

11-04-2007, 00:51

He was "Alexander of Macedon", after all. I always considered Macedonians greeks...Greeks with a small "g". They were ethnographically Greek, but they were also a distinct people. Kinda like Spanish and Portugese, or Croats and Slovenes...for all intents and purposes, the same people, but different... or something like that. :yes:

Parkev

11-04-2007, 01:07

Maybe this analogy would work.

Macedonian is to greeks as conifers are to flowering trees. They're all trees, leaves, trunks, birds live in them, and there are as many differences within the flowering trees as between flowering trees and conifers. Why should a few flowers make any difference.

Vorenus

11-09-2007, 01:31

Perhaps he was both? A Macedonian to the Macedonians, A Greek to the Greeks.

Although, it seems like he is considered more Greek than anything.

Watchman

11-09-2007, 02:55

One gets a rather strong impression the Greeks regarded him as a Macedonian firmly enough - as in, "he may be a cousin but he sure as Hell isn't us and the exact only reason we take orders form him is we don't want to end up like the Thebans."

...although they seem to have had the same attitude regarding the prospect of overlordship by other "proper" Greeks too, mind you. One sometimes suspects the Persians would have been regarded as a reasonably palatable overlord for no other reason than being real foreigners instead of next-door-neighbours-and-relatives with whom you'd had any number of wars, feuds, quarrels and general dissing... :dizzy2:

Fractitious lot, those Hellenes were.

They're all trees, leaves, trunks, birds live in them, and there are as many differences within the flowering trees as between flowering trees and conifers. Why should a few flowers make any difference.Er... conifers tend to be evergreens for one...? That's like taking birds and reptiles and asking "why should a few feathers make any difference ?"

Geoffrey S

11-09-2007, 15:04

Are the Scots British, or the Friesians Dutch? Some would argue either way.

Kraxis

11-09-2007, 15:24

When considering this somewhat odd subject historically, you must also include Thessaly. Why?

Well, the Thessalians were without a doubt Greek, however, they were snubbed out much like the Macedonians. Not to the same degree of course, but the treatment was along the same lines. The difference is that Thessaly is, and was, wholly Greek, so nobody really bothers with it.
The Thessalians were peasants/farmers to a large degree. They reared horses (interestingly much like the Macedonians) and farmed the land. They did not live in cultured cities like the Greeks of Greece 'proper'. They were rednecks, they were looked down upon.

Taken in that context the Macedonians were just the next step in a progressive line of less and less cultured tribes of Greeks. Remember how the Athenians looked down on everybody, then they and the others cities in the south looked down on the Thebans for being a bit more rough and uncultured... And the list goes on northwards.

The Epirotes however, were always considered outsiders. But there were many Greeks that moved there for various reasons, and Epirus held some important Greek religious sites, like an oracle. So the place was considered within the Greek sphere of cultural influence, and the people to be much like the friendly tribes of Thracia, friendly and nice to have, but ultimately barbarians. Intime the place would slowly grow, but it was only the ruling body that ever became 'Greek'.

Bava

11-09-2007, 18:10

In fact, speaking of Epirus... what did the Greeks think of that place? There was an ancient holy site there (Dodona) plus a major colony... but what about your average Epirote? Greek, barely Greek country hick, or savage barbarian?

Uh, thanks for this question. Im currently in the research phase for an EB Epeiros AAR and the whole Greek/non-Greek thingy is giving me a real headache, so any information concerning this matter is greatly appreciated.

From what I´ve read so far, it would be best to assume that Epirotes in general were considered "barbarians", speaking greek with a - very- strong dialect but with a greek ruling class (the Aeacidae claimed to be descendants of Neoptolemos, son of Archilles and Andromachae), greek enough at least for Olympias to be an acceptable wife for Phillip II.

Kraxis

11-10-2007, 05:39

greek enough at least for Olympias to be an acceptable wife for Phillip II.
Now, it must be said that Phillip was pretty shrewd, and pragmatic. He knew he was an outsider to the Greeks, and the Macedonian state he inherited was in shambles. He needed immediate help, or at the very least a stable border. Epirus coul offer just that. Going to get a Greek wife from Thessaly (or even further south) would not really have gained him very much.

But playing as the devil's advocate here, wouldn't Phillip's marriage to a barbarian not be yet another indicator of the lack of Greek ties to Macedonia?

hellenes

11-10-2007, 18:52

If we take a logical and pragmatic approach Makedones were Greek...Like taking into account tradition/language/religion and what they considered themselves...
If we ignore all the above the Spartans were not Greek at all..

rotorgun

11-10-2007, 19:15

But playing as the devil's advocate here, wouldn't Phillip's marriage to a barbarian not be yet another indicator of the lack of Greek ties to Macedonia?

Indeed Kraxis. It must be so, as historians also agree, that it would have been one more reason for the Greek city/states to look down upon this Macedonian Tyrant from the north. The Greeks are a rather manogomous race (Father Zeus aside), and would have found Phillip's philandering ways distasteful. It is not really a matter of how the Greeks looked upon the Macedonians, since they were the conquered people, but rather how the Macedonians viewed themselves. Phillip was very concious of winning the respect of the Greeks, and I think he was rather envious of their culture-much in the same way that the later Romans were, adopting the Greek gods, their love of the arts and literature, etc. Many educated Romans spoke Greek as well, just as the Macedonian court did.

I believe that when speaking among themselves though,that the Macedonians spoke with their own distinct dialect. Arrian remarked that Alexander would speak in the "Macedonian way" when addressing strictly Macedonian soldiers. When he addressed the his "Greek" allies, or the whole army, he would use the Greek dialect. (Probably the Attic Greek he was taught by his tutors)

hellenes

11-10-2007, 19:22

Indeed Kraxis. It must be so, as historians also agree, that it would have been one more reason for the Greek city/states to look down upon this Macedonian Tyrant from the north. The Greeks are a rather manogomous race (Father Zeus aside), and would have found Phillip's philandering ways distasteful. It is not really a matter of how the Greeks looked upon the Macedonians, since they were the conquered people, but rather how the Macedonians viewed themselves. Phillip was very concious of winning the respect of the Greeks, and I think he was rather envious of their culture-much in the same way that the later Romans were, adopting the Greek gods, their love of the arts and literature, etc. Many educated Romans spoke Greek as well, just as the Macedonian court did.

I believe that when speaking among themselves though,that the Macedonians spoke with their own distinct dialect. Arrian remarked that Alexander would speak in the "Macedonian way" when addressing strictly Macedonian soldiers. When he addressed the his "Greek" allies, or the whole army, he would use the Greek dialect. (Probably the Attic Greek he was taught by his tutors)

Thats the key I can bet that the Cretan dialect was also distinct same with Dorian dialect...
Even today we dont understand 60-70% of the Cypriot dialect...does this mean that they arent Greek?

Bava

11-10-2007, 21:26

Now, it must be said that Phillip was pretty shrewd, and pragmatic. He knew he was an outsider to the Greeks, and the Macedonian state he inherited was in shambles. He needed immediate help, or at the very least a stable border. Epirus coul offer just that. Going to get a Greek wife from Thessaly (or even further south) would not really have gained him very much.

True, but having a truely "barbarian" - barbarian as in thracian, getic or illyrian - wife and thus a half-barbarian heir would have seriously hampered his long-time goals, an accepted makedonian hegemony over greece and the conquest of the persian empire for the "hellenic cause". So at least the ruling class of Epeiros must have been considered greek. Hinterland greeks but greeks nonetheless.

Whacker

11-11-2007, 04:26

As I've read it in several biographies of Alexander, the idea of being "Greek" was something that most of the people inhabiting the southern Balkan peninsula felt they were. Of course the larger, more established and "developed" Greek cities such as Athens, Thebes, Sparta, etc, all considered themselves well and truly "Greek", and viewed the Macedonians, Epirotes, and others as pseudo-barbarian. It would also seem that this may have had some real basis, as the level of "civilization" that the Macedonians lived under until the 50-odd years preceeding Alexander were relatively "barbarian", and very tribal by nature. Phillip and Alexander were very much the main catalysts who started to bring Macedonian civilization, culture, and government to be more in line with what we'd all consider properly "greek".

I guess my view on the matter, given what I have read, is that he was really both. At the time of his birth and life, Macedon was well and truly coming to resemble the established Greek city-states in her culture and government. Thus, in my view, he was primarily a Macedonian, and thus by extension a Greek. This is a very simpilified view, but I think it answers the question, which also in of itself is very simplified.

My $0.02, friends.

:bow:

hellenes

11-11-2007, 15:04

Sarmatian

11-12-2007, 05:48

Makedones and Greeks is the same as Spartans and Greeks...If people dont have a different language/religion/tradition how can you separate them?

Well, Macedonian and Greek language wasn't exactly the same, AFAIK. And tradition and way of life was very different in Macedonia and in Athens, for example. If we agree that they adopted Greek gods at some point,that they weren't theirs originally, your argument becomes very thin. They were under greek cultural influence, that's for sure, but were they Greeks? I don't know.

I'm talking about ancient Greece. If we try to categorize them by todays national standards, then yes, I'd consider them Greek.

Hound of Ulster

11-13-2007, 00:37

The Makedonians weren't considered Greek at first, but were sort of absorbed into the Hellenic mainstream by a kind of cultural osmosis. Alexander was fond of Greek culture and probably would have considered himself 'Greek'.

Most Hellenes were quick to claim him after he defeated the hated Persians thats for sure.

Alexander is certainly a fasinating character that's for sure.

rotorgun

11-14-2007, 19:51

Another way of looking at this is to view Alexander and his relationship to Greece through the eyes of others. In the Bible, Daniel is told that a two horned ram with one horn longer than the other represents Persia, which would be defeated by a mighty goat that would charge North, South and East. This is interpreted to be "the King of Greece". His Kingdom would be divided into four parts which we know happened after his death.

Check it out in Chapter 9 of the Book of Daniel. It's pretty fascinating. How did other nations view the Macedonians-Greeks or Macedonians?

hellenes

11-16-2007, 16:16

Well, Macedonian and Greek language wasn't exactly the same, AFAIK. And tradition and way of life was very different in Macedonia and in Athens, for example. If we agree that they adopted Greek gods at some point,that they weren't theirs originally, your argument becomes very thin. They were under greek cultural influence, that's for sure, but were they Greeks? I don't know.

I'm talking about ancient Greece. If we try to categorize them by todays national standards, then yes, I'd consider them Greek.

Soo please quote me something from this imaginary "Macedonian" language...And please is there any architecture/calendar/writing or ANY evidence of a separate "Macedonian" lifestyle? Oh and where is Olympus the home of the 12 greek gods? In Makedonia? Its amazing how far the Skopjan propaganda has gotten...

PS Aristotelis wasnt greek while we are at it... :wall: :wall:

Watchman

11-16-2007, 16:49

Oh go away already.

Geoffrey S

11-16-2007, 23:33

Anyway, you're all missing the point. Clearly Alexander was black, gay and Jewish.

Watchman

11-17-2007, 01:30

...and left-handed. :balloon2:

Sarmatian

11-17-2007, 02:10

Watchman

11-17-2007, 02:44

Nationalism is nothing but trouble anyway. AFAIK its contributions to humanity amount to having noticeably increased the overall amount of violence, large-scale atrocity, conflict, discrimination, pomposity, and general asshattery (over generally quite ridiculous issues to boot) people never had any shortage of to begin with and certainly didn't need any more of.

That modern crud should have no place in any discussion concerning the world before circa 1800 AD.

Mouzafphaerre

11-17-2007, 10:21

Watchman

11-17-2007, 17:32

Well, historians aren't exactly unanimous (gee, what a surprise...) as to when exactly the phenomenom first starts rearing its ugly head. I used 1800 mostly because while the concept first began proliferating in the post-Napoleonic period the seeds might well have been budding already by that point. I mean, traces of nation-state thinking can be detected in European political philosophy already by the aftermath of the Thirty Years' War by what I've read of it...

But I digress.

Mouzafphaerre

11-18-2007, 11:32

.
You don't and you are right. It can be traced even more backwards.

I prefer 1840's for a vague beginning for the disease idea to gain considerable popularity among masses.
.

Watchman

11-18-2007, 14:54

Fair enough, I guess.

Vorian

11-18-2007, 16:29

Back on topic....

My guess is that Macedonians were a Greek tribe that didn't move south. Having to fight off constant raids from the Illyrians, Paiones, Thracians etc they didn't follow the way of the south Greek polis.
Furthermore they were isolated from he rest of Greece during the geometric era (Greek Dark Ages) since to the south there are the Ossa,Olympus and Kambounia mountains

Bear in mind that Macedonia's and south Greece's geography is quite different. In South Greece every city-state had its own little area surrounded by mountains and sea. To invade Athens from the north you have to cross the mountain passes of Penteli and Immitos, from the south it's Megara and then an area with a really narrow pass until you reach Isthmus and Corinth.
Likewise, to enter Boeotia you have to pass through Thermopile, to enter Laconia, Taigetus, Arcadia is like a small Tibet, Achaea is a series of small coastal "openings" between mountains and sea etc. Even Thessaly was protected by the Tempe pass. Macedonia before Philip was an area much smaller than later, around Pella and in the middle of a great plain and easy to be attacked.

That's why they retained a less civilised society, maintaining tribal systems etc. Before Phillip, the Macedonian infantry was completely useless, barely able to fight off peltasts, the nobles being the only fighting force capable to win a battle. If you read Iliad, you will see that regular soldiers were little more than fodder for the nobles.

Furthermore, we see other similar customs like having a king, a military aristocracy etc.

Don't forget that Macedonians themselves were divided in lesser tribes (Orestai, Elimeiotai, Lynkestai) subject to the central authority.

Let's take a look at this.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Macedonian_Kingdom.jpg

Look carefully and spot two key cities. Aigai and Pella

The old and new capital. The early Macedonian kingdom was centered around Aigai, from the mountains to river Strymon. Chalkidike was conquered by Philip it was full of Greek colonies before that. The red line in the map indicates the borders when Philipp became king. During his reign the kingdom doubled its size acquiring Illyrian, Paionian lands to the north, Chalkidike to the south and many parts of Thrace to the east, threatening the straits, which was the reason for the confrontation with the Athenians.

Watchman

11-18-2007, 18:53

There's also the little detail that AFAIK Macedonia, like Thessaly, was a sort of "mini-steppe" well suited for raising horses and other grazers, but not nearly so for the sort of agrarian-mercantile pattern of economy that was the norm in Hellas proper. Which left both as something of largely pastoral, rather feudal regions practically without a middle class of "peasant soldiers" to fight as hoplites, but comparatively strong in equestrian aristocracy supported by large numbers of psiloi drawn from the commoner shepherds and whatnots.

It was sort of the whole point in the developement of the pike phalanx to turn those crappy levy skirmishers into a decent heavy-infantry force capable of pinning down the hoplites of the south (or the fierce tribal warriors of the north for that matter) so the cavalry could deliver a decisive blow. Didn't Alex in one speech to his infantry speak of his father having made them from shepherds into soldiers or somesuch...?

hellenes

11-18-2007, 21:48

I'll never understand Greek nationalists. I can understand other Balkan nationalists, they all suffer from a small nation inferiority complex, but Greeks???

FYI, Hellenes, I don't speak a word of chinese or arabic and I couldn't write anything in those languages, but I know for a fact that they are not the same.

No one here is arguing that Alexander was macedonian from a modern state of macedonia. Everybody here knows that modern Macedonia has nothing in common with the ancient Macedonia. This discussion is about were ancient macedonians proper greeks or something close to it. So please, leave Skopje out of this as it has nithing to do with the topic...

There isnt a "modern Macedonia" but Makedonia as a Greek province where Im from...so either Im a slav or the Vardarska people arent "Macedonians"...
You can call me nationalist/mazochist/tribalist/communist or whatever ends to -ist...I dont care...
What I care about is when people pull facts out of nowhere and just pretend that they dont make things up...
Until I see evidence of a separate "Macedonian" language/calendar/customs/burial ceremonies/tomb stones/religion I ll consider this whole sad speculation of extraterrestrial "macedonian" people just blowing air....and wont hesitate to point it out...

Watchman

11-18-2007, 21:59

hellenes

11-18-2007, 22:31

Yeah, whatever. Like the modern Westphalian states of Greece and FYROM actually had crap all to do with the kingdoms and city-states of over two thousand years ago anyway, save for happening to occupy roughly the same geographical space.

Just wondering, but do you have any idea how ridiculous that one-upmanship dispute you folks have down there appears to an outsider ? I suppose one should be glad it hasn't degenerated into general atrocity and massacre as Balkan collective inferiority complexes have had a bad habit to...

Then how bout France forcing BRITAIN to change its name to UK to enter the EU because Britain is a province in France? How ridiculus...But wait we arent france but a small American protectorate...that cannot dare to oppose MrSoros...

Watchman

11-19-2007, 00:06

Might I suggest you find a comparision that A) isn't patently ridiculous B) doesn't bite you in the arse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom) ?

Spare me the drama. You're not going to find much understanding for that dumb mutual inferiority complex you guys have down there, and even less sympathy.

Hound of Ulster

11-19-2007, 05:06

Oh would you two stop whining!
The Balkans have been conquered some many times by so many differant people (Slavs, Makedonians, Romans, Illyrians, Turks, Serbs, Hungarians and God knows who else) that trying to bring modern problems into a discussion about whether or not Alexander the Great was Greek or not (it's a trick question) is both intellectually dishonest and and morally idoitic.

Alexander, if you could ask him, would consider Himself Hellenic, but the inhabitants of what is now the FYR Macedonia and the provience of Makedonia at the TIME THAT HE LIVED were not considered Greek by the Athenians, Spartans, Corinthians etc, they were thought of as 'barbarians' because they DID NOT speak ancient Greek/Hellenic, and that differance of langauge was what was most important to the people of the Greek city states.

Whacker

11-19-2007, 06:21

Several key points here.

Alexander, if you could ask him, would consider Himself Hellenic,

This is 100% true.

but the inhabitants of what is now the FYR Macedonia and the provience of Makedonia at the TIME THAT HE LIVED were not considered Greek by the Athenians, Spartans, Corinthians etc,

True and not true.

they were thought of as 'barbarians' because they DID NOT speak ancient Greek/Hellenic,

True and again not true, the sticking point that I'll get to in a second is that the nobility spoke proper Greek, and it was during Phillip and Alexander's time that Greek found mass penetration into all levels of society.

and that differance of langauge was what was most important to the people of the Greek city states.

That's not how I read it, the key differences were in culture (which one may argue that language is a component of).

The real sticking point here is that if you were to look at Macedonia pre-Phillip, then well and truly "no, Macedonians were not greek" would have been a fair assessment. It was Phillip who started the real "hellenization" of Macedonian society and started some of the greatest social shifts of their culture to bring them more in line with proper "Greece". Alexander simply took what his father started and ran with it. It also speaks miles and miles and miles that at first, Alexander's conquest of Greece and Asia Minor was performed under the guise of "Avenging Greek Honor and Losses and Restoring Proper Greek Democracy" to the major Greek city-states and their Anatolian counterparts, AND he maintained this charade successfully (for the most part) all throughout his campaign. The fact that he used this bit of propaganda AND was so insanely successful at it is evident in how much he conquered, how many "true" Greeks fought under his banners, and even how little resistance there was back home, look at the abortive Spartan rebellion and how many other city-states joined them (none).

Thus I would again submit that during Alexander's time, he and Macedonia well and truly came to be accepted into the "Greek" culture and fold and as such would be rightly considered both Macedonian and Greek.

:balloon2:

hellenes

11-19-2007, 17:38

Several key points here.

This is 100% true.

True and not true.

True and again not true, the sticking point that I'll get to in a second is that the nobility spoke proper Greek, and it was during Phillip and Alexander's time that Greek found mass penetration into all levels of society.

That's not how I read it, the key differences were in culture (which one may argue that language is a component of).

The real sticking point here is that if you were to look at Macedonia pre-Phillip, then well and truly "no, Macedonians were not greek" would have been a fair assessment. It was Phillip who started the real "hellenization" of Macedonian society and started some of the greatest social shifts of their culture to bring them more in line with proper "Greece". Alexander simply took what his father started and ran with it. It also speaks miles and miles and miles that at first, Alexander's conquest of Greece and Asia Minor was performed under the guise of "Avenging Greek Honor and Losses and Restoring Proper Greek Democracy" to the major Greek city-states and their Anatolian counterparts, AND he maintained this charade successfully (for the most part) all throughout his campaign. The fact that he used this bit of propaganda AND was so insanely successful at it is evident in how much he conquered, how many "true" Greeks fought under his banners, and even how little resistance there was back home, look at the abortive Spartan rebellion and how many other city-states joined them (none).

Thus I would again submit that during Alexander's time, he and Macedonia well and truly came to be accepted into the "Greek" culture and fold and as such would be rightly considered both Macedonian and Greek.

:balloon2:

Is there ANY evidence of a separate "Macedonian" language/calendar/customs/burial ceremonies/tomb stones/religion? If yes please enlighten me...

Vorian

11-19-2007, 19:47

First of all

@ hellenes

calm down. you don't defend your case better with rhetorics

The real sticking point here is that if you were to look at Macedonia pre-Phillip, then well and truly "no, Macedonians were not greek" would have been a fair assessment. It was Phillip who started the real "hellenization" of Macedonian society and started some of the greatest social shifts of their culture to bring them more in line with proper "Greece". Alexander simply took what his father started and ran with it. It also speaks miles and miles and miles that at first, Alexander's conquest of Greece and Asia Minor was performed under the guise of "Avenging Greek Honor and Losses and Restoring Proper Greek Democracy" to the major Greek city-states and their Anatolian counterparts, AND he maintained this charade successfully (for the most part) all throughout his campaign. The fact that he used this bit of propaganda AND was so insanely successful at it is evident in how much he conquered, how many "true" Greeks fought under his banners, and even how little resistance there was back home, look at the abortive Spartan rebellion and how many other city-states joined them (none).

If you think that Phillip managed to complete Macedonia's "hellenization" in a few decades then....completely changing an entire nation's culture is difficult moreover a nation that exists through tribal relationships.

Macedonia is regarded by most historians as a Greek tribe. The fact that Macedonia's geography is different than the rest of Greece and that it was the barricade for all the barbarian invasions is responsible for it not being like the polis,Simple as that.

Talking about hellenizations that occur within a decade, conspiracies by Macedonian kings to appear Greek are far fetched.

In the end, don't forget that the Macedonian king Alexander I said it himself:

"Men of Athens... In truth I would not tell it to you if I did not care so much for all Hellas; I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery. I tell you, then, that Mardonius and his army cannot get omens to his liking from the sacrifices. Otherwise you would have fought long before this. Now, however, it is his purpose to pay no heed to the sacrifices, and to attack at the first glimmer of dawn, for he fears, as I surmise, that your numbers will become still greater. Therefore, I urge you to prepare, and if (as may be) Mardonius should delay and not attack, wait patiently where you are; for he has but a few days' provisions left. If, however, this war ends as you wish, then must you take thought how to save me too from slavery, who have done so desperate a deed as this for the sake of Hellas in my desire to declare to you Mardonius' intent so that the barbarians may not attack you suddenly before you yet expect them. I who speak am Alexander the Macedonian."

Case closed. :yes:

And that happened in 480, a century before Phillip.

Whacker

11-19-2007, 20:27

Seconded, this isn't the Backroom Hellenes. Not supporting your arguments and haphazardly re-questioning others who've provided support doesn't help your case one bit. I've read several books on ol' Alex, all of which are at my house (I'm abroad for vacation) so I can't tell you what they were, I do remember the most recent one which was "Alexander the Great" by Robin Lane Fox if you're looking for some source material.

If you think that Phillip managed to complete Macedonia's "hellenization" in a few decades then....completely changing an entire nation's culture is difficult moreover a nation that exists through tribal relationships.

No, he didn't, he started the specific major shift that we know of, and Alexander continued it. The distinction here is at what point do we assign some arbitrary value or date and state that the Hellenization was 'complete' or 'sufficient' by then. I have yet to read anything that remotely refutes or disagrees with what I've been stating on this, if you have something specific then please cite it, I and I'm sure the others here would very much like to see alternate or differing viewpoints.

And as for changing a culture "completely", that certainly didn't happen. Macedonians were similar in certain aspects (religion, language was changing at the time, certain social aspects and views) to their "proper" Greek brethren, so "complete" change wasn't needed. What Phil and Alex did do was radically restructure their government, enforce their sovereignty over the tribal structures as much as they possibly could which was unheard of before (and was significant but not total), and generally urbanize and modernize the more populous centers in their territory, Pella being the prime example. One thing that I must concede is that my knowledge of these shifts does not extend very much to the lower classes of Macedonian society at the time, but the documentation does indicate that the changes effected did have universal impact. Most of the specific Hellenization we are discussing appears to have been at the aristocratic level, in other words Phillip, Alexander, Ptolemy and Seleucus, the other nobility and leadership as we see in the bringing of Aristotle to teach.

Edit - Perhaps "Hellenization" as I'm using it above is insufficient and improper to use by itself. The Macedonians were culturally similar in certain respects, so perhaps we should state more accurately that Philip and Alexander both "Hellenized" and "modernized" Macedonian society to bring it more closely in-line with 'proper' Greek culture at the time? Just a thought.

Macedonia is regarded by most historians as a Greek tribe. The fact that Macedonia's geography is different than the rest of Greece and that it was the barricade for all the barbarian invasions is responsible for it not being like the polis,Simple as that.

This is still in-line with what I've read so yes there is agreement. The other part to this which you've already stated is that Macedonian culture was tribal until the period of time leading up to Phillip and A-dogg, which also had a major impact on how they were viewed.

Talking about hellenizations that occur within a decade, conspiracies by Macedonian kings to appear Greek are far fetched.

In the end, don't forget that the Macedonian king Alexander I said it himself:

"Men of Athens... In truth I would not tell it to you if I did not care so much for all Hellas; I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, ... I who speak am Alexander the Macedonian."

And that happened in 480, a century before Phillip.

Indeed, this was said. However, that is simply one facet of the discussion. The Macedonians considered themselves to be "Greek" well before Phillip/Alexander as you've provided evidence of. This is of course open to debate if others can provide some good material to consider, as are the other points; did the other "Greeks" consider the Macedonians "Greek", and in hindsight given our knowledge and surviving materials, would WE consider the Macedonians truly "Greek" from our modern standpoint? I still say "Yes" to all three.

Hound of Ulster

11-19-2007, 22:11

That probably won't sway Hellenes.

I think that map put up by a previous poster really illustrates the uselessness of the arguments in this thread. The region that now comprises the Greek provience of Makedonia is/was a seperate entity from the region now know as the FYR Macedonia. The region that now houses the FYR Macedonia anciently was Illyrian, not Greek, and was only given the name 'Macedonia', as a way of countering Croat and Serb nationalism with a third force, even going so far as to supporting spurious scholarship claiming a seperate 'Macedonian language, by Tito in the 1940s. So I'm going to call it the FYR of Illyria from now on.

And no, if you had asked your average Athenian or Spartan if Alexander's country was 'Greek', they would have looked very angrily at you and said 'NO!' along with a few other choice words.

Vorian

11-20-2007, 21:18

@ hound of Ulster

I don't think this is a discussion about FYROM. It's about ancient Macedonia.

As for what ancient Greeks thought of them:

Herodotus says they were Dorians from Phtiotis, Ossa and Olympus that migrated and changed their name to Macedonians. "Doriko te kai Makednon ethnos"

So he regards them Greek. I will take his words for truth.

As for Macedonia "mak" is the doric root for length (makos=length, mikos in ionic)
In Odyssey the subject "makednis" is mentioned to describe lengthy objects.
Now Macedonia literally means "long country" and it was compared to the small territories of polis.

Edit - Perhaps "Hellenization" as I'm using it above is insufficient and improper to use by itself. The Macedonians were culturally similar in certain respects, so perhaps we should state more accurately that Philip and Alexander both "Hellenized" and "modernized" Macedonian society to bring it more closely in-line with 'proper' Greek culture at the time? Just a thought.

I will agree that Phillip modernized Macedonia, importing arts etc from Athens. He actually "atticized" it.

hellenes

11-20-2007, 22:36

Adrian II

11-22-2007, 16:26

That modern crud should have no place in any discussion concerning the world before circa 1800 AD.Spot on. Good ole Alex was Greek in the same sense that a Leonidas was. Or a Pericles. Or a Herodotus. Greeks all, yet all quite different in outlook depending on their respective poleis or regions of origin.

It is probable that most Makedonians of Phillippos' and Alexander's time spoke Greek, but it is at the same time possible that they also spoke a Makedonian vernacular. Most of their recorded names are Greek, to the exception of a few names like Sabattaras or Arridaeus. It is not unreasonable to assume that they spoke a Makedonian vernacular but preferred to speak and write Greek in their official dealings, in the same way that the eighteenth-century upper classes in Europe spoke French. Hellenisation reinforced this phenomenon, to the point where we know only about a hundred originally Makedonian words. They could well be words from highly localised Makedonian dialects that do not point to the existence of a Makedonian language in its own right.

On the other hand some ancient sources state that Greeks could not understand Makedonians whenever they engaged in makedonizein, meaning 'Macedonizing', and that Alexander's Greek troops couldn't understand his (presumably Makedonian) orders on various occasions.

Baseline: we just don't know.

hellenes

11-22-2007, 18:10

Spot on. Good ole Alex was Greek in the same sense that a Leonidas was. Or a Pericles. Or a Herodotus. Greeks all, yet all quite different in outlook depending on their respective poleis or regions of origin.

It is probable that most Makedonians of Phillippos' and Alexander's time spoke Greek, but it is at the same time possible that they also spoke a Makedonian vernacular. Most of their recorded names are Greek, to the exception of a few names like Sabattaras or Arridaeus. It is not unreasonable to assume that they spoke a Makedonian vernacular but preferred to speak and write Greek in their official dealings, in the same way that the eighteenth-century upper classes in Europe spoke French. Hellenisation reinforced this phenomenon, to the point where we know only about a hundred originally Makedonian words. They could well be words from highly localised Makedonian dialects that do not point to the existence of a Makedonian language in its own right.

On the other hand some ancient sources state that Greeks could not understand Makedonians whenever they engaged in makedonizein, meaning 'Macedonizing', and that Alexander's Greek troops couldn't understand his (presumably Makedonian) orders on various occasions.

Baseline: we just don't know.

IIRC there was Laconizein, Attikizein etc etc...plus if you were fluent in Attic greek you wouldnt make squat out of Laconian dialect hell even today we dont understand 70% of the Cypriot or Pontic dialects...but they are Greek and closer to the ancient one than modern Greek...
There is plenty of evidence to support the hellenism of the Makedonians with 0 evidence to teh contrary...

Geoffrey S

11-22-2007, 22:28

IIRC there was Laconizein, Attikizein etc etc...plus if you were fluent in Attic greek you wouldnt make squat out of Laconian dialect hell even today we dont understand 70% of the Cypriot or Pontic dialects...but they are Greek and closer to the ancient one than modern Greek...
There is plenty of evidence to support the hellenism of the Makedonians with 0 evidence to teh contrary...
Perhaps none of them were Greek?

Adrian II

11-23-2007, 10:13

Perhaps none of them were Greek?Hellenes has a point when he says they were all Greek in the sense of 'Greekness' as it was then understood. The sense meant by a Herodotus or Xenophon when they (or their protagonists) state that 'we are all Greeks because we speak the same language and worship the same gods'. Such invocations of a common Greek identity were often used in the face of outside threats (Persia) or for reasons of diplomatic convenience.

For the purpose of clarification, a suitable (though anachronistic) analogy would be the present relationship between the British and the Americans. They share a language and worship similar gods, yet they are very different in many other ways to the point where no outsider would mix them up. After the British created an empire and watched it fall apart, the Americans have created theirs, just as Alexander created a Makedonian empire after the Greek dominance of the Eastern Mediterranean came to an end. Yet in the face of a common threat (Nazi-Germany, Soviet Russia) they worked together and felt united.

I know this comparison is crippled in many ways, but maybe it helps some people to get a conceptual grip on the issue.

Mouzafphaerre

11-23-2007, 14:10

.
Beyond all the fuss troll-fed by modern nationalism, I'd like to know more about the different languages (or dialects if you wish to put it so) of those 'remote greeks' and how the interaction between them went. But that's just the lingua-maniac in me. :devil:
.

Colovion

11-27-2007, 06:31

I believe that if you compare this to modern day Italy it would equate quite well.

If at the time of Hannibal, someone outside of the seven hills of Rome could possibly be called "Roman" but would definitely fall into the modern "Italian". At the time things were more tribal so if you weren't born of a certain tribe you would never be part of that club. Alexander was born within the Hellenes influence, but his situation as the son of the King of Macedon somewhat negates any claim to be a Greek of the Athenian context. They'd look north and accept any benefits the other tribes produced for Athens, but the bonds between the tribes and city states of ancient Greece fluctuated from generation to generation; overall they were Hellenic, but Macedon was on the edges of this wheel.

Let's think of when Hannibal was marauding through the Italian countryside. Someone living on the northern Adriatic coast may consider themselves as a Roman subject, or even a Roman, but the view of the citizens of Rome might be quite different considering the same people. However, give it a generation or two and those people who are of Latin decent may very well be identified completely Roman or completely alienated depending on the acts of their citizenry. If a leader of a village, who was profoundly loyal to Rome, yet not technically a "citizen" did something damaging to Hannibal and his army and beneficial to Rome - well it's likely that his children would become Romans in the truest sense if he wasn't offered it himself. On the flip side, if he sided with Hannibal, the whole city might be seen as disloyal to Rome.

I'm pretty sure Alexander would say he was both Greek and Macedonian, and be confused if anyone thought that was a strange statement for him to make. In the end, I think he was born a Macedonian, and the Greeks of the south were kind of stuffy and didn't enjoy having just anyone claiming to be Greek. However, Alexander is quite the catch for any Nation to claim as a fixture of identity. If it wasn't for him and what he accomplished, I doubt many would scramble to claim ties to such greatness.

Mouzafphaerre

11-27-2007, 15:44

.
Anybody read this book (http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?invid=8600202316) on topic? Can you tell anything about it or its author? I wishlisted it and some preview could help me set its priority of purchase.

ADD: Brief googling turned out the fact that he's a Slavic Makedonian and that he might be a nationalist propagandist. Not much about him out there except Greek nationalists using his name as a curse word in fanboy fora. :laugh4:
.

Vorian

11-27-2007, 17:33

Some wrong perceptions of Macedonia

1. There was an ancient Greek language. Ancient Macedonians soke Macedonian not Greek

Reality

Greece was composed of many small and isolated areas (Attica, Lakonia, Ilia, Achaea etc) and a few larger ones (Molossia, Thesprotia, Macedonia, Akarnania, Aetolia). Greeks were speaking different dialects in all those areas, all related with each other. The most evolved dialect the Attic one, of Athens. Most people today, when they speak of "ancient Greek" they refer to the Attic dialect and all comparison between the "Macedonian language" and the "Greek language" is in reality a comparison between the Attic and Macedonian dialect. An example of such a situation is modern Germany with each state having its own idiom (ever tried to understand Bavarian, cause I can't). Italy's official language is derived from Tuscan dialects but there asre many others in the south and north.

Why is ancient Greek different?

At that time Greeks spoke more than 200 dialects or languages as they named them. Most famous and widespread were the Ionian, Doric, Attic (derived from Ionian but different), Aiolic, Cypriot, Arkadian, Aitolic, Akarnanian, Macedonian and Locrian.
Furthermore, we know that the Romans regarded Macedonians as Greek-speaking. Titus Livius writes: "(general Paulus) sat on his official chair(??not sure of translation) surrounded by many Macedonians...his announcements were translated in Greek and repeated by praetor Gnaeus Octavius..." (History of Rome, b.XLV par.XXIX). Why would the Romans translate in Greek if the Macedonians couldn't understand it?

After Alexander's death situation had changed rapidly. Pharao Ptolemy II, understood that his empire required the solification of the already common language the Koine, a simplified form of Attic (Koine=common in Greek). Koine was the common language of the Hellenistic world but it had no common alphabet or grammar.

This task was undertaken by an Athenean, Aristeas, who with his assistants structured the grammar, removed attic idiosyncrasies and added new words from Doric, Ionic and Aeloic dialects. However foreigners couldn't understand how to pronounce the complex Greek words (which had no gaps between them) so a paragraph system and many symbols were added.

Before that time ,may Greek cities used different alphabets and different letters to represent diphthongs. Those alphabets were mainly divided to the East and West. A new alphabet was created which removed old letters and created a 24 letter one.

Koine quickly overshadowed other Greek dialects and mixed with them resulting in many local dialects that exist even today. Doric vanished and only modern Tsakonian, has Doric roots.

2.If Macedonians were Greek why is Alexander I was called Philellene? This title is only for non Greeks.

Reality

Alexander was called Phillene by the poet Pindar for the same reason Jason of Pherae and Evagoras of Cyprus were. It meant Philopatris or patriot in the modern world.

3. Greeks had Greek conscience but Macedonians by destrying Greek cities, proved they were not Greek.

Reality

Greece is an area that favours isolation of different tribes. This explains why ancient greeks didn't have national conscience but kept fighting each other.
Macedonians were burning and destroying Greek cities for the same reason Spartans killed all Platean males of age in the Peloponnesean war and Thebans, Athenians etc. killed each other.

They all knew they were close somehow but only united against a common enemy like the Persians. And even then, sometimes many Greek cities sided with them.

Many centuries would pass before Greeks would create a national conscience. Only great minds foresaw this, like Pericles, Demosthenes, Philip II, but only under their own area's leadership.

4.Macedonians are an Illyrian tribe.

Reality

There is a proof from Polybius that Macedonians needed translators to speak with Illyrians. (b.XXVII par 8,9)

Edit: There is much more but I am tired I have to translate everything and write it down. I hope everyone is convinced. It's a part of a study by Marcus A. Templar. His bibliography is vast.

I don't know what more could somebody want to believe.

L.C.Cinna

11-28-2007, 01:29

Good points there Vorian.

Makedonian IS a greek dialect, but because of the location of Macedonia it had a stronger influence from outside with some thracian an illyrian words entering the language for example.

Nowadays we hear different dialects of our own language on TV every day and get at least a bit used to some features of them. That was different back then.

It's like telling a country guy from a small village in northern england to speak to some stereotypical redneck...

They would have serious problems, still they both speak English.

One important thing we shouldn't forget:

There seem to have been no problems with people seeing Macedonians as greek, besides that they were a bit uncivilized for greeks maybe.

The whole thing about "Macedonians are no Greeks" starts during the time of Philip when the Athenians (seen by many historians as THE Greeks; and the people who left the most texts) under Demostenes tried to stirr up hate in Greece against the Macedonians. The Athenians (and their allies) tried to portray them as barbarians and outsiders so they have a common cause to fight them.

Adrian II

11-28-2007, 08:32

The whole thing about "Macedonians are no Greeks" starts during the time of Philip when the Athenians (seen by many historians as THE Greeks; and the people who left the most texts) under Demostenes tried to stirr up hate in Greece against the Macedonians. The Athenians (and their allies) tried to portray them as barbarians and outsiders so they have a common cause to fight them.Interesting view, brother Cinna. So you are saying that today's propaganda wars started back then, albeit in totally different ways and for totally different reasons. It would not be the only instance where such a mechanism was at work. Many themes of today's propaganda war between western and islamic elites for instance go back to conflicts of centuries past when totally different issues were at stake.

Vorian

11-28-2007, 19:27

Interesting view, brother Cinna. So you are saying that today's propaganda wars started back then, albeit in totally different ways and for totally different reasons. It would not be the only instance where such a mechanism was at work. Many themes of today's propaganda war between western and islamic elites for instance go back to conflicts of centuries past when totally different issues were at stake.

I would say it's more like FYROM propagandists trying to find any ground to step on and finding Athenian biased texts to prove their thesis.

L.C.Cinna

11-28-2007, 20:13

I guess you did not understand what I meant Vorian.

This has nothing to do with modern politics and I think everybody knows that FYROM has nothing to do with Macedonia.

The Athenians DID try to present the Macedonians as "not greek" and "barbarian" to gather support for an anti-macedonian alliance. People always tried to put their enemies in a bad light, the Romans wrote about the Carthaginians that they eat babies and told stories of celtic druids making human sacrifices all day long. The Athenians had used the slogan of defending Greece against the barbarians before when they founded their naval alliances, when Philip appeared they tried to turn the whole thing into another direction by saing Macedonians were not Greeks and liek this present Athens as the defender of Greece against the Barbarians once more.

Vorian

11-28-2007, 21:46

I wasn't commenting on your reply. i agree with you.
I was answering Adrian II's post and his suggestion that the doubt of the Greek origin of Macedonians exists since the propaganda of Athenians to modern age, which is false cause they were considered Greek in the Roman era.

Adrian II

11-28-2007, 22:07

I was answering Adrian II's post and his suggestion that the doubt of the Greek origin of Macedonians exists since the propaganda of Athenians to modern age, which is false cause they were considered Greek in the Roman era.I merely wrote that it was an interesting idea to think that there was a strain of propaganda going back so many centuries. It may have flowered during Philip's time, remained barren during the Roman era, only to be resumed later in different forms and for different purposes.

As I said, there are other examples of such a mechanism. Some strains of the propaganda that is going back and forth between the West and the Islamic world these days for instance have roots in the eighteenth century, in the Crusades and even in the first clash at Poitiers (732). Over the centuries they have 'changed hands' so to speak, but their topoi remain the same.

EDIT
A good treatment of the crucial First Crusades' legacy can be found in Thomas Asbridge's The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam (http://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051) (2005). The book has just been translated into Dutch. I highly recommend it.

Geoffrey S

11-28-2007, 22:33

Hellenes has a point when he says they were all Greek in the sense of 'Greekness' as it was then understood. The sense meant by a Herodotus or Xenophon when they (or their protagonists) state that 'we are all Greeks because we speak the same language and worship the same gods'. Such invocations of a common Greek identity were often used in the face of outside threats (Persia) or for reasons of diplomatic convenience.
When it comes to antiquity, yes, I agree. Another possible analogy that springs to mind is Germany between the conquests of Napoleon and the unification later in the nineteenth century. There wasn't a Germany as such, but there were certainly Germans.

What I'm finding tenuous at best are links between the inhabitants of Greece past and present, whether they are both called 'Greeks' or not; let alone this whole mix about the modern Republic of Makedon.

Vorian

11-28-2007, 22:40

I merely wrote that it was an interesting idea to think that there was a strain of propaganda going back so many centuries. It may have flowered during Philip's time, remained barren during the Roman era, only to be resumed later in different forms and for different purposes.

As I said, there are other examples of such a mechanism. Some strains of the propaganda that is going back and forth between the West and the Islamic world these days for instance have roots in the eighteenth century, in the Crusades and even in the first clash at Poitiers (732). Over the centuries they have 'changed hands' so to speak, but their topoi remain the same.

EDIT
A good treatment of the crucial First Crusades' legacy can be found in Thomas Asbridge's The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam (http://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051) (2005). The book has just been translated into Dutch. I highly recommend it.

Oh, sorry I thought you meant that it continued during Roman times. My bad.:shame:

Mouzafphaerre

11-28-2007, 22:40

.
I'd still like to know if their language was merely a remote dialect or a language in its own right from the same group with Greek, Phrigian, Armenian etc.
.

Vorian

11-28-2007, 23:36

Dialect mate. I have provided info a few posts above.

Adrian II

11-28-2007, 23:41

What I'm finding tenuous at best are links between the inhabitants of Greece past and present, whether they are both called 'Greeks' or not; let alone this whole mix about the modern Republic of Makedon.I agree. However, this being the Monastery, we should attempt to distinguish between good or bad posts or views, not between good or bad posters. Even those who defend firm views such as Vorian or Hellenes may have valuable points, and I for one certainly appreciate them.

Louis VI the Fat

11-29-2007, 00:15

However, this being the Monastery, we should attempt to distinguish between good or bad posts or views, not between good or bad posters. Even those who defend firm views such as Vorian or Hellenes may have valuable points, and I for one certainly appreciate them.This is the .org. If I want to know about history, I buy a book. I come here for the...'firm views'. That's what makes it interesting. The gritty reception of history, the opinions, misconceptions, the misuse and abuse of history.

No, let me correct myself. It is not a misuse, it is the use of history. The living perception of it. I neither agree nor disagree with it, the opinions are the valuable stuff in themselves. If twenty posters claim that Vienna was the capital of Russia, then that is a great insight to have gained.

Vorian

11-29-2007, 00:35

If twenty posters claim that Vienna was the capital of Russia, then that is a great insight to have gained.

I don't think that claiming Macedonians were Greeks compares to this.

And I don't consider myself hardcore, for example while many nationalist Greeks claim that Epirots were Greek, I think that they were mixed with the Greek Mollosians ruling.

I don't think i am having delusions here, nor am I "abusing or misusing history"

EDIT: And I would like to hear to other people's opinions about the subject and not comments of how backward and needlessly nationalistic the Balkans are. As if western Europeans don't debate heavily whether the French are good at war, or if the British are not Europeans etc etc
If there is someone with different opinions i am open for debate, just provide proof and not theories.:book:

Louis VI the Fat

11-29-2007, 00:51

I don't think that claiming Macedonians were Greeks compares to this.

And I don't consider myself hardcore, for example while many nationalist Greeks claim that Epirots were Greek, I think that they were mixed with the Greek Mollosians ruling.

I don't think i am having delusions here, nor am I "abusing or misusing history"

If there is someone with different opinions i am open for debate, just provide proof and not theories.:book: Oops, sorry 'bout this. I should've seen this coming. :embarassed:

I was responding in general to Adrian's post. I haven't even read this thread, save for a handful of posts. I don't know what you think of Alexander and so I couldn't even agree or disagree with it if I wanted to.

My previous post sounded a bit arrogant now that I re-read it. What I meant is that any opinion of history is interesting. By default. Not for its historiographical value, but for the contemporary opinion of history you can get from it.

Mouzafphaerre

11-29-2007, 01:16

Dialect mate. I have provided info a few posts above.
.
With all respect, I have read your post, along with the entire thread. It just states that it's a dialect but gives no further information to back that up. What I'm looking for is the thing itself; comparative etymology, phonology, grammar, sample words etc.

I'm not asking you to give that or to back up your statement. But you happened to walk in, hence this post. :bow:
.

Vorian

11-29-2007, 01:32

Oops, sorry 'bout this. I should've seen this coming. :embarassed:

I was responding in general to Adrian's post. I haven't even read this thread, save for a handful of posts. I don't know what you think of Alexander and so I couldn't even agree or disagree with it if I wanted to.

My previous post sounded a bit arrogant now that I re-read it. What I meant is that any opinion of history is interesting. By default. Not for its historiographical value, but for the contemporary opinion of history you can get from it.

Apologies accepted. i might be a little too hot-headed about the subject.. No big deal.

With all respect, I have read your post, along with the entire thread. It just states that it's a dialect but gives no further information to back that up. What I'm looking for is the thing itself; comparative etymology, phonology, grammar, sample words etc.

I'm not asking you to give that or to back up your statement. But you happened to walk in, hence this post

Ahhhh, well you won't find anything like this I think.....not enough texts I think...:sweatdrop:

Btw, are you Turkish? Your username is a word for "guest" in Greek and I suppose it's a Turkish word so I would like to know if it means the same.

Adrian II

11-29-2007, 01:36

Btw, are you Turkish?Take it from me, brother Mouzaphaerre hails from the State of Enlightenment and from nowhere else. :laugh4:

Mouzafphaerre

11-29-2007, 03:22

.

Ahhhh, well you won't find anything like this I think.....not enough texts I think...

So we'll never be sure if it was a seperate language or merely a remote dialect. Neither way! :eyebrows:

Btw, are you Turkish? Your username is a word for "guest" in Greek and I suppose it's a Turkish word so I would like to know if it means the same.

:wall: :wall: :wall:

It's not μουσαφίρης, which is actually Arabic مسافر - musāfir, from the root سفر, which indeed means guest (misâfir in Turkish), but a bastardization of -again Arabic- مظفر - muẓaffer, from the root ظفر, meaning victorious, triumphant (muzaffer in Turkish, also a given name, not mine though).

Yeah, I'm Turkish apparently (with much less grasp on Greek or Arabic than may seem). :yes: My location should give it out more easily. ~;)

Take it from me, brother Mouzaphaerre hails from the State of Enlightenment and from nowhere else.

If only I was half quarter as well read to deserve such a compliment. :embarassed: I'm merely an over-talkative and curious :drummer:
.

Kraxis

11-29-2007, 05:37

No, let me correct myself. It is not a misuse, it is the use of history. The living perception of it. I neither agree nor disagree with it, the opinions are the valuable stuff in themselves. If twenty posters claim that Vienna was the capital of Russia, then that is a great insight to have gained.
Ahh... but then we actually exchange history for anthropology. Or, in a few years we can make a history of the org, and say "This was how they thought".

Part of history to be sure (there is even an entire school that concentrates on what people thought was their reality, rather than the actual reality), but given the limited scope we deal with here, we simply have to steer towards the "truth". We haev to dig, we have to argue and we have to present evidence in some form.

If you want oppinions in thier purest form, then I suggest the Backroom. And that is not an attempt at kicking you out, but really that is what the Backroom does best and the Monastery does badly.

L.C.Cinna

11-29-2007, 10:50

I know it's wiki :shame:

but it sums the whole thing up rather nicely

Ancient Macedonian Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_language)

Vorian

11-29-2007, 17:36

It's not μουσαφίρης, which is actually Arabic مسافر - musāfir, from the root سفر, which indeed means guest (misâfir in Turkish), but a bastardization of -again Arabic- مظفر - muẓaffer, from the root ظفر, meaning victorious, triumphant (muzaffer in Turkish, also a given name, not mine though).

Yeah, I'm Turkish apparently (with much less grasp on Greek or Arabic than may seem). My location should give it out more easily.

Well, I had guessed but I always prefer to ask. And thanks for the clarification on the word....

Mouzafphaerre

11-29-2007, 19:38

.

I know it's wiki :shame:

but it sums the whole thing up rather nicely

Ancient Macedonian Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_language)
One of the better Wiki articles with lots of references and an objective stance. Thanks. :bow:

Well, I had guessed but I always prefer to ask. And thanks for the clarification on the word....
My pleasure μου αδελφού.:bow:
.

Hound of Ulster

11-30-2007, 05:00

Hellenes was the one who dragged the whole FYROM/Illryia into this, not me.

Ah, I knew the issue of differant dialects would come into play at some point. The lack of a common vernacular and the relative isolation of many of the city-states geographically was one of the reasons that the ancient Greeks never became a unified nation.

Oh, btw Hellenes, most of the Greek cities sided with Persia during the two invasions of Darius and Xerxes. Makedonia was a fully fledged tributary of the King of Kings. That was another reason why the Greeks of Attica disliked the Makedonians, at least until they dropped a hammer on Parsa.

hellenes

11-30-2007, 19:43

Adrian II

11-30-2007, 22:23

I still havent seen any evidence of "Macedonian" "language"...until I see such evidence Makedones were as Greek as Spartans...You are correct about the language, not about the overall culture of ancient Macedonia. Language is not the only factor determining a culture, as I tried to show in my (anachronistic) example of Britain and the United States. Religion, politics and customs determine a culture just as well. Because of its multi-ethnicity, its Persian period (as a satrapy) and its complicated pre-Alexandrine political history, the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia may well be described as a different entity altogether.

Vorian

11-30-2007, 22:51

Sorry but I don't understand something.

Language is not the only factor determining a culture, as I tried to show in my (anachronistic) example of Britain and the United States. Religion, politics and customs determine a culture just as well.

Macedonians had the same religion and customs with the rest of Greeks. As for culture we can;t say that Athenians and Spartans had the same culture right??

Because of its multi-ethnicity,

If we call having neighboring tribes (Agrianians etc) recognising its authority multi-ethnicity then ok.

its Persian period (as a satrapy)

Macedonia was never a satrapy, when Darius conquered Thrace he made the Macedonian king his vassal. And that lasted very few years.

and its complicated pre-Alexandrine political history,the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia may well be described as a different entity altogether.

I would like to know what complicated political history you mean. If you mean cause it was not very involved with the rest of Greece until Philip, it should have a separate chapter in history books, I agree.

Adrian II

12-01-2007, 00:42

Sorry but I don't understand something.After Mardonius conquest Macedonia was for all intents and purposes a satrapy, even though we have no formal proof of the status. After the Persian collapse its development continued to differ in important ways from that of most other Greek areas. It remained a monarchy, it remained essentially rural because it lacked a good port, the mountain tribes of Upper Macedonia worshipped snakes, etcetera. The fact that Macedonian rulers claimed Greek mythical or heroic forefathers in itself doesn't mean thing. It was all the rage. The Epirotes claimed descent from Achilles. Even the Latins in Lavinium claimed Aenaean ancestry.

Actually it rather supports my earlier suggestion that the ruling elite was hellenised whereas the rest of Macedonian society may have stuck to older non-Greek ways. This was echoed by the Athenian rhetor Isocrates (436–338) when he remarked that the Macedonian Kings were in fact rulers over a non-Greek people: 'They knew that the Greeks were not accustomed to put up with monarchies, while the other peoples were unable to order their life properly without such a form of government. As a result their rule was one of quite a different character from the rest; for they alone among the Greeks claimed to rule over a people not of kindred race.' An interesting (Athenian) observation to which all the mentioned caveats apply and which is therefore in no way conclusive.

As I wrote above: when push comes to shove we just don't know.

Vorian

12-01-2007, 02:25

Well, one deserves to believe what he wants right?

However what you call "non-Greek ways" is really "non-Athenian ways". People have to get away from the misconception of thinking all Greeks behaved like Athenians.

I know that saying that Macedonians behaved like they were in the Mycenaean age gets tiresome but I will try to explain without being annoying.

After the Dorian invasion, most Ionians and Aitolians fled to Anatolia and the Aegean islands and the Dorians took over most of mainland Greece. They settled in tribal states making the previous tribal leaders kings.

The geography of Greece however is such that, even people of the same tribe were isolated resulting to smaller and smaller divisions. Constant border warfare resulted to a military aristocracy since the phalanx warfare was introduced at some point and only the wealthy could afford to buy the hoplite equipment. Thus, the king lost his authority and most cities were governed by the nobles.

After a century or two, overpopulation lead to social unrest and colonization as a way to get rid of it. The seas were now, re-explored and a new class was created merchants, who directly defied the nobles and wanted democracy or at least plutocracy. The clash between them with the poor class in the middle allowed some ambitious and influential people to become seize authority and become tyrants. And in Athens they invented democracy which spread to other cities.

Now, let's take a look at macedon. The plains of Macedonia didn't divide the tribes like in southern Greece, furthermore other hostile and completely foreign people already lived there (Thracians, Illyrians). The Macedonians had to push out many other people and this naturally makes tribal bonds stronger. Despite that Macedonians were divided in lesser tribes as well but were always united in some way to defend against the Illyrian and Thracian raids. Macedonia's geography allowed another kind of military aristocracy to emerge, the rich that fought on horseback (much like Thessaly). The nobles however never managed to defy the king since a feudal-loke system was created. Still there were many civil wars for the crown. The shores were taken by the southern Greek colonies so no merchant class. Add that and you have the reason for the Macedonian differences.

I would like to hear your opinion. I don't mind if you don't agree but I think you will find it at least very possible.

Hound of Ulster

12-03-2007, 18:49

Adrian II

12-04-2007, 01:25

I think Vorian just scored a flawless victory. There is this tendency to view ancient Greece through the prism of Athens, demokratika, Socrates blah blah blah. Ancient Greece was very diverse in many ways, and the rural horse-riders of Makedon were just another side of the somewhat fractuious Hellenic world. Athens didn't exist in a vacuum.Vorian's point about Greek diversity has already been recognized. But diversity has it limits, and we simply don't know whether Macedonia feel within those limits or not. The problem is that Macedonia was hellenized in the period of our interest. This complicates matters no end since we have only written sources from elites, both Macedonian and non-Macedonian. So let me try to resume the argument with due respect to Vorian's interventions.

At the time, 'Greekness' was defined by language, religion and politics.
1. I think we can agree that the question of a separate Macedonian language is moot in the absence of evidence.
2. As for religion, we know that Macedonians worshipped deities that the other Greeks recognized as Zeus, Herakles, etcetera.
3. Politically Macedonia was a separate entity in that it had something that was abhorred by pretty much all other Greeks: a monarchy. The state of Macedonia did not originate in a polis. It had no Law, no form of self-government except by and through the monarch and his philoi, who governed as they pleased. Each large city had a royal governor (epistates) much like the Persian satrap, which is why the later Diadochoi could easily transplant the Macedonian governing system onto their empires.

You can stress the similarities, you can stress the differences between Macedonia and the rest of Greece. Ancient Greek sources certainly did both, according to circumstance and the views and interests of each writer.

Let me try to present one more analogy: Scotland the rest of Britian. Similar, yet different. A fervent Scotsman (or Englishman or Welshman for that matter) will emphasize the diffferences. A laid-back Londoner (if there is such a person :laugh4: ) will consider Scotland just another part of Britain.

Now here's your Alexandrian question: Was James VI Scottish or British?

Mouzafphaerre

12-04-2007, 01:41

.
Stuartish. :surrender:
.

Adrian II

12-04-2007, 04:59

.
Stuartish. :surrender:
.:laugh4: :bow:

hellenes

12-04-2007, 13:30

Vorian's point about Greek diversity has already been recognized. But diversity has it limits, and we simply don't know whether Macedonia feel within those limits or not. The problem is that Macedonia was hellenized in the period of our interest. This complicates matters no end since we have only written sources from elites, both Macedonian and non-Macedonian. So let me try to resume the argument with due respect to Vorian's interventions.

At the time, 'Greekness' was defined by language, religion and politics.
1. I think we can agree that the question of a separate Macedonian language is moot in the absence of evidence.
2. As for religion, we know that Macedonians worshipped deities that the other Greeks recognized as Zeus, Herakles, etcetera.
3. Politically Macedonia was a separate entity in that it had something that was abhorred by pretty much all other Greeks: a monarchy. The state of Macedonia did not originate in a polis. It had no Law, no form of self-government except by and through the monarch and his philoi, who governed as they pleased. Each large city had a royal governor (epistates) much like the Persian satrap, which is why the later Diadochoi could easily transplant the Macedonian governing system onto their empires.

You can stress the similarities, you can stress the differences between Macedonia and the rest of Greece. Ancient Greek sources certainly did both, according to circumstance and the views and interests of each writer.

Let me try to present one more analogy: Scotland the rest of Britian. Similar, yet different. A fervent Scotsman (or Englishman or Welshman for that matter) will emphasize the diffferences. A laid-back Londoner (if there is such a person :laugh4: ) will consider Scotland just another part of Britain.

Now here's your Alexandrian question: Was James VI Scottish or British?

1. If they had the same language (and from the evidence at hand they had) and still we doubt about their hellenism...lets call the spartans semi Greek while were at it...
2. Olympus is in Makedonia how on earth the rest of Greeks placed their gods in the land of barbarians?
As for political system teh Lacedaemonian state was a weirdo amongst Greek City states...an odd mixture of crude democracy/olygarchy/monarchy/militaristic national socialism....Also the Dorian invasion came from the north...which means that they came from Makedonia plus all Greeks had passed through monarchy Makedonia simply lagged behind same as many city states that stayed at olygarchy or Tyrranny without the next step of democracy...

Adrian II

12-04-2007, 17:55

2. Olympus is in Makedonia how on earth the rest of Greeks placed their gods in the land of barbarians?Herodotus went even further. He stated that most Greek gods were probably of Egyptian origin. That does not - in retrospect - make the ancient Egyptians Greek either.

Conradus

12-04-2007, 19:01

1. If they had the same language (and from the evidence at hand they had) and still we doubt about their hellenism...lets call the spartans semi Greek while were at it...

Having the same language doesn't make two people (culturally) the same. Dutch and Flemish both speak Dutch, but they'll hate it if you confuse them :p

hellenes

12-04-2007, 20:17

Herodotus went even further. He stated that most Greek gods were probably of Egyptian origin. That does not - in retrospect - make the ancient Egyptians Greek either.

Well there are rumors circulating that Greeks built the pyramids... :idea2:
Anyway Hrodotos is just one person whilst the 12 gods living in Olympus thats regarded by whole Greek population is kinda moot to say that they had a separate religion...maybe a variation but certainly not separate also not all Greek cities worshipped standard religious deities they all had local variations..

Vorian

12-05-2007, 00:49

3. Politically Macedonia was a separate entity in that it had something that was abhorred by pretty much all other Greeks: a monarchy. The state of Macedonia did not originate in a polis. It had no Law, no form of self-government except by and through the monarch and his philoi, who governed as they pleased. Each large city had a royal governor (epistates) much like the Persian satrap, which is why the later Diadochoi could easily transplant the Macedonian governing system onto their empires.

So did Thessaly. Nobody doubts their origins though.

You can stress the similarities, you can stress the differences between Macedonia and the rest of Greece. Ancient Greek sources certainly did both, according to circumstance and the views and interests of each writer.

Well, I will point the similarities. Call me biased:laugh4:

KARTLOS

12-05-2007, 11:06

.
Stuartish. :surrender:
.

scandinavian/french. the surname comes from steward- their family were just posh servants/minor arristocracy who came over in 1066!

Mouzafphaerre

12-05-2007, 13:33

.
Yup. I know about their Norman origin. :yes:
.

Adrian II

12-05-2007, 18:53

So did Thessaly. Nobody doubts their origins though.So did Thrace. Nobody doubts they were non-Greek. They even had an Egyptian type calender.

The two examples are instructive. Both Thessaly and Thrace were loose federations of small principalities and tribes, not strong, united kingdoms like Macedonia. During most of the classical period the Thracian and Thessalian barons were vassals to Macedonia, Persia and other states.

There is little to no trace of a Thessalian language.

Thracians on the other shared some gods with the Greeks, but they did not speak Greek. Although it is now extinct and we have only a few short inscriptions as evidence, it is generally accepted that Thracian was a full-grown language. Seen in this light, and supported by the instances of more than a hundred extant ancient Macedonian words, it seems strained that we would not grant at least the possibility of a full-grown Macedonian language as well.

By the way, Mount Olympus was in ancient Thessaly, not in ancient Macedonia as you stated.

It is now, however, located in present-day Macedonia.

Will we ever stop confusing the two? :laugh4:

Vorian

12-05-2007, 23:08

Actually it's right on their borders. And I didn't stated it. That was hellenes. :inquisitive:

And yes, Thrace was not Greek at all, though of course they had some common gods, but that's natural.

Btw, you have a mistake there. Macedonia was not a strong, united kingdom not until Philip.

Adrian II

12-06-2007, 02:45

Actually it's right on their borders. And I didn't stated it. That was hellenes. :inquisitive: My bad :bow:

Watchman

12-07-2007, 19:52

Well there are rumors circulating that Greeks built the pyramids... :idea2: I presume the infamous Archimedian Death-Ray is part of those ? :wiseguy:

Anyway, yeah, Mt. Olympus is kinda right between Thessaly and Macedonia; judging by how close it's to the coast, it's part of a mountain range that separates the two plains to their own "compartements".

To say it's "in Macedon" is least said tendentious.

Besides, there was an important oracle associated with Zeus in Epeiros, which was definitely only within the margins of Greek continental sphere... and Ares supposedly took up residence in Thrace after getting kicked out of Olympus. Didn't Dionysos also supposedly have something to do with distant Baktria ?

...maybe a variation but certainly not separate also not all Greek cities worshipped standard religious deities they all had local variations..No kidding. they also kind of had their own local identities which - as everywhere - rather trumped any vague sense of collective "Hellenic" identity most of the time. The latter, like all premodern larger reference-group identifications, was little more than drawing a dividing line between "us" and "them" (eg. Hellenes-Thracians-Illyrians-Scythians-"Persians") based on readily apparent gross cultural and linguistical differences - in other words, practical details.
Not that the Hellenics seem to ever have had any particular trouble making connections between their deities and comparable ones in, say, Asia, if it comes to that...