Printable View
I have searched the forum recently to try to find an answer. I’m sorry if this has been debated before guys, but really, I couldn’t find it. So, I got a question:
Was Alexander the great (and the rest of the Macedonians ofc.) a Macedonian or a Greek? Or is it just.. New wrapping same s***? (don't get me wrong, just my sense of humor;)
I think Macedonian. The Macedonians considered themselves Greeks, but Greeks considered them pseudo-barbarians.
Macedonians I would say Mr.Erik.
It is not clear if ancient Macedonians are to be considered a Greek tribe (related to Dorians) or non-Greek (maybe related to Illyrian or Thracian) But AFAIK most evidence is pointing towards the Greek related.
Herodotus traced the Macedonian royals back to the good old Greek heroes. And they considered themselves to be Greek. So even if we assume the Macedonians to be non-Greek, the royal house seems to be very much Greek indeed.
CBR
Was there a clear distinction beyond Demosthenes' propaganda anyway?
Philip (II) seemed to have participated in the politics and cultures of the Greek world fine enough. At least to me the Greeks seemed to be able to distinguish the Macedonian monarch from, say, the Persian King. The latter is definitely an outsider while the former is kinda not really just as such.
Of course, I also have near zero knowledge on the ethnic background of the Ancient Macedonians and their relations to the neighbors down South, so you know...
However, if this question is phrased in the context of the modern Macedonia-Greek conflict, then my answer would be an absolutely convinced "irrelevant."
.
Please, let's all keep all kinds of nationalist sentiments off this thread! :gah2:
I'd like to learn more about this subject from our esteemed well read patrons.
.
I'm not sure if something like 'the Greeks' was really applicable in those days. Hollywood movies (Troy, 300) have generals give great speeches about Greece and the Greeks, but the city states of Greece considered themselves largely independant afaik. A term like 'Greece' in those days might have been something like the term 'Europe' these days, hard to accurately define.
Some people probably considered the Macedonians Greeks, others didn't.
Enough to have them allow only Greeks to participate in the Olympic Games.
Yes some considered the Macedonians to be barbarians but nonetheless Alexander I claimed to be descended from Greeks (Argives IIRC) and Herodotus says the claim was considered good enough to allow him to participate in the games.
CBR
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 ?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberius Victor
Are the Scots British, or the Friesians Dutch? Some would argue either way.
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'.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga´on
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bavarian Barbarian
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?
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..
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Even today we dont understand 60-70% of the Cypriot dialect...does this mean that they arent Greek?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
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: