Misellenes

I am not a historian scholar, I'm just an enthusiast and my comparison is not the right one (with the Scots) but people in every country hold on to some beliefs that the part of the country where they come from is better than the other look at SOME americans from the south who probably still don't like people from the north, or the situation in Spain.
And there is a state called Macedonia right?
Why is it so hard to believe that while part of the same state and culture groups of people would dislike each other and think themselves better no matter if it takes place in ancient times, medieval times or right now.

Quote:

---

And there is a state called Macedonia right?

---

Yes, and there is a province in Greece called Macedonia, roughly the same place you know in EB and we call northern Greeks "Macedonians". Macedonia is the name of a region, it doesn't say anything per se about the nationality of people living in it. So just to clear things up, the people of the state known nowadays as the Republic of Macedonia are of Slavic descent and have as much to do with the Macedonians of the Classical and Hellenistic times as the Chinese.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

Yes, and there is a province in Greece called Macedonia, roughly the same place you know in EB and we call northern Greeks "Macedonians". Macedonia is the name of a region, it doesn't say anything per se about the nationality of people living in it. So just to clear things up, the people of the state known nowadays as the Republic of Macedonia are of Slavic descent and have as much to do with the Macedonians of the Classical and Hellenistic times as the Chinese.

---

Exactly, well said. And if only the name says sth, was the Attica prison in the Us part of the Greek territory? (For those who dont know Attica is the name of the perfecture of the city of Athens). So enough guessing people please. History books are available in libraries and the internet. And if some (fortunately a few minority in this community) like guessing, well i can lend you some of my books to help you make at least educated guesses

Thats why oficiali the Slavic Macedonia is FYR (Former Yugoslavic Republic)Macedonia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meliritos

If you are talking about the modern times then the Macedonians, the Athenians, the Corinthians and the Spartans of our time will answer that they are Greek when you ask them. So what does this tell you? Take a guess...

---

That they've been put through the standard nation-state identity-building wringer for the past century or two like everyone else ? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

You know when there is a 0 evidence of a dinstict (NOT A DIALECT) "Makedonian Language" we cant just make up stuff just for the sake of it...

---

I don't know about you, but in my experience and to my knowledge regional dialects can right well be so wildly different from one another as to be virtually mutually unintelligible, ie. for most practical purposes separate languages. The European nation-states spent a round century or so just trying to get some sort of standardized national language established over all such local variants, with somewhat limited success...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meliritos

In the ancient times only Greek people were allowed to take part in the Olympic Games, not barbarians (as the Greeks called anyone who was not Greek). Macedonians, Athenians, Korinthians for example took part in the Games and some of their athletes won from time to time some events. That is not a guess, thats a fact.

---

That's also more likely than not pretty much the extent of their "shared Greekness", and I'd be surprised if there had not been some mutterings on the part of the southern poleis about letting these dagnabbit barely-Greek rustics even take part...

Oh i see. Except for history you also are familiar with the gossip and the inside politics of the city states in ancient Greece. Please tell me which university hosts you as professor, since you are so familiar with Greek history, so i can come and learn sth from you. Do you also keep tabloids of that time as references of what you are saying?

Very funny. Watch me laugh. :dozey:

What I'm familiar with is the general principles of the communal identity dynamics involved, and I've seen very little that spoke of the ancient Greeks displaying any meaningful deviations from the standard near-universal pattern. Quite the contrary actually.

But since you seem to be so certain that they did differ from the norm, perhaps you are intimately familiar with the contemporary discourse...?

What really cooks my carrots is people telling me that their national identity and the beliefs of their people today affects the way I or anyone else should think about an ancient people/custom/event. Anyone who does that gets a big fat middle finger here from me at the very least. I could give a crap about modern Macedonian or Chinese or Greek or Turkish or Lichtensteinian political/social or even traditional views about something that happened 2300 years ago, and can get downright surly when any of those modern views become visible in threads where those ancient matters are being discussed. Take your baggage elsewhere people. Selectively (very selectively in some matters) using ancient evidence to argue an opinion, and totally ignoring the other ancient evidence or writing it off, just to keep your own little worldview intact and to feel good about yourself and your opinion and your country/peoples' opinion, is at the bottom of the intellectual honesty barrell, but if that's what makes you feel all warm and cozy at night, then feel free to keep those blinders on, just don't try slipping them around our head please.

This is definitely not directed at any one person. Seriously. But here's some advice whether you want it or not: if you feel like it might be, then it might be a good idea to think about it a little more, just in case.

Quote:

---

What really cooks my carrots is people telling me that their national identity and the beliefs of their people today affects the way I or anyone else should think about an ancient people/custom/event.

---

I couldn't agree more, but how is that relevant to the thread? No one here came arguing from such a position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

That they've been put through the standard nation-state identity-building wringer for the past century or two like everyone else ? :dizzy2:

I don't know about you, but in my experience and to my knowledge regional dialects can right well be so wildly different from one another as to be virtually mutually unintelligible, ie. for most practical purposes separate languages. The European nation-states spent a round century or so just trying to get some sort of standardized national language established over all such local variants, with somewhat limited success...

---

So the Spartans that replaced every H with an A werent Greek cause this way their dilaect barely made sense for an Athenian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

That's also more likely than not pretty much the extent of their "shared Greekness", and I'd be surprised if there had not been some mutterings on the part of the southern poleis about letting these dagnabbit barely-Greek rustics even take part...

---

The Arcadians, Locrians and even Spartans were much more dagnabbit barely-Greek rustics
than Makedonians so I guess we have to call them aliens too... :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

So the Spartans that replaced every H with an A werent Greek cause this way their dilaect barely made sense for an Athenian?

---

Unless the Athenian in question happened to be a "Spartophile", most likely, barely, as far as he was concerned.

Quote:

---

The Arcadians, Locrians and even Spartans were much more dagnabbit barely-Greek rustics than Makedonians so I guess we have to call them aliens too... :laugh4:

---

What we call them is somewhat irrelevant. What contemporaries thought of them, and vice versa, is the point, and in that regard, more or less. Given the operating logic of intense communal loyalties, I'm willing to bet a neighbour did not have to diverge very much from a citizen of any given community in terms of dialect, lifestyle, details of religious practices etc. to provoke doubts about the properness of his "greekness".

Put this way: the Romans and other Latin tribes certainly understood well enough they used the largely same language, worshipped the largely same gods, more or less shared most social institutions and so on, but did that ever engender much "sibling loyalty" between the lot or any mutual identification ? Same thing.

About the only thing I find odd about the Misellen trait is that I've gotten several Hellen FM's with the Misellen trait. Leaves me sorta confused. I can see how any of the various Makedon types could, or the Thraikians, but not the Hellens; I always figured that even if they weren't Phihellene they would be neutral in that regard.

Quote:

---

Unless the Athenian in question happened to be a "Spartophile", most likely, barely, as far as he was concerned.

---

erm, no this is just factually wrong. There is a word meaning member of the Greek "nation" and of Greek descent, and that is "Hellen". Countless instances of this in texts, e.g. in the Persians of Aeschylus the battle cry of the Greek army "Go children of the Greeks, free the fatherland, free your women, your children, your ancestors' graves", etc (quoting from memory). Even the Greek mainland is called by the name of "Hellas" (after the time of Homer, as Thucydides notes), that is "Greece". The Greeks did have the notion that they belong to a group conected by common descent, religion and language (Herodotos himself says that). The fact that they did not belong together to a unified political entity does not mean that a notion of Greekness was inexistent, quite the contrary.

Yeah, whatever. The point I've been trying to get through for a while now is that while any Greek with eyes could tell these guys who looked similar, spoke similar languages, lived similarly, worshipped the same gods with similar practices etc. obviously were "Hellens" and not for example "Romans" or "Persians" or "Phoenicians" or whatever, that was pretty much it. The idea of common identity more or less stopped right there, and by far more important were one's communal and tribal affiliations.

And those tended to have a fair bit of friction, with pretty much everyone naturally in the opinion their particular brand of "greekness" was the best, and if nothing else their city/kingdom/whatever was the Big Noise all others should pay their respects to.
With the due result the pecking order was being constantly re-established with spears, and fierce communal partisanism was without doubt the norm.

An idea of vague, abstract "Hellene-ness" of course existed, in the manner of all overarching group-identities, the same way the Celtic peoples made a difference between themselves and the Germans, Iberians, Latins etc. and so on.

It just didn't amount to squat in practice, where much more concrete and local indentities reigned.

Quote:

---

It just didn't amount to squat in practice, where much more concrete and local indentities reigned.

---

That is one thing and saying that an Athenian, unless a Spartophile, would view Spartans as non Greeks is another. Chorus songs in Athenian tragedies are in Doric (so probably the dialects weren't mutually incomprehensible), Athenian tragic poets draw from themes and myths concerning a multitude of cities of the Greek world regardless whether Athens comes into the stories or not. Perhaps the cultural overlap was greater than we think it was, but then again it was a feature of Athenian society to be minimally isolationist, it didn't go for every city state.

The political disunity of the Greek world is a fact which no one denies, but overemphasising this to the point of saying that Hellenism as an ancient concept is a construct of philologists and Greek nationalists of the past couple of centuries is just factually wrong and does injustice to any valid points that might be raised about existing cultural differences between city states.

My wording was "barely", though, not "non". The difference between grudging admittance on a technicality and unsustainable outright denial, basically. :beam:

I don't recall seeing evidence of disputes about varying degrees of Greekness between city states, and certainly not between city states that were as major and prominent players as Athens and Sparta. That you might consider some people as hill billies or redneck Greeks, that doesn't mean you brand them as "barbaroi", that is what this word is for.

Anyway, I will stop beating the dead horse, just note please that it is methodologically flawed to use whatever evidence you might have about culture dynamics of group A to draw conclusions that group B must be the same or roughly the same. Our evidence about the Greek world is in the documents that have reached us and in in its surviving art and that's about it. If you cannot draw safe conclusions from those, it wise not to at all.

It's generally safe to assume that unless proven otherwise a commonly occurring human group-behavioral phenomenom will apply equally to groups A, B and C, however.

And aren't you sort of forgetting what this debate was originally all about ? I never did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

It's generally safe to assume that unless proven otherwise a commonly occurring human group-behavioral phenomenom will apply equally to groups A, B and C, however.

And aren't you sort of forgetting what this debate was originally all about ? I never did.

---

Texts prove it otherwise, by not giving support to such theories concerning the Greeks. Everything else is grand theories with little fact to them.

I was under the impression that this was yet another debate of the type "the Greeks, the Universe and Everything", quite common on these boards; am I missing something?

Some people had issues with the Macedonian "Misellenes" trait, remember ?

I don't need to remember, I can click a page back. What is your point anyway? Threads go off topic all the time. Especially threads like these.

The point is that given the considerable amount of rivalry and one-upmanship between the poleis alone it's hardly a stretch to presume considerably greater ones in potentia between the Macedonians and the "southern" Greeks, doubly so given their troubled mutual history post Philip II.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meliritos

Taking guesses is not history. Ill tell you sth that is not a guess. In the ancient times only Greek people were allowed to take part in the Olympic Games, not barbarians (as the Greeks called anyone who was not Greek). Macedonians, Athenians, Korinthians for example took part in the Games and some of their athletes won from time to time some events. That is not a guess, thats a fact. You can fight these evidences with guesses but those who read these lines know better than to trust guesses and not historical facts.
And that thing about the Scotts and such. Yes they live in England and yes they call themselves Scotts and they dont like it otherwise. Thats fine by me. But dont try to compare the situation of the Scotts of the medieval or modern times to the Greeks of 450 B.C. Even the notion of recognising the Greek identity for the city states of that time is an advanced idea for that era. But if you are talking about the modern times and you use the Scotts as an example, then you mix up two things. If you are talking about the modern times then the Macedonians, the Athenians, the Corinthians and the Spartans of our time will answer that they are Greek when you ask them. So what does this tell you? Take a guess...

---

I was only guessing on the date, not the information, why do you assume i guessed about everything?

Your words let me assume that. Anyway, what is your point tell me. Do you want me to accept that Macedonians werent Greek and they were Slavs, Albanians or Turks? Maybe they were Chinese, Mongols or Huns? Please tell me what you want me to believe and i will believe it. Although you cant provide any evidence i will accept anything you want me to so as to get this argue done with, some things they say are unbeatable

Well, I promised myself to never again go back into such a sterile debat...but I would say that there was plenty of evidence in both sides...sometimes exactly the sames, but for radicaly opposed conclusions. So, I'm back.

Saying that the people of the actual Republic of Macedonia are only of slavic origins is as irrelevant as saying that the people of actual Greece are only of pure blood Greek origins...you really think that there's much genetic difference between the population of Greek Macedonia and the population of Republic of Macedonia ?
There wasn't even ONE Greek people, never in the Antiquity...

For me, if the " blood origins " is the only fact who count, then they have perfectly the right of calling themselves " Republic of Macedonia ", even if the majority of their ancestors weren't there at the time of Alexander, the majority of nowadays Greek Macedonia ancestors weren't also there !
The population of Greece as so much various origins !
With all thoses Romans, Slavic, Bulgarians, Normans, Franks and Turkish invasions, and all the naturals migrations of population.
I'm very angry when I saw such hatred because of such false thinking...

Now, back to the point.
About the idea of a cultural Greek identity in the Antiquity, I'm totally agree.
About the use of various dialects relevant of the Greek language and a lots of cultural proximities, I'm also totally agree.
This in no way mean one people.

But there's no common blood or common religion.

Even Spartans and Athenians haven't the same origins, or claimed to have different origins...
Remember of a Spartan kings who said " I could go on the Akropolis, I'm not a Dorian like the other of my people, I'm an Achean " ?
Remember of the scribe of Eumenes ( I don't remember is name, the best sources on early Diadochi wars... ) who said that there was some antagonism between Eumenes and the others Diadochoi because he was the only Greek appointed at such a task, with all others being Macedonians ?
Remember that in the census of population, in the Diadochoi cities, there was a count of Greeks and a count of Macedonians, in the city ?

On the other side, we have Philippos who present himself as a Greek, when it was time to subdue the southern polis under a single Hegemon.
When Alexandros arrived in Persia, when it was time to negotiate with the Median and Persian nobilities, he claimed some Persian origins in his family, due to the time Macedonia was incorporated into a Satrapy...that's politic.

But it's certain that the Macedonian nobility of Alexandros times think of herself as a member of the Greek world. I'm not arguing about this, but about more nationalistic biased point of views.

I say it again, there was a Greek unity in the cultural traditions, I don't disagree with this.

The ancient Greeks were persuaded that EVERYONE worshipped the same gods, in the world...now, if you go deeper into the religious traditions, there was plenty of difference.
Some exemples:
The Artemis of Ephesos was worshipped in the Greek world, but was an Anatolian goodess, absolutly not close to the Artemis you can found in Athenes. But the influence of Artemis of Ephesos on the Greek world is far more important than the " true " Artemis....
At least one Bythinian/Thracian good was worshipped: Dyonisos, who was far more common into the Macedonians and Thessalian religious practice than it was in Sparta.
The Aphrodite of Corinth was a warrior goodess, very different for the love-goodess you can founds elsewhere, say, in Naxos.
The burial customs of the nobility of the Macedonia of Fifth century was exactly the same as the ones described into Homer's Iliad, at the same time, the great polis of the south practiced very different funerary customs ( due to the practical problems posed in much populated and richest areas... )

I'll stop here, because there's litteraly hundreds of evidences such like this one. It's natural that ancient Greeks think they have common gods, because they think that everyone have the same divinities...it's so absolutly not relevant.

The only " common " share is those large and various cultural traditions who were seen as " Greek ", even when they were absolutly not ( Orpheus, Zeus Dodonaï, Artemisiou Ephesiou, the old gods of Samothrace, Griffins of Cyprus...etc... )
All this evidences are, of course, absolutly not relevant into arguing who are placed in nowadays Greece and borders dispute.
The population of actual Greece doesn't descend from only " Old Greeks " ancestors...far far away...ancient Greece is a collection of a dozen of " cousins " people, with all very different influences on them and between them... not less, not much.

For the mishellenes trait, I personnaly think of it being a good thing.
Such racist hatred is historically attested ( Eumenes ) , and a member of the Macedonian nobility could certainly think of himseld being a Macedonian before being a " hellen ", and look with despised and contempt the members of the southern polis, as the members of the southern polis think of themselves being very different...at least, in propaganda...even long after the beginning of EB, there was such antagonism: Cleomenos of Sparta spoke also of " half barbarians Macedonians " when he tried to shack off their power...in the end of the third century...

So if what i conclude from what you are saying is correct, then its vanillas RTW fault that has a Greek faction and a Macedonian one. There should be in fact an Athenian faction, a Corinthian one and a myriad more factions for each city state, because each city was a state of each own. And Persia should be devided to Midoi, to Frygians and a zillion more little factions. Ireland should be devided to each of the clans that where there at that time and Scotland the same. Well, about the same goes for the Iberian area. Thats about a trillion of factions. Ok that makes sense to me now, thanks Pelopidas

Quote:

---

For me, if the " blood origins " is the only fact who count, then they have perfectly the right of calling themselves " Republic of Macedonia ", even if the majority of their ancestors weren't there at the time of Alexander, the majority of nowadays Greek Macedonia ancestors weren't also there !
The population of Greece as so much various origins !
With all thoses Romans, Slavic, Bulgarians, Normans, Franks and Turkish invasions, and all the naturals migrations of population.
I'm very angry when I saw such hatred because of such false thinking...

---

Where did you see hatred? I was pointing out something to someone who brings as evidence for ancient disputes the fact that there is nowadays a state called Republic of Macedonia, the people of which have no connection to ancient Macedonians. You are fighting strawmen, I never said they have no right to the name of "Macedonians", they live in the region called Macedonia, so why not? I just point out the irrelevance of the existence of a Republic of Macedonia in an ancient context.

Furthermore, what are the standards for the fabled "one people" anyway? I am using ancient definitions myself, I know the Greeks saw themselves as belonging to different ancestral groups, but they still saw themselves as belonging together to a greater group. That doesn't cancel the fact that in their own words they called themselves by a collective name.

Did anyone here argue that the Greeks were a colony of insectoids with one mind and that they were spawned from the Greek soil and that they were the absolute "One People", with no differences existing between their groups and subgroups within the subgroups ad infinitum? Why, is there such a "unified people nowadays? Do all English, all Italians, all Greeks, all Turks, all Chinese, regardless of region where they live in, follow the same lifestyle and define themselves in the same way nowadays? Even today under Christianity people in various parts of Greece honour different saints as patrons of their regions, so much for the "One Religion" as well; did anyone here claim that there was some sort of dogma of Greek religion so that it would be "One"? Before Hellenistic times there wasn't the kind of syncretism which allowed for identifying gods of barbarians with Greek gods either. So who are you arguing against?

Who mentioned the descent of modern Greeks either? I am a Greek and I am the first to say that nationally there is very little, apart from a language obviously descented from Greek (despite its artificial archaisms) we can identify between ourselves and the ancients that has come down directly through the centuries, and that is really folks religion and folks customs, wherever they survive. About blood I wont speak, and neither should anyone unless a leading autority in genetics. Are you inventing nationalist strawmen to fight against?

Now about the juxtaposition of Greeks and Macedonians in ancient texts, like the census or where it is mentioned "Macedonians and the Greeks" why do people choose to view that as portraying a differentiation on national grounds and not on political grounds? Why is this kind of phrase not similar to the "Athenians and the allies"? In both cases you have a dominant political group and a subordinate one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meliritos

So if what i conclude from what you are saying is correct, then its vanillas RTW fault that has a Greek faction and a Macedonian one. There should be in fact an Athenian faction, a Corinthian one and a myriad more factions for each city state, because each city was a state of each own. And Persia should be devided to Midoi, to Frygians and a zillion more little factions. Ireland should be devided to each of the clans that where there at that time and Scotland the same. Well, about the same goes for the Iberian area. Thats about a trillion of factions. Ok that makes sense to me now, thanks Pelopidas

---

Um? That doesn't even follow. Stop being antagonistic just because you don't agree with the poster; it is neither mature, friendly, nor reasonable.

This debate was never how to represent the Greek factions in game, either in vanilla or EB. The debate came from the idea of the Misellenes trait. Pelopidas has raised some interesting and powerful evidence to the defence of the idea that the Macedonian's could see themselves as better than their southern brothers. You, defending the other position, have show none. Get some evidence together and stop being so defensive about the argument here.

I mean it.

Foot

No, no you get it wrong. I totally agree with Pelopidas. And in fact i extend his perspective and just say it is fair to have more greek factions. I dont know why there should be a Greek factions that includes Athenians, Spartans and Corinthians and a separate Macedonian faction. I believe it should be many little factions or one that covers all, from Sparta to Macedonia.Get it now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

Where did you see hatred? I was pointing out something to someone who brings as evidence for ancient disputes the fact that there is nowadays a state called Republic of Macedonia, the people of which have no connection to ancient Macedonians. You are fighting strawmen, I never said they have no right to the name of "Macedonians", they live in the region called Macedonia, so why not? I just point out the irrelevance of the existence of a Republic of Macedonia in an ancient context.

Furthermore, what are the standards for the fabled "one people" anyway? I am using ancient definitions myself, I know the Greeks saw themselves as belonging to different ancestral groups, but they still saw themselves as belonging together to a greater group. That doesn't cancel the fact that in their own words they called themselves by a collective name.

Did anyone here argue that the Greeks were a colony of insectoids with one mind and that they were spawned from the Greek soil and that they were the absolute "One People", with no differences existing between their groups and subgroups within the subgroups ad infinitum? Why, is there such a "unified people nowadays? Do all English, all Italians, all Greeks, all Turks, all Chinese, regardless of region where they live in, follow the same lifestyle and define themselves in the same way nowadays? Even today under Christianity people in various parts of Greece honour different saints as patrons of their regions, so much for the "One Religion" as well; did anyone here claim that there was some sort of dogma of Greek religion so that it would be "One"? Before Hellenistic times there wasn't the kind of syncretism which allowed for identifying gods of barbarians with Greek gods either. So who are you arguing against?

Who mentioned the descent of modern Greeks either? I am a Greek and I am the first to say that nationally there is very little, apart from a language obviously descented from Greek (despite its artificial archaisms) we can identify between ourselves and the ancients that has come down directly through the centuries, and that is really folks religion and folks customs, wherever they survive. About blood I wont speak, and neither should anyone unless a leading autority in genetics. Are you inventing nationalist strawmen to fight against?

Now about the juxtaposition of Greeks and Macedonians in ancient texts, like the census or where it is mentioned "Macedonians and the Greeks" why do people choose to view that as portraying a differentiation on national grounds and not on political grounds? Why is this kind of phrase not similar to the "Athenians and the allies"? In both cases you have a dominant political group and a subordinate one.

---

The genetical analysis of Dr Triandafyllides is quite interesting...

http://kyttariki.biol.uoa.gr/WWWROOT...C9%CA%D4%D9%CD