Alexander the great, Macedonian or Greek?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

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.

Sorry but I don't understand something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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??

Quote:

---

Because of its multi-ethnicity,

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound of Ulster

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?

.
Stuartish. :surrender:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.
Stuartish. :surrender:
.

---

:laugh4: :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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..

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.
Stuartish. :surrender:
.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

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

---

My bad :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

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 ?

Quote:

---

...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...

The Greek historians like Herodutus and others always referenced the Greek gods when describing the gods of the so-called barbarians.

The Thracians were barbarians as far as the Greeks were concerned.