Makedonian history now online

[keravnos]

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/fac...a_history.html

It is based on Hammond's excellent "Phillip of Macedon" book. (in fact it is the first few pages of it re-translated back into english)
Hammond is the single best source on Makedonia. An English scholar and a freedom fighter he fought with British Special Operation Units for spec ops behind enemy lines in Albanian and Greek soil during WWII. A Noble hero as well as a Historian to many people, myself included.

For more about the man himself,
http://p071.ezboard.com/Obituary-of-...picID=62.topic

(It will be filled in, in the future to give greater details on the Antigonids up until Perseus)

I think you should take a look. It might help clear out what was Makedonia and who the Makedones really were.

[Aranor]

Wow sweet! I shall enjoy reading this as I get it prepared to be converted for EBCIV.

[SaberHRE]

Thank you Keravnos! Thanks to your recommendation I have ordered the book.

[keravnos]

Thank you Keravnos! Thanks to your recommendation I have ordered the book.

No, thank You. Hammond is currently only known in Academia, whereas he should be known as an excellent writer as well.

I have read it times already, and currently re-reading it. I think that book is the single best way to understand the Diadochoi. All of them, from Antiochos III to Pyrrhos to Menandros of the Indogreeks. Why they did what they did, why they fought so hard to expand in all directions, and why they kept fighting among themselves to be n.1 even as external enemies were invading. It's all there.

Of course it all explains how 2 people (Phillipos II and Alexandros III) when the circumstances were right were able to conquer the whole world. Because everyone can understand that without Phillipos there could never be an Alexandros. That success, however, did carry in itself the seed of its destruction, namely that the only way to effectively govern such a state would be to be n.1, hence the Diadochi. All wanted to be n.1 in their state, and... well, you know what happened.

[SaberHRE]

No, thank You. Hammond is currently only known in Academia, whereas he should be known as an excellent writer as well.

I have read it times already, and currently re-reading it. I think that book is the single best way to understand the Diadochoi. All of them, from Antiochos III to Pyrrhos to Menandros of the Indogreeks. Why they did what they did, why they fought so hard to expand in all directions, and why they kept fighting among themselves to be n.1 even as external enemies were invading. It's all there.

Of course it all explains how 2 people (Phillipos II and Alexandros III) when the circumstances were right were able to conquer the whole world. Because everyone can understand that without Phillipos there could never be an Alexandros. That success, however, did carry in itself the seed of its destruction, namely that the only way to effectively govern such a state would be to be n.1, hence the Diadochi. All wanted to be n.1 in their state, and... well, you know what happened.

My friend, told me to buy myself one of Hammond's books, but I was reluctant due to it's high price and rarity. But hearing this, I decided to go ahead. And I can't wait to read it

[Sarkiss]

Hammond is the single best source on Makedonia.

lucky me, i own a copy of "Phillip of Macedon"

[Maion Maroneios]

Finally!!! Good job lads!

[The Persian Cataphract]

Hammond is one of the foremost authorities on the Graeco-Macedonians, along with the likes of Robin Lane Fox; However typical of these scholars is that their knowledge on the Iranian side of the issue is usually lacking. Nicholas Hammond is not an exception, and for instance his baseless estimates for the battle of the Persian Gates, where he pits Ariobarzanes with the figure of 40,000 men (Without visiting the site outside Yâsûj and Cheshmêh Chênâr in question) against Alexander's roughly 20,000 men has baffled Iranology for years, and these figures are still taken as dogma, even though Iranology sensibly posits a figure of "hardly any more than the Ariobarzanes retinue must have commanded prior to Gaugamela". Some even go as low as 700, but this is probably only the cavalry. Darius III Codomannus mustered barely 10,000 men in Ecbatana, yet Hammond suggests that a satrap who brought a low figure of troops to Gaugamela mustered 40,000 men. Not plausible. Especially given the possibility of Uxian refugees probably heading along the route.

So, this is just to emphasize that in EB nothing is taken, to the best of our abilities, as dogma. Hammond is used to provide certain bits of information for the Macedonians, Bar-Kochva is largely used for the Seleucids, while the likes of Prof. Shapur Shahbazi, or Ehsan Yarshater is used for Parthian military history and archaeology; Janos Harmatta, Valerii Nikonorov and Gorelik et al. are referred to for the scholastics on nomads. Yet we try to stray from the dogma associated with "ad verecundiam", and thus our reliance on scholastics is usually more or less of the observer's point-of-view.

[Idomeneas]

great book!

[The Wicked]

Έυγε !!!! At last some real history...... I love you EB team....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hammond was a very knowledgable historian and he had a good grasp of his subject matter, but I would warn that he was unashamedly pro-Macedonian and that much of what he writes is pulled together from disperate sources and the picture is never as clear or full as he would like to make it.

[The Persian Cataphract]

True, but this "trait" is pretty widespread in the "chief-priest" historians, who are usually considered the foremost in their fields, and can be quite tricky to interpret: To some as a sign of commitment, passion and enthusiasm, and to others as a sign of fascination gone beyond reason and professional neutrality. Hammond, in this case is not unique, which is quite the relief actually, because with so many stuck up old fools arguing between one and another, they offset and balance each other, keeping themselves in check. So it can be a bad thing, or a good thing.

One thing is for sure, with such an enthusiasm, you are sure that the produce expected from such an individual will not only be full of content, but also enjoyable; Historians who really do burn for what they like, tend to exhibit a lot of energy and express joy at even the most "insignificant" things. Like an archaeologist who finds a potsherd with perhaps a fragment of a writing or a motif. Normally you couldn't understand the fuss for all the worth of your life, but to the archaeologist, it's a moment of bliss, a great achievement, unearthing something never before seen (Ideally). I find it easy to forgive the likes of Hammond and Robin Lane Fox, because even though they practically idolize Alexander, much to the dismay of Iranology, hey it's not like I haven't walked around crusading for pre-Islamic Iranian culture.

[Emperor Burakuku]

Are there true objectivistic historians? I never heard of any. Or true objectivistic people at all? I think it depends more on the cumulative knowledge of the reader and his power to to detach oneself from all "propaganda" and all preferential kind of treatment in history. It's just an opinion. Are there any true objective opinions regarding communism? We had it for 50 years here and still people are arguing like madmen (and that's quite recent). Arguing about things we will never know for sure, seems kind of childish to me. Like I said, it's just an opinion. Objectivism remains a mystery that seems to be in true parallelism with human nature. Sorry for the bad english.

[Dhampir]

Are there true objectivistic historians? I never heard of any. Or true objectivistic people at all? I think it depends more on the cumulative knowledge of the reader and his power to to detach oneself from all "propaganda" and all preferential kind of treatment in history. It's just an opinion. Are there any true objective opinions regarding communism? We had it for 50 years here and still people are arguing like madmen (and that's quite recent). Arguing about things we will never know for sure, seems kind of childish to me. Like I said, it's just an opinion. Objectivism remains a mystery that seems to be in true parallelism with human nature. Sorry for the bad english.

There are those who strive for it and those who don't. The former are to be held in higher regard.

[keravnos]

Hammond was a very knowledgable historian and he had a good grasp of his subject matter, but I would warn that he was unashamedly pro-Macedonian and that much of what he writes is pulled together from disperate sources and the picture is never as clear or full as he would like to make it.

I would say that what you write is true, BUT, there are no sources that the Makedonians or the Epeirotes for that matter have left us. There used to be an "Ephemeris tou Basileos" that a King would send over to his country to be read aloud in all of the Poleis of the Kingdom. Pyrrhos wrote the "Hypomnemata" of which the only thing saved are the casualty figures of Ausculum/Asklo, aka "6000+ Romani dead, 3000+ Epeirotes dead". That's it. How can one be objective when all we get is Romani historiam, aka a winners' "I did it my way" song?

It is obvious to all that total objectivity in history can be had ONLY if two opposing sources speaking of the same thing exist. This is how, today, we can easily discern those who speak when they have something to say to those who continue with the "same old tired and true" adages. It is very easy to be an academian on your ivory tower and gaze at the world, yet somehow, Hammond transcended that. He went out there, he parachuted to the trenches and fought. And instead of being applauded for that he is called "unashamedly pro-Macedonian", because he tried to discern what was true in what basically is Romani victory speeches.

Hell, we need more unashamedly pro-macedonian historians because the alternative are just more "Romani fanboyz", who all they ever do is re-rehash some "Romani were destined by divine justice to rule the world" partyline, then call everyone else "nationalist" because they tried to find out the truth for a period 2000+ years from today using fragments of truth and good old reason.

Romani republic for me is the penultimate business success story. The way they ruled their ever expanding domain, the way they compartmentalised the state, the way their regional managers gave account of their action to the board of trustees, aka Senate, or the fact that out of that board one person would be elected annually as a CEO/CFO. Tax farming, however brutal to the conquered, was and is the most effective state-increase revenue source, with only "loot, slash and burn" as being more effective than that, but that would be a "one time only" opportunity.

To portray the Romani, one would have to let them out of their pedestal and let them fight for themselves, as they did in RL. Pretty much most of the time they would make it, much like it happened. Battles like those which Caesar won against his own countrymen in Africa, in which case the battle would be dependent on each legionnaire doing his duty and winning against insurmountable odds. Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla when he was FC of the Romani and the rest of the EB Roma Squad did wonders on that front. Now with all 16 gentes of the Romani in place, with full Roman music and named legions to boot, it will be a Romani campaign that is fully immersive.

I would call myself a "Romani fanboy". I believe that The Romani in their full extent of their empire, from 28 BCE up to 1453 CE did create a "superstate" of sorts, a feat which is unparalleled since. But they did it one fight at the time, losing a lot of men in the bargain, and by fighting in some remote part of the empire, which didn't care if those souls were alive or dead. I have said it and will say again, but the true heros of the empire were the battle hardened centurions which held the line of the rivers up north, saved countless of senator generals from doom and still remain anonymous, to the limitaneii of later empire, and up until the Akrites of Medieval rome, which Gibbon erroneously called "Byzantium".

Let's discuss this "Bastion of objectivity" Gibbon.

Hellenistic monarchs have been painted in a very distorted light by Romani winners. Anyone who dares defend them, and especially their homeland Makedonia is to be commended. Anyone who dares go even beyond that and fight on the trenches for the the things he writes about is far beyond commendation. He elevates from a simple historian to something else entirely. Hammond did that and as such he will be remembered.

[asteris_]

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/fac...a_history.html

It is based on Hammond's excellent "Phillip of Macedon" book. (in fact it is the first few pages of it re-translated back into english)
Hammond is the single best source on Makedonia. An English scholar and a freedom fighter he fought with British Special Operation Units for spec ops behind enemy lines in Albanian and Greek soil during WWII. A Noble hero as well as a Historian to many people, myself included.

For more about the man himself,
http://p071.ezboard.com/Obituary-of-...picID=62.topic

(It will be filled in, in the future to give greater details on the Antigonids up until Perseus)

I think you should take a look. It might help clear out what was Makedonia and who the Makedones really were.

Glad to hear it !

Continue with the good job!

[Vorian]

You are a bit late.... :D

[Hax]

Sorry but I think you missunderstood me Hax. I only said that true objectivism is just a concept, can't be reached by any human individual. That's all. About the hypocrisy... I really wasn't ironical at all. Don't get it why ppl get angry so fast really. It must be my bad english. Can't do much about it, sorry mate. I won't discuss this any further so it won't degenerate (but I don't see why it would degenerate

I'm sorry, I just read this. It wasn't directed towards you, but it was directed to the overall statement that the Makedonian history was now online. I'm not against it, I only fear that there will be a lot of nationalists from the Balkans that will whine about it.