Alexanders ethnicity ?

[Michael]

I am confused, most of the text on Alexander clearly states that he is a Macedonian from Macedonia, and helped the Greeks conquer Persia, after Persia had gained some Greek cities some time before.
Why is it that the Greeks refer to him as a Greek ?
Was there not a country called Macedonia ? before it was carved up in 1913?
I can understand the desire to want to claim the legend of Alexander as your own,ie Greek, but is it true?

[marcus]

Hi Michael,I'm not actually going to give you a definite answer to your question of ethnicity, partly because I am undecided and partly because any question like that opens up such a can of worms and we end up having to delete all the nationalistic diatribes that inevitably follow.However, hopefully this will help a bit (and forgive me if I am telling you stuff you already know). In the ancient world Greece as we know it (ie. the EU country) didn't exist. The area was split into different city states which were inhabited by people of pretty much the same culture, language, religion etc. - ie. The Greeks. In the northern area of what is part of modern Greece was the kingdom of Macedonia, which bears absolutely no relation to the former Yugoslav republic except for the name. The Macedonians, whether or not they were truly 'Greek' had many cultural similarities, probably including language and definitely including at least a high proportion of the religious beliefs. There were differences between the Macedonians and the city states, however - a monarchy on the primus inter pares principle, a tendancy to eat more meat (I'm serious - this was fuel for the anti-Macedonians' speeches) and to drink strong wine... and many others.Do not be gulled by the "he was Greek"/"he was a Slav" rants about Alexander, as these have only arisen since the formation of the state of Macedonia in the early 90s.As I say, I am making no claims about Alexander's ethnicity and I hope that this attempt at giving you some sort of answer doesn't appear to make any claims.All the bestMarcus

[yiannis]

Well said Marcus. I believe that the decision was that we wouldnGÇÖt discuss this Greek-Macedonian debate, as it seems to attract too many fanatics. So let's not open this issue again. Everyone can read and reach his/her own conclusion.
But, in any case, no there were no "countries" as we know them today back then. Ethnic countries weren't developed in Europe until the 18th century. Up till then a poor French peasant had much more in common with a poor German or Italian than with the aristocracy of his "country".regards,
Yiannis

[susan]

The tendency to eat more meat isn't trivial - it probably helped the Macedonians to conquer the Greeks and Persians - they probably had much more stamina. I know that you, Marcus, did some work on Icelandic sagas - I suppose you've been to Iceland. I ran an EC project involving Icelandic fishermen and they seemed to eat little else than meat and fish, and were incredibly strong - I thought that the original Vikings must be very similar.I just hope this doesn't start a vegetarian / carnivore debate.Susan

[yiannis]

Well, the reasons are mostly economic. The Macedonians, unlike the rest of Greeks were mostly shepherds, while the economy of the city-states was mostly agricultural and/or depended on craftsmen and commerce. Therefore they had a bigger varietty in their nutrition. What you say regarding carnivores vs. vegetarians might be truth for the Neandertalian humans but not in the 4th-5th century BC.
There's a great book called the kitchen of the ancients that has ancient Greece recipes. Also there's a restaurant in Athens preparing these dishes! (+çttp://http://www.arxaion.gr/english/main_en.htm) and you can see the dishes that they serve.
Bon appetite!
Yiannis

[marcus]

Absolutely.I don't know about the Icelandic fishermen but when I was in Iceland I ate pretty much nothing but meat - either lamb or whale for the most part.I have to confess that, rather than giving me more stamina and energy, it made me rather heavy and lugubrious! But, then, I wasn't intending to raid the coast of Northumbria as a post-prandial constitutional :0)All the bestMarcus

[pavlos_melas]

I agree with Yiannis on the diet issue. I'm not convinced that nourishment or dietary habits were the reason for Macedonian army successes. Phillip II's extraordinary and innvovative efforts to create a truly professional and highly motivated military machine, coupled with a weakened Athens and Thebes, spelled the end for the Greek city-state.But I would be curious to take a look at some of these diet-based studies of different cultures. They can tell us a lot about any society.

[nick]

Totally of topic, but if you find Paul Theroux' book Fresh Air Fiend please read the short chapter "Tasting the Pacific".
(By the way - I am very happy with this strange new twist that the Greek-Mac debate has taken. Yes, let's talk about food!)
Regards -
Nick

[Stavros]

helloI know this forum avoids discussing ATG's ehtnicity.However, there is one thing that is certain! If I was studying a person who lived in the past, my first questions would comprise of, What was their nationality? What part of the world did they come from? what language did they speak etc.. etc.. To me these questions would become the foundations of conducting any study on any person in general. Discussing what one achieved would be pointless if these fundamental questions were not answered??After visiting this website and participating in this forum there are quite a few members who have studied ATG extensively and probably know more about Alexander through their sources than he did himself? Therefore being able to form an opinion that is accurate about the great mans ethnicity sould be obvious. Due to the developements in the early 90's ATG's identity is cluttered. Being non-greek and not knowing anything about Greece and ATG you would beleive ATG was anything but Hellenic, due to the outrageous claims and confusion made against this region of Greece, threatening Greece and its identity as a whole.kind regards,Stavros S

[Dave J]

What an intreging arguement. I understand that for most city dwellers the only ate meat at festival times due not only to poverty but blood guilt. From my understanding of Greek Religion a beast could not simply be killed without incurring blood guilt. City sponsors festivals resulted in a glut of guilt free meat for the citizenry to eat. I do not think that the meat versus grain diet had much to do with the superiority of the Macedonians at the time of Alexander the great. The Greek population had been in decline for some time, the Peloponnesian war and the after effects, the sacred war bd dozens of other petty squables meant Greece was in a bad way. That is not taking anything away from Philip and his magnificent (full time professional army) who I doubt got to see much meat on campaign, a donkey, or horse can carry heaps quicky but a cow is practically useless (although delicious) at carry not to mention very slow moving. Ancient and modern armies can only move as fast as there baggage train. Therefore I would suspect the only meat Alexanders men got to eat was Persian. All this leads to me to think that Alexanders McPersian feed men were superior due to there training rather then from any dietry reasons.PS. My dad is a butcher so I am definetly not a VEggie.

[nick]

Hi Stavros !You wrote:
"I know this forum avoids discussing ATG's ehtnicity."
Well, I think we like "discussing" the issue. The problem is that we have had so many postings that had nothing to do with a "discussion". Just people abusing eachother. If that would start again, it would degrade the overall 'quality' of the site. These 'debates' had little to do with Alexander - he was just used as an excuse for starting a nationalistic argument.
You wrote: "Due to the developements in the early 90's ATG's identity is cluttered"
Exactly - that is why we try to avoid starting this ethnic "debate" again. I suppose an open discussion like this present one is totally agreeable. You are right: the ('ethnic') background of a historical figure needs to be adressed. But for the sake of studying that person/history. Not for the sake of backing up modern nationalistic viewpoints. (In those cases the G/M-debate is indeed considered "inapropriate".)
Regards -
Nick