Why only Parts of Macedonia are Greek

[Efstathios]

Paralus have you read my replies to the previous thread concerning "Aneboa Makedonisti" and the incident with the Philotas trial? When i am talking about mis-translations and misconecptions,i mean that exactly.Arrian does not include the word "Makedonisti" when he says that Alexander called his guards.Therefore this word might have been aded by a bad translation of Plutarch some one thousand year ago or more. The texts of the sources that we read nowdays have not been discovered by archaeological excavations as many people think ,but they were preserved in libraries (many of them in christian monasteries).And they have been copied,modified maybe and translated many times during these 1900 years.We cannot know for sure what the prototype said.And since we have two contradicting sources about these matter,Arrian and Plutarch,we cant be sure if the word Makedonisti was in the prototype or if it was a mis-translation. Yet again in the second example,the conclusion you make regarding the messenger is your oppinion only.It doesnt have to be a "language" matter.A macedonian could be send in order for the Macedonian sodiers of the other side to trust him easier than an Athenian,for example.After all it was a war between Macedonians. The Macedonian language was a dorian dialect very similar with the Thessalian one(the aeolian).And the aeolian was also a dorian greek dialect.Nowdays if i hear someone from Crete talking,i may not understand some words.Some local idiomatisms.What does that say?That the Cretans dont speak greek?In one of Stratis' comedies we see a Macedonian explaining to the Athenians what some words meant (that were heard in the piece)in the Macedonian dialect.Only some words.Not the whole piece.Like the example i gave with the Cretan. And last,all the names in the tombs of Vergina are greek names written with greek letters.And many of these tombs were before Phillips and Alexander's time.From the 5th century.

[Paralus]

G'day Efsthasios.I did read your comments on the previous thread. I did not comment because I saw it (the thread) much that same as did Rex Jones. The poster may well have asked the questions in baby-like innocence but since he has raised the issue before (can't remember the thread), I think not. "Alexander was both a Macedonianian and a Greek the way Leonides was both Spartan and Greek.In both leaders there nationality and Greek were interwoven.Greek was a cultural lingusistic / genetic term not a nationality. The modern concept of a nation state did not exist at that time."So posted "Jim" and I wholeheartedly concur. The issue the ancient Macedonian dialect or language has never really been settled. It is enough to say that other ("southern"?) Greeks could not always make sense of it. Those who visited the Macedonian court did exactly that: visit the court. The active encouragement of "all things Greek" and its adoption by court nobility had been a big part of that court since Alexander I. It continued into Hellenistic times with Macedonian rulers (particularly Antigonus Gonatas) patronising Greek poets and philosophers.Were Alexander, Philotas, Parmenio or Ptolemy to have been asked to state their "country", it would have been Macedon.I take your points re translation. Yes, it is not wise to slavishly follow Demosthenes polemics to the letter: they were written for a purpose. As was Isocrates. Having despaired of Athens, Sparta or Thebes to lead his crusade of retribution and Lebensraum in the East, he settled on the next power in the peninsular: Philip II."Persians (while they were on their conquests on Greece in 500-480 bc)described the people living in Macedonia as "The Greeks wearing a shield-like hat" and who were non other than the Macedonians themselves"Correct and a good point. In the same way as generations of Greeks since the invasions of 490-79 had referred to the Persians as Medes and accused Persian sympathisers of "Medising". They singularly failed to realise that the Medes were a people the Iranians (Persians) had conquered during the sixth century.Cont....

[Paralus]

The numismatic example you gave is also good. In a country where the king has sole control over what is minted, the coins will represent what he wishes. It would be self evident that a monarchy having expended such energy over its Greek ties would naturally use Greek on its coinage. Ditto royal burials.The examples given in my previous post were actually raised and discussed by E Badian. I should have attributed them at the time GÇô slovenly on my part. It can be found here:http://www.gate.net/~mango/Badian.htmIn any case, the thread distracts from the actual purpose of the site. My view GÇô as opposed to E Badian's views GÇô would be that if Alexander were to be asked what he was he would reply "a Macedone" first and "Greek" second. What that may actually prove, I don't know.Paralus.

[Efstathios]

Paralus,it's pretty simple what it proves.And the answer is in what you have said: "Were Alexander, Philotas, Parmenio or Ptolemy to have been asked to state their "country", it would have been Macedon." Similarily, if Leonidas had been asked to state his country,it would have been Lakedaimona,and for Demosthenes Athens,and for Odysseus Ithaka. The greeks considered their city-state as a country, but they didnt use the word country as we percieve it today.Though they knew that they were all hellenes.And it was Phillip,and later on Alexander that percieved a unification of all hellenes and to stop the wars between the city-states.If Alexander thought of himself as something else rather than greek,he wouldnt have had these thoughts.And that goes for Phillip too, who had enough army to invade Asia by himself.But he wanted the rest of the hellenes by his side.The fact that he took a small number of southern greeks was due to the fact that he was probably afraid of a rebellion inside his army,if the numbers were big enough to support one.It's plain simple...

[Paralus]

G'day Efsthasios.I don't for a minute believe Philip was afraid of a rebellion from within his own army due to the numbers of "Southern" Greeks which he may have included. This because GÇô like his son GÇô he didn't intend to draw significant levies from the League, the expedition always being a Macedonian one. The advance force (some 11,000) was Macedonian. Philip may though have made more use of Athens (ships).I don't believe Philip's motivation during a lifetime of aggressive Macedonian expansion through divide and rule politics and conquest was unification of the Greek poleis. His essential re-constitution of the "League of Corinth" and having himself appointed its hegemon (and appointed he was GÇô by himself) was a necessary piece of the cover for Macedonian imperialism. The Athenians in the previous century played a similar tune but eventually simply in the end settled for calling it what it was: imperialism.

If Philip (and Alexander) did desire a unification of the Greek poleis, it was in pacified obeisance behind their eastward marching backs. But this is for another thread.Suffice to say I've no huge problem with Alexander's "Greekness". For all intents and purposes, the Greek poleis at the time were part of Macedonia. Something they fiercely resented. But then they resented any hegemony imposed on them GÇô particularly by main force. And particularly this one.In any case, if Alexander declared himself a Greek, who was to argue? This is a bloke who apparently issued an instruction to the united Hellenes of the unified poleis of Greece to recognise their league captain-general as a god.Paralus

[bob]

Okay, If I offended anyone sorry. I am just trying to learn, and I am NOT an ALexander Expert, but I have done a lot of reading, at least a dozen books. But I need to read them again and again. Back to the discussion I have been asking. The historical quotes I posted. I need to better understand these ancient quotes, and if I need to be "set straight" fine. To be blunt, when I read the ancient sources, I am confused greatly as to the distinction between many terms, like Makedonian and Greek. I can care less about modern politics, or national boundries. What does arrian mean for example on racial rivalry, was it really a polis rivalry? What is arrian talking about in this quote:
[Book II - Battle of Issus] "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." [p.119] Arrian Ancient Greek Historian The Campaigns of Alexander

[bob]

I want to avoid the modern political issue. However, since this interests me, and we all need to obey the forum rules, can someone email me privately why greeks did not live in "historical macedonia" and why the modern nation doesn't wan't to encorporate the nation of Macedonia into itself today. I know nothing of the modern situation outside of the fact one exists, and we are not suppossed to talk about it, but since I am planning a very expensive greek vacation (and was considering macdonia) I think this is important for me to understand. Before I spend big bucks. Thanks please email to robert7sass@yahoo.com

[bob]

I agree that Alexander the Philip were not afraid of division in thier own army. But with that post, and the previous one, did Philip and Alexander really intend to unite Greece or to rule Greece (accept for the weak Sparta?) Not to mention, if Alexander intended to unite Greece, what was the point of demolishing Thebes and selling into slavery or murdering all of its inhabitants but a few women and priests? That would not unify Greece, but send a message of "submit or else..."

[Paralus]

G'day Bob.My view with respect to Hellenic unification is fairly clear in my previous post.As to the Thebes issue, it appears you GÇô as I did GÇô took the message as I think it was intended.Paralus

[kokino kolo]

Bobgo to Ellas (Hellas) and see with you own eyes. enjoy your trip.