B4 ATG

[kokino kolo]

"...How could they (the Macedonians) prove themselves more philellines with what they did so as the rest (the other Greeks) would not be occupied..." Isocratis Panigirikos, 96
Orator, 436-338BC

[marcus]

Sticking a quote on the forum, without any explanation of why you've done so, or any clue as to what your point is, is not really very helpful.Perhaps you could elaborate (so long as it has nothing to do with *modern* ethnicity)?ATBMarcus

[amyntoros]

You have a much more generous attitude to this than I do, as it appears to me to be a continuation of the previous Greek/Macedonian debate and (again) I donGÇÖt see why it needs a new thread when four others are still active. My first thoughts this morning in response to this?Thwack! Thud! Bam! Ker-thunk! (The sound of Amyntoros banging her head against the wall.)

[Paralus]

Ho hum. Here we go again. Are we on a closed loop tape?Paralus

[ruthaki]

Like a doggie with a bone. grrrrr.

[bob]

I know I said another post would be my last, but I have a suggestion. Maybe Pathos.org should add a "banned" book list/author list to its website. Apparently, Peter Green, Badian, Eugene Borza (and I am sure a list of other authors who at this time I am unaware of) should be put on a public page of this website attacking them for propagandaizing the modern political forbidden subject). Thus, when people who are new and unaware of "propaganda", they will not quote from these books on the forum. Just a thought.

[Paralus]

Yo! Bob!Calm down mate - if you were to get that up, I'd have precious little to read!Strewth! Immagine Macedonian ancient history sans Green, Badian and Borza....Don't look Ethel! Don't look!Paralus.

[amyntoros]

IGÇÖm going to discuss the bigger picture here, and to illustrate my point I will respond not just to this comment but to several you have made on other threads in the last couple of days. First of all, the historical Greek/Macedonian debate is nominally discouraged because it so often incites people to post whose major area of interest *is* the modern political situation GÇô and on occasion the forum has descended into anarchy. That is the reason it is frowned upon, and no other. At this point in time, a good proportion of the discussion has remained focused on ancient sources so this has not been a problem. My objection, and the objection of others, has been the proliferation of new threads on the same topic. There are still four threads (that did not originate with you) about this, and one more that you co-opted. And thatGÇÖs not counting the couple of threads that have just been pushed off the page. Had the debate been contained within one or two threads I probably wouldnGÇÖt be commenting (although perhaps you might still be doing so). This is a public forum and participants are not *required* to answer questions or discuss a subject. For the vast majority it isnGÇÖt a question of been open-minded or not - many people are simply not interested, even when the discussion stays within the historical context. They can not (and should not) be forced to respond. This is a discussion group and not a reference library and when the same issues are brought up over and over again in different threads it doesnGÇÖt encourage the participation of others, but rather discourages them (even from starting new topics). No matter how many times anyone that is fomenting this debate adds a quote without comment or rephrases a question, it will not make any difference to your perceived quality of the responses. You have about six or seven people who are actively participating in the discussion and it looks like it will remain that way. If you donGÇÖt get the answers in the manner in which you desire, then so be it. I donGÇÖt know what else you expect from the forum. You have an active debate in your area of interest taking place in five different threads while others are getting only one or two answers to their questions. As for your remarks above regarding the books, Peter Green is number one in the Pothos Top Ten list of books. This does not mean that members canGÇÖt object to or discuss some of the things he says. Your comment is unnecessary GÇô this isnGÇÖt about

[amyntoros]

Your comment is unnecessary GÇô this isnGÇÖt about a so-called GÇ£banned subject any more, and hasnGÇÖt been since one or two earlier remarks about what *may* happen when this subject is brought up.Regards,Amyntoros

[bob]

You know, you are right, the comment was made out of frustration, and was not necessary. Plus, I need to understand forums get heated, and chose to not care when people accuse me of having agendas. Maybe Green is wrong on a few things, I am not right on everything, thus, I am making an apology. Sorry for the unnessecary post made out of frustration. Before I purchase Eugene Borza's book; does anyone have any comments or recommendations on the book? Now, I am going to review the forbidden topic on my own off this forum. Can anyone give me an alternative website, discussing the "other side" than history of macedonia.org? Or some middle websites? I am dying to know why everyone is so passionate about it, and will do it off the forum, and not ask anymore about where to get information. Do Alexander fans find the history of Alexander on that website accurate?

[kennyxx]

Bob HailNo one in this site or anywhere else can say what or if any of the sources are accurate.The sources were writen centuries after Alexanders death and supposedly taken from thre Royal Journals. Ptolemys journals and Nearchus and no one can say for definate that thse were even accurate.For a more recent analogy. Elvis Presley universally known. yet 30 years following his death. several so called friend come out with totally different stories. fare enough the basics are the same. Dates records movies achievements etc. buta s a rule they will all tell a different personality and what he was like behind the scenes and with these boys.All we can do is read the acoounts and work out logically with hind sight. Well would Alexander kill his father the pros and cons. Only one subject but through careful consideration looking at the evidence I believe it highly unlikely he didnt know.RegardsKenny

[amyntoros]

Bob, the accuracy of the site you mention depends, once again, on the viewpoint of those who have a particular interest in this topic. Now, if you are looking for a good general website on Alexander you could try: http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/Alexanderama.html. Click on Web Biographies to find links to some pages that you will find of interest, although said links arenGÇÖt always up to date or valid. CanGÇÖt help on BorzaGÇÖs book; itGÇÖs been too long since I read it.Best regards,Amyntoros

[bob]

Thanks Kenny, and All. I am done researching the "modern" crisis. Actually, what decided my viewpoint for me was the New Testament. Paul (who I call a "Charismaniac") wrote letters to two Macedonian Churches (See Acts 16:9-12 where the Greek words are "Makedon". (the book of Acts and the NT use the word "Makedon" many times). He wrote both his letters (To Philipi and Thessalonika)in Greek, and thus, one must ASSUME ACCURATELY that the Macedonian people were able to read the letters in Greek. But, the Romans split the land of the modern Greek nation into two provinces during their administration from the First century BCE through the 4rth centuries CE. One was called "Makedonia" and to the south it was "Achea" but in the NT this word for this Roman province (which occurs if I remember correctly 8 times) is always translated as "Greece." It is my view that the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, but they became Greeks over time, and after Alexanders reign were Greeks, so much even the Hebrew Bible calls them "Greek" (See Daniel . (Personally, I use the bible as a historical source, because it has no bias on Alexander the Great's nation. These are Jewish, or in the Case of Paul who I beleive was a Gentile) opinions, neutral. However, I think the ancient macedonians assimilated into the southern European lands and the greek peoples to the south and today in a sense do not exist as a separate ethnic identity. I would say it is pretty clear even in Green's book, that Demosthenes not only called Macedonia barbarian, but got Sparta, Athens, Thebes, and the vast majority of southern and central Greek poliss to go in League with the Great King agaisnt Macedonia. THis happened before Charonea (See Greens book, pgs 69-71) The fact is even Green documents his work, and the Greek polises to the SOuth and Central Greece would rather have had Persian rule than Macedonian rule. This is historic fact. On previous posts I gave all the figures for how many Greek mercenaries fought with Darius agaisnt Alexander. Three times as many Greeks fought with Darius than fought with Alexander threw several major battles. Not to mention, the few Greek troops were "hostage" troops who were dumped when Alexander had the ability to do so. I think it is safe to say whether or not one beleives ancient macedonians were Greek, it was macedonian armies that did the conquering, and Athens, Sparta, and Thebes for example's forces did very little, if anything to aid Alexander i

[bob]

, it was macedonian armies that did the conquering, and Athens, Sparta, and Thebes for example's forces did very little, if anything to aid Alexander in conquering the Persians. Thus, now that I finally figure this issue out, my posts on this subject are FOREVER done!

[Athanasios]

Guys,Is this to be taken seriously given Kokkino Kolo translates as red butt?? I think the joke is on us...Regards,
Atha