pothos.org

Bob since there were many Greek states writers like Arrian would signal out a leading Greek to seperate it from other Greek states.The Greek idenity of the macedonians was estabhlished by hesoid,herodotus well before Phillip --Unlike Herodotus Arrian did not write about Macedonia's ethnity but about the campaigns of ATG Athenians are sometimes seperated from the rest of the Hellenes (Greeks) and even shown as an adversary to the Hellenes"When the estrangement which had arisen between the Athenians and the Hellenes became noised abroad,
[Diodoros of Sicily 11.28.1] "...the Hellenes gathered in congress decreed to make common cause with the Athenians ..." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.29.1] "He soothed the Athenians' pride by promising them... that the Hellenes would accept their leadership..." [Plutarch, Themistokles 7]
"...the Athenians, because of their policy of occupying with colonists the lands of those whom they subdued, had a bad reputation with the Hellenes;..." [Diodoros of Sicily 15.23.4]
"And we decided upon a twofold revolt, from the Hellenes and the Athenians, not to aid the latter in harming the former... " [Thukydides, 3.13; Oration of the Mytilenaians] "When the Athenians attacked the Hellenes, they, the Plataians... Atticized. [Thukydides, 3.62; Theban Accusations] ""And this was the first naval victory that the city [Athens] had against the Hellenes, after the destruction." [Plutarch, Phokion 6] Spartans are shown as adversaries of the Hellenes
the Lakedaimonians, fearful lest Themistokles should devise some great evil against them and the Hellenes, honoured him with double the numbers of gifts..." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.27.3]
"In this year [475 BCE] the Lakedaimonians... were resentful; consequently they were incensed at the Hellenes who had fallen away from them and continued to threaten them with the appropriate punishment." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.50.1]
"In a single battle the Peloponnesians and their allies may be able to defy all the Hellenes, but they can not carry a whole war..." [Thukydides 1.141; Oration of Pericles]
"When the Eleians not only paid no heed to them [the Lakedaimonians] but even accused them besides of enslaving the Hellenes, they dispatched Pausanias, the other of the two kings, against them with 4,000 soldiers." [Diodoros of Sicily 14.17.6]
"But Pausanias, the king of the Lakedaimonians, being jealous of Lysandros and observing that Sparta was in ill repute amon

Bob, the regional identity of Greeks existed up to modern times untill 100 yrs ago a marriage between a Greek from Crete and a Greek from the mainland would have been considered an interacial marriage.

Never mind. . .

Linda i understood perfectly what you were saying,and i hope you too understand what i am saying.I will stop the discussion here from my part,although this matter is not on the macedonian debate but on the sources and the translation of them.But anyway everyone made his/her point. But..how can we discuss on Alexander based on the sources when someone has a source that says A,another has the same source but in a different version-translation that says B,e.t.c.Someday,somehow this must be corrected...

Isn't that what makes it so interesting, though?Anyway, you're right, in that this isn't about the modern Greek/Macedonian argument; so long as it is about Alexander it's fine ... let's just make sure it doesn't turn *into* an argument about the modern situation.ATBMarcus

But, someone from Harvard, I think with the last name Badian, wrote an article to state that this was actually borrowed from Herodutus from the Helliodokoi (I may have mispelled that) do the Alexander I's entrance into the Olympic games. Alexander 1 apparently fabricized some proof of Greek descent, and thus, Alexander Is next two successors were not admitted into the Olympics, until Philip II was admitted. Phillip II was admitted as a Greek for political reasons, contends Badian. He documents well with sources more than one Demosthenes quote on Macedonians being barbarian, and discusses several "MaKedonian language" quotes, documented, proving they spoke at least a different dialect, and that Alexanders guard could only understand Makedonian, which is why he always called out to them in the language they would understand. The article is quite convincing, and well footnoted. However, I cannot figure out if this guy has a bias, i.e. is his family lineage Greek or Balkan? Or is he just an unbiased American which would mean his work may be accurate???

I am going to use a dictionary, because I am not fluent in Greek like I am in English and Hebrew. Thus, I will see if all 4 made a mistake. The word "racial" and "rivalry" (the greek words translated rightly or wrongly as such) are not all that common words, certainly not common in the New Testament or even Homer. Thus, those were not in my memorized vocab. Thus, I need to look them up. To be blunt and honest (I always am) I would be shocked if 4 translators made the same error.

There is not a word "immortal" in Biblical Aramaic or Biblical Hebrew. (Greeks have a word, I beleive it is "athonatos".) The closest Hebrew equivalent (I will get to the Aramaic below) would be "Olam" and you could get "eternal life" by combining it with the word "chay". Until the book of Daniel (written in the second century BCE) there were not Hebrews who beleived in Resurrection or eternal life. As a matter of fact, Genesis chapters 1-3 make it clear that God (Elohim) wants mankind to die since he ate from the tree. (Hebrew word for "man" is "adam." Adam is not his name, but Eve was given a name after the "fall." Until then she was called "out of man" and a word play on another Hebrew word for man.) The Hebrew text in Genesis (Bereshit) literally says "lest man reach out and eat from the tree and live forever." Thus, Elohim casted man (adam) from the Garden to make sure he would die since he/they knew good and evil. The concept of eternal life or "immortal" is a foreign concept to the Hebrews. The Creation myth was meant to answer the question "Why do we die." Its answer is theological.
Christians who claim this resurrection idea was an acient Hebrew concept must remember Christianities texts are written in Greek (The New Testament) but Judaism is a Hebrew religion, and Eastern not a western religion.
As per Aramaic, the same is true in Aramaic. The word "forever" in Aramaic is also pronounced "Olam." The verb to "live" or life though is spelled differently in Aramaic, it ends not with a "hey" (an "h" sounding letter) but with an aleph (the first letter of the alphabet, which is a silent letter. Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic have no written vowels.)
Remember, I am no Greek expert, but I believe even the Greek word for eternal life is a compound word, an "a" prefix on the word "thonatos" for "death." Thus, I guess "athonatos" could mean "anti death." Ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic did not have spaces between their words, thus the need for the Greek FINAL sigma, and the several Hebrew and Aramaic final letters. Thus, technically, you can "create" the word "immortal" in Hebrew and Aramaic by using a "Makeyf" which is a dash that joins two words and makes them one word. Often this is done in the "construct" relationship in Hebrew. Ancient Greek was all upper case too, thus I am not even sure if Ancient Greek's final sigma would be considered a capital letter. Hebrew and aramaic never were made into "lower case." THough today moder

Badian's writings are not the main stream for most historians.Secondly,Badian is refering to the Olympic Games where Alexander 1 was admitted on the basis of Greek Royal blood via Herodotus.Badian can neither prove nor dissprove this was a myth nor can any modern man 2500 yrs removed.However Herodotos firmly states that the Macedonians were Greek in origin the Athenians were not HEROD"For in the days of king Defkalion it inhabited the land of Phthiotis, then in the time of Doros, son of Hellin, the country called Histaeotis, under Ossa and Olympus; driven by the Cadmeians from this Histaeotis country it settled in Pindos with the name Makedon And inquiring he found that the Lacedemonians and the Athenians had the pre-eminence, the first of the Dorian and the others of the Ionian race. For these were the most eminent races in ancient time, the second being a Pelasgian and the first a Hellenic race:; thence again it migrated to Dryopida, and at last came from Dryopida into Peloponnissos, where it took the name Dorians" So the Greek origin of the ATHENIANS (IONIANS) is the issue not the MACEDONIANS

Even Eugene Borza Badians desipile accepts the conclusion that Makedon were Proto Greeks peoples from the Pindus region

I was also shocked when i saw that 3-4 translations were the same in this particular sentense. The sentense is: "KAI TI KAI TOIS GENESI TV TE ELLHNIKV KAI TV MAKEDONIKV,FILOTIMIAS ENEPESEN ES ALLHLOYS" Now,the key words here are "GENESI"(plurar) and "FILOTIMIAS",and "ALLHLOYS".GENESI= the tribes,races.And FILOTIMIAS= conscientiousness - dutifulness,and ALLHLOYS=to eachother.So the sentense says: And to the greek and macedonian race came dutifulness to eachother.And if we want to make that better looking in english it would be like: "And to the greek and macedonian race evolved a duteous antagonism".And by looking at the rest of the paragraph above we can see that this duteous antagonism was caused by the eagger of each of them to look worthy in the eyes of their King.The greeks(the mercenaries of Darius) were trying to save the day,while the persians were fleeing,and the macedonians were trying to prove to Alexander that the phallanx was still the best phallanx that ever was. The translations dont mention the word duteous-dutifulness which is the key here, nor describe something like that,but talk about an embittered old racial rivalry which existed between greeks and macedonians.And Arrian never said that.

G'day all.And in any case, I doubt it was a sense of duty or proving themselves that drove the Macedonians. What propelled them here was the defeat and death confronting them in the form of the Greek mercenary phalanx. As Arrian writes:"But the Grecian mercenaries serving under Darius attacked the Macedonians at the point where they saw their phalanx especially disordered. For the Macedonian phalanx had been broken and had disjoined towards the right wing, because Alexander had dashed into the river with eagerness.."Going on to describe that "Here then the struggle was desperateGǪ" As indeed it would have been given that the force of Alexander's right wing charge had left the phalanx both discombobulated at the river and without proper right flank protection. The mercenary infantry clearly won this exchange, as it appears almost all left the field in decent order and escaped. Many to fight later with Agis against Antipater and others link up once more with Darius.

Regardless of the vagaries of translation, it is clear this was a very near run thing. As has been observed: this was the battle Alexander should have lost.Paralus

unbiased American which would mean his work may be accurate??? Unbiased???? he stating his subjective opinion.Thus it biased what ever his nationality .Demostanes is irrevel;ent here Alexander 1 was admitted to the Olympic games well before the time of Demostanes. macedonian language ehhh? All the inscriptions in ancient macedonia were in Doric Greek so what is the laqnguage he is referring to.Ancient Greece had 200 diolects that were not always understandable outside the region.

BADIAN HAS AN AGENDA AND SO DO YOU
Some of the scholars mentioned above initially were not sure about the Greekness of the Macedonians (i.e. NGL Hammod). Newly discovered artifacts and monuments that were excavated indicating the Macedonians were actually Greek made them admit their previous error. NGL Hammond explains the reason why scholars like Badian do not consider the Macedonians Greeks in his book, The Macedonian State (page 13, note 29). Hammond states that most recently E. Badian in Barr-Sharrar (pp 33-51) disregarded the evidence as explained in A History of Macedonia (NGL Hammond and G. T. Griffith, 1979 pp 39-54). In Barr-Sharrar, Badian holds the view that the Macedonians (whom he does not define) spoke a language other than Greek. Badian keeps ignoring evidence that is against his beliefs and convictions choosing only certain proof and ignoring other relevant proof.
That is exactly the pattern others, like E. Borza, P. Green, etc. have chosen to follow.

Your Jewish and your questioning whether the ancient Macedonians were Greek???ever heard of Chanukah? = defeat of the greeks by the jewish revolt and resistance to greek rulers.
Those Greeks were desendants of Alexander the Great.The jewish library has heaps of information on the Ancient greeks, ie. the ancient Macedonians that ruled the jewish people in the mideast.

G'day Jim."Unbiased???? he stating his subjective opinion.Thus it biased what ever his nationality"Something, I think you will find is common to all historians. They all sift the evidence: written, archaeological, numismatic and other and come to their own considered conclusions. Brian Bosworth and Badian disagree on various things; they both disagree with Green on some things: it is the way of it.Every historian has a view. Tarn's was of the great cute and cuddly civiliser of the world whose ambition was to unite all as equals: the brotherhood of man. Tosh. And, that's my view. That is, of course, not to say that he was "genocidal maniac" (I think that was the term you used) either.Aside from the spurious web sites that cherry pick Badian's work (eighteen discrete lines lifted from some 9,000 words for example) to further their agendas, I doubt the good professor is running an "agenda". Just what might that be were he?Really, some make the poor old boy sound like the David Irving of Macedonian history.I do though agree (again) with your suspicions about the apparently single minded person you are replying to. The subject always returns eventually doesn't it?Paralus