pothos.org

Hi Bob,
It's enjoyable to read someone that is "finding his legs" again. Especially with the study of so worthy a subject. I think we can all remember a time when the study of Alexander was new, personalized, and exciting. This forum has been the saviour of many a bad night for me, particularly when stumped on some subject or other, and the threat of leaving a passage incomplete loomed. As anyone who has had writer's block can attest, the trick is to keep it moving...if you stop, even for a telephone call, you might not get back to the task for a long time. Please keep posting, and we'll continue to help anyway we can. later Nicator

, one does have to remember that they did not necessarily make much distinction between myth and history,when it came to the origins of things Marcus myth in and of itself of course is not conclusive.However myth combined with Archeology and other testomonies do provide evidence. In 720 BC Hesoid stated that Makedon who dwelled on Olympus was part of the Greek Family.While this can't be verified directly the fact that Hesoid recorded this relationship means that he was aware of a Greek speaking peoples referred to as Makedon who dwelled near Olympus where Macedonia isThis point was also verified up by Hellinicus in his testimony around 520 BC who claimed the macedonians were among the early Greeks These testimonies occurred well before Phillips time.Why would they lie ? Macedonia was not a power then/ the Persians in the 6th Century BC described Macedonians as Greeks with the Hat .Why would they lie ? Marcus are you familiar with Herodotus- Not referring to the Olympics incident but as to who he claimed were the Greek race.That the Macedonians were in fact the original Greek stock that settled in Pindus under the name Makedon --- Are you aware that the Athenians were described as HELLENIZED PELASGIANS thus not Greek in origin? So why are the Athenians considered the perfect Greeks by Borza INC when they were described as PELASGIAN origins while MAKEDON DORIAN ect were the original stock.Herodotus wrote this when Athens was a power and Macedonians were not.He had no motive to lie unless of course he was in some anti Athenian conspiracy. When Herodotus described the Peloponesian Fleet why did he state that most most of the Peloponesians including the Spartans were of Macedonian/Dorian stock---If the Macedonians were not Greek why would the Spartans not object to be labeled as Macedonian Stock from Pindus?Are you aware of these quotes? As for Bob maybe I am over reacting to him because he seems to use selective quotes from Arrian while ignoring others such as -Alexander Son of Phillip and the Hellenes--- Also keep in mind Arrian never talks about the origins of the Macedonians.Herodotus ,Hesoid, Hellewnicus existed well before Arrian and all were in conclusion that Macedonians were in originally Greek. In fact we know the Greek language is Indo European that Greek tribes came from north of the Greek pennesula and entered Greece via Macedonia and imposed their ways on a more settled urbane earlier population.I would a

1st of all Koine Greek was a made up language that
based on the attic diolect but with other Greek diolects added to promote a common Greek diolect since ancient Greece ( never a state but a linguistic religious genetic distiction) had 200 diolects that were regional . In the trial of Philotas ATG asked Philotus to speak in Macedonian so that others would understand him more easily.The Macedonian diolect was a crude Doric diolect that was not easily understood by Greeks in other regions.In modern Greece today a Cretan diolect would not be understood outside of Crete but it is Greek.Spain has numerous regional diolects today that are almost untelligible to Spaniards outside the region. So we are in agreement it was a Greek diolect.I will also agree that the Macedonian diolect had some loaner words from nearby thrace and illyria. Your comparison with Yiddish however has some flaws.( Badian uses this) Jewish people were a immigrant minority in Germany and Poland thus mixed in the words of the majority culture to form Yiddish.Early Greek American immigrants mixed in English with Greek as they were assimulating and some times it is referred to as Gringlish.Macedonians however were the majority thus had no reason to assimulate since they were not immigrants in there own land.In fact Macedonia was kind of a loosely divided area but as the state expanded they assimulated thracio illyrian populations.Thus, the opposite was true. Now I will refer you to Pella katadesmos which is clearly decephered as crude Doric by Linguist James O Neil.The inspription dates back to Phillip's time and is from a commoner not an aristocrat.Keep in mind that other then Macedonia the only place Doric was spoken was in Sparta ( other areas of the Peloponese and Crete).Herodotus clearly stated the relationship of Dorians as being derived from Macedonians thus the insprition in Doric supports his testimony. BTW the Jewish Historian Flavias Joseph firmly identities the Macedonians as Greek. Also keep in mind Badian wrote his piece in the early 1960s before most of the archeology of Macedonia was started.New archeological discoveries support Herodotus testimony.In addition Borza as I quoted stated that he accepts the conclusion that Macedonians were Proto Hellenes from Pindus as stated in Herodotus's testimony.Of course then he says they were Hellenized.I guess the Proto anglo saxons became anglosaxonized. Then again contraversey sells

G'day Jim."The Persians in the 6th Century BC described Macedonians as Greeks with the Hat .Why would they lie ?"Who said they were lying? The Persians knew very little of the "homeland Greeks". Truth be told, they knew only as much as they wanted to know of the Ionian Greeks to keep them quiescent and tribute paying. They needed guides to find that self important, upstart Greek State Athens in 490bc. They needed "traitiors" to help them on their way in 480bc.The Persians knew as much about the Greek home states in 480bc as the Greeks knew of their empire. The Greeks knew little enough and GÇô for exactly that reason GÇô they called the Persians "Medes" and continued to do so down the Alexander II's time. They were ignorant of the fact that the Medes were a distinct people the Persians (Iranians) had conquered during the earliest phase of their expansion. Similar to calling the Assyrians Babylonians or the Medes either of the preceding two.Easy mistake to make I guess.Paralus.

if you have studied so much and you have any doudts alexander was Greek than you are simply as retarded and prove aristotles theroy that you are inferior

You make some good points, but I am not studying the origins of macedonians for controversy.
Sure, Yiddish I agree is a made up language.
The reason why I am adament about my position (that the Macedonians were either not Greek or "sub Greek") is the facts from the big four sources. We have already discussed the Greek disdain for the Macedonians, but one thing we have NOT discussed is "Empire." In the Stone Movie, the statement "It has always been the Greek dream to go east" is BS and NOT accurate. Yes, there were greek cities in Asia minor, like Miletus. However, the Greeks never were empire builders. A house divided agaisnt itself cannot stand. The Greeks fought amongst themselves too much to have any success at empire building. (not to mention, if they argued less in their senates, and used their navy, and avoided some land battles, they could have changed history but they were too busy arguing.) The Macedonians because they were united under a MONARCHY were able to forge an empire and it was them that put Greece on the map in my opinion. I would say it is near impossilbe to prove the Macedonians were "proto Greeks." The Greeks were well established city states while Macedonia was full of sheepherders that were somewhat european and definately not literate, or a city state. This separates them from the other Greeks considerably. But to state the Macedonians were "proto greek" from the Greek word "protos" means that they were the "first Greeks." No way. If anything, they were non Greeks who became greeks, or they were "nomadic sub greeks" that became Greeks. (i.e. herodotus saying some dorians moved up there, which means, the dorians to the south, who made the polis and democracy first moved up there.)
THe other thing that gets me is "Greek pride." I am not saying Greeks should not be proud of their history. What I am saying is it was not the whole greek nation's empire, just the northern Macedonian's empire. THis macedonian empire did not include all of southern greece, like sparta. Plus, the Greeks hated alexander and the macedonains, and did everything they could to throw off their yoke. Over 2300 years, the greek hatred of alexander was forgotten, and now later generations, children of those who loathed him, claim him as their own. It is my opinion that it is a little ironic.

In the last post, where I said if the greeks were united, and could have changed history using thier navy, I am discussing about how Philip II beat them at Charonea. Philip got them to meet him on land, and the Greeks, who were too busy arguing were too slow to get united in a strong and sound strategy long before Charonea. Not to take anything away from Philips military genious and army building. The Greeks played into his strength and ignored their own strength (navy) and fought against a giant (who could not swim) on land left handedly. If the Greeks united and were prepared, and had a more effective strategy, Philip would not have conquered them, and the Greeks would have maintained self rule. But due to this, they spent the next 200 years trying to overthrow the Macedonian yoke. Remember too when Rome attacked Greece and won all of Greece under their empire, the history books are 100% clear the Greeks allied themselves with Rome and fought against the Macedonians. (yet this is not a civil war? What does that tell you?) That states something. Some scholars may be able to put forth an argument that it was the fact that they argued too much, that they the greeks due to not stopping Philip made them subserviant to other empires for over 2000 years until the 1800s. I know this sounds harsh, and yes, without ancient greeks we would not have democracy today and philosphy, etc. Sure, they should be proud...but their ancients only had hatred of Alexander and Macedonia.

You missed the point of my post.The Persian's of course were familiar with the Greeks primarily thru their Asia Minor ( Ionia ) colonies.However, they would have been able to idenitify the Macedonians via language and customs as Greek in the general sense.The only distiction they made was the hat.However the Persian testimony in and of itself is not the point.The Greek historians at that time clearly idenitfied the Macedonians as among the early Greek peoples.The Persian testimony supports this.The Archeological and liguistic evidence also supports this Also Alexander ARRIAN(ARRIAN ) clearly mentions our enemies have been PERSIANS and MEDES ( thus he was aware of the difference) In his letter to Darius he stated you Ancestors invaded Macedonia and the Rest of Greece meaning he associates Macedonia as part of the Greek world -NOT A NATION STATE -NATION STATES IN THE MODERN SENSE WERE UNKNOWN TO THE ANCIENTS!! Kind of interesting that only quotes that support Badians views are emphisized while other quotes that refute him are ignored or expressed as propaganda. Good Day

herodotus saying some dorians moved up there, which means, the dorians to the south, This proves that you have not read Herodotus.Herodotus said the oppositte that the Dorians were originated in Macedonia and moved into the Peloponese Laconia not that some Dorians moved from the south . HEODOTUS in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory under the name Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian In addition Herodotus states that most of the Peloponesian Fleet was of Dorian and Macedonian stock.Herod. V, 22, 2) "The Peloponnesians that were with the fleet were ... the Lacedaimonians, ... the Corinthians, ... the Sicyonians, ... the Epidaurians, ... the Troezenians, ... the people of Hermione there; all these, except the people of Hermione, were of Dorian and Macedonian stock and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region." Once again Herodotus states that the Peloponesian fleet ( ALL EXCEPT THE HERIONE) Dorians were from PINDUS northern GREECE and of MACEDONIAN and DORIAN STOCK

Your association with HERODOTUS and GREEK pride via MACEDONIA is extremely inaccurate. HERODOTUS stated the ATHENIANS were of NON GREEK origins.His writings occured well before Phillip's time when Macedonia was not a power. Yoour statement about the Polis and Democracy as an association with Greekness is very inaccurate. SPARTA was a DUAL MONARCHY not a DEMOCRACY-- SPARTANS (10% of the population)reduced earlier natives to slavery HELOTS -- The majority of the population of Laconia and caputed Messians were essential Serfs that could be killed at will and the Spartans had open hunting season where HELOTS were killed at will.This is not a Democratic Polis.Crete also ruled by DORIANS had a similar structure. Did some Greeks hate ATG -YES -- Did Greeks also hate SPARTAN HEMOGENY -- YES WITH a PASSION !!!\DORIANS-who made the polis and democracy first moved up there.) Before you attempt to counter statements at least be aware of what the source said.Dorians and Democracy did not mix. The Pella script from a women commoner around the time of Phillip has been clearly identified as a crude form of DORIC thus gives hard evidence to Hertodotus testimony.The Macedonian Court adopted the more urbane ATTIC diolect.

Good day Jim.I don't believe I've raised any quotes GÇô other than your own GÇô whether in support of Badian or no.

It's worth remembering that Arrian did not reproduce his sources verbatim, and often inserted his own interpolations. One needs to recall that he described himself as the Alexander of the word. As well, it's not often that he will allow too much to sully the picture of his hero GÇô though not quite so blatantly as Plutarch at times.I agree that it's nice to see Alexander make the distinction (if Arrian did not make it for him) but that is irrelevant to the fact that Greeks knew next to nothing beyond Sardis/Susa. Xenophon's Anabasis was in fact the ancient version of the "boy's own" adventures of another age and was used as possibly the only "reliable" guide for quite some time. Those in Alexander's armies saw this world for the first time GÇô a reading of some of those passages reflects the mystique/myth that surrounded the vast empire of the Achaemenids that was prevalent. To the average Greek, there was nothing to distinguish a Mede from an Iranian.The letter GÇô given that it is historical, and I am not arguing this GÇô needs too to put in its context. Which context being the Macedonian gestalt that this was a Greek venture, conducted by "the Greeks" based around redressing the wrongs inflicted on the "Greeks" during the Persian invasions some one hundred and fifty years prior. The Macedonians were simply complying with the concords of the "Hellenic League". It wasn't their fault that the King of Macedon found himself elected hegemon and pressed into what might otherwise appear as Macedonian imperial expansion and lebensraum in the East.From the perspective of the tyranny of time, I wonder at the constant need felt by successive Macedonian monarchs (from Alexander I down) to demonstrate and prove their "Greekness". Beginning with the historical fiction (or legend) of a descent from Argos to the constant wooing of Greek poets and philosophers (Perdiccas III binging in a Greek court philosopher to "educate" his nobles) and down the a fortiori of Philip and his Asian adventure.What were they reacting to? If not reacting, then there certainly appered to complex of some sort in evidence - the need for this sort of defence of Macedonian "Greekness" was rather constant. Where there ancient versions of Bob, Paralus, Eugene and Ernst?Paralus

"In the last post, where I said if the Greeks were united, and could have changed history using their navy, I am discussing about how Philip II beat them at Charonea. Philip got them to meet him on land, and the Greeks, who were too busy arguing were too slow to get united in a strong and sound strategy long before Charonea."G'day you "cheeky old bastard" Bob (see Nicator for the trasnslation of the Australianism).Now, you've been reading my musings. There is an argument I've run a few times on this site. What, indeed, would Philip have done if he'd debouched onto the Boeotian plain, confronting some ten to fourteen thousand Theban and Boeotian hoplites and another six thousand or so mercenary troops, to the news that an Athenian fleet of some one hundred fifty triremes had sailed from Piraeus into the Thermaic Gulf? That scenario would put some ten thousand Athenian troops in his rear.You should nod to your sources Bob!! As will I: I nicked it from Green. It's just too tempting to not to contemplate. A different result methinks.And, you are quite correct with respect to Rome. Had the Greeks allied themselves with PhilipV, Pydna may never have happened as Cynoschephale may well have gone the other way. But, as Perseus found out at Pydna, the Greeks were only too willing to ally themselves with anyone other than the despised Macedonian monarchy.

By the time of Cynoschephale, Macedonia was a shadow of its former self. Truth be told, the Macedonia of Antipater/Cassander was GÇô due in large part to the privations in manpower as a result of Alexander's need for reinforcements GÇô was far weaker in 323 (and onwards) than it was in 338. Never again would it reach the strength in military terms that it displayed at Chaeronea.Paralus

sort of defence of Macedonian "Greekness" was rather constant. Why would the Macedonians seek to defend their Greekness if they did not beleive themselves to be Greek?The Macedonians were a proud nation and highly unlikely they were wanna bes. Defend there Greekness from a few Athenian snobs who labeled non Athenian Greeks such as the Aeolians as barbarians. Why did Hesoid over 300 yrs before Phillip state that they were part of the original Greek family? He was not Macedonian yet was aware that a Greek speaking people related to the Thessalians lived near Mt Oympus in Macedonia .Did a mysterious Macedonian appear and try to defend his Greekness in 720 BC ? Was Hellenicus who supported Hesoid testimony 200 yrs later under some magical spell of Macedonia.There Greekness was not an issue to him. Why does Herodotus include Macedonians as original Hellenes who settled in Pindus under the name Makedon ? ( even Borza admitts reluctly he accepts this general conclusion)Why does Hertodotus exclude the Athenians from the original Greek peoples and not the Macedonians? Remember it was the Athenians who were Hellenized Pelasgians.There Greekness was not an issue. Why does Herodotus later say the Peloponisians including the Spartans were from Macedonian/Dorian stock from Pindus. I guess the Spartans were not Greek either after all they had a Kingship.Liguistic evidence supports the ancient Macedonian language as a Doric diolect Sure a COMPETITOR with an axe to grind ( even today athletic competitors seek to disqualify their opponents)in the Olympic Games tried to exclude Alexander 1 on the grounds of non Greekness but the Olympic judges affirmed the decision that he was indeed Greek ( whether his Royal Argeive story is true or not can't be proved or dissproven).The fact is he was judged to be a Greek and the decision was definitive. Macedonians held on to primitive Greek institutions once common among the ealy Greek tribes thus were perceived by many more urbane Greeks to be Redneck Hillbillys and this streotype was exploited by anti Macedonian politicians during Phillips time.By the way you aware that Demostanes was accued of being non Greek because his Mother was a Sythian?Yes demostanes was called a Barbarian Do American politicians refer to other Americans as un American. Was not President Andrew Jackson referred to by John Quincy Adams as a savage BARBARIAN WHO COULD BARELY SPELL HIS NAME despite the fact that Jackson w

"Why would the Macedonians seek to defend their Greekness if they did not beleive themselves to be Greek?The Macedonians were a proud nation and highly unlikely they were wanna bes."G'day again Jim.Must say the subject becomes a little tiresome. In the same way that somebody in a negotiation says "The price is not the determining factor" means that of course it is.My feel GÇô or view I suppose GÇô on this is that there was enough Macedonian "Philhellinising" over a considerable enough period for there not to have been something to react to. What was that? Greek distrust and disdain for those who "Medised" does not explain it: Thebes and others were not hated with the same vehemence.

Throwaway lines such as:"Defend there Greekness from a few Athenian snobs who labeled non Athenian Greeks such as the Aeolians as barbarians."Add very little to a debate. In fact I believe I may have pointed that out in another rather useless discourse on this issue late last year (the Aeolian bit). As I've also stated before: Demosthenes represents one end of a stick. The other is occupied by Phocion.The stuff re Demosthenes I'm familiar with and means diddly-squat in the current debate. Ditto the resentment against Sparta (and Athens before it). That resentment was nothing compared to the hatred of Macedonian rule which was resisted at any and all opportunities. A situation that carried down to the eventual destruction of the Macedonian state by Rome. Whatever the niceties of modern views, the ancients considered this a rule GÇô imposed by main force GÇô from without.One can quote Herodotus, Hesiod and Thucydides until the cows come home. We won't agree. I could quote similar and "prove" that the lawgiver of Sparta GÇô the legendary Lycurgus GÇô actually lived, breathed and did exactly everything that is said of him. I could quote Thucydides' "text" of the Athenian demands of Melos but, was he there and did he witness it? I doubt that severely. The piece is designed to showcase the Athenian demos and imperialism at its worst (pity we don't have his account of Arginusae) and succeeds admirably.Continued...

Did the "Trojan War" occur exactly as Alexander read in his copy of the Illiad? You can bet he just about thought so GÇô just as you can bet Alexander I hoped that the heroic descent from Argos fiction would be believed. We know somewhat different with respect to the largely mythical heroic Trojan War. I also believe differently with respect to the Argive fiction.Why don't we agree to simply disagree? The thread will descend into ennui before too long.How about we address the other issues I raised? The campaign to promote Macedonian imperialism as "Greek redress and lebensraum in the East" GÇô now, there's a subject.Paralus.

You my friend need a history lesson, and certainly have not read the ancient sources. As per your new thread, I am going to ignore it. Most people here, including me, do not feel Alexander was a slave. At the same point in time, the Spartans, Athenians, and Thebans loved alexander so much, that after Permenio caught Darius' baggage train after Issus, low and behold, ambassadors from Thebes, Sparta, and Athens were found with them.
As Jew, and one who understands modern political "situations" I know there are some good arab people on the planet. But I also know that the only thing Middle East Arabs in general agree on is their hatred of Alexander. This is one of the few things that unites them (they are even divided about the Koran.) The ancient greeks were the same. The Greek city states would have preferred Persian rule, than macedonian rule. The only thing that Greeks could agree on and get united on was their hatred and disdain towards Macedonians.
Just because Aristotle taught Alexander doesn't mean the Greek world had any love or affection for Philip or Alexander.