pothos.org

If you'd like to take a tour with Eugene Borza on the trail of Alexander as your tour leader- and have a few thousand sitting around to spare- check out this tour:http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.p ... number=113

Thanks, CF, for posting the details of the cruise ship on this website. Will you be aboard?

Hello CF,
That's reeeeally tempting. Especially since I'm planning on visiting Greece in the fall anyway. But it looked like a frightful case of sticker shock from first glance. Still, a University of Chicago legend such as Borza is leading the cruise...how cool is that!later Nicator

That would be a thrill alright, if you have the cash to do it. Otherwise, you can see most of those places on your own by land for less cost. I've been to pretty well all of them except the last two mentioned (including Alexandria, which is one of my dreamed-of destinations!)

Alexandria's really cool, if you can put up with a little bit of hassle from strange Egyptian men. Very vibrant and cosmopolitan. The new Library is fantastic, and I believe there's a new archaeological museum opened since I was there in 2003 (complementing, rather than replacing, the Graeco-Roman museum).ATBMarcus

You would spend less money going without such a tour. You are paying extra money for his salary and a bunch of his "friends/family" to go for free. I used to lead tours myself in Israel, and I knew full well how I was paid, and how I got free people to go. It is much cheaper, if you are good with the languages, and are not afraid to drive in a foreign country; to plan your own trip. You will save considerably, and I mean considerably. the ONLY savings of going with a group would be in the airfare. Getting a Group airfare rate (with usually 20 or more seats on an airplane) does help keep airfare costs down, but remember, usually one person goes free for every five or something of the like, so even the group airfare will be marked up for a few freebies for certain "guests" or "family." (I would also add I have experience in arab countries -like Jordan and the Palestinian areas. In Egypt, you would be "safer" in a tour group. Word to the wise, buy a shirt with a Canadian flag on it, you will get less trouble from those who have disdain for america...of course, most of you too have the advantage of not being a Jew...)I am surprized though with the interest, Borza is very adament that Alexander was not a Greek, and is along with Badian, the main scholarly opponent of the non Greek view. Borza believes that the Macedonains no longer exist as a people that they assimilated into southern europe and central and lower greece. (See his books, "In the Shadow of Olympus, the Origin of the Macedonians" and "Macedonia Before Alexander-The origins of the Macedonian People") if he is a tour leader, those with the view that Alexander was a Greek may not agree with much of his ideas and end up not enjoying the trip as much due to Borza's views...just a word of warning for those interested.
Bob

BORZA'S views are contradictory--Borza says he accepts the general conclusion that Macedonians were PROTO HELLENES ( The original Greek stock) from the PINDUS MOUNTAINS then goes on to say they were Hellenized A QUOTE FROM BORZA HIMSELF"From the Book Makedonika
pp 149-58
"Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander's Cour"t
by Eugene Borza
First , the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians:
Nicholas Hammond's general conclusion that the origin of the Macedonians lies
in the pool of proto-Hellenic speakers who migrated out of the Pindus
mountains during the Iron Age is acceptable." Thats like saying it is acceptable that the Prussian origins lie in a pool of Proto Germanic speaking peoples but were later Germanized.Where the Proto Anglosaxons later Anglosaxonized ? Thus the original peoples became more like the original peoples

Thanks Jim:
I am reading both those books now. One of course came out 7 years later, and his conclusions are slightly changed, but his basic thesis is that Macedonians were not greek.
As per him contradicting himself, you may indeed be right, let me finish reading both books first.
I would be willing to continue this subject so long as it remains in the ancient realm, otherwise, would rather avoid arguing. My understanding is that the ancient Macedonians were viewed by the ancient greeks as at least "sub" greeks if not all out barbarian. It is very clear from the ancient sources the Hellenic league was a political toy of alexanders, and there were between 5-10 times more Greeks fighting with Darius than with the Macedonians. Not to mention, the Greeks went to Darius to get his help to throw off the Macedonian yoke. Thus, it is apparent persian rule may have been preferred. The ships the league gave alexander were bottom barrel, and so were the troops, which really were hostage troops. And there are all the ancient quotes I posted earlier. There are other quotes too, not as many, that show the Greekness of Alexander, like the prophecy that Greeks would defeat the Persian empire. Thus, there are some quotes to the contrary as well to Borza's thesis.
A complete other topic would be hellenism, a term not even 150 years old. Did Alexander intend to spread "Hellas" all over the world, or did he intend to build an Empire in His name fusing all peoples into one people in Alexander's likeness. I do not think (my opinion) alexander was so concerned about spreading Greece or Macedonia all over the world, but his own ideas. When I read green for example, I see alexander doing administration, appointing satraps, setting up local governments, etc. but I don't see him building theatres or gymnasiums. etc. I see him campaigning to strengthen and enlarge HIS empire. He would have sacrificed even Macedonia to keep ASIA in HIS name...

One of the more telling episodes of Alexander spreading himself was his offer to rebuild Artemis' temple with his name on the front. The Ephesians told him "no." Alexander goes to the next town, and gets his name on the top of the temple to athena which still can be seen today. To me, this is classic ALexander. He was more concerned about HIS own ideas, than his troops, or any of his macedonians even. When Darius offered the kingdom to the Euphrates, Parmenio and his men wanted him to take the offer, but Alexander said no! He wanted much more, and had bigger plans, and that "ambition" that Plutarch kept talking about. (pothos) I think Alexander was not just a great general, but a master politician. In 12 years, not only did he conquer so much, but often people felt he did little to "administer" his territory. I disagree, to conquer that in 12 years he did much consolidating and governing, but it was about HIS empire and HIS name. This is just part of the Alexander we all love, his ambition, and his drive for his own glory, to compete and out do everyone, not just achiller, herecles, or Xerxes, or Cyrus, or even Phillip II. In Alexanders mind it was his glory, not that of his country, however we define it. I say he deserves his due glory...
Bob

Bob you never read the ancient sources and your opinions are limited only to the works of Badian and his disipile Borza that you copy and paste. The ancient sources prior to Phillips time clearly defined Macedonians as original Greeks.
.
Herodotus considers the Hellenic Ethnos being
renamed as the Ethnos of the Makedonians, once they crossed into the Pindus
mountains.
Such descent of the Hellenes (see Makedonians) to the South of Hellas and the
conquering of the entire South, took place after the Trojan War around 1100
B.C.
Robert Graves is noting:
"The disastrous invasion of the Mycenaean Peloponnese by uncultured
patriarchical mountaineers from Central Greece which, according to Pausanias (iv.3.3)
and Thukididis (i.12.3) took place about 1100 B.C., was called the Dorian
because its leaders came from the small state of Doris.......................this
second invasion about 100 years later,........brought the Dark Ages into
Greece.........."
What we have in here, is a raconteuring of the descent of the Nation of the
Hellenes, that were renamed as Makedonians once they arrived in the Pindus
mountains and from there to Thessaly and from there to Peloponnesos, where they
became known by the name Dorians (back to Herodotus, Book 1-56).Thukididis clearly indicates (Book 1-3), that the various tribes that
participated in the Trojan War (around 1250-1200 B.C. ), (Hellenes, Danaans, Argives,
and Achaians) increasingly came to be known city by city all speaking the
same language, and later as a whole, by the common name of Hellenes only after
the Trojan War.
It is then when the Heraclids, conquered and re-conquered the Peloponnese in
the fourth generation under Temenus, patriarch of the Temenides, the Royal
House of Alexander the Great.Herodotus has many references with regards the Hellenic origins not just of
the Royal Makedonian House, in addition to Alexander the 1st, he is introducing
Alexander the 2nd , as an Hellene and defines his descent (Herodotus Book
8-137, 138, 139, and in Herodotus Book 9-45 "I am myself an Hellene by
descent.........), but also of the Makedonians (as people).
Herodotus, Book 8-42, 43:
"....There were some other Hellenic ships which had been ordered to assemble
at Pogon.................
The composition of the Hellenic fleet was as follows:
16 ships from Lakedaemonia, the same number from Korinth as at Artemision,
15 ships from Sicyon,
10 from Epidaurus,
5 from

Did Alexander intend to spread "Hellas" all over the world, or did he intend to build an Empire Bob a little common sense will tell says he attempted to build and Empire and like all other conquerors the conqueror imposes their native language and culture on the conquered to some degree. Did the Spanish Conquistatadors attempt to claim new lands for the Spanish Crown and wealth or did they attempt to spread the virtues of Spanish culture and language to the natives? The answer is obvious however Spanish language religion Catholiism and culture was spread as result of the Spanish conquest. Atg and his Macedonians spread their native Hellenic language ,relgion culture on the conquered since they like any other conquerors impose their ways on their subjects and aborb some of the native ways ATG like Cortez,Ceasar,Genghis was a conqueror that is the bottom line.

Unfortunately, Jim, it's not quite as simple as that. Worthy though Thucydides and Herodotus are in many ways, one does have to remember that they did not necessarily make much distinction between myth and history, particularly when it came to the origins of things. People used myths to justify actions and all sorts of claims - to ethnicity, nationality, culture, power, etc. etc.; but it doesn't follow that we should accept them blindly. (This goes equally, of course, for those ancient writers who say the opposite - I'm not just getting at Thuc. and Herod.)In the Middle Ages, to draw an analogy, people did similar things in order to 'prove' their rights to lands, titles, etc. Monasteries were not averse to producing completely fabricated documents 'proving' their rights to land - even if people knew they were forgeries, they still had weight in law: sort of "well, of course we know it's false, but you get points for imagination".Anyway, I thought that Bob *had* already provided quotes from Ancient sources that suggested that the Macedonians were not Greek. If he didn't, someone else did. Unfortunately, countering ancient sources with other ancient sources ain't really going to solve much.All the bestMarcus

okay, well, I am aware of the Herodotus' passage. I agree with you that I have read Borza and Badian (not to mention, you can read Badian online for free, so why not read him?) Badian's arguments are pretty clear, that outside of Phillip's horse winning in the Olympic games, there are zero macedonian winners on Olympic game lists for the next several decades after Alexander I's death, and also after Phillip's death (who somehow got re-admitted. (Badian gives sources, but I never checked them out. Anyone can say almost anything on the http://www. THus, maybe I should.) Badian also asks "why would the Macedonians hold their own olympic games?" This implies that they were later excluded. Plus, the context of the Herodotus passage clearly states (Herodotus states this) that many athletes at first did not accept the Macedonian athletes as greeks, but later "were persuaded." Now, I must admit, if I could look at the Greek of Herodotus, I could verify these online translations with some research.
I have read all of the ancient alexander the Great sources but Justin. I admit, I have not read all of Herodotus (his work is very large) and at times very dry. Personally, Herodotus is what I would call a reference work. The same is true with Josephus, though I have read almost all of him, he is very dry, and it better left as a reference book.
To be honest, while I am studying this issue privately (were the ancient macedonians greek) the subject is starting to bore me to death here. Also, I have come to the conclusion that it is not a life or death issue as to how greek the ancient macedonians were or were not. At this point, my OPINION is they were not as Greek as the Athenians, Spartans, Corinthians, Thebans, etc minimum. At this point, as far as I can see, at most I would agree MAYBE they were "sub greek" as one documentary I watched put it. My grandparents lived in what is today Poland, but then it was Germany, and they were Jews, and were driven out for being such (not to mention, through my Grandmother, mother of my dad, I am a Marx). Thus, are my grandparents polish, german, or Jewish? Or all of the above? To me these are descriptions of them that fall short, just as saying ALexander was a Greek as well falls short of who he was (and is)

Thanks Marcus. And Jim, I certainly mean zero offense. Marcus' point is argued by Badian who puts forth a very reasonable argument Alexander ! fabricated his origins to get into the Olympics. Can we prove this without doubt? I don't think so. Since this is a hot topic, I almost think we should drop it. On the otherhand, I typically learn much more discussing things this way, so maybe dropping it would be a bad idea. But I do concede your point, I need more study at this point. I am 8 months into my ALexander studies, and I am still a beginner, but I think I am finally moving a little past the beginner stage into a more intermediate stage. I will never claim I am an expert, but I have a great many books under my belt now on Alexander. That being said, I am not as knowlegable as a great many on this forum...
I am not entirely sure why I am fascinated by Alexander. I think I just admire him. Also, with my whole life of Studying Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek, etc, archaeology and studying at digs in ISrael, and leading tour groups, etc, when I found my religion to be founded on myth (you tell a lie or a myth long enough, it becomes the truth) for me I lost my faith, and what I loved, and my whole life activity. I was like a marathon runner who lost his legs. But Alexander has given me my legs back. The same research I did as a Bible student and Israeli history buff I use those skills now to study Alexander. In a sense, he is my "god" son of zeus ammon. Though I promise, I will not start a new Alexander cult or religion, nor will I let Alexander drive me mad as religion drives many a person mad. Nonetheless, studying him has brought me back to being me, a lover of researching history. Thus, I study macedonian origins as well, just for the fun of it. Thus, I am grateful to ALexander and his fans (like this forum) to help me find my legs; though it is not like I am leutenant dan or anything...maybe I am gump though...Bob

Well Jim, I would actually argue otherwise. I would state that it is obvious from Plutarch and Arrian, and Diodorus, that Alexander used the Koine Greek as their diplomatic language (it is not like they spoke Aramaic to the persians), but not his native tongue. Alexander's trial of Philotas and the quotes I already provided prove that. Look at who the whole audience was at that trial, vs. who the "jury" was. Who was Philotas trying to appeal to?
While I will freely admit, Badian has not proved to me (or Borza) that the Macedonians were not Greek. THough I have to finish reading Borza. They have made great arguments, and I certainly can say they have proven some things to me without doubt, but proving anything beyond doubt at times is a feat. But what they have convinced me of, is the ancient quotes from Arrian, Diodorus, and Plutarch show clearly Alexander had to speak macedonian to his guards because they did not understand greek, but only macedonian (whether it was a dialect of greek, or another language is another point.) PErsonally, I think it was a Greek dialect. While they have found maybe 100 words with non Greek but european type (see Wikipedia article) they have found 4 to 5 times that many that do come from Greek origins. which implies to me Macedonian was at least related to Greek, and was more Greek than southern European. It is not surprising to me either that the Macedonian tongue was at least influenced by southern Greeks, like my grandparents Yiddish and German had some polish words. Macedonia is to the north, thus, it was indeed closer to europe. Why did Alexander only speak Macedonian to his Macedonian guards is something Badian writes in great detail on and he uses the ancient Plutarch Diodorus and Arrian quotes quite well. Since you have read this article, no need for me to copy and paste it here. But in case you haven't I can post a link for you... But in all seriousness, is it really bad for me to study the question of Macedonian origins. I KNOW they were not slavs. My people made a myth of their origins, and Avraham, Yitzchaq and Ya'aqov are as historical as Mickey Mouse...