pothos.org

"Alexandros observed that his soldiers were exhausted with their constant campaigns. ... The hooves of the horses had been worn thin by steady marching. The arms and armour were wearing out, and the Hellenic clothing was quite gone. They had to clothe themselves in materials of the barbarians,..."
(Diodoros of Sicily 17.94.1-2) It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians;
as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one.
So men rule naturally over women, and Greeks over barbarians! But what is it which makes a barbarian a slave? Here is what Aristotle says:Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens--that some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right.
So the theory is that natural slaves should have powerful bodies but be unable to rule themselves

Dear Etan:
While I personally would like to discuss the origins of the ancient Macedonians, the moderater says that this is not the purpose of this forum. While I would be tempted to invite you to a yahoo chat group that discusses the issue of Ancient Macedonian origins, you use foul language and need to obey the rules of this forum. While I feel that I myself have no means been perfect, I know when to admit when I am wrong, and when to apologize. If you do not grow up, I will not only email the moderator asking your rights to be revoked on this forum, but email others begging them to do so as well. If you promise to be polite, and intellectual, I can have you join a Yahoo group to have an intellectual discussion on that subject. But here, lets knock it off, and respect everyone and the moderator. Thank you.
Bob Sass

Bob, and others. I think there ought to be a clean slate somewhere, because wires are getting crossed.Discussing the origins of the Ancient Macedonians is not verboten on this forum at all. Dragging into the discussion the modern political issues/arguments is not 'permitted'; and using a user name that advertises the modern political issues/arguments is therefore decried - which is what the moderator was saying, I think.By all means discuss the origins of the Ancient Macedonians (at least, *I* don't care if you do); but we should try to keep any of the modern issues out of it.ATBMarcus

Agreed on that Marcus. If we just ignore the nastiness eventually it will go away. Silence is not consent. To avoid the burdon of constantly deleting inappropriate posts it is a necessity. later Nicator

Greetings,
I have just finished re-reading Brave New World,for the first time in many years....and something in those words makes me think of that story.
Aristotle had great wisdom, but most slaves were taken from conquered races who may, in their own cultures, be of great intelligence.
Barbarians were those whose cultural standard of living was different to the beholder...even the Macedonians of Phillip II's time were considered 'Barbarians'to the Greeks.
If animals were considered as slaves, what of the Egyptians whose Gods and Goddesses were worshipped with animal aspects.....those animals in turn being sacred.
Were the Egyptians 'Barbarians' and only worthy of being slaves?
Aristotle himself states 'some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen'
If those with the souls of freemen have the misfortune to live within the body of a 'Barbarian' then they are enslaved, however rational a principle they may entertain.
regards
Cynisca

even the Macedonians of Phillip II's time were considered 'Barbarians'to the Greeks While I do not wish to further engage in the endlessly discussed Macedonian/Greek stuff.Greek writers prior to Phillips time concluded the Macedonians were Greek Herodotus ,Hesoid Hellenicus.Whether you choose to accept their testimonies is up to you.The Macedonians held on to outdated Homeric customs thus were perceived as kind of Hillbillyish by the Athenian snobs.Demostanes used this for political propaganda. I think what etan is saying by quoting Aristotle is that many Aristoctratic Greeks of that time (Romans & others at their peaks had similar views)including Phillip beleived they were destined to rule over barbarians.If Phillip did not beleive this he would not of hired a teacher to instruct his son to treat barbarians as plants and animals other wise he would be saying he himself was a plant or animal. The fact that Alexander was able to renounce this thinking and state he does not distinguish between Greek and barbarian means he himself was an Enlightened Man Ahead of his Time.ATG from a youth was always intrested in other cultures.