pothos.org

Maybe Controversial.But Indeed to do with Ancient Greece and Alexander.
Apart from Poets Architecture and Philosophers. Were the Ancient Greeks meaningful. Or did Alexander Phipip and Macedon elevate them.Its said Aristoltle called Greece a little frog Pond. I think we can be pretty sure were it not for Macedonia A frog pond it would remain. Helenism would have gone no where and Greek expansion would go no where. I would argue Greek Cicilisation and development was totally down to the Macedonians.The Greeks were in looking and secular and couldnt live together at all. Greece and ancient Greek teachers etc always bang on about Greece Helenism ang that culture across most of the globe. But can we assume that this outward looking global spreading would never have happened not for the Macedonians.
Once The Macedonians slipped. The Greeks were whipping boys for all the other empires. FRom Rome to the Ottomans. Greece and ancient Greece owes most of its heritage of glabalisation to 3 Factors.Philip. Alexander and the peoples and soldiers of Macedonia. Maybe this will be deleted as to controversial but the facts on this speak for themselves and has nothing to do with todays Greko Macedonian debate. Its about History.Kenny

There wouldnt be a modern civilization if it werent for the ancient greek
one.Jean-Jacques Rousseau,Ren+¬ Descartes,Pascal,Galileo and all these men were influenced by the ancient greek writers and philosophers.They took the ideas of the ancient greek philosophers,mathematicians,astronomers e.t.c,and expanded them.And some of them do mention in their work that they took these ideas from the ancient greeks,some others dont.Everything that was said after 1500 a.d had already been said thousands of years ago. The macedonians did indeed spread hellenism over the east.But the east did not preserve this knowledge.The romans did though,in a way.But it wasnt until after 1500 ad that some people like Rousseau studied Plato,Socrates,Aristotle,Arhimides,Democritus e.t.c and took and expanded these people's ideas,while greece was under the otoman rule and a dark age. There isnt a single invention that is not based on the principles of Arhimides,Democritus e.t.c.There even wouldnt be a quantic theory if Democritus hadnt spoken about the atom.Just imagine it.Democritus in 400 b.c spoke of the atom.Just type Democritus in Wikipedia and you will see.THIS IS HELLENISM.Even Einstein took the atomic theory from a greek professor Constantine Karatheodoris. Kenny,the greeks may have fought eachother for a long time but this is irrelevant with hellenism.Hellenism has spread anyway.And if someone hadnt torched the library of Alexandria maybe today we would be already exploring another galaxy.

And about the recent posts here in pothos: Henry Kissinger once said "The Greek people are anarchic and difficult to tame. For this reason we must strike deep into their cultural roots: Perhaps then we can force them to conform. I mean, of course, to strike at their language, their religion,their cultural and historical reserves, so that we can neutralize their ability to develop, to distinguish themselves, or to prevail; thereby removing them as an obstacle to our strategically vital plans in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and
the Middle East." Now it all makes more sense.The macedonian-skopjan debate is just another cherry in the pie.There really is no macedonian debate in the sources.There are no expressions like "old racial rivalry between macedonians and greeks" in the ancient sources.Only deliberately altered translations as part of a bigger scheme.Anyone that reads the sources in the ancient greek prototype can see this.He will not see anything that can start or back up a macedonian debate.Anyone that knows history knows that. Borza,Badian,Green,who are professors should be able to read from the prototypes.Do they?Who knows.It's not good just to accuse some people of having agendas.maybe it's their oppinion only,that suits so well the interests in the Balcans.I have spoken to historians and archaiologists here in greece and they are all aware of this matter (the translations),but as they said there isnt anything that can be done about it.At least some sources remain as they were in the prototype,but who knows,maybe 50 years from now the prototypes will be carefully altered too.If they havent been already. This forum prohibits the discussion of the macedonian debate and this is a very good thing,because this debate is a joke anyway.But when we use Borza,Cartledge,Green,Badian,e.t.c as a source in our posts then the debate may come up again.There are many professors and researchers who are doing a very good job and are generally objective.But we must be carefull and critisize what we read.

Well, one thing that confuses me, when I read Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, etc. I don't see them discussing anything of Alexander spreading Hellenism. They discuss him adopting Persian customs, proskenesis, etc. but mention nothing of any desire on his part to spread Hellenism, ie building theatres, gymnasiums, etc. (THough I do think he wanted Darius family trained in Greek) I think Alexander the Great was concerned about his empire, continuing its expansion to the outer ocean, and then after the mutany and the Gedrosian march, interested in reorganizing it, bettering its administration, and then possibly starting to plan the next campaign as he died. I am starting to study the history of his successors now, and I can't say I am knowledgable enough yet to state maybe they spread hellas, or didn't. But Hellenism is a term that is not even 150 years old. Not to mention, look at ruins in ISrael, if they are not Israeli, Canaanite, of Philistine, they are ROMAN. There are no Greek ruins I remember. I have little doubt that the Greek language (or Macedonian form of it) spread due to the Macedonian empire, but certainly with all my years in Israel, knowing Alexander conquered it (i.e. Gaza, and just north Tyre) but I see little "Greekization of Israeli archetecture." Thus, is the idea of Hellenisation over emphasized and not historical? Don't remember Greek ruins in Jordan or Iraq either (Iraq is babylon.) Studying Susa (Persia) and the book of Esther, can't say I remember Greek buildings there either. Unless my memory needs caffine?

I do not want to continue the debate at all. But I must state clearly that Arrian and the sources do NOT get mistranslated. Plutarch would not state Macedonian as a tongue/dialect, unless there was a difference of somesort between it and southern greek, and he is not mistranslated. The ancient writers do note differences. The truth is always the right answer. Thus, I can't be a bible teacher any more because it is all lies. The truth is something I can't alter, no matter what I want it to be. (To be blunt, I wish the Bible were totally true, it would be so much more convenient for me with my family relations etc.) but the fact is it is not. The Sands do not lie, neither do Arian and other sources. Maybe what Arrian meant was the rivalry between Macedonains and the other Greeks, like the Spartans and Athenians rivaled each other too. The Greeks rivaled each other. Nonetheless, Arrian is translated correctly, and no one doubts greek city states felt they each were their own countries. Part of the problem is not "mistranslations" but misinterpretations. Good scholasticism will ALWAYS beat poor translating and poor interpreting. That said, there was rivaly between ancient Greeks and Macedonians. To deny it is poor scholarship.

Hellenism is a term that is thousands of years old.It was used back then too.And the words hellenas,hellas,e.t.c.The difference is that after the revolt of 1821 in greece the newly found nation was named as Hellas.In the ancient times there was no nation as we percieve it today.But the overall territory was called Hellas.

"Thus, I can't be a bible teacher any more because it is all lies" No Bob, YOU believe that its all lies.It's your oppinion only.And thats why you cant be a bible teacher anymore. As for the macedonian language,the only account that mantions a macedonian language (rather than a macedonian dialect)is that of Plutarch in "ANEBOA MAKEDONISTI" which really doesnt prove anything.We have already discussed it. "Maybe what Arrian meant was the rivalry between Macedonains and the other Greeks, like the Spartans and Athenians rivaled each other too." Must i really quote the ancient source again?MUST I REALLY?There is no such account of macedonian and greek old racial rivalry in the prototype of Arrian.Only duteous (i hope you know what this word means) rivalry between the macedonians and the greek mercenaries of Darius while trying to prove worthy to their King during the battle of Issus.

The dekapolis in Galilee was consisted of greek cities.The ruins of some cities still edxist today.I do not know of the architecture though.But dont expect to see Ionian or Doric style in every greek city.Dont expect to see a temple with kions (columns) everywhere... As for the Asia,there are ancient greek ruins of theatres near Babylon, and some other places,i cant remember now, but surely someone else may remember because i saw a thread about a theatre near Babylon here in Pothos forum some time ago.

There are indeed Greek buildings in Babylon; there were also many other cities founded by the Diadochoi all over the Middle East, and in Central Asia - Ai Khanoum in Afghanistan (or is it in one of the Central Asian countries, now?) is a prime example. Antioch, of course, was founded by either Seleucus or Antiochus ... and there were plenty more, such as Seleucia-on-the-Tigris.Admittedly, in many places the Roman remains outnumber the Greek ones; but buildings do get razed and replaced, and we also shouldn't forget that there could be loads of exciting archaeology underneath the modern cities, that cannot be reached.There's no doubt that Greek cities, buildings and institutions were spread throughout the areas of Alexander's conquests. How far Alexander 'planned' it is, to some extent, a moot point - of course the sources don't go into details, but one should remember that (a) it happened anyway, and (b) if Alexander were founding a city, why would he found anything other than a typical Greek city, which was what he knew?ATBMarcus

DOn't quote it again...
That passage is not mistranslated, and someone else put up four different translations up, and all were by reputable books and all agreed. (Thus, we can agree to politely disagree)
As per Biblical fact, as an atheist or polythiest or agnositic (which ever I am???) it doens't matter to me if you believe the Bible to be true, or if you have studied archaeological fact, what matters if I have come to the conclusions it is a lie based on hard facts. By the mere fact I am hated here either for being Jewish (and as an "unsaved man going to hell"), or more likely hated for having the views that I have on ATG, I get treated like trash, even when I am asking questions that have nothing to do with forbidden topics.
Since I am a webmaster for more than one synagogue (Messianic and Jewish) and I have taken community college classes in HTML, DreamWeaver, Photoship, Flash, Shockwave, etc. maybe I just need to put those skills to work elsewhere. I have been trying to drop the subject, but if others will treat me poorly due to past posts deleted that showed my views I can just move on. It is not like I am not talking to others here now off the forum...

Yes, the name "Decapolis" is "Greek" defenately (10 cities). Thanks for responding politely by the way.
But the Jews called it something different, and most Israeli Archaeologists and tour guids understand these as roman cities, but called "deka polis" in the Greek New Testament because that was the Language of the Greek New Testament.
Jesus' story there of pig herders and a man (or two men pending which gospel you read) shows that it was gentiles who lived there, for Jews don't eat pig. However, the question still stands, what did Alexander do to spread Greek culture? What I am saying, is that he spread his own imperialism and was concerned about his ambitions, his greatness, his competition against himself and the gods, etc. This is what I see Alexander doing. I do not see him at all prideful he was Macedonian, or Greek, but I do see him as a Proud Pharaoh, a proud son of Zeus Ammon, etc. I see him as deeply superstitious, religious, etc. I also see him around greek religion more than other religions, even to a degree in Egypt, he could have went to memphis, but instead chose Siwah which was more Greek in terms of prestige. But I see him as a campaigner, not a spreader of culture, a spreader of his empire...

Thanks Marcus, you may indeed be right, of course, Alexander felt Israel was so small, he basically skipped right over it, Israel (my people) have really been mice, that do play while the cat is away, and have never ever been a super power or an empire. Josephus claim of Alexander at the Jewish temple was myth; the Temple did not have any international acclaim as did Delphi. I know that sounds nuts, but good Jewish scholars know that it was Christiantiy that put Judaism on the map as a world religion so to speak, and it really is not a world religion, since Jews do not convert...
My point is that Israel was not signigicant enough for Alexander to build in, Alexandria in Egypt made more sense than it would in Israel. Joppa was a Jewish port, but was Useless even compared to Tyres. Not to know my own people, but that is the truth...

"Well, one thing that confuses me, when I read Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, etc. I don't see them discussing anything of Alexander spreading Hellenism" It has been the pattern of the conqueror to impose their native language,customs culture on the conquered. Hint
Did the Spanish Conquistadors conquer most of Central and South America to spread the virtues of Spanish,Language,Culture and Catholism or were they after the gold wealth and glory for the Spanish Crown's among world powers while they themselves (Conquistadors) shared in the wealth and glory.. The answer is obvious and as such there was no need to document something that falls into the scope of common sense.

The other thing to consider, of course, as far as the entire Levant is concerned, is that most of the cities submitted to Alexander, and were therefore not destroyed. Hence the relative lack of re-foundation that went on. Tyre was largely destroyed, and Alexander began rebuilding it almost immediately - whether or not Hellenic elements were included in the new city I don't know. I can't remember whether Gaza was destroyed - it probably was damaged, so might have required refounding. I don't know the extent of Palestine (was it Judaea by that point?) - that's obviously more your thing than mine - but, as you say, it might have been just too 'insignificant'. There is, of course, the story that Al visited Jerusalem (largely agreed to be a later myth); but as the city submitted to him he had no reason to pull any of it down. That was left to Titus!ATBMarcus

"Greece and ancient Greece owes most of its heritage of glabalisation to 3 Factors.""Philip. Alexander and the peoples and soldiers of Macedonia" The Macedonians like any other conquerors imposed their native in this case Greek language,culture,institutions on the conquered.This is typical behavior on of conquerors.Rome imposed its language,culture,institutions on their conquered subjects,so did the Spainiards,Monguls ,British Empire ,t ,Arabs ,Turks,Nothing Mysterios Here. One can debate whether their goal was to simply seek the riches of the east,to rid the Persians of their influence in the known world,to lead a crusade of Greek revenge with MACEDONIA getting the HOMERIC HONOR,to furfill the Alexanders HERORIC ASPIRATIONS OF BEING A HOMERIC HERO LIKE HIS BELEIVED ANCESTOR ACHILLIES.Perhaps a comination of the above or an original strategic aim and as time went on strategic goals and objectives change as they do in virtually every military conquest. Can't resist this quote from BOBs idol the lengendary Borza who stated that this whole ATG stuff was nothing more then a training excercise and test for ATG and his men.Perhaps George W Bush might consider invading China for these exact same reason to simply test our military capabilities in Asia.
HELLENISM was spread as a result of conquest.