Historians on the Ancient Macedonians

[Leo255]

Hello, I come before you people today with a question.

What makes you think that you know better than professional historians?

I'm not talking about unheard of Greek historians but neutral historians from the biggest universities in the world who unanimously agree that the Ancient Macedonians were Greek.

Examples:

http://youtu.be/GOPb-7mbEUk

http://youtu.be/ZgbzogXbyK8

http://youtu.be/ATw-k2R1IsQ

I personally wrote my dissertation on Alexander at King's College London and had to read around 25 books on him. All of these books agreed that the Macedonians were Greek. My lecturer even said it on the first day and said to ignore anything that said otherwise as nationalist propaganda.

I'm just curious and am hoping for a civilised discussion. I honestly don't mean to offend anyone. Why do you believe that historians have these views if they are not true?

[vicsinad]

By "you people", I'm assuming you mean the ethnic Macedonians of this forum. Is that correct?

A more important question to ask might be why modern-day Greeks think they are related to ancient Greeks.

There are many sources that show Macedonians were (and are) not Greeks. I'll just put a couple to get the ball rolling.

Did you read Phillip Freeman's book, Alexander the Great, published 2011? Just one example of a modern-day author who adamantly states that ancient-Macedonians weren't Greek:

Language, as well as politics, culture, and so much else, reinforced the opinion of the Greeks that the Macedonians were a separate people, barbarians from beyond Olympus, no matter how hard their kings might try to behave like Greeks. And to most Macedonians, this was just fine. They saw the Greeks as feeble, effeminate, self-important snobs who had long since squandered whatever manliness and courage they had possessed when they had driven back the Persian invaders more than a century earlier. The Macedonian nobility might study Greek philosophy and recite the poetry of Homer, but the common Macedonian soldier was proud not to be Greek.

But there are several older books as well. Here's one:

A History of Greece, from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest, by William George Smith, George Washington Greene, published 1857

Pg. 501:

But though the Macedonians were not Greeks, their sovereigns claimed to be descended from an Hellenic race[.]

Or "The History of Rome" - Volumes 1-2 - Page 39, Published 1844

When Macedonia had become a great kingdom, the main part of the Macedonian people was made up of Greeks, Illyrians, Paeonians, and Thracians; but the core of the nation was still a peculiar race, which can neither be considered as Greek nor Illyrian.

[Amphipolis]

Examples:

http://youtu.be/GOPb-7mbEUk

As a Greek, I’m not very impressed by the first professor. His major points are wrong:

1) The word ethnos (nation) was indeed wider than today. It could mean group, tribe, sex (the female ethnos) etc. but I don’t remember the term Macedonian ethnos being used in Ancient texts or that being a problem.

2) What's with the repetitive use of the term baron and the description of the situation in Macedonia. The other Greeks did not exactly have “city-states” or democracy. They had kingdoms and monarchs and a wide variety of political systems and attitudes. Sparta is a perfect example of this. Yes, Macedonia has a king (basileus) and several noblemen around him who do not worship him like a God (as Persians would do). What's so different about that? Do you think Thebes was different?

3) Macedonians were a little “delayed” comparing to Athens (culturally and politically) and that is all, but who wasn’t?


===

[Amphipolis]

Did you read Phillip Freeman's book, Alexander the Great, published 2011? Just one example of a modern-day author who adamantly states that ancient-Macedonians weren't Greek:

Quote:
Language, as well as politics, culture, and so much else, reinforced the opinion of the Greeks that the Macedonians were a separate people, barbarians from beyond Olympus, no matter how hard their kings might try to behave like Greeks. And to most Macedonians, this was just fine. They saw the Greeks as feeble, effeminate, self-important snobs who had long since squandered whatever manliness and courage they had possessed when they had driven back the Persian invaders more than a century earlier. The Macedonian nobility might study Greek philosophy and recite the poetry of Homer, but the common Macedonian soldier was proud not to be Greek.

Is that book... a novel? That guy calls us sissies (no… wait, I’m from Macedonia) and forgets to put references. Do you have more quotes by him?

[vicsinad]

He didn't call you a sissy. He said that's what the Macedonians thought about Greeks. Stop getting your panties in a bunch. (See, he's right about how Macedonians think.)

He has plenty of sources.

[Philosopher]

Hello, I come before you people today with a question.

What makes you think that you know better than professional historians?

I'm not talking about unheard of Greek historians but neutral historians from the biggest universities in the world who unanimously agree that the Ancient Macedonians were Greek.

Examples:

http://youtu.be/GOPb-7mbEUk

http://youtu.be/ZgbzogXbyK8

http://youtu.be/ATw-k2R1IsQ

I personally wrote my dissertation on Alexander at King's College London and had to read around 25 books on him. All of these books agreed that the Macedonians were Greek. My lecturer even said it on the first day and said to ignore anything that said otherwise as nationalist propaganda.

I'm just curious and am hoping for a civilised discussion. I honestly don't mean to offend anyone. Why do you believe that historians have these views if they are not true?

Care to share your ethnic identity lad?

There is no unanimous opinion on the alleged Greekness of ancient Macedonia.

That is absurd.

[sydney]

Philosopher is on the money. There is no conclusive evidence that Macedonians were Greeks. So who carries the burden of proof on this topic?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Hello, I come before you people today with a question.......I'm just curious and am hoping for a civilised discussion. I honestly don't mean to offend anyone.

If you're hoping for a civilised discussion without offending anyone, you would do well to refer to the people here by their ethnic name, which is Macedonians. Referring to Macedonians as "you people" is unacceptable. Consider this exception a starting kindness on my part. It will be the only one.

I personally wrote my dissertation on Alexander at King's College London and had to read around 25 books on him. All of these books agreed that the Macedonians were Greek.

You must have been very selective when choosing those 25 books if you didn't notice any ambiguity at all on the subject. Was Peter Green's 'Alexander of Macedon' part of that collection you read? If so, what are you thoughts on his work? Did you only read the books of modern authors, or did you also read those from antiquity?

[Stojacanec]

List these 25 books that show how they all agreed that Macedonians were greeks citing evidence.

Since you have written a paper on this, you should be able to get it from your top draw.

Your King's College London sounds more like a greek Sunday school!

[Leo255]

vicsinad - In response to your comment about Modern Greeks being related to the Ancient, I would say that the Romans and Ottomans were imperial rulers and not colonisers.

They did not commit genocide against us and replace us with their own people, they ruled over us and administrated.

Were you not conquered by the Ottomans also? If the Ottomans did indeed spread their seed, why would we have any more of their blood than you?

As for Phillip Freeman, that is a surprising choice to counter my post. He is not conclusive on the issue of Macedonian identity and if anything merely states that they "may" have not Spoken Greek.

"The Macedonian tongue was so far removed from Athens or Sparta that it may well have been a different language entirely"

Even if he had supported your viewpoint, I posted professors from LSE, Oxford and Yale along with 70+ others and your counter is a single historian from Luther College?

The older articles are outdated because they predate the excavation of Macedonia which has proved the Ancient Macedonians had their own unique dialect of Greek and did not just speak it for administrative purposes.

Do you not have anything more modern?

Philosopher - I'm Greek born in UK, hence my interest in the subject.

Soldier of Macedon - No I did not as it was not on the reading list recommended by my lecturer. I read what was suggested to me, my aim with the module was to get a good grade, not to prove that Alexander was Greek.

The issue of Macedonian ethnicity was obviously not an essay question but was relevant when it came to studying certain actions by Alexander E.G The desire to emulate Achilles

It was also important when analysing as to why Arrian and Plutarch's accounts of Alexander are rather more hyperbolic than Curtius'. As Greeks under Roman rule, they would want to glorify his achievements to show cultural superiority.

Stojacanec - You're calling KCL a Greek Sunday school based on the fact that the lecturer considered the Macedonians to be Greek? Are Oxford and Yale Sunday schools too?

My lecturer was Hugh Bowden, read any work of his and you'll see his opinion on the matter.

The works that I referenced were:

Adams, W.L. (2004) Alexander the Great: Legacy of a Conquerer, United States.
Bosworth, A.B and Elizabeth Baynham. (2002) Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. King's Lynn.
Baynham, E. (2004) Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius. Michigan.
Bowden, H. (2013) 'On kissing and making up: court protocol and historiography in Alexander the Great's "experiment with proskynesis"', Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 56: 55-77.
Duff, T..E, and I. Scott-Klivert. (2012) The Age of Alexander. London.
Fox, R.L. (2004) Alexander the Great. Suffolk.
Hammond, M., and J. Atkinson. (2013) Alexander the Great: The Anabasis and the Indica. Oxford.
Hammond, N.G.L. (1993) Sources for Alexander the Great: An Analysis of Plutarch's 'Life' and Arrian's 'Anabasis Alexandrou”. Cambridge.
Hammond, N.G.L. (2007) Three Historians of Alexander the Great. New York.
Mosse, C. (2004) Alexander: Destiny and Myth. Edinburgh.
Spencer, D. (2002) The Roman Alexander: Reading a Cultural Myth, Exeter.Hammond, N.G.L (2004) The Genius of Alexander the Great. London.
Yardley, J, and W. Heckel (2004) The History of Alexander. London.
Worthington, I. (2004) Alexander the Great: Man and God. Edinburgh.
Worthington, I. (2012) Alexander the Great: A Reader. New York

I was given access to many more books / articles but did not use them for the dissertation.

The 3rd link I posted elaborates on the reasons why historians considered the Macedonians to be Greek. I do apologise for the slur in that video.

I also apologise if I offended anyone by saying "you people".

You may also wish to check out the vast number of references on Alexander's Wiki page to support the statement that he was a king of the "Ancient Greek Kingdom of Macecon"

In my own opinion, the evidence that helped me make up my own mind were:

- The primary sources indicate that Alexander himself considered the Macedonians to be Greek. He speaks of "Macedonia and the rest of Greece" in a letter to Darius and there is also the inscription in Asia Minor of "Alexander and the Greeks except the Spartans".

- All of the Macedonians' names are Greek. If only Phillip and Alexander had Greek names then I would consider that they spoke the language for administrative purposes. This is not the case and all the Macedonian soldiers referred to have Greek names.

Why would the illiterate and most likely peasant Macedonian populace who had no day to day interactions with the Greeks give their children Greek names unless it was their indigenous language?

- There is no reference to translators being needed when the Macedonians attended the Athenian court. We have references to them being needed when the Thracians and Illyrians attended.

- Greek plays were performed in Macedonia. These would be pointless unless the people spoke Greek.

- There is very clear evidence that the Trojans did not speak Greek. This was hundreds of years before Alexander. Why would their different language not be documented if it existed?

- On the contrary, every excavation from Macedonia is in Greek. The Pella Curse Tablet is the most important of these as it demonstrates that Macedonian was a peculiar dialect of Greek - Hence why it may have been considered a barbarian tongue by the Athenians.

The Macedonians conquered all the way to India yet we are expected to believe that this great and powerful civilisation did not produce a single written document in its own language?

- Macedonia is a Greek word. All of the locations in Ancient Macedonia had Greek names. Presumably these would have been named long before the Macedonian aristocracy supposedly decided to start imitating the Greeks. They would have been named as soon as the people settled in the area, with the indigenous language.

- The Persians called the Macedonians the "Yaunã Takabara", "Greeks with hats that look like shields". They would not have done so unless the Macedonians were actually Greek.

- The Macedonians were angered by Alexander's adoption of Persian customs. They believed that the Macedonian way was best. They would not have such a complex if they themselves had merely copied their culture from the Greeks. They certainly did not believe in cultural assimilation. Their would suggest their Greek culture was indigenous.

- We are told that the Macedonians pronounced P as B. Why would we not have been told that they spoke a different language altogether? Instead we just have a comment about their pronunciation of Greek.

- Livy speaks of the Aetolians, Acarnanians and Macedonians as "Men of the same language"

-Livy speaks of a Roman proclamation being translated from Latin to Greek for the Macedonians to understand.

- Rufus says that the Branchidae spoke the same language as the Macedonians.

- Why was the period following Alexander called the "Hellenistic Period"? If the Macedonians had their own language, it is inconceivable that at least one of the successor kingdoms would have spoken Macedonian and not adopted Greek.

-If we look at a map of Ancient Macedonia, we see that around 75% of it is located in Greece while the rest in Republic of Macedonia. Why would the people of Skopje, which was not even located in the Ancient Kingdom have a better claim to be ancestors of the Macedonians then the Greeks who today live in Pella?

My own opinion is that there can be little doubt that the Ancient Greeks did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek. There are a number of reasons as to why and many historians have gone to great lengths elaborating as to why.

It is pretty clear though that the Macedonians did speak a dialect of Greek and this would make them Ancient Greeks by today's judgements of ethnicity.

[Risto the Great]

Leo, are you so confident in your dissertation? Why don't you put it up here for some discussion? You might be surprised with the insight some "amateurs" might be able to share.

It is pretty clear though that the Macedonians did speak a dialect of Greek and this would make them Ancient Greeks by today's judgements of ethnicity.

A laughable comment that has no backing from eminent historians.

My suggestion is this guy gets banned unless he puts his dissertation here for critical analysis.

[Tomche Makedonche]

Even if he had supported your viewpoint, I posted professors from LSE, Oxford and Yale along with 70+ others and your counter is a single historian from Luther College? .

Not this again… the repeated reliance upon Greeks on this type of argument is getting to be rather pathetic. You know, if you go back 20 years or so, the majority of astronomers, academics, universities, museums, encyclopaedia’s and books in general around the world would have emphatically stated that our solar system consisted of nine planets. Today they all state that our solar system only consists of eight planets, and guess what, it’s not because one of them disappeared or blew up in that time frame. What does that tell you about all those experts, institutions and books of 20 years ago?

I think Galileo Galilei addressed this type of argument best when he said: “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual”

In response to your comment about Modern Greeks being related to the Ancient, I would say that the Romans and Ottomans were imperial rulers and not colonisers

They did not commit genocide against us and replace us with their own people, they ruled over us and administrated.

So are we to understand that by this you mean to claim ethnically pure ancestry (ethnic homogeneity) with the ancient Greeks of 2000+ years ago?, is this the stance those 70+ professors and your supposed lecturer supports?

As for the rest, it seems the further the reader goes, the lower the IQ needs to drop, I mean this cracker here is quite spectacular:

Why would the people of Skopje, which was not even located in the Ancient Kingdom have a better claim to be ancestors of the Macedonians then the Greeks who today live in Pella?

Tell you what, whenever you bother to actually visit Pella for the first time in your life, how bout when greeting people from that area, instead of saying “Yassas”, try “Dobar Den”, I dare say the experience will be quite bewildering (if not somewhat traumatic) for an individual such as yourself.

I agree with Risto, your supposed narrative is unconvincing, let’s see this dissertation of yours in order to confirm that you are in fact genuine and not just another Greek Drone.

[Carlin]

1)






2)

Η ΙΛΛΥΡΙΚΗ ΚΑΤΑΓΩΓΗ ΤΩΝ ΑΡΧΑΙΩΝ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ -- The Illyrian Origin of the ancient Macedonians

ΣΩΚΡΑΤΗΣ Ν.ΛΙΑΚΟΣ

http://www.exlibris-oldbooks.gr/product/2793/64/i-illuriki-katagwgi-twn-arxaiwn-makedonwn.html

[vicsinad]

Leo:

Your elitism is sickening.

But because you value where one comes from over what one says or does, let's not put Philip Freeman's name to shame. He may teach at Luther College, but he received his PhD from Harvard University in 1994. He also taught at Harvard.

https://www.luther.edu/freeph01/assets/PhillipFreemanCV.pdf

[Karposh]

I noticed that one of the authors that our brand new Greek friend on this forum has taken inspiration from, for his alleged dissertation, is AB Bosworth. That's really interesting considering Bosworth is one of the go-to authors Macedonians often quote when arguing their case about the non-Greek character of the ancient Macedonians. The following is taken from a well-known Macedonian web site which, might be argued (by Greeks), is taken out of context for propaganda purposes. However, the very same is taken from Bosworth's response to N.G.L. Hammond (who, like Robin Lane Fox is a staunch philhellene) in Ancient History Bulletin 10.1 (1996) 19 - 30.
*
[1] Bosworth responds to Hammond regarding the usage of the Macedonian language by Alexander: "I deliberately refrain from adopting any position on the linguistic status of ancient Macedonian. It has little significance outside the nationalistic propaganda of the contemporary Balkan states, in which prejudice and dogma do duty for rational thought. What matters for the present argument is the fact, explicit in Curtius, that Macedonian was largely unintelligible to non-Macedonians. Macedonians might understand Greek, and some Greek (like Eumenes) with experience of Macedon might speak Macedonian. However, even Eumenes took care that a vital message was conveyed to the phalangites of Neoptolemus by a man fluent in Macedonian (MAKEDONI/ZONTA TH]=FWNH]=:PSI 12. 1284,col. ii. 19-20).] "Alexander shouted out in Macedonian, and called the hypaspists in Macedonian." In my view there is nothing at all surprising in the use of Macedonian. Alexander was calling his hypaspists, who were Macedonians, and he addressed them in their native language/dialect."

[2] In Hammond's view the soldiers from Lower Macedonia (old kingdom) spoke Macedonian while the soldiers from the Upper Macedonia spoke a dialect of West Greek.
Bosworth's response: "The evidence for this hypothesis is decidedly tenuous. Nearly two centuries before Alexander Hecataeus may have described the Orestians as a Molossian tribe, but, as far as I can ascertain, there is no evidence for the language of any or all of the Upper Macedonian people before the time of Alexander, and nothing to suggest that the hypaspists were anything other than linguistically homogeneous." "Alexander's invitation to speak (Curt. 6. 9. 34) presupposes that the entire army spoke Macedonian." "Alexander's challenge presupposes that all the army would understand an address in Macedonian." "He used Macedonian because the troops would instantly understand and (he expected) would react immediately. There is no need for more complicated explanation."
It is evident from the text of Arrian, Plutarch, and Curtius Rufus that Alexander's army spoke Macedonian and not Greek. Any other interpretation would be intolerably difficult, if not impossible, to accept.

[3] About the Macedonian army: "The turning point in the evolution of Alexander's army appears to have been the year 330. Until then the Macedonian component was progressively reinforced, reaching peaks before Issus and after the arrival of Amyntas' great contingent late in 331. Alexander then thought it safe to divest himself of non Macedonian troops. The forces from the Corinthean League, [the Greek] infantry and cavalry, were demobilized from Ecbetana in the spring of 330; [Arr. III.19.6-7; Plut. Al. 42.5; Diod. XVII.74.3-4; Curt. VI.2.17] even the [Greek] Thessalian cavalry who re-enlisted were dismissed at the Oxus last than a year later (Arr. III.29.5) Alexander now relied on the Macedonian nucleus for front-line work and the mercenaries for support function." [p.271] Conquest and Empire.
"Alexander had deliberately retained the offspring of his Macedonian veterans when he demobilized them, promising to train them in Macedonian style.(Arr. VII.12.2; Justin XII.4.2-10.) His ultimate purpose was to weld them into a military force without attachment of race or domicile, loyal to himself alone. The transformation of the Macedonian national army with its regionally based units could not have been more complete." [p.273] Conquest and Empire.

[4] Bosworth on the allied (including Greek) troops: "The structure of command seems to have been parallel to that of the Macedonian cavalry, with regionally based ilai, but at the head was a Macedonian commander. The rest of the [Greek] allied cavalry, predominantly from central Greece and the Peloponnese, was much less important and effective, fewer in number and less prominent in action. Like the [Greek] Thessalian they were divided into ilai (Tod. GHI no 197.3) under the command of a Macedonian officer." [p.264] Conquest and Empire.
"The infantry from the allied Greek states is more problematic. They formed a contingent numerically strong, 7,000 of them crossing the Hellespont in 334, and they were predominantly heavy-armed hoplites. But once in Asia they are mainly notable for their absence. There is no explicit record of them in any of the major battles. At Guagamela we may infer that they provided most of the men for the reserve phalanx (Arr. III.12.1), but in the other engagements there is no room for them. They are only mentioned as participants in subsidiary campaigns, usually under Parmenio's command (in the Troad, at the Amanid Gates, in Phrygia, and in the march on Persis), and they never appear in the entourage of Alexander." [p.264] Conquest and Empire
[Point of Interest] Are these the Greek troops with Alexander? Are these the same Greek troops with Alexander that went on the Asian conquest? Can Alexander's conquest be called a Greek conquest? Can Alexander's army be called Greek army? There is absolutely nothing in the literature to even remotely suggest that my quest to find and bring forward documented evidence for the ethnic affinity of the ancient Macedonians is losing steam. On the contrary, the conclusion is solidified with avery passing sentence: There was no Greek conquest with Alexander. There was nothing Greek with Alexander or his Macedonians.

[5] "There was also the question of loyalty. Alexander might well have been reluctant to rely on men recently vanquished at Chaeronea to face the Hellenic mercenaries in Persian service. It was too much kin against kin, and his Greek allies naturally had less stomach for the task than his native Macedonians." [p.264] Conquest and Empire.

[6] Alexander's views on the Greeks in Asia. We should never deviate too far from our main focal point to find and present demonstrable evidence where Alexander's actions and policies strongly and convincingly illustrate his innermost feelings and aspirations. Here, you will see that Alexander treated the Greeks in Asia as any other conquered people, and that is a testament, by itself, that, he, Alexander did not view the Greeks as his own people. Judging by his actions, one will be hard press to find any difference between his treatment of the Greeks and that of the barbarians.
"It is most unlikely that the Greeks of Asia were incorporated in the Corinthian League. This is an issue which has been endlessly debated with surprising intensity, but arguments inevitably founders on the lack of evidence. That silence does have some weight. If the Greek cities had been involved in the League with its symmachical obligations, it is remarkable that there is never any reference to alliance or even to a formal treaty. As we have seen repeatedly, Alexander dealt with them as a victorious despot not as the executive head of an expanding League."[p.255], "As he continued east, the Greeks receded into obscurity and there is virtually no record of them." [p.256] [Conquest and Empire].

[7] Ancient authors testify that Alexander heavily depended on his Macedonians, whom he called 'his kinsmen', to carry the brunt of his campaign. "Alexander himself seems to have made little distinction in his last years between Greeks of Europe or Asia, or even between Greeks and barbarians." [p.257]

[Point of Interest] And this fact alone, must be constantly born in mind when one ascribes any "greekness" to Alexander. For, Alexander would not put his own people in an equal balance with the barbarians of the East. Was Alexander the Great a Greek King? Does this action suggest anything of a sort? It is morally corrupt, and historically incorrect to even suggest that Alexander the Great belonged to any other nation but Macedonia. He remained loyal to his royal Macedonian heritage to the last day of his life.