Tweet
Total ignorance or deliberate forgery (Greece - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) – Rebuttal
Gandeto
August 30, 2009
This will be a short response (I hope) to the above titled article published on Aug. 25, 2009 in the American Chronicle, submitted by our adversary certain Capetan Doukas. I was hoping, since our last meeting a few moons ago, that he would get a promotion but it seems that his copy and paste technique from a ready-made distribution library has gotten him nowhere too soon. Sharpen up your skills mate, and do some original authored work for a change.
I´ve noticed that you fell short in answering many of the "charges" raised against the alleged Greekness of the Macedonians. You did not however, fail, nor did you disappoint—it is, after all, a proven classic defense mechanism—in leveling insults against me even though what I have presented in my article was a report prepared by a British Major General, Sir Ardach, whose content I shall post again to clarify:
(a) It is he, Sir Ardach who states: "I conceived that an examination of the early Greek geographers would throw some light upon them, and I have been able to procure, and annex extracts from them in Greek with translations. Strabo, Scylax, Dichaerchus, Scymnus, and Dionysius all concur in making Greece commence at the Ambracian Gulf, and terminate at the river Peneus".
Let´s re-emphasize the obvious:
He was able to procure and annex extracts from them in Greek with translation. All those Greek authors concur "in making Greece commence at the Ambracian Gulf and terminate at the river Peneus".
Your reading comprehension has failed you; obviously you have a problem accepting the fact that all these Greek authors are unanimous in their geographical description of Greece´s boundaries.
First, it is apparent that this fact ruffled your feathers because it goes contrary
to what you have been told to believe in, and second, bear in mind that you cannot selectively use an author´s text when it suits your fancy and dismiss him when you do not like what he writes.
(b) It is he, Major General, Sir Ardach who states:
The catalogue of the ships in the Iliad, the various lists of the Amphictyonic tribes, the states engaged in the Peloponnesian war, the travels of Anacharsis , the description of Greece by Pausanias, and the natural history of Pliny—all give proof of the same fact, by positive or negative evidence;
To be underlined, to be extracted, emphasized and remembered that:
"All give proof of the same fact by positive or negative evidence".
Your anger, your disappointment and your unwillingness to see the presented facts as truth is not my problem. Dance around these facts (in your fustanellas) as long as you want, but the report stands on its own merit.
(c) It is he, who states:
"Nor have I found anywhere a suggestion that Epirus was Greek, except that Dodona, the great oracle, though situated amid barbarians, was a Greek institution, and the legend that the Molossian Kings were of the house of Aeacidae. When Epirus first became powerful, 280 B.C., Greece had long been under the complete ascendency of the Macedonians, and after the fall of the Empire at the battle of Pydna, 168 B.C., it became a Roman province in 148 B.C. The establishment of Greek independence in 1832 was exactly 2,000 years after the battle of Pydna."
This should give you another clue that Macedonia was never a part of Greece. A case can be made in the opposite direction of Greek city-states being conquered and incorporated (but not integrated) into the Macedonian Empire.
It is demonstrably obvious that Greeks in the Diaspora in general and those of you still living in Greece in particular, will experience difficulties in digesting and accepting evidence as reported by neutral and objective sources. It is called "truth" that comes untarnished, uncorrupted and unbiased; an esoteric entity for many Greeks; stuff that many of you are not accustomed to receiving and arguably, due to brainwashing, show complete disdain in accepting it. You or someone in your Hellenic propaganda department wrote:
"In his last delirium Gandeto reached such levels of Goebelism using audacious lies and blatant distortions of historical sources, that even the aforementioned famous Nazi propagandist would have been proud to sign himself; such a monumental masterpiece of the art of falsifying historical truth which has been recorded centuries ago by worldwide known ancient authors."
Sorry, but I could not accept such a lofty position for myself nor do I deserve one. Audacious lies and blatant distortions are your (Greeks) specialties. It is a Greek thing for sure. Ask around and you will not be disappointed.
By the way, a definition of a "distortion" as described by Encarta Dictionary states:
"The bending, twisting, stretching, or forcing of something out of its usual or natural shape; reporting of something in a way that is inaccurate or misleading."
Well, Capetan Doukas, I hope that you will not object if I indulge your expertise in explaining what the definition of "distortion" entails. Since I do not want to belabor the obvious, I´d use an already existing example to prove my point. A "distortion" will resemble something like this:
Remember you wanted to show how ancient Greeks felt about seeing Alexander the Great seated on the throne of Darius and you brought this episode from Plutarch´s Agesilaus? That was supposed to be your "proof" that Alexander from Macedon was Greek, correct?
You wrote:
"Now Demaratus the Corinthian, one of Philip's intimate friends, when he had seen Alexander in Susa, exclaimed with tears of joy that all the Greeks who had died before that hour had been deprived of a great joy, since they had not seen Alexander seated on the throne of Darius."
Would you agree that the reader of the above quote gets the impression that since Alexander was Greek, all the Greeks would have experienced a great joy seeing a Greek seated on the throne of Darius? That is certainly the impression I have obtained, and more than likely, would any other less informed and unsuspecting reader.
Trouble is though, that by not reporting the entire dialogue between these two Greeks, you not only deprived the reader from understanding the actual exchange that transpired regarding the scene at the throne of Darius, but you clearly, with deceptive intent in mind—purposefully—omitted the rest of the conversation as to deceive, mislead and definitely, to distort its context. That is the true definition of a liar and a distortion artist.
Let me show you the entire episode that your handlers "forgot" to include in the text:
Please read and remember that I do not use second-hand information, nor do I rely on lies and distortions to prove my points.
"I certainly cannot agree with Demarathus the Corinthian, who said that those Greeks who did not live to see Alexander seated on the throne of Darius had been deprived of a great pleasure.
This is what you left out because it does not fit with your contorted thinking:
"On the contrary, I believe that they would have been more likely to weep when they remembered that this triumph was left for Alexander and his Macedonians, while they themselves squandered the lives of Greek generals on the battlefields of Leuctra, Coronea, Corinth and Arcadia"(Plut.Agesilaus.15).
Mate, what you forgot to include in your distorted quote was the essence of the whole argument that ancient Greeks never included the ancient Macedonians in their Hellenic mix. Ancient Macedonians never saw themselves as Greeks either. Corroborative evidence you will find in Diodorus 17.62.2 and 17.62.3.
That brings me to your second "proof" of the alleged Greekness of the ancient Macedonians – The Alexander I´s quote:
(2) Using Herodotus´ ("The Histories", 9.45.1) report of the alleged nightly travel of Alexander I to the Greek camp, is an old debunked and otherwise unsupported by evidence fairy tale, propagated by Alexander himself to avoid possible retributions by the Greeks after the Persian departure.
"Men of Athens, I give you this message in trust as a secret which you must reveal to no one but Pausanias, or else you will be responsible for my undoing. In truth I would not tell it to you if I did not care so much for all Hellas; I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery….. If, however, this war ends as you wish, then must you take thought how to save me too from slavery, who have done so desperate a deed as this for the sake of Hellas in my desire to declare to you Mardonius' intent so that the barbarians may not attack you suddenly before you yet expect them. I who speak am Alexander the Macedonian."
A few points of interest for our readers:
Observe the congested situation at Plataea: Herodotus tells us (9.45) that both armies stayed at their position and ready to fight for 11 straight days. He puts the number of Greek troops at 110,000 men (9.30), not counting the support personnel, and the Persian army to well over 300,000 infantry alone (9. 32). The cavalry units were separate. If we add, at least 3-4 support personnel, a very conservative estimate (each Spartan was attended by 7 helots Hdt. 9.10; 9.29), we will reach a figure of over one million people alone, let alone the number of transport animals that go with it. Curtius in 3.3.8-25 tells us that an enormous baggage train of animals, equipment and carts followed the Persian armies. We are also informed in Herodotus 9.39 that a train of five hundred mules bringing food for the allied Greek army was intercepted together with an untold number of Greeks who were streaming down to join the ranks of the allied Greek army. In other words, the place was, to put it mildly, heavily congested with animals, civilians and soldiers.
First, it is inconceivable to imagine that a king of a strong nation would sneak out in the depths of night (presumably unnoticed, even though we are talking about over a million people around), ride through a very hostile territory, and expose himself to a grave danger with catastrophic consequences, just to deliver a message that could have been sent by a soldier.
Second, Alexander I must have had his commanding quarters guarded by his private bodyguards (this must be a normal protocol of a king), who would have seen him depart or at least assist him in his endeavors to sneak out unnoticed. Around Alexander, as a commanding officer under Xerxes, we expect to find several other soldiers whose job would have been to assist the king in his daily activities or simply to tend to his person. Thus, the number of people who would have known about his mission increases significantly.
Next, the fact that Alexander begins his speech with "Men of Athens" instead of addressing the commanders personally, since he already asked for them by names, signifies inconsistent behavior on his part. Problematic is his phrase also:
"I am myself a Greek by descent" and a strong suspect his departing assertion, "I am Alexander of Macedon" (Borza 1990). Why do we find the last two statements problematic and slightly provident?
The whole story is wrapped with cumbersome appendages that make it look very insecure. And insecure it is, invented by Alexander himself, or someone in his court in charge of "publicity-damage-control department. Alexander I, was a shrewd politician indeed; he must have said to himself: the Persians would be gone from here, and the business was going great while it lasted, now, it´s time to mend the fences with your neighbors who would always be here.
It is evident that these apparent stories about Alexander I´s services rendered to the Greeks were given to Herodotus to be disseminated in Greece. Credit must be given to Alexander I if he, indeed, benefited from the scheme at all. The gold statue of himself dedicated to Delphi and at Olympia as the first fruit from the spoils from the Persians (Hdt.7.121.1), indicates how insecure he felt about his ´Hellenic bond´ with the Greeks to the south.
For him to make so many attempts to confirm his Greekness is either a case where he was not readily accepted as Greek, or that he was readily rejected as one. Final point: If Alexander I was Greek, why then, was he dubbed "Philhellene"?
Your next point is Isocrates. Here, again you avoided the obvious that this Greek pundit made an explicit separation between Macedonians and Greeks.
3. Isocrates,"To Philip",5.62
To quote Isocrates´ letter to Philip and use it as some kind of proof for the alleged Greekness of the ancient Macedonians is a sure sign of deliberate nearsightedness and total submission to ignorance. If you Greeks can glide past the eloquent elaboration of the text of Isocrates´ letter to Philip II—furnished by non other than Ernst Badian—and still use that text as evidence for Greekness, then you do not need evidence per se, but are badly and urgently in need of medical/psychological help instead.
Here is what the quote entails:
It specifically separates Greece from Macedonia through the following:
"Your ancestor (Phillip´s) had not attempted to become a tyrant in his native city (i.e. Argos) but leaving the area of Greece entirely, had decided to seize the kingdom over Macedon, and found a firmly established dynasty over a people of non-kindred race."
Let me break the passage into understandable parts for you since no one in Greece dares to touch it or has the courage to dissect it:
(a) It indicates that monarchy is not an acceptable governing choice for the Greeks.
(b) "leaving the area of Greece entirely means that Macedon was not a part of any Greek city-state.
(c) "found their kingdom among the people of non-kindred race" This is as eloquent of a separation of Greeks and Macedonians as it comes.
Do I need to define the word "non-kindred" race for you Mr. Doukas? I think there should be no need for further elaboration.
These are the words of Isocrates the biggest apostle of Hellenism. There is nobody bigger and more knowledgeable than this man. Demosthenes is a notch below him.
Finally, Mr. Doukas, you top the scale with this one:
"I can´t decide whether this is another celebration of ignorance or a deliberate attempt to present fraudulent claims as reasonable arguments based on historical facts, because such an ultimate ignorance and stunning lack of historical knowledge is unforgivable for an alleged "historian" and author of various historical books like Mr.Gandeto!"
Fraudulent claims? Hmm… Your hand was caught in the cookie jar and you accuse me of fraud?
I said my peace and I rest my case. Let the verdict fall where it may.
Until next time…
Gandeto
August 30, 2009
This will be a short response (I hope) to the above titled article published on Aug. 25, 2009 in the American Chronicle, submitted by our adversary certain Capetan Doukas. I was hoping, since our last meeting a few moons ago, that he would get a promotion but it seems that his copy and paste technique from a ready-made distribution library has gotten him nowhere too soon. Sharpen up your skills mate, and do some original authored work for a change.
I´ve noticed that you fell short in answering many of the "charges" raised against the alleged Greekness of the Macedonians. You did not however, fail, nor did you disappoint—it is, after all, a proven classic defense mechanism—in leveling insults against me even though what I have presented in my article was a report prepared by a British Major General, Sir Ardach, whose content I shall post again to clarify:
(a) It is he, Sir Ardach who states: "I conceived that an examination of the early Greek geographers would throw some light upon them, and I have been able to procure, and annex extracts from them in Greek with translations. Strabo, Scylax, Dichaerchus, Scymnus, and Dionysius all concur in making Greece commence at the Ambracian Gulf, and terminate at the river Peneus".
Let´s re-emphasize the obvious:
He was able to procure and annex extracts from them in Greek with translation. All those Greek authors concur "in making Greece commence at the Ambracian Gulf and terminate at the river Peneus".
Your reading comprehension has failed you; obviously you have a problem accepting the fact that all these Greek authors are unanimous in their geographical description of Greece´s boundaries.
First, it is apparent that this fact ruffled your feathers because it goes contrary
to what you have been told to believe in, and second, bear in mind that you cannot selectively use an author´s text when it suits your fancy and dismiss him when you do not like what he writes.
(b) It is he, Major General, Sir Ardach who states:
The catalogue of the ships in the Iliad, the various lists of the Amphictyonic tribes, the states engaged in the Peloponnesian war, the travels of Anacharsis , the description of Greece by Pausanias, and the natural history of Pliny—all give proof of the same fact, by positive or negative evidence;
To be underlined, to be extracted, emphasized and remembered that:
"All give proof of the same fact by positive or negative evidence".
Your anger, your disappointment and your unwillingness to see the presented facts as truth is not my problem. Dance around these facts (in your fustanellas) as long as you want, but the report stands on its own merit.
(c) It is he, who states:
"Nor have I found anywhere a suggestion that Epirus was Greek, except that Dodona, the great oracle, though situated amid barbarians, was a Greek institution, and the legend that the Molossian Kings were of the house of Aeacidae. When Epirus first became powerful, 280 B.C., Greece had long been under the complete ascendency of the Macedonians, and after the fall of the Empire at the battle of Pydna, 168 B.C., it became a Roman province in 148 B.C. The establishment of Greek independence in 1832 was exactly 2,000 years after the battle of Pydna."
This should give you another clue that Macedonia was never a part of Greece. A case can be made in the opposite direction of Greek city-states being conquered and incorporated (but not integrated) into the Macedonian Empire.
It is demonstrably obvious that Greeks in the Diaspora in general and those of you still living in Greece in particular, will experience difficulties in digesting and accepting evidence as reported by neutral and objective sources. It is called "truth" that comes untarnished, uncorrupted and unbiased; an esoteric entity for many Greeks; stuff that many of you are not accustomed to receiving and arguably, due to brainwashing, show complete disdain in accepting it. You or someone in your Hellenic propaganda department wrote:
"In his last delirium Gandeto reached such levels of Goebelism using audacious lies and blatant distortions of historical sources, that even the aforementioned famous Nazi propagandist would have been proud to sign himself; such a monumental masterpiece of the art of falsifying historical truth which has been recorded centuries ago by worldwide known ancient authors."
Sorry, but I could not accept such a lofty position for myself nor do I deserve one. Audacious lies and blatant distortions are your (Greeks) specialties. It is a Greek thing for sure. Ask around and you will not be disappointed.
By the way, a definition of a "distortion" as described by Encarta Dictionary states:
"The bending, twisting, stretching, or forcing of something out of its usual or natural shape; reporting of something in a way that is inaccurate or misleading."
Well, Capetan Doukas, I hope that you will not object if I indulge your expertise in explaining what the definition of "distortion" entails. Since I do not want to belabor the obvious, I´d use an already existing example to prove my point. A "distortion" will resemble something like this:
Remember you wanted to show how ancient Greeks felt about seeing Alexander the Great seated on the throne of Darius and you brought this episode from Plutarch´s Agesilaus? That was supposed to be your "proof" that Alexander from Macedon was Greek, correct?
You wrote:
"Now Demaratus the Corinthian, one of Philip's intimate friends, when he had seen Alexander in Susa, exclaimed with tears of joy that all the Greeks who had died before that hour had been deprived of a great joy, since they had not seen Alexander seated on the throne of Darius."
Would you agree that the reader of the above quote gets the impression that since Alexander was Greek, all the Greeks would have experienced a great joy seeing a Greek seated on the throne of Darius? That is certainly the impression I have obtained, and more than likely, would any other less informed and unsuspecting reader.
Trouble is though, that by not reporting the entire dialogue between these two Greeks, you not only deprived the reader from understanding the actual exchange that transpired regarding the scene at the throne of Darius, but you clearly, with deceptive intent in mind—purposefully—omitted the rest of the conversation as to deceive, mislead and definitely, to distort its context. That is the true definition of a liar and a distortion artist.
Let me show you the entire episode that your handlers "forgot" to include in the text:
Please read and remember that I do not use second-hand information, nor do I rely on lies and distortions to prove my points.
"I certainly cannot agree with Demarathus the Corinthian, who said that those Greeks who did not live to see Alexander seated on the throne of Darius had been deprived of a great pleasure.
This is what you left out because it does not fit with your contorted thinking:
"On the contrary, I believe that they would have been more likely to weep when they remembered that this triumph was left for Alexander and his Macedonians, while they themselves squandered the lives of Greek generals on the battlefields of Leuctra, Coronea, Corinth and Arcadia"(Plut.Agesilaus.15).
Mate, what you forgot to include in your distorted quote was the essence of the whole argument that ancient Greeks never included the ancient Macedonians in their Hellenic mix. Ancient Macedonians never saw themselves as Greeks either. Corroborative evidence you will find in Diodorus 17.62.2 and 17.62.3.
That brings me to your second "proof" of the alleged Greekness of the ancient Macedonians – The Alexander I´s quote:
(2) Using Herodotus´ ("The Histories", 9.45.1) report of the alleged nightly travel of Alexander I to the Greek camp, is an old debunked and otherwise unsupported by evidence fairy tale, propagated by Alexander himself to avoid possible retributions by the Greeks after the Persian departure.
"Men of Athens, I give you this message in trust as a secret which you must reveal to no one but Pausanias, or else you will be responsible for my undoing. In truth I would not tell it to you if I did not care so much for all Hellas; I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery….. If, however, this war ends as you wish, then must you take thought how to save me too from slavery, who have done so desperate a deed as this for the sake of Hellas in my desire to declare to you Mardonius' intent so that the barbarians may not attack you suddenly before you yet expect them. I who speak am Alexander the Macedonian."
A few points of interest for our readers:
Observe the congested situation at Plataea: Herodotus tells us (9.45) that both armies stayed at their position and ready to fight for 11 straight days. He puts the number of Greek troops at 110,000 men (9.30), not counting the support personnel, and the Persian army to well over 300,000 infantry alone (9. 32). The cavalry units were separate. If we add, at least 3-4 support personnel, a very conservative estimate (each Spartan was attended by 7 helots Hdt. 9.10; 9.29), we will reach a figure of over one million people alone, let alone the number of transport animals that go with it. Curtius in 3.3.8-25 tells us that an enormous baggage train of animals, equipment and carts followed the Persian armies. We are also informed in Herodotus 9.39 that a train of five hundred mules bringing food for the allied Greek army was intercepted together with an untold number of Greeks who were streaming down to join the ranks of the allied Greek army. In other words, the place was, to put it mildly, heavily congested with animals, civilians and soldiers.
First, it is inconceivable to imagine that a king of a strong nation would sneak out in the depths of night (presumably unnoticed, even though we are talking about over a million people around), ride through a very hostile territory, and expose himself to a grave danger with catastrophic consequences, just to deliver a message that could have been sent by a soldier.
Second, Alexander I must have had his commanding quarters guarded by his private bodyguards (this must be a normal protocol of a king), who would have seen him depart or at least assist him in his endeavors to sneak out unnoticed. Around Alexander, as a commanding officer under Xerxes, we expect to find several other soldiers whose job would have been to assist the king in his daily activities or simply to tend to his person. Thus, the number of people who would have known about his mission increases significantly.
Next, the fact that Alexander begins his speech with "Men of Athens" instead of addressing the commanders personally, since he already asked for them by names, signifies inconsistent behavior on his part. Problematic is his phrase also:
"I am myself a Greek by descent" and a strong suspect his departing assertion, "I am Alexander of Macedon" (Borza 1990). Why do we find the last two statements problematic and slightly provident?
The whole story is wrapped with cumbersome appendages that make it look very insecure. And insecure it is, invented by Alexander himself, or someone in his court in charge of "publicity-damage-control department. Alexander I, was a shrewd politician indeed; he must have said to himself: the Persians would be gone from here, and the business was going great while it lasted, now, it´s time to mend the fences with your neighbors who would always be here.
It is evident that these apparent stories about Alexander I´s services rendered to the Greeks were given to Herodotus to be disseminated in Greece. Credit must be given to Alexander I if he, indeed, benefited from the scheme at all. The gold statue of himself dedicated to Delphi and at Olympia as the first fruit from the spoils from the Persians (Hdt.7.121.1), indicates how insecure he felt about his ´Hellenic bond´ with the Greeks to the south.
For him to make so many attempts to confirm his Greekness is either a case where he was not readily accepted as Greek, or that he was readily rejected as one. Final point: If Alexander I was Greek, why then, was he dubbed "Philhellene"?
Your next point is Isocrates. Here, again you avoided the obvious that this Greek pundit made an explicit separation between Macedonians and Greeks.
3. Isocrates,"To Philip",5.62
To quote Isocrates´ letter to Philip and use it as some kind of proof for the alleged Greekness of the ancient Macedonians is a sure sign of deliberate nearsightedness and total submission to ignorance. If you Greeks can glide past the eloquent elaboration of the text of Isocrates´ letter to Philip II—furnished by non other than Ernst Badian—and still use that text as evidence for Greekness, then you do not need evidence per se, but are badly and urgently in need of medical/psychological help instead.
Here is what the quote entails:
It specifically separates Greece from Macedonia through the following:
"Your ancestor (Phillip´s) had not attempted to become a tyrant in his native city (i.e. Argos) but leaving the area of Greece entirely, had decided to seize the kingdom over Macedon, and found a firmly established dynasty over a people of non-kindred race."
Let me break the passage into understandable parts for you since no one in Greece dares to touch it or has the courage to dissect it:
(a) It indicates that monarchy is not an acceptable governing choice for the Greeks.
(b) "leaving the area of Greece entirely means that Macedon was not a part of any Greek city-state.
(c) "found their kingdom among the people of non-kindred race" This is as eloquent of a separation of Greeks and Macedonians as it comes.
Do I need to define the word "non-kindred" race for you Mr. Doukas? I think there should be no need for further elaboration.
These are the words of Isocrates the biggest apostle of Hellenism. There is nobody bigger and more knowledgeable than this man. Demosthenes is a notch below him.
Finally, Mr. Doukas, you top the scale with this one:
"I can´t decide whether this is another celebration of ignorance or a deliberate attempt to present fraudulent claims as reasonable arguments based on historical facts, because such an ultimate ignorance and stunning lack of historical knowledge is unforgivable for an alleged "historian" and author of various historical books like Mr.Gandeto!"
Fraudulent claims? Hmm… Your hand was caught in the cookie jar and you accuse me of fraud?
I said my peace and I rest my case. Let the verdict fall where it may.
Until next time…
Comment