Polybius on Macedonia, 2nd century BC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Dimko-piperkata
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 1876

    Polybius on Macedonia, 2nd century BC

    Gandeto, March 15, 2009

    Today´s Greeks are on a major offensive campaign, with a huge Hellenic brush in their hands, to show the world, especially here in the West, that the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Slogans like "Macedonia is Greece", "Macedonians have always been Greek", "Welcome to Macedonia – Greece" and a countless number of other less visible interventions have saturated the media with unprecedented regularity. Such frantic, almost feverish, drive to prove something is telling.

    What prompted the Greeks, especially after the mid-eighties, to embark on such a monumental task when they had almost more than one hundred years at their disposal to fix the apparent problem with Macedonia and the Macedonians? Several scenarios forcefully enter the picture:

    (a) The Green parties in European Parliament and their push for ethnic recognition of minority populations,

    (b) Awakening of the ethnic Macedonians in Greece and

    (c) Greece´s realization that she is no longer a sole presenter, articulator and dispenser of historical knowledge regarding the ancients, and that archeological and linguistic sciences, with a new crop of scholars, have seriously undermined her assumed status-quo. Thus, these new revisionists of history with preponderance of new found evidence at hand are challenging the old established beliefs (like the Slav migration into the Balkans) and are asserting their presence. To the detriment of all philhellenes, the old assumptions about the Greeks must be reexamined. Whence, the conclusion is inescapable: everything that shines does not come from Greece.

    Greeks have systematically attempted to wipe-out any trace of Slavic culture in their territory; from changing the Slavic toponyms and the writings on the gravestones into Greek, to burning the old Slavonic books in the monasteries. Their poignant mission was almost successful. Fortunately though, the Slavic culture was wide-spread throughout the Balkans and beyond, and their poisonous Hellenicidal spray could not reach into the other countries. As a result, a host of new findings demand immediate attention and challenge the Greeks´ given and unearned supremacy as a sole possessor of the ancient´s cultural heritage.

    Their desperate attempt to bring the Ancient Macedonians into their fold and eliminate the only challenge coming from the ethnic Macedonians reminds me of the old Argead regicidal practice; kill the remaining rivals for the throne and the kingdom will be yours. Thus, modern Greeks, faced with the same dilemma, are trying to eliminate the ethnic Macedonians from the picture—the only rival remaining that stands in their path to appropriate the Ancient Macedonians.]

    One of the most laughable declarations ever produced by these master falsifiers is their claim that Philip II, the king of Macedon, did not conquer Greece but instead, united the Greeks city-states and that Philip and his son Alexander the Great, are the truest Hellenes of them all.

    Somehow, the whole Greek hoopla about the ancient Macedonians, upon closer observation, not only looks inadmissible but down right stupidly funny.

    If the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, then why do you have to constantly shout it to the world? Second, all along Greeks have claimed that there are no Macedonians and that Macedonia was just a geographic entity and then, all of a sudden, they have changed their tune into inventing ethnic Greek Macedonians. Are these new Greek Macedonians like some new "Greek hybrid" that uses a new form of Greek energy for fuel? Do you change your master plans as you go along or as you´re caught cheating?

    We have stated before that Greek history is like a coat made of many colors and it will fall apart at the seams for, even though Greeks have mastered the art of fabrication—they are on top of this trade—somehow, inadvertently, as it always happens with stolen booty, they are going to leave gaping holes in their thieving plan.

    Readers whose interest in ancient history is no deeper then a cursory glance through the topics on the page, upon reading such slogans, will depart thinking that such headlines contain some truth to them.

    A closer look at these passages reveals the same "supporting staff" at play; namely that ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, had the same names as Greeks did, believed in same Gods and spread Hellenism throughout the known world.

    Fair enough, one would say; if that´s the case then, they, the ancient Macedonians and Macedonia, must have been Greek and therefore what these modern-day Greeks are saying must be true.

    Well then, do you mind terribly if we take a stroll through the ancient times together? I promise I will not keep you long; just long enough to make a simple point obvious.

    Let´s read this passage written from Polybius: (Polybius, xviii, 46, 5).

    "Philip´s defeat at Cynocephalae in 197 resulted in his confinement within the old limits of Macedonia. It was followed, at the Isthmian games of 196, by a theatrical pronouncement, which showed the Romans quick to learn how to exploit the ancient propaganda slogan of Greek liberty."

    Imagine if you will, hundreds of anxious Greeks assembled at these historic games.]

    "The Roman Senate and T. Quinctius the proconsul, having defeated King Philip and the Macedonians, have the following peoples free, without garrison and subject to no tribute and governed by their countries´ laws – the Corinthians, Phocians, Euboeans, Phthiotic Acheans, Magnesians, Thessalians and Perrhaebians." (Polybius, xviii, 46,5).

    Breaking it down we find:

    (a) Romans, in a war, have defeated King Philip V and the Macedonians.



    (b) The following Greek peoples are free from garrisons and subject to no tribute.

    In other words, Romans defeated the Macedonians and at the same time liberated the Greeks from the Macedonian´s yoke. Conclusion: in order for people to be liberated they must have been conquered before. Two questions, please:

    (1) Will this be a sufficient reason for us to reject the Greek´s notion that the ancient Greeks were united by Philip? And

    (2) Is there a sufficient ground to conclude that today´s Greek proclamation that ancient Macedonians were Greeks is a fabrication unsupported by facts? Common logic dictates that people do not conquer themselves, correct?

    At this point we should expect a storm from the crying Greeks. They will tell us that in ancient Greek world the city-states constantly warred against each other and it was not uncommon for them to enslave one another.

    Fair enough, we´ll concur, but as good sophists do, we shall take the argument from the opposite side and bring the bacon home.

    Let us visit

    Justin - Epitome of the Philipic – History of Pompeius Trogos

    Specifically, Justin 30. 3.3-9

    "Embassies dispatched from Rhodes reached Rome complaining of wrongs suffered at the hands of Philip (see also Pol. 16 and 18; Diod. 28. 5ff.; Livy 31-33; Plut. Flamininus). It was this that removed from the senate any hesitation over war with Macedonia. Romans declared war on Philip.

    (30.3.7-9)

    7] Shortly afterwards, through confidence in the Romans, all Greece made war on Philip, inspired to confront him by the hope of regaining its erstwhile independence. Under pressure on all sides, the king was obliged to sue for peace."

    Let´s dissect these few lines:

    (a) Does it say "all Greece made war on Philip"?

    (b) Was the reason for making war on Philip to gain their independence?

    Can we conclude that one loses its own independence when one is conquered?

    Can we, now, count the strength of this statement as one more incontrovertible fact that Greeks were conquered and not united by Philip and his Macedonians?

    Next:

    8] "Then, when the terms of the peace had been set forth by the Romans, Attalus, the Rhodians, the Achaeans, and the Aetolians all began to reclaim their former territory."

    Conclusion: To reclaim your own territory, you must have lost it in the first place.

    Question: Is there any example in the history of the humankind where countries lose their own territory voluntarily?

    Therefore, is it safe to conclude that there must have been a war of conquest before?

    Lastly:

    9] "Philip, for his part, admitted that he could be brought to meet the Roman´s conditions; but he added that it was a disgrace that the Greeks, who had been defeated by his ancestors Philip and Alexander and sent beneath the yoke of Macedon, should be dictating terms of peace to him like a victors—they should be giving an account of how they had come to be his subjects, he said, rather than trying claim their freedom."

    Oh, my friend, you would exclaim; but this is too obvious!

    But of course, I have been saying this all along; let´s follow Philip´s response:

    (a) "It was a disgrace that the Greeks, who had been defeated by his ancestors Philip and Alexander and sent beneath the yoke of Macedon."

    A big question is in order.

    First, let´s establish the facts: (1) Is this the king of Macedon speaking? (2) Is this Philip V stating that his ancestors Philip II and Alexander, his son, enslaved the Greeks? And (3) Can "the yoke of Macedon" be misunderstood for "unifying yoke"?

    (b) "They should be giving an account of how they had come to be his subjects, he said, rather than trying to claim their freedom."

    "How they had come to be his subjects" cannot be interpreted in any other way but enslaved and lastly "trying to claim your freedom" denotes having lost your liberty before, being in servitude, under occupation. One will not try to claim freedom if one has not lost it yet.

    And this brings us to a full circle my friend. The conclusion is inescapable:

    Ancient Macedonians were never Greeks. Today´s Greek cries about Macedonia and the Macedonians have much more sinister aim; To eradicate anything Macedonian from the real ethnic Macedonians and to confuse the less informed westerners about the fact that within Greek occupied Macedonia, there are ethnic Macedonians whose rights as people are abrogated by the bigoted Greek government.

    That is the real picture with today´s Greeks who practice neo fascists´ ideology and display middle-age mentality. They ignore, or would like for you to ignore what the Macedonian kings were saying and want you to believe that ancient Macedonians had similar names to the ancient Greeks and that is why they should be classed as Greeks.

    Finally we should ask the following: whom would you believe:

    (a) a Greek with a political agenda and an ethnic axe to grind or

    (b) the words of an ancient King from Macedon who tells you that his ancestors Philip and his son Alexander the Great conquered the Greeks and sent them under the Macedonian yoke?

    At the end we must state the obvious; there are scholars with resolute, analytical sense that can teach and then, there are others who, with large Hellenic brush, lump things together.

    Until next time…
    1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum...
    2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum...
  • indigen
    Senior Member
    • May 2009
    • 1558

    #2
    Polybius says northern border of (ancient) Macedonia was the Danube!

    POLYBIUS: "...The rule of the Macedonians in Europe extended only from
    the lands bordering the Adriatic to the Danube, which would
    appear to be no more than a small fraction of the continent...."
    BOOK I (Page 42 of PC edition).

    Comment

    • TrueMacedonian
      Senior Member
      • Jan 2009
      • 3812

      #3
      In a speech delivered at Sparta in 210 the Aeotolian Chlaeneas, appealing for Spartan collaboration in the Roman alliance against Macedonia, is said by Polybius (ix, 28, I) to have opened with the truism; "Men of Sparta, I am quite certain that no one would venture to deny that the slavery of Greece owes its origins to the King's of Macedonia."

      The hellenistic world By Frank William Walbank pages 91-92.
      Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

      Comment

      • The LION will ROAR
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2009
        • 3231

        #4
        Polybius
        Greek Statesman and Historian. [c 200-118 B.C.]
        The Rise of the Roman Empire

        "The fact is that we can obtain no more than an impression of a whole from a part, but certainly neither a thorough knowledge nor an accurate understanding. We must conclude then that specialized studies or monographs contribute very little to our grasp of the whole and our conviction of its truth. On the contrary, it is only by combining and comparing the various parts of the whole with one another and noting their resemblances and their differences that we shall arrive at a comprehensive view, and thus encompass both the practical benefits and the pleasure that the reading of history affords." [p 45]

        [How true, indeed. By combining and comparing various statements from the ancient authors can we arrive to the truest picture of the ancients themselves. Let them speak of themselves, and let their true sentiments flood the pages uncorrupted and free of any biased and preconceived prejudices. Only then, can we assess the magnitude of their purity of soul, and the passion for their national aspirations.]

        [1] Polibius reports on the speech made by Agelaus of Naupactus at the first conference in the presence of the King and the allies. He spoke as follows:

        "I therefore beg you all to be on your guard against this danger, and I appeal especially to King Philip. [Macedonian king Philip V] For you the safest policy, instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them an easy prey for the invader, is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions. If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in case of attack, and foreigners will be the less inclined to plot against your throne, because they will be discouraged by the loyalty of the Greeks towards you." [p .300] book 5.104

        Points of Interest: Clear distinction between Greece (to protect every province of Greece) and Macedonia (as you would if it were a part of your own dominions). Furthermore, the Macedonians were still wearing down the Greeks even into the times of Philip V.

        [2] [Book XVIII, 1] Philip V from Macedon invites Flamininus (Roman commander) to explain what he, Philip, should do to have peace:
        "The Roman general replied that his duty dictated an answer which was both simple and clear. He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece, restore to each of the states the prisoners and deserters he was holding, hand over to the Romans the region of Illyria which he had seized after the treaty that had been made in Epirus, and so on...."


        [Point of interest: "Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece," Flamininus, the Roman general, clearly separates Macedonia from Greece, and demands from the Macedonin king to withdraw from Greece into his own Macedonia.]

        [3] (Book XVIII. 3) A man named Alexander of Isus, who had the reputation of being both an experienced statesman and an able orator, rose to speak:

        'Why,' he asked Philip V, 'had he sold into slavery the people of Cius, which was also a member of the Aetolian League, when he himself was on friendly terms with the Aetolians?'

        [Philip sells the people of Cius into slavery. Cuis' population was not a Macedonian population. Philip's action underlines one fundamental fact: Greece was a conquered territory, and Greek cities were dispensable.]

        [4] (Book XVIII. 5) Philip V from Macedon responds to the Greek and Roman demands:

        "But what is most outrageous of all is that they should attempt to put themselves on the same footing as the Romans and demand that the Macedonians should withdraw from the whole of Greece. To use such language is arrogant enough in the first place, but while we may endure this from the Romans, it is quite intolerable coming from the Aetolians. In any case,' he continued, 'what is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and how do you define Greece? Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Aphilochians cannot be regarded as Greek. So do you allow me to remain in those territories."
        From the above encounters we infer: They, the Greeks, would like to see him, King Philip V from Macedon, leave Greece and go to his own kingdom in Macedonia, and by the strongest implication, we concur that:


        (a) Ancient Greeks did not regard the ancient Macedonians as their kinsmen.
        (b) Ancient Macedonians did not regard the Greeks as their own people.
        (c) Ancient Macedonians had conquered the Greek states.
        (d) Ancient Macedonians had enslaved the Greeks and sold them as slaves.
        (e) Macedonia was not a Greek land.
        [5] …"For there can be no doubt that by their indefatigable energy and daring they raised Macedonia from the status of a petty kingdom to that of the greatest and most glorious monarchy in the world. And apart what was accomplished during Philip's lifetime, the successes that were achieved by Alexander after his father's death won for them a reputation for valour which has been universally recognized by posterity.".... [Polybius: The Rise of the Roman Empire, published by Penguin Classics, Book VIII.9 page 371.]

        As with his predecessors, other ancient authors, Polybius clearly separates the ancient Macedonians from the ancient Greeks. As a matter of fact, the ethnic difference between these two people was not a matter for discussion - it was an accomplished fact.
        The following quotes are collected from History of Macedonia website http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ Warning - there are many quotes Diodorus Siculus Ancient Greek Historian The ancient Greek historian Diodorus wrote much of the history of Macedonia from the times of Philip II and Alexander the Great up to the
        The Macedonians originates it, the Bulgarians imitate it and the Greeks exploit it!

        Comment

        • The LION will ROAR
          Senior Member
          • Jan 2009
          • 3231

          #5
          Excerpts from the Penguin Classics "Polybius The Rise Of The Roman Empire", Book XVIII page 513 -517.

          ...."Flamininus and the peace settlement.
          This passage describes the peace settlement that was drawn up after the Romans' decisive victory over Philip [V] at Cynoscephalae in 197B.C.

          44. At this time the ten commissioners who had been appointed to handle affairs in Greece arrived from Rome bringing the decree of the Senate concerning the peace settlement with Philip.....

          46. By the time these decisions had been taken the moment for the celebration of the Isthmian games had arrived.....the herald came forward and delivered the following proclamation:
          'The Senate of Rome and Titius Quinctius Flamininus the proconsul, having defeated King Philip and the Macedonians in battle, leave the following states and cities free, without garrisons, subject to no tribute and in full enjoyment of their ancestral laws:.....'

          .....A the very beginning of this announcement a deafening shout arose, so that some people never heard the proclamation at all, while others were anxious to hear it again. The greater part of the crowd could not believe their ears, for what had happened was so unexpected that it was as if they were listening to the words in a kind of a dream....


          Quote:
          ...Indeed , when the games were over they almost killed Flamininus with the unrestrained vehemence of the joy of their gratitude....
          ....For it was a wholly admirable action in the first place that the Roman people and their general should have made the choice to incur unlimited danger and expense to ensure the freedom of Greece more remarkable still that they devoted to this ideal the force sufficient to bring it about, and most remarkable of all that no mischance intervened to frustrate their intention. Indeed, every factor combined to produce this crowning moment, when by a single proclamation all the Greeks inhabiting both Asia and Europe became free, with neither garrison nor tribute to burden them, but enjoying their own laws...."
          The Macedonians originates it, the Bulgarians imitate it and the Greeks exploit it!

          Comment

          • The LION will ROAR
            Senior Member
            • Jan 2009
            • 3231

            #6
            Polybius:
            Quote:
            " All Greeks in Europe and Asia become free from Macedonian rule "


            Quote:

            "The Roman people and Senate, and Flamininus, their general, having vanquished the Macedonians and Philip, their king, order that Greece shall be free from foreign garrisons, not subject to tribute, and shall live under her own customs and laws."Appian., On Macedonian Affairs, 1.4.
            Last edited by The LION will ROAR; 01-18-2011, 10:27 PM.
            The Macedonians originates it, the Bulgarians imitate it and the Greeks exploit it!

            Comment

            • George S.
              Senior Member
              • Aug 2009
              • 10116

              #7
              LWR that's pretty good stuff thanks for bringing it up i agree with you.
              "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
              GOTSE DELCEV

              Comment

              • Soldier of Macedon
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2008
                • 13670

                #8
                Polybius is an interesting character, he seems to contradict himself in some areas where it concerns the origin of Macedonians, but this has alot to do with the adoption of Attic (and later Koine) by Paleo-Balkan peoples, which leads him to group the Macedonians with the Greeks. However, as his texts also demonstrate, there is constant distinction between Macedonians and Greeks (collectively).
                In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                Comment

                • The LION will ROAR
                  Senior Member
                  • Jan 2009
                  • 3231

                  #9
                  That opinion is shared by other writers from antiquity, including Justin, who cited the following details:

                  Quote:
                  Not long after, too, the whole of Greece, stimulated by confidence in the Romans, and the hope of recovering their ancient liberty, to rise against Philip, made war upon him; and thus, being assailed on every side, he was compelled to beg for peace…….Philip, on the other hand, allowed that “he might be induced to submit to the Romans, but that it was intolerable that the Greeks, who had been subdued by his ancestors Philip and Alexander, and brought under the yoke of the Macedonian empire, should dictate articles of peace to him, as if they were conquerors; and that they ought to give an account of their conduct in their state of slavery, before they sought to recover their liberty.”(30,3)

                  A powerful statement. The Romans had earned their place, but who were the Greeks, mere servants of the Macedonian Empire, that they should even ponder about their 'right' to speak as equals towards the Macedonians? They were subdued by Phillip II and Alexander III, elements of their culture were utilised for the purpose of furthering Macedonian aims. Naturally, several Greeks would have found it beneficial were Macedonian power to be retained, as they had become prosperous under the Macedonan yoke and took advantage of the empire's commercial and other opportunities. On one occasion Justin makes the following remark regarding the Macedonian Empire:

                  Quote:
                  As all men were alarmed at this prodigy, the soothsayers predicted that “the rising power of the Romans would swallow up the ancient empire of the Greeks and Macedonians.”…But the fortune of Rome was superior to that of the Macedonians; and Philip, exhausted by his efforts in war, and suing for peace from Flamininus, the consul, was allowed to retain indeed the name of king; but, being deprived of all the cities of Greece, as being parts of his dominion beyond the bounds of its ancient territory, he preserved only Macedonia.(30,4)

                  The influence of the Greek language spread beyond Macedonia, as the Romans, another non-Greek people, also employed it extensively:

                  Quote:
                  .......many Romans, men even of consular dignity, had committed the acts of their countrymen to writing in Greek, a foreign language............(Preface)

                  Even the Carthigians were writing letters in the Greek tongue:

                  Quote:
                  ...........given friendly notice to Dionysius, in a letter written in Greek, of the approach of the army and the inactivity of its leader, was found, through the letter being intercepted, guilty of treason; and a decree of the senate was made, “that no Carthaginian should thenceforward study the Greek literature or language, so that no one might be able to speak with the enemy, or write to him, without an interpreter.”(20,5)

                  In summary, I will again cite the true intentions of Phillip II:

                  Quote:
                  When Philip had once come into Greece, allured by the plunder of a few cities........he resolved to make war upon the whole of Greece.....

                  Macedonia and the Macedonians of antiquity were never Greek.
                  The Macedonians originates it, the Bulgarians imitate it and the Greeks exploit it!

                  Comment

                  • Agamoi Thytai
                    Member
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 198

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                    Polybius is an interesting character, he seems to contradict himself in some areas where it concerns the origin of Macedonians, but this has alot to do with the adoption of Attic (and later Koine) by Paleo-Balkan peoples, which leads him to group the Macedonians with the Greeks. However, as his texts also demonstrate, there is constant distinction between Macedonians and Greeks (collectively).
                    Polybius nowhere contradicts himself;it's rather your bias that doesn't allow you to face the truth and realize how weak are all your "proofs".You claim ancient Macedonians were not Greeks,because Polybius wrote how "Greek cities were liberated by Macedonians",but i can provide you similar quotes of other ancient authors that speak of "Greeks being liberated by Athenian yoke",or being "enslaved by Spartans" or Thebans.So if condition a,which you consider as undeniable evidence of the non-Greekness of Macedonians,can be applied to known Greek tribes too,then condition a apparently is devoid of any reliability to be taken into serious consideration.Yet you conveniently ignore this simple law and end up wondering "how is it that Polybius contradicts himself" when he says "Macedonians,Achaeans and Acarnanians are all people of kindred blood".
                    Now besides the quotes of Roman authors you posted on this thread,that speak of "Romans saving Greeks from Macdonians",there are some other too that don't fit in this resque plan:

                    "You forget also that there are many barbarous tribes on the border of Macedonia, who would make easy incursions into Greece if the Macedonian kings were taken away. Wherefore, I think that the Macedonian government should be left to protect you against the barbarians".
                    Appian "Macedonian affairs" 1.363
                    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...0%3Atext%3DMac.
                    What would be the point of this,if Macedonians themselves were considered as barbarians by other Greeks?

                    "Again the ambassadors assembled and said that it was very evident that Philip and the Ætolians, by their differences, were subjecting the Greeks to servitude to the Romans, because they were accustoming the latter to make frequent attempts upon Greece. When Sulpicius rose to reply to them the crowd would not hear him, but shouted that the ambassadors had told the truth."
                    Appian,"Macedonian affairs" 1.1
                    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...0%3Atext%3DMac.
                    Why should the Greek ambassadors accuse Philip together with the Aetolians of "subjecting Greeks to Roman servitude" if he considered Macedonians as non-Greeks?It would also be meaningless to complain to the Aetolians for not reconciling with Macedonians in order to avoid the danger of Roman intervention in Greek affairs,if Macedonians were counted as non-Greeks together with Romans.

                    "For men like Agesilaüs, or Lysander, or Nicias, or Alcibiades could indeed conduct wars well, and understood how to be victorious commanders in battles by land and sea, but they would not use their successes so as to win legitimate favour and promote the right. Indeed, if one excepts the action at Marathon, the sea-fight at Salamis, Plataea, Thermopylae, and the achievements of Cimon at the Eurymedon and about Cyprus, Greece has fought all her battles to bring servitude upon herself, and every one of her trophies stands as a memorial of her own calamity and disgrace, since she owed her overthrow chiefly to the baseness and contentiousness of her leaders".
                    Plutarch,"Life of Titus Flamininus"11.3


                    In the above passage,Greeks are talking after Flamininus victory over Philip V and his declaration of "Greek liberty".They distinguish the wars and battles of their ancestors belonged to two different cases:On the one side the wars against foreigners,non-Greeks (namely the battles against Persian invaders in Marathon,Thermopylae,Plataea,Salamis and Cyprus) and on the other side the wars of Greeks vs other Greeks in order "to bring servitude upon Greece".Thus the trophies of those wars are described as "memorials of Greek calamity and disgrace",and the Greek generals who were responsible for them are blamed that they caused "the overthrow of Greece due to their contentiousness and baseness".However we don't see the wars between Macedonians and southern Greeks being included in the first category(against foreign invaders).It would be a perfect occassion for the Greeks to express their ethnic difference with the Macedonians if they considereded them as non-Greeks but they didn't do it!

                    "For the realm of Macedonia afforded Philip a sufficiently strong force for actual battle, but in a war of long duration his phalanx was dependent for its vigour, its support, its places of refuge, and in a word for its entire effectiveness, upon the states of Greece, and unless these were detached from Philip, the war with him would not be a matter of a single battle.Greece, however, had not yet been brought into much contact with the Romans, and now for the first time was drawn into political relations with them. Unless, therefore, the Roman commander had been a man of native goodness who relied upon argument more than upon war, and unless he had been persuasive when he asked an audience and kind when he granted one, ever laying the greatest stress upon what was right and just, Greece would not so easily have been satisfied with a FOREIGN SUPREMACY instead of those to which she had been accustomed".
                    Plutarch,Titus Flamininus,2.2-2.4


                    The Roman supremacy over the Greek world is labeled by Plutarch as a foreign supremacy,as opposed to Macedonian supremacy.This juxtapposition would make no sense at all if Macedonians were not considered as Greeks.Especially if we consider the phrase of the Greek text for "foreign supremacy",i.e. "ἀλλόφυλον ἀρχὴν"=supremacy of a foreign race,which is applied to the Romans.

                    "Such, at all events,were the opinions generally entertained in the reign of Alexander the Great, at a time when Greece was at the height of her glory, and the most powerful country in the world".

                    The natural history of Pliny the Elder,chapter 12


                    "For if all the wars which we have carried on against the Greeks are to be despised,then let the triumph of Marcus Curius over king Pyrrhus be derided;and that of Titus Flamininus over Philip; and that of Marcus Fulvius over the Aetolians; and that of Lucius Paullus over king Perses; and that of Quintus Metellus over the false Philip; and that of Lucius Mummius over the Corinthians.But,if all these wars were of the greatest importance, and if our victories in them were most acceptable,then why are the Asiatic nations and that Asiatic enemy despised by you?"

                    Cicero,For Lucius Morena chap.31


                    While Cicero speaks of Roman wars again Greeks,he obviously considers as such the wars against Macedonians.
                    "What high honour do the Macedonians deserve, who throughout nearly their whole lives are ceaselessly engaged in a struggle with the barbarians for the safety of the Greeks?"
                    Polybius, Histories, 9.35

                    Comment

                    • makedonche
                      Senior Member
                      • Oct 2008
                      • 3242

                      #11
                      Agamoi
                      quote:
                      While Cicero speaks of Roman wars again Greeks,he obviously considers as such the wars against Macedonians.
                      Some journalistic licence here I presume, either that or your taking classes in clairvoyancy?
                      On Delchev's sarcophagus you can read the following inscription: "We swear the future generations to bury these sacred bones in the capital of Independent Macedonia. August 1923 Illinden"

                      Comment

                      • Soldier of Macedon
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2008
                        • 13670

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Agamoi Thytai
                        Polybius nowhere contradicts himself;it's rather your bias that doesn't allow you to face the truth and realize how weak are all your "proofs".
                        I am not biased. Macedonians do not have a Greek origin and that is fact, so if Polybius (or Cicero for that matter) does consider them Greek for whatever reason, it remains superficial.
                        i can provide you similar quotes of other ancient authors that speak of "Greeks being liberated by Athenian yoke",or being "enslaved by Spartans" or Thebans.
                        You can't bring a single quote that refers to any Athenians, Spartans or Thebans as "not related to the Hellenes" (Demosthenes), having places of origin that are "entirely aloof from Hellenic territory" (Isocrates) or compared to Hellenes or Greeks collectively as equivalents in a "national" or "racial" sense (Arrian). Nor can you bring so much more that distinguishes the Macedonians from the Greeks in the ancient period - historical, linguistic or otherwise.
                        However we don't see the wars between Macedonians and southern Greeks being included in the first category(against foreign invaders).It would be a perfect occassion for the Greeks to express their ethnic difference with the Macedonians if they considereded them as non-Greeks but they didn't do it!
                        That the battle is omitted in this text doesn't disregard what other ancient writers have said about Chaeronea, which is basically summarised as the destruction of ancient Hellenic democracy as it was known, and the Macedonian domination over the Greeks.
                        The Roman supremacy over the Greek world is labeled by Plutarch as a foreign supremacy,as opposed to Macedonian supremacy.
                        Plutarch called Roman a 'foreign supremacy' because after about 2 centuries of Macedonian rule the Greeks 'had been accustomed' to it. It has nothing to do with the false notion of Macedonians being Greeks.
                        In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X