Tweet
There was nothing Greek about the Ancient Macedonians
Gandeto
February 03, 2009
The ill-reputed Australian Macedonian Advisory Council whose main objectives are to divert attention from Greece´s suppression of the ethnic Macedonians in Greece—whose existence as people Greece denies and whose language they vehemently try to eradicate—recently published an article in which they accused me of using "illogical arguments" and of "distorting factual evidence" when presenting my claims and assertions. They wrote:
"This article is a response to Mr. Gandeto's completely unfounded and illogical arguments against the factual evidence presented by Nicolas Mottas, in the article published on the American Chronicle: "FYROM: The troublemaker Of the Balkans?". Mr. Gandeto attempts to distort factual evidence on the Greekness of Macedonia, which is undisputed by 99% of the world's historians. Below is only some of this conclusive evidence, which incorporates evidence produced by the world's most qualified historians; including Prof. Robin Lane Fox, who is currently a Fellow of New College, Oxford University":
My answer:
First and foremost, it must be noted that a language does not ethnicity make. A plethora of examples will testify in support of my thesis; all you have to do is look at the world map today and take a stroll through the South American continent. However, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to do the following:
First, find or invent, as is your wont, another more tangible asset with which you would tie the ancient Macedonians to the ancient Greeks.
Second, claiming that ancient Macedonians came from some primordial "Greek stock" is total hogwash. With what certainty are you going to deliver the evidence for such a preposterous and an inadmissible claim? What other mythical stories are you going to invent? And even if, with your fertile imagination for inventing lies, you manage to create them, who, in their right mind, is going to take you seriously? Keep in mind that beliefs and feelings are not the elements science can sink its teeth into.
Third, placing heavy emphasis on religion, as one of the indices for classifying the ancient peoples, is as valid as grouping all Eastern Orthodox followers to be Russians, and
Fourth, perhaps your weakest link in placing the ancient Macedonians within the Greek fold is the usage of names. All you need to do is simply analyze today´s dispersal of personal and place names and you will come away convinced that your thesis holds no water.
There is a noticeable current of thought that is prevalent in your outlandish and easily refutable claims and that is your heavy emphasis on language. While that is not surprising, your practice of Hellenizing other ethnic groups through suppression of their language and forced enculturation into Greek is well documented. Your avoidance of material culture of the ancient Macedonians is; and that speaks volumes. You tend to stay away from it as the devil stays away from the cross.
It is a well established fact that people of different ethnicity practice and cultivate different ethnic manifestations which are characterized by collectively accepted traditions, colored with interpersonal symbolism, and molded by timeless essences and flair belonging to and being derived from the soul of that particular culture. Such a collection of indices, when allowed to blossom and weave its tribal peculiarities unimpeded, gives the ethnic group its peculiar cultural plumage and its own characteristic cultural scent that easily separates it from the other ethnic groups around it. The ancient Macedonians have developed and displayed their own home-grown scent that distinguishes them from any other Balkan people in antiquity.
Arguably, one can make a point of significant "sameness" between the ancient Macedonians and the Thracians to the east or the Illyrians to the north-west, but one would be hard pressed to find any similarities in material culture with the Greeks to the south. There are no unifying threads found in the material culture of the ancient Macedonians that can fuse and bridge the divide between them and the ancient Greeks. Literature is silent in this regard, for there are no such connecting elements to be found.
This cannot be overlooked, glazed over or pushed aside, for this is the crux of the matter. Invariably, in order for one to arrive to a successful conclusion regarding the differences or the sameness between two ancient peoples, one must place the crux of the emphasis on material culture. This is where, like a magnet under steel shavings, the differences between the two cultures or the similarities among them will be most contrastingly displayed. Unless you have taken the material culture of the ancient peoples into consideration, such as their burial practices, their war rituals and tribal traditions, analyzing them with a fine-tooth comb, you have not done your homework.
Today´s Greeks can continue to muddy the waters about the language, names and religion of the ancients all day long—until the cows come home—but they are not going to fool anybody with shooting blanks.
Ancient Macedonians were, what they so clearly demonstrated and said—Macedonians. They had no compelling reason or desire to be Greeks. Logic forces us to ask why. Ancient Macedonians had received unsurpassed accolades for being invincible world warriors, who had never lost a battle in antiquity. There was no greater honor in antiquity than to be viewed and recognized as a great Macedonian warrior. When he is regarded as being the best in the world; when he is being imitated in the art of fighting techniques; when other ethnic warriors are desirous to be called and to become Macedonians; when he is in possession of a great empire, has conquered the known world, and is a member of an elite fighting force… Why then, in the name of the almighty, would he desire to step down and become Greek?
Indeed, ancient Macedonians looked down upon those pedantic Greeks with utter contempt. These points must be born in mind if one is to draw conclusions about the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians.
And finally, even if through your mythology, you´ll manage to invent ancient progenitors for the Macedonian kings and tie them up with your Zeus and Heracles, the gist of the problem still remains; what are we going to do with the Macedonian common folks?
What are we going to do with the other Macedonian tribes for whom you have not produced a shred of evidence? What smoke and mirrors are you going to use for them?
It is not the language that divides people, but their innermost feelings of recognizable and irreconcilable collective differences. It is something innate, palpable, and spiritual; either you have it or you don´t. The statements from the ancient Greeks are clear and explicit. They did not consider the ancient Macedonians as brethren. To them, the ancient Macedonians were an alien race. (Statements from Arrian, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Aristotle, Lycurgus and many others can attest to that.)
Until recently Greeks were adamant in their stand that there was no Macedonia and there were no Macedonians. Countless anecdotes from people (including myself) can testify to that effect and to the validity of these claims. I can almost see the reddened faces of the Greek border guards when we´ll mention Macedonia or Macedonians. Frowning cholerically, they would retort: "There is no Macedonia. There are no Macedonians!"]
Ethnicity is not a conscious choice one makes. Ancient Macedonians have left their imprint in history simply as Macedonians. No other conclusion, based on what Ancient Macedonians have said about themselves, will ever suffice without corrupting the evidence.
A message to all of you Greek war mongers, hypocrites and bigots: As far as you Greeks are concerned, you can yell, throw tantrums, pound your little chest, demonstrate, lie, threaten and pout; nothing will ever make us change into anything else. We´ll remain Macedonians forever; your threats notwithstanding. There is no force in this world that can suppress or dilute our spirit or our inner feelings as Macedonians. You will never extinguish the Macedonian flame which, btw, at the end will totally engulf and consume you. Your efforts and desire to eradicate our language, our culture, our church and our name stems from your inner fear that irrepressibly torments your conscience; the souls of the thousands of innocent Macedonians you have killed haunts you and you have no peace. Your denial that we exist reveals your ignorance; but be reminded that we are. The vessel that holds hate, mixed with greed and laced with arrogance, will erode its own walls. You are that vessel.]
I cannot fathom the illusory notion under which your government operates. They must have assumed that an ordinary Greek national is incapable of independent thinking and cannot realize that he has been sold fabricated stories and has been lied to. Yesterday there were neither Macedonians nor Macedonia and today all of you Greeks miraculously, overnight became Macedonians. This transformation and metamorphosis is that much more astonishing it boggles the mind; you did not even resort to using your usual magic potion—the brew of mythology and religion. You simply, with the stroke of a pen, became not just Macedonians overnight, mind you, but true descendents of the ancient Macedonians.
This is what your "real king" (whom you called Margites and could not stop celebrating upon hearing the news that he died in Asia), said:
Alexander speaks: "The Macedonians are going to judge your case," he said. "Please state whether you will use your native language before them."
Philotas: "Besides the Macedonians, there are many present who, I think, will find what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yourself have been using, your purpose, I believe, being only to enable more people to understand you."
Then the king said: "Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language." [p.138]
Points of interest:
(a) "Your native language"
(b) "Macedonians are going to judge your case"
(c) "Contemptuous of our way of life"
(d) "Contemptuous of our language"
Alexander the Great speaks of his Macedonian language, His Macedonian way of life,
His Macedonian native language. In lieu of these facts isn't it a gross distortion of history to claim that the Macedonian language did not exist? Isn't it a colossal lie to claim that Macedonians were Greeks? Isn't this the king of the Macedonians claiming to have used his native language? Isn't this the king of Macedon, Alexander the Great, speaking of "our way of life"?
Greeks used Borza to fortify their assertions:
Eugene N. Borza, ´Makedonika´, Regina Books, Claremont CA, p.114.
"Our understanding of the Macedonians´ emergence into history is confounded by two events: the establishment of the Macedonians as an identifiable ethnic group, and the foundation of their ruling house. The "HIGHLANDERS" or "MAKEDONES" of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia ARE DERIVED FROM NORTHWEST GREEK STOCK; THEY WERE AKIN BOTH TO THOSE WHO AT AN EARLIER TIME MAY HAVE MIGRATED SOUTH TO BECOME THE HISTORICAL "DORIANS", and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. That is, we may suggest that NORTHWEST GREECE PROVIDED A POOL OF INDO-EUROPEAN SPEAKERS OF PROTO-GREEK from which were drawn the tribes who later were known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country."
Answer:
A huge mistake on your part was invoking Borza for anything Greek about the ancient Macedonians. This is a tantamount to going barehanded against the African Mamba.
Just one antidote for you:
Please read….."The conclusion is inescapable: there was a largely ethnic Macedonian imperial administration from beginning to end. Alexander used Greeks in court for cultural reasons, Greek troops (often under Macedonian commanders) for limited tasks and with some discomfort, and Greek commanders and officials for limited duties. Typically, a Greek will enter Alexander's service from an Aegean or Asian city through the practice of some special activity: he could read and write, keep figures or sail, all of which skills the Macedonians required. Some Greeks may have moved on to military service as well. In other words, the role of Greeks in Alexander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the services of Xerxes and the third Darius."
On the Macedonian language:
"As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adopted any existing language, even though they were now in contact with neighboring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues."
"Even in Philip's day the Greeks saw in the Macedonians a non-Greek foreign people, and we must remember this if we are to understand the history of Philip and Alexander, and especially the resistance and obstacles which met them from the Greeks. The point is much more important than our modern conviction that Greeks and Macedonians were brethren, this was equally unknown to both, and therefore could have no political effect."
"Philip was the Hegemon, the federal general, selected for life by the congress. His kingdom of Macedon naturally did not belong to the Hellenic League..."
"What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information", writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility."
They brought in
Charles Edson ´Ancient Macedonian Studies in honor of Charles F. Edson´ London, 1981, pgs 27-71.
The basic institutions of the kingdom were those of early Greeks. At the head of the folk was the king who was the war commander and was responsible for the relations of his people with the gods. An assembly of the fighting men chose the new king from the available males of the royal family, usually the oldest son of the former king, and could express the desires and attitudes of the folk. Of high importance were the king´s Companions, the hetairoi. They were the king´s personal retainers. They fought for him in battle and in peace served as he desired. In return they received land grants and other perquisites. In social status and function they recall the Homeric hetairoi of the Achaian rulers. This personal relationship of mutual benefit and obligation was to become the specifically Macedonian system of government. It was solemnized by the festival of the Hetairideia in honour of Zeus Hetairides at which the king presided.
This society had its peculiar customs and practices. There are traces of the blood feud. A Macedonian who had not yet killed an enemy was obliged to wear a halter around his waist. The marriage ceremony was the severing of a loaf of bread by the bride and groom, who then tasted the two portions. Feasting and wassail were the relaxations of the aristocracy and hunting their passionate avocation. In the early spring of each year the formal purification of the army, headed by the king, took place with the fighting men in full panoply. A sham battle ended the purification. Although the basic religion of the Macedonians was Greek, as is shown by the names of the months and by the belief that the folk descended from Makedon, son of Zeus, and the royal family from Herakles, there was strong Thracian influence from the peoples the Macedonians had expelled or subdued. This is the origin of the emotional Sabazios worship among the Macedonians with its local variant of the satyrs, the Sauadai, and bacchantes, Klodones and Mimallones. It is little wonder that to the Greeks of the city-states this society should seem alien, un-Hellenic, or, as they would say, ´barbarian´."
Answer:
Here, you proved nothing at all; Nothing that you can sink your fangs into. You have missed the gist of his intended message that—what we know about their origin is hidden in a veil of unknowns aside from the "true" facts of the Greek mythology which, by the way, operates on pure "scientific principles". Macedonians acted and behaved as Macedonians. He told you what the ancient Greeks saw in the ancient Macedonians—alien, un-Hellenic people.
You need to know, if you did not know it already, that Charles Edson is Borza´s "twin brother" in the parlance of ancient history.
I recommend staying away from these two.
You mentioned
Nicholas G. L. Hammond, ´Philip of Macedon´ Duckworth Publishing, February 1998.
"Philip was born a Greek of the most aristocratic, indeed of divine, descent… Philip was both a Greek and a Macedonian, even as Demosthenes was a Greek and an Athenian…The Macedonians over whom Philip was to rule were an outlying family member of the Greek-speaking peoples."
Answer:
Even though, Hammond had sold his soul to the Greeks for a barren rock in the Aegean, his vacillating "updates" to appease the Greeks only got him into a bigger trouble with modern revisionists of history such as Bosworth. Their debate about the language of the Ancient Macedonians in the Ancient History Bulletin is one such example.
A.B. Bosworth responds to N.G.L. Hammond regarding the usage of the Macedonian language by Alexander. Cleitus Episode revisited Bosworth elaborates:
"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 Greeks (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)."
This is what Hammond also said:
"We have already inferred from the incident at the Olympic Games c.500 that the Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not to be Greeks. Herodotus said this clearly in four words, introducing Amyntas, who was king c.500, as 'a Greek ruling over Macedonians' (5.20. 4), and Thucydides described the Macedonians and other northern tribes as 'barbarians' in the sense of 'non-Greeks', despite the fact that they were Greek-speaking. (Thuc. 2. 80. 5-7; 2. 81. 6; 4. 124.1)
And this…
"Aristotle, born at Stageira on the Macedonian border and the son of a Greek doctor at the Macedonian court, classed the Macedonians and their institution of Monarchy as not Greek, as we shall see shortly. It is thus not surprising that the Macedonians considered themselves to be, and were treated by Alexander the Great as being, separate from the Greeks. They were proud to be so."
And
"These instances show us that even Philip II and Alexander III introduced very few Greeks into the Assembly of Macedones. They wanted the 'Macedones' to have their own esprit de corps; and those of them who came from Lower Macedonia continued to speak the Macedonian dialect among themselves and to address the king or a commander in that dialect as a sign of affection." An ordinary soldier is represented as speaking in the Macedonian dialect to the dying Alexander in Ps-Callisthenes B 32. 14 (ed. Kroll), and the Macedonian soldiers greeted Eumenes in the Macedonian dialect when he came to command them (Plu. Eum. 14. 11). [p.64]
And for good measures…
As you probably know, there were many tribes in Macedonia. If we accept Macedon to be the progenitor of his tribe, where is the connection for the rest of the Macedonian tribes? What about the Lynchestians, Elimiotes, Eordians, Orestians etc. Besides, in the 'Catalogue of Women', the eponimous founder of Makedonia, Makedon, was the son of Zeus and Deukalion's daughter Thuia. This line of descent EXCLUDES him from the Hellenic genealogy - and hence, by implication, the Macedonians from the ranks of Hellenism." [Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, by J. Hall, p.64]
And one more for the road…
Even if, with professor N.G.L. Hammond, we accept this ethnic certification at face value, it tells us, as he makes it plain, nothing whatsoever about Macedonians generally. Alexander's dynasty, if Greek, he writes, regarded itself as Macedonian only by right of rule, as a branch of the Hanoverian house has come to 'regard itself as English'. On top of which, Philip II's son Alexander had an Epirote mother, which compounds the problem from yet another ethnic angle."
and you thought Bosworth will help…
A.B. Bosworth, ´Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great´ Cambridge University Press, Reissue Edition, March 1993
"Alexander ruled the world as his father had ruled Macedon, concentrating power in his own hands and office to his Companions. In nationality the Companions remained overwhemingly Hellenic."
Answer:
The forces from the Corinthian League, 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 Thessalian cavalry who re-enlisted were dismissed at the Oxus less 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.
Question: Do you Greeks ever wonder as to why "your king" would dismiss his "own" Greek soldiers? As you read quotes like this one, do you ever stop and think that perhaps your government has sold you an invalid bill of goods?
"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 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 Thessalian they were divided into ilai (Tod. GHI no 197.3) under the command of a Macedonian officer."
Perhaps this quote will bring you to your senses:
"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."
Isn´t this troublesome? Doesn´t it go contra to what you claim to be the truth?
Surely this ought to do it:
"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."
Can you believe you Greeks fought for Darius to the bitter end against your "own king Alexander"? It wasn´t a small number of mercenaries either; over 50,000 of you. Is this how "your" Alexander "spread" Greek culture and Hellenized the east? Let´s face it; with him you numbered about 7,000 and by 330 B.C., only a few short years in the campaign, you were dismissed. Do you mean to tell us that in only 3 years you Hellenized the east?
Or perhaps this one…
"It is sufficient for our purposes to note that the Hellenes and the Macedonians regarded themselves as different nations, and this feeling did not cease to be the source of great difficulties for the union of Greece under Macedonian rule. When the union was achieved, it was only by policy of force."
perhaps this author will do…
Richard Stoneman, ´Alexander the Great´ Routledge, September 1997, pgs 11-12.
"In favour of the Greek identity of the Macedonians is what we know of their language: the place-names, names of the months and personal names, which are without exception Greek in roots and form. This suggests that they did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca, but spoke it as natives (though with a local accent which turns Philip into Bilip, for example). The Macedonians´ own traditions derived their royal house from one Argeas, son of Macedon, son of Zeus, and asserted that a new dynasty, the Temenids, had its origin in the sixth century from emigrants from Argos in Greece, the first of these kings was Perdiccas. This tradition became a most important part of the cultural identity of Macedon. It enabled Alexander I to compete at the Olympic Games (which only true Hellenes were allowed to do); and it was embedded in the policy of Archelaus who invited Euripides from Athens to his court, where Euripides wrote not only the Bacchae but also lost play called Archelaus. (Socrates was also invited but declined.). It was in keeping with this background that Philip employed Aristotle - who had until then been helping Hermias of Atarneus in the Troad to rule as a Platonic "philosopher-king" - as tutor to his son, and that Alexander grew up with a devotion to Homer and the Homeric world which his own kingship so much recalled, and slept every night with the Iliad under his pillow.
Answer:
Same inconclusive and very diluted, worn-out, defeated, and good-for-nothing assertions.
Surely, his claim, resting on mythology and unproven linguistic associations, cannot be taken as serious proof for the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians.
With all his shortcomings aside, Richard Stoneman stated that "Alexander was not a Greek king" (Stonemen, 1997: 81).
but Wilken can help…
Ulrich Wilcken, ´Alexander the Great´ W.W. Norton & Company, Reissue Edition March 1997
"It seems more and more certain that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe related to the Dorians. However, as they stayed high up in the distant north, they could not participate in the progress of civilization of the Greek people that migrated southward…"
Answer:
"The point is much more important than our modern conviction that Greeks and Macedonians were brethren, this was equally unknown to both, and therefore could have no political effect."
"The dislike was reciprocal, for the Macedonians had grown into a proud masterful nation, which with highly developed national consciousness looked down upon the Hellenes with contempt. This fact too is of prime importance for the understanding of later history."
Troublebearer: save yourself the difficult task of proving something that others, before you, have also failed.
A quick reminder:
Patron, the Greek commander, speaks with Darius:
"Your Majesty", said Patron, 'we few are all that remain of 50,000 Greeks. We were all with you in your more fortunate days, and in your present situation we remain as we were when you were prospering, ready to make for and to accept as our country and our home any lands you choose. We and you have been drawn together both by your prosperity and your adversity. By this inviolable loyalty of ours I beg and beseech you: pitch your tent in our area of the camp and let us be your bodyguards. We have left Greece behind; for us there is no Bactria; our hopes rest entirely in you - I wish that were true of the others also! Further talk serves no purpose. As a foreigner born of another race I should not be asking for the responsibility of guarding your person if I thought anyone else could do it."
Is this how Greeks tried to avenge the sufferings Persia inflicted on you?
Alexander speaks:
"Starting with Macedonia, I now have power over Greece; I have brought Thrace and the Illyrians under my control; rule the Triballi and the Maedi. I have Asia in my possession from the Hellespont to the Red Sea."
Is there any distinguishing point between these conquered lands?
Philip, the greatest man Europe had known…
"With the help of the role that Isocrates had assigned to him, he had the astuteness to let his cold-blooded policy for the extension of Macedonian power take on the eyes of the Greeks the appearance of a work of liberation for Hellas. What he most needed at this moment was not force but shrewd propaganda; and nobody lent himself to this purpose so effectively as the old Isocrates, venerable and disinterested, who offered his services of his own free will." (Werner Jeager)
The first resolution passed by Synedrion at Corinth was the declaration of war against Persia. "The difference was that this war of conquest, which was passionately described as a war of vengeance, was not looked upon as a means of uniting the Greeks, as Isocrates would have had it, but was merely an instrument of Macedonian imperialism." (W. Jaeger)
Do you think the battle of Chaeronea was to unite the Greeks together?
"The dispute of modern scholars over the racial stock of the Macedonians has led to many interesting suggestions. This is especially true of the philological analysis of the remains of the Macedonian language by O. Hoffmann in his Makedonen etc. Cf. the latest general survey of the controversy in F. Geyer and his chapter on prehistory. But even if the Macedonians did have some Greek blood- as well as Illyrian- in their veins, whether originally or by later admixture, this would not justify us in considering them on a par with the Greeks in point of race or in using this as historical excuse for legitimizing the claims of this bellicose peasant folk to lord it over cousins in the south of the Balkan peninsula so far ahead of them in culture.
It is likewise incorrect to assert that this is the only way in which we can understand the role of the Macedonian conquest in Hellenizing the Orient. But we can neglect this problem here, as our chief interest lies in discovering what the Greeks themselves felt and thought. And here we need not cite Demosthenes' well-known statements; for Isocrates himself, the very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates the people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil.108. He purposely avoids the word barbaroi but this word is one that inevitably finds a place for itself in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of every true Hellene. Even Isocrates would not care to have the Greeks ruled by the Macedonian people: it is only the king of Macedonia, Philip, who is to be the new leader; and the orator tries to give ethnological proof of Philip's qualifications for this task by the device of showing that he is no son of his people but, like the rest of his dynasty, a scion of Heracles, and therefore of Greek blood." Werner Jaeger [p.249]
Didn´t Arrian used to differentiate ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks by race?
Once again, let it be known that the only reason that you Greeks want ancient Macedonians to be classed as Greeks, is because you fear that the Aegean Macedonia, which you received as a "gift" from the Balkan Wars, might, in time, be claimed by its original owner—the Republic of Macedonia.
Until next time…
I bet 500 € they will claim that Crist was Greek to!
Comment