Another name that was mentioned is Ian Worthington (Professor of Greek History at University of Missouri-Columbia). The following is from The Ancient History Bulletin 13.2 (1999) 39 - 55. I won't quote the whole article, only the really good bits (Stuff your "out of context" cop-out crap).
Quote 1: We have a fair amount of information for events in mainland Greece, especially Athens, during the reign of Alexander, however events in Macedon in this period are undocumented and largely unknown. Our concern is whether scholars, ancient or modern, refer to Macedonia as "Macedonia" and Greece as "Greece", or do they refer to them as one country. The references above indicate that there were two countries in question. One cannot sidestep the issue of separateness and blur-out the distinction between Macedon and Greece without corrupting the text altogether.
Quote 2: Points of interest to our objectives: Macedonians and Greeks were one and the same people, Arrian would have not used two separate designations. The separation of ethnicity is not only amply evident in the next passage, but it is explicitly underlined by injection of the "race" card: "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, and the fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian (Arr.2.11)".
Obviously there is nothing in this passage to suggest that Arrian did not see the ancient Macedonians as separate people from the ancient Greeks. The core, the crux of the matter, is illustrated by the racial rivalry between Macedonians and Greeks.
Quote 3: Diodorus 18.12.2 says that Antipater was short on 'citizen soldiers', a clear reference to the Macedonians. Agis' threat to Macedon and subsequently to Alexander was not taken lightly; Alexander had to postpone important decisions before he knew the fate of Agis. Whence, we are left to ponder the question of "Greekness" for the ancient Macedonians anew: Would ancient Greeks, led by Agis III rebel against Macedon in the middle of "their" Persian crusade undertaken to avenge Greece for the desecration of Greek temples and religious monuments of a century ago, if the ancient Macedonians were Greeks? Second, if Macedonia was a Greek land, isn't it natural for the Greeks to have taken part in Antipater's home defensive force instead of fighting against him?
Quote 4: The following conclusions are in order: (a) There is a clear separation between Greeks and Macedonians, (b) Greeks revolted against Alexander and his Macedonians, meaning that there was no such thing as "unification of the Greek states". "Armed conquest" is the term that describes, I might add, adequately, the Macedonian war over Greece. And, last, (c) the Macedonian conquest of Asia and the Macedonian Empires have very little to share with the Greeks. Greeks were used for jobs like any other ethnic group within the empire. Borza says that Alexander, near the end of his reign, replaced all the Greeks and Persians with Macedonians. (Borza, 1990).
My question to you Leo is did you also include the above views by Worthington or was that not important or worthy of a mention in your dissertation?
Quote 1: We have a fair amount of information for events in mainland Greece, especially Athens, during the reign of Alexander, however events in Macedon in this period are undocumented and largely unknown. Our concern is whether scholars, ancient or modern, refer to Macedonia as "Macedonia" and Greece as "Greece", or do they refer to them as one country. The references above indicate that there were two countries in question. One cannot sidestep the issue of separateness and blur-out the distinction between Macedon and Greece without corrupting the text altogether.
Quote 2: Points of interest to our objectives: Macedonians and Greeks were one and the same people, Arrian would have not used two separate designations. The separation of ethnicity is not only amply evident in the next passage, but it is explicitly underlined by injection of the "race" card: "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, and the fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian (Arr.2.11)".
Obviously there is nothing in this passage to suggest that Arrian did not see the ancient Macedonians as separate people from the ancient Greeks. The core, the crux of the matter, is illustrated by the racial rivalry between Macedonians and Greeks.
Quote 3: Diodorus 18.12.2 says that Antipater was short on 'citizen soldiers', a clear reference to the Macedonians. Agis' threat to Macedon and subsequently to Alexander was not taken lightly; Alexander had to postpone important decisions before he knew the fate of Agis. Whence, we are left to ponder the question of "Greekness" for the ancient Macedonians anew: Would ancient Greeks, led by Agis III rebel against Macedon in the middle of "their" Persian crusade undertaken to avenge Greece for the desecration of Greek temples and religious monuments of a century ago, if the ancient Macedonians were Greeks? Second, if Macedonia was a Greek land, isn't it natural for the Greeks to have taken part in Antipater's home defensive force instead of fighting against him?
Quote 4: The following conclusions are in order: (a) There is a clear separation between Greeks and Macedonians, (b) Greeks revolted against Alexander and his Macedonians, meaning that there was no such thing as "unification of the Greek states". "Armed conquest" is the term that describes, I might add, adequately, the Macedonian war over Greece. And, last, (c) the Macedonian conquest of Asia and the Macedonian Empires have very little to share with the Greeks. Greeks were used for jobs like any other ethnic group within the empire. Borza says that Alexander, near the end of his reign, replaced all the Greeks and Persians with Macedonians. (Borza, 1990).
My question to you Leo is did you also include the above views by Worthington or was that not important or worthy of a mention in your dissertation?
Comment