18th-19th century 'greek' intellectuals saw Anc. Maks as conquerors

[makedonche]

Agamoi
Here's a snippet from one of your own posts which you'll probably fail to see the irony in, have a read and tell me if you find anything ironic in this text:-
[QUOTE][Dionysios Pyrros also wrote a history of Alexander the Great in 1845,with the following description on the preface:

"Life,deeds and exploits of the Macedonian Alexander the Great:composed out of the writings of ancient Hellene authors and interpreted in Neohellenic,with the ancient and the modern names of the cities and of their current inhabitants,with the addition of a map of Alexander's campaign.Printed for first time now,to the benefit of the studious Hellenes"

/QUOTE]

[Epirot]

Perhaps the source of most such traditions was not folk memory,however it was not "western influence" either and nevertheless it shows how deep rooted is the figure of Alexander the Great in Greek collective memory even through literrary sources that were very popular for cneturies:Probably it was the "Chap-book of Alexander the Great" (the known "history of Alexnader" of Pseudo-Callisthenes) which,as G.Abbott wrote in 1903, "has long been and still is a favourite reading of the lower classes all over the Greek world":

This does not give much credit to ascribe him as a Greek historical figure, does it? The figure of Alexander survive in the folk-consciousness of many people like Hebrew, Ethiopians, Arabs, Persians and even Indians. I recall in mind an excellent post made by Onur, which deals with the question we are speaking about:

Originally posted by Onur

Probably there are many more legends, folktales, poems about Alexander in islamic world then ever written in Greek-Roman western world.

There is a story of an individual in Koran, mentioned as "double-horned one" who conquered many territories and build an iron gate in the Caucasus to stop the advance of the descendants of Gog and Magog from central Asia in to the Anatolia. It`s widely believed in islamic world that the "double-horned one" can be no other than the Alexander the Great. As you know, the Koran has been written in 7th century.

Also, there are many legends about him in Andalusia, muslim Spain as early as 9th century and there are epic poems and folktales of him in Persia in 10th century. Then there are epic poems about Alexander written by Turks of Ottoman empire in 14th century as i posted one of them here b4;

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=4444

You mention some Byzantine historians who revived the name of Alexander and his Macedonians, but again this has no weight at all since Byzantines never celebrated any strong connection with ancient Hellenes. Not to say about people of 'Greece' in the time of revolutionary wars who got no clue about most prominent historical figures of ancient Greece:

The eighteenth-century Greek scholar Koumas tells of a visit he made to one of the most influential klephts, Nikotsaras. In order to show respect Koumas addressed the klephtic leader as Achilles. Nikotsaras retorted angrily: ‘What rubbish are you talking about? Who is this Achilles? Handy with a musket, was he?”

The Balkans: Nationalism, War & the Great Powers, 1804-1999′ Misha Glenny, 2000, p. 31

Furthermore, Koumas knew perfectly what were the Klephtes:




"A Romaic grammar: accompanied by a chrestomathy, with a vocabulary"---Evangelinus Apostolides Sophocles

To sum it up, modern Greeks have not a single memory in respect with Alexander the Great and ancient Macedonian heritage. It's true that Alexander was misused by your infamous Colonels, to fit to their military adventures. Peter Green witnessed that:

"The Colonels, as it happened, promoted Alexander as a great Greek hero, especially to army recruits: the Greeks of the fourth century B.C., to whom Alexander was a half-Macedonian, half-Epirote barbarian conqueror, would have found this metamorphosis as ironic as I did.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HlhvoI2T_YYC&pg=PR14&dq=The+Colonels,+as+it+happened,+promoted+Alexander+as+a+great&hl=en&ei=P3ZCTrH3BM-p8AP8iLXgCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Colonels%2C%20as%20it%20happened%2C%20promoted%20Alexander%20as%20a%20great&f=false

A great Greek hero to be idolized by young recruits, who probably were homosexuals...hahahahahahaha

however it was not "western influence" either and nevertheless it shows how deep rooted is the figure of Alexander the Great in Greek collective memory

Deep rooted? hahahah Never mind! Actually you're confusing present with the past, are not you? I mean the nationalistic campaigns promoted by Greece after the emerging of Macedonia, as an independent state. In this hysteric campaign, there were produced T-shirts with Alexander, Taxi companies bore the name of Alexander...Your hysteria meets no limits as you named the airport of Kavala as Κρατικός Αερολιμένας Καβάλας «Μέγας Αλέξανδρος»

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_Megas_Alexandros

Kozani as Κρατικός Αερολιμένας Κοζάνης "Φίλιππος

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kozani_National_Airport_%22Filippos%22

Kastoria as Aristotelis airport:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastoria_National_Airport

So I would admit frankly your assertion that Alexander the Great is deep rooted in Greece, only if you are referring to the present state of things.

The French Pierre Bellon wrote in 1553 about a tradition in the village of Chalastra,near ancient Philippi in the district of Kavala,that the locals called this city "city of Bucephalus" and they believed that there was the manger where Alexander the Great's horse ate.
"Les habitans du pays en sont une fable enti eulx,estimants que c'est la mangeoire de la iument d' Alexandre le Grand.Mais par la iument fault entendre Bucephalus"

Do you know how many place-names and local traditions are throughout Asia in regards with Alexander the Great? If the locals of Kavala called this city as 'city of Bucephalus'...then what's your point? Pierre Bellon did not say anything about the ethnic background of the city at that time. Ok, let for the sake of argument admit for a second that Kavalla was greek, and its inhabitants cherished memory about ancient Macedonia. But your beloved E. Abbot pointed out that even the Turks of Macedonia have such a traditions...

[Epirot]

3)Dionysios Pyrros the Thessalian,1818 and "Methodic Geography of the whole universe,on behalf of his friends and pupils and the Hellenic genus"

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/o...dionpyrcov.jpg

“She (Hellas) is today subjugated to the despotic rule of the Turk emperor,the so-called Sultan,who descends from the interior of great Asia,which was once utterly defeated by the Macedonian Alexander the Great”

What does prove this? That Greeks are the offspring of Macedonians!!!! Do not be ridiculous since nobody gives credit to a XIX century 'Greek' scholar, who was heavily influenced by Romanticism. I just underlined some words from your quote, to show how inaccurate is D. Pyrrhos. According to his wishful thinking, the ancestors of Turks were defeated by Alexander's army. There is no historical record that Alexander met ever Turks (or their ancestors) during his Asiatic expedition. Therefore, D. Pyrrhos constructed the past as to suit to his agenda of reviving the non-existent Hellas, which is why his account has no value...except for some deluded net-warriors like yourself.

"Οι πρώτοι κάτοικοι της Μακεδονίας ήταν εκείνοι όπου ήταν και της Ελλάδος"=The first inhabitants of Macedonia were the same with those of Greece:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/o...otgeogr249.gif

It seem obvious that you picked up this sentence out of its content. It says nothing whether Macedonians were Greeks or not. It just emphasize the very fact that πρώτοι κάτοικοι of Macedonia were the same with those of Greece, probably a reference to Pelasgi. I have no issue to accept that the first inhabitants of Macedonia, Epirus, Thrace and Illyria to some extent, were quite similar to those of Greece. But we are speaking for the period between VIII-IV B.C...and the most important is that Greeks did not reckon either Macedonians or Illyrians as Greeks. Full stop. There is no need for further complicated hypothesis!

"So Demosthenes was not right to call Macedonians barbarians;instead,at that time this appellation fitted better to the case of the Athenians rather than to the Macedonians".

Both Daniel Philippidis and Grigorios Konstantas are proved to be ignorant since it is widely known that Demosthenes was not the only person to call Macedonians as barbarians. Even the famous Thrasymachus labeled unceasingly Macedonian king as 'barbarian':

Shall we become slaves to Archelaus, Greeks as we are, to a barbarian?”
Ἀρχελάῳ δουλεύσομεν , Ἕλληνες ὄντες βαρβάρῳ

In general, I can say that all your cited accounts from XIX century, have no weight not only for being out-dated, but because they were written from some romantic writers who knew nothing about history. If you want to maintain some credibility, go find some reliable source if inhabitants of Greece knew anything about Alexander the Great prior 1830. Greeks discovered Alexander for the first time after they launched campaigns like "I Makedonia einai elliniki" or something like that.

[Epirot]

Agamoi Thytai, why the silence? Is that your answer?

Should we wait four your lame answer 1 month or more?

[Voltron]

This is the reason why I opted not to spend the time posting the other side of the coin.
Agamoi, it was a valiant effort but as you can see it would of been pissed on anyway.
No amount of evidence will ever change the perception that certain individuals have. Its always going to be some excuse or just plain dismissal.

Alexander has said himself he is a Greek by descent, Christ what else does it take ppl ?

[Stojacanec]

This is the reason why I opted not to spend the time posting the other side of the coin.
Agamoi, it was a valiant effort but as you can see it would of been pissed on anyway.
No amount of evidence will ever change the perception that certain individuals have. Its always going to be some excuse or just plain dismissal.

Alexander has said himself he is a Greek by descent, Christ what else does it take ppl ?

Didn’t Alexander’s mum who is a non Macedonian, who detested Philip try to convince Alexander that he was in fact the son of Zues and not Philip? So, even if Alexander did claim a Greek descent would this have anything to do with it?

[Voltron]

Stojacanec, your going on pure speculation.
So are you saying that ATG was brainwashed from a kid to think he was Greek ?
Is this where we are heading now ?

To answer your question. No.

[Bill77]

Alexander has said himself he is a Greek by descent, Christ what else does it take ppl ?

That was after he was refused to enter the Olympics (Thats if i have the Alexander you are referring to correct). Can you explain why Alexander being a Macedonian was not enough before he had to concocter a story?

[Voltron]

Im aware of your sides position in regards to your reference Bill.
I just dont agree with it.

[Bill77]

Im aware of your sides position in regards to your reference Bill.
I just dont agree with it.

Then what is your position on this issue. I did ask please explain.

[mango]

Alexander has said himself he is a Greek by descent, Christ what else does it take ppl ?

That was Alexander I and not Alexander III the Great. Then why would a king of a neighboring country suddenly proclaim he's Greek to the Greeks? Wouldn't they know that already? Or it is just a piece of state propaganda transmitted by Herodotus.

[Bill77]

That was Alexander I and not Alexander III the Great. Then why would a king of a neighboring country suddenly proclaim he's Greek to the Greeks? Wouldn't they know that already? Or it is just a piece of state propaganda transmitted by Herodotus.

Spot on Mango. I don't think he knew the difference.

[Voltron]

Dont rush to conclusions Bill.

Read what I posted and the subsequent dialogue I had before with Stojanec.
I know the difference bro.

[Orfej]

Well,Korais was actually not certain whether ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not.

You didn't claimed this earlier! To the contrary, you stated:

[B]SoM and TrueMacedonian have posted so far some interesting quotes that show certain Greek scholars considered Macedonians as a non-Greek people.It's true,I don't deny it,there were indeed in 19th century some Greek scholars who held that view.They were mainly influenced by the leading Greek scholar of that time,Adamantios Korais[/B],who lived in Paris and was an admirer of French enlightenment

How can a scholar influence other Greek scholars(as you say) to believe that the Macedonians were not Greeks if he himself is uncertain about the matter?

It seems that the one who's uncertain is you. Maybe you need to clear your thoughts. To help you i will give you a hint.
The reason why Korais and the rest of the Greek intellectuals at the time didn't considered the Ancient Macedonians as Greeks was not because of their origin, religious or linguistic differences, but because they saw them as not being part of the Greek nation, they were outside of the Greek world. If you've read carefully the first pages on this thread you would have realized this.



Only after the German Droysen offered his theories to your historians did they accepted to include the Macedonians into the Greek nation.




And what happened? The Greek state and scholars, the ones who quite recently omitted the Ancient Macedonians from the Greek nation now went on a mission to 'prove' how Hellenic they in fact were.

Besides these two pages you've posted,there is another one you've omited,which reads:

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/salppolem7.png

"Hellenes were subjugated first to the succesors of Alexander.But this wasn't still that bad,because Alexander's succesors were perhaps Hellenes themselves."

Well lets for the 'sake of the argument' assume that you didn't took this sentence out of context. In this sentence Korais:

1. Speaks about the successors of Alexander, not about the Ancient Macedonians nor about Alexander nor about his predecessors! Only about his successors who certainly can't be equalized with the Ancient Macedonians themselves.
2. Tells us that the Hellenes were subjugated to the Macedonians.
Do you know what subjugated means?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjugate

subjugate:
-to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
-to make submissive or subservient; enslave.

3. States that the situation after the enslavement/subjegation of the Hellenes by the Macedonians was 'not that bad'. Which means the situation was bad(the Hellenes were enslaved after all) but not extremely bad.

4. States a possibility, that maybe this enslavement was not that bad because the successors were 'Hellenes themselves'. That's why he uses the word 'perhaps'

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perhaps

So this sentence alone tells us what i have already stated, that Korais considered the Macedonians as conquerors of Greece, a people not taking part in the Greek nation. You simply lack the mental capacity to figure it out.

PS: You didn't answered my question! What have these 18th century scholars(predecessors of Korais) which you threw around wrote about the Ancient Macedonians apart from the one liners you are quoting and which is nothing more then propaganda for the ignorant. Weren't the Ancient Macedonians such an important part of your nation? Weren't they the ones who spread Hellenic culture all around the world? Isn't it shameful that one liners is everything that the Greek intelligentsia(including the ones that allegedly considered Macedonians as Greeks) wrote about them before Droysen come up in the 1850es and told them '' hey guys, these Macedonians are very important for your new identity, you need to include them in your history'' ?

[Voltron]

That was Alexander I and not Alexander III the Great. Then why would a king of a neighboring country suddenly proclaim he's Greek to the Greeks? Wouldn't they know that already? Or it is just a piece of state propaganda transmitted by Herodotus.

His lineage was only contested subsequently after complaints from participants not from officials.
The motive of putting Alexanders lineage in question was simply to prevent a strong athlete from securing a lead in the event.
If im not mistaken he tied for first.