Pasko Kuzman promoting "Macedonian-Hellenistic period" - anti-Macedonian propaganda?

[Spartan]

Spartan, you need to clarify which period of time you are talking about, because sometimes it seems as though its the 6th century BC and others the 4th century BC.

I believe that many of the city-states began to move away from monarchial systems at the onset of the 6th century BC. By the 4th century, I believe most had moved away from this, and were either oligarchies, or democracies.

By the latter period (4th), Hellenic kingdoms were few or at the very least insignificant when compared to the type of city-state that Athens, Thebes and the rest had.

I would agree with this assesment, except for Sparta.
She maintained her royal family(although there were oligarchial elements), and was verry signifigant in the Greek world in the 400's BC(Persian invasions, Peloponesian wars etc).

[Soldier of Macedon]

I would like to see it if it exsits, and if the reference is made to their monarchy or their treatment of other Hellenes during a certain war.

If it indeed exists, I would guess that it would reference the latter

Exactly my point. Whereas Peter Green speaks of, among other things, actual elements of the kingdom that were seen as primitive or foreign by Hellenes.

And despite being monarchies, these few were also considered city-states, yet Macedonia, also a monarchy, was anything but a city-state. Why is that so?

I wouldnt say few, many, if not all city-states had a king at some point.
However, I will agree that the ancient Macedonian kingdom was different from the typical city states of the time.

Spartan, you need to clarify which period of time you are talking about, because sometimes it seems as though its the 6th century BC and others the 4th century BC.

By the latter period (4th), Hellenic kingdoms were few or at the very least insignificant when compared to the type of city-state that Athens, Thebes and the rest had. If am I wrong, please name the long list of them so I can see.

Macedonia and Sparta were both monarchies during the 4th century BC, but Macedonia was not just different in elements, it was not a city-state and it was never considered as such. Sparta was a city-state, there is no denying that.

[Spartan]

Spartan, as I stated earlier, the concept of 'monarchy' per se would not have been alien to the Hellenes,

Ok, so we are on the same page.

but certain elements of the Macedonian monarchy obviously were. These elements were enough to give it a significant distinction that was clearly noticeable to the Hellenes.

I cannot disagree, since I dont know what these elements are. Perhaps you are correc in that this is something worth delving deeper into.

I would like to see it if it exsits, and if the reference is made to their monarchy or their treatment of other Hellenes during a certain war.

If it indeed exists, I would guess that it would reference the latter.

Can you point me to some of this literature?

Like I said, I dont know if such literature exists. I just wouldnt be surprised if it did.

And despite being monarchies, these few were also considered city-states, yet Macedonia, also a monarchy, was anything but a city-state. Why is that so?

I wouldnt say few, many, if not all city-states had a king at some point.
However, I will agree that the ancient Macedonian kingdom was different from the typical city states of the time.

All the ancient peoples sacrificed bulls, goats, etc, I used the example of the bitch being cut in two pieces (with the army walking through the middle) because Peter Green cites it in the same paragraph as the earlier quote. I have no doubt that there were other elements aswell that were distinguished from the common practices of the Hellenes. To be honest, I have never looked into the subject in great detail previously, I think it is something worth exploring further.

Agreed, I am also intrigued by the customs/practices of the ancients.

cheers

[Soldier of Macedon]

Look SoM, Im not saying what you think I am. All my point was, was that indigens statement was incorrect about monarchy being alien to the ancient Greeks. Do you disagree?

Spartan, as I stated earlier, the concept of 'monarchy' per se would not have been alien to the Hellenes, but certain elements of the Macedonian monarchy obviously were. These elements were enough to give it a significant distinction that was clearly noticeable to the Hellenes.

Im sure if you look hard enough, you will find references of Spartans being referred to as barbarians, or some of their customs as barbaric

I would like to see it if it exsits, and if the reference is made to their monarchy or their treatment of other Hellenes during a certain war. Can you point me to some of this literature?

Some of the biggest city-states were monarchies(Argos, Sparta off the top of my head.), so Im sure there were many 'monarchists' as well.

And despite being monarchies, these few were also considered city-states, yet Macedonia, also a monarchy, was anything but a city-state. Why is that so?

The ancient Greeks as far as I know, sacrificed bulls, goats, or lambs before battle.
Im not sure how they would have viewed the killing of a dog.

All the ancient peoples sacrificed bulls, goats, etc, I used the example of the bitch being cut in two pieces (with the army walking through the middle) because Peter Green cites it in the same paragraph as the earlier quote. I have no doubt that there were other elements aswell that were distinguished from the common practices of the Hellenes. To be honest, I have never looked into the subject in great detail previously, I think it is something worth exploring further.

[Spartan]

Well, most of the city states at the onset of the 6th century BC, would have been monarchies, so I dont think they would be viewed as primitive just yet. It was during this century that some of the city-states started experimenting with different forms of government.
Look SoM, Im not saying what you think I am. All my point was, was that indigens statement was incorrect about monarchy being alien to the ancient Greeks. Do you disagree? I am not debating how the ancient Macs were viewed based on this.
Im sure if you look hard enough, you will find references of Spartans being referred to as barbarians, or some of their customs as barbaric. They were a bit primitive in comparisons to the other Greeks, so its inevitable you will find such literature.
As for 'some' ancient Greeks, I was referring to the 'some' as seeing a monarchy(any monarchy) as 'barbaric', not based on any ethnicity buisiness, but politically. Some of the biggest city-states were monarchies(Argos, Sparta off the top of my head.), so Im sure there were many 'monarchists' as well.
The ancient Greeks as far as I know, sacrificed bulls, goats, or lambs before battle.
Im not sure how they would have viewed the killing of a dog.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Spartan, major or not I cannot confirm, but they were significant enough for the Hellenes to view them as primitive and foreign. I think your suggestion of 'some' ancient Hellenes is an understatement, 'most' would be more appropriate. Further to this, the Macedonian kingdom continued to be viewed in such a light well past the 6th century BC, while Hellenic kingdoms were not.

Again I will ask, how many times were the Spartans referred to as foreigners and barbarians in the 6th, 5th, 4th centuries BC by the Hellenes? I will chance to say none or next to none, and certainly nothing that could be compared to the general view of the Hellenes towards the Macedonians.

Would the cutting of a bitch in half for the purpose of purifying the army be seen as common or foreign by the 4th century BC Hellenes?

[Spartan]

Well, what are these 'respects' SoM? Are they major differences?
I believe that monarchies in general were viewed as primitive by some ancient greeks post 6th century bc, not the intracacies of each one.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The reason he refers to the Spartans in his quote, is because Sparta was also viewed as 'primitive'.

But not as primitive as to be referred to as barbarians and foreigners by the Hellenes for successive centuries on end, as was the case with the Macedonians, do you agree? The Macedonian monarchy would have been more akin to monarchies in Thrace and Illyria in several respects.

[Spartan]

You see SoM, around the 6th century BC, the city states began to evolve from monarchies into other political systems, mainly oligarchy or Democracy. So by the time of the rise of the Macedonians, I could see their monarchy being viewed as 'primitive' to the ancient Greeks..... even the Spartans I dont disagree with Peter Greens statement.
The reason he refers to the Spartans in his quote, is because Sparta was also viewed as 'primitive'.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I don't think that the concept of 'monarchy' per se would have been alien to the Hellenes or others in the region, but the type of monarchy that the Macedonians had and certain elements within would have been viewed as foreign or unfamiliar by people to the south. As Peter Green puts it:

The country was frankly primitive, preserving customs and institutions which might have made even a Spartan raise his eyebrows.

[Spartan]

Whats up SoM, hope everythings good.
To put it simply my friend, many of the city states were monarchies. Leading up to the pelloponesian wars, I would guess that most of them actually were. I dont see how a monarchy would be considered alien to the AGs. Even Athens was a monarchy before democracy was adopted.Dont get me wrong, many of these city states evolved into oligarchies,aristocracies and even democracies, but monarchies have always existed among them.

Unless 'Hellenism', as used by Indigen in the original quote, is not refering to ancient Greekism, I dont think its an accurate statement.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Actually, no. This couldnt be further from the truth.

Spartan, can you elaborate further, I would like to hear your take on it.

[Spartan]

Was not the political institution of Monarchy ALIEN to "Hellenism"?

Actually, no. This couldnt be further from the truth.

[Risto the Great]

I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU! IMO, you display all the signs of someone who has had a long history of viewing Macedonians through the "Slav" prism and Macedonian indigenity would be an alien thought process.

You should check the signs again Indigen.
I have no "slav" prism. Whilst I see this as a linguistic grouping of significance to the ethnic identity of Macedonians, it is not the sole determinant.

Indigenous Macedonians as a thought process is not alien to me either. I have no idea why you would assume it is the case and I cannot arrive at your conclusion looking at my previous comments. Do you know more about me than I am letting on?

So if Australian aborigines speak English today and are described as westernised Aboriginals, would you jump up and down in a fit of finger pointing? At precisely what moment will they cease being indigenous Australians?

You can keep going on like this forever and eventually retire to your corner with a very simplistic argument . But in the last 20 years we have seen more English creep into the Macedonian language than ever before. I have a name for this period and it thrills me about the same as the Hellenistic period.

China today is undergoing rapid industrialisation and "Westernisation", should we be now renaming the Chinese culture as "Westernistic"? Cars, skyscrapers, rock, pop, jazz, etc, Big Macs, business suits and countless other imports and cultural borrowings will not cause Chinese society and culture to be renamed.

I see no difference and will not be alive to confirm it, but yes, this period may well be described in China's future as its "Westernistic" period. You might have a problem with that. I don't ... it will still be China.

What is perilous is the thinking that we are somehow winning when in fact we are losing badly! We are surrounded by enemies who utilise indigentity as part of their national ideology and we are seen as invaders on their native soil. As long as we deny our indigenous roots, we will be aiding and abetting their attempts to terminate our national existence.

45% of the population of Peru is indigenous. With 80% of the entire population speaking Spanish. Would the portion of indigenous Peruvians who speak Spanish be less indigenous than the ones who don't? I do not think so. I am not sure what all this means in a modern nation defining context, but simply stating you are indigenous to a region without backing it up is kind of pompous, optimistic and dare I say it ... Balkan. Proving the impossibility of the Slavic migration theory makes more sense and quite a bit of work in relation to that matter has been done right here.

I have no doubt about our indigenous roots and I have no doubt we have had many spheres of influence over the centuries. Just because you and I disagree on some peripheral definitional matters does not change the underlying character of the Macedonians.

As a contrast, I have no doubt many Hungarians are indigenous to the region yet they have no problem talking about their migration as a race of people. I also feel their national existence is under no threat because of this fact either.

[indigen]

I would think the sphere of influence during that window of Macedonia's long history was Hellenic.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU! IMO, you display all the signs of someone who has had a long history of viewing Macedonians through the "Slav" prism and Macedonian indigenity would be an alien thought process.

I am not sure how to apply your analogy. Should I be struggling with how the Macedonians spread Spartan, Athenian etc. languages, cultures and religions all over the globe? They didn't.

What did Macedonians spread in Macedonia?

Did Macedonians not spread anything else besides the incidental "Hellenes" who were dumped in outlying areas by Alexander for political reasons.

Was not the political institution of Monarchy ALIEN to "Hellenism"?

What was spread should appropriately be described as Macedonian. But to deny who was influencing the Macedonians creates more reason for confusion than less.

Power and statecraft was influencing Macedonians! They built powerful states and used whatever was most suitable for their circumstances to maintain, develop, modernise and advance their society and state institutions.

China today is undergoing rapid industrialisation and "Westernisation", should we be now renaming the Chinese culture as "Westernistic"? Cars, skyscrapers, rock, pop, jazz, etc, Big Macs, business suits and countless other imports and cultural borrowings will not cause Chinese society and culture to be renamed.

Perhaps somebody should ask Pasko what he means by Hellenistic and Hellenism and how they relate to modern Greeks.

He was on TV not long ago duelling with Ljubche Bugarcheto on the same topic. There should be some YouTube clips on A1 website, if you want to check.

Either way, Macedonia has had many influences throughout its long history and I think looking at one period in isolation as a defining statement for the modern Macedonians is perilous.

What is perilous is the thinking that we are somehow winning when in fact we are losing badly! We are surrounded by enemies who utilise indigentity as part of their national ideology and we are seen as invaders on their native soil. As long as we deny our indigenous roots, we will be aiding and abetting their attempts to terminate our national existence.

All the best!