Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his Macedonian ancestry

[Agamoi Thytai]

Why would Alexander I not sayed that he is just Greek, but he state that he have Greek descent

It was very common among Greeks in ancient time to declare their ethnic or tribal identity using this expression of Alexander "by descend"-in Greek "γένος".Alexander said he is "Έλλην το γένος"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D9%3Achapter%3D45%3Asection%3D2

Heorotus refers to two brothers from Argos,Cleobis and Biton as "γένος Αργείοισι",ι.e. "of Argive stock" (load the Greek text)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D31%3Asection%3D2

A Coan woman (from Cos island) says she is "γένος Κώη",i.e. Coan by birth:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D9%3Achapter%3D76%3Asection%3D2

The inhabitants of Croton are "γένος Αχαιοί",i.e. Achaeans by birth

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D47%3Asection%3D1

Periclitus of Lesbos is described as "γένος Λέσβιον",i.e. Lesbian by birth

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0402%3Asection%3D6

Thamyras the Thracian,was "τὸ γένος Θρᾷκα",i.e. of Thracian extraction

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0402%3Asection%3D3

and he was traying to prove that to the Greeks who did not accepted him as a Greek.

They rather didn't accept him because they were affraid he would win the race.Old athlete tricks,however the judges didn't have any problem to accept him

COMON GLORY TO ALL GREEKS, but there was no glory for the Macedonians in that match...

The Dioxippus affair,or rather the Dioxippus hoax.Arrian and Plutarch,who used more trustworthy sources for Alexander's history don't mention it at all.Diodorus Siculus and Quintus Curtius Rufus instead mention it because they rely on Cleitarchus narrative.According to Cleitarchus whom both Diodorus and Quintus Curtius Rufus copied:
"Macedonians were disappointed and embarrassed by the outcome of the match, particularly since their defeat occurred in front of recently conquered Persian prisoners. Alexander's disfavor was noted by the Macedonians who conspired to embarrass Dioxippus, by putting a golden cup underneath his pillow and accusing him of theft. Dioxippus felt this dishonor deeply. Realizing the Macedonians had framed him, he wrote a letter to Alexander describing the conspiracy, then committed suicide by falling on his sword"

However Cleitarchus was a very unreliable source,renowned for his invented stories:

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3204/dioxippus1.png

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4/dioxippus2.png

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/2958/dioxippus3.png

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4433/dioxippus4.png

I find that about his father in the Wikipedia link u posted about him.

Why is it that i can nowhere find any mention of his father being Athenian?

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

Had his father really been an Athenian he also would enjoy all the rights of an Athenian citizen,regardless of his mother's origin and consequently he would be refered to as Athenian instead of Macedonian by all sources.

But when u mention Demosten, lets see what he sey:


As u can see, he call barbarian Filip and whole Macedonia. So what argument is stronger now?

The only thing he says about Macedonia is that it's a place where one can find not even a decent slave.Anyway,Demosthenes was a politician,and,as even Eugene Borza accepts "Demosthenes' pronouncements are often no more an accurate recording of the events and personalities of the day than are the public statements of politicians of all the ages".

http://books.google.gr/books?id=614pd07OtfQC&pg=PA6&vq=demosthenes&dq=borza&lr=&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U1DOER2zx9BtHY0eo8KUX02lkS8MA#v=onepage&q=statements&f=false

Note also that Demosthenes was accused by many people of having being bribed by Persians:

http://books.google.gr/books?id=FGGvJ3AfgbYC&pg=PA87&dq=demosthenes+bribed+persians&hl=el&ei=oZInTf2HIY6N4gac88HGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=demosthenes%20bribed%20persians&f=false

http://books.google.gr/books?id=x6l2V-viJOIC&pg=PA85&dq=demosthenes+bribed+persians&hl=el&ei=oZInTf2HIY6N4gac88HGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.gr/books?id=zA8ZAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA40&dq=demosthenes+bribed+persians&hl=el&ei=oZInTf2HIY6N4gac88HGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

But they were related, make some research and you will see.

I made a research but didn't find anything.I think the burden to find it is on you,since you are the one that claims it.

AS I say, that was a common practice among the royal families back than. And as u put it, they are claiming greek ORIGIN. How much is true about that story of the Greek origin of the Argeads is answered by leading historians.

Leding historians like Borza?Even he admitts "there is no reason to deny the Macedonians' own traditions about their early kings and the migrations of the Makedones".

http://books.google.gr/books?id=614pd07OtfQC&pg=PA6&vq=demosthenes&dq=borza&lr=&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U1DOER2zx9BtHY0eo8KUX02lkS8MA#v=onepage&q=deny%20&f=false

After all,are there any Thracian,Illyrian or Paeonian royal families that claimed Greek origin?The answer is definitely no.

I am not saying that it is not like that In the original text, maybe it is but I want solid proves for that,

I've already posted it.He wrote "para to Hellena me einai" i.e. "even though i am Greek"

http://books.google.gr/books?id=fRppAAAAMAAJ&q=para+to+hellena+me+einai&dq=para+to+hellena+me+einai&hl=el&ei=cpcnTZiENsio8QP79JCvAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ

Why do I want that?
Becouse even the text of the bible is changed, in the old and more original versions of the bible is clearly stated : Alexander and Filip came from the land of Kitim.
But in now days 99% of the bibles instead of Kitim is written Greece. Why is that so I don’t know but I do know now that I want to see original texts.

Look,Flavius Josephus was a Jew himself and wrote this story in Greek,using the word "Hellenes":

[337]δειχθείσης δ᾽ αὐτῷ τῆς Δανιήλου βίβλου, ἐν ᾗ τινα τῶν Ἑλλήνων καταλύσειν τὴν Περσῶν ἀρχὴν ἐδήλου

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0145%3Abook%3D11%3Awhiston+chapter%3D8%3Awhiston+section%3D5

"And when the Book of Daniel was showed him 1 wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146%3Abook%3D11%3Awhiston%20chapter%3D8%3Awhiston%20section%3D5

Look also what else Jews themselves write:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Maccabees.html

Lets see now something that will tip the balance for sure
Arian
[Book II - Battle of Issus] "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian.

This is a clear mistranslation of Arrian's quote.The original Greek text reads as follows:

"καὶ τι καὶ τοῖς γένεσι τῷ τε Ἑλληνικῷ καὶ τῷ Μακεδονικῷ φιλοτιμίας ἐνέπεσεν ἐς άλλήλους"

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/386/arrianii10.png

However there isn't any word meaning "rivalry",let alone "old".The word "φιλοτιμία" is not properly translated as "rivalry" while its actual meaning is "love of honour" or "sense of personal honour".A much better translation is in this book:

"and then happened a strife between the Grecians and the Macedonians,concerning the honour of their respective nations".

http://books.google.com/books?id=dnwMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA46&dq=and+then+happened+a+strife+between+the+grecians+and+the+macedonians&hl=el&ei=BKEnTbu3GMGn8QPprbW-Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=and%20then%20happened%20a%20strife%20between%20the%20grecians%20and%20the%20macedonians&f=false

Off course the distinction between Greeks and Macedonians is solely for the purpose of the description of the battle,on one side Macedonians and on the other Greek mercenaries in Persian service.I've already shown in other posts how common was among ancient authors such separation between a force of "united Greeks" consisting of different tribes and a certain Greek tribe,i.e. Greeks vs Athenians,Greeks vs Thebans,Greeks vs Spartans.Even the word "nation" (γένος in Greek) doesn't imply different ethnicities.The word genos could have in Greek the meanings of "tribe","clan" and not only "nation" or "race" in modern sense. Aristotle's view on that is very clear:

The term "genus" or "race" is used: (a) When there is a continuous generation of things of the same type; e.g., "as long as the human race exists" means "as long as the generation of human beings is continuous." (b) Of anything from which things derive their being as the prime mover of them into being. Thus some are called Hellenes by race, and others Ionians, because some have Hellen and others Ion as their first ancestor.(Races are called after the male ancestor rather than after the material.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D1024a

If you prefer it in Greek:

οὕτω γὰρ λέγονται Ἕλληνες τὸ γένος οἱ δὲ Ἴωνες, τῷ οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ Ἕλληνος οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ Ἴωνος εἶναι πρώτου γεννήσαντος:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0051%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D1024a

[Soldier of Macedon]

479 BC Some hours before the battle of Platea,Alexander I stated to the Athenian generals:

"I am myself a Greek by descent,and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery".

http://www.greektexts.com/library/He...e/eng/292.html

Alexander I self-identified as Greek.

According to who, Herodotus? He also writes that the Hellenes did not accept Alexander as a Hellene. As Borza states:

............more credible accounts of Alexander at Tempe and at Athens do not pursue this theme; they state Alexander's activities without embellishment or appeal to prohellenism. Moreover, the insistence that Alexander is a Greek, and descendant from Greeks, rubs against the spirit of Herodotus 7.130, who speaks of the Thessalians as the first Greeks to come under Persian submission--a perfect opportunity for Herodotus to point out that the Macedonians were a non Greek race ruled over by Greek kings, something he nowhere mentions. In sum, it would appear that the Olympia and Plataea incidents---when taken together with the tale of the ill--fated Persian embassy to Amyntas' court in which Alexander proclaims the Greek descent of the royal house--are part of Alexander's own attempts to integrate himself into the Greek community during the postwar period. They should be discarded both because they are propaganda and because they invite suspicion on the general grounds outlined above.

Early 3th BC century.The ancient Macedonian comic poet Poseidippus of Cassandreia (316-250 BC)

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

He criticized the Athenians because they said that only their own dialect was pure Greek and Athens was the center of Greece:

“You speak Attic whenever you open your mouth, and the rest of us Greeks speak Greek.Why make such fuss over syllables and sounds,turning your wit into unpleasantness?”

http://books.google.com/books?id=mof...0MOUTH&f=false

Poseidippus from Cassandreia would not have writen the above if he didn't self-identify as Greek.

He may have been an ethnic Hellene descending from former Corinthian and/or Athenian colonists in the Chalcidice. Cassandreia was located in the territory formerly known as Potidaia, which was destroyed by the Macedonians. The territory of Potidaia was then given to Olynthus, which was in turn burned to the ground by Phillip II and his Macedonians. However, some Hellenes are sure to have remained in the Chalcidice coast of Macedonia. Does Poseidippus state that the Macedonians are Greek? How does he refer to himself, Macedonian?

Late 3rd-Early 2nd BC century.Philip V of Macedonia,around 200BC,addressing to the Aetolians:

"For on many occasions when I and the other Greeks sent embassies to you begging you to remove from your statutes the law empowering you to get booty from booty".

(Note that Philip V was not descending form the Argead dynasty,who claimed argive origin)
http://books.google.com/books?id=3Qj...oty%2C&f=false

The Macedonian kings (and later nobility) had long tried to assert their influence in Hellenic society, by this time, there was no need to rely on the Argive myth. They could simply claim to be Hellenes based on precedents set by their predecessors, their education and their adoption of certain cultural practices, by which they could make appeals based on such flimsly commonalities. I say flimsly, because they had little or nothing to do with ethnic commonalities between Macedonians and Greeks. In parallel to this, there are several similar citations about the Romans and their affinity for the classical Hellenes, the nicknames they acquired due to this affinity, and the perception of Hellenes towards their new saviours from the Macedonians. Had the Romans lived and dominated in the Balkans during the time of Phillip and Alexander, they too would now be considered 'Hellenes' by the ill-informed.

Polyaenus here certainly points out his ethnicity is Greek.Now you need to know some ancient Greek,otherwise you have to trust the reliability of my translation.However,to make you understand my point,the key words are "πολεμῶμεν and "ἄγωμεν",two verbs in first plural person:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...w\men&la=greek

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...gwmen&la=greek

Since he mentions in the same sentence both Romans and Greeks alike as those who will be benefited from his work and then he uses the first plural person of the verbs that mean "to be at war" and "to conduct" (negotiations for peace treaty),he clearly identifies with one of the two ethnicities,obviously not with the Romans.

Interesting conclusion you've drawn. It doesn't 'gel' with other things written by Polyaenus, such as:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ight=polyaenus

I, who am by birth a Macedonian, and have therefore as it were a national right to victory over the Persians.......

It was the Macedonian national right, not the Greek one.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ight=polyaenus

Alexander, when in Hyrcania, having been informed that his character were aspersed both by the Macedonians and Greeks, assembled his friends.......

Both Macedonians and Greeks. Seems a pretty clear distinction, just like Romans and Greeks, or Macedonians and Persians.


Then you jump a good 700 years or so to the 9th century AD. What happened to the Greeks during this period you missed?

801-812 AD,during the time of the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus I.Emperor Constantine Porphyrogennitus (903-952 AD) wrote that when the Slavs of Peloponnesus rebelled against the Byzantine state, in the reign of Nicephorus I (802-811) nearly two generations after the plague they plundered the houses of their Greek (των Γραικών) neighbors

http://books.google.com/books?id=AiA...%20the&f=false

So this Byzantine emperor aknowledged there were Greeks in 800 AD.

This Roman emperor of the East (he never referred to himself as a "Byzantine" emperor) was writing about a group in the Peloponnese that lived beside the 'Slavs', who were Christians with origins from the ancient Hellenic population, Roman colonists and/or others, and were limited to one modest area. For all we know they could be 'Slavs' that began speaking Greek with their adoption of Christianity, afterall, Porphyrogenitus did remark that all of "Hellas" (Theme?) has been completely Slavicised. He also stated that the:

......inhabitants of the city of Maina are not of the race of the aforesaid Slavs, but of the ancient Romans, and even to this day they are called 'Hellenes' by the local inhabitants, because in the very ancient times they were idolaters and worshippers of images after the fashion of the ancient Hellenes; and they were baptized and became Christians in the reign of the glorious Basil. The place where they live is waterless and inaccessible, but bears the olive, whence their comfort is. This place is situated on the tip of Malea, that is, beyond Ezeron towards the coast.

Ezeron? Nice name. The Greeks (Graikoi) and Hellenes (Ellines) aren't the same people in this instance, with the latter being referred to as the 'ancient Romans'. Notice also it is their neighbours that call them Hellenes, and not the people of Mani themselves? So, who are the real descendants of the ancient Hellenes, and who are the real ancestors of the modern Hellenes? In my opinion, if the Hellenes of old survived anywhere in Europe after the Romans, it would be in some coastal areas and parts of the Peloponnese.

Anna Comnena (1083-1153) mentions the existence of Hellenes (with the ethnic meaning of the term) in “the land of the Romans”

Comnena and the small handful of others that tried to hark back to a 'Hellenic' identity every couple hundred years were a small and insignificant minority. No commoners, nobles, royalty or outsiders made consistent reference to Hellenes throughout the ages after the establishment of Christianity. Your search for the unbroken continuity of the term is futile.

In regards to the period from 1237 till late 1700s i've already showed you evidence in my older post,so i shall continue from this point.

And I have responded to your 'evidence' adequately on post #270.

[Soldier of Macedon]

They rather didn't accept him because they were affraid he would win the race.Old athlete tricks,however the judges didn't have any problem to accept him

They were afraid that the Macedonian would beat them in the race? An old athletes trick? LOL. You're starting to sound like an ouzo-sipping card player at some kafaneion.

The only thing he says about Macedonia is that it's a place where one can find not even a decent slave.Anyway,Demosthenes was a politician,and,as even Eugene Borza accepts "Demosthenes' pronouncements are often no more an accurate recording of the events and personalities of the day than are the public statements of politicians of all the ages".

He indirectly refers to Macedonia as a land of barbarians through his accusation against Phillip. When Borza wrote what he did, was Demosthenes' sentiments towards Phillip in mind, or something else? Demosthenes' allegation wasn't just political, it went to the heart of the Hellenic cause against Macedonian domination. He is not a Hellene, nor related to the Hellenes. Explicit and direct. And the overwhelming majority, by their following of Demosthenes and other anti-Macedonians, confirm their agreement with this sentiment.

Leding historians like Borza?Even he admitts "there is no reason to deny the Macedonians' own traditions about their early kings and the migrations of the Makedones".
http://books.google.gr/books?id=614p...eny%20&f=false

Where does he say that? What I saw was that "the Argive context was mythic, perhaps a bit of 5th century BC propaganda.......the denial of myth sounds prudent".

After all,are there any Thracian,Illyrian or Paeonian royal families that claimed Greek origin?The answer is definitely no.

There are others beside the Macedonians that claim some sort of link to mythical figures that have been claimed as 'Hellenic' by certain writers. But this is something that has already been explained to you previously.

This is a clear mistranslation of Arrian's quote.

Have you informed Penguin Classics and the other respected publishers?

The original Greek text reads as follows:

"καὶ τι καὶ τοῖς γένεσι τῷ τε Ἑλληνικῷ καὶ τῷ Μακεδονικῷ φιλοτιμίας ἐνέπεσεν ἐς άλλήλους"

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/386/arrianii10.png

However there isn't any word meaning "rivalry",let alone "old".The word "φιλοτιμία" is not properly translated as "rivalry" while its actual meaning is "love of honour" or "sense of personal honour".A much better translation is in this book:

"and then happened a strife between the Grecians and the Macedonians,concerning the honour of their respective nations".
http://books.google.com/books?id=dnw...onians&f=false

Same thing. Nations, races, tribes - whatever; the distinction is clear between Macedonians and Greeks, and repeated throughout history.

I've already shown in other posts how common was among ancient authors such separation between a force of "united Greeks" consisting of different tribes and a certain Greek tribe,i.e. Greeks vs Athenians,Greeks vs Thebans,Greeks vs Spartans.Even the word "nation" (γένος in Greek) doesn't imply different ethnicities.

And I have addressed your examples, each of them. I can only wonder what your response to them has been given the above attempts at manipulation.

[Agamoi Thytai]

According to who, Herodotus? He also writes that the Hellenes did not accept Alexander as a Hellene. As Borza states:

............more credible accounts of Alexander at Tempe and at Athens do not pursue this theme; they state Alexander's activities without embellishment or appeal to prohellenism. Moreover, the insistence that Alexander is a Greek, and descendant from Greeks, rubs against the spirit of Herodotus 7.130, who speaks of the Thessalians as the first Greeks to come under Persian submission--a perfect opportunity for Herodotus to point out that the Macedonians were a non Greek race ruled over by Greek kings, something he nowhere mentions.

That's why i consider your "specialist" Borza as a mediocre who ignores (or pretends to ignore,which is even worse) a lot of basic details on his subject (ancient Greek history).I wonder,did he ever bothered himself to read all of Herodotus history?I very much doubt,otherwise he would have knwon that Herodotus never contradicts himself when he says that

"This he said with regard in particular to the sons of Aleues, the Thessalians who were the first Greeks to surrender themselves TO THE KING (XERXES).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D130%3Asection%3D3

Off course the sons of Aleus,the Thessalian kings were the first Greeks who surrendered, TO KING XERXES in particular,for two obvious reasons which Herodotus describes in some other parts of his history,without contradicting himself in regards to Macedonian ethnicity:
1)Macedonians had already surrender TO XERXES FATHER,DARIUS,over than 30 years before:

Note 3:
Macedonia had been made a Persian vassal in c. 512 by the Persian commander Megabazus. In 492, Mardonius had strengthened the Persian grip on Macedonia.

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t08.html

2) But even if we accept for the sake of the argument that Herodotus refers only to the current events,the Thessalian kings had already declared their allegiance to Xerxes shortly before he started his Greek campaign:

"Messengers came from Thessaly from the Aleuadae (who were princes of Thessaly) and invited the king into Hellas with all earnestness;"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D6%3Asection%3D2

So when Xerxes later came to Thessaly with his army he said:

“These Thessalians are wise men; this, then, WAS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THEIR PRECAUTION, LONG BEFORE when they changed to a better mind, for they perceived that their country would be easily and speedily conquerable.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D130%3Asection%3D2

Here fits perfectly the passage about "the sons of Aleus,the first Greeks who surrendered to Xerxes"

Borza should have known too that Herodotus clearly expressed his view that Macedonians were Greek,in this passage:

After him Mardonius said: “Master, you surpass not only all Persians that have been but also all that shall be; besides having dealt excellently and truly with all other matters,you will not suffer the Ionians who dwell in Europe to laugh at us,which they have no right to do.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D9%3Asection%3D1

"It would be strange indeed if we who have subdued and made slaves of Sacae and Indians and Ethiopians and Assyrians and many other great nations,for no wrong done to the Persians but of mere desire to add to our power,will not take vengeance on the Greeks for unprovoked wrongs".

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D9%3Asection%3D2

"Yet the Greeks are accustomed to wage wars,as I learn,and they do it most senselessly in their wrongheadedness and folly.When they have declared war against each other, they come down to the fairest and most level ground that they can find and fight there,so that the victors come off with great harm;of the vanquished I say not so much as a word, for they are utterly destroyed".

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D9B%3Asection%3D1

Since they speak the same language, they should end their disputes by means of heralds or messengers, or by any way rather than fighting; if they must make war upon each other, they should each discover where they are in the strongest position and make the attempt there. THE GREEK CUSTOM THEN IS NO GOOD;AND WHEN I MARCHED AS FAR AS THE LAND OF MACEDONIA,IT HAD NOT COME INTO THEIR MINDS TO FIGHT".

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D9B%3Asection%3D2

Well,who were those Greeks whom Mardonius met in Macedonia?

One more abstract of Herodotus that contradicts Borza's view and furthermore confirms that Macedonia was already subjugated to Xerxes' father,Darius.

"This was the stated end of their expedition, but they intended to subdue AS MANY OF THE GREEK CITIES as they could. Their fleet subdued the Thasians, who did not so much as lift up their hands against it; their land army ADDED THE MACEDONIANS to the slaves that they had already, for all the nations nearer to them than Macedonia had been made subject to the Persians before this".

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D44%3Asection%3D1

In sum, it would appear that the Olympia and Plataea incidents---when taken together with the tale of the ill--fated Persian embassy to Amyntas' court in which Alexander proclaims the Greek descent of the royal house--are part of Alexander's own attempts to integrate himself into the Greek community during the postwar period. They should be discarded both because they are propaganda and because they invite suspicion on the general grounds outlined above.

Wild assumptions!Herodotus was there,Borza not.Herodotus was personal acquainted with Alexander,he visited Macedonia,he heard native Macedonian speech,so he could have a personal opinion on the ethnicity of Macedonians.That's why he stated they were of Doric stock being himself a Dorian.Even if we accept Borza's claim that the story of Alexander's participation in the Olympic games was his own invention,it's not acceptable for supposed specialist to ignore that besides Alexander I,two other Argead kings participated and won in the Olumpics:Archelaos around 400 BC and Philip II in 356 BC:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MuR1ImMY6j4C&pg=PA16&dq=archelaus+olympic+games+four+horses+chariot+race&hl=el&ei=XNAoTaivFYmg8QPUpKX2Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=fJcsL60uj9MC&pg=PA48&dq=philip+olympic+horses+chariot+race&hl=el&ei=odkoTev4PIGt8gPr67GkAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCDgy#v=onepage&q=philip%20olympic%20horses%20chariot%20race&f=false

He may have been an ethnic Hellene descending from former Corinthian and/or Athenian colonists in the Chalcidice. Cassandreia was located in the territory formerly known as Potidaia, which was destroyed by the Macedonians. The territory of Potidaia was then given to Olynthus, which was in turn burned to the ground by Phillip II and his Macedonians. However, some Hellenes are sure to have remained in the Chalcidice coast of Macedonia. Does Poseidippus state that the Macedonians are Greek? How does he refer to himself, Macedonian?

I don't know how he refered to himself but most sources call him Poseidippus the Macedonian:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PqsUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA84&dq=posidippus+macedonian+comic+poet&hl=el&ei=KeMoTYiPDsXB8QPQ0fWzAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=hGRchu2xroYC&pg=PA154&dq=posidippus+macedonian+comic+poet&hl=el&ei=KeMoTYiPDsXB8QPQ0fWzAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=posidippus%20macedonian%20comic%20poet&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=shR3VJxlXZkC&pg=PA62&dq=posidippus+macedonian+comic+poet&hl=el&ei=PeQoTd7ZBcml8QPiyc2mAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=posidippus%20macedonian%20comic%20poet&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=XXkPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA565&dq=posidippus+macedonian+comic+poet&hl=el&ei=eOQoTb_fMMfB8QO40KTiAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBTge#v=onepage&q&f=false

Note also this:Athenaus wrote in "Deipnosofists" that Poseidippus describes in his comedies the cooks as slaves because it was the Macedonians that introduced in the Greek world the cooks as slaves:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Nor+can+any+of+you+find+a+cook+spoken+of+as+a+slave+in+comedy%2C+except+in+Poseidippus&btnG=%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7+%CE%92%CE%B9%CE%B2%CE%BB%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BD&tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&hl=el

http://www.google.com/search?q=cooks+slaves+macedonians&btnG=%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7+%CE%92%CE%B9%CE%B2%CE%BB%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BD&tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&hl=el

The Macedonian kings (and later nobility) had long tried to assert their influence in Hellenic society, by this time, there was no need to rely on the Argive myth. They could simply claim to be Hellenes based on precedents set by their predecessors, their education and their adoption of certain cultural practices, by which they could make appeals based on such flimsly commonalities. I say flimsly, because they had little or nothing to do with ethnic commonalities between Macedonians and Greeks. In parallel to this, there are several similar citations about the Romans and their affinity for the classical Hellenes, the nicknames they acquired due to this affinity, and the perception of Hellenes towards their new saviours from the Macedonians.Had the Romans lived and dominated in the Balkans during the time of Phillip and Alexander, they too would now be considered 'Hellenes' by the ill-informed.

I agree,some Romans may have been described as Philhellenes,fonds of Greek culture,litterature e.t.c. and even honoured as such by Greeks,but no Roman ever declared himself to be a Hellene.

Interesting conclusion you've drawn. It doesn't 'gel' with other things written by Polyaenus, such as:

It was the Macedonian national right, not the Greek one.

Both Macedonians and Greeks. Seems a pretty clear distinction, just like Romans and Greeks, or Macedonians and Persians.

I don't see any contradiction here.Polyaenus expressed first his regional (Macedonian) and later his ethnic (Greek) identity.The latter always overshadows the former.As for the distinction between "Greeks" and "Macedonians",there are numerous similar cases of Athenians speaking of "Athenians attacking Hellenes", of Thebans mentioning "Hellenes fighting against Thebans" and so on,so that's not a solid proof.

Then you jump a good 700 years or so to the 9th century AD. What happened to the Greeks during this period you missed?

Nothing,i just couldn't find any mention of the words "Greci" or "Hellenes" in ethnic sense from that time.However,as i said in some older post of mine,it would be equally difficult to find any mention of ethnic French,Germans,English e.t.c during the same time

This Roman emperor of the East (he never referred to himself as a "Byzantine" emperor) was writing about a group in the Peloponnese that lived beside the 'Slavs', who were Christians with origins from the ancient Hellenic population, Roman colonists and/or others, and were limited to one modest area. For all we know they could be 'Slavs' that began speaking Greek with their adoption of Christianity,

The image is very clear:There were Greeks and Slavs,he doesn't speak of Greek-speaking Slavs.

afterall, Porphyrogenitus did remark that all of "Hellas" (Theme?) has been completely Slavicised.

It is also recorded by many other Byzantine authors and well known that most of those Slavs were transported by the Byzantine emperors to the interior of Asia Minor while Greek colonists from that area and Sicily were settled in their place.The rest was Hellenized in the cource of the centuries.

Ezeron? Nice name. The Greeks (Graikoi) and Hellenes (Ellines) aren't the same people in this instance, with the latter being referred to as the 'ancient Romans'. Notice also it is their neighbours that call them Hellenes, and not the people of Mani themselves? So, who are the real descendants of the ancient Hellenes, and who are the real ancestors of the modern Hellenes?

This abstract here is really a mess and that's why i did not quoted it.You brought it up,not me.However it's obvious that Porphyrogennitos here avoids as much as possible the term "Hellene" as synonymous of pagan.It's also obvious that the term "Roman" has for him (and for many other Byzantines too,i believe) only political connotation without any ethnical significance.Something like "citizenship",hence "Romans" could be all of his subjects.However when he has to distinguish between different ethnic groups,he applies their proper ethnic names,i.e. Slavs and Greeks.When there is no such need,all are "Romans".

Comnena and the small handful of others that tried to hark back to a 'Hellenic' identity every couple hundred years were a small and insignificant minority. No commoners, nobles, royalty or outsiders made consistent reference to Hellenes throughout the ages after the establishment of Christianity. Your search for the unbroken continuity of the term is futile.

How do you think is it that all the Balkan Slavs and the Russians as well call us "Grtsi" and not "Romans"?Why do you think medieval texts writen in Serbian,Bulgarian and Russian speak mostly of Greeks instead of Romans?If Byzantines themselves had not used the term "Greki" how did all the above peoples become acquainted with it?

[astibo]

It was very common among Greeks in ancient time to declare their ethnic or tribal identity using this expression of Alexander "by descend"-in Greek "γένος".Alexander said he is "Έλλην το γένος"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D9%3Achapter%3D45%3Asection%3D2

Heorotus refers to two brothers from Argos,Cleobis and Biton as "γένος Αργείοισι",ι.e. "of Argive stock" (load the Greek text)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D31%3Asection%3D2

A Coan woman (from Cos island) says she is "γένος Κώη",i.e. Coan by birth:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D9%3Achapter%3D76%3Asection%3D2

The inhabitants of Croton are "γένος Αχαιοί",i.e. Achaeans by birth

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D47%3Asection%3D1

Periclitus of Lesbos is described as "γένος Λέσβιον",i.e. Lesbian by birth

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0402%3Asection%3D6

Thamyras the Thracian,was "τὸ γένος Θρᾷκα",i.e. of Thracian extraction

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0402%3Asection%3D3

What are u trying to say here?!
Do u know that it is not the same if i say "i am macedonian by birth" with "i am macedonian by descent". Besides that, Alexander was forced to prove his claims becouse there was a reason he was not belived, he was from non Greek land...

They rather didn't accept him because they were affraid he would win the race.Old athlete tricks,however the judges didn't have any problem to accept him

U guys were full with tricks even back than, how can i know now that u are not using some tricks now here

The Dioxippus affair,or rather the Dioxippus hoax.Arrian and Plutarch,who used more trustworthy sources for Alexander's history don't mention it at all.Diodorus Siculus and Quintus Curtius Rufus instead mention it because they rely on Cleitarchus narrative.According to Cleitarchus whom both Diodorus and Quintus Curtius Rufus copied:
"Macedonians were disappointed and embarrassed by the outcome of the match, particularly since their defeat occurred in front of recently conquered Persian prisoners. Alexander's disfavor was noted by the Macedonians who conspired to embarrass Dioxippus, by putting a golden cup underneath his pillow and accusing him of theft. Dioxippus felt this dishonor deeply. Realizing the Macedonians had framed him, he wrote a letter to Alexander describing the conspiracy, then committed suicide by falling on his sword"

However Cleitarchus was a very unreliable source,renowned for his invented stories:

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3204/dioxippus1.png

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4/dioxippus2.png

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/2958/dioxippus3.png

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4433/dioxippus4.png

Do u realize that it is not important how thrue this story is? The important thing here is that the author is stating that by wining the fight that greek brought "COMON GLORY" to all the Greaks

Why is it that i can nowhere find any mention of his father being Athenian?

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

Had his father really been an Athenian he also would enjoy all the rights of an Athenian citizen,regardless of his mother's origin and consequently he would be refered to as Athenian instead of Macedonian by all sources.

Why is it that i can nowhere find any mention of his father being Athenian?

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

Had his father really been an Athenian he also would enjoy all the rights of an Athenian citizen,regardless of his mother's origin and consequently he would be refered to as Athenian instead of Macedonian by all sources.

Poseidippus of Cassandreia or Posidippus (Greek: Ποσείδιππος ὁ Κασσανδρεύς) (316 BC – ca. 250 BC) son of Cyniscus, a Macedonian who lived in Athens,

In your wiki link.
SoM has answered this and about Demosthen to you.

I made a research but didn't find anything.I think the burden to find it is on you,since you are the one that claims it.

They claimed descent from Heracle.
In the book "The Antigonids, Heracles, and Beroea"
Charles Farwell Edson, Jr.
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
Vol. 45, (1934), pp. 213-246

215 B.C. the Antigonids asserted their Heraclid, that is, Argead ancestry, and the evidence of the coins certainly permits, though it does not of course ...

This is what i was able to find on the net now in a hury. But as u can see it is known that the Antigonides were claiming descend from the Argeades..

"And when the Book of Daniel was showed him 1 wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146%3Abook%3D11%3Awhiston%20chapter%3D8%3Awhiston%20section%3D5

Look also what else Jews themselves write:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Maccabees.html

Again, it only refer to Alexander the Great, it is obvious that u dont have arguments and you are only repeating your self about quotes who are conected solely to the Macedonian kings and not the nation.
And besides this, this quote has been explained on this forum and it is known that can not be taken as a solid argument, but what ever even if it is some argument, it only refer to Alexander.
When we are at Jewish authors let us see what Joseph has to say:

"…how much harder is to the Greeks, who were esteemed the noblest of all people under sun? These, although they inhabit a large country, are in subjection to six bundles of Roman rods. It is the same case with the Macedonians, who have juster reason to claim their liberty then you have." [Wars, 2.16.4]

Now go ahead and make up your story like that with the athlet tricks

This is a clear mistranslation of Arrian's quote.The original Greek text reads as follows:

"καὶ τι καὶ τοῖς γένεσι τῷ τε Ἑλληνικῷ καὶ τῷ Μακεδονικῷ φιλοτιμίας ἐνέπεσεν ἐς άλλήλους"

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/386/arrianii10.png

However there isn't any word meaning "rivalry",let alone "old".The word "φιλοτιμία" is not properly translated as "rivalry" while its actual meaning is "love of honour" or "sense of personal honour".A much better translation is in this book:

"and then happened a strife between the Grecians and the Macedonians,concerning the honour of their respective nations".

http://books.google.com/books?id=dnwMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA46&dq=and+then+happened+a+strife+between+the+grecians+and+the+macedonians&hl=el&ei=BKEnTbu3GMGn8QPprbW-Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=and%20then%20happened%20a%20strife%20between%20the%20grecians%20and%20the%20macedonians&f=false

Off course the distinction between Greeks and Macedonians is solely for the purpose of the description of the battle,on one side Macedonians and on the other Greek mercenaries in Persian service.I've already shown in other posts how common was among ancient authors such separation between a force of "united Greeks" consisting of different tribes and a certain Greek tribe,i.e. Greeks vs Athenians,Greeks vs Thebans,Greeks vs Spartans.Even the word "nation" (γένος in Greek) doesn't imply different ethnicities.The word genos could have in Greek the meanings of "tribe","clan" and not only "nation" or "race" in modern sense. Aristotle's view on that is very clear:

The term "genus" or "race" is used: (a) When there is a continuous generation of things of the same type; e.g., "as long as the human race exists" means "as long as the generation of human beings is continuous." (b) Of anything from which things derive their being as the prime mover of them into being. Thus some are called Hellenes by race, and others Ionians, because some have Hellen and others Ion as their first ancestor.(Races are called after the male ancestor rather than after the material.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D1024a

If you prefer it in Greek:

οὕτω γὰρ λέγονται Ἕλληνες τὸ γένος οἱ δὲ Ἴωνες, τῷ οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ Ἕλληνος οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ Ἴωνος εἶναι πρώτου γεννήσαντος:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...ection%3D1024a

Why dont u find me some scientific debate about the reliability of the translation, you know among some respected world scientist so we all could see here that realy there is something wrong about the translation. This way we should only belive you and other reeks to your words, and we are awear that u guys are full with tricks

[Agamoi Thytai]

Short indeed, here is what your link says:

So a couple of people felt a personal conviction to identify as 'Hellenes' in the middle ages because the Latin west was encroaching.

Your theory doesn't hold water,given that Latins used to call Byzantines "Graeci" and their empire "imperium Graecorum" in order to reject their claims as inheritors of the old Roman empire.So why should they adopt at that time an ethnic name which their arch-rivals applied to them in an almost derogatory manner,if their incentive was only their hatred of Latins and the need to face off Latin imperialism,as you believe?

It was not a common, nor even an accepted ideology. Generally speaking, the word 'Hellene' meant a 'pagan' or worshipper of the ancient gods, thus the true meaning in the Bible.

The term "Hellene" was not always used as synonumous for "pagan" in the Bible,some times it's used with its ethnic meaning.Only after the establishment of Christianity as official religion of the Roman empire this meaning was generalized.Thus Byzantine authors prefered sometimes the term "Graikoi",when it was neseccary to emphasize one's ethnic origin:

http://books.google.com/books?id=O5JqH_NXQBsC&pg=PA123&dq=Greek+speakers+are+called+not+Peloponnesians+or+Helladics+or+Rhomaioi+but+Graikoi&hl=el&ei=aOspTYPrNoOq8QPA5OCrAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Greek%20speakers%20are%20called%20not%20Peloponnesians%20or%20Helladics%20or%20Rhomaioi%20but%20Graikoi&f=false

Can you refer me to an example where Michael Palaeologos calls himself emperor of the Greeks?

http://books.google.com/books?hl=el&id=IyHsNpkYkdgC&q=calls#v=snippet&q=calls&f=false

Plethon? Another pebble in the sand.

Too many pebbles to be considered as triffles,i would add.

His definition of 'Hellenism' is generally confined to the boundaries of the Peloponnese, the only place where (according to him) the 'real Hellenes' live. Do you agree with his interpretation?

That's irrelevant,what matters here is whether he self-identified as Hellene.

It was never a grass roots movement among the people. The rest of them are anachronistic examples which were nowhere near the norm of the day, the only thing it evidences is that there were a very small handful of 'intellectuals' that harked back to the 'glory' days of antiquity. Can you show me an example where reference is made to commoners identifying as 'Hellenes'?

Commoners in medieval time usually didn't leave any records,writings e.t.c. not to mention that more than half were illiterate.It is the intelligentsia that left such stuff in every society,so we have to draw our conclusions only by this very limited material.

He wrote a history of classical Athens. What else did I miss?

If you add to the history of classical Athens that "he called contemporary Greeks descendands of men both great and wise",it's not hard to imagine whom he considered as his ancestors.

http://www.google.com/search?q=he+called+contemporary+Greeks+descendands+of+men+both+great+and+wise&btnG=%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7+%CE%92%CE%B9%CE%B2%CE%BB%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BD&tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&hl=el

Can you refer me to a translation of the book?

Pay attention to the top of page 80 and bottom of page 79.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QtRDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA80

Isn't the title of his book enlightening enough:
"HellenicTheatre or Νέα Ελλάς containing the history of all the learned Greeks since the fall of the nation".
George Zaviras 1744-1804 lived most of his life in Hungary as merchant where he wrote the above and after his death he bequathed all his works to the Greek colony of Budapest.He wrote this book in 1785,but it was published in Greece in 1872.However,Wiliam Martin Leake,mentions its existence in 1814 in his "Researches in Greece",among other Greek books that were published in his time.It is also mentioned in this Hungarian book from 1869:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Aoc_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA161&dq=Zav%C3%ADrasz+Gy%C3%B6rgy&hl=el&ei=LtcpTdOyBIWg8QPo1oT8Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=Zav%C3%ADrasz%20Gy%C3%B6rgy&f=false

Off course i can't understand anything from this Hungarian text besides his name,Zavírasz György,and the words "görög" (Greek) and "Konstantinapoly",however i see there is the whole title of his book in Greek:

"Nέα Ελλάς,ήτοι ιστορία των πεπαιδευμένων Ελλήνων,των μετά την θλιβεράν του γένους ημών κατάστασιν ακμασάντων και την προβεβηκυίαν ψυχορραγούσαν Ελλάδα τοις αυτών πόνοις τε και ιδρώσιν ως οίον τε ήν αντιπελαργησάντων και αναζωογονησάντων..."

New Hellas,i.e. history of those learned Greeks,who thrieved after the pitiful status of our nation and revived,as they ought,the distinguished Hellas from the agony of death,migrating and with their own efforts and sweat...

(He wrote in this book the biographies of abroad Greek scholars and their works).

Here is a passage from your link regarding Filippidis and co.:

It DID belong to the idolaters! Filippidis seems like a confused chap, as the term 'Hellene' is diametrically opposed to that of Romaioi (which signified 'Christian'). Where are all of the Helleno-Christians throughout history??

I don't see any confusion.On the contrary,i see that more educated Greeks started to clarify this misunderstanding to their fellow illiterate compatriots

Does that also include all of the Macedonians, Albanians, Vlachs, Gypsies and others that called themselves Romaioi?

No,he is quite clear since he speaks of people who called themselves "Romioi" (plural) or "Romios" (singular),i.e. people whose native tongue was modern Greek.I doubt there did exist in late 18th century-early 19th century any Macedonians,Albanians,Vlachs,let alone Gypsies who used the word "Romios" for self-identification.The best you can find is the Vlach equivalent of "Romioi",i.e "Armani",but one thing is "Romioi" and another is "Armani",just as "Romans","Romioi" and "Romanians" are not the same.

Yep. But look what else is written about the 'Greeks' in your link:

The country called Turkey in Europe has received such a perpetual succession of invaders and settlers, that it would be impossible to fix upon those in whom the right of possession might be justly vested. A great proportion of those who are comprehended under the term Romaioi, or Christians of the Greek Church, and amongst whom would be found the chief supporters of an insurrection, are certainly of a mixed origin, sprung from Scythian colonists. Such are the Albanians, the Maniotes, the Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Wallachian Greeks. And yet the whole nation, including, I presume, these Christians, has been computed only at two millions and a half, of all ages and sexes, and consequently there is no pan of Continental Greece to which a body of Turks might not be instantly brought, sufficient to quell any revolt: the Mahometans of Albania are alone equal to the task, and on a rising of the Giauoitrs, the Infidels, would leave all private dissension, to accomplish such a work. The Greeks taken collectively', cannot, in fact, be so properly called an individual people, as a religious sect dissent-* jug from the established church of the Ottoman Empire.

I agree.

That's again irrelevant to the topic.It's the view of an 19th century Brittish author,however what matters here is what some educated people in Greece thought of their language and how they called it in 16th century.

From the 13th - 18th centuries, .001% of intellectuals and the upper class made reference to the terms 'Hellene' and 'Greek'. Unless of course the above list is all of the intellectuals and the upper class citizens during that time?Can you cite some examples of ideological continuity between these so-called 'Hellenes' from the middle ages and the rebels that fought in the Morea against the Ottomans? Did Kolokotronis, Kondouriotes and the other Albanians ever refer to Plethon and others as the people from whom they drew their 'Hellenic' inspiration?

Here is an abstract from an appeal of some Greek delegates to the Russian empress Catharine in 1790:

"Our superb ruins speak to our eyes and tell us of our ancient grandeur.."

"..we are the deputies of the people of Greece furnished with full powers and other documents..."

"...free the descendants of Athens and Lacedemon from the tyrannic yoke of ignorant savages under which groans a nation whose genius is not extinguished.."

http://books.google.com/books?id=sntxGUEMdgsC&pg=RA1-PA229

The new 'kingdom of Hellenes' needed to be created by England, France, Germany and Russia before 'Hellenes' could exist. Macedonians, on the other hand, advocated for their nation before their state was re-established in modern times. Big difference. One wonders who and what the 'Hellenes' would be if there was no 'Hellas' given to you by the West.

The answer is above.

[Agamoi Thytai]

They were afraid that the Macedonian would beat them in the race? An old athletes trick? LOL. You're starting to sound like an ouzo-sipping card player at some kafaneion.

Isn't it strange that only the other athletes protested against Alexander's participation and not the Hellanodikai,who were the main rersponsible to check whether an athlete fulfilled the criterion of Greek origin?

When Borza wrote what he did, was Demosthenes' sentiments towards Phillip in mind, or something else? Demosthenes' allegation wasn't just political, it went to the heart of the Hellenic cause against Macedonian domination.

Athenian hegemonism,which was mainly expressed at that time through Demosthenes and he himself in particular didn't actually give a shit about the "Hellenic cause".All what they really cared was to restore Athenian hegemony,this was their further aim and real "cause".

He is not a Hellene, nor related to the Hellenes.

Explicit and direct. And the overwhelming majority, by their following of Demosthenes and other anti-Macedonians, confirm their agreement with this sentiment.

However there was a pro-Macedonian fraction too in Athenian political scene and in other cities too,like Corinth who didn't view Macedonians as barbarians.Anyway,Demosthenes' verbal excesses are too suspicious to be taken into serious consideration,as even Borza admitts by saying "these are statements of a politician and nowhere in history political statements are considered as an accurate record of reality".
Not even in the time of the Persian wars was made such fuss by any Athenian politician against the "barbarian invaders".

Where does he say that? What I saw was that "the Argive context was mythic, perhaps a bit of 5th century BC propaganda.......the denial of myth sounds prudent".

Borza's favourite sport is certainly self-contradiction:

http://www.google.com/search?q=there+is+no+reason+to+deny+the+macedonians+own+tradition+about+their+early+kings+&btnG=%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7+%CE%92%CE%B9%CE%B2%CE%BB%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BD&tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&hl=el

There are others beside the Macedonians that claim some sort of link to mythical figures that have been claimed as 'Hellenic' by certain writers. But this is something that has already been explained to you previously.

Any specific names?I can't recall any Thracian,Illyrian,Paeonian e.t.c. claiming to be Greek in 490 BC.If you refer to the myth of Cadmus and his son Illyrius,no Illyrian ever declared himself Greek.

Have you informed Penguin Classics and the other respected publishers?

I don't need too.The translation "old racial rivalry" is wrong,ask any Classic scholar and you'll see.That's why you can't find it in translations of many other respected publishers:

http://www.google.com/search?q=feeling+of+rivalry+which+existed+between+the+Grecians&btnG=%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7+%CE%92%CE%B9%CE%B2%CE%BB%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BD&tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&hl=el

http://www.google.com/search?q=and+then+happened+a+strife+between+the+grecians+and+the+macedonians+concerning+the+honour&btnG=%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7+%CE%92%CE%B9%CE%B2%CE%BB%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BD&tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&hl=el

[Agamoi Thytai]

What are u trying to say here?!
Do u know that it is not the same if i say "i am macedonian by birth" with "i am macedonian by descent". Besides that, Alexander was forced to prove his claims becouse there was a reason he was not belived, he was from non Greek land...

Now you are playing with the words.How do you think was it possible for Alexander to claim Greek origin if he was only based on his great-great-grand father from Argos 6 or 7 generations back?Isn't it self-evident that they would not have accepted him and his Argead dynasty as real Greeks after intermarrying for over than 2 centuries with "barbarian" Macedonians,if they were not convinced that the members of the royal house were not the only Greeks in Macedonia?
This is what the Roman historian Justin wrote,citing the Macedonian author Marsyas of Pella:

"Caranus also came to Emathia with a large band of Greeks, being instructed by an oracle to seek a home in Macedonia".

http://books.google.com/books?id=C0UDFds-L0QC&pg=PA3&dq=Caranus+also+came+to+Emathia+with+a+large+band+of+Greeks,+being+instructed+by+an+oracle+to+seek+a+home+in+Macedonia.&hl=el&ei=1G4rTcZhhbLyA6bYgZMD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Caranus%20also%20came%20to%20Emathia%20with%20a%20large%20band%20of%20Greeks%2C%20being%20instructed%20by%20an%20oracle%20to%20seek%20a%20home%20in%20Macedonia.&f=false

Do you think the Hellanodikai were that fool to be so easily deceived by a shrewd barbarian?We all know how important was the criterion of Hellenic origin for participation in Olympic games and we also know ancient Greeks didn't mess with such important matters.Alexander's claim to be a Greek would normally have been put under the most detailed scrutiny,especially since he claimed Argive/Doric origin and there were certainly present many Argives and other Dorians who could easily have ascertained whether he really had any affinity to them.How do you think things happened:
-Hello,gaiz,Aim Alexander of Makedonia and aim Grik.You knoou,aim en Argif,mai Greit-greit fader was vrom Argos,so let me plei in yor geims pliz.
It's like a Pole going to Bavaria after he has learned some basic standard German (High German dialect) and fooling all the Bavarians he is one of them speaking their dialect (Low German).

Do u realize that it is not important how thrue this story is? The important thing here is that the author is stating that by wining the fight that greek brought "COMON GLORY" to all the Greaks

Yeah,this "common glory to all the Greeks" phrase has the same weight with the Corinthian appeal below "to liberate the enslaved Hellenes" from the Athenians:

http://books.google.com/books?id=TPoIqQvTYK4C&pg=PA196&dq=let+us+liberate+the+Hellenes+who+are+now+enslaved!&hl=el&ei=iYArTe7CHIq18QPMoqToAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=let%20us%20liberate%20the%20Hellenes%20who%20are%20now%20enslaved!&f=false

They claimed descent from Heracle.
In the book "The Antigonids, Heracles, and Beroea"
Charles Farwell Edson, Jr.
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
Vol. 45, (1934), pp. 213-246
This is what i was able to find on the net now in a hury. But as u can see it is known that the Antigonides were claiming descend from the Argeades..

OK,my fault and i apologize.I usually don't make such mistakes,should have doubble-checked it.

Again, it only refer to Alexander the Great, it is obvious that u dont have arguments and you are only repeating your self about quotes who are conected solely to the Macedonian kings and not the nation.
And besides this, this quote has been explained on this forum and it is known that can not be taken as a solid argument, but what ever even if it is some argument, it only refer to Alexander.

If Jews really refered only to Alexander as Greek,how is it that today they consider all ancient Macedonians were Greek.Just take a alook at some of their websites:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Greeks.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Maccabees.html

Even the Israeli ministry of foreign afairs,i don't think they are Philhellenes:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/History+of+Israel/HISTORY-%20The%20Second%20Temple

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/1990_1999/1996/10/israeli-american%20hanukkah%20stamp

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/People/Jewish%20Festivals%20in%20Israel

When we are at Jewish authors let us see what Joseph has to say:

"…how much harder is to the Greeks, who were esteemed the noblest of all people under sun? These, although they inhabit a large country, are in subjection to six bundles of Roman rods. It is the same case with the Macedonians, who have juster reason to claim their liberty then you have." [Wars, 2.16.4]

This separation of Greeks and Macedonians means nothing,it was made only out of geographical reasons.Like today we separate Germans from Austrians,they may be two different peoples from different countries but all know they are actually of the same stock,with same language,culture e.t.c.Flavius Josephus may have mentioned Greeks separately from Macedonians,but pay special attention to this abstract below,when he tries to explain why Jews were not known to ancient Greek authors mentioning all the surrounding ethnicities with which Greeks were familiar:

"I am now willing in the next place to say a few things to those that endeavour to prove that our constitution is but of late time,for this reason as the pretend that the Greek writers have said nothing about us;after which I shall produce testimonies for our antiquity out of the writings of foreigners:I shall also demonstrate that such as cast reproaches upon our nation do it very unjustly.As for ourselves,therefore,we neither inbahit a maritime country, nor do we delight in merchandise nor in such a mixture with other men as arises from it; but the cities we dwell in are remote from the sea and having a fruitful country for our habitation we take pains in cultivating that only.Our principal care of all it this to educate our children well;and we think it to be the most necessary business of our whole life,to observe the laws that have been given us,to to keep those rules of piety that have been delivered down to us.Since,therefore,besides what we have already taken notice of,we hard had a peculiar way of living of our own,there was no occasion offered us in ancient ages tor intermixing among the Greeks,as they had for mixing among the Egyptians, by their intercourse of exporting and importing their several goods; as they also mixed with the Phoenicians who lived by the seaside by means of their love of lucre in trade and merchandise. Nor did tut forefathers betake themselves, as did some others, to robbery; nor did they,in order to gain more wealth,fall into foreign wars although our country contained many ten thousands of men of courage sufficient for that purpose. For this reason it was that the Phoenicians themselves came soon by trading and navigation to be known to the Grecians, and by their means the Egyptians became known to the Grecians also,as did all those people whence the Phoenicians in long voyages over the seas carried wares to the Grecians.The Medcs also and the Persians when they were lords of Asia became well known to then and this was especially true of the Persians who led their armies as far as the other continent.(Europe) The Thracians were also known to them by the nearness of their countries, and the Scythians by the means of those that sailed to Pontus; for it was so in general that all nations, and those that inhabited near the eastern or western seas became most known to those that were desirous to be writers;but such as had their habitations farther from the sea were for the most part unknown to them; which things appear to have happened as to Europe also,where the city of Rome, that hath this long time been possessed of so much power, and hath performed such great actions in war,is yet never mentioned by Herodotus nor by Thucydides,nor by any one of their contemporaries; and it was very late,and with great difficulty, that the Romans became known to the Greeks.Nay,those that were reckoned the most exact historians, and Ephorus for one, were so very ignorant of the Gauls and the Spaniards,that he supposed the Spaniards, who inhabit so great a part of western regions of the earth to be no more than one city."

http://books.google.gr/books?id=1AMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA582

So why doesn't he mention Macedonians at all,if he considered them as a distinct people,neighbouring with Greeks?he says "Greeks were familiar with Thracians since they were their neighbours and with Persians because they were the masters of Asia and also fought to conquer them",but he fails to mention the Macedonians,who were both neighbours and conquerors of Greece!The only explanation that makes sense is he considered Macedonians and Greeks were of the same stock.

[astibo]

Now you are playing with the words.How do you think was it possible for Alexander to claim Greek origin if he was only based on his great-great-grand father from Argos 6 or 7 generations back?Isn't it self-evident that they would not have accepted him and his Argead dynasty as real Greeks after intermarrying for over than 2 centuries with "barbarian" Macedonians,if they were not convinced that the members of the royal house were not the only Greeks in Macedonia?

I dont know are u realy that ignorant or are u just stobern. Dont u know the whole story about Alexander I, do u know why he has recived his nick name "phillhelene"?! Let me tell u in short then, Alexander helped the Greeks in their war with Persia and becouse of that he was named "phillhelene". Than he told the story of his Argiv descent so he could take participation in the Olympic game and etc etc. I hope i made u clear some things. Now the question is:
why Greeks would not accepted him?! And second and more important question is: if Macedonians were really Greeks, than why did they not compete at the Olimpic games before the time of Alexander I phillhelene. I think that it is more than just some athlet tricks in question here...

This is what the Roman historian Justin wrote,citing the Macedonian author Marsyas of Pella:

"Caranus also came to Emathia with a large band of Greeks, being instructed by an oracle to seek a home in Macedonia".

http://books.google.com/books?id=C0UDFds-L0QC&pg=PA3&dq=Caranus+also+came+to+Emathia+with+a+large+band+of+Greeks,+being+instructed+by+an+oracle+to+seek+a+home+in+Macedonia.&hl=el&ei=1G4rTcZhhbLyA6bYgZMD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Caranus%20also%20came%20to%20Emathia%20with%20a%20large%20band%20of%20Greeks%2C%20being%20instructed%20by%20an%20oracle%20to%20seek%20a%20home%20in%20Macedonia.&f=false

When i read this quote, an without any kind of deep analyze, one thing catch my eye and hat is: "to seek a home in Macedonia". So according to this quote, Macedonia existed before Caran ,s time! Who lived in Macedonia when Caran suposedly came with his band of Greeks?! And do u know that Argos was Pelasgian in those mithical times when suposedly Argead kings came in Macedonia from there?!
And a nother thing i would like to point here, u are trying to proove something on a base of miths and legends. Do u know that if we judge like that, than Thebes was not a greek sity, it was a Phoenician founded by Cadmo. Dos that makes the Thebans Phoenician?
I whill live this quote with this answer for now. Maybe some other guy here will answer you with more details.

Do you think the Hellanodikai were that fool to be so easily deceived by a shrewd barbarian?We all know how important was the criterion of Hellenic origin for participation in Olympic games and we also know ancient Greeks didn't mess with such important matters.Alexander's claim to be a Greek would normally have been put under the most detailed scrutiny,especially since he claimed Argive/Doric origin and there were certainly present many Argives and other Dorians who could easily have ascertained whether he really had any affinity to them.How do you think things happened:
-Hello,gaiz,Aim Alexander of Makedonia and aim Grik.You knoou,aim en Argif,mai Greit-greit fader was vrom Argos,so let me plei in yor geims pliz.
It's like a Pole going to Bavaria after he has learned some basic standard German (High German dialect) and fooling all the Bavarians he is one of them speaking their dialect (Low German).

Why Macedonians did not take participation in the games before Alexander I time? Where is your proof that the other athlets were making tricks, or are u making up this story to fith your wishes?!

If Jews really refered only to Alexander as Greek,how is it that today they consider all ancient Macedonians were Greek.Just take a alook at some of their websites:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Greeks.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Maccabees.html

Even the Israeli ministry of foreign afairs,i don't think they are Philhellenes:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/History+of+Israel/HISTORY-%20The%20Second%20Temple

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/1990_1999/1996/10/israeli-american%20hanukkah%20stamp

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/People/Jewish%20Festivals%20in%20Israel

I dont know why they are considering that, maybe they dont know the arguments we know here on this forum. But the question here is: where are u trying to go with this kind of arguments?

This separation of Greeks and Macedonians means nothing,it was made only out of geographical reasons.Like today we separate Germans from Austrians,they may be two different peoples from different countries but all know they are actually of the same stock,with same language,culture e.t.c.Flavius Josephus may have mentioned Greeks separately from Macedonians,but pay special attention to this abstract below,when he tries to explain why Jews were not known to ancient Greek authors mentioning all the surrounding ethnicities with which Greeks were familiar:

No, it is not like that becouse when Macedonians and Greeks are in question than "all know they are actually not of the same stock,not with same language,culture e.t.c"
What do u think about this response to your lame try of an argument?!

"I am now willing in the next place to say a few things to those that endeavour to prove that our constitution is but of late time,for this reason as the pretend that the Greek writers have said nothing about us;after which I shall produce testimonies for our antiquity out of the writings of foreigners:I shall also demonstrate that such as cast reproaches upon our nation do it very unjustly.As for ourselves,therefore,we neither inbahit a maritime country, nor do we delight in merchandise nor in such a mixture with other men as arises from it; but the cities we dwell in are remote from the sea and having a fruitful country for our habitation we take pains in cultivating that only.Our principal care of all it this to educate our children well;and we think it to be the most necessary business of our whole life,to observe the laws that have been given us,to to keep those rules of piety that have been delivered down to us.Since,therefore,besides what we have already taken notice of,we hard had a peculiar way of living of our own,there was no occasion offered us in ancient ages tor intermixing among the Greeks,as they had for mixing among the Egyptians, by their intercourse of exporting and importing their several goods; as they also mixed with the Phoenicians who lived by the seaside by means of their love of lucre in trade and merchandise. Nor did tut forefathers betake themselves, as did some others, to robbery; nor did they,in order to gain more wealth,fall into foreign wars although our country contained many ten thousands of men of courage sufficient for that purpose. For this reason it was that the Phoenicians themselves came soon by trading and navigation to be known to the Grecians, and by their means the Egyptians became known to the Grecians also,as did all those people whence the Phoenicians in long voyages over the seas carried wares to the Grecians.The Medcs also and the Persians when they were lords of Asia became well known to then and this was especially true of the Persians who led their armies as far as the other continent.(Europe) The Thracians were also known to them by the nearness of their countries, and the Scythians by the means of those that sailed to Pontus; for it was so in general that all nations, and those that inhabited near the eastern or western seas became most known to those that were desirous to be writers;but such as had their habitations farther from the sea were for the most part unknown to them; which things appear to have happened as to Europe also,where the city of Rome, that hath this long time been possessed of so much power, and hath performed such great actions in war,is yet never mentioned by Herodotus nor by Thucydides,nor by any one of their contemporaries; and it was very late,and with great difficulty, that the Romans became known to the Greeks.Nay,those that were reckoned the most exact historians, and Ephorus for one, were so very ignorant of the Gauls and the Spaniards,that he supposed the Spaniards, who inhabit so great a part of western regions of the earth to be no more than one city."

http://books.google.gr/books?id=1AMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA582

So why doesn't he mention Macedonians at all,if he considered them as a distinct people,neighbouring with Greeks?he says "Greeks were familiar with Thracians since they were their neighbours and with Persians because they were the masters of Asia and also fought to conquer them",but he fails to mention the Macedonians,who were both neighbours and conquerors of Greece!The only explanation that makes sense is he considered Macedonians and Greeks were of the same stock.

And again u are trying the same, to prove us here that if the author dont mention the Macedonians he than must think of them as Greeks..
But how do u know that he did not think of them to be Thracians, or better yet, how do u know that he just do not mention them in this part of the text?!

Josephus
Jewish Historian

"Greeks and Macedonians that dwelt there" [Antiquities,13.5.11]

"…and gave them privileges equal to those of the Macedonians and Greeks, who were the inhabitants… [Antiquities, 12.3.1]

"These Egyptians, therefore, were the authors of these troubles, who not having the constancy of Macedonians, nor the prudence of Greeks, indulged all of them the evil manners of the Egyptians" [Against Apion, 2.6.]

And to say that the distinction of Greeks and Macedonians in these quotes is just a geographic is nothing else than "teranje inat"

[Agamoi Thytai]

I dont know are u realy that ignorant or are u just stobern. Dont u know the whole story about Alexander I, do u know why he has recived his nick name "phillhelene"?! Let me tell u in short then, Alexander helped the Greeks in their war with Persia and becouse of that he was named "phillhelene".

To begin with,Alexander's participation should be dated before the Persian wars.Alexander reigned from 498/97 BC,so he was probably born not earlier than 518 BC.

http://books.google.com/books?id=C0UDFds-L0QC&pg=PA1&dq=alexander+I+philhellene+498+BC&hl=el&ei=7l0sTefdDMPJ4gaQ-KHBCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=alexander%20I%20philhellene%20498%20BC&f=false

The incident in the battle of Platea happened in 479 BC while the first Olympic games after the Persian wars were held in 476,when Alexander should be at least 42 year old,not the best age to participate in foot races.As for the appellation "Philhellene" was given to Alexander not in his time but much later,in Hellenistic era:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=el&id=614pd07OtfQC&q=earliest+references#v=snippet&q=earliest%20references&f=false

We have already come through this in other posts and i provided evidence how ancient authors applied this appelation to other Greeks too,with the notable example of Hieron,tyrant of Syracuse.

Than he told the story of his Argiv descent so he could take participation in the Olympic game and etc etc. I hope i made u clear some things. Now the question is:
why Greeks would not accepted him?!

It was only his rival athletes who protested.Had Macedonians really been perceived "a priori" as barbarians,the Hellanodikai would definitely have excluded him in first place,however this didn't happened.Since other athletes protested to the Hellanodikai,they were obliged to examine his case.

And second and more important question is: if Macedonians were really Greeks, than why did they not compete at the Olimpic games before the time of Alexander I phillhelene. I think that it is more than just some athlet tricks in question here...

Macedonians didn't participate in Olympic games before that time because they were in constant warfare with their neighbours to the north,Thracians,Illyrians and Paeonians:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=el&id=C0UDFds-L0QC&q=continually+at+war#v=snippet&q=continually%20at%20war&f=false

Southern Greeks didn't have to fight continually with any barbarian enemies in the vicinity,so they had established the Olympic ceasefire which allowed the most qualified among them to participate in the Olympics,but Olympic ceasefire was respected only within the Greek world.The Thracian and Illyrian neighbours of Macedonia didn't give a shit about Olympic ceasefire.Thus,every summer,the most usual period for warfare in ancient time,Macedonians had other more serious matters to deal with.Every young stout man who could become a first class Olympic games competitor was an indispensable warrior.This is perfectly shown in Alexander's response to the people of Miletus who showed him the statues of their Olympic winners:

"Where were men with such bodies when the barbarians laid siege to your city"?

http://books.google.com/books?id=cgkzWTugSj0C&pg=PA25&dq=where+were+men+with+such+bodies+when+the+barbarians+laid+siege+to+your+city&hl=el&ei=-GQsTei4NqOT4gbR1My6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=where%20were%20men%20with%20such%20bodies%20when%20the%20barbarians%20laid%20siege%20to%20your%20city&f=false

When Alexander I the "Philhellne" participated in the Olympics,Macedonia had already become a vassal state of Persia and so its borders were now defended by the Persian army.

When i read this quote, an without any kind of deep analyze, one thing catch my eye and hat is: "to seek a home in Macedonia".So according to this quote, Macedonia existed before Caran ,s time!

You misunderstood the meaning of the phrase.The word Macedonia is used either by the modern authors,or by Justin (or his source Marsyas).If you read it again,it says the original prophecy of the oracle was "he should establish his empire according to the direction Of the goats":

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bj1jAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=he+should+establish+his+empire+according+to+the+direction+Of+the+goats&hl=el&ei=cm4sTbaQF5-W4gadp-W-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=he%20should%20establish%20his%20empire%20according%20to%20the%20direction%20Of%20the%20goats&f=false

Who lived in Macedonia when Caran suposedly came with his band of Greeks?!

Phrygians mainly and various Thracian tribes,Pierians,Botteians,
Almopians,Eordaians and perhaps some Illyrians.Most of them were expelled by the Macedonians,according to Thucydides and other historians.Phrygians to Asia Minor and Pierians to the region of Mt. Panggeon,near the modern city of Kavala.However it's reasonable to assume that some remained there and eventually were assimilated.

And do u know that Argos was Pelasgian in those mithical times when suposedly Argead kings came in Macedonia from there?!
And a nother thing i would like to point here, u are trying to proove something on a base of miths and legends.

I use these myths not claiming they are as a matter of fact a 100% irrefutable evidence,but to show what ancient Macedonians claimed themselves about their origin and that there were Greek historians who accepted these myths.

Do u know that if we judge like that, than Thebes was not a greek sity, it was a Phoenician founded by Cadmo. Dos that makes the Thebans Phoenician?
I whill live this quote with this answer for now. Maybe some other guy here will answer you with more details.

Of course i know the myth of Cadmus and i believe it may reflects the memories of an early Phoenician colonization,who knows?However Thebans never declared to be Phoenicians even accepting the story of their Phoenician ancestry as true.I also have seen some modern historians claiming Cadmus was originally a local hero/deity of Thebes and the legend about his Phoenician origin was invented in order to explain the introduction of the Phoenician alphabet.

And again u are trying the same, to prove us here that if the author dont mention the Macedonians he than must think of them as Greeks..
But how do u know that he did not think of them to be Thracians, or better yet, how do u know that he just do not mention them in this part of the text?!

Com'on now,i'm sure not even you believe what you have written!Macedonians were not an obscure tribe somewhere in the interior of Balkan peninsula to burry their name under the common label "Thracians"!They were the conquerors of the half world after all,so he could at least speak of the "most prominent of the Thracians who conquered both Europe and Asia",as he did with Persians.They were worthy enough to have a place on their own in his list if he considered them as separate from the Greeks in ethnic terms.

[Serdarot]

...We all know how important was the criterion of Hellenic origin for participation in Olympic games and we also know ancient Greeks didn't mess with such important matters...

WE know that the above is a lie, a myth

how many times it has to be told to YOU, so you would finaly understand it?

[Agamoi Thytai]

WE know that the above is a lie, a myth

In your own version of history everything that doesn't suit you is either myth or lie.

how many times it has to be told to YOU, so you would finaly understand it?

If you are able to provide at least one other example of an undoubtedly non-Greek person who participated in the Olympics before 146 BC. (That means persons like Nero after the Roman conquest of Greece are excluded).

[Serdarot]

lol

why persons after 146 BC should be excluded?

couse the Romans subdued, conquered the greeks?

[astibo]

.To begin with,Alexander's participation should be dated before the Persian wars.Alexander reigned from 498/97 BC,so he was probably born not earlier than 518 BC.

http://books.google.com/books?id=C0UDFds-L0QC&pg=PA1&dq=alexander+I+philhellene+498+BC&hl=el&ei=7l0sTefdDMPJ4gaQ-KHBCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=alexander%20I%20philhellene%20498%20BC&f=false

The incident in the battle of Platea happened in 479 BC while the first Olympic games after the Persian wars were held in 476,when Alexander should be at least 42 year old,not the best age to participate in foot races

Why are u taking the conversation in other directions? I know that he was probably not a contestant, i know that although he is presented as a winer of the race his name can not be found on the list of winers! Even more prove that the whole story is fabricated.
But that is a whole other subject for discussion

As for the appellation "Philhellene" was given to Alexander not in his time but much later,in Hellenistic era:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=el&id=614pd07OtfQC&q=earliest+references#v=snippet&q=earliest%20references&f=false

We have already come through this in other posts and i provided evidence how ancient authors applied this appelation to other Greeks too,with the notable example of Hieron,tyrant of Syracuse.

Again u are taking the discussion in a other direction. I have never started the discussion about the appellation "Philhellene" i was just pointing to u that Alexander I was considered by the Hellens as a friend and a helper in hard times of war. And this was as an answer to your question why would they even considered him to be participant in the Olimpic games.
Again u are trying to hide your self by defocussing the main subject of discussion.

It was only his rival athletes who protested.Had Macedonians really been perceived "a priori" as barbarians,the Hellanodikai would definitely have excluded him in first place,however this didn't happened.Since other athletes protested to the Hellanodikai,they were obliged to examine his case.

Macedonians didn't participate in Olympic games before that time because they were in constant warfare with their neighbours to the north,Thracians,Illyrians and Paeonians:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=el&id=C0UDFds-L0QC&q=continually+at+war#v=snippet&q=continually%20at%20war&f=false

Southern Greeks didn't have to fight continually with any barbarian enemies in the vicinity,so they had established the Olympic ceasefire which allowed the most qualified among them to participate in the Olympics,but Olympic ceasefire was respected only within the Greek world.The Thracian and Illyrian neighbours of Macedonia didn't give a shit about Olympic ceasefire.Thus,every summer,the most usual period for warfare in ancient time,Macedonians had other more serious matters to deal with.Every young stout man who could become a first class Olympic games competitor was an indispensable warrior.

What a story u have INVENTED here. Such a bullshit. Do u have any proves for that. Is there some inscription who confirms that Macedonians were not able to participate in the Olimpic games because of a war. I don,t know why i am westing my time to answer such a b.s.

This is perfectly shown in Alexander's response to the people of Miletus who showed him the statues of their Olympic winners:

"Where were men with such bodies when the barbarians laid siege to your city"?

http://books.google.com/books?id=cgkzWTugSj0C&pg=PA25&dq=where+were+men+with+such+bodies+when+the+barbarians+laid+siege+to+your+city&hl=el&ei=-GQsTei4NqOT4gbR1My6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=where%20were%20men%20with%20such%20bodies%20when%20the%20barbarians%20laid%20siege%20to%20your%20city&f=false

What? So now u are in the mind of Alexander and u know what exactly he had in mind. B.S again
U my friend, u are trying to make prove out of something that can not be a prov, but when you are faced with hard evidence u are making up stores to save your as.

When Alexander I the "Philhellne" participated in the Olympics,Macedonia had already become a vassal state of Persia and so its borders were now defended by the Persian army.

No comment. I just quote u here for every one to see your explanation a have a good lough.
Again u make up a story. What a story teller u turn out to be.

You misunderstood the meaning of the phrase.The word Macedonia is used either by the modern authors,or by Justin (or his source Marsyas).If you read it again,it says the original prophecy of the oracle was "he should establish his empire according to the direction Of the goats":

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bj1jAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=he+should+establish+his+empire+according+to+the+direction+Of+the+goats&hl=el&ei=cm4sTbaQF5-W4gadp-W-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=he%20should%20establish%20his%20empire%20according%20to%20the%20direction%20Of%20the%20goats&f=false

Phrygians mainly and various Thracian tribes,Pierians,Botteians,
Almopians,Eordaians and perhaps some Illyrians.Most of them were expelled by the Macedonians,according to Thucydides and other historians.Phrygians to Asia Minor and Pierians to the region of Mt. Panggeon,near the modern city of Kavala.However it's reasonable to assume that some remained there and eventually were assimilated.

You are right that Macedonians were from a Brigian stock, they were related to Thracians, Ilirians, Phrigians in Asia Minor. But the main thing is that they were descended from the Pelasgians, and u know when Caran have left Argos, Argos was populated with Pelasgians.

I use these myths not claiming they are as a matter of fact a 100% irrefutable evidence,but to show what ancient Macedonians claimed themselves about their origin and that there were Greek historians who accepted these myths.

Of course i know the myth of Cadmus and i believe it may reflects the memories of an early Phoenician colonization,who knows?However Thebans never declared to be Phoenicians even accepting the story of their Phoenician ancestry as true.I also have seen some modern historians claiming Cadmus was originally a local hero/deity of Thebes and the legend about his Phoenician origin was invented in order to explain the introduction of the Phoenician alphabet.

Listen careful: U are making all of your claims based on a myths.
Caran, Argead descend, everything is just a myth who need to be discussed and discussed for us to see if it has some true in that myths, and yet u are making a conclusions based on them.

Com'on now,i'm sure not even you believe what you have written!Macedonians were not an obscure tribe somewhere in the interior of Balkan peninsula to burry their name under the common label "Thracians"!They were the conquerors of the half world after all,so he could at least speak of the "most prominent of the Thracians who conquered both Europe and Asia",as he did with Persians.They were worthy enough to have a place on their own in his list if he considered them as separate from the Greeks in ethnic terms.

Is that so. There are hundred,s of things i could tell u about this claims of yours, like for example that Thracians are considered to be the most numerous population on earth etc etc. But without so much words and trouble i will just ask u something:

Besides Macedonians, Joseph did not mentioned the Ilirians also. So if we fallow your logic than Ilyrians should be Greeks to!!!


In the end here, i would like to remind u that u have left many question and quotes from me and from other members on this forum UNANSWERED

[Agamoi Thytai]

Why are u taking the conversation in other directions? I know that he was probably not a contestant, i know that although he is presented as a winer of the race his name can not be found on the list of winers! Even more prove that the whole story is fabricated.
But that is a whole other subject for discussion

I don't lead the debate to wrong directions!I just answered to YOUR CLAIM that if Alexander was really allowed by the Greeks to participate in the Olympics,this happened in all probability out of gratefulness reasons,cause he helped them in the Persian wars

Again u are taking the discussion in a other direction. I have never started the discussion about the appellation "Philhellene" i was just pointing to u that Alexander I was considered by the Hellens as a friend and a helper in hard times of war. And this was as an answer to your question why would they even considered him to be participant in the Olimpic games.
Again u are trying to hide your self by defocussing the main subject of discussion.

Again i answered to YOUR CLAIM "Alexander I was considered by the Hellens as a friend and a helper in hard times of war" pointing out that it was some Hellenistic time historians and not his contemporary Greeks who labeled him as such.

What a story u have INVENTED here. Such a bullshit. Do u have any proves for that. Is there some inscription who confirms that Macedonians were not able to participate in the Olimpic games because of a war. I don,t know why i am westing my time to answer such a b.s.

What inscription,they didn't even know to write in 550-600 BC.

What? So now u are in the mind of Alexander and u know what exactly he had in mind. B.S again
U my friend, u are trying to make prove out of something that can not be a prov, but when you are faced with hard evidence u are making up stores to save your as.

And when i post my evidence you say "these stories of Herodotus are invented",or "it's not sure what he meant with the word 'Greek' or whether he used it at all" e.t.c.

No comment. I just quote u here for every one to see your explanation a have a good lough.
Again u make up a story. What a story teller u turn out to be.

Macedonia had become a vassal state of Persia already before Persians attacked Greece:

"Macedonia becomes a vassal state of Persia".

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri/CHRON/BCchron.html

"At the end of the 6th century BC, Darius the Great ruled over an immense realm, from western India to eastern Europe. In 513 BC Darius, for the first time, conquered Thrace and Macedonia. Macedonian king Alexander I became his vassal....In 492 BC Darius dispatched an army under his son-in-law, Mardonius. This army reduced Thrace and compelled Alexander I of Macedon to submit again to Persia".

http://www.crystalinks.com/grecopersianwars.html

And since Macedonia was a Persian protectorate then,Persians ought to protect Macedonian borders from every invasion

Besides Macedonians, Joseph did not mentioned the Ilirians also. So if we fallow your logic than Ilyrians should be Greeks to!!!

The Illyrians are included in the group of those "obscure tribes in the Balkan interior" i mentioned in my older post.Probably because they and their culture neither left any remarkable traces in Greece nor interacted too much with Greeks,unlike Thracians,for instance.

In the end here, i would like to remind u that u have left many question and quotes from me and from other members on this forum UNANSWERED

Well,if you have to debate with 3 or even 4 persons simultaneously it's not possible to answer to all their questions.But i also could claim the same,some of my questions either to you or to other Macedonians are not answered.