I'm sorry, makedoche. I don't understand your question. My point is the opposite of what you say, that there was complete linguistic understanding between the ancient Macedonians and the other Greek-speaking peoples. Could you please clarify.
With respect to the pages reproduced out of context by TrueMacedonian, there are two things to consider: One is that there is disagreement in every aspect of human discourse. Medical doctors, linguists, mathematicians, physicists and even plumbers disagree, so that historians also disagree on certain things is perfectly normal. Second is that ancient writers are not irrefutable. Because a source is ancient does not mean that it is absolutely correct. Herodotus, "The father of history" wrote a lot of absurd things in his books. He is "the father of history" because of his methodology not because of his accuracy. The Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote some trenchant things about human nature and political structures, but all his scientific observations, all of them without exception, were wrong and sometimes silly. What we consider in every field is a compilation of the weight of evidence. It is as true in the understanding of history as it is in everything else.
In the underlined passage reproduced by TrueMacedonian of the book Alexander the Great, Romm says, the Macedonians and Greeks " were separate and distinct" yet in his other book, Romm says they were "kindred." Which is it? Not, of course, that that is at all remotely the issue. Again, Romm uses the word "ethnic" which had a different meaning in the ancient world of city states than it does today. Unfortunately, i don't have the time to address every underlined passage but I hope I have made my point with greater or lesser success.
With respect to the pages reproduced out of context by TrueMacedonian, there are two things to consider: One is that there is disagreement in every aspect of human discourse. Medical doctors, linguists, mathematicians, physicists and even plumbers disagree, so that historians also disagree on certain things is perfectly normal. Second is that ancient writers are not irrefutable. Because a source is ancient does not mean that it is absolutely correct. Herodotus, "The father of history" wrote a lot of absurd things in his books. He is "the father of history" because of his methodology not because of his accuracy. The Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote some trenchant things about human nature and political structures, but all his scientific observations, all of them without exception, were wrong and sometimes silly. What we consider in every field is a compilation of the weight of evidence. It is as true in the understanding of history as it is in everything else.
In the underlined passage reproduced by TrueMacedonian of the book Alexander the Great, Romm says, the Macedonians and Greeks " were separate and distinct" yet in his other book, Romm says they were "kindred." Which is it? Not, of course, that that is at all remotely the issue. Again, Romm uses the word "ethnic" which had a different meaning in the ancient world of city states than it does today. Unfortunately, i don't have the time to address every underlined passage but I hope I have made my point with greater or lesser success.
Comment