Ancient quotes on Macedonia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Agamoi Thytai
    Member
    • Nov 2010
    • 198

    #16
    Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
    A written Macedonian language was dearth. Clearly, there is evidence from ancient writings that there was a Macedonian language which was barbarian to Greeks.
    There is actually not even a single one quote from ancient texts that could be considered as irrefutable proof of the existence of a distinct Macedonian language. Some references to Alexander or other Macedonians "speaking Macedonian" -μακεδονιστί or μακεδονίζων τη φωνή in Greek (literally "speaking in Macedonian speech")-can no way considered as such given that Greek authors often use the same expressions for known Greek dialects too. That is, one can also find phrases like "speaking Boetian, Laconian, Thessalian" e.t.c. with similar adverbs or participles, βοιωτιστί/βοιωτίζων τη φωνή, λακωνιστί/λακωνίζων τη φωνή, θεσσαλιστί/θεσσαλίζων τη φωνή e.t.c. So "speaking Macedonian" could refer both to a certain dialect of Greek or a distinct language, it's very disputable. Even the quote from the famous Philotas affair, where Philotas says to Alexander "I will use the same language with you (Attic Greek) because besides Macedonians there are many other people here who will more readily understand me" is of not great significance, since similar expression were also used by ancient authors for other Greek dialects too. F. i., Pausanias writes of the Boetian poetess Corinna and her native dialect she used in her poems as opposed to the Doric dialect of her rival, the great poet Pindar that "she composed, not in Doric speech like Pindar, but in one Aeolians would understand".

    Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
    And it is so-called by Demosthenes.
    As far as I know, Demosthenes didn't write anything on the Macedonian language.
    Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
    Very early on, neither the Greeks nor the Macedonians saw the Macedonians as Greek.
    This cannot possibly be disputed.
    Very early on, we have Herodotus' testimony that Macedonians were Greek. And even earlier, we have this:

    "Hesiod certainly thought them to be Greek-speaking; otherwise he would not have made Magnes and Macedon into cousins of Dorus, Xouthus and Aeolus,who were the eponymous ancestors of the three main forms of the Greek language (Dorian, Ionian and Aeolian).Hellanicus, writing late in the fifth century,made Macedon a son of Aeolus; he would not have done so unless he had supposed the Macedones to be speakers of some form of Aeolic Greek.As the twin people,the Magnetes,did speak an Aeolic dialect (this we know from inscriptions),there is no good reason to deny that the Macedones spoke an Aeolic dialect,retarded indeed and broad…”
    The emergence of the Greek world from the Dark Ages to the height of its Geometric civilization was described in The Cambridge Ancient History Volume III Part I. Volume III Part III explores the new prosperity and growth of the young city-states in the eighth to the sixth centuries B.C. This was the great period of expansion and colonization which saw the establishment of Greek city-states from the Western Mediterranean to the Black Sea. This volume describes the East and Egypt, the importance of West Greece and the Aegean islands in trading and exploration, the special characteristics of the societies which were established by colonization. While societies outside the mainstream of expansion and trade retained their old institutions, those at the centre changed rapidly and the period was a time of warfare in mainland Greece. Athens is seen developing into a leading state under the influence of the reforms of Solon and assessment of the social, economic and material history of Greece during these years.


    Note that all these mythical figures, Dorus, Aeolus and Xuthus were regarded as the progenitors of the main Greek tribes, the Dorians, the Aeolians and the Ionians respectivelly, so Greek authors wouldn't that easily consider Macedonians as so close relatives of them if they had any doubts of their Greekness.
    Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
    Would you agree with this Agamoi Thytai
    I respect your personal view however I disagree.
    "What high honour do the Macedonians deserve, who throughout nearly their whole lives are ceaselessly engaged in a struggle with the barbarians for the safety of the Greeks?"
    Polybius, Histories, 9.35

    Comment

    • Agamoi Thytai
      Member
      • Nov 2010
      • 198

      #17
      Originally posted by George S. View Post
      ridicule by greeks is the order of the day.Ok agamoi what ever i say.Which places did paul go to macedonia and greece .Why make a distinction.???
      The Macedonian places he visited were Philippoi, Amphipolis, Thessaloniki and Verria. All perfect Greek names.

      Originally posted by George S. View Post
      Why were the ati macedonian wars????waged by greece and rome.Under rome macedonia was a seperate province to greece.
      There also were anti-Athenian and anti-Spartan wars. Greeks didn't like anyone who tried to deprive them of their city-state self government sytem.
      Originally posted by George S. View Post
      Also why were people banished from athens for their non greekness.
      Who banished whom, I didn't get you.
      Originally posted by George S. View Post
      You got no leg to stand on.If macedonia was is greek WHY THE NEED TO GO IN 1912 UNDER THE GUISE of LIBERATING IT FROM TURKS.????
      Because the Turks were not that eager to cede Macedonia to Greece or any other Balkan country.
      Originally posted by George S. View Post
      You called the indigenous population ENDOPI.
      "Endopios" is a term coined by Pontians and other refugees to denote all indigenous Christian population they encountered in the places of Macedonia where they settled, so it was applied to the indigenous Greek-speaking population of Macedonia too. It's not an ethnic term.
      Originally posted by George S. View Post
      Also why did the greeks wait 2000 years to become a country in 1832.
      Well, for 2000 years there didn't exist either a state called Macedonia.
      Originally posted by George S. View Post
      After being city states macedonia was never a city state.It was different a kingdom with a king.
      So was Thessaly and Epirus and Cyprus and some other Greek regions too.
      Originally posted by George S. View Post
      It was said in the army macedonian was spoken NOT GREEK .
      Explain to me if macedonians spoke greek why did they not speak greek in alexanders army.YOu choose to gloss this.THe soldiers and commanders PREFFERED to speak IN THEIR MOTHER TOUNGE which was MACEDONIAN.END OF STORY you got no leg to stand on.
      Where did you get this info from? Certainly not from ancient sources. I f Greek was not spoken in the Macedonian army, then with whom would converse in that language those 30000 Persians that Alexander enrolled and ordered to learn Greek?

      And how is it Arrian says this:

      "Some of them advanced some distance inland, breaking away from the main force, some in pursuit of this, and some of that. There a man appeared to them, wearing a Greek cloak, and dressed otherwise in the Greek fashion, and speaking Greek also. Those who first sighted him said that they burst into tears, so strange did it seem after all these miseries to see a Greek, and to hear Greek spoken. They asked whence he came, who he was; and he said that he had become separated from Alexander's camp, and that the camp, and Alexander himself, were not very far distant. Shouting aloud and clapping their hands they brought this man to Nearchus; and he told Nearchus everything, and that the camp and the King himself were distant five days' journey from the coast."
      Xenophon wrote several books most of which survived. The narrative is about military advance, or journey. And what a journey this was for 10,000 Greek mercenaries, through hostile territory, ultimately retreating back to Greece. Xenophon's informal and realistic style of writing makes this exciting real-life adventure story intensely interesting and captivating. Highly Recommended!

      Originally posted by George S. View Post
      YOU merely MISAPPROPRIATE what is not YOURS.I call that STEALING.
      IF macedonia was yours why the need to go in 1912 why???why?? THERE WAS AN INDIGENOUS POPULATION THE TURLKS CALLED THEM what ...mACEDONIANS.
      Besides the indigenous population you are talking about, there was also a Greek indigenous population in Macedonia that wished to be liberated from Greece and even assisted the Greek army fighting along it:

      “In forming an opinion upon the series of excesses that marked the Bulgarian withdrawal from southeastern Macedonia,it is nessecary to recall the fact that the Bulgarians were ocuppying a country whose population is mainly Greek and Turkish.The Bulgarian garrisons were small,and they found themselves on the outbreak of the second war in a hostile country.The Greek population of these regions is wealthy and intensely patriotic.In several Greek centers insurgent organizations(andartes) existed.
      Arms had been collected and some experienced guerrilla chiefs were believed to be in hiding,and ready to lead the local population.All of this in existing conditions was creditable to Greek patriotism;their race was at war with the Bulgarians,and the more enterprising and courageous among them intented to take their share as auxiliaries of the Greek army in driving the Bulgarians from their country.
      From a nationalist standpoint,this was morally their right,and some might even say their duty.But it is equally clear that the Bulgarians,wherever they found themselves opposed by the armed civil population,had also a right to take steps to protect themselves.The steps which they elected to take in some places grossly exceeded the limits of legitimate defense or allowable reprisal”.
      "What high honour do the Macedonians deserve, who throughout nearly their whole lives are ceaselessly engaged in a struggle with the barbarians for the safety of the Greeks?"
      Polybius, Histories, 9.35

      Comment

      • Philosopher
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2008
        • 1003

        #18
        Originally posted by Agamoi Thytai View Post
        There is actually not even a single one quote from ancient texts that could be considered as irrefutable proof of the existence of a distinct Macedonian language. Some references to Alexander or other Macedonians "speaking Macedonian" -μακεδονιστί or μακεδονίζων τη φωνή in Greek (literally "speaking in Macedonian speech")-can no way considered as such given that Greek authors often use the same expressions for known Greek dialects too. That is, one can also find phrases like "speaking Boetian, Laconian, Thessalian" e.t.c. with similar adverbs or participles, βοιωτιστί/βοιωτίζων τη φωνή, λακωνιστί/λακωνίζων τη φωνή, θεσσαλιστί/θεσσαλίζων τη φωνή e.t.c. So "speaking Macedonian" could refer both to a certain dialect of Greek or a distinct language, it's very disputable. Even the quote from the famous Philotas affair, where Philotas says to Alexander "I will use the same language with you (Attic Greek) because besides Macedonians there are many other people here who will more readily understand me" is of not great significance, since similar expression were also used by ancient authors for other Greek dialects too. F. i., Pausanias writes of the Boetian poetess Corinna and her native dialect she used in her poems as opposed to the Doric dialect of her rival, the great poet Pindar that "she composed, not in Doric speech like Pindar, but in one Aeolians would understand".


        As far as I know, Demosthenes didn't write anything on the Macedonian language.
        Here is excerpt that accurately characterizes the language of the ancient Macedonians:

        Badian describes some convincing cases in which Macedonian troops could not follow commands in Greek. For instance, during his argument with Clitus, which led to his good friend's death, at the end Alexander is said to have called for his guards in Macedonian when he felt his life threatened. Badian rejects the idea that this was a reversion to a more primitive part of his psyche, under stress. He prefers the simpler explanation that Alexander used the only language in which his guards could be addressed.

        To establish his case, Badian quotes a surviving papyrus fragment that seems to be the only good source to reveal the facts of the infantry use of Macedonian. This fragment tells of a battle, early in 321 B.C., in which the Greek commander Ambiance faced the Macedonian Neoptolemus with his Macedonian phalanx. Wanting to have the Macedonians join him rather than fight him, Ambiance needed to convince them of his superior position. The story continues:

        When Eumenues saw the close-locked formation of the Macedonian phalanx ... he sent Xennias once more, a man whose speech was Macedonian, bidding him declare that he would not fight them frontally but would follow them with his cavalry and units of light troops and bar them from provisions.

        Badian tells us that Xennias' name reveals him to be a Macedonian. Since he was with Ambiance he was probably a Macedonian of superior status who spoke both standard Greek and his native language. Ambiance needed this interpreter to transmit his message. This means that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian if they were going to understand. Ambiance did not address them himself, although this was the common way for leaders of the time, nor did he send a Greek. Badian concludes that Greek was a foreign tongue to the Macedonians. Similarly, Alexander used Macedonian to address his guards because it was their normal language, and he had to be sure he would be understood. It also seems clear that educated Greeks did not speak the Macedonian language unless (presumably) they had grown up with Macedonians and learned it from their childhood friends, as some of Alexander's Greek companions must have.


        The Macedonian language was barbarian to the Greeks. That is why Demosthenes wrote:

        "... not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave".
        Do you have any evidence that a Greek was called a barbarian, and not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks?

        Very early on, we have Herodotus' testimony that Macedonians were Greek. And even earlier, we have this:

        "Hesiod certainly thought them to be Greek-speaking; otherwise he would not have made Magnes and Macedon into cousins of Dorus, Xouthus and Aeolus,who were the eponymous ancestors of the three main forms of the Greek language (Dorian, Ionian and Aeolian).Hellanicus, writing late in the fifth century,made Macedon a son of Aeolus; he would not have done so unless he had supposed the Macedones to be speakers of some form of Aeolic Greek.As the twin people,the Magnetes,did speak an Aeolic dialect (this we know from inscriptions),there is no good reason to deny that the Macedones spoke an Aeolic dialect,retarded indeed and broad…”
        The emergence of the Greek world from the Dark Ages to the height of its Geometric civilization was described in The Cambridge Ancient History Volume III Part I. Volume III Part III explores the new prosperity and growth of the young city-states in the eighth to the sixth centuries B.C. This was the great period of expansion and colonization which saw the establishment of Greek city-states from the Western Mediterranean to the Black Sea. This volume describes the East and Egypt, the importance of West Greece and the Aegean islands in trading and exploration, the special characteristics of the societies which were established by colonization. While societies outside the mainstream of expansion and trade retained their old institutions, those at the centre changed rapidly and the period was a time of warfare in mainland Greece. Athens is seen developing into a leading state under the influence of the reforms of Solon and assessment of the social, economic and material history of Greece during these years.


        Note that all these mythical figures, Dorus, Aeolus and Xuthus were regarded as the progenitors of the main Greek tribes, the Dorians, the Aeolians and the Ionians respectivelly, so Greek authors wouldn't that easily consider Macedonians as so close relatives of them if they had any doubts of their Greekness.

        I respect your personal view however I disagree.
        Herodotus' does not testify that Macedonians were Greek at all.

        Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a distinct people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states,
        Eugene Borza - In the Shadow of Olympus p. 96.

        In addition, according to Borza:

        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.
        Last edited by Philosopher; 08-20-2014, 06:04 AM.

        Comment

        • Philosopher
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2008
          • 1003

          #19
          Originally posted by Agamoi Thytai
          The Macedonian places he visited were Philippoi, Amphipolis, Thessaloniki and Verria. All perfect Greek names.
          Yes, Agamoi Thytai, this is very true. However, for once, I would like you to be honest and consistent. To be fair, so are the names Iesous Christos (Jesus Christ), Philipos (Philip), Petros (Peter), Andreas (Andrew).

          So are the names Romanos (Roman), Aiguptos, (Egypt), and Egeptheis (Egypt).

          Sometimes, and in some instances, names and places are Hellenized, and sometimes the origin of a name or place may be Greek, but it does not make the person or location Greek.

          From the context of the book of Acts, it clearly distinguishes Macedonia from Greece, as both were separate territories.

          Comment

          • Kalle
            Banned
            • Dec 2011
            • 7

            #20
            Originally posted by George S. View Post
            ridicule by greeks is the order of the day.Ok agamoi what ever i say.Which places did paul go to macedonia and greece .Why make a distinction.???Why were the ati macedonian wars????waged by greece and rome.Under rome macedonia was a seperate province to greece.
            Also why were people banished from athens for their non greekness.
            You got no leg to stand on.If macedonia was is greek WHY THE NEED TO GO IN 1912 UNDER THE GUISE of LIBERATING IT FROM TURKS.????You called the indigenous population ENDOPI.Your a fool and a thief for thinking otherwise.
            P{ure and utter bullshit from you.
            Thats why yuou got no basis for your claims only that macedonians spoke greek.Pure and utter popycock.Greece tried to change texts proving that macedonians aren't greeks.
            Also why did the greeks wait 2000 years to become a country in 1832.After being city states macedonia was never a city state.It was different a kingdom with a king.
            Macedonia had nothing in common with the greeks a different RACE of people.
            Agamoi you don't know what you are talking about.
            Alexander did not use the greeks in their army as he only used macedonians they didn't trust the greeks.There was more greeks used against him in the persian army than he had in his entourage.The greeks were not used but put back in his entourage.The grereks were not used in the macedonian army there is plenty of evidence of that.It was said in the army macedonian was spoken NOT GREEK .
            Explain to me if macedonians spoke greek why did they not speak greek in alexanders army.YOu choose to gloss this.THe soldiers and commanders PREFFERED to speak IN THEIR MOTHER TOUNGE which was MACEDONIAN.END OF STORY you got no leg to stand on.YOU merely MISAPPROPRIATE what is not YOURS.I call that STEALING.
            IF macedonia was yours why the need to go in 1912 why???why?? THERE WAS AN INDIGENOUS POPULATION THE TURLKS CALLED THEM what ...mACEDONIANS.
            aGAMOI YOU ARE JUST a puppet for your greek govt.The truth speaks louder and volumes.Your version
            is full of errors and ommissions.Think about it i know i'm right.
            Yes agamoi go and refute or claims and above all ridicule our coia as well tools of trade.laims as well and don't forget the paranoia are all tools of trade by the greeks.
            George you wanted me to declare something in some other posts? What did you mean by that? Do you want my SS# or my memoirs or something else?

            Please tell if your feel insecure about yourself for me just referencing what the most recognized museums , universities and historians in the world states (including the ones in Australia). Then I will post no more in this forum.

            For me it is kind of odd that you just post here and not in like wikipedia. Not even the part of Australian Macedonians support what you states(look at the history section). There is a discussion page. Maybe you can post your ideas/opinions there? Dont start with Wiki is just propaganda etc. This is what the people of the world knows about you. This is not only what you see in Wiki but also what you can read in the most recognized universities in the world.



            It is fascinating that some amateur historians have rewritten 4000 years of history. But those ideas have not even reached the wiki page for their own diaspora.
            Last edited by Kalle; 08-19-2014, 08:20 PM.

            Comment

            • George S.
              Senior Member
              • Aug 2009
              • 10116

              #21
              Agumoi and Kalle you are both foolish to assume just because one race of people speaks a language they are of the same race.GUess what GENETIC STUDIES DON"T SHOW THAT GREEKS AND MACEDONIANS ARE THE SAME.YOU should DELIGHT that the closest you COME is THE SUDANESE PEOPLE.WHERE is the genetic STUDIES THAT the greeks AND MACEDONIANS ARE RELATED GENETIC STUDIES DON"T SHOW THAT.SO YOU LOSE ON THAT SCORE.
              GETTING back TO MY GREEK SOURCES THAT THE GREEK DGOVT FORGOT TO DESTROY AMONGST OTHER WORKS IT HAS DESTROYED IS THE PROOF OF THE DISTINCTION OF the MACEDONIANS as a RACE TO THE GREEKS.YOU LOSE AGAIN.My soorces are ARRIAN and PLUTARCH
              IN these texts is written that macedonians spoke their own language. also alexander wanted the GLORY to be a MACEDONIAN GLORY NOT GREEK.Alexanders army spoke not greek but macedonian.YOU LOse again.What was ALEXANDER known as................................................ .NOT THE GREEK....... THE MACEDONIAN>YOU LOSE the whole argument YOu are brainwashed by your govt to think greeks are macedonians THATS the TRUTHMacedonians you are not.You never were.YOu aren't even greek.
              You want to argue with me good i have allready beaten you on your arguments.
              Last edited by George S.; 08-20-2014, 04:50 AM.
              "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
              GOTSE DELCEV

              Comment

              • Constellation
                Member
                • Jul 2014
                • 217

                #22
                Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                From the context of the book of Acts, it clearly distinguishes Macedonia from Greece, as both were separate territories.
                You are referring to this verse:

                Originally posted by Acts 20.1-2
                And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia. And when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece,
                If Macedonia is a region of Greece, then he would have already been in Greece. Instead, it states he was Macedonia, and after he went through Macedonia, he came into Greece.

                Comment

                • makedonche
                  Senior Member
                  • Oct 2008
                  • 3242

                  #23
                  Originally posted by Constellation View Post
                  You are referring to this verse:



                  If Macedonia is a region of Greece, then he would have already been in Greece. Instead, it states he was Macedonia, and after he went through Macedonia, he came into Greece.
                  Well that's it then! If the bible says so, it must be true!!!! End of argument, Greece can go bankrupt now that it has no money or history!
                  On Delchev's sarcophagus you can read the following inscription: "We swear the future generations to bury these sacred bones in the capital of Independent Macedonia. August 1923 Illinden"

                  Comment

                  • George S.
                    Senior Member
                    • Aug 2009
                    • 10116

                    #24
                    The distinction of macedonian and greek is obvious.Also apparently The apostle luke was a macedonian.If greeks and macedonians were the same why a distinction.?Also it says Lydia was a macedonian.
                    "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
                    GOTSE DELCEV

                    Comment

                    • Agamoi Thytai
                      Member
                      • Nov 2010
                      • 198

                      #25
                      Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                      Here is excerpt that accurately characterizes the language of the ancient Macedonians:

                      Badian describes some convincing cases in which Macedonian troops could not follow commands in Greek. For instance, during his argument with Clitus, which led to his good friend's death, at the end Alexander is said to have called for his guards in Macedonian when he felt his life threatened. Badian rejects the idea that this was a reversion to a more primitive part of his psyche, under stress. He prefers the simpler explanation that Alexander used the only language in which his guards could be addressed.
                      Utter distortion of reality. To begin with, there isn't even a single one quote in any ancient Greek text that reads Macedonians couldn't understand Greek. If that was the case, then why Alexander ordered 30.000 Persian youths to learn Greek? Why in the passage of Arrian's "Indica" I quoted yesterday it reads ordinary Macedonian soldiers communicated in Greek? And how is it that Eurypides and other Greek tragic poets were invited by king Archelaos to Pella and performed some of their plays there? Does it make any sense to perform a theatrical play in front of an audience that doesn't understand the language?
                      Cleopatra the Great tells the story of a turbulent time and the extraordinary woman at its centre. She was Greek by descent – the last, and greatest, Egyptian pharaoh. But our understanding of her has been obscured by Roman propaganda, Shakespearean tragedy and Hollywood, with little attempt to tell her true story – until now. In the first biography for over thirty years, Joann Fletcher draws on a wealth of overlooked detail and the latest research to reveal Cleopatra as she truly was, from her first meeting with Julius Caesar to her legendary death by snakebite.Bringing the ancient world to life, Cleopatra the Great is full of tantalising details about the Pharaoh’s infamous banquets, her massive library, her goddess outfits, beauty regimes and hairstyles. Joann Fletcher discovers the real woman behind the myth.


                      A brief yet comprehensive survey of Greek literature from Homer to Lucian.Rose's stated intention for this companion volume to A Handbook of Latin Literature was that it be a work that "covers the whole field, is of moderate length yet not so short as to include the principle authors only..."


                      As for the Clitus affair, Plutarch who desribes how Alexander "shouted in Macedonian speech" nowhere says Macedonian soldiers couldn't understand Greek. In fact, the Greek word which he uses for "Macedonian speech" is the adverb "Μακεδονιστί" which may denote both to a dialect or a language. Τhat's why English classicists translate it as "speech" instead of "language" or "dialect", it's meaning is dubious. Αdverbs with -ιστί ending usually indicate a dialect, f.i. "Δωριστί" =Dorian dialect.

                      Αιολιστί=Aeolic dialect


                      Θρακιστί=Thracian dialect (even though Thracian was definitely a separate language).


                      Watch also this: There is a fragment of a lost work of comic the comic poet Posidippus, in which a character says “You Athenians speak Attic and the rest of us Greeks speak Greek”.


                      And guess where was Posidippus from:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posidippus_(comic_poet)

                      Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                      To establish his case, Badian quotes a surviving papyrus fragment that seems to be the only good source to reveal the facts of the infantry use of Macedonian. This fragment tells of a battle, early in 321 B.C., in which the Greek commander Ambiance faced the Macedonian Neoptolemus with his Macedonian phalanx. Wanting to have the Macedonians join him rather than fight him, Ambiance needed to convince them of his superior position. The story continues:

                      When Eumenues saw the close-locked formation of the Macedonian phalanx ... he sent Xennias once more, a man whose speech was Macedonian, bidding him declare that he would not fight them frontally but would follow them with his cavalry and units of light troops and bar them from provisions.

                      Badian tells us that Xennias' name reveals him to be a Macedonian. Since he was with Ambiance he was probably a Macedonian of superior status who spoke both standard Greek and his native language. Ambiance needed this interpreter to transmit his message. This means that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian if they were going to understand. Ambiance did not address them himself, although this was the common way for leaders of the time, nor did he send a Greek. Badian concludes that Greek was a foreign tongue to the Macedonians.
                      Again groundless assumptions and misinterpretions. In first place the Macedonian site you are quoting from needs some history classes so that they learn the proper names of historic figures they are referring to. There did never exist any Greek commander called Ambiance. They mean Eumenes of Cardia (a Greek colony in Thrace) since his name is also quoted . The incident they are talking about is when Eumenes met for first time during the succesors wars the so-called “Silver-shields”, Alexander’s elite force and convinced them to join his army. Eumenes was the chief secretary of Philip amd later of Alexander and also a commander in the Macedonian army, “the only Greek who commanded a Macedonian unit”, as Roisman writes:

                      Taking into consideration this, it seems higly improbable he didn’t spoke Macedonian, if we accept for the sake of the argument that Macedonian was a separate language from Greek. So he didn’t need to send Xennias, a Macedonian to address them in Macedonian because he couldn’t communicate with them. Read the following passages of his biography by Plutarch, it is more than obvious he could perfectly communicate with Macedonians:


                      Eumenes sent Xennias to the Silver-shields when he met them for first time not because he couldn’t communicate with Macedonians but just out of diplomacy reasons, because he was one of them, so that he could gain their favour. Something he finally managed:






                      Besides, Macedonians could also communicate in Greek. Look at this passage of Plutarch:

                      Accordingly, he (Antigonus) sent Hieronymus to make a treaty with Eumenes, and proposed an oath for him to take. This oath Eumenes corrected and then submitted it to the Macedonians who were besieging him, requesting them to decide which was the juster form.

                      This oath was of course written in Greek. So how could Macedonians compare the two different forms of the oath and decide which was the juster if they couldn’t read Greek?
                      After all, the phrase of Arrian that describes the incident, “Ξεννίας, ανήρ μακεδονίζων τη φωνή” = Xennias, a man of Macedonian speech, doesn’t make it clear whether Macedonian is considered in that context as a distinct language or as Greek dialect. There are similar expressions in other Greek text too, f.i. in this below from Xenophon, there is mentioned someone who was “βοιωτιάζων τη φωνή”:

                      which English classicists translate it as “spoke in the Boetian dialect”:

                      So if βοιωτιάζων τη φωνή means “in Boetian dialect”, why should not μακεδονίζων τη φωνή mean “in Macedonian dialect” ?
                      Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                      Similarly, Alexander used Macedonian to address his guards because it was their normal language, and he had to be sure he would be understood.
                      Instead, the available evidence suggests that Attic Greek was usually spoken in Alexander’s army. Otherwise Alexander would not order the 30000 Persians he enrolled in his army to learn Greek. It would be meaningless if ordinary Macedonian soldiers could not understand Greek, how would they communicate with their Persian comrades in arms? Apart of the incident of Clitus’ murder when Alexander “shouted in Macedonian” there isn’t any other quote mentioning Alexander or other Macedonians speaking Macedonian.

                      Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                      The Macedonian language was barbarian to the Greeks. That is why Demosthenes wrote:
                      Do you have any evidence that a Greek was called a barbarian, and not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks?
                      Yes. Here you are:

                      And when he was asked again, according to the account given by Hegesander, which were the greatest barbarians, the Boeotians or the Thessalians, Stratonicus said,” The Eleans.


                      And this one:

                      Was he not reproaching Pittacus for not knowing how to distinguish words correctly, Lesbian as he was, and nurtured in a foreign tongue?


                      The original Greek text reads actually “εν φωνή βραβάρω” = in barbarian speech in regards to the Lesbian dialect.


                      As for Demosthenes:

                      He was generally believed to have received large sums of money from that source in payment for his efforts to check the Macedonians, and indeed Aeschines is said to have referred to this in a speech when he taunted Demosthenes with his venality.


                      Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                      In addition, according to Borza:

                      Quote:
                      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.
                      Herodotus actually says Thessalians were the first Greeks who surrendered themselves to the Persians:

                      "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 supposed that when they offered him friendship they spoke for the whole of their nation.


                      Because Thessalians 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;"


                      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.
                      "What high honour do the Macedonians deserve, who throughout nearly their whole lives are ceaselessly engaged in a struggle with the barbarians for the safety of the Greeks?"
                      Polybius, Histories, 9.35

                      Comment

                      • Agamoi Thytai
                        Member
                        • Nov 2010
                        • 198

                        #26
                        Originally posted by Constellation View Post
                        You are referring to this verse:



                        If Macedonia is a region of Greece, then he would have already been in Greece. Instead, it states he was Macedonia, and after he went through Macedonia, he came into Greece.
                        This doesn't prove anything. Demosthenes also said in one of his speeches that "Philip is fostering alliances throughout Hellas and the Peloponnese", while the Roman author Pliny states "Hellas beginss at the Corinthian Isthmus and runs north".
                        In today's cosmopolitan world, ethnic and national identity has assumed an ever-increasing importance. But how is this identity formed, and how does it change over time? With Hellenicity, Jonathan M. Hall explores these questions in the context of ancient Greece, drawing on an exceptionally wide range of evidence to determine when, how, why, and to what extent the Greeks conceived themselves as a single people. Hall argues that a subjective sense of Hellenic identity emerged in Greece much later than is normally assumed. For instance, he shows that the four main ethnic subcategories of the ancient Greeks—Akhaians, Ionians, Aiolians, and Dorians—were not primordial survivals from a premigratory period, but emerged in precise historical circumstances during the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. Furthermore, Hall demonstrates that the terms of defining Hellenic identity shifted from ethnic to broader cultural criteria during the course of the fifth century B.C., chiefly due to the influence of Athens, whose citizens formulated a new Athenoconcentric conception of "Greekness."

                        Another Roman historian, Appian, writes:

                        ambassadors were sent to the allied kings, Eumenes, Antiochus, Ariarathes, Masinissa, and Ptolemy of Egypt, also to Greece Thessaly, Epirus, Acarnania, and to such of the islands as they could perhaps draw to their side.


                        Does it mean Peloponnesians and Thessalians were not Greek? Hellas proper was actually only central Greece.
                        "What high honour do the Macedonians deserve, who throughout nearly their whole lives are ceaselessly engaged in a struggle with the barbarians for the safety of the Greeks?"
                        Polybius, Histories, 9.35

                        Comment

                        • Agamoi Thytai
                          Member
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 198

                          #27
                          Originally posted by George S. View Post
                          The apostle luke was a macedonian.
                          Were did you get this from? Most sources say he was a Greek or may have been a Greek.

                          Luke, the writer of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, has been identified with St. Paul's 'Luke, the beloved physician' (Colossians 4:14). We know few other facts about Luke's life from Scripture and from early Church historians. It is believed that Luke was born a Greek and a Gentile. ...



                          Originally posted by George S. View Post
                          Also it says Lydia was a macedonian.
                          Do you know what Lydia means? Do you know where she was from?
                          Among those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.


                          "What high honour do the Macedonians deserve, who throughout nearly their whole lives are ceaselessly engaged in a struggle with the barbarians for the safety of the Greeks?"
                          Polybius, Histories, 9.35

                          Comment

                          • Constellation
                            Member
                            • Jul 2014
                            • 217

                            #28
                            Originally posted by Agamoi Thytai View Post
                            This doesn't prove anything. Demosthenes also said in one of his speeches that "Philip is fostering alliances throughout Hellas and the Peloponnese", while the Roman author Pliny states "Hellas beginss at the Corinthian Isthmus and runs north".
                            http://books.google.gr/books?id=jJBh7BjUlAMC&pg=PA128
                            Demosthenes? What does he have to do with the Book of Acts? Did he write it? Is Luke the pen name of Demosthenes?

                            You can quote all the authors of antiquity you like, but none of them have any value in this regard, as none of them wrote the Book of Acts.

                            Please, I beg of you, pay very special attention to the following words:

                            If words have meaning, and if language is used to convey something, than it is not possible to interpret Luke's words otherwise. Macedonia was a region north of Greece.

                            In addition, nowhere in Luke's writings (including the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts) does he ever identify an ethnic Greek with an ethnic tribal name. For example, Luke always uses "Greek" to refer to Greeks (in some instances, “Greek” simply means “non-Jew”).

                            He never uses "Athenians" or "Corinthians" as ethnic titles. It is always Greek.

                            However, he uses the phrase "Macedonian" as an ethnic title on a number of occasions in the Book of Acts:

                            Originally posted by Acts 19.29
                            Having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Paul's fellow-travellers.
                            Originally posted by Acts 27.2
                            and having embarked in a ship of Adramyttium, we, being about to sail by the coasts of Asia, did set sail, there being with us Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica...
                            Remember, Luke did not distinguish Greeks into tribal names. He calls all Greeks “Greek”. Macedonians he calls Macedonians.

                            When you add it all up, the following can be stated:

                            Macedonia was a region north of Greece.
                            Thessaloníki was a city outside of Greece.
                            Luke calls Macedonians “Macedonians”, and not Greeks. Greeks he called “Greek”.

                            Comment

                            • Constellation
                              Member
                              • Jul 2014
                              • 217

                              #29
                              Originally posted by Agamoi Thytai View Post
                              Were did you get this from? Most sources say he was a Greek or may have been a Greek.

                              Luke, the writer of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, has been identified with St. Paul's 'Luke, the beloved physician' (Colossians 4:14). We know few other facts about Luke's life from Scripture and from early Church historians. It is believed that Luke was born a Greek and a Gentile. ...


                              http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm
                              No one knows whether Luke was Greek or Macedonian. He was a gentile. His Greek is considered the purest of the New Testament writers. This may sound impressive, and it may be, but considering all of the other New Testament writers used Greek as a second language, it may not be. Beyond this, it cannot be stated absolutely his ethnicity.

                              The reason I think George thinks Luke is Macedonian is because in some Slavic Orthodox websites Luke is considered a Slav. Not sure what that means, or how anyone can make this statement.

                              Do you know what Lydia means? Do you know where she was from?
                              Among those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.


                              http://catholicstewardship.com/saint...ia-of-philippi
                              Lydia was not Macedonian. She lived or resided in Philippi. She was from the land of Lydus, She was from the city of Thyatira, a city of Asia Minor. Her ethnicity is unknown.

                              Comment

                              • Philosopher
                                Senior Member
                                • Sep 2008
                                • 1003

                                #30
                                Originally posted by Agamoi Thytai View Post
                                Utter distortion of reality. To begin with, there isn't even a single one quote in any ancient Greek text that reads Macedonians couldn't understand Greek. If that was the case, then why Alexander ordered 30.000 Persian youths to learn Greek? Why in the passage of Arrian's "Indica" I quoted yesterday it reads ordinary Macedonian soldiers communicated in Greek? And how is it that Eurypides and other Greek tragic poets were invited by king Archelaos to Pella and performed some of their plays there? Does it make any sense to perform a theatrical play in front of an audience that doesn't understand the language?
                                Cleopatra the Great tells the story of a turbulent time and the extraordinary woman at its centre. She was Greek by descent – the last, and greatest, Egyptian pharaoh. But our understanding of her has been obscured by Roman propaganda, Shakespearean tragedy and Hollywood, with little attempt to tell her true story – until now. In the first biography for over thirty years, Joann Fletcher draws on a wealth of overlooked detail and the latest research to reveal Cleopatra as she truly was, from her first meeting with Julius Caesar to her legendary death by snakebite.Bringing the ancient world to life, Cleopatra the Great is full of tantalising details about the Pharaoh’s infamous banquets, her massive library, her goddess outfits, beauty regimes and hairstyles. Joann Fletcher discovers the real woman behind the myth.


                                A brief yet comprehensive survey of Greek literature from Homer to Lucian.Rose's stated intention for this companion volume to A Handbook of Latin Literature was that it be a work that "covers the whole field, is of moderate length yet not so short as to include the principle authors only..."


                                As for the Clitus affair, Plutarch who desribes how Alexander "shouted in Macedonian speech" nowhere says Macedonian soldiers couldn't understand Greek. In fact, the Greek word which he uses for "Macedonian speech" is the adverb "Μακεδονιστί" which may denote both to a dialect or a language. Τhat's why English classicists translate it as "speech" instead of "language" or "dialect", it's meaning is dubious. Αdverbs with -ιστί ending usually indicate a dialect, f.i. "Δωριστί" =Dorian dialect.

                                Αιολιστί=Aeolic dialect


                                Θρακιστί=Thracian dialect (even though Thracian was definitely a separate language).


                                Watch also this: There is a fragment of a lost work of comic the comic poet Posidippus, in which a character says “You Athenians speak Attic and the rest of us Greeks speak Greek”.


                                And guess where was Posidippus from:
                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posidippus_(comic_poet)


                                Again groundless assumptions and misinterpretions. In first place the Macedonian site you are quoting from needs some history classes so that they learn the proper names of historic figures they are referring to. There did never exist any Greek commander called Ambiance. They mean Eumenes of Cardia (a Greek colony in Thrace) since his name is also quoted . The incident they are talking about is when Eumenes met for first time during the succesors wars the so-called “Silver-shields”, Alexander’s elite force and convinced them to join his army. Eumenes was the chief secretary of Philip amd later of Alexander and also a commander in the Macedonian army, “the only Greek who commanded a Macedonian unit”, as Roisman writes:

                                Taking into consideration this, it seems higly improbable he didn’t spoke Macedonian, if we accept for the sake of the argument that Macedonian was a separate language from Greek. So he didn’t need to send Xennias, a Macedonian to address them in Macedonian because he couldn’t communicate with them. Read the following passages of his biography by Plutarch, it is more than obvious he could perfectly communicate with Macedonians:


                                Eumenes sent Xennias to the Silver-shields when he met them for first time not because he couldn’t communicate with Macedonians but just out of diplomacy reasons, because he was one of them, so that he could gain their favour. Something he finally managed:






                                Besides, Macedonians could also communicate in Greek. Look at this passage of Plutarch:

                                Accordingly, he (Antigonus) sent Hieronymus to make a treaty with Eumenes, and proposed an oath for him to take. This oath Eumenes corrected and then submitted it to the Macedonians who were besieging him, requesting them to decide which was the juster form.

                                This oath was of course written in Greek. So how could Macedonians compare the two different forms of the oath and decide which was the juster if they couldn’t read Greek?
                                After all, the phrase of Arrian that describes the incident, “Ξεννίας, ανήρ μακεδονίζων τη φωνή” = Xennias, a man of Macedonian speech, doesn’t make it clear whether Macedonian is considered in that context as a distinct language or as Greek dialect. There are similar expressions in other Greek text too, f.i. in this below from Xenophon, there is mentioned someone who was “βοιωτιάζων τη φωνή”:

                                which English classicists translate it as “spoke in the Boetian dialect”:

                                So if βοιωτιάζων τη φωνή means “in Boetian dialect”, why should not μακεδονίζων τη φωνή mean “in Macedonian dialect” ?

                                Instead, the available evidence suggests that Attic Greek was usually spoken in Alexander’s army. Otherwise Alexander would not order the 30000 Persians he enrolled in his army to learn Greek. It would be meaningless if ordinary Macedonian soldiers could not understand Greek, how would they communicate with their Persian comrades in arms? Apart of the incident of Clitus’ murder when Alexander “shouted in Macedonian” there isn’t any other quote mentioning Alexander or other Macedonians speaking Macedonian.
                                I will return to this in a few days time.

                                Yes. Here you are:
                                No, not quite. I'm not asking for the barbarian phrase. What I am asking for is whether there are any historical documents that state what Demosthenes wrote "not a Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but a barbarian".

                                Do you have any document of an ethnic Greek calling another ethnic Greek "not a Greek, nor related to Greeks, but a barbarian". Not the exact phrase, but the overall meaning.

                                Mind you, I am not asking for a rationalization of Demosthenes' words. I am asking for historic documents of one ethnic Greek calling another ethnic Greek "not a Greek, nor related to Greeks, but a barbarian".

                                Herodotus actually says Thessalians were the first Greeks who surrendered themselves to the Persians:

                                "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 supposed that when they offered him friendship they spoke for the whole of their nation.


                                Because Thessalians 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;"


                                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/...%3Asection%3D2
                                I'm not sure what you just wrote, or how it is applicable to Borza's quote. What Borza is stating is that when Xerxes came to invade "Greece", he rested in Thessaloniki in 481 B.C. Since Thessaloniki is a city of Macedonia, and Macedonia was part of Greece, it would logically follow that Macedonia and the Macedonians would be the first Greeks to submit or surrender to the Persians, not the Thessalians.

                                Herodotus states, however, that it was Thessaly and the Thessalians who were the first Greeks to submit to the Persians, which would mean that Macedonia was not part of Greece, and Macedonians were not Greeks.
                                Last edited by Philosopher; 08-21-2014, 09:03 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X