QuoteReplyTopic: Who are the ancient Macedonians ? Posted: 28-Oct-2007 at 12:44
Originally posted by Yiannis
The only find we have of the language the common people used is the "Pella Katadesmos" a curse that was found in a Macedonian temple and it is in Greek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella_curse_tablet
That was 11 years ago Yianni. By that time it was the only one. Now there are more and amongst them the Derveni papiry which is the oldest papyrus ever found in Europe.
The papyrus is a perfect example since the Macedonian nobleman was schooled probably in Athens or by an Athenian tutor (prob Anexagoras). He tryes to write in Attic but he constrantly falls into Western Greek idioms.
You mention curetes and leleges (aeolians). i looked in wikipedia and found they're closely connected-leleges are of doric stock as are the curetes. i'm still not convinced they shared the common lifestyle with the ''other'' greek, which would mean they were a separate genealogy entity.
I did not mention curetes and leleges...Those were anyway not Dorians. The Dorians didn't share common lifestyle with all Greeks, but with other Dorians and other minor tribes that are clearly attested Hellenes. Now, can you tell me what is not Greek in the Dorians or generally in the western speaking dialect tribes? Their language which is the biggest language group of Greek together with Attic? Their religion, when the oldest pantheon temple was in their land? Their cellebrations? Their architecture? Their speeches? Can you give some examples on the Dorians and their time?
Originally posted by krater
you say they were isolated. why? i mean, there were no natural boundaries: the phenicians sailed the seas but they still knew they were from today's Lebanon, right?
You obviously don't know the geography of the area. You have mount olympus and the pindus chain between north&west and south&east. In modern times, before the modern Egnatia road was built it took 7 hours from Thessaloniki to Ioannina (124 miles). 50 years ago, the trip by train from Athens to Thessaloniki (312 miles) was 19 hours due to the mountainous passages it had to pass, although the biggest part of the trip is plain. Do I need to say more?
Originally posted by krater
they worshiped hercules: i dont know if that means they were greek afterall: i would like to know if the prehistory indoeuropeans had a god figure who'd equall hercules. and some would argue that by means of worshipping hecules they wanted to distinguish themselves from the non-warlike people from the south-the greeks.
Cause they believed they descended from him. I mentioned it just for the record. Compare them to the Romans that adopted the same religion. What is the difference between the Romans and the Macedonians on religion? Can you tell me what you know about the Pantheon that makes you draw conclutions?
Originally posted by krater
as for the theatre, i dont suppose there might have been use of macedonian actors or guesting acting troop?
Why? Do you suggest they were incapable of acting? That is a poor argument. Generally, wherever macedonians appear on panhellenic acts, they appear to speak Doric. Actors that are possing as non Greeks in an act use imaginary funny phrases and speak malformed Greek.
Originally posted by krater
yes but how can we take the olympics into a serious account if there was money ie. bribe involved: to my mind, alexander I was a monarch, determined macedonian (we know his dorian stock) and probably wealther than any of the athenians.
a) Can you prove there was bribing to enter the contest? Besides, Alexander was questioned when arrived. He had to make a public speech. Did he managed to bribe the Hellenodikai while he was making the speech? What was he? A magician?
b) They were not wealther at that time at all. Athens and Corynth was by far the richest. Besides, Athens was not the one to decide for everyone. Remember that the olympics had participants from hundreds of places. Why do you focus on Athens?
Originally posted by krater
as for the art/architecture/sun i'm not sure-americans on capitol hill eg. are using the historicism architechture: are they romans? also the italian military uses rooster's feathers as decoration, although the rooster is ''a trademark'' of the gaules.
Poor argument since you compare a timeframe that is huge. After how many years did the Americans decided to build the those? Are all houses in the US of Greek/Roman architecture? And even the Romans brough Greek architecturers to decorate Rome. Do you have a similar account for Macedonia?
Originally posted by krater
maybe they're were hellenized: that would explain for their choice of Hercules. Shame we don't know how the macedonian masses spoke (we dont know how the norman masses spoke either, for that matter).
a) Noone has so far being able to proove they were Hellenized. Just in theory. Can you proove how they got suddenly Hellenized?
b) How much evidence is needed to justify what the masses spoke? Aren't thousand of inscriptions enough? There were women i Macedonia called Hellas, Hellen etc. Do you know many people calling their children after a foreign countrys name (as you suggest foreign)? Besides, you have the linguist community coining the native language as IEGB two years ago and giving it an ISO. Now, tell me what else do you need?
Originally posted by krater
How come ancient macedonians? well, i'm a topix forum lover and one of the most visited forum is the macedonian, greek name issue. to my mind, a lot of plausible, thoughtprovoking thoughts arise there from the mk side. the greek participants fail to answer some delicate questions that have bearing to the matter in my opinion.
Can you give an example of these questions? Comparing the 2 theories, which one has more evidence? Is it beyond compare or what?
Originally posted by krater
i enjoyed the alexander movie of o stone: as much as i would like that macedonians were greek seeing it it doesn't fit in my picture.
i just want to know the truth on that matter of enourmous historical value.
Even though Oliver stones movie is based on the word of Diodorus and Calisthenes it is still a movie. it would be funny to bring the movie as an issue to historical matters.
You mention curetes and leleges (aeolians). i looked in wikipedia and found they're closely connected-leleges are of doric stock
Leleges are supposivelly pre-Hellenic populations, such as the elusive "Pelasgian. They were not of Doric descent.
Aeolians were not Leleges.
Originally posted by krater
you say they were isolated. why? i mean, there were no natural boundaries
Roads were practically non-existrend, as we know them today, in ancient Greece. Most were merelly paths or dirt roads with limited accesibility and ability to transport large quantities of goods. That is why most of the communication was done by ships and the reason most successful cities possesed harbors. So most agricicultural communities were isolated and the rugged terrain of Greece was a factor.
Originally posted by krater
they worshiped hercules: i dont know if that means they were greek afterall: i would like to know if the prehistory indoeuropeans had a god figure who'd equall hercules. and some would argue that by means of worshipping hecules they wanted to distinguish themselves from the non-warlike people from the south-the greeks.
Hercules was worshiped throughtout Greece, Ionians, Dorians and Aeolians alike. One of the most important celebrations in the Greek world was held in Athens and another in Arcadia
Originally posted by krater
as for the theatre, i dont suppose there might have been use of macedonian actors or guesting acting troop?
Usually the plays and actors came from cities like Athens or Corinth.
Originally posted by krater
yes but how can we take the olympics into a serious account if there was money ie. bribe involved: to my mind, alexander I was a monarch, determined macedonian (we know his dorian stock) and probably wealther than any of the athenians.
You can never really be sure of anything, but we also have no accounts for the contrary. You are entering conspiracy theory arguments.
Originally posted by krater
Shame we don't know how the macedonian masses spoke (we dont know how the norman masses spoke either, for that matter).
We have records that suggest that Macedonian was a Dorian dialect. SOme loan words from Thracian and Frygian exist only to prove the above fact. All official epigraphy is in Greek. The only find we have of the language the common people used is the "Pella Katadesmos" a curse that was found in a Macedonian temple and it is in Greek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella_curse_tablet
Edited by Yiannis - 28-Oct-2007 at 12:07
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
to my mind, alexander I was a monarch, determined macedonian (we know his dorian stock) and probably wealther than any of the athenians.
You pose so many questions, it's hard to focus. On the wealth issue, I have to say that Athenian economic power was unprecedented in the Greek world and it stemmed from shipping and commerce as well as contributions from allies. Alexander I was a poor relative in comparison.
Athens, in 431 had a surplus of 6,000 talents in their coffers. That was enough to finance the building of 6,000 triremes! In comparison that would means that a modern day American city of 300,000 citizens had a reserve of 3,000,000,000 USD in cash!
Try some books that will shed light on your questions on ancient Macedonians. Hammond, Droysen, Fuller come to mind and there're more.
yes, thank you, very plausible: anyhow the bribe is a hear-say issue to it attached is politics etc. so it wasn't necessarily bribe involved.
how sure can we be of the judges independence at the time?
please, let's discuss it here, it's sunday. afterall we have this forum don't we? bur if you haven't got the time, it's ok then...
please some of answers to the rest of the questions, should you be able to answer...
to my mind, alexander I was a monarch, determined macedonian (we know his dorian stock) and probably wealther than any of the athenians.
You pose so many questions, it's hard to focus. On the wealth issue, I have to say that Athenian economic power was unprecedented in the Greek world and it stemmed from shipping and commerce as well as contributions from allies. Alexander I was a poor relative in comparison.
Athens, in 431 had a surplus of 6,000 talents in their coffers. That was enough to finance the building of 6,000 triremes! In comparison that would means that a modern day American city of 300,000 citizens had a reserve of 3,000,000,000 USD in cash!
Try some books that will shed light on your questions on ancient Macedonians. Hammond, Droysen, Fuller come to mind and there're more.
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
i dont know, people...you put the greeks, the spartans and the macedonians under one denominator: hellenes.
i couldn't really say if that'd be really justified: i mean the dorian warlike lifestyle common to both macedonians and spartans...
doesnt that cause you ask further questions?
To add something to Penelopes answer to you. The Aetolians were by far the most hated Greek nation. If the Philippic would tell something about the Macedonians, what the whole of Greece tells us about the Aetolians is that they were not just barbarians, but unhumans, or better said animals.
On this thread you will also see a post i've made about the speech of Brasidas of Sparta who uses exactly the same rhetoric like Demosthenes when he tryes to get allies against Athens.
The questions about common cultural characteristics between Macedonians and Spartan...Those have been answered as well here. There's nothing strange about the connection with the spartans. The Dorians founded Sparta. Many tribes of Peloponesus came from the north.
As for what you mentioned about grouping these people as Hellenes. I will give you a simple answer...There have been two groups of scholars in this issue. 1) A vast number recognising the Macedonians, as a separate Hellenic group, close to the Western Greeks, that was isolated and formed a culture of their own, 2) Some historians being skeptical if the Macedonians were Greeks, Thracians, Phrygians or a mix of all these, that was later Hellenized BUT who recognise (Like Borza) that the Royal House is of Greek descend.
If we take the second group of scholar, NONE have been able to prove there ever was a Hellenization. Simply because:
1) From the 13th century where the first Macedonian settlements appear, we have a culture close to the mycenaean. (Analyzed briefly in this thread)
2) After the Hellenes passed from Linear B to the current alphabet, the Macedonians almost adapted it immediately. The Greek alphabet has been in use with a small delay in Macedonia. The earliest fragments of Macedonian writting is on personal belongings where people have written their name on. The oldest papyrus in Europe comes from Macedonia and is a mix of the native dialect and attic. The Attic elements at that early stage befor coine have been attributed to the fact that the man who wrote it was possibly schooled by Anaxagoras and therefore used a lot of attic in his writtings. (Analyzed briefly in this thread)
3) The religion has been common for them at a very early stage. The only difference is for example that they worshipped Hercules from whom they believed they descended from. Similar behaviour is seen though in Samothraki. (Analyzed briefly in this thread)
4) At the classical age theaters were spotted only in Greece. Much later you will find them in Rome and Thrace. While neighbouring Thrace has no theaters except from the Greek colonies, Macedonia has four of them. The famous work of Euripides "Bacchae" was written and performed in Macedonia. The work is written in Greek which means the audience could attend Greek performances and didn't need a special adjustments. (Analyzed briefly in this thread)
5) As Sharrukin commented Alexander I had to proove his herritage to enter the Olympics. However, he was able to participate and so did other Macedonians as well, since the Hellinodikai (Greekness judges) allowed it. The existance of Hellinodikai was to verify if someone was Greek or not. Since they existed at the time of Alexander I, it means many other Greeks passed through their judgement, eather because they were accused because of jealussy or came from areas that were not very well known to some of the competitors that objected. A person that wanted to participate in the olympics needed a lot of time and foremost money to achieve something. Any hard competitor like Alexander I was a threat and forced some atheletes to do anything to keep him out of the contest. (Analyzed briefly in this thread)
6) The symbols used from time to time are common with other Greeks. The Vergina star, appears first in the Trojan war, where the western Greek generals have the 16-ray star on the left shoulder and the 8-ray star on the right. See the picture of Achilleus in this thead. Most important though is the existence of the maianders in their art, shields and religious monuments. Except from the great religious value of the symbol to the Greeks, it is believed it is used in battle to distinct an ally from an enemy. In the trojan war various people are reported to be dressed "like Greeks" or in "the Greek fashion". Warlike Greek fashion always include maianders. (Analyzed briefly in this thread)
There are more points but these are enough. In other words, you have no clear sign that there was a Hellenization. Just theories.
Now, please have a closer look on this thead. All details and answers are here.
Now how come, you focus just on this matter from all the subjects presented in All Empires?
You mention curetes and leleges (aeolians). i looked in wikipedia and found they're closely connected-leleges are of doric stock as are the curetes. i'm still not convinced they shared the common lifestyle with the ''other'' greek, which would mean they were a separate genealogy entity.
you say they were isolated. why? i mean, there were no natural boundaries: the phenicians sailed the seas but they still knew they were from today's Lebanon, right?
they worshiped hercules: i dont know if that means they were greek afterall: i would like to know if the prehistory indoeuropeans had a god figure who'd equall hercules. and some would argue that by means of worshipping hecules they wanted to distinguish themselves from the non-warlike people from the south-the greeks.
as for the theatre, i dont suppose there might have been use of macedonian actors or guesting acting troop?
yes but how can we take the olympics into a serious account if there was money ie. bribe involved: to my mind, alexander I was a monarch, determined macedonian (we know his dorian stock) and probably wealther than any of the athenians.
as for the art/architecture/sun i'm not sure-americans on capitol hill eg. are using the historicism architechture: are they romans? also the italian military uses rooster's feathers as decoration, although the rooster is ''a trademark'' of the gaules.
maybe they're were hellenized: that would explain for their choice of Hercules. Shame we don't know how the macedonian masses spoke (we dont know how the norman masses spoke either, for that matter).
How come ancient macedonians? well, i'm a topix forum lover and one of the most visited forum is the macedonian, greek name issue. to my mind, a lot of plausible, thoughtprovoking thoughts arise there from the mk side. the greek participants fail to answer some delicate questions that have bearing to the matter in my opinion. i enjoyed the alexander movie of o stone: as much as i would like that macedonians were greek seeing it it doesn't fit in my picture.
i just want to know the truth on that matter of enourmous historical value.
i dont know, people...you put the greeks, the spartans and the macedonians under one denominator: hellenes.
i couldn't really say if that'd be really justified: i mean the dorian warlike lifestyle common to both macedonians and spartans...
doesnt that cause you ask further questions?
To add something to Penelopes answer to you. The Aetolians were by far the most hated Greek nation. If the Philippic would tell something about the Macedonians, what the whole of Greece tells us about the Aetolians is that they were not just barbarians, but unhumans, or better said animals.
On this thread you will also see a post i've made about the speech of Brasidas of Sparta who uses exactly the same rhetoric like Demosthenes when he tryes to get allies against Athens.
The questions about common cultural characteristics between Macedonians and Spartan...Those have been answered as well here. There's nothing strange about the connection with the spartans. The Dorians founded Sparta. Many tribes of Peloponesus came from the north.
As for what you mentioned about grouping these people as Hellenes. I will give you a simple answer...There have been two groups of scholars in this issue. 1) A vast number recognising the Macedonians, as a separate Hellenic group, close to the Western Greeks, that was isolated and formed a culture of their own, 2) Some historians being skeptical if the Macedonians were Greeks, Thracians, Phrygians or a mix of all these, that was later Hellenized BUT who recognise (Like Borza) that the Royal House is of Greek descend.
If we take the second group of scholar, NONE have been able to prove there ever was a Hellenization. Simply because:
1) From the 13th century where the first Macedonian settlements appear, we have a culture close to the mycenaean. (Analyzed briefly in this thread)
2) After the Hellenes passed from Linear B to the current alphabet, the Macedonians almost adapted it immediately. The Greek alphabet has been in use with a small delay in Macedonia. The earliest fragments of Macedonian writting is on personal belongings where people have written their name on. The oldest papyrus in Europe comes from Macedonia and is a mix of the native dialect and attic. The Attic elements at that early stage befor coine have been attributed to the fact that the man who wrote it was possibly schooled by Anaxagoras and therefore used a lot of attic in his writtings. (Analyzed briefly in this thread)
3) The religion has been common for them at a very early stage. The only difference is for example that they worshipped Hercules from whom they believed they descended from. Similar behaviour is seen though in Samothraki. (Analyzed briefly in this thread)
4) At the classical age theaters were spotted only in Greece. Much later you will find them in Rome and Thrace. While neighbouring Thrace has no theaters except from the Greek colonies, Macedonia has four of them. The famous work of Euripides "Bacchae" was written and performed in Macedonia. The work is written in Greek which means the audience could attend Greek performances and didn't need a special adjustments. (Analyzed briefly in this thread)
5) As Sharrukin commented Alexander I had to proove his herritage to enter the Olympics. However, he was able to participate and so did other Macedonians as well, since the Hellinodikai (Greekness judges) allowed it. The existance of Hellinodikai was to verify if someone was Greek or not. Since they existed at the time of Alexander I, it means many other Greeks passed through their judgement, eather because they were accused because of jealussy or came from areas that were not very well known to some of the competitors that objected. A person that wanted to participate in the olympics needed a lot of time and foremost money to achieve something. Any hard competitor like Alexander I was a threat and forced some atheletes to do anything to keep him out of the contest. (Analyzed briefly in this thread)
6) The symbols used from time to time are common with other Greeks. The Vergina star, appears first in the Trojan war, where the western Greek generals have the 16-ray star on the left shoulder and the 8-ray star on the right. See the picture of Achilleus in this thead. Most important though is the existence of the maianders in their art, shields and religious monuments. Except from the great religious value of the symbol to the Greeks, it is believed it is used in battle to distinct an ally from an enemy. In the trojan war various people are reported to be dressed "like Greeks" or in "the Greek fashion". Warlike Greek fashion always include maianders. (Analyzed briefly in this thread)
There are more points but these are enough. In other words, you have no clear sign that there was a Hellenization. Just theories.
Now, please have a closer look on this thead. All details and answers are here.
Now how come, you focus just on this matter from all the subjects presented in All Empires?
What was it about autocracy that the Athenians didn't like? Was it just that they didn't fancy the idea of sole (or in the Spartans case, dual) rule, being the "democratic" state they were? Plus, the five ephors could overrule the King/s as a whole couldn't they?
i think athenians didnt like autocracy because it reminded them of sparta. the spartans, to my mind, were a different kind of people than the athenians. moreover i think it MUST HAVE BEEN BASED on negative experiences of the athenians with the spartans long time before written history
spartans must have been some kind of a nail that penetrated through the hellenic area of greece.
this ''barbarian'' term...must it have the same meaning when applied to dorians and (the rest of) hellenes?
i mean today's term ''yankees'': originally it was meant to describe the non-confederates, whereas today it's globally being used to denote the american people, am i right?
What was it about autocracy that the Athenians didn't like? Was it just that they didn't fancy the idea of sole (or in the Spartans case, dual) rule, being the "democratic" state they were? Plus, the five ephors could overrule the King/s as a whole couldn't they?
The same is the case for the Athenians, but the other way around. Athenian mindset saw Spartans as inferior, ill-educated machos - including the women! This state of mind is reflected in Aristophanes' play Lysistrata - the Spartan woman is portrayed with a "pirate"-like voice, who can't talk properly.etc. Quite a humourous play actually. I think the rivalry between a lot of the Greek City States meant they told themselves though all Greeks, that they in particular were superior. This same feeling of "barbarism" extended to foreign policy as well.
True indeed, and very well put, the Athenians also thought it barbaric for a nation to be ruled by Kings. Greeks were continuously calling other Greeks "barbarians". So it shouldnt really come as a surprise that the inhabitants of Macedon were labelled as such.
The same is the case for the Athenians, but the other way around. Athenian mindset saw Spartans as inferior, ill-educated machos - including the women! This state of mind is reflected in Aristophanes' play Lysistrata - the Spartan woman is portrayed with a "pirate"-like voice, who can't talk properly.etc. Quite a humourous play actually. I think the rivalry between a lot of the Greek City States meant they told themselves though all Greeks, that they in particular were superior. This same feeling of "barbarism" extended to foreign policy as well.
you say it was popular that macedonians were considered barbarian. are there some other examples where the same people is being considered as barbaric by its compatriots?
[/QUOTE]
A very good example would be the Spartans, who in fact, considered the whole of Greece, with the exception of themselves, as "barbaric".
Sharrukin I start this topic about the origin of the ancient Macedonian history but if you want to post it in other thread I dont have any problem. The name of the thread is a copy-paste-edit idea from the the known book of Poulton.
We have to divide the seeking of the origin of Macedonians in two parts in my opinion.
The first one is when showed up the Macedonian name and the Greek suffix Mak=length in the linguistics and generally in the written history .And the second one those that is under the spectra of the archaeological findings.The latter can also divide in two more topics. The pre or pre-history and the post Argead apeerance
Unfortunately, prehistory gives us no evidence which can be considered as concerning the Macedonian people. We have to descend relatively low on the ladder of history, to the 5th century B.C., to hear the first mention of the name "Macedonian" from the father of history, Herodotus , who, indeed, identifies it with the Doric tribe. He saysfor "TheDoric tribe"..
For in the days of king Deucalion1 it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian.
The same historian mentions that the Spartans, the Corinthians, the Sicyonians, the Epidaurians and the Troezenians, all from the Peloponnese, took part in the naval battle of Salamis.
The following took part in the war: from the Peloponnese, the Lacedaemonians provided sixteen ships; the Corinthians the same number as at Artemisium; the Sicyonians furnished fifteen ships, the Epidaurians ten, the Troezenians five, the Hermioneans three. All of these except the Hermioneans are Dorian and Macedonian and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region. The Hermioneans are Dryopians, driven out of the country now called Doris by Herakles and the Malians.
Thus, according to Herodotus, the Macedonians were Dorians, and the Dorians were a Macedonian tribe. He adds that the Macedonians considered themselves to be Greeks and he too is sure of their Greek nationality. The other Greeks thought the same, as is evident from the decision which was taken by the judges at the Olympic Games to allow Alexander the First to compete there.There are the known quotes such as
Inform yoor King that a Greek,The king of the Macedonians,received you with frienship
Athenians....I would not speak, were I not very worried for all Hellas.For I myself am Hellene by race from the begginning and I should not like to see a free Hellas become a slave
From these passages, where the Macedonians are discussed for the first time, it seems completely clear that the Greeks of the 5th century B.C. considered the Macedonians to be a part of the Doric tribe of Greeks, which had formerly lived around Pindus, and which had spread from there into other regions, not only eastwards into modern Macedonia driving out other Greek or foreign tribes in the way which the same historian describes elsewherebut southwards as well, as far as the Peloponnese.
However, historians and linguists have not wished to content themselves with Herodotus testimony, however much it might be a reflection of his Greek contemporaries' opinion about Macedonian nationality and not an invention of his own. The Macedonian kings may have been Greeks, it was thought, but the people might not have been Greek speakers from the beginning; perhaps they had been Hellenized by their rulers later on. I think Sharrukin you are the one that agree with that option of the origin of the ancient Macedonians.
These doubts can be repudiated by the following remarks:
1) It is difficult to believe that, at that time, a Greek royal household was in a position to conquer and rule over an alien people which spoke a different language, while surrounded by a local military aristocracy-also speaking a different language-which never desired to remove the foreign ruler, It is not only nalve to accept such an idea, it would also compel us to accept a fact for which one could not easily supply an analogy from some other country.
2) Even if we do accept this rather improbable fact, what should have happened as a natural consequence would have been the linguistic assimilation of the Greek royal household by its subjects, and never the reverse. What always happens in the history of the nations is the linguistic absorption of the foreign rulers by the local people.Even when the rulers comprise an entire nation , it is sufficient for them to be less in number.
3) Even if the Macedonian kings did impose Greek on their subjects as a foreign language, it would have been impossible for the people to learn it so quickly, and not to preserve ,their own language side by side with it, which, as we know today, always happens in such cases, and impossible also for such a thing to escape the attention of Titus Livy, the Roman historian, who mentions that in the 3rd century B.C. the Macedonians spoke the same language as the (Greek) Aetolians and Acarnanians
These observations very much discredit any suspicion that the Greek kings of Macedonia could have made Greek speakers of a foreign people at such an early period, when there existed neither schools, nor printing, nor church. What would be able to dispose conclusively of this idea would be nothing other than a text written in the ancient Macedonian dialect-i.e. the dialect which the Macedonians spoke before they supposedly became Greek speakers, but unfortunately this does not exist.
All the ancient inscriptions from the depths of the Macedonian earth which have come to light under the archaeologists trowel belong to the era when the Macedonian kings had already made Attic the official dialect of their nation. To date, it has not been possible to find anywhere an inscription, even of one single phrase, written before the 5th century B.C.; that is to say, before the time when the Macedonians supposedly became speakers of Greek.
How are we to explain this?
It is entirely improbable that the Macedonians did not write in the 6th century B.C., since the Greek script was by then already known to peoples further to the north of them. it her, therefore, the old Macedonian inscriptions were all carved onto some perishable material and have disappeared without trace in the passage of time; or we must keep hoping that somewhere, they too await the archaeological pickaxe or the farmer's plough to drag them into the light of day.
herodotus says: The macedonians say they're greek, SO THAT HE COULD BE ABLE TO SAY THEY'RE GREEK, thus not expressing his macedonians-are-greek implicity on the matter, though.
Sorry for the delay in response, but, I was on vacation, and it took me a while to discover this thread. I thought that it would be placed in the European/Mediterranean subforum, not here.
Before I began, I issue a warning to Istor and Patrinos, to write in English, otherwise face disciplinery action.
Now to begin:
Unfortunately, prehistory gives us no evidence which can be considered as concerning the Macedonian people. We have to descend relatively low on the ladder of history, to the 5th century B.C., to hear the first mention of the name "Macedonian" from the father of history, Herodotus....
Actually we can begin even earlier than Herodotus, but I'll just address the information you've presented for now.
Herodotus , who, indeed, identifies it with the Doric tribe. He saysfor "TheDoric tribe"..
For in the days of king Deucalion1 it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian.
The same historian mentions that the Spartans, the Corinthians, the Sicyonians, the Epidaurians and the Troezenians, all from the Peloponnese, took part in the naval battle of Salamis.
The following took part in the war: from the Peloponnese, the Lacedaemonians provided sixteen ships; the Corinthians the same number as at Artemisium; the Sicyonians furnished fifteen ships, the Epidaurians ten, the Troezenians five, the Hermioneans three. All of these except the Hermioneans are Dorian and Macedonian and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region. The Hermioneans are Dryopians, driven out of the country now called Doris by Herakles and the Malians.
Agreed, the texts are talking about the Dorian tribe. However, it must be pointed out that the term used in this translation for "Macedonian" is the term Makednon, which in English would probably be translated as "Makednian". This term is only used in reference to the Dorians, in the two passages you cited, and not anywhere else. It is never used for "Macedonian" in reference to the true Macedonians. All other references to Macedonians uses the root form "Makedo-", hence these are mutually exclusive terms. Dorians were Makednian, not Macedonian.
He adds that the Macedonians considered themselves to be Greeks and he too is sure of their Greek nationality. The other Greeks thought the same, as is evident from the decision which was taken by the judges at the Olympic Games to allow Alexander the First to compete there.There are the known quotes such as
Inform yoor King that a Greek,The king of the Macedonians,received you with frienship
But, he says nothing of the sort. He only claims that the Macedonian king was Greek. He says nothing about the Macedonian people.
There are several things that need to be pointed out regarding the "Olympic episode"
1. Despite his Greek name, Alexander was written off as a "barbarian" by the Greek athletes, the cream of the crop of Greek society.
a. Hence, it was a popular view that the Macedonians were considered barbarians.
b. it was not enough to have a Greek name. They were not impressed that this Macedonian had a Greek name. In their point of view barbarians can bare Greek names.
2. Alexander "proved" that he was a Greek by showing that he was descended from a recognized Greek family.
a. Alexander had to prove he was a Greek.
b. He could not use his Macedonian identity to demonstrate his Greekness.
c. He could only prove his Greekness by claiming his origin from a Greek land (i.e. Argos) and family (Temenid).
Now some comments on Herodotus, himself. When one reads his text, one wonders why Herodotus takes great pains to "prove" that Alexander was a Greek. He does not use the same language in regards to Greek peoples and individuals. In other words he does not go out to "prove" that those peoples and individuals already recognized as "Greek" were Greek. Herodotus, therefore writes to "prove" that Alexander was a Greek, because he knew that his Greek readers would be skeptical of the Macedonian king's claim. From their perspective, Alexander was a barbarian because he ruled a barbarian land.
These doubts can be repudiated by the following remarks:
1) It is difficult to believe that, at that time, a Greek royal household was in a position to conquer and rule over an alien people which spoke a different language, while surrounded by a local military aristocracy-also speaking a different language-which never desired to remove the foreign ruler, It is not only nalve to accept such an idea, it would also compel us to accept a fact for which one could not easily supply an analogy from some other country.
One that comes immediately to mind, is the Russian foundation of their first early state. The Slavic tribes became weary of war among themselves so they invited the Varangians (Swedes) to be their rulers. We note that the earliest Russian rulers bore Scandinavian names. We also note that a "conquest" was not involved.
2) Even if we do accept this rather improbable fact, what should have happened as a natural consequence would have been the linguistic assimilation of the Greek royal household by its subjects, and never the reverse. What always happens in the history of the nations is the linguistic absorption of the foreign rulers by the local people.Even when the rulers comprise an entire nation , it is sufficient for them to be less in number.
But that's just it. These "foreign rulers" were not alone. We know that there were Greek colonies on the coast of Macedonia such as Pydna and Methone as well as other "Greeks inhabiting the country" (Thucydides 4.124.1). It is therefore not necessary even to put the Macedonians into the equation. There was already a Greek presence in Macedonia since the 8th century BC.
From the study of the Indo-European languages point-of-view, the idea of a foreign language being introduced into a host region and supplanting the native language is not unusual. There are documented cases of this having various different reasons for this, including economic and social factors (not necessarily war), but, this opens a new can of worms, so I'll just point to the example of the southeast coast of Africa. Of the many languages spoken in the region, one, Swahili, became the dominant language, because of economic and social factors.
3) Even if the Macedonian kings did impose Greek on their subjects as a foreign language, it would have been impossible for the people to learn it so quickly, and not to preserve ,their own language side by side with it, which, as we know today, always happens in such cases, and impossible also for such a thing to escape the attention of Titus Livy, the Roman historian, who mentions that in the 3rd century B.C. the Macedonians spoke the same language as the (Greek) Aetolians and Acarnanians
Livy was quoting a Greek embassador in the year 217 BC (late enough for the Greek language to have become the dominant language). Remember, there was a Greek presence since at least 734 BC (date of the foundation of Methone). The Macedonians had 500 years to have adopted Greek. This is long enough, don't you think?
Sorry for the formatting confusion. I tried just about everything I know to correct this but sadly, I failed.
you say it was popular that macedonians were considered barbarian. are there some other examples where the same people is being considered as barbaric by its compatriots?
I've also read time and again oponents of Macedonians being part of the Greek ethnos using ancient quotes that distinguish Macedonians from Hellenes. The vast majority of references could be explained as political alliance or rhetoric by the author, depending on each example. On that basis, then the following "nations" or "tribes" should be excluded from being considered Hellenes;
"When the estrangement which had arisen between the Athenians and the Hellenes became noised abroad, there came to Athens ambassadors from the Persians and from the Hellenes. [Diodoros of Sicily 11.28.1]
"...the Hellenes gathered in congress decreed to make common cause with the Athenians and advanced to Plataia in a body..." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.29.1]
"He soothed the Athenians' pride by promising them... that the Hellenes would accept their leadership..." [Plutarch, Themistokles 7]
"...the Athenians, because of their policy of occupying with colonists the lands of those whom they subdued, had a bad reputation with the Hellenes;..." [Diodoros of Sicily 15.23.4]
"And we decided upon a twofold revolt, from the Hellenes and the Athenians, not to aid the latter in harming the former... " [Thukydides, 3.13; Oration of the Mytilenaians]
"When the Athenians attacked the Hellenes, they, the Plataians... Atticized. [Thukydides, 3.62; Theban Accusations]
"The Athenians... by this denerous act they recovered the goodwill of the Hellenes and made their own leadership more secure." [Diodoros of Sicily 15.29.8]
"And this was the first naval victory that the city [Athens] had against the Hellenes, after the destruction." [Plutarch, Phokion 6]
Spartans/Lakedaimonians:
"...the Lakedaimonians, fearful lest Themistokles should devise some great evil against them and the Hellenes, honoured him with double the numbers of gifts..." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.27.3]
"In this year [475 BCE] the Lakedaimonians... were resentful; consequently they were incensed at the Hellenes who had fallen away from them and continued to threaten them with the appropriate punishment." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.50.1]
"In a single battle the Peloponnesians and their allies may be able to defy all the Hellenes, but they can not carry a whole war..." [Thukydides 1.141; Oration of Pericles]
"When the Eleians not only paid no heed to them [the Lakedaimonians] but even accused them besides of enslaving the Hellenes, they dispatched Pausanias, the other of the two kings, against them with 4,000 soldiers." [Diodoros of Sicily 14.17.6]
"But Pausanias, the king of the Lakedaimonians, being jealous of Lysandros and observing that Sparta was in ill repute among the Hellenes, marched forth with a strong army and on his arrival in Athens brought about a reconciliation between the men of the city and the exiles. [Diodoros of Sicily 14.33.6]
"He says... the Lakedaimonians... gave to the Hellenes to taste the sweet drink of freedom..." [Plutarch, Lysandros 13]
"Agesilaos was accused... that he exposed the city [Sparta] as an accomplice in the crimes against the Hellenes." [Plutarch, Agesilaos 26]
"...the Lakedaimonians, who were hard put to it by the double war, that against the Hellenes and that against the Persians, dispatched their admiral Antalkidas to Artaxerxes to treat for peace." [Diodoros of Sicily 14.110.2]
"The Lakedaimonians... used their allies roughly and harshly, stirring up, besides, unjust and insolent wars against the Hellenes,..." [Diodoros of Sicily 15.1.3]
"At this time the kings of the Lakedaimonians were at variance with each other on matters of policy. Agesipolis, who was a peaceful and just man and, furthermore, excelled in wisdom, declared that they should abide by their oaths and not enslave the Hellenes contrary to the common agreements." [Diodoros of Sicily 15.16.4]
"Thus, the Hellenes were wondering what the state of the Lakedaimonian army would be had it been commanded by Agesilaos or... the old Leonidas." [Plutarch, Agis 14]
"Even though the Lakedaimonians had combated the Hellenes many times only one of their kings had ever died in action..." [Plutarch, Agis 21]
Greeks of Asia Minor, the Aegean islands, Krete, Cyprus, Central Greece, the Ionian Sea and the West:
"The Athenians... reasoned that, if the Ionians were given new homes by the Hellenes acting in common they would no longer look upon Athens as their mother-city." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.37.3]
"...and as for the Hellenes, they were emboldened by the promise of the Ionians, and... came down eagerly in a body from Salamis to the shore in preparation for the sea- battle." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.17.4]
"Now the Samians and Milesians had decided unanimously beforehand to support the Hellenes..." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.36.2]
"...although the Ionians thought that the Hellenes would be encouraged, the result was the very opposite." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.36.2]
"When the Samians and Milesians put in their appearance, the Hellenes plucked up courage,... and Aiolians participated in the battle,..." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.36.4-5]
"When the Aiolians and Ionians had heard these promises, they resolved to take the advice of the Hellenes..." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.37.2]
"The Kretans, when the Hellenes sent to ask aid from them... acted as follows..." [Herodotos 7.169]
"The King [of Persia], now that his difference with the Hellenes was settled, made ready his armament for the war against Cyprus. For Evagoras had got possession of almost the whole of Cyprus and gathered strong armaments, because [king] Artaxerxes was distracted by the war against the Hellenes." [Diodoros of Sicily 14.110.5]
"The Lokrians... when they learned that Leonidas had arrived at Thermopylai, changed their minds and went over to the Hellenes." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.4.6]
"Now the Phokians had chosen the cause of the Hellenes, but seeing that they were unable to offer resistance... fled for safety to the rugged regions about Mount Parnassos." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.14.1]
"The Thebans, anticipating the arrival of a large army from Hellas to aid the Lakedaimonians [controlling the citadel of Thebes, the Kadmeia], dispatched envoys to Athens to remind them... and to request them to come with all their forces and assist them in reducing the Kadmeia before the arrival of the Lakedaimonians." [Diodoros of Sicily 15.25.4]
"All the Hellenes gladly received the proposal [of Artaxerxes, the Persian King], and all the cities agreed to a general peace except Thebes; for the Thebans alone, being engaged in bringing Boiotia under a single confederacy, were not admitted by the Hellenes because of the general determination to have the oaths and treaties made city by city." [Diodoros of Sicily 15.50.4]
"Since the Lakedaimonians made peace with all the Hellenes, they were in war only with the Thebans..." [Plutarch, Pelopidas 20]
"... the recorders of the Amphictyons [the hieromnemones] brought charges against the Phokians and... if they did not obey, they should incur the common hatred of the Hellenes." [Diodoros of Sicily 16.23.3]
"And Gelon replied with vehemence: `Hellenes,... you exhort me to join in league with you against the barbarian...' [Herodotos, 7.157]
"Gelon [the ruler of the Greek city of Syrakousai]... was making ready... to join the Hellenes in the war against the Persians." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.26.4]
"This is how they (the Kerkyraians) eluded the reproaches of the Hellenes. [Herodotos, 7.168]
but weren't the greeks in sicily THE hellenes living in a foreign land?
for that time the name "Barbars" was given the tribes that had not greek culture. That is completely true becouse in olimpic games were allowed to participate only the tribes with greek culture and not the others one
could a religious festival serve as a nation's determinator? moreover cause we know that the ancient macedonians sometimes participated at the olympics, and sometimes they didn't...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Who are the ancient Macedonians ?
.
