Who are the ancient Macedonians ?

I was hoping to avoid responding until after I've responded to all posts, but far be it for me to oppose a fellow moderator.  :)

I dont think so. The second reference is clear that " those who had the dominant role in 'controlling" the boundaries of Greekness, such as, in the fifth century, the Hellanodikai who controlled participation in the Olympic games"   This leads to believe, in the case of Alexander, Hellanodikai didnt doubt his "greekness", otherwise they would first questioned it themselves and not after accusations of athletes. Its irrational to believe that Hellanodikai act to enforce olympic rules after and whether there were protests from athletes.   Your argument "The implication is that they did not get involved in such a judgement initially because it was assumed that the state these free citizen athletes came from already vouched for their Greekness" doesnt stand. Nothing is being assumed and they just simply let it go until someone points it out, in the strict ruling system of ancient olympics.

I think we should judge the incident as a whole.
And first of all search for Alexander I.
Who where Macedons before him ?
A tribe,which crossed the mountains to Low Macedonia in about 650 BC.(some 130 years after the 1st Olympics (acc.to the tradition),when almost all other Greeks were settled to their "homelands" for some centuries.

They lived there for over 150 years (650-490 (alexander's reign)-in a small tribal kingdom,including only Emathia,Bottiaia and Pieria-approximattely some 1/4 of ancient historical Macedonia!
During Alexander I time the small state became a real kingdom,expanding to what is today known as ancient Macedonia (modern Greek part as well as Bitola district in Rep.of Macedonia).
Alexander's next step then was to incorporate his state in the Greek world-participating in the Olympic Games was the best way for this.
    

Edited by Brainstorm - 12-Oct-2006 at 12:34

Here's the clarification.  There is nothing to indicate that the Makednians even inhabited Macedonia.  All that is said is that they inhabited the Pindus.  The Pindus do indeed extend into Macedonia, but if we take their route, we find that the region the Dorians inhabited before the Pindus (i.e. the region of Histiaiotis) was a region adjacent to the Pindus in Thessaly.  Anyone who knows geography knows that the Pindus Mts. were the western border of Thessaly.  When they abandoned the Pindus, they made their way into central Greece.  Again, for anyone who knows geography, the southern tip of the Pindus range ends near central Greece, where Doris was

Sorry but you�ve mixed the accounts. The first account in 1.56 makes reference to Dorians and Ionians not Makedonians. Do take a minute to re-read the text.

These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second a Hellenic people. The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the Hellenic has wandered often and far. [3] 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 very reference to Deukalion, indicates that we are talking about population �movements� that took place during or prior to the Mycenean era (depending on source of datation of the deluge). So based on our knowledge (according to Herodotus) of Perdiccas being the first to begin the Macedonian �legacy� we shouldn�t even take this part of the text into account since it obviously pre-dates Perdiccas and the Makedones by several centuries.

The account that is of some value to the discussion is that in 8.137-39.
Taking into consideration this account and adding the �factor� geography which you mentioned. We can safely say that we know the exact location that the three brothers settled in the 8th century.
As Herodotus tells us this was in the town named Lebaea.
"they crossed over into the highlands of Macedonia till they came to the town Lebaea"
 
Today Lebaea is named Apidia, a little village in the prefecture of Voios situated on Mt. Voios at an altitude of some 800m. Vios is the western part of the municipality of Kozani and actually separates the municipalities of Grevena and Kastoria. Which means it is placed in Makedonia.

If we continue with the text we find that they leave Lebaea and move NE, pass the river Aliakmon and then settle in the prefecture of Emathia. The specific position is the most logical conclusion since its above the river and he mentions that above the region "rises the mountain called Bermius", not to mention that we fall directly upon the site of Vergina (Aigai)

We don't know whether it was first a regional term or first an ethnic term.  We only know that ethnic terms tend to become regional terms (and sometimes visa versa).  The question then becomes, why did the Dorians change their name to Makednians when they were in the Pindus Mts.?  I've given a brief answer, that since they inhabited the mountains they were given the name Makednians by virtue of being in the "heights" overlooking the lands such as Thessaly and central Greece.  Hence, they were Makednians, "highlanders". Now, concerning the regional name "Macedonia".  It must pointed out that the region of Macedonia was at first comprehended merely the region of the Macedonian tribes which did not extend to the the Pindus Mts. until a later date.  If we were to take Thucydides description of the regions of the "Macedonians by blood" as well as the domain of the Temenid kings of Aegae, the entirety of Macedonian land fall short of the region of the Pindus, which according to Strabo's geography was inhabited by "Epeirote" tribes.  Macedonia did not extend to the Pindus Mts. until the conquests of Philip of Macedonia.

I find your suggestion on the name plausible, then again, it may very well derive from the region itself, since it is a highly mountainous region. But as I�ve said I disagree on the notion that all Dorians were defined by the term in question and the reference to Pindus, which they did not settle on, well at least not in the first movements into the region.

As for Thucydides, yes it seems that only the region under Perdiccas� control was titled as such but while he does not clarify if the term was originally regional or tribal, the reference to the other �pure blooded� Makedonians by other tribal names, most probably indicates the regional and not tribal origin of the term.

In our zeal to gain an understanding of a certain passage in another language, sometimes we get too specific in our exegetical methods, and fail to get the whole picture, the context if you will.  "te kai" if used by itself can mean a "distinction" as you say, but if used with the rest of the thought, it can have an "inclusive" meaning such as my example of the man.  We can appreciate this phrase's meaning when it is used with the term "ethnos".  Remember, they did not change their name from Makednian to Dorian until they reached the Peloponnese.  Hence they were Makednians when they were in Doris.  Hence when Herodotus was saying that they were of "Dorian and Makednian stock" he was saying that they were Dorians of the Peloponnese and Doris.  Macedonians are nowhere in evidence.

The name change as noted above is wrong since the quote does not mention Makedonians but Dorians and we have no indication that they bore the name prior to their establishment in the region.
As for the language, I do speak it so its not �foreign� to me but since my statement isn�t adequate, I�ll quote perseus.tufts.

II. te . . kai . . , or te kai . . , both . . and . . , where te points forward to kai, and usu. need not be translated, e.g. Atreid�s te anax andr�n kai dios Achilleus Il.1.7 ; ei d� homou polemos te damai kai loimos Achaious ib.61; deilos te kai outidanos kaleoim�n ib. 293; z�on te kai artemea 7.308 , cf. 327,338, al.; t�s te g�s eous�s epit�de�s kai t�n potam�n eont�n sphi summach�n Hdt.4.47 ; bouletai te kai epistatai Th.2.35 ; ho phus te kai trapheis Pl.R.396c ; basin te gar palin t�n aut�n echousi t�n ZB kai . . Euc.1.47 ; sts. the elements joined by te . . kai . . are joined in order to be compared or contrasted rather than simply joined, kakistos nun te kai palai dokei S.Ant. 181 ; mesambri� te esti kai to karta ginetai psuchron Hdt.4.181 ; etuchon te hustatai exanachtheisai kai k�s kateidon Id.7.194 ; epausato te ho anemos kai to kuma estr�to ib.193; tauta . . nun te kai tote Ar.Av. 24 ; ch�ris to t' eipein polla kai ta kairia S.OC808 ; hoson to t' archein kai to douleuein dicha A.Pr.927 ; sts. (like te . . te) even used of alternatives, diandicha merm�rixen, hippous te strepsai kai enantibion machesasthai Il.8.168 ; en dikai te kai para dikan Pi.O.2.16 ; theou te . . thelontos kai m� thelontos A.Th.427 ; peisas te . . kai m� tuch�n Th.3.42 :--on hoi te alloi kai . . , e.g. tois te allois hapasi kai Lakedaimoniois Isoc.12.249 , and all�s te kai . . , v. allos 11.6, all�s 1.3 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?layout.refembed=2&layout.refdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0125&layout.refcit=book%3D8%3Achapter%3D43%3Asection%3D1&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%23102753&layout.reflookup=te&layout.reflang=greek&layout.refwordcount=3&layout.refabo=Perseus%3Aabo%3Atlg%2C0016%2C001

As you can see the use of �te kai� indicates the distinction between the two terms exactly as seen in the Herakles - Malian quote I used as an example.






 
 
 

The material that Hoffman was studying (1906) was either of the same date of, or more commonly later than the Pella curse tablet.   Hence, while we can postulate several generations of the writers of these short Greek inscriptions (no matter what dialect was used) it only indicates a Greek presence other than Ionic.  Again, in the fifth century we document "Greeks inhabiting the land [of Macedonia]" (Thucydides, 4.124.1), without any indication of origin.  If they were "Aeolians" then we have a source of origin from perhaps Thessaly where an Aeolic dialect was spoken.

Possible but problematic since we have no account nor indications of colonization by Thessalians which could explain such an influence.
 

The Olympics was simply the earliest indicator of a Greek self-identity.  The Thessalians were members of other pan-Hellenic religious and military leagues such as in the Lelantine War (c. 700 BC) and the Amphictiony of Anthela which they soon dominated by about 600 BC.

The Lelantine war is far from being able to be described as a pan-Hellenic event, its much closer to a local event with some minor alliances with neighbouring cities. But none of the mainland cities had participated..
Now as for the Amphyctionic League, the problem is that the �members� aren�t defined as city-states, but as tribes. This is clear in Aeschines� �On the False Embassy� 2.116.1 :
�To prove that they were Amphictyonic cities and thus protected by the oaths, I enumerated twelve tribes which shared the shrine: the Thessalians, Boeotians (not the Thebans only), Dorians, Ionians, Perrhaebi, Magnetes, Dolopians, Locrians, Oetaeans, Phthiotians, Malians, and Phocians. And I showed that each of these tribes has an equal vote, the greatest equal to the least: that the delegate from Dorion and Cytinion has equal authority with the Lacedaemonian delegates, for each tribe casts two votes; again, that of the Ionian delegates those from Eretria and Priene have equal authority with those from Athens and the rest in the same way.�
. beside this, there is also the problem in date. The �league� was founded prior to the conquest of Perdiccas

 

Of all the proof texts I've read, the word "dialect" is not even in evidence.   "It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice, with which, like an instrument of many strings, she could pass from one language to another; so that there were few of the barbarian nations that she answered by an interpreter; to most of them she spoke herself, as to the Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes, Parthians, and many others, whose language she had learnt; which was all the more surprising because most of the kings, her predecessors, scarcely gave themselves the trouble to acquire the Egyptian tongue, and several of them quite abandoned the Macedonian." http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/antony.html[/url]   I have another similar quote from a book.  Okay, let's table this quote until we can get a Greek text, for proofreading.  Agreed?

Here�s the text in Hellinic :

[4] κέντρον. ἡδονὴ δὲ καὶ φθεγγομένης ἐπῆν τῷ ἤχῳ· καὶ τὴν γλῶτταν ὥσπερ ὄργανόν τι πολύχορδον εὐπετῶς τρέπουσα καθ' ἣν βούλοιτο διάλεκτον, ὀλίγοις παντάπασι δι' ἑρμηνέως ἐνετύγχανε βαρβάροις, τοῖς δὲ πλείστοις αὐτὴ δι' αὑτῆς ἀπεδίδου τὰς ἀποκρίσεις, οἷον Αἰθίοψι Τρωγλοδύταις Ἑβραίοις Ἄραψι Σύροις Μήδοις Παρθυαίοις. [5] πολλῶν δὲ λέγεται καὶ ἄλλων ἐκμαθεῖν γλώττας, τῶν πρὸ αὐτῆς βασιλέων οὐδὲ τὴν Αἰγυπτίαν ἀνασχομένων παραλαβεῖν διάλεκτον, ἐνίων δὲ καὶ τὸ μακεδονίζειν ἐκλιπόντων. http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/anc_texts/texts_plut.html

 hope this clear it.
 

Hmmmph. :)  On the surface this seems to be a fair question.  You are right, there is no account about any of the specifics you've mentioned.  However, if Alexander followed Olympian rules, you would have known that Olympic athletes had to be training in Olympia for a whole month before the start of the games   http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Olympics/faq6.html   and thus, it was inevitable that his fellow athletes would have had some familiarity with him.  They were social events as well, you know.  When it was time for competition, they would have already known that he was "Macedonian".  He was immediately rejected by his fellow athletes as a "barbarian".

Well this is a recorded fact, but the problem is that the first account comes from Pindaros a contemporary of Alexander I (well he actually outlived him) .
So we can�t say beyond doubt that this rule existed during the event in question, especially since Pausanias describes continuous alterations in the �games�and their �rules�  because they had forgotten the old traditions. (5.8-10)
Then again, even if the rule was applied during the event. Philostratus in his Apollonius Tyaneus 6 tells us that the actual reason for calling them in a whole month prior to the events was to test their abilities, and place them in categories depending on these very abilities. Now, if we add the account of Pausanias (6.13) of them running in 4 series we see that the month required was to judge their physical abilities, since the origin issue must have been clarified since day one.
I�m sure you�ll agree that that examining a runner for a whole month and only during the day of the race look into the origin issue its simply impractical.
 
.

I�ve left out a couple of issues already answered by others for practical reasons..
 

As for "yauna takabara".
1st:The Persian catalogue mentioned by Hammond,refers to European part of the Empire.
(Persians held Macedonia and Thrace in Europe)
2nd:"Yauna" was used by Persians for all Greeks-not just Ionians.

akritas

So as I see you beleive and focus what your dictionary mention as about the meaning of the Hellenodikai. Let me point some thinks.The consequence (indented or not) of both the aggregative enrolment of the ethnic neponyms with the Hellenic genealogy and the policy of the ethnic exclusion practiced by the Hellanodikai was that many groups that we would today consider Greeks(not from you) were regarded as Hellenic by their contempories. The Aitolians were a good point.Dispute the inclusion of the Aitolian Males among Agaristes suitors there are no attested Olympic victors from Aitolia in the Archaic period and the fact that the eponymous Aitolos degree could only be traced back to Aiolos and Hellen matrilineally rather than partilineally exluded the Aitolians from the Hellenism ranks.

True, there were no attested winners coming from Aetolia from either the archaic or classical periods. But, like I�ve said from an earlier post, the Olympic evidence is merely the earliest evidence of an all-inclusive Greek self-identity. As you�ve mentioned, acceptable Greek suitors were sent from Aetolia. Thucydides in the pre-classical history part of his Peloponnesian War, includes Aetolia as part of Greece (1.5.3). Hence, other sources mention the Aetolians as Greek.

Now, as for the "neponyms", I must point out that when Hesiod mentions the family relations of Deucalion, Hellen belonged to one branch and Macedon to another. Hellen was the ancestor to the Dorians, Aeolians, Ionians, and Achaeans. Macedon was not. This is the first mention of Macedon in any record, and not only was Macedon not of the line of Hellen but he was not even of the line of Dorus, either. Macedon was merely cousin to the Greeks. Hence, since the supposed "evidence" of a relationship between Macedonians and Dorians that some try to glean from Herodotus can be easily challenged, this shows that in the Archaic Period, the Greeks did not see any connection between the Macedonians and the Dorians.

It is not accident that Euripedes(Phoinikian minister at the 25th Olympics) adducing Hellenic descent as Jonathan Hall mention in his book(Hellenicity: between Culture and Ethnicity. Why the Hellanodikai increased from two (580 BC) in 9 (480 BC) as Pausanias mention ? This is evidence that in this century the Greeks "discovered" other Greeks.

How about to better manage the games because of the increase of events? How about to better manage the games because of an increase in more colonies? How about to better manage an influx of more athletes per place then there were before?

Originally posted by Sharrukin Strabo is merely theorizing. When he says "I suppose" he is talking as if he didn't really know. His theorizing is based on mere deductive reasoning, not true knowledge. Do you have something different? Any other ancient source that gave the definition of the barbarian? If you have it then I will re-consider my argyment. Otherwise I can�t reject Strabo because is not suit in my hypothesis as you doing very easyli.

Well, let�s see. When we read about "barbarians", the context is unmistakably that of "non-Greeks", like, say 95% of the time. When we first read about "barbarian" in any Greek ancient source, it is already used to mean "non-Greek". Unfortunately they date from the 5^th century BC, and not before, but only because older sources mainly concerned themselves with either religion, local concerns or mythology. We read that it is used in the sense of what you say in the 4^th century BC, hence, that meaning was later in date. Herodotus, himself uses the term exclusively for non-Greeks.

Originally posted by Sharrukin As for the "Caranus tradition" it is of late contrivance. The Macedonians, no longer satisfied with the earlier "Perdiccas tradition" of banished Temenids, now created a "Caranus tradition" regarding a Temenid with a conquering army. Perdiccas is now relegated to 4th ruler, while Caranus is now the founder of Aegae. To make it even nicer, he is the "brother of Pheidon", the great Temenid king of Argos. The Macedonians were great in reinventing their own past. Like I've said, the "Caranus tradition" was a later fabrication. Most modern chronologies of the Macedonian kingdom, that I've seen, begin with Perdiccas, usually dating from the narrow range (c. 650-640 BC). As you may know, the date of Pheidon in classical sources is contradictory with information for dating him to as recently as about 600 BC. However, modern dating puts his reign in the period from about 680 to 655 BC. It is best to repudiate the Caranus chronology and stick with the earliest tradition we have, the Perdiccas tradition and its chronology beginning in the middle of the 7th century. Before this, we already have a Macedonian presence in Pieria in the 8th century BC. Theopompos was working with a reinvented Macedonian tradition, hence it is worthless My example of the Caranus was my proof to show you the connection and the gap of the 100 years as you said. Macedonian history is written from different sources and not only from Herodotos. Theopombos, Hecataios ,Ptolemeos,Aristivoulos and many others spoken for the Argeaves Caranus and Pheidonas. According to Ephoros the Herakleids invaded Peloponnesos 735 years before the beginning of the campaign of Alexander the Great, thus in 1069 BC.

I�ve already dealt with the contradictions among the traditions themselves, hence they are not any proof. In order for there to have been the kind of "connection" you�ve talked about, the historians had to reconcile what "traditions" they received from the Macedonians and place it in the context of Greek history. Since there were points of Greek history that are themselves contradictory chronologically, one or another Greek historian had to subscribe to one of many schemes of Greek chronology to place the Macedonian traditions.

From a realistic archaeological point-of-view, any supposed beginning of the Macedonian monarchy could not have really begun before about 650 BC because the period before that (especially at Vergina) was a period of Illyrian cultural dominance which lasted from about 800 to 650 BC.

All these ancient writers were parts of the Macedonian Royal propaganda? is like to read the Borza. ""The ancient Macedonians might be Dorian but not Greek""

When you have two different traditions from two different times which the Greek authors say came from the Macedonians themselves, it becomes quite clear that it is propaganda. Or should we believe naively that the earlier tradition was a mistake and that the later tradition is the real history?. This is how heresay works. You have an original story which through time gets embellished with exaggeration and or political manipulation. The resulting story looks even more attractive than the original story.

Quellenforchung( seeiking of the source) and Quellenkritik(criticism of the source). The variation in the ancient statements has given the moderns a good chance to place Pheidon-Caranus in whatever historical context they please, proposing ingenious constructions to determine his true date, which has been placed anywhere from the middle of the eighth to the first half of the sixth century BC. Most of them of course they speak for the first of course.

See my remarks above.

As about the Macedonian presence I will back later by archaeological evidence because now we have the literacy debate.

Looks like I�ve already started the archaeological debate.

Originally posted by Sharrukin Yes, the Persian inscriptions designated the Greeks as Yauna which comes from the name of the Ionian Greeks. But that's it. There was no specific term or context in those same inscriptions for Macedonians. Hammond put forward a theory that a group of Greeks whom the Persians knew as the Yauna takabara were the Macedonians, indicating that the Persian word takabara, "shield wearing" indicated the Macedonian almost flat hat called the kausia. However, the Persian source is far from clear as to what the Persians actually meant, because the name Yauna takabara only exists in a list of land-names in the royal Persian inscriptions, without any other information. For all we know, it could have been talking about the Greek petasos, the brimmed hat worn by Greeks. We know that it was worn by Greek travellors who undoubtedly visited the Persian court with it. Hermes "the messenger" wore the petasos. We must therefore be much more cautious as to how we conclude that the Persians meant "such-and-such" with the briefest of information. Is not only Hammond conclusion.Many writers mention that. The Apadana Foundation inscription , the later texts (DNa, XPh), seem to represent a coherent sequence: Ionians of the Asiatic mainland, followed by coastal Ionians,Yauna Takabara, , in other words, east Greeks, Hellespontine Greeks, north Aegean Greeks, and Skudra as Thracians.

The only text that even mentions Yauna Takabara is Darius�s Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription (DNa), dated to about 486 BC. Okay, there seems to be a coherent sequence: Armenia, Cappadocia, Sardes, Ionia, Scythia, Skudra, and Yauna Takabara. Here�s the problem: We do not know the extent of either Skudra or Yauna Takabara. It�s a given that Skudra probably included Thrace, since the Apadana has a picture of a Skudran which resembles pictures of Thracians by Greek artists. However, we know from descriptions of other Persian provinces, that they were by nature, quite multi-national. The Persian province of Babylonia included not just Babylonians, but Syrians, Phoenicians, Jews, and Philistines, etc. The Persian province of Ionia didn�t just include Ionians (and other Greeks) but also included Carians and Lycians. Skudra was probably multinational.

From Greek sources we note that Macedonia had Thracians of its own (Mygdonians, Edonians, Crestonians, Bisaltians, etc.). We note that mythology which places certain mythological figures such as Dionysus and Orpheus, place them in "Thrace" (the region of Olympus and Pieria - Macedonia). The Greek city of Methone was said to have been founded in "Thrace," and the Athenian tributary known as the "Thraceward" cleruchy included coastal Macedonia. Macedonia could have been part of Skudra.

Finally there is the controversy of the name "Skudra" itself. Most Persian province names reflect the name of the most common ethnic group within that province or a land/people description in the Persian language. For the latter, there is no Persian translation, and for the former, there is no equivalent people/land name in Greek sources, except for one place-name - Skydra, located in Macedonia itself, only about 20 miles to the northwest of Aegae. We note that according to Herodotus two seats of Persian government are mentioned, at Doriscus and Eion. According to (7.25.1-2) Persian military provisions were stored at Eion and Doriscus as well as Macedonia. Since we know that governors were based at Eion (7.107.1; 7.113.1; 7.118.1) and Doriscus (7.59.1; 7.105.1; 7.106.2), we can deduce that another was placed in Macedonia at the place mentioned.

Yauna takabara, in this revised scheme may very well be the mainland Greeks themselves. We note that most of the Greeks gave up the "tokens of submission" to Darius (6.48-49).

If, according your evidence, the identification of the Yauna Takabara with the Macedonians is not so clear-cut, than.

Actually we have and the Indian Yavana as called from them the Macedonians. The earliest Indian form known is Yavana, attested in P~an??in�i. It was suggested by Belvalkar that the word Yavana, where -va stands for an original Greek �?, must be at least as old as the 9th century B.C., because the digamma was lost as early as 800 B.C. But, as Skold has pointed out, the digamma was dropped at different times in different dialects; in the Ionian dialect it may perhaps have vanished only a short time before the earliest inscriptions, which are of the seventh or perhaps the 8th century B.C. As I�ve stated in an earlier post, the language of communication and government in the Persian Empire was Aramaic. The Aramaic name for the Greeks was Yavan which they adopted from the Phoenicians at a time when the Ionians were still known as Iavones. Since we have evidence of Aramaic being used in eastern Iran, it does not take much to see that the Indians adopted the Aramaic word, hence their term Yavana. Contrast this with the other Indian term for Greeks, Yona, which was probably adopted from the Persian form Yauna. [quote]Why the Indies called Yavana the Macedonians ?

I can give you three reasons:

1. Because the Macedonians were speaking Greek. The evidence suggest that they were already speaking koine Greek

2. Because the Greeks were the majority of colonists near the Indians. We note that the last Macedonian governors of Bactria who revolted and became kings were deposed by Greeks who then became kings. They wouldn�t have been able to do so without a considerable Greek support.

3. Because any far-westerner was considered a "Greek". Some peoples classify foreigners by what direction they came. At one time the Persians thought of easterners as all "Turanians" and all westerners as "Romans" regardless of ethnic origin.

    Now, I will copy the ancient texts which proves the non-Greek character of Macedonians, in the acceptance of the Ancients (I think that Alexander pretedned to be Greek was just a manipulation of him and that he as found 'Greek' was because rejecting his pretentions would lead to great damages for the Greeks at Olympia):




Diodorus Siculus
Ancient Greek Historian


[1] For even Greeks � Thespians, Plataeans and Orchomenians, and some other hostile to the Thebans who had joined the king (of the Macedonians) in the campaign. 17.13.5.

[2] For many days the king lay helpless under his treatment, and the Greeks who had been settled in Bactria and Sogdiana, who had long borne unhappily their sojourn among peoples of another race and now received word that the king has died of his wounds, revolted against the Macedonians. 17.99.5-6.

...
[6] From Europe, the Greek cities AND the Macedonians also sent embassies, as well as the Illyrians and most of those who dwell about the Adriatic Sea, the Thracian peoples and even those of their neighbors the Gauls, whose people became known then first in the Greek world. 17.113.2.
...
There are 40 passages from Diodorus, all the same clear:
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/diodorus.html



Justin
Roman Historian
...
The Macedonian army, which will have the exclusive status, was to be supported by the Greek army and by the armies of the adjacent conquered nations" [9.5.5-8].
...


Arrian
Ancient Greek Historian
The Campaigns of Alexander

...
[4] [Book II - Battle of Issus] "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them.
The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." [p.119]
...
[14] Alexander continues to speak to his Macedonians and allies: "Come, then; add the rest of Asia to what you already possess - a small addition to the great sum of your conquests. What great or noble work could we ourselves have achieved had we thought it enough, living at ease in Macedon, merely to guard our homes, excepting no burden beyond checking the encroachment of the Thracians on our borders, or the Illyrians and Triballians, or perhaps such Greeks as might prove a menace to our comfort." [p.294] Arrian, Book 5.




Quintus Curtius Rufus
Roman Historian
The History of Alexander - Penguin Classics

[19] [The trial of Hermolaus] "As for you Callisthenes, the only person to think you a man (because you are an assassin), I know why you want him brought forward. It is so that the insult which sometimes uttered against me and sometimes heard from him can be repeated by his lips before this gathering. Were he a Macedonian I would have introduced him here along with you - a teacher truly worth of his pupil. As it is, he is an Olynthian and does not enjoy the same rights." [p.195]




Thucydides
Greek Commander and Historian

"In all there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians." (Thucydides 4.124)



Pausanias
Greek Historian

"After the death of Alexander, when the Greeks had raised a second war against the Macedonians, the Messenians took part, as I have shown earlier in my account of Attica" [4.28.3].




Medeius of Larisa
Greek Companion in the Macedonian Army

Medeius of Larisa was one of the Greeks accompanying Alexander the Great in Asia. According to him the Thessalians are �the most northerly of the Greeks�, thus excluding the Macedonians as non-Greeks since they live north of Thessaly.



Pseudo-Herodotus
Greek Historian

Pseudo-Herodotus in Peri Politeias (34-37) calls the Macedonians barbarians and distinguishes them from the Greeks.



Plutarch
Ancient Greek Historian
The Age of Alexander

[8] Cassander's fear of Alexander 'In general, we are told, this fear was implanted so deeply and took such hold of Cassander's mind that even many years later, when he had become king of Macedonia and master of Greece, and was walking about one day looking at the sculpture at Delphi, the mere sight of a statue of Alexander struck him with horror, so that he sguddered and trembled in every limb, his head swam, and he could scarcely regain control of himself.' [p.331]



Polybius
Greek Statesman and Historian. [c 200-118 B.C.]
The Rise of the Roman Empire

"I therefore beg you all to be on your guard against this danger, and I appeal especially to King Philip. [Macedonian king Philip V] For you the safest policy, instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them an easy prey for the invader, is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions. If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in case of attack, and foreigners will be the less inclined to plot against your throne, because they will be discouraged by the loyalty of the Greeks towards you." [p .300] book 5.104



Thrasymachus
On Behalf of the Lariasaeans

"Shell we being Greeks, be slaves to Archelaus, a barbarian?"



Herodotus
Ancient Greek Writer

"I happen to know, and I will demonstrate in a subsequent chapter of this history, that these descendants of Perdiccas are, as they themselves claim, of Greek nationality. This was, moreover, recognized by the managers of the Olympic games, on the occasion when Alexander wished to compete and his Greek competitors tried to exclude him on the ground that foreigners were not allowed to take part. Alexander, however, proved his Argive descent, and so was accepted as a Greek and allowed to enter for the foot-race. He came in equal first." book 5. 22.

First, notice that it is not Herodotus that says that the Macedonian kings were of Greek nationality, but the Macedonian kings as they themselves claim. Now, let us peruse the modern literature and see if we can shed some light on this particular passage from Herodotus which is so 'dear' to all Greek presenters, and one that occupies the central position of their otherwise feeble defense.




Demosthenes
Greek Orator

[3] "While Demosthenes was still in exile, Alexander died in Babylon, and the Greek states combined yet again to form a league against Macedon. Demosthenes attached himself to the Athenian convoys, and threw all his energies into helping them incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Greece." [p.212] Plutarch



Josephus
Jewish Historian

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



Strabo
Roman Historian

"The Thessalians in particular wore long robes, probably because they of all the Greeks lived in the most northerly and coldest region" [11.14.12].


And many more at
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AncientEvidence.html
    

Edited by Menumorut - 17-Oct-2006 at 11:32

We note that the last Macedonian governors of Bactria who revolted and became kings were deposed by Greeks who then became kings.

So, the Macedonians and greeks were two distinct nations.

So, we accept them as Greeks. In fact, if ANY modern people do the same things we will accept them as Greek.

The historical science is not a field of acceptions. We have to say from where they came, which language and culture had and how were considered by themselves and by others.

The distinction of Macedonians from southern Greeks was ONLY geographic and dialectical.

This is maybe at ethnographical say, not a historical one.

Anyway, when all the ancient authors are speaking about Macedonians as a different than Greeks people, I think they reflect the common opinion in the time.

Some of the authors are very explicit, I copy again Strabo:
The Thessalians in particular wore long robes, probably because they of all the Greeks lived in the most northerly and coldest region.


Finding if Macedonians were Greeks or were not is not what we should learn but from where and when did they come.
    
    

Originally posted by Sharrukin Where did Thucydides write about this?

I assume he refers to Peloponnesian War, IV, 109:

http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/thucydides/thucydides-passages.php?pleaseget=4.106-110

 

 

I don't who Pelasgians/Tyrrhenians might be but the Bisaltians, the Crestonians, the Edonians I've seen them referred (rightfully or not) as Thracian tribes.

 

 

Edited by Chilbudios - 18-Oct-2006 at 07:18