Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Who are the ancient Macedonians ?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 16>
Author
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who are the ancient Macedonians ?
    Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 05:30
Why do I always have to remind people that the term barbarian has a basic meaning of "uncivilized" used for both foreigners and Hellenes that were culturarly undeveloped?

The word for foreigner in Greek is litterarly "xenos" or "Mi Ellin" or "allodapos". A person who can not behave, is culturarly undeveloped, cannot speak formal or commit attrocities is a "barbaros".

The Hellenes said "Pas min Ellin Barbaros".

This means "Foreigners are Barbarians" and not  "foreigners are foreigners". It doesn't mean eather "Barbarians are foreigners". Besides, who said the Macedonians were the only ones to be called "Barbarians"? Other Greek tribes had to live with that characterization for centuries. So, what about the Thebans? What about the Aetolians? They were called barbarians but they were still Hellenes.

Now i don't know how people that do not use these terms in everyday speech can convince me, a native speaker and reader of Hellenic language the opposite.

Since everyone hangs under these terms why does nobody wonder why the Spartans had similar views upon the Athenians? Where the Athenians ,non Greeks, because the Spartans for political reasons looked down on them? The Athenians? Those who claimed to be the "true Hellenes"?

As for the Jewish historian...The Jews refer to the Macedonians as Jawan like they did with other Greeks (more to come on this)...

The distinction between Macednos and Macedonian is tragic...

Velleius Paterculus on his Book I, based on Herodotus makes no distinction between Macednos and Macedon.

"...but the Dorians on the contrary have been constantly on the move; their home in Deucalion's reign was Phthiotis and in the reign of Dorus son of Hellen the country known as Histiaeotis in the neighbourhood of Ossa and Olympus; driven from there by the Cadmeians they settled in Pindus and were known as Macedons; thence they migrated to Dryopis, and finally to the Peloponnese, where they got their present name of Dorians."

From etymonline.com (Online etymology dictionary, sub project of Oxford university)

Macedonia: from L. Macedonius "Macedonian," from Gk. Makedones, lit. "highlanders" or "the tall ones," related to makednos "long, tall," makros "long, large."

Herodotus, Book VIII ,43

"The composition of the fleet was as follows: 16 ships from Lacedaemon, the same number from Corinth as at Artemisium, 15 from Sicyon, 10 from Epidaurus, 5 form Troezen, 3 from Hermione. The people of all these places except Hermione are of Dorian and Macedonian blood, and had last emigrated from Erineus, Pindus, and Dryopis."

If you're gonna quote a historian it is very bad to quote just a part that suits ones needs. This is a very common tactic and works well on ignorant people. Herodotus clearly says that Lacedaemonian people are from Dorian and Macedonian blood. Besides, Archelaus is clearly a Dorian name found in the Kindoms of Peloponisus. Another example is the name Alexander. According to Eusebius, the first man in Greece named Alexander, was Alexander of Corinth, 10th King of his city who ruled around the late 9th century, the same era when the Macedonian royal house was founded.

Now, may I ask what value does a simple political or geographic distinction have, compared to quotes pointing clearly to a Greek origin?
Even the most wildest Japanese, admirer of Western cultures wouldn't be so fanatic to claim descent of a nation he doesn't belong to.

Just an example of a quote that says clearly what the Macedonians were:

Emperor Julian (Praise for Eusebia, p147)


"That much I can say, without endless talking and without becoming tiresome, that she [Eusebia] is of a family line that is pure Hellenic, from the purest of Hellenes, and her city is the metropolis of Macedonia."

Compare this to wishfull thoughts making them non-Greek. And like someone in this forum said "define a Hellen" before talking about who's Greek and who's not. Hellenism and Jewism are ethnic terms completely different from anything else we know about ethnicities.

Maybe in 1000 years some people of Thessaloniki will be doubted their ethnicity cause Athenians call them today "worms" when speaking athletics. Dead

Just logical assumptions...

I'll be back...


Edited by Flipper - 20-Oct-2006 at 13:47


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 13:37
Originally posted by Brainstorm

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.


That was a nice point Brainstorm. Macedonia was indeed Emathia and Pieria in the beginning. However, the date you gave is when the Argeads settled the Kindom. Before that other events happened in Macedonia.

After the migration of the Phrygians to the east, other Archaic, Ionian, Cadmian and Aeolic tribes moved to Macedonia. We have the Bottiaei from Crete (Strabo Geography), we have the Chalkideans from Eubia and then we have Macedon son of Aeolus who lead a group of people (possibly from Thessaly or the Kindom of Elli in Phthiotis) to Macedonia and then comes Caranus (the first King) with a large band of Hellenes.

Strabo, Geography

"This land was inhabited by some Epirotans and Illyrian people, but mostly by the Bottiaei and the Thracians, the former being purportedly Cretans and having Botton as their leader."

"But over all the above mentioned it was the tribe called the Argeadae who made themselves supreme,as did the Chalcidians in Euboea. In fact, the Chalcidians in Euboea actually invaded the land of the Sithones where they jointly founded some 30 cities."


"Caranus also came to Emathia with a large band of Hellenes, being insctructed by an Oracle to seek a home in Macedonia. "

"Macedonia is ofcourse also a part of Hellas".

The existence of a Mychenean culture in Macedonia shows clearly that Archaic tribes settled there in the late bronse age. Here is some info about the artifacts. This is a typical example used by Hammond in "History of Macedonia" Volume 1.

"West of Agios Dimitrios at a 1.100 meters height and a place called Xirolakas a Mycenaean cementary from 1200 BC was discovered. This finding in the northwestern part of Olympus is of significant importance for the history of Macedonia, since it is the first time the presence of a Mycenaean civilization is discovered in the area of Macedonia.

This finding gives life to the theories that the Macedonian dynasty has it roots in the Mycenaean tradition, says the archeologist Efi Poulaki. It is a proof of the close relations the Macedonians had with the southern tribes of Greece in the early years. The tombs have always been the the most important archeological evidence for the Ancient Macedonians. Before these excavations, some scientists believed that the Myceneaen civilization did not reach above Olympus. With those findings this theory is now rejected and give new dimentions to the history of the Macedonians.
The tombs that are over 24 , are box-formed with rectangular plates and have according to the Myceneaen habits more than two bodies. The ceilings are stamped for waterproof with a thick layer of clay. A sword of type Σ (Sigma) with an ivory handhold was rescued as well as the remains of its wooden sheath, a cupreous peak of wooden spear, necklaces of women made by glassmass and stone seals.
The vessels are mainly chrismals. The necklaces made from tree glue in their number and quality are very important. The findings of 23 stone seals are very important according to archeologists. The character of seals of Olympus is always abstract with stereotyped forms or linear subjects. They belong in the group of magic seals and were worn in the breast as amulets. The sought aim of magic depended from the type of stone, but also from its form, as well as from the symbolic seal that it portrayed. The seals are connected with the Orpheus, a magic musician and a mythical character that imported the deamons and marked the antiquity.
The cemetery of late bronse age proves that the current passages of Olympus existed as traditional paths for the residents of region 3000 years ago.
"

Now lets take a look at the symbols the Macedonians used...First of all...Philip II...

Philips ivory shield depicts the Greek key (GK. Maiandros) which is the symbol of Hellinism.



Second...We all know the Vergina star which had initially 8 rays and was converted into a 16 ray star. We also know how Alexander the Great admired Achilleus because his mother convinced him he descended from.

The Vergina star was initially an Archaic symbol of unity. It is depicted in many paintings and especially those of Achilleus.

Look at the 8 ray star of the left and the 16-ray star of the right of Achilleus armour.



Now, another picture having both the Star and the Greek key.



And one more showing Aeneas with the same armour having the 16-ray star.



I hope you all find those interesting...I'll be back. Have a nice evening wherever you are.


Edited by Flipper - 20-Oct-2006 at 13:42


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Istor the Macedonian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 68
  Quote Istor the Macedonian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 16:48
The distinction between Macednos and Macedonian is tragic

You are right Flipper.

 

@Sharoukin

Have you read what I wrote about the number of barbarians attempts to participate to the games?

Alexander doesnt say ruler of Macedonia, but ruler of Macedonians (do you really have to change Herodotus words?). And my question wasnt about what he said but about the wideness of the word Μακεδόνων = of Macedonians he used. Did he include Makednoi in the people ruled by him who called them Macedonian? Since you dont answer, I suppose that you dont have an answer and thus you accept that the term Macedonians used by Alexander did include Makednoi and thus both words were identical. Alexander said that he was Greek just like any Macedonian, being proud Greek, could say. For what he did and said, he called as Philhellene by Alexandrian writers as honor.

 Thucydides here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Thuc.+2.99 says that Macedonians expelled Vottiaians, Pieriams, Peonians. and other tribes around old Macedonia before meeting Greeks. This means that those tribes were placed between Greek settlers and Macedonians.

Are you arguing about hellanodikais role? Do you deny that there was a commission in the games to test whether some athletes were Greek? If not, do you deny that this commission was the hellanodikai? If your answer is yes to any of those questions then you dont deserve my time. Here you may read about agonothetai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellanodikai

When I said illiterate about Greeks I meant that they did know to read and write but the majority had no knowledge but about Homers words. Very few people knew about other Greek writers. There was no wide system of education but after Aeschylus and Herodotus times.

Plutarch DID separate Macedonian dialect from Egyptian and other languages for he didnt site Macedonian amongst other languages but he wrote makedonizein = Macedonian kind of speech in an accented contradiction: some of them did those things and in addition they stopped macedonizing.

And, in an attempt to get you better would you make your position about older Macedonians ethnicity clearer, please? I mean:

Do you accept that a Greek tribe settled Macedonia? Do you accept that that tribe was self-called Macedonian? What do you thing about their number? How many were they? Do you accept that that tribe hellenized progressively some peoples around?  Do you accept that that tribe incorporated some other Greek tribes living around (Vottiaians, Orestes, Lyngestes, )? I talk about before Alexanders the 1st times.

 

@menumorut

Come in my forums to talk about those elementary things:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/506558/

Istor
Macedonian, therefore Greek!
Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote akritas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 04:11
Flipper you cover me a lot as about the archaelogical findings that prooved the route and the origin of the Macedonians.Just I want to add two more findings that consern the tombs.Are the steels and the known dervenion papyrus.But I think that we must focus in the findings before 6th  century.This is the main debate as about the Macedonian origin from those that beleive the Hellenized theory like Sharrukin.I am talking for the cemeteries and theirs chronological sequence.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 01:07
akritas
 
Originally posted by Sharrukin

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

The koine language originated from 3nd cent B.C.

 
4th century
 
and not 9th-8th  e.t.c as appeared the first texts regarding the Yavana.
 
I never said that they did.  However, I would disagree that the term Yavana appeared in the 9th-8th centuries.  Panini dates from about 500 BC, which would fit the earliest known expansion of Aramaic into eastern Iran.  Hence, from both Aramaic and Persian, the Indians gained their terms Yavana and Yona respectively. 
 
The term Yavana may well have been first applied by the Indians to the Greeks of various cities of Asia Minor who were settled in the areas contiguous to north-west India. The Yavanas were regarded by the law books and epics as degenerate Ksatriyas and were considered to be of Indian origin, the descendants of Turvasu. .So this reason cannot sustain
 
Or it may well have been simply passed on to the Indians via the Persians. 
 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

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 wouldnt have been able to do so without a considerable Greek support.

It is evident then, from the testimony of the epigraphic records, that Asoka ruled the whole of India except the extreme south, which was in the hands of the Cholas and Pāndyas. The inscriptions refer also to the nations on the borders of the empire. There were in the south, as already mentioned, the Cholas and Pāndyas, whose lands stretched as far as Tamraparni, i.e. Ceylon; while one edict adds two smaller border chiefs, the Keralaputra, i.e. the king of Kerāla or Malabar, and the Satiyaputra, not yet satisfactorily identified, but probably connected with the āndhras. Mentioned along with these independent kingdoms of the south are the Yavana king, Antiyaka, that is the Seleucid Antiochos Theos, whose lands marched with the Maurya empire on the north-west, and the other Greek kings who were his neighbours. On the outer fringe of the empire, but within the king's territory, were the Yonas, the Greeks in the lands ceded by Seleucus to Chandragupta; other Yavanas are named, along with the Gandhāras, apparently as independent; they were probably the rulers of southern Afghanistan and the land west of the upper Indus. The Kambojas, mentioned with them and located north-west of Gandhāra in the Hindu Kush, spoke a semi-Iranian language and were regarded by Hindus as only half-civilised. Another group of frontier peoples living within the king's territory but probably retaining some vestiges of autonomy, belonged to the south. The Greeks were known to the Indies before Alexander campaign. But when encountered them , just called them as Yavana Kings!!!

  But this is not significant.  If a foreigner ruled over another people, he is going to be referred to as the name of that people.  Cleopatra, although clearly of Macedonian origin was referred to as the "Egyptian".  Hellenism certainly hit India, hence, it would not be surprising that this foreign element, the Greeks under Macedonian administration and military, would leave the impression to the Indians that the ruler, being Hellenized themselves were also considered Greek.  I wouldn't put too much stock into those inscriptions.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

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.

Different comparison.
 
Same analogy.
 
The earliest Indian form known is Yavana, attested in Pāṇinī. It was suggested by Belvalkar that the word Yavana, where -va stands for an original Greek Ϝ, must be at least as old as the ninth century B.C., because the digamma was lost as early as 800 B.C. But, as the Skold(Papers on Pāṇini and Indian Grammar in General, p. 25)  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.
 
A far more simpler idea is to see in Yavana, a Semitic root.  As you say, it is at least as old as the 8th century BC, in which case, since the Phoenicians and Hebrews were already familiar with the Anatolian Greeks, under the name Yavan, this form was quickly to Aramaic.  By about 513 BC the Persians had conquered the westernmost parts of the Indian subcontinent, hence the presence of Aramaic in those regions can be dated as early as 500 BC, for Panini to already Indianize the Aramaic term as Yavana.   
 
Your tendency to compare different civilizations in order to prove that Macedonian consider as foreigners   is your big mistake in my opinion.

I guess you have a very big problem with those "analogies" don't you.  I point out that you wanted analogies.  Just because I've provided several analogies that you don't like, does not make them any less valid.  "Big mistake"?, not even!!! 
 
Originally posted by Sharrukin

As Ive 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.

My answers in your previous quotes I think cover me as about the Yavan.Just I want to add that Arrian records the tradition of the Indian invasion of Dionysus and it is noteworthy that he attaches more weight to this story than to that of similar exploits of Heracles, since he remarks, 'about Heracles there is not much tradition and he discusses in sober terms whether the Theban Dionysus started from Thebes or from the Lydian Tmolus. According D. R. Bhandarkar, (Carmichael Lectures, 1921,Ancient Indian Numismatics) the numismatic evidence confirms the literary reports and argyments of course. The Athenian 'owls', together with the issues of other Greek cities, which have been found in Afghanistan, must have been brought there by the Greeks both as traders and settlers.( Schlumberger. loc. cit., pp. 46 ff.)

 

 
If the numismatic evidence is what is being used as proof, what is the date of the first numismatic evidence? 
 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

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

Is clear how the Indies and Persians call the Macedonians after the Alexander Campaign.

 
On the other hand, see my comments above.
 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

The only text that even mentions Yauna Takabara is Dariuss 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. Heres the problem: We do not know the extent of either Skudra or Yauna Takabara. Its 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 didnt 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).

My responses as about this quote are enough and I want to avoid your thesis as about the Persian policy or the Skudra.I think we will complicated the thinks.Actually is well known that Skudra were the Thracians and if accept any connection with the Skydra why then I call it as Skoudra as pronounce phonetically the "Skudra" in the Greek language ?
 
And my responses above is sufficient to cover me.  From Skoudra to Skudra, does not take much of an imagination to make the connection.
 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Ive 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" youve 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.

I agree that there two hypothesis as about the Macedonian tradition but I cant reject them because:

-Both written from known ancient Greek writers

-Theirs sources were common.[/quote]
 
Those Greek writers said that they got them from the Macedonians, themselves
 
-The primary sources (e.g.Ptolemy Alexander) never found it.
 
see my comment above
 
-Caranus is similar with Argead dynasty according the chronology.
 
What do you mean by this?  Do you mean that Caranus is similar to Perdiccas?  There are similarities to be sure, but the differences are just as glaring.  I've already explained the differences, and so I cannot accept your statement without more clarification.
 
So in my opinion is closer in the truth.
 
The "Caranus tradition" is closer to the truth than the "Perdiccas tradition"?  This goes against common sense.  If there is a difference between two traditions describing the same thing, we usually take the older tradition as closer to the truth.   The "Caranus tradition" is the younger one, and thus farther from the actual event, in terms of time, described by the more older and humbler "Perdiccas tradition". 
 
Actually there are a lot of archaeological evidence(Vergina Sun) that connect Macedonians with the Dorians in Sparti region.I mean for craters and figuirines.
 
The motif is found all ancient Greece, not just Laconia.
 
-I dont believe in the arbitrary argument or conclusion of the Macedonian propaganda. There is no where any evidence for that.
 
So far, there is nothing to give credence to the "Caranus tradition".
 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Well, lets 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 5th 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 4th century BC, hence, that meaning was later in date. Herodotus, himself uses the term exclusively for non-Greeks.

This is your opinion. I prefer to stay in Strabo quote.
 
These are the facts, but then again I'm not here to change your opinion.
 
 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

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?

Hellenodikai choosen  equal the number of phylai and not according the management or the increase of the games.
 
That is correct, so your earlier idea that this was because more Greeks were being "discovered" was wrong.


Edited by Sharrukin - 25-Oct-2006 at 00:22
Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote akritas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 03:56
Originally posted by Sharrukin

 
 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

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?

Hellenodikai choosen  equal the number of phylai and not according the management or the increase of the games.
 
That is correct, so your earlier idea that this was because more Greeks were being "discovered" was wrong.

The term phyle  was widely used in the Greek world to describe the groups into which a given citizen body was divided, usually for military and/or political purposes, so that all citizens by deμnition belonged to one or another tribe. So each Hellanodikai represent a number of phyle. Is clear the meaning of the phyle in the ancient Greece.The increase from 1 to 12 Eleans showning increase of the Greek tribes beacause each of them represented a number(s) of the phyle. Where I am wrong? Confused

Originally posted by Sharrukin

 
The koine language originated from 3nd cent B.C.
4th century
The above answer was a answer in your below argument as about the Alexander I......

Originally posted by Sharrukin

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

The koine language initial started in the middle of the 4th cent and spreaded in the 3nd century.The Macedonians didn't speak the koine language before the 4th-3nd century.They spoken a Greek dialect of the NorthWest language group.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

I guess you have a very big problem with those "analogies" don't you.  I point out that you wanted analogies.  Just because I've provided several analogies that you don't like, does not make them any less valid.  "Big mistake"?, not even!!!
Of course.You cant compare diffrent civilizations in diffrent era.Your analogies is "out of time".A  mathematic term,if is the right English term
Originally posted by Sharrukin

If the numismatic evidence is what is being used as proof, what is the date of the first numismatic evidence? 
Is not only the numismatic evidence.The numismatic evidence confirms the literary reports and argyments as I said. Given answer the most ancient coin estimated in 4th cent.
Originally posted by Sharrukin

The motif is found all ancient Greece, not just Laconia
The most strong evidence as about the origin of the Macedonians.The similar ancient symbols.Do you agree? Or you have evidence for usage the same symbols(Vergina Sun,Meandros Key) of other neigbouring tribes(Thracian,Illyrians,Phrygian e.t.c.)?Wink
Originally posted by Sharrukin

So far, there is nothing to give credence to the "Caranus tradition".
as also and the "supposing" Macedonian propagnda as you claim.Not a single evidence.Only arbitaries conclusions that started from the Borza.
Originally posted by Sharrukin

These are the facts, but then again I'm not here to change your opinion.
As I said prefer to stay what mentioned from the ancient  Greek writers (Strabo,Isocrates) and not what thinking some of the modern writers.Actually with me agree many moderns and the best of them like  Droysen,Wilcken and Dichle.
 
 


Edited by akritas - 24-Oct-2006 at 04:08
Back to Top
theMacedonian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 24-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
  Quote theMacedonian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 12:13
I did not have the chance to read carefully all your posts and replys so ill just give out a short quoestion for everyone who is concerned with this topic. Im not involved in any historical studies so i cannot give references straight away... but if required i will dig it up.
 
   Many of you agree that Macedonians wore a Greek tribe that after some historical change in course they established themselfs as a seperate Greek State.
 
  Ok but for that to have happened there must have been a great CATACLYSM in history for the two to be separated. My personal view is that Macedonians and Greeks wore two different nations and cultures from the very beggining they started to exist.
 
  If the Macedonians wore Greek why did they always faced eachother like different peoples. Since the Macedonians have no written evidence we have to rely on the Greek writers of the time. The Greek writers always call the Macedonians "barbarians" as they would have called the Persians. Specificly targeting and leting us (the people of today) know that the Macedonians (in Greek eyes) wore a discrace and never ever do they fit in the Greek concept or governing body. In other words they wore not worthy of being on the same level as the Greeks.
   Aleksandar the I had to host his own olympic games (or atleast a version of them) because the Olympic games rules stated that only Greeks wore alowed to enter. NOW!!! if a Macedonian King cannot enter a simple competition based on his ethical background then we have no more to dicuss on this topic. This is a clear indication that Macedonians (along with their head of state) wore not Greek.
  
   These are a few of my views on this issue... im looking forwaard for ur replys and comments. And i will obtain proof (if needed) that this is so.
 
Thank you.
Back to Top
Perseas View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote Perseas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 13:21
I remind to the participants of the discussion here that the topic is about the origins of ancient Macedonians and NOT related to the modern dispute between Greece and FYR Macedonia, which is a blacklisted topic in this forum.
 
 
Please stick to the original issue being discussed.


Edited by Perseas - 24-Oct-2006 at 13:22
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 14:01
Yes, theMacedonian, in this particular thread the discussion is free of flaming up to date. Let us keep it like that. You may find more discussions like that throughout the forum.
.
Back to Top
Patrinos View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2006
Location: Moreas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 473
  Quote Patrinos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 14:11
One short question to you "the slavomacedonian":
What  Alexander,Philip, Cleopatra, Perdikas,Balakros,Bucephalas mean?Clap
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 14:15
Hi there!

Originally posted by theMacedonian

   Many of you agree that Macedonians wore a Greek tribe that after some historical change in course they established themselfs as a seperate Greek State.


Like many others did...Even though Macedonia was late into politics there were other states that were in the same position e.g The Sicilian Colonies and Cyprus. Those two states ofcourse did not have a big impact in world history, only in Greek and that is why you will seldom hear about them. You can check out the war between the Hellenic colonies of Sicily and Athens for example.

Originally posted by theMacedonian


 Ok but for that to have happened there must have been a great CATACLYSM in history for the two to be separated. My personal view is that Macedonians and Greeks wore two different nations and cultures from the very beggining they started to exist.


Why should this happen...Political factors separate us even today. North & South Korea. But it is good you mentioned the cataclysm cause Herodotus mentions that the people who named themselves Macedonians moved to Macedonia after the flood of Deucalion. There was indeed a Cataclysm that forced migrations...


Herodotus, book 1, George Rawlingsons translation
for during the reign of Deucalion, Phthiotis was the country in which the Hellenes dwelt, but under Dorus, the son of Hellen, they moved to the tract at the base of Ossa and Olympus, which is called Histiaeotis; forced to retire from that region by the Cadmeians, they settled, under the name Macedonians, in the chain of Pindus. Hence they once more removed and came to Dryopis; and from Dryopis having entered the Peloponnese in this way, they became known as Dorians.

Originally posted by theMacedonian


 If the Macedonians wore Greek why did they always faced eachother like different peoples.


They reffered to each other as Macedonians, Athenians, Spartans, Cretans, Arcadocypriots, Epirotans, Thessalians and the list goes on. It is geographic distinctions not ethnic.

Originally posted by theMacedonian


Since the Macedonians have no written evidence we have to rely on the Greek writers of the time.


This is nonsense (no offence towards you) written by nationalists. There are over 6000 inscriptions. Take a look at Ohios States & Cornells Universities epigraphical database.

http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/gis?region=4

And Oxfords Centre of Studies of Ancient Documents

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/CSAD/index.html

Originally posted by the Macedonian


The Greek writers always call the Macedonians "barbarians" as they would have called the Persians. Specificly targeting and leting us (the people of today) know that the Macedonians (in Greek eyes) wore a discrace and never ever do they fit in the Greek concept or governing body.


Always is an absolute word depicting in this case very few...See my explanation of the word barbarian above. The Aeolians were Barbarians according to their neighbours, the Athenians were barbarians according to the Spartans.

Originally posted by the Macedonian


In other words they wore not worthy of being on the same level as the Greeks.


Greeks are not only the Athenians who tended to discriminate any opponent. And yes, many cities were not in the same level of Athens.

Originally posted by The Macedonian


Aleksandar the I had to host his own olympic games (or atleast a version of them) because the Olympic games rules stated that only Greeks wore alowed to enter. NOW!!! if a Macedonian King cannot enter a simple competition based on his ethical background then we have no more to dicuss on this topic. This is a clear indication that Macedonians (along with their head of state) wore not Greek.


First his name is Alexandros...It is written in every inscription.
Second you made a miss...Very well said that only Hellenes could participate in the Olympics...There was a jury deciding if a competitor could participate or not. Guess what...Macedonians participated...


Richard Stoneman, �Alexander the Great�
Routledge, September 1997, pages 11-12


In favour of the Greek identity of the Macedonians is what we know of their language: the place-names, names of the months and personal names, which are without exception Greek in roots and form. This suggests that they did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca, but spoke it as natives (though with a local accent which turns Philip into Bilip, for example). The Macedonians' own traditions derived their royal house from one Argeas, son of Macedon, son of Zeus, and asserted that a new dynasty, the Temenids, had its origin in the sixth century from emigrants from Argos in Greece, the first of these kings was Perdiccas. This tradition became a most important part of the cultural identity of Macedon. It enabled Alexander I to compete at the Olympic Games (which only true Hellenes were allowed to do); and it was embedded in the policy of Archelaus who invited Euripides from Athens to his court, where Euripides wrote not only the Bacchae but also lost play called Archelaus. (Socrates was also invited but declined.). It was in keeping with this background that Philip employed Aristotle - who had until then been helping Hermias of Atarneus in the Troad to rule as a Platonic "philosopher-king" - as tutor to his son, and that Alexander grew up with a devotion to Homer and the Homeric world which his own kingship so much recalled, and slept every night with the Iliad under his pillow.

And where did Stoneman get this info...More or less from Alexander I himself. Just 2 samples so that I don't get tiresome...

Originally posted by Herodotus, Book I


They at once, hearing this, made haste to the outpost, where they found Alexander, who addressed them as follows:"Men of Athens, that which I am about to say I trust to your honour; and I charge you to keep it secret from all excepting Pausanias, if you would not bring me to destruction. Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Greece, I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself a Greek by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery.  Know then that Mardonius and his army cannot obtain favourable omens; had it not been for this, they would have fought with you long ago. Now, however, they have determined to let the victims pass unheeded, and, as soon as day dawns, to engage in battle. Mardonius, I imagine, is afraid that, if he delays, you will increase in number. Make ready then to receive him. Should he however still defer the combat, do you abide where you are; for his provisions will not hold out many more days. If ye prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Greek cause, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am Alexander of Macedon.


Originally posted by Herodotus, The histories


Now that the men of this family are Hellenes, sprung from Perdiccas, as they themselves affirm, is a thing which I can declare on my own knowledge, and which I will hereafter make plainly evident. That they are so has been already adjudged by those who manage the Pan-Hellenic contest at Olympia




Edited by Flipper - 24-Oct-2006 at 17:29


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
theMacedonian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 24-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
  Quote theMacedonian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 14:16

If anyone is ofended by my previous posts or they interfear with this topic. I ask the moderators to delite them. Its not an offence to me if something is alredy offending someone else.

Thank You.

Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote akritas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 14:24
Guys please don't destroy the thread!!!! Ermm
As Anton said this thread  is the first free of flaming up to date.Thumbs Up
 
Ignore.....thanksSmile
 
Back to Top
Perseas View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote Perseas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 15:26
Ok, non-related posts to the issue were deleted. Keep up with the topic guys and stay calm. It was a good topic so far.
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 17:00
If Macedonians were Greeks, when did they came there? How old are their Greek roots?

Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 17:15
Originally posted by Menumorut

If Macedonians were Greeks, when did they came there? How old are their Greek roots?


Mychenean times...I've posted something about the mychenean cementaries above.

However, we should try and define Macedonians. I call Macedonians those who Herodotus describe. The ones who settled in Emathia and Pieria. The Bottaeoi were for example Cretans and settled in the area above. The Sithones of Chalkidiki were Cadmians. The people of Olynthos and Stagira were originally from Chalkida (that explains the name of Chalkidiki) and therefore Euboans. Then you have a lot of Ionians in Eastern Macedonia. All those places became "Macedonia" but originally I refer to the first Macedonians as the people of Pieria and Emathia.

Other Greek tribes that migrated in the regions around them were the Almopeis, Atitandes, Eordeis, Lyngistes and Magnites. Their origins are different but I don't remember the exact origin of each tribe.




Edited by Flipper - 09-Jun-2008 at 14:47


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 17:24
By the way...The migration that Herodotus mention happened after the great flood. That is in the very very early years where there was probably only one Kindom in Greece...Elli. I'm still waiting to get a book about it. It is hard to find exact datings since we didn't have any usefull findings from Fthiotis until recently. 


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 17:32
Why nobody doubts about the Greek character of Ionia, Hystria, Olbia, Agrigentum, Paestum, Byzantium?


Why were Thessalians, Eolians, Ionians, Spartans considered Greeks but the Macedonians were considered different from Greeks in ancient authors?

Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 17:43
Originally posted by Menumorut

Why nobody doubts about the Greek character of Ionia, Hystria, Olbia, Agrigentum, Paestum, Byzantium?

Why were Thessalians, Eolians, Ionians, Spartans considered Greeks but the Macedonians were considered different from Greeks in ancient authors?


Very good question...Clap Ionia is a bit difficult though...You could in the same way doubt the Athenians based on what the Spartans thought about them and the opposite. You could doubt the Aeolians with the same logic.

About the second question you have the same answer...However, you can see that authors first seem to distinct them but later refer to them as Greeks (ex. Strabo).

Geography
"Macedonia, is ofcourse a part of Hellas"

My question is, why does nobody dare to question Aristoteles as a Greek? He was from Macedonia...




Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
theMacedonian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 24-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
  Quote theMacedonian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2006 at 00:57
Hahahah good one flipper i was gonna ask about aristotel but i didn't wanna play all my cards at once. Wink
 
Yes true he was born in a Macedonian village but his family roots wore not klnow.
 
The thing i wanna know is was that village a Macedonian or a Greek vilige just capured by Macedonia at the time?
This i don't know but it will be good to find out...
 
If anyone knows, pls share the knowlige because im in dark on that topic.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 16>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.