Alexander did not care about Helenism nor Helenization

Cassandra, don't bother to prove that Molossians or Macedonians were Greek to people who prefer to interpret sources in a way that they will never believe what you correctly stated. As the proverb goes, on the deaf man's door knock as much as you want.

That above was my Laconic answer to all those who believe that, through covert propaganda, they can convince Greeks to withdraw our positions on the issue of Macedonia.
Be it as it may, one thing can summise, escaping all those tiresome details and word-plays, that as long as "greek" states existed, there was continuous contest, challenge and friction; they were not called greeks, this came much later; origins were lost in time and noone really knew where they came from and they really couldn't care less; they found themselves in this proximity and they had either to cooperate or fight, or both, sometimes.
So, Ionians, Aecheans, Dorians, Macedonians, Pelasgians (yes, them included), Minoans, all during their times and for their terms of influence, constituted and instituted what we nowadays consider "greek".
If you asked any one of them, back then, he would tell you that you'd better go sell something and make some money.

Best of luck with your arguments.
I had fun reading through.

P.S.: And no, I will not pay the bloody ferryman!

Cassandra

The assertion that Molossians were non-greeks is incorrect. First and abolishing evidence is that in 472 BC a Molossian, Tellon from the molossian tribe of Orestae, participates in the olympics. Tellon didnt only participated but was the olympic winner of Boys Boxing, revealing this way, that the vast majority of ancient Greek world saw Molossians as greeks and bringing to light that the term "barbarian" hasnt got only the widely known meaning of "non-greek" but also the meaning of cultural diversity between greek tribes, having as result some of them to be seen as uncivilized, thus be called 'barbarian'. If Tellon wasnt a greek why was he even allowed to participate in first place? We know very well how strict were the Hellanodikae. None the less, he participated just by being a Molossian and won. This shows the reality that Molossians were considered Greeks by the rest of Greeks.

According to Pausanias, Tellon is referred to as an Oresthasian (6.10.9). He refers to a place in Arcadia as Oresthasion (8.3.1-2; 8.44.2). The inhabitants of Oresthasion were called Oresthasians (8.39.4; 8.41.1. Therefore, Tellon, was not an Orestian, but an Arcadian.

The second assertion that there was no mention of greek Molossian kings until the time of Tharrypas is refuted by the story of Agaristi. As Herodotus describes in details, Kleisthenes of Siceon, announced that he would marry his daughter Agaristi with the best Greek man he would find in Greece. His public announcement was starting with "Whoever from Greeks considers himself capable....". As a result many Greek kings and heroes came and one of the contestants was Alkon, king of Molossis, proving once more that Molossians were considered Greeks.

The context does not even allow what was the status of Alkon. For some of the other suitors, Herodotus notes other characteristics: they were either rich, or related to someone famous, or was a prince, or aristocrat, or whose country was at the height of prosperity. For Alcon, Herodotus simply called him "Alcon of Molossia", and so therefore it is presumptuous to even call him a king. The context of this translation doesn�t even allow us to know whether or not he even was a Molossian. He may have simply been an influential Greek in the court of the Molossian king. Even if, as some translations say that he was "Alcon the Molossian", this still does not indicate that he was a king, but perhaps a scion of the royal family. In either case, this does not indicate that the Greeks considered the Molossians, Greek, but just the ruling family, in the same way that the Greeks distinguished the Macedonian royal family from the Macedonians, themselves. The idea that the Molossians received their royal family from a great hero of the Trojan War can be traced to the 8^th or 7th century Epics, and thus was quite old.

dorian

The strongest proof of the fact that Macedonians were Greeks, is that whole villages (which had been settled during the era of Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Times) in Asia remain greek, full of Greeks who haven't been mixed up with the natives, who speak greek and are proud of being greeks showing their physical characteristics which are similar to these of the other Greeks.

How is this proof?  We know that the Hellenistic period was a period of Greek colonization.  The Macedonians encouraged it while they themselves were content just to administer and maintain power with Macedonian governors and soldiers.  To accent that all was not harmonious there is even stories of Greek colonial rebellion against the Macedonians.   That is not even including what happened later.   What began as a rebellion by the Macedonian governor of Bactria led to the eventual overthrow of his dynasty by Greeks.

Hi folks!

My first message is that even just after the end of the 6th century, B.C. you can see Herodotos unequivocally stating that the Molossians are Greeks:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=3DPerseus%3At ext%3A1999.01=.0126&query=3Dchapter%3D%231032&layout =3D&loc=3D6.125.1 (link old-text correct)

CXXVI. In the next generation Cleisthenes1 the tyrant of Sicyon raised
that house still higher, so that it grew much more famous in Hellas than
it had formerly been. Cleisthenes son of Aristonymus son of Myron son of
Andreas had one daughter, whose name was Agariste. He desired to  wed her to the best man he could find in Hellas. [2] It was the time of the
Olympian games, and when he was victor there with a four-horse chariot,
Cleisthenes made a proclamation that whichever Greek thought himself
worthy to be his son-in-law should come on the sixtieth day from then or
earlier to Sicyon, and Cleisthenes would make good his promise of
marriage in a year from that sixtieth day. [3] Then all the Greeks who
were proud of themselves and their country came as suitors, and to that
end Cleisthenes had them compete in running and wrestling contests.

CXXVII. From Italy came Smindyrides of Sybaris, son of Hippocrates, the
most luxurious liver of his day (and Sybaris was then at the height of
its prosperity), and Damasus of Siris, son of that Amyris who was called
the Wise. [2] These came from Italy; from the Ionian Gulf, Amphimnestus
son of Epistrophus, an Epidamnian; he was from the Ionian Gulf. From
Aetolia came Males, the brother of that Titormus who surpassed all the
Greeks in strength, and fled from the sight of men to the farthest parts
of the Aetolian land. [3] From the Peloponnese came Leocedes, son of
Phidon the tyrant of Argos, that Phidon who made weights and measures
for the Peloponnesians1 and acted more arrogantly than any other Greek; he drove out the Elean contest-directors and held the contests at
Olympia himself. This man's son now came, and Amiantus, an Arcadian from Trapezus, son of Lycurgus; and an Azenian from the town of Paeus,
Laphanes, son of that Euphorion who, as the Arcadian tale relates, gave
lodging to the Dioscuri, and ever since kept open house for all men; and
Onomastus from Elis, son of Agaeus. [4] These came from the Peloponnese itself; from Athens Megacles, son of that Alcmeon who visited Croesus, and also Hippocleides son of Tisandrus, who surpassed the Athenians in wealth and looks. From Eretria, which at that time was prosperous, came Lysanias; he was the only man from Euboea. From Thessaly came a Scopad, Diactorides of Crannon; and from the Molossians, Alcon.

CXXVIII. These were the suitors. .............

 

from:  Spirit Of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

 

Edited by Spirit of Truth

That last meassage I quoted from an earlier post is simply bogus. As seen from the actual text I posted earlier, Herodotos stated "Greeks'' in the text and the last line was "...and from the Molossians, Alcon". There is absolutely no reason to question Alcon's position or anything else...simply Molossians are described as GREEKS therein. Period.

Edited by Spirit of Truth

Furthemore, we can conclude a lot about Molossians from a mixture of archeological and linguistical evidences. Firstly, the inscriptions left
behind from them are all in Greek language. 

In linguistics now, it is widespread, the perception that from the wide variety of Molossian names we have to examine, all of them are showing clearly greek roots. Even the name Molossian, derives from the "molwn", participe of "vlwskw", which means "come".

If taken the assumption, Molossians were hellinized, we would still have a number of non-greek root names like we did in noumerous cases of Hellinized ethnes, for example Carians, Thracians etc. However, in their case we didnt.

Secondly, all the well known historians, including those who disputed the greekness of Macedonia like E. Borza, or even the most well-informed historian about Epirus - N.G.L Hammond, reach the same conclusion, Molossians were greek dialect speakers, notably north-west dialect.

Their conclusions about Molossians:

"Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of
Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group,
the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central
Epirus. This was the origin of the Molossian or Epirotic tribes."


E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised
edition, 1992), page 62


"We have seen that the "Makedones" or "highlanders" of mountainous
western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest Greek stock.
That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers
of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes who were later known by
different names as they established their regional identities in separate
parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been related to
those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the
historical Dorians, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors
of the Epirotes or Molossians. If it were known that Macedonian was a
proper dialect of Greek, like the dialects spoken by Dorians and
Molossians, we would be on much firmer ground in this hypothesis."


E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised
edition, 1992), page 78


"When Amyntas became king of the Macedonians sometime during the latter
third of the sixth century, he controlled a territory that included the
central Macedonian plain and its peripheral foothills, the Pierian coastal
plain beneath Mt. Olympus, and perhaps the fertile, mountain-encircled
plain of Almopia. To the south lay the Greeks of Thessaly. The western
mountains were peopled by the Molossians (the western Greeks of Epirus),
tribes of non-Argead Macedonians, and other populations."


E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised
edition, 1992), page 98

"Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the northwest, the peoples of Molossis {Epirot province}, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially Greeks." Robert Morkot, "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece", Penguin Publ., 1996

The point was that he was doing the talking, not the Greeks.

Nice try. The point is clear that he considers himself Greek. This of course is the Macedonian King.  

I already conceded the point that by this time, Greek was the language of Macedonia.

Just as I have already conceded that sometime in the past, the Macedonians (and the other Greeks) did not speak 'Greek.' 

The proclamation was issued at Amphipolis, a city known to have had a Greek population before the Macedonian conquest. Since the Roman province of Macedonia included large areas of Greek population, including Thessaly, Chalcidice, and southern Thrace, it is understandable what is meant by "Greeks". "Roman citizens" could be anyone of any nationality, including native Macedonians.

No, there you go again stretching assumptions. It is much more logical to assume that since he was in Macedonia that when referring to the citizens of the province, that he would be referring to the majority population. In any case, using your argument, the Greeks were equally 'Roman citizens' as well, so why distinguish?

I�ve already conceded the point that Polybius considered the Macedonians �foreigners� and not �barbarians�. But, so what? The Romans were eventually not considered �barbarians� either, yet they weren�t Greeks. The best then that can be said is that the Macedonians, from the time they ceased being �barbarians� were relegated to the position as being �foreigners�. As Polybius continues with his narrative, he rendered the Romans even worse than the Persians and the Macedonians. Apparently you have no regard to context.

Geez, this isn't that hard to understand. Greeks to other Greeks (Macedonians to Thessalians or Thebans) could be xenoi or 'foreigners' which is not necessarily synonymous with 'barbarian'. Polybius clearly places the Macedonians with the other Greeks:

"Far from being similar, the circumstances are now the reverse of what they formerly were. Then your rivals in the struggle for supremacy and renown were the Achaeans and Macedonians, peoples of your (Spartans) own race, and Philip was their commander.."

Book 9-37

"On its borders a ring of Greek cities was founded by Alexander..."

 

Book 10-27

"...Annibas put himself under oath to Xenophanis (ambassador of Philip) in front of the all gods that Macedonia and the rest of Hellas have..."

Book 7-9

 

"...Agelaos from Nafpaktos was the first to address to the king (Philip) and the present allies, wishing to stop the wars between Hellenes..."

Book 5-103 

 

Here Polybius talks about the great Philip II:

 

�These events convinced Philip of the cowardice and indolence of the Persians compared with his own military efficiency and that of the Macedonians; they also opened his eyes to the size and the magnificence of the prizes to be gained from such a war. Accordingly, no sooner had he obtained the avowed support of the rest of the Greeks for his enterprise than he found a suitable pretext in his ardent desire to avenge the injuries which the Persians had previously invlicted on Greece." 

Book 3-6

Polybius doesn�t call them �barbarians�, but that matters little for the reasons cited above.

 

Yes, because they were Greeks.

Yes, the Macedonians (out of political expediency) considered them �barbarians� (Polybius, Book 8.5) although Aetolia was in Greece. Where does Polybius say that the Aetolians aspired to be hegemons of Greece? If this was the case, how about all the other Greeks? They wanted the Macedonians out of the "whole of lace Greece" too (Polybius, Book 8.9.1)

Well, that was my point now wasn't it? Political expediency, or rhetoric, if you will. Perhaps Polybius does not say that the Aetolians wished to be hegemons of all Greece, but their actions sure spoke loudly. And yes, the other Greeks would want the Macedonians out of their own (other) Greek states affairs.

Wait a second. In the "Perdiccas tradition"our earliest source, there is no army and no Pindus Dorians/Macedonians. It�s just the three brothers who were "exiled" and if they were "exiled" that meant that the powers that were in Argos, weren�t going to give them an army that could be used against them. So, from the very beginning the original story does not agree with you. They first go into Illyria and then go into Macedonia. They first serve a local king, and then were chased out. Having made their escape they travelled "to another part of Macedonia" and founded a capital which was the kernel of the Macedonian kingdom. Why do you require "a large body of Greeks" to establish a kingdom? They could have found the natives agreeable enough to give their cooperation. They could have easily gathered to themselves a native army to establish order if need be. It is not unheard of, that a group of adventurers gather to themselves local elements and establish a power base. In the later "Caranus tradition" (the earliest attestation which is a full 100 years after Herodotus) it gets better. The Macedonians give "Caranus" the dignity of having an Argive army, but they did not sojourn either in the Pindus (thus no "Pindus Dorians/Macedonians") or in Illyria. The Macedonian kings had to make they�re ancestry even more illustrious. "Caranus" according to the later tradition is the brother of Pheidon. The "version" of this story you seem to refer to which only dates from about AD 800 does indeed locates "Caranus" in the Pindus Mts., before he conquers Macedonia.  The earlier tradition was known to Herodotus and Thucydides and thus could have been known by Isocrates.   There is NO EVIDENCE that the later (unembellished) Caranus tradition was even known by Isocrates. The embellished version perhaps known by you dates from only AD 800.

Oh, gosh!!! You are making this up as you�re going along!!! The MACEDONIANS were there BEFORE the "Temenids" - see below. Since we already know that the Macedonians were in Pieria, (Hesiod - see below) we can say that the Argeads had gathered this group of Macedonians to themselves.  If the Macedonians were Greeks, and they were ruled by Perdiccas (a Greek), the ENTIRE sense of this passage is COMPLETELY lost, since you would have A GREEK RULING OVER GREEKS, which was something Isocrates commended that Philip doesn�t do and that his ancestor DIDN�T DO. Dude, you better try this again!!!

.

The only thing being 'made up' is a fictitous ethnic group called 'Macedonians'.

Let's try this again for you. Isocrates is drawing on some tradition, and we cannot say whether it is the Perdikkas or Karanos or even an Archelaos one. What must also be considered is that the 'Perdikkas tradition' and the 'Pindus-Dorian-Macedonian tradition' all exist in the same narrative (Herodotus). In the 'Perdikkas tradition' Perdikkas and bros. go into Illyria (non-Hellenic land) from Argos. They make their way after some adventure, possibly even over the Pindus, as it does not clearly say, to the environs of Mt. Vermion (non-Hellenic ruled land at the time) and conquer the natives. It is safe to assume that to conquer implies that the natives are not all that 'hospitable', therefore troops would need to be involved, hence the Macedonians.

Hesiod now. Hesiod says that Makedon dwelt around Pieria. You have but to pick up a map and see that dwelling between Olympus and Pieria is a distance from Aegae. In the Perdikkas and Karanos (and for that matter the Pindus-Dorian-Macedonian) traditions, this is not contradictory with the Isocratic tale of Philip's ancestors. The original Argeads, went into non-Hellenic ruled lands and conquered it.

To take this a step further, in The Suppliants by Aeschylus, the king of Argos claims his race rules as far as the pure waters of the Strymon. This again traces the spread and conquest of the Dorian race (and the Temenids). The Macedonians are most obviously included here.

Finally, no matter how much you wish to tiptoe around it or confuse it, there is one basic truth that cannot be ignored. All these traditions existed to explain the Hellenicity of the Macedonians, not the reverse. The historians and poets seek to illustrate the Hellenic nature of the Macedonians, to explain what the obvious Greek character of the Macedones was. This is before any Macedonian power was capable of forcing the issue.

Irregardless if the "law" was of "past context", the FACT remains that it is mentioned in context with "non-Hellenic races" and "other races". There is no implication that he is talking about a practice among non-Hellenic (as you would imply, non-Macedonian) elements of Macedonia.

It is not 'irregardless'. The whole point of raising this as a past 'law' was to distinguish the Macedonians from any 'non-Hellenic races', especially as he does not mention them as 'warlike', which when talking about the Macedonians would be an obvious point. 

Macedonia is neither mentioned, nor even alluded to in the entire context of this work. A far more simpler answer is that Greeks have had colonies on the Strymon, Nestus, and Hebrus (all authorities both ancient and modern, considered them rivers in Thrace), since before the Macedonians even reached the Strymon.

Aristotle is clearly talking about his present situation, Macedonians included.

Utter fallacy. The only one of the above to even make such an implicit statement is Hellanicus, but as far as he is concerned they were Aeolians, not Dorians. As far as the Argead claim shows, it was always disputed until the time of the Macedonian conquest of Greece.

'Utter fallacy' is the pseudo-macedonian ethnos that you so earnestly believe. The Argead claim was there to explain the Hellenism of the Macedonians. Where there is smoke, there is a fire.

The point was that the Acarnanians were taking part in a form of propaganda of their own, putting the Macedonians in a good light. They obviously weren�t going to take a position "alienating" them, for political expediency.

Yes, the point is that they all did that.

Correct - it was "his conclusion", according to how he sees the "evidence". It does not negate the fact that he admits that "The problem of the nature and origin of the Macedonian language is still disputed by modern scholars".

Sure, it sells publications and makes them feel important.

The article posted by O. Maison also is an example of how "current" the dispute is.

A 'dispute' supported by fame seeking no-gooders desperately yearning to feel valued. Go to Macedonia, see the ancient cities and the artifacts diplayed in numerous museums for your 'dispute'.  

The corpus of Macedonian words recorded by the ancients demonstrates otherwise. Even Kalleris doesn�t dispute that at least a third of the words don�t have a Greek etymology.

Hogwash. Kalleris places the vast majority into the 'Hellenic' camp.

Then even you disagree with your source

Did I say that? I merely pointed out that there is never an absolute 'unanimity' on any subject. You finding the author here and there who disagrees isn't all that remarkable. I am sure I could find a scholar who still thinks the world is flat.

You read far too much into Borza. By "Indo-European speakers of Proto-Greek" (note: he calls them �Indo-European�, not �Greek�) he is referring to speakers of a language which was on its way into becoming Greek, but which didn�t show the kind of innovations which evolved into Greek. The Indo-European language of these people maintained conservative characteristics and studies of the "Macedonian words" show such conservatism.

A language 'on it's way' but not 'becoming' Greek. Can you come up with better double speak than this? This why I find it a waste of time at times even debating this.

The "elusive" Illyrian, Paeonian, Brygian, Thracian, and Bottaean "Yetis" did not "survive" either. Macedonian is in good company. Please, be even more surprised and astonished.....

Really? Are you saying that we do not have examples of Illyrian or Thracian scripts or inscriptions for example? There are no examples in existence?

Yes, Herodotus is quite clear on the matter. So, tell me, where is the connection with the Macedonians?

Perhaps the part of calling them 'Macedonians', or would you prefer 'Indo-European evolving into Greek but-not-quite speakers' ?

Well we have the ancient testimony to the contrary, but what you say is not surprising.  As it is, when the narrative evidence, that Macedonians were barbarians, have been staring at you in the face, you have not �concured� either

Yeah, more ancient testimony about non-Greek Greeks. As for 'narrative evidence', it clearly says Macedonians were Greeks, but that doesn't help you much does it?

The Epirote, like the Macedonian over a long period became Greek.

The Epirote, was always Greek. As Plutarch says they 'fell into barbarism' for a time, probably being overrun by non-Greeks, but they eventually recovered. Their ruling house claimed descent not just from any Greeks, but from Achilles himself. Pyrrhos is often referred to as the �first� Greek to do battle with the Romans.

Appollodorus is relatively late to have any real credibility, but I�ll help you nevertheless. We know that this tradition is as old as Homer, so it is ancient indeed. Okay, assuming that the Molossi received a Greek dynasty. So what? There are many examples of foreigners ruling over natives.

You keep trying to convince us that that Epirotes and Makedones began as �non-Greeks� and eventually became �Greeks�. Tell me, when did the Thracians become accepted as Greek? Or the Illyrians? Or the Paeonians? Or the Hebrews?

The dating of the inscription is even more critical, given that the tradition(s) are contradictory. Also, it is now admitted that Aegae doesn�t mean "goat", but rather a "spring" or "water" (from the root aig-). Therefore, even the rationale of the tradition is also in question.

It is not 'admitted' that Aegae means 'spring' or 'water', last I heard it was still 'goat', and Greek for that matter. In fact, inscriptions out of Macedonia prominently display the goat as do coins of the kings, such as Phillip II.

The point is that the author does not address the issue if Greek was their original language. He only states that they "spoke Greek". Nothing more, nothing less.

Ahh, the 'original' language again. Where arst thou?

Have you even seen their calendars? They are not even related!!! None of the month names from all the calendars match, no, not even one. Funny that you didn�t mention the Delphians (who were not Dorians). After all, this thing about �calendar names� began with them, no? The Macedonian calendar, on the other land, shows month names from all these calendars, but never adopted their calendars fully. Just a month from this calendar, and a month from that calendar and a month from that other calendar. BORROWING!!!!

What are you talking about? Some match some don't. All the Greeks had similar calendars. The point is the names are GREEK, not PSEUDO-MACEDONIAN:

���������:

��:���������, �:�������, �:��������, ��:�����������, �:�������, ��:�������,��:����, �:���������,�: ��������������, ��:����, �:����������,�: ���������.

������:

��:����������,�:����������,�:������.

�:�����������-�:����������,-��:�������-

��:�������-�:���������-�:���������-

��:�������-�:����������-�:���������.

 

�������:

��:����������-�:�����������-�:���������-

��:�����������-�:���������-��:��������-��:�����������-

�:��������-�:�������-��:��������-

�:����������-�:��������.

 

 

�������:

��:����������-�:����-�:����������-��:��������-

�:���������-��:�������-��:�����������-

�:���������-�:�������-��:��������-

�:�������-�:���������

 

������:

��:�������-�:����������-�:���������-

��:������-�:���������-��:������������-

��:��������-�:���������-�:�����������-

�:��������-�:�������-�:���������

 

�������:

��:��������-�:������������-�:������������-

��:���������-�:���������-��:�����������-

��:������������-�:������������-�:����������-

��:���������-�:�����������-�:���������.

Dude, the guy was talking about "Macedonian ambassadors" visiting Athens. He say nothing about plays performed in Macedonia. Do you know how read his reasoning?

'Dude', 'Macedonian ambassadors' could visit Athens with no mention of any problems speaking Greek, just like Euripides could perform a play denouncing barbarians in Pella the capital of Macedon, without any problems. Get it?

You didn�t show anything. So Plutarch compares two words. So what? I can compare an English word with a Japanese word borrowed from English. Since they are similar enough, Japanese must be dialectual variant of English.

See, there you go again. How do you know it was 'borrowed'? Plutarch does not say so. So why assume that? But what you are telling me is that the Macedonians borrowed a word to describe someone as 'bald-headed'? Really? Come now.

The point was to show that there are scholars of the opposite view. Needless to say, I likewise am not impressed with your quotes. For the most part, they are merely declarative statements and judgements with very little scholarly insight, or statements that simply don�t address the issue. Some also show that some of them believe as I do. But, oh well......

I am sorry they lack �scholarly insight� such as your insights like how world conquerors could leave no trace of their language or why they called themselves Greek but really weren�t.

Now that being said, I have to be honest and confess that I find it difficult to see you as an objective debater.  Really, Nikas, it was not a good idea for you to declare that nationalistic statement at the end of your post dated ate Month="4" Day="16" Year="2005">16 April 2005ate>:  "Macedonians were, are, and always will be Greek." It will leave the impression from readers that you will only interpret everything from a nationalistic bent.  Thus far, I at least had made certain concessions, but they seem lacking from you. Readers will see that uncompromising bent and draw conclusions that you can�t see beyond that nationalism.

Well, dear Sharrukin. I realize that you would prefer that this was a nice, dry, academic debate of the Macedonians origins. I confess though that it is no such thing for me or many others. You see, this is not merely a historical debate when the ramifications are quite relevant today. So, while you may wish to sip your tea and preach to us Macedonians about our origins, I dare say that you would not do the same in Thessaloniki today, no?

At least we are in agreement that they did not resist their eventual Hellenization. Rest assured, I know what you�re saying. What, for me defines the "goalpost" is when the population of Macedonia  simply called consistently "Greek". Hellanicus�s statement is best viewed as a minority view (an isolated statement) among a series of opposite statements until the Hellenistic Period, at which time some Greeks began to view them as "kindred" and not "barbarians" (i.e. Polybius) whether out of political expediency or otherwise. Nevertheless the "barbarian" perception continues, (i.e. Strabo, Arrian) but even I at least acknowledge that the Greek language was the predominant language from the 4th century BC and was probably THE language of the Macedonians before the Roman conquest. On the surface, Hellenization seems to be complete and ultimately, the population of Macedonia should be considered Greeks for some centuries before the Slavs arrived. The subsequent literature of the Middle Ages including letters describe the population as being "Greeks" along with the names of Slavic tribes "Drachs", and Aromans.

�Hellenization� to me merely implies the importation of the culture of the southern Greek states on the Macedonian Greeks more archaic society. This is not in dispute. The only dispute I have is whether the Macedonians were essentially �Greeks�. I believe the evidence to suggest that they were a branch of Greeks, albeit far less advanced culturally, is physically and literally very strong.

In the final analysis, irregardless of the veracity of the two traditions, or the mixed tradition, they founded a capital in a region that was at one time Brygian. The "Perdiccas tradition" specifically locates the capital "near the place called the Gardens of Midas", and in fact the archaeology of Vergina (Aegae) itself, does show that it was a major center of the Brygian Culture. The Macedonian tradition does mention that they were at one time "neighbors" to the Brygians (Book 7.73.1). The terminus ante quem for such a condition was about 800 BC. This was about 150 years mininum before the founding of kingdom. The Macedonians are attested in Pieria by Hesiod by about 720 BC. This was about 60 years before the founding of the kingdom. Therefore tradition, topography, chronology, and archaeology are in agreement. The Macedonians were present before the foundation of the kingdom. Since Macedonia is not part of the early history of Hellas, according to Thucydides, the Macedonians were not Greek.

The Macedonians could and would have been neighbours to the Brygians whilst 'dwelling between Pieria and Olympos� as per Hesiod. According to Hesiod, the brothers Magnes and Macedon dwelt around Olympos and Pieria, logically in the valleys between the two ranges. Now, Aegae is on the most northeast slope of Pieria and on the southern approach to Mt. Vermion and the opening to the rich Thermaic Gulf.  Both the the Perdikkas and Karanos traditions are consistent with the founding of the Macedonian Kingdom being related to the founding of Aegae and Isocrates �To Philip�, although not specific in this regard, does not contradict it. Isocrates has that Philip's ancestor founded a kingdom among non-Hellenes, which is what the Brygians or any of the inhabitants around the new capital could have been prior to the Macedonian takeover. It is again the new land, and not the people that is referred to, especially when we consider that the ancestor did not conquer/found on his own, but needed an army/settlers, which could have been the Macedonians of Pieria (or the oft-wandering Pindus/Dorian/Macedonians if you will) or southern Greeks as per Justin and the Suda.  It is the formal beginning of this state on previously 'non-Macedonian' and 'non-Hellenic' land as opposed to the loose collection of Macedonians and Magnesian natives between the great ranges, that is central tradition to the beginnings of the Macedonian kingdom and later empire. This is re-inforced by Aristotle in The Politics:

"Kingship, as we have remarked, is organized on the same basis as aristocracy: merit-either individual virtue, or birth , or distinguished service, or all these together with a capacity for doing things.For it is just those who have done good servvice or have the capacity to do it, either for states or for foreign nations, that have been honoured with the position of king. Some, like Codrus, saved their people by war from slavery; others, like Cyrus, set them free or acquired territory or settled it, like the kings of the of Lacedaemonians, of the Molossians, and of the Macedonians."

V.x

To summarize, the founding of the Macedonian Kingdom is centered on the founding/conquest of Aegae and the opening up of the Thermaic Gulf and the rest of Macedonia (the future state) thus the Macedonian state was NOT  present before the foundation of the kingdom  and thus not part of the early history of Ellas according to Thucydides, although the early Macedonian/Dorians populations may have been settled there in the migrations as per Herodotus in a loose and uncentralized collection. Therefore, there is nothing that contradicts the fact that the Macedonians were Greeks. 

Edited by Nikas