11-22-2010, 11:50 AM
I disagree with this hypothesis. Although Thucydides may be considered to hint at a Macedonian barbarism (his comments regarding the Lyncestians are much clearer, especially in the speech of Brasidas) but for some reason they are not as clear as we would have expected him to be since he usually makes it very specific as to who he considers barbarian (some, like the Chaonians and the Amphilochians today also considered Greek / "the barbarian of a thousand Chaonians, who, belonging to a nation that has no king, were led by Photys and Nicanor, the two members of the royal family to whom the chieftainship for that year had been confided." (2.80.5) / "they called in the Ambraciots, their neighbours on the Amphilochian border, to join their colony; and it was by this union with the Ambraciots that they learnt their present Hellenic speech, the rest of the Amphilochians being barbarians." (2.68.6) ) It is also interesting that he speaks about the population in the region thus : "; the others being Thyssus, Cleone, Acrothoi, Olophyxus, and Dium, inhabited by mixed barbarian races speaking the two languages. There is also a small Chalcidian element; but the greater number are Tyrrheno-Pelasgians once settled in Lemnos and Athens, and Bisaltians, Crestonians, and Edonians; the towns being all small ones." (4.109.3-5), calling the Athenian Pelasgians barbarians in the manner Herodot did. This might be his only direct calling of anything Macedonian (in this case Dium) as barbaric, even in this peculiar way. See also how he does not mention any Macedonians among those peoples. Maybe he again hints at ancient times, before the Macedonian rise.
On the other hand, he very clearly juxtaposes the Macedonians of Perdiccas to their barbarian allies when he says "..and night coming on, the Macedonians and the multitude of the barbarians took fright in a moment in one of those mysterious panics to which great armies are liable..." (4.125.1) clearly not placing the Macedonians in the barbarian crowd. The exact Greek words are "?? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ??????????" where we can clearly see the juxtaposition. "many barbarians" is not a correct translation here, since "plethos" is a noun and so further enhances the difference. He also relates that the Argeads are Temenids, following too the Herodotian tradition.
I think that Perdiccas having Thracian allies with him (Thucyides gives a dozen or so names of Thracian tribes neighboring the Macedonians) would be very logical. Why wouldn't he? He obviously had Illyrian allies (until they changed sides). They may have been mercenaries or just allies under treaties. Surely, since Amyntas expanded Argead Macedonia to the northeast, many Thracian tribes did come under Argead Macedonian influence, were expelled or subjugated. There is absolutely no logic in Thucydides making this specific juxtaposition if these "barbarians" were Macedonians. He would have used the one or the other but not both in this way. In total, Thucydides mentions the word "Macedonian" about 40 times, never directly calling them barbarians, as he usually does with other peoples. Actually, given the easiness with which he calls most northwestern Greeks barbarians, I would have expected him to have been much more blunt in his descriptions of the Argead Macedonians.
In conclusion, I do believe that Thucydides does seem to confine the Hellenic identity to those states who have reached a certain cultural and political level and although he never calls the Argeads barbarians, he does hint at some level of barbarism among them, being more blunt regarding the Lyncestai Macedonians and in other places the Orestai. I think that had the Greeks really regarded the Macedonians as barbarians, we would have hundreds of instances clearly calling them so, as we do about everyone else. The Persians, the Romans, the Illyrians, the Thracians... We have more texts talking about the Macedonians than any other Greek people, so I would expect many more instances than 2 polemics by Athenian orators of the time of Philip II and a surviving line of some tragedy or poem, I do not remember right now. They certainly were not respected and were scorned for their political institutions and achievement of hegemony by some Greek states and statesmen in the late 4th century, but that's all. On the other hand, if we look into the instances they are called Greeks....
On the other hand, he very clearly juxtaposes the Macedonians of Perdiccas to their barbarian allies when he says "..and night coming on, the Macedonians and the multitude of the barbarians took fright in a moment in one of those mysterious panics to which great armies are liable..." (4.125.1) clearly not placing the Macedonians in the barbarian crowd. The exact Greek words are "?? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ??????????" where we can clearly see the juxtaposition. "many barbarians" is not a correct translation here, since "plethos" is a noun and so further enhances the difference. He also relates that the Argeads are Temenids, following too the Herodotian tradition.
I think that Perdiccas having Thracian allies with him (Thucyides gives a dozen or so names of Thracian tribes neighboring the Macedonians) would be very logical. Why wouldn't he? He obviously had Illyrian allies (until they changed sides). They may have been mercenaries or just allies under treaties. Surely, since Amyntas expanded Argead Macedonia to the northeast, many Thracian tribes did come under Argead Macedonian influence, were expelled or subjugated. There is absolutely no logic in Thucydides making this specific juxtaposition if these "barbarians" were Macedonians. He would have used the one or the other but not both in this way. In total, Thucydides mentions the word "Macedonian" about 40 times, never directly calling them barbarians, as he usually does with other peoples. Actually, given the easiness with which he calls most northwestern Greeks barbarians, I would have expected him to have been much more blunt in his descriptions of the Argead Macedonians.
In conclusion, I do believe that Thucydides does seem to confine the Hellenic identity to those states who have reached a certain cultural and political level and although he never calls the Argeads barbarians, he does hint at some level of barbarism among them, being more blunt regarding the Lyncestai Macedonians and in other places the Orestai. I think that had the Greeks really regarded the Macedonians as barbarians, we would have hundreds of instances clearly calling them so, as we do about everyone else. The Persians, the Romans, the Illyrians, the Thracians... We have more texts talking about the Macedonians than any other Greek people, so I would expect many more instances than 2 polemics by Athenian orators of the time of Philip II and a surviving line of some tragedy or poem, I do not remember right now. They certainly were not respected and were scorned for their political institutions and achievement of hegemony by some Greek states and statesmen in the late 4th century, but that's all. On the other hand, if we look into the instances they are called Greeks....
