It\'s all Greek to me (Makedonians included) ...

[Macedon]

How can we conclude that the story of the Temenids, who were just 3 brothers (one variation of the "myth") or accompanied by a multitude of Greeks (another variation of the same "myth") is untrue? Scant evidence for a certain story does not mean it is a lie. You need evidence to disprove these stories too.

Romulus and Remus founded Rome: how do you disprove the myth? Theseus founded Athens: how do you disprove the myth? Lycurgus is responsible for the entire Spartan state: how do you disprove the myth? A single "Alexander" is responsible for the complete reform of the Macedonian cavalry and infantry: how do you disprove the myth?

By the dawn of the fourth century Argead myth-making had extended the "Temenid myth" back several further generations to an aptly named Caranus. When you're on a good thing exaggerate it. More likely, given the institution of Macedonia's "own Olympics" (Dion) around the same time, it was time to refresh and retry a previously successful strategy? Fact is we have no conclusive evidence for any Macedonian king competing at the Olympics between Alexander I and Philip II. Good enough reason to institute your own version?

We also have no evidence that Macedonian was not easily understandable to Ionian/Aeolian or Doric Greeks apart from one text from Rufus (the one about Philotas needing a translator). All speculation is based on the words of Demosthenes, who called Philip a barbarian but never said that anyone did not understand the Macedonians.

That is not quite correct. We have evidence that "Macedonian speech" was a somewhat different thing to "standard Greek" and could be difficult to understand or speak. And not just in Curtius.

Plutarch writes (Alex. 51.6) that Alexander "sprang to his feet and called out in Macedonian speech a summons to his hypaspists..." (Makedonisti kalon tous hupaspistas). Arrian reports the same call but not in the "Macedonian speech". Arrian, in the Gothemburg palimpsest from memory ("Successors"), does describe Eumenes sending an officer - whose language was Macedonian - to the Macedonian phalanx infantry of Neoptolemus prior to the engagement stating that he would not engage them but would round them up with cavalry and prevent their getting to their baggage. His intention was to take over the Macedonians. This coheres with the surviving reports of the battle and clearly Eumenes wanted the phalanx infantry - the Macedonian "grunts" - to understand and so he sent a Macedonian.

I hope you do understand that I do not insist that these stories are true... but insisting that they are just convenient political fabrications is also as unsubstantiated as is your very bold criticism of the games at Dion (this "counter Olympics" story is really too much and completely unsupported too, just an argument devised by Badian to make a very bold point)... Why should I so vigorously doubt the "Synoikismos of Theseas"? Why should I so adamantly try to disprove that there was a Remus and Romulus or that Lycurgus did indeed set the rules? What good would that do to me or history? We say that these were the ancients' beliefs and we distance ourselves from criticism. We could try to have long discussions on how we interpret these "myths", try to compare them with other accounts of the same events, embellish them with our logic of how we presume that such things happen, but no matter what we do, we will always return to saying that "according to the ancients....". Doubting everything and having nothing to offer as an alternative apart from our educated guesses based on our experience as logical human beings alone is not really history, is it?... On the other hand writing a book with such theories is always welcome and another addition to the hundreds or thousands of such alternative theories...

There was no such thing as "standard Greek". The example you offer does not mean that Macedonian Greek was not understandable to the average Dorian or Ionian. You know very well that "makedonisti" only means " in the Macedonian manner of speech" and is standard Greek use for any dialect without any criticism as to how understandable it was. As to the Eumenes incident, of course you do understand that what you offer is just your interpretation of the story and nothing of the sort is being said in the account? Come on Michael... if you want to claim that the Macedonian language was not easily understood by an Attic Greek or even that it was a barbaric language, you should explain why it is so darn difficult to find evidence... Why don't we have problems making this contrast to all other languages of the broad region? Do we really have so little evidence on the Macedonians and their language? So few examples of Macedonians talking to other Greeks? The only reason I mention Curtius Rufus is because he explicitly mentions the use of a translator, which of course can be viewed as good evidence for that claim, this is not the case with your example nor with any other normally used in this type of discussion.

Please do not single out sentences... I have already spoken about the existence of various Greek dialects as well as the possibility that the "myths" surrounding the early years of the Macedonian states are anything from complete lies to real historical events contained within the various variances of the story...

Anyways... guys, I feel I have to defend myself all the time when I really do not know what your positions are to criticize them myself... Can you please state your opinions?