01-12-2012, 03:45 PM
For the Hydapses and Alexander more than likely outnumbering his opponents (and in general a sober reassessment) see: Bosworth, A. B (1997) Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph . (Oxford)
His historical commentary on Arrian may also elucidate a few things, can't recall. Actually in general Bosworth is a pretty good source for most things Alexander, as are Badian and Borza. The (relatively) recent book by Heckel also is quite good, out on Blackwell.
For Macedonians as Greeks: Honestly I find it rather amusing that you can so tritely state that they were "100% Greek" in Lang, Hist, Culture, Religion etc when so many good Classicists can say nothing so sternly of the sort. With all due respect I would say that you really haven't availed yourself of the evidence.
Now if the apparent alternative to being Greeks is being the Slavonic forebears of modern FYROM then of course that is utterly ridiculous. They certainly were not slavs, nor did they speak a language close that spoken now in the some of the former territory of Philip II. HOWEVER it is not at all a clear cut case and we don't have to give binary answers. Regardless, original ethno/linguogenesis is a pointless thing to debate regarding a people who came to the forefront of Greek history.
As for the propaganda thing, yes it's bad, on both "sides" though you'll find a ridiculous amount of propaganda re ancient Greek history. Some of the things I've heard from the mouths of my fellow students whilst in Athens has been...revealing. It's not as if in Greece we teach things any less revionist - though I admit it kills me to say it.
Incidentally the President of FYROM was to give a talk here at the Oxford Union labelled as the "President of Macedonia". Admittedly I was also one of the people complaining but come on, it IS annoying!
His historical commentary on Arrian may also elucidate a few things, can't recall. Actually in general Bosworth is a pretty good source for most things Alexander, as are Badian and Borza. The (relatively) recent book by Heckel also is quite good, out on Blackwell.
For Macedonians as Greeks: Honestly I find it rather amusing that you can so tritely state that they were "100% Greek" in Lang, Hist, Culture, Religion etc when so many good Classicists can say nothing so sternly of the sort. With all due respect I would say that you really haven't availed yourself of the evidence.
Now if the apparent alternative to being Greeks is being the Slavonic forebears of modern FYROM then of course that is utterly ridiculous. They certainly were not slavs, nor did they speak a language close that spoken now in the some of the former territory of Philip II. HOWEVER it is not at all a clear cut case and we don't have to give binary answers. Regardless, original ethno/linguogenesis is a pointless thing to debate regarding a people who came to the forefront of Greek history.
As for the propaganda thing, yes it's bad, on both "sides" though you'll find a ridiculous amount of propaganda re ancient Greek history. Some of the things I've heard from the mouths of my fellow students whilst in Athens has been...revealing. It's not as if in Greece we teach things any less revionist - though I admit it kills me to say it.
Incidentally the President of FYROM was to give a talk here at the Oxford Union labelled as the "President of Macedonia". Admittedly I was also one of the people complaining but come on, it IS annoying!
Jass
