12-14-2010, 03:25 PM
One of the gravest mistakes many make when reading ancient Greek texts is to misunderstand the use of the definitive article when talking about "the Greeks". In modern English, when we read "The Macedonians and the Greeks" we immediately assume that the Macedonians are something different since it is the Macedonians AND "the Greeks". Then further evidence as to the non-hellenism of people we can find in many ancient writers such as Aeschines, for example, a contemporary to Demosthenes who wrote :
“…saying that it was delivered in the presence of the ambassadors whom the Greeks had sent to you; for you had invited them….” (Aeschines, on the Embassy 2.57) or “…for in thus fixing the dates, he saw to it that the meetings of your assembly should be held before the ambassadors from the states of Hellas should have arrived.” (Aeschines, on the Embassy 2.61) or “The Lacedaemonians were the leaders of the Hellenes, not long ago, on both land and sea, and yet they suffered so great a reversal of fortune when they met defeat at Leuctra that they were deprived of their power over the Hellenes, and lost such of their warriors as chose to die rather than survive defeat at the hands of those over whom they had once been masters.” (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.47) and again here “nay, they are now warred upon by their neighbors ; they are distrusted by all the Peloponnesians ; they are hated by most of the Hellenes ; they are harried and plundered day and night by their own serfs ; and not a day passes that they do not have to take the field or fight against some force or other, or march to the rescue of their perishing comrades.” (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.49) and "For he collected a naval force off Rhodes, won a victory over the Lacedaemonians in a sea-fight, deposed them from their sovereignty, and set the Hellenes free. . (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.63)
or when talking about "Greece" as an area :
“Well, if I were trying to present this matter to any others before having broached it to my own country, which has thrice freed Hellas--twice from the barbarians and once from the Lacedaemonian yoke--I should confess my error.” (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.129)
Are these words evidence against the Athenians' and the Lacedaemonians' hellenism? Would we consider these words evidence as to the Macedonians' otherness if they were directed against the Macedonians?
And as far as the "Yaunas" are concerned, we established that there are a number of theories, but we have also seen that the one which enjoys the most acceptance is the one that translates the Yauna Takabara as "the Macedonians". Of course doubts exist, of course other theories have been proposed too. Maybe, another clue could lie in India, where in the edicts of Asoka (mid 3rd century BC) we read about the "Yonas".
“Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest. And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni.” Rock Edict Nb13 (S. Dhammika).
In the Gandhari original Antiochos is called “Amtiyoko nama Yona-raja”
So, here we have unambiguous evidence of yet another eastern civilization calling the Macedonians "Yonas" (Iones). We are fortunate enough to not rely on "sun hats" or "small shields" to affirm the translation.
That the Jews also knew the Macedonians as Greeks is also known.
From the Machabees :
1:11. And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus the
Illustrious, the son of king Antiochus, who had been a hostage at Rome:
and he reigned in the hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of
the Greeks.
8:21. And the he goat, is the king of the Greeks, and the great horn
that was between his eyes, the same is the first king.
10:20. And he said: Dost thou know wherefore I am come to thee? And now
I will return, to fight against the prince of the Persians. When I went
forth, there appeared the prince of the Greeks coming
Much sometimes is said about the Romans but even Rufus (our only source that an interpreter would be needed to understand Macedonian, yet in a much debatable passage) says :
"?Mutiny was but a step away when, unperturbed by all this, Alexander summoned a full meeting of his generals and officers in his tent and ordered the Egyptian seers to give their opinion. They were well aware that the annual cycle follows a pattern of changes, that the moon is eclipsed when it passes behind the earth or is blocked by the sun, but they did not give this explanation, which they themselves knew, to the common soldiers. Instead, they declared that the sun represented the Greeks and the moon the Persians, and that an eclipse of the moon predicted disaster and slaughter for those nations.” (Quintus Curtius Rufus 4.10.1)
and
"?As for Alexander, it is generally agreed that, when sleep had brought him back to his senses after his drunken bout, he regretted his actions and said that the Persians would have suffered a more grievous punishment at the hands of the Greeks had they been forced to see him on Xerxes? throne and in his palace.?"
(Quintus Curtius Rufus 5.7.11)
or
"When the Branchidae met him the next day, he told them to accompany him. On reaching the city, he himself entered through the gate with a unit of light-armed troops. The phalanx had been ordered to surround the city walls and, when the signal was given, to sack this city which provided refuge for traitors, killing the inhabitants to a man. The Branchidae, who were unarmed, were butchered throughout the city, and neither community of language nor the olive-branches and entreaties of the suppliants could curb the savagery. Finally the Macedonians dug down to the foundations of the city walls in order to demolish them and leave not a single trace of the city.”
One of the best ones is given by Cicero in his Orations:
“For if all the wars which we have carried on against the Greeks are to be despised, then let the triumph of Marcus Curius over king Pyrrhus be derided; and that of Titus Flamininus over Philip; and that of Marcus Fulvius over the Aetolians; and that of Lucius Paullus over king Perses; and that of Quintus Metellus over the false Philip; and that of Lucius Mummius over the Corinthians. But, if all these wars were of the greatest importance, and if our victories in them were most acceptable, then why are the Asiatic nations and that Asiatic enemy despised by you? But, from our records of ancient deeds; I see that the Roman people carried on a most important war with Antiochus; the conqueror in which war, Lucius Scipio, who had already gained great glory when acting in conjunction with his brother Publius, assumed the same honour himself by taking a surname from Asia, as his brother did, who, having subdued Africa, paraded his conquest by the assumption of the name of Africanus. [32] And in that war the renown of your ancestor Marcus Cato was very conspicuous; but he, if he was, as I make no doubt that he was, a man of the same character as I see that you are, would never have gone to that war, if he had thought that it was only going to be a war against women. Nor would the senate have prevailed on Publius Africanus to go as lieutenant to his brother, when he himself; a little while before, having forced Hannibal out of Italy, having driven him out of Africa, and having crushed the power of Carthage, had delivered the republic from the greatest dangers, if that war had not been considered an important and formidable war.”
and Pliny the Elder who wrote :
"Such, at all events, were the opinions generally entertained in the reign of Alexander the Great, at a time when Greece was at the height of her glory, and the most powerful country in the world."
One should really make a list of sources who directly claim that the Macedonians were not Greeks and then juxtapose them to the bulk of sources that directly and unambiguously claim the opposite. I will not quote Strabo or Herodot, but what about :
"??? ?? ??????????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????????? ??? ??? ????????? ??????????, ?? ?????????? ????????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ?????."
Dionysius Hallicarnassensis, 20.1.3
or
???? ??????• ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??????, ???? ?????????? ?? ?? ????????• ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??????????? ????? ????????? ??? ???? ?????? ???????, ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ????????• ? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ???????, ???? ??????"
Dio Chrysostomus Soph., Orationes. {0612.001} Oration 4 section 9 line 3
and tons more...
“…saying that it was delivered in the presence of the ambassadors whom the Greeks had sent to you; for you had invited them….” (Aeschines, on the Embassy 2.57) or “…for in thus fixing the dates, he saw to it that the meetings of your assembly should be held before the ambassadors from the states of Hellas should have arrived.” (Aeschines, on the Embassy 2.61) or “The Lacedaemonians were the leaders of the Hellenes, not long ago, on both land and sea, and yet they suffered so great a reversal of fortune when they met defeat at Leuctra that they were deprived of their power over the Hellenes, and lost such of their warriors as chose to die rather than survive defeat at the hands of those over whom they had once been masters.” (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.47) and again here “nay, they are now warred upon by their neighbors ; they are distrusted by all the Peloponnesians ; they are hated by most of the Hellenes ; they are harried and plundered day and night by their own serfs ; and not a day passes that they do not have to take the field or fight against some force or other, or march to the rescue of their perishing comrades.” (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.49) and "For he collected a naval force off Rhodes, won a victory over the Lacedaemonians in a sea-fight, deposed them from their sovereignty, and set the Hellenes free. . (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.63)
or when talking about "Greece" as an area :
“Well, if I were trying to present this matter to any others before having broached it to my own country, which has thrice freed Hellas--twice from the barbarians and once from the Lacedaemonian yoke--I should confess my error.” (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.129)
Are these words evidence against the Athenians' and the Lacedaemonians' hellenism? Would we consider these words evidence as to the Macedonians' otherness if they were directed against the Macedonians?
And as far as the "Yaunas" are concerned, we established that there are a number of theories, but we have also seen that the one which enjoys the most acceptance is the one that translates the Yauna Takabara as "the Macedonians". Of course doubts exist, of course other theories have been proposed too. Maybe, another clue could lie in India, where in the edicts of Asoka (mid 3rd century BC) we read about the "Yonas".
“Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest. And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni.” Rock Edict Nb13 (S. Dhammika).
In the Gandhari original Antiochos is called “Amtiyoko nama Yona-raja”
So, here we have unambiguous evidence of yet another eastern civilization calling the Macedonians "Yonas" (Iones). We are fortunate enough to not rely on "sun hats" or "small shields" to affirm the translation.
That the Jews also knew the Macedonians as Greeks is also known.
From the Machabees :
1:11. And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus the
Illustrious, the son of king Antiochus, who had been a hostage at Rome:
and he reigned in the hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of
the Greeks.
8:21. And the he goat, is the king of the Greeks, and the great horn
that was between his eyes, the same is the first king.
10:20. And he said: Dost thou know wherefore I am come to thee? And now
I will return, to fight against the prince of the Persians. When I went
forth, there appeared the prince of the Greeks coming
Much sometimes is said about the Romans but even Rufus (our only source that an interpreter would be needed to understand Macedonian, yet in a much debatable passage) says :
"?Mutiny was but a step away when, unperturbed by all this, Alexander summoned a full meeting of his generals and officers in his tent and ordered the Egyptian seers to give their opinion. They were well aware that the annual cycle follows a pattern of changes, that the moon is eclipsed when it passes behind the earth or is blocked by the sun, but they did not give this explanation, which they themselves knew, to the common soldiers. Instead, they declared that the sun represented the Greeks and the moon the Persians, and that an eclipse of the moon predicted disaster and slaughter for those nations.” (Quintus Curtius Rufus 4.10.1)
and
"?As for Alexander, it is generally agreed that, when sleep had brought him back to his senses after his drunken bout, he regretted his actions and said that the Persians would have suffered a more grievous punishment at the hands of the Greeks had they been forced to see him on Xerxes? throne and in his palace.?"
(Quintus Curtius Rufus 5.7.11)
or
"When the Branchidae met him the next day, he told them to accompany him. On reaching the city, he himself entered through the gate with a unit of light-armed troops. The phalanx had been ordered to surround the city walls and, when the signal was given, to sack this city which provided refuge for traitors, killing the inhabitants to a man. The Branchidae, who were unarmed, were butchered throughout the city, and neither community of language nor the olive-branches and entreaties of the suppliants could curb the savagery. Finally the Macedonians dug down to the foundations of the city walls in order to demolish them and leave not a single trace of the city.”
One of the best ones is given by Cicero in his Orations:
“For if all the wars which we have carried on against the Greeks are to be despised, then let the triumph of Marcus Curius over king Pyrrhus be derided; and that of Titus Flamininus over Philip; and that of Marcus Fulvius over the Aetolians; and that of Lucius Paullus over king Perses; and that of Quintus Metellus over the false Philip; and that of Lucius Mummius over the Corinthians. But, if all these wars were of the greatest importance, and if our victories in them were most acceptable, then why are the Asiatic nations and that Asiatic enemy despised by you? But, from our records of ancient deeds; I see that the Roman people carried on a most important war with Antiochus; the conqueror in which war, Lucius Scipio, who had already gained great glory when acting in conjunction with his brother Publius, assumed the same honour himself by taking a surname from Asia, as his brother did, who, having subdued Africa, paraded his conquest by the assumption of the name of Africanus. [32] And in that war the renown of your ancestor Marcus Cato was very conspicuous; but he, if he was, as I make no doubt that he was, a man of the same character as I see that you are, would never have gone to that war, if he had thought that it was only going to be a war against women. Nor would the senate have prevailed on Publius Africanus to go as lieutenant to his brother, when he himself; a little while before, having forced Hannibal out of Italy, having driven him out of Africa, and having crushed the power of Carthage, had delivered the republic from the greatest dangers, if that war had not been considered an important and formidable war.”
and Pliny the Elder who wrote :
"Such, at all events, were the opinions generally entertained in the reign of Alexander the Great, at a time when Greece was at the height of her glory, and the most powerful country in the world."
One should really make a list of sources who directly claim that the Macedonians were not Greeks and then juxtapose them to the bulk of sources that directly and unambiguously claim the opposite. I will not quote Strabo or Herodot, but what about :
"??? ?? ??????????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????????? ??? ??? ????????? ??????????, ?? ?????????? ????????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ?????."
Dionysius Hallicarnassensis, 20.1.3
or
???? ??????• ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??????, ???? ?????????? ?? ?? ????????• ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??????????? ????? ????????? ??? ???? ?????? ???????, ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ????????• ? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ???????, ???? ??????"
Dio Chrysostomus Soph., Orationes. {0612.001} Oration 4 section 9 line 3
and tons more...
