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

[Paralus]

Eumenes always was in fear that his men would not be loyal to him, and they proved him right... . He wanted to show the other side that he was no stranger and that he also commanded Macedonians. Sending a Macedonian to speak to Macedonians was only logical for he reminded them that they would fight against Macedonians, not against the army of a foreigner (in the ancient sense of course...). This again serves as an argument to the motives of Eumenes and does not say anything about the Macedonian speech. That it was a different dialect we know, since it gets to have its very own name! I only support that nothing can be concluded as to the linguistic distance it may have had from Attic or any other Greek dialect from the said text.

My dear George, I believe we'll have to agree to disagree on Eumenes' supposed fear of betrayal by Macedonians. I do not believe that the evidence is strong enough to demonstrate his "Greekness" was a hindrance. Some of the Argyraspides call him the pest from the Chersonesus as they deliver him up for their families and treasure. The most comprehensive material - Diodorus - strongly argues that Antigenes, and so his men, supported the Cardian. Eumenes was the one who made much of his Greek background to disguise his ambition - not the Macedononians.

We might also have to simply disagree on the use of Xenias.

In the end examination of the remains of Macedonians, Paeonians and "southern Greeks" of the fifth/fourth century would reveal no anthropological differences. The language was the same - a different dialect (again that metaphor) and the city state Greeks likely saw the peasntry of fifth century Macedonia - Pardiccas II's "great crowd" - as "non Greek" due to their social status; that is, their not being "free men".

And, indeed, you are Macedon...

[Macedon]

Disagreement is the soul of an entertaining and educating discussion after all! :wink:

[Ghostmojo]

It is very pleasing to see this thread now having reached its fourth page and I consider myself to be considerably better informed about this subject. Having said that, nothing has been said that changes my own basic views. What has appeared is considerable detail and dissection (as I would expect from such worthy and notable contributors) which deals with nuances, but ultimately we are still uncertain as to the exact story. Probably because there always has been more than one.

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 return to my own native patch as being somewhat instructive in all of this. The British Isles is of a similar size to Greece and its immediate isles, and also has the same issues with regard to language. Ignoring the non-English tongues (of which there are a few in all the constituent states) the variety of accents and dialects would be bewildering to English speakers from the Anglophone diaspora who often live in far larger geographic areas, but which have far less variation in the form of that spoken language. It is certainly true for example that there are strong regional accents in the United States of America - Boston, Texas, the deep south, New York City etc., but considering the sheer size of the territory concerned there are surprisingly few of them, and the more extensive middle areas have quite homogeneous speech styles. The same applies to Canada (save the Francophone areas) and I think much the same is also true of Australasia.

Conversely in the UK, especially in England we have hugely heterogeneous variations of English which can change in a very short distance i.e. the 35 miles between Liverpool and Manchester; the 50 or so miles between Manchester and Leeds; and the 100 miles between Leeds and Newcastle-Upon-Tyne; all show remarkable differences not just in accents (which can be barely intelligible to each other) but also in terminology and phraseology. These are all regional forms of English and not different languages. Go a little further north and crossing the border you can detect differences between the Scottish versions in both Glasgow and Edinburgh - the former being particularly difficult for other Brits to follow - and of course there is also the patois of Scots, which many supporters and users claim is a separate language, but in reality is just a very different kind of English with a huge variety of local words which make the grammar difficult to follow, even though the structured use of the language still follows the basic rules of English. Explore parts of Wales; the broad West Country (which gave birth to the North American accent); the south east with its polished Queen's English and diametrically opposed cockney (the ancestor of Australian and New Zealand speech styles); and into Ireland north and south for even more variation. The point is that even within a closely connected geographic entity, the variation in use of a common tongue can be enormous. All manner of factors have created this situation, usually to do with external influence (Norse, French, Celtic etc.) but the fact remains, despite the spectrum of use (which can result in translation being required) the nation basically speaks the same language - even though the British are obviously a union of peoples rather than one race.

Surely the same can be applied to the ancient Hellenes? The combined pastoralist tribes, who seem to have come under the leadership of the Temenids, whom we know as 'highland/mountain' (Orestai / Makedones) men of Makedon merely spoke a particularly strong version of North West Greek perhaps as distinctly different from the Athenian koine as Scots English was to a Londoner. Hesiod seemed to believe Makedonians spoke Greek when he equated the ancestral founder (Macedon) with other mythical founding figures, and also perhaps believed their patois had elements of Aiolic speech as well as Doric. This was in the seventh century [size=85:5fintaxn]BC[/size]. In the 6th century the Persians described the tribute paying people of this area as Greeks (and that could only be the Makedonians - pre Darios/Xerxes) ... 'yauna takabara'. Hellanikos also visited Makedon and his reinterpreting the founding myth figures by making Macedon no longer a cousin, but a son of Aiolos, is suggestive of his inclusion of this people and region as being part of the larger Greek family. It is my general view that those other Greeks of an academic, cultural (or otherwise) bent who tried to disrespect the Makedonians by grouping them with the barbarians did so merely as an expression of their own particular brand of Hellenic localism (as Stefanos has reminded us) which was exclusive rather than inclusive. And the more powerful one of these other groups became - the less the others liked it, and the less they felt they had in common. Ever the Greek disease...

[Paralus]

It is very pleasing to see this thread now having reached its fourth page...

I agree and, must say, am rather surprisied given previous experience in these discussions.

The British Isles is of a similar size to Greece and its immediate isles, and also has the same issues with regard to language. Ignoring the non-English tongues (of which there are a few in all the constituent states) the variety of accents and dialects would be bewildering to English speakers from the Anglophone diaspora who often live in far larger geographic areas, but which have far less variation in the form of that spoken language.

Absolutely - viz my metaphor the Londoner and Orkney Islander. The observations about the US and Oz are correct as well. Aside from an appended "eh" (QLD) and "castle" as in cat (Vic), regional variation, though apparent, is limited. It is more so in the US but your observation about the "middle states" is on the mark.

To me it is clear that there was a Macedonian dialect and that it was not often readily understood by city state Greeks. The court and its hetairoi spoke "standard Greek" well enough but, as the instance above at Cleitus' murder shows, spoke to the rank and file in the "Macedonian speech". I have little doubt as to why Eumenes sent Xenias as his emisary to the Macedonian phalanx of Neoptolemus and it had nothing to do with hiding the Greek nature of Eumenes. The Macedonians of Neoptolemus were of the royal army were well aware who the commander of the opposing army was - particularly as Neoptolemus had disregarded royal orders to work under him. There was absolutely no reason for Eumenes to "show the other side that he was no stranger and that he also commanded Macedonians" as George /Macedon claims as he'd already been to Armenia and sorted out the problems with Neoptolemus' Macedonians. Thus he sends Xenias to be certain his propositions are understood by them there "Orkney Islanders"....

[Ghostmojo]

Last night there was an interesting programme on BBC2 in the Ancient Worlds series where the historian Richard Miles explored these dichotomies between what he called 'the Greek thing' (examples of, expressions of, and attempts at Pan-Hellenism) and the continual fragmentation and intenecine strife; as bemoaned by Aristotle amongst others:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... eek_Thing/

Although aimed at the general audience, there were enough asides and knowing winks to detect commentary also aimed at the serious student. He did perhaps let the side down a bit by referring to the coming of Philip and Alexander as outsiders, but I think really he was pointing out the alien society the autocratic/aristocratic Makedonians represented compared with the handful of city-states he had been discussing. For example he dwelt mainly upon Athens and Sparta; with brief appearances from Corinth, Delphi and Olympia; didn't even mention Thebes; and certainly didn't get into discussions regarding the federated tribal areas such as Aitolia or Thessaly. His subject was the sheer variety of political forms that appeared; the explosion of culture; the exploration of the mind - all set against the backdrop of endless bloodletting and destruction. If you can access this programme via the BBC website i-player, it is certainly worth a look.

[Macedon]

We do not disagree in reality. I only point out that the evidence does not allow us to say that an Athenian did not relatively easily understand a Macedonian, nor specify a degree of linguistic difference. I also think that it must be clarified that it is wrong to compare Macedonian Greek with some non-existent "standard Greek". Atttic was a linking dialect for Greeks but you make it sound as if the Southern poleis spoke a single variation of Greek, which is not the case. In fact the chance is that there was as much unintelligibility between Southern Greeks as between any of them and a Macedonian.

What conclusion can we reach from the following Greek texts?

1. "????????? ?????????? ??? ?????????????, ??????????? ?????? ???????????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?????· ? ?????????, ?????? ?? ????· ??? ?? ??? ???????? ????????,", Flavius Arrianus Hist. et Phil., Alexandri anabasis. Book 6 chapter 13 section 5 line 5.

2. "? ??? ????’ ??????, ?? ?? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ??????, ???? ??????????? ??? ?? ?????????? ?? ????· ????? ?’ ????? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??????", Xenophon Hist., Anabasis. Book 3 chapter 1 section 26 line 2.

3. "????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??????????, ?? ?? ??? ?????????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????; ????? ???? ???????? ??? ?????????? ??????" Diodorus Siculus Hist., Bibliotheca historica (lib. 21–40). Book 26 chapter 18 section 1 line 33.

4. "?????????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? ????????????? ??? ??? ??????, ???? ?? ????? ????????????? ??????, ?? ??? ?? ??? ??????, ?????????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ?????? ?????????????. ? ?? ???? ????????????? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????????·" Parthenius Myth., Narrationes amatoriae. Chapter 24 section 2 line 7.

5. "???? ?????????? ????? ? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???????????.“ ??? ?? ??? ????????, ????? ?????????????, ???? ?? ???? ?????????· „?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????, ????? ?? ???????· ?? ??? ?????????· ?? ?’ ????????, ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????."Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil., Pyrrhus. Chapter 26 section 24 line 2.

6. "????????? ???? ?????, ????? ?? ???? ???????, ?? ?’ ????? ???? ?????????? ???? ??? ???????, ???, ?????????? ???????. ?? ?? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ??? ???????? ???????, ????????????? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???????????? ??? ???????????. ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???????" Dio Chrysostomus Soph., Orationes. {0612.001} Oration 43 section 5 line 10.

7. "?? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ????????, ???? ???? ?????? ???????? <?????>, ???? ??? ???? ?????????? ??????? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ?????????? ???? ?? ?????????, ????? ?? ??????? ???????????, ??????? ????? ???????????? ? ??????????, ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????, ???????? ???????." Dio Chrysostomus Soph., Orationes. Oration 11 section 23a line 9

8. "????? ??? ???? ???, ?????? ?? ????????. ?? ??? ??????????, ????’ ?? ????? ????? ????? ???’· ?? ?’ ??????? ???????????.?? ????????????? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????????? ??? ?????? ?????;" Heraclides Criticus Perieg., Descriptio Graeciae. Fragment 3 section 8 line 6 (the words of Poseidippus scolding the Athenians for saying that their tongue and city are (what should be considered) Greek)

A very educating text is : Tatianus Apol., Oratio ad Graecos.

"??? ?? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?????????. ??????? ??? ??? ??? ? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???????, ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??????????· ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ???’ ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. ??? ??? ?? ?????????????, ??? ?? ????????? ???? ????????? ??????????, ??????????? ?? ?????? ???’ ??? ???????????? ????????? ???? ?????????? ??? ?????????. ?????? ????? ??????????? ?? ???’ ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ????. ???? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ??????????? ??? ??????????, ????????? ???????, ??????? ??????,"

"?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?????????? ??? ?????????? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ?????????, ???? ?? ?????? ???????????; ?? ??? ?????????? ??? ?? ????????, ???? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ??????· ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????????????,
?? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??????????;", Tatianus Apol., Oratio ad Graecos. Chapter 26 section 4 line 1.

These examples serve to remind us of what we all already know but seem to not keep in mind when speaking about the Macedonian way of speech. That is that there were many regional dialects in Greece and that there was no "standard Greek" at the time of Perdiccas II or Alexander the Great (the Koine afterwards can be characterized as standard Greek, although the use of the major dialects (and as such sub-dialects) are attested deep into the Byzantine era). I also have offered examples that seem to insinuate that there was indeed a degree of intelligibility between them more directly than any comment we have about the Macedonian dialect. This does not mean that I suggest that Macedonian (or any of the Macedonian variations) was perfectly and immediately understandable to all. It might be easier to understand by an Aeolian or a Dorian speaker and less understandable to an Attic speaker than some other Greek dialect. Also, I have to point out the use of the word "barbarikoteron" as an adjective used by Athenians to look down on Dorian... I am amazed that this has not yet served as an argument to some idiots out there as to how the Dorians were in reality barbarians and since the Lacedaemonians were descendants of the Makednoi, then Sparta is Slav or something...

[Rumo]

I return to my own native patch as being somewhat instructive in all of this. The British Isles is of a similar size to Greece and its immediate isles, and also has the same issues with regard to language. Ignoring the non-English tongues (of which there are a few in all the constituent states) the variety of accents and dialects would be bewildering to English speakers from the Anglophone diaspora who often live in far larger geographic areas, but which have far less variation in the form of that spoken language. It is certainly true for example that there are strong regional accents in the United States of America - Boston, Texas, the deep south, New York City etc., but considering the sheer size of the territory concerned there are surprisingly few of them, and the more extensive middle areas have quite homogeneous speech styles. The same applies to Canada (save the Francophone areas) and I think much the same is also true of Australasia.

Conversely in the UK, especially in England we have hugely heterogeneous variations of English which can change in a very short distance i.e. the 35 miles between Liverpool and Manchester; the 50 or so miles between Manchester and Leeds; and the 100 miles between Leeds and Newcastle-Upon-Tyne; all show remarkable differences not just in accents (which can be barely intelligible to each other) but also in terminology and phraseology. These are all regional forms of English and not different languages. Go a little further north and crossing the border you can detect differences between the Scottish versions in both Glasgow and Edinburgh - the former being particularly difficult for other Brits to follow - and of course there is also the patois of Scots, which many supporters and users claim is a separate language, but in reality is just a very different kind of English with a huge variety of local words which make the grammar difficult to follow, even though the structured use of the language still follows the basic rules of English. Explore parts of Wales; the broad West Country (which gave birth to the North American accent); the south east with its polished Queen's English and diametrically opposed cockney (the ancestor of Australian and New Zealand speech styles); and into Ireland north and south for even more variation. The point is that even within a closely connected geographic entity, the variation in use of a common tongue can be enormous. All manner of factors have created this situation, usually to do with external influence (Norse, French, Celtic etc.) but the fact remains, despite the spectrum of use (which can result in translation being required) the nation basically speaks the same language - even though the British are obviously a union of peoples rather than one race.

One thing about languages is that with no constraints (such as a literary language and the institutions but also the social pressure coming with it), they tend to diverge, local innovations occur and the regional forms of speech become increasingly diverse. Whether two such regional varieties are dialects or languages is often in the eye of the beholder, and politics has (and had) a role in this definition. A language is a dialect with an army and navy, as some say. Is Low German a separate language, a dialect of German or a dialect of Dutch? There is better mutual intelligibility between some Scandinavian languages than between some Italian dialects.

British English dialects are more diverse (relative to the size of their territory) than American English dialects mainly because English is spoken for about 1500 years in Britan, it went through a long and sometimes troubled history with multiple foreign influences (Norse, French). American English is a relatively young language in its territory. Give it some time, and it will become more diverse, with regional particularities born also from the inevitable evolution of the language, but also from contact with other linguistic communities (Hispanic, Chinese, etc).

Surely the same can be applied to the ancient Hellenes? The combined pastoralist tribes, who seem to have come under the leadership of the Temenids, whom we know as 'highland/mountain' (Orestai / Makedones) men of Makedon merely spoke a particularly strong version of North West Greek perhaps as distinctly different from the Athenian koine as Scots English was to a Londoner. Hesiod seemed to believe Makedonians spoke Greek when he equated the ancestral founder (Macedon) with other mythical founding figures, and also perhaps believed their patois had elements of Aiolic speech as well as Doric. This was in the seventh century [size=85:1lenu9fr]BC[/size]. In the 6th century the Persians described the tribute paying people of this area as Greeks (and that could only be the Makedonians - pre Darios/Xerxes) ... 'yauna takabara'. Hellanikos also visited Makedon and his reinterpreting the founding myth figures by making Macedon no longer a cousin, but a son of Aiolos, is suggestive of his inclusion of this people and region as being part of the larger Greek family. It is my general view that those other Greeks of an academic, cultural (or otherwise) bent who tried to disrespect the Makedonians by grouping them with the barbarians did so merely as an expression of their own particular brand of Hellenic localism (as Stefanos has reminded us) which was exclusive rather than inclusive. And the more powerful one of these other groups became - the less the others liked it, and the less they felt they had in common. Ever the Greek disease...

Modern linguistics is, well, modern. An ancient Greek perhaps wouldn't make the difference between a divergent Greek dialect (sounding as - let's say - today Tsakonian vs standard Greek) and the Greek spoken by Phrygians, Illyrians or Paionians. He couldn't say if the strange pronunciation, the broken grammar, some words whose meaning he can't understand (compared to his own variety of Greek) is a matter of dialectal differnece, or imperfect second language acquisition, or even a closely related language (some Phrygian words and formulas sound very similar with the Greek ones - not sure if due to their common Indo-European heritage or just linguistic contact between the two). If there were varieties of ancient Greek which weren't mutually intelligible, no doubt some would have perceived them as different languages.

Regardless of that, I don't think those myths were shaped following some genuine ethnographic and linguistic maps.

[hoplite14gr]

Interesting thread.
Thank you all for not sticking to details or technicalities on a "hot potato" issue.

Yet we are talking of an Era were even at late stages even the most ancient nation in Europe was forming.
The assimilation of smaller groups that the "dominant clan" might initially though to be different was a part of the process.

I still believe that Macedonians are viewed by the non Greeks through the prejudices of the "shiled throwers" of Chaeroneia.

Kind regards

[Rumo]

In the 6th century the Persians described the tribute paying people of this area as Greeks (and that could only be the Makedonians - pre Darios/Xerxes) ... 'yauna takabara'.

In 6th century BC there were a number of Greek colonies on the Macedonian and Thracian coast, which were settled in 'non-Temenid' initiatives. With all that, 'yauna' is sometimes argued it was an umbrella term for populations in the western Asia Minor and Balkans, Greeks and non-Greeks alike.

[hoplite14gr]

Ancient Greeks considered the burial customs as the most sacred proof.
The Delphic Oracle said that Salamis belonged to the Atheninas because the burial custom son the island were the same as in Athens and
not like the ones in Megara.

Scholars know that Acheans (Myceneans) were Greeks beyond doubt.
Bronze Age Greek kings burial masks: http://www.komvos.edu.gr/masks/images/masks/g01.jpg
Macedonian kings burial masks
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_N3VUk8A7nD8/S ... %CE%B1.gif
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iCNRnknDYs8/S ... ellas2.jpg

And more are being found everyday in Pella.

Kind regards

[Rumo]

Bronze Age Greek kings burial masks: http://www.komvos.edu.gr/masks/images/masks/g01.jpg

Here is a Thracian golden mask, found in a tumulus dated 5th century-early 4th century BC by ceramic finds, in central Bulgaria (Stara Zagora region):
http://www.bulgariainside.eu/en/article ... index.html

[hoplite14gr]

Thracian Royal clans were accepted as contestants in the Olympic games.

Kind regards

[Paralus]

He did perhaps let the side down a bit by referring to the coming of Philip and Alexander as outsiders, but I think really he was pointing out the alien society the autocratic/aristocratic Makedonians represented compared with the handful of city-states he had been discussing.

I would agree with him: I do think the city state Greeks looked upon them in that fashion. The usual response to that is the fact that Greek states allied themselves with Philip and requested his help or that he took two "seats" at the Delphic Amphictyony.

The first is not of any import. Greek states, pursuing limited self-interest, would always seek the support or backing of the greater power. The most outstanding examples being the long running Spartan and then Theban prostataia under Persian aegis and the constant appeals to Rome to settle petty disputes and, in the end, invite their own end game.

The second is a matter of base practicality. Having been asked for support Philip defeated the Phocians and was awarded their votes after they'd been expelled. I seriously doubt that Philip, canny political operator that he was, will ever have attempted to demand such. Not that he ever misunderstood the possible value of successful support when he was asked.

Again, Athenian (and other states) snobbery may well have had a hand in this view of these Macedonians as "outsiders".

[Ghostmojo]

In the 6th century the Persians described the tribute paying people of this area as Greeks (and that could only be the Makedonians - pre Darios/Xerxes) ... 'yauna takabara'.

In 6th century BC there were a number of Greek colonies on the Macedonian and Thracian coast, which were settled in 'non-Temenid' initiatives. With all that, 'yauna' is sometimes argued it was an umbrella term for populations in the western Asia Minor and Balkans, Greeks and non-Greeks alike.

Yes Rumo, I do recognise that fact, and was generalising to some extent. After all, a great many curious Greeks in the Chalkidiki region would have had to observe the Persian carving of a canal though one of the prongs of that peninsula. There were single-poleis Greek colonies virtually everywhere around the Mediterranean/Euxine basins. It's always a problem with catch-all phrases in all respects - arguably the Persians not specifying if they meant individual or collected Greek communities within Thrakian domains etc.; a larger regional ethnos like the Makedonians; or the more embracing umbrella term you suggest. But the term meaning 'Greeks wearing the hat' is thought to refer to the kausia hat which was distinctive to the Makedones.

Again, Athenian (and other states) snobbery may well have had a hand in this view of these Macedonians as "outsiders".

I think also perhaps just the general established way of life up until Philip started to change the Makedonian state might account for this. It seems intially the Makedones were largely transhumant pastoralists, later working the land and managing the forests - lifestyles more in common with their immediate northern rather than more distant southern neighbours. N.G.L. Hammond is insistent that the Makedonians had no alien or subject peoples within their territories. Unlike Athens or Corinth they had no serious interest in maritime commerce and were content within their own small cities and lands until the time of serious expansion. Thereafter of course, they acquired territory populated by Illyrian, Paionian, Thrakian and Phrygian peoples and of course not only the physical presence of non-Greeks, but also their languages would have had an effect upon the Makedonian speech forms - loan words most noticeably entering the fray.

I think the evolution of Makedon (into Makedonia) and its people might be considered a form of alternate or parallel development. Largely Greeks yes, but taking a differing course from the city-states for a variety of reasons, geographic, social, economic, cultural and historical. They are far from alone in this with Epeiros shadowing the Makedonian march to a large degree, but also to a lesser extent regions like Thessaly and Aitolia. The differing lifestyle; more conservative approach to political development; adherence to more archaic forms of rule etc. created a people who would have seemed very alien to the average Athenian or Corinthian. However, they would have seemed less so to the average Epeirote or Thessalian. Culture, politics, commerce and science moved quicker in some of the city states which would have made the more rural, federated areas seem very backward. Add to that the regional dialetical differences of Makedonian Greek as a language, with its absorption of foreign words and phrases resulting in Makedonisti, then it's no hard to see why the more sophisticated urban Greeks saw them as peasants.

One thing that has always intrigued me is the lack of empathy and affinity between the Lakedaimonians and the Makedonians. Apart from the brief period of Alexander I and the schemings of Brasidas - the bulk of recorded history sees these two (Dorian) powers at each others throats. Perhaps I should not be surprised because of the running wounds that existed between (Dorian) Sparta and (Dorian) Argos; but they had clear overlapping territorial issues. However, the two 'royal' regions - far north and far south - did not.

PS - actually, since posting this it occurs to me that the Temenids having originated from Peloponnesian Argos (despite their mutual Dorian ethnos) may well have taken their inate dislike of the Spartans with them, when they emigrated north. The period during which they did this was roughly around the time Sparta and Argos were first at odds with each other (I think)...

[Rumo]

Yes Rumo, I do recognise that fact, and was generalising to some extent. After all, a great many curious Greeks in the Chalkidiki region would have had to observe the Persian carving of a canal though one of the prongs of that peninsula. There were single-poleis Greek colonies virtually everywhere around the Mediterranean/Euxine basins. It's always a problem with catch-all phrases in all respects - arguably the Persians not specifying if they meant individual or collected Greek communities within Thrakian domains etc.; a larger regional ethnos like the Makedonians; or the more embracing umbrella term you suggest. But the term meaning 'Greeks wearing the hat' is thought to refer to the kausia hat which was distinctive to the Makedones.

I've read several arguments that 'yauna takabara' is to be read as 'petasos-wearing Ionians'.

Moreover, AFAIK, kausia is attested later, in Hellenistic context, centuries after the articulation of this ethnic stereotype in Persian inscriptions.