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

[Ghostmojo]

The subject of the relative Greekness of the ancient Makedonians cropped up on the thread about Alexander being antiquity's greatest commander [ <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=15495&start=140">viewtopic.php?f=19&t=15495&start=140<!-- l ] and I think by common consensus it is deserving of its own thread. It had started to develop along these lines:

... Pays to keep in mind also that Philip did not have a “pacified” Greece during his forays northeast. Whilst Alexander might have had to deal with his succession he had a recently annihilated Greece facilitating his adventure northwards. Philip was much engaged in politics and warfare attempting to but Greek heads into some sort of compliance. If anything is clear about Alex’s old man it is this: he wanted Greece behind him – by political as much as military methods or belted and cowed if necessary which, in the end it was. Clearly he wanted Macedonia to be part of Greece – the part that mattered of course; the ruler – but, at heart, Greek as did Macedonian monarchs before him who had not the means to achieve it. Alexander saw it rather differently: at Thebes he demonstrated that Greece was now Macedonian; a subject for her king to rule and do not forget it ...

Which is a very interesting point and perhaps deserving of a thread all to itself.

That the Makedonians (for the most part) were Greek is generally uncontested by the majority of modern historians - language, religion, customs, culture, artwork - all attest to this. As far as I can determine, they were a branch of the Dorians (or the latter were a branch of the Makedones), and they spoke a rougher version of North West Greek and had much in common with neighbouring Epeiros. Of course their (expanding) territory also embraced non-Greek peoples like Thrakians; Illyrians; Paeonians etc. (as did Epeiros' lands) and other migratory Greeks. It is a particularly 'ancient' (as opposed to the more modern pan-Hellenic all embracing) strand of Greek mentality that had them denying each other their basic common Greekness. The cultural aloofness of for example Athenians, who even sought to deny these northern peasants any Greek nationality, is perhaps more a testament to the inate snobbery (and self-belief in the superiority) of Ionians who in many ways considered themselves to be your original indigenous Greeks. Therefore others were by definition less Greek than themselves.

There is a discussion to be developed (perhaps elsewhere) that revolves aorund how various Greek powers arose and fell. Makedon was clearly the most powerful and lasting and its grasp extended the furthest. Whether this would have happened without Philip and then Alexander is highly unlikely. However, it was merely one of a number of Greek states or territories who achieved a forced hegemony over the other Hellenes. Perhaps the earliest had been Sparta with her 'Peloponnesian League' to be followed by Athen's maritime empire and then in defeat herself once again by Sparta's hopeless attempts at trans-Aegean empire. In quick succession we have the brief dominance of Thebes before the arrival of Makedon herself. Also very brief attempts at hegemony were made by Thessaly and later Epeiros. In most cases key individuals were always at play, rather than any great desire of the popular masses. It is also interesting that somehow the various four main Greek groups had periods of hegemony as well (via their key cities or states) with Dorians (Sparta/Makedon?/Eperios?); Ionians (Athens); Aioilans (Thebes/Thessaly/Epeiros?); Achaians (later Achaia) all having a crack at dominating the others.

That the Makedonians (for the most part) were Greek is generally uncontested by modern historians - language, religion, customs, culture, artwork - all attest to this.

It is, generally, a subject well steered away from. Far too many modern ethnic and political overlays that have no bearing on the how the ancients saw things. My view above is simply an observation of the actions of Macedonian kings attempting to "Hellenise" themselves and their courts (Archealus for example). Thus I find it ironic that the southern Greeks eventually became "Macedonian".

I feel that Philip's dealings with the Amphyctions and Athens, whilst mostly politically driven, were also informed by that need for "Hellenic acceptance".

I take the well made point about snobbery but I still inwardly chuckle at thoughts of a restless Demosthenes in Athens 2004...

I don't agree that we should steer away from any such subject, and am well aware of the huge complexities of this issue - not least of course the modern problems that have been created because of it. I do take you points though.

Hellenic acceptance was critical to Philip, and Alexander also made good use of this for political ends. A pan-Hellenic enterprise against the ancient enemy to the east, really needed to be mainly composed of Greeks, led by Greeks, and in the interest of all the Greeks. However, it is my belief and one that can easily be argued and backed up, that Philip and Alexander totally deserved this acceptance. The Temenids/Argeads were Greek. The Makedonian population was not 100% Greek - but its core group was - certainly prior to its major expansion. By all standards, epithets and tests we can apply to any of the ancient Greek tribes, the Makedonians qualify - even if Demosthenes would have it differently (and thereby disgree with Herodotos!).

I am aware of strands of historic examination (Hammond included) that have sought to explore the Makedonian's 'otherness', but I don't think they really stand up to serious scrutiny. It would be just as easy to promote the differences of Dorian Spartans to Ionian Athenians and others as well. It is true that the ancients saw things differently - but by using their standards rather than our own we surely arrive at the same conclusion? Quite often you see references to Monty Python on this site. I have used it myself, and will again because there is something hugely Pythonesque about the Greek's internal strife and critiques of each other. Such a remark might not be so easily comprehendable to non-English speakers, but to those of us that occupy the Anglo-American-Australasian orbit - the remark holds true. The Life Of Brian quote "only the messiah would deny his own divinity" rings true here - as would the response ... 'well what chance does that leave me with?'

A fascinating subject in itself and one I would like to hear other's view upon, so please feel free to comment here.

[Macedon]

I hope this thread does not turn too political. Anyways, "Greek" in the 4th century bore two meanings :

1. "ethnic Greek", that is sharing a common Hellenic identity regardless of cultural differences and time of hellenization, that is believing and having the other Hellenes agree that you are a Greek

and

2. "geographically Greek", that is living or being situated "in Greece", which to the ancients was the region below Thessaly, sometimes including it. In later years, Strabo expanded the borders of geographic "Greece" including Epirus and Macedonia.

They used the term in a very "free" way that sometimes has to be analyzed to exactly understand it and the ancient Greek language (that is the way they expressed themselves) many times does not help. In my opinion, the Macedonians were regarded as and themselves felt Greek, yet, first of all Macedonians.

[Ghostmojo]

Let's not forget that the notion of just what and where Greece was, was felt by many ancient Hellenes to apply to anywhere that Greeks settled. The most obvious serious major contenders to be part of the Greek World were the coast of Asia Minor (the other side of one Greek pond (the Aegean Sea)) populated particularly by Ionians, but also Dorians and Aiolians. The other major area is of course Megale Hellas (Magna Graecia/Greater Greece) comprising much of Sicily and southern Italy - populated by Achaians, Dorians and Ionians. The Italiote and Siciliote Greeks would have considered themselves every bit as Greek as their mainland homeland. Some of their cities would become major players in the Greek world (Syracuse). Then there are the more remote colonies dotted around the Mediterranean and Black Seas.

My own interpretation of Greece proper in ancient times would have included all the mainland including as far north as Epeiros/Kerkyra and Makedon/Chalidike; as far west as half of Sicily and the foot of Italy; as far south as Krete; and as far west as Ionia (modern Turkish coast) and Kypros (Cyprus).

But I agree, there is nothing hard and fast about any of this, and boundaries both real and imagined were very elastic throughout the ages ...

[hoplite14gr]

Please search through the Greek History section.
You will find the subject cropping up a lot.
Some people follow the political agenda
Some try to be scientifically objective as they understand it.
Most don't bother and do not understand why other people feel so deeply about this

Facts:
Language religion inscriptions-Greek
Stabo Ancient source
"??????????" ?,329 original: ESTI MEN OYN HELLAS KAI MAKEDONIA
"Geography" 7 329 "therefore and Macedonia is Greece"
"Geography" 5 18 defines them as Doreans

Herodotus Ancient sources
Histories 1.56 and 8.43 defines them as tribe of the Doric race (Greeks)

Polyvios defines Macedonians as same race as other Greeks (OMOPHYLLOI TOSI HELLHSOI)

Now how its possible for slavic people who appeared in the area after 4th century AD to bear relation to ancient Macedonia;
well its a big mystery to me!!!!

Kind regards

[Macedon]

Actually, strictly geographically, Greece was only what I described (until Strabo,as I already mentioned). When the ancients said "Greece", this is what they meant. This does not mean that Greeks did not reside outside Greece. We have Magna Graecia, but this also outside Greece. The pass of Thermopylae was regarded as the entrance to Greece. Again, this does not mean that the Greeks traditionally living north of Greece or in any other places were not Greeks. See how you have fallen into the trap that many do? A Greek was NOT someone who resides in Greece.

Yet, if you propose that today we hold that these and other places were "Greek", you are right.

[Macedon]

Please search through the Greek History section.

Now how its possible for slavic people who appeared in the area after 4th century AD to bear relation to ancient Macedonia;
well its a big mystery to me!!!!

Kind regards

Could we please not get political?

[Paralus]

Could we please not get political?

It weren't me boss! I didn't do it. Not me boss.

More seriously, with repect to modern politcal axes, a thread such as this has about as much chance of remaining unscathed as Poland in a European war.

That the Greeks ("southern" or "city state") viewed Macedon as somewhat "other" (however you define that) is, to me, clear. Think of a Londoner sitting in a pub with an Orkney Islander. Snobbery - which I agree played a significant role - or whatever, the efforts of Macedonian monarchs to "Hellenise" or be seen as "Hellenic" smack of they "protesteth too much".

My only point in what was quoted above is whimsical: After the efforts of, for example, Alexander "Philihellene" and Archelaus, Philip II made himself Philip "First-Hellene". By the time Alexander III had finished his Theban demostration, the southern Greeks were well aware Alexander's Macedon was boss and that they were to be good Macedonian subjects.

Rather ironic given it had been, by repetitive turns, the plaything of Athens, Sparta, Thebes and the Chalcidian League

[Macedon]

... well, politically, things tended to easily change in Greece...

[Ghostmojo]

Two points from me:

(a) I absolutely don't want this to get political (in the terms of the modern 'name' issues etc.) but I utterly agree with Stefanos. I am not Greek. I am English, but I have a lifelong love of Greece, its history and culture and am one of many hundreds of thousands of students of Greece (if not millions throughout the ages) who recognise the debt we in the west to owe to Hellenic civilisation. As the subject was raised, the appearance of this new FYROM republic from a failed and broken former slavic conglomerate (Yugoslavia) and its attempts to co-opt a culture that is not theirs (Alexander the Great Airport for god's sake! :x ), is shameful, deceitful and thoroughly repugnant. However, I feel do sorry for their nation, in that it is clearly a sad people without a history or a culture (or a language come to that) and which has decided to steal that belonging to others - specifically by reaching back into history (and attempting to re-fashion it). I do understand why others (particularly Greek Makedonians) feel so strongly about it, and they have my complete support. That's all I have to say about that...

(b) I do want this to remain a discussion about the ancient history of that part of the Balkans and not what has happened since the 1990s. It is the Makedonian involvement in the greater antique Greek history that interests me, as does that of the other component parts. There is an interesting discussion to be had here about the extent of who and what was Greece in the pre-christian period. Depending upon the standpoint it seems to be the law of diminishing returns with no hard and fast boundaries really ever established (except perhaps under Roman dominion). For example, from Sparta at very many points in history - their sole interest in the lands of Greece ended at the Isthmus of Corinth. I have read a fair bit about this business of Makedon/Makedonia and its part in Greek affairs and am interested in other's views about it.

Perhaps defaulting to Herodotos' view about Greek 'nationality' is the best recourse: where the attributes of Greekness are identified as shared blood, shared language, common sanctuaries and sacrifices and similar customs. One reason why the Greeks are Greek is because they worship at the same altars.

In terms of geography though, I suppose I would be described thus as a Post-Strabo Man! :wink:

I would guess Alexander's or Philip's view might be Makedonian first and then Greek second (although I can't think of references where they specify which sub-group they might have considered themselves to be (i.e Dorian) other than Makedones); whereas a polis-dwelling resident of Attika might think Athenian first, Ionian second, Greek third (would he have considered himself Attikan as well?); Leonidas or Brasidas might have specified Spartan/Lakedaimonian/Dorian/Lakonian(?)/Greek perhaps? And would Epamminondas have said Theban/Boiotian/Aiolian/Greek in that order? The loyalty to tribe and territory and ethne (Hellenic branch) as we know was all-important to all Greeks. To confuse matters further, one is reminded of Kleomenes I on the Athenian acropolis trying to persuade the priestess to grant him entry to the inner sanctum on the grounds that he was Achaian (rather than Dorian like his other Spartan comrades who had likewise been forbidden access) via his descent from Herakles. Athena was of course having none of it. The apparent unity of religion still left plenty of grounds for specific exclusion ...

[Paralus]

(a) I absolutely don't want this to get political (in the terms of the modern 'name' issues etc.) but I utterly agree with Stefanos. I am not Greek. I am English, but I have a lifelong love of Greece, its history and culture and am one of many hundreds of thousands of students of Greece (if not millions throughout the ages) who recognise the debt we in the west to owe to Hellenic civilisation. As the subject was raised, the appearance of this new FYROM republic from a failed and broken former slavic conglomerate (Yugoslavia) and its attempts to co-opt a culture that is not theirs (Alexander the Great Airport for god's sake! :x ), is shameful, deceitful and thoroughly repugnant. However, I feel do sorry for their nation, in that it is clearly a sad people without a history or a culture (or a language come to that) and which has decided to steal that belonging to others - specifically by reaching back into history (and attempting to re-fashion it). I do understand why others (particularly Greek Makedonians) feel so strongly about it, and they have my complete support. That's all I have to say about that....

Yep.

With the rider that it is generally governments that steal or appropriate identities rather than "a people".

[Ghostmojo]

(a) I absolutely don't want this to get political (in the terms of the modern 'name' issues etc.) but I utterly agree with Stefanos. I am not Greek. I am English, but I have a lifelong love of Greece, its history and culture and am one of many hundreds of thousands of students of Greece (if not millions throughout the ages) who recognise the debt we in the west to owe to Hellenic civilisation. As the subject was raised, the appearance of this new FYROM republic from a failed and broken former slavic conglomerate (Yugoslavia) and its attempts to co-opt a culture that is not theirs (Alexander the Great Airport for god's sake! :x ), is shameful, deceitful and thoroughly repugnant. However, I feel do sorry for their nation, in that it is clearly a sad people without a history or a culture (or a language come to that) and which has decided to steal that belonging to others - specifically by reaching back into history (and attempting to re-fashion it). I do understand why others (particularly Greek Makedonians) feel so strongly about it, and they have my complete support. That's all I have to say about that....

Yep.

With the rider that it is generally governments that steal or appropriate identities rather than "a people".

Of course - although, I gather the general population tends to go along with this for the most part :| ...

[Paralus]

Which is why this topic is such a slippery-slope. The general population "went along" in the the late thirties of last century as they did in the nineties.

There have been some, how to say, not "altogether Hellenic Greeks" who fought for Greek freedom over the last several hundred years or more. Some of these might be found to have "slavic" roots....

[Ghostmojo]

Which is why this topic is such a slippery-slope. The general population "went along" in the the late thirties of last century as they did in the nineties.

Indeed. And why I did want to confine it to ancient times

There have been some, how to say, not "altogether Hellenic Greeks" who fought for Greek freedom over the last several hundred years or more. Some of these might be found to have "slavic" roots....

I accept that after the fall of Rome (and even before it) other ethnic groups were starting to permeate the Greek homeland - and that is not to even touch upon the whole period of Ottoman Turkish domination - and therefore the mix currently in Greece will inevitably have quite a varied make-up.

But the situation in FYROM is very different and impinges upon the interests and aspirations of Albanians and Bulgarians - as well as the Greeks themselves.

But as I said - I'd rather keep this to antiquity. I made my own views clear further back.

[Paralus]

No argument here - don't get me wrong.

Hope the thread goes well. They will come though. They use funny names and refuse to list their real ones. They post and repost. Deletion becomes the game and moderators apply for overtime rates.

[hoplite14gr]

I like the fact that members politely defined the limits and they are perfectly acceptable to me.
The genetic relation of ancient to modern is off topic and I will leave it out.

Yet the issue in question is the fault of a very Greek bad habit that continues from the dawn of Greek history.
We have a national characteristic of being "localist" and territorial to an extreme that most peoples/nations on this earth are not.
In most countries you will find a North/South or East/West prejudice based on locality but Greeks carry this to the extreme.

We barely trust (feel as our own) those in our neighborhood/village and we suspect all others.
When politics(ancient in our case) are thrown in the mix we are ready to accuse the "other Greeks" as traitors or that they are non-Greeks!!!!
Most of ancient Greek Literature is what we learn through the prejudices/passions of the Athenian aristokrats who were quick to brand any Greek not "urbanised enough" as a barbarian!

We cannot imagine the spite and self consuming passion of the not vary good looking, rejected Demosthenes (who was among the first to cut and run at Cheronea!) His once glorious locality was now just a city, not the "might of Greece" and some northern chief-peasant forced him to run in battle! He had to justify to himself that this "monster" was a barbarian or he would die from a stroke :twisted: .

If you go further back you will Thukidides branding the very Greek Aetolians as barbarians because some half naked stone throwers whacked the "mighty" Athenian hoplites of Demosthenes (not related to the previous one).

We should not demand that a non Greek non scholary individual understands the very depth of all this

Kind regards