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

[Macedon]

Well... according to Herodot it was the Atheneans who were hellenized barbarians.

I think that the genesis of the "Hellenic race" is well described in his work :

"As for the Hellenic race, it has used ever the same language, as I clearly perceive, since it first took its rise; but
since the time when it parted off feeble at first from the Pelasgian race, setting forth from a small beginning it has increased to that great number of races which we see, and chiefly because many barbarian races have been added to it besides. Moreover it is true, as I think, of the Pelasgian race also, that so far as it remained barbarian it never made any great increase."

Here we see that the Greeks clearly understood that many Hellenes were actually assimilated populations (like the Athenian Pelasgians). This is a direct contrast to what many believe regarding Hellenic racism and egalitarianism and clearly shows that genes counted only to a certain point and to a certain time back.

[PMBardunias]

Well... according to Herodot it was the Atheneans who were hellenized barbarians.

Amen Brother! Now that's an axe I can grind! We need to start calling them by their correct name: FPDA (Former Pelasgian Democracy of Athens). They even coopted the name of a perfectly good Goddess. :wink:

[Rumo]

Well... according to Herodot it was the Atheneans who were hellenized barbarians.

I think that the genesis of the "Hellenic race" is well described in his work :

"As for the Hellenic race, it has used ever the same language, as I clearly perceive, since it first took its rise; but
since the time when it parted off feeble at first from the Pelasgian race, setting forth from a small beginning it has increased to that great number of races which we see, and chiefly because many barbarian races have been added to it besides. Moreover it is true, as I think, of the Pelasgian race also, that so far as it remained barbarian it never made any great increase."

Here we see that the Greeks clearly understood that many Hellenes were actually assimilated populations (like the Athenian Pelasgians). This is a direct contrast to what many believe regarding Hellenic racism and egalitarianism and clearly shows that genes counted only to a certain point and to a certain time back.

However Thucydides wrote of Argeads (Temenids) conquering their lands and expulsing the locals (2.99.3-6).

[Macedon]

However Thucydides wrote of Argeads (Temenids) conquering their lands and expulsing the locals (2.99.3-6).

Yes, this is one version of the myth. I didn't mean that the Macedonians were barbarians before they were hellenized, according to Herodot the Makednoi (if we take that they are the forefathers of the Macedonians as is widely acknowledged) were true Hellenes when the Athenians were not... I just wanted to say that being a "Greek" ethnos" did anyways not have as a prerequisite not ever having been barbarian. I say that, because those who try to find arguments in the works of the minority of scholars who propose the "non-Greek" theory, usually concentrate in the times before the 5th century BC stating that if they weren't Greeks back then they weren't Greeks later on. In my opinion, this is not the case. Even if the Macedonians were barbarians sometime in the 10th, 9th, 7th or any other century, they surely "were added to it besides", to put it in Herodot's words.

[Paullus Scipio]

This whole FYROM thing has me fairly bemused. In antiquity, most of the territory that is now the Republic of Macedonia was included in the kingdom of Paeonia, which was populated by the Paeonians, a people of Thracian origins, It also includes parts of ancient Illyria and Dardania, inhabited by various Illyrian tribes, and a small part of Lyncestis and Pelagonia (populated by Molossian tribes). Sometimes these tribal areas were subject to the Kings of Macedon, and sometimes not.

In 356 BC Philip II of Macedon conquered "Upper Macedonia" and incorporated it with "Lower Macedonia" to form a larger kingdom of what we might call "Greater Macedonia", including its northern part (Lyncestis) and southern Paeonia, which both now lie within the Republic of Macedonia. Philip's son Alexander III (the Great) conquered the remainder of the region, reaching as far north as the Danube, in order to secure his northern borders and prevent the interminable raiding that previously occurred, and would occur again after the break-up of Alexander's Empire. ( A bit like England incorporating Scotland ('upper England' :lol: ) into 'Great Britain' for much the same reason......)

Given the tenuous links to ancient Macedonia, not to mention the many ethnic groups (notably Slavs) that have inhabited the area since, if the locals, in asserting their independence from the former Yugoslavia wanted to look to the Classical period past, then a more appropriate name might be "Republic of Paeonia", but I guess that wouldn't be so cool, with people going "Republic of who??? Who were the Paeonians?"

Of course RAT readers know about Paeonia, right? :wink: :wink:

As to 'Hellenisation', that would take place wherever Greeks colonised or traded - from Massilia in the West to the Crimea in the North, and Libya in the South and Asia minor in the East, all to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how enthusiastically the locals embraced Greek culture......perhaps we might say that the ancient 'Makedones' were a people of mixed race - Greek/Dorian combined with Balkan/Thracian tribes, with Greek predominating.

As an example, we may take Alexander himself. His father Philip was a Makedone, but his mother Polyxena/Myrtale/Olympias ( she gained the latter name in honour of Philip's Olympic victory) was a Molossian princess given in marriage to cement an alliance between Macedon and the Molossians ( her brother AlexanderI was king of Epirus; Molossus being part of the Epirot League). Just to compound matters, her family claimed descent from Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, via his supposed descendant Molossus - who was himself supposedly half-Greek, half Trojan !! The Molossians were supposed to speak a form of Greek, or a Greek influenced language too, or at least the Royal House (Aeacid dynasty) did, and inscriptions were written in a form of Greek.....

What a tangled web, even in ancient times.......... :lol: :lol:

[Paralus]

In 336 BC Philip II of Macedon conquered "Upper Macedonia" and incorporated it with "Lower Macedonia" to form a larger kingdom of what we might call "Greater Macedonia", including its northern part (Lyncestis) and southern Paeonia, which both now lie within the Republic of Macedonia.

Que?? Shouldn't there be a five in there someplace?

[Ghostmojo]

This whole FYROM thing has me fairly bemused. In antiquity, most of the territory that is now the Republic of Macedonia was included in the kingdom of Paeonia, which was populated by the Paeonians, a people of Thracian origins, It also includes parts of ancient Illyria and Dardania, inhabited by various Illyrian tribes, and a small part of Lyncestis and Pelagonia (populated by Molossian tribes). Sometimes these tribal areas were subject to the Kings of Macedon, and sometimes not ...

... Given the tenuous links to ancient Macedonia, not to mention the many ethnic groups (notably Slavs) that have inhabited the area since, if the locals, in asserting their independence from the former Yugoslavia wanted to look to the Classical period past, then a more appropriate name might be "Republic of Paeonia", but I guess that wouldn't be so cool, with people going "Republic of who??? Who were the Paeonians?" ...

No perhaps it wouldn't be so cool but it would be sort of appropriate I agree. Paeonia would be easier since I doubt there are many Paeonians still around to contest the issue! 8) Other names spring to mind like Illyria, Rumelia, Vardar, Pelagonia but perhaps it would have been best if this area had been split (maybe along the main rivers) with parts north, south, east and west going to Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Albania respectively?

Personally, I don't understand why they didn't just throw in their lot with Bulgaria to whom the majority seem to be connected racially and linguistically (with perhaps the western end opting for Albania - spoilt for choice!!! :lol: ) or even Serbia which also once occupied that area. At least all of these areas belong to their slavic cousins. But then again a big chunk of Albania was formerly Greek Epeiros. It does get confusing around there. Tito has a lot to answer for ...

... perhaps we might say that the ancient 'Makedones' were a people of mixed race - Greek/Dorian combined with Balkan/Thracian tribes, with Greek predominating ...

Which perhaps best illustrates the view I take (I would perhaps add earlier Achaians and later Attic/Ionians into the mix). The language certainly seems to have originally been Doric based with some Aiolic elements - tainted with Thrakian and Illyrian - before it was Atticised. It seems kind of reasonable, obvious even - that a border region would be permeated by other fringe groups. Mixing and mingling would take place undoubtedly ...

What is perhaps most interesting is that following the suggestions by 19thC scholars that led to the examination/exploration of the Makedonians as perhaps not being Greek at all (but possibly a Thrakian sub-group), and the succeeding views that led to considering them to peripheral/semi-Greek at the very best - more modern research and archaeology has actually led to the conclusion the very opposite is true. The pervading view now is that the Makedonians were not only basically as Greek as any of their immediate southern neighbours, but possibly more so with proto-Hellenic cultural activity having taken place there for perhaps a thousand years+ before their incorporation into mainstream Greek affairs. A good example of this might be that the Makednos were not so much descended from the Dorians - as the people of Doros actually descended from the Makedonians.

[Ghostmojo]

... 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 ...

All so true Stefanos and also more common than you might think to other places as well.

You only have to look at the history and current settlement in the British Isles for much that would seem very familar. The British being an odd and not altogether fraternal collection of English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Manx, Cornish peoples of old - now mixed with all manner of other more recent arrivees!

You only have to look at any of the component nations of our union to see how much deeper this goes. Let's take Wales for example. An ancient country with its own language (which is not the dominant tongue by any means) yet its current population is largely very anglicised in the south, being more welsh in the north. I saw an interview a while back with some Swansea lady clearly of Indian or Pakistani origins discussing how important her 'Welsh' identity was to her. She didn't say British though - which you might have expected given her background. That begs all sorts of questions since it clearly relates to adoption of culture by integration and settlement rather than descent. She had a bit of a Welsh lilt to her accent, but also still hints of her native subcontinent and I can't believe she really felt a strong line of connection back to the days of Llywelyn the Great or Owain Glynd?r, however.

I would guess that her mindset was based upon a localism like you describe rather than ancestry. It also possibly incorporates the feeling of having to reinforce the new identity (her present and future) at the expense of the old (her past). This is all too common in areas that have had heavy immigration. I guess it becomes even more acute in modern nations that were built on colonialism and the reinforcement of national identity (as opposed to origins) always an overriding concern - perhaps the USA being a good example of this (although the origins are always sensitively protected as well).

[Paullus Scipio]

In 336 BC Philip II of Macedon conquered "Upper Macedonia" and incorporated it with "Lower Macedonia" to form a larger kingdom of what we might call "Greater Macedonia", including its northern part (Lyncestis) and southern Paeonia, which both now lie within the Republic of Macedonia.

Que?? Shouldn't there be a five in there someplace?

Whoops !....typo.......that should read 356 BC - 336 being the year Philip was assassinated...... :oops: :oops:

[Paralus]

This, posted by myself elsewhere, might be of interest....

Interesting Thucydides notes that Brasidas takes along Perdiccas and "the forces of his Macedonian subjects" as well as hoplites "composed of Hellenes domiciled in the country". A clear distinction - not only on the basis of arming - being made between the two for, in an army composed of Peloponnesians, Chacidians, Acanthians and Macedonians, he later says: "there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians" (4.124.1-2).. Then later again (4.125.1) "the next night, the Macedonians and multitude of barbarians" decamp in the night.

Thucydides thrice refers to the "Macedonians" in this description. It is a pity it is not Arrian. The first is a clear reference to those that Perdiccas "rules over", aka his subject Macedonians. The second is a clear reference to cavalry in Thucydides' listing of the army. Again we have the allies, Macedonian hippies and the large "crowd of barabarians". The third refers "the Makedones" and the "plethos ton barbaron" (the many barbarians) having scarpered.

The question here is who are the "barbarians"? Clearly they are not the Illyrians for they have caused the scarpering by changing sides. Given this is not the kingdom of Philip II they can hardly be the Paeonians, Thracians or others. Thucydides notes only the Acanthians and Chalcidians as well as those Peloponesians Brasidas brought with him (including mercenaries). The Macedonian kingdom at this time is likely to have comprised only the lower plain and not all of that (the Greek poleis of the coast for example).

I think that Thucydides here speaks of the Macedonian nobility - the cavalry - as "Makedones". At this time the "general" population were indentured serf-farmers at the beck and call of their "feudal lord". What I think Thucydides is indicating is that these are the crowd of barbaroi. Again, at this time it is rather difficult to see Perdiccas - in "control" only of the lower Macedonian plain - mustering a "crowd of barbarians" who are somehow respondent to him for Brasidas has not raised them. It is unlikely he had the money to hire them all and, if he did, from where did he get them?

These, I'm sure, are those whom Philip II will make Makedones as he expands his kingdom and grants land. Those that Alexander refers to as having been transformed from transhumant pastoralists / farmers dressed in hides and at the whim of their overlords to owners of empire. Thus the barbarians are the vast bulk of the Macedonians who are still servile farmers and yet to become the Makedones of Philip II.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

Macedonian hippies and the large "crowd of barabarians"

"Macedonian Hippies" ????? :lol: :lol: .........I see I am not the only one guilty of 'typos' !!

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I attach a map of Macedonia. (450-400 BC aprox) 'Lower' Macedonia is denoted by the green dashed line - it consists of broadly the river valleys and alluvial plains of Bottaia and Pieria. Note the two Greek colonies of Methone and Pydna, and up the river Haliakmon the original capital of Aigiai. ( the later capital of Pella is also marked across the gulf in Bottaia.

Surrounding it (brown dot-and-dash line), is 'Upper' Macedonia - including Lynkestis, Orestai, Elimiotai, Tymphaioi etc - these are broadly the lower foothills and mountain ranges and upper river valleys. Beyond the high mountain ranges to the west is Epirus and Illyria, to the north the Agrianes and Paionians, and off the map to the east is Thrace. To the south, beyond Olympus lies the plains of Thessaly..

Hopefully the map gives an idea of the area under discussion. I'm inclined to agree that Thucydides 'barbarians' are the Hoi-Polloi peasants/shepherds etc who provide the Army's peltasts and psiloi..........and who are not yet 'Makedones/citizens' until Philip II makes them so.

[Paralus]

Paralus wrote:

Macedonian hippies and the large "crowd of barabarians"

"Macedonian Hippies" ????? :lol: :lol: .........I see I am not the only one guilty of 'typos' !!

Indeed! Done just for you "Old Man". And, if you believe that, I've a thousand more to follow.

On the point, though, Perdiccas is hardly able to have hired a great "crowd of barbaroi" from areas he does not control. Athens, at this stage, still has Thracian loyalty and there is no doubt that those Greeks "domiciled within the country" are the coastal cities Brasidas has been energetic is dislodging.

The throng of barbaroi are the yet to be enfranchised Macedonian "everyman" owing everything to his "lord". They died to the tune of four thousand under another Perdiccas.

[Macedon]

I disagree with this hypothesis. Although Thucydides may be considered to hint at a Macedonian barbarism (his comments regarding the Lyncestians are much clearer, especially in the speech of Brasidas) but for some reason they are not as clear as we would have expected him to be since he usually makes it very specific as to who he considers barbarian (some, like the Chaonians and the Amphilochians today also considered Greek / "the barbarian of a thousand Chaonians, who, belonging to a nation that has no king, were led by Photys and Nicanor, the two members of the royal family to whom the chieftainship for that year had been confided." (2.80.5) / "they called in the Ambraciots, their neighbours on the Amphilochian border, to join their colony; and it was by this union with the Ambraciots that they learnt their present Hellenic speech, the rest of the Amphilochians being barbarians." (2.68.6) ) It is also interesting that he speaks about the population in the region thus : "; the others being Thyssus, Cleone, Acrothoi, Olophyxus, and Dium, inhabited by mixed barbarian races speaking the two languages. There is also a small Chalcidian element; but the greater number are Tyrrheno-Pelasgians once settled in Lemnos and Athens, and Bisaltians, Crestonians, and Edonians; the towns being all small ones." (4.109.3-5), calling the Athenian Pelasgians barbarians in the manner Herodot did. This might be his only direct calling of anything Macedonian (in this case Dium) as barbaric, even in this peculiar way. See also how he does not mention any Macedonians among those peoples. Maybe he again hints at ancient times, before the Macedonian rise.

On the other hand, he very clearly juxtaposes the Macedonians of Perdiccas to their barbarian allies when he says "..and night coming on, the Macedonians and the multitude of the barbarians took fright in a moment in one of those mysterious panics to which great armies are liable..." (4.125.1) clearly not placing the Macedonians in the barbarian crowd. The exact Greek words are "?? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ??????????" where we can clearly see the juxtaposition. "many barbarians" is not a correct translation here, since "plethos" is a noun and so further enhances the difference. He also relates that the Argeads are Temenids, following too the Herodotian tradition.

I think that Perdiccas having Thracian allies with him (Thucyides gives a dozen or so names of Thracian tribes neighboring the Macedonians) would be very logical. Why wouldn't he? He obviously had Illyrian allies (until they changed sides). They may have been mercenaries or just allies under treaties. Surely, since Amyntas expanded Argead Macedonia to the northeast, many Thracian tribes did come under Argead Macedonian influence, were expelled or subjugated. There is absolutely no logic in Thucydides making this specific juxtaposition if these "barbarians" were Macedonians. He would have used the one or the other but not both in this way. In total, Thucydides mentions the word "Macedonian" about 40 times, never directly calling them barbarians, as he usually does with other peoples. Actually, given the easiness with which he calls most northwestern Greeks barbarians, I would have expected him to have been much more blunt in his descriptions of the Argead Macedonians.

In conclusion, I do believe that Thucydides does seem to confine the Hellenic identity to those states who have reached a certain cultural and political level and although he never calls the Argeads barbarians, he does hint at some level of barbarism among them, being more blunt regarding the Lyncestai Macedonians and in other places the Orestai. I think that had the Greeks really regarded the Macedonians as barbarians, we would have hundreds of instances clearly calling them so, as we do about everyone else. The Persians, the Romans, the Illyrians, the Thracians... We have more texts talking about the Macedonians than any other Greek people, so I would expect many more instances than 2 polemics by Athenian orators of the time of Philip II and a surviving line of some tragedy or poem, I do not remember right now. They certainly were not respected and were scorned for their political institutions and achievement of hegemony by some Greek states and statesmen in the late 4th century, but that's all. On the other hand, if we look into the instances they are called Greeks....

[PMBardunias]

Thucydides notes that Brasidas takes along Perdiccas and "the forces of his Macedonian subjects"

Are they ever referred to as Periokoi as they were in Thessaly?

[Macedon]

Thucydides notes that Brasidas takes along Perdiccas and "the forces of his Macedonian subjects"

Are they ever referred to as Periokoi as they were in Thessaly?

"???????? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ???????????? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????. ??? ???? ? ??? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??????????? ??????? ???????, ? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??????????? ??? ????????????? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ???????. ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ??? ??????? ?????????? ???????, ????? ?’ ?? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ?? ???????, ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????." (4.124.1)