Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
It\'s all Greek to me (Makedonians included) ...
#31
Quote: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.


At the outbreak of war Athens controlled the Chalcidice and Thrace to the east was allied to her. At this time the Chalcidian cites are in revolt but Thrace is still an ally via Sitlakes(he says without checking). It is arguable just what control or influence Macedon exerted over the tribes to her northeast. The Chalcidian contingents are listed in the army but, significantly no Thracians. It is always possible that some Thracians may have thrown in their lot with the other side. As an ally of Athens, Thucydides might have been expected to note such - more particulaly as he was, as strategos, based here and spent his exile living in Thrace.

Quote: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.

This is closer to the point I am trying to make though I think Thucydides is speaking of the people not the state. I think the Makedones are the hetairoi of Perdiccas: "all the cavalry" of his army. The distinction is being drawn between the king, his court and nobles (the recognised landed and free "citizenry") and the "multitude" of the serf population (at this time) which would later become the Makedones of Philip II as he expanded the "landed citizen" base. Although not exactly congruent, a little in the way that the "multitude" of slaves that manned the oars of Athens' later-war fleets are not "Athenians" as were the thetes and hoplite marines who now littered the Aegean sea floor.
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#32
There is no "Thracian State". There are a good twenty different and independent Thracian tribes which have their own policies and side with the one or the other side. Certainly some of the tribes are closer to the Argeads, some may have certain agreements. The Illyrians are also certainly not a force representing all Illyrian tribes but a mercenary force or certain tribal leaders. Sitalces only had control over certain tribes, not all, exactly like Perdiccas is attested to be the leader of the Macedonians, while the Lyncestians for example (and other non Argead Macedonian tribes) are not under his control. Of course nothing can be said with certainty, Thucydides is just not as descriptive as we would like him to be. As for your argument about "the Macedonians", of course they are the Hetairoi of Perdiccas, but this explanation is not needed for the lack of any other mention regarding other Macedonians. Here, Thucydides is clearly only talking about the cavalry force alone and as such you are right to look for the Macedonian infantry. ("????? ?’ ?? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ?? ???????"). One argument could be that there Thucydides didn't find it interesting or did not know the exact number of the Macedonian infantry, as he also does not say anything about any Greek psiloi but wanted to tell us that apart from the main army there were a lot of barbarian mercenaries/allies. Another explanation could be that he regarded the Macedonian infantry as barbarian, as you suggest, although I would expect from him to name them as he always does when he knows the ethnicity of an army, so I personally would dismiss that theory. Anyways, the remains that the passage in question cannot be used as an argument, since it is too unclear. Your theory about the Macedonian/conquered/vassal serfs merits discussion, but I would expect from Thucydides to have discussed this someplace in his work as he does with such matters, if something so strange was happening that made him choose to make such a distinction in the Macedonian populace. He certainly does discuss ethnic affiliations and ethnogenesis in these chapters. Maybe he offers such data and we missed it? I will look through it again.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#33
Quote:There is no "Thracian State". There are a good twenty different and independent Thracian tribes which have their own policies and side with the one or the other side.

Yes: I'm only too well aware of that. As I said it is not improbable that some did throw their lot in with Perdiccas/Sparta. Fact remains that the Thracian regions across to the Hellespont were Athenian "Allies". Further Thucydides was domiciled in western Thrace after his ostracism and was well placed to know such matters though he says nothing of it.

The region was of immense strategic importance to Athens - one needs only look at the resources she devoted to keeping and then re-taking it. As Peter Green once archly observed: an naval empire (based on the trireme) without access to timber rapidly becomes a contradiction in terms. The region inland from Amphipolis was not only Athens' lumberyard, it posessed precious metals. If Perdiccas excercised any control over this area to his northeast he criminally allowed Athens to plunder his resources!

In the aftermath of Sicily Archelaus would be granted the status of proxenos and the epithet eurgetes. This because Athens, denied access to Amphipolis and its hinterland, was able to rebuilt a fleet with Macedonian timber.

Quote:Anyways, the remains that the passage in question cannot be used as an argument, since it is too unclear. Your theory about the Macedonian/conquered/vassal serfs merits discussion...

"Conquered" is not necessary. I'm not implying that the Makedones "conquered" a serf population viz Sparta and Messenia. These are native "Macedonians" to the area but they are servile to their lords - the hetairoi of the kings or feudal barons or however one describes them. They are not conquered simply, by socio-economic status, in "bondage" to their lords. City state Greeks would see them, likely, as in servitude and thus inconsequential (Aristotle's observation of the Medes and Persians as nothing worse than effeminate and deserving, by nature, of being ruled by a despot comes to mind although a little stronger than what I'm suggesting).
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#34
It might not be necessary but why should you rule it out? Argead Macedonia was a relatively young state and had only recently expanded against the many local tribes (among which Greeks) of the region Perdiccas controls. Surely there were non-Macedonian populations living in Perdicas' kingdom as there were Southern Greek "enoikoi".
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#35
Whoah! Another fast-moving and exciting thread !

The question arises, of course, as to whether we are considering “Greekness’ from a modern viewpoint – modern attitudes of ethnicity, culture etc and DNA tests, and so on – or whether we apply contemporary attitudes of the Greek city-states of the time, and to that it is clear we are not talking black and white, Greek or non-Greek, but rather shades of grey, where even Athenians can be seen as of ‘barbarian’ origins!

If we apply the simplistic test of ‘barbarism’ i.e. non Greek speakers, or those who spoke Greek so badly it was unintelligible, then the original Macedonian dialect of Herodotus’ time and before would make the Macedonian peasants probably ‘barbarians’ in most Greek eyes…….( Bearing in mind each state/region had it’s own dialect anyway – Attic, Dorian, Ionic and so on !!! ), though it appears the nobles and Kings could speak fluent Greek. In Herodotus’ time too, we see the ‘Gateway to Greece’ considered as the vale/pass of Tempe (see southern coast of map), not Thermopylae, for that is where the ‘obvious’ place to defend Greece from Xerxes was considered to be……note too that Alexander I of Macedon is not called ‘Hellene’ or similar, but ‘Phil-Hellene’/friend of the Greeks, which surely implies he was not considered a ‘Hellene’ himself..

If we look at the ‘pre-history’ we see Dorian invaders – a tribe called the ‘Makedones’ descending from the rugged Pindaros mountains ( northwest) to expand eastward. By 700 BC they occupy ‘Upper’ Macedonia. A clan of the Orestai –the Argeadai - take over the fertile coastal plain of Pieria, occupied by ethnic Thracian tribes. The Argeads expand and take the neighbouring (Thracian) territory of Bottiaia.

The institutions of these Makedones are essentially Greek, and recognisably ‘Homeric’. A King/war-leader who intercedes with the Gods (essentially the Greek pantheon – witness the Macedonian calendar), aided by his noble companions ( Hetairoi – similar to Homer’s Achaean ‘Hetairoi’) who rule, in a sort of feudal fashion, over insignificant peasants. As with all conquests, some are killed, some are driven out, and the vast majority go on just as they have always done, but serving the ‘new’ masters. (c.f. the Norman conquest of Saxon England). The Argeads claim descent from Herakles ( never disputed in classical times, and which descent ultimately got them admitted to the Olympic Games as ‘Hellenes’). Underneath though, the peasants still worshipped satyrs(saudai) and bacchantes (klodones and minallones) and worship of the (originally Thracian) God Dionysius remained strong.

Unsurprising then, that to more culturally sophisticated urban Greeks, such a pastoral society should seem primitive, un-hellenic, or ‘barbarian’.In addition, from 510-479 BC Makedon, though not occupied or with a Satrap, owed suzerainty to Persia. Alexander I secretly spied for the Greek city-states – a Greek victory was his only chance to regain independence - and after Plataea, he openly fights, and inflicts on the retreating Persians “complete catastrophe”.

Alexander expands west into contact with the ‘Upper’ Macedonians who become “allied and/or subject”, and also eastward into Thracian territory to the Strymon river ( off the map well to the east). Macedonia has quadrupled in size.
Nor did Alexander’s ‘phil-Hellenism’ cease with the end of the war. He attempts to ‘catch up’ with the southern Greeks, introducing coinage and founding cities/urban colonies. Significantly, the first two are called Herakleion and Dion (after Herakles and Zeus Dion –in Pieria – see map) and he welcomes “Greek” immigrants. After the destruction of Mycenae by Argos in soon after 478 ( just a year or so after Plataea!), the surviving half of the population are given safe haven in Makedon. When the Athenians under Perikles take the Euboean city of Histaia in 446, the surviving population again finds sanctuary in Makedon. A mere one generation later, Brasidas and Perdikkas II field a Hoplite force of 3,000 – probably mostly “Greeks resident in the kingdom”(423 BC). Clearly the coastal Argeads were not only forced to react with ‘Hellas’ but actively embraced ‘modern’ Hellenic culture - as witness the enthusiatic embrace of, in particular, Attic culture.Greek poets and artists were warmly welcomed and patronised. Makedon's own 'Olympic' festival was founded, and the famous Athenian playwright Euripides emigrated to Makedon permanently. If Makedon was border-line Hellenic in Herodotus' time, throughout the 5 C BC it grew more and more Hellenic and in the 4C BC can regard itself ( by Philip and Alexander's time) as 'Hellenically civilised/cultured' as any other Hellenic poleis/state.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#36
Paralus wrote:
Quote:The region was of immense strategic importance to Athens - one needs only look at the resources she devoted to keeping and then re-taking it. As Peter Green once archly observed: a naval empire (based on the trireme) without access to timber rapidly becomes a contradiction in terms. The region inland from Amphipolis was not only Athens' lumberyard, it posessed precious metals. If Perdiccas excercised any control over this area to his northeast he criminally allowed Athens to plunder his resources!

Indeed, and following on from my last post, once Athens had committed to a “Naval Empire”, a secure supply of timber, pitch, hemp for cordage etc was a necessity, as Peter Green observed. Not only that but as the city grew, it came to rely more and more on Black sea grain, so the Hellespont and Thrace were of vital importance to Athens and the Delian league, later the Athenian Empire.Both makedon and Athens were seeking to grow in the same area of ‘strategic importance’, and unsurprisingly when Thucydides narrative opens, Athens is at war with Alexander I’s son Perdikkas II, and Athens supporting a rival – Philip, younger brother of Perdikkas, for the throne.

The prime objective of Athens was the lower Strymon basin – and Makedon held its West bank. In 476 (just two years after Plataea) Kimon had wrested Eion, at its mouth, from its Persian garrison. In 465 Athens attempted to colonise “Nine Ways” – the only practicable crossing of the lower Strymon. The colonists tried to expand too quickly and were destroyed. In 463 Kimon’s enemies accuse him of failing “to cut off a large portion of Makedon”, allegedly bribed by Alexander I.
In 437 Athens finally succeeded in conquering “Nine Ways” and it became Amphipolis. Athens, in addition, could blockade the embryonic Macedonian export trade via her various coastal colonies (necessary because of limitations on how far ships could travel before resupply became necessary – c.f. Carthage or the British Empire in the early days of steam.)
Using them to cut off the Thermaic gulf ( see map). Athens could, and did, stir up troubles with ‘Upper’ Macedonia, as well as Argead dynastic strife. Under this pressure, Makedon wilted and nearly succumbed – for example, by 413, Perdikkas agreed in a treaty not export ship timber, without Athens explicit permission.
Athenian catastrophe in Sicily, and ultimate loss of the Peloponnesian war, turned the tables. By 407 BC, Athens is sycophantic to growing Macedon, honouring Perdikkas’ successor Archelaos as “proxenos ( representative/ambassador) and benefactor (euergetes)” for agreeing to supply Athens with naval supplies and timber. Makedon’s star rose as Athens star waned.

George/Macedon wrote:
Quote:???????? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ???????????? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????. ??? ???? ? ??? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????????????? ??????? ???????, ? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??????????? ??? ????????????? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ???????. ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ??? ??????? ?????????? ???????, ????? ?’ ?? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ?? ???????, ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????." (4.124.1)

These hoplites, “.. from the Hellenes resident in Macedonia” are part of those 3,000 odd I referred to above. The Lynkestian ‘Upper’ Macedonian enemy also fielded hoplites, probably smaller numbers of mercenaries.

Paralus wrote:
Quote:These are native "Macedonians" to the area but they are servile to their lords - the hetairoi of the kings or feudal barons or however one describes them.
I think so too – the peasantry, let it be remembered, are of Thracian stock, subject to the Makedones, and at this time inconsequential militarily – psiloi and peltasts and such-like; ‘rabble’ hardly worth mentioning. They speak a different language and worship different Gods – not Hellenes but barbarians, and so Thucydides lumps them in with other Thracian and Illyrian psiloi and peltasts of similar ilk – “the multitude of the barbarians” and differentiated from the ‘Makedones’, who are noble ‘Hetairoi’ cavalry, subjects of an undisputed ‘Hellenic’ King……

It is in the brothers Alexander II (370-368 BC), Perdikkas III (365-360 BC) and Philip II (359-336 BC) reigns, especially Philip’s, that we shall see the transformation of ‘native’ tribal peltasts into disciplined Heavy Infantry, and the creation of the ‘pezhetairoi’/foot companions, who are raised socially to the status of ‘Makedones’ ( but an inferior form of 'Hetairoi', and rivalry between the two social classes is evident right through Alexander the Great's reign and beyond) - no longer peasants but yeomen, fused into Hellenic ‘Makedone’ society……

And it will be this newly-fused ‘Army of Makedones’ that will become the instrument and hard core of Alexander III’s conquests…… spreading with them a "hellenistic' culture, primarily that of Athens, which they have absorbed as their own over the previous 200 years odd.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#37
Quote:let it be remembered, are of Thracian stock, subject to the Makedones, and at this time inconsequential militarily – psiloi and peltasts and such-like; ‘rabble’ hardly worth mentioning.

The Periokoi of Thessaly also produced peltasts. Why is the center of gravity for the lower classes to be seen as Thracian, to the east, or Illyrian, the west, rather than a form of "Greek" akin to the lower Thessalian classes, south, perhaps speaking a highly divergent dialect of early Greek?

By the way, even pre-DNA tests, humans have a great capacity to judge relationship by appearance. I wonder just how much outbreeding there was in a polis, Spartiates must have surely all had a certain resemblance by the time the breeding population was down to less than 1,000. Perhaps there was a Greek version of the old Italian: "Una Facia, una Racia."
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#38
Paul B. wrote:
Quote:The Periokoi of Thessaly also produced peltasts. Why is the center of gravity for the lower classes to be seen as Thracian, to the east, or Illyrian, the west, rather than a form of "Greek" akin to the lower Thessalian classes, south, perhaps speaking a highly divergent dialect of early Greek?

Because in Lakedaemon the 'perioikoi' lit: dwellers round about/neighbours are citizens of nearby towns and produce Lakedaemonian Hoplites who generally fight side by side with 'Homioi' and other Spartan Hoplites, and are of broadly similar social classes.

In Thessaly, the 'perioikoi' are generally more neighbouring villages than towns, and thus produce 'feudal' cavalry barons with 'peltast' followers - a poorer social group, but still accepted as Greek Hellenes ( as were 'Helots' for that matter).

In Makedon, the peasants are of Thracian stock - the old 'Pierians' and 'Bottiaians' ruled by Makedones who probably gradually assimilated over time ( as did for example Normans and peasant Saxons to become 'Anglo-Normans', who were different from 'Franco-Normans' across the channel)
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#39
As Makedon and then Epeiros get their turns at hegemony over the other Greeks it is interesting to see how they both interact and how much common ground they always had. In many ways their respective stories go hand in hand.

The peninsula nature of Greece and its often inhospitable landscape made the movement and expansion of peoples a necessity as time went on. Initially there were neighbouring islands (Ionian or Aegean) to relocate to, and then their were nearby and not so nearby coasts. All the Greek ethnes seemed to have involved themselves in this to some extent with perhaps Aiolians and Ionians at the forefront. Residents of say Elis or Phokis for example, would have little recourse other than war with immediate neighbours if they wanted additional territory; or they had to start sailing towards more remote parts of coastal Greece to the north east or north west; or to Italy, Siciliy, Asia Minor or even further afield. During the age of expansion/colonisation there seemed to have been a reasonable degree of rubbing shoulders as one group or another settled and founded a colony either within or adjacent to the territory of other Greeks. The Ionian coastal region is a good example of this with Corinth founding Kerkyra, and Ambrakia (Arta) within Molossian lands.

Because of the defined geographic boundaries most mainland Greeks had to accept, their regions or states became easier to consolidate and stabilise. The opposite was true of the two border regions - Makedon and Epeiros. Their way of life was also different and every comment above directed at the Makedones could also be applied to the various residents of Epeiros - the Chaonians, Molossians and Thesprotians. Once again, Thukydides describes them as barbarians as evidently did Strabo, and yet Herodotos, Pausanias and others describe them as Greeks. Jeff Champion in his Pyrrhus of Epirus book suggests perhaps Thucydides views were based upon the classic urban Athenian Greek's opinions of village dwellers and pastoralists. And yet Thukydides never referred to the 'village-dwelling' Spartans as barbarians, although I am sure he would have had some other choice epithets for them! Hammond also viewed the various tribes of the Epirote kingdoms as being basically Greeks. The oldest Hellenic sanctuary (second only in importance to Delphi) was to be found in the very remote Dodona after all.

It is easy to see the dichotomy of Greek existence when comparing say a Greek Makedonian with a Greek Athenian or a Greek Epeirote with a Greek Argive. Not only did you have the clear obvious cultural and political snobbish, elitism of the central and southern cosmopolitan poleis Greeks, but you also had different ethnic backgrounds and historically pervading ways of life. The older Homeric Greek way of being had clung on longer in these regions. Their borders were also far less impervious to intrusion from non-Greeks (Illyrians, Thakians, etc.) and such continuous friction would not have allowed the progressive development into more sophisticated political systems so easily as happened elsewhere.

Having said that the all-pervading Hellenic influence, and the Greeks natural ability to settle diverse regions and climates, made colonisation/interaction with non-Greeks easier and hence we see the spread of Greek cities right up the Adriatic coast (Apollonia, Epidamnos, Pharos, Amantia, Pola, Epidauros etc.). Greek influence would be felt far more widely with even an early Rome considerably affected by this. I think because of this there exists a wide grey area concerning who was Greek and who was Greek-influenced.

Did Phillip or Pyrrhos desire wider Greek acceptance because it was an attractive notion, or did they because they felt absolutely that they shared the same rights to this by language, religion, custom, birth and descent? And did cultural opposition merely force them to reinforce the concept which often therefore made it viewed as aspiration by others rather than simple fact? And of course much of history is that of important and powerful people, written by or for the victors, and we rarely get to hear from the ordinary bloke (and almost never from women). It is certainly true that warbands wielding weapons can dominate surrounding less organised peoples, but they often find it easier to achieve if those 'dwellers-around' also feel some cultural or linguistic links with them, and perhaps share the same language and gods.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#40
Quote:The question arises, of course, as to whether we are considering “Greekness’ from a modern viewpoint – modern attitudes of ethnicity, culture etc and DNA tests, and so on – or whether we apply contemporary attitudes of the Greek city-states of the time, and to that it is clear we are not talking black and white, Greek or non-Greek, but rather shades of grey, where even Athenians can be seen as of ‘barbarian’ origins!

Of course. The question has to also contain factors such as "to whose eyes?" or "at what exact time?" and of course "according to what textual evidence?" I guess that scholarly approach only occupies itself with the classical times before Alexander the Great. After Alexander things are much clearer, not because something changes but because we have tons more sources that survive. We do know, as I have already mentioned that for a tribe to be considered Greek it does not have to have always been Greek and that can serve as an argument to those who look for the Ur-Macedonians.

Anyways, it is true that according to mythology, the Macedonians were Greeks from the time they formed their states. According to their own history we only know that all (or most) royal Macedonian families claimed heroic Greek descent, no peculiarity among Greeks. Yet, we unfortunately do not know what they claimed about the origin of their Macedonian people, although if we followed the norm, they most probably also claimed to be Hellenes as we know they did during Hellenistic times. Our view of the Macedonians as a semi-barbaric Greek ethnos has an analogy in our view of all pastoral Greek kingdoms of classical antiquity. The same question has been raised regarding most if not all Epirotan tribes too for example. Truth is we have much more direct literary evidence of their barbarism than we can say about the Macedonian tribes. Another factor often raised is the fact that because these tribes often bordered on or expanded against barbarian lands their genetic composition must have been altered. I agree, but I do not see it as a challenge to one's perception of ethnicity. Assimilated populations were of course hellenized and added to both the Epirotan and Macedonian peoples, as were thousands of metoikoi in Athens, Demosthenes and Pericles having barbarian blood in them and being unchallenged Hellenes too.

We have to understand that for the Greeks it didn't really matter if your race was of the most ancient Hellenic stock or not. They understood their ethnogenesis process and knew that no Hellenic tribe started as one before Hellen. They understood that they lived in the region for ages, they understood that they belonged to different ethnic groups like the Pelasgians (also a very broad term, mostly encompassing the populations of the broader region before the Hellenes, regardless of other differences) in the past and they welcomed their hellenization.

Quote:If we apply the simplistic test of ‘barbarism’ i.e. non Greek speakers, or those who spoke Greek so badly it was unintelligible, then the original Macedonian dialect of Herodotus’ time and before would make the Macedonian peasants probably ‘barbarians’ in most Greek eyes…….( Bearing in mind each state/region had it’s own dialect anyway – Attic, Dorian, Ionic and so on !!! ), though it appears the nobles and Kings could speak fluent Greek. In Herodotus’ time too, we see the ‘Gateway to Greece’ considered as the vale/pass of Tempe (see southern coast of map), not Thermopylae, for that is where the ‘obvious’ place to defend Greece from Xerxes was considered to be……note too that Alexander I of Macedon is not called ‘Hellene’ or similar, but ‘Phil-Hellene’/friend of the Greeks, which surely implies he was not considered a ‘Hellene’ himself..

I have already mentioned that for Greeks one can have been Greek and lose his language. We have texts talking about Greeks who forgot their language living among barbarians (as the ones Alexander met in his exploits in Asia). 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. So, even if we give credence to Demosthenes words, which I do not after having read his contemporaries' comments regarding the Macedonians, like Aeschines for example, he never talks about language to begin with. And I am asking you, is there any other literary evidence that has the Macedonians not being understood by other Greeks? On the contrary, we have countless direct texts as to the Macedonians speaking Greek, not to mention that the Koine language has been also termed "Macedonian" in some ancient or early Byzantine (I do not remember at the moment) texts. And of course, onomatology and archaelogical evidence should not even be mentioned here... So, it does not appear as some Macedonians speaking fluent Greek, it seems that some Macedonians may not have been very easily understood by some other Greeks (which was also the case with Dorians vs Ionians for example). Also, most definitions of Greece exclude Thessaly and western Sterea from it but others do contain it as does Strabo with Macedonia. Of course the Greeks would never be able to defend the Persians in Macedonia or Thrace, since the Macedonians were already subjugated, as were the Greek cities of Thrace, Chalkidiki and Ionia. This in no way can serve as an argument to the Greekness of the Macedonians. Lastly, Alexander was honored with the appelation "Philellene" as a supreme Greek title of honor. In no way does it hint at Alexander I not being Greek. The title has been attested to have been given to Greeks and later to barbarians also. It meant "A "friend" of all the Hellenes" as opposed to "a friend only to his tribe and I don't give a damn about the rest of the Hellenes". We should not mix up our use of the word today with what it meant back then. I know of at least two more examples of non Macedonian Greeks having been called "Philellenes".


Quote:If we look at the ‘pre-history’ we see Dorian invaders – a tribe called the ‘Makedones’ descending from the rugged Pindaros mountains ( northwest) to expand eastward. By 700 BC they occupy ‘Upper’ Macedonia. A clan of the Orestai –the Argeadai - take over the fertile coastal plain of Pieria, occupied by ethnic Thracian tribes. The Argeads expand and take the neighbouring (Thracian) territory of Bottiaia.

The Argeadai were not an Orestian clan. They were the "multitude of Greeks" attested to have accompanied the Temenids north. There is one (byzantine if my memory serves me well?) text that has the Argeads not descending from Argos of the Pelloponese but of Argos Orestikon, but that is totally unsupported and in all ancient Greek works the Argeads are certainly linked with Argos of Pelloponesus. As for the Makednoi, most scholars link them to the Macedonians, Hammond, a proponent of the Greek character of the Macedonians says that in his opinion we should not link them and in some Byzantine (again) works they are also mentioned as not linked with the Macedonians. It is true that the name is too similar to avoid linking the Makednoi with the Makedones and this is why they are always considered the forefathers of the Macedonians. I am personally not sure as to their relation, mostly because of these Byzantine works.

Also, the plains occupied by the Argead state were not just occupied by Thracians but also by Greek tribes (not colonies or city states, but pastoral tribes) residing in the region before the Macedonians.

Quote:The institutions of these Makedones are essentially Greek, and recognisably ‘Homeric’. A King/war-leader who intercedes with the Gods (essentially the Greek pantheon – witness the Macedonian calendar), aided by his noble companions ( Hetairoi – similar to Homer’s Achaean ‘Hetairoi’) who rule, in a sort of feudal fashion, over insignificant peasants. As with all conquests, some are killed, some are driven out, and the vast majority go on just as they have always done, but serving the ‘new’ masters. (c.f. the Norman conquest of Saxon England). The Argeads claim descent from Herakles ( never disputed in classical times, and which descent ultimately got them admitted to the Olympic Games as ‘Hellenes’). Underneath though, the peasants still worshipped satyrs(saudai) and bacchantes (klodones and minallones) and worship of the (originally Thracian) God Dionysius remained strong.

Yes and no. First we have to point out that their political system was nothing peculiar for the totality of the Greek world. At this time we have a number of Greek states being ruled by kings in about the same fashion. Of course we know that here, but this also serves as one of the major arguments of those who dispute the Macedonian's Greekness conveniently only comparing the Macedonians to the Athenians or the Thebans... Apart from that, there was no lord-serf relationship as was the case in later Western Europe. There were no feudal rights over the population and the Macedonian peasantry enjoyed equal rights and freedom. Also, the Macedonian state encompassed a number of city states (not only colonies) who effectively ran like their Southern kindred under the protection of the king. As for their religion there is nothing Thracian in the worship of Dionysus. He had been a major Greek God for ages and although "Thracian" (or Egyptian or Ethiopian according to others) in origin according to Greeks,he was essentially considered a Greek as was his history as a hero. Do not forget that Dionysus and Heracles the Argive both lived before the Troyan War and as such before the Hellenes were formed as an ethnos. Had the Macedonians worshipped Thracian Gods, we would have been handed over Thracian or non-Greek names of Deities and would have been told that these were the name of Dionysus in the Macedonian language or something like that. Instead, we have a fully Greek pantheon and religion and Dionysus is not the head of the Gods but one of Macedonian preference as were so many other Gods to so many other Greek states. Who says that the Thracians worshipped Dionysus before the Greeks?

Quote:Unsurprising then, that to more culturally sophisticated urban Greeks, such a pastoral society should seem primitive, un-hellenic, or ‘barbarian’.In addition, from 510-479 BC Makedon, though not occupied or with a Satrap, owed suzerainty to Persia. Alexander I secretly spied for the Greek city-states – a Greek victory was his only chance to regain independence - and after Plataea, he openly fights, and inflicts on the retreating Persians “complete catastrophe”.

Of course, to the more sophisticated Greeks of Athens, all pastoral Greek ethnoi did seem primitive and in cases, like with Thucydides, barbarian. I have to remind us all that although Thucydides is not really blunt with the barbarism of the Macedonians he is very direct with the barbarism of the Western Greek tribes who we now know with certainty that they did speak Greek and considered themselves Greek at his time. I have to disagree, though, with Alexander's dependence on the Southern Greeks to regain independence. After the Persians were driven off, the Thracians gained their independence as well without having to assume a Greek identity. Alexander also did not need the Greeks to regain full control of his kingdom. The defeat at Plataea was enough. It is interesting though, that it was the Macedonians who helped the Greeks and not any other barbaric king, nor even any Anatolian or Boeotian Greek allies of the King.

Quote:Alexander expands west into contact with the ‘Upper’ Macedonians who become “allied and/or subject”, and also eastward into Thracian territory to the Strymon river ( off the map well to the east). Macedonia has quadrupled in size.
Nor did Alexander’s ‘phil-Hellenism’ cease with the end of the war. He attempts to ‘catch up’ with the southern Greeks, introducing coinage and founding cities/urban colonies. Significantly, the first two are called Herakleion and Dion (after Herakles and Zeus Dion –in Pieria – see map) and he welcomes “Greek” immigrants. After the destruction of Mycenae by Argos in soon after 478 ( just a year or so after Plataea!), the surviving half of the population are given safe haven in Makedon. When the Athenians under Perikles take the Euboean city of Histaia in 446, the surviving population again finds sanctuary in Makedon. A mere one generation later, Brasidas and Perdikkas II field a Hoplite force of 3,000 – probably mostly “Greeks resident in the kingdom”(423 BC). Clearly the coastal Argeads were not only forced to react with ‘Hellas’ but actively embraced ‘modern’ Hellenic culture - as witness the enthusiatic embrace of, in particular, Attic culture.Greek poets and artists were warmly welcomed and patronised. Makedon's own 'Olympic' festival was founded, and the famous Athenian playwright Euripides emigrated to Makedon permanently. If Makedon was border-line Hellenic in Herodotus' time, throughout the 5 C BC it grew more and more Hellenic and in the 4C BC can regard itself ( by Philip and Alexander's time) as 'Hellenically civilised/cultured' as any other Hellenic poleis/state.

Again you use the term "philellenism" as "admiration of the Greeks" which is incorrect in the sense used for Alexander I. Yet, I do agree that since Alexander I we witness an active effort of Macedon to build the infrastructure for a well-organized and powerful state. The fact that he welcomes Greek populations from the south is a very logical move, since his Macedonians are relatively few in number and cannot control the new territories. He has the option to either fully depend on barbarian or on Greek subjects, since the Macedonians cannot cover the needs for manpower to man the colonies and strongholds he needs. He effectively chooses to use Greeks, since the use of Thracians or Illyrians would endanger his borders and newly acquired dominions, while Greek populations would depend on him for protection from the barbarians. I do believe personally, that he also chose the Greeks because of their cultural and linguistic affiliation with the Macedonians, Greeks who, for some reason, easily got assimilated into Macedon. Just look at the Companion regiments of Alexander III and how they hailed from Southern Greek immigrant populations, having fully integrated in the Macedonian society. This also serves as an argument towards the similarities in culture and language of the Macedonians with the rest of the Greeks.

Quote:I think so too – the peasantry, let it be remembered, are of Thracian stock, subject to the Makedones, and at this time inconsequential militarily – psiloi and peltasts and such-like; ‘rabble’ hardly worth mentioning. They speak a different language and worship different Gods – not Hellenes but barbarians, and so Thucydides lumps them in with other Thracian and Illyrian psiloi and peltasts of similar ilk – “the multitude of the barbarians” and differentiated from the ‘Makedones’, who are noble ‘Hetairoi’ cavalry, subjects of an undisputed ‘Hellenic’ King……

How come that the peasantry is of Thracian stock? The Macedonians are never termed Thracians and they are not attested to have been living in the region before the advent of the Argeads. Even the proponents of Macedonian barbarism support that the Macedonians should be considered as a different ethnos. There are no Macedonians before the Argeads, nor is any tribe attested to have become Macedonian, although surely assimilation did happen as is the case in all expansions. What you propose here is totally unsupported and were there any truth in it we would have at least some texts supporting it. Many Greek states primarily fielded peltast and light rabble at that time, even at later times. Not fielding sizable hoplitic forces is in no case a sign of barbarism. They are not attested to speak a different language, not Thracian, nor Illyrian, one attestation exists in Thucydides about some settlements in Macedonia being bi-linguals, which would not be the case unless there were populations being assimilated by the Macedonians. No Thracian settlement would ever need to be bi-lingual if not during assimilation by the Macedonians, as no Macedonians would be bi-linguals unless being assimilated by some other culture. I stress here that Thucydides speaks of whole settlements and not of individual merchants or nobles. He clearly speaks of populations being assimilated into some specific culture. As for Gods.... what different Gods are you talking about? No, I disagree with this conclusion as I disagree with the proposal that Thucydides places the Argead infantry among the barbarians. In my view he just wants to state the existence of barbarian mercenaries/allies among Perdiccas ranks and this is further supported by his later clear juxtaposition between Macedonians and barbarians after the coming of the Illyrians. Anyways, you cannot base your arguments about the ethnicity of the Macedonian commoners solely on some hints by Thucydides you interpret in a certain way. Accepting that the peasantry was not Hellenic demands from you to find some sources regarding its existence before the Argeads, some links with any other barbarian population, attestations to their language, onomatology and direct literary evidence.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#41
Quote:Paul B. wrote:
Quote:The Periokoi of Thessaly also produced peltasts. Why is the center of gravity for the lower classes to be seen as Thracian, to the east, or Illyrian, the west, rather than a form of "Greek" akin to the lower Thessalian classes, south, perhaps speaking a highly divergent dialect of early Greek?

Because in Lakedaemon the 'perioikoi' lit: dwellers round about/neighbours are citizens of nearby towns and produce Lakedaemonian Hoplites who generally fight side by side with 'Homioi' and other Spartan Hoplites, and are of broadly similar social classes.

In Thessaly, the 'perioikoi' are generally more neighbouring villages than towns, and thus produce 'feudal' cavalry barons with 'peltast' followers - a poorer social group, but still accepted as Greek Hellenes ( as were 'Helots' for that matter).

In Makedon, the peasants are of Thracian stock - the old 'Pierians' and 'Bottiaians' ruled by Makedones who probably gradually assimilated over time ( as did for example Normans and peasant Saxons to become 'Anglo-Normans', who were different from 'Franco-Normans' across the channel)

Paul B is right here. There is no link of primarily fielding peltasts with being Greek. Else, it was Philipoemen who hellenized the Achaeans and the Aetolians were probably never hellenized too... And the Acarnanians and the Epirotans were also barbarians under this prism. And of course there is no evidence to support a bold assumption such as "In Makedon, the peasants are of Thracian stock - the old 'Pierians' and 'Bottiaians' ruled by Makedones". The Macedonians were not only a handful of nobles ruling over barbarian peasantry. It was a whole people conquering other people and effectively exterminating/ousting or assimilating them as is the norm in all such cases. The Pierians are all attested to have been driven away to the east, as are most other tribes against whom Argead Macedonia expanded. The Bottiaians on the other hand are supposed to have been Cretans and were also members of the Delian League. Especially in the initial expansion of the Argead Macedonian state, chances are that the lands were completely occupied by the Macedonian peasantry, as was the case in all colonial expansion of the rest of the Greeks.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#42
Stephanus Byzantius Gramm., Ethnica. {4028.001} Page 427 line 10.

????????, ?????? ?? ?????, ?? ???????? ?? ?????. (Makednon, village in Pindos, as Herodot writes in his first book)
?? ??????? ??????.

????????? ? ????, ??? ????????? ??? ???? ???...


Here, Stephanus does not link Makednon with Macedonia, an argument in favor of Hammond's view. "Macedonia" is his next entry

On the other hand we have Pseudoappolodorus state :

(97.) ??????? ???????? ????? ??????? ????????... (Myth. Bibliotheca)

and this Makednos is usually known as Makedon, one of the 50 sons of Lycaon.

To serve as an argument for those who link the two names.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#43
Quote:The Macedonians were not only a handful of nobles ruling over barbarian peasantry. It was a whole people conquering other people and effectively exterminating/ousting or assimilating them as is the norm in all such cases. The Pierians are all attested to have been driven away to the east, as are most other tribes against whom Argead Macedonia expanded.
What is the evidence for such a norm, the evidence for a mass ("whole people") Macedonian migration? How do we know the literary accounts (such as Thucydides') are not merely some later rationalizations (because unfortunately they are late and retrospective) for a historical change which the ancient authors perceived and tried to explain: in old days there were Pierians, now there are Macedonians, ergo the latter drove the former away.
"Thracian" sounds a bit too presumptive (given we know little to nothing about non-Greek languages of Macedonia), but "barbarian" as in non-Greek or maybe a Greek and non-Greek mix is a fair assessment, isn't it? There might have been Greek speakers before the Argeads, but on the other hand, I don't know what's the reason to push all linguistic assimilations in Bronze Age, when they could have been in progress in Archaic or even Classical age.
Drago?
Reply
#44
What do you mean by "evidence"? There is archaeological and literary evidence and not all are necessary in order to reach a conclusion, actually most knowledge we have about any people and their histories is literary and not archaeological. We use archaeology to confirm or sometimes dispute history as it has been passed upon us.

So, regarding literary evidence, we have plenty. A number of Greek myths regarding the Macedonian ethnogenesis, a number of accounts regarding their wars and expansion. These are not accounts that have to do with events millennia before Herodot's or Thucydides' times but a few centuries, in some instances decades. Macedonia was a relatively young kingdom and this was not disputed by anyone. The Macedonians themselves did not, as might have been expected, claim autochthony (as did many other Greeks) nor existence in the Troyan times. At the time of Thucydides, the Macedonians had a history only a few centuries long and as such free of myths and homeric heroes. Thus, it is quite easier to follow their history and exploits through time.

Without being able to prove that what the ancients collectively believed was not the outcome of some gross rationalization as you suggest, that procedure is considered highly improbable.

1. First, because the history of the Macedonians as I have already mentioned is not obscured by myth as is the history of many other Greek tribes but is given as history by writers we generally respect.

2. Because there is no literary evidence to the opposite.

3. Because there is no archaeological evidence to the opposite. Greek influence in the region is attested in the years before Thucydides, no archaeological evidence points at the Macedonians having been anything but Macedonians, while their influence (archaeologically) is expanding according to the patterns suggested by the ancients.

According to this logic, why would we think that there even was a tribe called Pierians? We have evidence of the Greek Bottiaians, but nothing regarding the Pierians. And of course this expansion we are talking about happened in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, assimilating barbarian populations during these centuries is not something peculiar. The thing is that it is one thing to say that there were no Macedonians, only a Macedonian nobility over barbarian tribes with different names and another to say that some barbarian tribes were slowly or rapidly assimilated by a Macedonian culture and people. What is so peculiar about a Greek tribe assimilating barbarians?
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#45
Just as an aside to this - and to briefly return to the subject we mustn't debate :oops: ; i.e. the modern name/identity issue of a certain portion of the Balkans; I came across these interesting articles/books:

http://www.promacedonia.org/en/other/yasamee.html#10

http://books.google.bg/books?id=j_NbmSo ... &q&f=false

It is a little out of date for a 2010 reader, but does go some way towards explaining how all the confusion might have arisen in the modern Balkan world. Whether there are any resonances for the student of the ancient comings and goings in this region I cannot really say, and would leave that to each viewer himself. But one thing is certain, the tendency for power bases over the millenia to attempt social engineering of conquered or controlled peoples, or minorities, is nothing new.

I don't wish for this subject to re-enter the fray here - just thought some of you might like to read it.

Bloody commies hey! :roll:
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply


Forum Jump: