+- Forum-Sicherheitspolitik (https://www.forum-sicherheitspolitik.org)
+-- Forum: Hintergründe (https://www.forum-sicherheitspolitik.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=97)
+--- Forum: Geschichtliches (https://www.forum-sicherheitspolitik.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=68)
+--- Thema: Makedonien ein eigener Staat (/showthread.php?tid=3997)
- merco - 05.06.2007
Demosthenes
Greek Orator
"... not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave" - Demosthenes, Third Philippic, 31. The famous words that this Greek orator from Athens used to describe the Macedonian king Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great, prior to Philip’s conquest of Greece.
We know for a fact that the ancient Greeks stereotyped and called all non-Greeks barbarians. These included the Persians, the Thracians, Illyrians, Macedonians, etc. The modern Greeks however, claim that Philip was Greek, and that Demosthenes called him "not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks" and "barbarian", onlyin "rhetorical context", which was aroused by the political anger that existed between Macedonia and the Greeks states on the south, although it is very clear from Demosthenes’s words that he regards the Macedonians and their king Philip II as non-Greeks. This modern Greek position is easily debunked, however, when we consider the following two points:
a. If the Macedonians were Greeks but still called barbarians and nor related to the Greeks, why is then no other Greek tribe called barbarians and nor related to the Greeks in "rhetorical context"? There were many examples when that could have happened, it’s enough to point to the long Peloponesian War, or any of the many constant wars between the Greek states. Yet no Spartan, Athenian, Theban, Epirote, was ever called non-Greek or barbarian during any of these political and war conflicts! Not ONCE!
b. We know for a fact that the ancient Greeks also called the Persians barbarians. Are we suppose to say now, based on the modern Greek "logic", that the Persians were too a Greek tribe, but they were called non-Greeks only in "rhetorical context"?
The lesson is clear. The ancient Greeks called all non-Greeks barbarians, and the modern Greek argument can simply not be true, and is quite frankly ridiculous. It does however, prove to what extend the modern Greek writers would go to make the Macedonians forcefully Greek, steel the Macedonian history, and even rewrite the feelings of the ancient Greeks during that process.
Now lets see some credible evidence:
[1] Alexander returns from the campaigns at the Danube, north of Macedon. When the news reached him that the Thebans had revolted and were being supported by the Athenians, he immediately marched south through the pass of Thermopylae. 'Demosthenes', he said, 'call me a boy while I was in Illyria and among the Triballi, and a youth when I was marching through Thessaly; I will show him I am a man by the time I reach the walls of Athens.' [p.264] Plutarch The Age of Alexander
[2] [Modern day Greeks would like to dispatch off Demosthenes castigations of Philip II as political rhetoric, and yet Demosthenes was twice appointed to lead the war effort of Athens against Macedonia. He, Demosthenes, said of Philip that Philip was not Greek, nor related to Greeks but comes from Macedonia where a person could not even buy a decent slave. 'Soon after his death the people of Athens paid him fitting honours by errecting his statue in bronze, and by decreeing that the eldest member of his family should be maintained in the prytaneum at the public expense. On the base of his statue was carved his famous inscription: 'If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares' [p.216] Plutarch
[3] "While Demosthenes was still in exile, Alexander died in Babylon, and the Greek states combined yet again to form a league against Macedon. Demosthenes attached himself to the Athenian convoys, and threw all his energies into helping them incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Greece." [p.212] Plutarch
[4] The news of Philip's death reached Athens. Demosthenes appeared in public dressed in magnificent attire and wearing a garland on his head, although his daughter had died only six days before. Aeshines
....................................
..........................................................
Pseudo-Skylax
The ancient Greek historians and geographers from the classical and the post-classical period, Ephoros, Pseudo-Skylax, Dionysius son of Kalliphon, and Dionysius Periegetes, all put the northern borders of Greece at the line from the Ambracian Gulf in the west to the Peneios River to the east, thus excluding Macedonia from Greece.
Michael Sakellariou, Macedonia: 4000 years of Greek History. p.50.
......................................
.................................................
Ephoros
The ancient Greek historians and geographers from the classical and the post-classical period, Ephoros, Pseudo-Skylax, Dionysius son of Kalliphon, and Dionysius Periegetes, all put the northern borders of Greece at the line from the Ambracian Gulf in the west to the Peneios River to the east, thus excluding Macedonia from Greece.
Michael Sakellariou, Macedonia: 4000 years of Greek History. p.50.
..........................................
.......................................................
Polybius
Greek Statesman and Historian. [c 200-118 B.C.]
The Rise of the Roman Empire
"The fact is that we can obtain no more than an impression of a whole from a part, but certainly neither a thorough knowledge nor an accurate understanding. We must conclude then that specialized studies or monographs contribute very little to our grasp of the whole and our conviction of its truth. On the contrary, it is only by combining and comparing the various parts of the whole with one another and noting their resemblances and their differences that we shall arrive at a comprehensive view, and thus encompass both the practical benefits and the pleasure that the reading of history affords." [p 45]
[How true, indeed. By combining and comparing various statements from the ancient authors can we arrive to the truest picture of the ancients themselves. Let them speak of themselves, and let their true sentiments flood the pages uncorrupted and free of any biased and preconceived prejudices. Only then, can we assess the magnitude of their purity of soul, and the passion for their national aspirations.]
[1] Polibius reports on the speech made by Agelaus of Naupactus at the first conference in the presence of the King and the allies. He spoke as follows:
"I therefore beg you all to be on your guard against this danger, and I appeal especially to King Philip. [Macedonian king Philip V] For you the safest policy, instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them an easy prey for the invader, is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions. If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in case of attack, and foreigners will be the less inclined to plot against your throne, because they will be discouraged by the loyalty of the Greeks towards you." [p .300] book 5.104
Points of Interest: Clear distinction between Greece (to protect every province of Greece) and Macedonia (as you would if it were a part of your own dominions). Furthermore, the Macedonians were still wearing down the Greeks even into the times of Philip V.
[2] [Book XVIII, 1] Philip V from Macedon invites Flamininus (Roman commander) to explain what he, Philip, should do to have peace:
"The Roman general replied that his duty dictated an answer which was both simple and clear. He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece, restore to each of the states the prisoners and deserters he was holding, hand over to the Romans the region of Illyria which he had seized after the treaty that had been made in Epirus, and so on...."
[Point of interest: "Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece," Flamininus, the Roman general, clearly separates Macedonia from Greece, and demands from the Macedonin king to withdraw from Greece into his own Macedonia.]
[3] (Book XVIII. 3) A man named Alexander of Isus, who had the reputation
................................................
...............................................................
Arrian
Ancient Greek Historian
The Campaigns of Alexander
[1] "Destiny had decreed that Macedon should wrest the sovereignty of Asia from Persia, as Persia once had wrested it from the Medes, and the Medes, in turn, from the Assyrians." [p. 111]
[2] "Our enemies are Medes and Persians, men who for centuries have lived soft and luxurious lives; we of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and war. Above all, we are free men, and they are slaves." [p.112]
[3] "When received the report that Alexander was moving forward to the attack, he sent some 30,000 mounted troops and 20,000 light infantry across the river Pinarus, to give himself a chance of getting the main body of his army into position without molestation. His dispositions were as follows:
in the van of his heavy infantry were his 30,000 Greek mercenaries, facing the Macedonian infantry, with some 60,000 Persian heavy infantry- known as Kardakes." [p.114]
[4] [Book II - Battle of Issus] "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." [p.119]
[5] "The cavalry action which ensued was desperate enough, and the Persians broke only when they knew that the Greek mercenaries were being cut and destroyed by the Macedonian infantry." [p.119-20]
[6] "The same painstaking attention to details is evident in administrative matters. Appointments of governors are duly mentioned, and throughout his book Arrian is careful to give the father's name in the case of Macedonians, e.g. Ptolemy son of Lagus, and in the case of Greeks their city of origin." [p.25]
[7] "In the spring of 334 Alexander set out from Macedonia, leaving Antipater with 12,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry to defend the homeland and to keep watch on the Greek states." [p.34]
[8] "The backbone of the infantry was the Macedonian heavy infantry, the 'Foot Companions', organized on territorial basis in six battalions (taxeis) of about 1,500 men each. In place of the nine-foot spear carried by the Greek hoplite, the Macedonian infantryman was armed with a pike or sarissa about 13 or 14 feet long, which required both hands to wield it. The light circular shield was slung on the left shoulder, and was smaller than that carried by the Greek hoplite which demanded the use of the left arm. Both, Greek and Macedonian infantry wore greaves and a helmet, but it is possible that the Macedonians did not wear a breastplate. The phalanx (a heavy infantry), like all the Macedonian troops had been brought by Philip to a remarkable standard of training and discipline." [p.35]
[9] Modern Greeks, have used this particular passage as evidence of Alexander's greekness. Alexander sent to Athens, as an offering to the goddess Athena, 300 full suits of Persian armor, with the following inscription:
"Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks (except the Lacedaemonians) dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persians who dwell in Asia." [p.76]
J.R. Hamilton, Associate professor of Classics and Ancient History from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, writes: 'In view of the small part that the Greeks had played in the battle the inscription (with its omission of any mention of the Macedonians) must be regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not fail to stress the absence of the Spartans.'
[10] Alexander's rationale as to why he would not like to engage the Persian fleet in a battle:
"In the first place, it was to rush blindly into a naval engagement against greatly superior forces, and with an untrained fleet against highly trained Cyprian and Phoenician crews; the sea, morever, was a tricky thing - one could not trust it, and he was not going to risk making a present to the Persians of all the skill and courage of his men; as to defeat, it would be very serious indeed and would affect profoundly the general attitude to the war in its early stages, above all by encouraging the Greeks to revolt the moment they got news of a Persian success at sea." [p.80]
[11] Alexander speaking to his officers: ".......But let me remind you: Through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now yours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia;........." [p.292]
[12] Alexander addressing his troops: With all that accomplished, why do you hesitate to extend the power of Macedon - your power- to the Hyphasis and the tribes on the other side? [p.293] Arrian, book 5.
[13] Alexander continues to address his troops: "Gentlemen of Macedon, and you my friends and allies, this must not be. Stand firm; for well you know that hardship and danger are the price of glory, and that sweet is the savour of a life of courage and of deathless renown beyond the grave." [p.294]
[14] Alexander continues to speak to his Macedonians and allies: "Come, then; add the rest of Asia to what you already possess - a small addition to the great sum of your conquests. What great or noble work could we ourselves have achieved had we thought it enough, living at ease in Macedon, merely to guard our homes, excepting no burden beyond checking the encroachment of the Thracians on our borders, or the Illyrians and Triballians, or perhaps such Greeks as might prove a menace to our comfort." [p.294] Arrian, Book 5.
...................................................
..............................................................
Thucydides
Greek Commander and Historian
[1] The modern Greeks claim that the ancient Macedonians were Greek based on the below passage of Thucydides:
"The country by the sea which is now called Macedonia... Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his forefathers, who were originally Temenidae from Argos" (Thucydides 2.99,3)
That this myth does not prove that the Macedonians were Greek I offer the extensive study conducted by the Macedonian specialist, Professor Eugene Borza. Analyzing the Temenidae myth transmitted by Herodotus and Thucydides, in details in two Chapters, Eugene Borza - In the Shadow of Olympus p.82-83 gives the following conclusion:
a) "It is clear that the analysis of our earliest-and sole-source cannot produce a consistent and satisfactory sequence of events. My own view is that there is some underlying veracity to the Mt. Vermion reference (as evidenced by the Phrygian connections), that among the Makedones a family of Vermion background emerged as pre-eminent, but that the Argive context is mythic, perhaps a bit of fifth-century B.C. propaganda (as I argue in the next chapter). To deny such fables and attribute them to contemporary Macedonian propaganda may appear minimalistic. But given the historical milieu in which such stories were spawned and then adorned, the denial of myth seems prudent.
b) The Temenidae in Macedon are an invention of the Macedonians themselves, intended in part to give credence to Alexander I's claims of Hellenic ancestry, attached to and modifying some half-buried progenitor stories that had for a long time existed among the Macedonians concerning their own origins. The revised version was transmitted without criticism or comment by Herodotus. Thucydides (2-99.3; 5.80.2) acquired the Argive lineage tale from Herodotus, or from Macedonian-influenced sources, and transmitted it. His is not an independent version. [There is no hard evidence (pace Hammond, HM i: 4) that Thucydides ever visited Macedonia, but it makes no difference; Thucydides is reflecting the official version of things.] What emerged in the fifth century is a Macedonian-inspired tale of Argive origins for the Argead house, an account that can probably be traced to its source, Alexander I (for which see Chapter 5 below). The Temenidae must disappear from history, making superfluous all discussion of them as historical figures.
c) There were further embellishments to the myth of the early royal family. In the last decade of the fifth century B.C. Euripides came to reside in Macedon at the court of King Archelaus, thereby contributing a new stage to the evolution of the Macedonian creation-myth. Euripides' play honoring his patron, Archelaus, probably adorned the basic story, replacing Perdiccas with an Archelaus as the descendant of Temenus-no doubt to the delight of his royal host. Delphic oracles were introduced, and the founder's tale was extended by the introduction of Caranus (Doric for "head" or "ruler"). In the early fourth century, new early kings were added during the political rivalry among three branches of the Argeadae following the death of King Archelaus in 399, another example of the Macedonian predilection to rewrite history to support a contemporary political necessity. The story continued to be passed through the hands of local Macedonian historians in the fourth century B. C., and by Roman times it was widely known in a number of versions. Nothing in this later period can be traced back earlier than Euripides' revision of the Herodotean tradition. The notion that Alexander I or one of his predecessors obtained a Delphic oracle to confirm the Macedonian tie with Argos has no evidence to support it. Had such an oracle existed we can be confident that Alexander, eager to confirm his Hellenic heritage, would have exploited it, and that Herodotus, who delighted in oracles, would have mentioned it. In the end what is important is not whether Argive Greeks founded the Macedonian royal house but that at least some Macedonian kings wanted it so".
d) Borza also mentiones that the "two advocates of the Argos-Macedon link are Hammond, HM, vol. 2, ch. I, and Daskalakis, Hellenism, Pt. 3, both of whom support the notion of a Temenid origin for the Macedonian royal house", however, we have seen above that both of them were corrected with the extensive evidence that Borza carefully reviewed. We have already seen that both Daskalakis and Hammond were incorrect on many matters on the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians, therefore it should come to no surprise that their now outdated and poor in evidence material can not be used to claim a Greek identity to the ancient Macedonians. Click here for Daskalakis and Hammond.
[2]Thucydides however, did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek, despite the above myth which wasn’t his original work but it as we saw was only transmitted by him.Here Thucydides clearly separates the Macedonians from the Greeks (Hellenes):
"In all 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." (Thucydides 4.124)
Borza comments: "The use of barbaros [barbarians] is problematic, although it would appear that he normally includes at least some of the Macedonians in this category. See 4.125.3 and Gomme, Comm. Thuc.,3:613,615 and 616 on Thuc. 4.124.1, 126.3 and 126.5 respectively. In the Shadow of Olympus p 152.
"Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a distinct people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states" – Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p. 96
...................................
...............................................
Livy
Roman Historian
"Such were the activities of the Romans and of Philip on land during that summer. At the beginning of the same summer, the fleet, commanded by the legate Lucius Apustius, left Corcyra, rounded Cape Malea, and joined King Attalus of Scyllaeum, in the region of Hermoine. Hitherto the resentment of the Athenian community against Philip had been kept in check by fear; but now, with the hope of assistance ready at hand, they gave free rein to their anger. There is never any lack at Athenian tongues ready and willing to stir up the passion of the common people; this kind of oratory is nurtured by the applause of the mob in all free communities; but this is especially true of Athens, where eloquence has the greatest influence. The popular assembly immediately carried a proposal that all statues of Philip and all portraits of him, with their inscriptions, and also those of his ancestors of either sex, should be removed and destroyed; that all feast-days, rites, and priesthoods instituted in honour of Philip or his ancestors should be deprived of sanctity; that even the sites of any memorials or inscriptions in his honour should be held accursed, and that it should not be lawful thereafter to decide to set up or dedicate on those sites any of those things which might lawfully be set up or dedicated on an undefiled site; that whenever the priests of the people offered prayer on behalf of the Athenian people and their allies, their armies and navies, they should on every occasion HEAP CURSES and execrations on Philip, his family and his realm, his forces on land and sea, AND THE WHOLE RACE AND NAME OF THE MACEDONIANS."
There was appended to this decree a provision that if anyone afterwards should bring forward a proposal tending to bring on Philip disgrace or dishonour then the Athenian people would pass it in its entirety; whereas if anyone should by word or deed seek to counter his disgrace, or to enhance his honour, the killing of such a person would be lawful homicide. A final clause provided that all the decrees formerly passed against the Pisistratidae should be observed in regard to Philip. This was the Athenians' war against Philip, a war of words, written or spoken, for that is where their only strength lies." [Livy's book XXXI.44]
The most pressing point, the one that screams for recognition, is the call for the Athenian people to (a) "heap curses and execrations on Philip, his family and his realm, his forces on land and sea, and the whole race and name of the Macedonians, and (b) whereas if anyone should by word or deed seek to counter his disgrace, or to enhance his honour, the killing of such a person would be lawful homicide.
In conclusion one must remember the following:
(a) The ancient Greeks regarded the ancient Macedonians as foreigners.
(b) They regarded the ancient Macedonians as people of different race.
© They regarded the ancient Macedonians as barbarians, as people who enslaved the Greeks.
(d) This episode describes the situation in Athens around 200 B.C.
(e) It should constantly be born in mind the intensity of the hate expressed towards the conqueror from the north - the Macedonians. If anyone in as much as utter a one positive word for Philip, then this person should be killed, and the killing of that person would be taken as lawful homicide. These feelings were mutual by the way.
(f) The suggestion by some authors (marginal lot, anyway) that these two dissimilar people "blended together" in some aspects of their culture becomes much harder to accept, and therefore, is rejected based such credible evidence.
It is apparent that ancient Greeks did not consider the ancient Macedonians as Greeks. Modern Greeks' assertion that ancient Macedonians were Greeks is constantly undermined by the view of the ancients. The fact remains that ancient Macedonians were just that - Macedonians.
.........................................
....................................................
Josephus
Jewish Historian
"Greeks and Macedonians that dwelt there" [Antiquities,13.5.11]
"…and gave them privileges equal to those of the Macedonians and Greeks, who were the inhabitants… [Antiquities, 12.3.1]
"…how much harder is to the Greeks, who were esteemed the noblest of all people under sun? These, although they inhabit a large country, are in subjection to six bundles of Roman rods. It is the same case with the Macedonians, who have juster reason to claim their liberty then you have." [Wars, 2.16.4]
"These Egyptians, therefore, were the authors of these troubles, who not having the constancy of Macedonians, nor the prudence of Greeks, indulged all of them the evil manners of the Egyptians" [Against Apion, 2.6.]
........................
...................................
Thrasymachus
On Behalf of the Lariasaeans
"Shell we being Greeks, be slaves to Archelaus, a barbarian?"
This line the Greek Thrasymachus attributed to the Macedonian king Archelaus who occupied Greek land with his Macedonian army. Since the ancient Greeks stereotyped and called all non-Greeks barbarian, it is clear that Thrasymachus does not consider neither the Macedonian king nor his nation to be Greek, but foreigners to the ancient Greek world. The modern Greeks, however, would like to claim the ancient Macedonians as Greek. Here is what Professor Borza (a Macedonian specialist and expert on the ethnicity of the Macedonians) had written on that matter:
The modern Greek writer Daskalakis (Hellenism, 234) contended that Thrasymachus was not referring to barbarians in a usual sense. The passage, he argued, should be taken "in its rhetorical slant of a difference between advanced and backwards Greeks in an intellectual sense." This is strained and unconvincing. [Eugene Borza. In the Shadow of Olympus. p.165]
Borza can not be more right. The Greeks clearly called all non-Greeks barbarians. Based on the Daskalakis's logic, are we now supposed to think that the Persians (which the Greeks also called barbarians) are some kind of backward Greeks in an intellectual sense? The Thracians too? However, we do not see the modern Greek authors claim that. The lesson is clear: Daskalakis's argument can not be true and it only proves to what extend the modern Greek writers would go to make the Macedonians Greek and even rewrite the feelings of the ancient Greeks during that process.
..........................
........................................
Strabo
Roman Historian
"The Thessalians in particular wore long robes, probably because they of all the Greeks lived in the most northerly and coldest region" [11.14.12].
As Macedonia is located north of Thessaly it is obviously not a part of Greece, nor the Macedonians were Greeks, for the most northerly Greeks were already the Thessalians.
......................
....................................
Dionysius son of Kalliphon
The ancient Greek historians and geographers from the classical and the post-classical period, Ephoros, Pseudo-Skylax, Dionysius son of Kalliphon, and Dionysius Periegetes, all put the northern borders of Greece at the line from the Ambracian Gulf in the west to the Peneios River to the east, thus excluding Macedonia from Greece.
Michael Sakellariou, Macedonia: 4000 years of Greek History. p.50.
...............................
..........................................
- soferaki - 05.06.2007
sag bitte deine kommentare dazu ich glaube du weißt nicht was du postes Um was geht es da? :?:
- merco - 05.06.2007
EUGENE BORZA
Professor of Ancient History at the Pennsylvania State University
Makedonika and In the Shadow of Olympus
The American Philological Association refers to E. Borza as the "Macedonian specialist". In the introductory chapter of "Makedonika" by Carol G. Thomas, Eugene Borza is also called "the Macedonian specialist", and his colleague Peter Green describes Eugene's work on Macedonia as "seminal". Do Ancient Historians hold Eugene Borza in high esteem? Please read what P. Green thinks of Borza's approach to the studies of ancient history, and of his method of abstraction of truth: "Never was a man less given to the kind of mean-spirited odium philologicum that so often marks classical debate. Gene could slice an argument to pieces while still charming its exponents out of the trees."
Ernst Badian from Harward University writes: "It is chiefly Gene's merit that recognizably historical interpretation of the history of classical Macedonia has not only become possible, but it is now accepted by all ancient historians who have no vested interest in the mythology superseded by Gene's work. Needless to say, I welcome and agree with that approach and have never disagreed with him except on relatively trivial details of interpretation." Here are some excerpts from Borza's writings regarding the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks. I will offer no interpretations, for none is needed, indeed. On the matter of distinction between Greeks and Macedonians:
[1] "Neither Greeks nor Macedonians considered the Macedonians to be Greeks."
[2] On the composition of Alexander's army: "Thus we look in vain for the evidence that Alexander was heavily dependent upon Greeks either in quantity or quality."
[3] "The pattern is clear: the trend toward the end of the king's life was to install Macedonians in key positions at the expense of Asians, and to retain very few Greeks."
[4] "The conclusion is inescapable: there was a largely ethnic Macedonian imperial administration from beginning to end. Alexander used Greeks in court for cultural reasons, Greek troops (often under Macedonian commanders) for limited tasks and with some discomfort, and Greek commanders and officals for limited duties. Typically, a Greek will enter Alexander's service from an Aegean or Asian city through the practice of some special activity: he could read and write, keep figures or sail, all of which skills the Macedonians required. Some Greeks may have moved on to military service as well. In other words, the role of Greeks in Alexander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the services of Xerxes and the third Darius."
[5] On the policy of hellenization with Alexander conquest of Asia and the Greek assertion that he spread Hellenism: "If one wishes to believe that Alexander had a policy of hellenization - as opposed to the incidental and informal spread of Greek culture - the evidence must come from sources other than those presented here. One wonders - archeology aside - where this evidence would be." On the ethnic tension between Macedonians and Greeks, referring to the episode of Eumenes of Cardia and his bid to reach the throne: "And if there were any doubt about the status of Greeks among the Macedonians the tragic career of Eumenes in the immediate Wars of succession should put it to rest. The ancient sources are replete with information about the ethnic prejudice Eumenes suffered from Macedonians."
[6] On the issue of whether Alexander and Philip "united" the Greek city-states or conquered them: "In European Greece Alexander continued and reinforced Philip II's policy of rule over the city-states, a rule resulting from conquest."
[7] "The tension at court between Greeks and Macedonians, tension that the ancient authors clearly recognized as ethnic division."
[8] On Alexander's dimissal of his Greek allies: "A few days later at Ecbatana, Alexander dismissed his Greek allies, and charade with Greece was over."
[9] On the so called Dorian invasion: The theory of the Dorian invasion (based on Hdt. 9.26, followed by Thuc. I.12) is largely an invention of nineteenth-century historography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archeological or linguistic evidence."
[10] "The Dorians are invisible archeologically."
[11] "There is no archeological record of the Dorian movements, and the mythic arguments are largely conjectural, based on folk traditions about the Dorian home originally having been in northwest Greece.
[12] "The explanation for the connection between the Dorians and the Macedonians may be more ingenious than convincing, resting uncomfortably on myth and conjecture."
[13] On the Macedonian own tradition and origin: "As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adopted any existing language, even though they were now in contact with neighboring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues."
[14] On the Macedonian language: "The main evidence for Macedonian existing as separate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the train of Alexander the Great, where the Macedonian tongue is mentioned specifically."
[15] "The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from ordinary Attic Greek used as a language of the court and of diplomacy."
[16] "The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from Greek - do not show the changes expected from Greek dialect."
[17] On the Macedonian material culture being different from the Greek: "The most visible expression of material culture thus far recovered are the fourth - and third-century tombs. The architectural form, decoration, and burial goods of these tombs, which now number between sixty and seventy, are unlike what is found in the Greek south, or even in the neighboring independent Greek cities of the north Aegean littoral (exception Amphipolis). Macedonian burial habits suggest different view of the afterlife from the Greeks', even while many of the same gods were worshipped."
[18] "Many of the public expressions of worship may have been different."
[19] "There is an absence of major public religious monuments from Macedonian sites before the end of the fourth century (another difference from the Greeks)."
[20] "Must be cautious both in attributing Greek forms of worship to the Macedonians and in using these forms of worship as a means of confirming Hellenic identity."
[21] "In brief, one must conclude that the similarities between some Macedonian and Greek customs and objects are not of themselves proof that Macedonians were a Greek tribe, even though it is undeniable that on certain levels Greek cultural influences eventually became pervasive."
[22] "Greeks and Macedonians remained steadfastly antipathetic toward one another (with dislike of a different quality than the mutual long-term hostility shared by some Greek city-states) until well into the Hellenic period, when both the culmination of hellenic acculturation in the north and the rise of Rome made it clear that what these peoples shared took precedence over their historical enmities."
[23] "They made their mark not as a tribe of Greek or other Balkan peoples, but as 'Macedonians'. This was understood by foreign protagonists from the time of Darius and Xerxes to the age of Roman generals."
[24] "It is time to put the matter of the Macedonians' ethnic identity to rest."
[25] "There is other aspect of Alexander's Greek policy, and that is his formal relationship with the Greek cities of Europe and Asia. In European Greece Alexander continued and reinforced Philip II's policy rule over the city-states, a rule resulting from conquest. As for the island Greeks and the cities of Asia Minor, their status under the reigns of Philip and Alexander has been much debated. Fortunately, for my purposes, the status of these cities, whether as members of Philip's panhellenic league or as independent towns, is not crucial, as they were in fact all treated by Alexander as subjects. Much of the debate on this issue, while interesting and occasionally enlightening, has sometimes obscured a simple reality: Greeks on both sides of the Aegean were subjects to the authority of the king of Macedon." Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander's Court. Makedonika
[26] "I have not cited several pieces of anecdotal evidence from the sources on Alexander that establish the continuing tension at court between Greeks and Macedonians, tension that the ancient authors clearly recognized as ethnic division. A fuller version of this study will consider these incidents to support my view that Greeks and Macedonians did not get along very well with one another and that this ethnic tension was exploited by the king himself." Makedonika p.158
[27] "What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information", writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility."
- merco - 05.06.2007
WERNER JAEGER
Demosthenes
Here, in these excerpts from Jeager's book, you will find Demosthenes' hatred for Macedon not only readily displayed and exercised, but its Hellenic descent categorically excluded and implicitly denied. The fact that some modern authors ascribe Hellenic affinity to the ancient Macedonians should come to no great surprise because of the impact left by Johan Gustav Droysen on early nineteenth-century historian where Macedon is depicted as a natural "unifier" of the Greek city-states, the same role played by Prussia and Savoy in German and Italian unification in the nineteenth century. "On this false analogy the whole of Greek history was now boldly reconstructed as a necessary process of development leading quite naturally to a single goal: unification of the Greek nation under Macedonian leadership".
Demosthenes and most of his contemporaries did not see it that way; to them the leadership of Macedon was seen as the 'death of Greek political liberty' Some people dismiss Demosthenes' outbursts as a political rhetoric, others hold his political abuse of Philip from Macedon as historical facts, undeniably blunt and truthful. His sentiments are, in this case, fundamental historical documents, which testify to the simmering hate and the undamped contempt for the Macedonian conqueror. The hands of the sculptor are being replaced by his sharply cutting tongue. At the end the features emerge to the surface unpretentiously clear and aggressive. Demosthenes unlike Isocrates does not mask his national ideals with "Panhellenistic union" against the Persians, but boldly and aggressively calls his Hellenic nation to an uprising against the barbarian from the north -the Kingdom of Macedon and its king Philip.
Demosthenes' cries and pleas are not intended for his beloved Athens only, but to every liberty loving Hellene, and even the Persians themselves. He calls on the Persians to join the Hellenes in the war against Macedon, and at the same time he warns them that if they leave the Greeks in the lurch, they would be next Philip's victim. As destiny would have it, Demosthenes was right. Here we go:
[1] "On the Symmories, namely, that Demosthenes originally stood close to a group of politicians who were vigorously combating the radical democratic influence; indeed, it is only to this degree that he can be said to have come from any one party at all. It is true that in later years, when he is coming to grips with the danger of Macedonia's foreign yoke, he naturally appeals to the lofty ideal of Greek liberty." [p.93]
[2] "It is not until Demosthenes is fighting the "tyranny" of the Macedonian conqueror that the idea of liberty takes on its true color for him and becomes significant as a great national good." [p.93]
[3] "Even then this watchword of "liberty" serves solely to promote his (Demosthenes' foreign policy; but by that time it has really become an essential factor in his envisagement of the world about him, in which Greece and Macedonia are polar opposites, irreconcilable morally, spiritually, intellectually." [p.93-4]
[4] "Thereupon all Thessaly submitted to him of its own accord. He was acclaimed as a deliverer and named commander-in-chief of the Thessalian confederacy. He would have marched at once into central Greece as a conquering hero and would probably have brought the war to an end there with a single blow, had not the Athenians and Spartans bestirred themselves to send auxilary troops to Thermopylae, thus shutting against him this gateway to Hellas." [p.114]
[5] "In the Panegyricus he [Isocrates] had urged an understanding between Sparta and Athens, so that the Greeks might unite in a common expedition against the Persian empire. Nothing of that sort was any longer thinkable. But the policy of which he now had such high hopes offered a surprisingly simple solution for the distressing problem that lay heavily on all minds the problem of what was to be the ultimate relationship between Greece and the new power in the north." [p.152]
[6] "If Philip was not to remain a permanent menace to the Greek world from outside, it was necessary to get him positively involved in the fate of Hellas; for he could not be eluded. Of course in the view of any of the Greek states of the period, this problem was comparable to that of squaring the circle." [p.152]
[7] "But for Isocrates that was no obstacle. He had long since come to recognize the impossibility of resisting Macedonia, and he was only trying to find the least humiliating way to express the unavoidable submission of all the Greeks to the will of Philip. Here again he found the solution in a scheme for Macedonian hegemony over Greece. For it seems as if Philip's appearance in this role would be most effective way to mitigate his becoming so dominant a factor in Greek history; moreover, it ought to silence all Greek prejudices against the culturally and ethnically alien character of the Macedonians." [p.153]
[8] "With the help of the role that Isocrates had assigned to him, he had the astuteness to let his cold-blooded policy for the extension of Macedonian power take on the eyes of the Greeks the appearance of a work of liberation for Hellas. What he most needed at this moment was not force but shrewd propaganda; and nobody lent himself to this purpose so effectively as the old Isocrates, venerable and disinterested, who offered his services of his own free will." [p.155]
[9] "Philip now had the problem of compelling the Athenians to recognize the Delphic resolutions aimed against Phocis; and he sent ambassadors to Athens, where strong opposition prevailed. However, with the Macedonian army only a few day's march from the Attic border and in good fighting trim, Athens was quite defenseless, and even Demosthenes advised submission." [p.157]
[10] "When Demosthenes draws up his list of Philip's transgressions, it includes his offense against the whole of Greece, not merely those against Athens; and Demosthenes' charge of unbecoming remissness is aimed at all the Greeks equally- their irresolution, and their failure to perceive their common cause." [p.171]
[11] "Therefore he (Demosthenes) urges them to send embassies everywhere to call the Greeks together--to assemble them, teach them, and exhort them; but the paramount need is to take the necessary steps themselves and thus perform their duty." [p.171]
[12] "In this appeal to the whole Greek world Demosthenes reached a decisive turning point in his political thought................He was still thoroughly rooted in Athens's governmental traditions, never overstepping the bounds of her classical balance-of-power policy for the interior of Greece. But the appearance of the mighty new enemy from beyond the Greek frontier now forced him to take a different track." [p.171-2]
[13] "Looking far beyond the actualities of the Greek world, hopelessly split asunder as it was, he (Isocrates) had envisaged a united nation led by the Macedonian king." [p.172]
[14] "Quite apart, however, from any theoretical doubts whether the nationalistic movement of modern times, which seeks to combine in a single state all the individuals of a single folk, can properly be compared with the Greek idea of Panhellenism, scholars have failed to notice that after the unfortunate Peace of Philocrates Demosthenes' whole policy was an unparalleled fight for national unification. In this period he deliberately threw off the constrains of the politician concerned exclusively with Athenian interests, and devoted himself to a task more lofty than any Greek statesman before him had ever projected or indeed could have projected. In this respect he is quite comparable to Isocrates; but an important point of contrast still remains. The difference is simply that Demosthenes did not think of this "unification" as a more or less voluntary submission to the will of the conqueror; on the contrary, he demanded a unanimous uprising of all the Greeks against the Macedonian foe." [p.172]
[15] "His Panhellenism was the outgrowth of a resolute will for national self-assertiveness, deliberately opposed to the national self-surrender called for by Isocrates - for that was what Isocrates' program had really meant, despite its being expressed romantically as a plan for a Persian war under Macedonian leadership." [p.172-3]
[16] "As the success of his appeal was to show, he was correct in his estimate of the actual political prospects of a really national uprising now that direct hostile pressure was felt. Since the days of the Persian wars Hellas had at no time been seriously endangered from without." [p.173]
[17] "The foe and the emergency [Macedon and its king Philip] had now appeared; and if the Greeks still had a spark of their fathers' sense of independence, the fate that was now overtaking them could not but bring them together. The Third Philippic is one mighty avowal of this brand of Panhellenism; and this is entirely Demosthenes' achievement." [p.173]
[18] "The task that confronted Demosthenes demanded utterly gigantic powers of improvisation; for the Greek people had not been making preparedness an end in itself for years as the enemy had done, and they also found it hard to adjust themselves spiritually to their new situation. In the Third Philippic Demosthenes' prime effort was to break down this spiritual resistance, and everything hinged on his success." [p.174]
[Greek people on one side, and the enemy on the other. Were Macedonians seen as Greeks by the ancient Greeks? Did the Greeks have the enemy from within their own kin? Were there some Greeks who were making preparations for a war, and other Greeks who were not? It is a clear no, since the Macedonians were not Greek]
[19] "Demosthenes speaks of embassies to be sent to the Peloponnesus, to Rhodes and Chios, and even to the king of Persia, to call for resistance against the conqueror." [p.177]
[Point of Interest] Greeks were sending embassies to the king of Persia to ally with them against the conqueror from the north - Macedonia and its king Philip. One needs not be a scholar to see through the lies propagated by today's Greeks when they claim that Macedonia was a part of Greece and Philip was their king. "It is an illusion to think that ancient Macedonians were Greeks". [Karagatsis - a Greek writer]
[20] Demosthenes' call for a national uprising was slowly gaining strength; Corinth and Achaea went over to the Athenian side, Messenia, Arcadia and Argos were won over and lined themselves behind the program. In March of the year 340 the treaty was formerly concluded at Athens. Even Athens and Thebes reconciled and joined his national program. "The true greatness of these achievements -- achievements for which the citizens of Athens honored Demosthenes with a golden crown at the Dionysia of 340 - was rightly appreciated by the ancient historians." [p.178]
[21] "If the Persian leaves us in the lurch and anything should happen to us, nothing will hinder Philip from attacking the Persian king." [Fourth Philippic] [p.181]
[22] "For historians of the old school, Greek history ended when the Greek states lost their political liberty; they looked upon it as a closed story, mounting to a heroic finish at Chaeronea." [p.188]
[23] "For if any non-Greek power, whether Persian or Macedonian, were to achieve world dominion, the typical form of the Greek state would suffer death and destruction." [p.188]
[24] "Anyone who had assured himself that Macedonian hegemony would lead to the inner unification of the Greeks, was bound to be disappointed. Philip surrounded Athens with four Macedonian garrisons placed at respectful distances, and left everything else to his supporters and agents in the cities." [p.191]
[25] The first resolution passed by Synedrion at Corinth was the declaration of war against Persia. "The difference was that this war of conquest, which was passionately described as a war of vengeance, was not looked upon as a means of uniting the Greeks, as Isocrates would have had it, but was merely an instrument of Macedonian imperialism." [p.192]
[26] "But although the Greek people thus came to play a uniquely influential role as pioneers of culture and, to that degree, as inheritors of the Macedonian empire, politically they had simply dropped out of the ranks of free peoples, even if Philip abstained from formally making Hellas a Macedonian province. The Greeks were themselves aware of this." [p.192]
[27] "Outwardly, the "autonomous" city-states kept their relations with Macedonia on a fairly strict level of rectitude. Inwardly, the time was one of dull pressure and smoldering distrust, flaring up to a bright flame at the least sign of any tremor or weakness in Macedonia's alien rule - for that is how her surveillance was generally regarded. This excruciating state of affairs continued as long as any hope remained. Only when the last ray of hope was exctinguished and the last uprising had met disaster, did quiet finally settle down upon Greece -- the quiet of the graveyard." [p.192]
[28] (Aeschines attempt to triumph over Demosthenes for the last and final round backfires with Demosthenes' heroics in "The Crown". Demosthenes at the end received the crown.) "But though Athens was powerless against the might of her Macedonian conqueror, she retained her independence of judgment and declared that no history could confute Demosthenes." [p.196]
[29] "Then when Alexander suddenly died in the flower of his age, and Greece rose again for the last time, Demosthenes offered his services and returned to Athens. But after winning a few brilliant successes, the Greeks lost their admirable commander Leosthenes on the field of battle; and his successors was slain at Crannon on the anniversary of Chaeronea; the Athenians then capitulated, and, under pressure of threats from Macedonia, suffered themselves to condemn to death the leader of the "revolt"." [p.196]
Demosthenes died from a dose of poison on the island of Calauria, in the altar of Poseidon. Forty years later Athens honored him for eternity. Such was the destiny of a man whose ideals were his people, his country and their liberty. When modern Greeks dismiss him (in order to divert the stinging truth of his oratory) as a mere politician and his arousing oratory against Macedonia and the Macedonian conqueror as a political rhetoric, they, the modern Greeks, denounce the true Greek spirit, devoid of which, they, themselves, are.
[30] "The dispute of modern scholars over the racial stock of the Macedonians have led to many interesting suggestions. This is especially true of the philological analysis of the remains of the Macedonian language by O. Hoffmann in his Makedonen etc. Cf. the latest general survey of the controversy in F. Geyer and his chapter on prehistory. But even if the Macedonians did have some Greek blood- as well as Illyrian- in their veins, whether originally or by later admixture, this would not justify us in considering them on a par with the Greeks in point of race or in using this as historical excuse for legitimizing the claims of this bellicose peasant folk to lord it over cousins in the south of the Balkan peninsula so far ahead of them in culture. It is likewise incorrect to assert that this is the only way in which we can understand the role of the Macedonian conquest in Hellenizing the Orient. But we can neglect this problem here, as our chief interest lies in discovering what the Greeks themselves felt and thought. And here we need not cite Demosthenes' well-known statements; for Isocrates himself, the very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates the people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil.108. He purposely avoids the word barbaroi but this word is one that inevitably finds a place for itself in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of every true Hellene. Even Isocrates would not care to have the Greeks ruled by the Macedonian people: it is only the king of Macedonia, Philip, who is to be the new leader; and the orator tries to give ethnological proof of Philip's qualifications for this task by the device of showing that he is no son of his people but, like the rest of his dynasty, a scion of Heracles, and therefore of Greek blood." [p.249]
[Point of Interest]
(a) Macedonians cannot be considered as Greeks even if they had some Greek blood in their veins.
(b) Macedonia's conquest of the Orient should not be contingent upon Greek culture.
© Isocrates places the Macedonians with alien races and hitherto, outside the Hellenic world.
(d) Isocrates takes care of this "alien race" not to be seen as leaders of Greece. He isolates their king Philip as not of the same race as the people over which he governs.
Note: The speech On the Chersonese was, to be sure, delivered in a specifically Athenian emergency; but the interest of the Greeks as a whole is never left out of sight. The Third Philippic is entirely dedicated to the danger that threatens all Greece. Similarly, when the past and future are compared, it is the whole of Hellas that is considered, not Athens alone.
Once again, it is not surprising that Jeager places the ancient Macedonians outside the Greek ethnic world. Fact is that when an author follows the writings of the ancient biographers it is almost impossible for anybody to come to a different conclusion.
- soferaki - 05.06.2007
merco du spamst nur das forum voll um was geht es da :?: sag bitte deine kommentare dazu
- merco - 05.06.2007
PETER GREEN
Professor of Classics at the University of Texas
Alexander of Macedon and Alexander to Actium
[1] "The Colonels, as it happened, promoted Alexander as a great Greek hero, especially to army recruits: the Greeks of the fourth century B.C., to whom Alexander was a half-Macedonian, half-Epirote barbarian conqueror, would have found this metamorphosis as ironic as I did." [The Greek island on which Peter Green stayed while working on his book, happened to be the same island on which the Greek Colonels, after assuming power in Greece, used it as a dumping-ground for royalist officers and "thinkers with mind of their own".]
[2] "Macedonia was the first large territorial state with an effective centralized political, military and administrative structure to come into being on the continent of Europe". [p.1]
[3] "No one had forgotten that Alexander I, known ironically as ‘the philhellene’, had been debarred from the Olympic Games until he manufactured a pedigree connecting the Argeads with the ancient Argive kings". [p.7] [On p.9 Green refers to this Argive link as ‘fictitious’.]
[4] Isocrates’ letter to Philip II where he, Isocrates refers to Philip "as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom to consider Hellas your fatherland" Green calls this a "rhetorical hyperbole". "Indeed, taken as a whole the Address to Philip must have caused its recipient considerable sardonic amusement". [p. 49] "Its ethnic conceit was only equaled by its naivety" [p.49]
[5] "And though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage ( a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda-line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his Macedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress." [p.50]
[6] "The Greeks had done a deal with Artaxerxes, [Persian commander], and if Philip did not move fast it would be they who invaded his territory, not he theirs. In the event, he moved faster than anyone could have predicted." [p.69]
[7] "The Greek states retained no more than a pale shadow of their former freedom". [p.80] [This is how Philip "united" the Greek states.]
[8] "The dedication of the Philipeum was a salutary reminder that from now on, whatever democratic forms might be employed as a salve to the Greeks’ self-respect, it was Philip who led and they who followed." [p.86]
[9] "The Greek states were to make a common peace and alliance with one another, and constitute themselves into a federal Hellenic League. Simultaneously, the league was to form a separate alliance with Macedonia, though Macedonia itself would not be a league member." [p.86]
[10] "Philip’s Panhellenism was no more than a convenient placebo to keep his allies quiet, a cloak for further Macedonian aggrandizement." [p.87]
[11] "Most Greek statesmen recognized this only too well. To them, their self-styled hegemon was still a semi-barbarian autocrat, whose wishes had been imposed on them by right of conquest; and when Alexander succeeded Philip, he inherited the same bitter legacy of hatred and resentment - which his own policies did little to dispel." [p.87]
[12] "The military contingent they supplied were, in reality, so many hostages for their good behavior. As we shall see, whenever they saw the slightest chance of throwing off the Macedonian yoke, they took it." [p. 87]
[13] "Some 15,000 Greek mercenaries, not to mention numerous doctors, technicians and professional diplomats, were already on the Persian pay-roll; twice as many men, in fact, as the league ultimately contributed for the supposedly Panhellenic crusade against Darius." [p.95]
[14] "In the early spring of 336, an advance force of 10,000 men, including a thousand cavalry, crossed over to Asia Minor. Its task was to secure the Hellespont, to stockpile supplies, and in Philip’s pleasantly cynical phrase, to ‘liberate the Greek cities’." [p.98] [The operative word is "cynical phrase" to ‘liberate the Greek cities’.]
[15] "Only the Spartans held aloof. The traditions of their country, they informed the king, did not allow them to serve under a foreign leader. (So much for Macedonia’s pretensions to Hellenism.) Alexander did not press the point....." [p.121] [The operative word is "a foreign leader" referring to Alexander.]
[16] [Regarding the news of Alexander’s death.] "If anyone had doubts about the report, he quickly suppressed them: this, after all, was just what every patriotic Greek had hoped and prayed might happen." [p.136]
[17] "Darius reversed his earlier policy of non-intervention, and began to channel gold into Greece wherever he thought it would do most good. He did not, as yet, commit himself to anything more definite: clearly he hoped that the Greek revolt would solve his problem for him. But the mere thought of a Greek-Persian coalition must have turned Alexander’s blood cold." [p.138]
[18] "This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the king’s propaganda section continued - for the time being - to present it. No one, so far as we know, was tactless enough to ask the obvious question: if this was a Panhellenic crusade, where were the Greek troops? [p. 157]
[19] "Indeed, despite the league’s official veto, far more Greeks fought for the Great King - and remained loyal to the bitter end - than were ever conscripted by Alexander." [p.157]
[20] "What is more, the league’s troops were never used in crucial battles (another significant pointer) but kept on garrison and line-of-communication duties. The sole reason for their presence, apart from propaganda purposes, was to serve as hostages for the good behavior of their friends and relatives in Greece. Alexander found them more of an embarrassment than an asset, and the moment he was in a position to do so, he got rid of them." [p.158]
[21] "Alexander lost no time in getting rid of the league’s forces which accompanied him - another ironic gloss on his role as a leader of a Panhellenic crusade." [p.183]
[22] On the subject of "liberating the Greek cities in Asia: "But the euphemism of a ‘contribution’ did not carry the same unpleasant associations; and the whole scheme, with its implication of a united Greek front, must have made splendid propaganda for home consumption." [p. 188]
[23] On the league’s crews: "Their own crews, he pointed out, were still half-trained (the cities of the league must have been scraping the bottom of the barrel when they chose them); and - a revealing admission - a defeat at this point might well trigger off a general revolt of the Greek states. So much for the Panhellenic crusade. Alexander’s main fear, we need scarcely doubt, was that the league’s fleet might actually desert him if the chance presented itself." [p.190]
[24] "The truth of the matter seems to have been that Alexander distrusted his Greek allies so profoundly - and with good reason - that he preferred to risk the collapse of his campaign in a spate of rebellion rather than entrust its safety to a Greek fleet." [p.192]
[25] "The case of Aspendus exposes, with harsh clarity, Alexander’s fundamental objectives in Asia Minor. So long as he received willing cooperation, the pretence of a Panhellenic crusade could be kept up. But any resistance, the least opposition to his will, met with instant and savage reprisals." [p.208]
[26] "The burning of Persepolis had written finish to the Hellenic crusade as such, and he used this excuse to pay off all his league’s troops, Parmenio’s Thessalians included. The crisis in Greece was over: he no longer needed these potential trouble makers as hostages." [p. 322]
[27] "But Greek public opinion was something of which Alexander took notice only when it suited him; and the league served him as a blanket excuse for various questionable or underhand actions, the destruction of Thebes being merely the most notorious." [p.506-7]
[28] "It is significant that two native rising occurred on the news of Alexander’s death, and both of these, as we shall see in a moment, involved Greeks; there were otherwise no ingenuous revolts against the colonial government." [p.6. "Alex. to Actium"]
[29] "But then, Eumenes was a Greek, and Macedonian troops, especially the old sweats who had served under Philip II, were never really comfortable being led by non-Macedonians." [p.7. "Alex. to Actium".]
[30] "Nearcus never came to much among the Successors: but then he, like Eumenes, was a Greek; worse still, he was a Cretan, and thus a proverbial liar." [p.7. "Alex. to Actium"]
One can clearly see the distinction between ancient Macedonians and the Greeks. Modern Greek's assertion that ancient Macedonians were Greeks simply does not hold any water.
LIEBE MODERATOREN DA ES GRÖSSERE BEITRÄGE SIND KONNTE ICH SIE LEIDER NICHT ZUSAMMEN STELLEN..
DANKE :wink:
- soferaki - 05.06.2007
:!: merco sag bitte deine kommentare dazu ich glaube du weißt nicht was du postest Um was geht es da? :?:
- soferaki - 05.06.2007
BY
MARCUS A TEMPLAR
There have been certain fallacies circulating for the past few years due to ignorance on the “Macedonian Issue”. It is exacerbated by systematic propaganda emanating from AVNOJ, or communist Yugoslavia and present-day FYROM, and their intransigent ultra-nationalist Diaspora.
Fallacy #1
The inhabitants of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (The FYROM) are ethnic Macedonians, direct descendants of, or related to the ancient Macedonians.
Fact #1
The inhabitants of The FYROM are mostly Slavs, Bulgarians and Albanians. They have nothing in common with the ancient Macedonians. Here are some testimonies from The FYROM’s officials:
a. The former President of The FYROM, Kiro Gligorov said: “We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).
b. Also, Mr Gligorov declared: "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia… Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).
c. On 22 January 1999, Ambassador of the FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans. In answering questions at the end of her speech Mrs. Acevshka said: "We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great … Greece is Macedonia’s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz." In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that "we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.”
d. On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM'S Ambassador to Canada, admitted, "We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian." He also commented, “There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country."
e. Moreover, the Foreign Minister of the FYROM, Slobodan Casule, in an interview to Utrinski Vesnik of Skopje on December 29, 2001, said that he mentioned to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Solomon Pasi, that they "belong to the same Slav people.”
Fallacy #2
The Macedonian Greeks are of the same ethnic group as the “Macedonians” of The FYROM.
Fact #2
The Macedonian Greeks are NOT of the same ethnic group as the Macedonian Slavs of The FYROM. The Macedonian Greeks are just that, Greeks who live in or originate from the geographic area of Macedonia.
They are the only people, that by inheritance, can be called Macedonians.
Fallacy #3
Ancient Macedonians were a tribe similar to the Greeks, but not Greek themselves.
Fact #3
Ancient Macedonians were one of more than the 230 Hellenic tribes, sub-tribes, and families of the Hellenic Nation that spoke more than 200 dialects. For more information see Herodotus, Thucydides, Titus Livius, Strabo, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, Apocrypha (Macabees I, 1-2). It was not until 1945 that their Hellenism has been challenged by the Slavs for expansionistic reasons.
Fallacy #4
Ancient Greece was a country, a legal entity, as we understand it today.
Fact #4
No. Hellas (Greece) was first recognized as a nation state or legal entity as we understand it today in 1830.
From the beginning until that time, the term Hellas was only a geographic term or an administrative area whose borders were changing depending on the needs of the Roman, Byzantine, or Ottoman Empires.
Fallacy #5
There was one ancient Greek language and the ancient Macedonians spoke Macedonian, not Greek.
Fact #5
Linguistically, there is no real distinction between a dialect and a language without a specific factor. People usually consider the political factor to determine whether a certain kind of speech is a language or a dialect. Since the Pan-Hellenic area consisted of many small city- states (Attica, Lacedaemon, Corinth, etc.), and larger states (Molossia, Thesprotia, Macedonia, Acarnania, Aetolia, etc.), it was common knowledge at the time that the people of all those states were speaking different languages, when in fact they were all variations of the same language, Hellenic or Greek.
The most advanced of all Hellenic dialects was the dialect of Attica (Athens) or Attic.
When people state “ancient Greek language” they mean the Attic dialect and any comparison of the Macedonian dialect to ancient Greek is actually a comparison to the Attic dialect. The difference between Macedonian and Attic was like the difference between Low and High German. Nobody doubts that both are Germanic languages, although they differ from one another. Another good example of a multi-dialectal linguistic regime is present-day Italy.
The official language of Italy is the Florentine, but common people still speak their own dialects. Two people from different areas of Italy cannot communicate if both speak their respective dialect, and yet they both speak Italian. Why should the Hellenic language be treated differently?
At that time, Greeks spoke more than 200 Hellenic dialects or languages, as the ancient Greeks used to call them.
Some of the well-known dialects were Ionic, Attic, Doric, Aeolic, Cypriot, Arcadic, Aetolic, Acarnanic, Macedonian and Locric. Moreover, we know that the Romans considered the Macedonians as Hellenic speaking peoples.
Livy wrote, "…The Aetolians, the Acarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same speech, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time …" (Livy, History of Rome, b. XXXI par. XXIX). The Aetolians and Acarnanians were definitely Hellenic tribes. On another occasion Livy writes "…[General Paulus] took his official seat surrounded by the whole crowd of Macedonians … his announcement was translated into Greek and repeated by Gnaeus Octavius the praetor…”. If the crowd of Macedonians were not Greek speaking, why then did the Romans need to translate Paulus' speech into Greek? (Livy, History of Rome, b. XLV, para XXIX).
The Macedonian dialect was an Aeolic dialect of the Western Greek language group (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 193). All those dialects differ from each other, but never in a way that one person could not understand the other. The Military Yugoslavian Encyclopedia of the 1974 edition (Letter M, page 219), a very anti-Hellenic biased publication, states, “… u doba rimske invazije, njihov jezik bio grčki, ali se dva veka ranije dosta razlikovao od njega, mada ne toliko da se ta dva naroda nisu mogla sporazumevati.” (… at the time of the Roman invasion their language was Hellenic, but two centuries before it was different enough, but not as much as the two peoples could not understand one another).
After the death of Alexander the Great, the situation changed in the vast empire into a new reality. Ptolemy II, Philadelphos (308-246 BC) the Pharaoh (king) of Egypt realized that the physical unification of the Greeks and the almost limitless expansion of the Empire required the standardization of the already widely used common language or Koinē. Greek was already the lingua franca of the vast Hellenistic world in all four kingdoms of the Diadochi (Alexander's Successors). It was already spoken, but neither an official alphabet nor grammar had yet been devised.
Alexandria, Egypt was already the Cultural Center of the Empire in about 280 BC. Ptolemy II assigned Aristeas, an Athenian scholar, to create the grammar of the new language, one that not only all Greeks, but all inhabitants of the Empire would be able to speak. Thus, Aristeas used the Attic dialect as basis for the new language.
Aristeas and the scholars who were assisting him trimmed the language a little, eliminated the Attic idiosyncrasies and added words as well as grammatical and syntactical rules mainly from the Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic dialects.
The Spartan Doric, however, was excluded from it (see Tsakonian further down). So, they standardized THE Hellenic language, called Koine or Common.
The language was far from perfect. Non-Greeks encountered difficulties reading it since there was no way to separate words, sentences and paragraphs. In addition, they were unable to express their feelings and the right intonation. During that time, Greek was a melodic language, even more melodic than Italian is today.
The system of paragraphs, sentences, and some symbols like ~. ;`'! , were the result of continuous improvement and enhancement of the language with the contribution of many Greek scholars from all over the World.
There were a few alphabets employed by various Hellenic cities or states, and these alphabets included letters specific to the sounds of their particular dialect. There were two main categories, the Eastern and the Western alphabets. The first official alphabet omitted all letters not in use any longer ( sampi, qoppa, digamma also known as stigma in Greek numbering) and it presented a 24-letter alphabet for the new Koinē language. However, the inclusion and use of small letters took place over a period of many centuries after the standardization of Koinē.
After the new language was completed with its symbols, the Jews of Egypt felt that it was an opportunity for them to translate their sacred books into Greek since it was the language that the Jews of Diaspora spoke.
So on the island of Pharos, by Alexandria's seaport, 72 Jewish rabbis were secluded and isolated as they translated their sacred books (Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim, etc.) from Aramaic and Hebrew to the Koinē Greek, the newly created language. This is known as the Septuagint translation. The Koinē evolved and in about two to three centuries it became the language that Biblical scholars call Biblical Greek. In fact, only those who have studied the Attic dialect can understand the difference between the Septuagint Greek and the Greek of the New Testament.
Although the Koinē was officially in use, common folk in general continued to speak their own dialect and here and there one can sense the insertion of elements of the Attic dialect in various documents such as the New Testament. The Gospel according to St. John and the Revelation are written in perfect Attic.
The other three Synoptic Gospels were written in Koinē with the insertion of some Semitic grammatical concepts (i.e. the Hebrew genitive) and invented words (i.e. epiousios).
The outcome is that today in Greece there are many variations in speech; of course not to the point of people not understanding each other, but still there is divergence in the Greek spoken tongue. Today the Hellenic language accepts only one dialect, the Tsakonian, which is a direct development of the ancient Doric dialect of Sparta.
The Demotic is a development of mostly the Doric sound system, whereas the Katharevousa is a made-up language based on the Classical Attic. Presently, the speech in various areas of Greece somehow differs from each other and sometimes an untrained ear might have difficulty understanding the local speech. Pontic and Cypriot Greek are very good examples to the unacquainted ear. Tsakonian dialect, the descendant of the Spartan Doric, is almost impossible to understand if one is not familiar with it.
Over the years, Macedonia had several names. At first the Macedonians gave the land the name, Emathia, after their leader Emathion. It derives from the word amathos, amathoeis meaning sand or sandy.
From now on, all of its names are Greek. Later it was called Maketia or Makessa and finally Makedonia (Macedonia). The latter names are derived from the Doric/Aeolic word “makos,” (in Attic “mēkos) meaning length (see Homer, Odyssey, VII, 106), thus Makednos means long or tall, but also a highlander or mountaineer. (cf. Orestae, Hellenes).
In Opis, during the mutiny of the Macedonian Army, Alexander the Great spoke to the whole Macedonian Army addressing them in Greek (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 9,10). The Macedonian soldiers listened to him and they were dumbfounded by what they heard from their Commander-in-Chief. They were upset. Immediately after Alexander left for the Palace, they demanded that Alexander allow them to enter the palace so that they could talk to him.
When this was reported to Alexander, he quickly came out and saw their restrained disposition; he heard the majority of his soldiers crying and lamenting, and was moved to tears. He came forward to speak, but they remained there imploring him. One of them, named Callines, whose age and command of the Companion cavalry made him preeminent spoke as follows: “Sire, what grieves the Macedonians is that you have already made some Persians your ‘kinsmen’, and the Persians are called ‘kinsmen’ of Alexander and are allowed to kiss you, while not one of the Macedonians has been granted this honor” (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 8-11).
The previous story clearly reveals that the Macedonians were speaking Greek since they could understand their leader. There were thousands of them, not just some selected few who happened to speak Greek. It would be unrealistic for Alexander the Great to speak to them in a language they supposedly did not speak. It would be impossible to believe that the Macedonian soldiers were emotionally moved to the point that all of them were lamenting after listening to a language they did not understand. There is no way for the Macedonians to have taken a crash course in Greek in 20 minutes so that they would be able to understand the speech simultaneously as Alexander was delivering it.
Furthermore, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the “kausia” (καυσία) (Polybius IV 4,5; Eustathius 1398; Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII 22; cf. Sturz, Macedonian Dialect, 41) from the Greek word for heat that separated them from the rest of the Greeks. That is why the Persians called them “yauna takabara,” which meant “Greeks wearing the hat”. The Macedonian hat was very distinctive from the hats of the other Greeks, but the Persians did not distinguished the Macedonians, because the Macedonian speech was also Greek (Hammond, The Macedonian State p. 13 cf. J.M. Balcer, Historia, 37 [1988] 7).
On the mountainsides of the Himalayas and the Indian Caucasus and under Pakistani and Afghanistan jurisdiction lives a tribe whose people call themselves Kalash. They claim to be the descendants of Alexander the Great’s soldiers who for various reasons were left behind in the depths of Asia and could not follow the Great General in his new conquests. Having no contact with the outside world for almost 23 centuries, they are quite different from any other neighboring nations.
Light complexioned, and blue eyed in the midst of dark skinned neighbors, their language, even though it has been affected and influenced by the many Muslim languages of nations that surround the Kalash tribe, still incorporates vocabulary and has many elements of the ancient Greek language. They greet their visitors with "ispanta" from the Greek verb "ασπάζομαι" (greetings) and they warn them about "heman" from the ancient Greek noun "χειμών" (winter). These indigenous people still believe in the twelve Olympian gods and their architecture resembles very much the Macedonian architecture (National Herald, “A School in the Tribe of Kalash by Greeks", October 11, 1996).
Michael Wood, the British scholar in his In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great (p.8), quotes the following statement made by a Kalash named Kazi Khushnawaz:
Long long ago, before the days of Islam, Sikander e Aazem came to India. The Two Horned one whom you British people call Alexander the Great. (sic) He conquered the world, and was a very great man, brave and dauntless and generous to his followers. When he left to go back to Greece, some of his men did not wish to go back with him but preferred to stay here. Their leader was a general called Shalakash [Seleucus]. With some of his officers and men, he came to these valleys and they settled here and took local women, and here they stayed. We, the Kalash, the Black Kafir of the Hindu Kush, are the descendants of their children. Still some of our words are the same as theirs, our music and our dances, too; we worship the same gods. This is why we believe the Greeks are our first ancestors...
(Seleucus was one of the Generals of Alexander the Great. He was born in 358 or 354 BC in the town of Europos, Macedonia and died in August/September 281 BC near Lysimathia, Thrace.)
The Kalash today worship the ancient Greek gods and especially Di Zau [Dias Zeus], the great sky god.
Unfortunately, their language died out only in Muslim times. This is further evidence that Macedonians and Greeks spoke the same language, had the same religion and the same customs.
Accusations of Macedonians being barbarians started in Athens and they were the result of political fabrications based on the Macedonian way of life and not on their ethnicity or language. (Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, p158, Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 4). Demosthenes traveled to Macedonia twice for a total of nine months. He knew very well what language the Macedonians were speaking. We encountered similar behavior with Thrasyboulos. He states that the Acarnanians were barbarians only when the Athenians encountered a conflict of political interest from the Acarnanians. The Macedonian way of life differed in many ways from the southern Greek way of life, but that was very common among the Western Greeks such as Chaones, Molossians, Thesprotians, Acarnanians, Aetolians and Macedonians (Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 4.) Macedonian state institutions were similar to those of the Mycenean and Spartan (Wilcken, Alexander the Great, p 23). Regarding Demosthenes addressing Philip as “barbarian” even Badian an opponent of the Greekness of Macedonians states “It may have nothing to do with historical fact, any more than the orators' tirades against their personal enemies usually have.”
(E. Badian, Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia And Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Greeks and Macedonians).
Fallacy #6
Ancient Macedonia was a nation state.
Fact #6
Before Phillip II, Macedonia was divided into small typical city-states having adopted the same concept of internal civic structure as the southern Greek city-states. Each Macedonian city-state or area had its own main city and government. Philip II united the Macedonian city-states by instituting and establishing a Homeric style of a Kingdom, maintaining the infrastructure of the smaller city-states with the various kings paying tribute to the king of all Macedonia. We know this from the fact that at one time the king of Lyncestis (present day Bitola - Florina) was Alexander. The point that has to be made clear is that a man’s first loyalty was to his city, not to the King of Macedonia (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 9).
Fallacy #7
Over the years the ancient Macedonians disappeared.
Fact #7
The ancient Macedonians, under the influence of the new common language, the Koine, as developed over the years, were amalgamated with the rest of the Hellenes, or Greeks.
Fallacy #8
If the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, why then was Alexander I, the king of Macedonia, named Philhellene (lover of Greece)? This title is bestowed only to foreigners.
Fact #8
The king of Macedonia, Alexander I, was named Philhellene by the Theban poet Pindaros for the same reason Jason of Pherrai and Euagoras of Cyprus were called Philhellenes (Isocrates 107A, 199A).
The title Philhellene in ancient times meant Philopatris (lover of the homeland) or simply put “a patriot” (Plato, Politics, 470E; Xenophon, Agesilaus, 7, 4), which is why Alexander the Great did not touch the traditional house of Pindaros when he ordered his soldiers to burn Thebes.
Fallacy #9
The ancient Greeks had a Greek or Hellenic national conscience and the Macedonians, by destroying Greek cities, proved that they were not Greeks.
Fact #9
Greece is an area which lacking geographic continuity fostered alienation of individual tribes not only in the general sense, but also in a narrower sense. That explains why the ancient Greeks did not have a common national conscience which is why they were warring against each other. The Macedonians destroyed or burned cities belonging to other Greek City States for the same reason the Athenians, the Thebans, and the Spartans battled one another.
They knew that somehow they were related, but local conscience was much stronger than a Pan- Hellenic one. Ancient Greeks, of the Hellenic mainland, were united before an enemy attack that could endanger the common freedom and welfare. This fact was displayed anytime the Persians attacked the Hellenic lands.
Greeks from Ionia and Aeolia (present day Aegean shores of Turkey), however, were mostly Persian allies in opposition to the Mainland Greeks.
It was common practice for various Hellenic states to form political/military alliances with each other and against each other, but they did not develop ethnic partnerships. There are plenty of such alliances in the ancient Hellenic world.
A few centuries went by until the Greeks began developing a national conscience. The Greeks definitely achieved the completion of a national conscience by the time Justinian was crowned the Emperor of Byzantium.
Very few ancient Greeks, such as Pericles, Demosthenes and Phillip II of Macedonia had the vision of a united country, but each one wanted to see his own state as the leading force of such a union. Pericles dreamed of it, Demosthenes advocated it, but Phillip II materialized it. Also, the Macedonians had common religious practices and customs as the Spartans.
Fallacy #10
The ancient Macedonians were one of the Illyrian tribes.
Fact #10
Although there is a lot of evidence (mostly indirect) regarding the language of the ancient Macedonians, there is one piece of evidence offered by Polybius in book XXVIII, paragraphs 8 and 9, where it states that the Macedonians were using translators when they were communicating with the Illyrians. This means the Macedonians and the Illyrians did not speak the same language. For instance, Perseus, the Macedonian
king, sent Adaeus of Berroia (who spoke only Greek) and Pleuratus the Illyrian, as a translator (because he spoke the Illyrian language) on a mission to the Illyrian king Genthius (169 BC). Pleuratus was an exile living in Perseus' court. Moreover there is evidence that the Illyrians and the Macedonians were vicious enemies.
Fallacy #11
Many of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are actually refugees that came to Macedonia during the First World War and especially during the 1920's and 1930' from Turkey, the Middle East, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine and Bulgaria.
Fact #11
It is very true that a good number of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are refugees from various Middle Eastern countries. However, it is also true that these Greeks are descendants of those ancient Greeks, including ancient Macedonians, who either colonized various areas of what presently are Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Bulgaria, Turkey, the Middle East, or followed the greatest General of all times, Alexander the Great. These Greeks simply came home after at least two and one half millennia of spreading the Greek spirit, culture, language and civilization. Mother Greece made her lands available to her returning and thought to be lost offspring. It was the least she could do. After all they had every right to come home, just as the Jews did and they are still going home to Israel.
Fallacy #12
Sts. Cyril and Methodius were Slavs and that is the rationale why they are called
“the Apostles of the Slavs” and also “the Slav Apostles.”
Fact#12
The term “Slav Apostles” or the “Apostles of the Slavs” does not mean that the two brothers were Slavs.
St. Thomas is called “the Indian Apostle,” but we all know that he was not an Indian. He simply taught Christianity to the Indians. The Greek brothers from Thessaloniki taught Christianity to the Slavs, they gave them the alphabet (presently called Cyrillic), and they translated the sacred and liturgical books of Christianity into the Old Church Slavonic, otherwise known as Old Bulgarian.
Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Epistles of December 31, 1980, and June 2, 1985, while he was commemorating the two brothers, affirmed the fact that both were Greeks from Thessaloniki.
Professors Ivan Lazaroff, Plamen Pavloff, Ivan Tyutyundzijeff and Milko Palangurski of the Faculty of History of Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Veliko Tŭrnovo, Bulgaria in their book, Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya narod (Short History of the Bulgarian Nation, pp 36-38), state very explicitly that the two brothers were Greeks from Thessaloniki. The late Oscar Halecki, Professor of Eastern European History, in his book Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe (chapter Moravian State and the Apostles of the Slavs) agrees with the authors of Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya narod.
Fallacy #13
The present day Emblem of the FYROM is the lion. This lion is the same lion that Alexander the Great is depicted wearing above his head imprinted on some old coins.
Fact #13
There is nothing in common between The FYROM’s lion and the lion's skin that Alexander the Great wears in some coins. The FYROM’s lion is actually the Bulgarian lion, which is depicted in the Bulgarian Coat of Arms.
Alexander’s lion is the lion's skin that Heracles killed in Nemea, which is one of the 12 deeds executed by the mythological hero. The lion skin that Alexander the Great wears signifies his ancestral relationship to Heracles (Hercules). There is an unpublished inscription from Xanthos dating from the third century BC (cf. Robert, Amyzon, 1,162, n 31) where the Ptolemies refer to their Ancestors as “Herakleidas Argeadas”
(Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 265, n 6).
Fallacy #14
In other coins we see Alexander the Great having two horns on his head and this signifies that he was a very bad man.
Fact #14
In the Middle Eastern tradition a horned man meant that he was powerful. Darius in his letters to Alexander the Great called him, Zul-Al-Kurnain or Double Horned one. Thus the horns on Alexander’s head means that he was recognized as most powerful.
Fallacy #15
After the battle of Granicus, Alexander sent the Athenians 300 full suits of Persian armor as a present, with the following inscription: "Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persian who dwell in Asia.” J.R. Hamilton in a note on this event states, “In view of the small part, which the Greeks had played in the battle the inscription [with the omission of any mention of the Macedonians] must be regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not fail to stress the absence of the Spartans.”
Fact #15
J.R. Hamilton’s assumption is unconvincing. Alexander the Great had no reason to please anyone because the troops from South Greece were only 9,400, and as he admits, they only played a small part in the battle. Being the master of the expeditionary force and ignoring his Macedonians while exalting the “foreign Greeks”,
Alexander would have faced the same angry Macedonians that he was confronted with in Opis when he appointed foreigners (Persians and Medes) to high ranks and offices in his Army and administration. However, none of the Macedonians complained about the inscription after the battle of Granicus because they considered themselves included in it.
The fact is that Alexander the Great considered himself and his Macedonians, Greek. He claimed ancestry on his mother’s side from Achilles and on his father’s side from Hercules (Heracles). His ancestor, Alexander I, stated that he was Greek (Herodotus, Histories, V, 20, 22; VIII, 137; IX, 45).
The Macedonians themselves were Greek speaking peoples
(see: Papazoglu, Makedonski Gradovi, p 333 and Central Balkan Tribes, p 135; Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, pp157-162; NGL Hammond, The Macedonian State, pp 12-15 and 193; Cavaignac, Histoire de l’ antiquité, i, p 67; Hoffman, Die Makedonen, p. 259; Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 3; Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia 1974 “Antička Makedonija”; Hogarth, Philip and Alexander, p.5, n 4),
Urlich Wilcken, Alexander the Great, II pp 23 and 24, Botsford, Hellenic History, p 237).
Some of the scholars mentioned above initially were not sure about the Greekness of the Macedonians (i.e. NGL Hammod). Newly discovered artifacts and monuments that were excavated indicating the Macedonians were actually Greek made them admit their previous error. NGL Hammond explains the reason why scholars like Badian do not consider the Macedonians Greeks in his book, The Macedonian State (page 13, note 29). Hammond states that most recently E. Badian in Barr-Sharrar (pp 33-51) disregarded the evidence as explained in A History of Macedonia (NGL Hammond and G. T. Griffith, 1979 pp 39-54). In Barr-Sharrar, Badian holds the view that the Macedonians (whom he does not define) spoke a language other than Greek. Badian keeps ignoring evidence that is against his beliefs and convictions choosing only certain proof and ignoring other relevant proof.
That is exactly the pattern others, like E. Borza, P. Green, etc. have chosen to follow.
All names, whether members of the royal family or not, including names of other simple Macedonian citizens, i.e. Kallinis (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII par 11), Limnos from Chalastra (Plutarch, Parallel Lives of Famous Greeks and Romans, chap. Alexander) and all toponymies in the area of the Macedonian homeland were Greek. The Macedonian homeland included the city-states of Imathia, Pieria, Bottiea, Mygdonia, Crestonia, Bisaltia, Sintiki, Odomantis, Edonis, Elimea, Orestis, Eordea, Almopia, Lyncestis, Pelagonia and Macedonian Paeonia. Macedonian Paeonia is the part of Paeonia which lies south of the narrow pass at the area of Demir Kapija (The FYROM).
Fanula Papazoglu indirectly agrees with the concept of the above borderlines stating, “… it is often forgotten that ancient Macedonia occupied only a relatively small part of the Yugoslav Macedonia” (Papazoglu, Central Balkan Tribes, p. 268). Papazoglu’s two maps at the end of her doctoral dissertation (Makedonski gradovi u rimsko doba, Skoplje, 1957) portray only Macedonian territories under Roman rule.
Macedonia conquered the already Hellenized Paeonia in 217 BC under King Philip V, 106 years after the death of Alexander the Great. Any map that incorporates Paeonia into Macedonia before that year is absolutely false.
All inscriptions and artifacts excavated, including those in Trebenište and Oleveni near Bitola, are in pure Greek.
With a few exceptions, the only time one sees non-Greek names and toponymies is in areas that constituted the expansion of Macedonia, i.e. Paeonia, Thrace, etc. Any non-Greek names, words or toponymies found in the Macedonian homeland are remnant of Thracians, Phrygians or Paeonians that used to live there before their expulsion by the Macedonians.
Participation in the Olympic Games was unequivocally and definitely a function that only athletes of strictly Hellenic origin could partake. Archelaus had won in the Olympic and Pythian Games (Solinus 9, 16) and Alexander I had also won in the Olympic Games (Herodotus, Histories, V, 22).
It is stated by Herodotus (Histories VIII, 43) that a number of Peloponnesian cities inhabited by Lacedaemonians, Corinthians, Sicyonians, Epidaurians, Troezinians, and Hermionians and that with the exception of Hermionians all others were of Dorian and Macedonian blood. The above people were living in cities located in Peloponnesus, which makes the Macedonians as Greek as the Dorians.
The answer as to why Alexander sent the 300 full suits of Persian armor to goddess Athena, goes back to the battle of Thermopylae and all events that followed. But in order for one to understand it better, one has to know the story of the battle of Thermopylae.
The Persian Army and Navy, headed by Xerxes, won the battle against the 1300 Greeks (1000 from Phocis) lead by the 300 Spartans whose commander was Leonidas. It is important for one to note that the Persians were victorious only when a local Greek, Ephialtes, betrayed a secret passage to the enemy who came from behind and thus surrounded the few Greeks. It is also important to know that according to Lycourgos' laws, Spartans were not allowed to leave the battlefield for any reason, nor they were allowed to follow anyone in the battle. That’s why the Spartans did not follow Alexander against the Persians.
Herodotus (Histories b. VIII, 114) tells us:
… the Spartans upon the urging of the Oracle of Delphi sent a messenger to Xerxes demanding reparations for the death of Leonidas. The man who obtained an interview with Xerxes said to him: ‘My lord, King of the Medes, the Lacedaemonians and the house of Heracles in Sparta demand satisfaction for blood, because you killed their king while he was fighting in defense of Greece.’
Xerxes laughed, and for a time did not answer…
The royal house of Sparta (Herodotus VII, 204), and the royal house of Macedonia (cf. Fact #13) both claimed descent from Heracles (Hercules).
Taking into consideration all of the above, we come to the conclusion that Alexander the Great, being victorious at the battle of Granicus, sent 300 full armor uniforms to goddess Athena who was also the goddess of war, and in this way he AVENGED the 300 Spartans who died defending Greece.
Conclusion:
An abundance of information regarding the ancient Greek past comes to us from the Greek Mythology. Unfortunately, Mythology cannot be a dependable source since it cannot furnish trustworthy information which would help us reconstruct the Hellenic past. However, it does not mean it is completely useless either. It elucidates through symbolism truths leading us to the right path while searching for historical facts through written or unwritten monuments. Such monuments are the only ones accepted by historians in their attempt to unlock hidden elements that hold the key to the reconstruction of the past of all Hellenic group of nations.
Countries are products of historical events, which is why they are born and die. Nations do not. Nations are entities that take a very arduous time to evolve. The same thing is true for their appellation. Nations cannot be given birth and receive names whenever politicians wish by legislation, as it is the case of the FYROM.
The present-day Hellenic nation is the result of social, civic and linguistic amalgamation of more than 230 tribes speaking more than 200 dialects that claimed descent from Hellen, son of Deukalion. The Hellenic nation is blessed to espouse in its lengthy life great personalities such as politicians, educators, soldiers, philosophers and authors. They have all contributed in their own way to the molding of their nation. They are the result of natural maturity and a consequence of historical, social, civic, linguistic and political developments that have taken place in the last 4,000 years.
“When we take into account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south...” (Wilcken,
Alexander the Great, p 22). Most historians have assessed the Macedonian state of affairs in a similar fashion. The Macedonians were a Hellenic group of tribes belonging to the Western Greek ethnic group.
The Macedonians incorporated the territory of the native people into Macedonia and forced the Pieres, a Thracian tribe, out of the area to Mt. Pangaeum and the Bottiaiei from Bottiaia. They further expelled the Eordi from Eordaia and the Almopes from Almopia and they similarly expelled all tribes (Thracian, Paeonian, Illyrian) they found in areas of Anthemus, Crestonia, Bysaltia and other lands. The Macedonians absorbed the few inhabitants of the above tribes that stayed behind. They established their suzerainty over the land of Macedonia without losing their ethnicity, language, or religion (Thucydides, II, 99). They also incorporated the lands of the Elimeiotae, Orestae, Lyncestae, Pelagones, and Deriopes all tribes living in Upper Macedonia who were Greek speakers, but of a different (Molossian) dialect from that spoken by the Macedonians (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 390). Then, living with savage northern neighbors such as Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians and later Dardanians, the Macedonians physically deflected their neighbors’ hordes forming an impenetrable fence denying them the opportunity to attack the Greek city-states of the south, which is why they are considered the bastion of Hellenism.
N. G. L. Hammond states:
What language did these `Macedones' speak? The name itself is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. It probably means `highlanders', and it is comparable to Greek tribal names such as `Orestai' and `Oreitai', meaning 'mountain-men'. A reputedly earlier variant, `Maketai', has the same root, which means `high', as in the Greek adjective makednos or the noun mekos. The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod recorded […] has a bearing on the question of Greek speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes; as we know from inscriptions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic dialect of the Greek language, we have a predisposition to suppose that the Macedones spoke the Aeolic dialect. Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins of Hellen's three sons - Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus-who were the founders of three dialects of Greek speech, namely Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would not have recorded this relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the seventh century, that the Macedones were a Greek speaking people.
The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the sixth century the Persians described the tribute-paying peoples of their province in Europe, and one of them was the `yauna takabara', which meant `Greeks wearing the hat'. There were Greeks in Greek city-states here and there in the province, but they were of various origins and not distinguished by a common hat. However, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the kausia. We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and modified Hesiod's genealogy by making Macedon not a cousin, but a son of Aeolus, thus bringing Macedon and his descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking family. Hesiod, Persia, and Hellanicus had no motive for making a false statement about the language of the Macedonians, who were then an obscure and not a powerful people.
Their independent testimonies should be accepted as conclusive (N.G.L. Hammond, The Macedonian State, p.12-13).
- merco - 05.06.2007
soferaki... :lol:
Gute nacht .
leka nok
Kali Nichta
Mal schaun was Quintus dazu sagt ..den trifft der schlag Morgen.
Merkt ihr eigendlich wie nah einige wörter doch sind...
Deutsch-Makedonisch.zb...da fallen mir gerade die hier ein.
zb..
Sonne -----> Sonce
Stuhl ------> Stol
Gymnasium-------> Um = Gehirn [Gymnastik des Gehirnes]
Ei ----------->jaice
Kloset--------->Kloset
Grab ---------> Grob
Nase -------------> Nos
werde die liste aktualiesieren
- soferaki - 05.06.2007
@Quintus Fabius
Zitat:Es sollte dir auffallen, daß ich noch nie irgendwo Quellen angegeben habe.
hier ein paar Quellen von dir!
am: Di Mai 29, 2007 20:09
Vielleicht für den geneigten Leser noch ganz interessant: Anbei: Hallo merco bond !
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.geschichtsforum.de/antikes-griechenland/16013-makedoner-doch-keine-griechen.html">http://www.geschichtsforum.de/antikes-g ... echen.html</a><!-- m -->
Und hier über die Frage ob das Antike Makedonisch ein Griechischer Dialekt war oder nicht:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.geschichtsforum.de/antikes-griechenland/13120-makedonische-sprache.html">http://www.geschichtsforum.de/antikes-g ... rache.html</a><!-- m -->
am: Fr Jun 01, 2007 17:17
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cc.ece.ntua.gr/~conster/English/PageData/Archaeology/Images/small_coin_thessaloniki.jpg">http://www.cc.ece.ntua.gr/~conster/Engl ... loniki.jpg</a><!-- m -->
Zitat
ie Republik Makedonien besinnt sich nicht nach der Antike sonder des Letzten Jahrhundert ..und genau da hatt sich eine Makedonisches Nationalbewustsein gebildet... da liegst du falsch erst seit 1945 mit der propaganda guck dir was die hier schreiben...Zitat:SOM:1 wir makedonen im befreiten staat republik makedonien, sind ethnische MAKEDONEN und keine griechen, serben, bulgaren oder gar albaner
2 unsere makedonschen brüder und schwestern in den okkupierten makedonischen gebieten (zerrissen wurde makedonien nach den balkankriegen 1912/13) werden im bulgarischen (pirin makedonien) als auch im griechischen (ägäis makedonien) unterdrückt und assimiliert....sie dürfen ihre sprache, sitte, kultur NICHT öffentlich ausleben !!!
ich meine jeder gesunde mensch kann 1 u 1 zusammen zählen und kann anhand dieser aggressiven assimilations politik sehen, wer hier die LÜGNER sind....
wer das nicht sehen und begreifen kann, ist ein NeuGriechischer unterdrücker der sich mit falscher geschichte schmücken will und das zu unrecht...
Zitat
as ist also üble Hetzerei ?? JA!
Zitat:SOM wir wissen doch alle wieso sie unsere makedonische geschichte rauben wollen.......
Zitate:merco Griechenland glaubt, ein historisch begründetes "Copyright" auf den Namen "Mazedonien" und auf den "Stern von Vergina", das Staatssymbol von König Philipp II., zu besitzen!
Die Namensgroteske ist beispielhaft dafür, wie man – nicht nur am Balkan – das Unwissen der Weltöffentlichkeit mißbraucht und aus Jahrtausende zurückliegenden Fakten oder Mythen heutige Rechtsansprüche konstruiert. Tatsache ist jedenfalls, daß es in der Antike ein Königreich Makedonien gab, welches wir "Mazedonien" nennen, weil sein Name nicht über das Griechische, sondern über das (Spät-)Lateinische zu uns kam. Dieses Mazedonien war nie ein Teil Griechenlands.........
Die geschichte meines Landes Makedonien habe ich nicht erfunden , ihr Griechen möchdet sie gerne verdrehen und als die eure sehen......
Und so weiter!!!!
Zitat:Und wie steht es dann mit den Griechen, die ich höchstselbst kennen gelernt habe, die retour Gebietsforderungen an Mazedonien haben weil ja Teile von Mazedonien in der Antike Hellenisch besiedelt waren ?
Zitat:Warum läßt sich hier die Mehrheit von den Extrempositionen einiger Gruppen derart vereinnahmen ?
Zitat:Ich habe mich nämlich mal kundig gemacht und der Vorschlag mit der Provinz wurde von Griechenland auch schon abgelehnt. Diejenigen die hier eogistisch handeln sind die Griechen. Nicht Mazedonien ist egoistisch, sondern Griechenland in diesem Fall.
Wo hast du dich kundig gemacht??? den immerhin beleidigst du öffentlich Griechenland ohne grund
ist das also üble Hetzerei von dir jezt??
Zitat:Und warum ist die Griechische Identität und Kultur zerstört wenn sich andere Völker einen Hellenischen Namen geben ?
Identität braucht Geschichte und Geschichte braucht Identität!
Wie gesagt gibt es schon eine Volksgruppe Macedonen in Griechenlad ca.3 mil. der Name ist ihr identität,kultur und noch ca. 8 mil. Griechen identifizieren sich auch mit Macedonien das ist auch ihr identität und kulturerbe !
FYROM kann den Namen als provinz Makedonien benutzen und die Albaner,slawen,Roma,serben u.s.w sich weiter hin nennen wie sie wollen aber als offizieller staats Name ist es nicht akzeptabel für uns dann verlieren wir unsere identität und kultur!
Zitat:Und warum reduziert man in Griechenland die Identität und Kultur und die Historische Größe der Hellenen heute lediglich auf einen Namen ?
Es ist viel Griechisches blut für den Namen geflossen!
Zitat
as ist schön gesagt, aber ein Staatsname Mazedonien schadet der Freiheit der Griechen nicht. Doch es schadet meine Ehre das intentifizieren mit meine geschichte und kultur !
Des Menschen Freiheit sollte dort enden, wo die Freiheit des Mitmenschen beginnt
- Quintus Fabius - 05.06.2007
Zitat:den immerhin beleidigst du öffentlich Griechenland ohne grund
Eine Beleidigung ist so definiert, daß ich damit jemanden oder etwas negativ bewerte. Daher ist diese Aussage von mir keine Beleidigung da ich Griechenland nicht negativ bewerte damit.
Meine Aussage, daß die Griechen aber viele Vorschläge schon ignoriert haben ist keine Beleidigung da diese Aussage keine negative Wertung enthält. Ich sehe es nämlich nicht negativ, wenn Völker ihre Interessen vertreten, was ich negativ sehe ist der ganze Kindergarten Balkan an sich, das betrifft Mazedonier aber ebenso wie Albaner und andere.
Im weiteren liegt es mir fern Griechenland zu beleidigen.
Zitat:solche Leute wie dich nennen wir Antihellenen, denn das bist du zweifelsfrei.
Es gab übrigens auch sogenannte Philhellenen (Byron und Co) und die haben wesentlich eure heutige Identität und euer Selbstverständnis konstruiert. Und ich sage bewußt konstruiert, den vieles was ihr glaubt das die Antiken Griechen ausgemacht habe, ist heute geschichtswissenschaftlich wiederlegt.
Und ich finde die Fixierung auf die Antike in Griechenland schade, das Byzantinische Reich als Grundlage dessen was heute Griechisch ist, wird leider selbst in Griechenland nicht so geschätzt wie es es verdient hätte.
Zitat:sag bitte deine kommentare dazu ich glaube du weißt nicht was du postes Um was geht es da?
merco sag bitte deine kommentare dazu ich glaube du weißt nicht was du postest Um was geht es da?
Er versucht einen simplen Rethorischen Trick: alle anderen nämlich durch Masse einfach zu überrrollen. Dem normalen Menschen der sich mit etwas nicht auskennt erscheint glaubhafter, was mehr Text beinhaltet, daher postet er halt so viel wie möglich damit seine Aussagen glaubwürdiger wirken. So etwas nennt man diskussion mittels Autoritäten, nichts als ein rethorischer Trick. Nicht für uns, sondern für geneigte andere die das hier lesen, damit diese ihm und nicht uns glauben.
Zitat:Merkt ihr eigendlich wie nah einige wörter doch sind...
Deutsch-Makedonisch.zb...da fallen mir gerade die hier ein
Weißt du Merco das zwischen dem Iranischen oder Paschtunischen und dem Deutschen ebenso viele Übereinstimmungen gibt ?
Es ist völlig Logisch, daß Slawische Sprachen, Romanische Sprachen, Germanische Sprachen und Griechisch viele Wörter haben die Identisch sind, und je weiter man zurück geht desto mehr Wörter werden es, höchst einfach weil all diese sprachen Indoeuropäische Sprachen sind.
Deutsch : Vater Lateinisch Pater Paschtunisch: Pata
Deutsch: Nachen (kleines Boot) Iranisch: Nachen (Boot)
Usw usw usw
Du hast von Grund auf nicht verstanden, daß Slawisches Mazedonisch und Griechisch beides Indoeuropäische Sprachen sind und daher verwandt sind.
Noch darüber hinaus, gab es auch früher viele Fremdwörter in sprachen, die man von anderen Völkern übernommen hat.
Lateinisch: Fenestere, Germanisch: Fenester, Deutsch: Fenster
Zitat:guck dir was die hier schreiben...Zitat:SOM:1 wir makedonen im befreiten staat republik makedonien, sind ethnische MAKEDONEN und keine griechen, serben, bulgaren oder gar albaner
Habe ich nicht schon oft geschrieben das diese Behauptungen falsch sind ? Das Wort Ethnisch ist ohnehin quatsch.
Doch es schadet meine Ehre das intentifizieren mit meine geschichte und kultur !
Des Menschen Freiheit sollte dort enden, wo die Freiheit des Mitmenschen beginnt
Freiheit und Ehre sind zwei verschiedene Dinge.
Aus dem Duden:
Ehre: äußeres Ansehen, Geachtet sein durch andre, Anerkennung, persönliche Würde, innerer Wert
Freiheit: die Abwesenheit von Abhängigkeiten, Möglichkeit der Handlung ohne Restriktion, Möglichkeit sich unbehindert zu bewegen, Recht das man besitzt
Schreib doch lieber: Die Ehre eines Menschen endet dort wo die Ehre des Mitmenschen beginnt !
Und genau dieser Satz ist doch in wahrheit der Balkan an sich. Und der Grund warum der gesamte Balkan nicht das Leben eines einzigen pommerschen Landwehrmannes wert ist.
- soferaki - 05.06.2007
@Quintus Fabius
Du widersprichst dich und dein slogan( Männer die von der Grenze wiederkehrten berichteten, es gäbe keine Barbaren mehr. Was soll nun aus uns werden, ohne sie? In vielerlei Hinsicht waren sie eine Lösung.)mein freund daher hat es auch kein sinn weiter zu diskutieren.
alles gute weiterhin!
Die Ehre eines Menschen endet dort wo die Ehre des Mitmenschen beginnt !
- merco - 05.06.2007
Polk_High schrieb:@QuintusFabius
Zitat:Das ist also üble Hetzerei ??
Ja, ist es!
man kann herauslesen, was du vertrittst.
solche Leute wie dich nennen wir Antihellenen, denn das bist du zweifelsfrei.
@merco
Du und dein Staat seit einfach nur lächerlich!
P.S. Du hast ja am anfang ganz stolz Arrian, Anabasis erwähnt. Also, hälst du viel von diesem antiken Werk! Hast immer noch nicht geschrieben, was du nun von solchen Stellen im Buch des antiken Autors hälst.In diesem Sinne:
...............There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service --
but how different is their cause from ours ! They will be fighting for
pay--- and not much of it at that; WE on the contrary shall fight for
GREECE, and our hearts will be in it.
As for our FOREIGN troops ---Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians,
Agrianes --- they are the best and stoutest soldiers of Europe, and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of
Asia.
Arrian (The Campaigns of Alexander) Alexander talking to the troops before the battle. Book 2-7 Penguin Classics. Page 112. Translation by Aubrey De Seliucourt.
@ Quintus ...du hast nicht unrecht...doch eigendlich war es an Polk_High
gerichtet.
Es freut mich aber wen es lesere gibt die sich eine meinung daraus machen , es ist nicht gelogen , es ist nichts gefälscht.
Es sind nur wahre tatsachen der Antiken ausagen ....
Ich betonne aber noch mals , das ich hier keine verknüpfung ansstrebe , lediglich ein ausernanderscheiden zwischen Griechen und Makedoner in der Antike.
Laut DNA Fakten hätte die Heutige Republik Makedonien wohl nachweise das es verbindungen gibt, unglaublich...
es geht mir aber nicht darum ....es geht einzig darum um den Heutigen NeuGriechen vor augen zu geben das auch sie keinen ansbruch auf die Antike erheben dürfen...
ich finde es eigendlich schade das es keine argumente, komentare zu meinem Namensstreit idee gibt....
- Polk_High - 05.06.2007
@merco
von deiner Borza :lol:
Quote:
During medieval and modem times, Macedonia was known as a Balkan region inhabited by ethnic Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs, Serbs, Bulgarians, Jews, and Turks.
:lol:
Quote:
Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émi-grés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity.
:lol:
Quote:
…the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians.
:lol:
“Macedonia Redux”, Eugene N. Borza, The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Frances B. Titchener and Richard F. Moorton, Jr., editors
The macedonians themselves may have originated from the same population pool that produced other Greek peoples.
<E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), page 84
Quote:
It is only to say that there is an insufficient sample of words to show exactly what the macedonian language was. It must also be emphasized that this is not to say that it was not Greek; It is only to suggest that, from the linguists’ point of view, it is as yet impossible to know
<E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)page 93
Quote:
Their daughter, who would be the half-sister of Alexander the Great and, later the wife of Cassander, was appropriately named Thessalonike[/b], [b]to commemorate Philip’s victory in Thessaly. In 315 Cassander founded at or near the site of ancient Therme the great city that still bears her name.
Ergänzung von Polk_High: to commemorate Philip's victory (griechisch: niki) in Thessaly (griechisch: Thessalia) = Thessaloniki
Was ist nun merco? Euer lieblings"historiker" ist nicht immer mit euch einer Meinung! Was hälst du den von dieser Aussage von Borza?
<E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) page 220
Quote:
It is difficult to imagine that Philip’s policy toward Greece was an end in itself. Once his Balkan borders had been secured his general course seems to have been directed toward the establishment of stability in Greece, NOT CONQUEST.
<E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) page 230
- Polk_High - 05.06.2007
@merco
Du hast mir aber immer noch nicht geatwortet.
...............There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service --
but how different is their cause from ours ! They will be fighting for
pay--- and not much of it at that; WE on the contrary shall fight for
GREECE, and our hearts will be in it.
As for our FOREIGN troops ---Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians,
Agrianes --- they are the best and stoutest soldiers of Europe, and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of
Asia.
Arrian (The Campaigns of Alexander) Alexander talking to the troops before the battle. Book 2-7 Penguin Classics. Page 112. Translation by Aubrey De Seliucourt.
Deine Stellungnahme zu solchen Stellen in Arrian Anabasis?
- Alexandros III. sagt hier deutlich: '' WE on the contrary shall fight for
GREECE, and our hearts will be in it." Für Griechenland Junge!
- "...our FOREIGN troops Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians,
Agrianes" Wieso sagt Alexander III., dass das seine fremden Truppen nur Thraker, Paeonier, Illyrer und Agrianer sind?
merco, deine Stellungname dazu BITTE!
Zitat:Ich betonne aber noch mals , das ich hier keine verknüpfung ansstrebe , lediglich ein ausernanderscheiden zwischen Griechen und Makedoner in der Antike.
Du bist sowas von lächerlich!!!!!
Natürlich strebst ihr eine Verknüpfung an, nur gelingt euch das nicht und dann versucht ihr zu beweisen, dass die antiken Makedonen keine Griechen waren...nur gelingt euch das auch nicht.
Julius Caesar in seinem Buch:
An edict had been published in Pompeye's name that all the younger men in the province Macedonia, both Greek and Roman citizens, shoulassemble to take an oath.
Caesar, civil war 111.102.3
Caesar schreibt hier, das nur Griechen und Römer in der Provinz sind ''both Greek and Roman citizens''.
Wenn die Makedonen für ihn keine Griechen wären, wieso bezeichnet er sie denn dann als Griechen?
In diesem Sinne:
Alexander III. in seinem Brief an den Perserkönig:
"Deine Vorfahren haben Makedonien und den rest Griechenlands versucht zu besetzen und uns somit großen Schaden zugefügt. Obwohl wir euch nie zuvor etwas angetan hatten. Nun bin ich der Hegemon aller Griechen. "
Alexander III (der Große) in Koversation mit Darius dem Perserkönig (Arrian, Anabasis von Alexander II,14,4)