Were Ancient Macedonians Greek?

We really can't argue too much here.

The Macedonians were Greek, As the Boeotians were, as the Thessalians were, etc. Macedonia was a province that people who were talking Greek were living.

It really doesn't matter which dialect they were speaking. The Athenians and the Spartans were talking different dialects, were they not both Greek?

They believed in the same gods that all the other Greek believed.

They had the same architectural style as the other Greeks for their buildings.

They even used the same infantry tactics like the other Greeks. Macedonian Sarissa is just an upgrade of the obsolete Hellenic Phalanx.

If the culture, the language and the customs are not defining a people, what is it that defines them then?


Part of ancient Macedonia now lies in FYROM and in Bulgaria, but only a part, not the entire province. The vast majority of the province is in Greece because Macedonians are Greeks.

I respect that the citizens of FYROM want to be independent, but they have no right to misrepresent our history. The name of their country ought to not include the word "Macedonia"

Speaking greek doesn't make them greek. Believing same gods also doesn't make them greek.

I'm speaking Turkish as native language and I'm a Muslim but this doesn't make me Turkish.

Anyway, I'm not saying they weren't greek but also can't say that they were greeks. I believe that they were mix of greeks, Thracians and other native balkan tribes.

I said, the combination of common religion, common language and common habits/customs is what defines a people

Macedonians were Greek because they were speaking Greek, they were behaving like Greeks and they had the same gods.

They had Greek names and their cities had Greek names too

I am not saying that a person called eg. Caligula who lives in Rome but believe in Zeus and can speak Greek, is a Greek. Macedonians had all the characteristics of a Greek people. Period.

For nowadays things are a bit different. To answer your example, I am an atheist Greek who speaks Greek, English and French. While the majority of my fellow countrymen are orthodox and speak Greek and usually one foreign language.

Sitalkas, you assume that everyone in the teritory of modern Greece was Greek in Ancient times.

But Greeks were not even the indigenous inhabitants of Ancient Greece.

Hellenes were originally invaders who came from north-eastern direction (like all Indo-Europeans).

Before them, Greece was inhabited by Non-Indo-European ethnic groups, such as Pelasgians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelasgians

Of course later many of those original inhabitants became Hellenized, at various points of history.

Beyond my depth. It's all Greek to me.

^The thread is decidedly Polish

@Sitalkas: it is a bait, just don't take it. Else it will expand the pointless circle here.

@Domen

Your mistake is that you go way back. Eventually one can claim that moving all back, we come from the same region in Africa.

Also, since you linked the Pelasgians, things are not clear for them yet and you can read it on the link too. We do not know if they are Indo-Europeans or not , neither what language they were speaking.

They are kind of a mythological topic, and if you link them it means you accept mythology.

Pelasgus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelasgus) seems to me more Greek rather a barbarian.

And since we are talking about mythology.. Makednos , the ancestor of Makedones (Macedonians), seems also Greek to me according to who his father was. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makednos#Etymology)


I really hope that they find a sarcophagus in the tomb in Amfipolis , do a DNA test or something similar and compare it with some other ancient Greek found on the southern Greece. We will have our answer then


@Kyriakos
Sorry mate, I just can't stand people who erase history. I wonder what people will say if I claim that eg. Saxons had Chinese or Mongolian origins. Won't they try to oppose me?

You're wrong, they're Bulgarians all along. It's just they're not wanting to come back, for which I am not blaming them.

Kyriakos said:

@Sitalkas: it is a bait, just don't take it.

Click to expand...

Not sure why do you think that there is maliciousness in my posts. Honestly, it seems to me that all of Greeks on this forum have an idea that Ancient Greeks was some kind of a homogenous population with a homogenous origin, rather than a patchwork of tribes assimilated into Hellenic culture.

You even try to claim that Ancient Greece was an ethno-linguistic monolith and deny the fact that there were Non-Indo-European populations in Greece that had not been entirely wiped out but either assimilated or continued to exist alongside their IE neighbours, under the name of Pelasgians. That Pelasgians is a name connected to "a mythical character Pelasgus that was Greek and not barbarian" has nothing to do with the peoples behind that name.

The name "Pelasgians" was a Greek name, but the people behind it were not Greeks. It is how they were called by Hellenes.

"Wales" and "Welsh" are also not names of Celtic origin, but names of Germanic origin. Welsh people for some reason adopted the name invented for them by Anglo-Saxons. Nobody sane claims that Welsh people were originally Germanic just because their modern name "is Germanic and not Celtic".

"Welsh" means "Foreigners" (Old English: "Walha"). The original, native Welsh name for themselves, was Brythoniaid (Brythons).

Today Wales is called Wales - meaning "Foreign Land". It should be called Brythania (Britain), as its inhabitants called it.

Sitalkas said:

If the culture, the language and the customs are not defining a people, what is it that defines them then?

Click to expand...

Good question. Note, however, that Macedonia was a monarchy with a strong 'feudal' aristocracy, which stood in opposition to the classically Greek forms of government which held that all citizens were of the same class - even Sparta, which was unusual in that it had a hereditary monarchy, called its citizens ὅμοιοι: 'those that are alike'. The Macedonian dialect was probably mutually intelligible with Attic Greek when written down, but was famously impossible for an Athenian to understand when spoken - even written, some of the differences (ἀβροῦτες for ὀφρύες and ἀκρουνοί for ὃροι, for example) are stark, and indeed the Macedonians themselves had to use Attic Greek for almost all written purposes because Macedonia was so linguistically diverse. Culturally, Macedonia retained the Homeric-style warrior ideology, complete with the impressive tombs of its dead rulers, which had been absent from southern Greece since the Bronze Age. The symposium was the characteristic ritual of the Greek élite, and it was never popular in Macedonia until Philip's conquest. Indeed, Macedonians were famous for their cavalry, while southern Greece was infantry country - Philip's way of war, including the sarissa phalanx, was an innovation that he learned studying in Theban captivity, marrying the traditional Greek method of infantry combat to the traditional Macedonian flair for heavy cavalry and the modern Theban use of light infantry. The point is that there were some similarities between the Greeks and the Macedonians, but there were similarities between Greeks and Egyptians, Greeks and Persians, as well as Greeks and many of the Celtic tribes. I would suggest that what matters is self-definition, and it is notable that Macedonians (except the king) were not allowed to compete in the Olympic Games, which was the great coming-together of all the Greeks. Furthermore, the Macedonians declared for Persia during the two invasions of the Greek peninsula, while resistance to Persia became the cornerstone of 'Greek' identity - as well as arguably being the ultimate origin of the concept. Suffice to say, then, that it's not an easy question.

Even most of these scholars who say that Ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, do not argue that their society eventually became largely Hellenized. They were influenced by Greek culture and Koine Greek language also became widespread in Macedonia. But the question is whether they were originally Greeks or not.

By "originally" I mean "the same time as other Greeks became Greeks". It seems that Macedonians were, at least initially, less Greek than other Greeks.

Flying Pig above pointed out many of these differences which suggest that Macedonians were not as much Greek as Greeks would like them to be.

===============================

I think it's a bit like arguing whether Dutch and Austrians are Germans or not. Or whether Belarusians are Russians or not.

Dutch are not Germans already for quite a long time (several hundred years). There is more controversy regarding Austrians.

Latvians and Lithuanians also have a common origin. When we go deeper in the past, all Indo-Europeans have a common origin.

Ahhh, so since Sparta had 2 kings, a whole different way of ruling than the other city states, then they must not be Greeks too.

What you don't understand is that these little things, these little differences, were what was making each city state, and eventually all Greece, unique. Every city had its own way of ruling and its own protector-god. But They all had common things that united them as a race, as a civilization.

Anyway, there were non-royal Macedonian winners, its preposterous to claim that only royal members of an ethnic group could enter the Olympics. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Macedonians#Athletes).




So, to continue, Herodotus, wrote about Perdiccas I, King of Macedonia around 700 BC :

"From Argos fled to the Illyrians three brothers of the descendants of Temenus, Gauanes, Aeropus, and Perdiccas; and passing over from the Illyrians into the upper parts of Macedonia they came to the city of Lebaia."[1]
"Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know and will prove it in the later part of my history (link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdiccas_I_of_Macedon).

And about the first king of Macedonia , the sources say that he came from Argos and settled in modern Vergina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caranus_of_Macedon).

Yeah, they sound pretty Greek to me.

Argead dynasty had a family story of originating from Argos. That's why they were allowed to play in Olympics. But we can't say that all Macedonians originated from Argos. You know, Seleucids originated from Orestis and Ptolemies from Eordai, but it doesn't mean that majority of population of their Empires were Greeks. Or maybe you think that it was the case?

Actually both Orestis and Eordai were in Western Macedonia, so if Macedonians were not originally Greeks - but rather Hellenized barbarians - then it has far-reaching implications also on the Hellenistic World. Just like whether the English are more Anglo-Saxon or more Romano-Briton in their ancestry has far-reaching implications on population of the USA and also other regions settled to large extent by the English. Maybe this is why there are such hot, endless debates about this in Britain.

"Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know and will prove it in the later part of my history" (link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdiccas_I_of_Macedon).

Click to expand...

If Herodotus devoted so much effort to prove that Macedonian royal dynasty were Greeks, then it doesn't testify to the "Greekness" of Macedonian society as a whole. Sorry, it shows that even their kings were "barely Greek".

Anyway, there were non-royal Macedonian winners

Click to expand...

Only in times after the "unification" of Greece by Macedon under King Philip II, as it seems.

Your mistake is that you go way back. Eventually one can claim that moving all back, we come from the same region in Africa.

Click to expand...

Oh come on, don't exaggerate, I'm not going "that far back". Also - among Europeans subtle and minor differences is precisely what counts, because we all have pretty similar genetic origins (except for a few groups like for example the Sami people, who differ so significantly that if you divide Europeans for just "Sami" and "All Non-Sami", then the difference between them will be greater than differences between any two of Non-Sami groups). So don't criticize me and Flying Pig for concentrating on details, because details is exactly what distinguish one European population from another European population.

Domen said:

Oh come on, don't exaggerate, I'm not going "that far back". Also - among Europeans subtle and minor differences is precisely what counts, because we all have pretty similar genetic origins (except for a few groups like for example the Sami people, who differ so significantly that if you divide Europeans for "Sami" and "All Non-Sami", then the difference between them is greater than differences between any two of Non-Sami groups). So don't criticize me and Flying Pig for concentrating on details, because details is exactly what distinguish one European population from another European population.

Click to expand...

If European populations had not made such an effort to identify their differences maybe they wouldn't have spent so many centuries slaughtering each other over them.

Oh, are you sure?

Han Chinese - who are more numerous than all Europeans despite being one ethnic group (differences between Han Chinese from different regions can be compared to regional differences within Russians or within Germans) were slaughtering each other in numerous "civil wars" despite speaking the same language, and despite not paying attention to differences.

German-speakers, actually, were also pretty good in killing each other, as well as in inviting foreign allies or mercenaries (like Swedes or Poles) to kill other Germans. The Thirty Years War is one of good examples of their "solidarity".

Domen said:

Oh, are you sure?

Han Chinese - who are more numerous than all Europeans despite being one ethnic group (differences between Han Chinese from different regions can be compared to regional differences within Russians or within Germans) were slaughtering each other in numerous "civil wars" despite speaking the same language, and despite not paying attention to differences.

German-speakers, actually, were also pretty good in killing each other, as well as in inviting foreign allies or mercenaries (like Swedes or Poles) to kill other Germans. The Thirty Years War is one of good examples of their "solidarity".

Click to expand...

Nahhhh. Really I think Europeans are so committed to slaughtering each other that nothing could stop them. It was just a thought.

Domen said:

Argead dynasty had a family story of originating from Argos. That's why they were allowed to play in Olympics. But we can't say that all Macedonians originated from Argos. You know, Seleucids originated from Orestis and Ptolemies from Eordai, but it doesn't mean that majority of population of their Empires were Greeks. Or maybe you think that it was the case?

Actually both Orestis and Eordai were in Western Macedonia, so if Macedonians were not originally Greeks - but rather Hellenized barbarians - then it has far-reaching implications also on the Hellenistic World. Just like whether the English are more Anglo-Saxon or more Romano-Briton in their ancestry has far-reaching implications on population of the USA and also other regions settled to large extent by the English. Maybe this is why there are such hot, endless debates about this in Britain.



If Herodotus devoted so much effort to prove that Macedonian royal dynasty were Greeks, then it doesn't testify to the "Greekness" of Macedonian society as a whole. Sorry, it shows that even their kings were "barely Greek".



Only in times after the "unification" of Greece by Macedon under King Philip II, as it seems.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I believe that if the founder of the Macedonian Dynasty was from Argos, then all his descendants have Greek origins too.


The Seleucids wasn't a civilization, they were Macedonians ruling a vast area in Asia, fighting other Macedonians.

The English is a unique occasion because it's not a race of its own, rather a mix o Celts-Angles-Saxons-Normans and other.

If Herodotus and other Greeks believed that the Macedonians hadn't got Greek blood, believe me he would have give less time doing research for them. He also wrote about the Scythians and the Dacians, did he mention their Greek origin? No, because they were not Greeks.


Maybe they were not good athletes or they didn't care about wining before then. Afghanistan participates in modern Olympics, how many medals has it won compared to USA?

Sitalkas said:

Ahhh, so since Sparta had 2 kings, a whole different way of ruling than the other city states, then they must not be Greeks too.

Click to expand...

The point is more that the 'Greek' grouping is applied to people with remarkable cultural and linguistic differences, while excluding other groups who seem remarkably similar to people within the 'Greek' label. The Mycenaean states wrote an extremely different dialect in a totally different alphabet from the Athenians, and were ruled by kings in a centralised administration. They showed in their art and burial practices great regard for individual prowess and heroism in warfare, in contrast with the Athenian emphasis - of which the Parthenon frieze is the classic example - on the collective and the generally Hellenic distrust of individual military showing-off. These people are considered 'Greeks', while (for example) the Minoans, Romans and Balkan Celts - the latter of whom used the Greek alphabet, imported Greek pottery in large quantities and shared the Greek way of waging war - are not. These labels are quite arbitrary, and in many cases disguise the differences between those within them and their similarities with those outside.

Excuse me, but I believe that if the founder of the Macedonian Dynasty was from Argos, then all his descendants have Greek origins too.

Click to expand...

Mythological history - which all of these things are - is only really interesting for self-presentation. It's pretty clear that the Macedonian royalty wanted themselves to be considered Greeks - though that didn't stop them from developing an occasional healthy contempt for southerners during the Hellenistic period - but it's certainly not clear that the Greeks themselves agreed. There's practically no evidence for whether ordinary Macedonians bought into the 'Greek' identity - which, as I've argued, was primarily a creation of the 'panhellenic' resistance to Persia. Since the Macedonians had no part in that, I'd argue that most of their people probably didn't see themselves as 'Greeks'. If we're going to pretend that this question is a useful one, then it must be formulated in terms of self-definition and acceptance by others using that label.

Macedonians, like other Greek city states and kingdoms, decided that resisting the Persians is futile, so they succumbed without battle. Like Denmark in WWII

Also it was Philip who dreamed of the Greeks invading Persia as a revenge. Greeks. Not Macedonians or Athenians -who had suffered most that any other city states.

Mythology some times give some useful info, in that occasion mythology doesn't say anything about titans or cyclopes or gods, it says about Greek settlers who built their kingdom in an area later called Macedonia.