Were Ancient Macedonians Greek?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Domen

Misico dux Vandalorum
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
8,088
Location
Doggerland
According to John Haywood's "Atlas of World History":

"Macedonia, a country considered by Greeks as a kingdom of barbarians, was inhabited by Illyrians, Thracians and greek Dorians".

There is no agreement as to what was Ancient Macedonian language like. By some scholars considered as similar to Dorian greek dialect, by others as similar to Aeolian greek dialect, by some as a separate dialect of Greek, and by some others as a language distinct from Greek, even if related to Greek.

Another interesting fact is that when in 460 BC king Alexander I of Macedonia wanted to take part in Olympic games, he was initially not allowed to do so: ''ΟΥ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΩΝ ΑΓΩΝΙΣΤΕΟΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΑΓΩΝΑ, ΑΛΛΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ'' (in English: "no barbarians can contest the games but [only] Hellenes").

Only later, when he invented a story that his dynasty originated from kings of the Greek city of Argos, they allowed him to participate.

The same article from which I cited the quote above, claims that those who didn't allow him to participate must have been silly, because:

http://users.forthnet.gr/kat/antikas/Chapter16.htm

The Eleans' objection to Alexander's right to compete as a Greek is hard to understand when we consider the fact that another winner, Theagenes of Thasos, geographically Macedonian, had already won two wreaths in boxing and pankration contests in BC 480 and 476 (see Table 16.II).

However, the article is clearly wrong regarding the island of Thasos being supposedly "geographically Macedonian".

As a matter of fact, the island of Thasos was conquered by the kingdom of Macedonia not before the reign of Philip II (359 - 336 BC), while before that, Thasos belonged in some periods to the Athenian Empire and in some periods to other Greek city-states, but not to the kingdom of Macedon.

We must also note, that in the same Olympic games in 460 BC took part - moreover, without any problems similar to those encountered by Macedonian king Alexander I - king of the Greek kingdom of Cyrene, located in what is today Libia (Cyrenaica), Arcesilaus IV of the Battiad dynasty.

This shows, that even African Greeks - who also lived in a monarchy - were considered by Eleans as "more Greek" than people from Macedonia.

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

So a possible theory is, that Macedonians (and their language) were initially not identical with Greeks, and only later underwent Hellenisation.

Another possibility is, that language spoken in Macedonia was a strange mix of Illyrian, Thracian and Dorian or Aeolian Greek, rather than "pure" Greek.

What seems to be rather undoubtful, is that [other] Greeks considered Macedonians as somehow "inferior" and "barbarian". Of course this applies only to times before the reign of king Philip II and his heir Alexander III the Great, when Macedonians proved that they were not "inferior" to [other] Greeks.

Regarding Alexander III the Great and his reinforcements from Greek city-states - how did he communicate with them?

Well, I suppose that Alexander - as any educated person in the Greek-influenced world of that time - could speak Koine language fluently:

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

Even various dialects of Greek language were not 100% mutually intelligible, which is why Koine "Lingua" was invented.

However, Koine was not a mother tongue, not a native language, for major part of people who knew it.

Koine Greek in Ancient Mediterranean world, was like English language is today in Europe.

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

What do you think? What are the most important arguments for and against the "Greekness" of Macedonians?

Etruscans were using Greek alphabet, their military was similar to Greek and their culture was similar - but they were not Greek.

I expect Kyriakos will come here and convince me that Macedonians were Greek, because I have doubts.
 
or maybe the term "barbarian" was deployed inconsistently by greeks because it reflected not objective reality but a wide variety of personal prejudices
 
The Macedonians were Irish, except for Philip, who was a pirate, presumably having travelled backwards through time and gained the kingship with this superior future-knowledge. It was in a documentary I saw one time.
 
Kyriakos said:
ancient macedonians obviously were proto-slavs.



In other words - they could be neither Greek nor Proto-Slavic.

I am not sure, why Greek nationalists think, that everyone who is not South Slavic must be Greek.

And I am not sure, why South Slavic nationalists think, that everyone who is not Greek must be South Slavic.

For example they could be a branch of Illyrians or Thracians, or even a separate "peoples" on their own, distinct from everyone around.
 
Not really. The Yugoslav Wars had a heavy ethnic and religious dimension, which the Diadochi Wars really did not, were fought between pre-existing political entities, which the Diadochi Wars were not, and attracted significant international involvement, which the Diadochi Wars did not. The only real analogy between them is being indirectly triggered by the death of a strongman, which is hardly unique to either of these conflicts.
 
I was hoping for a serious discussion, Kyriakos. :p

OK - I agree that there were differences between these events, Traitorfish.

Dachs said:
or maybe the term "barbarian" was deployed inconsistently by greeks because it reflected not objective reality but a wide variety of personal prejudices

But Macedonians were considered by [other] Greeks as "barbarian" rather consistently throughout several centuries.

Ironically, modern FYROM-ians are also treated by Greeks with disdain. :) But maybe reasons are different ("stealing" their name, etc.).

But probably there are many racists among modern Greek nationalists and this reason is more important than "stealing" some stupid Ancient name.

Anyway - when I think about so called "Balkan nationalists", I am always including also Greek nationalists among them. They are very similar.

Modern Greek nationalists and modern FYROM-ian nationalists are actually very similar to each other. :lol:

Greece is part of Balkans anyway - they were being suppressed by exactly the same Sultans for exactly the same period of 500 years.
 
400, not 500 years. Also, there is plenty of evidence that the (Ancient) Macedonians were Greek, like their language (which was a form of Greek), their culture (Aristotle was born in Macedonia) and from what they believed (Alexander III stated again and again in his campaign against Persia the votes of the Greeks and the Persian invasion of Greece to justify it). As for FYROM, it had more to do with Tito wanting an exodus to the Agean Sea than anything else.
 
like their language (which was a form of Greek),

Actually there is no general consesus regarding this issue (see my first post).

their culture (Aristotle was born in Macedonia)

But for example Etruscan culture was also very similar to Greek, so was early Roman culture.

The fact that Greek city-states had very strong cultural influences on its neighbours, is not yet a proof.

and from what they believed

Being "wannabe Greeks", is not the same as being Greeks. Polish nobility also used to believe, that they were Sarmatians.

I know, that Macedonian royal dynasty wanted to be seen as Greek. But what about average Macedonians? Did they share these views?

Alexander III stated again and again in his campaign against Persia the votes of the Greeks and the Persian invasion of Greece to justify it

But Alexander's army during the Persian campaign consisted only in ca. 50% of troops from his kingdom (Macedonia).

The remaining 50% of his troops (if not actually even more than 50%) were reinforcements from various Greek city-states.

So there is no surprise, that he was saying such things, considering that he was leading soldiers from all of Greece.

BTW - during Persian invasions of Greece, wasn't Macedonia among those states, which usually sided with Persia? Of course this alone is not a proof for not being Greek, because many Greek city-states also sided with Persia - and not all of them were forced to do so, some did it of their own free will.
 
Just don't take the bait, Christos. Dachs pretty much gave the sole answer there is to give.

Oh, and i resent the use of the term "Macedonia". It should be "Fyromia" and Alexander should be called with his pure slavic name ;)
 
Dachs pretty much gave the sole answer there is to give.

The answer given by Dachs is not really an answer to this issue.

He only stated, that the fact that Greeks called some people "barbarian" doesn't yet mean those people weren't Greek.

But stating such an obvious, is not the same as proving, that Macedonians actually were Greek - and not Thracians, Illyrians, or someone else.

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

Let's add, that there are many serious scholars, who claim that Macedonians were not Greek.

One example is a German linguist and cultural scientist, Harald Haarmann:

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

Another example is an American scholar, John Shea, author of "Macedonia and Greece..." from 1997.

They are not alone - Demosthenes (384 - 322 BC) also considered Macedonians as non-Greeks.

So the issue is complex.

Attempts by Kyriakos of mocking this thread by comparing it to irrelevant conflict between modern nationalists of republics of Greece and Macedon, are silly.

The entire conflict for the name of state, is silly and nationalistic, because everyone call themselves how they want.

If you call modern state, which democratically chose its own name, with a different name - FYROM - then I suppose we can also apply this rule for Greece.

For example, why should I call modern Greek state "Greece" and not FOERM - Former Ottoman Eyalets of Rumelia and Morea ???

Let's maybe just call these two states FYROM and FOERM - in order to apply similar degrading standards to both of them.

400, not 500 years.

OK, so 400 not 500, but this is irrelevant. 400 years of Ottoman rule is enough to break continuity between what was before, and what is after.

Especially, that I can't see many similarities between ancient Greeks and modern Greeks. Different culture, different mentality, etc.
 
The answer given by Dachs is not really an answer to this issue.

He only stated, that the fact that Greeks called some people "barbarian" doesn't yet mean those people weren't Greek.

But stating such an obvious, is not the same as proving, that Macedonians actually were Greek - and not Thracians, Illyrians, or someone else.
If "barbarian" is not a static category, then neither is "Greek", which brings the entire premise of the thread into question. Hardly Dachs' fault if you can't read between the lines.
 
If "barbarian" is not a static category, then neither is "Greek"

I agree. But in such case, neither is "Macedonian" a static category!

And if "Macedonian" is not a static category - then why this entire silly affair with forbidding the "whoever lives there" to call themselves as they want, and instead applying to them a silly name with "Former..." at the beginning? Do Greeks mind if I call their state - Former Ottoman Eyalets of Rumelia and Morea?

Even if Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, there is not a single reason to claim this name as "property" of modern state of Greece. Especially, that - which is so ironic in this entire affair - most of Ancient Greeks actually did not want Ancient Macedonians to be considered as part of their community! :lol:

Which is why forbidding Macedonians to call themselves Macedonians and instead calling them "FYROM" is silly.

Let's add, that there are many serious scholars, who claim that Macedonians were not Greek.

One example is a German linguist and cultural scientist, Harald Haarmann:

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

Another example is an American scholar, John Shea, author of "Macedonia and Greece..." from 1997.

They are not alone - Demosthenes (384 - 322 BC) also considered Macedonians as non-Greeks.

BTW - here are excerpts from the book by John Shea:

http://www.ancientmacedonia.com/shea.html

Actually Harald Haarmann has got better theories probably.
 
Actually there were many attempts of incorporating Poland to Germany. :)

But we don't even want to be called Germany.

BTW - maybe you want to change your name to something more important, like Turkey?

There is no problem - you can always be FOERM (Former Ottoman Eyalets of Rumelia and Morea). :lol:

I suppose that Turkey is even going to be happy when you change your name like this! :)
 
So your point with making this thread was what exactly, Domen?
Since currently it seems that you created it merely so as to give the impression that not all of your threads are about Poland. If so, why not choose some topic you actually know something about? :)
 
So your point with making this thread was what exactly, Domen?

Certainly it was not to turn it into Greek-Slavic nationalist quarrel, but I guess it was inevitable. :lol:

The original point was to gather arguments for and against the "Greekness" of Ancient Macedon.

And Dachs' argument that "not all barbarians had to be non-Greeks" is rather not very strong one. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom