Originally posted by Palcho
Really??? Except the people these historians usually quote.
quote:"There are number of testimonials from the ancient historians in support of this fact. For instance, the Greek historian Plutarch (I AD), describing a quarrel between Alexander The Great and one of his friends wrote that Alexander "jumped on his feet and in Macedonian called on his shield-bearers"11). In his biography of Marc Anthony, Plutarch mentioned that Macedonian was the mother tongue of the Egyptian queen Cleopatra VII and of her ancestors from the Macedonian dynasty Ptolemais12).
The Latin historian Quintus Curtius Rufus (I AD) also testified that the ancient Macedonians spoke a separate, Macedonian language. He described the trial of the Macedonian Philotas for contriving a plot to murder Alexander The Great. The plot was discovered and Philotas was publicly interrogated by Alexander. Describing this event, Quintus Curtius Rufus clearly stated that the Macedonians spoke separate language13).
An evidence about the distinction of the Macedonian language was found on fragment of a papyrus which was thought to be a part of the lost work "History of the successors" by the ancient Greek historian Arrian. In this papyrus (PSI XII.1284) an episode from the history of ancient Macedonia has been described where the distinction of Macedonian language has been clearly emphasized. It has been described in this text how the secretary of Philip and Alexander of Macedon, Eumenes was: "
sending forth a man called Xennias who was Macedonian in speech
" to negotiate with the Macedonian army of Neoptolemeus. This event took place around 321 BC.14) That the Macedonian was a distinct vernacular characteristic to the Macedonians confirm the anti-Macedonian speeches given by the great orator from Athens, Demosthenes. In his work "Philippic" Demosthenes gave the following insulting remark about the Macedonian King Philip II of Macedon: "That man Philip, not only he is not a Greek, but also he does not have anything in common with the Greeks. If only he would have been a barbarian from a decent country - but he is not even that. He is a scabby creature from Macedonia - a land that one can not even bring a slave that is worth something from".15)
The question why Demosthenes named Philip a barbarian becomes imminent. Majority of the scientists believe that the term "barbarians" in the ancient period was used to refer mainly to people that spoke language that Greeks could not understand, usually accompanied by a dose of disregard towards the culture of the people speaking that language. It is well known that all the people that did not speak Greek were named "barbarians", whereas the Greeks from the city-states used the word "xenoi" when referring to one-another.16) Demosthenes was not alone in naming the Macedonians "barbarians". Ancient Greek historian Isocrates also called the Macedonians "barbarians".17) The Greek Trasymachus, in his speech before the Larisians in V BC named the Macedonian king Archelaos "barbarian" in relation to the Greeks Larisians.18)
Aw stuff this..... I'll just give u a link and you can read it.... http://www.emacedonia.com.au/history/Ancient/language_similarities.htm
It has got to be remembered that this issue is confused with propaganda. Firstly, anti-Macedonian Athenian propaganda and, secondly, the pan-hellenic propaganda of Alexander and hs successors. In the first instance, it was in the interest of the Athenian state that Philip and the Macedonians should be dismissed as foreigners. Demosthenes and Isocrates were not historians, they were rhetoricians serving their state.
The most important reason why these guys were allowed to do this was the political difference between Macedon and the southern city-states. It is almost universally accepted nowadays that the lingustic difference was of dialect rather than language.
For example, "Phillipos" was pronounced by Macedonians as "Billipot".
A helpful comparison can be made with the 15th-18th century Scottish dialect of English. Italian and Flemish travellers and historians referred to "English" and "Scots" as seperate languages. We have enough informaton about this subject to say that there were enough similarities to class both tongues as varieties of the same language. When both countries were independent, it suited to call them separate. When Scotland was taken over, it suited to call them the same. It is the same wth modern Swedsh and Norweigian. They are basically the same language, but poltical differences have caused them to be regarded as seperate more universally.
Thus, it is my opinon that politiics were the cause of the staements that you refer to. This is further supported by the fact that once Alexander's campaigns against Persia began to be successful, even the Athenians stopped refering to Macedonians are barbaroi.
