Macedonia!

[modernalextg]

I think Alexander should be made the leader of a new Macedonian civ! Then you can still include the Greeks, just with a leader liek Pericles or Themistocles. Alexander wasn't really Greek, and many times in his life did he have to put down rebels back in Greece, and the Greeks weren't very supportive of Alexander later in his campaign in the east. Macedonia could use a special unit representing the Elite cavalry that Philip II (Alexander's father) and Alexander both used.

 

[Shqype]

Yes, knowledgeable people know that Alexander the Great was not ethnically a Greek, but instead he only spread Greek culture. But try telling that to modern nationalistic xenophobic Greeks, that claim everything ancient as theirs!

 

[Aranor]

I think Alexander should be made the leader of a new Macedonian civ! Then you can still include the Greeks, just with a leader liek Pericles or Themistocles. Alexander wasn't really Greek, and many times in his life did he have to put down rebels back in Greece, and the Greeks weren't very supportive of Alexander later in his campaign in the east. Macedonia could use a special unit representing the Elite cavalry that Philip II (Alexander's father) and Alexander both used.

First off this is the wrong forum for this. It should go in the main C&C forum, this is for completed mods only.

Now to the real fun bit. Yes Macedonia will be created as the Makedoni for EBCIV. I cant say when it will be created only that it will be created eventually.

 

[Basilisk1]

Give me a break.

We Greeks don't claim everything ancient as our own, only those things that are really ours! (The Chinese can have gunpowder.)

Alexander may or may not have been ethnically Greek (debate it all day if you like) but he spread Greek culture around the world more than anyone else in history... so we get to claim him!

And sorry, he wasn't a Slav or a Skopian or whatever.

Albanians and Slavs have many things to be proud of in their respective histories, they don't need to appropriate ours!

 

[Shqype]

He spread Greek culture, but that doesn't allow one to claim him as a Greek.

 

[Basilisk1]

Well, we have and we do.

I guess that makes me one of your xenophobic nationalistic Greeks! Too bad.

 

[Basilisk1]

Though, that doesn't mean I'm trying to be rude to you.

There's alot of racism in Greece towards Albania and I don't like it.

I've been to Albania (well, just Gjinokaster) and Albanians are wonderful people.

Peace.

 

[Shqype]

I'm very curious why you call it Gjinokaster?

PS- not all Greeks are that way, I'm not stereotyping, it's just unfortunate that many are.

 

[Basilisk1]

You're right; we're not all bad! Look, you need to understand that alot of the racism and xenophobia comes from insecurity. Greece is the wealthiest nation around and people cast covetous eyes... and then you get Turks saying Byzantium was Roman not Greek, or the ancient ruins on the Ionian coast are Turkish...and neglecting to mention that Greeks built them!

And Alexander... I don't need to tell you that in the Balkans, names and symbols mean everything. When FYROM renamed itself Macedonia, to us northern Greeks (who consider ourselves Macedonians, btw) that was both a slap in the face and sort of a way of stealing our heritage. It makes people nervous...

So alot of that feeling of being surrounded shows itself as racism... but many of us are actually pretty nice.

I called it Gjirokaster out of respect... see, if I was *really* a xenophobic, nationalistic Greek (they're out there and they're ugly, believe me) I would have called it Argyrokastron!

But as I said, I like Albanians and I'm glad the economy is improving there and people are finally getting better opportunities. Those people have been suffering too long and deserve better things. I'm not being condescending, I mean that.

 

[Shqype]

No, you said "Gjinokaster."

That's a southern Albanian city, that used to be called Gjinokaster, but now the name has been changed to Gjirokaster to reflect the southern Tosk dialect in which rhotacism occurred. What I mean by that is, changing the "n" in many words to an "r."

You used the original pronunciation which is still used in the north where I'm from. Being as you're Greek, you're exposed to the southern Albanians that would use the "r," so it's interesting for me to see you using Gjinokaster.

I don't agree with the Slavs using the name Macedonia for their country, but again I don't agree with Greeks claiming Alexander as their own just because he spread their culture.

About that xenophobic, nationalist type I spoke about, they tend to be the ones to claim all of Epirus and much of Albania as Greek, and supported the genocide of the Cam Albanians a number of years back. All a shame, really.

 

[ww2commander]

Shqype, Alexander was the leader of the Macedon state which was one of many city states or states at the time that made up what we know today as Greece. If it turned out that Leonides (sic) decided to unit all the various Greek states under one Spartan banner and conquer the same territories as Alexander, would we still have the same debate.

Why is it that people automatically want to carve up our history and redefine it. Alexander was Greek, he united the Greeks conquered a vast empire for Greece. The wealth and spoils were shared by the Greeks (apart from the Spartans...which is another story).

It stumps me how people such as yourself can turn around and say he spread Greek culture but was not a Greek. What was he then....a Macedon? If that is the case then I remind those that dont know their geography and history that the region of Macedon is still a part of Greece with Thessalonika its major city.

The Slavic people that arrived on the scene around the 6th century do not have claim to Alexander's dynasty or Greece's past. Saying Alexander the Great was not Greek, is like saying Moses was not a Jew!

Everyone seems to try and build their debate on the names that regions and empires may have gone by rather than the outcome and culture behind them. Its like the endless debate on another thread about the Byzantine empire not being Greek but purely Roman just because the people in the region only knew themselves as Romans. The same applies to the ancient Macedonians who knew themselves as Macedonian rather than Athenean or Spartan

 

[Shqype]

Why is it that people automatically want to carve up our history and redefine it.

It actually tends to be the other way around.

The Ancient Macedonians were most likely Illyrian in origin, but the ruling class eventually adopted Greek cultural characteristics. Even wikipedia states the possibility (not that wikipedia in itself is a credible source, but it shows that the belief is in existence.):

Besides the theory which regards Macedonians as a Greek-speaking tribe (Masson, Hammond), the Macedonians were sometimes spoken of as a tribe of Thrace, the land north-east of Greece, akin to the Thracians.(Sir William M. Ramsey). Rather than a Greek origin, some argue that the ancient Macedonians had an Illyrian or Thracian origin. It is also possible that the ancient Macedonians underwent ethnogenesis syncretizing Greek as well as Illyrian, and Thracian elements (cf. Borza, et al.).

There was a movie that showed a Bosnian wearing a t-shirt featuring an American rapper. That Bosnian liked American rap music. If he began to indulge in American culture, and even spread it, eating hotdogs and hamburgers and speaking English and passing American ideals to all his Bosnian friends, does that make him American? Absolutely not. Similarly, Alexander was not ethnically Greek, but he felt that the Greek culture was equated with progress and intelligence, and was superior to others, thus he spread it across the world.

Alexander didn't unite the Greeks, he conquered them! But he didn't incorporate the Illyrian lands into his empire, although he was perfectly capable of adding them too. Why do you think that is?

Sir William Woodthorpe Tarn, of the British Academy, regarded worldwide as having written the definitive work on Alexander the Great, states in the opening paragraph of his book Alexander the Great that "Alexander certainly had from his father (Philip II) and probably from his mother (Olymbia) Illyrian blood!" [P 1, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, W.W. Tarn, Beacon Press, Boston, 1956 ]

His mother, Olympia, was a princess of Epirus, a southern Illyrian, or Epirote, region that was characterized by the ancient Greeks as barbaric and non-Greek. But today they try to claim this territory. So then, tell me, were the ancient Greeks wrong in their knowledge that the southern Illyrian inhabitants of this territory were not Greek? And only the present-day Greeks that are highly nationalistic at claiming Alexander the Great are correct, and know more than the ancient historians that interacted with those non-Greek people?

Alexander wasn't ethnically Slavic (they arrived after 6th century), nor was he ethnically Greek. He did spread Greek culture, but that doesn't change his ethnicity.

 

[modernalextg]

There was a movie that showed a Bosnian wearing a t-shirt featuring an American rapper. That Bosnian liked American rap music. If he began to indulge in American culture, and even spread it, eating hotdogs and hamburgers and speaking English and passing American ideals to all his Bosnian friends, does that make him American? Absolutely not. Similarly, Alexander was not ethnically Greek, but he felt that the Greek culture was equated with progress and intelligence, and was superior to others, thus he spread it across the world.

Shqype, I totally agree with you, and I really like your example! (above)

Alexander was Greek, he united the Greeks conquered a vast empire for Greece.

ww2commander, against what you said, the Greeks weren't the main body of Alexander's army. Alexander used Macedonian cavalry, and the only Greeks Alexander used were the occasional paid Greek mercenary who was just fighting to make a living. As I said earlier in this thread, the Greeks actually caused more of a hassle for Alexander and his army, as the Atheneans and Spartans revolted and stirred up the other Greek city-states. While Alexander was on his conquests through Persia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, and all the rest of Asia Minor, he was distracted more than once with the Greeks back home in his empire. At one point, Alexander considered ending his trek through Asia to go back home to control te Greeks!

How long would the Persian empire have lasted had Alexander decided to turn back?

 

[ww2commander]

I am getting sick of the old 'they came from' argument. Everybody knows that each country and empire comes from the roots of another and this is no different for the Macedons, Romans, German, English, Russians, Ottomans and Americans.

Alexander ruled a Greek Empire. He spread the Greek culture and he formed the basis of what we perceive as the first united Greek Empire. What happened within the empire might not have been pretty as roses (i.e revolts, stubborn Spartans), but it was Greek.

As for your argument about the Bosnian wanna be rapper, this is not a very good example as this is the case with most cultures over time. The Byzantine Greeks believed they were Romans even after the collapse of Rome.

A couple of observations:

1.) Philip II conquered the Illyrians. Kind of hard to justify that this older race had any further purpose by the time Alexander came around.
2.) Even if Alexander may have Illyrian blood (though this is very doubtful), he represented the Macedon empire and lived, spoke and was educated in Greek.
3.) The term Greek was not used at that time to define the name of a country or empire. It was used to describe the common culture the people in the region shared.
4.) Upon conquering the Greek region, Philip II established Macedonian hegemony over 'Greece'.
5.) The Macedon monarchy continued to rule Greece until its fall to the Romans. Not the Illyrian or Thracean empire.

Thus you can see that the Greek empire was born through Philip II and Alexander's conquests and this is what is key to the argument. Cleopatra was Greek, but you dont see the Greeks trying to claim her as their own as she ruled as an Egyptian Queen and represented the Egyptian culture. In a similar manner, you dont see the British making claim over George Washington becasue his parents may have blood linage back to England. Its all irrelevent to what occured during the rule of these people and what they left behind once they passed away

 

[ww2commander]

Shqype, just a further post to let you know that I am not having a go at you and I think that your argument is put forward very well and I can understand where your coming from.

Once question that remains in my head is, if the Macedon empire can not be associated with Greece, then who lays claim to it when the people who have been in that region for thousands of years still exist and lived through this period and later empires of various names?

Are they not Greek in the end? You dont see me walking around saying I am Spartan because I come from near that region!

 

[scy12]

He spoke into the Greek language.
He was tutored by A Greek tutor
He and all other Macedonians took part of The olympian games
He was the decedent of Greeks as they Royal family of Macedon called themselfs.
The Macedonian region was under the proccess or finished the proccess of Helenization. In Alexander's time the most dominant or the only dominant culture was Greek. Only the Greek language was found in Macedon.

This is just as stupid as claiming that an Athenian is not a Greek ,he is an Athenian. Learn what the words nationality , Greek mean, study history and only then make such claims.

 

[Basilisk1]

I see the cavalry has arrived. Elate paideia.

Look, I've heard it all. Byzantium wasn't Greek. Alexander wasn't Greek. Modern Greeks aren't the descendants of Classical Greeks; we've intermarried with the Turks and are a mongrel race.

The bottom line is that if it was up to xeni, Greece would be devoid of culture, all our achievements would have been actually accomplished by someone else, and contemporary Greeks would have no connection with any of our past. And in the same breath, our neighbors accuse us of chest-thumping and defensiveness!

I consider myself a reasonable person. I don't like it when crime in Greece gets automatically put on the Albanians, and I'm proud of Greece's consistent stand in favor of Turkey's EU accession bid.

But if we aren't vigilant, and don't defend our heritage, others will be glad to define it for us.

 

[Shqype]

ww2commander, you do bring up good points, and I can have a rebuttal of all of them, but it will not do much good. I will just say this:

Once question that remains in my head is, if the Macedon empire can not be associated with Greece, then who lays claim to it when the people who have been in that region for thousands of years still exist and lived through this period and later empires of various names?

The argument you provide is one that applies to the case of Illyrians => Albanians, but I've seen many Greeks (and others) try to shoot it down.

Scy12, of course Alexander spoke Greek: he was brought up in the Greek culture, taught the Greek ways. The Greek culture was the dominant culture of the time, but that does not mean there weren't any other cultures around. There were other languages found in "Macedon" besides Greek, including Illyrian and "Macedonian" (which was likely a mix between the two former). I agree that the ancient Macedonians were Helenized; but that further supports the fact that before they adopted a Greek identity, they had their own identity which was not Greek! That's all I'm trying to say.

Alexander had blood in him that was not Greek, and his own people were something else before they adopted Greek culture and completed the process of Helenization. Because the ancient Greeks had a culture that was influential and dominant, many neighbors of theirs also became Helenized, including some of the southernmost Illyrian Epirote tribes:

Since the end of the fifth century BC, the Epirean tribes began to play a growing role in the history of southern Illyria .There is no doubt that these tribes belong to the Illyrian ethnic group; Thucydides himself called the inhabitants of Epirus "barbarians"-a term which the Greeks, as we all know, applied to a foreign people. In his turn, his contemporary, the geographer Ephorus, in his description of Greece, considered Epirus as lying outside the country. A large number of names of places, tribes and people in ancient Epirus, as well as the funeral trappings in the necropolis and the urban civilisation in the cities of Epirus, all testify that the civilisation of this region was evidently of Illyrian character. It would not be possible to deny the strong influence of the Greek civilisation on the culture of slave society of Epirus.

However, the fundamental ethnic characteristics of the indigenous population were not affected.

Of all the tribes of Epirus the Molossians were the most important. By rallying neighbouring tribes around them, they had established a "state" known by the name of the Koinon of Molossia, whith a Molossian king at its head, while the other tribes were represented by a supreme council.

The foreign policy of this state was dominated at the beginning by its strict relations with Athens, then with Syracuse. Under pressure from Macedonia, the Koinon of Molossia broke off its relations with Athens and was forced to form an alliance with Macedonia, especially after the marriage of Philip with the Molossian princess, Olimpia. With the help of Macedonia, the Koinon of Molossia extended its frontiers towards the Ionian coast .Reaching this sea, the developed its relations with neighbouring countries in southern Italy and Sicily. In 334 the Molossian king, Alexander, even went to make war in Italy to come to the aid of Tarentus, his ally.

I'm not saying that Byzantium wasn't Greek, although it began as the eastern part of the Roman Empire. But I do feel the difference in understanding is that they considered themselves as Roman citizens as opposed to being ethnically Roman. I believe that the Byzantine Empire was Greek, but perhaps some of their citizens felt like some people do in America: although they have their own ethnicity and cultural identity, they want to identify with the greater identity that is America (and in that case, was the Roman Empire).

Sure, there have been some intermarriages between Turks and Greeks, but I don't believe the Greeks are a mongrel race. I do believe in ancient Greek => modern Greek continuity, although things have changed within the many centuries in-between.

Again, my problem is not with Greeks having a unique culture and having many achievements as a civilization, but with those that overstep their bounds and believe that everything ancient is theirs, as I've had some Greeks tell me before.

 

[ww2commander]

The common agreement is that by becoming a part of the Greek world (actually conquering it), Alexander is considered Greek.

I fully agree with you about the fact that prior to Alexander's days, the Macedon people may have been consider a unique culture of their own, but during Philip and Alexander's time, the path to hellinism was almost complete. Your example of America is a good example of this. I am Greek but live in Australia. If Greece was invaded then I would be very patriotic and emphasis my hellinism, but on the other hand, I also consider myself Australian and strongly support and defend this country. When my kids and their kids grow up, more than likely the hellinism in the family will decline and they will eventually assimulate completely into the Australian culture.

Even the other city states in the region considered themselves not Greek but Athenian, Spartan and so on. 'Greece' as we have already mentioned was a description of common culture rather than a state or country of power. Also, all these city states came from other sources that may not have necessarily been 'Greek' in origin just like almost every other race on this planet. Romans came from other races and eventually made their own which in turn left its stamp on others.

The thing that stumps me is the Illyria connection. History states that Philip suppressed or wiped this race out in favor of a Macedon identity. This probably holds some evidence that he may not have come from Illyrian linage but some other race in the region.

In defence of the Greeks on this forum, the predominant concern we have is that 'xeni' (foreigners, non-Greeks) try to tell Greeks what they are and are not and this is mostly the case with our historical past. Given the turn of events, the things which may not necessarily have been 'Greek' in ancient time but led to the formation of Greece are considered fair game to claiming considering there are links. This tends to be the case with most countries who try to trace a linage to the past via ancient cultures and civilizations.

A good example is Iran claiming the Persian empire because they still are located in the region. It is highly debatable as to how many modern Iranians can trace an actual linage to ancient Persians given the number of times the region has changed hands and been invaded. Yet it would seem an insult to deny them this heratige otherwise it would remain orphaned for eternity.

With hellenic history, we have the added problem where later races which have settled into the region and adopted the culture suddenly try to claim 'our' historic past. Greece seems to be the main country that faces this problem as well as having to put up with our artifacts being scattered across the world as they were stripped from us in late antiquety (the Egyptians suffered the same fate under Ottoman rule).

 

[Shqype]

The common agreement is that by becoming a part of the Greek world (actually conquering it), Alexander is considered Greek.

It comes down to how you classify considering a person "Greek." Would you consider a non-Greek that spoke the language and adopted the customs as "Greek?" Would you consider a person born of Greek parents (or grandparents) that did not at all follow Greek culture, speak the Greek language, or wants anything to do with Greece as Greek?

This is where many people differ. I believe it is a combination of the two. But some people feel otherwise. Like I remember an American actress that was dating a Peurto-Rican and put her hair in corn rows and spoke Spanish, and to herself she became Puerto-Rican in this way. Maybe in spirit, but for me that doesn't cut it.

The thing that stumps me is the Illyria connection. History states that Philip suppressed or wiped this race out in favor of a Macedon identity. This probably holds some evidence that he may not have come from Illyrian linage but some other race in the region.

Where does history state that? He didn't wipe out anything. The Illyrians constituted a powerful federal state during the time of Phillip and waged war on the ancient Macedonians (the Illyrian tribes were disunited and waged war on each other all the time). When Phillip came to power he reconquered those former Macedonian lands from the Illyrians. Alexander, on the other hand, had a stronger kinship with the Illyrians and was a personal friend of the Illyrian king. Having the Illyrian blood from his mother, a princess of Epirus, Alexander did not attack these people nor incorporate their land into his empire, although he certainly had the capability. Instead, he used many Illyrians in his armies as he continued to conquer Greece and the rest of the known world. (There is a place in the mountains of Afghanistan that the inhabitants speak an extremely archaic dialect of Albanian from when Alexander the Great's Illyrian soldiers settled there on his campaign).

Aside from similarities and theories that the ancient Macedonian language itself had elements of Illyrian (or even came from that language), the Illyrians were the oldest non-Greek inhabitants of the Balkans and since the ancient Macedonians weren't Greek, it's only logical that they came from the Illyrians.