Was Alexander's Empire Greek or Macedonian?

[Takhisis]

The Macedonians are acknowledged by some as something between (both ethnically and in the degree of civilization) the Greeks and the Thracians. The MAcedonians were the hereditary enemies of Greece, and the Greeks despised the Macedonians as barabarians.

@greek Stud: it´s not Magna Graecia, it´s Megale Hellas if you´re Greek!

 

[cyrusIII85]

IT HAPPENED AGAIN! Another person registered here and made only one post bumping this thread! CAN'T WE CLOSE THIS BLOODY THREAD? This is nothing but a nationalist flame thread from Greeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians and whoever else thinks he's got a right to talk about this. Please close this thread before it dies down and gets bumped again from some Balkan-national.

Um...sorry ? I did have some points, and I really don't classify posting my opinions as bumping. What all of these threads and opinions on Greece miss is a pro-Persian perspective, and I gave it. More over, IMO, based on the effects of the invasion of Alexander (aka none), I find the entire period overplayed in importance. It was a short period of conquerings which really did nothing for the West, and only produced setbacks with respect to Persians. Why it's still focused on in the West is a mystery to me...

 

[FriendlyFire]

It was Greek, because he conquered all of Greece before taking on Anatolia and the other masses he conquered.

No not really:

During hes initial persian invasion the greek cities only provided a small fleet some 60 tiremes (due to the high maintance cost) for the crossing into asia minor after that the were sent back the athens. The vast military force, compaion calvary, compaion foot, slingers and aux were almost entirely macedonia

Later on Alexander would defeat and employ "Greek mercaneries" into hes army some 8000 of them, Greek and macedonia reinforments during hes march west would boalster hes army serveral times. At most thou greek continguent would be some 15,000, Macedonia officers and generals were used by alexander instead of greek officers most of the time.

Very late he would dismiss the entire greek section of hes army and be replaced with some 40,000 persion foot companions. the macedonias he would keep but manpower shortages would mean there numbers were alwasy limited at this stage.

 

[Greek Stud]

The Macedonians are acknowledged by some as something between (both ethnically and in the degree of civilization) the Greeks and the Thracians. The MAcedonians were the hereditary enemies of Greece, and the Greeks despised the Macedonians as barabarians.

@greek Stud: it´s not Magna Graecia, it´s Megale Hellas if you´re Greek!

hehe The overall Hellenic acceptance of unity was a Hellenistic cultural feature. Even though the Greeks of South Italy revolted many times, they acted much like the Greeks of the Hellas Strait and Peloponessos. They resisted Hellenistic unity or Roman unity but in the end war, trade, religion, language, and social unity brought our part of the Mediterranean closer together. Greek inventions from Sicily became Roman inventions, Greek Paganism became Roman Paganism. This made it simple for the Greek speaking world to call themselves Romans after the collapse of Rome herself. Because the character of the Roman world was just as much as part of the Greeks or Hellenes :-D as was being Greek.

Um...sorry ? I did have some points, and I really don't classify posting my opinions as bumping. What all of these threads and opinions on Greece miss is a pro-Persian perspective, and I gave it. More over, IMO, based on the effects of the invasion of Alexander (aka none), I find the entire period overplayed in importance. It was a short period of conquerings which really did nothing for the West, and only produced setbacks with respect to Persians. Why it's still focused on in the West is a mystery to me...

I agree that CyrusIII85 should be able to write his opinion and not have to be locked out of this discussion just because he found it later. People that have the time to complain about shutting down threads should probably have spent their time not reading threads theyre not interested in reading.

To Cyrus: What you seem to over-looking about the West and how Hellenic Historians have classified the Pre-Hellenistic Empire with the Hellenistic Empire is that Persian culture was an influence on the West. When I did my research on the "Pontic Greeks" of the regions Troas, Mysia, Bithyna, Paphlagonia and Pontus they are identified as having qualities of Persian culture and Persian descent. As for Lydia, Ionia, Caria and Lycia the Ancient Greeks especially of the Athenian Empire diverted the regions attention towards the Persians because the Asia Minor states once acted with sovereignty over their people and nationhood. While the other Leagues that were competing for their own Empirialistic goals found the Persians way ahead of their goal.

The West studies the Persian governmental structure in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia just as much as it studies the Conquests of Alexander the Great. It should not be a surprise that the West identifies the Battle of Salamis between Greeks and Persians as the turning point and birth of Western Civilization. The majority of Western Civilization thought, theories and social exibitions come from thinkers or philosophers of Ancient Greek. But this does not mean that it ignores the structure of the Greek Empires of Pergamon (the Pontic Empire) and of the united Seluecian (Mesopotamian) Antiochian (Greek Syrian) and Ephesian (Ionic) peoples who all refer to Persian government structures such as the satraps at Armenia and so on.

The struggle between Greeks and Persians does not mean the West separates itself from Persian thought and culture. It is hard to validate the claim that the Ancient Greeks were not important to Western Society today, but you should also remember that the Persian identity is a part of that idealism and not separate from it.

The foundations of the 4 Hellenistic Kingdoms by the armies of Alexander the Great introduced a philosophical revolution into Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor that paved the way to unite the region under the Greek language, Greek education, and sometimes forced conversion of Greek religion as it had failed in Israel but occured (ie the Temple of Solomon having forced a statue of Zues inside of it). Remember that all the conquests of the Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Israelites, Persians and Egyptians occured with overall resistance (although sometimes accepted). But the Greek language remained, and gave the Eastern Roman Empire an identity that surpassed the West. For over 1,000 years the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantine Empire functioned as a strong identity that enjoyed wealth that surpassed the wealth that Rome herself had ever experienced, and even today exists (is alive) in the region.

So there is no doubt that the Conquests of Alexander that you deny ever happened, laid the foundation for a society that functioned as a whole in that region. And even if cities and cultures separated themselves from being Hellenistic (as many indigineous people complained of being treated as lesser people if they did not speak Greek or study Greek education) or Roman (and the effects of its architecture, law and later Christianity) they still enjoyed the luxuries of being a part of such a structure. I cannot think of any city that lived outside of the trade network set-up by Alexander the Great and his entourage. Nor were there any trade networks that existed without the reliance on the Byzantine Silk Trade Route which followed the same route set-up by Alexander the Great.

The reprisals that Alexander took on Persepolis did not set back the cultural identity of Persia and the Persians. It crippled their ability to rise against the successors of the Hellenistic World. Persians under Seluecian's Empire participated in its government and fought with the Empire against Asoka. The constant raids from Central Asia that occured afterwards may had produced a mindblow, but it was not long after that the Persians joined the Parthians (Scynthians) and reestablished themselves in their dominate role.

No not really:

During hes initial persian invasion the greek cities only provided a small fleet some 60 tiremes (due to the high maintance cost) for the crossing into asia minor after that the were sent back the athens. The vast military force, compaion calvary, compaion foot, slingers and aux were almost entirely macedonia

Later on Alexander would defeat and employ "Greek mercaneries" into hes army some 8000 of them, Greek and macedonia reinforments during hes march west would boalster hes army serveral times. At most thou greek continguent would be some 15,000, Macedonia officers and generals were used by alexander instead of greek officers most of the time.

Very late he would dismiss the entire greek section of hes army and be replaced with some 40,000 persion foot companions. the macedonias he would keep but manpower shortages would mean there numbers were alwasy limited at this stage.

Even with these numbers his Empire still promoted the Greek language, Greek philosophical thought, Greek literature, Greek art, Greek architecture, and Greek religion. I mean there are religions today that base themselves off the fact that they resisted the inforcement of become Greek pagans, like the Maccabe (spelling?) Jews. But just because all this spread of Hellenism struct the Middle East did not mean that movements like Zoroastrianism did not occur. In fact, there is right to believe that this Persian lineage led to Judism and Christianity.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Even with these numbers his Empire still promoted the Greek language, Greek philosophical thought, Greek literature, Greek art, Greek architecture, and Greek religion. I mean there are religions today that base themselves off the fact that they resisted the inforcement of become Greek pagans, like the Maccabe (spelling?) Jews. But just because all this spread of Hellenism struct the Middle East did not mean that movements like Zoroastrianism did not occur. In fact, there is right to believe that this Persian lineage led to Judism and Christianity.

A strange footnote at then end of Alexanders legacy.

Hes commanders and persia subjects had gathered to discuss terms. None of them could even stand being in the presence of the others. Until it was suggested they meet under Alexanders empty throne, hes hearld and amour. There under the presence of there deceased king they could talk as equals.

Alexanders vast empire was neither fully greek, macedoina, persion, egyption,. but alexander had saddled and united all cultures. Foremost of course hes macedonians. it is unknow if Alexander would have abandoned hes macedoina army contigients for persion trained army in greek fashion.

After hes death it was another matter, the expansion of greek culture and desire to emulate it would remain centuries later.

 

[Greek Stud]

My point was that Alexander presented Greek ideas himself, he was the one that insisted that education spread across his Empire in Greek in the same format that he was educated by Aristotle, that all people should be privilaged to that. Alexander the Great was the leader that promoted equality with the Persians, Bactrians and Egyptians.

My question is that it is mentioned often that Alexander's Macedonian Army is separate from Greekness, yet Antiochias, Seluecius, and Ptolemy the BIG 3 of Alexander's Empire who followed him, why did they continue this Greekness or Hellenization if they were not a part of it? Why not consentrate on Macedonism which all of a sudden in todays world is separate from Hellenism. This debate never happened during the Renaissance. Why would a group of ethnic Macedonian's fight for control of Alexander's Empire yet all be in accord that the official language would be Greek, and religion. Ptomely and his descendants allowed the Egyptian cultism stand beside the Greek cultism, until the times of Cleopatra when the two religions became more confrontational because of the massive conversion to Greek Paganism. As well as the Jews of Israel, who were fought from the Jewish Priests to not forget who they were and abandon Judaism for this cosmopolitan Greek religion, lifestyle and language.

When Macedonism is segregated from Greece or the Hellenes in which we believe Macedonians to be a part of, why do these people who segregate Macedonians and Greeks never mention how the Greeks over-powered the Macedonians when a majority of migrant settlers came from Greek Macedonia and secondly from the Hellas Strait since the Ionic Anatolians in Asia Minor strengthened there prescense in an independent and growing Ephesian centered Empire that competed with Pergamon, the farming communities in northern Lycia, and Antiochian Cilicia at Tarsus.

How do arrogant Generals with strong egotistical self-ideas give up their Macedonianism (as I believe it to be a fabricated tale) for the idea of being Greeks? In your words, the Macedonians won these battles. What do the Macedonians owe the Greeks (who you say they are separate from) to make their Empires Hellenistic?

It does not compute.

 

[cyrusIII85]

To Cyrus: What you seem to over-looking about the West and how Hellenic Historians have classified the Pre-Hellenistic Empire with the Hellenistic Empire is that Persian culture was an influence on the West. When I did my research on the "Pontic Greeks" of the regions Troas, Mysia, Bithyna, Paphlagonia and Pontus they are identified as having qualities of Persian culture and Persian descent. As for Lydia, Ionia, Caria and Lycia the Ancient Greeks especially of the Athenian Empire diverted the regions attention towards the Persians because the Asia Minor states once acted with sovereignty over their people and nationhood. While the other Leagues that were competing for their own Empirialistic goals found the Persians way ahead of their goal.

The West studies the Persian governmental structure in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia just as much as it studies the Conquests of Alexander the Great.

Um...I seriously doubt that. Alexander's invasion, by the sheer number of times it has been written about, studied, and overall told, would lead me to believe that Westerners study Alexander's administration far more than Persian administrations. Of course, I could be wrong, but it's a pretty good guess when I hear John Curtis, an Iranologist, say that even most Western scholars don't have much breath in Persian history.

It should not be a surprise that the West identifies the Battle of Salamis between Greeks and Persians as the turning point and birth of Western Civilization. The majority of Western Civilization thought, theories and social exibitions come from thinkers or philosophers of Ancient Greek. But this does not mean that it ignores the structure of the Greek Empires of Pergamon (the Pontic Empire) and of the united Seluecian (Mesopotamian) Antiochian (Greek Syrian) and Ephesian (Ionic) peoples who all refer to Persian government structures such as the satraps at Armenia and so on.

They certainly had it, but I'm saying people have a tendency (based on what I've read) to downplay everything Persian inspired and focus on Greeks. This, of course, is a cruel result of the history of Persia written by Greeks who typically weren't too fond of Persians. Alas, if only our records survived...

The struggle between Greeks and Persians does not mean the West separates itself from Persian thought and culture. It is hard to validate the claim that the Ancient Greeks were not important to Western Society today, but you should also remember that the Persian identity is a part of that idealism and not separate from it.

Agree as above.

The foundations of the 4 Hellenistic Kingdoms by the armies of Alexander the Great introduced a philosophical revolution into Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor that paved the way to unite the region under the Greek language, Greek education, and sometimes forced conversion of Greek religion as it had failed in Israel but occured (ie the Temple of Solomon having forced a statue of Zues inside of it).

There certainly was a great presence of Greek language in all of the kingdoms. However, as I recall, there wasn't an actual change in the spoken language of the common person in any area. Greek language was merely present in governmental affairs (aka on coins, etc). But, again, you can tell me if I'm wrong. "Greek education" may have been isolated to the upper classes as well. "Greek religion" could have gained momentum, and since it would seem to me logical that the Islamic armies would have destroyed such artifacts that made such a presence evident. It's hard for me to know whether or not Egyptians, for example, converted to Greek religion. It seems to me that Egyptian and Greek religions sort of paralleled each other. In Mesopotamia, Arabia, and other places inside the Middle East, I'm only aware that old Semitic, polytheistic religions existed. In Persia, Zoroastrianism continually lived despite Alexander's actions.

Remember that all the conquests of the Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Israelites, Persians and Egyptians occured with overall resistance (although sometimes accepted).

Cyrus's conquerings were typically not resisted by the populous in individual nations. A clear example would be the conquering of Babylon and the unification of Persians and Medes. I 'm not sure about Ionians and Lydians, and I know that the C. Asian nomads were certainly antagonistic to the Persian Empire.

But the Greek language remained, and gave the Eastern Roman Empire an identity that surpassed the West. For over 1,000 years the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantine Empire functioned as a strong identity that enjoyed wealth that surpassed the wealth that Rome herself had ever experienced, and even today exists (is alive) in the region.

I'm not sure what you mean by "is alive" because, based on what I know, Greeks and Turks have been generally antagonistic and that sort of contradicts what you say. Overall, I would think that the Islamic and Ottoman conquerings certainly preserved Greek texts and translated them; they overall led to a decline in actually using Greek in everyday life.

So there is no doubt that the Conquests of Alexander that you deny ever happened, laid the foundation for a society that functioned as a whole in that region.

I didn't DENY the conquerings; I merely said the conquerings (which did occur) had little overall impact directly over the historical outcomes of Eurasia ("aka none" was supposed to mean "aka little" with more strength) save for Greeks, since I believe without Philip Greece could have eventually fallen to Persia. Now, the way I interpret the Byzantine Empire, was that it was not "Hellenism" in the pure sense, although it turned out to have the same characteristics. Basically, after Alexander, soon all the territories were conquered by Romans, except for the Secludian state. The Romans, by conquering the area, basically reverted the entire area to Western culture over Eastern by shifting the focus to Rome and more Westernly pursuits. However, as the Western Roman Empire decayed, the E. Roman empire was able to strengthen and revert to more Greek and Eastern rule. This, in turn, led to a "new" mergence of Greek and E. thoughts (although by far more Greek, which may lead me to think it isn't Hellnistic because it wasn't "half-half").

And even if cities and cultures separated themselves from being Hellenistic (as many indigineous people complained of being treated as lesser people if they did not speak Greek or study Greek education) or Roman (and the effects of its architecture, law and later Christianity) they still enjoyed the luxuries of being a part of such a structure. I cannot think of any city that lived outside of the trade network set-up by Alexander the Great and his entourage. Nor were there any trade networks that existed without the reliance on the Byzantine Silk Trade Route which followed the same route set-up by Alexander the Great.

Okay here is where you make a clear mistake. Persians, throughout history, have been responsible for the Silk Road and it's upkeep. The personnel, the routes, nearly everything about them operationally were done by Persians. Without Persians, it would have fell apart completely. And, of course, this was all before Alexander's time. So I don't, in any way, credit Alexander with anything done concerning the Silk Road.

Um... alot of cities were actually started up by Iranians. Cestphion, Baghdad, Bam, Herat, Hamadan, Siraf, Samarkand (maybe...I'm not sure if it was done by Iranian population), but these were all maintained by people independent of Alexander.

The reprisals that Alexander took on Persepolis did not set back the cultural identity of Persia and the Persians. It crippled their ability to rise against the successors of the Hellenistic World. Persians under Seluecian's Empire participated in its government and fought with the Empire against Asoka. The constant raids from Central Asia that occured afterwards may had produced a mindblow, but it was not long after that the Persians joined the Parthians (Scynthians) and reestablished themselves in their dominate role.

Oh it was certainly symbolic of his attempt to set back the cultural identity. He engaged in many efforts, especially antagonizing Zoroastrian life and even, at one point, portrayed himself as Ahriman in a coin by appearing as Hercules . Certainly he did alot of things to incorporate Persians into the new empire, but he did it with some attempted crippling. The reason they failed, in my view, was due to the nationalism of Iranians.

The Secludians, however, weren't always a basic foreign element. As with all foreign peoples ruling a certain land, they gradually become assimilated. Certainly later on Secludians did become that way, however, they became very weak and acted like figureheads in the end (like all dynasties end).

Finally, since you had to refer to Asoka, I will simply state that in my readings of Middle Persian history I have NEVER seen anything on Asokian-Persian interactions. AKA, if there were events, they most probably were minor and involved more "spheres of influence" than actual conquerings.

Even with these numbers his Empire still promoted the Greek language, Greek philosophical thought, Greek literature, Greek art, Greek architecture, and Greek religion. I mean there are religions today that base themselves off the fact that they resisted the inforcement of become Greek pagans, like the Maccabe (spelling?) Jews. But just because all this spread of Hellenism struct the Middle East did not mean that movements like Zoroastrianism did not occur. In fact, there is right to believe that this Persian lineage led to Judism and Christianity.

I'm not sure about philosophical thought. Persians did embrace certain Greek philosophies, but they did it in the Islamic time period. I would think, if they truly were exposed to it before, they would have assimilated the thoughts and not discover them in later times.

And yes, I wholeheartedly agree, through the importance of Persia to Jews, that it played a pivotal role in developing the Judeo religions. Such a shame it had to fall...

Overall, I think you are far more knowledgeable about these eras concerning Greeks and more W. Middle Eastern areas, but I, through my studies, generally have some suspicions about what you say. Maybe I just need to do more studies. Whatever...I really don't have time .

 

[cyrusIII85]

My point was that Alexander presented Greek ideas himself, he was the one that insisted that education spread across his Empire in Greek in the same format that he was educated by Aristotle, that all people should be privilaged to that. Alexander the Great was the leader that promoted equality with the Persians, Bactrians and Egyptians.

My question is that it is mentioned often that Alexander's Macedonian Army is separate from Greekness, yet Antiochias, Seluecius, and Ptolemy the BIG 3 of Alexander's Empire who followed him, why did they continue this Greekness or Hellenization if they were not a part of it? Why not consentrate on Macedonism which all of a sudden in todays world is separate from Hellenism. This debate never happened during the Renaissance. Why would a group of ethnic Macedonian's fight for control of Alexander's Empire yet all be in accord that the official language would be Greek, and religion. Ptomely and his descendants allowed the Egyptian cultism stand beside the Greek cultism, until the times of Cleopatra when the two religions became more confrontational because of the massive conversion to Greek Paganism. As well as the Jews of Israel, who were fought from the Jewish Priests to not forget who they were and abandon Judaism for this cosmopolitan Greek religion, lifestyle and language.

When Macedonism is segregated from Greece or the Hellenes in which we believe Macedonians to be a part of, why do these people who segregate Macedonians and Greeks never mention how the Greeks over-powered the Macedonians when a majority of migrant settlers came from Greek Macedonia and secondly from the Hellas Strait since the Ionic Anatolians in Asia Minor strengthened there prescense in an independent and growing Ephesian centered Empire that competed with Pergamon, the farming communities in northern Lycia, and Antiochian Cilicia at Tarsus.

How do arrogant Generals with strong egotistical self-ideas give up their Macedonianism (as I believe it to be a fabricated tale) for the idea of being Greeks? In your words, the Macedonians won these battles. What do the Macedonians owe the Greeks (who you say they are separate from) to make their Empires Hellenistic?

It does not compute.

Okay well...I could try to answer it. Basically, while Alexander's force was completely Macedonian, the people he had in high positions were quite Greek and Persian. And even his force, originally Macedonian, gradually became Persian to the point that Persians outnumbered the Macedonians. So both of these factors aided in the gradual decline of Macedonian control.

Then, of course, comes the time of civil war. With such a big one especially, and after Alexander's long battles, most probably the Macedonians left to home or were simply too exhausted. The only ones left were the administrators who didn't move too much and were mostly Greek and Persian. Now, there were attempts by Persians to gain power during the civil war. However, based on the superiority of Greek soldier training and general technologies (as I have discussed in the "historical inaccuracies of Persia's article" thread), they all pretty much failed and Persians need to wait to gradually weaken the influence and power of the Secludians by participating in more discreet rebellion via the clergy, etc. . Anyway, that's a side note.

So, as a result, Greeks got the empires and basically with the head comes the body. At the time, there was such a strong power vaccum that they basically couldn't be removed nor persuaded towards pursuits other than what they wanted.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Alexander the Great married a Bactrian Princess, she was not Persian.

I suggest if you want to discredit the overall good relations between Greek and Jewish cultures you'll have to go against history itself. The only two Greek groups that shamefully fought against the Jews are discredited by Greeks in the Greek Orthodox Church, namely the Greek Syrians under Antiochas and the Mycenae Philistines such as Goliath.

"The Illustrated Atlas of Jewish Civilization: 4000 years of history" by Josephine Bacon

is a detailed historical reference book that has the true viewpoint from the Jews themselves. I think it is best to judge relations between the Greeks and Jews by the word of Jews themselves. As proof, in the 4 Hellenistic Kingdoms of the post-Alexander Greek World many cities were built across these empires that were Judeo-Hellenic. The biggest city in the world is Alexandria, Egypt, measured by land area and infrustructure. Many other complements of Judeo-Hellenic endeavours scale of Egypt, Nabatea, the Middle East, and the founding of Christianity itself under the Roman Empire. When Saint Paul, once Saul as his Jewish name, as he visited Lystra, Troy, Maronea, Philipi, Athena, and Corinth it is well documented that even deep into these main-stream Greek polis that he also appealled to the Jewish communities and their leaders. The most receptive group of Judeo-Hellenes were the thinkers gathered at the Acropolis in Athens.

In Modern history, the sacrafices of Greek families in Greek Macedonia to hide the Jews from the Nazi forces resulted in the execution of hundreds of Greek men and their families. My cousin's Grandmother comes from a village north of Thessalonica where her husband was killed execution style in a line of Greek men, elders and teenagers because their village attempted to hide Jewish families in secret rooms throughout the village.

The disconnect between statements that discredit the existance of the Hellenistic World to the actual reality and fact will always serve as proof that both the Greekness of Macedonia and that Jews and Greeks having such a strong tie between culture cannot be altered by random haters and anti-Greek thinkers.

Only weeks ago it was all over the international Press that a tomb from 400-200 BC was discovered. And once again all the apparel, gifts, inscribings were all Greek. Where are the Slavic Macedonian inscribings that date back to 400-200 BC? That was the height of the Hellenistic Empires.

Um...it would be good if you quoted who you were refering to. I missed this reply as a result. Anyway...

1. I didn't try to COMPLETELY discredit the elationship you guys put up, merely give a tiny fact about Jews in Greece that contradicted the general idea you guys put up. Honestly, I don't know about the history that well at all...but I still would like to hear Israelitie comments on his post.

2. Bactrian, Persian... whatever. Iranians don't even create nearly as many names for all of the people within Iran. Iran has been a very diverse country with strong connections between each people. As far as I'm concerned, if you are Iranian, you are Persian. Those words are basically only separated by time, and all true Iranians first view their affilation to Iran and then their specific ethnic backgrounds. Furthermore, simply because she was Bactrian princess, doesn't mean that she wasn't Persian. Persians adminstered alot of non-Persian areas and a Bactrian, based on the definition of "Persian" in the West, could become Persian if she spoke Persian and affiliated herself with Persia.

 

[cyrusIII85]

It was Greek, because he conquered all of Greece before taking on Anatolia and the other masses he conquered.

Um...that is the most flawed logic I've seen. First, Alexander didn't conquer Greece. Secondly, Philip "conquered" Macedon, in order to become king, before he conquered Greece. So that flips your logic right back at you...

 

[FriendlyFire]

How do arrogant Generals with strong egotistical self-ideas give up their Macedonianism (as I believe it to be a fabricated tale) for the idea of being Greeks? In your words, the Macedonians won these battles. What do the Macedonians owe the Greeks (who you say they are separate from) to make their Empires Hellenistic?

It does not compute.

Of course valid points. On the other hand alexander had troublesome macedoinians assasinated or sent home for refusing to adopt persian customs.
Alexander himself adopted mix of persian and macedoina clothing, adopted other cultures religon .......

hmm I think were talking about different thing. Alexander and greeks were very similar in culture, similar dialetcs of laungage, similar God. The fact that Greeks idea of independent city states also being seperate yet inexplicably Greek.

One can argue the differences and similarities between, Athens, Sparta, Thebes (?) and Macedonia. same yet different.

 

[Takhisis]

But the Greek language remained, and gave the Eastern Roman Empire an identity that surpassed the West. For over 1,000 years the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantine Empire functioned as a strong identity that enjoyed wealth that surpassed the wealth that Rome herself had ever experienced, and even today exists (is alive) in the region.

Then why were the Greeks so Greek that they called themselves (up to the 20th century) "Romaioi" instead of "Hellenoi"?

 

[Odin2006]

It's my understanding that the ancient Macedonians were hellenized Thracians, of some other paleo-Balkan ethicity related to the Thracians.


BTW, the people spouting the "ancient Macedonians were Slavs" BS need to STFU. Just because the Greeks whine and b*tch about the official name of Macedonia doesn't give you a right to invent nationalistic nonsense. the modern Macedonians are Bulgarians for all practical purposes, QED. The Slavs were stuck up in Poland and Belarus at the time of Alexander.

 

[spiritfly]

It's my understanding that the ancient Macedonians were hellenized Thracians, of some other paleo-Balkan ethicity related to the Thracians.


BTW, the people spouting the "ancient Macedonians were Slavs" BS need to STFU. Just because the Greeks whine and b*tch about the official name of Macedonia doesn't give you a right to invent nationalistic nonsense. the modern Macedonians are Bulgarians for all practical purposes, QED. The Slavs were stuck up in Poland and Belarus at the time of Alexander.

Now you are talking nonsense. According to my understanding Bulgarians are not even slavs, if the slavs really existed.. There is a point of view that slavs never really came to the regions of today's Macedonia in the first place and these are the original ancient Macedonians, many historians wrote about the region without even being here at all or just once, formally at that time so I do not beleive history until a time machine is invented. It is all for political reasons.

 

[ChrTh]

This has to be the oddest thread ... what's happening in the 3 months between posts here?

The problem with saying that Alexander's empire is Greek or Persian is then you're forced to divide the Roman empire similarly, with Gallic and Hellenized components. On the other hand, saying it's a Macedonian Empire would be like saying Napoleon's Empire was a Corsican one. It's not exact, obviously, but close. Personally, I prefer Greek, but I can understand the arguments against.

 

[King Alexander]

BTW, the people spouting the "ancient Macedonians were Slavs" BS need to STFU.

Skopje need a historical identity, that's why they're so desperate and teach to their schools they're the descendants of Alexander the Great(what to say, they were part of Yugoslavia, and since it exists no more, they haven't no history?).
Yes, they teach all that to their new generations, and come to think, they can prove bull about what they're claiming. It's a nice fable for kids, and fables don't need to prove themselves in any way.

As for the name "Macedonia" itself, Greece has every right to deny it, and in accordance to international laws: it's the same thing Germany did against Austria some decades back, and France against "Great Britain"(that's why that name isn't officially used).

btw: Greece wasn't united back then and the name "Greece" wasn't in use by anyone, so, for example, Athenians and Spartans weren't Greeks but just...Athenians and Spartans. They only used the terms of "Greece" and "Greek"(meaning, they used their common origin) under only special ocasions.
In fact, "Greece", in a way, came to life only when Alexander conquered and united it, and when our people got rid of the Turks(in later history).

Edit1:
As for the question, was Alexander's empire "Greek-Macedonian" or "Persian", what kind of question is that? An empire is named after those who own/run it, don't you think? It was part of "Greek-macedonian" empire if you wish, but that didn't mean that empire didn't had multiple ehtnicities: it wasn't as the "Persian" empire only just had...Persians, but over a few dozen ethnicities.
I didn't see anyone asking "Was the Roman empire" Roman or Mediterranean or...Karthaginian or whatever".

I have a proposition to Skopje: if they feel they want to be part of the ancient Macedonians, why don't they join with Greece, to unite it once more, as their ancestors did? If they feel they are a Greek tribe, they're welcomed, but...I'm afraid, they reject something even their...imaginable, and proud ancestors wouldn't: refuse their Greek origin(it must feel awful to be that paranoid).

 

[Sideral]

Old thread, sorry!

 

[Orthodox Warior]

Skopje need a historical identity, that's why they're so desperate and teach to their schools they're the descendants of Alexander the Great(what to say, they were part of Yugoslavia, and since it exists no more, they haven't no history?).
Yes, they teach all that to their new generations, and come to think, they can prove bull about what they're claiming. It's a nice fable for kids, and fables don't need to prove themselves in any way.

I was thinking that this thread is closed. My mistake. I don't know how anybody can compare former yugoslav republic Macedonia and Alexander Macedonia. Today Macedonians are south Slavs who came in Balkans together with other Slav tribes and Avari tribes in V or VI century. I think no one can change that historical fact. If somebody is trying to do that... lets just say..