What nationality was Alexander?

[Chauliodus]

His ethnicality is kinda moot, along the lines of William the Conquerer being Norman, but always asscoiated with England, Hitler being Austrian but forever assumed to be German or Christianized Rome always called the Byzantine Empire.

 

[Xen]

Christianized Rome always called the Byzantine Empire.

if that were true, then the Byzantine empire would have began with Theodosius (IIRC, he is the one who illegilized the old religions)

no, it was the social and cultural reforms of Heraclius that define the Byzantine empire- a century or two down the line from when Chrisitanity was maas-instituted on Rome

 

[Companiero]

Hallo everybody. I guess I'm the reason for this thread in the first place, so I felt obliged to add my point of view here. Yes, you rightly assume that I'm the guy who "brought a stinging reply" to privatehudson in another forum. He and I often get into arguments (isn't that right PH? ), so in one of his posts he told me about this forum and the thread he started and invited me to join.
Since this is my very first post here, I might as well say that I too enjoy playing Civilization 3 and as noted, I'm from the Republic of Macedonia, the place where "hot blooded southern Balkanians" live. I do not think I'll post here often (I plan to be in this thread only), but I saw a few other threads that cought my attention, so who knows?
Thanks PH, for starting a thread like this and for inviting me to participate since I believe I have much to say on this issue. btw, are there any greeks here? I though it'd be interesting if they too join the discussion.

@privatehudson Don't worry if someone "attack" you over that your statment, people in that area are kind of touchy when things like that are "put on table" for discution. Specialy hot blooded southern Balkanians

Yeah, this guy's basically right. Most people here are really sensitive when it comes to nationality (unfortunately), and I hate us for that. I for one, do not consider myself to be nationalist (just the opposite), and will try to give you the most objective information I can on this issue. It wouldn't be the case with many of my fellow countrymen and almost all greeks, if you sit on the table and discuss this touchy topic. They would immediately become over-emotional and in fact the only thing you'd hear in such discussion would be all but facts and well-thought arguments. I've read a lot concerning this question (both international, greek, bulgarian, and macedonian interpretations) and I am well familiar with what every party says. If it is any bit of info that would enrich your knowledge I would be glad to share it with you all.

Ancient Macedonians​

Was Alexander the Great Greek? Well, most scholars that have been lively in contact with the heritage of Alexander and his Empire would deny that fact. They are explicit on the view that Alexander was Ancient Macedonian (the adjective ancient being added to make a distinction with present-day Macedonians, that are mainly Slavic as has been pointed out).
Ancient Macedonia consisted of present-day Aegean Macedonia (part of the Greek Macedonia), the southern part of present-day Republic of Macedonia, and a small portion of the Bulgarian part of Macedonia. This meaning that historical Macedonia is another term, and Republic Macedonia is also another term. Completely confusing, I know, but just continue reading without prejudices and will get to the point where I'll make the distinction between all of them. However, the largest part of the territory of Ancient Macedonia is in fact the Greek part of Macedonia. This is all, strictly geographically speaking.

Macedonians came to prominence as a key-player in the Balkans somewhere around the 7-6th century BC with the establishment and strengthening of the Macedonian Kingdom (it's first ruler being Perdicas I). He and the long line of his successors, menaged to strengthen and expand the kingdom to the neighbouring lands of the various Balkan tribes (Ilirians, Thracians, Dardanians, Paionians, Greeks etc.)
When talking about the ethnic origin of Macedonians, one has to know that Macedonians didn't have a written language of their own and most of what we know comes from the Greek sources that were written by Greek historians. From archeological evidence, we can say that there are many artifacts from the Archaic period of the Ancient Macedonians (from the end of prehistory to the contact with the Persians) that connect them to the other Balkan peoples, and very little to the Greeks. In addition it is considered that Macedonians' origin can be traced to the Brigian tribe (an Indo-European people that could have migrated from Asia Minor), just like the origin of other Balkan tribes, but the Greeks.
If one also looks in the religion of the Macedonians as reference (I'm a mythology freak ) there are also facts that undoubtly show their distinctivness from the Greeks. (the spelling is probably false ) Their supreme god was Dion (renamed =Zeus) and was considered the father of the mythological predecessor of all Macedonians - Macedon; Athria (=Athena) was the goddess of the light and the mother of Macedon; Zyrene was an equivallent of the Asian goddess Cybelle whose cult was inherited from the Brigians; then we have Arethos (=Heracles) Patriosos (meaning "native"); the goddess Ma (solar and war nature); Vedi, the life-giving air, Bacchus (=Dyonisus) and many others, whose name escapes me. The common thing for all of these is that they have much in common with the dieties of the other surrounding Balkan tribes (but not the Greeks, as they all have a common origin, the Brigians. However, due to the fact that written source is scarce, the information that we have comes from Greek writings that always changed the name of the dieties to the one they most closely resemble in the Greek mythology. Still, some writings have been preserved in the original names.
The same can be said about the language. Ancient Macedonian language was spoken, but never written. Today there are only about 100 words ("glossae") from that old language from some stone engravings (with the Greek alphabet of course), and scientists still work on their encryption. Most have little in common with the Greek language however.
Another ethnographic element would be the customs and symbols which were many and unique. You already know the Sun with sexteen rays of Vergina that used to be on Macedonian army shields, then the lion as the symbol of royal power (did you know lions existed in the Balkans that time?), the custom of confesion, the custom when the army would cleanse itself by passing between the two halves of a cut dog (ick! I know ), eating while lying a privillage you get by killing a bear (how rude!) and others. Also, distinctive elements of the Macedonian society point out the distinctiveness of the Ancient Macedonians, such as the constitutional monarchy (term? the king didn't have to be bloodly related to his predecessor) as a governing form, a distinct chalender, coins (starting from Alexander I), their own Olympic Games organized in Dion (a Macedonian city) when they were forbidden to participate etc.
All in all, you are basically right when you say Ancient Macedonians were a "barbarian" tribe, that had little in common with the Greeks.

In this respect, a quote from someone:

A)Macedonians were allowed in the olympic games
B)th eonly exceptiuon to non greeks not being allowed in those games was a gruding submission to the Roman atheletes.

Macedonians were not really allowed in the Olympic Games. There was a case when the Macedonian King Alexander I, wasn't allowed to participate, but he proved his lineage to the city of Argos Orestikos (a Greek city in Macedonia), and in the end he was allowed to participate (because after all he was the king) and won. (too bad Macedonains today never win in Olympics ) And hence, why there were Games organized in Dion by Macedonians.
Alexander I was also known as Alexander I Phillhellen (meaning "loves Greeks"). If he was considered a Greek, they wouldn't have called him Greek-loving, don't you think? He ruled in a time of great hellenization of Macedonian culture (more in the following paragraph).

All this said so far, is absolutely true about the Archaic period of Macedonian history (up until the Greek-Persian War, V century BC), after which the Classic and Hellenistic periods took place.

With the increasing contact with the Greek colonies on the Macedonian coast and the strong, amazing and influental Greek culture (which I admire btw), came the more and more massive hellenization (becoming Greek) of the authentic Macedonian culture. Greece was a centre of the world at the time and it's understandibly enough why the Macedonian Kings wanted to mingle in Greek affairs. As much as the Macedonian Kings conquered many of the neighbouring Balkan tribes, they could never truly call themselves superior without conquering the Greek city-states too. They became increasingly dependant on Greek well-manufactured imported goods, culture and recognition. The Macedonian Kings transfered the capital from the mountainious city of Aegaea to the more coastal Pela. They also brought famous Greek thinkers to the court, the most notable being Aristotle, brought by Phillip II to tutor his son Alexander (later the Great). Alexander's most beloved book was the "Illiad". All Macedonian aristocracy could speak Greek, and probably the commoners too. The Greek language introduced new words for many things the poorly-educated and technologically backwarded Macedonians didn't have names. Even the names of the dieties became Hellenized, just as it happened with the dieties of the other Balakn people. This is the time when temples and other Greek-exlusive culture marks began to take hold in Macedonia. Before (during the Archaic period) there was no such culture or Greek architecture in Macedoania. The Classical period is the epoch from which the biggest amount of sources comes from, and that's why it was long ago thought that Macedonians were Greeks, i.e. of Dorian or Achaean origin. (In fact it's a matter of policy as well as misinterpretation)
An evidence of the Greek resentment towards Macedonian rule is the hatred with which Athenian statesmen spoke of Phillip and his intentions to conquer /unite (as pro-Macedonian parties in the Athenian assembly spoke) Greece, in order to fight against Persia. Demostenes was the most prominent anti-Macedonian and Philip II hater and one of his most famous work is the Philipics,a series of speeches aimed to attack Phillip and his policy as well as nationality and personality. In one of his speeches he says: "The Macedonian King has nothing in common with Hellada (Greece), nor with her culture. He is barbaros (meaning "alien, non Greek"), despot and tyrant that won't save Greece." He rganized an alliance against Philip, but that didn't save the Athenians, because with the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC) all city-states, but Sparta fell under Macedonian rule. The following year, Greece was united under the patronship of Macedonia and Philip declared war on Persia. However, soon he was killed by some Macedonian aristocrats, and Alexander was appointed king by the army. After he consolidated his position, both interanal with the generals, with the naighbouring Balkan tribes and the Greek city-states as well, he set to conquer Persia itself, and soon thereafter the world. And then is blah, blah, blah... you know the rest.
(It should also be noted that when Philip was killed the Athenians were overjoyed. They offered a sacrifice to Athena and praised the men who killed him.)

The next period is the Hellenistic period (from the death of Alexander to the coming of the Romans). This wasn't a uniquely Macedonian period, but a global one. It was characterized with mixing the Greek culture (and to a small extent the hellenized Macedonian culture) with the Middle Eastern cultures. A new culture was created, called Hellenistic, with a strong Greek cultural and linguistic influence. It was then when many MIddle Eastern cults spread to Greece and Macedonia and were in a way re-introduced in Macedonia, who had already much forgotten her Brigian origins. However, this was not a rediscovering of some kind, but an introduction to a whole new culture - the Hellenistic. By this time, art and crafts were common in Macedonia, and they were largly influenced by the Hellinistic Age, just as in other parts of Alexander's Empire.

IIRC The Hellenistic period began in 323BC when Alexander the Great died. Regardless, the Hellenistic period is characterised by the wars of the Diodochs (the Seleucids, Ptolemids, Cassandrids, Antigonids, Lysimachids, Bactrians, Atropatinids, etc.); Carthage; the emergence of Rome, Kushan and Parthia; and the last stand of the ancient Greeks (the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues struggle to remain free of Rome and the Diodochs, and Mithridates VI the Great's near-successful conquest of the eastern Mediterranean).

Very true. But you forgot to mention that the Diodochs were the Macedonian generals from Alexander's army and powerful members of the Macedonian aristocracy. They all wanted to take Alexander's place, but instead they only menaged to seperate the empire into seperate pieces. The most important were Egypt (ruled by the Ptolomeids; that would mean Cleopatra was Macedonian), Syria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Asia Minor all ruled by the Seleucids, and the region of Macedonia and Greece ruled by the Antigonids.
Needless to say, instead of being grateful for all that Alexander did for their culture, the Greeks were happy when Alexander died and they immediately rebelled against the Macedonian rule (more precisely Antipater, the chief general of Alexander; not an Antigonid, that dinasty was formed later.). The ensuing Lamian War (a liberation war for the united greek city-states) ended with them being defeated. However, later things got messy and they gained their independence. Their following leages and alliances were aimed against the Macedonian kings, and in this respect did the two leages that guy mentioned (Achaean and Aetolian) functioned, i.e. allied with Rome to fight the Macedonians. But the Roman moto: "Divide et impera." prooved itself one more time, and they were soon conquered by the Roman army as well as Macedonia. The last Macedonian King to fight the Romans in the Roman-Macedonian Wars (3-2rd century BC) was Philip V and after that Macedonia was turned into a Roman province.

That was all on Ancient history. No politics in here. Now, I believe you can understand why I said to PH, that Alexander's origin is debatable to the very least (and most facts obviously point to him being non-Greek) and that he doesn't want to get in a discussion like this. But since I'm in deep crap now, I'll have to do my best to get out and explain the rest.
However, the latter part is a terrible mess and it would be hard for me to explain it without writing a whole novel, so I'll try and add only the info necessary for you to understand the general idea.
(imagine, the site said the text you entered is too long. 30000 characters. shorten it to 15000. lol)

 

[Companiero]

Present-day Macedonians​

It is true when someone remarked that the Slavs settles on the Balkan c. 6-7 century AD, and when they came they found a largely romanized population. The question is what happened then with the Ancient Macedonians. They already lived on the land when the Slavic tribes arrived, and it's true that they were very hostile to the natives. The Slavs pillaged the countryside, but were much more peaceful than the other barbaric tribes of the age. They settled in the area (which was then already Byzantia), formed new places to live or slavicized the old. The entire area of Macedonia was populated by various Slavic tribes. They layed a siege to the city of Thessaliniki, and although they never conquered it, the city was entirely slavicized by the 10th century. Its Slavic name being Solun. The Ancient Romanized Macedonian population might have been exterminated, moved someplace else, or assimilated by the newcomers. Or probably all three happened.
The area was restored to Byzantian control soon thereafter, then fell to several Slavic Kings' rule, and finally to the Turks.
The Turks assigned new meaning to the term Macedonia. They made it to be a Turkish province consisting of present-day Greek province of Macedonia (50%), and the other half encompassing the whole territory of present-day Republic of Macedonia and a small part of Bulgaria. This is the hitorical territory of Macedonia.
The important thing to know is that in the XVIII and XIX century prior to the Balkan Wars, the population of Macedonia, was more or less multiethnic, but with Slavs consisting a great majority of the area. Limited to the Greek province of Macedonia solely, the Slavs, according to relevant indicators, composed more than 60% of the population, the rest of it being Greeks, Turks, Armenaians, Jews, Vlavs and others. The territory of present-day Macedonia and the Bulgarian part of Macedonia was populated by Slavic-speaking people with a precentage as high as 90%.
Back to the Greek part of Macedonia, the names of most geographical places were purely Slavic. The villiges were almost exclusively Slavic, with the cities being more multicultural. How is then possible that today Greece claims a whole 1% of non-Greeks?! And they are named non-Greeks because the census doesn't provide them with the opportunity to declare their nationality. I'll tell you how that's possible, but a bit later. Just to keep you interested.

The Ottoman Empire (Turkey) was terribly weakened both internaly (the various people under its rule) and externally (was known as the sick man of Europe at the time). Nationalist movements started to emerge and Turkey had to make concessions in order to give each a greater authonomy. Most got their independance at the Congress of Berlin (1878), with Greece as the only exception (1830). The area and peoples that remained under Ottoman rule were Macedonia (with the Slavs as the majority) and Albania. The Slavs that inhabited Macedonia were slower than the other more powerful neighbours in their emergance of the nationalist self-awarenenss. There were intellectuals at the time that expressed their views of authonomy for Macedonia as a distinct region, and there was an organization that openly fought for this - VMRO (Internal Revolutionary Macedonian Organization) which was founded in 1893, which was much belated compared to the already established and powerful neighbours. Each of these neighbours (Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria) had extreme nationalist governments in power and they all launched vigorous propaganda in Macedonia (in spite of it still being under Turkey) in order to indoctrinize the local (Slavic) Macedonian population with awakening Macedonian identity. They all claimed that the Macedonians in the historical region of Macedonia are Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks respectively. The Serb and Bulgarian propaganda was gravior than the Greek (performed through the Orthodox church), because these two were after all Slavic people and had more in common with Macedonians than the Greeks. The Bulgarian propaganda even infiltrated the ranks of VMRO, the only Macedonian organization fighting for authonomy. It was a period of spies, intelligence and assassinations for many notable Macedonian revolutionarues. Many were killed and soon the organization was overtaken by the Bulgarian authorities (those people who worked for them: such as Todor Alexandrov and Vanco Mihailov). The Bulgarian propaganda almost totally destroyed the Macedonian liberation movement during one period, with its inteligentsia either being shot or indoctrinated.
However, there were some very notalbe intellectials in the period, that continuasly struggled for Macedonian independance and for the cause that claimed that Macedonians (the Slavic people living on the territory of Macedonia) are a seperate nation, with seperate history (I didn't remarked on Middle Age history at all; it's already big enough), language, culture and geographical wholeness. Unfortunately, the population was mostly rural and they didn't seem affected on large scale by either of the causes. However, the important battle to be won was on the behalf of intellectuals. Those who would have won there, would have the opportunity to lead the uneducated.
The tensions errupted in the First Balkan War (1912-1913) when the alliance of the four Balkan states (Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro) declared war on Turkey, with the excuse they want to "liberate" Macedonia. They won the war, but right after that, a Second Balkan War errupted because the winner couldn't agree on how to share the spoils of war, i.e. Macedonia. After the Second Balkan War they signed the Bucharest Treaty (1913), without any participation of representatives from Macedonia to devide Macedonia territorialy according to their own interests. That's how the present borders of Macedonia were formed and the homogenity of Macedonia destroyed. The presnt-day Rep. Macedonia being in fact only the Serbian part of the true Macedonia at the time.

Now, what did the conquerors do with the prize from the war? Needless to say, they immediately initiated campaigns with which they would assimilate the local Macedonian population. After WW1, Greece signed contracts with Bulgaria and Turkey for "voluneerly" transfering of poeple between the countries. With the Ney Agreement, around 90,000 Macedonians were forcely removed from Greece to Bulgaria, where they became subjects of Bulgarian propaganda, or Serbia. Also 350,000 mulims (icluding Turks mostly, but also Macedonian muslims, Albanians) were deported to Turkey, and in their place around 1,160,000 Greeks from Asia Minor were colonized in Macedonia. Also, Greeks from other parts of Greece colonized Macedonia (about 53,000). In Serbia too, Serbs (c. 100,000) were being given free land in order to populate Macedonia. In all parts of Macedonia an aggressive assimilatory policy was implemented. Schools, laws, propaganda, religion, all was in faor of this propaganda. In Greece, the names of the geographical locations were changed from Slavic to Greek, and Macedonian language was even forbidden to speak in homes. There were people cruising the coutryside and whoever was cought speaking Greek, was given to drink ritsinus (an ugly-tasting oil that casues illness). The opression was especially fierce during the time of Ionais Metaxas, a right-wing dictator supported from USA and UK. All these events, dramatically changed the ethnical composition of the Greek part of Macedonia, as well as the other parts.
In these dark times, the Macedonian intellectuals turned to Communism as the only viable movement that could bring a change. Almost all intellectuals supporting the cause for independent and now united Macedonia were either Socialists or Communists. The Communist Parties of both Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria at first had reserves to this question, but later they all admitted the existance of Macedonians as a seperate nation, and the fact that they should enjoy the rights to freely practice their culture and religion and use their language. However, to what extent they were prepared to realize this promises is debatable, cos there's the possibility that they only supported the Macedonian cause in order to put the Macedonians in the party's ranks to fight for the revolution. Only the Yugoslav Communist Party gave Macedonians the right for a seperate state as a constituational state of Yugoslavia (1944, after WW2). The Greek Communist Party lost the Civil War (lead after WW2), to Metaxas (supported by USA and UK) and with that the terror done upon the Macedonians was enourmous. Many emigrated (again!). In fact I personally am half from the Greek part of Macedonia (from my mother's side; her parents emigrated to USSR first and then came to Yugoslavia). Those who stayed in Greece are either not aware that their parents were Macedonians and they can speak only Greek (i.e. assimilated), or are too afraid to openly declare their nationality because of discrimination. It is a sad thing to see indeed how the cradle of democracy, Greece, is overpopulated by nationalists and ethnocentrics. Greece is often criticized from the European institutions for presevnace of minorities and human rights groups, but she's a member of the EU after all, and my own government doesn't give a **** about it, so these people still can't declare their nationality openly. Only this year they were allowed to form a party, but after very strong resistance was displayed in the media. Also the Macedonian refugees from Greece are not allowed to claim their abandoned possessions (so technically I have the legal right to inherit some "Greek" land ) The Greek official data claim that only 1% of non-Greeks live in Greece (Turks and Albanians are also discriminated). All this assimilationist and emigration policy brought Greek Macedonia to the point where there are roughly about 100,000 Macedonians presently in Greece, but this data is only a guess, since they are not allowed to state their national identity. How else do you explain the fact that there is not a single Greek villige in Rep. of Macedonia, and neighbouring Greece officially has 99% Greeks?
In Bulgaria, after Tito (the Yugoslav Communist leader) seperated from Stalin, the Bulgarian Communist Party (under Soviet influence) continued to press the negatory policy and to assimilate Macedonians there too. There was a brief period in Bulgaria, (right after WW2) under Georgi Dimitrov, who granted Macedonians the rights for self-determance, but he was progressive and wasn't favored by the conservative parts of Bulgarian communist hierarchy. After his rule, Macedonians were again hunted. Today, there are still Macedonians in Bulgaria that declare they're Macedonians (the government denies it), but the consequences of two centuries long propaganda were disastrious.
Only the part of Macedonia conquered by Serbia, that the Serbs recognized as seperate entity (not Southern Serbia, as was and is still spoken by Serb nationalists), menaged to become an independent country, thanks to the progressve Communists of the time.

As normal non Greek or Macedon I can not understand this quarrel. Germany has for example the South of the area which was once Geldern. Since also the capital Geldern is German, but North Geldern belongs to Holland, we could also say the Dutch to rename their province Gelderland. But no one would come to that idea here!

OK, I know this might be an odd concept for you to grasp, but as you saw from what was said, could you not see how crucial was the national identity and its affirmation in all conquered parts of Macedonia and how it reflected to the destiny of the people who lived there? By questioning the name of our country (from Greeks), the identity of our people (Bulgarians), even our church (from Serbia), our national identity is seriously at stake. You see what foreign prpagandas did to the Macedonians that lived in Greece and Bulgaria. Greece must understand how crucial is our name for us, for if our existance as a nation is brought into question, it will be very easy for our neighbours to destroy Macedonia once and for all. Thank God (and the International Community) they didn't intervened (and probably never will, but who knows?) during the conflict we had here along ethnic lines (with the Albanians). Macedonia, although historically disabled, has none whatsoever territorial pretensions toward Greece (as they claim they fear) or Bulgaria or any other naighbour. We never have, never will have. We only want Greece to show some more sense for the historical moment that we live in and give us the right to call ourselves by our name.

 

[Companiero]

The connection between the Ancient Macedonians and present-day (Slavic) Macedonans​

The point to which the Ancient Macedonians were assimilated by the Slavic tribes that settled in the area is unclear. One thing is clear, present-day Macedonians have very little in common culturaly and linguistically with Ancient Macedonians. (some accounts of customs and few words, but nothing serious) Genetically, who knows? (Note that many Macedonians would get all over me for saying this, but screw nationalists.)
Whether or not Ancient Macedonians have something in common with the present-day Greeks is also debatable, but one thing is for sure, they are not Greeks. They never were, so they can't be. Also, the fact that present-day Greeks have also accepted other influences (as someone mentioned - from Slavs, since Slavic tribes in 7 century settled all the way to Peloponez) drives them away from cultural connection with Ancient Greeks and even further from Ancient Macedonians. But you could say that minor Slavic genes were assimilated in the Greek nation, while the Ancient Macedonians were assimilated in the Slavic tribes. At the present day, I cannot say (nor anyone can) whether Greeks or Macedonians have more in common with Ancient Macedonians. But they are not either of those two. We only borrowed the name, and the Greeks conquered their territory (from us). Their culture and genes were lost somewhere in the long hitory of the turbulent Balkan lands.

However, there have been some researches recently that lead us to Afghanistan, where there is one culturally hermetically closed and distinct tribe from those around them. They have blue eyes (an alien thing for the local population there) and are thought to be the reminants of the Macedonians in Alexander army who settled in the area. Linguistical scientists say they have a grammatical system that has a lot in common with the Macedonian language (the translation from their language to Macedonian has an almost natural flow), some words indicate a Balkan origin, their music shares elements with the Macedonian music (the richest music tradition on the Blakans ) and many toponymes have similar names to ancient Balkan ones (it is thought that they got nostalgic in the steppes of Afghanistan and they started to rename the place so that it reminded more of home). However these cultures are not still explored and studied enough, so a lot of time may pass before we know a glimpse of the truth.

In the meanwhile, we in the Balkans, let's all work together and leave dirty history behind and look into the future where we will all be united under one European banner. Peace.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Welcome to CFC, Companiero.

Hope you'll continue posting; we usually do, after being 'lured' in...

Add: I find your above posts illuminating. Can you put them up in a new thread, perhaps reorganized in an article format, so that I can link to it in the History Articles thread (you can find the link in my sig) for future reference and reading?

 

[billesarius]

Alexander spoke greek. His name is greek. His father spoke greek and had a greek name. His mother was a greek from the kingdom of Epirus. He worshipped greek gods and revered greek heroes. He in fact claimed to be greek descended from a thousand years back, from Herakles (and his ancestors).
Alexander was leader of the Hellenic League and promoted himself as leader of a pan-hellenic "crusade" against the Persians (not Macedo-hellenic). What does he need to do to be considered greek?
To say that he was pure greek would be nonsense. There wasn't a pure greek anywhere in the greek world, rather they were a mixture of greeks, thracians, illyrians, pelasgians, minoans etc etc. But then there is not an ethnic group in the world that is "pure" in any real sense. To say that he was not greek though is to impose absurd restrictions on the meaning of the word.

 

[aaminion00]

The Macedonians (Alexander included) are about as Greek as the Lebonese are Arabs. The Lebonese and their leaders speak Arabic and have Arabic names. Their fathers speak Arabic and have Arabic names. They worship an Arabic god and praise Arabic heroes from history. I am reasonably sure that some Lebonese claim to be the descendants of the Arabic prophet Mohammed. Are the Lebonese Arabs? No, they are Phoenicians.

 

[Tallanas]

Alexander spoke greek. His name is greek. His father spoke greek and had a greek name. His mother was a greek from the kingdom of Epirus. He worshipped greek gods and revered greek heroes. He in fact claimed to be greek descended from a thousand years back, from Herakles (and his ancestors).
Alexander was leader of the Hellenic League and promoted himself as leader of a pan-hellenic "crusade" against the Persians (not Macedo-hellenic). What does he need to do to be considered greek?
To say that he was pure greek would be nonsense. <snip> To say that he was not greek though is to impose absurd restrictions on the meaning of the word.

A few quick thoughts of my own upon this thorny issue.

To assign someone a nationality based upon their name and the language they speak is absurd. This is especially true when one argues for a modern concept of nationality to be imposed upon someone who lived at a time when there was no such concept.

Greek culture and language so dominated the region at this time that practically everyone spoke Greek - it was the language of politics, philosophy and literature, and as such was spoken by the ruling classes in a fairly pure form throughout the region. This cultural dominance led to a widespread reverence for Greek gods and heroes, and naming conventions followed language and cultural influence.

As for claiming lineage through Greek heroes and gods, Alexander is hardly alone here. Julius Caesar claimed a divine heritage through Venus/Aphrodite, via Aeneas, a prince of Troy. I don't think this makes him any less Roman. Such claims were merely politically expedient, especially in an era where mythology was important, and such gods and heroes were widely revered. It should be noted that several such claimants were worshipped as at least semi-divine during their own lifetime. For a politician, that's quite useful

Alexander did indeed promote what was in appearance a "Greek" crusade against the Persian empire. However, the fact is that as King of Macedon, Philp had defeated the Greek city-states and subordinated them into the Macedonian sphere of influence. The whole idea of the Greeks fighting the Persians together was politcal face-saving and useful only in propaganda value.

However, if one looks at what Alexander did when he conquered bits of the Great King's empire, we see something which should make us doubt his belief in his "Greek" crusade. When he conquered a satrapy or people, he took the best of their soldiers and leaders and used them in his own army. Late in his reign, his inner circle was as full of Persians as it was of Macedonians, simply because he had to assimilate these people to rule an area so vast.

In one sense, Alexander transcended nationality (in our modern definition) simply because he wanted to conquer everyone and make them all his own subjects. Greek, Macedonian, Bactrian, Persian could all flourish within Alexander's Empire - he was the first equal opportunity employer

The Greeks (that is, the Greek city-states) regarded Macedonians as barely literate barbarians, certainly not as Greek. And I doubt any Macedoanian would have regarded themselves as Greek, either.

Alexander had a Greek name, spoke Greek, and was a member of the Greek world. But Greek in nationality? Sorry, but no.

 

[Companiero]

"Alexander spoke greek."
No.

"His father spoke greek and had a greek name."
No. Both Philip and Alexander spoke Greek, but I speak English too, and I'm not an Englishman.

"His mother was a greek from the kingdom of Epirus."
Philip had many wives (7 to be precise) from many different regions of the Balkans. In fact Philip's own mother was from the Lyncestes.

"He worshipped greek gods and revered greek heroes. "
Not true. Read the post I wrote about the religion of Ancient Macedonians.

"Alexander was leader of the Hellenic League and promoted himself as leader of a pan-hellenic "crusade" against the Persians (not Macedo-hellenic). "
I'm not familiar that a "Hellenic League" ever existed as such. Alexander promoted himself as a leader of a united world, and as the king of Macedon, the ruler of Greece and other Balkan tribes.

"To say that he was pure greek would be nonsense. There wasn't a pure greek anywhere in the greek world, rather they were a mixture of greeks, thracians, illyrians, pelasgians, minoans etc etc. "
You should add Macedonians to that list also. And about the mixed ethnicity of the Greeks, I cannot agree. These tribes indeed maintained relations with the Greeks, but they never really mixed. There was a much bigger fluctuation in the ethnogenesis among the various Blakan tribes (including the Macedonians). The Greeks were always "one-class more civilized" to mix with the "barbarians".

 

[billesarius]

A lot of the responses have dealt with what the Macedonians spoke, who the Macedonians worshipped and how the Macedonians thought of themselves. Although these do have a bearing on the question, the original question was specific to Alexander not to the Macedonians as a whole. I am not asserting that the Macedonians were, from the beginning, Greek through and through. Although I think the "greekness" of the Macedonians can be defended (depending on how you define "Greek” and "Macedonian"), it is not necessarily something I'd want to bet my life on. But the question pertained to Alexander and that will be my focus.
First his language. I don’t recall any source that states explicitly that Alexander spoke Greek. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that he did. Again, his mother was Greek. His name in Greek is roughly “he who repels men”. His father’s name is “horse lover” in Greek. Several of his generals had names that were clearly Greek… Antipater, Cassander, Ptolemy. He had a Greek teacher (Aristotle). He had Greek-named ancestors. When he captured Darius’s entourage after Issus, he had Darius’ family instructed in Greek, notin “Macedonian” if that ever existed. Now, can someone show evidence that Alexander personally spoke anything other than Greek?
Religion: Bacchus/Dionysus as I understand is either a Thracian god or of eastern origin. Since he was adopted externally by Greeks and Macedonians alike he has no bearing on whether Macedonian religion was significantly different than Greek. Ma appears to be an Anatolian goddess (temple at Amasya in central Turkey). She was not “native Macedonian”. Dion is a town name (latinized Dium). If from a god then I expect the personal form is Dios which is a Greek word for “god” and related to the words “theos” and “Zeus”. As for the other gods that you cite Companiero, I am not familiar with them. They could be “native Macedonian” gods, they could be “borrowed” from the Thracians or Illyrians or from some pre-Macedonian ethnic group. Regardless, Alexander claimed descent from Zeus, not from Dion, Ma or Bacchus. Show me evidence that Alexander worshipped, reverenced or acknowledged the gods that you mention.
Family tree: Yes Companiero, Phillip had several wives at least one of whom was non-Greek, Audata the Illyrian. I believe that Alexander had only one mother however, Olympias, a Greek princess from Epirus. Agreed Tallanas that a claimed descent from Herakles does nothing to prove greekness. However, that was cited more as an example of cultural identity. The example of Caesar claiming descent from Aphrodite and Aeneas is valid so far as it goes. However if Caesar had spoken Trojan, if he and his family and peers bore Trojan names, if there were no Latin inscriptions/literature remaining but only the “Trojan” language I dare say that we likely would be calling him a Trojan in a general sense as well as a Roman in a specific sense.
Cultural Identity: Again he claimed descent from Greek gods and heroes. He named his son (by Barsine) Herakles. On landing in Asia he sacrificed to Achilles at his tomb near Troy. He supposedly kept a copy of the Iliad under his pillow.
Please cite examples of the non-Greek heroes that he honored or non-Greek literature that he prized.
Regarding Macedonians as a whole, I do not agree that at this time Greek language is no evidence of "greekness" or that all of that part of the world was speaking greek. The time frame here is about 350-330 bc. Of Greece's neighbors Illyria never adopted Greek to any extent, and the Thracians only after the Roman conquest. At about this time Mausolus of Caria was beginning a policy of Hellenization which is pointless if Caria were already Hellenized. Lycian inscriptions from this period are in Lycian with little or no Greek. My source there is Olmstead's History of the Persian Empire. It was Alexander's conquest that was the main catalyst for the spread of Greek although it is obvious (Mausolus) that the process had begun.
Did the Greeks and Macedonians regard the Macedonians as Greeks? I think it depended on what was expedient at the moment. Yes, Demosthenes called the Macedonians "foreigners" but he was trying to incite the Athenians to war with Phillip. He was hardly going to refer to them as "gentlemen and brothers" at the moment. At about the same time fellow Athenian Isocrates was writing to Phillip asking him to lead a "pan-hellenic" expedition against Persia. It seems the Macedonians were greek enough for Isocrates.
Regarding the Hellenic league with Macedon as a member, you can find a number of references in Peter Green's "Alexander of Macedon" and Malcolm Errington's "History of Macedon".

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

His mother was an Epirote Princess of the Aecid (?) Dynasty of the Molossoi. She (like the other Epirotes) was considered a half-Greek Illyrian.

I had a Greek Medieval History teacher... that makes me a Greek too I suppose.

PS: The Pan-Hellenic War on Persia was a farce and everybody knew it (the Greeks made up only 5,000 of his 31,000 troop army and he sent them home during the middle of his conquests IIRC because they were an untrustworthy token force). Without either Sparta or Crete, it had no legitimacy as one. And the only reason the Greeks did not revolt once he left for Asia was that he put Macedonian garrisons in several strategic cities including Chalcis, Corinth and Sicyon.

 

[Tallanas]

I had a Greek Medieval History teacher... that makes me a Greek too I suppose.

And the only reason the Greeks did not revolt once he left for Asia was that he put Macedonian garrisons in several strategic cities including Chalcis, Corinth and Sicyon.

And of course, the excellent reason that, by not revolting, they ensured that their conqueror remained in Persia giving their oldest enemy a good kicking...

 

[Tallanas]

Sorry for the double post, but I think they merit different replies, this one slightly more serious in tone

Agreed Tallanas that a claimed descent from Herakles does nothing to prove greekness. However, that was cited more as an example of cultural identity. The example of Caesar claiming descent from Aphrodite and Aeneas is valid so far as it goes. However if Caesar had spoken Trojan, if he and his family and peers bore Trojan names, if there were no Latin inscriptions/literature remaining but only the “Trojan” language I dare say that we likely would be calling him a Trojan in a general sense as well as a Roman in a specific sense.

Citing cultural identity is fine. I have no problem acknowledging that the culture of the Greeks dominated the region. Especially linguistically. Caesar spoke Greek... Most Romans did.

I certainly agree with you that Alexander cultivated a certain "greekness" but I think you should recognise why, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he was Greek - he wasn't.

As a Macedonian King, Alexander had it all - power, wealth, an army without equal. But not the cultural heritage and prestige that the Greeks had. The Greeks were solving mathematical conundra, philosophising and building wonders fo the world whilst the Macedonians were still counting sheep and fighting hill tribes. Ruling the world as a Macedonian king implied being a barbarian despot, no better than the Great King himself, who for all his power and sophistication, was still a barbarian. Ruling the world as a "pan-hellenic" leader? Now that's a whole lot better.

Hence the Greek pretensions. This all mattered to Alexander - the hero cult of Achilles, the knowledge and sophistication of the Greek cities, the status, intellectually and politically, that went with being a Greek.

So you can say that he subscribed to Greekness, that he cultivated Greekness. But he wasn't Greek. He was Macedonian.

 

[Companiero]

Thank you all for the thoughtful replies.

When he captured Darius’s entourage after Issus, he had Darius’ family instructed in Greek, notin “Macedonian” if that ever existed. Now, can someone show evidence that Alexander personally spoke anything other than Greek?

Well, there are various historical accounts confirming moments when Alexander spoke with his generals and assosiates "in Macedonian".
Such evidence comes for example from the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus who wrote about the trial of a man named Philotas by Alexander and his generals. Alexander asked the man: "Now you'll be tried by the Macedonians? Are you going to speak in your native language?"
Philotas denied and replied:"I am being accused that I'm rejecting the native language and customs of Macedonians. Is that the way I threat the kingdom that I despise? But even before, that native language had been abandoned in the communication between the peoples, so both the conquerors and the conquered had to learn an alien foreign language."

"...sending forth a man called Xennias who was Macedonian in speech)"...in order to negotiate the Macedonian army led by Neoptolomy (321 BC) [a fragment from a papyrus by Greek historian Arrian

Ma appears to be an Anatolian goddess (temple at Amasya in central Turkey). She was not “native Macedonian”.

In order to discuss origin of cults, one has to know the history of the ancient Balkans in detail. I'm not an expert, but I have some decent information.
First, the ethnogenesis of the Macedonians is closely linked with the Brygian tribe, which on the other hand, is closely linked to other ancient Balkan peoples (Paionians, Lyncests, Mygdonians). And almost certainly the Brygians were also closely linked with the Phrygians (in Asia Minor), and it is considered that they are in fact decendants of the Brygians after they migrated from the Blakans (and the reason why Ma was found in Anatolia). All these theories show that the Brygians were in fact considered the core that participated in the ethnogenesis of many ancient Balkan tribes. All those gods names I mentioned were common throughout the territories inhabited by these tribes. So, it is not right to name them "not native Macedonian", because such kind of artifacts were found on the territory of Macedonia, and not Greece (which was naturally and culturally seperated from the tribes to the north until c. the beggining of the Bronze Age). In fact, many cults spread to Greece through Macedonia only when the connections between the two areas opened. Such were the cults of Bacchus, the Maenads, the Muses, Orpheus etc.

Going further deep, as I said and seems to be the most important aspect, is that there were no native written sources about the religion of Macedonians. All that we have comes from Greek sources which often replaced the names of the gods with the Greek ones that they most closely resembled with.
All that would lead us to conclude that Macedonians shared common roots with the Brygians, which had nothing to do with the Dorian/Achaean origin of the Greeks. Both ethnically and in the early stages (the Archaic period), culturally too.

Dion is a town name (latinized Dium).

True. It was a major Macedonian town, as well as in few writings the name of the Macedonian god, identified by the greeks as equivalent to Zeus. In fact even Zeus is not "native" Greek god, but a indo-european diety common to all Indo-europeans.

Show me evidence that Alexander worshipped, reverenced or acknowledged the gods that you mention.

Due to the political and cultural circumstances at the time, that would be impossible. The time I'm talking about was before the Macedonian gods became hellenized. And this is where the key about Macedonian ethnic and cultural background lies. If you can find cans of Coca-Cola in Algeria, that doesn't mean Algerians are Americans.

Please cite examples of the non-Greek heroes that he honored or non-Greek literature that he prized.

Please cite any non-Greek hero or non-Greek literature that you could find back then.

Regarding Macedonians as a whole, I do not agree that at this time Greek language is no evidence of "greekness" or that all of that part of the world was speaking greek.

But the point here is that we cant know to what extent Macedonian was hellenized, since there are no written sources about it. Neither we can know about the other Balkan languages that had no written language. They all used Greek in order to write.

It was Alexander's conquest that was the main catalyst for the spread of Greek although it is obvious (Mausolus) that the process had begun.

Absolutely. One cannot expect Alexander to spread Macedonian, when the language itself was "conquered" by Greek.

Some of you correctly reminded me to mention the fact that the bulk of the Macedonian army was composed of Macedonians, the commanders and generals were Macedonians only, while a substantional part of the Persian army was composed of Greeks, according to many historians of the period. At the battle of Issus, almost 30,000 Greeks fought on the side of the Persians, and the Greek cities that were already under Persian rule were the most staunch opponents of Alexander. Even more, the Macedonians were often termed by Greek and non-Greek historians alike, as barbarians or simply, Macedonians; not Greeks. There are numerous examples of this.
That trend was brought by German scientists in 19th century due to politcal circumstances, which I'm not going to elaborate into.

 

[billesarius]

From MC: "I had a Greek Medieval History teacher... that makes me a Greek too I suppose."
indeed...... to refine the thought a bit, one might think that if Alexander had a greek teacher ( 2 actually, Lysimachus and Aristotle ) that unless you know that those teachers spoke "native macedonian" it would not be a huge leap to guess that Alexander spoke greek. Or maybe it would.

"[Olympias] (like the other Epirotes) was considered a half-Greek Illyrian."
All of the greeks were "half greek" something-or-others. That does not make any of them "not greek". If so then there were no greeks at all in the classical age.

MC and Tallanas, yes valid points that pan-hellenism and greek culture were useful tools used by Alexander. I certainly don't think his "pan-hellenism" was more than that. The fact that he used pan-hellenism though is not an argument that he himself was not a hellene but simply says that he was opportunistic.

Companiero: "Please cite any non-Greek hero or non-Greek literature that you could find back then." ...then I would be working against myself

Regarding the spread of the greek language by the macedonian conquest you say: "Absolutely. One cannot expect Alexander to spread Macedonian, when the language itself was "conquered" by Greek."
Yet you cite the trial of Philotas and clearly understand that to mean there was a distinct very much alive native macedonian language.

The problem with Curtius is that he contradicts himself if macedonian is in fact an entirely different language than greek. Curtius however uses the words patrias sermo in his text and not patrias lingua . In my latin dictionary sermo means "language, diction, everyday speech". To me this leaves open the interpretations "pronunciation" or "informal expression(slang)".
The contradiction is here; Alexander accuses Philotas of not knowing or bothering to learn the native speech but asks (in the presence of the army) if he will use it as he is tried by the macedonians. His whole point is to prejudice the jury (macedonian army) against Philotas. If Alexander is speaking "macedonian" he disproves his own accusation if Philotas can answer the charge because he clearly does know "macedonian". If Alexander is speaking greek, the charge is lost on the jury because they cannot (at least not all) understand.
The contradiction disappears if Alexander is speaking the koine greek understandable to all . Philotas seems to have wanted to use koine so that his supporters would understand everything. Philotas has commanded non-macedonian troops and Alexander was using that fact with the macedonian "jury" and suggesting that Philotas had become "better than" the "hillbilly" macedonians.

 

[Companiero]

Regarding the spread of the greek language by the macedonian conquest you say: "Absolutely. One cannot expect Alexander to spread Macedonian, when the language itself was "conquered" by Greek."
Yet you cite the trial of Philotas and clearly understand that to mean there was a distinct very much alive native macedonian language.

I don't see a contradiction here. "Conquered" refering to the cultural dominance of the Greek. Much like the situation with the colonial countries that used the language of their colonizers in the official communication, both internal and external.

The problem with Curtius is that he contradicts himself if macedonian is in fact an entirely different language than greek. Curtius however uses the words patrias sermo in his text and not patrias lingua . In my latin dictionary sermo means "language, diction, everyday speech". To me this leaves open the interpretations "pronunciation" or "informal expression(slang)".

We cannot know how different Greek from Macedonian was. But the difference is there.
The context of the scene described in the parchment implies something more than "pronunciation". Xenias, who spoke Macedonian and was sent forth, was actually sent to speak with the commander of the Macedonian army. The type of mission would surely require an excellent profficiency in the language, that clearly the ordinary Greeks lacked. It was a serious situation and there was no place for "informal expression", but someone who could clearly understand with the Macedonians.

If Alexander is speaking "macedonian" he disproves his own accusation if Philotas can answer the charge because he clearly does know "macedonian". If Alexander is speaking greek, the charge is lost on the jury because they cannot (at least not all) understand.

But the source doesn't say that Philotas cant speak Macedonian. On the contrary, he knows it, but refuses to use it.

 

[Verbose]

We cannot know how different Greek from Macedonian was. But the difference is there.

Which Greek? Dorian, Ionian, Arcadian etc.? There never was a standardised Greek, and they were quite different. The Ionian of Asia Minor was used for theatre and prose until Thukydides single-handed, for patriotic reasons, decided to turn the Athenian dialect (also Ionian) into a literary language. Songs were always written in Doric Greek, including the choir-sections of the Athenians tragedies, otherwise written in the Ionian (and not even the local Athenian version).
What would be the argument for assuming that "Macedonian" wasn't just one more of these numerous forms of Greek?
And considering the nature of languages we should assume that there was a distinct linguistic border between the different kinds of Greek and surrounding languages. Differences between languages weren't always that pronounced, and they are likely to have blended into one another.

I'd say most of the Greek/Hellene's problem with whether the Macedonians were Hellenes of barbarians stemmed from the fact the the notion of a Hellene was tied to the specific polity of the city-state pólis. The Macedonian never adopted the pólis and would by definition not have been identifiable as Hellenes for that reason. The doubts about their status as "barbarians" might as well be interpreted as a recognition of the fact that the other Greek actually noticed the resemblance otherwise.

 

[billesarius]

From Companiero: "We cannot know how different Greek from Macedonian was. But the difference is there."
Yes, clearly. But what you see as "greek" I see more specifically as koine greek which was beginning to become the standard. I don't see Macedonian greek as being much further from Ionian and Dorian than they were from each other but perhaps it was. Macedon was further from the greek heart land and certainly influenced by Illyrian and Thracian. I've read that 80% of Armenian is made up of persian, russian, turkish etc load words. It is still "Armenian" because the core, everyday words are the old language.
Interesting note Verbose about the Dorian choruses. Had not heard that. There's an old movie, The Trojan Women, that is the Greek play on film with choruses and all. Not to everyone's taste I'm sure but I thought it interesting.

 

[Verbose]

Interesting note Verbose about the Dorian choruses. Had not heard that. There's an old movie, The Trojan Women, that is the Greek play on film with choruses and all. Not to everyone's taste I'm sure but I thought it interesting.

Singing was the only form of art the Spartans engaged in after the reforms of Lykourgos, and it was specifically Dorian. Unlike the Ionians the Dorians went into battle singing.
The Spartan arch-enemies the Argive (also Dorians) did the same thing. There was an incedent in a night battle at the siege of Syracuse (given "military advisors" by Sparta) when the Athenians and their Argive allies fought each other, since the Athenians couldn't tell the Argive and Spartan battle-songs apart.