Talk:Ancient Macedonians

A matter of accuracy

I know there are frequent inaccuracies here and the effect of centuries of propaganda is inevitable but depite that it is reasonably sound. I know there was no nation of ancient Greece. What there was was an ancient-Greek-speaking network of poleis streching all across the Mediterranean. It was vastly larger than modern Greece. So, it wasn't the same at all. Different species of animal. Not a nation. The nation of course is relatively recent. The U. of Copenhagen did a 10-year flag study of the polis, which need to be brought in. So, I'm saying the ideology here is somewhat behind the study. Needs to be brought up to date. Second, overbriefness has resulted in certain inaccuracies. This great plain of lower Macedonia the article begins with didn't exist. There was no plain there. It was the Thermaic Gulf plus wetlands. The states were all squeezed between it and the mountains. I'm working on this under Emathia. And finally, the article does not make clear that "Macedonian" meant different thing at different times. The original Macedonians were around Mt Olympus. So, there is more work here if anyone dares to risk it. Oh, one thing more. Beekes is a good linguist I am sure but he tends to be something of a wild man in some of his etymologies, as when he discovers the source of all the Etruscans in the Mediterranean hiding in a section of Anatolia about the size of a county. "The slim men" indeed. Why don't we name them after their hair-do? Highlanders is much more likely.Botteville (talk)

No debate among modern historians

There is a section stating that there is ambiguity in historical texts regarding Macedonians being Greeks semi Greeks or 'barbarians'.It holds no scientific truth as the Macedonians themselves referred to non-Greeks as 'barbarians'.The sentence also lacks any stated source. Moreover there is currently no debate among the majority of modern historians regarding the ethnicity of Macedonians. Again in this sentence there is no source stated. In my opinion the following sentences:"Authors, historians, and statesmen of the ancient world often expressed ambiguous if not conflicting ideas about the ethnic identity of the Macedonians as either Greeks, semi-Greeks, or even barbarians. This has led to some debate among modern academics about the precise ethnic identity of the Macedonians, who nevertheless embraced many aspects" should be removed and replaced with a sentence starting with : " the Macedonians, who embraced many aspects of contemporaneous Greek culture such as". Knoflook101 (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Ancient Macedonians had their own ethnocentrism whereby they could look upon non-Macedonians (including Greeks) as "barbarians." Also, you are conflating the Greek author/historian (who references "barbarians") with the ancient Macedonians themselves. This is referred to as the interpretatio graeca, which even some like Ian Worthington, who believes in the "Greekness" of the ancient Macedonians, has noted. Currently no debate among modern historians? I highly disagree. See the topic that I created: "Essentially a Greek people" should be removed Historybuff4life4health (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

"Essentially an ancient Greek people" should be removed

It's overly simplistic and anachronistic to apply a modern-day label like "Greek" and apply it to a people who lived in the ancient world. What does it mean to be "Greek" in the ancient world as very notion itself fluctuated and changed throughout time? Does it mean to be of "Greek" racial stock? Does it mean to speak a "Greek" dialect? Does it mean to partake in "Greek" culture? Regardless of what we believe, the ancient Macedonians and ancient Greeks perceived themselves to be different ethnicities. I have provided sources that dispute the claim that they were "essentially a Greek people." Such a simplistic characterization is obviously politically-motivated and ahistorical. I'm providing passages where the scholar being quoted believes the ancient Macedonians to have been barbarians (i.e. non-Greeks). I can produce more evidence like this from secondary sources. It doesn't have to be an either-or proposition either. I could find many, many more scholars who simply say that the question is open to debate and without definitive answers. The number of scholars who believe the question to be unanswerable and/or open to debate plus those who feel the ancient Macedonians were barbarians far exceeds the number of sources cited to support the notion that they were "essentially an ancient Greek people." I can provide even more sources to cast doubt on the viability of the concept of such a thing as an "ancient Greek" identity.

And it's not fair to say that the question has been settled or no longer a matter of debate. According to whom? Who decides whether or not this debate has been settled? Simply asserting that "it's no longer a debate" is not an argument). Science is an ongoing discussion. Questions are never settled and always subject to inquiry and debate. They are never "settled."

I've provided the links below to stimulate discussion. These are passages that I've compiled through independent research. While some are well known, such as those from Badian, Borza, Bosworth, and Green, there are many that have been overlooked, such as Jonathan Goldstein's commentary on Maccabees). I would also argue that any scholar who has signed the infamous letter to Obama in May 2009 in an attempt to influence the political discussion about the naming dispute regarding the Republic of Macedonia (now North Macedonia) has disqualified themselves from consideration for being cited as a Wikipedia source. There's no place for sources that openly espouse a political agenda.

“The theory just mentioned takes no account of what stands first in the Hellenistic state, both in order of time and importance: the rule over non-Greek people and the non-Greek inheritance, whether from Macedon or from the East, that so decidedly helped to shape the new political creations. The most important states were ruled by Macedonians; later, there were new foundations by Hellenized Orientals and a few Greeks.” (Victor Ehrenberg, The Greek State, Barnes & Noble Inc, 1960, pg. 133)

“We have said that the Greeks themselves regarded the Hellenistic world as a mere extension of the Greek world; but that was not true of Alexander and his Macedonians. In his personal position he combined the popular kingship of Macedon and the Hegemony of Greece with the absolutism of the Achaemenids, the kings of Persia.” (Victor Ehrenberg, The Greek State, Barnes & Noble Inc, 1960, pg. 138)

“It is clear from the extant Alexander historians that the lost sources made a clear distinction between Greeks and Macedonians – ethnically, culturally, and linguistically – and this must be an accurate reflection of contemporary attitudes. Alexander himself appears to have appreciated Greek culture and to have been conscious of Macedonian cultural inferiority, as is clear from §I.2a, below.” (Heckel and Yardley, Historical Sources in Translation: Alexander the Great, Blackwell Publishing, 2004, pg. 8)

“Moreover, Macedonian and Greek were sufficiently different as late as the time of Alexander the Great as to require interpreters and cause ancient writers to note the differences. This is a matter that I dealt with in a recent essay in which I attempted to show that—whatever we wish to believe about the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians—the ancient writers who concerned themselves with the age of Alexander and shortly afterward believed that the Greeks and Macedonians were two different peoples.“ (Eugene Borza, Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedon, Publications of the Association of Ancient Historians, 1999, pg. 43)

“I have attempted to show that those who claim that the Macedonians were Greek have offered arguments in support of their views that were unconvincing, both because those arguments rest upon flimsy evidence and reasoning and because they oversimplify very complex matters of determining the ethnicity of an ancient people.”(Eugene Borza, Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedon, Publications of the Association of Ancient Historians, 1999, pg. 43)

“Later twentieth-century ethnographers have taught us to describe the processes and realities of self-ascription, and there is quite simply too little information about the Macedonians—even in the Hellenistic period—to do that, whereas contemporary external perceptions of the Macedonians from the early Hellenistic and late Classical eras seem to indicate that they were not considered to be Greek.” (Eugene Borza, Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedon, Publications of the Association of Ancient Historians, 1999, pg. 47)

“Macedonia as part of Greece: here Mr. Lewis either hasn't read the sources he quotes or is being deliberately disingenuous. Strabo, a lickspittle pro-Roman intellectual writing in the Rome of Augustus, has to deal with a Macedonia that had been a Roman province for a century and a Greece, also long subjugated, that was in the process of becoming one. Politically they came under the same aegis. Yet even so, in fr. 9, he is at pains to emphasize Macedonia's separateness from Greece. As for Alexander, what else does Mr. Lewis expect him to claim, not least when writing to Darius? The survivors of Thebes knew precisely what that assertion meant: let Mr. Lewis reread the Athenian orators to remind himself of the other side of the story. Alexander's assertion has about as much value as, say, a reminder from Leonid Brezhnev that Lithuania forms part of the USSR.“(Peter Green, “The Battle for Macedonia,” New York Review, November 5, 1981)

“No Greek, however scholarly, could hope to remain altogether impervious even if only subconsciously-to these potent political, ethnic, and emotional issues when considering the status of ancient Macedonia. Above all, there was, and still is, bound to be a strong predisposition, encouraged by some credulous but prima facie plausible ancient evidence, toward identifying Macedonia as far as possible with Greece, and not only on political grounds. Though the area contains most of Greece's heavy industry, and some of her richest farm land, it has also retained its ancient reputation for a certain “un-Greekness,” a comparative lack of culture. It will follow that Philip and, above all, Alexander, royal Macedonians par excellence, must likewise be shown to have possessed the strongest possible Hellenic antecedents and connections- despite the fact that in their day the Greeks of the city-states regarded Macedonians as alien barbarians, who after Philip's victory at Chaeronea (338) had imposed their detested rule on Greece by main force. Better to forget the reaction of the Athenian orator Demades, who on learning of Alexander's death in Babylon exclaimed: "Alexander dead? Impossible: the whole world would stink of his corpse." (Peter Green, “The Macedonian Connection,” New York Review, January 22, 1981)

“The most usual ideological abuse of history is based on anachronism rather than lies. Greek nationalism refused Macedonia even the right to its name on the grounds that all Macedonia is essentially Greek and part of a Greek nation–State, presumably ever since the father of Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia, became ruler of the Greek lands on the Balkan peninsula ... it takes a lot of courage for a Greek intellectual to say that, historically speaking, it is nonsense. There was no Greek nation–State or any other single politi- cal entity for the Greeks in the fourth century B.C; the Macedonian empire was nothing like the Greek or any other modern nation-state, and in any case it is highly probable that the ancient Greeks regarded the Macedonian rulers, as they did their later Roman rulers, as barbarians and not as Greeks, though they were doubtless too polite or cautious to say so.” (Eric Hobsbawn, “Fact, Fiction and Historical Revisionism,” New York Review of Books, reprinted in The Australian, December 8, 1993)

“In the Catalogue of women, the eponymous founder of Makedonia, Makedon, was the son of Zeus and Deukalion's daughter Thuia. This line of descent excludes him from the Hellenic genealogy and hence, by implication, the Makedonians from the ranks of Hellenism. While Makedon derives descent from the Thessalian 'first man', Deukalion, this is traced through uterine succession (the female line) and bypasses Hellen himself. Nor does the fact that Zeus is his father necessarily testify to his credentials as a bona fide Hellene: after all, Sarpedon is the son of Zeus, but he is a Lykian not a Hellene.” (Jonathan M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pg. 64)

“The position of Magnes, Makedon, Graikos and Aethlios as sons of Hellen’s sisters signals that although the Greeks did see themselves as closely related to the Magnetes, the Graikoi, the Macedonians and the Aetolians, they nevertheless regarded those tribes dwelling to their north as distinct from the Hellenes proper.”(Margalit Finkelberg, Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pg. 27–28)

“The Greeks soon invested the new sovereign of Macedon with the same authority as that granted to Philip after his victory over the city-states in 338. The Amphictyonic Council, as well as the Council of the League of Corinth (the puppet alliance of Greek states set up by Philip after that victory), acknowledged his paramount position and confirmed him as head of the federal army which, in compliance with decisions made in 337, was to lead an expedition into Asia against the king of Persia.” (Francois Chamoux, Hellenistic Civilization, Blackwell Publishing, 2002, pg. 7)

“There is no evidence whatsoever of any Macedonian claim to a Greek connection before the Persian War of 480–479 B.C. Amyntas I had long before this recognized the suzerainty of Darius I; his daughter had married an Iranian nobleman, and his son Alexander I loyally served his suzerain, continuing to profit by Persian favor and protection, as his father had done. (Ernst Badian, Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, Routledge, 2012, pg. 283)

“As regards the Macedonian nation as a whole, there was (as far as we can see) no division. They were regarded as clearly barbarian, despite the various myths that had at various times issued from the court and its Greek adherents, perhaps ever since the time of Alexander I, and demonstrably ever since the time of Perdiccas II.” (Ernst Badian, Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, Routledge, 2012, pg. 296)

“But that the feeling of a major difference (obviously, the Macedonians would not cast it in terms of ‘Greeks’ versus ‘barbarians’), of their being ‘peoples of non-kindred race,’ existed on both sides is very probable. For one thing, the language barrier would keep it alive, even though the literary language of educated Macedonians could only be Greek. That fact was as irrelevant to ordinary people (and perhaps even to those above the ordinary level) as was the Hellenic cultural polish of the Macedonian upper class that has been revealed to us in recent years.” (Ernst Badian, Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, Routledge, 2012, pg. 296)

“Above all, however, this helps to explain how, half a generation after Philip’s revival of the Macedonian king’s claim to eminent Greek descent had been accepted at Olympia and his efforts to integrate his court had been bearing fruit, Greek opponents could still call not only the Macedonian people, but the king himself, ‘barbarian.’ In this respect, nothing had changed since the days of Archelaus. The term is in fact more than once used of Philip by Demosthenes, most notably in two passages. In one, in the Third Olynthiac (3.24), he claims that a century ago ‘the king then in power in that country was the subject [of our ancestors], as a barbarian ought to be to Greeks.’ In the second, a long tirade in the Third Philippic (9.30 f.), he claims that suffering inflicted on Greeks by Greeks is at least easier to bear than that now inflicted by Philip, ‘who is not only not a Greek and has nothing to do with Greeks, but is not even a barbarian from a place it would be honorable to name—a cursed Macedonian, who comes from where it used to be impossible even to buy a decent slave.’ This, of course, is simple abuse. It may have nothing to do with historical fact, any more than the orators’ tirades against their personal enemies usually have. But as I have tried to make clear, we are not concerned with historical fact as such; we are concerned only with sentiment which is itself historical fact and must be taken seriously as such. In these tirades we find not only the Hellenic descent of the Macedonian people (which few seriously accepted) totally denied, but even that of the king. It is not even mentioned merely in order to be rejected: the rejection is taken as a matter of course. Now, the orator clearly could not do this, if his audience was likely to regard his claim as plain nonsense: it could not be said of a Theban, or even of a Thessalian. The polite acceptance of the Macedonian kings as Hellenes ruling a barbarian nation was still not totally secure: one would presumably divide over it on irrational grounds, according to party and personal sentiment—as so many of us still divide, over issues that are inherently more amenable to rational treatment. (Ernst Badian, Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, Routledge, 2012, pg. 295)

“The rebellion at the eastern extreme of the empire thus helps us document Macedonian antagonism toward Greeks. Correspondingly, rebellion at the other end documents Greek feeling about the Macedonians. Perhaps rebellion had been brewing even before. But it was in any case the immediate result of Alexander’s disappearance. Once more Athens rallied the Greeks to freedom, and once more she found many followers. The war, known to us (and to some ancient sources) as the Lamian War, was described by its protagonists as ‘the Hellenic War.’ The term speaks for itself, at least concerning the feelings of those who used it. In a wider Greek theater, where love of Greek freedom was not easily given up, and where (just as in the days of Isocrates, a generation earlier) despotism was still equated with barbarian rule, the spirit we find in Demosthenes’ oratory is thus confirmed.” (Ernst Badian, Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, Routledge, 2012, pg. 297)

“The claim that the Macedonian royal house descended from Argive Greeks is based entirely on a single event: Herodotos' conversations in Macedonia, perhaps with Alexander I himself. Because of the efforts of Herodotos and his successors, this bit of Macedonian royal propaganda was transformed into one of the most contorted foundation fables of antiquity, and recent efforts to make history of legend have produced nearly unfathomable murk. In the end, what may appear to be a rational scholarly process in sorting out and commenting upon the encrusted myths of antiquity results only in accepting some legends over others. To deny all such fables and attribute them to contemporary Macedonian propaganda may appear to be the acme of minimalism. But given the historical milieu in which these tales were spawned and then adorned, a denial of myth seems prudent. The Temenidai in Macedon must disappear from history. What is most important is not whether they founded the Macedonian royal house but that at least some Macedonian kings wanted so desperately that they should have.”(Eugene Borza, “Athenians, Macedonians, and the Origins of the Macedonian Royal House,” Makedonika, Regina Books, 1995, pgs. 118–119)

“The whole complex remains obscure and the question open, until some original Macedonian text has been found. And it is without good reason that some authors try to suggest that any scholar doubting that the Macedonians were of Greek origin is either not well informed or of ill will.” (Radoslav Katičić, Ancient Languages of the Balkans, Mouton & Co, 1976, pg. 116)

“When in the fourth century B.C. Macedonia began to play an ever increasing role in Greek affairs, Greek authors describe Mace­donians often as barbarians. Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, in the second half of the fifth century, calls Archelaus, king of Macedonia, quite explicitly a barbarian. The barbarian king of Macedonia is here contrastively opposed to the Hellenes of Thessaly, and the border on the Peneios river appears as an ethnic and linguistic one….More outspoken, of course, is Demosthenes, a contemporary of Isocrates, whose anti-Macedonian bias is well known. He asks rhetorically whether Philip is not a barbarian. He says that in former times the · kings of Macedonia were obedient to the Athe­nians as barbarians should be to Hellenes. And he calls Philip not only a barbarian, but a deadly Macedonian from a country from which before one could not buy even a decent slave. We learn also that other public speakers, too, used to call Philip a barbarian. Thus Aeschynes, a known Athenian partisan of Macedonia, in an earlier phase of his political career launched the same reproach against Philip ” (Radoslav Katičić, Ancient Languages of the Balkans, Mouton & Co, 1976, pg. 104–106)

“While Macedonians were not commonly viewed as Hellenes in the fifth and fourth centuries, a distinction was also seen by most Greeks between Macedonians and "barbarians," including those "barbaric" groups living within the Greek peninsula. Illyrians throughout antiquity were regarded as barbarians, as were Paeonians (Diod. 16. 4. 2), and most Thracians. Nowhere is the tripartite distinction between Greeks, Macedonians, and barbarians made clearer than in Isocrates' To Philip (154): "I assert that it is incumbent upon you to work for the good of the Hellenes, to reign as king over the Macedonians, and to extend your power over the greatest possible number of the barbarians." Nor was this distinction between Greeks and Macedonians altered during the reigns of Philip and Alexander, nor through the period of the Diadochi or Epigoni.” (Edward Anson, Eumenes of Cardia: A Greek Among Macedonians, Brill Academic Publishers, 2004, pg. 202)

“The more narrow genetic view of ethnicity was likewise present. Plato (Menex. 245d) has Aspasia call the Athenians the only pure Greeks, having not a drop of "barbarian" blood. Other Greeks, those apparently descended from the "Dorians,"who originally according to tradition lived in the northern Greek peninsula (Paus. 5. 1. 2; Str. 9. 4. 10), or those associated with the legendary heroes Pelops, Cadmus, or Aegyptus, she calls "naturally barbarian and only nominally Greeks." (Edward Anson, Eumenes of Cardia: A Greek Among Macedonians, Brill Academic Publishers, 2004, pg. 194)

“The generally accepted view from antiquity that Eumenes ultimately failed in the struggle to succeed to at least some part of Alexander's legacy in the main because of his "Greekness," while tempered in the works of most recent historians, is still regarded as a significant factor in Eumenes' final defeat and death. Nowhere today is August Vezin's claim that ethnicity was "entirely" responsible for Eumenes' downfall echoed, but Peter Green is typical of the more modified view. "Eumenes, as a Greek, had to throw in his lot with the kings, since unlike a blue-blooded Macedonian baron he could not, short of emulating Alexander, usurp the throne himself. . . . He was destroyed . . . by the fundamental greed-cum-xenophobia of Macedonian troops." (Edward Anson, Eumenes of Cardia: A Greek Among Macedonians, Brill Academic Publishers, 2004, pg. 191)

“What is certain is that Alexander’s mother tongue was not Greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire— but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes.” (Peter Hill, “Macedonians,” The Australian People)

“Funnily enough, northern Greece was for many years called just that, “Northern Greece”... and the name Macedonia was considered somehow suspect.... But three years ago that all changed. Now that name, Macedonia, is at the heart of a dispute that has paralyzed the foreign policy of the European Community and brought thousands of people on to the streets of Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Brussels. (Peter Hill, Canberra Times, Thursday, March 12, 1992, pg. 9)

“The origins of the Macedonians are largely unknown. The southward migrations of these peoples were probably well underway by the seventh century BC, and their settlement in what is now northern Greece and southern Yugoslavia had taken place by the next century. The literary evidence for these early years is sparse, but what there is seems to accord with archaeological opinion that the Macedonian tribes ousted the indigenous peoples of the area and established themselves at Aegae near the Thermaic Gulf where they coalesced into an identifiable nation. Scholarship has long been divided on the question of whether these people were really Greeks—certainly the Greeks at the time were reluctant to give them status as true Hellenes.” (Eric Carlton, Occupation: The Policies and Practices of Military Conquerors, Routledge, 1992, pg. 55)

“At Olympia, competitors in the games came from all Greek states, but this consciousness of unity was most typically expressed in the ban on non-Greek entries: the Macedonians, for instance, were excluded sedulously, except for their kings who might make useful allies or patron.” (R.M. Cook, The Greeks Until Alexander, pg. 72)

“The placing of the fragment has been almost universally accepted, but none the less there are serious difficulties. Pierre Briant has already pointed out that in the context of the battle with Craterus it is peculiar to find stress laid upon Xennias' competence in Macedonian. The observation makes sense only if Macedonian speakers were relatively few in Eumenes' army, but in the encounter with Craterus he had a considerable number of Macedonians, so many in fact that he was forced to take elaborate precautions to conceal the identity of his opponent and so prevent mass desertions…The papyrus fragment is an interesting supplement to Plutarch's skeletal outline. It gives a very full and vivid description, as one would expect in a work as detailed as Arrian's History ofthe Successors, but unfortunately it is not long enough to shed light on Eumenes' general strategy in 321. What it provides is more detailed and limited information. First, it affords strong corroborative evidence that, whatever its etymological roots, Macedonian was regarded in antiquity as a language separate from and alien to Greek. (A.B. Bosworth “Eumenes, Neoptolemus, and PSI XII 1284”, 1978)

“The plural ‘Chetiim’ was a good alternative name for ‘Greeks’ and was so used by the Essenes of Qumran. This is not the place to discuss the vexed problems of the use of the name in Qumran texts. Our author knew enough to distinguish Macedonians from Greeks. He could even use the foreign word "Macedonian" to describe Alexander, but he preferred to use words naturalized in Hebrew. Hence, at 8:5-9, where he averts confusion by calling the Seleucid realm ‘Asia,’ so that he can call Hellenic Greece Yawan, he uses Kittiim for ‘Macedonians.’ Perhaps for him Kittiim had only that meaning.” (Jonathan Goldstein, I Maccabees, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 1976)

“Who were the ancient Macedonians? Even before the subdivision of the Ottoman Macedonia region in 1913 of the modern era scholars were questioning, on grounds of linguistics, whether the Macedonians were Greeks, akin to Greeks, or other than Greeks. New evidence does periodically come to light, as it did in 1986, when a lead curse tablet dating from the first half of the fourth century was discovered in a grave at Pella. While the text is the most significant so far uncovered (it is the earliest and longest) and is written in a previously unknown northwest Doric Greek dialect, to call this one text conclusive evidence for the language of all Macedonians, if by “Macedonians” one means people living in Macedonia, seems untenable. Allowing that there were living in ancient Macedonia throughout the Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods people who were Greek, people who were akin to Greeks, and people who were not Greek, if one seeks historical truth about an ancient people who have left no definitive record, one may have to let go of the hope for a definitive answer. The ancient Greeks themselves differentiated between “Greeks” and “Macedonians,” and if the difference was not one of written language, then it ought to be constructive to consider what factors did differentiate the Macedonians—in the opinion of ancient Greeks.” (Carol J. King, Ancient Macedonia, Taylor and Francis, 2018)

“We can now attempt a summary reconstruction of the history of Greece from the twenty-second to the twelfth centuries B.C. The period begins with the incursion, from where we still do not know, of a warlike people possessing the horse, but of a smaller type than those we use now, and with a distinctive kind of pottery. These people establish themselves, perhaps first in central Greece and the north of the Peloponnese, and by mixing with the indigenous peoples create the Greek language, which is extended to the remainder of the mainland, except probably Macedonia.” (John Chadwick, The Mycenaean World, Cambridge University Press, 1976, pg. 4)

“Relations between Rome and Greece in the first century B.C. present many problems including the actual status of Greece during the civil wars, 48-31 B.C. It is generally assumed that after the Achaean war the states of Greece maintained their independence, but were subject to the overall supervision of the governor of Macedonia (2). When necessary the governors of Macedonia exercised their right to interfere in the affairs of the Greeks, especially when campaigning in the Balkans. In 55 B.C. Cicero had prosecuted L. Calpurnius Piso, governor of Macedonia ; one of Cicero's arguments against Piso was his excessive interference in Greece although his position had been defined by the Lex Clodia (3). Because Greece became the scene for three major confrontations between the belligerents during the civil war period the interference by Romans in Greek affairs was even further increased….That these appointments were only temporary is supported by events after Caesar's death. Firstly, when Brutus arrived in Athens there is no reference at all to any official in Greece. Although Plutarch states that Brutus sent Herostratos to win over the army commanders in Macedonia ; it has been argued that his mission did little more than announce Brutus' presence in Greece to the governor of Macedonia, Q. Hortensius. Indeed, from the date of Cicero's letter of recommendation to Acilius in January 44 B.C. to the ratification of Brutus' position in the Balkans there is no evidence for Roman officials with civil responsibility in Greece. Again the language which Cicero uses when arguing for the ratification of Brutus' position implies that Greece was thought to have a different status to that of Macedonia and Illyricum : tenet igitur res publica Macedoniam, tenet Illyricum, tuetur Graeciam (i.e. then the Republic holds Macedonia, holds Illyricum, protects Greece) and there is no recorded appointment in Greece parallel to C. Antonius' appointment in Macedonia for 43 B.C. Whatever ideas Caesar might have had for Greece it would seem that after his death Greece was not thought as being a normal province. One further point which will be discussed later is that with the exception of Buthrotum on which a special levy had been imposed Caesar does not seem to have imposed a regular form of tribute in the states of Greece (EJ Owens, “Increasing Roman Domination of Greece in the years 48–27 BC,” Latomus, pgs. 718–729)

“Culture, therefore, had nothing to do with being a ‘barbarian.’ What Greeks meant by the term was someone who did not speak Greek. Twice during his reign Alexander was said to speak in Macedonian, the first time at the trial of his general Philotas in 330 and the second time in a verbal fight with Cleitus in 328.32 Thus, the Macedonians may have been a Slavic people who came into contact with Greeks and embraced their culture. However, the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians is controversial because of the nature of the evidence, which is all Greek and so biased. Also complicating the issue is the intervention of modern politics, especially after 1991 when the “new state” of the Republic of Macedonia was formed.” (Ian Worthington, By the Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire, Oxford University Press, 2014, pg. 20)

“From the viewpoint of the Greek world, the Macedonians were just not Greeks. They didn’t have the political institutions. Their language was unintelligible. And above all, their burial customs and mores were absolutely dreadful to the Greeks.” (Kenneth Harl, “The World of Early Macedon,” The Great Courses: Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Empire, The Teaching Company)

“Even the strongest supporters of Philip and Alexander might call Phil and Alex ‘Greeks’ but they ruled essentially over a barbarian people, Macedonians, who drink their wine unmixed and we can’t understand them no matter what they say.” (Kenneth Harl, “The World of Early Macedon,” The Great Courses: Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Empire, The Teaching Company)

“In some ways, the Argead kings of Macedon should be compared to other non-Greek peoples who came under very very strong Greek influence in which their kings or dynasts (sometimes they didn’t have the title king but they ruled as monarchs or strongmen) were known as philhellenes - that is, they loved things Greek. The most telling example of that in the 4th century BC comes from Mausolus. Mausolus is the son of a local dynast in Caria (and Caria is in southwestern Turkey today). The Carians are a native Anatolian people. It is now clear that they spoke a language that goes into the Bronze Age, and they are descended from an Anatolian people from the Hittite Age in the Bronze Age. They were in close association with Greeks (particularly Greeks settled on the shores of Asia Minor). In earliest times Herodotus tells us that Greeks and Carians intermarried. The Carians used an alphabet that was similar to the Greek alphabet (modified for their language) but they were a distinct Anatolian people. Mausolus in 377 BC achieved a position of dominance in southwestern Asia Minor….Mausolus really conducted himself as a philhellene king: his court used Greek; he remodeled the shrines of Caria along Greek lines…he consults the Oracle of Delphi; he issues coins that are Greek-inspired with Greek inscriptions; he hires large numbers of Greek mercenaries; he moves his capital to Halicarnassus (the hometown of Herodotus, a Greek city); he commissions the Great Mausoleum, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world; but he remains first and foremost an Anatolian monarch. He has Greek trappings. He uses the Greek language. He uses Greek mercenaries. But there’s no question that he’s a Carian dynast. And he doubles as a satrap for the Great King of Persia….Mausolus in many ways is similar to Philip II of Macedon…That is, he is not from a Greek race. He is a monarch both in name and disposition but he comes to embrace Greek civilization, use Greek institutions, use Greek military technology and mercenaries, to make himself one of the most effective kings in the Aegean world. And that is what the kings of Macedon aspired to” (Kenneth Harl, “The World of Early Macedon,” The Great Courses: Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Empire, The Teaching Company)

“This does not exhaust the list of material, but an important fact is that there are no fully verifiable clearly Ancient Macedonian inscriptions to work with. There is a curse tablet, the katadesmos (‘spell’) of Pella, a capital of the Macedonian empire where Alexander was born. This tablet is dated to the mid 4th century and shows some Doric Greek features. However, it also has some progressive features that are characteristic of Koine Greek, the variety of Greek that emerged – via dialect mixture, dialect leveling, and the effects of significant numbers of second- language speakers of Greek – throughout the Greek-speaking world in Alexander’s empire, including Greece itself. One such form is < IME > (line 6), which apparently stands for the 1sg present form of ‘be’, what in Doric would be ἠμί ([e:mí]) and in Attic εἰμί ‘I am’ ([e:mí]); if that is the right interpretation of this problematic form,6 then the spelling of the first syllable with the letter iota (< Ι >) suggests a pronunciation that is more in line with what is found in the later Koine (hence the designation of the feature as “progressive”). Moreover, the <Ε > in the second syllable is reminiscent of the Post-Classical middle voice inflection of ‘be’, 1sg εἶμαι ([i:mε]) versus active inflection seen in Classical εἰμί ([e:mí])), again suggestive of a Koine form. Thus Koine influence cannot be completely ruled out in this inscription, so that it might not fully reflect the state of the language of the Macedonians prior to the adoption of Attic Greek during Philip’s rule. Some scholars, e.g. Masson (2003) among others, have argued that the Doric character of the katadesmos shows that a Doric Greek dialect was spoken in Macedonia, and this may well be right. However, such a finding does not necessarily mean that that Doric Greek dialect was the Ancient Macedonian language (a position alluded to in Engels 2010: 94-95). That is, it would appear that the katadesmos does not conclusively reveal anything about Ancient Macedonian, as opposed to giving information on the extent to which some variety of Ancient Greek was in use in 4th-century BC Macedonia. The same can be said about studies based on Greek inscriptions from the territory of the Ancient Macedonians, such as Hatzopoulos 1987, 2000, 2006, 2007, Panayotou 1993, Crespo 2012, and Méndez Dosuna 2012; that is, it is not the case that they necessarily reflect the Ancient Macedonian language and culture that some ancients, e.g. Demosthenes, referred to as non-Greek, but rather give information on the Greek of the region.” (Brian D. Joseph, “What’s in a Name? Historical Linguistics and the Macedonia Name Issue,” Language, history, ideology: The use and misuse of historical-comparative linguistics, Oxford University Press, 2022)

“Thus the accounts assessed here of Hatzidakis and of Babiniotis are problematic and seem to misapply historical linguistic methods in service of an assumption of a particular model of relatedness. Taking the Comparative Method seriously and using Occam’s Razor as the basis for making decisions about the paths of development, and working with the data concerning PIE *bh dh gh, one inevitably is led to the conclusion that the type of relationship modeled in (3) above is dispreferred and counter-indicated; Ancient Macedonian seems to have undergone a change that none of the Greek dialects (in the standard sense) did, and they underwent a change that Ancient Macedonian did not. Nonetheless, repeatedly, Greek scholars have generally opted precisely for (3), assuming a particular conclusion, it would seem, and seeing which scenario fits that conclusion rather than vice versa. Why do they do so? Even though one would hope that the accounts would reflect a sober scientific basis, it seems difficult to ignore the ideological angle here; that is, it appears that historical linguistic methodology has been bent in service of a political viewpoint, namely aiming to justify a conclusion that the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks and therefore that only the Greeks have a right to the name “Macedonian”. (Brian D. Joseph, “What’s in a Name? Historical Linguistics and the Macedonia Name Issue,” Language, history, ideology: The use and misuse of historical-comparative linguistics, Oxford University Press, 2022)

“The recent discovery of a 'Macedonian' malediction inscrip­tion on the lead table from the 4th cent. B C found in Pella (Dubois 1995; Hajnal 2003, 123-24) represents no proof, it is simply written in Greek with numerous Doracisms. Some vacillations in vocalism could perhaps be interpreted as an influence of Macedonian, but it is all. There are no lexical Macedonisms. And so the only sources of our knowledge of the ancient Macedonian are the glosses of the antique lexicographers and onomastics.“ (Václav Blažek, “Paleo-Balkanian languages I : Hellenic languages,” Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity. N, Řada klasická. 2005, vol. 54, iss. N10, pp. [15]-33)

“Even Polybius was mistaken (like many moderns) if he thought that the war did reconcile the Greeks to Macedonian hegemony. Panhellenism derived its true force from the sense that all Greeks had certain characteristics in common which distinguished them from barbarians (Herodotus viii 144). But not the least of these characteristics was attachment to a free, independent city state. The political unity of the Greek 'nation' would involve the sacrifice of an element essential to Greekness. This was one of the rocks on which the attempts had foundered which Greek cities, Athens and Sparta, had made to create larger political units. But the Macedonians were not even Greek: they were as barbarian in Greek eyes as the Persians. In Philip lifetime it had still been possible to style the Persian king 'the common enemy of the Greeks' (Demosthenes xiv 3), but such conventional language, for a century past, had not prevented Greek cities seeking aid from him, and now it was evident that the true threat to Greek liberty came from Macedon” (P.A. Brunt, Introduction to the translation of Arrian (Anabasis of Alexander), Loeb Classical Library, London, 1999)

“The loyalest of all the successors was Eumenes of Cardia, not a Macedonian but a Greek, which meant that even his first-rate generalship could not gain him the continued support of Macedonian soldiery." (Michael Grant, From Alexander to Cleopatra and the Hellenistic World, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1982, pg. 101)

"In 334 BC, at the head of 40,000 Macedonian and Greek troops, he (Alexander) crossed the Hellespont (Dardanelles) and confronted the Persian advanced forces on the river Granicus (Can Cayi), winning a victory which enabled him to conquer western and southern Asia Minor." (Michael Grant, From Alexander to Cleopatra and the Hellenistic World, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1982, pg. 1)

"Philip II of Macedonia (359-336), who made his country into a major power, virtually controlling the mainland Greek city-states, intended to lead his and their forces against the two-centuries-old Persian (Achaemenid) empire, which ruled over huge territories extending from the Aegean to Egypt and central Asia. Philip's motives were mixed: revenge for the Persian invasion of Macedonia and Greece in the previous century, annoyance because the contemporary Persians had at times aided the king's own Greek opponents, a desire to wipe out the only large-scale potential enemy to the Macedonians that was still in existence - and pure lust for expansion."(Michael Grant, From Alexander to Cleopatra and the Hellenistic World, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1982, pg. 1)

"Even then this watchword of "liberty" serves solely to promote his (Demosthenes' foreign policy; but by that time it has really become an essential factor in his envisagement of the world about him, in which Greece and Macedonia are polar opposites, irreconcilable morally, spiritually, intellectually." (Werner Jaeger, Demosthenes: Der Staatsmann und sein Werden,Walter de Gruyter, 1963, pg. 93–94)

"It is most unlikely that the Greeks of Asia were incorporated in the Corinthian League. This is an issue which has been endlessly debated with surprising intensity, but arguments inevitably founders on the lack of evidence. That silence does have some weight. If the Greek cities had been involved in the League with its symmachical obligations, it is remarkable that there is never any reference to alliance or even to a formal treaty. As we have seen repeatedly, Alexander dealt with them as a victorious despot not as the executive head of an expanding League….As he continued east, the Greeks receded into obscurity and there is virtually no record of them." (A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pgs. 255–256)

"There was also the question of loyalty. Alexander might well have been reluctant to rely on men recently vanquished at Chaeronea to face the Hellenic mercenaries in Persian service. It was too much kin against kin, and his Greek allies naturally had less stomach for the task than his native Macedonians." (A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pgs. 264)

“It is true that most of the factual observations in the letter [to Obama] are correct. But it is equally true that (a) the text is one-sided and (b) its argumentative logic is often weak. As for (a), it would have been only fair to state more clearly how much of our knowledge about the ancient Macedonian kings’ “Greekness” we owe to the fact that, at least for propagandistic reasons, it could be subject to doubts in a way that would have been unthinkable in the case of, say, a Spartan king. The internet documentation which is referred to in the letter may be right when it sees nothing but “a personal grudge” behind Demosthenes’ calling Philip II a “barbarian,” but to cite Herodotus 5.22 as conclusive evidence that Alexander the Great was “thoroughly and indisputably Greek” is seriously misleading, since Herodotus’ statement “I happen to know that [the forefathers of Alexander] are Greek” is triggered precisely by the existence of a dispute over the matter, long before the age of Demosthenes. As for (b), the question “Why was Greek the lingua franca all over Alexander’s empire if he was a ‘Macedonian’?” cannot be adequately answered with the words “[Because] Alexander the Great was Greek,” given that we have numerous examples of ancient empires in which the lingua franca was not the language of the ruler. Nor can the presence of Heracles’ head on Macedonian coins or Euripides’ stay at the Macedonian court prove anything more than that the Macedonian kings were ready to embrace Greek traditions and Greek culture” (Andreas Willi, “Whose is Macedonia, Whose is Alexander?” The Classical Journal, Vol. 105, No. 1, Octoboer-November 2009, pgs. 59–64)

"The infantry from the allied Greek states is more problematic. They formed a contingent numerically strong, 7,000 of them crossing the Hellespont in 334, and they were predominantly heavy-armed hoplites. But once in Asia they are mainly notable for their absence. There is no explicit record of them in any of the major battles. At Guagamela we may infer that they provided most of the men for the reserve phalanx (Arr. III.12.1), but in the other engagements there is no room for them. They are only mentioned as participants in subsidiary campaigns, usually under Parmenio's command (in the Troad, at the Amanid Gates, in Phrygia, and in the march on Persis), and they never appear in the entourage of Alexander." (A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pgs. 264)

“About the Macedonian army: "The turning point in the evolution of Alexander's army appears to have been the year 330. Until then the Macedonian component was progressively reinforced, reaching peaks before Issus and after the arrival of Amyntas' great contingent late in 331. Alexander then thought it safe to divest himself of non Macedonian troops. The forces from the Corinthean League, [the Greek] infantry and cavalry, were demobilized from Ecbetana in the spring of 330; [Arr. III.19.6-7; Plut. Al. 42.5; Diod. XVII.74.3-4; Curt. VI.2.17] even the [Greek] Thessalian cavalry who re-enlisted were dismissed at the Oxus last than a year later (Arr. III.29.5) Alexander now relied on the Macedonian nucleus for front-line work and the mercenaries for support function."(A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pgs. 271)

“So the kingdom of Macedon is then part of the wider Greek world. It’s heavily influenced by Greek civilization. But it’s still technically not really Greece.” (Kenneth Harl, “The World of Early Macedon,” The Great Courses: Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Empire, The Teaching Company) Historybuff4life4health (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)