History of the ancient Macedonian kingdom (split thread)

[Petros Houhoulis]

Originally Posted by Andrew

And if the Peloponnesian descent of the Macedonian Royal House sounds "strange" here are some more cases:
1) The Lynkestes Royal hoyse claimed Bakkhiad (doric,Korinthean) descent and we know that the Bakhhiads were exciled from Korinthos to Korkyra and from there to the Korinthean Colony Epidamnus (founded in 650 BC). From Epidamnus crossing south Illyria , the first Greek tribes you find are the Lynkestes and the Dexares.So again we have another trip Peloponnesus->Illyria-> Macedonia
2) Spartan king Cleomenes was proud being an Achean who governed Doric Spartans.
Herodotus (V,72):

3) In Iliad , Mycenean , Atrid Menelaus became king of Sparta after marrying Helen , the daughter of the indigenus spartan King Tyndareus ,even if Tyndareus had living sons (the Dioscurids).
4) Again in the Iliad Diomedes is the king of the Peloponesian Argos , but he's roots are from the Aetolic city Kalydon
5) An oldest myth refers that the Theban of Phoenician roots Cadmus and his wife Armonia ended being kings in the Encheleans of the lake Lichnidos/Ohrid
6) The Molossian royal family claimed "Aeolian descent" from Neoptolemus , son of Achilles and that's why called them selves "Aeakids" from Achilles grandfather Aeacus.Do be more exact the name Aeakus means literaly "from Aias" (Aias being a variation of the name Aous , thats why Parauaeans were the tribe παρά τον Αώο/Αία )and Achilles in the Iliad prays to the Dodonean Zeus.We also have two other Achean heroes named Aias (the Telamonian of salamis and the "small" one from Locrid). In Iliad's rapsody II in the Catalog of Ships Homer mentions the Aeolophon Perrhebians that dwelt Titarisus (southwest of Olympus) descending from Dodona. All this suggests to me that the Aeolians were originaly of Epeirotan descent and Neoptolemus only returned "home". The same thing can be said about the dorian Temenids (Makednia (Dorians cohabiting with the Makednoi(Herodotus 1.56)) -> Peloponnesus (Argos)-> Macedonia (Levaea in west Pieria were they found the Macedonian nomad population descending from Maketa/makeda (later named Orestis by the Orestes). I call these routs "παλινδρομήσεις" (back and forth).
7) Alcmeonids and Peisistratids were powerful families that controlled the Attic Ionians descending from the Peloponnesian Ionians (Pylos , "Nestorids")
And we know that there were Ionians in the Peloponnesus that were driven away by the Dorians (Herodotus 1.145 , Homer in Odyssey makes a single mention to the Ionian Peloponnese by saying Ἴασον Ἄργος).
8) Gelon became ruler of Syracusa , but was of Gelan (near city Gela) descend.
9) Agathokles was of Regian (Khalcidean colony Region (Reggio di Calabria) descent (his father was exiled from there) but was declared "pluripotential general of the Syracusian State" by the Doric/Korinthean Syracusians themselves.

Andrew, the story of the Temenids is not plausible because the Macedonians were not a kingdom when the story begins. They were a nomadic tribe. All of the cases that you mention speak of people claiming kingship of an already established city or state, while the account by Herodotus speaks of the nomads who founded Macedonia.

Try to imagine the picture: A noble family, pampered for generations, is expelled from its' home city. What does it do after the expulsion? It moves to Illyria, a place where no single family could venture without military protection, full of barbarians, pirates and thieves. Don't fool yourself, there are plenty of historical accounts that prove that the people of Illyria/Albania have been notorious outlaws from the beginning of history until today, and all of this simply because the land is hostile, full of mountains not suitable for farmers and other peace-loving folks.

There is no way in hell that the pampered Temenids (or the Bacchiads) would venture into that place. They wouldn't even think of it!

Of course, the Bacchiad storyline is documented, so it might have some basis. Borza has rejected both, and his reasoning makes sense. Both stories are still more likely a propaganda intended to show the superior status of the royal families towards their own subjects, and a means to "prove" to the Greeks that they were the only people who could prove their Greekness in lands full of barbarians and people claiming to be Greeks - but mostly Hellenized folks like Herodotus himself.

Of course, the Carians were not Greeks, and thus Herodotus father was not Greeks. Nevertheless, when we calculate the origins of the Macedonians, we have to take account that the people who colonized Greece arrived through Macedonia and Epirus. There is NO OTHER WAY. Later people could travel by ship, but before that they needed a method to find their way, and the only way to chart the skies and find your route in the seas is to have literacy.

This literacy resulted to accounts of the journey and detailed accounts of what city built which colony e.t.c. We have no such data for people who travelled by foot because they didn't need literacy to walk! Nevertheless, it was almost obvious to the scholars since the antiquity that the civilized Greeks who lived in cities in the south had some relation to the people of Makedon.

What created those peculiar stories of ancestry is the fact that the civilized Greeks could never accept that the near-Barbarian Macedonians could be their ancestors (despite the Dorian account that proves the opposite) because they were somewhat racists. On the other hand, the royal houses of the various Macedonian kingdoms (Borza is also wrong at suggesting that there was a single Macedonia, and a single Macedonian speech - Hammond speaks of Upper Macedonian and Lower Macedonian dialects!!!) wanted to show that they were more sophisticated than their near-Barbarian subjects.

Of course, their superiority was more related to their contacts with the more civilized Greeks of the south. Yet, the Macedonian kings want to preserve their throne against pretenders, and thus they claimed that they are destined to rule because they are descendants of "smarter, more sophisticated people" like the Greeks of the south, who were indeed smarter and more sophisticated than the common Macedonian, but not because of their blood. They were better simply because there was more personal freedom and the many countries and the many opinions within each state contributed to the well-being of the citizens of each city. This was possible only since the kings were overthrown, and the nobility since to exist. Now people had to descend to power through merit, NOT blood.

Herodotus knows this and this is why he opposes the idea that people are defined by their blood. The Athenians go even further by suggesting that the Spartans and Macedonians are not Greeks, simply because being a Greek means to be free and not to answer to a king. They are doing this even more because - as Herodotus also points out - the Athenians are NOT Hellenes but Ionians!!! The original Hellenes were the Dorians, and they are descendants of the Macedonians. The Spartans and the Athenians vied against each other for control of Greece, not just in a military level, but also with clashing ideologies: The Spartans support that they are the only Hellenes because they are the descendants of Hercules, Achilles, and the first people who used the name "Hellenes". They ridicule the Athenians who, at first, tried to create their own parallel hero against Hercules (That was Theseus, in case you didn't notice). The Athenians' response is that Greece is not about blood and the rest, but about a mentality. They suggest that all people who speak and act Greek should be allowed to be classified as Greeks, but they deem that the Spartans and the Macedonians may speak Greek, even have Hellenic origins, but they do not "act Greek"...

...And the Macedonians are caught in the middle, denied by both the Athenian and Spartan ideologies, but win their case in the ground by military means. When they rise to power, Philip and Alexander do no longer take account of ones' origin or speech or anything. They judge them according to merit, quite close to the Athenian model - this is the result of the influence of Isocrates upon Phillip, and the influence of Aristotle upon Alexander. Philip used plenty of non-Macedonians at various positions around him, including his doctor, Aristotles' father, a man who trusted more than anybody (given his frequent military injuries, the loss of his eye and the the damage in his leg that lead other people to death because they didn't have a doctor) and later Alexander also showed the same trust to his own doctor (drinking the "poison" while giving his doctor Dareius' letter!!!) and the same trust to many Greeks and Persians alike.

Of course, Alexander was a very capable man. He knew that, as a king, he could twist the facts as he liked. When he had to give battle in Granikus, his generals and priests told him that he could not do so because it would be during a sacred month when no battles were allowed. What did he do? He... extended the previous month for a few days, as long as he needed to fight at Granikus. Of course, such aberrations were quite common in antiquity, and quite often they passed as reality, simply because they got repeated from the pens of countless scholars.

Nevertheless, one has to apply criticism in his sources, and realize that the Ancient historians were not as much credible as the modern ones, and that reporting in antiquity cannot compete with the modern CNN and the likes. Even if all of the scholars agreed, some stories are too much stretched to believe. Herodotus in particular has been accused of lying too many times. Herodotus, though, makes a clear distinction between "I saw this with my eyes" (This is where you should believe him) and "I heard that" (When he speaks about mythical monsters and equally mythical ancestries). Then some other scholar copies Herodotus but forgets to mention if Herodotus actually saw what he writes about, or if it is just a rumor, and this is how a myth turns to "Truth".

Of the Ancient historians, the only one who can be trusted (still not 100%) is Thukidides. If you ask historians, they shall tell you that he makes a very meticulous study of his sources. Thukidides was the real reporter and journalist and eventually historian of antiquity. He should have been the father of History. Herodotus should be recognized as the father of Laography (folk science) but... This is just another myth after all...

[Andrew]

Ok Petro ..I stop here because I see that you've got your opinion and I've got mine.I'll add only three things:
1) You condemn Herodotus yet you use him to say that the Atheneans were barbarians (1.56 & 1.57). I'll agree with you that the Ionians were the most mixed with the pre-greek Pelasgians , but I must say that the original Ionians belonged to the proto-Greek bulk , since the Greek language is a Centum IE one (all greeks said "hekato") , but yet the Ionian dialect is the most Centum of all greek dialects (they said xyn- instead of syn-).This advanced "centumization" means that among the original IE proto-greek bulk they were initialy the more North Western located since the Centum IE languages are all located Northwest of Greece (Celts,Italians etc). And the fact that the gulf of Epidamnos was named Ionian and the see also (Ionian See) , and the fact that we have an older version of their name as Iaones (typicaly Epeirotan like Khaones) , meanwhile the "continental" protogreeks Aeolians and (the later) NW Greeks (Dorians , Makedonians etc) were located more inside towards the "tetralimnion" area (Lichnidos , 2 Prespes , Malik).The Ionians discented by ship ...so they couldn't bee nin great numbers ..that's why they mixed more with the Pelasgians and the others discended terrestrialy ..and came in great numbers.
After all we have found in Leukada Ionian tombs dating about 1800-2000 BC which is the period of the proto-Greek establishment in North Western Greece.That means that the Ionians got by ship to Leukada and later from there to Peloponnesus , Korinthean gulf , Attica etc.
2) You say that Thoukydides is more a real Historian and it is a thing that I'll agree with you . But even Thoukydides in (II,98) confirms the Temenid case:

βασιλείας δ' ἔχει καθ' αὑτά. τὴν δὲ παρὰ θάλασσαν νῦν Μακεδονίαν ᾿Αλέξανδρος ὁ Περδίκκου πατὴρ καὶ οἱ πρόγονοι αὐτοῦ, Τημενίδαι τὸ ἀρχαῖον ὄντες ἐξ ῎Αργους

. And you know pretty well that he is concord with Herodotus a very few times no ??
But we have a case were Thoykydides is naif and Herodotus no . When talking about the first naval power Thoykydides mentions Minos of Crete (a purely mythological feature no ?) , Herodotus from the other hand mentions Polykrates of Samos because as far as he knows he is the first real/"mortal" thalassokrat.
3) You said why should any Greek go to south Illyria ...I only have one serius reason ...the Damastian Gold mines ... everybody wanted them from prehistory (Encheleans , Trebeniste culture etc) to Bardylis and the Dardanians , Illlyrians , Philip II and even lothers later.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Cadmus

This is all most interesting guys!
But both Encheleans and Lyncestians were not traditional Macedonians and were not incorporated in the Macedon kingdom except for the Lyncestians but not in the initial kingdom that was..

I never said they were originally Macedonians Cadmus ...I only used their example as a foreign descent of a royal family ..the same thing with Sparta and all the others.

[Cadmus]

Hi Andrew!

What's up in Italy?

I didn't mean to prove you wrong Andrew...you are right on the issue as is Petros on some views..but it is a interesting topic nonetheless!

Besides the Lyncestians and Enchelians aswell as Dexaroi/Dessaretae were from my point of view Hellens in atleast some part of their history before becoming Illyrinized partially..

You said why should any Greek go to south Illyria ...I only have one serius reason ...the Damastian Gold mines ... everybody wanted them from prehistory (Encheleans , Trebeniste culture etc) to Bardylis and the Dardanians , Illlyrians , Philip II and even lothers later.

He have i got news for you LOL!
Those mines are most probably form the Ohrid region, and them being GOLD mines is new for me , i thought only silver was found there, but again as you could be right in conjuction with silver arterys there usually always is a gold artery present if i interpreted the geological info i studied a bit right, also there always is tin, copper mostly chrome and other minerals..

PS how's life in Ferrara nice Italian women???
Me like the Italian fiery women.....
What's it for you do you prefer blondes/brunettes/redhaids?

All the best...

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Cadmus

Hi Andrew!

What's up in Italy?

I didn't mean to prove you wrong Andrew...you are right on the issue as is Petros on some views..but it is a interesting topic nonetheless!

Besides the Lyncestians and Enchelians aswell as Dexaroi/Dessaretae were from my point of view Hellens in atleast some part of their history before becoming Illyrinized partially..



He have i got news for you LOL!
Those mines are most probably form the Ohrid region, and them being GOLD mines is new for me , i thought only silver was found there, but again as you could be right in conjuction with silver arterys there usually always is a gold artery present if i interpreted the geological info i studied a bit right, also there always is tin, copper mostly chrome and other minerals..

PS how's life in Ferrara nice Italian women???
Me like the Italian fiery women.....
What's it for you do you prefer blondes/brunettes/redhaids?

All the best...

Don't wary Mate ..you can prove me wrong when ever you want that's what the FORUM is all about ..opinion exchange ..no ??
I was only clarifing that Dexares , Encheleans etc were originaly Greeks , then got Illyrized and afterwards incorporated in Macedonia (and re-hellenized) ..after Roman domination and since the Illyrians were roman allies they partially got re-Illyrized again.
Well life here is good ..but even better in Greece I was there for the Orthodox Eastern and came back I week ago .
If I remember well (I'm not pretty sure though) in Hammond I read that when Bardylis took over the Damastian minds he cut new golden coins ...but again I'm not pretty sure.

[kostas68]

Originally Posted by Cadmus

PS how's life in Ferrara nice Italian women???
Me like the Italian fiery women.....
What's it for you do you prefer blondes/brunettes/redhaids?

O kalos o mylos ola t' alethei...

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by kostas68

O kalos o mylos ola t' alethei...

xaxaxaxaxa "opoy vriskeis fai troge !!!!" (when ever you find food taste it !!)
But I must say that I prefer light brunettes most ..they make me crazy !!
like Jimi Hendrix said .."wild thing ...you make my heart sing !!!"

[akritas]

The earliest surviving memory of the Macedonian locates them in the Pindos. Herodotos refers to it twice:
on the first occasion he informs us that the Dorian dwelt about Pindos and were then called Makedno the second he describes the Lacedaemonians, Corinthians, the Sikyonians, the Epidaurians ar Troizenians as of Dorian and Makednian stock, and their early origins to the Pindos.

Other authors knew the Dorians originally came from the Pindos specifically from that part of it known in antiquity Lakmos (its modern name in the vernacular is Ζygos). These authors refer neither to the Makednoi nor to the Makedones, but their statements accord perfectly with the tradition preserved by Herodotos.

However, critical analysis of the sources, together with a variety of evidence, leads to a slight correction of the tradition in the form in which it is preserved:
the Dorian peoples seem to have been formed about the middle of the thirteenth century B.C. in central Greece from a number of different tribes, one of which was a section of the Makednoi or Makedones that had come from Lakmos at least as early as 1400 B.C. The ancestors of the Makednoi had entered the wider area of Macedonia and Epirus at an earlier date, about 2100 B.C., along with other Proto-Greek tribes.

The surviving tradition appears to be mistaken on a second point, too:
the home of the Makednoi could not have been limited to Lakmos; they will undoubtedly also have occupied territory lying at a lower altitude. Lakmos, like the entire Pindos range, is only suitable for the summer grazing of sheep and goats and as a source of wood. From October to April shepherds are obliged to graze their flocks in the plains. It is a reasonable hypothesis that the Makednoi had winter grazing grounds not only in Epirus, but also in south-west Macedonia since it was from here that they later expanded to the east and north. They very probably succeeded in occupying all the territory abandoned by the Proto-Arkadians when they migrated to the Peloponnese about 1900 B.C. One branch of the Makednoi, known later by the name Magnetes , spread into Pieria, from where they migrated to the region around Ossa and Pelion during the century of the great population movements between 1200 and 1100 B.C. To the north of the Makednoi lived the Boiotoi. The name points to Mt. Boion in the northern Pindos, but this tribe too will have also occupied some territory in the plains. Towards the end of the Bronze Age the Boiotoi migrated to south-west Thessaly, from where they moved shortly afterwards to the land that was named after them.

The vacuum created by the departure of the Boiotoi facilitated the expansion of Greek tribes from Epirus into those areas of western Macedonia known in the first millennium B.C. as Orestis, Lynkestis and Pelagonia.
These tribes were later absorbed by the Makedones.
The remaining areas of Macedonia were oc*cupied towards the end of the Bronze Age by the Paiones, the Bottiaioi, the Eordoi, the Almopes, the Derriopes or Deuriopes and the Pelagones. Towards the end of the period, and a little later, Macedonia was penetrated by Phryges, Mygdones, Thrakes and Pelasgoi, who destroyed, displaced or subjugated the Paiones. During the following centuries all the peoples mentioned above suffered a similar fate as a result of the expansion of the Makedones from the sites they had originally occupied to the south-western ex*tremity of Macedonia, to the east, and to the north.

The above quote is from Professor and member of the Athens Academy M.B. Sakellariou in Macedonia: 4000 Years of Hellenic Civilisation, pages 46-47

[kostas68]

Originally Posted by Andrew

xaxaxaxaxa "opoy vriskeis fai troge !!!!" (when ever you find food taste it !!)
But I must say that I prefer light brunettes most ..they make me crazy !!
like Jimi Hendrix said .."wild thing ...you make my heart sing !!!"

Some times i envy the Turkish Sultans with their harems.I believe that the harems was the most important reason for the decline of Ottoman empire.If you have to worry about such <interesting matters>,you will start to neglect the other,the... troublesome ones.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by akritas

The above quote is from Professor and member of the Athens Academy M.B. Sakellariou in [url="http://www.add.gr/comp/ekdotiki/maced1.htm"][b]Macedonia: 4000 Years of Hellenic Civilisation, pages 46-47

...One branch of the Makednoi, known later by the name Magnetes , spread into Pieria, from where they migrated to the region around Ossa and Pelion during the century of the great population movements between 1200 and 1100 B.C.

Well done Akritas nice find .. !!!
About the Magnets I couldn't agree more with that ...Ημαθία is definately Aeolian greek(Magnets) , the Macedonians (NW Greeks) said Αμαθίς.