Whenever the issue of ancient Macedonian greekness arises, i notice the same contradiction over and over. Until now as we all know all the archaeological inscriptions found and mostly Pella's curse tablet of 4th cent. BC, which is generally believed to be the oldest ancient 'Macedonian' text we have, are proving that Macedonians spoke a dialect related to North-West Greek, and this is a something the entirety of the scientific community agrees on.

Now, if archaeologists discover eg. an inscription written in a different language, and its older than the existing ones, this is obviously evidence that Macedonia had a language/dialect which was not greek.

But if they dont, as they havent found all these decades, this is only taken as evidence, that ancient Macedonia was simply 'Hellenized'.

In other words, according to what people claim, if they find archaeological discoveries, older than the existing in a different language that's proof Macedonia wasnt greek and if they dont, its proof Macedonia was 'hellenized' therefore it wasnt greek again.

Same contradiction exists with other arguments i read every now and then about Alexander declaring in every chance he was given that he was greek. The explanation of some is usually that Alexander was doing "propaganda".

All these examples, mean exactly, nothing at all could be accepted as evidence that Macedonians were of greek origin since only evidence that they were not is counted.

It is logical that in order to perform a genuine discussion of a theory people must permit the possibility of evidence that would count against it. If you do not, the discussion cannot be genuine or constructive, because a discussion that is run with the presumption that nothing could count as a failure of a point is no real discussion at all, but rather its a joke.

Beware of the above guys, next time anyone will use the "Hellenization" argument against you. ;)

That is good retoric ;)

In spite of the political turbulence and chaos of the 4rth BC, Hellas was poised on its most triumphant period: the Hellenistic age. The word, Hellenistic(founder of this was the German Goustav Droysen), is derived from the word, Hellene, which was the Greek word for the Greeks. The Hellenistic age was the "age of the Greeks; during this time, Greek culture and power extended itself across the known world.

While the classical age of Greece produced great literature, poetry, philosophy, drama, and art, the Hellenistic age "hellenized" the world. At the root of Hellenism were the conquests of Philip of Macedon and his son, Alexander. However, the Macedonians did more than control territory; they actively exported Greek culture: politics, law, literature, philosophy, religion, and art. This was a new idea, exporting culture, and more than anything else this exporting of culture would deeply influence all the civilizations and cultures that would later erupt from this soil: the Romans, the Christians, the Jewish diaspora, and Islam.

Macedon all during the age of the Hellenic city-states was an anomaly: it was a Hellenic kingdom. Located north-east of the Greek mainland and northwest of Asia Minor, Macedon was firmly entrenched on the European continent. The Macedonians were the Greeks who had to contend, then, with all the European tribes, many of which were war-like. So the Macedonians served as a kind of buffer for the Greeks, as the faithful Greeks who stood between the tribal Europeans and the Greek city-states. For all that, the Macedonians were deeply unappreciated by their fellow Greeks; they were looked on as no better than barbarians themselves, particularly since they had never developed or adopted the polis.

The Macedonians were ruled by a king, much like the Mycenean kings. The king came to power through inheritance, but first had to be approved by the army. Beneath the king was an aristocracy of nobles who had a limited amount of power; like all monarchies that shared power with an aristocracy, the balance of power frequently shifted from the king to the nobles and back again. Into this situation, at the peak of the political chaos roiling the Greek world to the south, stepped a powerful king who unified the country of Macedon and set his sights on conquering the whole of the Greek world: Philip of Macedon.

Despite the constant conflict, the Hellenistic world was an incredibly prosperous one. Alexander and his successors had liberated an immense amount of wealth from the Persian empire, and with this new wealth in circulation the standard of living rose dramatically. Each of the empires embarked on building projects, on scholarship, on patronage of the arts, and on literature and philosophy. The Ptolemies built an enormous library in their capital city of Alexandria, and sponsored the translation of a host of religious and literary works into Greek.

This period really marked the first international culture in western, middle eastern, and north African history.

The Greeks imported their culture: political theory, philosophy, art, and literature all over the known civilized world. This culture would greatly alter the culture and religion of the Mediterannean. But the flow of culture worked in the opposite direction as well; non-Greek ideas and non-Greeks flowed into Greece (and Italy). They took with them their religions, their philosophies, science, and culture; in this environment, eastern religions in particular began to take hold in the Greek city-states both in the east and in Greece. Among these religions was Zoroastrianism and Mithraism; in later years, this international environment would provide the means for the spread of another eastern religion, Christianity.


This process of the "hellenization" ("making Greek") of the world took place largely in the urban centers the Greeks began to zealously build. While the Greeks had for a long time believed that monarchy was a sign of barbarity, they had to come to terms with the reality of their new form of government. So they compromised. While they accepted the monarchy, the set about building somewhat independent poleis that had the structure of the polis without its political independence. The growth of these cities provoked massive migrations from the Greek mainland, as Greeks settled in these new, far-flung poleis to assume lucrative positions in the military and administration.

Spread from Italy to India, from Macedonia to Egypt, Greek culture was the most significant of its times. The mighty empires of the Greeks hung onto this vast amount of territory for almost three centuries. Slowly, however, a new power was rising in the west, steadily building its own, accidental empire. By the time of Christ, the great Greek empires of the Hellenistic world had been replaced and unified once more into a single empire under the control of an Italian people, the Romans.

Whenever the issue of ancient Macedonian greekness arises, i notice the same contradiction over and over. Until now as we all know all the archaeological inscriptions found and mostly Pella's curse tablet of 4th cent. BC, which is the only ancient 'Macedonian' text we have, are proving that Macedonians spoke a dialect related to North-West Greek, and this is a something the entirety of the scientific community agrees on.
)

Correction: According to Professor Ivo Hajnal (University of Innsbruck) there exist at least 2 macedonian texts. One is the Pella curse tablet (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/oi?ikey=153368) and the other one is another tablet found in Arethousa in 1997. The Arethousa tablet however took some damage trought the ages. Epigraphical Database: SEG 47:885 (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/oi?ikey=153618)

Peter Green, Badian, Borza e.t.c. never had the ability to ANSWER in
simples questions or doubts. These doubts can be repudiated by the following remarks:

It is difficult to believe that, at that time, a Greek royal household was in a position to conquer and rule over an alien people which spoke a different language, while surrounded by a local military aristocracy-also speaking a different language-which never desired to remove the foreign ruler, It is not only nalve to accept such an idea, it would also compel us to accept a fact for which one could not easily supply an analogy from some other country.
Even if we do accept this rather improbable fact, what should have happened as a natural consequence would have been the linguistic assimilation of the Greek royal household by its subjects, and never the reverse. What always happens in the history of the nations is the linguistic absorption of the foreign rulers by the local people.Even when the rulers comprise an entire nation , it is sufficient for them to be less in number.
Even if the Macedonian kings did impose Greek on their subjects as a foreign language, it would have been impossible for the people to learn it so quickly, and not to preserve ,their own language side by side with it, which, as we know today, always happens in such cases, and impossible also for such a thing to escape the attention of Titus Livy, the Roman historian, who mentions that in the 3rd century B.C. the Macedonians spoke the same language as the (Greek) Aetolians and AcarnaniansThese observations very much discredit any suspicion that the Greek kings of Macedonia could have made Greek speakers of a foreign people at such an early period, when there existed neither schools, nor printing, nor church. What would be able to dispose conclusively of this idea would be nothing other than a text written in the ancient Macedonian dialect-i.e. the dialect which the Macedonians spoke before they supposedly became Greek speakers, but unfortunately this does not exist. </SPAN>

All the ancient inscriptions from the depths of the Macedonian earth which have come to light under the archaeologists trowel belong to the era when the Macedonian kings had already made Attic the official dialect of their nation. To date, it has not been possible to find anywhere an inscription, even of one single phrase, written before the 5th century B.C.; that is to say, before the time when the Macedonians supposedly became speakers of Greek.

How are we to explain this?

It is entirely improbable that the Macedonians did not write in the 6th century B.C., since the Greek script was by then already known to peoples further to the north of them. it her, therefore, the old Macedonian inscriptions were all carved onto some perishable material and have disappeared without trace in the passage of time; or we must keep hoping that somewhere, they too await the archaeological pickaxe or the farmer's plough to drag them into the light of day.



MACEDONIANS had only GREEK names and spread GREEK civilization ONLY as I said in my previous post.

Is that Hellenization ?

if yes I challenge to ANYONE to show me any NOT GREEK that spread from
the MACEDONIANS ?

Correction: According to Professor Ivo Hajnal (University of Innsbruck) there exist at least 2 macedonian texts. One is the Pella curse tablet (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/oi?ikey=153368) and the other one is another tablet found in Arethousa in 1997. The Arethousa tablet however took some damage trought the ages. Epigraphical Database: SEG 47:885 (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/oi?ikey=153618)

Add now the Derveni papyrus. It is not pure macedonian but it is mixed with Attic. When Pella katadesmos was found the linguists agreed that more than one finding is needed to hammer the pre-attic language. Nowadays we have 3 and that is why ancient macedonian received an iso code and was classified as ancient Greek.

Generally, if the same logic used by some, was applied to a mathematical problem, it would have never been accepted. Why do then some people in the history community, which is a part of the scientific community accept such statements?

Generally, if the same logic used by some, was applied to a mathematical problem, it would have never been accepted. Why do then some people in the history community, which is a part of the scientific community accept such statements?

Because of the benefit of the doubt.

Because of the benefit of the doubt.

Correct. The "Homer" was a woman theory and other controversial theories gave publicity to people that hadn't received it before.

But as an engineer/mathematician that is scientifically unacceptable :)

A nice approach of correct represantation of reality is the following story:

1 matematician, 1 biologist and 1 filosopher are crossing Brittain by train. They see a black sheep somewhere.

The Biologist says: The ships in this area of Brittain are black.
The Filosopher says: "Wrong, the sheep in this part of Brittain are black in the one side. (Because the men never saw the other side)
The Mathematician says: You're both wrong! In this part of Brittain there is at least ONE sheep that is black at least in one of its sides.

LOL, Flipper, good example.

Correction: According to Professor Ivo Hajnal (University of Innsbruck) there exist at least 2 macedonian texts. One is the Pella curse tablet (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/oi?ikey=153368) and the other one is another tablet found in Arethousa in 1997. The Arethousa tablet however took some damage trought the ages. Epigraphical Database: SEG 47:885 (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/oi?ikey=153618)

That was supposed to be 'oldest' and i wrote by mistake 'only', as it seems anyway from the context. However Pella Katadesmos is generally believed to be the oldest. In reality this possibly is not the case. There is for example Stele of Xanthos (http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/archeological-artifactual-macedonian-history/1513-earliest-surviving-inscription-macedonia-greek.html) dating from the end of 5th c. BC.
More about it here (http://abnet.agrino.org/htmls/D/D009.html)

In a sense we could state Pella Katadesmos is the only full dialectical text in ancient Macedonian. Arethousa which is rather mutilated text, concerns judicial matters and only a few words can be easily identified ie. katagrafo.

Here is an exhange of thoughts i had elsewhere. Thought to paste them here.

Prolemy wrote:

From my researches till now i have found the following:

1. Pella Katadesmos

Epigraphical Database: SEG 43:434 (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/oi?ikey=153368)

This is *widely* believed to be the oldest one and it is *supposedly* written in a north-west greek dialect (?) having a few peculiarities but akin to the dialect of Epirotes.

2. The Arethousa tablet

Epigraphical Database: SEG 47:885 (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/oi?ikey=153618)

Unfortunately it seems to be damaged through ages and only a few words can be easily recognised ie "καταγράφω".It is considered as written in ancient Macedonian dialect by some prof. but without being a linguist, i am a little skeptic over this issue, based solely on the region's history. Arethousa was located in Mygdonia and it was for a long time independent from Macedonia, plus a member of the second Athenian naval league. It could possibly be in Attic. The limited number of words found on the text cant be too helpful.

3. Stele of Xanthos

Ç ãëþóóá ôùÃ* áñ÷áßùÃ* ÌáêåäüÃ*ùÃ* - Ã�Ã�á óôïé÷åßá áðü ôçÃ* Ã�Ã�ëëá (http://abnet.agrino.org/htmls/D/D009.html)

Akamates seems to support its the oldest inscription in ancient Macedonian but contrary to Pella Katadesmos which was a fully dialectic text, here we have only a few good names of Makedones.

4. Phiale of Megara

Lastly there is also the phiale of Megara, we have discussed a little about it in previous posts but i havent found any full references about it anywhere in books, except of Hammond's "History of Macedonia".



This was written by prof. Kapetanopoulos in response to my post above so i copy it here.


Hello, In reality there are no ancient texts makedonisti/Macedonian dialect, and Akamates sums this up well [with some other isolated names dating earlier, from Aiane, for example]. There is, of course, the Pella katadesmos with its language peculiarities which are identifiable as Makedonian dialect. The earliest epigraphical evidence from Makedonia consists only of names, but the names of this early period can reveal something about the Makedones in this instance. Names’ etymology, type, formation, endings/suffixes, etc. [the names are written naturally in the Greek alphabet]. And where makedonisti is mentioned in the ancient sources, no specimen is given illustrating makedonisti [as it is usually done with lakonisti].
In any case from the available evidence the Makedones were Greek speakers, and this is best illustrated of how hard it becomes to distinguish who is Greek and who is Makedon, unless so stated or the name implies a certain origin.

The Arethousa inscription [No. 2] simply indicates the language used in the area, and it has been called Makedonian because Mygdonia had become a part of Makedonia [this appears to be the explanation here].

Some inscriptions of 4th-3rd c. BC

http://dmc.ohiolink.edu/MDS/Olink-MDS1/Olink-MDS1_dir_106/Struck_MDAI_27_+n1735373.tif.1085145590-5541-28414-118336-344-1983012051?cell=600&qlt=90&cvt=jpeg

Struck, A. MDAI(A) 27 (1902) 311, no. 17 - Funerary base with elegiac couplet, Macedonia - Pella, Date: 4th century BC, Struck, A. "Inschriften aus Makedonien," MDAI(A) 27 (1902) 305-320; SEG 24.541; Papakonstantinou-Diamantoupou, D. Pella I. (Athens1971) 139, no. 212


http://dmc.ohiolink.edu/MDS/Foreign_Language1/Olink-Foreign_Language1_dir_2/ekm498.tif.1040057404-18326-2724-562500-750-1983012051?cell=600&qlt=90&cvt=jpeg

EKM I 498 - Funerary monument with relief
4th century BC (?) -Beroea
Center for Epigraphical and Palaeographical Studies

http://dmc.ohiolink.edu/MDS/Olink-MDS1/Olink-MDS1_dir_106/Demitsas_12935381.tif.1085172372-8892-22323-32400-180-1983012051?cell=600&qlt=90&cvt=jpeg

Macedonia - Pella Date: End of 4th century BC, Reference: Demitsas, M.G. He Makedonia. (Athens 1896) no. 129; Papakonstantinou-Diamantoupou, D. Pella I. (Athens 1971) 138, no. 210; CIG 1997b.

http://dmc.ohiolink.edu/MDS/Olink-MDS1/Olink-MDS1_dir_107/Cormack_ABSA_39_n535413.tif.1085426008-27244-883-938961-969-1983012051?cell=600&qlt=90&cvt=jpeg

Cormack, J.M.R. ABSA 39 (1938-1939), 95, no. 5 - Dedication with relief
3rd century BC

One of the best collections about inscriptions of Macedonia - photos included (http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/epigraphy/cormack.html)

As Alexander swept across the known world, he founded Greek cities which helped to spread Hellenistic ideas throughout the world. The most important of these cities was Alexandria in Egypt. After his death his successor in Egypt, Ptolemy I, made Alexandria his capital. As a result it became one of the Hellenistic periods major centers of culture and learning. Of particular importance for our investigation of the evolution of western society was that the population of Alexandria included a large contingent of diaspora Jews. Diaspora Jews are the descendants of those who were driven out of Israel. Though by this time they were heavily Hellenized, they yet maintained a loyalty to their homeland and their religion. These Jewish citizens of Alexandria spoke and wrote in Greek. They translated the ancient Jewish books into Greek and formed the Greek bible called the Septaugent. The term is derived from the method of determining the validity of the translations. They were translated by a committee of seventy scholars who had to agree on the translations.

Greek philosophy was debated in the market places, became part of the everyday language of the Greek people. The pooling of religious and philosophical ideas that the Hellenistic era is noted for is now called Syncretism. The lack of a single overriding cultural structure led to an eclectic approach to both religion and philosophy. The Greek Gods took on Roman names. The Romans adopted Greek philosophy. The Stoics (http://www.n4bz.org/BIB1.htm#Grant) called themselves "citizens of the world."
The Romans were a far more practical people than the Greeks, and more skilled at governing. Stoicism became the strongest force in Roman life. The two best known Roman Stoic writers were Epictetus, a slave, and Marcus Aurelius, an Emperor. Perhaps we could best get a feel for their attitudes by reading their words directly for once truth becomes of secondary importance to living then it is feelings and not logical order which tell us the real meaning of a culture.

etsi eitan ...

Those who believe that Macedonians where barbarians that got Hellenized have ever considered that in their vast maggiority were nomadic goatherds up in the mountains in constant movement...Do you think that it is easy to find them , follow them and instruct them the greek language ?? Even if Philip created cities with schools ...do you think that all these goatherds abbandoned at once the goats and the mountains and went to the cities to ricieve a "foreign" education like greek just because Philip said so???
I think that this process of "Hellenization" is realy a process of MODERNIZATION that caused the transition from an archaic-greek nomadic society in a classical-greek urbanized society !!
Didn't the same thing happened with the Aetolians ??? They were defined by Thoukydides "uncivilized with an incomprehensible language" and in the 3rd century BC they had one of the most powerful "koina" .

I don't know why I bother, but what the heck.

Sorry to spoil the party here gentleman, but we have ancient historians referring to the fact that the Macedonians spoke an indigenous language, different from Koine. Quintus Curtius Rufus gives an indication of this when he refers to the trial of Philotas:

Alexander speaks: "The Macedonians are going to judge your case," he said. "Please state whether you will use your native language before them."

Philotas: "Besides the Macedonians, there are many present who, I think, will find what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yourself have been using, your purpose, I believe, being only to enable more people to understand you."

Then the king said: "Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language." [p.138]

This is one of the more noted examples and illustrates the hole that exists in the argument " Ancient Macedonians only spoke Koine".

I don't know why I bother, but what the heck.

Sorry to spoil the party here gentleman, but we have ancient historians referring to the fact that the Macedonians spoke an indigenous language, different from Koine. Quintus Curtius Rufus gives an indication of this when he refers to the trial of Philotas:
Alexander speaks: "The Macedonians are going to judge your case," he said. "Please state whether you will use your native language before them."

Philotas: "Besides the Macedonians, there are many present who, I think, will find what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yourself have been using, your purpose, I believe, being only to enable more people to understand you."

Then the king said: "Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language." [p.138]



This is one of the more noted examples and illustrates the hole that exists in the argument " Ancient Macedonians only spoke Koine".

I already answered you well !!!!

In a panhellenic army ..it was easier for all greeks to speak in Koine ...and their dialect amongst them !!!!

All the afternoon Me , kzk842 , and Kostas68 were speaking "Modern macedonian dialect" ...do you think most of our phrases were easy to understand by other greeks???

BTW ...keep bringing your proves ....in that way we'll have work to do !!!

Find me a greek outside my little region who can understand me saying "πραγανίζω το ψωμί" instead of "φρυγανίζω το ψωμί" (toasting the bread)

"εχ σσάμ μέσα" ..instead of "έχει σουσάμι μέσα" (there is sesamon inside) ...most greeks understand it as "εχυσάμε μέσα" ("we have spilled inside")...and so it's like an anekdote :clap2::clapping::clap2:

I don't know why I bother, but what the heck.

Sorry to spoil the party here gentleman, but we have ancient historians referring to the fact that the Macedonians spoke an indigenous language, different from Koine. Quintus Curtius Rufus gives an indication of this when he refers to the trial of Philotas:



This is one of the more noted examples and illustrates the hole that exists in the argument " Ancient Macedonians only spoke Koine".

Read here:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/415923/message/1119736553/Filotas%26amp%3B%238217%3B+trial

I don't know why I bother, but what the heck.

Sorry to spoil the party here gentleman, but we have ancient historians referring to the fact that the Macedonians spoke an indigenous language, different from Koine. Quintus Curtius Rufus gives an indication of this when he refers to the trial of Philotas:



This is one of the more noted examples and illustrates the hole that exists in the argument " Ancient Macedonians only spoke Koine".

Relax,i know its hard for you to understand it but Pellas katadesmos and a few other texts that you can see in post above are NOT IN KOINE GREEK,they are in a dialect of Greek that is founded only in Macedonia.
As all other Greek tribes Macedonians spoke their dialect (Macedonian) and in common(koine=common in ancient and modern Greek) language of the all Greeks,there was also other dialects among the Greek tribes as Arcado-Cypriot,Ionian,Aiolic etc.

If you ask could other Greek tribes understand it?
Possible no,a Cypriot or a Athenian was not able to understand 100% the dialects of each other even though they used other versions of the same words,but this is not something strange for Greeks cause even today a Athenian or a Macedonian is not able to understand a Pontic Greek(evolution of Ionian dialect) or a Cypriot (evolution of the Arcado-Cypriot dialect).

For the scientific community there is no doubt that ancient Macedonians spoke a language that was of Greek stock simply cause there are findings in koine and in Macedonian dialect and nothing more.

Thucydides admits in that he can't understand the dialect of the Aetolians ("Aetolians ... with an unintelligible language") ....and note that the Roman Historian Titus Livius said in (31.29) that:
"Aetolas , Acarnanas , Macedonas , eiusdem linguae homines" =
= "A,A,M , [I]men of the same language" !!!

Do you understand why koine was much more easier to understand ????

I don't know why I bother, but what the heck.

Sorry to spoil the party here gentleman, but we have ancient historians referring to the fact that the Macedonians spoke an indigenous language, different from Koine. Quintus Curtius Rufus gives an indication of this when he refers to the trial of Philotas:



This is one of the more noted examples and illustrates the hole that exists in the argument " Ancient Macedonians only spoke Koine".

Lol

Nice try. The attempt is to tweak the meaning of the phrase "easier to understand". I would say that a foreign language "would not be easy to
understand".

However we also have three references to a native, indigenous language, as opposed to a foreign language. And you can sense the king's rage/anger by the refusal of Philotas to acknowledge the court in his native language, that "he is in contempt of their way of life and their language". This statements indicate a certain uniqueness that is attatched to the status of indigenous language.

Lol

Nice try. The attempt is to tweak the meaning of the phrase "easier to understand". I would say that a foreign language "would not be easy to
understand".

That's because you don't live in a polydialectic country ...come here in Italy and ask a Venetian if he understands easily a Napoletan or if a Ferrarese understands easily a Sicilian ....I guarantee you all of them speak Italian !!!

However we also have three references to a native, indigenous language, as opposed to a foreign language.

Have any to share ?? Evidence talks and bullsh*t walks !!! The irrationality of your claim comes from the word foreign you used ...I challenge you to find an ancient writer who referes to "foreign language" !!!

And you can sense the king's rage/anger by the refusal of Philotas to acknowledge the court in his native language

Actually you don't know the history well ... King had no problem ...the veteran soldiers from the old kingdom had ...they where raged because Philotas didn't spoke in the Macedonian dialect of Greek as it was the usage in the counsils.

And please note that these soldiers were from the Old Kingdom : Pieria , Bottia , Almopia , Eordea ...only they knew the Macedonian dialect. In Pelagonia , Lyncus (Florina) , Tymphaea (Grevena) and Elymia (Kozane) they spoke "molossian" (Epeirotan) Greek ...as Hecateaus the milesian discribed in 520 BC.

Those epeirotan-greek tribes of Upper Macedonia became Macedonians recently , under Philip's first years as a king !! And by becoming Macedonians had the right to participate in the counsil ....but guess what ..they didn't spoke the macedonian idiom , they spoke the very similar , but not equal epeirotan idiom of Greek.
...that's why Philotas spoke in Koine ..in order to be understood by everyone !! Because -as was the early macedonian tradition- the accused person was judged by the whole counsil in votation "διά βοής" "by speach" each member of the counsil declared it's verdict and the majority won. In Asia half of the Macedonians (and that excludes the Paeonian and Thracian tribes) were Eteomacedonians (always macedonians from the Old Kingdom) and the other half were "new Macedonians" of Upper Macedonia.

Lol
However we also have three references to a native, indigenous language, as opposed to a foreign language. And you can sense the king's rage/anger by the refusal of Philotas to acknowledge the court in his native language, that "he is in contempt of their way of life and their language". This statements indicate a certain uniqueness that is attatched to the status of indigenous language.

If Alexander cared so much about his alleged non-Greek Macedonian language then why he did nothing in order to promote it?But we know that he did whatever was possible to spread Greek language everywhere,he ordered the Persian youths to learn Greek,he wrote in Greek the inscription in Cyrus tomb e.t.c.Did you ever wonder why?Wasn't he so proud about his <native language> ?

Actually you don't know the history well ... King had no problem ...the veteran soldiers from the old kingdom had ...they where raged because Philotas didn't spoke in the Macedonian dialect of Greek as it was the usage in the counsils.



I will refer you to the direct passage from Rufus:


Then the king said: "Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language." [p.138]

I would say that is an enraged king.

If Alexander cared so much about his alleged non-Greek Macedonian language then why he did nothing in order to promote it?But we know that he did whatever was possible to spread Greek language everywhere,he ordered the Persian youths to learn Greek,he wrote in Greek the inscription in Cyrus tomb e.t.c.Did you ever wonder why?Wasn't he so proud about his <native language> ?

I concur with the view of Borza about the 'incidental and informal spread of Hellenic culture'. Like most conquerors, land and emire are at the forefront. I don't think Alexander was an exception.

I concur with the view of Borza about the 'incidental and informal spread of Hellenic culture'. Like most conquerors, land and emire are at the forefront. I don't think Alexander was an exception.

Have you ever seen the book of Borza ???

what surprizes me most is your stupidity in using Borza !!

Borza simply stated that we can't tell for sure if the Macedonians were of greek stock (although he finds it probable)....and you guys use him as if he's certain that they weren't of Greek stock !!

To start filling your enormus gaps ..here's Borza's book: "Under the shadow of Olympus : The emergence of Macedon" , chapter 4 : "Who were the Macedonians" :

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/7379/borza1cv0.png (http://imageshack.us)


[URL=http://imageshack.us]http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/6021/borza2lm2.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img528/borza1cv0.png/1/)
[URL=http://g.imageshack.us/img525/borza2lm2.png/1/]

So RB .....is this the guy whos quotes you use to sa ythat they weren't Greeks ???

How many times is he contradicting ?? From one side he finds it probable that they are of north-Western Greek stock ,he recognizes their similarities with the Dorians and recognises an Early Iron Age settlement in Pieria (the motherland of the Macedonians) as Mycenaean = GREEK.
[I] From the other hand he is so "scared" to make a stand and buries each conclusion of his under terms "maybe , be causius reading it , it could be doubtful"

And you come to this FORUM "having the same opinion with BORZA" ????

RB , my greatest dissapointment in these Macedonia FORUMS is that I have to talk about Macedonian History (a theme that I love and research as crazy) with people of your mental depth and knowledge. If you were acquainted with rational linguistics then our whole issue would be three questions :

1) Why do the Earlier (before 650 BC and some go before 1000 BC) Macedonian toponyms in Pieria (Early homeland) are all Greek?? Aigai , Pieria , Emathia , Levaea , Aison , Haliakmon , Dion , Akasamenae , Aigydion. Hellenized Thracians ,Hellenized Paeonians, Hellenized Illyrians and Hellenized Anatolians have maintained the toponyms of their earlier non greek back ground (Thracian endings -bria,-para,-dava,-diza , anatolian endings -nda , -mna , Paeonian Astibus, Vylazora , Doberus etc)

2) Why the Aiane Bronge age settlement (1400-1300 BC) is safely MYCENAEAN (=Greek , as it is the Agios Demetrios Settlement in Pieria wich even Borza recognises as Mycenaean without "maybes") and why we've even found a phrase in Mycenaean linear B Greek in Aiane ???

3) [I]The Macedonian name Ikkotas. Mycenaean Greek word hor horse was deciphered as i-qo (pronounced "i-kwos") and later became hippos (the trasformation of the labiovelar -kw- in pt and then p(pp) or t and rarely k is a greek linguistic law). Now from 700 BC and later , the mycenaean word ikwos was forgoten by the vast majority of the Greeks. The name Ikkos has been found occasionaly in Taras (Italy) and Epidaurus (Peloponnese) , both DORIAN cities. So my question is if the Macedonians were hellenized , how the hell did they obtained the name Ikkotas when the extra vast majority of the Greeks had forgoten the i-kwos previus name ???

Now do you know what makes me trully sad ??? That most of you guys that I have to put up every day don't even bother to understand the validity of these arguments before replying to me ....:mad::mad: !!!

I will refer you to the direct passage from Rufus:


Then the king said: "Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language." [p.138]

I would say that is an enraged king.


What makes you think that a Roman writing in 50 AD (400 years after the incident !!!) is direct ??? Why not use Ptolemy (a noble Macedonian person who was present at the trial) and his opinion was resqued by Arrian (3.26.2):

Arrian [3.26.2] : "Ptolemy son of Lagus says that Philotas was presented against the Macedonians ,Alexander accused him intensively and that Philotas had defended himself."

1) The Macedonian counsil (armed macedonian soldiers) was the supreme judge
2) Alexander was the prosecutor that accused Philotas for high treason and had to convince the council to judge him guilty !!
3) Philotas defended himself ...that means that he also spoke to the Macedonians (old ones ..who knew the Macedonian dialect of Greek and new ones who knew the epeirotan one , Upper macedonia) ...Now if your life was on the stake and you had to convince a mix macedonian-epeirotan speaking council that both understood "koine" ..in what language would you speak ???

Now I repeat RB ...Alexander was raged because Philotas wasn't using the tongue ...or because he was the prosecutor and was accusing him of high treason against his life???

Take your time my friend and reply !!!

I will refer you to the direct passage from Rufus:


Then the king said: "Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language." [p.138]

I would say that is an enraged king.

By the way here is Curtius Rufus' pages 137,138 (in Italics),139 from book 6 , chapter IX :

Caput IX

1 Rex deinde in contionem procedit vultu praeferens dolorem animi. Amicorum quoque maestitia expectationem haud parvam reiº fecerat. 2 Diu rex demisso in terram vultu attonito stupentique similis stetit. Tandem recepto animo, 'Paene', inquit, 'milites, hominum scelere [p137] vobis ereptus sum: deum providentia et misericordia vivo. Conspectusque vestri venerabilis coegit,º ut vehementius parricidis irascerer, quoniam praecipuus,º immo unus vitae meae fructus est, tot fortissimis viris et de me optime meritis referre adhuc gratiam posse'. 3 Interrupit orationem militum gemitus obortaeque sunt omnibus lacrimae. Tum rex, 'Quanto', inquit, 'maiorem in animis vestris motum excitabo, cum tanti sceleris auctores ostendero! quorum mentionem adhuc reformido et, tamquam salvi esse possint, nominibus abstineo. 4 Sed vincenda est memoria pristinae caritatis et coniuratio inpiorum civium detegenda. Quomodo autem tantum nefas sileam? Parmenio, illa aetate, tot meis, tot parentis mei meritis devinctus, omnium nobis amicorum vetustissimus, ducem se sceleri tanto praebuit. 5 Minister eius Philotas Peucolaum et Demetrium et hunc Dymnum, cuius corpus adspicitis, ceterosque eiusdem amentiae in caput meum subornavit'. 6 Fremitus undique indignantium querentiumque tota contione obstrepebat, qualis solet esse multitudinis et maxime militaris, ubi aut studio agitur aut ira. 7 Nicomachus deinde et Metron et Cebalinus producti, quae quisque detulerat, exponunt. Nullius eorum indicio Philotas inter participesºº sceleris destinabatur. Itaque indignatione expressa voxº silentio excepta est. 8 Tum rex, 'Qualis', inquit, 'ergo animi vobis videtur, qui huius rei delatum indicium ad ipsumº suppressit? 9 Quod non fuisse vanum Dymni exitus declarat. In certam rem deferens tormenta non timuit Cebalinus, Metron neº momentum quidem temporis distulit exonerare se, ut eo, ubi lavabar, inrumperet: Philotas solus nihil timuit, nihil credidit. O magni animi virum! 10 Iste regis periculo commoveretur, vultum mutaret, indicem tantae rei sollicitus audiret! 11 Subest nimirum silentio facinus et avida spes regni praecipitem animum ad ultimum nefas inpulit. Pater Mediae praeest: ipse apud multos copiarum duces meis praepotens viribus maiora, quam capit, spirat. 12 Orbitas quoque [p138] mea, quod sine liberis sum, spernitur. Sed errat Philotas. In vobis liberos, parentes, consanguineos habeo: vobis salvis orbus esse non possum'. 13 Epistolam deinde Parmenionis interceptam, quam ad filios Nicanorem et Philotan scripserat, recitat haud sane indicium gravioris consilii praeferentem. 14 Namque summa eius haec erat: 'Primum vestri curam agite, deinde vestrorum: sic enim, quae destinavimus, efficiemus'. 15 Adiecitque rex, sic esse scriptam, ut, sive ad filios pervenisset, a consciis posset intellegi, sive intercepta esset, falleret ignaros. 16 'At enim Dymnus, cum ceteros participesº sceleris indicaret, Philotan non nominavit! Hoc quidem illius non innocentiae, sed potentiae indicium est, quod sic ab iis timetur etiam, a quibus prodi potest, ut, cum de se fateantur, illum tamen celent. 17 Ceterum Philotan ipsius indicat vita. Hic Amyntae, qui mihi consobrinus fuit et in Macedonia capiti meo inpias conparavit insidias, socium se et conscium adiunxit. Hic Attalo, quo graviorem inimicum non habui, sororem suam in matrimonium dedit. 18 Hic, cum scripsissem ei pro iure tam familiaris usus atque amicitiae, qualis sors edita esset Iovis Hammonis oraculo, sustinuit rescribere mihi, se quidem gratulari, quod in numerum deorum receptus essem, ceterum misereri eorum, quibus vivendum esset sub eo, qui modum hominis excederet. 19 Haec sunt et iam pridem animi alienati a me et invidentis gloriae meae indicia. Quae equidem, milites, quamdiu licuit, in animo meo pressi. Videbar enim mihi partem viscerum meorum abrumpere, si, in quos tam magna contuleram, viliores mihi facerem. 20 Sed iam non verba punienda sunt: linguae temeritas pervenit ad gladios. 21 Hos, si mihi creditis, Philotas in me acuit, si ipsi, acui permisit.ºº Quo me conferam, milites? cui caput meum credam? Equitatui, optimae exercitus parti, principibus nobilissimae iuventutis, unum praefeci: salutem, spem, victoriam meam fidei eius tutelaeque commisi. 22 Patrem in idem fastigium, in quo me ipsi [p139]posuistis, admovi: Mediam, qua nulla opulentior regio est, et tot civium sociorumque milia imperio eius dicionique subieci. Unde praesidium petieram, periculum extitit. 23 Quam feliciter in acie occidissem, potius hostis praeda, quam civis victima! Nunc servatus ex periculis, quae sola timui, in haec incidi, quae timere non debui. 24 Soletis identidem a me, milites, petere, ut saluti meae parcam. Ipsi mihi praestare potestis, quod suadetis, ut faciam. Ad vestras manus, ad vestra arma confugio: invitis vobis salvus esse nolo: volentibus non possum, nisi vindicor'. 25 Tum Philotan religatis post tergum manibus obsoleto amiculo velatum iussit induci


Which is your quote Relax Be ??? I'm curious to know !!!

Tell me the subunit phrase from 1 to 25 ...

I concur with the view of Borza about the 'incidental and informal spread of Hellenic culture'. Like most conquerors, land and emire are at the forefront. I don't think Alexander was an exception.
I see now it suits you to imply that actually Alexander din't give a shit about his alleged <native non-Greek language> whereas in your previous post you claimed how proud he was of it.Well,if you're fighting desperately against logic it happens very often to condradict yourself.You also mentioned the habit of most conquerors to have as priority their empire but how many conquerors do you know who neglected so much their native language and not only adopted that of the conquered but furthermore promoted and spreaded it everywhere?Did Julius Caesar the same with the Greek language?Djengish Khan with the Persian or Arabian language?The Ottomans with Arabian or Persian language?Muhammad II with Greek language?All these derived from culturally inferior people who conquered people with superior and old culture.They were heavily influenced by these superior cultures but they never renunced their own language by adopting the language of their <superior> subjects.Why should be the Macedonians an unique sample in global history of a people who spreaded the language and culture of his conquered <old racial rivals> (as your compatriots <translate> an excerpt of Arrian) ?And if Alexander's priority wasn't the preservation of his ethnic heritage but his empire,it would be more convenient to maintain in Asia the Persian language in administration.In these territories of the former Persian empire this was the lingua franca,after so many centuries of Persian rule.Greek became the lingua franca of Middle East only after Alexander's death,when Macedonian colonists settled in many of these lands.

I will refer you to the direct passage from Rufus:


Then the king said: "Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language." [p.138]

I would say that is an enraged king.

Your only problem is that:

Rufus is the only one describing the trial of Philotas in such a way (other historians like Arrian do not include any linguistic incident) and this specific historian is also known for:

A) Being a Roman commander in Germany who did never visit Macedonia.
B) Wrote Alexanders' history in an attempt to portray Alexander as someone who could not have possibly conquered Rome, becase Rome had "better qualities".
C) Was amongst the latest historians of the Ancient Era to write about Alexander.
D) Did not write based upon any first-hand accounts as Arrian and others did.

In any case, the "native tongue" is not defined by name... It could be Greek and the case judged in Persian language... Alexander copied many Persian customs that enraged his troops, like the proscunesis (bowing in front of the king)... who knows...

Your only problem is that:
Rufus ... is also known for:

++ Overextending the Philotas affair with inventions and dramatizations :

article by Jona Lendering ©
http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/curtius/qcr.html

Taken as a whole, it is a very fascinating book, although it contains errors. Both can be explained from the fact that it has the History of Alexander of Cleitarchus (a contemporary of Alexander) as its source. The author of this book had written a fine history that focused on Alexander's presumed psychological development from a brilliant young conqueror to a paranoid despot. This psychological dimension makes Curtius' History of Alexander good reading and the Roman readers must have seen through it: of course, the real subject was not Alexander, but the tyranny of Tiberius and Caligula. (It can be shown that Curtius Rufus' description of the trial of Philotas is based on an incident during the reign of Tiberius.)

Professor Kapetanopoulos : ALEXANDER'S PATRIUS SERMO IN THE PHILOTAS AFFAIR

http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/AlexandrosPatrius.htm

The present study1 looks at the context in which Alexander’s patrius sermo occurs in Curtius' [Q. Curtius Rufus'] account of the Philotas affair and what its significance may be, as far as a Makedonian mode of speech is concerned. When Curtius' account of the Philotas affair is read, one cannot but notice its long, detailed narrative, colored with dramatic overtones.2 However, before analyzing Curtius' account of the Philotas affair, it would be of considerable interest to see first what space has been allotted to this affair by Arrian, Plutarch, Diodoros, and Justin.

In Arrian (3. 26. 1-4), the Philotas-Parmenion affair is only 36 lines+2 words long (these and the ones below are L(oeb) C(lassical) L(ibrary) lines). Of the 36 lines+2 words, only 20 lines or about 132 words directly involve Philotas (5 lines yielded an average of 6.6 words/LCL line). Arrian states that he was following Ptolemy who wrote that Alexander accused Philotas who in turn defended himself. As a comparison, the Kleitos episode in Arrian (4. 8. 1-9. 9) involves 135 LCL lines+17 words, or about 138 LCL lines of about 910.8 words (6.6 words/LCL line). Why was Arrian so frugal with the Philotas affair? Or was this frugality perhaps in his source Ptolemy?

Plutarch yields 86 LCL lines+3 words to the Philotas-Parmenion affair (Alex. 48. 1-49. 7); of these 79 LCL lines+2 words, or about 515.5 words (6. 5 words/LCL line), are on Philotas, which also includes the affair with Antigona of Pella, who also figures in On the Fortune of Alexander, (339) e-f, with 21 LCL lines+4 words. Even though Plutarch was writing biography of a limited length, nevertheless his account of the Philotas affair is longer than Arrian's (above). Plutarch's Alexander hiding behind a curtain when Philotas was being interrogated under torture (Alex. 49. 11-12) is reminiscent of the theater. The Kleitos episode in Plutarch (Alex. 50. 1-52. 7) extends to 119 LCL lines+24 words, or about 809.4 words (6.6 words/LCL line).

Diodoros, writing a universal history, yields 37 LCL lines+8 words for the Dimnos-Kebalinos conspiracy and only 8 LCL lines+1 word for the Philotas affair (17. 79. 1-6. 80. 1-2). This is indeed a very abbreviated account of the Philotas affair.3 This is also true of Justin, whose coverage of that affair consists of 14 lines+4 words (M. C. J. Miller text, 12. 5. 1-8),4 with only 2 lines on Philotas. However, Justin's constriction falls within the proper bounds of an epitomizer, in this instance of Pompeius Trogus.

Curtius' account of the Philotas affair, on the other hand, amounts to 619 LCL lines+81 words, or about 4537.8 words (6. 7-11. 40). To these should be added 14 LCL lines+1 word from 7. 1. 1-5, or about 101.8 words, for a subtotal of about 4639.6 words (10 lines gave an average of 7.2 words/LCL line). By comparing the Philotas affair to the Kleitos episode, the latter occupies in Curtius 156 LCL lines+24 words, or about 1022.4 words in 8. 1. 19-2. 12 (8 lines produced an average of 6.4 words/LCL line). Of course, the Philotas affair went through a trial paraphernalia in contrast to the episode involving Kleitos, and this may explain in part Curtius' longer account of the Philotas affair, but at the same time the trial scene provided ample room for dramatization and invention.5

One of the questions that arises out of Curtius' inflated account of the Philotas affair is "Where did Curtius find all this information, with all its details and melodrama?" Were records of the trial's proceedings available, which could have been used by Curtius' source(s) or Curtius himself? Probably no minutes of the trial would have been kept at the time, and this is especially true since Curtius does not allude to any records of the trial in existence.6 Consequently, what has been invented or inflated for purposes of amplification and dramatization, although still preserving the basic truth of the affair? The basic truth is the conspiracy itself with its authentic names and Alexander accusing Philotas who in turn defends himself. Curtius' account, of course, has been expanded by the narration of the conspiracy's machinations, the accusations of Alexander, Amyntas, Bolon and Koinos, and by Philotas' own defense and finally by his gory torture. However, all of these are elements prone to invention and amplification.7

Are you reading all these Relax Be or ...We're loosing our time here ???

Greek became the lingua franca of Middle East only after Alexander's death,when Macedonian colonists settled in many of these lands.SO some of the POntians who came to MAcedonia 80 years ago had ancient MAcedonian blood?Why dont they run to the "homeland" paradise of fyrom?:p

Have you ever seen the book of Borza ???

what surprizes me most is your stupidity in using Borza !!

Borza simply stated that we can't tell for sure if the Macedonians were of greek stock (although he finds it probable)....and you guys use him as if he's certain that they weren't of Greek stock !



Come on lad, have a bit of class, lets not be offensive here.

"Neither Greeks nor Macedonians considered the Macedonians to be Greeks."

Makedonika - Eugene Borza.

This may have been discussed previously on the forum, so my apologies if we are covering old ground.

Come on lad, have a bit of class, lets not be offensive here.

"Neither Greeks nor Macedonians considered the Macedonians to be Greeks."

Makedonika - Eugene Borza.

This may have been discussed previously on the forum, so my apologies if we are covering old ground.

Who's offencive mate ..you saw the pages from him that I posted above !!!

If considering Macedonians greeks is +1
considering them non greeks is -1
Borza is "0" ...maybe , probably , tenetative , cautious , speculatively ..bla , bla ...so don't come with one line from Borza ...why don't you bring the whole paragraph (even better the whole page)....knowing Borza well ..it will surprize you ;);)!!!

Not to mention some of his childish assumptions ...

Who's offencive mate ..you saw the pages from him that I posted above !!!

If considering Macedonians greeks is +1
considering them non greeks is -1
Borza is "0" ...maybe , probably , tenetative , cautious , speculatively ..bla , bla ...so don't come with one line from Borza ...why don't you bring the whole paragraph (even better the whole page)....knowing Borza well ..it will surprize you ;);)!!!

Not to mention some of his childish assumptions ...

Your math is a bit rusty there mate.

Your math is a bit rusty there mate.

I don't think so RB ...

I repeat I'm not trying to say that Borza considers them Greeks certainly ...but he doesn't consider them non greeks certainly !!!

Hammond , Bengtson , Strauss , Burn , Masson , Brixhe...and other "heavy" names are/were (for the lately deads) certain ,about their Greekness !!!

And when it comes to perspicacity Borza is miles beneath Hammond ...don't forget that !!!

When Hammond said in 1967 that Aigai was in Vergina ...all ther others were digging in Edessa ..and considered his theory non sense ...look today !!

Borzas estimations on the other hand sometimes make you wonder about his mental capacity ...watch the last paragraph of the second page from his book that I've posted ...He sets the arrival of the Macedonians in Pieria around 700 BC - WHEN THE PHRYGIANS ARE ALREADY AT LEAST ONE CENTURY IN ASIA !!! - and by doing so can't explain the heavy and long term influence of the Phrygians on the Macedonians ..that is considered a standarda by all the historians and linguists !!

I don't think so RB ...

I repeat I'm not trying to say that Borza considers them Greeks certainly ...but he doesn't consider them non greeks certainly !!!

Hammond , Bengtson , Strauss , Burn , Masson , Brixhe...and other "heavy" names are/were (for the lately deads) certain ,about their Greekness !!!

And when it comes to perspicacity Borza is miles beneath Hammond ...don't forget that !!!

When Hammond said in 1967 that Aigai was in Vergina ...all ther others were digging in Edessa ..and considered his theory non sense ...look today !!

Borzas estimations on the other hand sometimes make you wonder about his mental capacity ...watch the last paragraph of the second page from his book that I've posted ...He sets the arrival of the Macedonians in Pieria around 700 BC - WHEN THE PHRYGIANS ARE ALREADY AT LEAST ONE CENTURY IN ASIA !!! - and by doing so can't explain the heavy and long term influence of the Phrygians on the Macedonians ..that is considered a standarda by all the historians and linguists !!

Now you are just whining.

See like most folks on here, you have focused on material that fits your interpretation, which is fair enough I guess.

But unlike the Daskalis and co, Borza sees that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the Macedonians were a distinct people and thus does not make the mistakes of others that have leapfrogged into making such simplistic conclusions. Even in the passage you posted, he says there is no conclusive evidence to establish the Macedonian-Greek connection.

Hammond unfortunately, thus leap into making that conclusion, even though he concedes that the Macedonians as opposed to their kings did not consider themselves to be Greeks. He has done his fair share of flip flopping.

Now you are just whining.

See like most folks on here, you have focused on material that fits your interpretation, which is fair enough I guess.

But unlike the Daskalis and co, Borza sees that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the Macedonians were a distinct people and thus does not make the mistakes of others that have leapfrogged into making such simplistic conclusions. Even in the passage you posted, he says there is no conclusive evidence to establish the Macedonian-Greek connection.

Hammond unfortunately, thus leap into making that conclusion, even though he concedes that the Macedonians as opposed to their kings did not consider themselves to be Greeks. He has done his fair share of flip flopping.
Where did you find this passage of Hammond?Can you show us a link or a picture?And please don't avoid to answer the hard quetions.At first you claimed that the <Philota's incident> was a strong indication of Alexander's pride of his alleged <native non-Greek language> .When i asked you why Alexander despite his pride did nothing to promote this language (unlike what he did with the Greek one) you answered that as a typicall conqueror he set as his first priority his empire and the better administration of the conquered lands,not the promotion of his ethnic heritage and native language,so he chose to spread the Greek language in the conquered territories of the former Persian empire.But it's a matter of fact that in these lands which were under Persian rule for 3-4 centuries,the lingua franca was Aramaic (a Semitic language),not Greek.The Greek language replaced the Aramaic one after Alexander's death and the settlement of thousands of Macedonians in Persia,Afghanistan, e.t.c.

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/1aramlinfran1.gif

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/1aramlinfran2.gif

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/1aramlinfrancov.gif
http://books.google.com/books?id=NlFYY_iVt9cC&pg=PA47&dq=persian+language+lingua+franca+alexander&hl=el&sig=ACfU3U1QxXeq7ZrxCLgB4J8xoC_b7Ag-vw#PPA47,M1

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/2aramlinfranc1.gif

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/2aramlinfranccov.gif
http://books.google.com/books?id=edhMe4f4_LkC&pg=PA127&dq=persian+language+lingua+franca+alexander&hl=el&sig=ACfU3U2rxiJPheNNti90RHUyX-lNpfd3pQ

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/koinegreek1.gif

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/koinegreekalex2.gif

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/koinegreekalexcov.gif
http://books.google.com/books?id=P9sYIRXZZ2MC&pg=PA41&dq=persian+language+lingua+franca+alexander&hl=el&sig=ACfU3U367LIPOU44n62fp0aVbewgX_SgtA

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/3aramlingfranc.gif

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/3aramlingfranccov.gif
http://books.google.com/books?id=FcAoBq4_EnEC&pg=PA151&dq=persian+language+lingua+franca+alexander&lr=&hl=el&sig=ACfU3U3otn8eERdHrVHGz29qcge0tCyUeQ

So if Alexander's incentive for the promotion of the Greek language in Asia was the convenience in the administration of those territories,it would be more reasonable to select the Aramaic as official language,a language that was already used for that purpose in these lands,spoken by all the natives since 7th BC century.Nonetheless he spread only the Greek language.Why?

Now you are just whining.

See like most folks on here, you have focused on material that fits your interpretation, which is fair enough I guess.

You're the ones doing that ..."cutting a little phrase from thewhole chapter that fits your view !!!

But unlike the Daskalis and co, Borza sees that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the Macedonians were a distinct people and thus does not make the mistakes of others that have leapfrogged into making such simplistic conclusions. Even in the passage you posted, he says there is no conclusive evidence to establish the Macedonian-Greek connection.


Why d oyou kee prepeating ..what I've already said ..don't expect conclusions from Borza ....Borza will conclude when he'll see an ancient Macedonian in person speaking !!!

Hammond unfortunately, thus leap into making that conclusion, even though he concedes that the Macedonians as opposed to their kings did not consider themselves to be Greeks. He has done his fair share of flip flopping.

Are you on drugs ???

1)NGL Hammond "History of Macedonia" , volume II , the language of the macedonians ...he concludes that people spoke a conservative and uncouth form of Greek.
2)NGL Hammond "The Macedonian State:Origin , Institutions History" . The language of theMacedonians :

"What language did these 'Macedones' speak? The name itself is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. It probably means 'highlanders,' and it is comparable to Greek tribal names such as 'Orestai' and 'Oreitai,' meaning 'mountain-men.' A reputedly earlier variant, 'Maketai,' has the same root, which means 'high,' as in the Greek adjective 'makednos' or the noun 'mekos.' The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod recorded (p. 3 above) has a bearing on the question of Greek speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes; as we know from inscriptions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic dialect of the Greek language, we have a predisposition to suppose that the Macedones spoke the Aeolic dialect. Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins of Hellen's three sons - Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus - who were the founders of three dialects of Greek speech, namely Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would not have recored thisrelationship, unless he had believed, probably in the seventh century, that the Macedones were a Greek-speaking people. The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the sixth century the Persians described the tribute-paying peoples of their province in Europe, and one of them was the 'yauna takabara,' which meant the 'Greeks wearing the hat.' There were Greeks in Greek city-states here and there in the province, but they were of various origins and not distinguished by a common hat, the 'kausia.' We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and modified Hesiod's genealogy by bringing Macedon and his descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking family.

Hesiod, Persia, Hellanicus had no motive for making a false statement about the language of the Macedonians, who were then an obscure and not a powerful people. Their independent testimonies should be accepted as conclusive. That, however, is not the opinion of most scholars. They disregard or fail to assess the evidence which I have cited, and they turn instead to 'Macedonian' words and names, or/and to literary references. Philologists have studied words which have been cited as Macedonian' in ancient lexica and glossaries, and they have come to no certain conclusion; for some of the words are clearly Greek, and some are clearly not Greek. That is not surprising; for as the territory of the Macedonians expanded, they overlaid and lived with peoples who spoke Illyrian, Paeonian, Thracian and Phrygian, and they certainly borrowed words from them which excited the authors of lexica and glossaries. The philological studies result in a verdict, in my opinion, of 'non liquet.'

The toponyms of the Macedonian homeland are the most significant. Nearly all of them are Greek: Pieria, Lebaea, Heracleum, Dium, Petra, Leibethra, Aegae, Aegydium, Acesae, Acesamenae; the rivers Helicon, Aeson, Leucus, Baphyras, Sardon, Elpe'u's, Mitys; lake Ascuris and the region Lapathus. The mountain names Olympus and Titarium may be pre-Greek; Edessa, the earlier name for the place where Aegae was founded, and its river Ascordus were Phrygian.

The deities worshipped by the Macedones and the names which they gave to the months were predominantly Greek, and there is no doubt that these were not borrowings. To Greek literary writers before the Hellenistic period the Macedonians were 'barbarians.' The term referred to their way of life and their institutions, which were those of the 'ethne' and not of the city-state, and it did not refer to their speech. We can see this in the case of Epirus. There Thucydides called the tribes 'barbarians.' But inscriptions found in Epirus have shown conclusively that the Epirote tribes in Thucydides' lifetime were speaking Greek and used names which were Greek.

In the following century 'barbarian' was only one of the abusive terms applied by Demosthenes to Philip of Macedon and his people. In passages which refer to the Macedonian soldiers of Alexander the Great and the early successors there are mentions of a Macedonian dialect, such as was likely to have been spoken in the original Macedonian homeland. On one occassion Alexander 'called out to his guardsmen in Macedonian ('Makedonisti'), as this [viz. the use of 'Macedonian'] was a signal ('symbolon') that there was a serious riot.' Normally Alexander and his soldiers spoke standard Greek, the 'koine,' and that was what the Persians who were to fight alongside the Macedonians were taught. So the order 'in Macedonian' was unique, in that all other orders were in the 'koine.' It is satisfactorily explained as an order in broad dialect, just as in the Highland Regiment a special order for a particular purpose could be given in broad Scots by a Scottish officer who usually spoke the King's English.

The use of this dialect among themselves was a characteristic of the Macedonian soldiers (rather that the officers) of the King's Army. This point is made clear in the report - not in itself dependable - of the trial of a Macedonian officer before an Assembly of Macedonians, in which the officer (Philotas) was mocked for not speaking in dialect. In 321 when a non-Macedonian general, Eumenes, wanted to make contact with a hostile group of Macedonian infantrymen, he sent a Macedonian to speak to them in the Macedonian dialect, in order to win their confidence. Subsequently, when they and the other Macdonian soldiers were serving with Eumenes, they expresed their affection for him by hailing him in the Macedonian dialect ('Makedonisti'). He was to be one of themselves. As Curtius observed, 'not a man among the Macedonians could bear to part with a jot of his ancestral customs.' The use of this dialect was one way in which the Macedonians expressed their apartness from the world of the Greek city-states.

3) NGL Hammond "migrations in Greece and adjacent areas" :

During the long period of Phrygian power in Europe the Brygi were the neighbours of the Macedones, a Greek speaking tribe or group of small tribes which occupied the hill country of Pieria as their homeland and engaged mainly in pastoral life.

...

The movement which was destined to have the greatest consequences was that of the Macedones from the hill-country of Pieria to the western edge of the coastal plain by Vergina, which became then capital under the name Aegeae [Note this is Hammond’s deduction before the finds at Vergina in 1977 - BBB]. They drove the Thracian Pieres out of coastal Pieria and the Bottiaei out of the coastal plain as far as the Vardar, and the refugees settled east of the Vardar, the Bottiaei in the centre of Chalcidice and the Pieres near Mt Pangaeum. Next they attacked the Eordi and destroyed most of them; a few survivors settled east of the Vardar near the lakes north of Chalcidice. They expelled also the Almopes from the district of Moglena. By these ruthless methods the Macedones carved out for themselves a large and continuous kingdom up to the Vardar by 550 B.C., and they became adjacent to the speakers of Northwest-Greek who were in possession of the middle and upper Haliacmon valley and of Lyncus-Pelagonia.[102] In this way a shield of backward, even primitive Greek-speaking peoples, in northern Epirus and western Macedonia was formed to resist the constant pressures of Illyrians, Dardanians, Paeonians and Thracians which enabled the civilisation of the city-states in the Greek peninsula to grow to maturity in comparative safety.

4) NGL Hammond in Cambridge ancient History :

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6261/cambanchistepmaccd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
[URL=http://g.imageshack.us/img88/cambanchistepmaccd0.jpg/1/]

Next time , before quoting Hammond ..wash your mouth first !!! when it comes to Macedonian history he's more sacred than god himself !!!

I come with books ...and you come with "what suits you fine" cutted single phrases ....or as [I]Al Pacino (as Lt Crl. Frank Slade) in the "scent of a woman" (one of my favourite films ever ..and teh far best role of Al)says :

"Boy , you're in no position on disagreeing with me...I've got a loaded 45 in my hands and you've got pimples !!!"

..what I've already said ..don't expect conclusions from Borza ....Borza will conclude when he'll see an ancient Macedonian in person speaking !!!


For God's sake,Andrea,don't give them ideas!!!!I consider them able even for such a ridiculousness,they don't hesitate nowhere!!!Den ehoun osio ki iero!

For God's sake,Andrea,don't give them ideas!!!!I consider them able even for such a ridiculousness,they don't hesitate nowhere!!!Den ehoun osio ki iero!

Remember the Japanese film with the frozen Samurai you once saw Kosta ???

Maybe it can happen in FYROM ...Pasko will find a 2.500 years old frozen man in Titov Veles in the Braglanitsa and bring him back to life ...indeed ...his language woudn't be the Greek one ...So the FYROMians will be so happy that they will neglect the only understandable word that the man keeps repeating :" Paeonia , Paeonia , Paeon ...!!!"

This is from a post of Greg Dandoulakis ages ago.

Chapter 4: Who Were the Macedonians?


pp. 77-78


"Our understanding of the Macedonians' emergence as a people with distinct
identity is confounded by several factors.
...
virtually no settlements have yet been discovered.
...
one must be prudent in defining what was properly "Macedonian" in every period.
...
The literary evidence ... provides little information and no more certainty.
...
And if the folk traditions about early Macedonian migrations are invalid,
there is no archaeological record, as those who became the historical Mace-
donians, like the Dorians before them, were virtually indistinguishable from
the general population.
...
The reconstruction that follows is tentative in the extreme, and the reader
is cautioned to be wary. Since the archaelogical record is scanty, this
account of early Macedonian history is based on the MOST SCEPTICAL ANALYSIS of literary traditions. We have seen (Chapter 3) that the "MAKEDONES" or "highlanders" of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest GREEK STOCK. That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European SPEAKERS of PROTO-GREEK from which emerged the tribes who were later known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts os the country. Thus the MACEDONIANS may have been RELATED to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the historical DORIANS, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. If it were known that MACEDONIAN was a PROPER DIALECT OF GREEK, like the dialects spoken by Dorians and Molossians, we would be on much firmer ground in this hypothesis. But, as we shall see, the matter of identifying the Macedonian language is far from settled. Thus one of the possible links connecting the Macedonians to other Greek tribes remains to be established, although, given the nature of the evidence, it is doubtful that such a connection can ever be proven or denied conclusively.
..."


Chapter 12: The Emergence of Macedon


p 276


"Moreover, the Macedonians made their mark on history through the Greeks -
first by hellenizing their own royal house, then by conquering and organizing
the Greek city-states, and finally by providing tha vehicle for the spread
of some aspects of Greek civilization into large parts of western Asia. Thus
Macedon emerged from the half-light of Balkan prehistory into a world dominated and defined by the activities and perceptions of Greek states.
As far as the ancient Greeks were concerned, the Macedonians were not Greeks.
Some Greeks apparently accepted the Macedonian tradition that the Argead
family had Hellenic antecedents in Argos, but the overwhelming evidence is
that the Macedonians as a people were considered non-Greek.
..."


p 278-282


"Given the paucity of evidence, one cannot measure the impact of Greece on
Macedon until the time of Alexander I. Alexander's reign marks the earliest
known attempt to connect the TWO CULTURES, manifested by the introduction of a tradition that the Argeadae were a Greek family from Argos, descended from Heracles.
...
The Argead goal was not to become Greek, but to bend Hellenism to pragmatic Macedonian interests.
...
I once wondered whether Macedon was Europe's earliest national state. That
the MACEDONIANS WERE AN ETHNIC GROUP DERIVED FROM THEIR PREDECESSORS, THE MAKEDONES, and defined in historical times by their service to the king, has been demonstrated by Hammond and others. In this sense they were a people, or ethnos, with a common set of loyalties and a shared historical experience. And, although their customs still remain largely elusive to us, one must posit that some set of generally accepted mores bound them together, as the alternative could only be a totalitarian monarchy guiding a repressive administration, and there is no evidence for that. Perhaps it was the very simplicity of the Macedonian kingship that enabled the Argeadae to maintain such continuity of monarchial rule for so many centuries. But there is little evidence that other institutions grew in prestige and authority sufficient to cause a growth in the moral authority of an impersonal state. That apparent lack of complex institutional arrangements suggests strongly that, while the Macedonians were a nation, their continuing dependence upon a simple and personal monarchy prevented them from achieving statehood.
The MACEDONIAN NATION served as a buffer to PROTECT THE GREEKS FROM the inroads of NON-HELLENIC Balkan PEOPLES - an important factor contributing to the growth of Greek civilization.
..."


Preface


pp. I-XV


[quote]...Inevitably this work will be compared - for better or worse - with parts of Nicholas Hammond et al., A History of Macedonia (3 vols., Oxford: 1972-88). One suspects that parts of A History of Macedonia will not need revision for decades. But the very value of Hammond as a Handbuch has made it nearly inaccessible for all but the specialists, with other readers using it mainly for consultation on particular points than for narrative.
[...]
It is a purpose of this volume to offer an accessible historical ESSAY to anyone interested in the EMERGENCE of Macedon. That I do not agree with HAMMOND'S INTERPRETATIONS on a number of points should not be construed as a diminution of RESPECT for his PIONEERING effort.
[...]
The history of a people is never conclusively written, and this author expects that in time the present work will become OBSELETE, especially in light of the rapidly expanding archaeology of the Balkans. NO DOUBT I HAVE PERMITTED MYSELF MORE LATITUDE OF INTERPRETATION THAN I MIGHT HAVE EXPRESSED IN A TECHNICAL JOURNAL. EVEN SO, THE READER WILL FIND THE ANALYSES CAUTIOUS, PERHAPS TOO MUCH SO FOR SOME TASTES.
[... ]
A special acknowledgement is due three eminent scholars. The first is the
dean of American "Macedoniasts," the late Charles F. Edson, who counseled
in 1970, WHEN I COMPLAINED THAT I WAS BORED AND FRUSTRATED BY MY WORK ON ALEXANDER THE GREAT, THAT I SHOULD DELVE INTO ALEXANDER'S MACEDONIAN BACKGROUND.

Nicholas Hammond, many of whose views are challenged herein, has
remained a lively and cherished companion who pointed the way in Macedonian studies.

And Ernst Badian has, during twenty years of friendship and
encouragement, continued to set the standards that have taught the value
of SEVERE CRITICISM.
..."

After that, where EVEN BORZA SAYS that the Macedonians:


1. Were of a Greek Stock racially (best inference)
2. Their language developed starting from the Proto-Greek (best inference)
3. Developed separately from the southern Greeks at THE MOST for 4 centuries
4. Their Kings were willingly Hellenized
5. They crucially protected the Greeks from Non-Hellenic Balkan people inroads
6. They became known only through Greek historiography and literature
7. They spread the Greek culture all over their conquests
8. They merged culturally with them eventually in the common Hellenistic world.

Remember the Japanese film with the frozen Samurai you once saw Kosta ???

Maybe it can happen in FYROM ...Pasko will find a 2.500 years old frozen man in Titov Veles in the Braglanitsa and bring him back to life ...indeed ...his language woudn't be the Greek one ...So the FYROMians will be so happy that they will neglect the only understandable word that the man keeps repeating :" Paeonia , Paeonia , Paeon ...!!!"
Pasco could find Macedonians from various historical eras,f.e. a Byzantine <Makedonski> who will shout: <I am a guard of the Danube borders and have some signifficant informations for our emperor Justinianski!Some barbarians will attack our Pravoslaven empire,they are called Slavs,Slaveni,Sloveni or something so!Macedonia is in danger,we shall protect it from these Slavs.Da jive Macedonia,Macedonia na Makedoncite> .

Some barbarians will attack our Pravoslaven empire,they are called Slavs,Slaveni,Sloveni or something so!Macedonia is in danger,we shall protect it from these Slavs.Da jive Macedonia,Macedonia na Makedoncite> .

++ "To bad that the biggest part of the "Pravoslaven" (Risto's Copy Right :rolleyes:) army is with general "Belisariovski" fighting the neo-Persians in Asia !!!"

@ Ptomely !!!

Thanks for bringing Relax Be from the «καθ΄ἕκαστον» (fragmentated knowledge) to the «καθ΄ὅλον» (integrated knowledge) ...to use the Aristotelian terminology:

«ΑΝΕΥ ΓΑΡ ΔΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΘ΄ΟΛΟΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΗΝ ΛΑΒΕΙΝ»

("because without knowing the general background there is no scientific apprention")

Next time , before quoting Hammond ..wash your mouth first !!! when it comes to Macedonian history he's more sacred than god himself !!!

You are letting yourself down with comment like that. Lets keep to a standard.

The Macedonian state p141


I come with books ...and you come with "what suits you fine" cutted single phrases ....or as Al Pacino (as Lt Crl. Frank Slade) in the "scent of a woman" (one of my favourite films ever ..and teh far best role of Al)says :

"Boy , you're in no position on disagreeing with me...I've got a loaded 45 in my hands and you've got pimples !!!"

[/QUOTE]

A loaded 45?? All I have seen is a water pistol.

There are a few inconsistencies in what you have produced. First of all Hammond beings immediately by assuming that the Name Macedonia has only a Greek meaning, when there is a Macedonian meaning to the word, as I have mentioned before.

The part about the deities the Macedonians worshiped being Greek is also doubtful, there is nothing exclusively Hellenic about them, these gods had a common Indo-European origin.

He mentions the Philotas affair, referring to a Macedonian dialect, where as we see in Rufus, these only mention of a native language.

You keep on going how Borza doesn't make conclusions, what you are basically saying is that he doesn't make the conclusions that are favourable to the Greek view, the conclusions that you want. That is because there are evidence to indicate the contrary. If there are evidence to indicate the contrary, you cant conclude the issue beyond reasonable doubt. Has beyond reasonable doubt been attained, clearly no. So it would be pretty stupid to conclude something when there is evidence to the contrary.

So if Alexander's incentive for the promotion of the Greek language in Asia was the convenience in the administration of those territories,it would be more reasonable to select the Aramaic as official language,a language that was already used for that purpose in these lands,spoken by all the natives since 7th BC century.Nonetheless he spread only the Greek language.Why?

I think you already answered your question. Administration purposes would be one big reason as to the spread of the Hellenic language, but that doesn't constitute a direct policy. Alexander and the Macedonian court were also Hellenised to an extent, thus this could have an impact on their policies, Alexander himself admired Hellenic culture.

But you must not forget that Hellenic culture spread to that part of the world before Alexanders conquest.

Macedonians werent Hellenised, Ionians merely spread their influence in Macedonia.

Macedonians were Doric, meaning early Greek speakers that gave the Linear B alphabet to the Greek world..

First of all Hammond beings immediately by assuming that the Name Macedonia has only a Greek meaning, when there is a Macedonian meaning to the word, as I have mentioned before.
It's not only Hammond's view,all the decent and globally respected historians agree on this,that the name Macedonia is of Greek origin.What Macedonian meaning are you talking about?Do you mean <Makedonski> made in FYROM?Can you quote even a single one reputable historian who claims that Macedonia has a Slavic instead Greek etymology?
The part about the deities the Macedonians worshiped being Greek is also doubtful, there is nothing exclusively Hellenic about them, these gods had a common Indo-European origin.
Some of these deities were common to all the Indoeuropean peoples,but not with the same names as the Greek ones.F.i. Jupiter and Odin were the Latin and Scandinavian counterparts of Greek Zeus.The 12 Gods of Olymp were worshiped only by Greek tribes.Have you any proofs that Hera,Athena,Demetra,Poseidon,Ares,Hephaistos,Apoll on e.t.c were worshiped by the Illyrians,Thracians and other non-Greek peoples?
He mentions the Philotas affair, referring to a Macedonian dialect, where as we see in Rufus, these only mention of a native language.
First of all Rufus doesn't call this native languageMacedonian and second,he wrote his history 4 centuries after Alexander's era without being based on first hand accounts,like Arrian,Plutarch and the other historians who don't mention any <native language> describing this incident.
I think you already answered your question. Administration purposes would be one big reason as to the spread of the Hellenic language, but that doesn't constitute a direct policy. Alexander and the Macedonian court were also Hellenised to an extent, thus this could have an impact on their policies, Alexander himself admired Hellenic culture.

But you must not forget that Hellenic culture spread to that part of the world before Alexanders conquest.
What part of the world do you mean?If you mean middle East you're wrong,this happens after Alexander's conquest.How could the Greeks spread their culture in distant lands like Mesopotamia,Bactria and India without to step their foots there?I proved you with the books i quoted that the lingua franca in this area was aramaic and the people there had a hard time to learn Greek.So what was Alexander's purpose for the spread of the Greek language,what could he gain by imposing to his new subjects a totally unknown language?

It's not only Hammond's view,all the decent and globally respected historians agree on this,that the name Macedonia is of Greek origin.What Macedonian meaning are you talking about?Do you mean <Makedonski> made in FYROM?Can you quote even a single one reputable historian who claims that Macedonia has a Slavic instead Greek etymology?


One possible meaning revolves around earth, soil, land, mother earth (makja zemja, decata na bozicata ma)

The other relates to island (ostrov).


Some of these deities were common to all the Indoeuropean peoples,but not with the same names as the Greek ones.F.i. Jupiter and Odin were the Latin and Scandinavian counterparts of Greek Zeus.The 12 Gods of Olymp were worshiped only by Greek tribes.Have you any proofs that Hera,Athena,Demetra,Poseidon,Ares,Hephaistos,Apoll on e.t.c were worshiped by the Illyrians,Thracians and other non-Greek peoples?

Poseidon = Neptune in Roman mythology
Hera = Juno in Roman mythology
Athena (Lybian origin)
Ares = Mars in Roman mythology
Apollo = Appears in both Roman and Greek mythology (possible Asian origins)
Hephaestus = Vulcan in Roman mythology
Demeter = Ceres in Roman mythology



What part of the world do you mean?If you mean middle East you're wrong,this happens after Alexander's conquest.How could the Greeks spread their culture in distant lands like Mesopotamia,Bactria and India without to step their foots there?I proved you with the books i quoted that the lingua franca in this area was aramaic and the people there had a hard time to learn Greek.So what was Alexander's purpose for the spread of the Greek language,what could he gain by imposing to his new subjects a totally unknown language?


Not quite. The Persians were admirers of the millitary qualities of the Hellenes and used Greek mercenaries. The Persians also benefited from Greek science, architecture (bridging of the Bosporus) and they even had Greek physicians. Another key indicator is the remnants of Greek art among the Persians, the work of Greek artists was very prominent. You even had Persians receiving citizenship from Athens. Persian aristocrats were moving to Asia minor to have closer contacts with the Greeks.

Egyptian pharaohs also used Greek mercenaries and in Egypt there was the Greek city and colony of Naucratis. This is all before Alexanders conquest.

The culture exchanges occurred before and after Alexanders conquests.

I think you already answered your question. Administration purposes would be one big reason as to the spread of the Hellenic language, but that doesn't constitute a direct policy. Alexander and the Macedonian court were also Hellenised to an extent, thus this could have an impact on their policies, Alexander himself admired Hellenic culture.

But you must not forget that Hellenic culture spread to that part of the world before Alexanders conquest.

Tisk tisk tisk.....:p

I'm sure you heard of Ulrich Wilcken right;)

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/1387/wilckennw8.jpg


and more recent discoveries.....

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3504/agrammarofmodernindoeurnu0.jpg

You are letting yourself down with comment like that. Lets keep to a standard.

RB I'm already below standard from the moment that I'm discusing ancient history with you . You're not in position to understand some arguements that I provide that a historian can....but I'm willing to make that sacrifice ..because I need you bringing low-value arguments so that I can counter-strike them !!! Don't forget that you come with 4-10 word phrases and I come with whole pages from books.

The Macedonian state p141

Name the chapter or the subchapter title ..because I have the book in my hands right now and the the page 141 talks about the military development in 359-323 BC.

A loaded 45?? All I have seen is a water pistol.

There are a few inconsistencies in what you have produced. First of all Hammond beings immediately by assuming that the Name Macedonia has only a Greek meaning, when there is a Macedonian meaning to the word, as I have mentioned before.

Relax be ..you can't tell the difference between Maliq I ,IIa ,IIb ,IIIc ,IIId , Glasinac ,or Lausitz burial modalities and the significance of each.
If you have read the Borza pages then you'd must noticed that Borza accepts it ...."Macedonians or the "Highlanders" ..." Borza accepts Pieria as the original homeland and he recognizes the mycenaean findings found there in Early Iron Age. The Phrygian influence arguement for mthe other hand sets the arrival of the macedonians at the same periods with the mycenaean findings ...so ...

The part about the deities the Macedonians worshiped being Greek is also doubtful, there is nothing exclusively Hellenic about them, these gods had a common Indo-European origin.

The devine adjectives are more language specific...Enyalios , Thaulios , Dias are Greek ..and very early Greek !!! Most of the Greeks new Enyalios as Ares (which is probably a Thracian name) yet the macedonians have maintained the proto-Greek term "ενύω" = to kill.

Why did you stop in the deities ....I haven't heard you explaining the 1000 BC toponyms ..don't avoid them mate !!! All Greek !!!
I haven't heard af the months names ..all greek and paragonable with the other greek tribes.
And please don't bring the Bulgarian etymology here ..do it in the free speach section ..where the general level permittes you to do so !!!
At least Borza is clear on one thing ..that YOU are slavs NOT related to the ancient Macedonians !!!!

He mentions the Philotas affair, referring to a Macedonian dialect, where as we see in Rufus, these only mention of a native language.

First of all we brought tones of evidence above ..that Rufus has inflated the affair ..and there's Jona's statement that he's reproducing a Kaligulas affair "anonimusly" ... I hoped you had first read before changing level ...

You keep on going how Borza doesn't make conclusions, what you are basically saying is that he doesn't make the conclusions that are favourable to the Greek view, the conclusions that you want. That is because there are evidence to indicate the contrary. If there are evidence to indicate the contrary, you cant conclude the issue beyond reasonable doubt. Has beyond reasonable doubt been attained, clearly no. So it would be pretty stupid to conclude something when there is evidence to the contrary.

Relax Be ...we brought you Borza's pages ...read them ...All historians agree that the pro-Greek evidence is much more than the non-Greek one !!!
Wake up

I know pretty well why some historians (lately they are very few , literaly 1:10) have their hesitations on the grecity issue...I also know that what ever they found in as non greek in Macedonian is safely found also in other greek dialects ..and specificaly in the northern greek dialects (Doric ,North-Western , Aeolic).

I think you already answered your question. Administration purposes would be one big reason as to the spread of the Hellenic language, but that doesn't constitute a direct policy. Alexander and the Macedonian court were also Hellenised to an extent, thus this could have an impact on their policies, Alexander himself admired Hellenic culture.

But you must not forget that Hellenic culture spread to that part of the world before Alexanders conquest.

tell me something Relax Be ...do you think that Alexander and the court were stealing goats and sheeps ???

That's a common people task ..and it's a very old tradition ...ever heard of the Macedonian dance of Karpea ??? A dance simulating live-stock theft and meaning "profit" (epikarpeyein) in Greek ??? Interestingly the Magnetes (the Greek tribe that in the Greek mythology are considered brothers of the macedonians) and the Aenianes (another greek tribe living i nthe upper Sperkhius) had the same dance with the same name !!!

The names Mimallones , Klodones , Dionysus Pseudanor (watch the Greek epithet pseudanor = "false man") are Greek terms referd to almost 300 years before alexander's death.

The Hetairoi (king's companions in Greek and with a homeric tradition) were still active in the Macedonians ...when all the other greeks forgot them ...yet Maedonians and Magnetes (who had no hetairoi) had a feast named Hetairidia another Greek word with VERY DEEP ROOTS refering to a very old greek institution !!!

Poseidon = Neptune in Roman mythology
Hera = Juno in Roman mythology
Athena (Lybian origin)
Ares = Mars in Roman mythology
Apollo = Appears in both Roman and Greek mythology (possible Asian origins)
Hephaestus = Vulcan in Roman mythology
Demeter = Ceres in Roman mythology

But the Romans had them with different names ....names that have no greek etymology ...now my little friend tell me what is the etymology of the Macedonian Divine Names & Epithets as:

Pseudanor , Thaulios , Enyalios , Dias???






The culture exchanges occurred before and after Alexanders conquests.

Find me a descent historian that will admit that there would be an Eratosthenes in Egypt if Alexander hadn't arrived there .......
you're so misinformed (or not indormed at all) that you can't even tell the difference between the Western (greek) and Oriental (Persian , Egyptian) way of thought....and their colossal differences ...differences that have product different ways of thought.

a bunch of greek mercenaries would never be able to enable the Orientals in the Western Thought (it presupposes a liberation of mind that the Despotic orientals never had before the hellenistic period)...open a philosophy book that explains the basic blocks that Orientalism produces in philosophic thought.

But the Romans had them with different names ....names that have no greek etymology ...now my little friend tell me what is the etymology of the Macedonian Divine Names & Epithets as:

Pseudanor , Thaulios , Enyalios , Dias???







Find me a descent historian that will admit that there would be an Eratosthenes in Egypt if Alexander hadn't arrived there .......
you're so misinformed (or not indormed at all) that you can't even tell the difference between the Western (greek) and Oriental (Persian , Egyptian) way of thought....and their colossal differences ...differences that have product different ways of thought.

a bunch of greek mercenaries would never be able to enable the Orientals in the Western Thought (it presupposes a liberation of mind that the Despotic orientals never had before the hellenistic period)...open a philosophy book that explains the basic blocks that Orientalism produces in philosophic thought.

The Muslims have a different name for god, Allah, that doesn't mean we don't pray to a common god. These so called Greek gods were not exclusively Greek by all means.

Your interpretation of Orientalism is a bit skewed. Have a read of Edward Said's work, that should clear things up.

As far as the culture stuff, I gave you examples of Hellenic culture spreading before Alexander, look at my previous post. Disregard it at your own peril.

Ohh yes and your attempt to downplay indigenous Egyptian mathematics is appalling to be generous. The Egyptians built the first pyramids 600 years before the emergence of the earliest mathematical tools. Folks like Pythogaros, Thales and Archimedes, who worked in Egypt absorbed a lot of Egyptian mathematics into Greek mathematics. You are indeed an orientalist :mad:

RB I'm already below standard from the moment that I'm discusing ancient history with you . You're not in position to understand some arguements that I provide that a historian can....but I'm willing to make that sacrifice ..because I need you bringing low-value arguments so that I can counter-strike them !!! Don't forget that you come with 4-10 word phrases and I come with whole pages from books.



Name the chapter or the subchapter title ..because I have the book in my hands right now and the the page 141 talks about the military development in 359-323 BC.



Relax be ..you can't tell the difference between Maliq I ,IIa ,IIb ,IIIc ,IIId , Glasinac ,or Lausitz burial modalities and the significance of each.
If you have read the Borza pages then you'd must noticed that Borza accepts it ...."Macedonians or the "Highlanders" ..." Borza accepts Pieria as the original homeland and he recognizes the mycenaean findings found there in Early Iron Age. The Phrygian influence arguement for mthe other hand sets the arrival of the macedonians at the same periods with the mycenaean findings ...so ...



The devine adjectives are more language specific...Enyalios , Thaulios , Dias are Greek ..and very early Greek !!! Most of the Greeks new Enyalios as Ares (which is probably a Thracian name) yet the macedonians have maintained the proto-Greek term "ενύω" = to kill.

Why did you stop in the deities ....I haven't heard you explaining the 1000 BC toponyms ..don't avoid them mate !!! All Greek !!!
I haven't heard af the months names ..all greek and paragonable with the other greek tribes.
And please don't bring the Bulgarian etymology here ..do it in the free speach section ..where the general level permittes you to do so !!!
At least Borza is clear on one thing ..that YOU are slavs NOT related to the ancient Macedonians !!!!



First of all we brought tones of evidence above ..that Rufus has inflated the affair ..and there's Jona's statement that he's reproducing a Kaligulas affair "anonimusly" ... I hoped you had first read before changing level ...



Relax Be ...we brought you Borza's pages ...read them ...All historians agree that the pro-Greek evidence is much more than the non-Greek one !!!
Wake up

I know pretty well why some historians (lately they are very few , literaly 1:10) have their hesitations on the grecity issue...I also know that what ever they found in as non greek in Macedonian is safely found also in other greek dialects ..and specificaly in the northern greek dialects (Doric ,North-Western Aeolic).

See again you let yourself down when you say ALL historians. You jump the gun too early at making sweeping conclusions.

You can bring a whole library full of your evidence I can provide one passage that proves the contrary. That is efficiency at its best.

The best you can do with the Philotas affair is "dramatisation and inventions". We can't have a serious discussion if we relegate all the evidence you don't like as dramatisation.

The toponym such as the word aegae, aegis etc, are also found in Egyptian and Norse mythology and Herodotus refers to its Lybian origin.

tell me something Relax Be ...do you think that Alexander and the court were stealing goats and sheeps ???

That's a common people task ..and it's a very old tradition ...ever heard of the Macedonian dance of Karpea ??? A dance simulating live-stock theft and meaning "profit" (epikarpeyein) in Greek ??? Interestingly the Magnetes (the Greek tribe that in the Greek mythology are considered brothers of the macedonians) and the Aenianes (another greek tribe living i nthe upper Sperkhius) had the same dance with the same name !!!

The names Mimallones , Klodones , Dionysus Pseudanor (watch the Greek epithet pseudanor = "false man") are Greek terms referd to almost 300 years before alexander's death.

The Hetairoi (king's companions in Greek and with a homeric tradition) were still active in the Macedonians ...when all the other greeks forgot them ...yet Maedonians and Magnetes (who had no hetairoi) had a feast named Hetairidia another Greek word with VERY DEEP ROOTS refering to a very old greek institution !!!

Greek etymology of Macedonian names is hardly proof they were Hellenic, considering many of the Persian names also have Hellenic etymology. You need to do better.

Greek etymology of Macedonian names is hardly proof they were Hellenic, considering many of the Persian names also have Hellenic etymology. You need to do better.

It seems your entire argumentation ranges between clumsy to childish. In fact what you provide as "arguments" serve as proof for the Greekness of Macedonians and not the opposite.

Firstly your own argument backfires at you, considering that:

I) There are only a couple of Persian names which could be claimed to derive from Hellenic roots, hence this is the exception of the general rule that makes Persian names not having Hellenic etymology. On the contrary ancient Macedonian names have Hellenic etymology as a rule.

II) In reality the ancient Macedonian names were COMMON in the Greek world even prior to the establishment of Macedonian kingdom. On the other hand your claim is easily refuted and essentially prove the opposite of your claim, alone by the fact that NONE of the Persian names who were regularized to sound better in Greek, is found in the Greek world. You will never find any Greek called Xerxes, or Darius, or any female called Sisygambis. But you will find plenty of Greeks having names as Alexandros, Philippos, Pausanias, etc. You need to do better than this.

Greek etymology of Macedonian names is hardly proof they were Hellenic, considering many of the Persian names also have Hellenic etymology. You need to do better.

RB I understand completely why you wished the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks.
:rolleyes:

Give me a break. Persians were just that Persians. Having Persian names, personal, and for there regions, a Persian religion, and a Persian culture.

The "Hellenization" of Macedonia that historians mentioned is purely cultural, NOT ethnic in nature. The advance cultural civilization of Athens, by the 4th bc spread not only to Macedonia, but to other Greek city states, and kingdoms.

Macedonia the word itself has a Greek etymology. Plain and simple.
Macedonians are tribally connected to the Greeks in Hesiod's Theogony
Macedonians had Greek names personal, and for their regions and cities
Macedonians worshiped Greek gods
Macedonians had Greek names for their calendar months
Macedonians spread the Greek language and Greek religion to the lands that they conquered.
Macedonians participated in Greek-only events including the Olympics and the Amphictony (can any other people claim this? Illyrians?No Thracians?No Paeonians?No Persians?No Latins?No Egyptians?No

and what Richard Billows, a very conservative historian says in his book published in 1997;)

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/5564/antigonostheoneeyedoneix7.jpg

A good American expression: "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck.... Then it's a duck"....;)

The Muslims have a different name for god, Allah, that doesn't mean we don't pray to a common god. These so called Greek gods were not exclusively Greek by all means.

READ WHAt I WROTE !!!!! Divine Epithets !!!!! In Greek etymology !!! Is the word Allal and it's muslim epithets of greek etymology ???

Your interpretation of Orientalism is a bit skewed. Have a read of Edward Said's work, that should clear things up.

My interpretation of Orientalism is the one that I find in every philosophy book ...rewad one first !!!

As far as the culture stuff, I gave you examples of Hellenic culture spreading before Alexander, look at my previous post. Disregard it at your own peril.

A bunch of mercenaries can't change the way if thinking of a whole continent. To do that you need a central authority that favourites the "education" system in acertain direction. Oriental despopt and the clergy never wanted to induce a "free" thinking in their populations. Free thinking is the basis of Greek/Western civilization.

Ohh yes and your attempt to downplay indigenous Egyptian mathematics is appalling to be generous. The Egyptians built the first pyramids 600 years before the emergence of the earliest mathematical tools. Folks like Pythogaros, Thales and Archimedes, who worked in Egypt absorbed a lot of Egyptian mathematics into Greek mathematics. You are indeed an orientalist :mad:

By the way ...the educated world names him Pythagoras. Now RB , the egyptians never had mathematics (strictu sensu). Mathematics is science based on certain universaly accepted rules. What the egyptians had is more like arithmetics , calculus and banal geometry. If you read a good book on ancient mathematics (Neugebauer and Van Der Waerden are the best that exist) you'll see that the Egyptians had a "3,4,5 theorem" ,but never expanded it to general triangle rule. That is when the egyptians wanted to form a rectangular angle (90 grades) they formed a tringle with side lengths 3,4 and 5 ...knowing that the angle between 3 and 4 is rectangular. What Pythagoras (or best the first pythagorians after him) have done is to form a general rectangular triangle geometric rule. For every side lengths in every rectangular triangle "hypotenoussa square is given by the sum of the side squares" (c^2 = a^2+b^2).

The Babylonians had approach the square root of 2 (1,414) with arithmetical approximation ...but never saw it as the hypotenoysa of a isoscele rectangular triangle with sides (1,1,sqrt(2)) => 2= 1^2+1^2.

Oriental astronomy ...was realy what we ay today "astrology" . The phoenicians used it to orientate themselves in the Sea ...Egyptians and Babylonians had also a descritive approach on the sky that indeed was very detailed ..but none of those three ever used the "data" to produce what we call today astronomical laws. Take for instance the presocratic philosopher Anaximander ..he erroneusly concluded back in 550 BC that the "Earth is the center of universe ..and it maintaines it's equilibrium because of it's central position". Although he made an error in the position ...note how did he explained the equilibrium ...by the symmetry. This means that he made a primitive "vector analysis" (we should say today ;)) an intuition that matter interacts between it's parts (gravity ??) ansd so if the you are symmetricaly sourrounded by matter the final result will be force neutralizzation and equilibrium.And I'haven't even quoted Hippias and Aristarkhus from Samos that are considered more astronomers than philosophers.Aristarkhus proposed a heliocentric "universe" and Hippias used a "brightness scale" to classify stars ..he had a scale from 1 to 6. Modern science uses the same principle (brightness) to define the stars size. The only difference ...poor Hippias measured brightness "by eye" , meanwhile modern astronomers do so by measuring Spectrum distribution densities.

So , orientals had great cultures indeed ..but philosophy and science was never their true interest.....They never had free thought ..and free thought offers the basic ingridient for science ...that is called "abstruction" ...Abstruction is something that was born by Greek minds.

So you can say what ever you like ...but I challenge you to find me some widely respected scientist that will admit that ABSTRUCTION existed in the Orient before the arrival of Alexander (before the Hellenistic times).

You can bring a whole library full of your evidence I can provide one passage that proves the contrary. That is efficiency at its best.

Permitte me to say that yours is STUPIDITY at it's best. You keep quoting without being in grade to percept each arguement's gravity. All arguments are not equal. Each one has it's specific weight. The final coclusion hypothetical or not should be based on the whole weight interpretation. Yo simply seem to fail in that ..for you the one fits the other ...The term "QUANTITY" (longitudinal (number) and vertical (weight)) lacks from your thought ...you'll never end up in a scientificaly respected conclusion.

The best you can do with the Philotas affair is "dramatisation and inventions". We can't have a serious discussion if we relegate all the evidence you don't like as dramatisation.[QUOTE]

Can you read my quotes and sources ...I didn't named it "dramatic" ...the sources I provided do so ...I personaly simply asked you ...why did Rufus 400 years after the event described it much more "detailed" than Ptolemy (quoted by Arrian) who was present in the affair ???

[QUOTE=RB]The toponym such as the word aegae, aegis etc, are also found in Egyptian and Norse mythology and Herodotus refers to its Lybian origin.

Bring some quotes from scientists my brainwashed amigo ....I'd like to see the Herodotus exact quote also...You see for the descent linguists ..the word Aix/Aiga (meaning goat) and it's derivatives as Aigai , Aigion ,Aigys , Aiginion ,Aigydion/Aigidion, Aigis (shield made by goat's skin) derive from the greek verb Αΐκσω/Αΐσσω meaning "to skip" :

1) Goats are named so because they have the tendency to "skip" ...or as we even say in modern greek "he skips like a wild goat" (χοροπηδά σαν αγριοκάτσικο)
2) The Dorians named the "waves" instead of Ionic "κῦμα" as "αίγες" due to the "skipping" of the water ...and that's why the sea was named Aegean.
3) Pierian river name Αίσων has the same root. Skipping is a torrent is more seing as "moving rapidly" ..the same etymology as the other greek river Sperkheios and modern greek names as "γοργοπόταμος" ("fast river")
4)The greek name Αίσων (Jason's father in mythology). "skipping" here is refered to the man's character see nas "impetuous".

Now this was only about Aigai !!!

You have to provide me quotes for every single original toponym:

Λεβαία = water "deposit" , near the widening of Haliakmon , hence modern Greek "λέβητας"
Πιερία = prosperous/fertile land or /well chosen land , hence the greek words Πῖαρ (top milk) , Πιείρα = fertile
Ημαθία = "sandy" place , hence Homeric "ἐς Πύλον ἠμαθόεντα" ="at sandy Pylos" and the greek word for "sand" (άμμος)
Αίσων , Αιγαί , Αιγίδιον we,ve all ready talked about.
Βάλλα = "threshold" (Aeolic βάλλα , Ιonian βήλος , doric βάλος) / "lower post" ..it was a city in the foothills of the Pierian mountains
Φυλάκη = "guarding post" from greek "φύλακας" = "guardian". A city next to Balla destroyed by Haliakmonas' changing watr course.
Λείβηθρον = "flow streams" in greek ..and guess what it has 4 "canals" that in winter become torrents.
Aλιάκμων = "prosperous fishery" / ακμάζουσα αλ&#