Educators should keep their noses out of Macedonia´s political issues
Gandeto
May 18, 2009
Often times we find passages throughout literature promoted by some scholars that Alexander´s conquest of Asia was a Greek conquest and that Alexander´s Macedonian soldiers are described as Greek soldiers. Influenced by Tarn´s romantic portrayal of Alexander, and Droysen´s description of Macedon from a ´Prussian analogy´ a number of writers and historians, who wrote about the ancient Macedonians, did—without paying much attention to details found in the ancient texts—indeed, described them as Greeks.
In the second half of this century, though, we have witnessed an enormous upheaval of younger writers and scholars who have taken—in my opinion the correct path—an entirely different approach in attacking and interpreting ancient text. Here, the attitude of these scholars is much more scientifically oriented where the main thrust of their energies invested is focused on the objectivity of the subject matter and the veracity of the provided evidence. Consequently, in the name of science, all other nationalistic tendencies and ethnocentric inclinations or socio-political attachments were—to a greater or lesser extent—successfully avoided.
Here, I have selected a passage from Diodorus where one can, without great difficulties, obtain conclusive evidence as to who the ancient Macedonians were.
"When Aristophon was archon at Athens, the consular office at Rome was assumed by Gaius Domitius and Aulus Cornelius. In this year word was brought to Greece about the battle near Arbela, and many of the cities became alarmed at the growth of Macedonian power and decided that they should strike for their freedom while the Persian cause was still alive (17.62.2).
They expected that Dareius would help them and send them much money so that they could gather great armies of mercenaries, while Alexander would not be able to divide his forces. (17.62.3). If, on the other hand, they watched idly while the Persians were utterly defeated, the Greeks would be isolated and never again be able to think of recovering their freedom."
Several points in this passage shed more light about the differences between Macedonians and Greeks than all the heat generated by the Greek chauvinistic slogans combined. Let´s dissect the above lines for illumination:
First, there was an alarm felt by the Greek city-states about the growth of the Macedonian power. This implicitly suggests that Greece and Macedonia were not in a military union, and that the Macedonian conquest of Asia cannot be ascribed to the Greeks. Alexander´s success in Asia is not a cause for happiness and celebration in Greece, but an alarm for action.
Second, the fact that Greeks felt "they should strike for their freedom" is a sobering revelation by itself. It confirms the obvious that the Greeks were conquered by the Macedonians and not united. In Corinth Philip summoned the defeated Greek city states to tell them what he would do to Persia and to any of them in case of treachery. In other words, he, like any victorious general, called the Greeks in Corinth to tell them who was the boss; Philip spoke and the Greeks—having no choice—were listening.
Third, as we already know, Alexander and his Macedonians—I say Macedonians and not Greeks, because the Greeks were notable for their absence from any major battle in Asia (Bosworth, 1988)—were fighting Darius, and yet the Greek states on the mainland counted on the fact that Darius will send them gold to finance their war against Alexander. In other words Greeks were not at war with Persia, and this was not a Panhellenic crusade to avenge Greece for the wrongs committed by the Persians, and
Fourth, "if, on the other hand, they watched idly while the Persians were utterly defeated, the Greeks would be isolated and never again be able to think of recovering their freedom." Here, a case can be made not of Macedonians and Greeks fighting against the Persians but of Greeks and Persian united against the Macedonians.
The Greek intent is explicit; if they do not attack Macedonia at this opportune time—while Alexander is fighting the Persians—but instead, wait and watch them be defeated, then their destiny would be sealed; they will not be able to recover their freedom.
Once again, and with added clarity, the status of the Greeks after the battle of Chaeronea is solidly confirmed; they were militarily defeated and subdued. There was no unification between Macedon and the Greek states. Subsequent feelings expressed by prominent Greeks and saved for posterity, only add to the enormity of the Greek´s illusion and disdainful saga; Greece was enslaved by the Macedonian Kings.
Therefore, I must, once again, reject all Greek claims that ancient Macedonians united the Greek city-states or that they waged war on Persia on Greece´s behalf. The ancient Macedonians were neither in possession of, nor spread Hellenic culture in Asia. Literary evidence would not permit us such liberty to indulge ourselves in such preposterous and inadmissible acts. Thus, at this junction and under these irreconcilable differences, we must reject all Greek´s claims in regards to ancient Macedonians as utterly frivolous and unsubstantiated.
I challenge all those university professors who have signed Professor Stephen G. Miller´s petition—helping Greece in the dispute about the name with the Republic of Macedonia—to be sent to President Obama, to explain Diodorus´ passage and provide
plausible rationale or justification for their position. I would like to know how and at whose expense this alleged Greekness of the ancient Macedonians will come from. For, without an outright corruption of the existing evidence, no other conclusion is possible.
It is certain that from this passage, no Greekness can be ascribed to the ancient Macedonians. No Greekness can be ascribed to the Persian conquest of Alexander and his Macedonians and definitely, no Greekness can be assigned to the Macedonian people and to the land of Macedon in lieu of this incorruptible evidence. Conversely, what easily precipitates from this passage and adds to the already collected insurmountable evidence is the unbeatable fact that ancient Greeks neither claimed the ancient Macedonians as brethren nor were they so obliged by the other side.
I challenge specifically Professor Stephen G. Miller to come forward and provide rationale for his uncalled for and unprofessional conduct in this politically motivated discourse between two neighboring countries. I believe his business should be teaching—and on this note, I feel sorry for the students who will be exposed to his biased and subjective interpretation of ancient history—and he, or any other like-minded educators should know to keep their noses out of the politically sensitive matters not under their scrutiny or jurisdiction. It is my profound belief that good educators should provide their students with evidence and facts found in the literature and leave their conclusions to open debate.
Until next time….
In the second half of this century, though, we have witnessed an enormous upheaval of younger writers and scholars who have taken—in my opinion the correct path—an entirely different approach in attacking and interpreting ancient text. Here, the attitude of these scholars is much more scientifically oriented where the main thrust of their energies invested is focused on the objectivity of the subject matter and the veracity of the provided evidence. Consequently, in the name of science, all other nationalistic tendencies and ethnocentric inclinations or socio-political attachments were—to a greater or lesser extent—successfully avoided.
Here, I have selected a passage from Diodorus where one can, without great difficulties, obtain conclusive evidence as to who the ancient Macedonians were.
"When Aristophon was archon at Athens, the consular office at Rome was assumed by Gaius Domitius and Aulus Cornelius. In this year word was brought to Greece about the battle near Arbela, and many of the cities became alarmed at the growth of Macedonian power and decided that they should strike for their freedom while the Persian cause was still alive (17.62.2).
They expected that Dareius would help them and send them much money so that they could gather great armies of mercenaries, while Alexander would not be able to divide his forces. (17.62.3). If, on the other hand, they watched idly while the Persians were utterly defeated, the Greeks would be isolated and never again be able to think of recovering their freedom."
Several points in this passage shed more light about the differences between Macedonians and Greeks than all the heat generated by the Greek chauvinistic slogans combined. Let´s dissect the above lines for illumination:
First, there was an alarm felt by the Greek city-states about the growth of the Macedonian power. This implicitly suggests that Greece and Macedonia were not in a military union, and that the Macedonian conquest of Asia cannot be ascribed to the Greeks. Alexander´s success in Asia is not a cause for happiness and celebration in Greece, but an alarm for action.
Second, the fact that Greeks felt "they should strike for their freedom" is a sobering revelation by itself. It confirms the obvious that the Greeks were conquered by the Macedonians and not united. In Corinth Philip summoned the defeated Greek city states to tell them what he would do to Persia and to any of them in case of treachery. In other words, he, like any victorious general, called the Greeks in Corinth to tell them who was the boss; Philip spoke and the Greeks—having no choice—were listening.
Third, as we already know, Alexander and his Macedonians—I say Macedonians and not Greeks, because the Greeks were notable for their absence from any major battle in Asia (Bosworth, 1988)—were fighting Darius, and yet the Greek states on the mainland counted on the fact that Darius will send them gold to finance their war against Alexander. In other words Greeks were not at war with Persia, and this was not a Panhellenic crusade to avenge Greece for the wrongs committed by the Persians, and
Fourth, "if, on the other hand, they watched idly while the Persians were utterly defeated, the Greeks would be isolated and never again be able to think of recovering their freedom." Here, a case can be made not of Macedonians and Greeks fighting against the Persians but of Greeks and Persian united against the Macedonians.
The Greek intent is explicit; if they do not attack Macedonia at this opportune time—while Alexander is fighting the Persians—but instead, wait and watch them be defeated, then their destiny would be sealed; they will not be able to recover their freedom.
Once again, and with added clarity, the status of the Greeks after the battle of Chaeronea is solidly confirmed; they were militarily defeated and subdued. There was no unification between Macedon and the Greek states. Subsequent feelings expressed by prominent Greeks and saved for posterity, only add to the enormity of the Greek´s illusion and disdainful saga; Greece was enslaved by the Macedonian Kings.
Therefore, I must, once again, reject all Greek claims that ancient Macedonians united the Greek city-states or that they waged war on Persia on Greece´s behalf. The ancient Macedonians were neither in possession of, nor spread Hellenic culture in Asia. Literary evidence would not permit us such liberty to indulge ourselves in such preposterous and inadmissible acts. Thus, at this junction and under these irreconcilable differences, we must reject all Greek´s claims in regards to ancient Macedonians as utterly frivolous and unsubstantiated.
I challenge all those university professors who have signed Professor Stephen G. Miller´s petition—helping Greece in the dispute about the name with the Republic of Macedonia—to be sent to President Obama, to explain Diodorus´ passage and provide
plausible rationale or justification for their position. I would like to know how and at whose expense this alleged Greekness of the ancient Macedonians will come from. For, without an outright corruption of the existing evidence, no other conclusion is possible.
It is certain that from this passage, no Greekness can be ascribed to the ancient Macedonians. No Greekness can be ascribed to the Persian conquest of Alexander and his Macedonians and definitely, no Greekness can be assigned to the Macedonian people and to the land of Macedon in lieu of this incorruptible evidence. Conversely, what easily precipitates from this passage and adds to the already collected insurmountable evidence is the unbeatable fact that ancient Greeks neither claimed the ancient Macedonians as brethren nor were they so obliged by the other side.
I challenge specifically Professor Stephen G. Miller to come forward and provide rationale for his uncalled for and unprofessional conduct in this politically motivated discourse between two neighboring countries. I believe his business should be teaching—and on this note, I feel sorry for the students who will be exposed to his biased and subjective interpretation of ancient history—and he, or any other like-minded educators should know to keep their noses out of the politically sensitive matters not under their scrutiny or jurisdiction. It is my profound belief that good educators should provide their students with evidence and facts found in the literature and leave their conclusions to open debate.
Until next time….
Print
Email
