AWAC´s attempt to fabricate Macedonian History
Gandeto
November 23, 2008
In Risto Stefov´s article The Falsification of Ancient Macedonia History Part 4
From November 21, 2008 the Australian Macedonian Advisory Council - AWAC (A front whose purpose is to diffuse and to deflect attention from real Macedonians) responded with the following accusations:
"As we emphatically pointed out in our previous article, the art of committing provocative falsification and blatant violation of the historical reality finds full use into the propaganda originating from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). If we are looking for a pure sample of the deplorable "taking text out of context" method in order to misrepresent a source´s actual position, then one of the best candidates should definitely be one of the latest articles of Risto Stefov; ironically entitled "Greek Australian Advisory Council and the falsification of Ancient Macedonian history Part 9". For example in one of the most comical writings you could ever read, in regards to ancient history, the author once more, attempts to isolate and take out of context a certain small number of references taken from the book "Plutarch The Age of Alexander" by Ian-Scott Kilvert."
If in fact the author Stefov misrepresented "a source´s actual position" and has taken "text out of context" then, don´t you think, instead of leveling accusations, you should confront his "misrepresentations" by presenting the actual real text and enlighten the readers with the strength of your argument? Instead of presenting evidentiary documentation for the alleged "forgeries" as you claim, and bring to the reader´s attention the "misrepresented text" you simply revert to bringing your own version of "truthful" text by selectively lifting passages from the sources and doing exactly what you have wrongly accused him of doing.
One is tempted to ask: where is the beef? Where are the facts that he, indeed, forged or misrepresented and took text out of context?
If you want to convince the readers of the truthfulness of your position and the validity of your assertions then you ought to bring forth the evidence needed; without such a support, your empty rhetoric remains just that – empty rhetoric, devoid of substance and full of propagandistic half-truths.
The strength of an argument does not lie in its quantitative tonalities but is measured and supported by its ability to withstand attacks and weather the scholarly storm - the so-called intellectual onslaught; to withstand the test of time and maintain its course unimpeded. No single source of evidence, however, is convincing but when collected data from a variety of sources and transcending different archeological and social strata, bring forth irrefutable evidence, the argument at the end is persuasive and leads to, more or less, agreeable conclusions.
Below I have selected several passages from your commentaries for elucidation.
The AWAC member writes:
1]
"On his father´s side Alexander was descended from Hercules through Caranus, and on his mother´s from Aeacus through Neoptolemus: so much is accepted by all authorities without question.
(Plut. 7.2 page 252)
Point of Interest: "The fact that Alexander was Greek by both his parents went unquestioned by all authorities"]
This authority below has something else to say: Aside from the mythical component of the story, which has no business in scholarly research, I would like to bring to the reader´s attention the last sentence of the passage where Alexander´s "Hellenic" lineage is questioned: Alexander´s mother Olympia comes from the Molossian kingdom of Epirote. The sentence is underlined for emphasis.
Peter Green - [Classical Bearings p.157] "All Herodotus in fact says is that Alexander himself demonstrated his Argive ancestry (in itself a highly dubious genealogical claim), and was thus adjudged a Greek---against angry opposition, be it noted, from the stewards of the Games. Even if, with professor N.G.L. Hammond, we accept this ethnic certification at face value, it tells us, as he makes plain, nothing whatsoever about Macedonians generally. Alexander's dynasty, if Greek, he writes, regarded itself as Macedonian only by right of rule, as a branch of the Hanoverian house has come to 'regard itself as English'. On top of which, Philip II's son Alexander had an Epirote mother, which compounds the problem from yet another ethnic angle."
Question: Dou you think the Molossian kingdom in Epirus was considered to be Greek?
"…compounds the problem from yet another ethnic angle", writes Green.
(2)
"Philip for example was as proud of his powers of eloquence as any sophist, and took care to have the victories won by his chariots at Olympia stamped upon his coins."
(Plut. 7.4, page 256)
Philip as a proud Greek, had his victories in Olympics stamped on his coins]
This is definitely very "convincing" proof for Greekness.
Let us elaborate:
First, you lifted out from the text what suited you the most.
What Plutarch was describing and contrasting with Philip´s inclinations was Alexander´s passionate "desire for fame and grandeur, which by no means was every kind of glory that he sought, and, unlike his father, he did not seek it in every form of action".
In other words, it was in Philip´s nature to commemorate an event that brought him pleasure at that moment and "seek fame in every form of action". The stamp of chariot on his coins is, indeed, a non factor in this situation. If one sees "Greekness" in it, it will show his desperation and paucity of better arguments. It leaves us with the residue of an action to which not much weight can be attached to.
3
(Plut. 7.7, page 258)
"One of the most famous Greek philosophers, Aristotle was entrusted by Philip with the task of training and educating his son"]
Aristotle
What you conveniently forgot to tell the readers is the fact that besides Aristotle, Alexander had a number of other Macedonian teachers who educated him in the art of war, monarchical governance and a host of other princely duties. You omitted the fact that "Aristotle, born at Stageira on the Macedonian border and the son of a Greek doctor at the Macedonian court, classed the Macedonians and their institution of Monarchy as not Greek, as we shall see shortly. It is thus not surprising that the Macedonians considered themselves to be, and were treated by Alexander the Great as being, separate from the Greeks. They were proud to be so." (Hammond)
Aristotle had counseled Alexander to "look after Greeks as after friends and relatives and to deal with barbarians as with beasts or plants."
AWAC member writes:
8]"The neighbouring barbarian tribes were eager to throw off the Macedonian yoke and longed for the rule of their native kings:"
Here you forgot to tell the readers that the very next sentence, which you conveniently omitted for it would have smudged your intended purpose of deception, describes Philip´s attitude towards the Greek states and vice versa. I would like the readers to know that they, the Greek writer from AWAC accused the author Stefov of supposed forgeries and manipulation of historical text. They wrote:
"The common definition of "taking text out of context" is to remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its true meaning. In other words, a shorter extract or phrase is used purposedly in an attempt to represent the views of the person being quoted inaccurately.
Well, then look it the above sentence [8] they brought forth as evidence that ancient Macedonians were Greeks. That is just the beginning of the passage. The rest of the passage is conveniently left out because it reveals arguments that run contrary to their position. Let us go through it: (Text is underlined for emphasis)
"as for the Greek states, although Philip had defeated them in battle, he had not had time to subdue them or accustom them to his authority. He had swept away the existing governments, and then, having prepared their peoples for drastic changes, had left them in turmoil and confusion, because he had created a situation which was completely unfamiliar to them."
Furthermore, what is more important for our case is the following passage referring to Macedonia and Greece.
"Alexander´s Macedonian advisers feared that a crisis was at hand and urged the young king to leave the Greek states to their own devices and refrain from using any force against them."
As a matter of fact their quoted sentence above, unambiguously represents the situation surrounding all Macedonian neighbors, Greeks included. When Alexander marched north to subdue the "barbarians", Thebes, supported by the Athenians in Greece revolted against Alexander.
This is what Thebans proclaimed upon receiving offers to surrender to Alexander:
"The Thebans countered by demanding the surrender of Philotas and Antipater and appealing to all who wished to liberate Greece to range themselves on their side."
All who wished to liberate Greece to range themselves on Thebes side.
This was a classic example of a pot calling the kettle black. Obviously, these members of AWAC (again, they are neither Macedonians nor do they promote the truth about Macedonia. Their true purpose is deception and fabrication) have extended training in subverting and manipulating literary evidence.
5. "Macedonia as a greek state took part in the congress held at Isthmus of Corinth. Alexander was voted to be commander-in-chief while many Greek statesmen and philosophers showed their joy about the event by offering him their congratulations.]
Incorrect;
The Greek states were to make an alliance amongst themselves first, the Hellenic League and then, the League will sign the treaties with Macedonia. Macedon was not a member of the Hellenic league or any other Greek league for that matter. Prove me wrong. Please do not be naïve; Greeks had nothing to say at the congress. They were summoned there to sign the capitulation papers and receive their garrisons. They came to Corinth running, leaving their dignity behind. They were a conquered people and they knew it. It was Philip who lorded over them. There was no voting.
In another attempt to prove Greekness, the AWAC writers state:
24] Demaratus the Corinthian, who was much attached to Alexander, as he had been to his father, began to weep, as old men are aprt to do, and exclaimed that any Greek who had died before that day had missed one of the greatest pleasures in life by not seeing Alexander seated on the throne of Darius.
(Plut. 7.37, page 295)
Greeks wouldnt have missed this great pleasure in life to see Alexander seated on Darius throne if he wasnt Greek himself]
True indeed, but as before, you conveniently left the part of the passage where the other Greek responds with the following true sentiment: (paraphrasing) On the contrary, said the other Greek, while the glory is reserved for the Macedonian, we Greeks wasted our leaders fighting each other; thus, explicitly separating the Greeks from the Macedonians.
At the end, as I stated before, it is not the quantity of "proofs" you plaster the internet with, but the quality and the honesty in historical accuracy that matters. All in all, it is really irrelevant. Greeks have fallen into their own trap and now it has become quick sand; the more they try to free themselves the deeper they sink. The best policy for them is to admit they made wrong choices in the past, provide restitution to the wronged party, the ethnic Macedonians in Greece, and start afresh. I am more then convinced that the huge Macedonian heart will find space for forgiveness and embrace the Greeks as good neighbors.
I´ll leave you with this thought:
Instead promoting KKK ideology, you should turn around and embrace the Republic of Macedonia. She is the only true friend you have in the region. Think again and envision what it would be like for Greece if Macedonia becomes what you wished her to become; you will be surrounded by your worst nightmare. Cherish the fact that you have the ethnic Macedonians in Greece still peaceful and civilized. Extend to them what is only theirs to begin with; their human rights as citizens of Greece. After all, your house is not made of glass, is it?
Until next time….
From November 21, 2008 the Australian Macedonian Advisory Council - AWAC (A front whose purpose is to diffuse and to deflect attention from real Macedonians) responded with the following accusations:
"As we emphatically pointed out in our previous article, the art of committing provocative falsification and blatant violation of the historical reality finds full use into the propaganda originating from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). If we are looking for a pure sample of the deplorable "taking text out of context" method in order to misrepresent a source´s actual position, then one of the best candidates should definitely be one of the latest articles of Risto Stefov; ironically entitled "Greek Australian Advisory Council and the falsification of Ancient Macedonian history Part 9". For example in one of the most comical writings you could ever read, in regards to ancient history, the author once more, attempts to isolate and take out of context a certain small number of references taken from the book "Plutarch The Age of Alexander" by Ian-Scott Kilvert."
If in fact the author Stefov misrepresented "a source´s actual position" and has taken "text out of context" then, don´t you think, instead of leveling accusations, you should confront his "misrepresentations" by presenting the actual real text and enlighten the readers with the strength of your argument? Instead of presenting evidentiary documentation for the alleged "forgeries" as you claim, and bring to the reader´s attention the "misrepresented text" you simply revert to bringing your own version of "truthful" text by selectively lifting passages from the sources and doing exactly what you have wrongly accused him of doing.
One is tempted to ask: where is the beef? Where are the facts that he, indeed, forged or misrepresented and took text out of context?
If you want to convince the readers of the truthfulness of your position and the validity of your assertions then you ought to bring forth the evidence needed; without such a support, your empty rhetoric remains just that – empty rhetoric, devoid of substance and full of propagandistic half-truths.
The strength of an argument does not lie in its quantitative tonalities but is measured and supported by its ability to withstand attacks and weather the scholarly storm - the so-called intellectual onslaught; to withstand the test of time and maintain its course unimpeded. No single source of evidence, however, is convincing but when collected data from a variety of sources and transcending different archeological and social strata, bring forth irrefutable evidence, the argument at the end is persuasive and leads to, more or less, agreeable conclusions.
Below I have selected several passages from your commentaries for elucidation.
The AWAC member writes:
1]
"On his father´s side Alexander was descended from Hercules through Caranus, and on his mother´s from Aeacus through Neoptolemus: so much is accepted by all authorities without question.
(Plut. 7.2 page 252)
Point of Interest: "The fact that Alexander was Greek by both his parents went unquestioned by all authorities"]
This authority below has something else to say: Aside from the mythical component of the story, which has no business in scholarly research, I would like to bring to the reader´s attention the last sentence of the passage where Alexander´s "Hellenic" lineage is questioned: Alexander´s mother Olympia comes from the Molossian kingdom of Epirote. The sentence is underlined for emphasis.
Peter Green - [Classical Bearings p.157] "All Herodotus in fact says is that Alexander himself demonstrated his Argive ancestry (in itself a highly dubious genealogical claim), and was thus adjudged a Greek---against angry opposition, be it noted, from the stewards of the Games. Even if, with professor N.G.L. Hammond, we accept this ethnic certification at face value, it tells us, as he makes plain, nothing whatsoever about Macedonians generally. Alexander's dynasty, if Greek, he writes, regarded itself as Macedonian only by right of rule, as a branch of the Hanoverian house has come to 'regard itself as English'. On top of which, Philip II's son Alexander had an Epirote mother, which compounds the problem from yet another ethnic angle."
Question: Dou you think the Molossian kingdom in Epirus was considered to be Greek?
"…compounds the problem from yet another ethnic angle", writes Green.
(2)
"Philip for example was as proud of his powers of eloquence as any sophist, and took care to have the victories won by his chariots at Olympia stamped upon his coins."
(Plut. 7.4, page 256)
Philip as a proud Greek, had his victories in Olympics stamped on his coins]
This is definitely very "convincing" proof for Greekness.
Let us elaborate:
First, you lifted out from the text what suited you the most.
What Plutarch was describing and contrasting with Philip´s inclinations was Alexander´s passionate "desire for fame and grandeur, which by no means was every kind of glory that he sought, and, unlike his father, he did not seek it in every form of action".
In other words, it was in Philip´s nature to commemorate an event that brought him pleasure at that moment and "seek fame in every form of action". The stamp of chariot on his coins is, indeed, a non factor in this situation. If one sees "Greekness" in it, it will show his desperation and paucity of better arguments. It leaves us with the residue of an action to which not much weight can be attached to.
3
(Plut. 7.7, page 258)
"One of the most famous Greek philosophers, Aristotle was entrusted by Philip with the task of training and educating his son"]
Aristotle
What you conveniently forgot to tell the readers is the fact that besides Aristotle, Alexander had a number of other Macedonian teachers who educated him in the art of war, monarchical governance and a host of other princely duties. You omitted the fact that "Aristotle, born at Stageira on the Macedonian border and the son of a Greek doctor at the Macedonian court, classed the Macedonians and their institution of Monarchy as not Greek, as we shall see shortly. It is thus not surprising that the Macedonians considered themselves to be, and were treated by Alexander the Great as being, separate from the Greeks. They were proud to be so." (Hammond)
Aristotle had counseled Alexander to "look after Greeks as after friends and relatives and to deal with barbarians as with beasts or plants."
AWAC member writes:
8]"The neighbouring barbarian tribes were eager to throw off the Macedonian yoke and longed for the rule of their native kings:"
Here you forgot to tell the readers that the very next sentence, which you conveniently omitted for it would have smudged your intended purpose of deception, describes Philip´s attitude towards the Greek states and vice versa. I would like the readers to know that they, the Greek writer from AWAC accused the author Stefov of supposed forgeries and manipulation of historical text. They wrote:
"The common definition of "taking text out of context" is to remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its true meaning. In other words, a shorter extract or phrase is used purposedly in an attempt to represent the views of the person being quoted inaccurately.
Well, then look it the above sentence [8] they brought forth as evidence that ancient Macedonians were Greeks. That is just the beginning of the passage. The rest of the passage is conveniently left out because it reveals arguments that run contrary to their position. Let us go through it: (Text is underlined for emphasis)
"as for the Greek states, although Philip had defeated them in battle, he had not had time to subdue them or accustom them to his authority. He had swept away the existing governments, and then, having prepared their peoples for drastic changes, had left them in turmoil and confusion, because he had created a situation which was completely unfamiliar to them."
Furthermore, what is more important for our case is the following passage referring to Macedonia and Greece.
"Alexander´s Macedonian advisers feared that a crisis was at hand and urged the young king to leave the Greek states to their own devices and refrain from using any force against them."
As a matter of fact their quoted sentence above, unambiguously represents the situation surrounding all Macedonian neighbors, Greeks included. When Alexander marched north to subdue the "barbarians", Thebes, supported by the Athenians in Greece revolted against Alexander.
This is what Thebans proclaimed upon receiving offers to surrender to Alexander:
"The Thebans countered by demanding the surrender of Philotas and Antipater and appealing to all who wished to liberate Greece to range themselves on their side."
All who wished to liberate Greece to range themselves on Thebes side.
This was a classic example of a pot calling the kettle black. Obviously, these members of AWAC (again, they are neither Macedonians nor do they promote the truth about Macedonia. Their true purpose is deception and fabrication) have extended training in subverting and manipulating literary evidence.
5. "Macedonia as a greek state took part in the congress held at Isthmus of Corinth. Alexander was voted to be commander-in-chief while many Greek statesmen and philosophers showed their joy about the event by offering him their congratulations.]
Incorrect;
The Greek states were to make an alliance amongst themselves first, the Hellenic League and then, the League will sign the treaties with Macedonia. Macedon was not a member of the Hellenic league or any other Greek league for that matter. Prove me wrong. Please do not be naïve; Greeks had nothing to say at the congress. They were summoned there to sign the capitulation papers and receive their garrisons. They came to Corinth running, leaving their dignity behind. They were a conquered people and they knew it. It was Philip who lorded over them. There was no voting.
In another attempt to prove Greekness, the AWAC writers state:
24] Demaratus the Corinthian, who was much attached to Alexander, as he had been to his father, began to weep, as old men are aprt to do, and exclaimed that any Greek who had died before that day had missed one of the greatest pleasures in life by not seeing Alexander seated on the throne of Darius.
(Plut. 7.37, page 295)
Greeks wouldnt have missed this great pleasure in life to see Alexander seated on Darius throne if he wasnt Greek himself]
True indeed, but as before, you conveniently left the part of the passage where the other Greek responds with the following true sentiment: (paraphrasing) On the contrary, said the other Greek, while the glory is reserved for the Macedonian, we Greeks wasted our leaders fighting each other; thus, explicitly separating the Greeks from the Macedonians.
At the end, as I stated before, it is not the quantity of "proofs" you plaster the internet with, but the quality and the honesty in historical accuracy that matters. All in all, it is really irrelevant. Greeks have fallen into their own trap and now it has become quick sand; the more they try to free themselves the deeper they sink. The best policy for them is to admit they made wrong choices in the past, provide restitution to the wronged party, the ethnic Macedonians in Greece, and start afresh. I am more then convinced that the huge Macedonian heart will find space for forgiveness and embrace the Greeks as good neighbors.
I´ll leave you with this thought:
Instead promoting KKK ideology, you should turn around and embrace the Republic of Macedonia. She is the only true friend you have in the region. Think again and envision what it would be like for Greece if Macedonia becomes what you wished her to become; you will be surrounded by your worst nightmare. Cherish the fact that you have the ethnic Macedonians in Greece still peaceful and civilized. Extend to them what is only theirs to begin with; their human rights as citizens of Greece. After all, your house is not made of glass, is it?
Until next time….
Print
Email
