Greek Australian Advisory Council and the falsification of Ancient Macedonian history Part 14
Risto Stefov
November 28, 2008
This is a response to the Australian Macedonian Advisory Council (which in fact is Greek masquerading as Macedonian) in regards to the article entitled "Risto Stefov and the falsification of Ancient Macedonian history" published on October 29, 2008 at this link: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/79306
My reply to you is "Two can play that game!" I too can provide you with just as many arguments that the Ancient Macedonians WERE NOT Greek. BUT!
It is irrelevant, at least to me, if Modern Greeks claim that the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not, what is relevant here is that the Modern Greeks are not related to the Ancient Greeks or to the Ancient Macedonians. They call themselves "Greeks" but have nothing to do with the ancient Greeks or Ancient Macedonians because underneath their modern artificial Greek veneer is nothing more than Albanians, Vlachs, Turks and Macedonians, the same variety of Balkanites that exists throughout the entire southern Balkans. But, if they insist on accusing me of falsifying Ancient Macedonian history, then here is my rebuttal:
ANCIENT MACEDONIANS AND THEIR MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE
Scholars, based on long and painstaking work and encompassing varied disciplines have, to a certain extent, arrived at an acceptable consensus regarding the ancients. You will be able to read the latest interpretations of history by the most prominent scholars and revisionists of the twentieth century. Here we make a deliberate effort to distance ourselves from scholars and literature emanating from the Balkans -- in order to avoid the trappings of politics and bias.
The main concern of this study will be the "Macedonian language"
MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE - THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM (Continued)
And then we have N.G.L. Hammond, an unabashed philhellene, whose position on the ancient Macedonians is "flexible," to say the least: "What language did these 'Macedones' speak? The name itself is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. ...The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod recorded has a bearing on the question of Greek speech. ...Hesiod would not have recorded this relationship, 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... 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 Hesiodus genealogy... thus bringing Macedon and his descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking family. Hesiod, Persia, and 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".
(1) Hammond's strong and a forceful implication that Hesiod, Persia, and Hellanicus "had no motives for making a false statement" about the language of the ancient Macedonians leaves one with the impression that Hammond was trying to fend off his critics beforehand.
The Persian example relies on a Persian's "impression" in the 6th century BC. If we move to 480/79 BC, a much more opportune time for the Persians to get to know the Macedonians, we find the following episode enlightening:
The Persian commander Mardonius chose Alexander I (king of Macedon) as an envoy to Athens, partly because he was related to the Persians through his sister Gygea's marriage to Bubares, and partly because Mardonius had learned that Alexander I was already "proxenos," -- a public friend of the Greeks. The question arises:
If the ancient Macedonians were Greek, or better yet, if Persians felt that the ancient Macedonians were Greek, (this surely is implied by Hammond) should we dare assume then, that the Persian commander would trust a "Greek" - to negotiate for him with the other Greeks?
Since Hammond brought up the episode with the Persians as evidence that the Macedonians were Greek speakers then let us see what Ulrich Wilcken had to say about these same Macedonians at the time of the Persian wars.
"Having stayed in the extreme north, they (Macedonians) were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south, and so, when in the time of the Persian wars they emerged in the horizon of the other Greeks, they appeared to them as non-Greek, as barbarians".
Note: "Barbarians" was a term used by the ancient Greeks to describe people whose language was unintelligible to them.
(1) The second example about Hellanicus is even less persuasive. Eugene Borza dismisses it as a piece of mythology. He writes: "Hammond's firm conclusion that the Macedonians spoke a distinctive dialect of Aeolic Greek is unconvincing to me, resting as it does on an interpretation of a bit of myth quoted by Hellanicus, who made Aeolus the father of the legendary progenitor Macedon". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.92.)
(3) In view of the available evidence one must be weary of Hesiod's "beliefs." A "belief" is not evidence. The validity of such a statement must be taken with caution.
Strangely enough, though, this very same N.G.L. Hammond, when describing the affairs of the Macedonian state in the years between 460 and 360 B.C., (on p. 152 in "The Macedonian State") writes the following: "Literary evidence and archeological evidence show that between 460 and 360 the standard of life in Upper Macedonia was at a primitive level and the area was remote from the orbit of Greek trade, and even from coastal Macedonia, with only two exceptions......"
If we were to assume that Greek language was imported from Greece proper, it must have occurred much later than the time suggested by Hellanicus. Even if we accept Hellanicus' assertion as verifiably "true," we must keep in mind the "time gap" of several centuries in question.
Hammonds argues that the area was remote from Greek trade, and thereby the "contact" with speakers of the Greek language was minimal. This, invariably brings us to the following unanswered question: Was there a separate Macedonian language already in use by the ancient Macedonians before the spread of Greek? To put the same question in different light: Were the Ancient Macedonians a mute people? Did they wait for the arrival of the Greeks to open their mouths and start communicating among themselves?
To continue with Hammond's assertion; On p. 163 (Macedonian State) describing the army units in Philip's time, we find: "These units were equal to those of the old kingdom. There was still some difference in dialect; for some men from Upper Macedonia spoke West Greek and some from the old kingdom spoke a form of Aeolic dialect, known then as "Macedonian dialect".
I would like to bring to the reader's attention the following important aspect of the meaning of "Macedonian dialect" in contrast to "Koine". And if one hurries to ascribe to the "usual" interpretation of "dialect" to mean the same as "Greek", I must inform you that this is the same "dialect" that got Ambiance (a Greek commander who could not communicate with his Macedonian soldiers) killed, because he could not understand it, and it is the same Macedonian "dialect" that Alexander used to call on his guards, when he felt that his life was in danger. This also is, the same "dialect" in which Macedonian soldiers affectionately greeted their commanders, and finally, this is the same "dialect" in which Macedonian soldiers paid their last respects to their fallen king - Alexander. A "dialect" that Alexander the Great himself called "our Macedonian language".
It appears that some authors use the term "dialect" to minimize the existence of a separate Macedonian language. One must bear in mind that in the Greek Peninsula a number of Greek dialects were employed. However, in Macedonia, which was huge in comparison, only one "dialect" is expounded. Where there no Macedonian dialects?
Hammond, once again, refers to the Macedonian language as an Aeolic dialect known as the "Macedonian dialect". Professor Borza clearly disagrees and offers the following argument: "The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from Greek - do not show the changes expected from a Greek dialect. And even had they changed at some point it is unlikely that they would have reverted to their original form". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.93.)
On p. 165 from "Macedonian State", we read as Hammond describes the spread of Greek language in the latter part of the fifth century: "We may be sure that the Greek language spread more rapidly among the 'inlet barbarians' of the enlarged kingdom, whose livelihood depended increasingly on their commercial relations with the Greek speaking cities in their midst."
We see the first penetration of Greeks in the area, and therefore the first substantial contact with the Greek language. Precarious is his assertion that the livelihood of the "inlet barbarians" (Macedonians) depended increasingly on their commercial relations with the Greeks.
What did the "livelihood" of these barbarians depend on before the arrival of the Greeks in the fifth century? It is undeniable that ancient Macedonians were self-sufficient, an extremely proud and resourceful people who inhabited very fertile lands in Macedonia.
Very curiously, on p.165, from the same source, Hammond describes how different tribes in Macedonia came in contact with Greeks and learned the Greek language.
"Pelasgic Tyrsenoi, Bisaltae, Crestonians, and Edones, had learnt to speak Greek, for they were diglossoi."
Hence, what do we have to contend with so far:
1. Hesiod's seventh century: "Macedonians are a Greek speaking people".
2. Persia sixth century: "Macedonians to be speakers of Greek".
3. Hellanicus late part of fifth century: "Aeolic branch of the Greek speaking family".
4. Hammond 's 460 - 360 B.C. : "Upper Macedonia was remote from the orbit of Greek trade".
5. Hammond (during king Philip): "Macedonians from Upper Macedonia spoke West Greek, and some from the old kingdom spoke Aeolic dialect, known as 'Macedonian dialect'".
Note:
(a) Wasn't Upper Macedonia primitive and remote from Greek trade? How did this "West Greek" language come into this remote land that was not in contact with Greeks? (b) Those from the old kingdom spoke a "Macedonian dialect" the same dialect that Greeks could not understand. Remember Ambiance?
6. Hammond - (Fifth cent.) Greek contact is established: (a) various peoples "learnt the language", (b) "were diglossoi"
Note: "Learnt the language", were "diglossoi" denotes the following: (a) The existing people spoke something other than the "new language" that they had just learnt, and
(b) to be "diglossoi" one must be bilingual; to speak your own language and the newly learnt Greek language. One would not be called "diglossoi" by speaking only Greek.
7. Hammond - (Fifth century) "spread of Greek language".
Note: In lieu of the following statements, one is compelled to ask the following question: If these Macedonian peoples were already speaking Greek, whom did the Greeks spread their language to?
Eugene Borza is called the 'authority on Macedonia,' and one must heed his advice. He asks: "As a question of method: why would an area three hundred miles north of Athens - not colonized by Athens - use an Attic dialect, unless it were imported? That is, the Attic dialect could hardly be native, and its use is likely part of the process of Hellenization. To put the question differently: if the native language of the Macedonians is Greek, what is its Macedonian dialect?"
An excellent question indeed. Why would Macedonians use the remote Attic Greek dialect if they supposedly had their own "dialect"? Furthermore, when did they begin using the Attic dialect?
It must be noted that there is some contradiction in terms of time, terminology and purpose.
Let us continue.... On p. 391 in "The Macedonian State" he (Hammond) writes:
"As the language of the Macedonian State and of the army was Greek, we may be sure that the subject peoples were bilingual (diglottoi)".
Note: Please remember Hammond's statement above about the language of the army, and compare it with Badian's assertion below.] Knowing what "bilingual subject" means, we are on much firmer ground as to what Hammond has in mind. Even if there was a Greek language used by the state and the army, there was, also, "another" language used in ancient Macedon.
On p. 64 (same source) we find a description of the Macedonian Assembly comprised of Macedonians only with their own 'esprit de corps' -- Hammond writes: "They wanted the Macedones to have their own esprit de corps; and those of them who came from Lower Macedonia continued to speak the Macedonian dialect among themselves and to address the king or a commander in that dialect as a sign of affection".
In the previous quote Hammond eludes to the use of "another language" spoken by the larger mass of Macedonian subjects. Here he covers the other side of the coin, using the "Macedonian dialect".
One thing is clearly evident: we have inadvertently been exposed to the existence of either a Macedonian language and/or Macedonian dialect.
On p. 165 Hammond continues: As Philip continued to build new cities in the areas east of Axius he was able to "plant new cities of Macedonians". Particularly important was the spread of the "Greek language" among the "inland barbarians" like Pelasgic Tyrsenoi, Bisaltae, Crestonians, and Edones who "learnt to speak Greek". This passage suggests that these peoples were "diglossoi', bilingual. And that, by itself, speaks volume. Obviously, there was another language in operation besides Greek.
Let us visit Ernst Badian, (professor and chair person at Harvard History Department) a more contemporary author and a revisionist of Ancient History. The usage of the Macedonian language, and thereby its existence, is confirmed by the following episode:
after one symposium Alexander the Great felt that his life was threatened and he is said to have called for his guards in Macedonian. When his life was threatened he reverts to his more primitive psyche, which could be interpreted as "overpowering his expressed intellectual preference for the Greeks, i.e. the Greek part of his own nature". "But the answer is probably simpler than that", writes Badian. "He used the only language in which his guards could be addressed".
Note: The guards could be addressed in Macedonian only.
Episode #2. Eumenes of Cardia. In 321 B.C., Greek commander Ambiance, with cavalry and light arms only, faced the Macedonian noble, Neoptholemus, with the Macedonian phalanx. To avoid battle Xennias, a man whose speech was Macedonian, was sent by Eumenes to negotiate with the commander of the phalanx. Badian analyzes: "Now, Xennias' name at once shows him to be a Macedonian. Since he was in Ambiance's entourage he was presumably a Macedonian of superior status, who spoke both standard Greek and his native language. He was the man who could be trusted to transmit Ambiance's message. This clearly shows that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian, if one wanted to be sure (as Ambiance certainly did) that they would understand. And almost equally interesting - he did not address them himself, as he and other commanders normally address soldiers who understood them, nor did he send a Greek. The suggestion is surely that Macedonian was the language of the infantry and that Greek was a difficult, indeed a foreign language to them. We may thus take it as certain that, when Alexander used Macedonian in addressing his guards, that too was because it was their normal language, and because (like Ambiance) he had to be sure he would be understood".
It is documented that Ambiance had experienced extreme difficulties in commanding the Macedonian soldiers. His disability was "not only his Greek birth, as has always being realized, but the simple fact that he could not directly communicate with the Macedonian soldiers". "His alien culture and provenance were not only obvious in an accent; it was a matter of a language". ["It was a matter of a language..."] ("Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times".)
From John O'brian in "Alexander the Great the Invisible Enemy"
No matter how hard Modern Greeks try to prove otherwise, there is always more than one side to their story!
To be continued.
Many thanks to J.S.G. Gandeto for his contribution to this article.
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com
My reply to you is "Two can play that game!" I too can provide you with just as many arguments that the Ancient Macedonians WERE NOT Greek. BUT!
It is irrelevant, at least to me, if Modern Greeks claim that the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not, what is relevant here is that the Modern Greeks are not related to the Ancient Greeks or to the Ancient Macedonians. They call themselves "Greeks" but have nothing to do with the ancient Greeks or Ancient Macedonians because underneath their modern artificial Greek veneer is nothing more than Albanians, Vlachs, Turks and Macedonians, the same variety of Balkanites that exists throughout the entire southern Balkans. But, if they insist on accusing me of falsifying Ancient Macedonian history, then here is my rebuttal:
ANCIENT MACEDONIANS AND THEIR MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE
Scholars, based on long and painstaking work and encompassing varied disciplines have, to a certain extent, arrived at an acceptable consensus regarding the ancients. You will be able to read the latest interpretations of history by the most prominent scholars and revisionists of the twentieth century. Here we make a deliberate effort to distance ourselves from scholars and literature emanating from the Balkans -- in order to avoid the trappings of politics and bias.
The main concern of this study will be the "Macedonian language"
MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE - THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM (Continued)
And then we have N.G.L. Hammond, an unabashed philhellene, whose position on the ancient Macedonians is "flexible," to say the least: "What language did these 'Macedones' speak? The name itself is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. ...The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod recorded has a bearing on the question of Greek speech. ...Hesiod would not have recorded this relationship, 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... 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 Hesiodus genealogy... thus bringing Macedon and his descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking family. Hesiod, Persia, and 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".
(1) Hammond's strong and a forceful implication that Hesiod, Persia, and Hellanicus "had no motives for making a false statement" about the language of the ancient Macedonians leaves one with the impression that Hammond was trying to fend off his critics beforehand.
The Persian example relies on a Persian's "impression" in the 6th century BC. If we move to 480/79 BC, a much more opportune time for the Persians to get to know the Macedonians, we find the following episode enlightening:
The Persian commander Mardonius chose Alexander I (king of Macedon) as an envoy to Athens, partly because he was related to the Persians through his sister Gygea's marriage to Bubares, and partly because Mardonius had learned that Alexander I was already "proxenos," -- a public friend of the Greeks. The question arises:
If the ancient Macedonians were Greek, or better yet, if Persians felt that the ancient Macedonians were Greek, (this surely is implied by Hammond) should we dare assume then, that the Persian commander would trust a "Greek" - to negotiate for him with the other Greeks?
Since Hammond brought up the episode with the Persians as evidence that the Macedonians were Greek speakers then let us see what Ulrich Wilcken had to say about these same Macedonians at the time of the Persian wars.
"Having stayed in the extreme north, they (Macedonians) were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south, and so, when in the time of the Persian wars they emerged in the horizon of the other Greeks, they appeared to them as non-Greek, as barbarians".
Note: "Barbarians" was a term used by the ancient Greeks to describe people whose language was unintelligible to them.
(1) The second example about Hellanicus is even less persuasive. Eugene Borza dismisses it as a piece of mythology. He writes: "Hammond's firm conclusion that the Macedonians spoke a distinctive dialect of Aeolic Greek is unconvincing to me, resting as it does on an interpretation of a bit of myth quoted by Hellanicus, who made Aeolus the father of the legendary progenitor Macedon". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.92.)
(3) In view of the available evidence one must be weary of Hesiod's "beliefs." A "belief" is not evidence. The validity of such a statement must be taken with caution.
Strangely enough, though, this very same N.G.L. Hammond, when describing the affairs of the Macedonian state in the years between 460 and 360 B.C., (on p. 152 in "The Macedonian State") writes the following: "Literary evidence and archeological evidence show that between 460 and 360 the standard of life in Upper Macedonia was at a primitive level and the area was remote from the orbit of Greek trade, and even from coastal Macedonia, with only two exceptions......"
If we were to assume that Greek language was imported from Greece proper, it must have occurred much later than the time suggested by Hellanicus. Even if we accept Hellanicus' assertion as verifiably "true," we must keep in mind the "time gap" of several centuries in question.
Hammonds argues that the area was remote from Greek trade, and thereby the "contact" with speakers of the Greek language was minimal. This, invariably brings us to the following unanswered question: Was there a separate Macedonian language already in use by the ancient Macedonians before the spread of Greek? To put the same question in different light: Were the Ancient Macedonians a mute people? Did they wait for the arrival of the Greeks to open their mouths and start communicating among themselves?
To continue with Hammond's assertion; On p. 163 (Macedonian State) describing the army units in Philip's time, we find: "These units were equal to those of the old kingdom. There was still some difference in dialect; for some men from Upper Macedonia spoke West Greek and some from the old kingdom spoke a form of Aeolic dialect, known then as "Macedonian dialect".
I would like to bring to the reader's attention the following important aspect of the meaning of "Macedonian dialect" in contrast to "Koine". And if one hurries to ascribe to the "usual" interpretation of "dialect" to mean the same as "Greek", I must inform you that this is the same "dialect" that got Ambiance (a Greek commander who could not communicate with his Macedonian soldiers) killed, because he could not understand it, and it is the same Macedonian "dialect" that Alexander used to call on his guards, when he felt that his life was in danger. This also is, the same "dialect" in which Macedonian soldiers affectionately greeted their commanders, and finally, this is the same "dialect" in which Macedonian soldiers paid their last respects to their fallen king - Alexander. A "dialect" that Alexander the Great himself called "our Macedonian language".
It appears that some authors use the term "dialect" to minimize the existence of a separate Macedonian language. One must bear in mind that in the Greek Peninsula a number of Greek dialects were employed. However, in Macedonia, which was huge in comparison, only one "dialect" is expounded. Where there no Macedonian dialects?
Hammond, once again, refers to the Macedonian language as an Aeolic dialect known as the "Macedonian dialect". Professor Borza clearly disagrees and offers the following argument: "The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from Greek - do not show the changes expected from a Greek dialect. And even had they changed at some point it is unlikely that they would have reverted to their original form". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.93.)
On p. 165 from "Macedonian State", we read as Hammond describes the spread of Greek language in the latter part of the fifth century: "We may be sure that the Greek language spread more rapidly among the 'inlet barbarians' of the enlarged kingdom, whose livelihood depended increasingly on their commercial relations with the Greek speaking cities in their midst."
We see the first penetration of Greeks in the area, and therefore the first substantial contact with the Greek language. Precarious is his assertion that the livelihood of the "inlet barbarians" (Macedonians) depended increasingly on their commercial relations with the Greeks.
What did the "livelihood" of these barbarians depend on before the arrival of the Greeks in the fifth century? It is undeniable that ancient Macedonians were self-sufficient, an extremely proud and resourceful people who inhabited very fertile lands in Macedonia.
Very curiously, on p.165, from the same source, Hammond describes how different tribes in Macedonia came in contact with Greeks and learned the Greek language.
"Pelasgic Tyrsenoi, Bisaltae, Crestonians, and Edones, had learnt to speak Greek, for they were diglossoi."
Hence, what do we have to contend with so far:
1. Hesiod's seventh century: "Macedonians are a Greek speaking people".
2. Persia sixth century: "Macedonians to be speakers of Greek".
3. Hellanicus late part of fifth century: "Aeolic branch of the Greek speaking family".
4. Hammond 's 460 - 360 B.C. : "Upper Macedonia was remote from the orbit of Greek trade".
5. Hammond (during king Philip): "Macedonians from Upper Macedonia spoke West Greek, and some from the old kingdom spoke Aeolic dialect, known as 'Macedonian dialect'".
Note:
(a) Wasn't Upper Macedonia primitive and remote from Greek trade? How did this "West Greek" language come into this remote land that was not in contact with Greeks? (b) Those from the old kingdom spoke a "Macedonian dialect" the same dialect that Greeks could not understand. Remember Ambiance?
6. Hammond - (Fifth cent.) Greek contact is established: (a) various peoples "learnt the language", (b) "were diglossoi"
Note: "Learnt the language", were "diglossoi" denotes the following: (a) The existing people spoke something other than the "new language" that they had just learnt, and
(b) to be "diglossoi" one must be bilingual; to speak your own language and the newly learnt Greek language. One would not be called "diglossoi" by speaking only Greek.
7. Hammond - (Fifth century) "spread of Greek language".
Note: In lieu of the following statements, one is compelled to ask the following question: If these Macedonian peoples were already speaking Greek, whom did the Greeks spread their language to?
Eugene Borza is called the 'authority on Macedonia,' and one must heed his advice. He asks: "As a question of method: why would an area three hundred miles north of Athens - not colonized by Athens - use an Attic dialect, unless it were imported? That is, the Attic dialect could hardly be native, and its use is likely part of the process of Hellenization. To put the question differently: if the native language of the Macedonians is Greek, what is its Macedonian dialect?"
An excellent question indeed. Why would Macedonians use the remote Attic Greek dialect if they supposedly had their own "dialect"? Furthermore, when did they begin using the Attic dialect?
It must be noted that there is some contradiction in terms of time, terminology and purpose.
Let us continue.... On p. 391 in "The Macedonian State" he (Hammond) writes:
"As the language of the Macedonian State and of the army was Greek, we may be sure that the subject peoples were bilingual (diglottoi)".
Note: Please remember Hammond's statement above about the language of the army, and compare it with Badian's assertion below.] Knowing what "bilingual subject" means, we are on much firmer ground as to what Hammond has in mind. Even if there was a Greek language used by the state and the army, there was, also, "another" language used in ancient Macedon.
On p. 64 (same source) we find a description of the Macedonian Assembly comprised of Macedonians only with their own 'esprit de corps' -- Hammond writes: "They wanted the Macedones to have their own esprit de corps; and those of them who came from Lower Macedonia continued to speak the Macedonian dialect among themselves and to address the king or a commander in that dialect as a sign of affection".
In the previous quote Hammond eludes to the use of "another language" spoken by the larger mass of Macedonian subjects. Here he covers the other side of the coin, using the "Macedonian dialect".
One thing is clearly evident: we have inadvertently been exposed to the existence of either a Macedonian language and/or Macedonian dialect.
On p. 165 Hammond continues: As Philip continued to build new cities in the areas east of Axius he was able to "plant new cities of Macedonians". Particularly important was the spread of the "Greek language" among the "inland barbarians" like Pelasgic Tyrsenoi, Bisaltae, Crestonians, and Edones who "learnt to speak Greek". This passage suggests that these peoples were "diglossoi', bilingual. And that, by itself, speaks volume. Obviously, there was another language in operation besides Greek.
Let us visit Ernst Badian, (professor and chair person at Harvard History Department) a more contemporary author and a revisionist of Ancient History. The usage of the Macedonian language, and thereby its existence, is confirmed by the following episode:
after one symposium Alexander the Great felt that his life was threatened and he is said to have called for his guards in Macedonian. When his life was threatened he reverts to his more primitive psyche, which could be interpreted as "overpowering his expressed intellectual preference for the Greeks, i.e. the Greek part of his own nature". "But the answer is probably simpler than that", writes Badian. "He used the only language in which his guards could be addressed".
Note: The guards could be addressed in Macedonian only.
Episode #2. Eumenes of Cardia. In 321 B.C., Greek commander Ambiance, with cavalry and light arms only, faced the Macedonian noble, Neoptholemus, with the Macedonian phalanx. To avoid battle Xennias, a man whose speech was Macedonian, was sent by Eumenes to negotiate with the commander of the phalanx. Badian analyzes: "Now, Xennias' name at once shows him to be a Macedonian. Since he was in Ambiance's entourage he was presumably a Macedonian of superior status, who spoke both standard Greek and his native language. He was the man who could be trusted to transmit Ambiance's message. This clearly shows that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian, if one wanted to be sure (as Ambiance certainly did) that they would understand. And almost equally interesting - he did not address them himself, as he and other commanders normally address soldiers who understood them, nor did he send a Greek. The suggestion is surely that Macedonian was the language of the infantry and that Greek was a difficult, indeed a foreign language to them. We may thus take it as certain that, when Alexander used Macedonian in addressing his guards, that too was because it was their normal language, and because (like Ambiance) he had to be sure he would be understood".
It is documented that Ambiance had experienced extreme difficulties in commanding the Macedonian soldiers. His disability was "not only his Greek birth, as has always being realized, but the simple fact that he could not directly communicate with the Macedonian soldiers". "His alien culture and provenance were not only obvious in an accent; it was a matter of a language". ["It was a matter of a language..."] ("Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times".)
From John O'brian in "Alexander the Great the Invisible Enemy"
No matter how hard Modern Greeks try to prove otherwise, there is always more than one side to their story!
To be continued.
Many thanks to J.S.G. Gandeto for his contribution to this article.
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com
Print
Email
