Greek Australian Advisory Council and the falsification of Ancient Macedonian history Part 15
Risto Stefov
November 30, 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:
THE PHILOTAS TRIAL!
Philotas is being accused of plotting against Alexander, and is brought in front of the Macedonian army to plead his case. Alexander coolly asks Philotas if he, Philotas, is going to use his native tongue, the Macedonian language to speak to the army. Philotas said that he will use Greek, to which Alexander retorted: "Do you see how offensive Philotas finds even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember that he is as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language."
Bolon, an ordinary Macedonian soldier of a crude nature, but a very courageous fighter who had become an officer through a battlefield commission steps forward and castigates Philotas: Bolon fires up the crowd with statements about Philotas' arrogance and ostentation. He reminds the crowd that it is insulting for a native-born Macedonian to need interpreters when he speaks to his own people - namely the Macedonian rank and file - many of whom were ignorant of Greek. "Who were (and are) the Macedonians?" (By Eugene Borza)
In this article, E. Borza makes an attempt to illuminate the problem associated with determining ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians. Using language and origins of people as determinants of ethnicity, Borza (after concluding from Hesiod, Herodotus, and Thucydides that literary sources are 'sparse and inconclusive') makes the following observation: "On the matter of language, and despite attempts to make Macedonian a dialect of Greek, one must accept the conclusion of linguist R.A. Crossland in the recent CAH, that an insufficient amount of Macedonian has survived to know what language it was".
FROM "ALEXANDER THE GREAT" BY ULRICH WILCKEN
We find the following passage: "The beginnings of Macedonian history are shrouded in complete darkness. There is keen controversy on the ethnological problem, whether Macedonians were Greek or not." (p. 22.)
I will conclude my work with the following "exchange", if you will, between Professor A.B. Bosworth and N.G.L. Hammond, regarding the wording/interpretation of Cleitus' episode with Alexander.
"The Tumult and the Shouting: Two Interpretations of the Cleitus Episode", ( published by APA in The Ancient History Bulletin, Vol. 10, number 1, 1996) p. 20 line 23.
"Alexander shouted out in Macedonian, and called the hypaspists in Macedonian."
p. 25, line 4. "In my view", writes Bosworth, "there is nothing at all surprising in the use of Macedonian. Alexander was calling his hypaspists, who were Macedonians, and he addressed them in their native language/dialect. In Hammond's view, however, the hypaspists would normally have been addressed in standard Greek. Macedonian proper he restricts to the people of the old kingdom, Lower Macedonian, while the tribes of the mountain districts of Pindus (Upper Macedonia) spoke a dialect of West Greek. The evidence for this hypothesis is decidedly tenuous."
p. 25, line 16. "When Alexander invites Philotas to conduct his defense in Macedonian, Philotas replies that there are people in the audience other than Macedonians, and for that reason he will use standard Greek (like Alexander himself)."
p. 25 elaborations: Bosworth continues "I deliberately refrain from adopting any position on the linguistic status of ancient Macedonians. It has little significance outside the nationalistic propaganda of the contemporary Balkan states, in which prejudice and dogma do duty for rational thought. What matters for the present argument is the fact, explicit in Curtius, that Macedonian was largely unintelligible to non-Macedonians. Macedonians might understand Greek, and some Greeks (like Eumenes) with experience of Macedon might speak Macedonian. However, even Eumenes took care that a vital message was conveyed to the phalangites of Neoptholemus by a man fluent in Macedonian."
p. 30, line 28, we find the final statement by Bosworth: "He used Macedonian because the troops would instantly understand and (he expected) would react immediately. There is no need for more complicated explanation."
MATERIAL CULTURE OF THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS
This article illustrates the most obvious distinguishing features that markedly separate the Ancient Macedonians from their southern neighbors, the ancient Greeks.
(1) The theater at Palatitsa [near Vergina (Kutlersh)], excavated in 1981: "The cavea of the theatre is rather small, even primitive, in comparison with fourth-century Greek theatres. What is remarkable about the theatre is the size of its orchestra, some 28.50 m in diameter, by far the largest known for this type of structures. By comparison, the diameter of the orchestra at Epidaurus is about 19.50 m, average for mainland Greek theatre. We may assume that the large size of the orchestra was intended to provide space for pageantry, parades and rituals consistent with the display of royal - that is national - significance.
It is thus different from classical and early Hellenistic Greek theatres in the size of its cavea and orchestra and the arrangement of its seats. It appears to have been designed for needs appropriate to the Macedonians, but our understanding of it as a structure is limited both by a lack of parallels with other theatres on the fringes of the Greek world and by the difficulty of dating it."
(2) On the "Macedonian tombs" at Vergina [Kutlesh]: "Most of the burial goods are to be associated with a Macedonian warrior: weapons, armor, and wine-drinking vessels. The diverse and rich jumble of objects that were presumably the personal property of the deceased is more reminiscent of Egyptian or Etruscan burials than of anything known from the Greek world."
(3) Macedonians wore their traditional hat "kausia".
(4) On religious practices: "We have already seen that the Macedonians worshipped many of the same gods that the Greeks venerated, but it is also clear that the expressions of worship were markedly different. For example, there has yet to be discovered from the Argead period anything like a Greek temple, that is, a major public religious monument."
(a) "We are lacking the great religious edifices that characterized public expression among so many of the Greeks."
(b) "The burial customs as evidenced by the tombs suggest something quite different from contemporary Greece".
(5) On the drinking habits of the ancient Macedonians:
(a) "For unlike the Greeks, the Macedonians were accustomed to drink their wine 'akratos' unmixed".
(b) "Macedonian gentry was a hard drinking lot."
(6) On the decoration and the structural design of the Macedonian tombs: "The architectural facade is not structural (as in Greek architecture), but strictly ornamental. The main architectural principle is to create an illusion. Not only did the Macedonians develop illusory facades, but they also employed a wide range of polychromatic painting, both to highlight architectural features and to cover walls and ceilings with designs. Painting also contributed to the illusory principles, as a number of decorative architectural features that would be molded or carved in relief on Greek buildings are painted onto stucco in Macedonian tombs."
(7) On burial practices:
(a) "The normal practice in the Classical Greek world was to bury the death outside the city walls, everything within the town precinct being considered sacred to the local deities. That is, the ancients seem to have made a clear distinction between the city of the living and the dead. Thus it is common to find cemeteries grouped outside the walls of a Greek town; indeed, in some Mediteranean communities, the distribution of such burial grounds assists in tracing the growth of urban settlement boundaries over a long period of time. But Macedonia presents a somewhat more complex situation."
(b)"The eclecticism of fourth-century and early Hellenistic Macedonian burial practices and tomb placement is more reminiscent of Roman practices in Latium in the middle and late Republic than of anything in the contemporary Greek world. Thus both the placement and the large size of many Macedonian tombs are at adds with Greek burials, which tend to be modest and clustered in cemeteries."
Conclusion:
It is clear that in many respects Macedonian culture in the age of Phillip and Alexander differed markedly from the Greek.
"Macedonian material culture, like Macedonian political and military institutions, appear to be an amalgam of the diverse historical experiences of a people who developed self-sufficiency at a geopolitical crossroads."
"Ultimately, we will come to appreciate Macedonia as a region that assimilated foreign influences, and Macedonians as a people some of whose material culture provided inspiration to their contemporary Greek neighbors and, eventually, their Roman conquerors." (From Borza's "In the Shadow of Olympus")
MACEDONIAN NATION
Our southern neighbours (the Greeks) maintain that ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Modern revisionists, upon closer scrutiny of the existing archeological records, and employing comparative analysis of the available data, have explicitly stated the opposite:
"Ancient Macedonians were a distinct people and separate from the Greeks".
The following passages illuminate that ancient Macedonians were a separate and a distinct people from the ancient Greeks.
D. Brendan Nagle under the title of "Macedonian Appropriation of Greek Kulturgechichte" states: ".....the appropriation of Greek Kulturgescichte, and the use by non-Greeks for political purposes against Greeks, is less common, and even less well documented. Here I offer an example of highly effective Macedonian use of Greek cultural history to advance the propaganda aims of Philip II which had the double aim of blunting Greek criticism of his state-building while at the same time cloaking his work in the legitimizing terminology devised by Greeks for their own, often violent, colonizing and city founding activities."
Philip gathered and organized the Macedonians into cities. At the same time he was engaged in extensive de-urbanization, dismembering the Chalcidian League, destroying Olynthus, Methone, Apollonia, Galepsus, and Stagira, while Macedonizing other poleis. Thus Philip's action was not received without concerns by the Greeks, as is indicated by Demosthenes' speeches. To counter this negative image Philip appropriated the themes and language of Greek kulturgescichte to "camouflage the fact that he was creating a wholly new type of state, a consolidation of ethne under a personal monarchy."
This was neither in line with the theories of Kulturgeschichte nor with Aristotle's theory. Nagle concludes the article with the following statement: "That it has continued to confuse interpreters is testament to the hegomonic power of Greek cultural history and the adroitness of the Macedonians in using this powerful tool of self-identification against its devisers."
"What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is relative abundance of information", writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility."
Let us break it down and simplify it:
And Ulrich Wilcken in his "Alexander the Great", on p. 26 states: "The dislike was reciprocal, for the Macedonians had grown into a proud masterful nation, which with highly developed national consciousness looked down upon the Hellenes with contempt. This fact too is of prime importance for the understanding of later history."
One is compelled to ask the obvious: Why isn't there such reference for "Theban nation", or "Athenian nation", or "Phocian nation"?
In conclusion
Note: Brandan Nagle talks about Macedonian ethnos being consolidated into a Macedonian state. Ulrich Wilcken refers to Macedonia as a national state, a masterful, proud nation that looked down upon the Hellenes with contempt. Borza states that the hatred between Macedonians and Greeks was pervasive. Badian notes that ancient Macedonians did not regard themselves as Greeks, nor were they so regarded by the Greeks. Bloedow uses the term "the age-old distinction" between Macedonians and Greeks, etc.
On p.271 (Wilcken continues) we find the same reference to "Macedonian nation."
"On the march and in battle he was just the same as ever, he was the king of the Macedonian nation, who shared with them the unspeakable fatigues, and the hunger and thirst of this guerilla warfare."
One must be able to separate a "lover of Greek culture" from a leader of a "proud masterful nation". One must be able to "read" the intended outcome of a speech before a battle, when Alexander "as son of Zeus, prayed to the gods to help the Hellenes of his army". (Wilken p.139) He prayed for the Hellenes of his army, the Hellenes in Alexander's army who needed some encouragement. For the Hellenes, he prayed to Zeus, for the Macedonians he did not.
"What he had previously said to his Macedonians on the right wing and in the center, we are not told; but we may be perfectly certain that to them he said nothing of his divine son-ship, for he was only son of Zeus to the Greeks." (Wilcken p. 139)
On p.267 (Wilcken) we find: "Certainly, his successors in the next generation strove to hinder the fusion of Macedonians and Greeks with Orientals by the principle of a national Macedonian government..."
On p. 267 he continues: "On the other hand, with the news of Alexander's death a storm broke out in Greece, which completely swept away the Corinthian League. Under the leadership of Demosthenes, who was received back with great honour, Athens rose and summoned the Greeks to fight for freedom against Macedonia."
Those whom the ancient Greeks rose up against in the pursuit of freedom, the modern-day Greeks now worship as heroes!
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:
THE PHILOTAS TRIAL!
Philotas is being accused of plotting against Alexander, and is brought in front of the Macedonian army to plead his case. Alexander coolly asks Philotas if he, Philotas, is going to use his native tongue, the Macedonian language to speak to the army. Philotas said that he will use Greek, to which Alexander retorted: "Do you see how offensive Philotas finds even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember that he is as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language."
Bolon, an ordinary Macedonian soldier of a crude nature, but a very courageous fighter who had become an officer through a battlefield commission steps forward and castigates Philotas: Bolon fires up the crowd with statements about Philotas' arrogance and ostentation. He reminds the crowd that it is insulting for a native-born Macedonian to need interpreters when he speaks to his own people - namely the Macedonian rank and file - many of whom were ignorant of Greek. "Who were (and are) the Macedonians?" (By Eugene Borza)
In this article, E. Borza makes an attempt to illuminate the problem associated with determining ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians. Using language and origins of people as determinants of ethnicity, Borza (after concluding from Hesiod, Herodotus, and Thucydides that literary sources are 'sparse and inconclusive') makes the following observation: "On the matter of language, and despite attempts to make Macedonian a dialect of Greek, one must accept the conclusion of linguist R.A. Crossland in the recent CAH, that an insufficient amount of Macedonian has survived to know what language it was".
FROM "ALEXANDER THE GREAT" BY ULRICH WILCKEN
We find the following passage: "The beginnings of Macedonian history are shrouded in complete darkness. There is keen controversy on the ethnological problem, whether Macedonians were Greek or not." (p. 22.)
I will conclude my work with the following "exchange", if you will, between Professor A.B. Bosworth and N.G.L. Hammond, regarding the wording/interpretation of Cleitus' episode with Alexander.
"The Tumult and the Shouting: Two Interpretations of the Cleitus Episode", ( published by APA in The Ancient History Bulletin, Vol. 10, number 1, 1996) p. 20 line 23.
"Alexander shouted out in Macedonian, and called the hypaspists in Macedonian."
p. 25, line 4. "In my view", writes Bosworth, "there is nothing at all surprising in the use of Macedonian. Alexander was calling his hypaspists, who were Macedonians, and he addressed them in their native language/dialect. In Hammond's view, however, the hypaspists would normally have been addressed in standard Greek. Macedonian proper he restricts to the people of the old kingdom, Lower Macedonian, while the tribes of the mountain districts of Pindus (Upper Macedonia) spoke a dialect of West Greek. The evidence for this hypothesis is decidedly tenuous."
p. 25, line 16. "When Alexander invites Philotas to conduct his defense in Macedonian, Philotas replies that there are people in the audience other than Macedonians, and for that reason he will use standard Greek (like Alexander himself)."
p. 25 elaborations: Bosworth continues "I deliberately refrain from adopting any position on the linguistic status of ancient Macedonians. It has little significance outside the nationalistic propaganda of the contemporary Balkan states, in which prejudice and dogma do duty for rational thought. What matters for the present argument is the fact, explicit in Curtius, that Macedonian was largely unintelligible to non-Macedonians. Macedonians might understand Greek, and some Greeks (like Eumenes) with experience of Macedon might speak Macedonian. However, even Eumenes took care that a vital message was conveyed to the phalangites of Neoptholemus by a man fluent in Macedonian."
p. 30, line 28, we find the final statement by Bosworth: "He used Macedonian because the troops would instantly understand and (he expected) would react immediately. There is no need for more complicated explanation."
MATERIAL CULTURE OF THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS
This article illustrates the most obvious distinguishing features that markedly separate the Ancient Macedonians from their southern neighbors, the ancient Greeks.
(1) The theater at Palatitsa [near Vergina (Kutlersh)], excavated in 1981: "The cavea of the theatre is rather small, even primitive, in comparison with fourth-century Greek theatres. What is remarkable about the theatre is the size of its orchestra, some 28.50 m in diameter, by far the largest known for this type of structures. By comparison, the diameter of the orchestra at Epidaurus is about 19.50 m, average for mainland Greek theatre. We may assume that the large size of the orchestra was intended to provide space for pageantry, parades and rituals consistent with the display of royal - that is national - significance.
It is thus different from classical and early Hellenistic Greek theatres in the size of its cavea and orchestra and the arrangement of its seats. It appears to have been designed for needs appropriate to the Macedonians, but our understanding of it as a structure is limited both by a lack of parallels with other theatres on the fringes of the Greek world and by the difficulty of dating it."
(2) On the "Macedonian tombs" at Vergina [Kutlesh]: "Most of the burial goods are to be associated with a Macedonian warrior: weapons, armor, and wine-drinking vessels. The diverse and rich jumble of objects that were presumably the personal property of the deceased is more reminiscent of Egyptian or Etruscan burials than of anything known from the Greek world."
(3) Macedonians wore their traditional hat "kausia".
(4) On religious practices: "We have already seen that the Macedonians worshipped many of the same gods that the Greeks venerated, but it is also clear that the expressions of worship were markedly different. For example, there has yet to be discovered from the Argead period anything like a Greek temple, that is, a major public religious monument."
(a) "We are lacking the great religious edifices that characterized public expression among so many of the Greeks."
(b) "The burial customs as evidenced by the tombs suggest something quite different from contemporary Greece".
(5) On the drinking habits of the ancient Macedonians:
(a) "For unlike the Greeks, the Macedonians were accustomed to drink their wine 'akratos' unmixed".
(b) "Macedonian gentry was a hard drinking lot."
(6) On the decoration and the structural design of the Macedonian tombs: "The architectural facade is not structural (as in Greek architecture), but strictly ornamental. The main architectural principle is to create an illusion. Not only did the Macedonians develop illusory facades, but they also employed a wide range of polychromatic painting, both to highlight architectural features and to cover walls and ceilings with designs. Painting also contributed to the illusory principles, as a number of decorative architectural features that would be molded or carved in relief on Greek buildings are painted onto stucco in Macedonian tombs."
(7) On burial practices:
(a) "The normal practice in the Classical Greek world was to bury the death outside the city walls, everything within the town precinct being considered sacred to the local deities. That is, the ancients seem to have made a clear distinction between the city of the living and the dead. Thus it is common to find cemeteries grouped outside the walls of a Greek town; indeed, in some Mediteranean communities, the distribution of such burial grounds assists in tracing the growth of urban settlement boundaries over a long period of time. But Macedonia presents a somewhat more complex situation."
(b)"The eclecticism of fourth-century and early Hellenistic Macedonian burial practices and tomb placement is more reminiscent of Roman practices in Latium in the middle and late Republic than of anything in the contemporary Greek world. Thus both the placement and the large size of many Macedonian tombs are at adds with Greek burials, which tend to be modest and clustered in cemeteries."
Conclusion:
It is clear that in many respects Macedonian culture in the age of Phillip and Alexander differed markedly from the Greek.
"Macedonian material culture, like Macedonian political and military institutions, appear to be an amalgam of the diverse historical experiences of a people who developed self-sufficiency at a geopolitical crossroads."
"Ultimately, we will come to appreciate Macedonia as a region that assimilated foreign influences, and Macedonians as a people some of whose material culture provided inspiration to their contemporary Greek neighbors and, eventually, their Roman conquerors." (From Borza's "In the Shadow of Olympus")
MACEDONIAN NATION
Our southern neighbours (the Greeks) maintain that ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Modern revisionists, upon closer scrutiny of the existing archeological records, and employing comparative analysis of the available data, have explicitly stated the opposite:
"Ancient Macedonians were a distinct people and separate from the Greeks".
The following passages illuminate that ancient Macedonians were a separate and a distinct people from the ancient Greeks.
D. Brendan Nagle under the title of "Macedonian Appropriation of Greek Kulturgechichte" states: ".....the appropriation of Greek Kulturgescichte, and the use by non-Greeks for political purposes against Greeks, is less common, and even less well documented. Here I offer an example of highly effective Macedonian use of Greek cultural history to advance the propaganda aims of Philip II which had the double aim of blunting Greek criticism of his state-building while at the same time cloaking his work in the legitimizing terminology devised by Greeks for their own, often violent, colonizing and city founding activities."
Philip gathered and organized the Macedonians into cities. At the same time he was engaged in extensive de-urbanization, dismembering the Chalcidian League, destroying Olynthus, Methone, Apollonia, Galepsus, and Stagira, while Macedonizing other poleis. Thus Philip's action was not received without concerns by the Greeks, as is indicated by Demosthenes' speeches. To counter this negative image Philip appropriated the themes and language of Greek kulturgescichte to "camouflage the fact that he was creating a wholly new type of state, a consolidation of ethne under a personal monarchy."
This was neither in line with the theories of Kulturgeschichte nor with Aristotle's theory. Nagle concludes the article with the following statement: "That it has continued to confuse interpreters is testament to the hegomonic power of Greek cultural history and the adroitness of the Macedonians in using this powerful tool of self-identification against its devisers."
"What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is relative abundance of information", writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility."
Let us break it down and simplify it:
And Ulrich Wilcken in his "Alexander the Great", on p. 26 states: "The dislike was reciprocal, for the Macedonians had grown into a proud masterful nation, which with highly developed national consciousness looked down upon the Hellenes with contempt. This fact too is of prime importance for the understanding of later history."
One is compelled to ask the obvious: Why isn't there such reference for "Theban nation", or "Athenian nation", or "Phocian nation"?
In conclusion
Note: Brandan Nagle talks about Macedonian ethnos being consolidated into a Macedonian state. Ulrich Wilcken refers to Macedonia as a national state, a masterful, proud nation that looked down upon the Hellenes with contempt. Borza states that the hatred between Macedonians and Greeks was pervasive. Badian notes that ancient Macedonians did not regard themselves as Greeks, nor were they so regarded by the Greeks. Bloedow uses the term "the age-old distinction" between Macedonians and Greeks, etc.
On p.271 (Wilcken continues) we find the same reference to "Macedonian nation."
"On the march and in battle he was just the same as ever, he was the king of the Macedonian nation, who shared with them the unspeakable fatigues, and the hunger and thirst of this guerilla warfare."
One must be able to separate a "lover of Greek culture" from a leader of a "proud masterful nation". One must be able to "read" the intended outcome of a speech before a battle, when Alexander "as son of Zeus, prayed to the gods to help the Hellenes of his army". (Wilken p.139) He prayed for the Hellenes of his army, the Hellenes in Alexander's army who needed some encouragement. For the Hellenes, he prayed to Zeus, for the Macedonians he did not.
"What he had previously said to his Macedonians on the right wing and in the center, we are not told; but we may be perfectly certain that to them he said nothing of his divine son-ship, for he was only son of Zeus to the Greeks." (Wilcken p. 139)
On p.267 (Wilcken) we find: "Certainly, his successors in the next generation strove to hinder the fusion of Macedonians and Greeks with Orientals by the principle of a national Macedonian government..."
On p. 267 he continues: "On the other hand, with the news of Alexander's death a storm broke out in Greece, which completely swept away the Corinthian League. Under the leadership of Demosthenes, who was received back with great honour, Athens rose and summoned the Greeks to fight for freedom against Macedonia."
Those whom the ancient Greeks rose up against in the pursuit of freedom, the modern-day Greeks now worship as heroes!
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
