Ancient History Bulletin Macedonians vs Greeks
Gandeto
December 07, 2008
Ancient History Bulletin Macedonians vs Greeks
Diplomatic Negotiations between Darius and Alexander: Historical Implications of the First Phase at Marathus in Phoenicia in 333/332 BC By Edmund F. Bloedow (University of Ottawa)
To my readers,
I am bringing this article to your attention simply to serve as a contrast and counter point to the recently published article by the AWAC members called "Macedonia Historical Review" Dec. 2, 2008, where the Greek hired gunslingers attempt to "inform" the uninformed (because with the rest of the readers they stand no chance) about the "Greek" character of Macedonia.
There is no large-enough blanket in this world with which they can cover their lies. Such a monumental task is, indeed, technically impossible to accomplish. And even if such a blanket is invented and they can somehow cover their lies and fabrications with it, the enormity of the stench that will emanate from the rot will be so unbearably toxic and overpowering, that no human being on this earth will be able to withstand it. Reading their last article about Macedonia caused me measurable consternation and irrepressible revulsion.
I seriously wonder who their intended readers are. Whose mind are they going to pollute and more importantly, for how long. Obviously this "historical review" of Macedonia is not to be given to anyone with rudimentary knowledge of ancient and/or more recent history. The mere fact that they have produced a number of different versions of their history indicates that the winds of the "Megali idea" are constantly shifting. Until recently their history books portrayed the Macedonians as the enemy of Hellas and were never even once mentioned as belonging to the Greek ethnos. On the contrary, the word Macedonia was to be eliminated from the everyday vocabulary and relinquished to past and forgotten eras together with the ethnic Macedonians whose existence in Greece, they thought, had been completely eradicated. Once the Greeks realized that Macedonia and the Macedonians have not disappeared and their vocal assertions as Macedonians have not been completely squashed, Greeks embarked on another, more sinister plan; to rob the Macedonians from their only possession left—their name and their ethnic culture.
The audacity of bringing this kind of material to this readership at this level, is to put it mildly, a serious misstep in their calculation or a brazen indifference towards the intellectual capacity of the readers of this paper. This kind of anomalous behavior needs to be curtailed and promptly suspended.
It seems to me the Greek propaganda machine sent the wrong pamphlet to their office in Australia, for the content of the article is clearly designed for first graders whose mind "needs to be" imbued with the greek-ness of Macedonia. How long can they keep their poor, naive children trapped within this "Greek" box of lies? How long can they suppress the truth and keep it hidden from them?
To that extent I will leave you with the following thought:
Greeks can lie as much as they want. We can all lie as much as we want. They can interpret ancient or modern history to suit their needs and appetite; we can do the same to defend our cause and to convince others of our rightful position and so on and so on, in a continuous circuitous manner, until the cows come home. Weīll not settle anything any time soon; we cannot resolve an ounce of dispute among ourselves but what we can surely do is allow the ancient people to speak for themselves.
Let us allow a sliver of light to illuminate their innermost feelings about each other. Let ancient Greeks and the ancient Macedonians tell their side of the story. Let us take in consideration what Alexander the Great said about the ancient Greeks, let king Phillip II tell you how he felt about Macedonia; letīs analyze and compare the words of Phillip V, with those of Demosthenes, Demades, Aristotle and Demaratus; the statements of Licurgus, Theopompus and Cremonides; the letters of Isocrates to Phillip, the written epitaphs; the episodes from the ordinary Greek citizen or the feelings of a Macedonian soldier. Letīs take in consideration what ancient biographers said about the Greeks and the Macedonians. These are the true documents, the verifiable statements; the irrefutable evidence that cannot be corrupted.
Tell us why Eumenes could not compete for the throne of Alexander; tell us why Challistenes could not be brought to court in front of the Macedonian Army. Bring forward, if you dare, the things that really mattered and once and for all, leave the myths and your bedtime stories in the realm of the imagined for another time and perhaps, another world. See if you can erase the statements of the following people who make a mockery of your position: Dimitrios Alexandridis, Gregorios Paljuritis, Lambros Antonijadis, Nikolas Poljanos, Eranistis Silivergos, Andreas Koromilas, Paparigopulos and many others who wrote or edited Greek history in the past 200 years. Tell us about their statements regarding the ancient Macedonians vis-a-vis the ancient Greeks.
Show me the evidence without sliding, slipping and sliming all over the map. Show me the proof, if you have it, and once and forever stop hiding behind your convoluted interpretations of mythological ancestors. Because relying on mythology, which is defined as "not real, but existing only in the imagination", does not count; cannot be taken as evidence and does not exist. Science does not deal with beliefs and myths; either you have it or you donīt.
And now let me take you through my intended purpose and bring some revealing insights about the feelings of the ancient Macedonians as seen through the eyes of another scholar with no vested interest in our dispute with the Greeks.
The article focuses on the correspondence between Darius and Alexander shortly after the battle of Issus, in late 333 BC, while he (Alexander) was still at Marathus in Phoenicia. Historians and scholars alike are unsure as to whether Alexander wrote this letter himself or if it was written by his biographers and is not the concern of this post. It is also, not the concern, whether the letter received from Darius was authentic or not, nor whether Alexander has doctored the content of the same to promote his own interests. The fact that this article was written about the correspondence between Alexander and Darius did not cause any substantial reverberations in my mind; what, indeed, caused reverberations, was the fact that Alexander asks of Darius, in the written response, to include Macedonia in Greece. Also, easily discernible in this article is the clarity with which this author separates the ancient Macedonians from the ancient Greeks.
The question is: Why would Alexander want from Darius, the king of Persia, an inclusion of Macedonia in Greece? What were the ulterior, hidden motives for such an inclusion? Did Alexander know something that has escaped our attention?
The author of this article brings up various possible alternatives by presenting the views of other writers and historians. Various accounts are being discussed and analyzed. Darius' letter, as well as Alexander's response, are weighed out, balanced and counterbalanced. Out of eighteen points that Alexander demanded of Darius, several will be highlighted for our discussion; especially point #2, 'the Inclusion of Macedonia in Greece'.
In lieu of the preponderance of slogans used by the Greek writers and the Greek government itself, such as the outrageous "Macedonia is Greece" which is used extensively to portray Macedonia as Greek land, it would be quite interesting to pit the modern Greek thinking vis-a-vis that of the ancient's, and more importantly, against that of the modern historians' thinking and modern revisionists'/scholars' interpretations.
I was curious, (but not surprised), to find out what this author, Edmund F. Bloedow thinks about this specific matter, and what were the prevailing thoughts of the ancient historians. Point "2" text and subsequent elaboration follows]:
"The designation of Macedonia as part of Greece has intrigued modern critics. This, according to Schachermeyr, is enough to 'take one's breath away'. He went so far as to suggest that, however brief, it encapsulates a whole and bold strategy: to counter the Great King's strategy of attempting to exploit the age-old distinction between Macedonians and Hellenes. The reason for including Macedonia as part of larger Hellas was designed to justify Macedonian participation in the so-called war of revenge.
Whatever the truth on this point, on the basis of what we know happened in Macedonia in 480, Alexander had no more grounds for carrying out a war of revenge on behalf of Macedonia than he had on behalf of Athens or Sparta. Of course, Macedonians never regarded their territory as forming part of Greece, and certainly the Greek poleis did not regard Macedonia as being another Greek polis. The reason why Alexander here includes Macedonia as being part of Greece may be an attempt to paper over the glaring anomaly between what Philip and he had just done to 'the rest of Greece' and what he is in the process of doing to the Persian empire. The Persians had never done anything significant against the Macedonians. It is noteworthy that Herodotus, although he provides considerable information on Xerxes' activities when he passed through Macedonia in 480, does not record any acts of destruction--- scarcely surprising if Xerxes was instrumental in Macedonia gaining control of Upper Macedonia."
What are the glaring and the noteworthy points from these passages to be taken out and re-emphasized?
1) The great King (Darius) knew quite well that Macedonians were not Greeks. "The age-old distinction" between Macedonians and Greeks was well known to all people in antiquity.
2) Alexander wanted to take that particular "card" (motive) out of the hands of Darius, and preclude the Great King from using it against Alexander's attack on Persia. By including Macedonia in Greece Alexander could, as hegemon of the allied troops, justify his attack on Persia as a revenge for the Persian attack on Greece.
Specifically, for my Greek adversaries: If Macedonia was Greek, as you shout throughout the world, then, why would Alexander make such a duplicate demand of Darius? Does it make any sense for you to shout "Macedonia is Greece" if indeed "Macedonia" was Greece? How come you never advertise/shout that "Athens is Greece", or "Peloponnesus is Greece"? Your arrogance has deceived you, has blinded you to such an extent that you no longer can differentiate between reality and wishful thinking. Aren't there enough examples in the world where blinded, myopic politicians have whipped the population into fanatical obsession impregnated with venomous hate that culminated in catastrophic destruction of property and human life? Do the findings from these scholars mean anything to you? Do you find their claims substantive enough for you to start questioning your government's assertions?]
3) "Macedonians never regarded their territory as forming part of Greece".
How clear and unobtrusive this statement is; again, this statement is made by people, scholars whose profession is ancient history. They don't kill the afternoons sipping coffee or playing cards, either.
All these scholars unequivocally state that:
a) Greeks and Macedonians were two distinct and separate people. b) Two different ethnos. c) Macedonia was never a part of Greece. d) No Hellenism is associated with ancient Macedonians, and e) Macedonians can not be called Hellenes.]
4) "The Greek poleis did not regard Macedonia as being another Greek polis".
(These are the ancient Greeks speaking. Don't you think they knew what was and wasn't Greek?
IMHO: a) Absurd are the claims that "Macedonia" was Greek. b) Absurd are the claims of "4000 years of history". c) It is an invention to think of the Macedonian empire as a Greek empire. d) Absurd and ridiculous are the claims that the name "Macedonia" belongs to Greece.)
True enough, there are no limits to which one can harness and exploit the love and the affection of the masses for the motherland, but truth is also, that there is a limit to which a country, a ruling government, can harness and exploit the hate, the contempt, the deceit and the venom of racism, to feed and cultivate a false arrogance wrapped up in pretentious and empty democracy.]
5) "The reason why Alexander here includes Macedonia as being part of Greece may be an attempt to pepper over the glaring anomaly between what Philip and he had just done to 'the rest of Greece' and what he is in the process of doing to the Persian empire."
And that certainly is not to "unite" Persia like he had "united' the Greek city-states. The assertion that "Philip and Alexander united the Greek city-states" can be equated with "Alexander united the Persian states". This, indeed, is extremely hard to comprehend.
Point #14 - Persian troops conquered by Alexander now serving voluntarily in his army (equals acknowledgment of him as the new ruler) (2.14.7)
Alexander here is implying the ideology of willing subjects of a monarch in order to assert his legitimacy over the Persian Empire. He describes the Persian troops that survived battle as a legitimate part of the territory and boasts that "they are with me of their own free will and voluntary serve in my army".
Accordingly, then, the Greeks under Alexander were "willing subjects" and Alexander is the legitimate king, not a tyrant, like Darius. To this (Alexanderīs) claim the author Edmund F. Bloedow writes the following:
"What is more important is the that Chaeronea, Thebes, and Agis make a complete mockery of attempting in this context to suggest that the Greeks in Hellas regarded themselves as willing subjects under legitimate Macedonian kings (Philip and Alexander) or- that the inhabitants of the regions he had just conquered did so entirely of their own will".
We need to refresh our memories about Isocrates' letter to Philip where he, Isocrates, makes clear that: (a) "Philips's ancestors understood that Greeks cannot submit to the rule of a monarch, while non-Greeks actually cannot live without such a regime", and (b) "people of non-kindred race" - was the term used by Isocrates to describe the Macedonians. Obviously, and with added emphasis, he is highlighting the distinction between the Macedonians and the Greeks.]
Strengthening his position/argument, E. Bloedow adds:
"The so called 'Lamian War', alias, 'Hellenic War' speaks no less eloquent a language".
In the Lamian War, the Hellenes were fighting against Macedonia. This war was known by its protagonists as 'Hellenic War'. One more time, he brings the distinction between Macedonians and Greeks - the Hellenes. Similar/parallel implications are evident from 337, after the battle of Chaeronea between the Greeks and the Macedonians. The epitaph composed by Demosthenes for the common grave of the fallen Hellenes at Chaeronea reads as follows:
"Time whose o'erseeng eye records all human actions,
Bear word to mankind what fate was suffered,
how Striving to safeguard the holy soil of Hellas
Upon Boeotia's plain we died."
The distinction between Greeks and Macedonians is explicit; "how striving to safeguard the holy soil of Hellas - we died."
They were striving to safeguard the holy soil of Hellas from the attack of the Macedonians. I think it is painfully obvious that the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks! (In Badianīs words, (paraphrasing) they did not consider themselves to be Greeks, nor were they so considered by the ancient Greeks.)]
In closing, the professor from Ottawa observes with clarity:
"If all the peoples in the regions which Alexander had conquered were willing subjects under the new king, he presumably should not have left any military troops with the satraps he everywhere instated." How, true, indeed! When one "liberates" and or "unites" one does not need garrisons/military troops installed. Conversely, when one conquers/occupies, the use of garrisons/troops is not only needed, but it is a de-facto militarily unavoidable and prudent strategy.
A passing comment:
Arrian tells us that as far as Greece is concerned "it had been enslaved by the Macedonians"]
What an arrogant bluff by Alexander, to refer to the conquered people as "willing subjects". What Alexander failed to disclose is the fact that he left "no less than one quarter of his forces behind, under one of Philip's most tried generals (Antipater) when he set out for Asia!".]
Why, would he do that? The answer is obvious to all except a few "die-hards" on the other side of the fence.
P.S. Visit the American Philological Association!
http://.trentu.ca/f.../AHB-9-3-a.html#b6
Until next time
Diplomatic Negotiations between Darius and Alexander: Historical Implications of the First Phase at Marathus in Phoenicia in 333/332 BC By Edmund F. Bloedow (University of Ottawa)
To my readers,
I am bringing this article to your attention simply to serve as a contrast and counter point to the recently published article by the AWAC members called "Macedonia Historical Review" Dec. 2, 2008, where the Greek hired gunslingers attempt to "inform" the uninformed (because with the rest of the readers they stand no chance) about the "Greek" character of Macedonia.
There is no large-enough blanket in this world with which they can cover their lies. Such a monumental task is, indeed, technically impossible to accomplish. And even if such a blanket is invented and they can somehow cover their lies and fabrications with it, the enormity of the stench that will emanate from the rot will be so unbearably toxic and overpowering, that no human being on this earth will be able to withstand it. Reading their last article about Macedonia caused me measurable consternation and irrepressible revulsion.
I seriously wonder who their intended readers are. Whose mind are they going to pollute and more importantly, for how long. Obviously this "historical review" of Macedonia is not to be given to anyone with rudimentary knowledge of ancient and/or more recent history. The mere fact that they have produced a number of different versions of their history indicates that the winds of the "Megali idea" are constantly shifting. Until recently their history books portrayed the Macedonians as the enemy of Hellas and were never even once mentioned as belonging to the Greek ethnos. On the contrary, the word Macedonia was to be eliminated from the everyday vocabulary and relinquished to past and forgotten eras together with the ethnic Macedonians whose existence in Greece, they thought, had been completely eradicated. Once the Greeks realized that Macedonia and the Macedonians have not disappeared and their vocal assertions as Macedonians have not been completely squashed, Greeks embarked on another, more sinister plan; to rob the Macedonians from their only possession left—their name and their ethnic culture.
The audacity of bringing this kind of material to this readership at this level, is to put it mildly, a serious misstep in their calculation or a brazen indifference towards the intellectual capacity of the readers of this paper. This kind of anomalous behavior needs to be curtailed and promptly suspended.
It seems to me the Greek propaganda machine sent the wrong pamphlet to their office in Australia, for the content of the article is clearly designed for first graders whose mind "needs to be" imbued with the greek-ness of Macedonia. How long can they keep their poor, naive children trapped within this "Greek" box of lies? How long can they suppress the truth and keep it hidden from them?
To that extent I will leave you with the following thought:
Greeks can lie as much as they want. We can all lie as much as we want. They can interpret ancient or modern history to suit their needs and appetite; we can do the same to defend our cause and to convince others of our rightful position and so on and so on, in a continuous circuitous manner, until the cows come home. Weīll not settle anything any time soon; we cannot resolve an ounce of dispute among ourselves but what we can surely do is allow the ancient people to speak for themselves.
Let us allow a sliver of light to illuminate their innermost feelings about each other. Let ancient Greeks and the ancient Macedonians tell their side of the story. Let us take in consideration what Alexander the Great said about the ancient Greeks, let king Phillip II tell you how he felt about Macedonia; letīs analyze and compare the words of Phillip V, with those of Demosthenes, Demades, Aristotle and Demaratus; the statements of Licurgus, Theopompus and Cremonides; the letters of Isocrates to Phillip, the written epitaphs; the episodes from the ordinary Greek citizen or the feelings of a Macedonian soldier. Letīs take in consideration what ancient biographers said about the Greeks and the Macedonians. These are the true documents, the verifiable statements; the irrefutable evidence that cannot be corrupted.
Tell us why Eumenes could not compete for the throne of Alexander; tell us why Challistenes could not be brought to court in front of the Macedonian Army. Bring forward, if you dare, the things that really mattered and once and for all, leave the myths and your bedtime stories in the realm of the imagined for another time and perhaps, another world. See if you can erase the statements of the following people who make a mockery of your position: Dimitrios Alexandridis, Gregorios Paljuritis, Lambros Antonijadis, Nikolas Poljanos, Eranistis Silivergos, Andreas Koromilas, Paparigopulos and many others who wrote or edited Greek history in the past 200 years. Tell us about their statements regarding the ancient Macedonians vis-a-vis the ancient Greeks.
Show me the evidence without sliding, slipping and sliming all over the map. Show me the proof, if you have it, and once and forever stop hiding behind your convoluted interpretations of mythological ancestors. Because relying on mythology, which is defined as "not real, but existing only in the imagination", does not count; cannot be taken as evidence and does not exist. Science does not deal with beliefs and myths; either you have it or you donīt.
And now let me take you through my intended purpose and bring some revealing insights about the feelings of the ancient Macedonians as seen through the eyes of another scholar with no vested interest in our dispute with the Greeks.
The article focuses on the correspondence between Darius and Alexander shortly after the battle of Issus, in late 333 BC, while he (Alexander) was still at Marathus in Phoenicia. Historians and scholars alike are unsure as to whether Alexander wrote this letter himself or if it was written by his biographers and is not the concern of this post. It is also, not the concern, whether the letter received from Darius was authentic or not, nor whether Alexander has doctored the content of the same to promote his own interests. The fact that this article was written about the correspondence between Alexander and Darius did not cause any substantial reverberations in my mind; what, indeed, caused reverberations, was the fact that Alexander asks of Darius, in the written response, to include Macedonia in Greece. Also, easily discernible in this article is the clarity with which this author separates the ancient Macedonians from the ancient Greeks.
The question is: Why would Alexander want from Darius, the king of Persia, an inclusion of Macedonia in Greece? What were the ulterior, hidden motives for such an inclusion? Did Alexander know something that has escaped our attention?
The author of this article brings up various possible alternatives by presenting the views of other writers and historians. Various accounts are being discussed and analyzed. Darius' letter, as well as Alexander's response, are weighed out, balanced and counterbalanced. Out of eighteen points that Alexander demanded of Darius, several will be highlighted for our discussion; especially point #2, 'the Inclusion of Macedonia in Greece'.
In lieu of the preponderance of slogans used by the Greek writers and the Greek government itself, such as the outrageous "Macedonia is Greece" which is used extensively to portray Macedonia as Greek land, it would be quite interesting to pit the modern Greek thinking vis-a-vis that of the ancient's, and more importantly, against that of the modern historians' thinking and modern revisionists'/scholars' interpretations.
I was curious, (but not surprised), to find out what this author, Edmund F. Bloedow thinks about this specific matter, and what were the prevailing thoughts of the ancient historians. Point "2" text and subsequent elaboration follows]:
"The designation of Macedonia as part of Greece has intrigued modern critics. This, according to Schachermeyr, is enough to 'take one's breath away'. He went so far as to suggest that, however brief, it encapsulates a whole and bold strategy: to counter the Great King's strategy of attempting to exploit the age-old distinction between Macedonians and Hellenes. The reason for including Macedonia as part of larger Hellas was designed to justify Macedonian participation in the so-called war of revenge.
Whatever the truth on this point, on the basis of what we know happened in Macedonia in 480, Alexander had no more grounds for carrying out a war of revenge on behalf of Macedonia than he had on behalf of Athens or Sparta. Of course, Macedonians never regarded their territory as forming part of Greece, and certainly the Greek poleis did not regard Macedonia as being another Greek polis. The reason why Alexander here includes Macedonia as being part of Greece may be an attempt to paper over the glaring anomaly between what Philip and he had just done to 'the rest of Greece' and what he is in the process of doing to the Persian empire. The Persians had never done anything significant against the Macedonians. It is noteworthy that Herodotus, although he provides considerable information on Xerxes' activities when he passed through Macedonia in 480, does not record any acts of destruction--- scarcely surprising if Xerxes was instrumental in Macedonia gaining control of Upper Macedonia."
What are the glaring and the noteworthy points from these passages to be taken out and re-emphasized?
1) The great King (Darius) knew quite well that Macedonians were not Greeks. "The age-old distinction" between Macedonians and Greeks was well known to all people in antiquity.
2) Alexander wanted to take that particular "card" (motive) out of the hands of Darius, and preclude the Great King from using it against Alexander's attack on Persia. By including Macedonia in Greece Alexander could, as hegemon of the allied troops, justify his attack on Persia as a revenge for the Persian attack on Greece.
Specifically, for my Greek adversaries: If Macedonia was Greek, as you shout throughout the world, then, why would Alexander make such a duplicate demand of Darius? Does it make any sense for you to shout "Macedonia is Greece" if indeed "Macedonia" was Greece? How come you never advertise/shout that "Athens is Greece", or "Peloponnesus is Greece"? Your arrogance has deceived you, has blinded you to such an extent that you no longer can differentiate between reality and wishful thinking. Aren't there enough examples in the world where blinded, myopic politicians have whipped the population into fanatical obsession impregnated with venomous hate that culminated in catastrophic destruction of property and human life? Do the findings from these scholars mean anything to you? Do you find their claims substantive enough for you to start questioning your government's assertions?]
3) "Macedonians never regarded their territory as forming part of Greece".
How clear and unobtrusive this statement is; again, this statement is made by people, scholars whose profession is ancient history. They don't kill the afternoons sipping coffee or playing cards, either.
All these scholars unequivocally state that:
a) Greeks and Macedonians were two distinct and separate people. b) Two different ethnos. c) Macedonia was never a part of Greece. d) No Hellenism is associated with ancient Macedonians, and e) Macedonians can not be called Hellenes.]
4) "The Greek poleis did not regard Macedonia as being another Greek polis".
(These are the ancient Greeks speaking. Don't you think they knew what was and wasn't Greek?
IMHO: a) Absurd are the claims that "Macedonia" was Greek. b) Absurd are the claims of "4000 years of history". c) It is an invention to think of the Macedonian empire as a Greek empire. d) Absurd and ridiculous are the claims that the name "Macedonia" belongs to Greece.)
True enough, there are no limits to which one can harness and exploit the love and the affection of the masses for the motherland, but truth is also, that there is a limit to which a country, a ruling government, can harness and exploit the hate, the contempt, the deceit and the venom of racism, to feed and cultivate a false arrogance wrapped up in pretentious and empty democracy.]
5) "The reason why Alexander here includes Macedonia as being part of Greece may be an attempt to pepper over the glaring anomaly between what Philip and he had just done to 'the rest of Greece' and what he is in the process of doing to the Persian empire."
And that certainly is not to "unite" Persia like he had "united' the Greek city-states. The assertion that "Philip and Alexander united the Greek city-states" can be equated with "Alexander united the Persian states". This, indeed, is extremely hard to comprehend.
Point #14 - Persian troops conquered by Alexander now serving voluntarily in his army (equals acknowledgment of him as the new ruler) (2.14.7)
Alexander here is implying the ideology of willing subjects of a monarch in order to assert his legitimacy over the Persian Empire. He describes the Persian troops that survived battle as a legitimate part of the territory and boasts that "they are with me of their own free will and voluntary serve in my army".
Accordingly, then, the Greeks under Alexander were "willing subjects" and Alexander is the legitimate king, not a tyrant, like Darius. To this (Alexanderīs) claim the author Edmund F. Bloedow writes the following:
"What is more important is the that Chaeronea, Thebes, and Agis make a complete mockery of attempting in this context to suggest that the Greeks in Hellas regarded themselves as willing subjects under legitimate Macedonian kings (Philip and Alexander) or- that the inhabitants of the regions he had just conquered did so entirely of their own will".
We need to refresh our memories about Isocrates' letter to Philip where he, Isocrates, makes clear that: (a) "Philips's ancestors understood that Greeks cannot submit to the rule of a monarch, while non-Greeks actually cannot live without such a regime", and (b) "people of non-kindred race" - was the term used by Isocrates to describe the Macedonians. Obviously, and with added emphasis, he is highlighting the distinction between the Macedonians and the Greeks.]
Strengthening his position/argument, E. Bloedow adds:
"The so called 'Lamian War', alias, 'Hellenic War' speaks no less eloquent a language".
In the Lamian War, the Hellenes were fighting against Macedonia. This war was known by its protagonists as 'Hellenic War'. One more time, he brings the distinction between Macedonians and Greeks - the Hellenes. Similar/parallel implications are evident from 337, after the battle of Chaeronea between the Greeks and the Macedonians. The epitaph composed by Demosthenes for the common grave of the fallen Hellenes at Chaeronea reads as follows:
"Time whose o'erseeng eye records all human actions,
Bear word to mankind what fate was suffered,
how Striving to safeguard the holy soil of Hellas
Upon Boeotia's plain we died."
The distinction between Greeks and Macedonians is explicit; "how striving to safeguard the holy soil of Hellas - we died."
They were striving to safeguard the holy soil of Hellas from the attack of the Macedonians. I think it is painfully obvious that the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks! (In Badianīs words, (paraphrasing) they did not consider themselves to be Greeks, nor were they so considered by the ancient Greeks.)]
In closing, the professor from Ottawa observes with clarity:
"If all the peoples in the regions which Alexander had conquered were willing subjects under the new king, he presumably should not have left any military troops with the satraps he everywhere instated." How, true, indeed! When one "liberates" and or "unites" one does not need garrisons/military troops installed. Conversely, when one conquers/occupies, the use of garrisons/troops is not only needed, but it is a de-facto militarily unavoidable and prudent strategy.
A passing comment:
Arrian tells us that as far as Greece is concerned "it had been enslaved by the Macedonians"]
What an arrogant bluff by Alexander, to refer to the conquered people as "willing subjects". What Alexander failed to disclose is the fact that he left "no less than one quarter of his forces behind, under one of Philip's most tried generals (Antipater) when he set out for Asia!".]
Why, would he do that? The answer is obvious to all except a few "die-hards" on the other side of the fence.
P.S. Visit the American Philological Association!
http://.trentu.ca/f.../AHB-9-3-a.html#b6
Until next time
Print
Email
