Greek Australian Advisory Council and the falsification of Ancient Macedonian history Part 19
Risto Stefov
December 12, 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:
ALEXANDER I
The following quote from Herodotus, attributed to Alexander I of Macedon, is often cited by historical revisionists in order to "prove" the Greek-ness of the ancient Macedonian kings. The claim was soundly rejected as propaganda by the ancient Greeks.
Alexander I and the quote from Herodotus
"Men of Athens... Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Greece I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself Greek by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery.... If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Greek cause, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am Alexander of Macedon."
Let us consider the veracity of this statement.
1. The year is 480-479 BC, when the Persian armies were poised to attack Greece. The Greek armies had taken defensive positions at Tempe Pass.
2. The Kingdom of Macedon, under Amyntas I, had established a relationship with Darius I, king of Persia. Amyntas had recognized the suzerainty of Darius. His daughter, Gygea, the sister of Alexander I, had married a Persian nobleman, and his son, Alexander I of Macedon, loyally served his suzerain, continuing to profit by Persian favours and protection.
3. When it became clear that a Greek victory over the Persians could no longer be delayed, Alexander I came out in full support of the victors, rendering them services for which he receives the honour of "Philhellene" (friend of the Greeks).
The appellation "Philhellene" swings the pendulum against Modern Greek revisionism for its obvious contradiction.
4. With the Persian overlord gone Macedon's relationship with the Greek city states changed.
5. Alexander I, through Herodotus, cleverly invents the mythical descent from Argos in order to be accepted at the Olympic Games. There is no evidence whatsoever of any Macedonian claim to a Greek connection before the Persian war.
Let us examine the statement, and see if it can withstand the scrutiny of historical analysis.
a) If Alexander I was Greek then why did he continue to serve as Darius' suzerain when mainland Greece was under threat?
b) If Alexander I of Macedon was Greek, then why did the Persian commander, Mardonius, choose him to negotiate on "his" behalf "with" the Greeks? Mardonius was in a position to know the difference between the Macedonians and Greeks.
c) If Alexander I of Macedon was "Greek," why was he dubbed by the Greeks as "proxenos" - a public friend of the Greeks?
d) If Alexander I was Greek then why does he feel compelled to prove his Greek-ness?
This ploy appears intended to open the door for the Macedonians to participate in the Olympic Games. In any case, despite his declaration of Greek-ness, Alexander I (the Philhellene) was rejected by the Greeks themselves and turned away from the Olympics on the grounds that the games were reserved for Greeks only.
e) Finally, Herodotus speaks of the Thessallians as being the first Greeks to fall under Persian rule in 480 BC. The historical record shows that the Persian armies entered Macedon in 492 BC, 12 years prior to this. Why did Herodotus fail to declare the Macedonians as being the first Greeks to fall under Persian rule?
MACEDONIA AND THE "HELLENIC LEAGUE"
I have often challenged our "friendly" neighbours to refute the statement that "Macedonia was never a member of the Hellenic League".
Some have argued that Macedonia was a member of the Amphictyonic League and that League was only open to Greeks.
However, Philip did not represent Macedonia as a nation in the Delphic Amphictyony. Philip's membership to the Delphic Amphictyony was a personal gift to him, and not to the nation of Macedonia. Ordinary Macedonians, as opposed to their kings, were regarded as "peoples of non-kindred race" (Isocrates). Bear in mind that such membership was also given to some Persian envoys.
Finally, Philip's interests were multi-layered and deeper than he usual squabbles between two neighbouring city-states; he preyed upon anti-Spartan feelings in the Peloponnesus, upon the tangle of Amphictyonic politics in central Greece, and upon disorder in the Thessalian federation. (Borza).
He, Philip, exploited Greece's internal weakness for purely Macedonian gains. Philip needed Greece for security and coalition. What he offered Greece in 346-344, was not much different from what he obtained through a military conquest in 337. Once he settled the Greek question in 338-37, Philip turned immediately to preparations for the Asian venture. (Ellis).
ANCIENT HISTORY BULLETIN - 3
Diplomatic Negotiations between Darius and Alexander: Historical Implications of the First Phase at Marathus in Phoenicia in 333/332 BC
By Edmund F. Bloedow from the University of Ottawa
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. Whether Alexander wrote this letter himself, or was written by his biographers, is not the concern of this post. It is also, not my concern, whether the letter received from Darius was authentic or not, nor whether Alexander has doctored the content of 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.
Easily discernible 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 netters and the Greek government itself, specifically the one where "Macedonia is Greece" is used extensively to portray Macedonia as Greek land, it would be quite interesting to pit the modern Greek thinking vis-à-vis that of the ancient's, and more importantly, against that of the modern historians' thinking and modern revisionists'/scholars' interpretations of the twentieth century.
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 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 ancients.
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 Persian attack on Greece.
3) "Macedonians never regarded their territory as forming part of Greece".
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?)
5) "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."
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.
Persian troops conquered by Alexander now serving voluntarily in his army (acknowledgement 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 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.
With respect to Alexander's claims above the author, Edmund F. Bloedow, writes: "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, highlighting the distinction between Macedonians and Greeks.
Strengthening his position, argument E. Bloedow adds: "The so called 'Lamian War', alias, 'Hellenic War' speaks no less eloquent a language".
Once again, to recall the fact that in the Lamian War, the Hellenes, were fighting against Macedonia. This war was known by its protagonists as 'Hellenic War'. One more 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, mentioned in another article, composed by Demosthenes for the common grave of the fallen Hellenes at Chaeronea reads as follows:
"Time whose overseeing 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.
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."
A passing comment: Arrian tells us that as far as Greece is concerned "it had been enslaved by the Macedonians".
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:
ALEXANDER I
The following quote from Herodotus, attributed to Alexander I of Macedon, is often cited by historical revisionists in order to "prove" the Greek-ness of the ancient Macedonian kings. The claim was soundly rejected as propaganda by the ancient Greeks.
Alexander I and the quote from Herodotus
"Men of Athens... Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Greece I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself Greek by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery.... If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Greek cause, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am Alexander of Macedon."
Let us consider the veracity of this statement.
1. The year is 480-479 BC, when the Persian armies were poised to attack Greece. The Greek armies had taken defensive positions at Tempe Pass.
2. The Kingdom of Macedon, under Amyntas I, had established a relationship with Darius I, king of Persia. Amyntas had recognized the suzerainty of Darius. His daughter, Gygea, the sister of Alexander I, had married a Persian nobleman, and his son, Alexander I of Macedon, loyally served his suzerain, continuing to profit by Persian favours and protection.
3. When it became clear that a Greek victory over the Persians could no longer be delayed, Alexander I came out in full support of the victors, rendering them services for which he receives the honour of "Philhellene" (friend of the Greeks).
The appellation "Philhellene" swings the pendulum against Modern Greek revisionism for its obvious contradiction.
4. With the Persian overlord gone Macedon's relationship with the Greek city states changed.
5. Alexander I, through Herodotus, cleverly invents the mythical descent from Argos in order to be accepted at the Olympic Games. There is no evidence whatsoever of any Macedonian claim to a Greek connection before the Persian war.
Let us examine the statement, and see if it can withstand the scrutiny of historical analysis.
a) If Alexander I was Greek then why did he continue to serve as Darius' suzerain when mainland Greece was under threat?
b) If Alexander I of Macedon was Greek, then why did the Persian commander, Mardonius, choose him to negotiate on "his" behalf "with" the Greeks? Mardonius was in a position to know the difference between the Macedonians and Greeks.
c) If Alexander I of Macedon was "Greek," why was he dubbed by the Greeks as "proxenos" - a public friend of the Greeks?
d) If Alexander I was Greek then why does he feel compelled to prove his Greek-ness?
This ploy appears intended to open the door for the Macedonians to participate in the Olympic Games. In any case, despite his declaration of Greek-ness, Alexander I (the Philhellene) was rejected by the Greeks themselves and turned away from the Olympics on the grounds that the games were reserved for Greeks only.
e) Finally, Herodotus speaks of the Thessallians as being the first Greeks to fall under Persian rule in 480 BC. The historical record shows that the Persian armies entered Macedon in 492 BC, 12 years prior to this. Why did Herodotus fail to declare the Macedonians as being the first Greeks to fall under Persian rule?
MACEDONIA AND THE "HELLENIC LEAGUE"
I have often challenged our "friendly" neighbours to refute the statement that "Macedonia was never a member of the Hellenic League".
Some have argued that Macedonia was a member of the Amphictyonic League and that League was only open to Greeks.
However, Philip did not represent Macedonia as a nation in the Delphic Amphictyony. Philip's membership to the Delphic Amphictyony was a personal gift to him, and not to the nation of Macedonia. Ordinary Macedonians, as opposed to their kings, were regarded as "peoples of non-kindred race" (Isocrates). Bear in mind that such membership was also given to some Persian envoys.
Finally, Philip's interests were multi-layered and deeper than he usual squabbles between two neighbouring city-states; he preyed upon anti-Spartan feelings in the Peloponnesus, upon the tangle of Amphictyonic politics in central Greece, and upon disorder in the Thessalian federation. (Borza).
He, Philip, exploited Greece's internal weakness for purely Macedonian gains. Philip needed Greece for security and coalition. What he offered Greece in 346-344, was not much different from what he obtained through a military conquest in 337. Once he settled the Greek question in 338-37, Philip turned immediately to preparations for the Asian venture. (Ellis).
ANCIENT HISTORY BULLETIN - 3
Diplomatic Negotiations between Darius and Alexander: Historical Implications of the First Phase at Marathus in Phoenicia in 333/332 BC
By Edmund F. Bloedow from the University of Ottawa
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. Whether Alexander wrote this letter himself, or was written by his biographers, is not the concern of this post. It is also, not my concern, whether the letter received from Darius was authentic or not, nor whether Alexander has doctored the content of 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.
Easily discernible 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 netters and the Greek government itself, specifically the one where "Macedonia is Greece" is used extensively to portray Macedonia as Greek land, it would be quite interesting to pit the modern Greek thinking vis-à-vis that of the ancient's, and more importantly, against that of the modern historians' thinking and modern revisionists'/scholars' interpretations of the twentieth century.
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 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 ancients.
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 Persian attack on Greece.
3) "Macedonians never regarded their territory as forming part of Greece".
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?)
5) "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."
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.
Persian troops conquered by Alexander now serving voluntarily in his army (acknowledgement 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 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.
With respect to Alexander's claims above the author, Edmund F. Bloedow, writes: "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, highlighting the distinction between Macedonians and Greeks.
Strengthening his position, argument E. Bloedow adds: "The so called 'Lamian War', alias, 'Hellenic War' speaks no less eloquent a language".
Once again, to recall the fact that in the Lamian War, the Hellenes, were fighting against Macedonia. This war was known by its protagonists as 'Hellenic War'. One more 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, mentioned in another article, composed by Demosthenes for the common grave of the fallen Hellenes at Chaeronea reads as follows:
"Time whose overseeing 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.
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."
A passing comment: Arrian tells us that as far as Greece is concerned "it had been enslaved by the Macedonians".
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
