How the ancient Macedonians viewed the ancient Greeks
Gandeto
March 25, 2009
Philip and Alexander of Macedon
by David Hogarth
We have been accustomed to reading empty slogans from the Greeks regarding the alleged Greekness of the Ancient Macedonians. Even though the available literary evidence cannot possibly support such a bankrupt allegation, these poor, scantily informed souls stubbornly cling to an idea whose credibility has been seriously challenged and whose scholarly underpinnings so devalued that further adherence to its fabric threatens embarrassing collapse of academic integrity.
Ancient biographers left no doubt as to who the Ancient Macedonians were. Here, the field is explicitly clean; there is an abundance of clear, precise, unambiguous statements from the ancient authors and common men alike, that these two neighbors in the Balkan Peninsula, besides sharing a common border, shared very little else. Macedon was a Balkan power whose borders ebbed in and out with the fortunes of her kings. Macedon became involved in Greek cities´ affairs only to the extent of procuring and obtaining self interest in the venture. And when Philip marched south at Chaeronea in 338, it was only as a last resort; he needed his southern borders secured before embarking on a mission to Persia.
Greece, as we have seen before, was a stepping stone to the Asian conquest. Isocrates´ invitation to Philip to become Captain-General of the Hellenes was a ready-made ticket that Philip took for his own selfish Macedonian interests and his country´s aggrandizement. There was no unification at Corinth. Philip spoke and the Greek city-states listened.
Alexander the Great who inherited his father´s plans of invading Persia played the same card with the Greeks with cunning adroitness. He was the leader of the panhellenic crusade only when it suited him the most and to the point that it did not interfere with his grandiose plans to become Emperor of Asia.
To assume that he carried a Greek spirit with him in Asia is to forget the dismissal of all the Greek troops very early in the campaign and to gloss over the fact that he used the Greeks for garrison duties only and never in any major battle in Asia. What ever Hellenic spirit he carried with him as a young enthusiastic leader of a multi-national army, came to a screeching halt when at Issus he captured Darius´ baggage whose possession yielded much correspondence between the Great King Darius of Persia and the Hellenic city-states. To make matters more repugnant he also captured Hellenic envoys from the Greek cities sent to Persia. Here the enthusiastic Captain General of the Hellenes ceased his pretentious behavior and the farce with the Hellenic crusade was over. The burning of Persepolis will testify to that affect.
David Hogarth says that "the (Hellenic) mission was coming to be believed in neither by leader nor by led."
Under the weight of so many incontrovertible facts we are obliged to conclude that the Greek cries that Alexander spread Hellenism in Asia belong to the imagined world and have nothing to do with factual history. If there was any Hellenism spread in Asia it was done by more than 50,000 Greek troops employed in the services of Darius, the Great King of Persia and thousands of other Greeks who sought fortunes in Asia, centuries before Alexander´s conquest. Alexander was neither Greek nor did he spread any Hellenism in Asia. There was no policy of hellenization to speak of, for Alexander was a Macedonian king and remained so until his death. Consequently, any other conclusion must rest on sources other than those available in today´s literature.
This is an interesting passage from Hogarth´s book that confirms what we have been saying for a long time:
"He was officially both King of Macedon and Federal Captain-General of the Hellenes; but neither the habitual attitude of his Macedonians towards his Greeks, nor of his Greeks towards his Macedonians, was consistent with the relation in which each stood to the General. Alexander had started for Asia with good hope that the ambiguity would disappear as by common service and common interest a single Hellenistic nation was evolved, over which he himself would reign as freely accepted sovereign.
The attitude of the Hellenes in Greece had raised, as we have seen, a first difficulty; the attitude of the elder Macedonians was now raising a second. The party which Parmenio led had no panhellenic ideals.
They would have had Alexander even as Philip and his forefathers had been—feudal kings of the Macedonians, conqueror of the Greeks if he would, and of the Persians if he could." p. 207.
It is worth repeating: "…conquerors of the Greeks."
This in essence captures the actual feelings and attitudes of every-day Macedonian soldiers who did not give a fig for Hellenism nor for the panhellenic crusade. The honor bestowed upon them as invincible warriors in antiquity cannot, and should not be diminished by lowering their status and making them Greeks. Ancient Greeks knew the score quite well.
On p. 177 we find another statement that eloquently describes whether Alexander and Philip united or conquered Greece.
"Alexander came, then, in this April of 334, to the shores of Dardanelles, with an ambition to possess all Persia as already he possessed all Greece.
Note: Passages of this magnitude serve only one purpose: to illustrate the obvious that ancient Macedonians had nothing in common with the ancient Greeks. These were two distinctly different people with much different agendas and purpose in life. Macedonians were soldiers first and foremost who spoke with the spear. Greece was a conquered territory won by the Macedonian spear, period. No further elaboration is necessary.
Thus, once again, there are scholars with resolute analytical prowess who can teach and then, there are others who, with a big Hellenic brush, simply lump things together.
Until next time….
by David Hogarth
We have been accustomed to reading empty slogans from the Greeks regarding the alleged Greekness of the Ancient Macedonians. Even though the available literary evidence cannot possibly support such a bankrupt allegation, these poor, scantily informed souls stubbornly cling to an idea whose credibility has been seriously challenged and whose scholarly underpinnings so devalued that further adherence to its fabric threatens embarrassing collapse of academic integrity.
Ancient biographers left no doubt as to who the Ancient Macedonians were. Here, the field is explicitly clean; there is an abundance of clear, precise, unambiguous statements from the ancient authors and common men alike, that these two neighbors in the Balkan Peninsula, besides sharing a common border, shared very little else. Macedon was a Balkan power whose borders ebbed in and out with the fortunes of her kings. Macedon became involved in Greek cities´ affairs only to the extent of procuring and obtaining self interest in the venture. And when Philip marched south at Chaeronea in 338, it was only as a last resort; he needed his southern borders secured before embarking on a mission to Persia.
Greece, as we have seen before, was a stepping stone to the Asian conquest. Isocrates´ invitation to Philip to become Captain-General of the Hellenes was a ready-made ticket that Philip took for his own selfish Macedonian interests and his country´s aggrandizement. There was no unification at Corinth. Philip spoke and the Greek city-states listened.
Alexander the Great who inherited his father´s plans of invading Persia played the same card with the Greeks with cunning adroitness. He was the leader of the panhellenic crusade only when it suited him the most and to the point that it did not interfere with his grandiose plans to become Emperor of Asia.
To assume that he carried a Greek spirit with him in Asia is to forget the dismissal of all the Greek troops very early in the campaign and to gloss over the fact that he used the Greeks for garrison duties only and never in any major battle in Asia. What ever Hellenic spirit he carried with him as a young enthusiastic leader of a multi-national army, came to a screeching halt when at Issus he captured Darius´ baggage whose possession yielded much correspondence between the Great King Darius of Persia and the Hellenic city-states. To make matters more repugnant he also captured Hellenic envoys from the Greek cities sent to Persia. Here the enthusiastic Captain General of the Hellenes ceased his pretentious behavior and the farce with the Hellenic crusade was over. The burning of Persepolis will testify to that affect.
David Hogarth says that "the (Hellenic) mission was coming to be believed in neither by leader nor by led."
Under the weight of so many incontrovertible facts we are obliged to conclude that the Greek cries that Alexander spread Hellenism in Asia belong to the imagined world and have nothing to do with factual history. If there was any Hellenism spread in Asia it was done by more than 50,000 Greek troops employed in the services of Darius, the Great King of Persia and thousands of other Greeks who sought fortunes in Asia, centuries before Alexander´s conquest. Alexander was neither Greek nor did he spread any Hellenism in Asia. There was no policy of hellenization to speak of, for Alexander was a Macedonian king and remained so until his death. Consequently, any other conclusion must rest on sources other than those available in today´s literature.
This is an interesting passage from Hogarth´s book that confirms what we have been saying for a long time:
"He was officially both King of Macedon and Federal Captain-General of the Hellenes; but neither the habitual attitude of his Macedonians towards his Greeks, nor of his Greeks towards his Macedonians, was consistent with the relation in which each stood to the General. Alexander had started for Asia with good hope that the ambiguity would disappear as by common service and common interest a single Hellenistic nation was evolved, over which he himself would reign as freely accepted sovereign.
The attitude of the Hellenes in Greece had raised, as we have seen, a first difficulty; the attitude of the elder Macedonians was now raising a second. The party which Parmenio led had no panhellenic ideals.
They would have had Alexander even as Philip and his forefathers had been—feudal kings of the Macedonians, conqueror of the Greeks if he would, and of the Persians if he could." p. 207.
It is worth repeating: "…conquerors of the Greeks."
This in essence captures the actual feelings and attitudes of every-day Macedonian soldiers who did not give a fig for Hellenism nor for the panhellenic crusade. The honor bestowed upon them as invincible warriors in antiquity cannot, and should not be diminished by lowering their status and making them Greeks. Ancient Greeks knew the score quite well.
On p. 177 we find another statement that eloquently describes whether Alexander and Philip united or conquered Greece.
"Alexander came, then, in this April of 334, to the shores of Dardanelles, with an ambition to possess all Persia as already he possessed all Greece.
Note: Passages of this magnitude serve only one purpose: to illustrate the obvious that ancient Macedonians had nothing in common with the ancient Greeks. These were two distinctly different people with much different agendas and purpose in life. Macedonians were soldiers first and foremost who spoke with the spear. Greece was a conquered territory won by the Macedonian spear, period. No further elaboration is necessary.
Thus, once again, there are scholars with resolute analytical prowess who can teach and then, there are others who, with a big Hellenic brush, simply lump things together.
Until next time….
Print
Email
