|
| Thread: Macedonians; Who were they? Who are they? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted April 22, 2005 03:18 AM |
|
|
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I personally think most of his efforts to placate other cultures and peoples have much more to do with political need than any outright desire to create a wonderful free empire. I find him a very complex person, but I think people are too willing to ascribe more modern day traits and aims on him whilst excusing his considerable excesses far too much.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 22, 2005 03:30 AM |
|
|
He had exceses far too much alright, and thats one reason why I think he had unrealistic dreams. for the time period.
I guess I just dont see the "political need" in conquering parts of the world he wasnt going to hold for long anyway, and at the same time risking and losing the support and lives of his army. The fact that the Empire fell apart right after his death only proves that he either was the lousiest politician, or didnt want to be one in the first place.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 22, 2005 03:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I guess I just dont see the "political need" in conquering parts of the world he wasnt going to hold for long anyway, and at the same time risking and losing the support and lives of his army
Lines of supply and communication, ability to continue onwards, information on the enemy, there's pleanty of reasons to placate the Persians both militarily and politically just there. Without using the Persians (or for that matter the Egyptians) as he did his latter campaigns would have been extremely difficult if not next to impossible. Alexander may not have been the best politician in the world, but he certainly understood necessity and motivation well enough.
That would be why I believe his real reason for accepting other cultures was simple politics and military common sense. In my mind he did those things (including slaughtering cities) because he saw a need to do them. They made sense politically or militarily. It makes very little sense trying to create a free empire of civilised people if you go round murdering some of them because of an accident of birth. I see his motivation as more of a cross between excessive ambition and meglomania. He always had to do what everyone thought was impossible, no matter the cost, no matter the logic or lack of to do it. He was bound to fight Persia because Persia was as you say the power of the time. I don't think he personally thought much about uniting and freeing the world.
Frankly I just don't see though how you can justify saying that because he slaughtered entire cities that proves that he had unrealistic dreams and specifically dreams of a free world.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 22, 2005 04:29 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 21 Apr 2005
|
Razing cities he saw as a necessity to fulfil his ambition, and just what you said megalomania. I agree that he did those atrocities as an act of demonstration for anyone potentially standing in his way.
He considered himself to be a god, and gods idealisticly were considered just, vengeful and allpowerful. Also, ambitions of someone who considers himself a god surely dont stop at securing his own homeland only, but something much greater, even unearthly.
Alex also arranged for the wedding between his soldiers and the Persian women. Though one could argue there was a political intention to it, I think it was more a symbolic spectacle to show the people in his empire his vision for the world.
Unlike other conquerers, he openly embraced new religions, and allowed all peoples living under his Empire to retain their religion, and to a large degree their autonomy.
I dont think securing supplylines and appointing governers is what you can call "politics"; its marely strategy of war. He did have much wiser men in his army who advised him to turn back to macednia but he wouldnt listen. Philip would have done it all differently. True, he may have not become a legendary figure as Alex, but at least his power would have been so great, maybe even enough to withhold the Romans for much much longer.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 22, 2005 05:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Razing cities he saw as a necessity to fulfil his ambition, and just what you said megalomania. I agree that he did those atrocities as an act of demonstration for anyone potentially standing in his way.
At least one of the cities did absolutely nothing to stand in his way, the people simply had the misfortune to be descended from the wrong Greeks. I forget the exact details as it was in a TV series, but I believe the city lay near the Eastern borders of the Persian Empire and was populated by people descended from Greeks that had sided with the Persians previously. Alexander slaughtered them despite them not putting up any opposition. Just one of the reasons that I believe that the Greek past was not completely irrelevant to his actions. Why slaughter a city offering no opposition that was filled with "Greek" people?
Quote:
Alex also arranged for the wedding between his soldiers and the Persian women. Though one could argue there was a political intention to it, I think it was more a symbolic spectacle to show the people in his empire his vision for the world.
There we'll have to part company. I see it as politics and a recognitition of what already existed in reality. Most of his men had taken Persian women by that time, Alexander was merely accepting what was already in existence and giving his official approval. In doing so he also raised the morale of his men to a degree also.
Quote:
Unlike other conquerers, he openly embraced new religions, and allowed all peoples living under his Empire to retain their religion, and to a large degree their autonomy.
Again, anyone looking to create an empire in any shape with such a small military force in comparison to their enemies cannot do so without the support of the conquered enemy. I believe that though his own motivations lay mostly with conquest, he also understood that he could achieve more if he pacified his enemies than crushing them underfoot. I'd also repeat that the Zoroastrians do not speak too highly of his religious tolerance, quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps their refusal to declare him a god unlike the Egyptians didn't suit his belief in free religion.
Quote:
I dont think securing supplylines and appointing governers is what you can call "politics"
Sure it is. You can't wander off for years into far-flung places without securing what you conquered first. Alexander couldn't afford to tie down the Persian Empire purely with his army, it was simply too vast. By choosing politically wise alternatives he could continue his campaign without unessecarily burdening his army with occuaptional duties. Call it politics, call it strategy, call it whatever you like. I still believe it to simply be Alexander doing what he needed to do to be able to achieve his personal goals, not trying to create a benevolent empire of free people.
Supply lines may not be politics, but pacifying the ground they cross by offering generous terms and treating the people there well and appointing local administrators in order to secure those lines certainly is.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 23, 2005 03:13 AM |
|
|
Are you saying that Alex political agenda, and core of his motivations, was nationalist expansion of Macedonia, and all the rest is subdued to these interests?
This, I cant accept. Alexander clearly wasnt much interested in forging a strong Macedonian Empire, since what he did (governers and supply lines) is no policy in that direction, but its simply the bare minimum which follows various conquers. As I said, he either was the worst politician ever, which makes the outcome of his actions a complete blunder (since in spite of quality advice by his generals and true desire on his behalf, he failed to secure the interests of the Macedonian Empire, which fell apart right after his death), or the second more reasnable option, that he was an idealist looking for creating an Empire of the World, where as he demonstrated, peoples would live united and with tolerance towards one another. All this is marked by a strong personal element, which can only realize its divine nature through command and rule over one united world (which is evidenced by the mare facts of happening), but also sometimes by self-destructive egoistic urge to submit others to his divine will.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 23, 2005 03:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you saying that Alex political agenda, and core of his motivations, was nationalist expansion of Macedonia, and all the rest is subdued to these interests?
I think he may have began with an aim like this once he'd realised it was possible, coupled with a desire to bring Greek/Macedonian culture to that area. But I believe that his own personal motivations lay increasingly after this with a desire to prove himself against ever increasing challenges. However, I believe at least partly he was motivated by what you would call "Greek" ideals also. He certainly to a degree showed interest in "greek" matters and acted on them. I think his actions can quite often be shown to have a pragmatic rather than idealistic reasoning behind them, and that he was a complex man. In that sense It would be impossible to pin one or two aims on the man.
Quote:
Alexander clearly wasnt much interested in forging a strong Macedonian Empire, since what he did (governers and supply lines) is no policy in that direction, but its simply the bare minimum which follows various conquers. As I said, he either was the worst politician ever, which makes the outcome of his actions a complete blunder (since in spite of quality advice by his generals and true desire on his behalf, he failed to secure the interests of the Macedonian Empire, which fell apart right after his death)
We'll probably never know his original intentions, but it would be my guess that he originally set out to expand Macedonian/Greek influence and control to that area only later to have his own personal meglomania and desire to do the impossible take over. What began as an attempt to subdue the remanants of Persian resistance turned into a long campaign driven more by his own desire to continue to suceed. And as we do not know his original intentions, it's also impossible to determine what he may have been intending to do after he returned from the east. He may well have been intending to secure his position in Persia had he lived, I don't see a particular reason to see why he would not. Of course the empire collapsed when he died, but we cannot assume purely from this that Alexander could not have retained the empire, or would not have seeked to had he lived. Whilst I don't deny he was a bad politician, that does not say anything about his original intentions to me.
Quote:
or the second more reasnable option, that he was an idealist looking for creating an Empire of the World, where as he demonstrated, peoples would live united and with tolerance towards one another
I don't see why you'd believe that frankly. I've stated why I am cynical of his motivations on such things, I've not seen anything that persuades me that he was so determined to create such a world. He may have desired to control ever increasing areas of land, but I doubt his idea of ruling them comprised large degrees of tolerance had he lived long enough that his position was secure enough not to need to.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted April 29, 2005 07:26 PM |
|
|
 From J.W. Fuchs' "Klassiek Vademecum":
Macedonia culturally backwards state with feudal conditions north of Thessaly, ruled by king and nobles. Under Fillipos II and Alexander the Great, Macedonia acquired hegemony over all Greece and large parts of the Orient. After the death of Alexander, the diadokians fought over the country, until Antigonos Gonatas and his dynasty established more stable and relaxed conditions. In 168, however, Perseus was defeated by the Romans, and the country was divided into 4 vassal states; in 146 they were converted to a Roman province - Macedonia.
Blame any mistakes in this on my bad translation skills... 
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted October 13, 2008 07:48 AM |
|
Edited by dimis at 10:28, 13 Oct 2008.
|
This is one of the funniest threads ever!!!
I don't know where to start, so I 'll start from the first post.
Quote:
Was Alexander the Great Greek?
Lol, if you want a short answer, then YES!  Quote:
Well, most scholars that have been lively in contact with the heritage of Alexander and his Empire would deny that fact.
ermmm... proofs??
Quote:
Macedonians came to prominence as a key-player in the Balkans somewhere around the 7-6th century BC with the establishment and strengthening of the Macedonian Kingdom (it's first ruler being Perdicas I). He and the long line of his successors, menaged to strengthen and expand the kingdom to the neighbouring lands of the various Balkan tribes (Ilirians, Thracians, Dardanians, Paionians, Greeks etc.)
To say the truth, it's been a while since I read history, but let's say that I agree on the above. Why do we say "Greeks"? Why don't we say, Spartans, and then Greeks? Why not Spartans, Athenians, and then Greeks? Why not Spartans, Athenians, Korinthians, and then Greeks? ... And what about Perdikas? Is this word familiar to those who live in FYROM?
Quote:
When talking about the ethnic origin of Macedonians, one has to know that Macedonians didn't have a written language of their own and most of what we know comes from the Greek sources that were written by Greek historians. From archeological evidence, we can say that there are many artifacts from the Archaic period of the Ancient Macedonians (from the end of prehistory to the contact with the Persians) that connect them to the other Balkan peoples, and very little to the Greeks.
What about the "few" evidences that were found from that era? I suspect you want to imply that "Macedonians" lent the "greek" language for their purposes. Yeah, sounds reasonable. They tossed a coin and decided to write everything in greek... To put it in another way, I can wake up tomorrow and write down "verstehst du mich?" and still speak hellenic (greek)! 
Quote:
In addition it is considered that Macedonians' origin can be traced to the Brigian tribe (an Indo-European people that could have migrated from Asia Minor), just like the origin of other Balkan tribes, but the Greeks.
Not the entire truth here either. Pelasgians
Quote:
If one also looks in the religion of the Macedonians as reference there are also facts that undoubtly show their distinctivness from the Greeks. (the spelling is probably false ) Their supreme god was Dion (renamed =Zeus) and was considered the father of the mythological predecessor of all Macedonians - Macedon; Athria (=Athena) was the goddess of the light and the mother of Macedon; Zyrene was an equivallent of the Asian goddess Cybelle whose cult was inherited from the Brigians; then we have Arethos (=Heracles) Patriosos (meaning "native"); the goddess Ma (solar and war nature); Vedi, the life-giving air, Bacchus (=Dyonisus) and many others, whose name escapes me.
Excuse me? How are they distinct from the rest of the greeks based on these?
Quote:
The common thing for all of these is that they have much in common with the dieties of the other surrounding Balkan tribes, but not the Greeks, as they all have a common origin, the Brigians.
This is insane. Really. Does any of the names above "ring a bell" in your tongue? Cause all of them are greek words...
Quote:
However, due to the fact that written source is scarce, the information that we have comes from Greek writings that always changed the name of the dieties to the one they most closely resemble in the Greek mythology. Still, some writings have been preserved in the original names.
The names that you say are equivalent. It is not a coincidence the greek language has so many different words even for the same objects. Spare me with god names ...
Quote:
The same can be said about the language. Ancient Macedonian language was spoken, but never written. Today there are only about 100 words ("glossae") from that old language from some stone engravings (with the Greek alphabet of course), and scientists still work on their encryption. Most have little in common with the Greek language however.
hmmm.... interesting. Greek alphabet and can not be read! Then, the guys who try to decrypt it should not know how to read even modern greek!
Quote:
Another ethnographic element would be the customs and symbols which were many and unique. You already know the Sun with sexteen rays of Vergina that used to be on Macedonian army shields, then the lion as the symbol of royal power (did you know lions existed in the Balkans that time?), the custom of confesion, the custom when the army would cleanse itself by passing between the two halves of a cut dog (ick! I know ), eating while lying a privillage you get by killing a bear (how rude!) and others.
I am confused. Do you want to say something? Do you want to see lions in other parts of Greece? Go through the page and you 'll see many lions in Mycenae long before the ones in the northern parts of Ancient Greece.
Quote:
Also, distinctive elements of the Macedonian society point out the distinctiveness of the Ancient Macedonians, such as the constitutional monarchy (term? the king didn't have to be bloodly related to his predecessor) as a governing form, a distinct chalender, coins (starting from Alexander I), their own Olympic Games organized in Dion (a Macedonian city) when they were forbidden to participate etc.
That's the idea of city-states.
Quote:
All in all, one is basically right when they say Ancient Macedonians were a "barbarian" tribe
Yes on their early era.
Quote:
, that had little in common with the Greeks.
No. I don't see supporting arguments. Some places take longer to evolve even in this "modern" world with mass information within the SAME country.
Quote:
Macedonians were not really allowed in the Olympic Games. There was a case when the Macedonian King Alexander I, wasn't allowed to participate, but he proved his lineage to the city of Argos Orestikos (a Greek city in Macedonia), and in the end he was allowed to participate (because after all he was the king) and won. And hence, why there were Games organized in Dion by Macedonians.
Alexander I was also known as Alexander I Phillhellen (meaning "loves Greeks"). If he was considered a Greek, they wouldn't have called him Greek-loving, don't you think? He ruled in a time of great hellenization of Macedonian culture (more in the following paragraph).
Before Philipos and Alexander, you actually forget that northern greeks were actually a cultural *joke* compared to *most* tribes living in the southern parts...
Quote:
All this said so far, is absolutely true about the Archaic period of Macedonian history (up until the Greek-Persian War, V century BC), after which the Classic and Hellenistic periods took place.
True indeed ...
Quote:
With the increasing contact with the Greek colonies on the Macedonian coast and the strong, amazing and influental Greek culture (which I personally admire btw), came the more and more massive hellenization (becoming Greek) of the authentic Macedonian culture.
which culture is actually known from those few evidences highly encrypted in greek!
Quote:
Greece was a centre of the world at the time and it's understandibly enough why the Macedonian Kings wanted to mingle in Greek affairs.
Just like Spartans, Korinthians, Athenians, and so on ... Interesting indeed!
Quote:
As much as the Macedonian Kings conquered many of the neighbouring Balkan tribes, they could never truly call themselves superior without conquering the Greek city-states too. They became increasingly dependant on Greek well-manufactured imported goods, culture and recognition.
They were dependent because they were Greeks... And the conflicts among city-states hardly ever stopped throughout those eras. Quote:
The Macedonian Kings transfered the capital from the mountainious city of Aegaea to the more coastal Pela.
Interesting names. I wonder what Aegea means? Is it somehow related to the Aegean Sea??  Quote:
They also brought famous Greek thinkers to the court, the most notable being Aristotle, brought by Phillip II to tutor his son Alexander (later the Great). Alexander's most beloved book was Homer's classic "Illiad". All Macedonian aristocracy could speak Greek, and probably the commoners too. The Greek language introduced new words for many things the poorly-educated and technologically backwarded Macedonians didn't have names.
They didn't know the names, because they were underdeveloped before that era and didn't even know about the existence of some tools... So why would they name them in advance? And besides, the names still are Greek. I don't see any point. Quote:
Even the names of the dieties became Hellenized, just as it happened with the dieties of the other Balakn people.
Read again above. All the names of those deities that you have mentioned so far are Greek. Quote:
This is the time when temples and other Greek-exlusive culture marks began to take hold in Macedonia. Before (during the Archaic period) there was no such culture or Greek architecture in Macedoania. The Classical period is the epoch from which the biggest amount of sources comes from, and that's why it was long ago thought that Macedonians were Greeks, i.e. of Dorian or Achaean origin. (In fact it's a matter of policy as well as misinterpretation)
Yeah. Which order works and complies with the evidences?
Quote:
The next period is the Hellenistic period (from the death of Alexander, 323 BC, to the coming of the Romans). This wasn't a uniquely Macedonian period, but a global one. It was characterized with mixing the Greek culture (and to a small extent the hellenized Macedonian culture) with the Middle Eastern cultures.
Mercy with that "hellenized Macedonian culture". Please.
Quote:
A new culture was created, called Hellenistic, with a strong Greek cultural and linguistic influence.
The era was called Hellenistic, due to HELLAS; a.k.a. GREECE (which has Turkish origin btw). What's wrong with that given the impact it had? Quote:
It was then when many MIddle Eastern cults spread to Greece and Macedonia and were in a way re-introduced in Macedonia, who had already much forgotten her Brigian origins.
Quote:
However, this was not a rediscovering of some kind, but an introduction to a whole new culture - the Hellenistic. By this time, art and crafts were widespread in Macedonia, and they were largly influenced by the Hellinistic Age, just as in other parts of Alexander's Empire.
Yes. I learnt my lesson. Re-introduction.
Quote:
Still, the Macedonians in Alexander's army remained truthful to their mother language, and it can often be heard from ancient sources that often the Macedonian generals used Macedonian in their internal communication, as well as that Alexandar often spoke Macedonian when he lost his temper. This undoubtedly prooving that Macedonian was not the same language as Greek, since it was so obvious to make a distinction and seperation between the two.
LOL. This is ridiculous. Says who? I 've spent a year on ancient greek, and indeed I found them boring, cause most of the context can be realized with modern greek. And apart from that, MODERN countries have different DIALECTS in different AREAS. Does this make the inhabitants of some areas where a specific dialect is used less "citizens" of their country? I honestly don't understand. There is a "formal" language enforced by scholars or whoever - doesn't matter -, yet there are dialects in some places...
Quote:
Needless to say, instead of being grateful for all that Alexander did for their culture, the Greeks were happy when Alexander died and they immediately rebelled against the Macedonian rule (more precisely Antipater, the chief general of Alexander; not an Antigonid, that dinasty was formed later.). The ensuing Lamian War (a liberation war for the united greek city-states) ended with them being defeated. However, later things got messy and they gained their independence. Their following leages and alliances were aimed against the Macedonian kings, and in this respect did the two leages (Achaean and Aetolian) functioned, i.e. allied with Rome to fight the Macedonians. But the Roman moto: "Divide et impera." prooved itself one more time, and they were soon conquered by the Roman army as well as Macedonia. The last Macedonian King to fight the Romans in the Roman-Macedonian Wars (3-2rd century BC) was Philip V and after that Macedonia was turned into a Roman province.
What you say pretty much describes what was going on before "Macedonians" conquer "Greece" between city-states. That's life. And Athens, by that time, was used to be the leading power in the Greek territory. Just like so many times in the past city-states complied with opposing city-states because of "temporary" interest. That's LIFE.
Quote:
That was all on Ancient history. No politics in here. From all this we can conclude that Alexander's origin is debatable to the very least (and most facts obviously point to him being non-Greek).
Undoubtably!! Count me in! 
Quote:
However, the latter part is a terrible mess and it would be hard for me to explain it without writing a whole novel, so I'll try and add only the info necessary for you to understand the general idea.
Yeah, I 'll read it another time, and I'll come back.
____________
The empty set
|
| |
|
|
