Page 1 of 9 123456789 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 161

Thread: Were ancient Macedonians Greeks?

  1. #1
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Were ancient Macedonians Greeks?

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    Can't make any promises there Roma.

    For me, the most striking thing about that picture (which seems to be a good aggregate of the statues) is that she doesn't really look like any ethnicity I've seen. I guess that's what you call a 'pure' Greek, before those damned dirty Slavs arrived. She looks sort of similar to modern Albanians and Cypriots moreso than Greeks. I think the average Brit would probably identify her as Middle Eastern rather than European.
    Skin colour in these types of studies can't really be done unless melanin content can be analyzed. We don't actually have her body to do an analysis of this sort.

    Anyway judging by this the Slavs didn't make a major dent in Greek genetics.


    Also looking at this map it actually seems like the Turks would have had a much bigger effect on the Greek population.


    As you can see Hablogroup R1a is less prevalent among Greek populations than Hablogroup J. Whether or not this comes from the Ottomans or not is a different argument but my point is that the Greeks were not as genetically affected by Slavic migration. Incidentally neither was Bulgaria for that matter, despite being a Slavic speaking country.


    Moved from the Cleopatra thread. ~Abdülmecid I
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; March 24, 2018 at 07:42 AM. Reason: Clarification added.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  2. #2

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    As you can see Hablogroup R1a is less prevalent among Greek populations than Hablogroup J. Whether or not this comes from the Ottomans or not is a different argument but my point is that the Greeks were not as genetically affected by Slavic migration. Incidentally neither was Bulgaria for that matter, despite being a Slavic speaking country.
    The trouble with looking at Y-haplogroups is they can change a lot in frequency without the bulk of the population's genetics changing nearly as much. Genghis Khan’s Y-haplotype being one of the more well documented examples. The area of Greece was mostly G2 in the Neolithic, and then the Minoans and related pre-Mycenaeans are all J2, but the Minoans and pre-Mycenaeans still derived 62–86% of their ancestry from those Neolithic mostly G2 people. The J2 arrived with an Iran/Caucasus related element. Evidently you wouldn’t have wanted to have been a G2 male when those guys showed up.

    Anyway, modern Greeks derive about 70% of their ancestry from the Myceneans on average, though as little as 50% in samples taken in the north. That which is not Mycenaean is mostly like modern Czechs, not that it’s Czech, but that whatever mix of ancestries Czechs are is basically the same. There is also another 1-3% that is more recently arrived Iranian-like. Presumably this is related to the Ottoman Period.

    Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  3. #3
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    The trouble with looking at Y-haplogroups is they can change a lot in frequency without the bulk of the population's genetics changing nearly as much. Genghis Khan’s Y-haplotype being one of the more well documented examples. The area of Greece was mostly G2 in the Neolithic, and then the Minoans and related pre-Mycenaeans are all J2, but the Minoans and pre-Mycenaeans still derived 62–86% of their ancestry from those Neolithic mostly G2 people. The J2 arrived with an Iran/Caucasus related element. Evidently you wouldn’t have wanted to have been a G2 male when those guys showed up.

    Anyway, modern Greeks derive about 70% of their ancestry from the Myceneans on average, though as little as 50% in samples taken in the north. That which is not Mycenaean is mostly like modern Czechs, not that it’s Czech, but that whatever mix of ancestries Czechs are is basically the same. There is also another 1-3% that is more recently arrived Iranian-like. Presumably this is related to the Ottoman Period.

    Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans
    I was wondering when you were going to comment on the genetics. Genetics isn't my field of expertise what so ever so I appreciate your input. Anyway I see this as good practice.

    I'm thinking if this does not support my statement. If Y-DNA represents males then chances are the Slavic migrants, which I assume would be mostly male, did not have a heavy impact on the Greek population. Since the Slavs did not conquer Greece, unless of course the locals took Slavic wives.

    From my understanding J2 hablogroup comes from a Neolithic population that mostly concentrated around the southern Balkans and Anatolia (and having a notable presence in Italy).

    Where as I1b represents a population that predated those others that entered Europe much later. This hablogroup survived as a concentrated group in the Balkans and interestingly enough in parts of Iberia. Is it fair to say that this might be associated as being a Balkan population (or at least by this point)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Thanks for sharing! This is good information to have for those interested in Balkan history, particularly the Slavic migrations in Greek and Bulgarian history.
    Why would anyone be interested in Bulgarian history?

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  4. #4

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    I'm thinking if this does not support my statement.
    Yeah, seems not, but your reasoning was sound based on the limited data you were looking at.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    If Y-DNA represents males then chances are the Slavic migrants, which I assume would be mostly male, did not have a heavy impact on the Greek population. Since the Slavs did not conquer Greece, unless of course the locals took Slavic wives.
    As you noticed, one would expect to see more R1a, at least for it to be comparable with their genome-wide contribution. It could have been there and been somewhat replaced thereafter by the haplogroups of whoever have been the more elite males over most of subsequent history, since historically upper-class males always had much higher net reproductive success on average. Another possibility is that the South Slavs weren't primarely R1a, they could have been something else due to founder effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    From my understanding J2 hablogroup comes from a Neolithic population that mostly concentrated around the southern Balkans and Anatolia (and having a notable presence in Italy).
    J2 seems to originally be Northern Mesopotamian/Caucasian in origin. The very oldest ancient sample is from modern Georgia. Most Neolithic European farmers were G2, there was a little bit of J2 late in the European Neolithic, but the J2 distribution you're talking about first shows up about 2400 BCE in Crete. It's that migration I was talking about with the Caucasus/Iran affinity that displaced the G2 males for the most part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    Where as I1b represents a population that predated those others that entered Europe much later. This hablogroup survived as a concentrated group in the Balkans and interestingly enough in parts of Iberia. Is it fair to say that this might be associated as being a Balkan population (or at least by this point)?
    I1b has been reclassified as I2, now that the phylogenetic relationships are better understood. It’s also called I-M438, M438 being its defining mutation. It's too old in Europe to be diagnostic unless you look at very high resolution subclades.

    For example, here are the distribution of ancient samples in different periods:

    Mesolithic: Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Serbia, Sweden, Ukraine

    Neolithic: Bulgaria, Croatia, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, Ukraine

    Bronze Age: Bulgaria, England, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, Spain
    Last edited by sumskilz; March 16, 2018 at 07:29 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  5. #5
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Thanks that was very helpful.

    With regards to the Founder Effect could I then posit that if both Anatolians and the Greeks had a significant amount of J2 Hablogroup then that the Ottomans may have replaced the Slavs as a dominant group? Or perhaps more likely a Balkan population replaced the Slavs themselves. Judging from what we know about Ottoman history the Ottomans themselves had had power in Thrace, Salonika and Thessaly but had a limited presence in Attica and almost no presence in Morea (hence why Morea was a hot spot for Greek revolts). If the Ottomans did have an impact on the Greek population then it must have come mostly from convert families (such as Devshirme) but that does not exclude interbreeding between Turkish people and Greeks, rather it facilitates them through a policy of slow integration and dhimmi status.

    For instance Bulgarian history demonstrates that Bulgar steppe nomads were culturally assimilated by the Slavs. Yet genetic samples seem to indicate that the modern Bulgarian population is more similar to other Balkan groups than to Slavs or steppe tribes. This is with the Y-DNA, since most likely the men of the Slavic and Bulgar conquerors would have been dominant. The Bulgar elite seemed inclined to blend in with the dominant Slavs but it also seems to be the case that Balkan people were assimilated into both the Bulgar and Slavic populations. Not to mention that Bulgarian Khans appealed culturally by using Greek as the lingua Franka, not an exact comparison but it at least shows that these Khans understood the necessity to accept local customs. By the 1200's it does seem as though only the feudal aristocracy (bolyars) could claim to be Bulgarian (culturally and ethnically) and their language (Middle Bulgarian) had taken the form of a Slavic language.

    Anyway my grander point is that even when a population is conquered or affected by a population it is not usually changed significantly. The local group can assert itself back into dominance. Unfortunately though without specific information it is too broad to know for sure that the population was not affected significantly (despite matrilinial DNA remaining rather constant). But at least in the case of Greece the areas of Aetolia and Morea were not as affected by an outside source. I would think that to see the face of the average Greek from that period the modern Morean is very close.

    But the truth is we have largely deviated from the topic of Cleopatra herself, so I'll just give the killing blow on the tanned Cleopatra argument from the previous page. Cleopatra and the Ptolemaic dynasty were Macedonians. While Macedon was affected by the coastal Greek colonies and the Macedonian elite certainly had a Greek influence (and the fact that Macedonian nobles had few scruples about who they married, well apparently they drew the line at Easterners), the Macedonians themselves were relatives of the Epirotes and the Illyrians. Cleopatra was herself of this Macedonian line but by the time Ptolemy Soter became a king the Macedonian nobility had already engaged in Greek intermarriage (and Epirote intermarriage, potentially also Thracian intermarriage but this last one is hard to say). That said starting with Ptolemy IV the Ptolemaic rulers began to engage in a lot of incest. Meaning that Cleopatra's ancestry would be almost entirely derived from the Macedonian nobility, with a few Greeks that married into these noble lines (the exception being Cleopatra Syra who was the grand daughter of Mithridates II of Pontus).
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; March 16, 2018 at 07:35 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  6. #6
    neoptolemos's Avatar Breatannach Romanus
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seirios,a parallel space,at your right
    Posts
    10,727

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    Thanks that was very helpful.

    With regards to the Founder Effect could I then posit that if both Anatolians and the Greeks had a significant amount of J2 Hablogroup then that the Ottomans may have replaced the Slavs as a dominant group? Or perhaps more likely a Balkan population replaced the Slavs themselves. Judging from what we know about Ottoman history the Ottomans themselves had had power in Thrace, Salonika and Thessaly but had a limited presence in Attica and almost no presence in Morea (hence why Morea was a hot spot for Greek revolts). If the Ottomans did have an impact on the Greek population then it must have come mostly from convert families (such as Devshirme) but that does not exclude interbreeding between Turkish people and Greeks, rather it facilitates them through a policy of slow integration and dhimmi status.

    For instance Bulgarian history demonstrates that Bulgar steppe nomads were culturally assimilated by the Slavs. Yet genetic samples seem to indicate that the modern Bulgarian population is more similar to other Balkan groups than to Slavs or steppe tribes. This is with the Y-DNA, since most likely the men of the Slavic and Bulgar conquerors would have been dominant. The Bulgar elite seemed inclined to blend in with the dominant Slavs but it also seems to be the case that Balkan people were assimilated into both the Bulgar and Slavic populations. Not to mention that Bulgarian Khans appealed culturally by using Greek as the lingua Franka, not an exact comparison but it at least shows that these Khans understood the necessity to accept local customs. By the 1200's it does seem as though only the feudal aristocracy (bolyars) could claim to be Bulgarian (culturally and ethnically) and their language (Middle Bulgarian) had taken the form of a Slavic language.

    Anyway my grander point is that even when a population is conquered or affected by a population it is not usually changed significantly. The local group can assert itself back into dominance. Unfortunately though without specific information it is too broad to know for sure that the population was not affected significantly (despite matrilinial DNA remaining rather constant). But at least in the case of Greece the areas of Aetolia and Morea were not as affected by an outside source. I would think that to see the face of the average Greek from that period the modern Morean is very close.

    But the truth is we have largely deviated from the topic of Cleopatra herself, so I'll just give the killing blow on the tanned Cleopatra argument from the previous page. Cleopatra and the Ptolemaic dynasty were Macedonians. While Macedon was affected by the coastal Greek colonies and the Macedonian elite certainly had a Greek influence (and the fact that Macedonian nobles had few scruples about who they married, well apparently they drew the line at Easterners), the Macedonians themselves were relatives of the Epirotes and the Illyrians. Cleopatra was herself of this Macedonian line but by the time Ptolemy Soter became a king the Macedonian nobility had already engaged in Greek intermarriage (and Epirote intermarriage, potentially also Thracian intermarriage but this last one is hard to say). That said starting with Ptolemy IV the Ptolemaic rulers began to engage in a lot of incest. Meaning that Cleopatra's ancestry would be almost entirely derived from the Macedonian nobility, with a few Greeks that married into these noble lines (the exception being Cleopatra Syra who was the grand daughter of Mithridates II of Pontus).
    I can understand that you are trying to explain a theory/thought of yours but you are basing some of your thoughts one false concepts and realities while ignoring many aspects of the complicated history of Greek peninsula.
    You have also posted a linguistic map of Greece of the early 20th cent.in a previous post Assuming that there is a Turkish admixture in Greece ignoring the fact that Muslims in Greek area were considered indiscriminately as "Turks" while also these populations have been expelled to Turkey after the 1922 Lousanne treaty so modern samples are not including these populations.
    The other misconception if yours is that you are distinguish between Greeks and Macedonias which is wrong in many levels as culturally and genetically these people were on the same Group as Macedonians (not hellenized Balkan populations) were derived from the same stock with Dorian and Northwestern Greeks which happens to be the protogreek homeland in Greek area

    And lastly there was no distinction between Macedonians and other Greeks in the Hellenistic colonies as it was expected.
    Quem faz injúria vil e sem razão,Com forças e poder em que está posto,Não vence; que a vitória verdadeira É saber ter justiça nua e inteira-He who, solely to oppress,Employs or martial force, or power, achieves No victory; but a true victory Is gained,when justice triumphs and prevails.
    Luís de Camões

  7. #7

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    If the Ottomans did have an impact on the Greek population then it must have come mostly from convert families (such as Devshirme) but that does not exclude interbreeding between Turkish people and Greeks, rather it facilitates them through a policy of slow integration and dhimmi status.
    As neoptolemos already commented on. The reason the Ottomans had extremely little (if any) effect on the Greek population is that any legitimate offspring of a Turk would have been integrated into the Muslim Turkish society, having descendants who no longer identify as Greek. Turkish people are, as expected, mostly descended from local populations. However they retain about 10-15% Central Asian ancestry. Central Asian ancestry in Greeks when it occurs at all, tends to be something like 1%. One might speculate Turkish origin of this component via wartime rapes, etc. However, even that is not necessarily the case, since the Ottoman Turks are not the only people with Central Asian ancestry to have entered the region.

    This may come as a surprise, but the Y-haplogroup that you were looking for as an indication of Slavic ancestry (R1a), is actually the Y-haplogroup of the Ottoman Sultans based on tests of living patrilineal descendants. That's because the ultimate origin of the main dispersal of R1a is from the Yamnaya culture, almost certainly the proto-Indo Europeans. The original steppe nomads were Indo-Europeans. Genetic evidence suggests the ethnogenesis of the Turkic people involved Siberian people fusing with eastern Indo-Europeans. The particular subclade of the Ottoman Sultans R1a1a is the haplotype of the Tarim mummies, and has been found in burials of the Scythian archaeological culture. Some branch of R1a probably also arrived in Greece with the proto-Greek language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    Anyway my grander point is that even when a population is conquered or affected by a population it is not usually changed significantly. The local group can assert itself back into dominance.
    This is often the case in more recent history, but from the early Bronze Age backward, significant or near complete replacements were most common. I think this shift is mostly about population ratios and the economic value of the conquered to the conquerors.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  8. #8
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Quote Originally Posted by neoptolemos View Post
    You have also posted a linguistic map of Greece of the early 20th cent.in a previous post Assuming that there is a Turkish admixture in Greece ignoring the fact that Muslims in Greek area were considered indiscriminately as "Turks" while also these populations have been expelled to Turkey after the 1922 Lousanne treaty so modern samples are not including these populations.
    I said that "if" the Turks had a significant impact on the Greek population then it must have come from those Turks who settled in the far north and the Greek converts. I was referring to the Greek Muslims who were sent to Turkey in 1912 and 1923. I also said that they couldn't be the reason for the J2 hablogroup presence since both Greece and Turkey have a large J2 presence. I also used the Bulgaria example in which Bulgarian genetics demonstrably show a small influence from the steppe (from antiquity), one which is not present within the Greek population.

    The linguistic map was supposed to show that there were areas of Greece which were under Turkish rule. Pockets of Turks and Greek Muslims still exist within Greece today and there were false converts and those who converted back to Christianity at various points in history. Though it wouldn't have been enough to make a dent in the population. Hence why I said that the trend in the Balkans (both Bulgaria and Greece) is that the local Balkan population reclaimed a social dominance of sorts and hence why in Bulgaria for example the presence of ethnic Slavs seems to have decreased over the past millennium (as the decrease in R1a apparently proves).

    Quote Originally Posted by neoptolemos View Post
    The other misconception if yours is that you are distinguish between Greeks and Macedonias which is wrong in many levels as culturally and genetically these people were on the same Group as Macedonians (not hellenized Balkan populations) were derived from the same stock with Dorian and Northwestern Greeks which happens to be the protogreek homeland in Greek area

    And lastly there was no distinction between Macedonians and other Greeks in the Hellenistic colonies as it was expected.
    So this is a linguistic map meant to prove that the ancient Macedonians were ethnically Greek?
    Maybe I should clarify my argument. I am not saying that there was no ancient population that was related to the rest of the Greeks but I am saying that linguistically, culturally and ethnically the Macedonians were not the same as the Greeks to the south.

    For starters we know that the Macedonian language, while likely based around Proto-Greek was distinct enough from Greek dialects (especially Attic Greek), so that other Greeks could not understand it. The fact is that we don't have enough information about the Macedonian language to say that it was a Greek dialect but that seems like a generous assessment based on the fragments that we actually have and the contrary information related to us by Greek sources. For instance tablets written in Doric Greek which imply a linguistic influence but don't necessarily prove that the Macedonians spoke Doric Greek. There is also the unresolved argument of whether Northwestern dialects are the same as Doric Greek, this probably implies cultural syncretism.

    We can also prove that culturally the Macedonians had different military cultures, different drinking cultures, different funerary cultures, different social structures, different political structures and were distinct from the Attic and Corinthian colonists which is also mentioned in the sources.

    Saying that Macedonians were the same as the Greeks would be like saying that the Portuguese were Catalans. While there were cultural similarities with the Greeks, ancient authors also point out similarities between the Macedonians and the peoples of Epirus, as well as the Illyrians and other tribes. This isn't much different from say the peoples of Qin and Chu in relation to the core Sinitic Zhou population of ancient China.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    As neoptolemos already commented on. The reason the Ottomans had extremely little (if any) effect on the Greek population is that any legitimate offspring of a Turk would have been integrated into the Muslim Turkish society, having descendants who no longer identify as Greek. Turkish people are, as expected, mostly descended from local populations. However they retain about 10-15% Central Asian ancestry. Central Asian ancestry in Greeks when it occurs at all, tends to be something like 1%. One might speculate Turkish origin of this component via wartime rapes, etc. However, even that is not necessarily the case, since the Ottoman Turks are not the only people with Central Asian ancestry to have entered the region.

    This may come as a surprise, but the Y-haplogroup that you were looking for as an indication of Slavic ancestry (R1a), is actually the Y-haplogroup of the Ottoman Sultans based on tests of living patrilineal descendants. That's because the ultimate origin of the main dispersal of R1a is from the Yamnaya culture, almost certainly the proto-Indo Europeans. The original steppe nomads were Indo-Europeans. Genetic evidence suggests the ethnogenesis of the Turkic people involved Siberian people fusing with eastern Indo-Europeans. The particular subclade of the Ottoman Sultans R1a1a is the haplotype of the Tarim mummies, and has been found in burials of the Scythian archaeological culture. Some branch of R1a probably also arrived in Greece with the proto-Greek language.

    This is often the case in more recent history, but from the early Bronze Age backward, significant or near complete replacements were most common. I think this shift is mostly about population ratios and the economic value of the conquered to the conquerors.
    The R1a I was referring to was actually relating to the Bulgarian populations and their assimilation into Slavic cultures. Although if the Bulgarians have a common ancestry with the Turks then they might also have an ancient relation to the R1a as well. But that was a great bit of information.

    I suppose that in those ancient times no real quarter was given to a conquered population.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; March 17, 2018 at 04:30 PM. Reason: Consecutive posts merged.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  9. #9
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    9,815

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    A number of greek dialects were not as refined/understandable to athenians/others, including some of colonies of Athens itself
    Soloi being the most characteristic case, a colony in Asia Minor (in the south-eastern coast), which spoke such a vulgarized version of greek that it became infamous and we got the term "soloicism" from how its people spoke

    Aetolians (who no one would argue aren't greeks; one of the major greek mythic circles is centered at Calydon) also are said to have been speaking a rather crude idiom.
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  10. #10
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Except that we don't actually have any surviving evidence of the Macedonian dialect. Tablets unearthed from Macedonian sites reveals inscriptions in Doric, Attic and Ionian Greek. There is no consistency in how the supposed Macedonian dialect was written and what is more Attic Greek was adopted as the administrative language of the Kings in Pella. Later the Macedonian language was replaced with Koine Greek which was actually based on the Attic dialect and reorganized to better suit the Macedonians. Chances are if the Macedonian dialect is unintelligible to other Greeks then it is actually its own language. For instance the clear difference between Portuguese and Castillian or Basque. Basques don't even really consider themselves to be an Iberian ethnic group (and even among the Gauls they stood out) but it would be impossible to say that the Basques were not affected by all of the other trans-Pyrenean migrations that also affected Iberia, so they are related to other Iberians. But fact is that the Macedonians had no relation to the Minoans, very limited Mycenaean presence, and in the Dark Ages or Archaic period only a vague Dorian connection which probably originates from the sometimes hypothetical and sometimes true Proto-Greek Language. The majority of the peoples of Macedonia would have most likely been similar to the Illyrians and Thracians.

    It was Alexander I of Macedonia who decided to Hellenize his kingdom and gain recognition as a Hellenic monarch. But there were plenty of Anatolian rulers who were Philohellenes and no one actually claims that they ruled a Greek kingdom. This is despite the fact that none of the Panhellenists considered the Macedonians to even be culturally Greek. The Aetolians and Epirotes also have an issue with this kind of continuity but they are at least more Hellenic than the Macedonians. Still there is either some kind of cultural fallout in those areas which caused Doric speaking peoples to lag behind the rest of Greece or they were also affected by other populations moving into their territory.

    I think the perception of Macedonia as a Greek state was the result of carefully crafted propaganda by the Macedonian royal house and perfected by Philip. Then over the subsequent centuries overeager Greeks tried to make it seem as though an ancient connection was definitive proof that Macedonia had always been part of the Hellenic civilization. Regardless the cultural and linguistic evidence completely lacks continuity and at best we may prove that an ancient Doric population migrated north into the river valleys of Macedonia, conquered and likely integrated the locals to some extent (their subjects to the east were not considered Hellenic in any way), and then did their own thing until Alexander I decided he wanted to be recognized as a Hellene after the Second Persian invasion was defeated. Though Alexander I himself may well have had Greek ancestors since the Macedonian royals had little scruples with regards to who they married.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; March 17, 2018 at 07:52 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  11. #11
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    9,815

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    The Aetolians and Epirotes also have an issue with this kind of continuity but they are at least more Hellenic than the Macedonians.
    I mentioned the aetolians, cause they also spoke a vulgar idiom, yet it is really not logical to try to claim they were seen as non-greek by anyone. The place is literally home to one of the founding myths of greek mythology. Even the trojan war comes later than the circles about the calydonian boar and the seven at Thebes (same generation; one generation before the trojan war, iirc).

    I don't think there is much value in claims by Demosthenes, btw. Moreover, didn't he also claim that athenians are 'more greek' than anyone else, and literally sprung from the ground itself? (authochtones) ^^

    And yes, you see many non-greek people in the era, having ties to Greece and trying to hellenise, but again no one claims the lydians are greek, nor that sicilian state which even played a crucial role in the peloponnesian war, by inviting Athens to intervene in Sicily. It isn't the same thing as the macedonians. Even Rome, later on, didn't try to claim it was greek; it just adopted the culture with no such claim.

    Lastly, afaik (eg going from Herodotos), both illyrians and thracians were barbarians and no one ever tried to claim otherwise; no tie to the greek world in that regard.
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  12. #12
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Polybios and Thukydides both questioned whether certain tribes that lived in the mountains of Aetolia were even Hellenic. Hence my point that it is possible that during their expansion northwards the Greeks opened themselves to integrating barbarian populations. Since the plains of Aetolia had been settled by the Mycenaeans then it is more likely that these tribes moved in after. The other possibility was that there was some kind of cultural collapse in that area but given than the cities of the plain still remained then it is hard to reason why the mountain tribes became the way that they did.

    Epirus on the other hand was undoubtedly influenced by the Illyrian tribes that pushed in from the north west. To what extent they affected the local population or even the nobility is difficult to determine. Also consider that Epirus was an area which the "Greeks" (what would become Hellenic civilization) moved into after the Mycenaean period. Mycenaean presence in this area is limited but at the least more noticeable than in the Macedonian river valleys. Which means that there is also the possibility to get influence from a local population (probably the Doric speaking branch of people and Zeus knows what else). We know for a fact that there were a good many Paeonian, Illyrian and Thracian tribes which were Hellenized, inhabiting this north western area and to say that they had no effect on the Epirotes seems very unlikely.

    The thing is though that the Greeks did not consider Macedonians to be the same people as them until Alexander I's appeal to Olympia. They had recognized the Aetolians but not the Macedonians up to that point. Even assuming that the Macedonians were the result of an ancient Doric population or Mycenaean population that would have been enough to make them a separate culture by the time that the modern Hellenic Civilization came into being. What is more likely, based on the sources, is that Macedonia was a collection of various peoples, the core of which settled on the Ludias and Axios Rivers. Gradually this civilization expanded to the north, south west and east. Only the area to the west of the Ludias River really corresponds to the geographic concept of Greece (the Aliakmonas River was the edge of Greece). The peoples living to the east of the Axios River were not considered to be Greek in any way imaginable and were compared to the Thracians and Illyrians. The area to the north (modern FYROM) was inhabited by the Paeonians and Illyrians. The settlements along the Ludias and Axios rivers were not built by Greeks, as the archaeological remains of material culture demonstrate it was a separate Macedonian culture that was similar to the barbarians but which had been influenced by the Greeks living west of the Ludias River. Mound burial culture is consistent with various barbarian tribes although one may also infer that they were consistent in this regard with the Epirotes either because of a northern culture or it was influenced by the Mycenaean burial mounds in some way.

    Linguistically the Macedonian language was similar to the Greek language but clearly distinct. We see this mentioned by Plutarch that the Macedonian nobles could speak Attic Greek but also spoke their own Macedonian language. If Macedonian was not intelligible to the Greeks then chances are it was its own separate language and not just a dialect, by definition it is basically a separate language. It could not actually have been a dialect of that contemporary Greek language but at best a dialect of Proto-Greek or an offshoot of the Doric/Northwestern dialect, which itself was rather different.

    There was the idea that the Athenians were inherently more Hellenic because of their love for freedom and democracy. But that said it does beg the question if the Macedonians were part of the Hellenic civilization, why did they not base their society or political structure on the Greek city state? The Polis was probably what distinguished the Greeks the most, from other peoples. The pro-Philip faction in Athens justified peace with Macedonia since they believed it to be a barbarian country but ruled by a Greek King. As I said the material culture from archaeological sites supports this interpretation. As Thukydides said, Alexandros and his forefathers were descended from the Temenidae house of Argos, but this does not extend to the Macedonian people themselves even if it is true.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; March 17, 2018 at 10:50 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  13. #13
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    9,815

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Hm, Plutarch himself wouldn't be a good source for the mac language, given he wrote many centuries after even the era of the peloponnesian war. Mac did play some role in the peloponnesian war (iirc Amyntas was king then, so after Alex I), yet it still wasn't that considerable a force to be recognized as greek due to just helping as second-rate power to avert some athenian landings/campaigns. Furthermore, as always, it wasn't unique in this in power-balance; you certainly don't see Athens recognizing actual barbarian tribes as greeks just because they were in the habit of going to war against Macedonia (recall the lie spread by Demosthenes, that Alex fell in some ambush by those barbaric neighbours). I think it would take some non-tenuous tie to have greek states identify Macedon as part of the greek world, even in partial standing (it even got to have athletes before its rise to any importance, in the olympic games, which also is not just symbolic). Later on it got to be part of the holy war, which again wasn't for any non-greek state (the way it got to be part of it was convoluted; Thebes did leave for false reason, and no one expected that Phokis would actually melt the statues at Delphi to pay for a large mercenery force; still, Mac was hardly the only power able to defeat those mercs (it even almost lost to them).
    Re Mac being a kingdom: yes, it was. Kingdoms had been also in the greek world in the mycenaean era, and moreover something very similar to a king existed in the classical era too in greek states: a tyrant. Tyrant just meant someone who rose to power without legitimate means (eg in a coup), yet if he got to power he was in a position very similar (if not the same) to a king, so arguing that Mac being a kingdom shows it isn't greek... isn't really by itself something making the argument stand taller, imo. Also, most politiai were controlling an area far larger than an actual city (which Polis means), so territory-wise they certainly were often larger than any peripheral kingdoms, as those in the north or east of Thessaly. Speaking of Thessaly, that is home to Achilles, and the city of Iolcos, which again is one of the most central locations in the greek myths (argonauts etc). It is to be expected that stuff differ in other greek areas than the peloponnese-attica-thebes one. Eg Thessaly had considerable use of cavalry early on, but wasn't unique in that in the greek world; asian minor greek colonies also did, eg Kolophon was even (supposedly) named after its famous cavalry.
    Last but not least, re language: Macedonia itself is a greek name, apparently tied to the term "makednos", which afaik means "tall". Greek state names do tie to such, somewhat often (locroi being another example, for Locris). Other names tend to derive (arguably) from the priestesses of each state's acropolis (the Athenae etc)
    Last edited by Kyriakos; March 18, 2018 at 07:17 AM.
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  14. #14
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    Last but not least, re language: Macedonia itself is a greek name, apparently tied to the term "makednos", which afaik means "tall". Greek state names do tie to such, somewhat often (locroi being another example, for Locris). Other names tend to derive (arguably) from the priestesses of each state's acropolis (the Athenae etc)
    That and Macedonian personal names were all apparently Greek (e.g. Phillipos, Alexandros, etc.)

    Once again, I'm enjoying the off-topic conversation. I'll just butt into this conversation to note that most scholars belong to one of three different camps when it comes to classifying the ancient Macedonian language (of which there is still great uncertainty due to limited available textual evidence discovered by archaeologists, as mentioned by Oda):

    1) One group thinks ancient Macedonian is a Doric/northwestern Greek dialect that had varying degrees of linguistic influence from the Phrygians, Illyrians, Thracians, and other non-Greek peoples (albeit still Indo-European) that the Macedonians subjugated or lived in close proximity to.

    2) The second group thinks that ancient Macedonian formed a sibling language to Greek (and all its various dialects) in a proposed Hellenic branch of the Indo-European family, with ancient Macedonian being one sub-branch and Greek being the other. Oda inferred this above with his suggestion that ancient Macedonian was possibly spawned from proto-Greek.

    3) The third major group (albeit represented by a smaller number of scholars than the other two) doesn't believe ancient Macedonian to have been related to Greek at all and was perhaps a dialect of Illyrian that simply contained elements of Greek and Greek cognates.

    Given the enormous difference between early Illyrian culture (despite being incredibly Hellenized/Romanized later on) and the Homeric/Mycenaean nature of Macedonian culture (seemingly archaic to southern Greeks but at least recognizable to them), I'd say the latter theory about Macedonian being Illyrian is the least likely of the bunch. If the Macedonians were simply an offshoot of Illyrian culture, then why didn't Illyrians have archaic Homeric/Mycenaean traditions such as the golden burial mask in their burials like that of the Macedonians (which admittedly the Greeks to the south had long abandoned, along with the aristocratic warrior-type burials typical of Mycenaean, Dark Age, and Archaic Greece, favoring offerings at temples instead). The theory also lacks basic textual evidence, unlike the findings of Doric-Greek writings from Macedonia (e.g. the curse tablets discovered by archaeologists).

    In either case, by the 3rd or 2nd century BC Macedonian Greek was extinct anyway and Koine Greek essentially became the native language of all Macedonian Greeks. Whatever they were beforehand, it is silly to say they were anything other than Greeks by the end of the Hellenistic period. The Romans certainly made little to no distinction between Macedonians and Greeks, aside from noting the differences in governance between poleis and the more archaic-style kingdom of the Macedonians. For that matter, the Macedonians weren't the only ones in the Greek world during the Classical and Hellenistic periods that still had kings. Aside from Epirus, there were also the kings of Syracuse in Sicily and, perhaps the biggest example, the dual kings of Sparta (albeit a constitutional diarchy with citizen-elected assemblies and oligarchic councils).

  15. #15
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    9,815

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Wasn't there some inscription gifted by Alexander himself to commemorate the start of the expedition against Persia? "Alexander and the greeks, apart from the lacedaemonians" (cause Sparta didn't want to be part of any campaign it wouldn't lead in -- so as to die like at Leuktra ).

    Then again maybe all the actual macedonians stayed home, so it would just be greeks by default ^^
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  16. #16
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    Hm, Plutarch himself wouldn't be a good source for the mac language, given he wrote many centuries after even the era of the peloponnesian war. Mac did play some role in the peloponnesian war (iirc Amyntas was king then, so after Alex I), yet it still wasn't that considerable a force to be recognized as greek due to just helping as second-rate power to avert some athenian landings/campaigns. Furthermore, as always, it wasn't unique in this in power-balance; you certainly don't see Athens recognizing actual barbarian tribes as greeks just because they were in the habit of going to war against Macedonia (recall the lie spread by Demosthenes, that Alex fell in some ambush by those barbaric neighbours). I think it would take some non-tenuous tie to have greek states identify Macedon as part of the greek world, even in partial standing (it even got to have athletes before its rise to any importance, in the olympic games, which also is not just symbolic). Later on it got to be part of the holy war, which again wasn't for any non-greek state (the way it got to be part of it was convoluted; Thebes did leave for false reason, and no one expected that Phokis would actually melt the statues at Delphi to pay for a large mercenery force; still, Mac was hardly the only power able to defeat those mercs (it even almost lost to them).
    Re Mac being a kingdom: yes, it was. Kingdoms had been also in the greek world in the mycenaean era, and moreover something very similar to a king existed in the classical era too in greek states: a tyrant. Tyrant just meant someone who rose to power without legitimate means (eg in a coup), yet if he got to power he was in a position very similar (if not the same) to a king, so arguing that Mac being a kingdom shows it isn't greek... isn't really by itself something making the argument stand taller, imo. Also, most politiai were controlling an area far larger than an actual city (which Polis means), so territory-wise they certainly were often larger than any peripheral kingdoms, as those in the north or east of Thessaly. Speaking of Thessaly, that is home to Achilles, and the city of Iolcos, which again is one of the most central locations in the greek myths (argonauts etc). It is to be expected that stuff differ in other greek areas than the peloponnese-attica-thebes one. Eg Thessaly had considerable use of cavalry early on, but wasn't unique in that in the greek world; asian minor greek colonies also did, eg Kolophon was even (supposedly) named after its famous cavalry.
    Last but not least, re language: Macedonia itself is a greek name, apparently tied to the term "makednos", which afaik means "tall". Greek state names do tie to such, somewhat often (locroi being another example, for Locris). Other names tend to derive (arguably) from the priestesses of each state's acropolis (the Athenae etc)
    Most of the terms which writers applied to the Macedonians were probably approximations and equivalences. But see the problem here is that it cannot prove that these were the actual terms which the Macedonians themselves used. Moreover the Greeks made similar approximations for many concepts and words, so chances are that the actual term "the tall ones" is a Greek term but the actual Macedonian meaning is something else. For instance if you ask the Hebrews or the Greeks what Meshiah Koresh/Kyros Megas means they will both give you a different meaning from what the Persians would tell you about Shahanshah Kurosh.

    There is plenty of literary evidence from the Greeks themselves that the Macedonians and Greeks were not the same peoples. I could probably go and find 10 different sources which mention notable differences in their cultural characteristics or which note that they were considered different people. That is really enough evidence to say that they are not the same peoples. Incidentally this is also true of the Persians and Medes (both are Iranian) or the Gauls and Germanics etc (despite that these are actually both derived from the archaeological Hallstat and Urnfield cultures). Though an argument saying that both are derived from a common source is another argument entirely. You might even make the argument that the Macedonian kings were Greek. Alexandros I's appeal to Olympias at least convinced them of that (even though his evidence was that he was descended from Herakles and Perseus). But the Macedonian Kings at least intermarried and used Greek culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    That and Macedonian personal names were all apparently Greek (e.g. Phillipos, Alexandros, etc.)
    That can actually be easily explained. The Macedonian nobility used Greek names or more likely, the recorded names that we have are actually a linguistic approximation or transliteration rather. The Greeks did this with Persian names as well. Also given that the Macedonian language may have been similar then it wouldn't have been too hard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Once again, I'm enjoying the off-topic conversation. I'll just butt into this conversation to note that most scholars belong to one of three different camps when it comes to classifying the ancient Macedonian language (of which there is still great uncertainty due to limited available textual evidence discovered by archaeologists, as mentioned by Oda):

    1) One group thinks ancient Macedonian is a Doric/northwestern Greek dialect that had varying degrees of linguistic influence from the Phrygians, Illyrians, Thracians, and other non-Greek peoples (albeit still Indo-European) that the Macedonians subjugated or lived in close proximity to.

    2) The second group thinks that ancient Macedonian formed a sibling language to Greek (and all its various dialects) in a proposed Hellenic branch of the Indo-European family, with ancient Macedonian being one sub-branch and Greek being the other. Oda inferred this above with his suggestion that ancient Macedonian was possibly spawned from proto-Greek.

    3) The third major group (albeit represented by a smaller number of scholars than the other two) doesn't believe ancient Macedonian to have been related to Greek at all and was perhaps a dialect of Illyrian that simply contained elements of Greek and Greek cognates.

    Given the enormous difference between early Illyrian culture (despite being incredibly Hellenized/Romanized later on) and the Homeric/Mycenaean nature of Macedonian culture (seemingly archaic to southern Greeks but at least recognizable to them), I'd say the latter theory about Macedonian being Illyrian is the least likely of the bunch. If the Macedonians were simply an offshoot of Illyrian culture, then why didn't Illyrians have archaic Homeric/Mycenaean traditions such as the golden burial mask in their burials like that of the Macedonians (which admittedly the Greeks to the south had long abandoned, along with the aristocratic warrior-type burials typical of Mycenaean, Dark Age, and Archaic Greece, favoring offerings at temples instead). The theory also lacks basic textual evidence, unlike the findings of Doric-Greek writings from Macedonia (e.g. the curse tablets discovered by archaeologists).
    Linguistically we don't really know how similar the Macedonian language was to the Greek language. Written evidence that we do have shows similarity in the area of certain words which could very well just be evidence of adopting Greek terms. Though we also know that after Philip came onto the scene we have entirely new terminology (particularly military), which is adopted into Greek. More likely also a Greek approximation.

    To clarify my position I am closer to #2. Though there isn't enough evidence to suggest that Macedonian civilization was the result of Illyrian or Thracian peoples as we have no written examples of Macedonian reflecting an Illyrian language (though there isn't really any evidence proving that there was no similarity). There is at least some similarities in material culture and social structure so this implies at the very least an influence or cultural assimilation. For instance there were various powerful Macedonian "feudal" lords that could raise armies from peasant levies but which also put emphasis on their noble cavalry. This is more similar to the Epirotes, Illyrians and Thracians than to the Greeks. Their mound burial culture is similar to some of the barbarians (Illyrians and Thracians) but as you pointed out it is also similar to Mycenaean burial culture. This may have been as a result of direct Mycenaean influence in the distant past. But Macedonia was such a mosh pit of peoples that it is rather difficult to say what was going on up there.

    We know that the Greeks settled as far as the Aliakmonas River which was incorporated into the Kingdom of Macedonia. We also know the Macedonians spread from the Ludias and Axios Rivers (an area not settled as Greek Poleis) and conquered both sides of the river (Kings of Orestis and Lynkestis to the west and the Illyrians and Thracians to the east) and expanded northwards into modern Macedonia (the Illyrians and Paeonians). It is quite possible that the Macedonians themselves were a separate people from the Illyrians or Thracians but still culturally and ethnically similar.

    Anyway my point is that even if we could trace the exact roots of the Macedonian civilization to Mycenaean or Doric settlers there would still be a substantial amount of barbarian influence, as the archaeological remains show. But even if that was the case, that the Macedonian civilization was created by a Greek offshoot, by that point in time they would still be a separate group of people by definition. Even if we don't consider the barbarian influence over the area.

    The tablets are a difficult one because there is also evidence of Attic and Ionian writings that were discovered. What is more the Macedonian kingdoms neighbored the Attic, Ionian and Corinthian colonies to their south, which were conquered by Philip. For instance why Aristotle was not considered Macedonian, because he was born in the colony of Stagira. Though there is probably better evidence that the Macedonian language was similar to Doric or Proto-Greek than to the Illyrian or Thracian language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    In either case, by the 3rd or 2nd century BC Macedonian Greek was extinct anyway and Koine Greek essentially became the native language of all Macedonian Greeks. Whatever they were beforehand, it is silly to say they were anything other than Greeks by the end of the Hellenistic period. The Romans certainly made little to no distinction between Macedonians and Greeks, aside from noting the differences in governance between poleis and the more archaic-style kingdom of the Macedonians. For that matter, the Macedonians weren't the only ones in the Greek world during the Classical and Hellenistic periods that still had kings. Aside from Epirus, there were also the kings of Syracuse in Sicily and, perhaps the biggest example, the dual kings of Sparta (albeit a constitutional diarchy with citizen-elected assemblies and oligarchic councils).
    My point with this was actually that the Macedonians never developed city states, that is already a good reason to say that they were not part of Hellenic Civilization. But the reference to kingship is worth mentioning. The Macedonian concept of kingship was not the same as the Greek concept. The terms being used here are also a Greek approximation. Greek Kings were a city state institution where as a Macedonian King had more in common with a feudal monarchy. The implication of kingship in both societies is also different, Greeks don't venerate their kings but rather they and their kings venerate the institutions.

    Reading the Roman history the Romans make several distinctions between the Macedonians and the Greeks, though they do see them as being within the same group. In fact it isn't much different from how the Greeks speak of the Persians AND Medes (both Iranian but still distinct). We could argue that the Macedonians became part of a Hellenistic civilization but that also includes various Asiatic peoples (Carians, Pontics, Bythinians etc). The process of Hellenization began with Alexander I but was not that notable until Philip II established the League of Corinth and began a process of cultural integration, though somewhat by accident since Philip and Alexander were not trying to blur the cultural lines between Macedon and Greece but rather to establish Macedonian supremacy within a Hellenistic system (so basically a Hegemony).

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  17. #17
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    Wasn't there some inscription gifted by Alexander himself to commemorate the start of the expedition against Persia? "Alexander and the greeks, apart from the lacedaemonians" (cause Sparta didn't want to be part of any campaign it wouldn't lead in -- so as to die like at Leuktra ).

    Then again maybe all the actual macedonians stayed home, so it would just be greeks by default ^^
    I mean there are also references to Philip and his people (with regards to Macedonia accepting a Greek alliance) or Alexandros and his forefathers. This sort of specific terminology seems to imply the king himself rather than the Macedonian people as a whole. Which takes us back to the pro-Philip faction calling Philip a Greek ruling over barbarians.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  18. #18
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    9,815

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    I mean there are also references to Philip and his people (with regards to Macedonia accepting a Greek alliance) or Alexandros and his forefathers. This sort of specific terminology seems to imply the king himself rather than the Macedonian people as a whole. Which takes us back to the pro-Philip faction calling Philip a Greek ruling over barbarians.
    Tbh, i doubt that if the macs didn't see themselves as greek it would be a great idea by Alexander to not even refer to his own army, in the inscription (which, iirc, was an official one, at Delphi?). Seems way too bizarre.
    Anyway, i think we can avoid trying to solve this in this thread, though i personally see no reason to think the ancient macs didn't identify as greek. Moreover, after Alexander, what was spread was greek culture. Again it is a tall order to think that there was some foreign, non-greek, mac culture, but they just shut up despite being the bulk of the army making the conquest. There were many (and huge) hellenistic kingdoms and empires, up to the Indus. And none of them used anything other than very clearly greek culture

    Re Carians, Bithynians and what-not, most of the area consisted of greek states since the 7th and early 6th centuries bc, eg:



    Finally, when actual non-greek cultures came into contact from the area near Mac (eg celts when Macedonia collapsed), you certainly did not see any view that they were greek, not by greeks, nor by themselves. In the general chaos in that diadochi era you even saw gauls migrate to asia minor, in the region later on named (due to that) as Galatea. Thankfully seleucid elephants were near, so that ended too
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  19. #19
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    The Diadochi (that is specifically Alexander's Macedonian generals) did not identify as Greek and resented Greeks encroaching on their positions of power. This is notable whenever Alexander promoted a Greek officer up the ranks or to an administrative position.

    Also if anyone wants me to I can pull up textual evidence from the sources.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  20. #20
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    9,815

    Default Re: Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    The Diadochi (that is specifically Alexander's Macedonian generals) did not identify as Greek and resented Greeks encroaching on their positions of power. This is notable whenever Alexander promoted a Greek officer up the ranks or to an administrative position.

    Also if anyone wants me to I can pull up textual evidence from the sources.
    Assuming this is so, how do you account for ALL the diadochi empires and kingdoms having clearly greek culture, language, customs and ties?
    If those elusive non-greek macs hated greeks (as you say), this is sort of impossible to happen. Furthermore, the hellenistic era didn't last a few years; it lasted for centuries, a good part of which had the diadochi countries being clear superpowers of the area, so they would seek to bring back the precious mac culture, if that was there to begin with (let alone if they themselves hated greeks etc, as you say).

    Not sure how any defence of a claim that the hellenistic kingdoms/empires didn't have greek culture can be made, Oda. Some of them were centers of greek science and math (eg Alexandreia and Pergamon).

    Btw, i am sure no spartan (or athenian, or theban, or any other of the 50 greek countries at the time) would like greeks from other states to be gaining power in his own country or army; nothing relevant in that to what we are discussing, yet your own claim seems to aspire to be tied to whether macs had non-greek culture, so i ask you how you explain that their diadochi states had clearly greek culture.
    Last edited by Kyriakos; March 18, 2018 at 07:54 PM.
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










Page 1 of 9 123456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •