Re: Where was Greek honour

[jona]

The issue is, in my opinion, not honour, but Greekness. In the southern Balkan peninsula, there was a group of people that shared a language (in four or five dialects), literature, and a couple of gods (in several variants). They lived in various states, and the idea that they were one single nation, struck them as odd. The fact that Isocrates had to deliver a "panhellenic" speech indicates that it was a political idea that still had to be explained.They were vaguely aware that they had some things in common, and among these things was a collective past, that consisted of two main memories: the Trojan and the Persian war. People who had fought in both wars, were considered to be Greek.But it was not clear where the border was to be drawn. In the north, a dynasty of Greek descent ruled Macedonia, but were they Greek? They did not share in the common past, but they did their best to behave like Greeks. There was debate in the fourth century (Isocrates versus Demosthenes, for example). This is not just a debate about Macedonian identity, but as much a debate about the frontier of hellenism. (It is comparable with the "greater" and "smaller" solutions of the German unification.)What I am arguing is: nationalism did not yet exist. The Greeks were divided about what it meant to be Greek. A common identity was partially created in the Roman period, when Greekness was defined in cultural, nor political terms. But in the age of Alexander, an Athenian would have used any means -including Persian help- to fight against a Spartan, and vice versa. There was nothing dishonorable about invoking foreign help, because neither Greekness nor foreignness were defined.Jona

[yiannis]

Very good points indeed Jona. But wouldn't you say that common language (or indeed common dialects) and common customs identified some people as belonging to the same "group of people"? (I hesitate to use the term race-it can be misinterpreted)Or other aspects as: religion, adherence to civil liberties, art, form of government etc... I mean what does define a "nation" or "race" if you like, after all? What is it that makes the Persians, Persians, the Gauls Gauls and the Thracians Thracians?In my mind the inspiration and self awareness is a slow process that takes all the above ingredients and amalgamates them into a common conscience of "belonging".

[jona]

"But wouldn't you say that common language (or indeed common dialects) and common customs identified some people as belonging to the same "group of people"?"Because I am Dutch, this is something that I can not answer. Belgians and Dutchmen speak the same language and have a lot in common, but they think that they are not the same group of people. Sometimes I wonder if it is possible to insult a Belgian more than by saying he is Dutch, because resentments can be very deep in Belgium. But foreigners usually see a lot of similarity. It depends on perspective.The same seems to apply to the British. Almost everyone in the world will invariably call people from Wales or Scotland "English", and these people will politely listen, but we all know that they don't like it very much.Jona

[centurion]

Hail and Salute Iskander,
It seems to me that what the real subject is, is not honor, but self interest. The Greeks, Persians, Macedonians, Romans (to name just a few) all plotted and schemed against one another in the Classical world, and their leaders are by no means the only ones to do it. Practically every government has indulged in that pastime. Bribery, double-dealing, betrayal, playing off one potential opponent against another-these have all been accepted practices throughout history, and the primary motivation for them has (I think) been naked self-interest. These practices are not new, and they are still practiced around the world today-but that's another issue. What I feel is relevant here is that the Greeks either didn't trust or just hated Alexander for a wide range of possible reasons, and pulling out all the stops to achieve their ends, was the norm in that treacherous, violent world. Anyway, Hail and Salute.
Centurion

[centurion]

Hail Jona,
Very well said. I'll second that. Best regards, and I look forward to your book.
-S- Centurion

[yiannis]

Resentment was not personal. It was directed towards the threat that Macedonian expansion posed to the city/states of the South. It was purelly politics.
One should remember that to Greeks of the time belonging to a city was everything. Civil rights etc derived from that fact. The notion of big empire-like states seemed like absolutism.

[centurion]

Hail Yiannis,
It sure seems to me that resentment is personal. It is an emotional response, and I believe that it was driven by the threat (or perceived threat)that the Greeks saw in Alexander's position in their world. Resentment, hate, fear,- I'll wager that, generally speaking, the average Greek citizen felt those emotions toward Alexander just as the average Roman felt toward Hannibal, or the average Briton felt toward Napoleon. I submit that the average Greek felt that way because Alexander (like his father Philip before him) was changing their world in the most significant way possible-by killing some of their fellow citizens, by changing their way of goverment-by "rocking their world", so to speak. And the Greek leaders probably felt even more strongly than the citizenry, because their own power base was undermined. Many -S-
Centurion

[Kit]

I think the Greeks had a strong sense of what constituted foreignness, hence their use of the term 'Barbarian'.Kit

[jona]

Agreed.Yet, I think this is another type of self-identifying. This "we" against "not-we". Essentially, it is defining oneself along bipolar lines. Defining oneself as "Greek" is more complex, because it involves also defining "Egyptians", "Persians", "Scythians", and so on. And so we are entering a debate about anthropological denominators.Jona

[smittysmitty]

Hi,
I donGÇÖt think the issue of identity amongst the GÇÿHellenesGÇÖ is as complicated as has been proposed, nor for that matter the boundaries of which these people inhabited. There are extant references which acknowledge such territorial boundaries as well as cultural bonds which unify these people as one, ethnically speaking.I know this is a gross oversimplification of matters, but IGÇÖm quite certain the Hellenes knew who they were and who were not.Cheers!

[yiannis]

If that is the case then how can we explain that he was welcomed as a liberator in many Greek cities of Greece proper? He was an enemy and resented in some cities and a benefactor and worshiped in others. But when we talk about ancient Greece we tend to focus around Athens (justifiable to some extend, but still wrong...)And coming back the issue of how Greeks perceived "Greekness". Could one say that being "Greek", in those days, was an acquired rather than a hereditary quality? Isocrates was claiming that "Greeks are those who share the same education (in the broader sense) as we do".

[smittysmitty]

Hi Yiannis,
I think weGÇÖve had this discussion before; but for my mind a good working definition of who the Hellenes were, comes from Thucydides. ItGÇÖs a rather simple account, but one that would have been accepted by those of the period. Thuc; [1.3] GÇÿBy GÇÿHellenicGÇÖ I mean here both those who took on the name city by city, as the result of a common language, and those who were all called by the common name.GÇÖI guess any city adhering to the above definition at the time would have been identified as Hellenes amongst them selves.Cheers!