Confusion

[Efstathios]

The ancient greeks could not stand the Macedonian rulership.And that is not strange because for example Athens had democracy,and they had to put up with monarchy.But lets remember that Athens stood against anyone.They did the same things with the Spartans.Philip invaded southern greece.Its natural for Athens or Thebes trying to revolt against macedonia.It was an invasion to their lands. I think that there were so many different voices to be heard that its not right to just see only those who were fighting the amfictionia (the alliance),and Philip..Surely there were people that saw things differently than Demosthenes.People that were too tired of the constant wars between the cities.People that wanted things to change.Of course no one liked an invasion.But Philip made the first step. People have gone to Persia to fight against Alexander.And that is not strange either.In their effort to fight eachother and win sometimes the cities used persian money to do it.But tyhat was heavily critisised.In this case some people thought that they would do good to their city if they went against Alexander in Persia.They thought that if the persians defeated Alexander then they could easily free their cities of the macedonian rulership.Well,not all greeks were bright and intelligent.As it happens everywhere in the world,there are people,and people... Alexander treated these people like traitors.And except the Thebeans he send them as slaves to mines back in Macedonia.

[Efstathios]

The ancient greeks could not stand the Macedonian rulership.And that is not strange because for example Athens had democracy,and they had to put up with monarchy.But lets remember that Athens stood against anyone.They did the same things with the Spartans.Philip invaded southern greece.Its natural for Athens or Thebes trying to revolt against macedonia.It was an invasion to their lands. I think that there were so many different voices to be heard that its not right to just see only those who were fighting the amfictionia (the alliance),and Philip..Surely there were people that saw things differently than Demosthenes.People that were too tired of the constant wars between the cities.People that wanted things to change.Of course no one liked an invasion.But Philip made the first step. People have gone to Persia to fight against Alexander.And that is not strange either.In their effort to fight eachother and win sometimes the cities used persian money to do it.But tyhat was heavily critisised.In this case some people thought that they would do good to their city if they went against Alexander in Persia.They thought that if the persians defeated Alexander then they could easily free their cities of the macedonian rulership.Well,not all greeks were bright and intelligent.As it happens everywhere in the world,there are people,and people... Alexander treated these people like traitors.And except the Thebeans he send them as slaves to mines back in Macedonia.

[Paralus]

G'day Bob.First of all, can I recommend NGNL Hammond's "Philip of Macedon". I think you'll find most of your Macedonian questions will find answers there. Briefly, Macedonia is best viewed as a collection of "cantons" or feudal estates. The "chiefs" (for want of a better description) of these distinct "tribes" became the Macedonian barons of the Philip/Alexander era: Attalus, Antipater, etc. Philip (by force, marriage and diplomacy) united the lot over a ten to fifteen year period.As to what I see as your other main points:Hellas hating the Macedonians. By and large this is true. Macedonian rule was resented by the Greek city states GÇô not just Athens. This was a rule imposed by main force and underlined by Alexander with the annihilation of Thebes. While Greek polies resented hegemony of any other over themselves (though never missing an opportunity to impose it themselves given the chance!), they detested Macedonian rule GÇô particularly by what they deemed as a backward form of government: monarchy.Greeks had always fought Greeks GÇô Efstathios has covered this. Suffice to say that the world of the Greek polies was at once the most belligerent, bellicose and cultural in the Mediterranean. Socrates, Aeschylus and Pericles all fought in the phalanx. This goes also to the point of Greek unity: such a thing rarely existed.The League of Corinth was re-formed by Philip. This was the alliance constituted against the Persian invasions in the previous century. Philip had himself elected "Captain general" and thus created the perfect "front" for the invasion of Persia by "the Greeks". How much he would have used Greek contingents is open to debate. Very little if the advance army in the Hellespont and Alexander's subsequent use is anything to go by. A nice propaganda coup.Yes more Greek mercenaries fought for Darius than with the Macedonians. Two simple rules apply here: money and hate. Firstly, Darius had money, paid well and on time. Had Alexander not won at the Granicus and swept Ionia, he'd have been broke within a month or so. It is significant that he does not start taking on mercenaries and significant reinforcements untill after the capture of the Issus baggage train. Secondly, many Greek mercenaries took the chance after Thebes to scarper to Asia Minor and sign up against the overlord of Greece. Macedonia beat an empire of two centuries? Unheard of.Continued....

[Paralus]

G'day Bob.First of all, can I recommend NGNL Hammond's "Philip of Macedon". I think you'll find most of your Macedonian questions will find answers there. Briefly, Macedonia is best viewed as a collection of "cantons" or feudal estates. The "chiefs" (for want of a better description) of these distinct "tribes" became the Macedonian barons of the Philip/Alexander era: Attalus, Antipater, etc. Philip (by force, marriage and diplomacy) united the lot over a ten to fifteen year period.As to what I see as your other main points:Hellas hating the Macedonians. By and large this is true. Macedonian rule was resented by the Greek city states GÇô not just Athens. This was a rule imposed by main force and underlined by Alexander with the annihilation of Thebes. While Greek polies resented hegemony of any other over themselves (though never missing an opportunity to impose it themselves given the chance!), they detested Macedonian rule GÇô particularly by what they deemed as a backward form of government: monarchy.Greeks had always fought Greeks GÇô Efstathios has covered this. Suffice to say that the world of the Greek polies was at once the most belligerent, bellicose and cultural in the Mediterranean. Socrates, Aeschylus and Pericles all fought in the phalanx. This goes also to the point of Greek unity: such a thing rarely existed.The League of Corinth was re-formed by Philip. This was the alliance constituted against the Persian invasions in the previous century. Philip had himself elected "Captain general" and thus created the perfect "front" for the invasion of Persia by "the Greeks". How much he would have used Greek contingents is open to debate. Very little if the advance army in the Hellespont and Alexander's subsequent use is anything to go by. A nice propaganda coup.Yes more Greek mercenaries fought for Darius than with the Macedonians. Two simple rules apply here: money and hate. Firstly, Darius had money, paid well and on time. Had Alexander not won at the Granicus and swept Ionia, he'd have been broke within a month or so. It is significant that he does not start taking on mercenaries and significant reinforcements untill after the capture of the Issus baggage train. Secondly, many Greek mercenaries took the chance after Thebes to scarper to Asia Minor and sign up against the overlord of Greece. Macedonia beat an empire of two centuries? Unheard of.Continued....

[Paralus]

Why did Alexander leave Laconia (Sparta) as she was and "rule all of Greece"? For the same reasons his father did (aside from the fact that an isolated Sparta was largely irrelevant): mainly that the slighted, aggressive little "piss-ant" of the Peleponnese was best left as it was GÇô a thorn in the side of anyone who got to "aggro" in its backyard. The less for Alexander or Antipater to do. A policy that worked well from 338 untill 333 when Agis became a little to aggro for his own good.As to the Greek view of Macedonia, Demosthenes' view can be seen as one extreme, Phocion or Demades another. Possibly the best piece I've read on the language debate is by Ernst Badian ( http://www.gate.net/~mango/Badian.htm ), "Greeks and Macedonians", where apart from other aspects, he shows that Alexander addressed his guards andphalanx in "Macedonian" which apparently was not understood by other Greeks:"This clearly shows that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian, if one wanted to be sure (as Ambiance certainly did) that they would understand. And--almost equally interesting-- he did not address them himself, as he and other commanders normally addressed soldiers who understood them, nor did he send a Greek. The suggestion is surely that Macedonian was the language of the infantry and that Greek was a difficult, indeed a foreign, tongue to them."Mind you, one can never be certain of the provenance of material sourced on the net! It is most "Badian" though.Paralus

[Paralus]

Why did Alexander leave Laconia (Sparta) as she was and "rule all of Greece"? For the same reasons his father did (aside from the fact that an isolated Sparta was largely irrelevant): mainly that the slighted, aggressive little "piss-ant" of the Peleponnese was best left as it was GÇô a thorn in the side of anyone who got to "aggro" in its backyard. The less for Alexander or Antipater to do. A policy that worked well from 338 untill 333 when Agis became a little to aggro for his own good.As to the Greek view of Macedonia, Demosthenes' view can be seen as one extreme, Phocion or Demades another. Possibly the best piece I've read on the language debate is by Ernst Badian ( http://www.gate.net/~mango/Badian.htm ), "Greeks and Macedonians", where apart from other aspects, he shows that Alexander addressed his guards andphalanx in "Macedonian" which apparently was not understood by other Greeks:"This clearly shows that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian, if one wanted to be sure (as Ambiance certainly did) that they would understand. And--almost equally interesting-- he did not address them himself, as he and other commanders normally addressed soldiers who understood them, nor did he send a Greek. The suggestion is surely that Macedonian was the language of the infantry and that Greek was a difficult, indeed a foreign, tongue to them."Mind you, one can never be certain of the provenance of material sourced on the net! It is most "Badian" though.Paralus

[bob]

Isn't the Greek word "glossa" in the historical reference? Remember I am new to alexander studies, but I remember (I think correctly?) that this reference was during the trial of Philotas, when Alexander rebuked Philotas for not speaking in the Macedonian "glossa". THis word means "language" (or if you study New Testament Greek, it means "tongue". On that note, I am fluent in Hebrew, my Greek is only "average", for I am Jewish; not a christian. (Not a good Jew either, studied archaeology in Israel at 59 sites and I understand clearly the difference between fact and myth. Thus, do not think me a religious Jew.)
I am not sure if the Greeks had a word for "dialect." Maybe a dialect was a glossa. (When I study language, I see translation issues, i.e. we read our modern and native language into the ancient language, what matters, is what the word "glossa" meant to the ancient greek, and not how we see it today. Thus, maybe indeed this word (if I remember correctly) is used to mean "dialect".
I am probably one of the few here who is not "greek" (I guess I am a bar bar) but I am an American. (though did not do all my schooling here in America). What kind of Hellenism did Alexander spread? I do not think it was "athenian" hellenism, certainly not Spartan. I think it would be wrong to assume as well that the word "greek" was such a "unified" term in the 4rth century BCE; especially with a bunch of city states that fought each other on all sorts of reasons. I am not so sure Athenians and Spartans totally agreed as to what Greece was either. That is like arguing all Jews interpret Judaism the same way today, or even 2000 years ago for that matter. If the greek polis' fought each other, it is likely they too did not agree with all things about their culture, and each city was different. This is my confusion. Was Alexander's country "Macedonia" or "greece". If I understand Peter Green correctly, Alexander would have sacrificed both Greece and Macedonia, to conquer Asia, and Babylon seemed to be his new "center" of government. In the end, he came of to greeks (whether Macedonian or not) as too "oriental" for their tastes. I guess I am different from Alexander, and would have been like his troops, after studying in Israel for two years, I was glad to be back in the states. Sure, loved it, but where I grew up was my home. People are different, and because Alexander is different from me, this is why he is fascinating.

[bob]

Isn't the Greek word "glossa" in the historical reference? Remember I am new to alexander studies, but I remember (I think correctly?) that this reference was during the trial of Philotas, when Alexander rebuked Philotas for not speaking in the Macedonian "glossa". THis word means "language" (or if you study New Testament Greek, it means "tongue". On that note, I am fluent in Hebrew, my Greek is only "average", for I am Jewish; not a christian. (Not a good Jew either, studied archaeology in Israel at 59 sites and I understand clearly the difference between fact and myth. Thus, do not think me a religious Jew.)
I am not sure if the Greeks had a word for "dialect." Maybe a dialect was a glossa. (When I study language, I see translation issues, i.e. we read our modern and native language into the ancient language, what matters, is what the word "glossa" meant to the ancient greek, and not how we see it today. Thus, maybe indeed this word (if I remember correctly) is used to mean "dialect".
I am probably one of the few here who is not "greek" (I guess I am a bar bar) but I am an American. (though did not do all my schooling here in America). What kind of Hellenism did Alexander spread? I do not think it was "athenian" hellenism, certainly not Spartan. I think it would be wrong to assume as well that the word "greek" was such a "unified" term in the 4rth century BCE; especially with a bunch of city states that fought each other on all sorts of reasons. I am not so sure Athenians and Spartans totally agreed as to what Greece was either. That is like arguing all Jews interpret Judaism the same way today, or even 2000 years ago for that matter. If the greek polis' fought each other, it is likely they too did not agree with all things about their culture, and each city was different. This is my confusion. Was Alexander's country "Macedonia" or "greece". If I understand Peter Green correctly, Alexander would have sacrificed both Greece and Macedonia, to conquer Asia, and Babylon seemed to be his new "center" of government. In the end, he came of to greeks (whether Macedonian or not) as too "oriental" for their tastes. I guess I am different from Alexander, and would have been like his troops, after studying in Israel for two years, I was glad to be back in the states. Sure, loved it, but where I grew up was my home. People are different, and because Alexander is different from me, this is why he is fascinating.

[bob]

Thanks, you are right, and even with my religious training, a million opinions out there, and most contradictory, thus some must be right, and some must be wrong. Thanks, and re-reading Green's section of Sparta, Green mentioned that, Sparta was too weak to even waste time with. From what I too see of Alexander, he most liked fighting heavy odds, and challenges. Sparta would have bored him would be my "opinion."
Bob

[bob]

Thanks, you are right, and even with my religious training, a million opinions out there, and most contradictory, thus some must be right, and some must be wrong. Thanks, and re-reading Green's section of Sparta, Green mentioned that, Sparta was too weak to even waste time with. From what I too see of Alexander, he most liked fighting heavy odds, and challenges. Sparta would have bored him would be my "opinion."
Bob

[Efstathios]

Actually in greek there is the word "dialektos" ,from which the word "dialect" derived."Glossa" meant the language and literally the tongue. Also i think that there arent that many greeks writing in this forum.Only a few.Thus i cannot write with greek characters in order to present words like "dialektos" in their original form,because i think that most of the people dont have greek fonts installed in their pc.But for those who have,i will start presenting greek fonts too.(In order to be able to see greek fonts i think you have to install them directly from your windows cd-rom,under the control panel-languages section,if i remember correctly).So "dialektos" is actually "διαλεκτος". Anyway,some information about the greek vision of Alexander comes from Plutarch,in his book "On the fortune or the virtue of Alexander".There he spends many pages describing Alexander's vision,and his love for all greek things.He describes how he practised philosophy,in contrast with the philosophers themselves who were only theoritical.He mentions that he had spread all around the empire greek culture,including theatre,poetry,music,books,philosophy, and how these things influenced asia,bringing them out of a more primitive state to a more civilized state of being.He mentions "The Yrikanians he taught how to make weddings,and the Arahosians how to cultivate the land,and the Sogdians how to serve and take care their old fathers and not killing them,and the persians how to respect their mothers but not having sex with them."And later on he says " But for God's sake,Alexander civilised the entire Asia and made Homer their' reading material,and the children of the persians,the gedrosians and the sogdians are chanting the "tragedies" and plays of Euripedes and Sofocles." I dont think that plutarch was exaggerating or making propaganda, because he lived in the first century AD.Thus he was far from the era that the greeks fought eachother and could see things better.And he could make a fair estimate at how Alexander influenced asia at all these years that have passed since then.And surely he wouldnt lie about these things as people would have known if he did.

[Efstathios]

Actually in greek there is the word "dialektos" ,from which the word "dialect" derived."Glossa" meant the language and literally the tongue. Also i think that there arent that many greeks writing in this forum.Only a few.Thus i cannot write with greek characters in order to present words like "dialektos" in their original form,because i think that most of the people dont have greek fonts installed in their pc.But for those who have,i will start presenting greek fonts too.(In order to be able to see greek fonts i think you have to install them directly from your windows cd-rom,under the control panel-languages section,if i remember correctly).So "dialektos" is actually "διαλεκτος". Anyway,some information about the greek vision of Alexander comes from Plutarch,in his book "On the fortune or the virtue of Alexander".There he spends many pages describing Alexander's vision,and his love for all greek things.He describes how he practised philosophy,in contrast with the philosophers themselves who were only theoritical.He mentions that he had spread all around the empire greek culture,including theatre,poetry,music,books,philosophy, and how these things influenced asia,bringing them out of a more primitive state to a more civilized state of being.He mentions "The Yrikanians he taught how to make weddings,and the Arahosians how to cultivate the land,and the Sogdians how to serve and take care their old fathers and not killing them,and the persians how to respect their mothers but not having sex with them."And later on he says " But for God's sake,Alexander civilised the entire Asia and made Homer their' reading material,and the children of the persians,the gedrosians and the sogdians are chanting the "tragedies" and plays of Euripedes and Sofocles." I dont think that plutarch was exaggerating or making propaganda, because he lived in the first century AD.Thus he was far from the era that the greeks fought eachother and could see things better.And he could make a fair estimate at how Alexander influenced asia at all these years that have passed since then.And surely he wouldnt lie about these things as people would have known if he did.

[bob]

Hmmm...Thanks, great info, like I said, my Greek is average. That font works on my work computer. I have Plutarch's life of Alexander (Loeb Classical version, Greek and English) but I do not have that other work, maybe I should invest in it.
I certainly agree, Plutarch would not be on some propaganda campaign. I tend to "trust" ancient sources. I understand Arrian disagrees with Diodorus on the battle of Granicus for instance, but I still accept ancient sources, seeing no reason why Arrian or Diodorus would intentionally falsify anything. How would that benefit them or Alexander? I have read "Alexander the Great-Selections from Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, and Quintus Curtius" by Pamela Mensch and James Romm. That book mainly quotes Arrian, but I read Plutarch first because Green somewhere in his book said Plutarch is the only one who discusses Alexander's early life. That is why I like Green's book. Personally, since I am an accountant and dot all my i's and cross all my t's, I like biographies that are chronological. Not that Fox's book is terrible, which is not as chronological as Greens, or that Oliver stone's jumping around in his movie was that hard to follow (but his movie doesn't seem accurate). I like to understand progession and how people change. To be honest, I see little change in Alexander. I think people assume he got deity crazy (thinking he was a god-son of Zeus ammon) but when I see his destroying Persepolis, I do not see him any different from the man who destroyed Thebes. THis is why I like chronological presentations, I understand the character better, thus, Plutarch was a great start for me.
Bob

[bob]

Hmmm...Thanks, great info, like I said, my Greek is average. That font works on my work computer. I have Plutarch's life of Alexander (Loeb Classical version, Greek and English) but I do not have that other work, maybe I should invest in it.
I certainly agree, Plutarch would not be on some propaganda campaign. I tend to "trust" ancient sources. I understand Arrian disagrees with Diodorus on the battle of Granicus for instance, but I still accept ancient sources, seeing no reason why Arrian or Diodorus would intentionally falsify anything. How would that benefit them or Alexander? I have read "Alexander the Great-Selections from Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, and Quintus Curtius" by Pamela Mensch and James Romm. That book mainly quotes Arrian, but I read Plutarch first because Green somewhere in his book said Plutarch is the only one who discusses Alexander's early life. That is why I like Green's book. Personally, since I am an accountant and dot all my i's and cross all my t's, I like biographies that are chronological. Not that Fox's book is terrible, which is not as chronological as Greens, or that Oliver stone's jumping around in his movie was that hard to follow (but his movie doesn't seem accurate). I like to understand progession and how people change. To be honest, I see little change in Alexander. I think people assume he got deity crazy (thinking he was a god-son of Zeus ammon) but when I see his destroying Persepolis, I do not see him any different from the man who destroyed Thebes. THis is why I like chronological presentations, I understand the character better, thus, Plutarch was a great start for me.
Bob

[jan]

Thanks, Marcus, for the advice. I have mentioned the author's name and that is really enough. He can be found if wanted. The best review I can give is that I still like him for his sense of fair play. Nothing else need be added to that.