Confusion

[Paralus]

Efstathios, I'd have to petition for an "Hellenic Indulgence" with respect to the unfortunate adjective: obsessive. A little strong and likely poorly chosen.There seems GÇô I think GÇô a developing view that I may be anti-Greek? I must assure you that nothing could be further than the truth.I'm a bloke that likes to take the evidence as it stands GÇô fragmentary and contradictoey though it may be. Be that as it may, the evidence GÇô written anyway as opposed to numismatic etc GÇô is unfailingly Greek. Even that of Curtius is based on original Greek writing. Such evidence from a single cultural viewpoint must be treated in the same manner as one treats a single source: with the utmost caution.The entire notion of Alexander as Hellenic cultural ambassador-at-large, bringer of civilisation to the East and proponent of the "Brotherhood of Man" is due in almost its entirety to that single essay by the moralising Plutarch. A writer whose mission statement could read "the finding of the virtues of man". Indeed, his lives prove to be a moralising statement on each person; a constant search for the "virtue" displayed by each of his subjects. This does not mean that he should be dismissed GÇô far from it. It does mean that one needs to bear in mind that pure historiography is not Plutarch's mission: moral purpose and the virtue of his subject is.To quote from translator Ian Scott-Kilvert (Lives):"Still, it is not the cycle of history which really engages Plutarch's attention, and his habit of seeing all events in personal terms is at once his weakness and his strength. His purpose is to bring out the moral pattern in a hero's career, the movement from virtue to vice or the contraryGǪHe forgets that a statesman is far more often faced with a conflict of opposing interests than with a straight choice between right and wrongGǪ"Paralus.

[Paralus]

Efstathios, I'd have to petition for an "Hellenic Indulgence" with respect to the unfortunate adjective: obsessive. A little strong and likely poorly chosen.There seems GÇô I think GÇô a developing view that I may be anti-Greek? I must assure you that nothing could be further than the truth.I'm a bloke that likes to take the evidence as it stands GÇô fragmentary and contradictoey though it may be. Be that as it may, the evidence GÇô written anyway as opposed to numismatic etc GÇô is unfailingly Greek. Even that of Curtius is based on original Greek writing. Such evidence from a single cultural viewpoint must be treated in the same manner as one treats a single source: with the utmost caution.The entire notion of Alexander as Hellenic cultural ambassador-at-large, bringer of civilisation to the East and proponent of the "Brotherhood of Man" is due in almost its entirety to that single essay by the moralising Plutarch. A writer whose mission statement could read "the finding of the virtues of man". Indeed, his lives prove to be a moralising statement on each person; a constant search for the "virtue" displayed by each of his subjects. This does not mean that he should be dismissed GÇô far from it. It does mean that one needs to bear in mind that pure historiography is not Plutarch's mission: moral purpose and the virtue of his subject is.To quote from translator Ian Scott-Kilvert (Lives):"Still, it is not the cycle of history which really engages Plutarch's attention, and his habit of seeing all events in personal terms is at once his weakness and his strength. His purpose is to bring out the moral pattern in a hero's career, the movement from virtue to vice or the contraryGǪHe forgets that a statesman is far more often faced with a conflict of opposing interests than with a straight choice between right and wrongGǪ"Paralus.

[Paralus]

Linda's spot on Efstathios. Plutarch is a "moral portrait painter." That's in my previous post though.As you say, Plutarch (Arrian, Curtius etc) was writing based on sources we no longer have. Curtius is widely agreed to have utilised Clietarchus (as with Diodorus). As just one example of what that can mean, Clietarchus wrote under the patronage of Ptolemy Soter in Alexandria. It's agreed that he wrote at the closing stages of the fourth century (as he was apparently only just too young to make the invasion) GÇô the most often given time frame of about 310 or thereabouts. This of course means he's writing whilst the old general/imperialist is still alive and is likely therefore to treat him as he'd wish. It means also, that as Ptolemy was making great propaganda out of the Alexander legacy (including GÇô gruesomely GÇô the embalmed corpse) that legacy should reflect Ptolemy's view. And that's before we get to the treatment of those marshals with whom Ptolemy was engaged in the Diodochai wars.Many parts of the original GÇô primary GÇô sources are preserved in the Arrians, Diodurus's and Plutarchs, etc. But it is not a wise thing to think those (even the "easier identified") parts are as they were originally written or intended. Arrian for one writes to a purpose and his source material is altered accordingly (his self description as the equal of Alexander "in the literary field" speaks volumes). Diodorus GÇô interestingly writing at what Gruen neatly refers to as the time of "the Hellenistic World and the coming of Rome" (and of course writing in the Roman West as the Ptolemaic kingdom was in its death throes) GÇô in the story of the foreign ambassadors visiting Babylon (agreed to be based on Clietarchus) neatly omits Clietarchus' inclusion of Rome offering what the Persians would see as "Earth and Water" to the great king. The rest is there; just the Romans GÇô for obvious reasons GÇô are removed. I'd have to say that I'd dearly like to see the "Clietarchus reconstructed" project succeed! Better still, a time machine that would deposit me in the Library of Alexandria before Caesar's troops landed. Now that would be something to dream aboutGǪ.
Paralus.

[Paralus]

Linda's spot on Efstathios. Plutarch is a "moral portrait painter." That's in my previous post though.As you say, Plutarch (Arrian, Curtius etc) was writing based on sources we no longer have. Curtius is widely agreed to have utilised Clietarchus (as with Diodorus). As just one example of what that can mean, Clietarchus wrote under the patronage of Ptolemy Soter in Alexandria. It's agreed that he wrote at the closing stages of the fourth century (as he was apparently only just too young to make the invasion) GÇô the most often given time frame of about 310 or thereabouts. This of course means he's writing whilst the old general/imperialist is still alive and is likely therefore to treat him as he'd wish. It means also, that as Ptolemy was making great propaganda out of the Alexander legacy (including GÇô gruesomely GÇô the embalmed corpse) that legacy should reflect Ptolemy's view. And that's before we get to the treatment of those marshals with whom Ptolemy was engaged in the Diodochai wars.Many parts of the original GÇô primary GÇô sources are preserved in the Arrians, Diodurus's and Plutarchs, etc. But it is not a wise thing to think those (even the "easier identified") parts are as they were originally written or intended. Arrian for one writes to a purpose and his source material is altered accordingly (his self description as the equal of Alexander "in the literary field" speaks volumes). Diodorus GÇô interestingly writing at what Gruen neatly refers to as the time of "the Hellenistic World and the coming of Rome" (and of course writing in the Roman West as the Ptolemaic kingdom was in its death throes) GÇô in the story of the foreign ambassadors visiting Babylon (agreed to be based on Clietarchus) neatly omits Clietarchus' inclusion of Rome offering what the Persians would see as "Earth and Water" to the great king. The rest is there; just the Romans GÇô for obvious reasons GÇô are removed. I'd have to say that I'd dearly like to see the "Clietarchus reconstructed" project succeed! Better still, a time machine that would deposit me in the Library of Alexandria before Caesar's troops landed. Now that would be something to dream aboutGǪ.
Paralus.

[bob]

Thank you. That does make a lot of sense. (I was out on vacation for a week, thus, sorry did not reply sooner.) My point is as a novice, it seems that Alexander's empire was forged by the Macedonian sword, not that of all of the greeks, and certainly not the greek league. I guess, the answer to the question I asked (was alexander a Macedonian or a greek?) would be answered as "both." But his empire, was Macedonian, and forged with a Macedonian army. (And of course the orientals he took in, played a bigger part than southern greeks too for that matter.) I "THINK" the Hellenism he spread was his understanding of Hellenism, and many others interpreted that cultural phenominon in many ways in many places. Some places in his empire, were more greek than others. I guess this is the answer I hold at this moment. Thanks for the input!
Bob

[bob]

Thank you. That does make a lot of sense. (I was out on vacation for a week, thus, sorry did not reply sooner.) My point is as a novice, it seems that Alexander's empire was forged by the Macedonian sword, not that of all of the greeks, and certainly not the greek league. I guess, the answer to the question I asked (was alexander a Macedonian or a greek?) would be answered as "both." But his empire, was Macedonian, and forged with a Macedonian army. (And of course the orientals he took in, played a bigger part than southern greeks too for that matter.) I "THINK" the Hellenism he spread was his understanding of Hellenism, and many others interpreted that cultural phenominon in many ways in many places. Some places in his empire, were more greek than others. I guess this is the answer I hold at this moment. Thanks for the input!
Bob

[jim]

A couple points Greece was never a nation in the modern sense.Therefore ,it is absurd to speak of ancient Greeks as a people composing a nation.Ancient Greece was a cultural linguistic distiction not a national one.The Macedonian Kings did consider themselves to be of Greek origin and the latest inspritions dating back from the time of Phillip reveal a crude Doric diolect so they were part of the Greek world the way Bavaria or Austria were once was part of the German world as independent entities.Even Macedonia itself prior to Phillip was a politically loose confederation thus not a nation state in the true sense.It is also absurd to look upon Greek city states as a distinct entity.Sparta was a militaristic monarchy 1000% different from Athens in culture and probably closer to Pre Phillip Macedonia.

[jim]

A couple points Greece was never a nation in the modern sense.Therefore ,it is absurd to speak of ancient Greeks as a people composing a nation.Ancient Greece was a cultural linguistic distiction not a national one.The Macedonian Kings did consider themselves to be of Greek origin and the latest inspritions dating back from the time of Phillip reveal a crude Doric diolect so they were part of the Greek world the way Bavaria or Austria were once was part of the German world as independent entities.Even Macedonia itself prior to Phillip was a politically loose confederation thus not a nation state in the true sense.It is also absurd to look upon Greek city states as a distinct entity.Sparta was a militaristic monarchy 1000% different from Athens in culture and probably closer to Pre Phillip Macedonia.

[Paralus]

G'day Jim,You are quite right: the Greeks (ancient) did not consider themselves a single nation in the sense that today's nation states are constituted. The very definition of nationality (citizenship) was restricted in the most stringent sense to the Polis from which a person came. Many a time the ancients would describe their nation or country as Athens/Attica and Sparta/Laconia. There never was a sense of "Greece" being a persons "country"; they were not citizens of Greece (as we now see it). The "congress of Greek states" at Corinth in 481/80 was just that: separate states forming an alliance much as the "allies" in WWII. Ditto the re-formed League under Philip/Alexander/Antigonus and on down to Antigonus III Doson in 224.Interestingly, the constant redefining of the Polis GÇô its functions, the gradual loss of relevance of civic duty etc GÇô is a hallmark of what we refer to as the "Hellenistic Age". This disillusionment GÇô and belief in "Tyche" as the arbiter of men's destiny GÇô is a function of the lack of control of the Polies' destiny. This most easily illustrated by loss of foreign policy determination to Macedonian rule. The desire to regain same never really left the Greek Polies GÇô especially Athens: the Lamian war, the Chremonidean War and still ready to rise (against Rome) with Mithridates in 87BC.Macedonia became a "nation" under the Argaed lineage. Originally loose grouping of fuedal cantons or fiefdoms, these first become recognisable as something coherent during the sixth century. The ancient Macedonia that most of us in this forum refer to is a product of long evolution (really beginning with Alexander I), which was fed a forced diet of bulk fertiliser and steroids by Phillip II.
The Macedonian kings considering GÇô or going to long lengths to prove themselves GÇô Greek is a part of the above evolution, again begun with Alexander I asserting his Argive heritage and rights to compete in the Olympic games and made a fait accompli under Philip II (or at least utterly irrelevant).Paralus

[Paralus]

G'day Jim,You are quite right: the Greeks (ancient) did not consider themselves a single nation in the sense that today's nation states are constituted. The very definition of nationality (citizenship) was restricted in the most stringent sense to the Polis from which a person came. Many a time the ancients would describe their nation or country as Athens/Attica and Sparta/Laconia. There never was a sense of "Greece" being a persons "country"; they were not citizens of Greece (as we now see it). The "congress of Greek states" at Corinth in 481/80 was just that: separate states forming an alliance much as the "allies" in WWII. Ditto the re-formed League under Philip/Alexander/Antigonus and on down to Antigonus III Doson in 224.Interestingly, the constant redefining of the Polis GÇô its functions, the gradual loss of relevance of civic duty etc GÇô is a hallmark of what we refer to as the "Hellenistic Age". This disillusionment GÇô and belief in "Tyche" as the arbiter of men's destiny GÇô is a function of the lack of control of the Polies' destiny. This most easily illustrated by loss of foreign policy determination to Macedonian rule. The desire to regain same never really left the Greek Polies GÇô especially Athens: the Lamian war, the Chremonidean War and still ready to rise (against Rome) with Mithridates in 87BC.Macedonia became a "nation" under the Argaed lineage. Originally loose grouping of fuedal cantons or fiefdoms, these first become recognisable as something coherent during the sixth century. The ancient Macedonia that most of us in this forum refer to is a product of long evolution (really beginning with Alexander I), which was fed a forced diet of bulk fertiliser and steroids by Phillip II.
The Macedonian kings considering GÇô or going to long lengths to prove themselves GÇô Greek is a part of the above evolution, again begun with Alexander I asserting his Argive heritage and rights to compete in the Olympic games and made a fait accompli under Philip II (or at least utterly irrelevant).Paralus

[bob]

However, implies in a great many places that the Macedonains were NOT Greeks (which now has me even more confused.) Here are SOME instances where he does this:
1. Arrian II.10 (Last paragraph) "And to some extent the Macedonains and Greeks were engaged in an ethnic rivalry"
2. Arrian II.17 (Last paragraph) "...And once we have won control of Egypt, we have no reason to be concerned about Greece or our own home." (A speech by Alexander to his officers on why do go down the coast then to egypt after Issus.) This statement which Arrian relates Alexander making implies Arrian beleives the Macedonian home is not Greece.
3. Arrian V.25 (last paragraph) "Only standfast Macedonians and Allies..."
4. Arrian V.26 (second paragraph) "After all, what great or noble thing would we ourselves have accomplished had we sat in Macedonia and thought it sufficient only to maintain our own country without toil and repulse our Thracian neighbors or the Illyrians or Triballians or any of the Greeks who were not friendly towards us."I can give more from Arrian, but here are others from Diodorus:1. The Macedonians and Alexander backed Coragus because he was one of them while the Greeks favored Dioxippus. 17.100.4. 2. Then the Macedonian (Coragus) poised his long lance and charged, but the Greek (Dioxippus), when he came within reach, struck the spear with his club and shuttered it. After these two defeats, Coragus was reduced to continuing the battle with sword, but as he reached for it, the other leaped upon him and seized his swordhand with his left, while with his right hand the Greek upset the MacedonianGÇÖs balance and made him lose his footing. 17.100.6-73. From Europe, the Greek cities AND the Macedonians also sent embassies, as well as the Illyrians and most of those who dwell about the Adriatic Sea, the Thracian peoples and even those of their neighbors the Gauls, whose people became known then first in the Greek world. 17.113.2.4. When Perdiccas heard of the revolt of the Greeks, he drew by lot from the Macedonians 3000 infantry and 800 horsemen. 18.7.35. They (the Greeks) had more then 20000 foot soldiers and 3000 horse. 18.7.2. 3000 of these 23000 Greeks were led by a "traitor" who "left his allies without warning and withdrew to e certain hill, taking his 3000 men". 18.7.6. 6. When oaths to this effect had been sworn and the Greeks were interspersed among the Macedonians, Pithon was greatly pleased, seeing that the affair was progressing

[bob]

However, implies in a great many places that the Macedonains were NOT Greeks (which now has me even more confused.) Here are SOME instances where he does this:
1. Arrian II.10 (Last paragraph) "And to some extent the Macedonains and Greeks were engaged in an ethnic rivalry"
2. Arrian II.17 (Last paragraph) "...And once we have won control of Egypt, we have no reason to be concerned about Greece or our own home." (A speech by Alexander to his officers on why do go down the coast then to egypt after Issus.) This statement which Arrian relates Alexander making implies Arrian beleives the Macedonian home is not Greece.
3. Arrian V.25 (last paragraph) "Only standfast Macedonians and Allies..."
4. Arrian V.26 (second paragraph) "After all, what great or noble thing would we ourselves have accomplished had we sat in Macedonia and thought it sufficient only to maintain our own country without toil and repulse our Thracian neighbors or the Illyrians or Triballians or any of the Greeks who were not friendly towards us."I can give more from Arrian, but here are others from Diodorus:1. The Macedonians and Alexander backed Coragus because he was one of them while the Greeks favored Dioxippus. 17.100.4. 2. Then the Macedonian (Coragus) poised his long lance and charged, but the Greek (Dioxippus), when he came within reach, struck the spear with his club and shuttered it. After these two defeats, Coragus was reduced to continuing the battle with sword, but as he reached for it, the other leaped upon him and seized his swordhand with his left, while with his right hand the Greek upset the MacedonianGÇÖs balance and made him lose his footing. 17.100.6-73. From Europe, the Greek cities AND the Macedonians also sent embassies, as well as the Illyrians and most of those who dwell about the Adriatic Sea, the Thracian peoples and even those of their neighbors the Gauls, whose people became known then first in the Greek world. 17.113.2.4. When Perdiccas heard of the revolt of the Greeks, he drew by lot from the Macedonians 3000 infantry and 800 horsemen. 18.7.35. They (the Greeks) had more then 20000 foot soldiers and 3000 horse. 18.7.2. 3000 of these 23000 Greeks were led by a "traitor" who "left his allies without warning and withdrew to e certain hill, taking his 3000 men". 18.7.6. 6. When oaths to this effect had been sworn and the Greeks were interspersed among the Macedonians, Pithon was greatly pleased, seeing that the affair was progressing

[bob]

More quotes from Diodorus:1. The decree of the Assembly of Athens: "people should assume responsibility for the common freedom of the Greeks and liberate the cities that were subject to (Macedonian) garrisons; that they should prepare 40 quadriremes and 200 triremes (ships); that all Athenians up to age of 40 should be enrolled; that three tribes should guard Attica, and that the other seven should be ready for campaign beyond the frontier; that envoys should be sent to visit the Greek cities and tell them that formerly the Athenian people, convinced that all Greece was the common fatherland of the Greeks, had fought by see against those (Macedonian) barbarians who had invaded Greece to enslave her, and that now too Athens believed it necessary to risk lives and money and ships in defense of the common safety of the Greeks." 18.10.1-3.2. Of the rest of the Greeks, some were well disposed toward the Macedonians, others remained neutral. 18.11.13. A few of the Illyrians and the Thracians joined the alliance (with the Greeks) because of their hatred of the Macedonians. 18.11.1-2Now a few from Plutarch:1. "Alexander was born on the sixth day of the month Hecatombaeon, which the Macedonians call Lous, the same day on which the temple of Artemis at Ephesus was burned down." [p.254] [Macedonians had a their own distinct calendar] Philotas is being accused of plotting against Alexander, and is brought in front of the Macedonian army to plead his case. Alexander coolly asks Philotas if he, Philotas, is going to use his native tongue, the Macedonian language to speak to the army. Philotas said that he will use Greek, to which Alexander retorted:"Do you see how offensive Philotas finds even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember that he is as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language"I just want to be a good student of Alexander. Thus, if we were to look at greek sources, it appears the Greeks looked at the Macedonians as balkan barbarians. I admit we have SOME evidence Philip and Alexander may have thought of themselves as greeks, but I wish we had writings of the common macedonians. Did these common ancient macedonains view themselves as greeks? We may never know.

[bob]

More quotes from Diodorus:1. The decree of the Assembly of Athens: "people should assume responsibility for the common freedom of the Greeks and liberate the cities that were subject to (Macedonian) garrisons; that they should prepare 40 quadriremes and 200 triremes (ships); that all Athenians up to age of 40 should be enrolled; that three tribes should guard Attica, and that the other seven should be ready for campaign beyond the frontier; that envoys should be sent to visit the Greek cities and tell them that formerly the Athenian people, convinced that all Greece was the common fatherland of the Greeks, had fought by see against those (Macedonian) barbarians who had invaded Greece to enslave her, and that now too Athens believed it necessary to risk lives and money and ships in defense of the common safety of the Greeks." 18.10.1-3.2. Of the rest of the Greeks, some were well disposed toward the Macedonians, others remained neutral. 18.11.13. A few of the Illyrians and the Thracians joined the alliance (with the Greeks) because of their hatred of the Macedonians. 18.11.1-2Now a few from Plutarch:1. "Alexander was born on the sixth day of the month Hecatombaeon, which the Macedonians call Lous, the same day on which the temple of Artemis at Ephesus was burned down." [p.254] [Macedonians had a their own distinct calendar] Philotas is being accused of plotting against Alexander, and is brought in front of the Macedonian army to plead his case. Alexander coolly asks Philotas if he, Philotas, is going to use his native tongue, the Macedonian language to speak to the army. Philotas said that he will use Greek, to which Alexander retorted:"Do you see how offensive Philotas finds even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember that he is as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language"I just want to be a good student of Alexander. Thus, if we were to look at greek sources, it appears the Greeks looked at the Macedonians as balkan barbarians. I admit we have SOME evidence Philip and Alexander may have thought of themselves as greeks, but I wish we had writings of the common macedonians. Did these common ancient macedonains view themselves as greeks? We may never know.

[Paralus]

You're on dangerous ground Bob - but I suspect you know that.To put it simply, the Macedonian "Guards Brigade", the phalanx, the "shield bearers" - oh , all right, all the infantry - did not and were not expected to understand "Greek". There is solid evidence for this. At 04:30 Sydney time, I'm not about to go collate it. One example: the murder of Clietus, Alexander calls to his royal guard in "Macedonian" - evidently so as he is understood.Another is Eumenes (a Greek) using a Macedonian as a go-between between himself and Macedonian infantry on Craterus' side to attempt to get them to defect. He sent the fellow so as he could "converse".The Greek states always viewed Macedonia as a particularly resented "Barbaroi" ruler. Mind you, they resented both Athens and Sparta almost as much. Never applied the pejorative "barbaroi" though.You're a cheeky bastard Bob!Paralus