Hi all, This may seem like an GÇ£inappropriate postGÇ¥ as it concerns the Greek Macedonian debate. However I merely want for some of the experts here to point me to the right direction.
As a Greek I was fed the line that the Macedonians of Alexander were as Greek as the Athenians etc. Due to the prominence of the relevant debate I began to wonder. The stuff on offer on most relevant sites is unsatisfactory as they are run by nationalists of either flavor.
It would be most appreciated if you could point me to some neutral, objective links that discuss the differences as well as any similarities between Macedonians and Greeks. Nationalists need not bother replying.
Additionally any books that deal with the subject critically would also come in handy.Thank you
Advice
Moderator: pothos moderators
Re: Advice
In my view, a good article or book recognizes two problems. (1) that etnicity is fluid; (2) that the boundaries of a nation and a state need not be identical.As to (1): Personally, I have the impression that before 480, Greeks were more willing to accept Macedonians as Greeks and vice versa, than after 480. I am quite certain that in the Late Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman empires, distinctions between Macedonians and Greeks had disappeared - both were called Rhomaioi. Perhaps I am wrong, but my point is: a good author tries to take into account that concepts of ethnicity can change.As to (2): it is perfectly possible that people belonging to the same nation live in separate states (e.g., Arabs in Yemen and Egypt and Syria), and vice versa (French, Italians, and Germans living in Switserland).Another point that I believe is important is the relation between language and nation. It is often argued that people speaking the same language belong to the same nation. This is simply wrong. Belgians are Belgians, not Dutchmen or French.Finally, a good scholar uses his sources carefully. When Alexandros Philhellenos was recognized as Greek at the Olympic Games, this is no evidence that the Macedonians were Greeks - only that their king was believed to be Greek. (Cf. the house of Windsor today, which is actually German.) On the other hand, the fact that Alexander was not understood by his guardsmen when he shouted an order in Macedonian, can not be used as evidence that the Macedonians were not Greek - it only means that several people had some difficulty understanding their king. (Cf. Italy's Berlusconi who does not understand a remark in Sicilian.)I think this is an important discussion. I also think that the Greek-Macedonian debate can (and should) be separated from the debate about the debate, just like the results of historiography can be separated from a discussion about historiography.Jona
-
antipatros
Re: Advice
[before 480]Could you please elaborate? This sounds interesting. Does it have to do with any support the Macedonians gave the Persians? Did they have kings before the archaic period or is that the reason?
My understanding is that by the ending of the Roman rule, Greeks considered themselves Roman citizens, not subject peoples. The term Rhomaioi fell into disuse after our liberation from the Ottomans, when the Western idea, of what we should be, took hold here. The term Grekos stayed in use for longer although it too was eventually supplanted by the more archaic Ellines. Today both Grekos and Rhomios are still understood to refer to us, although they are rarely used.[concepts of ethnicity can change]Absolutely, in fact that is the antithesis of nationalism. The later maintains that an ethnic group has a continuous and conscious existence, instead of a number of heritages (not always continuous). The problem with Greeks is that we overemphasise our ancient heritage to the exclusion of other more recent (but less glorious) ones. In fact we are the product of all these pasts. Including the Ottoman occupation![the same nation live in separate states/Another point that I believe is important is the relation between language and nation.] We are looking at it from different perspectives, because nationalism developed in the Balkans in a much different way than in the rest of Europe. The West had already developed states from whence nationalism emerged. Hence a Swiss was a citizen of Switzerland, a Dutch of Holland, a Swede a small confectionary etc. When the concept was imported in the Balkans, they were still part of the huge, multiethnic, theocratic Ottoman Caliphate. Hence nationalism couldnGÇÖt latch on to the idea of the state, and developed to feed of the idea of the nation. To give it credence, that nation had to be ancient, autochthonous and above all immutable through time. Hence there are differing perceptions in the Balkans and the West. It doesnGÇÖt have anything to do with what many in the West perceive as the GÇ£violent, backwards, savage, etcGÇ¥ nature of people here. ThatGÇÖs rubbish. Not that there arenGÇÖt many here trying to prove them right, mind you.[Finally, a good scholar uses his sources carefully.]Tell me about it. There are millions of web pages of quotes, always taken out of context and never explained, used to prove that Alexander was Greek, Slavic Macedonian, Albanian, Chinese, a monster, a saint, etc[I think th
My understanding is that by the ending of the Roman rule, Greeks considered themselves Roman citizens, not subject peoples. The term Rhomaioi fell into disuse after our liberation from the Ottomans, when the Western idea, of what we should be, took hold here. The term Grekos stayed in use for longer although it too was eventually supplanted by the more archaic Ellines. Today both Grekos and Rhomios are still understood to refer to us, although they are rarely used.[concepts of ethnicity can change]Absolutely, in fact that is the antithesis of nationalism. The later maintains that an ethnic group has a continuous and conscious existence, instead of a number of heritages (not always continuous). The problem with Greeks is that we overemphasise our ancient heritage to the exclusion of other more recent (but less glorious) ones. In fact we are the product of all these pasts. Including the Ottoman occupation![the same nation live in separate states/Another point that I believe is important is the relation between language and nation.] We are looking at it from different perspectives, because nationalism developed in the Balkans in a much different way than in the rest of Europe. The West had already developed states from whence nationalism emerged. Hence a Swiss was a citizen of Switzerland, a Dutch of Holland, a Swede a small confectionary etc. When the concept was imported in the Balkans, they were still part of the huge, multiethnic, theocratic Ottoman Caliphate. Hence nationalism couldnGÇÖt latch on to the idea of the state, and developed to feed of the idea of the nation. To give it credence, that nation had to be ancient, autochthonous and above all immutable through time. Hence there are differing perceptions in the Balkans and the West. It doesnGÇÖt have anything to do with what many in the West perceive as the GÇ£violent, backwards, savage, etcGÇ¥ nature of people here. ThatGÇÖs rubbish. Not that there arenGÇÖt many here trying to prove them right, mind you.[Finally, a good scholar uses his sources carefully.]Tell me about it. There are millions of web pages of quotes, always taken out of context and never explained, used to prove that Alexander was Greek, Slavic Macedonian, Albanian, Chinese, a monster, a saint, etc[I think th
-
antipatros
Re: Advice
[I think this is an important discussion. I also think that the Greek-Macedonian debate can (and should) be separated from the debate about the debate]True. I have read some on nationalism and Balkan history and the discussion on why the topic is so provocative is very interesting and can lead one to challenge many of the assumptions we hold dear. A better understanding of the way national myths are constructed in the Balkans can help their study in other areas of the world.Finally, as you are well read I would really appreciate some links, online books, or book titles for further study on the subject of the Macedonians' process of Hellenisation.
Before 480
[before 480]"Could you please elaborate? This sounds interesting. Does it have to do with any support the Macedonians gave the Persians?"I *suppose* this is the way things happened indeed. We have not much evidence, but the few bits and pieces that antedate Alexandros I Philhellenos suggest that the Greeks considered themselves brothers (all descendants of Hellen) and the Macedonians as cousins (decendants of Hellen's sister).In my view, the occupation of Macedonia by Darius and Xerxes united the divided Macedonian tribes, and choose Alexandros as representative. There is one Byzantine source -and I will send a bottle of Naoussa wine to the person who helps me find it again- that calls Alexandros a "satrap". The same construction can be found at the end of the Behistun inscription, where Darius says that he gave one leader to the Saka tribes.After Xerxes's defeat, Alexandros was forced to look for another ally, and he is known to have made overtures to the Greeks. E.g., asking the right to be present at the Olympic Games and calling himself Philhellenos."Did they have kings before the archaic period or is that the reason?"As I understand, the title of king, basileus, has changed. In Hesiod, any aristocrat can call himself basileus. Using the word in its modern sense, Alexandros was one of several local leaders, increased his power over the other Macedonian barons, and became a "real" king when he was able to keep his position after the Persians recalled their troops from Europe.Jona
Rhomaioi
"My understanding is that by the ending of the Roman rule, Greeks considered themselves Roman citizens, not subject peoples. The term Rhomaioi fell into disuse after our liberation from the Ottomans."Correctly. The first to say "we" about the Romans was not, as is often said, Lucian, but Arrian in his Periplus. From the mid-second century on, the Greeks were increadingly identifying themselves with the Roman elite, and indeed, in the Byzantine age, the called themselves Rhomaioi.If my book on Roman law is correct, it was the official name of the Greeks until the Germans gave Greece a new constitution in 1942.Jona
Literature
"Finally, as you are well read I would really appreciate some links, online books, or book titles for further study on the subject of the Macedonians' process of Hellenisation."* Hell+¬nismos. Quelques jalons pour une histoire de l'identit+¬ grecque : actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 25-27 octobre 1989 * (1991 Leiden; 90.04.09379.6)This book contains several articles on the development of Hellenism. One article (excellent) is on Macedonia, but there's a lot more of it.Jona
-
antipatros
Re: Literature
Jona,As Christianity begun to make byway in the Roman Empire the Church's animus towards pagans increased until eventually the term Ellinas or Ethnikos became something of a pejorative. This could explain the reference to Alexander as a satrap. An excellent source I have found useful is (http://www.stoa.org/sol/), an online searchable version of the Byzantine Suda dictionary-encyclopaedia.
Finally thank you for your input and for taking the time to reply. Best Regards
Finally thank you for your input and for taking the time to reply. Best Regards
Wine
Thanks for the link - I didn't know the site. Unfortunately, it didn't mention "my" Alexandros = satrap line, but it is indeed a precious gem.My offer still stands to send a bottle of Naousa wine (= Macedonian red wine) to the first to mention the Byzantine text that mentions Alexandros I Philhellenos as satrap.Jona
Re: Wine
Have you tried Paul Halsall at Fordham
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/or Dumbarton Oaks ? http://www.doaks.org
Susan
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/or Dumbarton Oaks ? http://www.doaks.org
Susan
-
THE LIGHT 7000
Re: Advice
Hi,GǪ if one is asking advice on some topic, keeping in mind that he is coming from academic circles, one must make specific question therefore expecting specific answers, according to what he is after in his searchGǪ For eg., if one is talking about GÇ£nationalismGÇ¥, firstly he/she must elaborate within himself itGÇÖs own understanding about what is it to be GÇ£nationalistGÇ¥, so similar to it, those who are giving answers to that particular topic- question, must elaborate what is their own understanding of that term, and later to give advice and guide towards wanted question/ advice. In this case lets say me and Mr.X,GǪ If for eg., me , if I am talking about my Makedonia with facts and proofs, with logical explanation and egGÇÖs., without attacking anyone integrity and/or personality, therefore ethnicity, religious beliefs etc., but on contrary I am encouraging them to be proud what they are and live others to be proud what they are too, and specifically in the case when one is presenting evidence that Makedonia was divided by international treaty 1913, without anyone asking Makedonians if they want that, and that Makedonians were NEVER for GREAT/MEGALO MAKEDONIA, GǪand on the other hand Mr. X who are denying my ethnic background and is using every possible way to attack my personality, integrity etc., with absolutely no proof and logical explanation, and who is talking about MEGALO ELADA I.E. MEGALO GREECE,GǪ, so in this case, because I am not smart enough, can you tell me who is NATIONALIST, and who is not, and elaboration on thatGǪ, so once and for all one will know what that means. GǪ(this must not include extremists, fundamentalists etc., who are far away from this, but one is constantly mixing things and is labeling everyone and everything with discriminatory labels without distinction, GǪ for the love of his/her country, religion,GǪethnicity, belief etcGǪ).GǪIn the context of above, one who is giving advice need to understand this matter and to distance him/her self from any misinterpretations from anyone re: same. Eg. If one is saying that today Greeks were called Romaoi /Romei as a citizens of Rome, or similar, when Rome was Empire, and that is referring to today Greeks/Helens, so question is where are all these other ethnic groups in Second Golden Age of Makedonian Empire- Byzant, after first- AlexanderGÇÖs EmpireGǪ More precisely, most of the Byzantine Emperors were from Makedonian origin, this or that way, starting with Constantine The Great, and later on,
-
THE LIGHT 7000
Re: Advice
GǪ More precisely, most of the Byzantine Emperors were from Makedonian origin, this or that way, starting with Constantine The Great, and later on, the core of some explanation from this topic-JUSTIN/VISTIN/i.e. JUSTINIAN I, born in Taor, near Skopje, capital of today R. of Makedonia. It was he who made codification of Roman Law, (so it is like GÇ£MakedonianGÇ¥ Law but we are not claiming it that way, like Greeks who want everything to have Greek labelGǪwhy..), and he was one who founded Justiniana Prima and made Hellens/Atenians OrthodoxGǪ So this is fact, and if I am bringing it like this as a fact, which can be checked in every encyclopedia, am I nationalist or just truthful personGǪ Where is the border hereGǪ If all citizen of Byzant were Greeks, why Justin went to Athens to made them Orthodox, only themGǪ So it came that only those from Sth. Of Mt. Olymp were different- Greeks, and the rest of Empire were loyal citizens of Byzant- Makedonians, Vlachs, Trachians, GothsGÇÖ, Egyptians, JewGÇÖs etc. So what kind of explanation one have to this, GǪ and who is afraid of Makedonia and MakedoniansGǪ Makedonians never denied Helens and their cultural heritage, on the contrary we are looking at them like good neighbors and we have mixed marriages, mixed businesses, friendship etc., like with everybody in Makedonia. Who want to destroy this and why, labeling everything with name Makedonia as nationalistic, nationalism, and similar, but in fact is different. MAKEDONIA IS LAND OF GLORY, LAND OF LIGHT, LAND OF SUN, LAND OF PASSION, so please keep my Makedonia GÇ£cleanGÇ¥, and you are welcome to be part of it as- equalGǪWITH ALL MY LOVE TRUTH AND LIGHTTHE LIGHT 7000
Re: Advice
It may sound disappointing, but I do not believe you'd be able to "find" neutral sources, even if you go to the primary sources, which is your best option at the moment. I'd also say you look closely into the archaeological research in the region - history without archaeology is unsustainable, even more so in this case. The so-called modern sources can always be considered biased to an extent depending on their views, even if they are correct. But are they always objective and/or correct?If you are really interested in getting closer to the facts be prepared to accept certain things you may not like.Regards,
-
lucinos
Re: Rhomaioi
"If my book on Roman law is correct, it was the official name of the Greeks until the Germans gave Greece a new constitution in 1942."sorry, dont you mean 1842?
Re: Rhomaioi
Sounds very plausible; it may be a misprint. Greece's first constitution dates back to 1844.Jona