pothos.org

smittysmitty wrote:Time these moderns become accountable for dishing out such rubbish.

Does that mean you DON'T see Homeric parallels in Macedonian culture??? Come on Smitty, you can't just throw that out and then say you might write about it one day!!

All the best,

Hi Amyntoros.

I'm currently at work, so i need to keep this brief


I see Homeric parallels not only in ancient Macedon but also modern day Australia. As a great sporting nation, we have no shortage of heroes. But Homeric society is much more than about heroes you say, it's about their values, their relationships to each other, their gods, physical surroundings, institutions, funerary practices, social stratification, etc.etc. Yes I agree. Individually or in some instances, combinations of these aspects of the Homeric world are to be found in societies throughout the world at differnt times and so, not unique. What is unique however, is the singularly collective instance of a society that portrays all of the above; hence the Homeric World.

I must admit, I'm perhaps a little more tolerant of historians having written on macedon, say prior to the 1970's - but it is simply unacceptable and intolerable by my reckoning, that such parallels continue today.

Quite simply, the Homeric world did not exist: attempts to identify and place a period of time that is applicable to the Homeric world have all failed dismally. How then should we apply the notion of societal behaviour that did not exist on one that did? More so, why do historians continue to draw parallels from a society that did not exist on to one that did?

These people as academics should be aware of the dangers in making such comparisons, yet arrogantly dismiss related scholarship and continue down the path that was set for them by their predecessors in the last century.

What's worse, is those who have a genuine interest in Ancient Macedon are led astray by such scholarship (if you can call it that) and the tradition continues sadly.


have to run,

Cheers!

gee ! reading back over what I wrote sounds like I was a bit rough on em! LoL, never mind - no time to emend the post.

bye

smittysmitty wrote: Quite simply, the Homeric world did not exist: attempts to identify and place a period of time that is applicable to the Homeric world have all failed dismally. How then should we apply the notion of societal behaviour that did not exist on one that did? More so, why do historians continue to draw parallels from a society that did not exist on to one that did?

Well G'day Smittysmitty!

Glad to see there exists more than one of us totally out of time with the rest of the forum. Marvellous thing having a type-back conversation with people in a diametrically opposed time zone eh?

I donGÇÖt really see too many historians arguing that a GÇ£Homeric AgeGÇ¥ ever existed as actuality (well, not many that IGÇÖve read). Some will argue for a somewhat GÇ£feudalGÇ¥ time of local dynasts who ruled small to middling agrarian fiefdoms centred on small cities or fortresses (Mycenae, Pylos etc). That these may have had extended influence over larger areas is neither here or there GÇô the GÇ£feudalGÇ¥ basis of the society is the thing. The focus was the King or dynast and the coterie gathered about him.

That the Greeks believed in a GÇ£Homeric AgeGÇ¥ GÇô in all its pomp and hero worship GÇô is not in question and is the point. To the Greeks (and Macedonians) of the time, the stories of GÇ£HomerGÇ¥ were history. That the Macedonians clung to the rudiments of this society is again without question. The Macedonian court was essentially a collection of feudal barons bonded to the strongest GÇô the king. The king wielded supreme executive power GÇô despite having to cajole and woo the barons GÇô and his decisions were rarely second guessed. Philip II GÇô with the institution of the pages GÇô bonded these GÇ£noblesGÇ¥ to him by (essentially) taking their sons hostage.

The instances of Macedonians engaging in single (GÇ£HomericGÇ¥) combat GÇô Demetrius Poliorcetes' general taking on Pyhrrus (and being killied by him) springs to mind GÇô also points to the regard given to the GÇ£Homeric historyGÇ¥ (something other Greeks had given away since the GÇ£heroes contestGÇ¥ between Sparta and Argos at during the the sixth century GÇô LamachusGÇÖ manic blood-rush before Syracuse in 414 does not really count). Why, a Macedonian noble was not regarded as such GÇô and should not take his symposium place with those his better GÇô until he had killed a wild boar with his own hands. Such a restriction imposed in Athens would have had the effect of rendering the male population GÇ£closet drunksGÇ¥ at best and teetotal at worst.

No, we should not GÇ£apply the notion of societal behaviour that did not exist on one that didGÇ¥. We can, though, allow the Macedonians to apply that notion: they knew GÇô as did most other Greeks GÇô that society existed. And, just as GÇ£HomerGÇÖs historyGÇ¥ described it.

Hi paralus,

Being a shift worker, time zones have never really been an issue for me. Although I must admit the past several months have been very hectic, and I donGÇÖt see things improving. Although I havenGÇÖt been much of a contributor to the forum lately, I still like to drop by when possible and keep abreast of whatGÇÖs being posted. Oh and the new forum is great, well done Thomas.

On the matter of Homeric society, IGÇÖm a little confused with what it is your saying. If I read you correctly, youGÇÖre agreeing with me that no such Homeric society ever existed yet because of the profound influence of epic poetry on the Macedonians; they adopted certain Homeric aspects of life?

Or, are you saying Macedonian society and the Homeric society are the same thing?

Sorry GÇô I find it hard sometimes to digest what it is people are saying, and before commenting, I like to be sure IGÇÖm addressing the points being made.


Hi Marcus, totally threw me with the breaking up of posts.
How are you keeping,well I trust.

bye for now.

Hi Smitty,

Sorry if I confused you. I had been looking for an opportunity to learn how to split threads, then Amyntoros asked if I'd worked it out ... which I hadn't ... so I had to try it on something.

But you found the new thread, which is the main thing.

ATB

Hello,

I am with Paralus.

I think that Homer's "society" whether real or imagined was real to them, was an ideal and something that Philip tried cash in on in his Asian campaign.

Was Philip not trying to be nothing more than Agamemnon uniting the Greeks together, to invade Asia?

Homer's influence was massive- Aristotle emended text of the Iliad, gift to Alexander, shows this. I think that really since Homer's day, had things moved so far ahead? Had men changed so much? Again, what difference does it make whether it is fiction or a real time and place? Homer is a mirror of the values of a certain period of time- the names may have been changed but essentially it is something that they identified with.

I don't see anything wrong in drawing certain parallels with Homer and Macedonian society-

Best regards,
Dean

smittysmitty wrote: On the matter of Homeric society, IGÇÖm a little confused with what it is your saying. If I read you correctly, youGÇÖre agreeing with me that no such Homeric society ever existed yet because of the profound influence of epic poetry on the Macedonians; they adopted certain Homeric aspects of life?

G'day Smitty.

That's reasonably close. I don't think there's an historian worth his academic ar$e who would argue that a truly "Homeric" age ever existed. Societies did, though, exist before the familiar stages of Greek civilisation that we know. The ancient Greeks and Macedonians were aware of these too. Now, today we would rationalise those as having being based loosely on an agrarian feudal system of rule. The King was the strongest of the local "chiefs" and as long as he succeeded and maintained his grip over his "barons", he and his remained the rulers.

The view promulgated by those GÇô or he GÇô that history describes as "Homer", is a highly romanticised version of those times. We know that Mycenae, Pylos and others existed. We can attempt as best as possible to understand how those societies functioned by what we have left to us: digs and inscribed tablets etc.

To the ancient Greeks and Macedonians, the words sung by the bards and recorded by "Homer" (or whosoever) was their history. Achilles, Hector, Priam and Agamemnon all walked the Earth and much as the epic poem described. They will have held the Bard's songs in little different light to Thucydides written words. Arete GÇô valour and virtue GÇô was to be aspired to. Particularly by leading men and especially Kings. By the time of Chaeronea for instance, the legend of the Marathonian Athenian Hoplite was alive and well GÇô despite the plentiful evidence to the contrary GÇô hence the battle and its disastrous result.

The comparisons that are made point to the Macedonian system of government GÇô essentially feudal with a ruling house dominant for as long as it could hold sway. It can appear to be a microcosm of an age that the epic poem describes. It was most of the reason the more "governmentally advanced" Greeks made fun of their "uncultured and backward" northern neighbours. Given how permeated Greek and Macedonian society was by the Iliad and the Odyssey GÇô it has been observed that ancient Greeks (and those Macedonians who did) probably learned how to read and write with "Homer" as the text GÇô it is not surprising that the Macedonian court may well have resembled that fabled age of feasting, drinking, cavorting heroes.

And, the greatest of those was the king. And Alexander was the king.

I think it's all a little more complicated than what has beeen said, isn't it.

In any event, the Homeric paralles you both draw are fine to me - we'll leave it at that.


cheers!

I just want to add another couple of comments about Homeric influences:-

Supplementing Paralus' remark about single combats: Winthrop Lindsay Adams in his Alexander the Great: Legacy of Conqueror when describing the Macedonian purification rites - the army marching between two halves of a sacrificed dog - says these rites took place in the spring and autumn, the opening and closing of the campaigning season. (Before Philip ended "'seasonal warfare," I presume.) Adams adds this: "In the autumn, this would also involve elaborate funeral rites for the fallen, presided over by the king, and with single combats (monomachia) between picked warriors. This last clearly demonstrates the Homeric nature of the society, a version of the funeral rites for Patroklos in the Iliad."

Then there's this thought of my own GÇô somewhat frivolous, it may seem, but I can't help thinking there's a connection. Lionel Casson's Travel in the Ancient World, P. 46 tells us: "On land, Homer's heroes do their traveling in chariots. Telemachus goes by chariot from Pylos to Sparta, Helen's daughter from Sparta all the way to Phthia, the birthplace of Achilles in Thessaly. In the Dark Age the chariot had become almost obsolete among the Greeks, surviving only for racing. These journeys, then, are anachronisms, reminiscences of Mycenaean times when nobles and ladies went about the countryside in such conveyances. They are legendary as well: the first trip would have involved two days of steady riding over mountainous country, and the second still more; even the Mycenaeans did not have carriage roads between the places involved, and there certainly were none in the dark age, or for that matter, throughout most of Greek history."

Despite the statement that the Greeks, even in the Dark Age, used chariots only for racing, I immediately thought of the references to Alexander and his chariot. But as Casson confirms that the chariot was a mode of transportation in the east (the Assyrians and Persians were great road-builders), logic says that Alexander might have adopted the chariot amongst other Persian customs, leaving me no proof of Homeric emulation there. However, there are two references to Philip and his chariot. Aelian 3.45 and Valerius Maximus I.8 ext. 9 both describe the oracle in Boetia warning Philip to be on his guard against a chariot. Aelian says "The tradition has it that he was in fear of the oracle and never got up into his chariot." Valerius Maximus adds that Philip "gave orders that all chariots in his realm be unyoked . . . " Now, Philip would never have ridden his own chariot in an Olympic event, so we can assume that he used it for other purposes, probably ceremonial rather than for traveling, but it was still used nevertheless and I see this as another example of probable Homeric imitation.

Best regards,

Yes. I'm not sure how far one could reasonably argue that using chariots, per se, was any form of Homeric emulation. A ritual hang-over from previous eras, yes, but not emulation. After all, a Roman triumphator rode in a chariot to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, but that was part of the ritual, not a form of 'emulation' (or even 'imitation') ... (and certainly not Homeric, 'cos they didn't have the cultural affinity with Homer that the Greeks had).

However, if the Macedonians still used chariots for ritual purposes, those might be legacies from the Dark Age or pre-Dark Age period(s), just as many other rites might be - but I would hesitate to call any of those cultural/ritual aspects emulation or imitation, anyway. To say that Macedonia retained customs and rituals from the Homeric (or whatever) period would be fine - the extent to which Macedonia retained them more than other Greek states would surely be the pertinant question?

ATB

marcus wrote:Yes. I'm not sure how far one could reasonably argue that using chariots, per se, was any form of Homeric emulation. . . . To say that Macedonia retained customs and rituals from the Homeric (or whatever) period would be fine - the extent to which Macedonia retained them more than other Greek states would surely be the pertinant question?

Yep - you're quite right - point taken. I should know better than to try and express my thoughts after only three hours of sleep! Anyway, as far as I know, the Macedonians did retain the use of chariots more than the other Greek states. Off-hand I can't think of any reference to their use in classical Athens or Sparta for instance - except for racing, that is. Could be wrong though. Hopefully someone will let me know if I am.

Best regards,

Amyntoros

Greetings all.

I don't think there's an historian worth his academic ar$e who would argue that a truly "Homeric" age ever existed

Historians usually go with the flow in order to keep their "respectibility" (is there such a word?).Archaiologists too.Professors generally too.But not all.

Sometimes a new discovery comes and then oppinions change.Then they say things like "yes,yes, and i have been saying that all the time..." when they really havent said it.It is not that bad to be conventional sometimes.But the way that the system works sets back the expansion of our knowledge and new discoveries.Only those that dont care about their colleagues' conventional critisism usually make an important discovery.Because they go for it.Like Schliemann when he found Troy.A historian or archaiologist,or even an astronomer, must be open to new ideas.

About the Homeric age:

To say that the society that homer described didnt exist is opposing the archaiological findings and even society's course.The hero stereotype of Achilles was dominant up to Alexander's era,and beyond.That stereotype came from somewhere.From an age that warriors had the ideals of glory.They went to battle to gain glory.

Achilles must have existed,but of course the divinity goes to the legend and myth.Imagine if Alexander was living at 1300 b.c.If some people considered him as son of Zeus at 330 b.c. then if he had conquered Asia back in 1300 b.c.,then after 700 years he would be considered as god Alexander?Like Athena?Like Dionysus?

In that way myths and legends are built.But the archaiological findings leads us to the conclusion that the Hiliad age was indeed at a certain period around 1300 b.c. when the Troyan war happened.And when Agamemnon lived.The chronology of the tume of Agamemnon,as well as a part of the destroyed Troy,as well as many other findings around Greece almost match up.Maybe with a difference of 50 or 100 years more or so, but thats due to the chronology methods.

We cannot be certain that a Troyan war happened at the magnitude that Homer describes it,but surely Troyhad been sieged and destroyed many times.But Homer is not the only source for the Troyan war.There are other works and poems by other greek authors that describe some of the events of the troyan war,,from around 700-600 b.c.And possibly they had other sources too apart from Homer.

We know very little about the era of 1300 b.c. and back.For 1500 b.c. when Cecrops was said to have been King of Athens,we know almost nothing.Some statuetes found in the Aegean cannot give us a good picture.Neither some remains of old and small settlements.We can say that from 1300-1500 b.c and back,the age of the myth begins.But myth for greeks was partly history.And surely myth can be history if we subtract some elements.And of course no one can say that Zeus if he existed (according to Diodorus) lived in 2000 b.c. or 12.000 b.c.The era before 2-3.000 b.c is a mystery.

But of course if we add some bits from here and there we may see a better picture.Many geologists have confirmed that at some point and at a large portion of Europe a cataclysm and flooding has happened.Approximately 7.000-9.000 b.c.The greek myth informs us that this was the cataclysm of Deukalion.And the greek myth goes way before the cataclysm of course.So,we can have a better image about some dates of events described in the myths.So it is naturall that we dont know many things prior to 2-3.000 b.c. since civilization hadnt exactly rose again right after the flooding.These chronologies are only approximates and may vary a lot.

These are all uncoventional.Most of the historians and archaologists wouldnt even touch these matters.But as i said conventionalism does not bring new discoveries.

Hello,

Just trying to think about an incident that happened with Leonattus- did he not take on an opponent during the campaign in single combat?

Best regards,
Dean.

Leonnatus might have done - at the start of the Gedrosian march. Don't remember off the top of my head.

Erygiyus definitely did - he slew Satibarzanes in 330BC, in single combat. Good man!

ATB

Sorry, didn't see this - Efstathios's post was so long I didn't realise it was there!

I should know better than to try and express my thoughts after only three hours of sleep!

Ouch!

Anyway, as far as I know, the Macedonians did retain the use of chariots more than the other Greek states. Off-hand I can't think of any reference to their use in classical Athens or Sparta for instance - except for racing, that is.

I think you're right. Outside the various Games I'm not aware of any state south of Macedonia using chariots, even for ritual purposes. Then again, I haven't exactly made a study of it.

ATB