Macedonian history must be freed from the absurd Greek attachments

Gandeto
April 06, 2009

Recorded history, unlike any other discipline, suffers from intrusive erosion in objectivity. Due to its ingrained proclivity to allow intimate personal feelings to seep into its content, the final version thus produced is almost always colored by various degrees of subjective anomalies. The extent to which these external tendencies compromise the historical veracity of the content and contaminate the truth, will depend largely upon the employed degree of subjectivity.

To rectify these situations and avoid promulgation of residual historical inaccuraciesthe sources for future potential troublesperiodic "truth-checks", like controlled forest fires, ought to be performed; the found misconceptions need to be redefined and recommended changes must be implemented.

But coming closer to that elusive creature called truth, is neither easy nor without sacrifices. Admittedly, it is a proven fact that it takes a lot more courage to acknowledge the errors of our ways than to continue to promote them. But start we must; somehow, somewhereeven with a few feeble kernels of hope at handwe must, because not starting is not only unwise and dangerous with lasting calamitous consequences for our future generations who will inherit the mass, but it is also a sure sign of deliberate shortsightedness and an admission of cowardice.

And thus, I call upon the western intellectuals in general and the western philhellenes in particular to separate their personal sentimental attachments to Greek history, to do the only honorary thing left and treat Macedonia and Macedonian history as a separate and comprehensive study that it is, and that it certainly deserves to be. The conflicting statements left strewn in the literature in the past hundred or so yearsare the result of biased and subjective influencesand have not only caused political discourse and confusion, but bring about contradictions, fuel tensions and cause unnecessary hateful speculations.

For instance, when some nineteenth century unsuspecting authors depict events in antiquity and describe the ancient Macedonians as Greeks, it was done not because the evidence left from the ancient biographers would support such an act but because the western media and the western academia in particular, would allow dissemination of historically inaccurate information. Such supposedly "harmless" omissionsread desirable proliferation of mythswould seep easily into the readers´ consciousness for whom the built up historiography of the artificially created Greek nation, lay in tandem with the envisioned fundamental grand scheme of things in the regional geography designed for Balkans.

Macedonian lands, Macedonian heritage and home, left defenseless without its faithful guardians laid open for the opportunistic Balkan invaders. Sadly, the audible gasps of the Macedonian people were never heard, did not register with the haughty ear of the aloof and pompously callus western bourgeoisie.

Furthermore, these contraventions, these anomalous presentations, left unchecked for decades, assumed an aura of credibility with the general public and provided an additional outlet for assimilation of other less significant historical facts to be dragged into this widely cast Hellenic net. Whence, the promotion and cultivation of these invalid proclamations, at the expense of the Macedonians, proceeded to take root in the minds of the unwary readers for decades.

And today, the tenor of the Macedonian question, even though kicked around, decimated, forgotten, neglected, bruised, used and abused, connected-disconnected, real-unreal, important-unimportant, politically correct-incorrect, dropped-resurrected, vilified and buried for dead, for some unexplainable persistency, resonates with greater significance and urgency then ever before. The immortal sentence uttered by William Gladstone: "Macedonia for the Macedonians", today reverberates anew through the consciousness of millions with added emphasis and dimension.

Time has come for the records to be set straight once and for all. If we are serious about our democratic principles and if the truth, for the sake of peace and stability in the Balkans, is to reign supreme in the lands where wars, hate, mistrust, intrigues and poverty, did justice for rational thought, then we must find collective courage to part company with our ingrained prejudices and elevate our journalistic and humane standards equal to our level of professed honesty and objectivity.

Time has come for the western historians to drop their politically erected shields and dip their pens into the fountain of truth. Time has come for all well-meaning authors, politicians and all civilized men alikedivested from any political attachmentsto come to a general consensus and admit and declare that the Ancient Macedonians were just that: Macedonians and any other deviations from this irrefutable fact should be considered unacceptable and culpable distortion of history.

Literary evidence left from the ancient biographers gives us an unimpeachable truth with which to build our case. There is no scholarly evidence whatsoever to challenge the proposed declaration. There is no verifiable story or recorded episode from the ancients to seriously challenge this fact and to minimize the general consensus that Ancient Macedonians were a distinct and separate people from the Ancient Greeks. Simply, there is no tangible evidence found to support such an illusive challenge.

We cannot and should not ignore the findings of so many modern scholars whose detailed and thorough research and painstaking analysis in comparative historiography, irrevocably proves that Ancient Macedonians left their mark in history not as an attachment to Greek history but as people of a proud, dominant race with its own cultural domain, social structure and a peculiarly colorful Macedonian material culture. They left an indelible mark in history as a successful warrior nation with an invincible army that dominated the known world for centuries.

We cannot and should not ignore the preserved epitaphs, the words of kings and of prominent statesmen and leaders as well as common people alike. Their immortal words written and spoken beseech us to remain unflappably truthful and consistent.

It is morally wrong, ethically inadmissible and scientifically incorrect to lump the ancient Macedonians under Greek umbrella, simply, because today´s Greecethe creation of the western powersenjoys sentimental support of many western intellectuals. Truth does not need lobbyists. Truth is not a tradable commodity and cannot be conditionally used and selectively applied. Appropriation of Macedonian history is not an acceptable act; portraying ancient Macedonians as Greeks is an outright fabrication.

It should be born in mind, though, that no single piece of evidence can tip the scale one way or the other. No single fact is convincing. No single artifact is overpowering to such an extent as to be able to bring a desired consensus; but, when the accumulated weight of evidence, like small streams of connected events, changes the flow of thoughts and brings awareness of the existence of a different mode, then, the evidence, the facts and the artifacts put together, become a torrent of unstoppable truth that cutslike a hot knife through butterthrough the long-accumulated clutter of half-truths, recalcitrant ambiguity and ill-defined assumptions with ease. With this, the feebly visible contours of the newly arrived convictions become clear and recognizable. Then, and only then, the mindassured that the evidence is comfortably persuasive and the conclusions justcan liberate the conscience it held hostage.

And thus, let us look at the available evidence and do some comparative analysis:

Misconception #1: "Macedonia is a Greek land"

Here the available evidence points to the opposite direction:

(1) Polibius reports on the speech made by Agelaus of Naupactus at the first conference in the presence of the King and the allies. He spoke as follows:

A selected segment from his speech:

"I therefore beg you all to be on your guard against this danger, and I appeal especially to King Philip. [Philip V] For you the safest policy, instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them easy prey for the invader, is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions. If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in case of attack and foreigners will be the less inclined to plot against your throne, because they will be discouraged by the loyalty of the Greeks towards you." (Book 5.104).

It must be stressed: "to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions". If Macedonia was a Greek land, would this statement be possible? Can this fact, these profound words from the ancient Greeks be ignored?

(2) Book XVIII, 1. Philip V from Macedon invites Flamininus (Roman commander) to explain what he, Philip, should do to have peace:

"The Roman general replied that his duty dictated an answer which was both simple and clear. He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece, restore to each of the states the prisoners and deserters he was holding, hand over to the Romans the region of Illyria which he had seized after the treaty that had been made in Epirus, and so on...."

It must be re-emphasized: He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece. Isn´t there a contradiction in terminology here? Did Romans consider Macedonia to be a Greek land?

King Philip V of Macedon responds:

(3) "But what is most outrageous of all is that they should attempt to put themselves on the same footing as the Romans and demand that the Macedonians should withdraw from the whole of Greece. To use such language is arrogant enough in the first place, but while we may endure this from the Romans, it is quite intolerable coming from the Aetolians. In any case,' he continued, 'what is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and how do you define Greece? Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Aphilochians cannot be regarded as Greek. So do you allow me to remain in those territories?"

Point of interest: (a) 'what is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and how do you define Greece? (b) Notice the usage of "they" referring to the Greeks and "we" referring to the Macedonians. Isn´t this a clear separation between Greeks and Macedonians coming from a king´s mouth? (c) ´should evacuate from the whole of Greece´ is as solid evidence that Macedonia was never a part of Greece, as it can be obtained. No amount of contravention can change the meaning of this sentence.

(4)"In the spring of 334 Alexander set out from Macedonia, leaving Antipater with 12,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry to defend the homeland and to keep watch on the Greek states." (ARRIAN: "THE CAMPAIGNS OF ALEXANDER").

"to keep watch on the Greek states?" How come? Weren´t they united by Philip?

(5) "During the winter he pressed the Thessalians to supply better support, and when he came south again in the spring of 352 he was able to take the field with more than twenty thousand foot and three thousand horse. A host of knights and mercenaries, superior to his own, was awaiting him, and in the plain of Volo Philip fought his first great battle on Greek soil."(David Hogarth: "Philip and Alexander of Macedon" p. 70).

"in the plain of Volo Philip fought his first great battle on Greek soil." Shocked?

Do you promoters of double meanings, you who, entrapped by your own sentimental cage and surrounded by comfortable ambiguity, have anything to say? Isn´t this clear delineation between Macedonian and Greek land?

Misconception #2: Ancient Macedonians were Greeks

(1) (Book II - Battle of Issus) "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." [p.119]

"The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." Could this ancient biographer confuse the racial distinction between Greeks and Macedonians? I think not.

What did others say about the Macedonians?

(2) Here there is a relative abundance of information from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility. Borza.

Do you assume that professor Borza hasn´t read all the available literature on the ancients?

(3) "And if there were any doubt about the status of Greeks among the Macedonians the tragic career of Eumenes in the immediate Wars of succession should put it to rest. The ancient sources are replete with information about the ethnic prejudice Eumenes suffered from Macedonians."

Is this clear enough for your Greeks?

(4) On Python and the 17, 000 Greek soldiers cut down by Macedonian soldiers: "the patent needs of the empire and the oath of their commander were swallowed up in the explosion of what we can only regard as the men's irrational hatred for their Greek enemies." Badian.

"the men's irrational hatred for their Greek enemies." Obstacles of this magnitude preclude us from ever considering the ancient Macedonians as Greeks.

(5) "As Callisthenes was a Greek, there was no question of trying him by the Macedonian army."

Need I specify to you, once again, that ancient Macedonians did not regard themselves as Greeks? A notion of such erroneous caliber can be conceived only by a confused mind through irrational teachings.

(6) "Even in Philip's day the Greeks saw in the Macedonians a non-Greek foreign people, and we must remember this if we are to understand the history of Philip and Alexander, and especially the resistance and obstacles which met them from the Greeks. The point is much more important than our modern conviction that Greeks and Macedonians were brethren, this was equally unknown to both, and therefore could have no political effect." Wilken ("ALEXANDER THE GREAT")

"non-Greek foreign people" No glossing over this obstacle.

(8) Speaking of Eumenes: "He knew from experience that in the eyes of the Macedonians he was still a Greek, a foreigner. Plutarch praised his charming and refined manners, which were very unlike the haughty airs of the noble Macedonian officer." (Pierre Jouguet "ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE HELLENISTIC WORLD" p.142) .

"Greek, a foreigner". It doesn´t get any clearer than this, does it Greeks?

(9) "So little do the Macedonians seem to have belonged to the Hellenic community at the beginning, that they did not take part in the great Games of Greece, and when the Kings of Macedon were admitted to them, it was not as Macedonians, but as Heraclids. Isocrates, in the 'Philip' praises them for not having imposed their kingship on the Hellenes, to whom the kingship is always oppressive, and for having gone among foreigners to establish it. He, therefore, did not regard the Macedonians as Greeks." (ibid p.68)

"and for having gone among foreigners to establish it."

Do you think that Isocrates, the apostle of Hellenism, would make such a glaring omission/mistake and not recognize the ancient Macedon as a Greek land?

(10) "Philip began enrolling his subjects according to their local and tribal divisions and assigned them to standing territorial regiments. These standing regiments were known each by its colonel's name and quoted thus by Arrian. "All were called 'Macedonians'; the only general distinction, made thereafter, is between Macedonians and Greeks, Thracians and Illyrians." (David Hogarth: "Philip and Alexander of Macedon" p.54).

"only general distinction, made thereafter, is between Macedonians and Greeks, Thracians and Illyrians."

Do you notice that there is no distinction between Thracian, Illyrians and Greeks?

(11) "The popular assembly immediately carried a proposal that all statues of Philip and all portraits of him, with their inscriptions, and also those of his ancestors of either sex, should be removed and destroyed; that all feast-days, rites, and priesthoods instituted in honour of Philip or his ancestors should be deprived of sanctity; that even the sites of any memorials or inscriptions in his honour should be held accursed, and that it should not be lawful thereafter to decide to set up or dedicate on those sites any of those things which might lawfully be set up or dedicated on an undefiled site; that whenever the priests of the people offered prayer on behalf of the Athenian people and their allies, their armies and navies, they should on every occasion heap curses and execrations on Philip, his family and his realm, his forces on land and sea, and the whole race and name of the Macedonians" (Livy's book XXXI.44).

"they should on every occasion heap curses and execrations on Philip, his family and his realm, his forces on land and sea, and the whole race and name of the Macedonians."

And you have the audacity to claim the ancient Macedonians as Greeks? Have you no scruples left?

(12) (Book II - Battle of Issus) "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." [p.119] ARRIAN THE CAMPAIGNS OF ALEXANDER



"The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian."

This sentence from Arrian needs no further elaboration.

Misconception #3: Macedonian king Philip united the Greek city states

(1) Alexander speaking to his officers: "...But let me remind you: Through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now yours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia;........." [p.292]

"the Greek part of Libya is now yours." If Alexander regarded himself a Greek, could he have made this statement?

(2) On stationing garrison in Greek cities:

"To endure and maintain a royal garrison must have been, for a city, one of the most certain signs of servitude. As a rule, except in the cases of strategically necessity, Alexander seems to have abstained as much as possible from inflicting the presence of his soldiers and the duty of maintaining them on Greek cities." (Pierre Jouguet"ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE HELLENISTIC WORLD" p.87).

Most certain sign of servitude! You most likely remember which cities in Greece were considered the "fetters of Greece". Alexander had stationed his garrisons there. He united the Greek city-states in the same manner he united the Persian satrapies.

(3) "Men! If you consider the scale of our achievements, your longing for peace and your weariness of brilliant campaigns are not at all surprising. Let me pass over the Illyrians, the Triballians, Boeotia, Thrace, Sparta, the Aecheans, the Peloponnese - all of them subdued under my direct leadership or by campaigns." (Quintus Curtius Rufus).

Are the Greek places included under the "subdued lands" by Alexander? Can you now differentiate between the meanings of "united" and "subdued"?

(4) "Starting with Macedonia, I now have power over Greece; I have brought Thrace and the Illyrians under my control; rule the Triballi and the Maedi. I have Asia in my possession from the Hellespont to the Red Sea." (Rufus "THE HISTORY OF ALEXANDER" p.227).

"I now have power over Greece." Same as he had power over Triballi, Maedi, Thrace or Illyrians. He, therefore, united the Greek city-states in the same way he united the other Balkan people.

(5) "While Philip was conquering (342) the western shores of the Black Sea, and the northern coast of the sea of Marmora, and all inland up to the Danube, the Greek states conspire against him forming a kind of anti-Macedonian League. "They sent envoys up to the Great King in Susa, to warn him of Philip's panhellenic project, and induce him to assist Philip's enemies." (see Hogarth p.108)

"the Greek states conspire against him forming a kind of anti-Macedonian League."

Surely, you must feel exasperated by now. The evidence is overwhelming and I must caution you, I have tons of unused heavy ammunition against your feeble-minded responses.

(6) "Philip, for his part, admitted that he could be brought to meet the Roman´s conditions; but he added that it was a disgrace that the Greeks, who had been defeated by his ancestors Philip and Alexander and sent beneath the yoke of Macedon, should be dictating terms of peace to him like a victorsthey should be giving an account of how they had come to be his subjects, he said, rather than trying claim their freedom." (Justin 30.3.7).

"Greeks, who had been defeated by his ancestors Philip and Alexander and sent beneath the yoke of Macedon."

There you have it: the words of the Macedonian king himself.

Misconception #4: Macedonian crusade in Asia was a Greek crusade

(1) "The conclusion is inescapable: there was a largely ethnic Macedonian imperial administration from beginning to end. Alexander used Greeks in court for cultural reasons, Greek troops (often under Macedonian commanders) for limited tasks and with some discomfort, and Greek commanders and officials for limited duties. Typically, a Greek will enter Alexander's service from an Aegean or Asian city through the practice of some special activity: he could read and write, keep figures or sail, all of which skills the Macedonians required. Some Greeks may have moved on to military service as well. In other words, the role of Greeks in Alexander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the services of Xerxes and the third Darius" ( Borza).

Second look:

"In other words, the role of Greeks in Alexander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the services of Xerxes and the third Darius."

(2) "Alexander's integration of troops: "...interesting to notice that he never - either before or at the time - tried to integrate Greeks into the Macedonian units that were his best military assets, either in the tactical or in the emotional sphere, while at the very end, both for tactical and for political reasons integration of Macedonians and Iranians was important, while integration of Greeks with either was not" (Badian).

People of same racial stock need no integration, do they? Do you think Badian knows what he is talking about?

(3) "The forces from the Corinthian League, infantry and cavalry, were demobilised from Ecbetana in the spring of 330; [Arr. III.19.6-7; Plut. Al. 42.5; Diod. XVII.74.3-4; Curt. VI.2.17] even the Thessalian cavalry who re-enlisted were dismissed at the Oxus less than a year later (Arr. III.29.5) Alexander now relied on the Macedonian nucleus for front-line work and the mercenaries for support function." [p.271] Conquest and Empire (Bosworth).

Is this the Greek crusade of Asia? Where were the Greek troops? Why are they demobilized if this was a Greek crusade against Persia? Do you ever stop and question your government´s teachings? Do you not find yourselves lied to? Perhaps, you obediently lined up behind what-ever propaganda line they fed you.

(4) "The infantry from the allied Greek states is more problematic. They formed a contingent numerically strong, 7,000 of them crossing the Hellespont in 334, and they were predominantly heavy-armed hoplites. But once in Asia they are mainly notable for their absence. There is no explicit record of them in any of the major battles" (Bosworth).

To bring the point home:

"But once in Asia they are mainly notable for their absence. There is no explicit record of them in any of the major battles".

Hmmhow embarrassing! All those hours you spent learning empty slogans. It must be devastating to find yourselves cheated and deprived of factual history.

(5) "It was quite certain that Alexander would not be content. He had called himself the avenger of Greece, and had begun the war in the capacity of Strategos of all the Hellenes, but he meant the war chiefly to serve the greatness of Macedonia. That is why there were so few Greeks in the army, which was mainly Macedonian; the Macedonians alone were sufficiently attached to the royal house of their country to follow Alexander in an undertaking for which Asia Minor was already too small a prize." Pierre Jouguet p.20]

Please, get a load of this: there were so few Greeks in Alexander´s army and that he meant the war chiefly to serve the greatness of Macedonia. And now, once again, we´ll hear some garbage from you, like he went to Asia to spread Hellenic culture. Are you serious?

(6) Patron, the Greek commander, speaks with Darius: "Your Majesty", said Patron, 'we few are all that remain of 50,000 Greeks. We were all with you in your more fortunate days, and in your present situation we remain as we were when you were prospering, ready to make for and to accept as our country and our home any lands you choose. We and you have been drawn together both by your prosperity and your adversity. By this inviolable loyalty of ours I beg and beseech you: pitch your tent in our area of the camp and let us be your bodyguards. We have left Greece behind; for us there is no Bactria; our hopes rest entirely in you - I wish that were true of the others also! Further talk serves no purpose. As a foreigner born of another race I should not be asking for the responsibility of guarding your person if I thought anyone else could do it." (QUINTUS CURTIUS RUFUS "THE HISTORY OF ALEXANDER" p.112-13).

You Greeks should seek kinship with your pay-master Darius from Persia. You have absolutely nothing in common with Alexander and his Macedonians. You are an embarrassment to the ancient Greeks and to yourselves for attempting to subvert and steal the Macedonian greatness. Please do not diminish their luster by attaching your name to anything Macedonian.

(7) "Alexander came, then, in this April of 334, to the shore of Dardanelles, with an ambition to possess all Persia as already he possessed all Greece." (See Hogarth p.177)

(8) "Therefore, at Miletus, the first sanguine hour of Alexander's life has closed, and on the wreck of his exuberant illusions begins his rise a sterner purpose. Greece must be coerced if she will not be courted. Her command of the seas shall be broken by the capture of the coasts of the Levant, and her people be bent willy nilly to the panhellenic work." (Hogarth p.180)

"Greece must be coerced if she will not be courted."

Greece was nothing but a trouble for Alexander and his Macedonians.

(9) "Certain consequence of Issus, however, is of more importance to Alexander's individual history than the battle itself; for through it, in two ways, illumination came to him, and a distinct change in his personal attitude ensues. In the first place, not only had he been placed by the capture of Darius' baggage in possession of much correspondence between the Great King and Hellenic states, but also, for the first time, he had seized in flagrant fault the persons of Hellenic envoys sent up to the Persians." (Hogarth p.185)

"by the capture of Darius' baggage in possession of much correspondence between the Great King and Hellenic states, but also, for the first time, he had seized in flagrant fault the persons of Hellenic envoys sent up to the Persians."

I am curious as to what kind of thoughts pass through your mind upon reading passages of such demoralizing content. With what intestinal fortitude do you look at yourselves in the mirror and confront your conscience? On the other hand, do not despair; I´m sure you will find solace in telling us that the Greek city-states did such things to each other too.

(10) "The attitude of the Hellenes in Greece had raised, as we have seen, a first difficulty; the attitude of the older Macedonians was now raising a second. The party which Parmenio led had no panhellenic ideals. They would have had Alexander even as Philip and his forefathers had been--feudal king of the Macedonians, conqueror of the Greeks if he would, and of the Persians if he could." (ibid, p.207)

Too bad Alexander killed the greatest Macedonian general; he and his troops knew the score: Macedonians conquered Greece, period.

Misconception #5: Macedonians spoke Greek language

What were a people's origins and what language did they speak?

(1) "From the surviving literary sources (Hesiod, Herodotus, and Thucydides) there is little information about Macedonian origins, and the archaeological data from the early period is sparse and inconclusive. On the matter of language, and despite attempts to make Macedonian a dialect of Greek, one must accept the conclusion of the linguist R. A. Crossland in the recent CAH, that an insufficient amount of Macedonian has survived to know what language it was. But it is clear from later sources that Macedonian and Greek were mutually unintelligible in the court of Alexander the Great. Moreover, the presence in Macedonia of inscriptions written in Greek is no more proof that the Macedonians were Greek than, e.g., the existence of Greek inscriptions on Thracian vessels and coins proves that the Thracians were Greeks." (Borza, 1990 (2) "As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adopted any existing language, even though they were now in contact with neighbouring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues."

(3) (Describing the all familiar episode with Cleitus) "He shouted in Macedonian for his hypaspists, and ordered the trumpeter to sound the alarm". (The most revealing point in Alexander's psyche; the time when he felt that conspiracy against his life is in the making, when he felt his life is in danger, forgetting his "Hellenic" mask, he shouts in his native Macedonian language. Yes, indeed, a very revealing point. Stripped from any artificiality, and pretentiousness, he reverts to the most instinctive/primitive response and shouts to his guards in Macedonian language.) Badian.

(4) A.B. Bosworth responds to N.G.L. Hammond regarding the usage of the Macedonian language by Alexander. Cleitus Episode revisited Bosworth elaborates: "I deliberately refrain from adopting any position on the linguistic status of ancient Macedonian. It has little significance outside the nationalistic propaganda of the contemporary Balkan states, in which prejudice and dogma do duty for rational thought. What matters for the present argument is the fact, explicit in Curtius, that Macedonian was largely unintelligible to non-Macedonians. Macedonians might understand Greek, and some Greeks (like Eumenes) with experience of Macedon might speak Macedonian. However, even Eumenes took care that a vital message was conveyed to the phalangites of Neoptolemus by a man fluent in Macedonian (MAKEDONI/ZONTA TH]=FWNH]=:PSI 12. 1284, col. ii. 19-20)."

(5) Alexander speaks at Philotas trial: "The Macedonians are going to judge your case," he said. "Please state whether you will use your native language before them."

Philotas: "Besides the Macedonians, there are many present who, I think, will find what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yourself have been using, your purpose, I believe, being only to enable more people to understand you."

Then the king said: "Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language." ( Quintus Curtius Rufus "THE HISTORY OF ALEXANDER" p.138).

(6) "The dispute of modern scholars over the racial stock of the Macedonians have led to many interesting suggestions. This is especially true of the philological analysis of the remains of the Macedonian language by O. Hoffmann in his Makedonen etc. Cf. the latest general survey of the controversy in F. Geyer and his chapter on prehistory. But even if the Macedonians did have some Greek blood- as well as Illyrian- in their veins, whether originally or by later admixture, this would not justify us in considering them on a par with the Greeks in point of race or in using this as historical excuse for legitimizing the claims of this bellicose peasant folk to lord it over cousins in the south of the Balkan peninsula so far ahead of them in culture. It is likewise incorrect to assert that this is the only way in which we can understand the role of the Macedonian conquest in Hellenizing the Orient. But we can neglect this problem here, as our chief interest lies in discovering what the Greeks themselves felt and thought. And here we need not cite Demosthenes' well-known statements; for Isocrates himself, the very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates the people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil.108. He purposely avoids the word barbaroi but this word is one that inevitably finds a place for itself in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of every true Hellene. Even Isocrates would not care to have the Greeks ruled by the Macedonian people: it is only the king of Macedonia, Philip, who is to be the new leader; and the orator tries to give ethnological proof of Philip's qualifications for this task by the device of showing that he is no son of his people but, like the rest of his dynasty, a scion of Heracles, and therefore of Greek blood." (Werner Jaeger "DEMOSTHENES" p. 249).

Caveat:

"The fact is that we can obtain no more than an impression of a whole from a part, but certainly neither a thorough knowledge nor an accurate understanding. We must conclude then that specialized studies or monographs contribute very little to our grasp of the whole and our conviction of its truth. On the contrary, it is only by combining and comparing the various parts of the whole with one another and noting their resemblances and their differences that we shall arrive at a comprehensive view, and thus encompass both the practical benefits and the pleasure that the reading of history affords." F.W. Walbank "Polibius- The Rise of the Roman Empire" p. 45).

In conclusion:

I must wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Walbank that the truth emerges only when combining and comparing the various facts and evidence presented in literature that we shall arrive, and we most certainly have, at a comprehensive view that ancient Macedonians were just that: Macedonians. All other Greek fabrications must be classified as hijacking of the ancient Macedonian greatness. Here we have brought forward as evidence the words of the Macedonian kings who speak of their own Macedonian language, their own Macedonian way of life and their own views on conquering and enslaving Greece. Compare and contrast the weight and the magnitude of these facts with the Greek assertions that ancient Macedonians had similar names and worshiped the same Gods as the ancient Greeks. No wonder the Ancient Macedonians looked down upon these arrogantly pedantic Greeks with contempt.

Until next time