 |
Preface: The aim of this paper is to acquaint students with the basic differences between ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks. For too many
years it was an accepted practice to view the ancient Macedonians as Greeks. Little attention was paid to the fact that ancient biographers and
chroniclers left us with no impression that these two dissimilar people were of the same ethnicity or nationality. On the contrary, their reporting
is clear and unambiguously explicit and leaves little room for subsequent second-guessing and interpretation. To them ancient Macedonians constituted
people, and a nation quite separate, and in stark contrast, to the Greeks. They militarily subdued the Greeks and subsequently treated them as
conquered people; albeit more favorably then the rest of the people in the empire, but conquered subject they were, nevertheless. Roman and Greek
biographers, like Curtius Rufus, Polybius, Plutarch, Arrian, Diodorus, Justin and Herodotus described the ancient Macedonians as being a people quite
distinct and separate from the ancient Greeks. Neither from an historical point of view, nor from a philosophical or military one, were these people
ever regarded as one and the same with the ancient Greeks. Their neighborly discourse, as destiny will have it, was regularly embroidered with
constant hostility and mutual antipathy (Borza 1990). Whether the reasons for the inclusion of Macedonian studies under Greek history are the result
of western sentiments felt toward Greek cultural heritage, or towards Greece as the land where western Christianity took tip roots for the first time,
or the obvious sympathies they held so dear for the first democratic form of government that originated with the ancient Greek city-states, or not,
are of secondary importance to us, and carry no relevancy to the issue of ethno-genesis of the ancient Macedonians. Surely, these are compelling
elements that carry enormous influence; but, by the same token, these same elements, if used and employed in the service of securing lasting and
verifiable body of historical knowledge would both, distort the truth and undermine the trust in scholarly research. In my opinion, there was a void
that needed to be filled, since, the scholarship concerning the Argead Dynasty of Macedon slowly and progressively, in the last forty years, has been
steadily gaining ground, not as an extension of Greek history, as it was viewed and included under, but as a separate and unique unit of ancient
history under the Macedonian period.
Although, the term "Hellenistic" period may still be acceptable as a cultural classification of the time during and after Alexander the Great, the
term "Macedonistic" period should, and ought to be, used to cover any other historical references. There is no denying that the period from Alexander
the Great until well into the Roman time deals with Macedonian Dynasties, their rule, succession and their eventual interaction, or lack there of,
with the indigenous local populations throughout the Balkan Peninsula, Asia and Egypt. Here, the term "Hellenism" can hardly do any justice to
historical scholarship since its coverage/ domain leaves a huge section of history barely touched. Hellenism, the term Johan Gustaf Droysen gave to
this era, is such a narrow cultural belt of history that its usage is not only misleading and inappropriate but it also distorts and minimizes the
greatness of the ancient Macedonians. Even though the Greek contribution, from a cultural point of view, may be argued to have occupied a place of
pivotal importance in the administrative sector of the empire, the organizational, the military and the structural components of this Macedonian
Empire must have been obtained, delivered and maintained strictly from Macedonian resources and for Macedonian interests. The concept of an empire,
an esoteric notion for the Greeks, was born with the first few initial successes of Alexander, and its meaning, magnitude, scope and structure grew
as the string of victories and the success on the battlefields allowed Alexander to enlarge, coordinate and control huge land areas in Asia and Egypt.
For almost 3 centuries after Alexander, it was his successors that carried the symbols and the name of the Macedonian Empire. Thus, the very narrow
strip of "Hellenism" that comes, as a residue, attached to the period in question, cannot, in any meaningful way, embrace and encompass the scope and
the magnitude of an empire that was built, organized and maintained on the strength and the efficiency of the Macedonian army.
Greeks in antiquity were in possession of diverse arrays of sophisticated disciplines of the first order: dramas, tragedies, myths, biographies,
histories, sciences, material culture and a flair for exoticism, but not empire. And here, lies the greatest obstacle for the circle to be completed.
Macedonians, on the other hand, were in possession of an empire and a handful of other disciplines necessary for the immediate needs and sustenance
of it. Droysen's idea to combine both, the Greeks and the Macedonians under one name is certainly appealing from a German point of view, since it
finds analogous development of the German states under the strong leadership of Prussia; but it falls significantly short in balancing the immiscible
union of contrastingly separate peoples.
Nineteenth century Greeks did not regard the Macedonians as people of the same ethnicity (Politis 1993: 36; Dimaras 1958; Karagatsis,1952). Greeks in
the late eighteen hundreds and earl nineteenth century viewed the Macedonians as conquerors of Greece. Only after the Megale Idea took up roots in
the Greek scholarship, did Greeks embark on providing and securing 'evidence' for their new political vision; which was born and bred from the limbs
of the rapidly decaying Ottoman Empire. Macedonia was the only Balkan country left Linder the Turkish rule after the congress of Berlin in 1878.
After the national uprising in 1903 that ended with catastrophic consequences for the Macedonian populace, the leadership of the country was largely
decimated by the lawless bands of Turkish marauders, who mercilessly and indiscriminately slaughtered the defenseless masses. Consequently, the
Macedonians found themselves too exhausted and leaderless, and lacked political will and stamina to rise up again and unite their bewildered and poor
brethren into a cohesive political unit. This calamitous situation, coupled with the prevailing lawlessness and the "illness of the Sultan", was
exploited by the neighbors of Macedonia who launch their own armed bands and political agitators to prepare, and secure for themselves a piece of the
Macedonian territory. Thus, the Serbs, the Bulgarians and the Greeks succeeded in partitioning Macedonia among themselves in 1913 with the treaty of
Bucharest, and with this act most of ancient Macedonia was incorporated into the Greek state for the first time (Borza 1990).
Ever since then, Greece has fervently attempted to stamp a permanent Hellenic imprint on this land. The latest dispute about the name "Macedonia"
between Greece and the newly proclaimed Macedonian Republic, which was created by the break up of Yugoslavia, signifies the enormity of the weight to
establish and maintain connection with the ancient Macedonians. From the Republic of Macedonia's point of view, it is a matter of human rights and
people's rights to call its own country any name its people wished to choose for it, while Greece views it as appropriation of cultural rights. For a
more detailed analysis of the ongoing saga between Republic of Macedonia and Greece regarding ownership of the names "Macedonia", and "Macedonian",
please see the recently published work "Macedonia: Cultural Right or Cultural Appropriation?" by Larry Reimer.
At first glance the dispute appears to be centered on judicial matters of human rights, and people's right for self-determination, versus cultural
inheritance, and cultural appropriation. This is the tip of the iceberg, wile the remaining bulk of the impasse is more splenetic one, and deals with
who has the right to claim the ancient Macedonians as their progenitors; and thereby stake the claim on anything Macedonian. Even though, establishing
and proving a connection with the ancients is a tenuous adventure, the impetus and the stakes involved decidedly override the issue. Thus, it is not
surprising to find the Greeks passionately embroidered in support of their well known stands that ancient Macedonians were Greeks, and that ancient
Macedonia was a Greek land. Most of the Greek authors tend to show, and present uniformly packaged convictions that ancient Macedonians spoke the
Greek language, had practiced the same religion as the other Greeks, that their personal names and place names are inevitably Greek, and that ancient
Macedonians came from the same stock as Greek people. In other words, these authors, as opposed to others whose believes are derived from their own
personal convictions, tend to strictly adhere and taw the government line.
It is interesting to note Peter Green's passage about modern Greeks' view of Alexander: "The Colonels, as it happened, promoted Alexander as a great
Greek hero, especially to army recruits: the Greeks of the fourth centurv BC, to whom Alexander was a half-Macedonian, half-Epirote barbarian
conqueror, would have found this metamorphosis as ironic as I did" (Green 1991: xv).
One of the well-known Greek author A P Daskalakis in 1965 wrote a book entitled "The Hellenism of the Ancient Macedonians," where he meticulously
elaborates on all issues of dispute regarding the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians. While the work is quite extensive in its coverage of all
pertinent aspects currently in contention, his omission of some is telling.8 Professor Daskalakis-who, to a large extent, can be viewed to represent
the prevailing "Greek position"- provides evidence in support of his thesis as he sees it fit. On our part, we will endeavor to present the other
side of the story, and also to provide scholarly evidence as we see it fit. The reader is free to pick and choose what he wishes. Other aspects of
the alleged "Greekness" of the ancient Macedonians will be covered and addressed accordingly.
 |
|
|
| Shipping Charges |
| Cost of Order |
Shipping charge |
| under 79.99 |
$15.00 |
| 80.00-154.99 |
$20.00 |
| 155.00-299.99 |
$25.00 |
| over 300.00 |
$30.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
