In spite of clear tendencies of Alexander III the Great to build an empire that would unite number of nations, it is not quite clear how far he practiced the “brotherhood of nations”, i.e. homonoia. (See below Tarn, and de Mauriac as well as the use of the term by Aristotle, that I gave later). His empire and later Diadochi states were apparently not quite compatible with the idea “of being of one mind together”, what the word “homonoia” probably should mean. Was the reality quite opposite?
Were the political and administrative structure of the Macedonian states, the empire of Alexander of Macedonia, Egypt of Ptolemy’s and the Hellenistic Diadochi states, while its citizens were of mixed national origins, prominently “nationalistic states”?
What kind of state was the empire of the Alexander of Macedonia? Was it a Macedonian nationalistic state, where all high administrative and military positions as well as core military units were occupied by the Macedonians; or did its political structures mirrored the mixed multi-national population that constituted the empire? How many of Alexander’s generals and high officials were Greek and how many Macedonian? Did Alexander chose for satraps in the occupied territories some Geeks or exclusively Macedonians and local dignitaries? What was the national structure of the core military units that were left in the occupied regions?
I am also interested in the political system of the Ancient Egypt at the end of the 4th century BC. Was the Egyptian Ptolemy dynasty an Egyptian, Macedonian or Greek dynasty? Did the Ptolemy family mix with the Greek families or with local Egyptian families or it remained “racially clean” Macedonian?
What kind of states were Hellenistic states? Were they by their political and national structure Macedonian or Greek? How many generals in those states were Greeks and how many still Macedonians? Did they rely exclusively on high military or state officials that were Greeks or they were mostly Macedonians; did “nationalism” lose its power with time and when?
* When the commentators would advance significant affirmation, I would encourage them to put the most relevant and direct reference, if possible avoiding popular reviews and other non scholarly publications.
** Please avoid discussing the side issues. The particular aspects of the concepts of "nation", "state", "polis", "citizenship", "ethnicism" and related concepts, could be discussed here:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_nation
____________________________________________
Tarn, WW: Alexander the Grat, Vol II, Sources and Studies, Chapter 25, Cambridge University Press, 2002 (1948).
Henry M. de Mauriac: Alexander the Great and the Politics of "Homonoia", Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Jan., 1949), pp. 104-114, Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2707202
Additional information.
The expression “homonoia” in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (EN) was translated by Crisp, Reckham and Thomson by “concord”. Here below are some parallel translations of some connected Greek espressions from the classical and more recent translators of the EN (in the following order: Bartlett-Collins, Crisp; Reckham; Ross; Thomson). This list may help make clear some points that get easily confused.
Homonoia = like-mindedness; concord; concord; unanimity; concord
1155a24 (Book 8, VIII, 1)
1167a22 (Book 9, IX, 6)
Eunoia = goodwill; goodwill; goodwill : goodwill; goodwill
1166b30 (Book 9, IX, 5)
Koinonia = community ; community; partnership; community; community
1159b27 (Book 8, VIII, 9)
_________________________________________________________
I recommend using those bibliographies below. There are certainly, other sublime lists of works related to the subject. Please avoid too popular works, although some of them may be excellent.
https://sites.google.com/site/hellenisticbibliography/history/alexander-the-great
http://1stmuse.com/alex3/bibliography.html
http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/bibliography.html
http://www.hippeis.com/bibliography
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rauhn/Hist303/Alexander%20Bibliography.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444327519.biblio/pdf
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/classics/students/modules/alex/bibliography/
Additional information.
The expression “homonoia” in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (EN) was translated by Crisp, Reckham and Thomson by “concord”.
Here below are some parallel translations of some connected Greek espressions from the classical and more recent translators of the EN (in the following order: Bartlett-Collins, Crisp; Reckham; Ross; Thomson). This list may help make clear some points that get easily confused.
Homonoia = like-mindedness; concord; concord; unanimity; concord
1155a24 (Book 8, VIII, 1)
1167a22 (Book 9, IX, 6)
Eunoia = goodwill; goodwill; goodwill : goodwill; goodwill
1166b30 (Book 9, IX, 5)
Koinonia = community ; community; partnership; community; community
1159b27 (Book 8, VIII, 9)
Dear Dr Pavlovic, you have posed a very interesting question! It needs thorough research. I think one should begin with terms ("il faut definir le sens des mots" - R. Descartes). To my mind "nationalism" and "state" are not relevant terms here, since nations and states emerged just around the XVII century. Being no specialist on ancient history I can't go into details, but I can say that Alexander's Afro-Eurasian power was a patrimonial empire with ultimately Macedonian elite fastening it together - otherwise it could not endure. Of course we know that Alexander tried to forge a mixed elite consisting of Macedonians and Persians, but ethnically it largely remained Macedonian. This ethnical unity did not prevent the demise of the empire following its founder's death, but the empire's Hellenistic successor polities were its miniatures with Macedonian elites. As to Greeks, as far as I know, they were allowed to manage only the finances, but not the government as a whole or military matters.
Kirill
Thanks for the comment. You are certainly right. However, the discussion about the correct use of the terminology may take us away from the subject. However, we may discuss it on some other thread.
I beg to differ. Defining terms is the primary task of science, preceding all the rest. :)
Kirill
You and Cartesius are certainly right. (And then the mathematicians will proceed by kindly asking us to accept some "words" undefined! Or will generously offer us circular definitions! So let us just not make the discussion suffocates itself.)
However, there are problems with definitions in more general way; see this link for the discussion:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/#OstDef
I will not develop on those issues here. In science we proceed in many different ways. In the social sciences rigid definitions are considered to be conter productive. The most usual way is, as I did, to give the ostensible definition by citing the examples. The given examples offer the aspects of the concepts that, while being covered (included) within the terms “state” and “nationalism”, are the aspects that I proposed to be examined. Not the terms itself. The definitions itself of the terms “state” and “nationalism” may of course be discussed also with the respect to the same descriptions that I gave, but this would be still another and a too large aspect of the issue which, I am afraid, does not interests us necessarily here and now.
If you want to discuss the definitions of those two concepts, you are free to do this - by starting a new thread.
I see your point! Still I am convinced one can't proceed without proper definitions, otherwise one risks using anachronist ones, like "state" in application to socio-political structures of a quite different society and epoch... :)
Kirill
There is no "proper" definition. The definitions serve the purpose. In addition, in science – since you mentioned science – we have another problem: the ambiguity of the “sensitivity and specificity” of each definition. If you want we can discuss it privately. I mentioned it in one of my papers, but did not elaborate too much. But sincerely, the definition does not interest us here almost at all.
And let us then discuss the main questions proposed on this thread, please.
Драган,
это типичная ошибка многих историков (это относится также к политикам). Они пытаются осмыслить древность (политики - другие культуры) в привычных им, но не тем людям, которых они пытаются осмыслить (понять) терминах (понятиях). Во времена Македонского ни понятия империя, ни понятия нация не существовало. В этом смысле Кирилл прав.
С Новым годом!
No, sorry, dear friend.
There will not be a complete overlap of intention and extension of the terms, it is true, but this will not preclude our analysis. I invite you to discuss this issue on some other thread.
Нет извините дорогой друг. Там не будет полное перекрытие намерения и продление срока (intention and extension), это правда, но это не исключает нашего анализа. Я приглашаю вас обсудить этот вопрос на каком-то другом thread.
С Новым годом!
Please, again.
My views on contextualism, in fact on what I called “vulgar contextualism”, are expressed in one of my recent articles. What I wrote there, may apply here as well. Therefore, I would like to invite everyone interested in the relevant questions of language and meaning, including the sense/reference, intention/extension or denotation/connotation, and in particular contextualism, if they would be numerous commentators, to open a new thread and discuss those concepts there. Here, we even do not have to stick closely to the “isms”, but still discuss the aspects that I proposed. Please, keep as close as possible to the question.
Thank you very much indeed.
Alexander's empire was certainly not a nation or a state in modern terms, or what has recently become known as 'identity politics'. His father however had attempted to create a nation, a 'united kingdom' from what Peter Jones refers to "many tribes and nations".
Jones suggests that this was achieved by "converting an independant-minded assortment of fractious Macedonian warlords into a court nobility" Philip II created a Royal Court that the warlords wished to belong to, even if it involved a degree of subservience. Contemporary accounts of Court life refer to great revelry and this presumably created a sense of shared identity, just like membership of any exclusive club.
Philip also established what evolved into a 'national' army with unique characteristics that Alexander perfected into an unstoppable war machine. This manifestation of nationhood through the military is of course a mainstay of national identity.
Alexander himself of course remains an enigma. Always keen to assimilate the cultural characteristics of the 'nations' he conquered and often seen as more obessed with expansion than return to the homeland.
Barry
Right. Thanks.
Which work of Peter Jones you are referring to, please?
Peter Jones the Cambridge classicist and author. He discusses Macedonia in his book Eureka.
Barry
Yes, nice work. Although, I could not see any reference cited (I could only see the sections of the book on Google books). Looks quite popular though.
Indeed, I recommend using those bibliographies below. There are certainly, other sublime lists of works related to the subject. Please avoid too popular works, although some of them may be excellent. Robin Lane Fox "Alexander the Great" is such a book, for example. So here are the lists:
https://sites.google.com/site/hellenisticbibliography/history/alexander-the-great
http://1stmuse.com/alex3/bibliography.html
http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/bibliography.html
http://www.hippeis.com/bibliography
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rauhn/Hist303/Alexander%20Bibliography.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444327519.biblio/pdf
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/classics/students/modules/alex/bibliography/
Alexander trusted his generals for top positions in administration while he was still alive, simply because they were part of his army that he knew very well. Later on, other Greeks moved into the newly conquered lands and got involved. Many years after Alexander's death the king Euthydemus of Bactria was from Magnesia in Asia Minor. The other kings in that kingdom had no recognizable Macedonian names, they had just Greek names. Some may even have been of mixed origin like king Antiochus (of Greek/Persian parents).
From what I have read, the population in central Asia had adopted Greek language and Greek character, but had many local elements as well, like in customs, religion, architecture, coinage, etc. All tribes and nations had peaceful lives at least for 2 centuries, so it was in a state of homonoia.
Michael
Thanks for the intriguing observation.
Nearchus was probably only Greek general (from Crete) in the Alexander’s army; the others, about 30 of them, being Macedonians (see F. E. Peters: The Harvest of Hellenism: A History of the Near East from Alexander the Great to the Triumph of Christianity, 1996. I will give the page later today.).
Later, I think that there is no doubt that all Diadochi (successors of Alexander III) except for Eumenes, were Macedonians. Some of them founded dynasties covering almost entire territory of the Alexander’s empire. We know that Ptolomay's in Egypt (well known for their consanguineous marriages) did not mix with the Egyptians at all. Did they occasionally mixed with some Greeks? Cleopatra VII, who was Macedonian) had a child with the Roman Julius Cassar, for example. Could we see then which dynasties permitted later ethnic mixing with the local, non Macedonian families (Persian or Greek); and more importantly, with the respect to what I asked above, how their “states” were organized, please.
However, we will probably need more scholarly documented comments. I propose that we proceed here as we do in our academic research. Indeed, for this project I would greatly appreciate even heavily referenced material, please. When the commentators would advance significant affirmation, I would encourage them to put the most relevant and direct reference, and if possible avoid popular reviews and other non scholarly publications.
You are certainly right, Kirill, concerning terms and science, without any smiles. It is their nature. See any discussion in RG.
Some examples of nations. Central Asia. Uzbeks. Uzbek is the name of their Mongolian leader from fourteen century. And see now on their leaders.
And who are russians, englishmen (excuse, Barry) and so on...? We can wait for USA to be Trumpia, for example. Now, it is a smile.
According to the late Sir John Keegan Alexander the Great, at least in the first two years of his reign continued with the policy of his father which was quite clearly to establish a Macedonian hegemony over the disparate city states of Greece.
The Macedonian Army was the embodiment of Macedonia as a state, The Greeks did not have a unified military even though it had been urged by Demosthenes to consolidate, for the very purpose of resisting Macedonian expansion.
The Macedonian Army was modelled on that of the Persians and included heavy cavalry mounted on horses bred on the Macedonian grasslands. The Macedonian phalanx, armoured in linen body armour and equipped with the sarissa were more maneouvable and delivered a far greater power than the Greek phalanx. What gave it an additional advantage was the national identity that this army engendered.
In part the national spirit of Macedonia grew out of the reaction to the deprecating attitude of those such as Demosthenes who considered them lower than even the barbarians.
A couple of years ago I spent some time in Thessaloniki looking into the rise of Macedon and viewing the wonderful artifacts in the Museums there. It is fascinating to imagine how different the world would have been if Alexander had turned westwards in creating his empire rather than east.
Barry
We would probably read Greek now with much less difficulties...
Thanks Barry. Please give us the full reference. Is this a study devoted specifically to the Macedonian warfare? Keegan was an important war historian, and for this project, I may need to see the book physically.
Thanks, Barry.
This one, I presume :
John Keegan, A History of Warfare, Vintage, 1994 (no problem, I will find the pages).
Interestingly, in Egypt, the “Hellenisation” apparently was in the form of preservation of Macedonian "blood" of the Ptolemaic dynasty, while being simultaneously and exclusively in favor of the Greek language. The Ptolemys, while using Greek language, were forgetting Macedonian. Plutarch reports, descripting Cléopâtre VII, saying that she (while presumably speaking Greek):
“It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice, with which, like an instrument of many strings, she could pass from one language to another; so that there were few of the barbarian nations that she answered by an interpreter; to most of them she spoke herself, as to the Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes, Parthians, and many others, whose language she had learnt; which was all the more surprising because most of the kings, her predecessors, scarcely gave themselves the trouble to acquire the Egyptian tongue, and several of them quite abandoned the Macedonian.”
Plutarch: lives: Antonius, 27. 4. (197); Translation: J. Drayden (http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/antony.html)
Some data about ΟΜΟΝΟΙΑ- Homonoia; She is the daughter of Zeus and Praxidikè; Πραξιδίκη
Πραξιδίκη is the key to Alexander hegemony.
http://data.bnf.fr/13179856/homonoia__mythologie_grecque_/ Bibliothèque National de la France
1) Praxidike, is the goddess of judicial punishment and the exactor of vengeance, which were two closely allied concepts in the classical Greek world-view.
2) The Orphic Hymn to Persephone identifies Praxidike as an epithet of Persephone: "Praxidike, subterranean queen. The Eumenides’ source [mother], fair-haired, whose frame proceeds from Zeus’ ineffable and secret seeds." As praxis Πράξης "practice, application" of dike Δίκη - "justice", she is sometimes identified with Dike, goddess of justice.
3) Today Praxidike is named the Moon of Jupiter.
http://www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/P/Praxidice.html
1. When Menelaus arrived in Laconia, on his return from Troy, he set up a statue of Praxidice near Gytheium, not far from the spot where Paris, in carrying off Helen, had founded a sanctuary of Aphrodite Migonitis .
2. The goddess of exacting justice. [PRAXIDICAE.]
The central force of Alexander was based on his Greek roots on philosophy and mythology. The presence of Alexander till the mountains of Afghanistan and even further to China was a process of acquiring knowledge.
Related data: 1) “The Graeco-Bactrian Kingdom — the easternmost region of the Hellenistic world covering Bactria (northern Afghanistan) and lands to the north (known in ancient times as Sogdiana, in present-day Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan) — was one consequence of the sojourn through Afghanistan by Alexander the Great..” Ain Khanum was excavated in 1970s, showing a complete Greek city with an acropolis, amphitheater, temples, and numerous statues. Menander I is remembered in Buddhist Sutras as "King Milinda of the Yunani."
https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-06enl.html
2) The idea that the soldiers of Alexander the Great’s armies remained in peace and omonoia in Asia is old. The oral traditions among the Kalash, a people living in northern Pakistan. One of their legends state:
“Long, long ago, before the days of Islam, Sikander e Aazem came to India. The two horned one whom you British people call Alexander the Great. He conquered the world, and was a very great man, brave and dauntless and generous to his followers. When he left to go back to Greece, some of his men did not wish to go back with him but preferred to stay here. Their leader was a general called Shalakash. With some of his officers and men, he came to these valleys and settled here and took local women, and here they stayed. We, the Kalash […] are the descendants of their children. Still some of our words are the same as theirs, our music and our dances too; we worship the same gods. This is why we believe the Greeks are our first ancestors.”
Christopher A. Matthew’s article, “Greek Hoplite in an Ancient Chinese Siege”, Journal of Asian History 2012 and related.
PS. In modern times, Omonoia Square in Athens: The Square was constructed in 1846, in 1862 it took its final name, “Omonoia Square”, because it was here that the leaders of the opposing political factions gave the oath of peace (omonia) to stop hostilities.
Vassilis
Thanks, fantastic.
One addition: “Greek Hoplite in an Ancient Chinese Siege” can be found in Volume 45 Issue 1/2 (2011) of Journal of Asian History, which is published by Harrassowitz Verlag.
John Keegan expands on the theory of Macedonian nationalism in his book The Mask of Command. Keegan descibes the Greek states as having a "passion for discord" with a lack of capacity for common undertakings.
The states did not have the power or resources to achieve any empirical ambitions but Macedonia had consolidated its tribes under Philip II, as Keegan puts it "had formed one kingdom and one people out of many tribes and races". The Greek states had eschewed the concept of a monarch and valued individuality as opposed to the Macedonian ethic of unity. Macedon having an elected sovereign allowed for the for the crystalisation of a national identity.
Keegan is cautious about using the concept of nationalism in the classical world but he does say that is such a concept could apply then Macedon would provide a good example. Modern nationalism from the middle ages onwards adpoted a similar evolution as ancient Macedonia. In the British Isles a king who also bore the title 'The Great' unified all of the tribes and disparate ethnicities of what became Aenglaland.
The Macedonian army was certainly the manifestation of the 'nation' along with ownership of well marshalled resources. The military tactics survived right up until the modern era only to be defeated by quick firing rifles and artillery. Even at the battle of Gettysburg in 1863 the oblique advance formation developed by Philip and Alexander was used, sadly to catastrophic effect for the soldiers in it in the modern age of warfare.
What concerns Diadochi, I found this article interesting:
J. L. O’NEIL: THE ETHNIC ORIGINS OF THE FRIENDS OF THE
ANTIGONID KINGS OF MACEDON, Classical Quarterly 53.2 510–522 (2003)
Concerning Macedonian language, as the means of national cohesion, due to lack of the contrary arguments, I found this linguistic analysis fairly convincing:
"By way of conclusion, the glosses recorded by Hesychius and the few documents possibly written in the local idiom indicate that Macedonian was a Greek dialect. It must have been a close sibling to NW Doric Greek except for two crucial features: the voicing of plosive /p t k/ to [b d g] an d of fricative /f θ s x/ to [v ð z γ], and possibly the future of the ordinary sigmatic type."
Yet while the state powers, administration, even social structures and social actors were strongly Macedonian and ethnically defined as Macedonian, cultural aspects, science and arts seem to be Hellenic and at the same time under strong influence of the local, Persian or Egyptian tradition. The driving and uniting force being of course Macedonian. The German historian Droysen (Johann Gustav Droysen, 1808-1884) called it “Hellenism” (Geschichte des Hellenismus, 1836 - 1843). Was he right?
Could we examine those aspects in more details, please?
Regarding the term "Hellenism" put forward by Droysen, the late N.G.L. Hammond, an international recognized expert on Ancient Macedonia argued for a substitution of the term "Hellenism" or "Hellenistic period" with "Macedonian period" in his Foreword in the book: "The Macedonian War Mashine" by David Karunanithy, Pen and Sword, 2013:
"The Macedonian Army" is a very extensive subject. For the Army was almost commensurate with the Macedonian State in the time of Philip and Alexander, Sections of the army continued to be the dominant factor in the subsequent period. That period has been called the "Hellenistic" period, which implies a decline from the "Hellenic" period. It should be called correctly the "Macedonian" period, in which Macedonian commanders and sections of the Macedonian army set up and maintained individual States."
Quiet clear in favor for "Macedonian period", I have to admit.
As I understand the argument of Hammond, he argues that the political and military power being in the hands of Macedonians for over 300 years, justifies that the period should bear also their name.
Barry
Thanks for the nice comment and important opinions that you cited.
My problem is that I do not have Keegan’s work and it is not always obvious from your comments what are Keegan’s contentions, based on his own research, and what are the arguments and the results of the other people’s research, that he uses. It would be useful if you would make this clear, may be by telling us when he uses other research and give us, may be, those references, please.
Dragan
Keegan says he works mainly from the works of ancient authors but he does dedicate a comprehensive bibliography to Macedonia and Alexander the Great. It is too long to record here but if you purchase the book on Amazon you will have access to a rich list of sources, most from very distinguished classicists.
I would recommend Attrition: Aspects of Command in the Peloponnesian War by Godfrey Hutchinson as an excellent insight into the military failings of the Greek states. The inability to break out of 'small state' thinking led to the inability to create a comprehensive and effective military strategy. Athens was a navy, Sparta an army.
The Macedonians adopted an almost 20th century 'combined forces' approach making them not only militarily superior but inspiring a national esprit de corps. The disparate, chauvinistic city states with their obsolete tactics and weak alliances were no match for a consolidated state with a single purpose. Macedonia was not a combattant in the Peloponnesian War but it was ultimately the victor of it.
Dear Barry,
Thanks very much.
I would, of course, like to have, as I try to do also: for every single significant affirmation, a reference (or lead) to the work that contained a complete argument or full (written, direct or the most close or exposed) evidence referring to the above mentioned affirmation. That reference should be such to provide me a simple way to verify it by myself. Contrary to an "opinion", this approach opens a dialogue - opens "dialogue", assuring scientific coherency and, as a side effect, brings people closer. The historians, on the contrary, often like to offer review articles, “narratives” or “big analysis” and evidence is sometimes hard to follow. Okay, I will find my way – anyway!
Dragan
I understand what you mean but we are talking about history here and that will never be affirmed or refuted as say the Phlogiston theory was.
The rise of Macedon was well over 2000 years ago and the history of the Alexandrian expansion was like most history written by the victors and their beneficiaries. We can only speculate, often by more modern analogy why something did or did not happen.
I have recently been studying the Bactrian civilisation that Alexander's chroniclers dismissed as barbarian and primitive. Thanks to satelite archeology it is becoming clear that the civilisation was much larger and much more sophisticated than described by ancient historians.
Very large cities connected by complex communication systems were in existence before Alexander and his army went on its expedition there. The next couple of decades will undoubtedly reveal much more.
Robin Sowerby in The Rise of Philip of Macedon from his book The Greeks inserts a reference to a letter from Isocrates to Philip. Writing in support of Panhellenism and indicating an opposite view to that held by Demosthenes.
When Athens held the principle power among the Greeks, and similarly when Sparta did, I do not think anything of the sort could have been attained, because each side could have frustrated the attempt. Now I no longer take that view. All the states have, I know been reduced to misfortune to one level and I think that they will be much more inclined to accept the benefits of unanimity than the old competitiveness.
(Phillippic 40)
Isocrates represents a desire for unity for the sake of security and sees Philip's Macedon as providing the core of that unity. Neither Athens not Sparta could create either unity or security, only Philip's united Macedonia could form a core for Panhellenism. We can reasonably asusume that while Demosthenes saw Philip and Macedonia as virtual barbarian outsiders not all Greeks agreed.
Barry
This is probably relevant aspect. Yet, if you can trace the source of the information, please communicate it to me. Thanks very much, Barry.
@Dragan&All, in addition to the ongoing excellent discussion, I could simply add that there is no one historical doubt that Athenians, Macedonian, Ionians etc. are all Έλληνες.
In example, see, http://www.theoi.com/Text/HesiodCatalogues.html & additional references.
I copy reference to Hesiod on the origin of Macedonians and see related for Herodotus.
“Hesiod (750 - 650 BC) gives a beautiful story of the origins of Macedonians, in Catalogue of Women. According to mythology, Macedon was Hellen's nephew. Hellen was the mythological progenitor of the Hellenes and where the words Hellas and Hellene come from. This mythological relationship binds Macedonians with the other major tribes of the era:
• The Aeolians, descendants of Hellen's son Aeolus,
• The Dorians, descendants of Hellen's son Dorus,
• The Achaeans, descendants of Hellen's gradson Achaeus, and
• The Ionians, descendants of Hellen's grandson Ion. “
Herodotus describes an event that took place prior to the naval battle of Salamis (492 BC). Alexander I of Macedon, while visiting the Greek camp as an envoy for the Persian general Mardonius proclaims his Greek ancestry."
Your excellent question could equally be: “Was Hellenic nationalism a prominent feature of the empire of the Alexander III of Macedonia and of the Hellenistic states?”
Alexander hegemony and later the Hellenistic states cover regions from North Africa to Afghanistan and touch China. Syria is a very interesting example because it is of actuality as Afghanistan and the Mesopotamia, (The Government of Syria under Alexander the Great A. B. Bosworth The Classical Quarterly Vol. 24, No. 1 (May, 1974), pp. 46-64)
About Syria, the Seleucid Empire was a Hellenistic state ruled by the Seleucid dynasty, which existed from 312 BC to 63 BC; it was founded by Seleucus I Nicator. For the question of Greek language & related, see the image attached: Tetradrachm of Seleucus I (312 BC to 63 BC Berlin_Pergamonmuseum).
The social & economic reality migt bring the Drachm back again !
Vassilis
I certainly did not want to discuss the genetics of the two, Macedonians and Hellenes. They may as well be very close, but this should be irrelevant here. My question referred to the period of Alexander III and the period of Diadochi.
What concerns the first, in all five secondary biographies of Alexander the Great (Arrian, Plutarch, Justinus, Curtius Ruffus and Diodorus) Macedonians and Hellenes are described as two distinct and to an important extent, antagonistic entities. There, Macedonian supremacy is apparently evident. Not because they imposed themselves just militarily, but because through the state organizations and through other forms of state administration and social institutions, they made those states keep Macedonian impact. In spite of clear intention of Allexander to create one very much different world of brotherhood and unity. His world probably was not such.
What concerns the second, the period of Diadochi, I think there may be place for discussion. So, how is this with the Alexander’s successors? Again I have an impression that much did not change. The dynasties were carefully kept ethnically “clean”, with rare exceptions in Bactria. The states administration and militaries probably remained basically, overwhelmingly Macedonian; although some obvious signs of lessening of that Macedonian dominancy could be seen.
Therefore, I wanted that we discuss exactly those aspects as well as the other related aspects of the other layers of social life. And to remain within tacts, please, no opinions. I assume that the commentators read majority of the basic texts (mentioned above). But this will not be enough. Can we have more deep and recent research, please.
Vassilis
Must comment on your last line.
I loved the time when Drachm, when FF, DM where there. I love Europe, certainly, I think it is wonderful. But… I am missing that diversity that disappears… Sorry… I would not mind going back to the old Europe. And may be being younger also…
@Dragan, Genetics is part of the history. The Spartans and the Athenians were two distinct antagonistic entities. The supremacy of Athenians did not affect the common ground of the cities in Greece including the Aigai near modern Vergina where was found Philippe II.
It is not considered “antagonized” when Alexander crushed the revolt of Greek-state of Thebes and next liberated the Greek cities in Asia Mirror (now Turkey) from Persia. Alexander was capable to unify a nation that was already consolidated by a remarkable civilization and language.
If, the naval battle of Salamis was one of the most critical moments in world history, the hegemonic legendary of Alexander, he conquered much of the world in 10 years, allowed to dramatically modify the status quo of human civilization till the rise of the new power of the west, the Roman republic. I could say that this period, the Hellenistic period saved the civilization.
After Alexander’s sudden death, the Diadoxi founded a violent but creative new world based on Greek culture. This period, the Hellenistic period, was the last of a creative period that transfused and saved scientific knowledge through the continents.
Egypt’s capital, Alexandria, was the largest of the new Hellenistic cities. Alexandria was also a center for Hellenistic science, using Aristotle’s “scientific method” of observation to learn the truth about the natural world. The Library of Alexandria was the jewel of the entire Hellenistic world.
Close to 150 B.C the Greek city-states became a Roman province. From the Hellenistic period, only the Ptolemies in Egypt remained independent. Julius Caesar, the 47 B.C. invaded Egypt and was destroyed the magnificent Library of Alexandria with its collection of knowledge from the ancient world. So, are-we still in post-hellenistic period and roman control?
With respect, Dragan, I can’t accept your assessment that the Alexander sources describe “Macedonians and Hellenes” as two distinct and … antagonistic entities”.
Prior to the intervention of Philip II, Greece was made up of a collection of independent city states more often at war with each other than united against a common foe. These states had very different cultures, social structures and models of government. The only thing uniting them was their common language, and even their they drew a line in generally refusing to accept the Macedonians as Greek.
Although a bit of a simplification, as is my own answer, I generally agree with Barry Turner in his assessment that “Macedonia had consolidated its tribes under Philip II, as Keegan puts it "had formed one kingdom and one people out of many tribes and races".”
Philip then went on to win dominance (as hegemon of the League of Corinth) almost all of Greece through a combination of useful alliances, military victories and careful diplomacy. Alexander retained his dominance of the league after his father’s death.
It seems clear, though, that Alexander did not regard the Greek elements of his army as entirely reliable. Of all the Greek contingents, only the Thessalian cavalry were given a prominent place in Alexander’s front line in battle. Even there, they were placed on the subordinate left flank under the overall command of Parmenion, while Alexander led the Macedonian assault from the right. And the Greek infantry, when it did arrive, was held back in reserve behind the front line, as A M Devine noted:
“Apparently doubtful of the reliability of his Greek allied and mercenary infantry, which were to constitute a reserve phalanx in subsequent battles like Issus and Gaugamela, Alexander had advanced (to the Granicus) without them”. Devine, A. M., “Demythologizing the Battle of the Granicus”, Phoenix, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), p. 269.
There was clear alienation of the Macedonians after the final defeat of Darius due bot to Alexander’s adoption of the ways of the Persian court, and his ongoing campaign into India.
At his death, with no obvious successor, none of his surviving commanders had sufficient support to hold his empire together, which is why it fragmented as key commanders secured their own share of the whole.
By way of background, I am myself currently working on a revision of my draft paper on Philip’s assassination – bibliography below. And hope at a later time to get back to my own analysis on Alexander’s military career.
Bibliography
Ancient Sources
Aristotle, Politics V. viii. 10. (tr. H Rackman) London, Heinemann, 1932 (Loeb Classical Library).
Aristotle, The Politics, Hammondsworth, Penguin, 1962.
Arrian, (tr.P.A. Brunt) London, Heinemann, 1976 (Loeb Classical Library, Vol.1).
Athenaeus, Books 12 – 13.594b, (tr. S. Douglas Olson), London, Heinemann, 2010 (Loeb Classical Library, Vol. VII).
Athenaeus, Books 13.594b – 14 (tr. S. Douglas Olson), London, Heinemann, 2010 (Loeb Classical Library, Vol. VI).
Q Curtius, History of Alexander, (tr. J.C.Rolfe), London, Heinemann, 1946. (Loeb Classical Library Vol. 1).
Q Curtius, History of Alexander, (tr. J.C.Rolfe), London, Heinemann, 1946. (Loeb Classical Library Vol. 2).
Diodorus Siculus (tr. C. Bradford Welles) London, Heinemann, 1963 (Loeb Classical Library Vol. VIII).
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, (tr. Ralph Marcus) London, Heinemann, 1923 (Loeb Classical Library Vol. VI).
Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, (Vol. I, Books 11 -12: Alexander the Great) (tr. J. C. Yardley), Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1997.
Marcus Junianus Justinus, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, (tr. with notes, by the Rev. John Selby Watson) London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Convent Garden (1853). http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/justin/english/trans8.html
Libanii Opera, (edit. R. Foerester), Vol. VI, Declamations XIII – XXX, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1911, https://archive.org/details/libaniiopera00greggoog
Pausanias, Description of Greece, (tr. W.H.S. Jones) London, Heinemann, 1923 (Loeb Classical Library Vol. III).
Pausanias, Guide to Greece: Volume 2: Southern Greece, (tr. Peter Levi), Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1971.
Plutarch The Age of Alexander, (tr. I. Scott-Kilvert) Great Britain, Penguin, 1973.
Plutarch, Moralia, (tr. Frank Cole Babbit), London, Heinemann, 1962, (Loeb Classical Library Vol. IV).
Plutarch, Moralia, (tr. W C Helmbold), London, Heinemann, 1961, (Loeb Classical Library Vol. IX).
Plutarch, Lives, (tr. Bernadotte Perrin), London, Heinemann, 1917 (Loeb Classical Library Vol. V).
Plutarch, Lives, (tr. Bernadotte Perrin), London, Heinemann, 1917 (Loeb Classical Library Vol. VII).
Polybius, The Histories, (tr. W.R. Paton), London, Heinemann, 1923. (Loeb Classical Library Vol. III).
The Suda on line, (edit. Raphael Finkel, William Hutton, Patrick Rourke, Ross Scaife, Elizabeth Vandiver), http://www.stoa.org/sol/about.shtml, 2007.
Modern Authors
Antela-Bernardez, B., “Philip and Pausanias: A Deadly Love in Macedonian Politics”, CQ, Vol. 62, 2012, pp. 859 – 861.
Badian, E., “The Death of Philip II”, Phoenix, Vol. 17, 1963, pp. 244 – 250.
Barnes, T. D., “Two Passages in Justin”, CQ Vol. 48, 1998, pp. 589 – 593.
Bartlett, Brett, “Justin’s Epitome: The Unlikely Adaptation Of Trogus’ World History”, Histos, Vol. 8, 2014, pp. 246 – 283.
Bosworth, A. B., “ Philip II and Upper Macedonia” CQ Vol. 27, 1977, pp. 93 – 105.
Bosworth, A. B., Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Brunt, P A, “On Historical Fragments and Epitomes”, CQ, Vol. 30, 1980, pp. 477 – 494.
Carney, Elizabeth, “The Sisters of Alexander the Great: Royal Relicts”, Historia, Vol. 37, 1988, pp. 385 – 404.
Carney, Elizabeth, “The Politics of Polygamy: Olympias, Alexander and the Murder of Philip”, Historia, Vol. 41, 1992, pp. 169 – 189.
Carney, Elizabeth, Olympias: Mother of Alexander the Great, New York, Routledge, 2006.
Carney, Elizabeth, and Ogden, Daniel (Editors), Philip II and Alexander the Great: father and son, lives and afterlives, New York, Oxford University Press, 2010.
Cook, Brad L., “Plutarch’s use of λέγεται: Narrative Design and Source in Alexander”, GRBS, Vol. 42, 2001, pp. 329 – 360.
Ellis, J. R., “Amyntas Perdikka, Philip II and Alexander the Great”, JHS, 91, 1971, pp. 15 – 24.
Ellis, J.R., Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism, London, Thames and Hudson, 1976.
Ellis, J.R. and Milns, R.D., The Spectre of Philip, Marrackville, Sydney University Press, 1970.
Fears, J. R., “Pausanias, the Assassin of Philip”, Atheneum, Vol. 53, 1975, pp. 111 – 135.
Gabriel, Richard A., Philip II of Macedon: Greater than Alexander, Washington, Potomac Books, 2010.
Hammond, N.G.L., Three Historians of Alexander the Great, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Hammond, N. G. L., “The Sources of Justin on Macedonia to the Death of Philip”, CQ, Vol. 41, No. 2, 1991, pp. 496 – 508.
Hammond, N.G.L., Sources for Alexander the Great, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Hammond, N.G.L., and Griffith, G. T., A History of Macedonia, Vol. II, Oxford, Oxford University Press,1979.
The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (edit. N.G.L. Hammond and H.H. Scullard), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1970.
Heckel, Waldemar, The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire, New York, Routledge, 1992.
Heckel, Waldemar, Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander’s Empire, Malden, Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Kapetanopoulos, Elias, “Philip II’s Assassination and Funeral”, The Ancient World, Vol. 27.1, 1996, pp. 81 – 87.
Kuskowski, Ada-Mariam, “Whodunit? The Murder of Philip of Macedon”, Hirundo: The McGill Journal of Classical Studies, Vol. I, Fall 2001, pp. 23 – 37.
Lamberton, Robert, Plutarch, New Haven, Yale University Press, 2001.
Milns, R.D., Alexander the Great, London, Robert Hale, 1968.
Olmstead, A.T, History of the Persian Empire, Chicago, University of Chicago, 1948.
Pearson, Lionel, “The Diaries and the Letters of Alexander the Great”, Historia, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1955, pp. 429 – 455.
Skilton, Amalia, “The Death of Philip of Macedon”, The Concord Review, Vol 19, No. 3, 2008/09, pp. 57 – 96.
Unz, Ron K, “Alexander’s Brothers”, JHS, Vol. 105, 1985, pp. 171 – 174.
Worthington, Ian, Philip II of Macedonia, New Haven, Yale University Press, 2008.
The five biographies are clearly written with a strong political bias. While Macedonians and Hellenes are described a two distinct, even antagonsitic entities the same could be said about the city states.
Macedon cannot be defined by its critics and even the grudging back-handed compliments of Demosthenes in the Phillipics and in Olynthiac III.23.
Demosthenes displayed a visceral dislike of Philip of Macedon principally because he saw him as a direct threat to the democratic status quo enjoyed by the Athenian Assembly. Nevertheless Demosthenes recognised that the rise of Macedon was not simply due to the autocracy of Philip but of the inherent weaknesses of the democratic system and the duplicity of the city state alliances.
in Phillipic I, 11 he states as an admonishment to the Assembly
"Philip is dead comes one report, No he is only ill from another. What difference does it make, should anything happen to Philip, Athens in her present frame of mind, will soon create another Philip. This one's rise was due less to his own power than to Athenian apathy".
In Olynthiac III, 23 while pouring scorn on the city state allies of Athens he berates yet again.
"I invite any man present to tell me here and now what other source there is of Philip's power than ourselves"
In truth Philip's power was gained in filling a vacuum, well demonstrated by the appalling failings of the Greek armies and navies in the Peloponnesian wars and the failure of the city states to form a lasting confederation, facts grudgingly accepted in the same speech.
"We have spent over fifteen hundred talents to no purpose, the allies we made in the war have brought us down in the peace, and we have brought an adversary of such magnitude on the stage against us".
Macedonia was the inheritor of the Hellenic mission soon to be re-branded the Hellenistic mission with a much more far reaching ambition.
Kathleen, Barry, Vassilis
Please do not try to prove “to me”; prove your contentions just in principle. I am not an arbiter here. And please prove not general, vague statements; please try to prove the particular constitutive facts like those that I mentioned in the main text above backing them with the facts again and references. Not big syntheses. The facts please.
About the two entities.
This could not be contested. Sorry. Athens and Sparta were also two entities. Flanders and Wallonians are entities, Austrians and Germans are entities, as Serbs and Croats are entities.
Where is the problem with the two entities? Or you want to prove “something else”? Please, we do not want here ANYTHING that introduces biases linked to the actual political problems and all gibberish that lay around. Please. Please let us keep away from this. If somebody insists on those aspects, I will stop this discussion. I even do not want now to prolong on this particular aspect any more. Please.
The 5 secondary biographies of the Alexander III of Macedonien were based on the today almost completely lost primary biographies by the contemporary authors. Those were certainly biased. (Lionel Pearson: The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great: American Philological Association (Philological Monographs, 20.), 1960.) The secondary biographies were written 300 years later, when the Macedonian “language” was, if spoken at all, was spoken probably only by the surviving members of the royal Macedonian dynasties (Cleopatra VII being may be the last one, as Plutarch reports in the “Life of Antony”). They could have been biased as well, although Macedonia did not exist then practically any more and that bias could not be in the essence a political one. These secondary biographies, well I do not intend to give citations here, you just have to read them to see how Hellenes and Macedonians are presented. They are in fact in quite explicit way ALMOST not “about Hellenes” at all. Those biographies speak about Macedonians. Sorry, this just could not be disputed.
Please do not read the reviews of Arrian and the others: read the books themselves. Do not read Keegan only, please, read Diodorus and Curtius Ruffus and if you want, the scholars like Green, Borza , Hecklel, Hammond. You cited some of them! They are explicit: Macedonian identity is clearly distinguished from Hellenic.
Yet what is hard to interpret is not that time of 12 years or so of Alexander - time too short to speak about Macedonian/Hellenes integration. It is hard to see what kind of political, social cultural and scientific life was later in the Greek (Hellenic) part of the empire. Those aspects are interesting. Thanks for contributing in the future to the discussion in this direction.
Dragan
I am not attempting to prove anything, that would be futile. It is quite natural for those studying history to speculate based on well founded knowledge.
Macedon clearly had a seperate identity to Greece. Both the Macedonians and the Greeks held to that view and contemporary speeches make that very clear. However Philp to some extent and Alexander to a larger extent still believed themselves Hellenic and believed that they, not Sparta or Athens were best placed to advance Greek culture (albeit with a Macedonian flavour) . Affinity for a particular culture is common throughout history whereas the nation state is not.
Alexander adopted a truly cosmopolitan lifestyle and was keen to assimilate the characteristics of other cultures throughout his short but astonishing life.
As to language differences the ancient language of Macedonia is virtually undocumented. What survives of Macedonian is found in Greek texts and records in the main military orders given to Macedonian troops who did not speak Greek.
The 'acquistion' of Alexander the Great as a Greek hero is a product of modern Greek political ideology and would have been unfathomable to Alexander himself. This is largely based on the fact that both Alexandros and Philippos are both Greek names and that the Royal Macedonian household spoke Greek. Language itself is not a sufficient marker of nationality in the ancient world. The Greeks spoke a variety of dialects (Doric, Ionic and Aeolic to name the main ones) that most modern linguists consider so different to each other that they qualify as languages themselves, yet all of these were 'Greeks'.
In much more recent history language did not define nationality or even culture. The Normans assimilated French language but maintained a significantly different culture from France. One of the most idolised of 'English' Monarchs, Richard Coeur de Lion was French and spoke no English. Simon de Montfort, sometimes hailed as the founder of modern parliaments was also French but is regarded as English through and through. King George the 1st, a British Monarch spoke no English and German was common at court well into Victoria's reign. The Romanovs spoke French at court but were most certainly Russian.
In the final analysis we can accept that Macedon was sufficiently different to Greece to be a separate entity, but does it matter?. Macedonians were simultaneously Greek and not Greek. In the 4th century BC nationality was not viewed as it is today. Even by the 4th century CE being Roman was not a 'nationality'. Citizenship was earned rather than a birthright.
We should perhaps not attach the significance of nationality to ancient cultures. It crystalised only in the 14th century and even today is ephemeral. In modern society tribalism is only just below the surface, perhaps we need a 21st century Philip II to bring us back to our senses.
Was Aristotle Greek or Macedonian and did Aristotle at the request of Philip of Macedon II, tutored Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC?
The answer could be unclear in some years from now. Aristotle could be a no land personality and Philippe II even though existed; he might be a person that comes from nowhere. Vergina could be not Vergina and Stagira not Stagira, both are located in Macedonia North of Greece.
The question is what we want to say. Equally, the Parthenon might be a creation of British Elgin and the Vénus de Milo Aphrodite a creature of a French artist. Why not.
Hellenistic period: from the death of Alexander till the great civilization of Romains, there is a great gap. Simple example the famous library of Alexandria that flourished under the Hellenistic period and the patronage of the Ptolemaic dynasty did not exist and no one burn it, Julius Caesar, the 47 B.C.
The facts are there, a great Greek civilization and these idiot Greeks saved the west fighting at the naval battle of Salamis. Philippe the II, a visionary and Aristotle “decided” to liberate the rest of Greek cities in Asia and expend their forces to get in touch with the rest of civilization. Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, China, Africa great regions. This is the history. If, we want to rewrite the history that is possible.
I do not believe anyone suggested that the Greeks were 'idiots'. What is undoubtedly the case is that Macedonian military strategy was far more effective than that employed by the city states.
The Greeks would not have been fighting for the West at Salamis. 'The West' as a political concept arose during the late Roman Empire and had more to do with satisfying the ambitions of emperors rather than protecting nations, or for that matter even empires since it effectively divided one.
It is a fact that history is continually rewritten, there is no final history except perhaps in the detail. This thread demonstrates adequately that the 'histories' written in the last 2,300 years are uncertain. Most are written as propaganda to bolster modern chauvinism. Others are mistaken interpretations and many are simply partially understood. The reality is no one knows what the Greeks and Macedonians really thought about nationhood.
Alexander's conquest and his eastern expeditions were a continuation of history not distinct from it. For at least 1,500 years before Alexander the rule of thumb was invade or be invaded. In much of the world nothing has changed.
Barry
Excellent comment, I must admit. But still a “big synthesis”. Here, I am looking more for some details and their sources.
One thing: Alexander WANTED to be seen as a Macedonian AND as a GREEK also. The intention of my question was to find out how successfully was this conscious intention of Alexander, the intention of ‘homonoia’, that was often not only declared but confirmed with some singular acts (proskynesis, etc: Quintus Curtius, The History of Alexander, VIII.7.12-13; Arrian, Anabasis, IV.9), was put at work.
Moralizing about the “immorality” of the concepts of ‘nation’, ‘state’ and similar are really, dear Barry, not needed and are displaced. We should not be influenced either by the syndrome of balkanization, Brexit or recent political adventures of Donald J. Trump. Let us remain within disinterested science.
Vassilis
I am not sure I understand what you wanted to say. Yet again: a “big synthesis”. Here, I am looking more for some details and their sources.
Dear Dragan, you can follow your analysis free. I just post a short last comment. Thanks.
@Barry, Thanks to say that the Greeks did not fight for the west. Of course not.
I agree that the 'histories' written in the last 2,300 years are uncertain- even the ones of yesterday are uncertain - but I do not agree that the facts should be miss-written or miss-explained.
You said “ Alexander's conquest and his eastern expeditions were a continuation of history not distinct from it.” Of course, today some 2000 years later we still be part of the same history and surprisingly I read you saying that “The reality is no one knows what the Greeks and Macedonians really thought about nationhood”.
Aristotle in The Politics provides analysis of the kinds of political community that existed in his time and shows where and how these cities fall short of the ideal community.. and describes the role that politics and the political community must play. Additional works define Democracy and citizens’ rights, justice and responsibilities. These are facts. No uncertain observations. Exactly as Vergina and Stagira are Greek cities, and exactly as Elgin did not create Parthenon nor the Vénus de Milo.
The History as a science carries also responsibilities of an exact science and as such should provide clear elements. If, the famous library of Alexandria and the numerous papyrus were still present might that the history be different today. Burn and destroy is a barbarian characteristic.
Dear Vassilis
I still have difficulties following your argument.
What concerns Parthenon, I think as long as wars, killing people and that ‘might is right’ will remain legal - steeling Elgin Marbles will remain also legal. It is similar for the apparent political correctness related to the rights to have a state or not, be a nation or not, have a right to establish an ethnic or religious state or not, and in the end, it is similar in respect to so called “International law”: the arguments can be turned at wish. But, yes, this is not the theme of the thread here. Sorry.
Vassilis
I did not say the Greeks and Macedonians did not think about politics I said they did not express concepts of nationhood, that is I believe what Dragan is postulating.
The Polis is not the 'nation', indeed it is very distinct. Democracy, citizens rights and justice are also not akin to the nation or the state which exists very adequately without any of them.
Greece like any nation state today owes its national charcteristics to its past but its past is not defined by the sentiments of those who lived in later times. In the 18th century Greek literature contained little in the way of panegyrics for Philip and Alexander, they were seen as conquerors of the Greeks, not themselves 'of the Greeks'.
It is futile to speculate on the contents of the library at Alexandria. The library was a virtual ruin by the time of its destruction and its contents had long been scattered far and wide. Incidentally burning libraries is not confined to the Barbaroi, in fact barberoi means simply foreigner not savage.
On Alexander's death his empire was divided between his generals. This does not appear to be a method of preserving 'nationhood'. The revolt of the northern states of Greece culminating in their defeat at Crannon in 322 BCE by Antipater indicates that Macedonian was still perceived as different from Greek, at least by those Greeks.
Antipater imposed by force an oligarchy on Athens under the yoke of a Macedonian garrison. We must assume he saw Macedonian oligarchy as distinct from Greek democracy but even that does not indicate the concept of nationhood, only ideology.
Finally history is not an exact science. It never could be. We cannot recreate historical events to determine their veracity, we cannot filter ancient bias like we may be able to partially filter modern bias. With no verifiablity and no method of eliminating confounders history will never be a science, however wonderful its study may be.
What do we make of the dedication to Alexander's victory at The River Granicus inscribed on the Athenian Acropolis?
Alexander son of Philip and the Greeks - except the Spartans - dedicated these spoils from the barbarians of Asia
To go back to your original question, Dragan, I would say that the “prominent feature” of Alexander’s empire was Alexander’s own ego. Macedonian nationalism and pan-Hellenic ideals were simply tools to his own ambitions, not ends in themselves.
Early in his campaign, Alexander decided to use the Persian satrapy system to govern his newly conquered territories (Bosworth, Conquest and Empire, p. 229 citing Arr. 1.17.1 – 8, along with epigraphic evidence).
Which brings me to my second point. As someone who has undertaken academic research on Alexander, I agree with you on the need to read the surviving literary sources but with a number of cautions.
Firstly, the only biography is Plutarch’s Life of Alexander. Arrian, Curtius and Diodorus were writing Histories according to their own understanding of what that term meant at that time. And Diodurus’ account of Philip and Alexander was only a small part of his grand history that went all the way back to the Trojan War. Justin’s contribution was an epitome of a similar grand history by Pompeius Trogus (Philippic Histories and Origins of the Entire World and Locations of the Earth (Historiae Philippicae et Totius Mundi Origines et Terrae Situs)).
Each of these sources has to be approached with caution, paying due consideration to the author’s own biases and the likely biases of their sources. This is why historiographic analysis is so important. (See in particular, Hammond, N.G.L., Three Historians of Alexander the Great, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, “The Sources of Justin on Macedonia to the Death of Philip”, CQ, Vol. 41, No. 2, 1991, pp. 496 – 508, and Sources for Alexander the Great, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.) A point you concede in your allusion to Lionel Pearson’s, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great.
Then you have to look for corroborative evidence through other means such as passing references in other ancient written works, inscriptions such as Barry has cited (epigraphy), archaeology, coins (numismatics) and Prosopography – “the study of individual persons in a larger context. Although no agreed definition exists, in classics and ancient history it is often used to give a name to a lexicon or a study that includes all persons considered relevant to a specific and fixed period, or to a political structure or other entity. Prosopography is also used to denote the prosopographical method, which arranges and discusses persons according to their names and aims to establish the social contexts of groups, such as their ethnic and regional origin, family connections and careers.” M. Horster, ‘The Prosopographia Imperii Romani (PIR) and New Trends and Projects in Roman Prosopography”, Prosopography Approaches and Applications: A Handbook, ed. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan (Oxford, 2007), pp. 231 – 240 (p. 231).
The other issue to bear in mind is that all historians, ancient and modern, bring their own interests, focuses and biases to their work. For myself, my focus has been on Alexander’s strategy and tactics, and the Macedonian military, together with the issue of his father’s assassination.
The issues that you appear to be concerned with, are outside the focus of my own attention, but as a suggestion, you might have it useful to see if anyone has done any analysis of the ethnic composition of the many colonies Alexander established.
You might also find it helpful to approach Rolf Strootman who is on RG and has done a lot of work on the Hellenistic kingdoms after Alexander.
Dear Dragan, I just initially want to congratulate you for the justification to your question: impressive and fantastic! Thank you for that, really.
Kathleen
Indeed histories have to be treated with circumspection. I have an interest in German history, in particular that of the GDR and I have a large collection of books written about it, both during its existence and post 1990. Even though there are many distinguished historians and contemporary chroniclers still alive it is often difficult to follow because of frequent contradictions and interpretations of events.
If the history of the last 60 years is confused with propaganda, bias and downright fabrication we can but imagine the effect of 2,300 years of it.
I like your reference to prosopography. One of the main texts on Alexander was written in 1926 by Helmut Berve; Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage. This work is now of course suspect because Berve was a member of the Nazi party. He is also criticised because the study makes few references to foreign scholars on Ancient Greece.
In fact Berve only joined the Nazi party in April 1933 and was therefore a Märzveilchen, not sufficiently committed to the party to have joined before they came to power. He too seems to have been motivated, not by the hideous nationalism of Nazi Germany but by his own advantage.
Barry
I think I said in the beginning that I propose to discuss the particular social elements, agents, relations, structures and behaviours – to define them “ostensively”(B. Russell, 'Human Knowledge', part 2, 2), and to avoid in principle all kinds of Aristotelian definitions and use the definitions adapted to the purpose, as we do in science. I thought particularly about the terms ‘nation’ and ‘state’, no matter how well they were defined by Aristotle, for example in ‘Politics’ and ‘Constitutions’ (and there Vassilis has certainly right: why would we neglect some our otherwise accepted principles - just because it suits us now?). Those terms are not only politically biased but also kind of social constructs that do not permit at all to see them detached from the context, discourse, genre and numerous other factors, including religion, ideology, tradition, let alone language and knowledge. Although I think it is possible to articulate some principles applicable to the terms ‘state’ and ‘nation’, the geopolitics would prove them useless (well just take the recent Middle East and Balkan history!).
I am not at all sure that I was clear enough... But I do not want to discuss those aspects here. Therefore, I propose again to avoid them and to open a new thread and discuss those there.
Barry
"Alexander son of Philip and the Greeks - except the Spartans - dedicated these spoils from the barbarians of Asia"
Alexander Ist claimed to be a Hellene and it was then accepted that the dynasty was Greek (Herodotus, you will find the reference easily). The dynasty was Hellene; the Macedonians were barbarians (not speaking Hellenic language). Well, if in Berlin we had a similar inscription dedicated to the Queen Victoria or to Prince Charles, I would not be surprised.
Kathleen
I appreciate your contribution very much indeed.
Alexander’s sincerity is hard to estimate. Thomas’ text (below) confirms your contentions but other numerous texts do not support them entirely. It is of course hard to know what people’s sincere intentions are. Some 'Märzveilchen' turned into serious indirect collaborators (Leni Rifenstahl, Martin Heidegger). Alexander's relaying almost entirely on Macedonians in his business of war and his state is the aspect that is clear (you cited also Heckel’ work which demonstrates this enthnocentrism). I want in fact to examine the Diadochi period in more depth.
What concerns the secondary biographies, since I did not do my own deep and basic research on those matters of the “biographies”, I am inclined to adhere to Pearson’s, in addition to Hammonds, Borza’s, Heckel’s, Lane – Fox’s and other people views. However, I started this discussion to see what the other researchers would say not about the “entire history” but about some specific details. Unfortunately up to now you seem to be the only researcher involved, although not very specifically, with this subject. You also tend a bit to offer “big syntheses”, but I am grateful to those efforts of yours anyway! Thanks very much for your advices.
_______________________________________________
Tarn, WW: Alexander the Grat, Vol II, Sources and Studies, Chapter 25, Cambridge University Press, 2002 (1948).
C. G. Thomas: Alexander the Great and the unity of mankind, The
Cclassical Journal, 258-260. 1968.
http://amitay.haifa.ac.il/images/2/22/Alex_and_the_Unity_of_Mankind_-_Thomas.pdf
A key point to the “Macedonian nationalism and the Hellenistic states” is the technological/medical/biological references related to this question. These should be real facts and not personnal conclusions and ideas.
How could be possible under the Alexander leadership in 10 years the Hellenistic forces to conquer the world faster than the American & British in the Gulf and American and Russians in Afghanistan. What was the logistics?
2000 years later from Alexander the archaeological excavation reveals over these regions the presence of Greek civilization.
We have not to forget in this analysis that the “end of Politics must be the good of man” – Politics Aristotle (2009 article C. Breede “The Challenge of Nation-Building: Insights from Aristotle” & ref) compare to “Divide et impera” the central dogma that drives civilizations in the west.
Dragan
Alexander's reliance on Macedonians in his business of war was most probably (of course we cannot confirm) based on the demonstrably better effectiveness of them as soldiers as part of an army.
Macedonians were not braver, cleverer, stronger or faster than Greeks, Individual accounts of the bravery and prowess of Greek soldiers is exceptionally well documented with Thermopylae as an obvious example (Lacedaemonians of course) The Macedonian Army was better equipped, more manouverable, more versatile and as a single unit certainly better led than the rival armies of the city states. It is clear that in warfare one Strateggos is better than many.
Societal cohesion is often magnified in military formations and identity forged within them too. Sparta is a fine example of a martial society with its soldiers legendary for almost reckless valor.
If we are looking for the typical Hellene we probably will not find them. Athenian rhetoricians qualify as do Spartan Hoplites and Chalkidean philosophers but what do they share in common except an abstract notion of being in a collective known as 'The Greeks'?
Kathleen is probably correct that Alexander promoted Hellenism for his own advantage, that does not of course detract from either his or Hellenistic achievements. Philip II too had a clear affinity for ‘The Greeks’ rebuilding Aristotle’s birthplace after sacking it.
Macedonians were different to Greeks and the same as them, just as Spartans were. Philip wanted to be Greek and that was all that was necessary to be Greek. All Europeans are Greeks too because our modern societies contain so much that was of Ancient Greece that we cannot separate our 21st century identities from the foundation of European civilization 3,500 years ago.
Your question is of high scholarly quality and the issues it raises are a wonderful opportunity for uplifting discussion, compared to some issues on RG. I fear however that however many scholarly histories, biographies and prosopographies we study that we will always be tantalizingly short of understanding Alexander’s Macedonia. Perhaps that is his real legacy to us.
I cited earlier a story that Cleopatra VII was a polyglot, speaking also Macedonian. Here it is now in Greek:
[3] ἡδονὴ δὲ καὶ φθεγγομένης ἐπῆν τῷ ἤχῳ: καὶ τὴν γλῶτταν, ὥσπερ ὄργανόν τι πολύχορδον, εὐπετῶς τρέπουσα καθ᾽ ἣν βούλοιτο διάλεκτον ὀλίγοις παντάπασι δἰ ἑρμηνέως ἐνετύγχανε βαρβάροις, τοῖς δὲ πλείστοις αὐτὴ δἰ αὑτῆς ἀπεδίδου τὰς ἀποκρίσεις, οἷον Αἰθίοψι, Τρωγλοδύταις, Ἑβραίοις, Ἄραψι, Σύροις, Μήδοις, Παρθυαίοις.
[4] πολλῶν δὲ λέγεται καὶ ἄλλων ἐκμαθεῖν γλώττας, τῶν πρὸ αὐτῆς βασιλέων οὐδὲ τὴν Αἰγυπτίαν ἀνασχομένων παραλαβεῖν διάλεκτον, ἐνίων δὲ καὶ τὸ μακεδονίζειν ἐκλιπόντων.
Plutarch: lives: Antonius, 27. 4. (197); Translation: J. Drayden (http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/antony.html)
Language is today one of the means of the national unity. It was probably not so in the antiquity. The fact that Macedonian language/dialect (διάλεκτον?) was abandoned for the sake of the unity speaks against ethnocentrism of the kind that we would expect today.
Vassilis mentioned the technological/medical/biological references related to this question. Yes, those are also other aspects that can be further examined, although I believe that Hellenic contribution there, as compared to Macedonian, was probably overwhelming. Such cultural dominance of the Hellenes (Greeks) over Macedonians I would not mark as dividing but just opposite – as uniting.
Here is one text that will probably calm Vassilis. It may also help that the people understand what kind of material I am trying to get together.
Winthrop Lindsay Adams: Historical Perceptions of Greco-Macedonian Ethnicity in the Hellenistic Age, Balkan Studies, 37 (1996), pp. 205–222.
For the downvoters and the students: "POETRY IS MORE PHILOSOPHICAL THAN HISTORY” Aristotle ch9 of Poetics.
Some of the most successful civilisations thrived because they eschewed ethnocentrism. Macedonians are a fine example with first assimilating to Greek culture and later to very other culture they encountered and ultimaletly conquered.
Norse cultures also adopted this highly effective strategy. The Normans were originaly from Scandinavia but within as little as two generations had adopted the languages of the states they settled in. In France they spoke French and adopted the feudal economy but never fully became French. In Eastern Europe the Kievan Rus, also originally from Scandinavia founded modern Russia adopting and developing Slavic language and customs but retaining a distinct character.
Wherever the Normans settled they 'went native' in Sicily adopting Mediterranean customs and lifestyles, in The Levant assimilating characteristics of Jewish and Arab indigenous cultures. In Ireland it is said they became more Irish than the native Irish.
In England Norman and Angevin ruling classes eventually abandoned French and adopted English while leaving an indelible influence that even today is in our language. As a law teacher I still refer to Norman French terminology that survives in English Law.
The Normans and their Norse kinsmen, like the Macedonians could be what they liked, English, Irish, Sicilian, Middle Eastern, Russian and still be Normans.
It is an interesting thought that without Greek, Latin and Norman French English would be an unrecognisable language to most of us.
Barry
I am not sure that what you write is universally true.
By the first century AD the Macedonians become indistinguishable from the Hellens. Their language was lost. Even the roots of the words of Macedonian language are uncertain and some 156 “greecisized” glosses are proposed*. How similar the language to the Hellenic language was, is not decided. The languages of the same language family may be quite incompréhensible to each other.
*Kalléris, Jean. Les Anciens Macédoniens, étude linguistique et historique. Institut français d'Athènes, 1988.
The linguistic rule that the majority imposes the language to the minorities is in the Balkans evident. I did not know that Kievan Rus are still to differentiate from other Russians?
Драган,
когда я поступал в аспирантуру Московского университета мне дали заполнить анкету, где были вопросы в том числе и о национальности. После того как я указал, что отец и мать у меня белорусы, я посчитал лишним отвечать на вопрос о моей национальности. Однако мне сказали, что ответ на этот вопрос обязателен, и пояснили, что человек имеет ту национальность, которую он указывает в своем паспорте по достижении 16-ти летнего возраста. При этом он имеет право присвоить себе ту национальность, какую считает нужным.
Они были правы, Драган. Национальность - это исключительно ментальное понятие, так же как и нация.
Современные спекуляции на национальных чувствах людей преследуют одну единственную цель - посеять вражду между ними.
Previous replies interesting, I agree with the answers and explanations above ....
Eugene
"Modern speculation on the national feelings of people have one single purpose - to sow discord between them".
Now that is a very poignant observation in today's world!
Eugene
Let me translate what Eugene wrote: “Nationality is only a mental concept, as well as the nation. Modern speculation on the national feelings of people have one single purpose that is to incite disaccord between them.” (Is this right, Eugene?)
Dear Eugene, I agree with you that this certainly is one of characteristics of the use of the concept. Indeed, if we were to start this discussion, there will be an avalanche of answers and vivid disputes – and I will not get the answer to my original question. Let us then open one auxiliary thread with the question “What is nation”?
30 years ago I had a serious intention to explain the concept and answer to the question ‘what is nation’. I examined large literature, from Renan and Fichte to the contemporary philosophers and sociologist as Habermas or Hobsbawm, even I wrote one article. And I think I failed. I may enter into that discussion eventually, but I am not sure.
About definitions. As I said I do not believe, as majority of modern thinkers also agree, that by proposing strict definitions of the concepts would help the discussions. (See Popper on "What is... question", in "Realism and aim of science", Ch 4, section 33, Addendum,1983; 1985: p. 261-265) I tried to explain why in my earlier comments. You as a physicist, know that for example your definition of an object will be fundamentally different from the definition of the same object by a philosopher, sociologist, architect, painter, poet or a woo-do expert. How would we then ever achieve any understanding between those people? This is why I proposed the ostensive definition where we analyze only the constituent parts of the concept, never really defining the concept precisely.
Nationality is indeed an abstract and it was to Philip of Macedon no less than to Napoleon.
We all have our own abstractions and a belief in belonging is one of the strongest.
I am a native of and live in the most abstract of modern nations, I am English and British but one cannot be English because one is British. I and my Scottish, Welsh and Irish compatriots are British but I cannot be Scottish and a Scotsman is not English.
In spite of the impetuous nature of the Brexit vote we are all still Europeans too. When I lived in Germany I felt at home, not in a foreign land at all. The shared culture of Europe brings us all far closer than the nation is ever comfortable with.
The Macedonians were Greeks because they wanted to be, even though many Greeks did not want them to be. Dragan is quite correct here, we can only define the parts of nationality never the whole.
Essentially, going back to the original question, it was in a certain sense meaningless, because not only were Macedonians not a nation, neither were Greeks. The very concept of "nation" is modern, and really did not exist in the ancient world.
So what are nations? In the last analysis, they are separate economic units, or economic units in formation and creation, which is what national movements are all about. Upon which whole superstructures of sentiment, ideology, different versions of history, etc. are erected by proponents of nationalism. Anyone unclear on this should take Economics 101, where they start you off with the economy of a nation, and don't usually even get to international economic relations in the first semester.
Said movements and units first arose in Europe as the old feudal system broke down, gradually replaced by mercantile "modern" capitalist relations. Before then, the word "nation" was either meaningless or had a meaning different from that in contemporary discourse. Since then, what with market relations spreading universally, national movements, national rebellions, and first and foremost dueling national mythologies have profilerated. As in the Balkans, between the Greeks and the Macedonians now.
Now, you have to have some commonalities among peoples to make creation of functioning market style national economic units possible. What are they? The obvious ones are language, territory, common culture, and I forget the fourth. Those who want to find out what the fourth one is should read Stalin's exercise in Russian Orthodox Christian style Marxist dogmatism, "Marxism and the National Question." Him being a former student in a Russian Orthodox seminary, Where he got his particularly unpleasant and unreadable literary style and mode of thinking.
The ancient Greeks did have a concept of themselves as different and superior to the "barbarians," a Greek word, meaning people who spoke incomprehensible languages, chattering "bar, bar" and other meaningless noises. But it was not in any meaningful way a conception of a Greek "nation."
And Philip's Macedonia, which include some people who spoke Macedonian and plenty who spoke Thracian or various other obscure and forgotten languages, was the furthest thing from a "nation." As for Alexander, he saw himself as Macedonian when convenient, Greek when convenient, Persian when convenient, and if he'd lived a little longer might have conquered much of India and discovered that he was Indian and converted to Hinduism.
There was one and only one genuine national movement in the ancient world, namely the Jews. The Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire did have some of the characteristics of a modern national movement. This is because the Jews of Palestine, besides having a common territory, language and culture, had the key economic component. They were a mercantile people, the "middleman minority" to use the term sociologists use, of the Roman Empire. As market relations of a somewhat modern variety were somewhat common among the Jews of Palestine, the richest of all Roman colonies, unlike the fundamentally slave-agricultural Roman Empire as a whole, something resembling modern nationalism was the ideology of the Maccabees.
Thanks John.
When we say "Hellenism", to which people we refer to? Or when we say "Macedonians" what is the intention of the word? Or when you say "Macedonian language" what is the denotation of the word? Or when you say "Jews", what do you mean by that word?
As we can see we have now two new discussions: about "nation" and in addition, "the Jewish question". Sorry, I do not want to discuss any of them.
Thanks, but we have here some other question in focus (see above). If you want to discuss other questions, please open a new, separate thread.
Also if somebody thinks that all is relative, that there is no such a thing as the truth of a proposition, that everything is a kind of "genre", or "discourse", or "context dependent" or primarily a "social construct", please go to some other thread. There are plenty fantastic threads od that sort. But let us discuss our modest, trivial question here.
Thanks very much indeed.
@Kathleen, I do not agree that “the “prominent feature” of Alexander’s empire was Alexander’s own ego”. At any time, the “ego” expresses a catalytic activity but in a reaction that changed the history an “ego” is not sufficient.
A recall:
A metoikos, commonly transliterated as “metic” was a free, non-citizen resident of a Greek polis.
Alexander was citizen of a Greek city.
A handful of Greek soil is sufficient to define Nationhood. This is the basis of Hellenism all over the world.
Unfortunately the West conception cannot understand this major element that drives our civilization for the last 3.000 years. This need of the West to translate under a “West optic & vision” the freedom and the creativity in the Mediterranean and the East lacks scientific values and it is dangerous.
Frontiers could be virtual, the Nationhood is eternal. This philosophy of freedom that drives for thousands of years the civilization around the Mediterranean is the driving force of our world.
For the dreamers just enjoy the “metoikos” of George Moustaki / Dimitris Christodoulou. Alexander is part of this journey.
http://lyricstranslate.com/fr/le-m%C3%A9t%C3%A8que-metic.html-0
You are totally correct, John, with economic nature of nationalism. We can see this directly begining with Jews and ending with the crash of the USSR (and Yugoslavia also, Dragan). In his last interview Lukashenko said, that he has failed to define national idea of Belarussians (earlier he made such attempts). Actually, he has no any national ideas, only economic and personal. And it is understandable.
Another side of modern nationalism, common for intellectuals, is it's opposition to globalism, which unifies all and neglects personality. It is common for intellectuals of all countries and is a part of their traditional opposition to the state. Modern state is the machine in essence. It supresses personality and, therefore, it is an enemy of intellectuals. It is also understandable.
It is interesting for me, what Louis Brassard will say about this?
Answering Dragan's questions, "Hellenism" is/was an ideology not a people, was not the same thing as nationalism, and was not the sole preserve of the Greek ethnic group.
"Macedonians" and "Macedonian language" mean one thing now in the 21st Century, when you have a Slavic Macedonian language and people, and something totally different in the time of Alexander. The nature of the Macedonian language is now basically unknown, and the nature of the Macedonian people little better, best guess being that they were a multi-ethnic population under the rule of Philip of Macedon.
That Macedonia now and Macedon then have the same name is a historical accident due to continuity of the Roman Empire with its geographical designations for nearly two millenia. Indeed that is almost true of Greece as well, as the re-establishment of the Greek language in a population on the Greek mainland that was mostly Slavic during much of the Dark Ages was an ideological/cultural production of the Byzantine Empire. The heartland of Greek language and culture during much of the history of the Byzantine Empire was the area around Constantinople and Anatolia, i.e. the country now known as Turkey. DNA analysis of the populations of Greece and Turkey might have interesting results. Be it noted that Greek was the lingua franca of commerce, and to some degree the Greeks were a mercantile "middleman minority" in the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire, like the Jews.
As for "Jews," the much argued nature of the Jewish people, a matter on which, to some degree because I am Jewish myself, I have strong opinions and have researched and written about, that indeed would bring us far from the original subject.
John is spot on with that approach. Hellenism as an ideology can be adopted or assumed by any. The one qualification is an affinity for the philosophy or ideals and the adoption of them.
Greek philosophy embraced cosmopolitanism allowing for an individual to originate in a place but not be of it. Our modern concept of nationalism insists that we are what (who) we are born. A modern Greek born in Athens is from Greece and of Greece. Documentation of Greece and the recognition of Greece by other nations fixes the Greek's nationality. A Greek of the 4th century BCE would not have recognised such a concept and would almost certainly have rejected it.
Diogenes summed this up well. When asked where he was from he did not give as his answer as Sinope, his birthplace. Instead he said he was Kosmopolites meaning literally of the cosmos. By this statement he denied that he was of any particular Polis and exonerated himself of any responsibilities to one.
Alexander was the ultimate cosmopolitan in life style happy to assimilate any culture he came across while simutanoeusly remaining Hellene. John is almost certainly right, If he had lived longer and conquered India he would have adopted the culture and beliefs of their civilizations too.
John
I proposed to discuss here the Ancient Macedonia and NOT the modern Macedonia. Your comment is out of this topic, I am afraid.
(Eugene, Barry)
And I proposed NOT TO discuss the "concept of nation" as such but the concepts that are often thought to constitute that concept, like language, culture, tradition, beliefs and similar. Please try to avoid modern Greek-Macedonian or - well how this subject arrived into this discussion at all? - the Jewish-Arab disputes.
I pointed out this number of times here, without success. If you want to have a discussion of YOUR choice, you are free to do so - but without me. So I will withdraw for some time.
Dragan
Could you please clarify the use of the words in bold that make up your question?
"What kind of state was the empire of the Alexander of Macedonia?"
"Was it a Macedonian nationalistic state...?"
We know that language is not an indicator of nationhood either in the ancient or modern world. That Macedonians in the court of Philip and Alexander spoke Attic Greek was a choice or even affectation of theirs, not a characteristic.
Beliefs, either religious or political are not indicators of nationhood. Ancient Greece was home to many different religious & philosophical beliefs and certainly to many political theories.
Even tribal affiliations are not an indicator of nationhood. Nations may appear to be tribal when compared to other nations but many tribes can constitute one nation.
Culture is undefinable, Individual cultures may be defined by traits but what a culture is is not possible to classify by some form of 'national' taxonomy.
The final element is the concept of loyalty. In the modern sense we consider loyalty and patriotism to be synonymous. Alexander III would not have subscribed to that. Alexander did not require loyalty to 'The Hellenes' he expected loyalty to himself. He made that clear to his troops (Macedonian, Greek & Persian) while in the HIndu Kush. Neither Philip or Alexander would have considered themselves patriots of an abstract nation. Quite simply they were the nation.
It was not so much that Alexander and Philip thought of themselves as Greek or Macedonian they belived that they personified the concept of Hellene or Macedonian.
Alexander was not Greek, Alexander was not Macedonian. Macedonia and Greece were Alexander and had he not died so young much more of the world would have become so too.
How can we avoid nation and nationalism in the context of your question, Dragan? It is impossible.
Dear friends
Please read the main text above. And let us do this as we are used to do our professional work at the universities where we have our scientific careers.
I asked for the descriptions and not for your interpretations. I insisted number of times that I was interested in the descriptions of the state organization, political, administrative, military, the social practices, financial aspects as well number of cultural aspects.
We KNOW (yes we know) then, in the last third of the 4th century BC and later, those “things” were, they were either Hellenic, Macedonian, Persian or Egyptian or of some other trade. I suggested examining them closer as they were and see how they in fact were, bring more details; this is all, bring please references, scholarly works, no your personal hypotheses (which I very much respect, of course, guys, but please: some other time).
Yet! If somebody wants to say that the core of military hierarchy was not Macedonian, OK let see whether this is true. If somebody would say that the Alexandrian Museum was the expression of the Persian culture and science (?!) - well, let me see the proofs. We can look how they were described by the contemporary historian, how they were described later. Our personal description in any of the possible ways, is less relevant. Science may be international as knowledge is, but you cannot tell me that there in Alexandria was no science that was in certain way strongly Hellenic, can you?!
I see that Barry tends to see this from some postmodern position (“everything is relative”), that I, sorry, think is wrong - but I just do NOT want to have this discussion here and now. As I do not want to have any modern “Greek-Macedonian- Vardar-Skopje” or whatever denigrating expression some want to use in this discussion, or Jewish or any other of the sort.
And please, just scholarly work. Sorry, to discuss, you MUST have read Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, Justinus, Curtius, and some modern expert works on the Ancient Macedonia (Badian, Bordas, Hammond), at least! If you do not know what I am talking about, we will have difficulties. I just do not want endless free elaborations, customary executed after intensive Googling or Wikipediing. Please. If this is not your subject of the professional study, please restrain.
If this is not clear enough to you, please restrain from discussing. Or I will restrain from my comments and leave the thread to you.
But there is no serious problem. You are all nice people and we will meet at some other thread!
If there are still the people who are interested in history and not in political machinations, here is an attachment:
Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander’s Court
Makedonika 1995 (pp.149-58) by Eugene Borza
@Dragan, talking for the Court, Parents of Alexander, Mother Olympias of Epirus ; Father, Philip II of Macedon. So, Epirus provided the genetic hallmark of Alexander and might be true that his mother was the mastermind for his hegemony. Mothers often are the founders of the Empires and the Nations. What a similarity for two empires, Constantin and Alexander, Constantinople and Alexandria, Olympias and Eleni, Byzantium and the Hellenistic dominance.
Dragan
It is probably best that you simply read all of the histories. I suggest Paul Cartledge as the best current writer on this subject. He has very good references in his books and the bibliography should be all you need.
In reference to history and political machinations, history is about political machinations. Mellissa Lane at Princeton has written an excellent book on this titled simply Greek and Roman Political Ideas
Barry
The prerequisite for the discussion here is to have read (as I obviously did when I started this research about 15 years ago) all 5 secondary biographies of the Alexander of Macedonian and couple of other basic books from the authors whose names I only mentioned. People that are acquainted with the subject already know those works. If my friends here never heard of those authors, I think they are probably not well prepared for this particular discussion. Kathleen is apparently a single person on the thread that understood the project correctly. vassilis is very close to the core of the subject by his origins. So please, help me if you can to get more knowledge for this project or just please do not disturb.
Dragan I have read those works and many others. They are like all histories, snapshots of events affected significantly by the biases of the authors and their sponsors. It is a maxim of history that there are many histories and no truths. That may appear to be 'post-modern' but it is also correct.
The history of the ancient world cannot be understood from the commentaries, even of contemporary writers. We can only interpret what we observe, the philosophy of Popper does not lend itself to history.
Much of Greek history is based on Homeric myths. Even the Hellenic 'identity' is based on events that no one can definitively prove ever happened. We do not even know if Homer was a man or several men (or even women)
I can understand your academic purism here but I believe that it is ultimately bound to lead to as many questions unanswered as satisfactorily concluded.
Neither the Cynics, the Stoics or the Epicureans formulated any political theory of the nation state and the Cosmopolitans eschewed it entirely. Alexander the Great and the Hellenists too were not attempting to define Hellas as a nation but as a set of ideals, in Alexander’s case channeled through him personally. Hellenism did not abolish the politeiai which continued in individual and collective influence throughout the Hellenistic period.
However much we might try we cannot avoid modern analogies in our interpretations. Communism like Hellenism was an ideal to be exported also by satrapy. Your question asks directly about Macedonian nationalism, a modern concept.
"Was Macedonian nationalism a prominent feature of the empire of the Alexander III of Macedonia and of the Hellenistic states?"
The answer can only be there is no conclusive evidence to either refute or confirm.
I leave with this observation. In his travels Alexander founded (adopted more accurately) 12 cities in Europe and Asia. All of them were renamed Alexandria. We might ask ourselves why are there not multiple Verginas, Phillipopolis' and Macedons. Where is the concept of Greater Macedonia?
Barry
There were, were they? 5 or more Macedonias/Hellenic dominions/States! This is exactly the question! There is evidence that there were probably 18 Alexandrias and not just 12. Or in fact just 6? Who is to cite for this, you read those books? Tell me then how Hammond described the Macedonian state? Yoy read the book? Please no Googleing. Etc. No, Barry this just does not work this way. Thanks Barry, you are fine person and we have to go further. I know now what you think.
Let us see now how the other people can help MY project. Please JUST HISTORIANS!
Dragan
None of my observations are the result of Google! I have a reasonably large collection of books on classical histories and they are my source.
An interesting way to consider the question about Alexander might be to think as classical Greek historians themselves. Herodotus, the first historian applied ἱστορία, meaning inquiry or investigation to describe his accounts of recent events.
Thucydides took a similar view and where he referred to older historical events he separated them from his history, in which he, like Herodotus concentrated on recent history.
It is notable that historia only applies to recent events so ironically the ancient Greeks had no ‘ancient’ history. Some (Lane in particular) have compared Herodotus’s histories to modern investigative journalism rather than what we in the 21st century might think of as history.
We could also consider that in medieval Europe history meant nothing more than story. To them history was more analogy than ‘scientific fact’.
I will now at your request leave the debate and I hope that the historians of today will fully engage.
After this discussion I wonder, what was the genetics of Maugli? Smile.
Excuse, Dragan, but I leave as Barry.
Barry
I am sorry, excuse me. Please accept my apology.
I see that you are really occupied with the research concerning 4 BC in Greece. But this is not “purism” that I want. This is just normal research.
Barry, there are couple of guys here who like discussions and discuss absolutely everything. I just do not want to mention the names - that we both know.
No, Barry, this is not a place for those things. There are plenty of other forums where these people could enjoy their discussions. I want here that people who discuss have read ALL 5 biographies that I mentioned and probably have them at home that we can discuss various passages; have read all 3 books of Hammond, and may be Borza and Heckel and some other SPECIFIC stuff ALSO and probably have those also at hand. And if some read Bosworth and other authors even better, and the research articles too. We can discuss first then.
As I said I want to find about the facts, singular facts that can be described clearly. Would the collection of those facts be sufficient to support the concept of nationalism, cosmopolitism, ethnocentrism or HOMONOIA – what they would mean to us today - let us leave it for later and may be for some other discussion.
Eugene
(Genetics has NOTHING essential to do with the concept of nation.)
Yes, Eugene, please open your thread on "genetics and nation". I will probably not take part there, I am afraid.
@Dragan@All, I did not read Hammond, Borza or Heckel. The question was Macedonian nationalism a prominent feature of the empire of the Alexander III. It is of interest. No evidence of a Macedonian nation. Key data on that period will come from the real scientific approach.
X-ray data “The lameness of King Philip II and Royal Tomb I at Vergina, Macedonia” Bartsiokas et al 2015 PNAS and related references are of interest. Despite the focus of these and other studies on the identities of the personalities, I will stay on some scientific observations: “The recovery of Philip II after this terrible wound in the knee joint is a remarkable event in an era without antibiotics. It demonstrates remarkable skill by his doctors to avoid bleeding”. I cannot imagine what the accumulated knowledge in the library of Alexandria was. That knowledge was destroyed. It reminds recently Παλμύρα Palmyra or the destruction of the central library of the University of Mosul.
An empire is built on technological/scientific knowledge, civilization and wealth. The civilization and the ideas address the eternity question of the empire, the universality of these ideas, this civilization was built on the Hellenistic influence, philosophy and sciences.
The archeological excavation could be more informative if, the numerous archeological sites were not destroyed and violated by the numerous “visitors” of Mediterranean and Greek territories. The Great nations jumped on these sites to recover information, to use that information and to "rewrite" history. With all my respect, Nicholas Geoffrey Hammond, British was an operative for the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) in occupied Greece during World War II. Lord Elgin, l'ambassadeur britannique à Constantinople , « avait donné comme objectif à son équipe de mesurer, mouler et dessiner les antiquités athéniennes, et plus particulièrement celles sur l'Acropole ». . The Greek architect and sculptor Phidias should be really very unhappy. The civilization was violated and this event cannot be considered as progress.
When an empire is still present in the heart of the people and when the modern civilization still uses these old ideas of nation, democracy, justice and philosophy and monuments then it is obvious that the mastermind of the “Macedonian nationalism” is still present today.
Vassilis
If we would maintain that in the antiquity “nations” did not exist, or that the reference of the (modern) word “nation” , hypothetically, was not “the same” as it is today - indeed we claim indirectly that today we have a precise description of “nation” - and we just do not have such a description. This is why I employed the expression “entities” and this is why I hold the discussion about the concept of “nation” useless. Therefore I find useful the contribution of Vassilis where he points out at some cultural elements that are important for us. The question is whether they were of such importance then? Or the states, their administration, military organization and other palpable elements were of greater importance. How did the social life look like? We need more precise information. Pausanias ("Description of Greece") unfortunately does not offer a clear picture. Are there other more informative texts?
The particular aspects of the concepts of "nation", "state", "polis", "citizenship", "ethnicism" and related concepts, could be discussed here:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_nation
Thank you very much indeed.
Alexander wanted to secure the borders of his northern kingdom before crossing the Dardanelles Strait to Asia. In spring 335 BC, he began a campaign to purge his country of revolutions and uprisings. Alexander set out from the city of Amphipolis eastward to the land of the "independent Thracians" and on the slopes of the Balkan mountains defeated their troops in an insidious defeat. [56] He followed his path to the Tribal Tribes and defeated them near the river Laginus, [57] . The army then went to the main branch of the river where the Getyun tribe was on the opposite bank. Alexander ordered his men to cross at night under cover of darkness. He took the ghettos by surprise and forced them to retreat after the first skirmish among the knights. [58] [59] After that, he was told that Clitorus of Aliria and the Tolkien king Gluquias had rebelled against him. Alexander turned his army westwards to Aleria, where both kings were defeated and their armies were defeated. Alexander was the only one who secured the northern boundary of his kingdom.
The Tybians and the Athenians rebelled against the Macedonian rule again during the campaign of Alexander the North, and as the latter learned, he went south as quickly as possible to extinguish the fire of the revolution before it was extended. [62] As in the previous revolutions, all Greek cities were hesitant to fight Alexander because I knew of his arrival, but the good, which decided confrontation. The resistance of the Tayyibis was totally useless. Alexander and his army swept them like a stormy storm, and their city was divided over the land and divided between the rest of the cities. The end of the good had a terrible effect in the Athenians, and they were subject to Macedonia for fear that they would suffer the same fate, which would bring peace to all the countries of the Greeks even temporarily. [62] Alexander thus completely emptied his Asian campaign, gathered troops and gear and set off eastwards, leaving one of the military commanders, an antipater, a guardian of the throne.
Open the Persian Empire
Asia Minor
Alexander crossed the Dardanelles Strait in 334 BC with an army of 48,100 infantry, 6,100 knights, and a fleet of 120 ships with a crew of 38,000, [62] brought from Macedonia and various Greek cities. The army also included a number of mercenaries and feudal warriors from Thrace, Peñonia, and Aleria. [64] Alexander showed his intention to invade all the lands of the Persian Empire when he first planted a spear in the Asian mainland, saying that he accepted Asia as a gift for his person from the goddess. [62] This incident also showed another important matter, Alexander's eagerness to fight the Persians and his inclination toward military solutions, unlike his father, who always favored diplomatic solutions. [62] The Macedonians clashed with the Persians in the first battle on the banks of the river Granica, now known as the Bega River, in northwest Asia Minor near the city of Troy. The Persians were defeated and handed over to the city of Sard, the capital of that province, to Alexander, Seized its vaults, and continued its advance along the Ionian coast. [65] Alexander struck Alexander the city of Halikarnassus in the province of Karya, thus becoming the first city to be besieged. The siege was so successful that the city's mercenary commander, Momenon al-Roudisi and the governor of the Persian province of Arandabad, had to withdraw from the sea. [66] Alexander handed over Karia's rule to Ada al-Kariyeh, a former governor of the province. [67] Her loyalty to Macedonia was officially adopted by Alexander, until the rule of the province was legitimized after her death.
Alexander and his army advanced from Halikarnassus to the mountainous region of Lykia in the south of Anatolia, in Pamphilia, opening all the coastal cities one by one, guarding the Persians from many important seaports. After the conquest of Pamphilia, the rest of the coastline did not contain any prominent seaports or naval bases. When the city of Parmesan Tremus came to an end, it was replaced by a certain punishment, the incarnated bird of the great deity Zeus, where he was afraid to do so To the wrath of Zeus on him and not to reconcile him in his campaign. [69] After Tremus, Gordium was Alexander's next leg and army, in which he dissolved the unbroken Gordian knot, which was said to be the only one that could be solved by the true King of Asia. [70] Historians report that Alexander cut the knot with his sword, saying it was not necessary to know the correct way to solve it. [71]
Levant
After Alexander and his army spent the entire winter, they conquered and opened the fortified cities and castles in Asia Minor. They continued their march southward and crossed the portals of Cyrillic in 333 BC. They met the Persians again at Esos, led by Shah Darius III himself. [72] The two armies fought in a fierce battle, Alexander's conquest of a decisive victory, the break-up of the Persian army and the escape of the shah survived his life. His wife, two daughters and his mother, Sesigambis, were captured by his captors, and the Macedonian sheep had a great treasure that he carried with him and huge quantities of supplies and weapons. The Shah offered to conclude a peace treaty with Alexander, under which the latter would retain the land he had conquered and release his family for 10,000 Talents. Alexander responded to this suggestion that he alone had the right to divide the lands of Asia, since it was impossible for her master, so Darius or anyone could not determine what he kept and did not leave.
This victory of Alexander the victor, who opened the doors of the Levant wide, to establish a city in the north of the country on the border of Anatolia, is «Alexandrona». Alexander now had to choose one of two plans: either to hunt the Persians to their own country, or to crawl south to open the Phoenician cities and Egypt before knocking on Persia. Alexander chose the second plan to maintain his transport lines and to thwart any attempt by the Persian fleet to move Greece to revolt against it. [75] The Phoenician cities were under the yoke of heavy Persian colonization, and they opened their doors to Alexander