Modern Historians about Macedonia – Hermann Bengtson

 

 In the cultural gulf between Greeks and Macedonians the question of Macedonian national origin was never more than of secondary importance in antiquity. For modern scholars the evidence from names – there is not a single sentence extant from the language of the Old Macedonians – tilts the scales in favour of the view that includes the Macedonians among the Greeks. The theory, therefore, advocated by the student of Indo-European linguistics, P.Kretschner,that the Macedonians were of Graeco-Illyrian hybrid stock, is not to be regarded as very probable. So the majority of modern historians, admittedly with the noteworthy exception of Julius Kaerst , have argued  correctly for the Hellenic origin of the Macedonians. They should be included in the group of the North-West Greek tribes .

Griechische Geschichte-Hermann Bengtson 

 

This does not, however, discount the statement of Thucydides (II 99) that the Macedonians were related to the Epirotes from possibly having an element of truth. From the point of view of history it is more important that a century of isolation in the country which bears their name moulded the Macedonians into a distinctive social, political and anthropological unit, developing their essential features from within, and without domination by Hellenic influence. Thus the character of the Macedonian people had long since been moulded when, in the great power struggle between Athens and Philip, the hate-filled orations of Demosthenes repeatedly emphasised the divisive features between Greeks and Macedonians.”

 

Chapter 10, Philip of Macedonia, pgs. 185-186

Hermann Bengtson, ‘History of Greece’

Translated and updated by Edmund F. Bloedow,University of Ottawa Press,1988

 

 

 

 

 

Modern historians about Macedonia – Richard Stoneman

 

Quote:

The world he [Alexander] left behind him, split as it quickly was between several successor-kings, retained the Greek language as its medium of communication and Greek culture as its frame of reference.

“Alexander the Great” By Richard Stoneman,page 1

 

Quote:

When, as a young, ambitious and romantic youth with a genius for military strategy and tactics, he embarked on the conquest of the Persian empire, he may have had no more in mid than the setting to rights of the perceived age-old wrong inflicted by the Persians on the Greeks.

“Alexander the Great” By Richard Stoneman, page 2

 

Quote

In favour of the Greek identity of the Macedonians is what we know of their language: the place-names, names of the months and many of the personal names, especially royal names, which are Greek in roots and form.This suggests that they did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca, but spoke it as natives (though with a local accent which turned Philip into Bilip, for example).

The Macedonians’ own traditions derived their royal house from one Argeas, son of Macedon, son of Zeus, and asserted that a new dynasty, the Temenids, had its origin in the sixth century from emigrants from Argos in Greece, the first of these kings being Perdiccas. This tradition became a most important part of the cultural identity of Macedon.

It enabled Alexander I (d.452) to compete at the Olympic Games (which only true Hellenes were allowed to do); and it was embedded in the policy of Archelaus (d.399) who invited Euripides from Athens to his court, where Euripides wrote not only the Bacchae but also a lost play called Archelaus. (Socrates was also invited, but declined.)

 

“Alexander the Great” By Richard Stoneman, page 14

 

 

 

Modern Historians about Macedonia:Ernst Curtius

 

✍️ Quote:

Amyntas belonged to a collateral branch of the Temenidæ of Argos. During the disturbances which interrupted the legitimate succession of the Argive kings (vol. i. p. 271), about the middle of the ninth century B. C., Caranus had come into Macedonia and had obtained royal power among the mountain tribes; and this royal power became hereditary in his house. 

Their power was not that of despotic princes, but one regulated from the first by laws and mutual agreement. The whole history of the empire connects itself with the dynasty of the Temenidæ, and commences with Perdiccas, who pushed his conquering march forward from the mountain fastness of Ægæ into lower Macedonia, the ancient Emathia, by the conquest of which the Macedonian Temenidæ established their imperial power.

📖 The History of Greece Vol. 2

Book by Ernst Curtius, Adolphus William Ward; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1871, page 188

✍️ Quote:

In the house of Amyntas Greek culture reigned and his son Alexander had adopted it with his whole heart and soul. Alexander was a thorough Greek, and recognized the future of Macedonia as depending on her intimate connection with the Hellenic states.

✍️ Quote:

The whole Alpine country of Northern Greece was now under vassals of the Achæmenidæ; and as formerly the Dorians had advanced from Macedonia to the south, so the Barbarians now wished at the opportune moment to penetrate into the lower country, in order to surround the sea on the west side also with their power.

📖 The History of Greece Vol. 2

Book by Ernst Curtius, Adolphus William Ward; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1871, page 189

✍️ Quote:

On the present occasion Mount Athos protected the western Greeks.

📖 The History of Greece Vol. 2

Book by Ernst Curtius, Adolphus William Ward; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1871, page 216

Robin Lane Fox:Macedonia a Greek speaking Kingdom

 

Robin Lane Fox

 Emeritus Fellow of New College, Oxford and Reader in Ancient History, University of Oxford

Macedonian Treasures at the Ashmolean Museum,Oxford (2011) 

Fox, L.R., 2011. "2. Macedon, c. 650-336 BC", in Kottaridi, A. & Walker, S. (eds). Heracles to Alexander the Great, Treasures from the Royal Capital of Macedon, a Hellenic Kingdom in the Age of Democracy, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 25-38 

Historian Robin Lane Fox about Alexander the Great and Macedonia (2012)

 

National Geographic:Alexander the Great

 

 

Alexander the Great origins by professor Guy MacLean Rogers

 

 Guy M. Rogers

Professor of History and Classical Studies

Classicist and historian of Greek and Roman history, ancient religion and warfare, Alexander the Great, and Jewish History

Prof. Barry S. Strauss:Ancient Macedon was part of the Greek Speaking Civilization

 

Barry Strauss  - Cornell  University

Dr.Michael Scott:Ancient Greece,the Greatest Show on Earth(excerpt)

 

Professor Michael Scott:Who Were The Greeks

 

Professor Michael Scott 

 

Letter from Professor Stephen G. Miller to Archaeology Magazine

 

 

January 22, 2009

 

Editor, Archaeology Magazine

36-36 33rd Street

Long Island City, NY 11106

U.S.A.

 

Dear Sir,

I opened the January/February issue of Archaeology today and eagerly turned to “A Letter from Macedonia” only to discover that it was actually a letter from ancient Paionia – the land north of Mt. Barmous and Mt. Orbelos. Livy’s account of the creation of the Roman province of Macedonia (45.29.7 and 12) makes clear that the Paionians lived north of those mountains (which form today the geographically natural northern limits of Greece) and south of the Dardanians who were in today’s Kosovo. Strabo (7. frag 4) is even more succinct in saying that Paionia was north of Macedonia and the only connection from one to the other was (and is today) through the narrow gorge of the Axios (or Vardar) River. In other words, the land which is described by Matthew Brunwasser in his “Owning Alexander” was Paionia in antiquity.

While it is true that those people were subdued by Philip II, father of Alexander, in 359 B.C. (Diodorus Siculus 16.4.2), they were never Macedonians and never lived in Macedonia. Indeed, Demosthenes (Olynthian 1.23) tells us that they were “enslaved” by the Macedonian Philip and clearly, therefore, not Macedonians. Isokrates (5.23) makes the same point. Likewise, for example, the Egyptians who were subdued by Alexander may have been ruled by Macedonians, including the famous Cleopatra, but they were never Macedonians themselves, and Egypt was never called Macedonia (and so far as I can tell does not seek that name today).

Certainly, as Thucydides (2.99) tells us, the Macedonians had taken over “a narrow strip of Paionia extending along the Axios river from the interior to Pella and the sea”. One might therefore understand if the people in the modern republic centered at Skopje called themselves Paionians and claimed as theirs the land described by Thucydides.

But why, instead, would the modern people of ancient Paionia try to call themselves Macedonians and their land Macedonia? Mr. Brunwasser (p. 55) touches on the Greek claims “that it implies ambitions over Greek territory” and he notes that “the northern province of Greece is also called Macedonia.” Leaving aside the fact that the area of that northern province of modern Greece has been called Macedonia for more than 2,500 years (see, inter alios, Herodotus 5.17; 7.128, et alibi), more recent history shows that the Greek concerns are legitimate. For example, a map produced in Skopje in 1992 (Figure 1) shows clearly the claim that Macedonia extends from there to Mt. Olympus in the south; that is, combining the ancient regions of Paionia and Macedonia into a single entity. The same claim is explicit on a pseudo-bank note of the Republic of Macedonia which shows, as one of its monuments, the White Tower of Thessalonike, in Greece (Figure 2). There are many more examples of calendars, Christmas cards, bumper-stickers, etc., that all make the same claim.

Further, Mr. Brunwasser has reported with approval (International Herald Tribune 10/1/08) the work of the “Macedonian Institute for Strategic Research 16:9”, the name of which refers “to Acts 16:9, a verse in the New Testament in which a Macedonian man appears to the Apostle Paul begging him: ‘Come over into Macedonia, and help us.’" But where did Paul go in Macedonia? Neapolis (Kavala), Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessaloniki, and Veroia (Acts 16:11-17:10) all of which are in the historic Macedonia, none in Paionia. What claim is being made by an Institute based in Skopje that names itself for a trip through what was Macedonia in antiquity and what is the northern province of Greece today?

I wonder what we would conclude if a certain large island off the southeast coast of the United States started to call itself Florida, and emblazoned its currency with images of Disney World and distributed maps showing the Greater Florida.

Certainly there was no doubt of the underlying point of “Macedonia” in the mind of U.S. Secretary of State Edward Stettinius on December 26, 1944, when he wrote:

“The Department [of State] has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This government considers talk of Macedonian ”nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland”, or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.”

[Source: U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations vol viii,Washington, D.C., Circular Airgram (868.014/26Dec1944)]

Mr. Brunwasser (a resident of Bulgaria), however, goes on to state, with apparent distain, that Greece claims “Alexander III of Macedon (Alexander the Great) . . . as Greek.”

This attitude mystifies me. What is there to “claim”? Alexander’s great-great-great grandfather, Alexander I, was certified as Greek at Olympia and, in the words of the father of history “I happen to know that [the forefathers of Alexander] are Greek” (Herodotus 5.22). Alexander’s father, Philip, won several equestrian victories at Olympia and Delphi (Plutarch, Alexander 4.9; Moralia 105A), the two most Hellenic of all the sanctuaries in ancient Greece where non-Greeks were not allowed to compete. If Philip was Greek, wasn’t his son also Greek?

When Euripides – who died and was buried in Macedonia (Thucydides apud Pal. Anth. 7.45; Pausanias 1.2.2; Diodorus Siculus 13.103) – wrote his play Archelaos in honor of the great-uncle of Alexander, did he write it in Slavic? When he wrote the Bacchai while at the court of Archelaos did he not write it in Greek even as it has survived to us? Or should we imagine that Euripides was a “Macedonian” who wrote in Slavic (at a date when that language is not attested) which was translated into Greek?

What was the language of instruction when Aristotle taught Alexander? What language was carried by Alexander with him on his expedition to the East? Why do we have ancient inscriptions in Greek in settlements established by Alexander as far away as Afghanistan, and none in Slavic? Why did Greek become the lingua franca in Alexander’s empire if he was actually a “Macedonian”? Why was the New Testament written in Greek rather than Slavic?

On page 57 of the so-called “Letter from Macedonia” there is a photograph of the author standing “before a bronze statue of Alexander the Great in the city of Prilep.” The statue is patently modern, but the question is whether the real historic Alexander could have read the Slavic inscription beneath his feet. Given the known historic posterity of Slavic to Greek, the answer is obvious.

While Mr. Brunwasser’s reporting of the archaeological work in Paionia is welcome, his adoption and promotion of the modern political stance of its people about the use of the name Macedonia is not only unwelcome, it is a disservice to the readers of Archaeology who are, I imagine, interested in historic fact. But then, the decision to propagate this historical nonsense by Archaeology – a publication of the Archaeological Institute of America - is a disservice to its own reputation.

Let it be said once more: the region of ancient Paionia was a part of the Macedonian empire. So were Ephesos and Tyre and Palestine and Memphis and Babylon and Taxila and dozens more. They may thus have become “Macedonian” temporarily, but none was ever “Macedonia”.

Allow me to end this exegesis by making a suggestion to resolve the question of the modern use of the name “Macedonia.” Greece should annex Paionia – that is what Philip II did in 359 B.C. And that would appear to be acceptable to the modern residents of that area since they claim to be Greek by appropriating the name Macedonia and its most famous man. Then the modern people of this new Greek province could work on learning to speak and read and write Greek, hopefully even as well as Alexander did.

Sincerely,

Stephen G. Miller

Professor Emeritus,

University of California,

Berkeley

 

PS: For a more complete examination of the ancient evidence regarding Paionia, see I. L. Merker, “The Ancient Kingdom of Paionia,” Balkan Studies 6 (1965) 35-54

 

cc: C. Brian Rose, President, Archaeological Institute of America

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State of the United States of America

Dora Bakoyiannis, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece

Antonis Samaras, Minister of Culture of Greece

Olli Rehn, European Commissioner for Enlargement

Erik Meijer, Member, European Parliament

 macedonia-evidence.org 

Macedonia:Nicholas Hammond about the Ancient Macedonian Origins

 

Nicholas Hammond, one of the world’s top authorities on the ancient Macedonian history,stated the historical reality in Macedonia. Ancient Macedonians were a Greek Tribe and Skopje who was OUT of Macedonia should be named Paionia.

 

His interview in the magazine “Macedonian Echo” of February 1993:

 

(Q):Who were the Macedonians ?

(A):The name of the ancient Macedonians is derived from Macedon, who was the grandchild of Deukalion, the father of all Greeks. This we may infer from Hesiod’s genealogy. It may be proven that Macedonians spoke Greek since Macedon, the ancestor of Macedonians, was a brother of Magnes, the ancestor of Thessalians, who spoke Greek.

 

(Q):Isn’t it true that Demosthenes called them “barbarians”?

(A):The speeches of Demosthenes, that deal with Philip as the enemy, should not be interpreted as an indication of the barbarian origins of Macedonians, but as an expression of conflict between two different political systems: the democratic system of the city-state (e.g.Athens) versus the monarchy (Kingdom of Macedonia).Personally, I believe that it is the common language, which gives one the opportunity to share a common civilization. Thus the language is the main factor that forms a national identity.

 

 (Q): What was the geographic location of the Macedonian Kingdom ?

(A): It should be emphasized that Macedonia occupied only the area of Pieria, as is characteristically mentioned by Hesiod and Thucydides. It had to wait until Philip II ascended to the throne and expanded his kingdom by occupying, among others, the Thracians and the PAEONIANS. The Paeonians were allowed to keep their customs, which was a sign of liberal policy of Philip after each conquest. From Homer we learn that the Paeonians had their own language and that they fought on the side of the Trojans. THEY LIVED IN THE AREA AROUND SKOPJE, and this is the reason I suggested to Patrick Leigh Fermor to suggest in his article in the Independent the name of “PAEONIA” AS THE MOST SUITABLE FOR SKOPJE.

 

(Q):Given your experience as a liaison officer in German occupied Macedonia, do you believe that there may be a Macedonian nation ?

(A): NO. Macedonia was under Ottoman occupation until the beginning of the 20th century. With the decline of the Ottoman empire, the Great Powers began to seek spheres of influence in the Balkans. The result was the emergence, during the latter part of the 19th century, of the Macedonian revolutionary movements. The Serbian IMRO, the Bulgarian VMRO and the Greek “Ethniki Etairia” were formed with the support of certain Great Powers with the goal of organizing revolutionary units in the area. After the Balkan wars, the Macedonia (the geographical region) was divided between Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria. The movement for the creation of a Slav-controlled Greater Macedonia continued until 1934, when the Yugoslav government declared IMRO illegal, as a good will gesture to Greece. Therefore, given the struggle of the three ethnic groups (Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians) for the control of Macedonia AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY LOCAL NATIONAL MOVEMENT, we can talk of Macedonia only as a GEOGRAPHICAL ENTITY AND NOT as A NATION.

 

(Q):Tell us of your experience in Northern Greece during the German occupation.

(A):I fell with the parachute into Greece in 1943. Our goal was to cooperate as liaison officers with the Greek  resistance against the Germans. Tito’s plan was to found a Greater Macedonia, that would include Greek Macedonia and South Yugoslavia; in practice it would be under Russian control. In January 1944, Tito formed a government and declared a federal Yugoslavia that would be composed of six different republics, the southernmost of which would be called Macedonia. It is here that the name Macedonia appears at the forefront of a plan of a Greater Macedonia against Greece. The same year,Tito’s guerillas invaded Greece three or four times and attempted to enlist men from slavophone villages in the area of Florina. Based on my knowledge, they were unsuccessful.

 

(Q):Could you please explain, who are these slavophones you refer to ?

(A):They are people who have been living in the area for centuries, perhaps from the time of the Slavic invasions of the 7th century. Nevertheless, they have been integrated with the population and consider themselves Greek.