Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink

Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by bravomk (U8345794) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  I got confused when rading trough Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ history about Alex the Great. It says he was born in northern Greek province Macedonia but was king of Macedonia!? Ancient history says that Greece didn't exist then and Alexandar fought Greek town-states who hated Macedonians especially his father Philip. Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ history also says Alexander took greeks against their old enemy Persia but again in another chapter it says his army was mainly macedoninas and that greek mercenaries fought on Persian side!?

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  All is true, apart from the description of Macedonia.
  
  Macedonia was not a 'province' of Greece at the time of course. It was a self-ruling state. Its first conquests had been against belligerent (or simply lucrative) Greek states to its south. 'Greekness' at the time was more a cultural commonality than a political one so Alexander did find himself pitted against Greek-speaking mercenaries on several occasions. Mind you, Macedonia was a part of that commonality too.

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  1) Alexander was born in the Kingdom of Macedonia, a northern periphery Greek State.
  
  2) There was no such thing as The Greek State. There never really has been until modern times. What you had was a series of Greek City States and their territories.
  
  3) Alexander fought wars to unify these disparte city states under the control of the Macedonian crown.
  
  4) He then took his army, which at its core was Macedonian, to fight the Persians. He augmented his army with soldiers from his Greek territories.
  
  5) You always mercenaries. Greek soldiers (and later Jewish soldiers) were greatly valued as merc's (the soldier type and not the car) so you would get some fighting for money on the Persian side. You would also get Greeks who disliked Macedonian domination of the Greek peninsula and would therefore fight against Alexander in order to free those states from his rule.
  
  If Nik is still around I would think that he would get involved with this thread.
  
  For my own part, I would say that Alexander was a Macedonian. He might have spoken greek, he might have thought in greek, he was certainly taught by Greeks, but he was still a Macedonian. How much you want to argue about macedonia being an intrinsic part of the Greek City state fabric and how much it was a periphial late starter is more properly a matter for a new thread I would have thought.

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  Yes of course, afterall being a modern Macedonian enlightens more the discussion!
  
  The whole issue goes down to what exactly is a nation. The notion of a nation has wrongly been identified for the last 300 years with the idea of state. On the contrary greek tribes never mixed these notions thus you could have the greek nationality and live in an independent state, kingdom or within a foreigner's Empire (say that of Persia, in those times). Greeks from one city, federation, kingdom would refer to themselves by the city name (e.g. "I am Spartan", Athenian, Corinthian etc.) but Greeks from one federation, confederation or kingdom would refer to themselves by the locality name (e.g. I am Thessalian, Achaian, Aitolian) while similarly Greeks from kingdoms would mention directly the name of the kingdom (e.g. I am Epirot, Macedonian). Now when all the above would mention themselves in relation to the rest of Greeks they would say "Us Spartans (Athenians, Achaians, Macedonians, Thessalians etc.) and the Greeks. That did not mean that Spartans/Athenians/Achaians/Macedonians/Thessalians etc. were not Greeks and the others were of course! As simple as that.
  
  The notion of state or type of state is highly irrelevant here - that interests only later historians, sociologists and politicians but it is wrong to mix it up (under whatever circumstances) with the notion of nationality.
  
  Maybe people are afraid to open a talk like this but I am personally rather uncomplexed: Answering the usual "intensely hellenised upper class" I would say that it happened that Greeks were extremely racist and actually knew by-heart who was Greek and who was not but then Macedonians were accepted in the Olympics as well in every other Panhellenic religious institution - and there were numerous hellenised cities all over the Mediterranean who were not accepted in the Olympics, while there is no known case of a hellenised city that passed for Greek while not being one. Now if you do not trust the ancient Greeks' judgement what else can I say? Talk about greek writings in India and China?

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  Just found an interesting article on the net. I can't comment on its acuracy or its contents but for me it made interesting reading.
  
  
  
  one para did stand out for me however
  
  
  This is why linguists take several remarks by the authors of ancient dictionaries, which otherwise might have been interpreted as indications for a mere difference in dialect, very seriously. For example, there is evidence that Greeks were unable to understand people who were makedonizein, "speaking Macedonian". The Macedonian king Alexander the Great was not understood by the Greeks when he shouted an order in his native tongue and the Greek commander Eumenes needed a translator to address the soldiers of the Macedonian phalanx. The Greek orators Thrasymachus of Chalcedon and Demosthenes of Athens called Macedonian kings like Archelaus and Philip II barbarians, which prima facie means that they did not speak Greek. Now this happens in polemical contexts and is certainly exaggerated, but the statements need to refer to some kind of linguistic reality
  Μύ
  
  Its a fascinating subject however

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  Richie as I mentioned above it is difficult for western Europeans to divide the notions of state and nation. These are three different notions. State is a sum of people with common interests ruled by some short of organised government. Nation is the sum of people with common origins and language. There is also the notion of tribe, which is a subgroup of the notion of nation.
  
  Now why should all people within the same nation be in the same sum of people governed by one governement I do not understand.

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  I'm still reading the text so apologies for the slightly eratic nature of the posts.
  
  Nik, you have said on numerous occasions that one of the reasons why for you Macedonia is Greek because otherwise why would they be in the Olympic games?
  
  
  Of course, the separate development of Macedonia and the Greek cities did not prevent close ties. Greece needed the timber and cereals that Macedonia exported and Alexander needed support to control the mountain tribes. He tried to deny the increasing differences by calling himself philhellenos ("friend of the Greeks"), and claimed that his family descended from the Greek city of Argos (text), a claim that was recognized by the authorities at the Olympic Games. Still it must be noted that the title philhellenos itself implies that the nation that Alexander represented was not Greek (no Greek king needed to call himself "friend of the Greeks").
  Μύ

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  addendum to the above post
  
  
  Archelaus also organized Olympic Games in Dion, at the foot of the holy mountain Olympus. This is interesting, because it suggests that -even though the king may have won a victory at the "real" Olympics- ordinary Macedonians were not allowed to compete in Olympia, and were, therefore, not recognized as Greeks
  This is confirmed by the list of victors at Olympia. A substantial part of which survives and it mentions no ordinary Macedonians until the reign of Alexander the Great.
  Μύ
  

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  Interesting remark Richie but as you can see the term "You are barbarians" was thrown upon practically by any Greek against any other Greek for breakfast! If we make the list, it is endless. Usually the reason was primarily political, then it was cultural. Athenians were calling Spartans and Spartans ansewered the same, greeks from mainland throwed the accusation to colonies around the Mediterranean while colonies (like Massalia in France) being the conservative ones they were claimed to had retained a pure form of language and "Greek way of living" lost in the mainland etc. Thoykidides (a rather moderate one) for example demanded to erase Eyrutanenas from the "greek list" because they were backwards and talked like villagers... eee nice! Demothenis at least had some political motive behind but then for so many years Athenians did not take him seriously and his allegations that Philip was a barbarian. Even his kind of accusations (ridiculous ones!) actually alone act as a proof that Philip was not just one Greek but was THE Greek more than any other lad in the neighbourhood (talking loud, having parties, drinking, having numerous women etc.)... ehehehe!
  
  Now on the language, why is it so difficult to understand that an isolated dialect like the Macedonian had been would be rather difficult for others to get? Why? Was Eyrutanean easy for Thoukidides? Or was it Epirot or Akarnanian easy? Do you think that if a Spartan talked fast that an Athenian would get the 100% of it? Absolutely not and imagine that these were the two most well known dialects up to the time! Even worse getting two idioms that would not meet often like say the Ionian from the Black sea and the Dorian from Massalia I think communication would be done in the beggining with few basics and slowly! One was saying "meeteer" and the other "mater" for something basic as ther word... mother!!!
  
  Greek dielects were all belonging to the same greater language, Greek, but were not dialects-idioms, these were dialects-dialects!!! I can understand easily that as I have a more modern example of the Greeks from Pontus (Black sea). These are talking a greek dialect that remained in relative isolation for some 500 years. Well, when I hear a Pontian Greek talk I will get less than 30%. If I see it written (letter to letter according to pronunciation) I will understand but orally its really difficult. Yet this is not an idiom but a dialect. Had it been other 500 years in isolation and it would be another language alltogether!
  
  Also note that in the Macedonian army served also an important number of Greek and non-Greek mercenaries (mainly Dardanians, Paionians, Agrians, Thraecians) who must had talked both in their own languages and in Macedonian (being in the army even before the campaign to Asia) but then for southerns the fact that out of Alex's own 30,000 soldiers around 5,000-7,000 would had actually been mercenaries was not necessarily clear and then when you hear Macedonians talking their dialect was already difficult, when you hear foreigners talking the Macedonian dialect was evern more difficult to get, now when you hear all that in the context of an army where a high number of special jargon is used then it ends incomprehensible certainly!!! No wonder! But does the fact that Macedonians talked a dialect just like any other Greek means anything? does the fact that they had Thraecian recruits means anything?
  
  PS: Intersting note for you, there was a comedy written by an Athenian comedian of the late 5th century (thus when Maceodonia was still an insignificant little state). The comedy is called... "Macedonians". We have only bits and parts of it but it must had been about either the visit of Athenians in Macedonia or the opposite, but the whole comedy is about the way Macedonians talked and behaved (i.e. the typical rural/city contrast) - obviously if Macedonians were considered by Athenians as barbarians that comedy would not exist since barbarians were always depicted talking in broken sentences with wrong words and using hypothetic barbaric words. In this comedy, Macedonians seem to talk simmply a villageois dialect and that is the comedy all about.

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  Nik,
  
  As I stated at the begining, this is just a paper I found on the net. Having read it, it makes for interesting reading, though probably uncomfortable reading for you.
  
  Quite simply, the article goes on to show (but never catagorically state) that the Macedonians were not nessecarily Greek language speakers. Not just dialect, but the whole language. Later macedonians became cultural greeks.
  
  However, the article also makes us aware of the two Macedonia's, Lower and Upper. Lower Macedonia is most likely the source for your comedy, whilst upper macedonia was only added to the state after Macedonia's asborption into the Persian Empire. It is only after the expelling of the Persians from the european mainland that Macedonian royalty manage to enter the Olympic games and then their entry was opposed by some.
  
  It just seems to me to be a very complicated issue. Naturally, you as a Greek Macedonian as opposed to a Slavic Macedonian have a certain outlook on the past histories of the region, but having read this article it appears that not everyone shares your more opptimistic outlook on Macedonia's greekness.
  
  Have a look a the article and see what you think

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  Richie thanks for the counter-argumentation but then I have 2 and 3 and 4 answers for each one of your arguments.
  
  First the term Philellin... ai ai ai.. people without knowledge of the Greek language, why do they comment? In the sense that a Philellin is not a Greek then a "philosophe" has nothing to do with "sophia" (i.e. a philosophe has nothing to do with philosophy!!!!!). You have to understand that the term Philellin was only recently (in the 19th century) used to describe foreigners who liked the Greeks - in ancient times there is a high list of important Greek people that were named as Philellins for their contribution to the common interests of the greek nation above the interests of the Greek cities. Certainly Macedonian kings liked the term Philellin as it pronounced the fact that these wanted to join all Greeks under their leadership (well, of course!).
  
  As for Olympia, what coincidence - 90% of victorious athlets were coming from rich cities like Athens, Sparta, Rhodes, Syracuse ... while the likes of smaller cities would have much less possibilities for winning. When Macedonian became the most rich state in the greek world then naturally they had the time to pay and train better athlets. You should also note down that smaller cities were not necessarily sending full teams every 4 years as the costs of sending a team were considerable. The fact that they had their own games at Dion (in Olympus) does not mean they could not participate in the Olympics games for Gods shake, Olympic is a name from a Macedonian mountain!!!! Ai ai ai!!! I wonder if Greeks would ever name their most nationalistic and racist and Hellenicocentric institution after a foreign name!!!

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  Nik,
  
  My last post for the day.
  
  1) The term is still "Friend of the Greeks" and was not simply added to his name back in the 19th C but was a title used by him in his dealings. It would be like Q Elizabeth calling herself, Queen Elizabeth, Friend of the English. If his title had been "Friend of Athens" for example I would happily take your point, but to speak of being a friend of the hellenes, speaks volumes for the nature of a king who would use it.
  
  2)The fact that a mountain that happens to fall within the realm of Macedonia is called in the Greek tongue Olympus, does not mean it is called that in Macedonian. Everest is not called Everest by the Tibetans. As for the games themselves, it is not until after Alexander I persuades the authorities that he is descended from Argos that the royalty is allowed to enter. Now, yes rich nations can support more atheletes but Macedonia WAS rich, it WAS powerfull under Alexander I, it was both rich and powerfull for a further two kings before it fell into disorder and internal strife not resolved until Phillip II's brother assumed the throne. And the most telling aspect is that no Macedonian winner can be found until another two kings later, namely Alexander the Great, when all most able bodied men would be off in Asia fighting in his wars
  
  That is all I can do for tonight, hopefully some of the others will stick their heads into this thread, it deserves more attention I think.
  
  Rich

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  For your information Richie there is an increasing number of the slavic (bulgarian to be accurate) speakers in FYROM that identify themselves as Slavs and not as ethnic Macedonians - their ex. president Kiro Gligorof (one that fought for the name "Macedonia" of course!) mentioned clearly that "we use the name as a place name, we have nothing to do with ancient Macedonians". But then it is always handy to get bits a parts of the greek history to justify the existence of the state (otherwise what is left? Bulgaria, Albania and a bit of Serbia (and those poor people are trapped inbetween these options!) - get the point?). I can 100% understand that. Afterall, down to the basics, they know that Greece is their only honest ally in the region.
  
  All that trouble arises from the incapacity of many people, even a number of researchers, to spot what Macedonia includes. Historic Macedonia is a considerably small area that includes Olymp in the south, borders with Epirus in the west, with Thrace in the east and extends to the north some ... 50-70km from the Thermaicos gulf of Thessaloniki (Aegean sea)! Now the term Macedonia has been used first by Rome to describe a landmass chopped in certain parts of the east the south and the west and which was extended some more 100km more in the north (thus including necessarily non-Macedonian people) and then the sum of that was divided into arbitrary different regions. Byzantines under the term Macedonia described... modern western (Greek) and (Turkish) eastern Thrace while Macedonian itself was termed as the region of Thessaloniki! Ottomans paid not much attention to the term Macedonia (since for some 600 years described and counted all nationalities but found no macedonians!) while Europeans extended the term Macedonia in the 19th to describe pretty much modern northern Greece, all of modern FYROM, Southern Albania, most of modern Bulgaria and parts of southern Serbia... well...
  
  out of the above confusion, it is easy for someone who is not supposed to be a specialist to get perplexed. No big deal. Place names and nationalities are something different.

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  Ai ai ai Richie Richie! Stop! Mercy! What you say now is that the word "philo" means friend!!! Who told you that? The word "philo" means friend in modern greek if it is used alone but in ancient Greek it was a synthetic!
  
  What you say know is that the "paedophile" is actually a real friend of kids!!!
  
  As I told you the term Philellin in classical times was used for Greeks and for the reasons I told you above - it was not usual to use it for barbarians. Hippocrates and so many other Greeks (I really have to find the list now) were termed as Philellin perhaps he was barbarian also?
  
  As for the Olympic winners, I really should make the list of Greek states that have absolutely no Olympic winner - it is really a long list of several 100s of states among which important ones. Certainly you do not expect to brush of half of the Meditteranean just because they were not interested enough in training good athlets!!! Why on earth Greeks had to be philosophs playing with language and mathematics and athlets throwing disks I really do not know... perpahs its the fault of those stupid modern ones that sell the story for tourists I do not know... The fact is that a considerable part of the Greek world (and that mainly in the mainland!!!) did not fight in phalanx style, and while not being irrelevant to developments did not produce great artists and scientists known to us - most of developments afterall came from the colonies.
  
  To satisfy your curiosity Macedonians while of the most proud of Greeks and while respecting religious ceremonies (obvious from the number of religious centers they had), they had not a thing for training athlets. Alexander was ideologically against professional athlets for practical reasons since as he said "these made the worst soldiers: they eat and train in one thing and besides that they know nothing about war". Understandble, as the training in the Macedonian phalanx did not ask for capacity in... running fast or boxing hard but in being accurate and synchronised! If earlier and later (and that is logical) there were similar views then no wonder Macedonians did not produce many winners - is that a fact for judging nationality?
  
  As for mountain Olympus its is not the name but the fact that NO Greek ever mentioned that the mountain happened to fall within the territory of a barbaric nation that it is the most striking! I do not know, it can't get more obvious than that!

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 13th May 2007

  sorry for the long messages (it takes me no time of course especially on issues whose details I know better). Have a pleasant night!

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 14th May 2007

  Nick, a few points. So far as I was aware Alexander had no problem with Agonism and sport in general. The main sources for the assumption that he was somehow hostile to Atletics is Plutarch, who to be honest was following a long literary tradition amongst Hellenic figures like Plato and Aristotle, not to mention Aegesalaus and Epaminandos of criticising the mania for competitive sports for all sorts of reasons. Either it did not prepare one for the arts of war or the excessive concentration on althletics made one more stupid and irrational. Later, during the Roman period, public performances of most sorts, be it sport or poetry, was regarded as unbecoming for the best of men who should stick to being patrons. By the time plutarch was writing however most compertive sports were contested by proffessionals, runners, wrestlers and boxers being only slightly more well regarded than gladiators and actors.
  
  Whatever the case, much of the source material appears to contradict the fact that Alexander was hostile to Atletics in general and Pan Hellenic competrions in particular. He often encouraged impromtu sporting contests while on campaign not to mention exporting Greek competitions to the newly instated hellenic settlements across his Empire. He liked a good kickabout and his generals Perdicas and Krateros even carried their own dust to make wrestling rings as well as goat skins to cover running tracks. However, much like his hero Achilles at the funeral games given to Patrocles, he often did not take part in most events, hunting and drinking, the traditonal sports of the Macedonian elite should be treated seperately. Indeed he seems to have conciously aped Achilles in the staging of lavish games to commemorate Hephaiston's funeral. This refusal to participate in athletic contests seems to be on account of the fact he was the host of the games not to mention that it would be innappropriate for the King to be seen being bested at any event by one of his subjects.
  
  Mind you I would be interested in your list of states that provided no Olympic victors, you have promised to supply similar information before but then never followed up on it. It certainly would not include Macedon. Even if Herodotus' account of Alexander I competing at Olympia should be read as participated in the first race as opposed to coming joint first, the athlete Kliton was the first non Noble Olympic victor in 328BC. Perhaps you would care to suggest why it is that the Mediser Alexander Philhellene wanted to be seen as Greek on so prominent a stage.

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 16.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 14th May 2007

  My brother is a gymnast and in the academy he also took some athletic history - and while he never liked history this issue of Olympic victors quite interested him so he got more informed (and found out that ancient Olympics were not much more spiritual than modern ones with athlets and cities cheating since the profit was high; athlets were actually being paid more than modern ones (I remember the highest payment/year was a bit less than double of what earn on average (sports+ads) the 3 most well paid athlets in the world) and was paid by the city of Syracuse (of course! the one that baptized athlets as Syracusian with a surprisingly modern ease!). I remember him quoting that Alexander had problem with Olympic-class athlets (well not athlets in generally) and the reason was that in certain sports like wrestling as there was no kilos-categorisation, only heavy-weights could win thus most athlets were far from the greek statues we see but were muscular but behind 10s of kilos of fat - hence they trained hard but only on their specific sport and were eating a lot to maintain their increased weight and did no other serious job thus they made the worse of soldiers (not to mention their attitude!). That does not mean that Alexander dismissed the idea of athletics alltogether.

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 17.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 14th May 2007

  Certainly I will have to find out the text he read it from, probably some of the CVs of Alex...
  
  Now, on the list you asked, of course you understood what I meant but since you insist so much and since you know I like you so much (Borat style!), I did a bit of googling and took the first lists that came out which will aid our entertaining analysis here (I have no serious doubts that these lists are in any sense false, only incomplete).
  
  So, I found a list of cities and a list of Olympic winners. The list of cities is commented as "a brief one" and I understand well since on the one hand it includes the insignificances of Assus or Borysthenes but on the other it ommits quite important cities like Hemerologion (in Iberic) and Sebastia (in Palestine). Not to mention that from a quick overview, some 70% and more is actually from the Hellenic epicenter while it is known that the bulk of Greeks lived in South Italy and then Minor Asia. Now, brief it maybe it contains some 250 cities. Since it is a brief one you may double the number instantly. Of course, you may protest saying that many of these were not more than villages of 7,000 people and I agree but then as I see on the other list, that of Olympic winners the likes of Pelina and Methydria I am 100% justified to raise the number up to at least 500 cities around the Mediterranean that in theory were allowed to participate in the Olympic games being the traditional egocentric greeks they were.
  
  Now in the list of Olympic victors I found out names and localities of victors from the first Olympiad down to the last one but then I took into account from the first up to 128 B.C (128 B.C., just to have 600 winners exactly!) later ones include Roman citizens also so it goes out of point). The list of course is partial but numbers are already statistically indicative.
  
  So the 600 known winners between 776 and 128 B.C. that took part in 32 sports came from only 120 states (exactly, 1 state though is unknown). Of course the fact that the city Peparethos is inside the list means that certainly a large number of very important cities is not in there (e.g. did not see Odessa (south Ukraine, Black sea) nor Massalia (south France) inside. Note down also that records for the period 650-400 B.C. are more complete than for the 400-150 B.C. period that the Macedonian state gained supreme position so naturally we would expect more Macedonian winners - indeed it is easily seen that there is a trend of winners in relation to the importance of their state (apart 1-2 athletic states like the hosts... Helians!) and that when cities decreased in power they gained more sparsely victories.
  
  Out of the 600 winners of the O.G.,
  70 were Spartans (no wonder, they founded them!)
  51 Helians (no wonder, they hosted them!)
  37 Athenians
  28 Rhodians (quite an athletic state, also rich!)
  23 Krotonians
  16 Argos
  15 Syracuseans (so much for their payments!)
  14 Megarians
  13 Messinians (in the early times they rocked!)
  11 Thessalians
  11 Cyrene
  10 Macedonians (it does not include Alex I Phil.),
  9 Thebans (surprisingly low)
  9 Miletians
  ...
  ...
  ... (a list of cities with 1 to 5 victories)
  ... with great Ephesus ...
  
  3 Ephesians
  
  ... and we find the likes of Pergamon and Halikarnassus (really large and wealthy cities in Minor Asia situated relatively more near Olympia than Macedonia down at the bottom
  ...
  1 Pergamonians
  1 Hallikarnassians
  
  Not to mention we find the following cities/states - some of these cities were really large ones (well, more than 30,000 populations).
  
  0 Massilians
  0 Odessans
  0 Dyrrachians
  0 Sinopians
  0 Trapezountians
  0 Phoceans
  0 Plataians
  0 Erytaneans
  
  It seems that out of the 120 states with victors, only 12 states had more than 10 victors and their sum is 300 victors (exactly indeed!), i.e. 300 of 600 victors came from 12 states! We have also to take into account 3 factors:
  1) In the early times (8th and 7th B.C. century) there were very few cities participating mainly from Peloponese as Olympic games were not the main attraction - thus the large number of Helians and Spartans (both founders of the games).
  2) Most victories concentrate in the periods a state was in powerful position
  3) We have more full records for the early and middle period than for the later period.
  
  ... still despite the above factors, Macedonians make 10 winners and join the list of the leaders.
  
  I passed 25 minutes to gather info into Excel + 25 to write all the above (I do it fast thus the many errors), had a pleasant evening (fiancee is absent!) and thanx lolbeeble for the encouragement but all that fuss was for nothing as numbers speak for themselves.
  
  Since I do not like modern Marseile and being based on the above, could I exclude Massilians from the greek list please? Ehehehehe, have a good night!
  

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message18

• Message 19

  , in reply to message 18.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 14th May 2007

  (....did anyone notice the Paretto chart being formed in the numbers above? Amazing!!!)

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message19

• Message 20

  , in reply to message 16.

  Posted by bravomk (U8345794) on Monday, 14th May 2007

  Dear all. It was interesting reading your replies..However it apears that history is not very clear when comes to Alexandar the great or if you put it in other words it seems to be fabricated over the years in Greek's favour. I got intrigued about this after accidently reading a lot about the current dispute between Greece and Macedonia and can't understand the madness for this tiny country on balkas to be called Former Yugoslav republic (Yugoslavia doesn't exsist anymore and so are former republics Croatia, Slovenia....) I wouldn't agree with Nick who states that these people are bulgarian slavs and they are not ethnic macedonians..I visited this country and I can only suggest there is somethning fishy here..They have strong macedonian identity, there is even some study by word-class scientist(can't remember his name) who geneticaly proved that modern macedonians are actually descendants of antic macedoninas...Also I read every year State departement's and Europe comission's reports on human rights in Greese and it's discrase. Apparently Greece in 21st century haven't ratified human right convention and only recognises Turkish minority !? What is going on? Why is world tolerating this and on other hand is forcing Macedonian goverement to change its consitutional name...Any thoughts..

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message20

• Message 21

  , in reply to message 18.

  Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 15th May 2007

  Hi E_Nik,
  Since I do not like modern Marseile and being based on the above, could I exclude Massilians from the greek list please? Ehehehehe, have a good night!Μύ
  What?!?! Exclude Massilia the home of Pytheas the Greek who wrote "On The Ocean"?!?!? If it wasn't for him, these green and pleasant sceptred British Isles would still lay undiscovered...
  
  Cheers,
  
  
  RF
  
  p.s. But those Massiliots were a bloody untrustworthy lot weren't they?

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message21

• Message 22

  , in reply to message 21.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 15th May 2007

  EHehehe yes, indeed Massilia had been a strange city among the greek states (that anyway presented as much variation as modern states around the world present). Massilia was not governed by a king nor a tyrran, it was not a democracy but then not a typical oligarchy. It was governed by a small number of families that excerted full power on all citizens controlling a great deal of social but also of private life with religious institutions imposing things on citizens (see its not that only later monotheistic religions try to impose things on you but also ancient ones as well!). It was thus an extremely conservative society and for that reason they retained their particularities for long. By 4th century the fact that in the east the common greek had already been on, meant that them being in the west considered themselves as having retained the older accents and traditions thus as being "purer". Of course do not get it wrong, at the end, "purer" meant nothing much more than boasting since when they needed aid to face the numerous Gaul armies that were threatening the city they called the "multicultural" Rome and not any other "pure" Greek alliance of cities of the west (as always a Greek's worst enemy is another Greek) - it was Massilia that invited Romans to the west as it was Pergamos that invited them in the east.
  
  Later well into A.D. times, many patrician Romans (who all necessarily educated their kids in Greek preferred to send their kids to Massilia to be taught the "pure" greek.
  
  As for the British Isles, well they were not exactly undiscovered, sailors along the Atlantic coast knew them pretty well and since many Greeks (as well as Carthagenians) had contacts with them certainly they knew that there were lands and islands in the north habitated by numerous people. It is just that this is the first written reference on these lands we have.
  
  Am I right or is there partial evidence that Minoans/Myceneans had occasional trade contacts with the islands (I think for Phoenicians is more or less established).

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message22

• Message 23

  , in reply to message 22.

  Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 15th May 2007

  Hi E_Nik,
  
  Well, I'm pretty certain that the British Isles were already well known prior to Pytheas - probably due to the value of the tin that could be found in Cornwall. The Greeks themselves knew of tin found in islands off the west coast of Europe (the Cassiterides), and Herodotus says:
  But concerning those in Europe that are the farthest away towards evening, I cannot speak with assurance... ...nor do I have any knowledge of Tin Islands, where our tin is brought from.Μύ
  
  The problem with Pytheas is that now we've lost his "On the Ocean" all we have left are later authors who cite his work e.g. Strabo. I'd have loved to have read his original work (in translation of course!).
  
  
  Cheers,
  
  
  RF
  
  p.s. I'd still never trust a Massiliot who said "I surrender"...
  

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message23

• Message 24

  , in reply to message 23.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 15th May 2007

  Direct trading between Phoenicians and the British Isles (and Ireland - you have to say that these days) must have been so sporadic as not worth a mention, if it existed at all. But what seems ever more likely, and is being increasingly accepted as more than just a probability, is that early Bronze Age trading routes were very intricate, well established, and effective. But crucially they operated geographically in the form of overland and coastal 'staging posts' - and especially the latter.
  
  Given the relative cost of, and perils in mounting long sea voyages compared to the potential profits, the advantage of such a system is obvious, and it goes a long way to explaining the goods distribution indicated by archaeology from the period as well as the seemingly 'fantastic' out-of-context finds that pop up from time to time.
  
  The Greek knowledge of the northwestern extremities of this trading area from this era is therefore also understandable in that, while it was detailed enough with regard to inhabitants and general location, it was sketchy with regard to that which regular traders would have prioritised - namely coastal features, harbouring, landmarks etc. It was very much a 'hearsay' description of the territory, but one detailed enough to suggest that the hearsay was based on rather more than the odd expedition by enterprising seafarers in the past. However the assumption that it might have been based on 'returning traders' reports is only correct in that the knowledge did arrive via maritime traders but had been first diffused along the chain of trading links until it had finally filtered back to cartographers and the like in Greece.

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message24

• Message 25

  , in reply to message 24.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007

  I can imagine that. For us it is simple as we take for granted the shape of the world's landmass since we recognise it by the age of nursery school (if our paerents have the will to educate us properly) and as soon as we can read we can identify the various locations ourselfs. In those times, maps did not exist in each house but among professionals and these were fragmented ones (one would show an island the other a peninsula etc.) and not accurate (as each chartographer would have his own method - hence even by joining the pieces it would not give an exact idea. Of course known routes were pretty much well known, first of all orally or with brief written notes (navigation by stars and sun) but indirect trade routes in lands outside the Hercules columns were "grey areas".

  Link to this forum: Was ALexandar the Great Greek or Macedonian!?

  Report message25

Back to top