|
Post by Artemidoros on May 13, 2004 5:58:16 GMT -5
I never meant to turn this thread into a Macedonian=Hellene one. I'd rather start a Alexander=Monster thread. This thread was meant by it's creator to be a Macedonian=not Hellene. The title is a smokescreen. I would not expect anything different from a White Nationalist other than see Alexander as a monster. I see White Nationalists as monsters
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on May 13, 2004 11:45:15 GMT -5
How do you know that he isn't really a Greek? The point is that there is your explanation and other explanations. But the fact is that they stated clearly that Macedonian kings were not Hellenes.
Again..how do you know that those distinctions were political and not ethnical. To be or not to be a Hellene is an ethnical distinction not political one. There was not a political party of Hellenes at those times. As for the cultural distinction...well the culture of some people is a code of the ethnicity. Among the other Greeks differ from Hungarians because of their different cultural characteristics...right?
Language is not the only one characteristic of ethnicity. For instance in R. Ireland only one out of four Irish speaks Gallic (25%). The other (75%) speak English as their native language. But wait for the reaction of an Irish if you call him English. They call them bloody Anglo-Saxons and still they speak the language of the Anglo-Saxons.
Obviously the language, even if native, does not represent the ethnic feeling of some peoples.
Yes with delight. Maybe Macedonians borrowed them from some other Greek dialect or more probably arised through the dealings with other Greek groups as Filota explicitely states. Actually in Macedonia there are inscriptions on few Greek dialects... full with writing errors (another sign of non-nativeness of the language)...but none of them can be with certainity recognized as "the Macedonian dialect". The former tentative classifications of the Macedonian as Ionic and Aeolic dialect failed... now the protagonists of Macedonian being Hellenic dialect tentatively classify it as a Doric dialect or even as a separate Macedonian dialect. There are no firm conclusions...yet. Of course ... other linguists say that Macedonian was not a Hellenic dialect at all.
And about that elusive "Macedonian dialect" Filota told the story. By his statements their native Macedonian language became obsolete during the centuries of dealings with other peoples and the conquerer (Macedonians) and conquered (Persians) had to learn the new language (Greek). Filota stated that very clear. In that sentence we have the whole story of language change. Compare to the Irish case.
And also...if someone has to use an interpreter, as Macedonians and Greeks did, means that their languages were terribly uninteligible to each other. That means = different languages not dialects.
As a matter of fact why was that hue and cry concerning Fillota's behavior. He demanded to listen to his native Macedonian language through an interpreter. If the Macedonian language was only a dialect it would be a real parody...to argue on which dialect the trial has to be conducted...something like Monty Piton's films. To make a big deal of the question should someone speak on the court in this or that dialect is a grotesque to say at least.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 13, 2004 18:29:56 GMT -5
How do you know that he isn't really a Greek? The point is that there is your explanation and other explanations. But the fact is that they stated clearly that Macedonian kings were not Hellenes. Fatos Nano is an Albanian of Vlach ancestry, not a Greek. Send a PM to labi and ask him. The point is people, and especially people involved in politics, often say things that suit their purpose and are not true. That is the reason you can not rely on Demosthenes and Thrasymachus. There is no political party of Hellenes today either. Politics does not exaust itself with party politics. Coming from the former Yougoslavia you should know that. You should also know that becoming a separate nation is often a political decision. Check the Americans and the British in the 18th cen. This as a short lecture unrelated to the topic we are discussing. Right, with the emphasis on "among the other". Can you please clarify your position with regards to the Macedonian language or dialect? Was it Greek or not? Then we can dicuss this further if needed. The ethnic feeling of some peoples... Like dreaming to unite all Greeks and take revenge on the Persians? Hmm... these ethnic feelings can be very strong sometimes We know for sure the Macedonians understood Macedonian (obviously) and Attic. In your opinion though they used neither and borrowed from a third dialect or language the names of all the months. They also borrowed their personal names, their place names, their military terminology, the various ranks of court and army officials, the names of their deities, their festivals and so on. Practically everything that survived is Greek. Not only in the ancient texts but on their graves and monuments as well. Not just written in Greek characters like other Balkan people but written in Greek. Well, in modern Greek we use Hellenized versions of Latin months, many Hebrew names and words in our religion, a sizeable portion of our personal names are also Jewish (and Latin) and even some of our place names are Slavic. We also use quite a few Turkish words. From the way things look, the ancient Macedonians were linguistically far more Greek than I am. ;D About Philotas read further down. Examples please. Most of the hundreds of Greek dialects were a mix of more than one of the basic dialects. On my island we have Dorian place names although the local dialect was mostly Achaic. Classifying a dialect from which only few remnants we have is not easy. One thing is certain, that it was a form of Greek. You obviously rely solely on Curtius. A Roman who lived between between 3 and 5 centuries after Alexander (nobody is sure when), is only known for one work and whom most scholars consider unreliable. Read this on him, it is not connected with the ethnicity of the Macedonians. www.skidmore.edu/classics/courses/2003spring/hi361f/bussmann.docBut let's not deal with the scholars. Let us use our common sense. Aman is tried by a crowd of soldiers, his life is at stake. He is of the same ethnicity. Would he speak to them in a foreign language? Especially after he is invited by Alexander to speak his native tongue, as Curtius tells us. Isn't that what Alexander is supposed to have asked him? To speak in a language, that almost in the same breath we are told is obsolete? You make this contradiction your very "serious" point of argument? BTW I do not remember anything about interpreters. Could you please provide that part of the text?
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 13, 2004 18:53:54 GMT -5
How do we really know that Andrea is really Slovenian? She could be a gypsy or black person posing as a Slovenian. She lacks common sense, that's for sure. Andrea, if you don't understand Greek, keep quiet. Learn Greek first and then try to tell us how the ancient Macedonian language was different from the common Greek language. Looks like Andrea's hobby is skimming through ancient texts for references to Macedonia and the Macedonians and then misinterpreting them.
|
|
|
Post by Aria88 on May 13, 2004 19:19:24 GMT -5
Artemidoros, I don't comprehend your logic. Most White Nationalists are quite fond of Alexander. I myself believe that, though a military genius and possessor of great personality and energy, he was a destroyer, not a creator. Alexander CREATED no empire. He conquered and destroyed a great empire (Persian). There were some positive consequences, however: the transfer of Hellenic culture to the East and the flux of Iranian culture to the West being, of course the best example. As an Iranicist, certainly I have no love for Alexander.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on May 14, 2004 10:00:43 GMT -5
Wrong answer Artemidoros. Whether he is a Vlach or a Greek or Saami is not important. What is important is that he is not Albanian. The point is that he is classified as non-Albanian and that is correct if Nano is an ethnic Vlach. It is not important what was he really. So, taking into account your analogy: Berisha = Demostenes (or Trasymachys) and Nano = Philip (or Archelaus) the things are very clear. Non-Hellene corresponds to non-Albanian, meaning Berisha was right by classifying Nano's identity as ethnically non-Albanian meaning further that Demostenes and Trasymachus were right in classifying Philip and Archelaus ethnically as non-Hellenes, meaning further that: Yes.... one can rely on Trasymachus and Demostenes very much. Thanks for the lecture . What about my lecture with the Irish people speaking natively English and classifying themselfs as Gaelic. You know.... those things happen all the time. Native Macedonian = Non-Greek definitely. Maybe something like (Brygian) Phrygian. Their Kultursprache = Greek definitely (however at latter times). BUT not all of the Macedonians were acquanted by that Kultursprache. Yes..that is the famous and outdated J.G. Droysen's interpretation from the 19-th century. However, those "feelings" could be a bluff too . Now listen to this: D.Brenden Nagle (1995): Macedonian Appropriation of Greek Kulturgechichte" "Here I offer an example of highly effective Macedonian use of Greek cultural history to advance the propaganda aims of Philip II which had the double aim of blunting Greek criticism of his state building while at the same time cloaking his work in the legitimising terminology devised by Greeks for their own, often violent, colonizing and city founding activities.""That it has continued to confuse interpreters is testament to the hegemonic power of Greek cultural history and the adroitness of the Macedonians in using this powerfull tool of self-identification against its devisers". There are much more quotes if needed. Artemidoros, the language shift and cultural evolution is much more complex than you like to admit. I'll tell you one example. My grandmother from my mother's side was a Vlach from Moskopole (northern Epirus). Her name was Panorea = typically Greek name. 95% of Vlach names are Greek like Persefoni, Kaliopi, Agapi...etc. (Among the other that is why Berisha named Nano as Greek). (Of course my father is Slovenian from Gratz (Slovenian = Gradec) and I'm born Austrian with obviously mixed ancestry. During the end of 19-th century whole Vlach villages were renamed by their very inhabitants in Greek and their personal names as well. So you can find male names like Pericles, Ahileos...in the lists from that time. Nobody forced them to do that. They just spontaneously inclined to the Greek Kulturgechichte when it became strong enough in those territories. They accepted it...so I remember that my grandmother was telling me the myths about the Crete labyrinth..Ariadne...and so on. To the last day she spoke Greek perfectly together with the Vlach language. She was a classical bilingual. As you see there are typical cases of accepting some language and culture spontaneously if the historical context is right. As for the military technology...that is a part of the acceptance of Greek Kultursprache. Concerning the Macedonian months...it was probably a translation of their native names of months into the Greek Kultursprache. The explanation is simple, there is no contradiction at all. Filota liked to speak in Greek since he liked to be well understood by the Greeks too...not only by Macedonians who actually sued him. Since his life was at stake he tried to defend himself in Greek so everyone could understand his arguments. If it was in Macedonian only Macedonians would understand him and he was blamed by them. It would be a dead end for his arguments. At the end...about the interpretors (here is the quote): “Among the officers was a certain Bolon, a good fighter but a man of no refinement or cultivation, an older soldier who had risen from the ranks to his present position. The rest now feel silent but Bolon, with boorish impudence and in a brazen manner, began to remind them all of the time they has each been ejected from quarters they had taken over so that the scum of Philotas’ slaves might have the places from which they had thrown out their colleagues. Philotas’ wagons, piled high with gold and silver, had been parked all though the streets, he said, while not one of their comrades had even been allowed close to his quarters; no, the servants he had guarding him while he slept moved them all far away so that fop would not be disturbed by the noise – no, silence is a better word – of hushed conversation. Philotas had ridiculed men from the country, he continued, calling them Phrygians and Paphlagonians – this from a man who, Macedonian born, was not ashamed to use an interpreter to listen to men who spoke his own language." Quintus Curtius Rufus., The History Of Alexander, Book Six, 11. 1.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 14, 2004 10:31:08 GMT -5
No wonder Andrea dislikes Greeks. She is part Albanian-Vlach and most of them dislike Greeks. Most Vlachs in Albania don't have a full identity. The Albanians themselves dislike them.
Comparing the language(s) your Vlach ancestors spoke to what the ancient Macedonians spoke is really a stupid attempts to justify your position. The ancient Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect whether you like it or not. Even linguists who were against the idea are now accepting it.
Once again, Andrea, I was right about you.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 14, 2004 10:39:40 GMT -5
Perhaps when you learn Phrygian, Andrea, you can translate some old Macedonian texts for us who don't understand them.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on May 14, 2004 13:25:07 GMT -5
Artemisia dear....whether someone likes someone else is not relevant. I'm not Albanian Vlach...I have Vlach ancestry...not Albanian ancestry. As for Vlachs disliking Greeks...it is obvious from my text above . No, it isn't stupid attempt...it just shows how some people addopt foreign culture and language. It is a vivid example of that kind of processes . As I said above linguists tentatively tried to connect the Macedonian with Ionian...they failed....with Aeolic...failed....now they try it with some NW dialect....last shot. What was you right about me Artemisia? Perhaps when you'll learn ancient Macedonian Artemisia you'll tell us that it was not connected to Phrygian .
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 14, 2004 17:43:55 GMT -5
Artemidoros, I don't comprehend your logic. Most White Nationalists are quite fond of Alexander. I myself believe that, though a military genius and possessor of great personality and energy, he was a destroyer, not a creator. Alexander CREATED no empire. He conquered and destroyed a great empire (Persian). There were some positive consequences, however: the transfer of Hellenic culture to the East and the flux of Iranian culture to the West being, of course the best example. As an Iranicist, certainly I have no love for Alexander. A) My view on the WNs is not dictated by their feelings towards Alexander. B)What WNs delight in is Alexander's military triumphs, because they idiotically see it as a "white" force crushing a "non-white" one. When it comes to Alexander's policies of integration he is thought guilty of the ultimate crime - racemixing. C) Alexander was, strictly speaking, responsible for the creation of more than one empire. That was not his aim of course. Do you blame him for dying suddenly at the age of 33? D) Your description of Alexander could easily fit Attila the Hun. What was Attila's vision? How many cities did he build? Alexander built 70 in a decade, if I remember well. I do not consider Alexander a saint but your view is unfair to say the least. Any lover of Iranian culture should direct their hatred towards Islam, for that is what destroyed it. Alexander did no such thing.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 14, 2004 17:51:46 GMT -5
Yes, but your ancestors were Vlachs FROM Albania. Most Vlachs have a real issue with their identity and Albanian Vlachs have it the worst. The ancient Macedonians were not nomadic and did not travel around the Balkans like your Vlach ancestors, picking up the language of the natives in the process. Say whatever you wish. Macedonian was a Greek dialect with Doric/Aeolic features. It's closest relative was Epirotic and other NW Greek dialects. Well, I challenge you to post a Macedonian phrase on this board and I'll tell you whether I can understand it or not. So, you know Phrygian, Andrea? Hmmmm, I didn't know there were still people who spoke it. But, maybe Slovenian is just another one of those Phrygian descendents.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 14, 2004 18:33:04 GMT -5
Wrong answer Artemidoros. Whether he is a Vlach or a Greek or Saami is not important. What is important is that he is not Albanian. The point is that he is classified as non-Albanian and that is correct if Nano is an ethnic Vlach. It is not important what was he really. So, taking into account your analogy: Berisha = Demostenes (or Trasymachys) and Nano = Philip (or Archelaus) the things are very clear. Non-Hellene corresponds to non-Albanian, meaning Berisha was right by classifying Nano's identity as ethnically non-Albanian meaning further that Demostenes and Trasymachus were right in classifying Philip and Archelaus ethnically as non-Hellenes, meaning further that: Yes.... one can rely on Trasymachus and Demostenes very much. You are missing the point. Berisha knew Nano's origin but called him a Greek in order to wipe up the anti-Greek suspicion of many Albanians. They do not see the Vlachs as a threat. The point is distortion aided by the fact of his non-Albanian origin. Similarly, in the case of Philip, he was called a barbarian for reasons of political expediency aided by the fact that many of his subjects were indeed non-Greeks (Thracians, Paeonians) and that the Macedonians were politically and culturally backward compared to most Greeks. They also had some customs that were alien to the Greeks (perhaps influenced by their non-Greek neighbours) and their dialect was difficult to understand. Indeed common language is not enough to unite two populations into one nation. There are many other factors such as history, religion , culture, politics, race ...even distance. The most important factor is politics as I said before and gave the example of the British and the Americans in the 18th century. Now can we stop splitting Badian's hairs and agree that both the Visigoths and Ostrogoths were Germanic or that Kosovan Ghegs and southern Tosks are both Albanian? Obviously farmers and shepherds turned warriors do not need a Kultursprache. My opinion is that if you are correct then most Macedonians would have no knowledge of Greek (to any significant degree). Unfortunately for you there are plenty of examples that show that all Macedonians understood Greek. Let us not go far, I do not consider Curtius dependable but you do, so I will use him. Philotas: "Besides the Macedonians, there are many present who, I think, will find what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yourself have been using, your purpose, I believe, being only to enable more people to understand you." So Philotas, who was tried by the assembly of the Macedonian army believes all the Macedonians understood Attic. Furthermore he says that Alexander uses it. We also know from Plutarch that Alexander only on rare occasions spoke to his soldiers in their native dialect. Outdated interpretation? Read this: Diodorus Siculus reports Philip as proclaiming that "he planned to invade Persia on behalf of the Greeks and to take revenge on the Persians because of their violation of Greek holy places..." (Bradford, 152).
Bradford, Alfred S. Philip II of Macedon: A Life from the Ancient Sources. Westport, Connecticut 1992.
As you can see it is very old but not outdated and not an interpretation Of course you can dismiss it as political manoeuvring but then you have to provide his motives for a Persian expedition and why he appeals this way to the Greeks but not to his non-Greek allies.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 14, 2004 19:11:17 GMT -5
Artemidoros, the language shift and cultural evolution is much more complex than you like to admit. I'll tell you one example. My grandmother from my mother's side was a Vlach from Moskopole (northern Epirus). Her name was Panorea = typically Greek name. 95% of Vlach names are Greek like Persefoni, Kaliopi, Agapi...etc. (Among the other that is why Berisha named Nano as Greek). (Of course my father is Slovenian from Gratz (Slovenian = Gradec) and I'm born Austrian with obviously mixed ancestry. During the end of 19-th century whole Vlach villages were renamed by their very inhabitants in Greek and their personal names as well. So you can find male names like Pericles, Ahileos...in the lists from that time. Nobody forced them to do that. They just spontaneously inclined to the Greek Kulturgechichte when it became strong enough in those territories. They accepted it...so I remember that my grandmother was telling me the myths about the Crete labyrinth..Ariadne...and so on. To the last day she spoke Greek perfectly together with the Vlach language. She was a classical bilingual. I grew up with ancient Greek myths too. I am glad we have something in common but your example is not a valid one. The Vlachs have been living amongst Greeks for over 1,000 years. Most of that time they were part of the same state (whether Byzantine or Ottoman) that treated them as the same nation. Under Byzantium the official language was Greek. They share the same religion with Greeks and the language of the Church was again Greek. since you have ancestry from Voskopolje (original Moschopolis) you will also know turning to the Greeks was the only hope during the Muslim atrocities. No wonder they identify with the Greeks so much and learn Greek. The Macedonian case is different. They did not share a state with other Greeks (until Philip's time). They fought their own wars with their neighbours, including Greek ones. They had the same religion but that religion had no official language. If anything they should have been influenced by the religion of the Thracians. Even the word religion in Greek threskeia comes from the word Thrace. In short the Macedonians had no reason to be Hellenized just like the Illyrians did not. I can accept the military terminology. I see no reason for the months to be translated What about their cities? Did the Russian nobility call any of their cities Paris? BIG mistake He was not sued by the Macedonians. He was tried by the Macedonian assembly. They were the nearest thing to today's jury. If the jury can not understand your arguments you have lost. Who cares about powerless observers? One more reason to doubt Curtius' account. Philotas was the leader of the cavalry and he was not only Macedonian born but brought up as well. He knew the Macedonian dialect as well as anybody. Such behaviour would have been not only pretentious but deeply offensive to his men. Proud men who repeatedly confronted Alexander himself when they felt slighted. A leader of men would never have treated them that way. Not if he expected to go into battle with them and come out alive.
|
|
|
Post by Aria88 on May 14, 2004 20:41:57 GMT -5
Artemidoros, you are correct in your overview of the unfortunate attitude of White Nationalists vis-a-vis Alexander. It is an ignorant attitude indeed. Yes, Alexander did build cities. But the empire that was his already existed under the Kings of Kings, with the addition of Macedonia. Would he have extended the empire had he lived twice as long? No one knows. He did burn, loot and destroy, e.g. Persepolis. The Seleucid and Ptolemid dynasties existed within the former boundaries of the Persian empire, thus it was simply the result of the breakup of Alexander's ephemeral empire, not the true founding of new ones. I've always had much more respect for Greek achievements in the so-called "Byzantine" empire, a nation that was truly remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by Aria88 on May 14, 2004 20:55:16 GMT -5
Artemidoros, I agree with your statement about the destruction of Iran by Islam, the product of a comparatively savage Arab culture (no, I'm not anti-Arab). Iranian culture had been arguably the world's most sophisticated and elegant, and Islam certainly was the leveler. I dare say the most positive aspects of and greatest achievements of Islamic religion, art and architecture are almost exclusively the results of the re-emergence of Iranian culture and the covert influence of Zoroastrianism.
|
|