Scythians and Lydians were Hellenes

[Andrea]

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.

No, I am not missing the point. You say: "Berisha knew Nano's origin" which was NOT Albanian. That is what's important. Nano's origin is not Albanian. That is why Berisha had a chance to exegerate that FACT in political aims. He couldn't do that for some political oponent who is really an Albanian...could he? He couldn't label Ilir Meta as "That outrageous Vlach or Greek"....could he? So, there must be some FACTUAL separation of ethnicities so that someone could have a chance to exegerate it for political reasons. That means that we can belive Trasymachus and Demostenes.

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.

Well...I was not speaking only about the common language when I explained the Irish case. I stated that with aim to show you how the change of the languages emerge through the adoption process. Usually the "to be" dominant language is being treated as culturally more advanced and civilized and is firstly adopted by the nobility. (Typical for the Irish and Macedonian case). Afterwards it slowly spreads among the ordinary people and finaly it can become dominant erasing the primordial language. Irish are mostly Celtic - Gaelic. English are mostly Anglo-Saxon. However Irish people adopted the English language in such a percent (75%), that now it is native language to them. Others (25%) are bilinguals (they speak English and Gaelic).

My point is to show you that the process of spontaneous (= not forced) linguistic assimilation happened through history many times BUT that doesn't mean that ethnic assimilation happened as well. Irish even today will tell you that they are Irish not English though they natively speak English. Ethnicity is much more than the language spoken by adoption.
That was the case with Macedonians.

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.

The word "Kultursprache" does not mean only poetry and drama. It is much more wider term. It includes the language of everyday communication between peoples of different ethnicity. We are using English Kultursprache even when Artemisia calls me in derogatory maneer as Gipsy and Black. Trading of the shepherds and farmers with different ethnicity leads necessary to adoption of a common Kultursprache. So, Macedonian, Illyrian, Thracian, and other shepherds and farmers necessarilly were using the Greek Kultursprache for their dealings. And that is exactly what Filota says: "Our (Macedonian) native language became obsolete through dealings with other nations". Remember the Irish case? Scotish case too?

Greek language and mythology was known even to Persians in the classical times. Xerxes claimed an Argive descent. So, one can conclude that even the most powerfull nation at those times was subject to Hellenic influence. Just think of it... the King of the greatest superpower of the 6-th and 5-th century BC claims a Hellenic descent. That means although Persians were military and even cultural superpower, they liked somehow to connect themselfs with the Hellenic culture. The Hellenic culture was dominant even in the 6-th and 5-th century BC. We always have to be aware of that and Macedonians were the very first neighbours to the Hellenes.

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.

The motives for a Persian (or any other) expedition of any king and emperor or president was and is: more wealth, more wealth and more wealth. Alo fame and glory. Those are motives of self-actualization and self-realization in kings in Maslow's psychological categorization. Tell me what was the motive behind Bush's and Blair's war against Saddam. They were so human and liked to save the Iraques from his terror as they proclaimed... right? But any fool knows that its Highness the Oil was the motive. What was the motive of bombing Yugoslavia....the protection and revenge of Albanians in Kosovo for the wrongs done by the Serbs in the past? Come on Artemidoros.....any fool knows what the political interests are all about.

Here is the Peter Green's account:

"Philip's Panhellenism was no more than a convinient placebo to keep his alies quiet, a cloak for further Macedonian aggrandizment (p.87).

[Andrea]

I grew up with ancient Greek myths too. I am glad we have something in common but your example is not a valid one.

Yes Artemidoros I'm glad too. Balkan peoples have much in common but politics destroys that.

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 don't agree. Living in the same state is not a necessary condition for the adoption of the language. For instance Slavic speaking peoples lived together with Greeks and Vlachs in the Byzantium state too. However, they preserved their language. It is the atractiveness and strength of some culture that mostly determines the inclination of some people to accept it. That attractivness might emerge during living in the same state or not. So, it is not necessary to live in a same state to adopt the Kultursprache of some advanced culture. And even when some people accept some Kultursprache that does not mean that they have changed their ethnicity. Ethnicity is much more than the language.

Speaking about Byzantium Empire here is one example: When in 864 AD the Emperor Michael III spoke to Constantine and Methodius before he sent them on mission in Moravia he explicitely stated:

“You are citizents of Salonika (Thessaloniki) and all Salonikians speak pure Slavic”.

www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/lrc/eieol/ocsol-3-X.html

On the other hand in 904 AD we have:“On the Capture of Salonika” by John Cameniate (904 AD):

"...I introduce you to the same, the greatest and the first city of the Macedonians..."

From this it imediately follows that already in the early middle ages Macedonians from Salonika and the surrounding spoke pure Slavic.

You see languages change very often through dealings with other peoples as Filota explicitely stated.

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?

Simply they were translated in the Kultursprache of that era to be understandable for the others...Greeks for instance. What was the name of the river Po in ancient times? What was the name of the river Danube, Don etc, what was the name of Gibraltar at those times. If you don't know I'll tell you.
No, the Russian nobility named one town St. Petersburgh. They weren't Germans.

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.

Jury or not, obviously Filota liked to be understandable for all people that were present in the court. That is why he insisted to speak in Greek not in Macedonian. He explicitely said that in the quote you gave above. What were his real motives nobody knows. We can only guess. By discarding the evidences such as Rufus's as not reliable we can go nowhere. I can do the same with the references you quote as reliable. But that is not the right way...is it?

You see...I can do a frontal battle too...not only guerila attacs..as you once said....however I have a professional work to do and children to look after. It consumes much energy and time. Enjoy your youth untill you can ;D.

[Melnorme]

Andrea said:

“You are citizents of Salonika (Thessaloniki) and all Salonikians speak pure Slavic”.

That's strange, I thought Salonikians spoke Ladino. ;D j/k

[Graeme]

How do south Slav speakers reconcile that Slavic languages did not have a presence in SE Europe in ancient times, the times of the original Macedonians. Also the ability of uneducated people to understand dialects other than their own dialect can be limited. Ever been to far North Scotland and wondered what the hell people were saying to you in English. Look, in my birth country Malta, which is composed of three miniscule habitable islands, there are dialects. And yes, it can be hard to understand those accents, dialects. My parents used the central Maltese dialect which is noticably different from standard, written Valletta Maltese. So I find it rational that the ancient Macedonians spoke a dialect different from the standard version of Greek of their time, and being poorly educated, they found hard to understand. Valletta is not a maltese name either, it is from the name of Jean de la Valette, a knight of St.John of Jerusalem...

[Artemidoros]

Aria88 said:

Artemidoros, you are correct in your overview of the unfortunate attitude of White Nationalists vis-a-vis Alexander. It is an ignorant attitude indeed.

An honest reply, I appreciate it. Ignorance alone does not expain everything IMO.

He did burn, loot and destroy, e.g. Persepolis.

Hardly surprising, given the morals and practices of the era as well as the expectations of his troops.

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.

It is believed he was planning the conquest of the Arab peninsula. What would the effects have been if the peninsula was "infected" with Greek, Persian and Indian philosophical ideas? Would the Romans have ever been able to take on his empire had it lasted? Would the world today be very different? Yes, nobody knows but I sometimes try to imagine

[Melnorme]

Artemidoros said:

It is believed he was planning the conquest of the Arab peninsula. What would the effects have been if the peninsula was "infected" with Greek, Persian and Indian philosophical ideas?

Actually, there is evidence of some Greek cultural influence in ancient Yemen. It would have been more overwhelming if actual Greek forces had occupied the region, of course.

[Artemidoros]

Andrea said:

No, I am not missing the point. You say: "Berisha knew Nano's origin" which was NOT Albanian. That is what's important. Nano's origin is not Albanian. That is why Berisha had a chance to exegerate that FACT in political aims. He couldn't do that for some political oponent who is really an Albanian...could he? He couldn't label Ilir Meta as "That outrageous Vlach or Greek"....could he? So, there must be some FACTUAL separation of ethnicities so that someone could have a chance to exegerate it for political reasons. That means that we can belive Trasymachus and Demostenes.

I might have just given you enough rope to hang yourself. Do you know the opposition called the ex-prime minister of Spain "a Moor"?

Sorry for the automatic translation, I could not find a text in English:

Whenever I hear the Socialists promise gold to us and the Moor (pardon by the one of the Moor, I do not want that he leaves some pretentious pusilánime saying that I am racist or xenófobo) enters chills to me, the hen meat is put to me.

And it is that I decide to me famous the 800,000 jobs that the illustrious Felipe González promised to us,(...)


www.guia-activ.com/comunidad/opinion/20030514jb.html

After all the above, I expect that you either concede the point or prove that F. Gonzalez is not Spanish, no less

Well...I was not speaking only about the common language when I explained the Irish case. I stated that with aim to show you how the change of the languages emerge through the adoption process. Usually the "to be" dominant language is being treated as culturally more advanced and civilized and is firstly adopted by the nobility. (Typical for the Irish and Macedonian case). Afterwards it slowly spreads among the ordinary people and finaly it can become dominant erasing the primordial language. Irish are mostly Celtic - Gaelic. English are mostly Anglo-Saxon. However Irish people adopted the English language in such a percent (75%), that now it is native language to them. Others (25%) are bilinguals (they speak English and Gaelic).

My point is to show you that the process of spontaneous (= not forced) linguistic assimilation happened through history many times BUT that doesn't mean that ethnic assimilation happened as well. Irish even today will tell you that they are Irish not English though they natively speak English. Ethnicity is much more than the language spoken by adoption.
That was the case with Macedonians.

Wrong again That was not the case with the Irish or the Macedonians. The British conquered most of Ireland. The wild west of the country remained free and that is where the original language survived. You need to learn a little more about the Emerald Isle.

[Artemidoros]

Andrea said:

The word "Kultursprache" does not mean only poetry and drama. It is much more wider term. It includes the language of everyday communication between peoples of different ethnicity. We are using English Kultursprache even when Artemisia calls me in derogatory maneer as Gipsy and Black. Trading of the shepherds and farmers with different ethnicity leads necessary to adoption of a common Kultursprache. So, Macedonian, Illyrian, Thracian, and other shepherds and farmers necessarilly were using the Greek Kultursprache for their dealings. And that is exactly what Filota says: "Our (Macedonian) native language became obsolete through dealings with other nations". Remember the Irish case? Scotish case too?

Greek language and mythology was known even to Persians in the classical times. Xerxes claimed an Argive descent. So, one can conclude that even the most powerfull nation at those times was subject to Hellenic influence. Just think of it... the King of the greatest superpower of the 6-th and 5-th century BC claims a Hellenic descent. That means although Persians were military and even cultural superpower, they liked somehow to connect themselfs with the Hellenic culture. The Hellenic culture was dominant even in the 6-th and 5-th century BC. We always have to be aware of that and Macedonians were the very first neighbours to the Hellenes.

Kultursprache does not make a language obsolete. It enriches it and changes it but does not replace it just like that. You are wrong about the Irish and the Scots. The Greeks had more neighbours than anyone else. In the Balkans, in Anatolia, the Black Sea, Italy, France, Spain... Some did get Hellenized but it took much longer than a century or so and it happened through intermarriage as well. Even in Greece itself we had non-Greek speaking groups in historical times (e.g. Eteocretans).

I don't agree. Living in the same state is not a necessary condition for the adoption of the language. For instance Slavic speaking peoples lived together with Greeks and Vlachs in the Byzantium state too. However, they preserved their language. It is the atractiveness and strength of some culture that mostly determines the inclination of some people to accept it. That attractivness might emerge during living in the same state or not. So, it is not necessary to live in a same state to adopt the Kultursprache of some advanced culture. And even when some people accept some Kultursprache that does not mean that they have changed their ethnicity. Ethnicity is much more than the language.

Speaking about Byzantium Empire here is one example: When in 864 AD the Emperor Michael III spoke to Constantine and Methodius before he sent them on mission in Moravia he explicitely stated:

“You are citizents of Salonika (Thessaloniki) and all Salonikians speak pure Slavic”.

www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/lrc/eieol/ocsol-3-X.html

On the other hand in 904 AD we have:“On the Capture of Salonika” by John Cameniate (904 AD):

"...I introduce you to the same, the greatest and the first city of the Macedonians..."

From this it imediately follows that already in the early middle ages Macedonians from Salonika and the surrounding spoke pure Slavic.

You see languages change very often through dealings with other peoples as Filota explicitely stated.

I am sorry but language does not transfer through radiation, heat does or other forms of energy. Some Slavs like those of the Peloponnese changed their language and some did not. No Slavs outside the Empire changed their language. As for the cosmopolitan city of Thessaloniki being completely Slavic in the 9th century, I will discuss it with you another time. I neither have the time nor want to be distracted.

[Artemidoros]

Andrea said:

The motives for a Persian (or any other) expedition of any king and emperor or president was and is: more wealth, more wealth and more wealth. Alo fame and glory. Those are motives of self-actualization and self-realization in kings in Maslow's psychological categorization. Tell me what was the motive behind Bush's and Blair's war against Saddam. They were so human and liked to save the Iraques from his terror as they proclaimed... right? But any fool knows that its Highness the Oil was the motive. What was the motive of bombing Yugoslavia....the protection and revenge of Albanians in Kosovo for the wrongs done by the Serbs in the past? Come on Artemidoros.....any fool knows what the political interests are all about.

Here is the Peter Green's account:

"Philip's Panhellenism was no more than a convinient placebo to keep his alies quiet, a cloak for further Macedonian aggrandizment (p.87).

You have unfortunately dot understood Philip or Alexander. Glory they were after not wealth. No filthy rich man rides into the thick of battle for more wealth. In any case, what is of interest in our debate is that when Philip claimed (you can not dispute this anymore) that he wanted to extract revenge from the Persians he expected to be believed. We know he was a shrewed politician, he would not have expected the Greeks to believe a barbarian wanted to avenge their temples and free their Ionian brothers. Got it?

Jury or not, obviously Filota liked to be understandable for all people that were present in the court. That is why he insisted to speak in Greek not in Macedonian. He explicitely said that in the quote you gave above. What were his real motives nobody knows. We can only guess. By discarding the evidences such as Rufus's as not reliable we can go nowhere. I can do the same with the references you quote as reliable. But that is not the right way...is it?

He wanted to be understood by everybody, including the thousands of Macedonian soldiers present who would have decided his fate. Then ALL Macedonian soldiers understood Attic. My point all along
I only used Plutarch and Diodorus. Only some points of their accounts are disputed (usually dates, troop numbers etc). Curtius' dependability is disputed generally as I have already shown. Not by me. By the experts
Anyway I am willing to leave out the ancient historians and concentrate on Archaeological evidence, if you think you have any

You see...I can do a frontal battle too...not only guerila attacs..as you once said....however I have a professional work to do and children to look after. It consumes much energy and time. Enjoy your youth untill you can .

A determined effort indeed. I feel almost sorry to see you lose I was only hoping you would have learned by now that it is a mission impossible.
BTW I am older than you think. I have a job and two children myself. That is why I usually post late at night, when everyone is asleep. Like Justinian, your favourite emperor, I do not sleep much

[Artemidoros]

Melnorme said:

Actually, there is evidence of some Greek cultural influence in ancient Yemen. It would have been more overwhelming if actual Greek forces had occupied the region, of course.

I am sure there is some American influence right now but not enough of it obviously. Too little, too late.

[ordinary]

Graeme said:

How do south Slav speakers reconcile that Slavic languages did not have a presence in SE Europe in ancient times, the times of the original Macedonians. Also the ability of uneducated people to understand dialects other than their own dialect can be limited. Ever been to far North Scotland and wondered what the hell people were saying to you in English. Look, in my birth country Malta, which is composed of three miniscule habitable islands, there are dialects. And yes, it can be hard to understand those accents, dialects. My parents used the central Maltese dialect which is noticably different from standard, written Valletta Maltese. So I find it rational that the ancient Macedonians spoke a dialect different from the standard version of Greek of their time, and being poorly educated, they found hard to understand. Valletta is not a maltese name either, it is from the name of Jean de la Valette, a knight of St.John of Jerusalem...

As for the reconciliation of the absence of "slavic" languages in SE europe in ancient times, the possible alternative to the current wisdom has already been discussed by other members, I only post the the following link as a remainder:
www.continuitas.com/intro.html
Venetologists seem to be in agreement with it:
www.prah.net/europaveneta/augustan/updateonveneti.htm

People always seem to forget an important fact when considering this issue, and that is the late appearance of inscriptions in Greek in Macedonia, many acompanied by errors.

This begs the following question: had the ancient Macedonians been of Helenic origin, and their language merely a Greek dialect rather than a completely different language, why are there such profound differences? Why aren't there texts left behind by the Macedonians telling us more about themselves, or telling us anything for that matter - it would have been "easy" for them to use the Greek alphabet providing their native languge was a crude dialect of Attic?

It's quite unclear to me how peoples sharing the same ethnic and cultural origin, assuming for a moment Macedonians and Greeks were such, living in such close proximity, would develop so different in many ways in a matter of centuries. Their dialects would grow different to a point of being unintelligible; one would become a monarchy, the other(s) organised in city-states; Macedonians were supposedly even unable to put their dialect into written form, whereas their Helenic relatives had developed science and philosophy; certain cultural traits and customs that are known, like the burial customs for example, were completely different.

Unfortunately there are too many questions and too little answers

[Nikas]

In regards to the Philotas trial:

Quintus Curtius Rufus 6.9.35....

"Praeter Macedones plerique adsunt, quos facilius quae dicam percepturos arbitror, si eadem lingua fuero usus qua tu egisti; non ob aliud, credo, quam ut oratio tua intelligi posset a pluribus".

"Besides the Macedonians there are many present who, I think, will more easily understand what I shall say if I use the same language which you have
employed, for no other reason, I suppose, than in order that you speech
might be understood by the greater number."

The crucial word here is "quos facilius", more easily.
Philotas is saying that if he speaks the Koine, the common Greek dialect of the era, the non-Macedonian people around would more easily understand him than if he spoke the Macedonian dialect. This goes for other Greeks and Persians as well that would be more familiar with the Attic dialect than the Macedonian regional one.



More evidence of the Greek nature of the Macedonian dialect:


"...he ordered to teach them the Greek language and Macedonian weapons..."

Plutarch, Alexander. 47,6



"...Yet through Alexander (the Great) Bactria and the Caucasus learned to revere the gods of the Greeks ... Alexander established more than seventy cities among savage tribes, and sowed all Asia with Greek magistracies ... Egypt would not have its Alexandria, nor Mesopotamia its Seleucia, nor Sogdiana its Prophthasia, nor India its Bucephalia, nor the Caucasus a Greek city, for by the founding of cities in these places savagery was extinguished and the worse element, gaining familiarity with the better, changed under its influence..."

Plutarch, On the fortune of Alexander,I,328D,329A



"...Now surely, as they all talk the same language, they ought to be able to find a better way of settling their differences...In any case, the Greeks, with their absurd notions of warfare, never even thought of opposing me when I led my army to Macedonia".

Herodotus, VII, 417-418



"The Aitolians, the Akarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same speech, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks wage and will wage eternal war; for they are enemies by the will of nature, which is eternal, and not from reasons that change from day to day."

Livy, 31



"In the past you rivalled the Achaians and the Macedonians, peoples of your own race, and Philip, their commander, for the hegemony and glory, but now
that the freedom of the Hellenes is at stake at a war against an alien people Romans, ...And does it worth it to ally with the barbarians, to take the
field with them against the Epeirotans, the Achaians, the Akarnanians, the Boiotians, the Thessalians, in fact with almost all the Hellenes with the exception of the Aitolians who are a wicked nation..."

Polybius, 9.37.7-39.7



"On its borders a ring of Greek cities was founded by Alexander..."

Polybius Book 10-27...



When King Seleucus died, his son Antiochus Epiphanes succeeded to the throne, an arrogant and terrible man,
[4] When the tyrant saw them, grouped about their mother as if in a chorus, he was pleased with them. And struck by their appearance and nobility, he smiled at them, and summoned them nearer and said,
[5] "Young men, I admire each and every one of you in a kindly manner, and greatly respect the beauty and the number of such brothers. Not only do I advise you not to display the same madness as that of the old man who has just been tortured, but I also exhort you to yield to me and enjoy my friendship.
[6] Just as I am able to punish those who disobey my orders, so I can be a benefactor to those who obey me.
[7] Trust me, then, and you will have positions of authority in my government if you will renounce the ancestral tradition of your national life.
[8] And enjoy your youth by adopting the Greek way of life and by changing your manner of living.
[9] But if by disobedience you rouse my anger, you will compel me to destroy each and every one of you with dreadful punishments

The Death of the Maccabees
from Fourth Book of Maccabees



[6.41] At this same time the Clitae, a tribe subject to the Cappadocian Archelaus, retreated to the heights of Mount Taurus, because they were compelled in Roman fashion to render an account of their revenue and submit to tribute. There they defended themselves by means of the nature of the country against the king's unwarlike troops, till Marcus Trebellius, whom Vitellius, the governor of Syria, sent as his lieutenant with four thousand legionaries and some picked auxiliaries, surrounded with his lines two hills occupied by the barbarians, the lesser of which was named Cadra, the other Davara. Those who dared to sally out, he reduced to surrender by the sword, the rest by drought. Tiridates meanwhile, with the consent of the Parthians, received the submission of Nicephorium, Anthemusias and the other cities, which having been founded by Macedonians, claim Greek names, also of the Parthian towns Halus and Artemita. There was a rivalry of joy among the inhabitants who detested Artabanus, bred as he had been among the Scythians, for his cruelty, and hoped to find in Tiridates a kindly spirit from his Roman training.

Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome,8




The Letter of Philip (the II, father of Alexander the Great)

"Not content with this, you have shown your contempt for right and your hostility to me by actually sending an embassy to urge the king of Persia to declare war on me. This is the most amazing exploit of all; for, before the king reduced Egypt and Phoenicia, you passed a decree calling on me to make common cause with the rest of the Greeks against him, in case he attempted to interfere with us; [7] and today you have such a superabundance of hatred for me that you negotiate with him for a defensive alliance. Yet I am given to understand that your fathers of old punished the sons of Pisistratus for inviting the Persians to invade Greece. You are not ashamed to do what you have always made a matter of indictment against your tyrants."



Incidentally, the Persians, who were very, very, familiar with the Macedonians, recorded them as Greeks:

Darius proudly wrote in the inscription on his tomb at Naqš-i Rustam that he had conquered the Yaunâ takabarâ, the 'Greeks with sun hats', a reference to the Macedonian headwear.
www.livius.org/y/yauna/yauna.html

[Nikas]

BTW, here is another translation of the sending of the missionaries to the Slavs:

The Vita of Methodius

(From F. Dvornik, Les legends de Constantin et de Methode vues de Byzance (Prague, 1933), pp. 385-88.)

It happened at this time that Rastislav, the Slavic ruler, and Sviatopluk (prince of Moravia) dispatched (an envoy) from Moravia to the Emperor Michael to tell him: “By the grace of God we are well. There have come among us to teach a number of Christians, some Italians, Greeks, Germans who have taught us in different fashions. But we Slavs are simple people and we have no one to teach us the truth and to explain to us the meaning (of Scripture). Send us then, Lord, a man capable of teaching us the whole truth.”<br>Emperor Michael said to Constantine the philosopher: “Do you hear, O philosopher, this word? No one else except you can do it. Here are some gifts for you, go there and take with you your brother Methodius, the hegoumenos. For both of you are from Thessalonika and all the Thessalonians speak Slavic well.” They were of course unable to refuse God and the emperor, according to the word of St. Peter, who said: “Fear God and respect the emperor.” But when they had heard the great word (call), they began to pray with the others who were molded with the same spirit as they. And then afterward God revealed to the philosopher the Slavonic writing. After having at once combined the letters and composed a sermon, he took the road for Moravia, leading Methodius with him. Again the latter began humbly to obey the philosopher, to serve him, and to teach with him. And at the end of three years they returned from Moravia, after having taught some disciples.”<br>

"For both of you are from Thessalonika and all the Thessalonians speak Slavic well.”

The Thessalonikians spoke Slavic well, as they had much contact with them, but it was not their native language.

[Andrea]

Nikas, thank you for the last post. You've just answered to Melnorme's sarcasm.

Melnorme dear... it is a historical text. I didn't wrote it myself. Of course it is up to you to choose the degree of veracity of historical facts and the directness of your emotions toward such historical facts .

The translation confirms that Thessalonians spoke Slavic well, already in the 9-th century. That is what is most important. The translations may vary...but the information is the same. The Macedonians became bilingual... at least.

As for the quotes above they only say that Macedonians spoke as bilinguals Koine too. I said that their Kultursprache was Greek before.

[Andrea]

After all the above, I expect that you either concede the point or prove that F. Gonzalez is not Spanish, no less

Nice Artemidoros... after loosing the battle with Nano-Philip analogy you choose another example that is not verifable and you think you won. Wrong expectation pal. Now you should try hard to find evidence that he has nothing in common with Mooric ancestry. Or maybe he has ?

Or you expect some help from Spanish side. I have to admit...clever move...but transparent one .

Again, we have to trust Trasymachus and Demostenes.

Wrong again That was not the case with the Irish or the Macedonians. The British conquered most of Ireland. The wild west of the country remained free and that is where the original language survived. You need to learn a little more about the Emerald Isle.

Thanks for the suggestion...but you've missed the point. Whether Irish were occupied or not is irrelevant. The point is that even if they changed their language they proclaim their distinct ethnicity just as Macedonians did. The same is with Scotish people. Language change does not equals ethnicity change.

Kultursprache does not make a language obsolete. It enriches it and changes it but does not replace it just like that. You are wrong about the Irish and the Scots. The Greeks had more neighbours than anyone else. In the Balkans, in Anatolia, the Black Sea, Italy, France, Spain... Some did get Hellenized but it took much longer than a century or so and it happened through intermarriage as well. Even in Greece itself we had non-Greek speaking groups in historical times (e.g. Eteocretans).

Yes, but at the end some peoples did get Hellenized. After century or two or three...it is not important...right? What about Thracians....they were Hellenized too....right. That is the potential of the Kultursprache. And as you see it can have a form of diffusion although it is not a form of heat .

You have unfortunately don't understood Philip or Alexander. Glory they were after not wealth. No filthy rich man rides into the thick of battle for more wealth. In any case, what is of interest in our debate is that when Philip claimed (you can not dispute this anymore) that he wanted to extract revenge from the Persians he expected to be believed,he would not have expected the Greeks to believe a barbarian wanted to avenge their temples and free their Ionian brothers. Got it?

[/quote]

No I didn't. Neither Peter Green did:

"And though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage (a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda -line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his Macedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress (p.50)".

Greeks were making aliance with Persians to disable Philip on his "Panhellenic crusade against Persia". Why nobody knows ;D.

" The Greeks had done a deal with Artaxerxes, (Persian commander), and if Philip did not move fast it would be they who invaded his territory, not he theirs. In the event, he moved faster then anyone could have predicted (p.69)".

As for the willingness of the Hellenes ("the Ionian brothers") to participate in the "Panhellenic" adventure:

"The military contingent they (Hellenes) supplied, were, in reallity so many hostages for their good behavior. As we shall see, whenever they saw the slightest chance of throwing off the Macedonian yoke, they took it" (p.87). and

" It is significant that two native uprisings occured on the news of Alexander's death, and both of these, as we shall see in a moment, involved Greeks";

As for how the Hellenes "accepted with both hands" the "unification" of all the Hellenes under Philip and Alexander" we can see from the following quote when Demades heard the gossip that Alexander III ("the Panhellenic crusider and the son of the natural unifier of Hellenes - Philip") was dead:

" Impossible", exlaimed Demades," The world will stink of his corpse" see Plut. Phoe.22.

What an emotion of sorrow for the king of the unified Hellenes.

And here are some additional quotes about the happyness and joy of the Hellenes that were finally "unified by Philip and Alexander":

" If only your strength had been equal, Demostenes, to your wisdom, never would Hellas have been ruled by a Macedonian ares."

written in 280 BC, that is after the unification.

As I see the Hellenes perceived a RULE by the Macedonian ares...not a unification. Also I don't perceive a happyness but sorrow for the "unification". Where is the joy of the Panhellenic crusade....to pay back to the bad Persians for the wrongs they did to the Hellenes?

I know why.... because those Hellenes wrote what they really felt, they were not propagandists of the Droysen's fantasies.

A determined effort indeed. I feel almost sorry to see you lose I was only hoping you would have learned by now that it is a mission impossible.

Say that to the 90% of top historians that do not share your views .