It\'s all Greek to me (Makedonians included) ...

[Macedon]

The question arises, of course, as to whether we are considering “Greekness’ from a modern viewpoint – modern attitudes of ethnicity, culture etc and DNA tests, and so on – or whether we apply contemporary attitudes of the Greek city-states of the time, and to that it is clear we are not talking black and white, Greek or non-Greek, but rather shades of grey, where even Athenians can be seen as of ‘barbarian’ origins!

Of course. The question has to also contain factors such as "to whose eyes?" or "at what exact time?" and of course "according to what textual evidence?" I guess that scholarly approach only occupies itself with the classical times before Alexander the Great. After Alexander things are much clearer, not because something changes but because we have tons more sources that survive. We do know, as I have already mentioned that for a tribe to be considered Greek it does not have to have always been Greek and that can serve as an argument to those who look for the Ur-Macedonians.

Anyways, it is true that according to mythology, the Macedonians were Greeks from the time they formed their states. According to their own history we only know that all (or most) royal Macedonian families claimed heroic Greek descent, no peculiarity among Greeks. Yet, we unfortunately do not know what they claimed about the origin of their Macedonian people, although if we followed the norm, they most probably also claimed to be Hellenes as we know they did during Hellenistic times. Our view of the Macedonians as a semi-barbaric Greek ethnos has an analogy in our view of all pastoral Greek kingdoms of classical antiquity. The same question has been raised regarding most if not all Epirotan tribes too for example. Truth is we have much more direct literary evidence of their barbarism than we can say about the Macedonian tribes. Another factor often raised is the fact that because these tribes often bordered on or expanded against barbarian lands their genetic composition must have been altered. I agree, but I do not see it as a challenge to one's perception of ethnicity. Assimilated populations were of course hellenized and added to both the Epirotan and Macedonian peoples, as were thousands of metoikoi in Athens, Demosthenes and Pericles having barbarian blood in them and being unchallenged Hellenes too.

We have to understand that for the Greeks it didn't really matter if your race was of the most ancient Hellenic stock or not. They understood their ethnogenesis process and knew that no Hellenic tribe started as one before Hellen. They understood that they lived in the region for ages, they understood that they belonged to different ethnic groups like the Pelasgians (also a very broad term, mostly encompassing the populations of the broader region before the Hellenes, regardless of other differences) in the past and they welcomed their hellenization.

If we apply the simplistic test of ‘barbarism’ i.e. non Greek speakers, or those who spoke Greek so badly it was unintelligible, then the original Macedonian dialect of Herodotus’ time and before would make the Macedonian peasants probably ‘barbarians’ in most Greek eyes…….( Bearing in mind each state/region had it’s own dialect anyway – Attic, Dorian, Ionic and so on !!! ), though it appears the nobles and Kings could speak fluent Greek. In Herodotus’ time too, we see the ‘Gateway to Greece’ considered as the vale/pass of Tempe (see southern coast of map), not Thermopylae, for that is where the ‘obvious’ place to defend Greece from Xerxes was considered to be……note too that Alexander I of Macedon is not called ‘Hellene’ or similar, but ‘Phil-Hellene’/friend of the Greeks, which surely implies he was not considered a ‘Hellene’ himself..

I have already mentioned that for Greeks one can have been Greek and lose his language. We have texts talking about Greeks who forgot their language living among barbarians (as the ones Alexander met in his exploits in Asia). We also have no evidence that Macedonian was not easily understandable to Ionian/Aeolian or Doric Greeks apart from one text from Rufus (the one about Philotas needing a translator). All speculation is based on the words of Demosthenes, who called Philip a barbarian but never said that anyone did not understand the Macedonians. So, even if we give credence to Demosthenes words, which I do not after having read his contemporaries' comments regarding the Macedonians, like Aeschines for example, he never talks about language to begin with. And I am asking you, is there any other literary evidence that has the Macedonians not being understood by other Greeks? On the contrary, we have countless direct texts as to the Macedonians speaking Greek, not to mention that the Koine language has been also termed "Macedonian" in some ancient or early Byzantine (I do not remember at the moment) texts. And of course, onomatology and archaelogical evidence should not even be mentioned here... So, it does not appear as some Macedonians speaking fluent Greek, it seems that some Macedonians may not have been very easily understood by some other Greeks (which was also the case with Dorians vs Ionians for example). Also, most definitions of Greece exclude Thessaly and western Sterea from it but others do contain it as does Strabo with Macedonia. Of course the Greeks would never be able to defend the Persians in Macedonia or Thrace, since the Macedonians were already subjugated, as were the Greek cities of Thrace, Chalkidiki and Ionia. This in no way can serve as an argument to the Greekness of the Macedonians. Lastly, Alexander was honored with the appelation "Philellene" as a supreme Greek title of honor. In no way does it hint at Alexander I not being Greek. The title has been attested to have been given to Greeks and later to barbarians also. It meant "A "friend" of all the Hellenes" as opposed to "a friend only to his tribe and I don't give a damn about the rest of the Hellenes". We should not mix up our use of the word today with what it meant back then. I know of at least two more examples of non Macedonian Greeks having been called "Philellenes".

If we look at the ‘pre-history’ we see Dorian invaders – a tribe called the ‘Makedones’ descending from the rugged Pindaros mountains ( northwest) to expand eastward. By 700 BC they occupy ‘Upper’ Macedonia. A clan of the Orestai –the Argeadai - take over the fertile coastal plain of Pieria, occupied by ethnic Thracian tribes. The Argeads expand and take the neighbouring (Thracian) territory of Bottiaia.

The Argeadai were not an Orestian clan. They were the "multitude of Greeks" attested to have accompanied the Temenids north. There is one (byzantine if my memory serves me well?) text that has the Argeads not descending from Argos of the Pelloponese but of Argos Orestikon, but that is totally unsupported and in all ancient Greek works the Argeads are certainly linked with Argos of Pelloponesus. As for the Makednoi, most scholars link them to the Macedonians, Hammond, a proponent of the Greek character of the Macedonians says that in his opinion we should not link them and in some Byzantine (again) works they are also mentioned as not linked with the Macedonians. It is true that the name is too similar to avoid linking the Makednoi with the Makedones and this is why they are always considered the forefathers of the Macedonians. I am personally not sure as to their relation, mostly because of these Byzantine works.

Also, the plains occupied by the Argead state were not just occupied by Thracians but also by Greek tribes (not colonies or city states, but pastoral tribes) residing in the region before the Macedonians.

The institutions of these Makedones are essentially Greek, and recognisably ‘Homeric’. A King/war-leader who intercedes with the Gods (essentially the Greek pantheon – witness the Macedonian calendar), aided by his noble companions ( Hetairoi – similar to Homer’s Achaean ‘Hetairoi’) who rule, in a sort of feudal fashion, over insignificant peasants. As with all conquests, some are killed, some are driven out, and the vast majority go on just as they have always done, but serving the ‘new’ masters. (c.f. the Norman conquest of Saxon England). The Argeads claim descent from Herakles ( never disputed in classical times, and which descent ultimately got them admitted to the Olympic Games as ‘Hellenes’). Underneath though, the peasants still worshipped satyrs(saudai) and bacchantes (klodones and minallones) and worship of the (originally Thracian) God Dionysius remained strong.

Yes and no. First we have to point out that their political system was nothing peculiar for the totality of the Greek world. At this time we have a number of Greek states being ruled by kings in about the same fashion. Of course we know that here, but this also serves as one of the major arguments of those who dispute the Macedonian's Greekness conveniently only comparing the Macedonians to the Athenians or the Thebans... Apart from that, there was no lord-serf relationship as was the case in later Western Europe. There were no feudal rights over the population and the Macedonian peasantry enjoyed equal rights and freedom. Also, the Macedonian state encompassed a number of city states (not only colonies) who effectively ran like their Southern kindred under the protection of the king. As for their religion there is nothing Thracian in the worship of Dionysus. He had been a major Greek God for ages and although "Thracian" (or Egyptian or Ethiopian according to others) in origin according to Greeks,he was essentially considered a Greek as was his history as a hero. Do not forget that Dionysus and Heracles the Argive both lived before the Troyan War and as such before the Hellenes were formed as an ethnos. Had the Macedonians worshipped Thracian Gods, we would have been handed over Thracian or non-Greek names of Deities and would have been told that these were the name of Dionysus in the Macedonian language or something like that. Instead, we have a fully Greek pantheon and religion and Dionysus is not the head of the Gods but one of Macedonian preference as were so many other Gods to so many other Greek states. Who says that the Thracians worshipped Dionysus before the Greeks?

Unsurprising then, that to more culturally sophisticated urban Greeks, such a pastoral society should seem primitive, un-hellenic, or ‘barbarian’.In addition, from 510-479 BC Makedon, though not occupied or with a Satrap, owed suzerainty to Persia. Alexander I secretly spied for the Greek city-states – a Greek victory was his only chance to regain independence - and after Plataea, he openly fights, and inflicts on the retreating Persians “complete catastrophe”.

Of course, to the more sophisticated Greeks of Athens, all pastoral Greek ethnoi did seem primitive and in cases, like with Thucydides, barbarian. I have to remind us all that although Thucydides is not really blunt with the barbarism of the Macedonians he is very direct with the barbarism of the Western Greek tribes who we now know with certainty that they did speak Greek and considered themselves Greek at his time. I have to disagree, though, with Alexander's dependence on the Southern Greeks to regain independence. After the Persians were driven off, the Thracians gained their independence as well without having to assume a Greek identity. Alexander also did not need the Greeks to regain full control of his kingdom. The defeat at Plataea was enough. It is interesting though, that it was the Macedonians who helped the Greeks and not any other barbaric king, nor even any Anatolian or Boeotian Greek allies of the King.

Alexander expands west into contact with the ‘Upper’ Macedonians who become “allied and/or subject”, and also eastward into Thracian territory to the Strymon river ( off the map well to the east). Macedonia has quadrupled in size.
Nor did Alexander’s ‘phil-Hellenism’ cease with the end of the war. He attempts to ‘catch up’ with the southern Greeks, introducing coinage and founding cities/urban colonies. Significantly, the first two are called Herakleion and Dion (after Herakles and Zeus Dion –in Pieria – see map) and he welcomes “Greek” immigrants. After the destruction of Mycenae by Argos in soon after 478 ( just a year or so after Plataea!), the surviving half of the population are given safe haven in Makedon. When the Athenians under Perikles take the Euboean city of Histaia in 446, the surviving population again finds sanctuary in Makedon. A mere one generation later, Brasidas and Perdikkas II field a Hoplite force of 3,000 – probably mostly “Greeks resident in the kingdom”(423 BC). Clearly the coastal Argeads were not only forced to react with ‘Hellas’ but actively embraced ‘modern’ Hellenic culture - as witness the enthusiatic embrace of, in particular, Attic culture.Greek poets and artists were warmly welcomed and patronised. Makedon's own 'Olympic' festival was founded, and the famous Athenian playwright Euripides emigrated to Makedon permanently. If Makedon was border-line Hellenic in Herodotus' time, throughout the 5 C BC it grew more and more Hellenic and in the 4C BC can regard itself ( by Philip and Alexander's time) as 'Hellenically civilised/cultured' as any other Hellenic poleis/state.

Again you use the term "philellenism" as "admiration of the Greeks" which is incorrect in the sense used for Alexander I. Yet, I do agree that since Alexander I we witness an active effort of Macedon to build the infrastructure for a well-organized and powerful state. The fact that he welcomes Greek populations from the south is a very logical move, since his Macedonians are relatively few in number and cannot control the new territories. He has the option to either fully depend on barbarian or on Greek subjects, since the Macedonians cannot cover the needs for manpower to man the colonies and strongholds he needs. He effectively chooses to use Greeks, since the use of Thracians or Illyrians would endanger his borders and newly acquired dominions, while Greek populations would depend on him for protection from the barbarians. I do believe personally, that he also chose the Greeks because of their cultural and linguistic affiliation with the Macedonians, Greeks who, for some reason, easily got assimilated into Macedon. Just look at the Companion regiments of Alexander III and how they hailed from Southern Greek immigrant populations, having fully integrated in the Macedonian society. This also serves as an argument towards the similarities in culture and language of the Macedonians with the rest of the Greeks.

I think so too – the peasantry, let it be remembered, are of Thracian stock, subject to the Makedones, and at this time inconsequential militarily – psiloi and peltasts and such-like; ‘rabble’ hardly worth mentioning. They speak a different language and worship different Gods – not Hellenes but barbarians, and so Thucydides lumps them in with other Thracian and Illyrian psiloi and peltasts of similar ilk – “the multitude of the barbarians” and differentiated from the ‘Makedones’, who are noble ‘Hetairoi’ cavalry, subjects of an undisputed ‘Hellenic’ King……

How come that the peasantry is of Thracian stock? The Macedonians are never termed Thracians and they are not attested to have been living in the region before the advent of the Argeads. Even the proponents of Macedonian barbarism support that the Macedonians should be considered as a different ethnos. There are no Macedonians before the Argeads, nor is any tribe attested to have become Macedonian, although surely assimilation did happen as is the case in all expansions. What you propose here is totally unsupported and were there any truth in it we would have at least some texts supporting it. Many Greek states primarily fielded peltast and light rabble at that time, even at later times. Not fielding sizable hoplitic forces is in no case a sign of barbarism. They are not attested to speak a different language, not Thracian, nor Illyrian, one attestation exists in Thucydides about some settlements in Macedonia being bi-linguals, which would not be the case unless there were populations being assimilated by the Macedonians. No Thracian settlement would ever need to be bi-lingual if not during assimilation by the Macedonians, as no Macedonians would be bi-linguals unless being assimilated by some other culture. I stress here that Thucydides speaks of whole settlements and not of individual merchants or nobles. He clearly speaks of populations being assimilated into some specific culture. As for Gods.... what different Gods are you talking about? No, I disagree with this conclusion as I disagree with the proposal that Thucydides places the Argead infantry among the barbarians. In my view he just wants to state the existence of barbarian mercenaries/allies among Perdiccas ranks and this is further supported by his later clear juxtaposition between Macedonians and barbarians after the coming of the Illyrians. Anyways, you cannot base your arguments about the ethnicity of the Macedonian commoners solely on some hints by Thucydides you interpret in a certain way. Accepting that the peasantry was not Hellenic demands from you to find some sources regarding its existence before the Argeads, some links with any other barbarian population, attestations to their language, onomatology and direct literary evidence.