History Of Macedonia – Both Ignorance and Forgery (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Both Ignorance and Forgery (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Greece)

in Alexander the Great, Ancient Historians, ancient macedonian ethnicity, Ancient Macedonian Kings, Articles, FYROM Propaganda / by D-Mak / on September 10, 2009 at 6:15 am /

Both Ignorance and Forgery (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Greece)

Australian Macedonian Advisory Council
September 10, 2009

It was not my intension to comment Mr. Gandeto´s attempt to respond to my article titled as “Total ignorance or deliberate forgery”

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/116721

since neither the revealing of his ignorance on basic details of ancient Greek history and literature once more, nor his inability to confront effectively historical evidence that belies one by one his lame arguments is something new.

You know, historical truth which derives from millennia-old written sources is always merciless towards recently fabricated revisions of history that are the by-products of a massive brainwashing project, one of the last wretched wastes of the miserably wrecked Stalinism era. Thus, it seems very normal that Mr. Gandeto´s favorite method consists of: a)using selective quotes taken out of context, which is almost in every case contradictory to the false impression he tries to create.

b) personal insults (i.e. advices for medical/psychological help)

c) repeated lies

d) avoidance of dealing with evidence that demolish his groundless argumentation. Ancient Greeks used to say a proverb for such occasions: “Έξεστι Κλαζομενίοις ασχημονείν” ,which could be applied after a slight modification to Mr. Gandeto´s case as:”Έξεστι Gandeto ασχημονείν”.

Forgive me for writing in ancient Greek, but since our subject is ancient Greek history and we have to quote abstracts from ancient Greek texts in order to document our claims, a basic knowledge of ancient Greek is required. English translations are not always that accurate and after all, it´s a good chance to sharpen your skills in ancient Greek, if you possess any such Mr. Gandeto.

However I cannot help but smile when Mr. Gandeto on the one hand accuses me of using “the copy and paste technique from a ready-made distribution library” that “has gotten me nowhere too soon” and of distorting historical truth and advices me to “do an original authored work for a change”, while on the other hand:

a) he invokes (actually using the same “copy/pasting technique”) as proof of the non Greekness of ancient Macedonians and Epirotans some outdated 19th century militaries(!!!) like Major General Sir John Charles Ardagh

http://www.boer-war.com/Personalitie…r-General.html

who is far of being considered an authority on ancient Greek history.

b) he tries desperately to “prove” as lie what an ancient historian (Herodotus) wrote (in regards to Alexander I´s statement “I am myself a Greek”),just because it doesn´t suit his propagandistic agenda.

Well, Mr.Gandeto if these are your “first-hand informations” that are not “relied on lies and distortions”, allow me to present my “second-hand” informations, relied only on what ancient authors themselves wrote. You asked the Greeks to find you evidence that Macedonians were considered as Greeks by other Greeks, Romans and themselves and since I provided a great amount of such quotes from ancient authors you are now apparently avoiding to address the vast majority of them. Your only comment was on Plutarch´s episode with Demaratus and Alexander, accusing me of distorting the text by

omitting this passage:

“I certainly cannot agree with Demarathus the Corinthian, who said that those Greeks who did not live to see Alexander seated on the throne of Darius had been deprived of a great pleasure.

On the contrary, I believe that they would have been more likely to weep when they remembered that this triumph was left for Alexander and his Macedonians, while they themselves squandered the lives of Greek generals on the battlefields of Leuctra, Coronea, Corinth and Arcadia”

I didn´t omit it, because this is from Plutarch´s “Agesilaus”,15,while my quote was from “Alexander”. Besides,it would be very naïve to conclude that Plutarch´s intension was here to point out any ethnic diversity between Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks. Of course many Athenians, Thebans, Spartans etc. would have been very envious of the Macedonian achievement and this was the reason that Spartans refused to join the Hellenic league in the war against the Persians,using the excuse that “it was an hereditary custom of theirs,not to follow others but to lead them”.

Arrian,”Alexander´s Anabasis”,1.12

http://websfor.org/alexander/arrian/book1a.asp

If the task of subjugating the Persian empire had been accomplished by Athens, Sparta,

Thebes or any other major Greek city-state, there is not any doubt that all the rest would feel envy for not being themselves the ones that earned this glory. Your obvious unfamiliarity with works of ancient Greek literature deprives you from understanding their mentality and their exaggerated regionalism that were frequently expressed through such kind of statements. We can read, e.g. in Thucydides history of the Peloponnesian war,3.62.2 that “just as afterwards when the Athenians attacked the Hellenes”.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…p=Thuc.+3.62.1

While in 3.13.1 from Thucydides history again, the Mytilineans describe their revolt against the Athenians as follows:

“and now, upon the Boeotians inviting us, we at once responded to the call, and decided upon a twofold revolt, from the Hellenes and from the Athenians”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…p=Thuc.+3.13.1

The Spartan general Lysander is described by Plutarch as follows:

“This he did alike in the cities which had been hostile, and in those which had become his allies, and sailed along in leisurely fashion, in a manner establishing for himself the supremacy over Hellas. For in his appointments of the rulers he had regard neither to birth nor wealth, but put control of affairs into the hands of his comrades and partisans, and made them masters of rewards and punishments. He also took part himself in many massacres, and assisted in driving out the enemies of his friends. Thus he gave the Greeks no worthy specimen of Lacedaemonian rule.”

Plutarch,”Lysander”,13.1

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…lut.+Lys.+13.1

If we had to adopt your logic, then neither Athenians, Mytilineans and Lacedaemonians were Greeks, Mr.Gandeto! Furthermore, beyond any doubt,your insistence to use Plutarch´s work as a source that proves the non-Greekness of ancient Macedonians is as hilarious as someone´s attempt to prove that Earth is flat and the Sun actually rotates around her, using the theories of Copernicus, the father of the Heliocentric System! It´s well known even to the last high school student that Plutarch wrote the lives of great Greek and Roman men in comparison:

“For each of the great men of ancient Greece and Rome Plutarch wrote a life;50 of them survive.”

“In the Lives,Plutarch´s basic method is to compare a Greek with a Roman.”

“An Evolutionary Psychology of Leader-Follower Relations”,Patrick McNamara,page 4

http://books.google.com/books?id=aIXqOQNRSIcC&pg=PA4

Now, Mr.Gandeto, do you know whose lives compared Plutarch and who was the Greek and who the Roman in these compared pair of Lives below?

“ALEXANDER AND JULIUS CAESAR COMPARED”

Plutarch’s Lives,Vol. 5,page 327 by John Langhorne, William Langhorne, Francis Wrangham

http://books.google.com/books?id=FfAYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA327

And before you say something about Alexander´s Argive origin, even Demetrius the Besieger, a common Macedonian, not a member of the Temenid royal house was included in that list:

“DEMETRIUS AND ANTONY COMPARED”

Plutarch’s Lives,Vol. 5,page 608 by John Langhorne and William Langhorne.

http://books.google.com/books?id=aRYPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA608

Even Pyrrhus, the Epirotan king is compared with the Roman Caius Marius, despite your unsubstantiated claims that Epirotans were not Greeks:

PYRRHUS AND CAIUS MARIUS COMPARED

Plutarch’s Lives,Vol. 4,page 55 by John Langhorne, William Langhorne, Francis Wrangham

http://books.google.com/books?id=lu8YAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA55

There is also a certain passage of Plutarch, the episode with the philosopher Callisthenes, Aristotle´s nephew. Alexander asks him “to make an oration extempore in

praise of the Macedonians; and he did it with such a flow of eloquence, that all who heard it rose from their seats to clap and applaud him, and threw their garland upon him”. Then, Alexander asks him to do the opposite: “if you will show the force of your eloquence, tell my Macedonians their faults, and dispraise them, that by hearing their errors they may learn to be better for the future”. Callisthenes indeed obeyed “retracting all he had said before, and, inveighing against the Macedonians with great freedom, added, that Philip thrived and grew powerful, chiefly by the discord of the Grecians”. Of course, the Macedonians hearing that felt “so offended, that he was odious to them ever after. And Alexander said, that instead of his eloquence, he had only made his ill-will appear in what he had spoken”. Because,” by speaking out openly against that which the best and gravest of the Macedonians only repined at in secret, he delivered the Grecians and Alexander

himself from a great disgrace, when the practice was given up”.

Plutarch,”Alexander´,53-54

http://www.greektexts.com/library/Pl…r/eng/103.html

So who were those Greeks that were delivered from a great disgrace, since the only people that felt offended were Macedonians?

Your next claim was that “Strabo, Skylax, Dichaerchus, Scymnus, and Dionysius all concur in making Greece commence at the Ambracian Gulf, and terminate at the river Peneus”. Leaving aside the fact that Strabo explicitly wrote “Macedonia, of course, is also a part of Greece” as I already proved in my previous article:

Strabo,”Geography”,7,329

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/…Fragments*.htm

(However I see you insist to “forget” it .Really, shouldn´t this attitude be included in the definition of the terms “liar”, “distortion”, “fraudulent claim” etc. I think you can understand now why you and your methods “deserve indeed that lofty position” of being compared with Joseph Goebbels and labelled as audacious lies and blatant distortions respectively).As for the rest, you confuse Ethnography with Geography, Ionia, Cyprus, Sicily, Magna Grecia were not part of Greece, yet numerous Greek populations were living there.

Then you claimed “If Alexander I was Greek, why then, was he dubbed “Philhellene”?If you ever had extensively studied ancient Greek literature, you would know that the term “Philhellen” was applied to Greeks as well and Alexander I was neither the first nor the last. Now it´s time to brush up your ancient Greek, Mr.Gandeto, because in some of the following quotes the word “Philhellene” is translated in English as “lover” or “friend of Greece”, so the original Greek text is required for the verification of my claims.

Claudius Aelianus labels Hieron as “Philhellene”

Claudius Aelianus,”Varia historia”9.1.1

Ἱέρωνά φασι τὸν Συρακόσιον φιλέλληνα γενέσθαι καὶ τιμῆσαι παιδείαν ἀνδρειότατα

http://hodoi.fltr.ucl.ac.be/concorda…/lecture/1.htm

“Hieron of Syracusae, they say, was a Philhellene”

“Historical miscellany” Nigel Guy Wilson,page 281

http://books.google.com/books?id=dma9h97GkvUC&pg=PA281

In Plato’s Republic, the founder of a purely Hellenic city admits that its Hellenic inhabitants must be philhellenes and consider all of Hellas as their home.

Plato “Republic” 470.e

“ti de dê; ephên: hên su polin oikizeis, oukh Hellênis estai”; “dei g’ autên”, ephê. “oukoun kai agathoi te kai hêmeroi esontai”; “sphodra ge”. “all’ ou philellênes; oude oikeian tên Hellada hêgêsontai, oude koinônêsousin hônper hoi alloi hierôn”; “kai sphodra ge”.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…5:section=470e

“Well, then,” said I, “is not the city that you are founding to be a Greek city?” “It must be,” he said. “Will they then not be good and gentle?” “Indeed they will.” “And won’t they be philhellenes, lovers of Greeks, and will they not regard all Greece as their own and not renounce their part in the holy places common to all Greeks ?” “Most certainly”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…t.+Rep.+5.470e

Plato again defines the word “philhellene” as “Greek patriot”

Plato,Letters,8.354.a

“ei men dê tis orthoteron ameinon t’ echei tou hup’ emou rhêthêsomenou, enenkôn eis to meson orthotata philellên an lechtheiê”.

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…8:section=352b

“If, therefore, any man knows of a remedy that is truer and better than that which I am now about to propose, and puts it openly before us, he shall have the best right to the title “Friend of Greece.”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…lat.+L.+8.352b

Xenophon applies the term “Philhellene” to his friend, Agesilaus King of Sparta

Xenophon,”Agesilaus” 7.4

“ei ge mên au kalon Hellêna onta philellêna einai,tina tis oiden allon stratêgon ê polin ouk ethelonta hairein,hotan oiêtai porthêsein,ê sumphoran nomizonta to nikan en tôi pros Hellênas polemôi”;

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…er=7:section=1

“Again, if it is honourable in one who is a Greek to be a friend to the Greeks, what other general has the world seen unwilling to take a city when he thought that it would be sacked, or who looked on victory in a war against Greeks as a disaster”?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…Xen.+Ages.+7.1

Isocrates in his Panegyrikus, decides that the use of ‘ἀμείνους’ (brave) to title his ancestors that stood up against the Persians is inadequate and instead chooses to title them philhellenes.

Isocrates,”Panegyricus”,96

“kaitoi pôs an ekeinôn andres ameinous ê mallon philellênes ontes epideikhtheien”

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…h=4:section=95

“And yet how could men be shown to be braver or more devoted to Hellas than our ancestors”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…kup=Isoc.+4+96

Dio Chrysostomus in one of his speeches praises the ancestors of the Corinthians because they proved themselves philhellenes.

Dio Chrysostomus,”Orationes” 37,17,9

“Λακεδαιμονίοις ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινῶν δικαίων τῆς Ἑλλάδος μετὰ τῆς Θηβαίων καὶ Ἠλείων πόλεως ἀντέβησαν·ᾧ καὶ διέδειξαν οὐ φιλολάκωνες ὄντες, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς φιλέλληνες καὶ φιλοδίκαιοι καὶ φιλελεύθεροι καὶ μισοπόνηροι καὶ μισοτύραννοι”

http://books.google.com/books?id=VEcTAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA298

“in company with the states of Thebes and Elis they opposed the Spartans in defence of the common rights of Hellas; and by this act they also showed that they were not mere lovers of honour, but rather lovers of Hellas, of justice, of freedom, and haters of villainy and tyranny”.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/…urses/37*.html

There is also an inscription from Thessaloniki (Prior to the middle of 3rd century A.D.) where a person is called Hellene and Philhellene [IG X.2.1, No. 145, lines 1-2: In other words, someone may be both an Hellene and a Philhellene (lover of the Hellenes). Alexander, son of Amyntas, was given undoubtedly the epithet Philhellene in order to distinguish him from his more famous namesake, to wit, Alexander the Great, who may have been emulating his namesake ancestor and in any case the epithete “Philhellene” is a late attestation.

http://e***raphy.packhum.org/inscrip…rt=101&end=110

Then Mr. Gandeto claims that “Your next point is Isocrates. Here, again you avoided the obvious that this Greek pundit made an explicit separation between Macedonians and Greeks.

To quote Isocrates´ letter to Philip and use it as some kind of proof for the alleged Greekness of the ancient Macedonians is a sure sign of deliberate nearsightedness and total submission to ignorance. If you Greeks can glide past the eloquent elaboration of the text of Isocrates´ letter to Philip II—furnished by non other than Ernst Badian—and still use that text as evidence for Greekness, then you do not need evidence per se, but are badly and urgently in need of medical/psychological help instead.”

First and foremost, your assertion that I used Isocrates´ text “as proof for the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians” is a strong indication either of limited reading/comprehending ability and/or of intensional misinterpretation of my text (how surprising!).Please read again my previous article, so that you can finally find out (after the third or fourth read probably) in what context I used some abstracts from Isocrates´ letter to Philip:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/115962

Your following claims deserve a special treatment:

“Your ancestor (Phillip´s) had not attempted to become a tyrant in his native city (i.e. Argos) but leaving the area of Greece entirely, had decided to seize the kingdom over Macedon, and found a firmly established dynasty over a people of non-kindred race.”

Let me break the passage into understandable parts for you since no one in Greece dares to touch it or has the courage to dissect it:

(a) It indicates that monarchy is not an acceptable governing choice for the Greeks.

(b) “leaving the area of Greece entirely means that Macedon was not a part of any Greek city-state.

(c) “found their kingdom among the people of non-kindred race” This is as eloquent of a separation of Greeks and Macedonians as it comes.

Do I need to define the word “non-kindred” race for you Mr. Doukas? I think there should be no need for further elaboration.

No, Mr. Gandeto, you don´t need to define the word “non kindred race”. All you need are two things:

a)First to acquire a basic knowledge of ancient Greek to a decent level, so that you will be able to study these ancient texts in their original version. The attempt to interpret and use as proofs ancient Greek texts by someone who is totally devoid of knowledge of that language is indeed unacceptable.

b)Then you should start to study as much as possible ancient Greek texts, in particularly these very texts which you use as sources quoting only few small abstracts.

The term “of non-kindred race” is actually a mistranslation of the phrase “ouch

“ουχ ομοφύλου γένους” is the genitive form of “ουχ ομόφυλον γένος” (ouch homophulon genos) and it cannot be translated as “non-kindred race”.Α more precise translation would be “not of the same tribal ancestry” or “not of the same clan”. This was indeed the case with Philip´s ancestors,the founders of the Temenid royal house who left their native Argos and established their kingdom in Macedonia, amongst people “ouch homophulou genous” (not of the same tribe/clan).

The first part of the term,”ουχ ομόφυλον” (ouch omophulon) or his equivalent “αλλόφυλον” (allophulon) is used in many occasions by the ancient authors with that exact meaning,of “not of the same tribe”, because they apply it to certain Greek tribes in order to express the existing differences between them and some other known Greek tribes.

Pericles is refering to members of Peloponnesian league as “ουχ ομόφυλοι”(ouch homophuloi) pointing out the tribal diversity between its various members .

“machêi men gar miai pros hapantas Hellênas dunatoi Peloponnêsioi kai hoi xummachoi antischein,polemein de mê pros homoian antiparaskeuên adunatoi,hotan mête bouleutêriôi heni chrômenoi parachrêma ti oxeôs epitelôsi pantes te isopsêphoi ontes kai ouch homophuloi to eph’ heauton hekastos speudêi:ex hôn philei mêden epiteles gignesthai”

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…=141:section=1

Thucydides,The Peloponnesian war 1.141.6

The term “ouch homophuloi” is inaccurately translated as “composed of various races”

In a single battle the Peloponnesians and their allies may be able to defy all Hellas,but they are incapacitated from carrying on a war against a power different in character from their own, by the want of the single council-chamber requisite to prompt and vigorous action, and the substitution of a diet composed of various races, in which every state possesses an equal vote, and each presses its own ends, a condition of things which generally results in no action at all.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…=Thuc.+1.141.1

Spartans decided to sent away the expedition force of Athenians under Kimon who came for their help during the revolt of Helots, not just because they consider Athenians as agitators but also because they were “Αλλόφυλοι” (hallophuloi) (=different tribe).

Thucydides,The Peloponnesian war 1.102.3

hoi gar Lakedaimonioi, epeidê to chôrion biai ouch hêlisketo,deisantes tôn Athênaiôn to tolmêron kai tên neôteropoiian,kai allophulous hama hêgêsamenoi

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…=102:section=1

Thucydides,The Peloponnesian war 1.102.3

hoi gar Lakedaimonioi, epeidê to chôrion biai ouch hêlisketo,deisantes tôn Athênaiôn to tolmêron kai tên neôteropoiian,kai allophulous hama hêgêsamenoi

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…=102:section=1

The word “allophulous” is translated as “of alien extraction”

The Lacedaemonians, when assault failed to take the place, apprehensive of the enterprising and revolutionary character of the Athenians, and further looking upon them as of alien extraction

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…=Thuc.+1.102.1

The Doric Syracusian Politician Ermocrates states the war against Atheneans is war against “αλόφυλλους επελθόντας” (allophulous epelthontas)

Thucydides The Peloponnesian war,4.64.4

tous de allophulous epelthontas hathrooi aiei,ên sôphronômen,amunoumetha,eiper kai kath’ hekastous blaptomenoi xumpantes kinduneuomen

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…r=64:section=1

which is translated as “foreign invaders”

There is no disgrace in connections giving way to one another, a Dorian to a Dorian, or a Chalcidian to his brethren; above and beyond this we are neighbors, live in the same country, are girt by the same sea, and go by the same name of Sicilians. We shall go to war again, I suppose, when the time comes, and again make peace among ourselves by means of future congresses; but the foreign invader, if we are wise, will always find us united against him

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…p=Thuc.+4.64.1

The Boetarch Pagondas urges his fellow Boetian countrymen to attack the invading Athenian army, which he labels as “αλλόφυλον επελθόντα” (allophulon epelthonta)

Thucydides,The Peloponnesian war,4.92.3

patrion te humin straton allophulon epelthonta kai en têi oikeiai kai en têi tôn pelas homoiôs amunesthai.Athênaious de kai proseti homorous ontas pollôi malista dei

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…r=92:section=1

Which is translated as “foreign invader”

It is your national habit, in your country or out of it, to oppose the same resistance to a foreign invader; and when that invader is Athenian, and lives upon your frontier besides, it is doubly imperative to do so

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…p=Thuc.+4.92.1

The second word, “genos”(γένος) doesn´t refer only to “race” but it´s used in many instances by ancient Greek authors with the meaning of “ancestry” ,”origin”, “stock” or “tribe”. This is something easily ascertainable ,if we examine some such passages.F.i. Herodotus in 1.31.1 of his “Histories” tell us that Cleobis and Biton´s genos was Argive.

“toutoisi gar eousi genos Argeioisi”

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…r=31:section=1

which is translated in English as

“they were of Argive stock”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…up=Hdt.+1.31.1

In book 6.83.2 we can read that the genos of the prophet Kleandros is Phygalean (from the town of Phygalea in Western Peloponnesus)

“Kleandros,genos eôn Phigaleus ap’ Arkadiês”

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…tion%3D%232943

which is translated as:

“Kleandros,a man of Phigalea in Arcadia by birth”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…up=Hdt.+6.83.1

In book 9.76.1,a Greek woman from the island of Kos says:

“eimi de genos men Kôiê,thugatêr de Hêgêtorideô”

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…r=76:section=1

which is translated as:

“Coan I am by birth, the daughter of Hegetorides”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…up=Hdt.+9.76.1

In book 8.47.1 the inhabitants of Kroton are described as belonging to the Achaean genos:

“Krotôniêtai de genos eisi Achaioi”

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…tion%3D%233774

which is translated as:

“The Crotonians are Achaeans by birth”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…up=Hdt.+8.47.1

In 5.91.1 Herodotus speaks of the Attic genos ( “to genos to Attikon”)

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…tion%3D%232650

which is translated simply as “the Athenians”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…up=Hdt.+5.91.1

In book 1.56.2,we read about the “Dorikon” and the “Ionikon” genos:

“historeôn de heuriske Lakedaimonious kai Athênaious proechontas tous men tou Dôrikou geneos tous de tou Iônikou”

http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…r=56:section=1

Which is translated as:

“He found by inquiry that the chief peoples were the Lacedaemonians among those of Doric, and the Athenians among those of Ionic stock”.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…up=Hdt.+1.56.1

Besides,any allusion to a supposed non-Greek origin of the Macedonians would be very contradictory to the whole spirit of Isocrates´ letter to Philip, where he urges him to unify

all the Greeks and to lead them to a “victorious campaign against the barbarians of Asia”.

If Isocrates considered Macedonians as barbarians, how could he recommend these barbarians to become leaders of the Greek world in a war against other barbarians? Such surrealistically absurd oddities could have been born only in the confused mind of a desperate Slavomacedonian propagandist. As I said before, firstly you must read the whole text which you use as source:

“To Philip”,16

For I am going to advise you to champion the cause of concord among the Hellenes and of a campaign against the barbarian; and as persuasion will be helpful in dealing with the Hellenes, so compulsion will be useful in dealing with the barbarians. This, then, is the general scope of my discourse.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…kup=Isoc.+5+14

“To Philip”,56

It would still remain for me to speak about our city, had she not come to her senses before the others and made peace; but now I need only say this: I think that she will join forces with you in carrying out your policy, especially if she can be made to see that your object is to prepare for the campaign against the barbarians.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…kup=Isoc.+5+54

“To Philip”,88

So from the mistakes of inadvertence at that time it is easy to draw the lesson that those who would take sane counsel must not begin a war against the King until someone has composed the quarrels of the Hellenes and has cured them of the madness which now afflicts them. And this is just what I have advised you to do.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…kup=Isoc.+5+87

“To Philip” 128

Perhaps there are those men capable of nothing else but criticism who will venture to rebuke me because I have chosen to challenge you to the task of leading the expedition against the barbarians and of taking Hellas under your care,while I have passed over my own city.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…up=Isoc.+5+127

“To Philip” 132

Consider also what a disgrace it is to sit idly by and see Asia flourishing more than Europe and the barbarians enjoying a greater prosperity than the Hellenes;

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…up=Isoc.+5+130

Isocrates,”To Philip”,154

I assert that it is incumbent upon you to work for the good of the Hellenes, to reign as king over the Macedonians, and to extend your power over the greatest possible number of the barbarians. For if you do these things, all men will be grateful to you: the Hellenes for your kindness to them; the Macedonians if you reign over them, not like a tyrant, but like a king; and the rest of the nations, if by your hands they are delivered from barbaric despotism and are brought under the protection of Hellas

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin…up=Isoc.+5+154

Even your last claim, that “monarchy was not an acceptable governing choice for the Greeks” doesn´t leave any room for doubt: You are both ignorant and forger of history. Do you really believe that all the Greek city-states were democracies in classical time? Have you ever heard of Hieron, Agathocles and Gelon, the tyrants of Syracuse during 5th and 4th century?

“Ancient tyranny”,Sian Lewis,page 77

http://books.google.com/books?id=ne3G3nPrsD4C&pg=PA77

Do you forget the tyrants of Thessaly, with Jason and Alexander being the most prominent:

Page 136

The tyrant’s con¬temporary, Xenophon, presents him as responsible for the decadence of the Thessalian tageia, contrasting this with the respect in which Alexander’s great predecessor, Jason, was held by his contemporaries {Hell. 6.4.28), and the mildness of his government to the harsh ruling of Alexander (Hell. 6.4.33-5).

http://books.google.com/books?id=ne3G3nPrsD4C&pg=PA136

Do you claim that Sparta was a democracy or you ignore the existence of the tyrants of Sicyon,Ionia and Euboea?

Page 3

Studying tyrants also requires us to consider a wide variety of states and political systems, including some which are often neglected, and to take a long perspective, from the seventh century to the first. Syracuse has given us the greatest number of well-documented tyran¬nical rulers, and poleis such as Sicyon have histories dominated by tyrants,from the seventh-century Orthagoras to the third-century Nicocles. Thessaly, Ionia and Euboea all produced significant tyrants.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ne3G3nPrsD4C&pg=PA3

The development of a democratic constitution in Macedonia was an impossible process,due to its geographical position:

“The age of Alexander: nine Greek lives” Ian Scott-Kilvert

http://books.google.com/books?id=Lnur0BjQO2oC&pg=PA9

Macedonia (and to a lesser degree Epirus, the kingdom of Pyrrhus later) can be called “backward” in the sense that the peoples there were still organized in tribes ruled by kings in the archaic fashion of the Greeks some centuries before. In Macedonia the luxury of self-govern¬ment in city-states had never developed, probably because the rela¬tive security of the Greek peninsula was missing. Here was a harder, tougher world in which the neighbouring peoples were big and strong and near, and the Macedonians needed the strong rule of kings in order to survive. In order to prosper they needed the rule of a king who could control the smaller princes and unite the regional tribes to form one Macedonian people. It was this that Philip the father of Alexander finally achieved, and the resultant surge of power in the north flooded down over Greece and out into Asia to the Indus.

“Alexander the Great” J.R. Hamilton,pages 23- 24

http://books.google.com/books?id=qi0iL6r7v2IC&pg=PA24

For the political differences between Macedon and the Greek states the geographical position of Macedonia was largely responsible. Lying between Greece and the Balkans, Macedonia acted as a barrier, shielding the Greek states from the incursions of the restless northern peoples, Illyrians, Paeonians, and Thracians, and enabling them to develop politically from monarchy to aristocracy or demo¬cracy. Such development the Macedonians themselves could not afford; to survive they needed strong leadership. Hence Macedon remained a monarchy, not very different from the monarchies of the Homeric poems.

Finally, Mr. Gandeto,I ´m expecting from you to try your best in order to discredit my last argument. Do you know what the “theoroi” (θεωροί) ,”theorodokoi” (θεωρόδοκοι) and “spondophoroi” (σπονδοφόροι) were?

“Pilgrims and pilgrimage in ancient Greece” Matthew Dillon,pages 1-2

http://books.google.com/books?id=ojqUN_qA0gMC&pg=PA1

In the ancient Greek world pilgrims were reminded of the approach of a panhellenic festival and invited to attend it by messengers sent out by the state which was organising the event.At the same time these messengers would also announce a “sacred truce”. The acceptance of this by cities and states signalled the beginning of a sacred truce in which cities would allow unhindered access through their territory for pilgrims who wished to attend the forthcoming festival. These truces did not affect any ongoing hostilities, and warfare did not cease throughout the Greek world. Rather, the truces covered only the safety of the pilgrims travelling to and from the sacred site in question, and depended for their validity upon universal acceptance throughout the Greek world, for if one state refused to accept the truce, then the safety of pilgrims was threatened.

SACRED TRUCES

It was the task of the official announcers of sacred truces, usually known as theoroi but for certain festivals called spondophoroi, to travel to specific destinations to seek acceptance of the sacred truce.They would be given lodgings and hospitality in the places which they visited by theorodokoi, ‘theoroi receivers’,with this institution known as the theorodokia.The same term, theorodokoi, was used to describe the individuals who would host the officials, also known as theoroi, sent to particular festivals in order to represent their state.

The aim of the sacred truces was to ensure that pilgrims enjoyed security while on the way to celebrate festivals at sacred sites; a guarantee of safety was an expected precondition of such journeys to panhellenic pilgrimage sites.

“Ancient Greek Athletics” Stephen G. Miller page 115

http://books.google.com/books?id=3Wdh6YGXOxMC&pg=PA115

These were the theorodokoi,or envoy-receivers, whose job was to facilitate the task of the heralds when they arrived in their cities. The theorodokoi served as the local representatives of the games, and they demonstrate that a highly organized support system for the games existed throughout the Greek world. Attested at Nemea and Delphi, theorodokoi surely must have been involved in the Olympic and Isthmian Games as well.

Well, the theoroi and the spondophoroi were sacred messengers that traveled throughout the Greek world in order to invite people in various panhellenic festivals like the Eleusinian Mysteries, the Olympian, Pythian, Isthmian and Nemean games. They were received by the theorodokoi in the various Greek cities and regions. You are aware that only Greeks were allowed in these panhellenic events and thus the theoroi and spondophoroi visited only territories inhabited by Greeks, while theorodokoi were again appointed only by Greek cities or regions. Thus,if Macedonians were not Greeks as you claim, how is it that theoroi were sent to Macedonia as well and that king Perdikkas III was a theorodokos for the Epidauria?

“Pilgrims and pilgrimage in ancient Greece” Matthew Dillon page 33

http://books.google.com/books?id=ojqUN_qA0gMC&pg=PA33

Two groups of theoroi met Antiochos IV to announce the Panathenaia and Eleusinian Mysteries, and he agreed to accept the truce and the inviolability of the festivals.

Philip would have received spondophoroi at his court who had announced the commencement of the Olympic truce, and this would imply his acceptance of the truce for himself and his sub¬jects. Perdikkas III of Macedonia, for example, was theorodokos for the theoroi announcing the Epidauria in the fourth century.” Perdikkas reception of these theoroi was an undertaking that the Macedonians would not carry out hostilities against pilgrims travelling to Epidauros in this period.

“City and sanctuary in ancient Greece: the Theorodokia in the Peloponnese” Paula Jean Perlman page 105

http://books.google.com/books?id=WkkLxCCebPYC&pg=PA105

At first inspection the Nemea list appears to have been inscribed by two ma¬sons. The original mason (Hand One) was responsible for Column I, lines 1-10 (the theorodokoi from Cyprus) and lines 14-52 (the theorodokoi from Akarnania) and Column II, lines 1-9 (a continuation from Column I of northwest Greece) followed by the theorodokoi from Macedonia (lines 10-17) and Lampsakos (lines 18-23).

Written by Kapetan Doukas

info@macedonian.com.au

Source: American Chronicle

http://www.macedonian.com.au/forum