Macedonians

[Vitruvius]

Thank you. We are arguing semantics yet saying the same thing. As I wrote above, Dianatomia said "There was no Greece, as in Greek nation state. There certainly was though, a concept of "Greece" referred to as Hellas" and I agreed with him. Whether we refer to it as Hellas or Greece, it really doesn't matter to me. We are simply trying to be consistent when referring to the area.

Good, then we can agree that Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Diogenes, Pythagoras, Archimedes and Hippocrates were all in fact Greeks and that Greek history did and does in fact exist prior to 360BC as the Greek people, their respective city states and core ethnogeography was well recognized both internally and externally. This is not debatable as it is corroborated countless times in the historic record.

King Philip II of Macedonia (NOT Greece, but Macedonia) and Alexander the Great conquered Greece. You yourself just spoke of "Macedonia's conquest" of Greece.

No different than I speak of the "Roman" conquest of Italy, or how we refer to the "Roman Empire" despite it in reality composing its legions of pan Italic soldiery. Macedonia, the Greek power objectively did conquer the totality of Greece proper.

If Philp had thought he was Greek, he would have called himself Philip of Greece, but he didn't, he was Philip II of Macedonia. That designation alone signifies a conscience understanding in the difference of identity.

No it really doesn't. I don't even modestly see how one comes to this conclusion. Is Leonardo Da Vinci not Italian? Would he be more Italian if he had called himself Leonardo D'Italia?

In fact, one of Philip's biggest desires was to defeat Greece. If I apply your logic to The battle of Marathon, the Athenians would be considered Persian even though they won.

Every Greek power wanted to "defeat Greece" and control it. That's the most Greek attitude any Greek power could have. No idea where you're getting your logic from the second statement from. I certainly never said nor believe anything like that.

Macedonia wasn't anything like Greece.

It was a part of Greece. It participated in the Olympic games which only Greek powers were allowed to compete in and we know from the Pella curse tablet that Macedonians in their capital spoke a Doric northwestern Greek dialect even before its conquest of the rest of Greece and the importation/adoption of Koine. Polymathy has already recorded an excellent explanation of the topic.

Things were very different in Macedonia where they really didn't have a thriving middle class, and they didn't have any city-states. They had villages and towns and hamlets. Instead of a thriving middle class, they had a group that tilled the land. I'm not sure if I would call them peasants... you know what, I will call them peasants. You definitely had a nobility that these people owed their allegiance to a King. The idea of having a king to the Greeks was a sign of barbarism [...] so if you had a king, that was a sure sign that you probably weren't Greek

That's an ignorant supposition given that the Spartans were ruled by an unbroken succession of kings for 738 years from at least 930BC to 192BC. We even have protohistoric documentation from the Hittites of Spartan kings which date even into the late bronze age/protohistoric era. Furthermore, the Syracusians were ruled almost exclusively by Tyrants who in many cases referred to themselves as Kings (see Agothoclese and Phintias). This isn't even going to dive into the idealized Odysseus, King of Ithica, who was of course the major protagonist to Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, retold be every Greek tribe of every city state in Greece.

So no, your idea that Greekness is defined by a particular set of political ideas is also false. As I've stated before, "Greeks" are an ethnic group and "Greece" is an ethnogeography. One does not simply stop being Greek by participating in the wrong form of government.

Historian Ian Worthington draws this distinction as he compares an Athenian to a Macedonian and compares their cultures and the way they grow up, and the carrots and sticks in their societies and how something like that might actually have an effect on the battlefield when you have to walk up and shove a spear into your adversary.

Historian Ian Worthington unambiguously states that the Macedonians were Greeks.

 

[Vitruvius]

There is no doubt by classical time Macedonians were Greek speaking and part of Hellenic world, but i rather think they have Thracian-like elements in comparison with other Greeks. Maybe we can classify them as Greco-Thracian tribe of sort.

For instance the name Macedonia is quite similar to prior Thracian Mygdonia and Edonia. I think makednos is a fabrication of Greek linguists and doesn't make sense, makos/megas are the only words used for tall highlander. It looks more like Macedonia might mean Greater Edonia. IDK, we will see when we get aDNA.

aDNA is unlikely to give you a clear genetic divide between Greeks and Thracians. We already have several greeks in the LBA peloponnese with enough EHG to overlap northern Italy. It would not surprise me in the slightest if Macedonia and Thrace were genetically overlapping or partially overlapping while being culturally and ethnically quite differentiated.

 

[Omino]

Macedonians were involved in many conflicts were cremating all the bodies may have not been possible. Whole of Greece wasn't cremating in the iron age, there is no excuse for lack of aDNA from ancient Greece - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_funeral_and_burial_practices#:~:text=After 1100 BC, Greeks began,their ashes in an urn.

"Macedonians were involved in many conflicts were cremating all the bodies may have not been possible."
Thanx for confirming that "they don't let tests" is pure nonsense.
"Whole of Greece wasn't cremating in the iron age, there is no excuse for lack of aDNA from ancient Greece -"
Cremation was a widespread phenomenon since LBA,stop wasting my time.

The rise and fall of cremation in the ancient world - Scattering Ashes

As far back as 1000BC the ancient Greeks had adopted cremation as measure to deal with their dead. It is likely that it was introduced for military reasons as a way of making sure that soldiers killed abroad could be returned home, the bodies were cremated and their ashes are return home to be...

scattering-ashes.co.uk

 

[Hawk]

I think that the introduction of cremation after LBA in Greece is an interesting phenomenon and might be related to what archaeologists were talking for decades people via Morava river from Central Balkans participating in Aegean migrations, we will see if E-V13 played a role in this.

 

[ProtosP]

Thank you. We are arguing semantics yet saying the same thing. As I wrote above, Dianatomia said "There was no Greece, as in Greek nation state. There certainly was though, a concept of "Greece" referred to as Hellas" and I agreed with him. Whether we refer to it as Hellas or Greece, it really doesn't matter to me. We are simply trying to be consistent when referring to the area.


In your dreams, Vitruvius. You're the one living a fantasy. The Macedonian Empire had nothing to do with Greece as they were different territories with distinct cultures. King Philip II of Macedonia (NOT Greece, but Macedonia) and Alexander the Great conquered Greece. You yourself just spoke of "Macedonia's conquest" of Greece. There is a winning side and a losing side in wars and Greece lost. They were absorbed into the Macedonian Empire. I know you and other Greeks don't like it, but too bad. Face reality. If Philp had thought he was Greek, he would have called himself Philip of Greece, but he didn't, he was Philip II of Macedonia. That designation alone signifies a conscience understanding in the difference of identity. In fact, one of Philip's biggest desires was to defeat Greece. If I apply your logic to The battle of Marathon, the Athenians would be considered Persian even though they won.

Macedonia wasn't anything like Greece. Greece was populated by city-states like Athens, Sparta, Corinth, Argos, Thebes—the most dominant city-state prior to its destruction by Philip and Alexander. All of these places tended to have thriving middle classes and a well-developed upper-class; they were refined; they governed through councils/democracies mainly (with some exceptions); they had schools (only allowed for boys); their citizens usually made up militia armies of these places.

Things were very different in Macedonia where they really didn't have a thriving middle class, and they didn't have any city-states. They had villages and towns and hamlets. Instead of a thriving middle class, they had a group that tilled the land. I'm not sure if I would call them peasants... you know what, I will call them peasants. You definitely had a nobility that these people owed their allegiance to a King. The idea of having a king to the Greeks was a sign of barbarism. Kings were what the Egyptians had with a pharaoh... kings were what the Persians had with Cyrus the Great. Greek city-states had different governments, but Kings weren't usually a part of it so if you had a king, that was a sure sign that you probably weren't Greek. And if your king was polygamous, that was another sure sign of barbarism. Add to that the fact that Macedonians lived a much more rustic existence than your average Cosmopolitan Greek city-state citizen and one understands they had nothing in common. Even their language was different.

Macedonia was a warrior culture with an amazing King. They held power in their society because they were trained in the application of violence and valued it as a tool to seize power. Greece was more poltroon. You will bring up Sparta and Thebes, but the Peloponnesian War and Leuctra were in the rear view mirror.

Historian Ian Worthington draws this distinction as he compares an Athenian to a Macedonian and compares their cultures and the way they grow up, and the carrots and sticks in their societies and how something like that might actually have an effect on the battlefield when you have to walk up and shove a spear into your adversary. Worthington says "the whole fabric of Macedonian Society was alien to Greeks and so abhorred by them. A Macedonian male was an entirely different animal from his Athenian counterpart, for example, who came of age at 18 was then eligible to attend the assembly which is the body that debates and votes on domestic and foreign policy, served in the Army as and when required, was eligible for jury service when he turned 30 and if he came from a well-to-do family attended symposia to engage in intellectual discussions..." He then says, “Macedonia was utterly different. No one was allowed to wash in warm water except women who had just given birth; no man could recline at a banquet until he had speared and killed one of the ferocious wild bores without using a net to trap it; a soldier had to wear a rope or sack around his waist until he had killed his first man in battle. To achieve these expectations, boys from an early age were taught to fight, ride a horse, and hunt wild boar, foxes, birds, and even lions." He then says that Macedonian Society was rugged and had more in common with the tough love of Viking Society than Classical Greece. According to the ancient writers there are all sorts of other things that the Macedonians have as part of their culture to differentiate them from Greeks. but I'll stop here.

I typically prefer to read rather than post, but when I come across fallacies like yours, it’s hard not to respond. I’m not going to flood the thread with all my sources of historical evidence from both ancient and modern historians. I don’t want to derail the discussion, so I’ll keep it straightforward. This is basic history that was taught to us in elementary school in the U.S., which says a lot about how widely recognized these facts are. While the ancient Macedonians had some distinct cultural practices the overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence indicates that they were Greek. First, their language was a dialect of Greek. Their rulers like Alexander the Great were educated in Greek culture, philosophy, and traditions. Macedonian kings including Philip II, identified themselves as Greek, and Macedonia participated in the Olympic Games which were open only to Greek city-states. The influence of Macedonian conquests helped spread Greek culture throughout the ancient world not Macedonian. They were reinforcing their identity as part of the Hellenic civilization. That’s just the beginning when discussing the Macedonians. I could provide countless articles with references from ancient and modern historians, as well as archaeological evidence, but I know 100% that it would be ignored or dismissed. Have a great day.

Also here’s a site that presents all the historical evidence regarding the macedonians.

Macedonia: Greek Heritage Through History

Discover historical evidence that proves Macedonia’s Greek identity from ancient times to modern history, backed by archaeological findings, ancient texts, and cultural continuity.

www.greekculturehub.com

 

[Dianatomia]

There is a key difference between Macedonians and Greeks in the Classical era.

The Macedonians resembled the Late Bronze Age Greeks much more than they resembled the Classical Greeks of the South. Their religious practices, the weight on the Homeric traditions, their political hierarchy, religious sacrifices. In all these aspects the Macedonians were closer to the LBA Greeks rather than the Classical Greeks.

The Classical Macedonians sought to close the gap.

Ofcourse in language they were Greek speaking and they believed in the Greek pantheon. They were Greeks, not quite the same as their Southern kin, but increasingly more similar.

So they were not simply different like the Thebans and the Athenians were. There was more to it. This is what the Athenian rivals emphasised. And this is why historians like Herodotus and Thucydides considered them to be Greeks regardless. Not to mention the Macedonians themselves who confirmed their Greekness.

By the Hellenistic Age, there was little to separate them from other Greeks. The Macedonian elites for several generations made sure of that. Once they were conquered by the Romans, there was virtually no distinction any more.

The Macedonians were the first true Hellenists. They were the first who implemented a common dialect. The first who took unified Greek armies beyond Greece. The first who spread Greek culture, language and civilisation globally.

Given their historical record, it is quite disingenuous to de-hellenize for modern political agendas.

 

[TetaEglantina]

There is a key difference between Macedonians and Greeks in the Classical era.

The Macedonians resembled the Late Bronze Age Greeks much more than they resembled the Classical Greeks of the South. Their religious practices, the weight on the Homeric traditions, their political hierarchy, religious sacrifices. In all these aspects the Macedonians were closer to the LBA Greeks rather than the Classical Greeks.

The Classical Macedonians sought to close the gap.

Ofcourse in language they were Greek speaking and they believed in the Greek pantheon. They were Greeks, not quite the same as their Southern kin, but increasingly more similar.

So they were not simply different like the Thebans and the Athenians were. There was more to it. This is what the Athenian rivals emphasised. And this is why historians like Herodotus and Thucydides considered them to be Greeks regardless. Not to mention the Macedonians themselves who confirmed their Greekness.

By the Hellenistic Age, there was little to separate them from other Greeks. The Macedonian elites for several generations made sure of that. Once they were conquered by the Romans, there was virtually no distinction any more.

The Macedonians were the first true Hellenists. They were the first who implemented a common dialect. The first who took unified Greek armies beyond Greece. The first who spread Greek culture, language and civilisation globally.

Given their historical record, it is quite disingenuous to de-hellenize for modern political agendas.

My idea right now is that Macedonians were related to Dorians (therefore also Epirotes). Dorians invaded Mycenae (Dark Ages) and mixed with them to form the various tribes such as Sparta etc.

The Dorians that mixed less with Mycenaeans as they stayed further north instead mixed more with Illyrians to form Epirotes or just remained a purer version of Dorians without much external input. I think the Dorians that mixed with Thracians became the Macedonians.

Core Greek DNA = Mycenaean and Minoan. And then some Dorian input from the north post 1200BC

 

[Dianatomia]

My idea right now is that Macedonians were related to Dorians and Epirotes. Dorians invaded Mycenae (Dark Ages) and mixed with them to form the various tribes such as Sparta etc.

The Dorians that mixed less with Mycenaeans as they stayed further north instead mixed more with Illyrians to form Epirotes and those that mixed with Thracians become the Macedonians.

Core Greek DNA = Mycenaean and Minoan. And then some Dorian input from the north post 1200BC

I am not sure how to interpret this intermixture. The first Greek speakers are recorded in Epirus and part of Thessaly. From there waves went South culminating to the Mycenaeans. Some of those protoGreeks stayed behind. A few centuries later another group of these people migrated Eastwards, towards valley of Emathia. These became the Macedonians. Obviously, they had older Homeric traditions. But now a coastal people they were exposed to the other Greeks. Their differences were pronounced.

To what extent they mixed there, we have yet to see. I believe all proto-Greeks may have mixed to some extent. Cretan Greeks surely have something Minoan, Ionian Greeks must have something Anatolian and Macedonian Greeks could have something indigenous to that area. If all the other Greeks were uniform and the Macedonians deviated, then you can make a case that Macedonians may or may not have mixed to some degree. But if all proto-Greeks mixed with indigenous people to some extent, then the debate seems futile. Then this is simply how Ancient Greeks are formed and evolved as a people.

 

[narwhal]

Good, then we can agree that Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Diogenes, Pythagoras, Archimedes and Hippocrates were all in fact Greeks and that Greek history did and does in fact exist prior to 360BC as the Greek people, their respective city states and core ethnogeography was well recognized both internally and externally. This is not debatable as it is corroborated countless times in the historic record.



No different than I speak of the "Roman" conquest of Italy, or how we refer to the "Roman Empire" despite it in reality composing its legions of pan Italic soldiery. Macedonia, the Greek power objectively did conquer the totality of Greece proper.



No it really doesn't. I don't even modestly see how one comes to this conclusion. Is Leonardo Da Vinci not Italian? Would he be more Italian if he had called himself Leonardo D'Italia?



Every Greek power wanted to "defeat Greece" and control it. That's the most Greek attitude any Greek power could have. No idea where you're getting your logic from the second statement from. I certainly never said nor believe anything like that.



It was a part of Greece. It participated in the Olympic games which only Greek powers were allowed to compete in and we know from the Pella curse tablet that Macedonians in their capital spoke a Doric northwestern Greek dialect even before its conquest of the rest of Greece and the importation/adoption of Koine. Polymathy has already recorded an excellent explanation of the topic.

That's an ignorant supposition given that the Spartans were ruled by an unbroken succession of kings for 738 years from at least 930BC to 192BC. We even have protohistoric documentation from the Hittites of Spartan kings which date even into the late bronze age/protohistoric era. Furthermore, the Syracusians were ruled almost exclusively by Tyrants who in many cases referred to themselves as Kings (see Agothoclese and Phintias). This isn't even going to dive into the idealized Odysseus, King of Ithica, who was of course the major protagonist to Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, retold be every Greek tribe of every city state in Greece.

So no, your idea that Greekness is defined by a particular set of political ideas is also false. As I've stated before, "Greeks" are an ethnic group and "Greece" is an ethnogeography. One does not simply stop being Greek by participating in the wrong form of government.



Historian Ian Worthington unambiguously states that the Macedonians were Greeks.

You're right... in fact, man was created by Greeks and Greeks created the heavens and earth.

 

[narwhal]

There is a key difference between Macedonians and Greeks in the Classical era.

The Macedonians resembled the Late Bronze Age Greeks much more than they resembled the Classical Greeks of the South. Their religious practices, the weight on the Homeric traditions, their political hierarchy, religious sacrifices. In all these aspects the Macedonians were closer to the LBA Greeks rather than the Classical Greeks.

The Classical Macedonians sought to close the gap.

Ofcourse in language they were Greek speaking and they believed in the Greek pantheon. They were Greeks, not quite the same as their Southern kin, but increasingly more similar.

So they were not simply different like the Thebans and the Athenians were. There was more to it. This is what the Athenian rivals emphasised. And this is why historians like Herodotus and Thucydides considered them to be Greeks regardless. Not to mention the Macedonians themselves who confirmed their Greekness.

By the Hellenistic Age, there was little to separate them from other Greeks. The Macedonian elites for several generations made sure of that. Once they were conquered by the Romans, there was virtually no distinction any more.

The Macedonians were the first true Hellenists. They were the first who implemented a common dialect. The first who took unified Greek armies beyond Greece. The first who spread Greek culture, language and civilisation globally.

Given their historical record, it is quite disingenuous to de-hellenize for modern political agendas.

So much delusion... Greeks. LOLOLOL You guys are living in fantasy world.

During the reign of Alexander the Great, the Macedonians spoke their own native language, as the native language language of Alexander the Great was not understood by the ancient Greeks (Quintus Curtius Rufus, VI, 9, 37 ). Similarly, Plutarch points out that Alexander spoke to his fellow countrymen in Macedonian: "he [Alexander] called out aloud to his guards in the Macedonian language, which was a certain sign of some great disturbance in him" (Plutarch, Alexander, 51).

Macedonians absorbed remnants of Greek "soldiers" into their army and took Macedonian culture, language, and civilization globally. You (Greeks) lost your identity

If you actually listened to historians,you wouldn't spread pseudohistorical nonsense my dear

I just cited multiple historians who stated Macedonians were not Greeks, so there goes your statement. Look above...

 

[narwhal]

I typically prefer to read rather than post, but when I come across fallacies like yours, it’s hard not to respond. I’m not going to flood the thread with all my sources of historical evidence from both ancient and modern historians. I don’t want to derail the discussion, so I’ll keep it straightforward. This is basic history that was taught to us in elementary school in the U.S., which says a lot about how widely recognized these facts are. While the ancient Macedonians had some distinct cultural practices the overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence indicates that they were Greek. First, their language was a dialect of Greek. Their rulers like Alexander the Great were educated in Greek culture, philosophy, and traditions. Macedonian kings including Philip II, identified themselves as Greek, and Macedonia participated in the Olympic Games which were open only to Greek city-states. The influence of Macedonian conquests helped spread Greek culture throughout the ancient world not Macedonian. They were reinforcing their identity as part of the Hellenic civilization. That’s just the beginning when discussing the Macedonians. I could provide countless articles with references from ancient and modern historians, as well as archaeological evidence, but I know 100% that it would be ignored or dismissed. Have a great day.

Also here’s a site that presents all the historical evidence regarding the macedonians.

Macedonia: Greek Heritage Through History

Discover historical evidence that proves Macedonia’s Greek identity from ancient times to modern history, backed by archaeological findings, ancient texts, and cultural continuity.

www.greekculturehub.com

And I can just as easily post historians who say Macedonians are not Greek.

 

[Dianatomia]

What if I would say that they had difficulties understanding each other, but still have a common Hellenic root?

What if I would say that plays in theatres used different translations for different Greek audiences?

How about that if you wanted to be a merchant or a diplomat you had to study different ‘Greek’ dialects?

In this scenario one needs to follow the material evidence. And there is not much debate as to the fact that Ancient Macedonian belongs to the Hellenic branch.

 

[Omino]

So much delusion... Greeks. LOLOLOL You guys are living in fantasy world.

During the reign of Alexander the Great, the Macedonians spoke their own native language, as the native language language of Alexander the Great was not understood by the ancient Greeks (Quintus Curtius Rufus, VI, 9, 37 ). Similarly, Plutarch points out that Alexander spoke to his fellow countrymen in Macedonian: "he [Alexander] called out aloud to his guards in the Macedonian language, which was a certain sign of some great disturbance in him" (Plutarch, Alexander, 51).

Macedonians absorbed remnants of Greek "soldiers" into their army and took Macedonian culture, language, and civilization globally. You (Greeks) lost your identity

I just cited multiple historians who stated Macedonians were not Greeks, so there goes your statement. Look above...

Pella curse tablets say hi
It's so hilarious to talk about delusions.
Keep your nationalistic delerium out,this is a scientific forum

 

[narwhal]

Pella curse tablets say hi
It's so hilarious to talk about delusions.
Keep your nationalistic delerium out,this is a scientific forum

Yes, indeed, Pella curse tablets say hi to you and yours as well.

What's delusional is regardless of the historical facts presented to you by historians, you still try to convince yourselves that Macedonians were Greek. They aren't. You lost, the Macedonians won. Their history... their accomplishments... their victories... their conquests are theirs, not yours. Greek history ended at Chaeronea.

 

[Omino]

Yes, indeed, Pella curse tablets say hi to you and yours as well.

What's delusional is regardless of the historical facts presented to you by historians, you still try to convince yourselves that Macedonians were Greek. They aren't. You lost, the Macedonians won. Their history... their accomplishments... their victories... their conquests are theirs, not yours. Greek history ended at Chaeronea.

"Greek history ended at Chaeronea."
Hellenistic period also says hi to your nonsensical delerium.
As I wrote again this is a scientific forum,I won't waste more time answering to a delusional Goofy.

 

[D.L.M]

My dear Mycenaeans were not even genetically the same with later classical Greeks from the same area,that doesn't make the later less or more Greek.
Expecting people to stay identical genetically for millennia is delusional.

yes they were.

 

[narwhal]

Omino, its crazy how little you read on this board. It's not me that is saying it:

Greece became part of the Macedonian Empire after losing the Battle of Chaeronea, one of the most renowned of all battles. The Macedonian victory at Chaeronea would put Greece into what historian G. Maclean Rogers describes as "a 'deep sleep', both politically and militarily. It would never again regain its supremacy in the Mediterranean."

 

[narwhal]

"Greek history ended at Chaeronea."
Hellenistic period also says hi to your nonsensical delerium.
As I wrote again this is a scientific forum,I won't waste more time answering to a delusional Goofy.

I find it astonishing that you have to go to the cellular/genetic level to try to prove a fallacy that Macedonians are Greek. None of the "big picture" items align with your hypothetical, not language, not culture, not being a city-state, having a polygamous king, the way males are socialized in the culture... nothing. So when all else fails you go to genetics. That in and of itself should prove to you that Macedonians are not Greek.

Macedonia is to Greece as Sicily is to Italy. Would a Sicilian call himself an Italian??? Please... Just give it up, man.

 

[ProtosP]

And I can just as easily post historians who say Macedonians are not Greek.

Go ahead and share. Who’s stopping you? I’d love to see what you have and I’ll share what I have. I have so much to share too. One simple question that I like to ask people who are of the opinion that the Macedonians weren’t Greek is why didn’t Alexander the Great spread Macedonianism as opposed to Hellenism? It’s like why would a German spread Polish culture or a China man spread Japanese culture? Because it makes no sense. It’s a no brainer.

 

[ProtosP]

So much delusion... Greeks. LOLOLOL You guys are living in fantasy world.

During the reign of Alexander the Great, the Macedonians spoke their own native language, as the native language language of Alexander the Great was not understood by the ancient Greeks (Quintus Curtius Rufus, VI, 9, 37 ). Similarly, Plutarch points out that Alexander spoke to his fellow countrymen in Macedonian: "he [Alexander] called out aloud to his guards in the Macedonian language, which was a certain sign of some great disturbance in him" (Plutarch, Alexander, 51).

Macedonians absorbed remnants of Greek "soldiers" into their army and took Macedonian culture, language, and civilization globally. You (Greeks) lost your identity

I just cited multiple historians who stated Macedonians were not Greeks, so there goes your statement. Look above...

This claim is not accurate. The passage you’re referring to from Quintus Curtius Rufus (Book VI, 9, 37) describes an incident during Alexander the Great’s campaigns. It’s talking about a moment of heightened tension during a mutiny when Alexander was frustrated and addressed his Macedonian soldiers in a more intimate manner possibly using a form of speech or language that was more familiar or emotional for them.

Here’s the relevant part:

“After that, turning to his own men, Alexander addressed them in the Macedonian language, for he was now speaking as a king to his Macedonians, not as a commander to an army.”

This passage doesn’t suggest that the Macedonian language was entirely different from Greek or that it was unintelligible to other Greeks. Go back and reread it and post the whole passage. It simply emphasizes that Alexander switched from his more formal public Greek (the common language of his empire) to a more familiar, possibly dialectical, form of speech when addressing his own Macedonian troops. The text doesn’t imply that Macedonians spoke a completely separate language from Greek but instead it implies that Alexander switched to a specific dialect or way of speaking that was familiar and personal to his Macedonian soldiers. The Macedonian language was considered a Greek dialect and not a completely different language.

As for the passage from Plutarch’s Life of Alexander Chapter 51 does indeed mention that Alexander spoke to his guards in the Macedonian language during a moment of intense emotion. Here’s the relevant quote:

“He [Alexander] called out aloud to his guards in the Macedonian language, which was a certain sign of some great disturbance in him.”

This passage is often cited in debates about the language spoken by the Macedonians but it doesn’t imply that Macedonian was a language completely distinct from Greek. Instead it suggests that Alexander switched from the more commonly used Greek (which he used for communication with his diverse empire) to a local Macedonian dialect, likely for a more personal or urgent connection with his fellow Macedonians. Plutarch’s emphasis on Alexander using the Macedonian language likely reflects the dialect or local variation of Greek that was spoken in Macedonia. This doesn’t mean it was unintelligible to other Greeks, but rather that it was a specific regional form of Greek. The passage shows that Alexander shifted to his native dialect in a moment of emotion, but it does not indicate that Macedonian was entirely distinct from the broader Greek language.

I’m sure some of us might be delusional but when it comes to the ancient Macedonians being Greek we’re not. To top it off you’re insulting us because we don’t share your opinion and it’s for a very good reason that we don’t. Why can’t you debate without leading to childish comments such as us living in a fantasy world or that we believe everything is Greek.

My final thought. Unless or until archaeologists one day discover the tomb of Alexander, Philip, or another definitively known ancient Macedonian, and they’re able to analyze their DNA to prove they weren’t Greek, I’ll consider the matter settled. Until that moment comes the historical evidence strongly indicates that the ancient Macedonians were Greek. It’s in the Greeks favor. Have a great day.