Customer Reviews

A History of Macedonia (Hellenistic Culture and Society, Vol 5)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a very scholarly and wonderful book about the history of Macedonia. For those interested in Phillip II and his son Alexander the Great, this book gives a general history of the period and of the people involved.

The history of the first nation-state in Europe from the pen of one of the biggest experts in the field of ancient history. Very detailed and conscise. This is a must buy book. Macedonian history is always fascinating and Dr. Errington gives you the very details of the Macedonian saga. The rise of Macedon, Phillip's concor of and rule over the ancient Greek city states and Alexandar's Asian campaign are only some of aspects discussed in the book.

Although I acquired this book by a different source than Amazon (before I discovered Amazon.com), I feel I should write a review, especially after reading the first review by the reader from NY.

This book is very well written and, I believe, will always be a great source of historical info. for myself and my daughter.

Mr. Errington's research and conclusions as to the ethnic makeup of the ancient Macedonians are not only correct they appear to be necessary in light of today's wave of self-serving history revisionism.

QUESTION #1: WHAT WAS THE LANGUAGE OF THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS?

Here's what a couple of ancient (and obviously unbiased) sources say:

The Roman writer Titus Livius says : (from "The Foundation of the City", Paragraph 31)

"The Aitolians, the Akarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same language, 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."

Didorus of Sicily (17.67.1) says:

(...) And the rest of the Greeks?

Pausanias writes in his book "Description of Greece" (10.3.3):

"The Phocians were deprived of their share in the Delphic sanctuary and in the Greek assembly, and their votes were given by the Amphictyons to the Macedonians."

and also in his book "Phokis" (8,2 & 4):

"They say that these were the tribes collected by Amphiktyon himself in the Hellenic Assembly: [...] the Macedonians joined and the entire Phocian race [...] In my day there were thirty members: six from each of Nikopolis, Macedonia and Thessaly [...] "

Aeschines (On the Embassy 2.32) gives evidence of the Macedonian king Amyntas taking part at the congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks:

"For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted".

Isocratis, one of the most impotant orators of ancient Greece says in his speach "To Philip" addressed to King Philip II of Macedonia (Paragaraph 127):

(...) The Sicilian historian Diodoros says in his history about King Philip of Macedonia (Diodoros, Historical Library 16.95.1-2)

"Such was the end of Philip, who had made himself the greatest of the kings in Europe in his time, and because of the extent of his kingdom had made himself a throned companion of the twelve gods. He had ruled twenty-four years. He is known to fame as one who with but the slenderest resources to support his claim to a throne won for himself the greatest empire in the Greek world, while the growth of his position was not due so much to his prowess in arms as to his adroitness and cordiality in diplomacy.

It is clear to see why special interest groups 'need' to separate ancient Macedonians from the rest of Greece. The new Slav Republic of "Macedonia" (FYROM), needs to establish some sort of link to the age of antiquity, in order to justify their self-proclaimed ethnic identity. It must be difficult to prove that you have some ancient local roots when your ancestors (Slavic tribes) descended on the Balkans about 800 years after the death of Alexander.

Books such as the Erringtons' are clearly needed in order to establish historical and cultural truth. Readers can simply judge for themselves.

Start with this book.

M Errington's review is both accurate and timely, given the attempts by countries that are Greece's neighbors to usurp the name and the history of this most influential northern Greek kingdom. It is, perhaps along with U Wilckens' and N Hammond's the most fact-based. I have read it twice along with Borza's "In the Shadows of Olympus" and find it the most objective. Readers can see for themselves. Errington clearly illuminates the political
-that is what they were-differences between the Macedonians and the other Greeks. But most importantly he underscores Phillip's skillful political manoeuvres by which he outwitted the Southern Greeks and finally divided and conquered them. (The Anglo-Saxons certainly have learned from him as can be seen in the last 150 years).

Dr. Nick Papanikolaou

This book is a very good introduction to the history of Macedonia (which, by the way, has nothing to do with the so-called Slavic country of FYROM "Macedonia" today) I found the reading enjoyable. This book is a great buy!

For all those interested in a substantiated unbiased piece of academic work about ancient Macedonia this book is nothing short of superb!

Malcolm Errington concludes that the "Macedonians are Greek", despite the overwhelming ancient evidence that clearly shows the opposite. His conclusion however, is extremely unconvincing. It is simply incorrect to claim that the "Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek" when Alexander the Great himself called the Macedonian language "our native language" (the trial of Philotas - Curtius Rufus). Errington uses the following words on page 4 to back up his claim that "the Macedonians were Greek":

"Ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greek all had their origin in Athens at the time of the struggle with Philip II."

Simply put - this is wrong. First of all, the supposed "ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greek" do not have "their origin in Athens" in the time of Philip II. Errington avoids mentioning here that the Macedonians were called non-Greeks (barbarians) since the reigns of the Macedonian kings Alexander I and Archelaus - full 100 years before Philip II conquered Greece. The writings of the ancient Greeks Thrasymachus and Herodotus are proof of that. Errington fails to notify the reader of that fact, and he is furthermore ignorant on the facts that all ancient Greek writers, historians, and scholars (Herodotus, Thrasymachus, Thucydides, Isocrates, Demosthenes, to name a few) did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek. Yet, he "concludes" based on not a single credible evidences whatsoever that the "Macedonians were Greek".

The ancient Greek orator Demosthenes had called the Macedonian king Philip II: "... not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave" - Demosthenes, Third Philippic, 31.

Errington on page 4 of his book suggests that Demosthenes called Philip "not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks" and "barbarian", only because of "a political struggle" which "created the prejudice". This is completely unconvincing because:

a. If the Macedonians were Greeks but nevertheless called barbarians and nor related to the Greeks, why is then no other Greek tribe called barbarians and nor related to the Greeks because of "a political struggle" which "created the prejudice"? There were many examples when that could have happened, it's enough to point to the long Peloponesian War, or any of the many constant wars between the Greek states, not involving Macedonia. Yet, no Spartan, Athenian, Theban, Epirote, was ever called non-Greek or barbarian during any of these "political struggles" which "created the prejudice"! Not even ONCE!

b. We know for a fact that the ancient Greeks also called the Persians barbarians. Are we suppose to say now, based on Errington's logic, that the Persians were also a Greek tribe, but they were called non-Greeks only in "a political struggle" which "created the prejudice"?

The lesson is clear. The ancient Greeks called all non-Greeks barbarians, and Errington's argument simply does not make any sense. It is indeed unfortunate to see people such as Malcolm Errington, write books about the history of Macedonia, when such books are based on false assumptions and incomplete research regarding the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians who were not Greek but a distict people.