IDIVIDI forum Веб сајт
почетна страница почетна страница > Македонија и Свет > Историја
  Активни теми Активни теми RSS - Историја на македонскиот народ
  најчести прашања најчести прашања  Пребарувај форум   Настани   Регистрирајте се Регистрирајте се  Влез Влез

Затворена темаИсторија на македонскиот народ

 Внеси реплика Внеси реплика страница  12>
Автор
Порака Обратен редослед
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Тема: Историја на македонскиот народ
    Испратена: 05.Септември.2006 во 13:48

ANCIENT MACEDONIA AND GREECE

In the course of the second pre-Christian millennium, the ancient Greeks descended in several migratory waves from the interior of the Balkans to Greece. Some passed across the plain of Thessaly on their way south, while others went south through Epirus. More recent scholars point to Asia Minor as the original Greek homeland. There is no evidence that the ancient Greeks ever settled prehistoric Macedonia. Archeological evidence shows that ancient Macedonia lay beyond the cultural and ethnic borders of the Bronze Age Mycenaean Greek Civilization, which ends at the border of northern Thessaly (1400 - 1100 BC). The prehistoric Macedonians show a remarkable continuation of existing material culture.

Ancient Macedonia was home to many tribes. The ancient Macedonian tribes emerged from the Brygians or Phrygians. Some of the Brygians left Macedonia and migrated to Asia Minor where they changed their name to Phrygians and established a powerful Phrygian kingdom (Herodotus). When the Macedonian army under Alexander the Great will enter Phrygia centuries later, Philotas spoke of the connections between the Phrygians and the Macedonians, by calling the Macedonians "Phrygians" (Curtius).

Greek migrants settled few coastal areas of Macedonia, Thrace, and Illyria after they exhausted the possibilities of settlement in Asia Minor, Italy, France, Spain and Scythia (Ukraine and Russia). However, they did not consider Macedonia especially attractive for permanent settlement. Neither did the Macedonians welcome them as open-heartedly as did the Italians and Scythians. By the middle of the fourth century BC, the Greek settlers were expelled from Macedonia and their cities, including Aristotle's native Stragira, razed to the ground by the Macedonian king Philip II (360-336). Aristotle died in exile in Greece.

The ancient Macedonians regarded the Greeks as potentially dangerous neighbors, never as kinsmen. The Greeks stereotyped the Macedonians as "barbarians" and treated them in the same bigoted manner in which they treated all non-Greeks. Herodotus, the Father of History, relates how the Macedonian king Alexander I(498-454 BC), a Philhellene (that is "a friend of the Greeks" and logically a non-Greek), wanted to take a part in the Olympic games. The Greek athletes protested, saying they would not run with a barbarian. Historian Thucydidis also calls the Macedonians barbarians, and so did Thracymachus who called Archelaus a barbarian who enslaved Greeks. Demosthenes, the great Athenian statesman and orator, spoke of Philip II as:

"... 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." [Third Philippic, 31]

The Macedonian "barbarian" defeated Greece at the battle of Chaeronea in August 338 BC and appointed himself "Commander of the Greeks". This battle had established Macedonian hegemony over Greece and this date is commonly taken as the end of Greek history and the beginning of the Macedonian era. Greece did not regain its independence until 1827 AD.

In 335 BC, Philip's son Alexander campaigned toward the Danube, to secure Macedonia's northern frontier. On rumors of his death, a revolt broke out in Greece with the support of leading Athenians. Alexander marched south covering 240 miles in two weeks. When the revolt continued he sacked Thebes, killing 6,000 people and enslaving the survivors. Only the temples and the house of the poet Pindar were spared.

The Ancient Macedonian Language

The Macedonians spoke their own native language which was unrecognizable by the Greeks. The very label barbarian literally means a person who does not speak Greek. Though Alexander spoke also Greek, loved Homer, and respected his tutor Aristotle, there is much evidence that he hated the Greeks of his day, just like his father Philip II. Philip had razed to the ground the Greek cities on Macedonian territory (including all 32 Greek cities in Chalcidice) and enslaved their inhabitants. Alexander the Great thoroughly destroyed Thebes. His Asian empire has not once been described as "Greek", but is correctly called Macedonian for he won it with an army of 35,000 Macedonians and only 7,600 Greeks, and similar numbers of Thracians and Illyrians who were all forced to fight with their Macedonian overlords. The overwhelming number of Greeks however, 50,000 in total (Curtius), had however, distinguished themselves on the side of the Persians and fought fiercely till the end against the Macedonians. For instance, at the battle of Granicus there were 20,000 Greeks, out of which the Macedonians killed 18,000 and the 2,000 survivors were sent in chains to Macedonia (Arrian, Curtius). Arrian specifically speaks of the "old racial rivalry" between Macedonians and Greeks that characterized this battle. At the battle of Issus, there were 30,000 Greeks on the side of the Persians to fight Alexander, and their survivors also fought at Gaugamela along with the Albanians and the Persians, against the Macedonians.

The question of the use of the ancient Macedonian language was raised by Alexander himself during the trial of Philotas, one of his generals accused of treason. This is what Alexander has said to Philotas:

"The Macedonians are about to pass judgement upon you; I wish to know weather you will use their native tongue in addressing them." Philotas replied: "Besides the Macedonians there are many present who, I think, will more easily understand what I shell say if I use the same language which you have employed." Than said the king: "Do you not see how Philotas loathes even the language of his fatherland? For he alone disdains to learn it. But let him by all means speak in whatever way he desires, provided that you remember that he holds out customs in as much abhorrence as our language" (Curtius).

The trial of Philotas took place in Asia before a multiethnic public, which has understood Greek as it was then a common language, like English today. But Alexander spoke Macedonian with his Macedonians (the language he accuses Philotas of loathing) and used Greek in addressing the west Asians. Like Carthagenian, Illyrian, and Thracian, ancient Macedonian was not recorded in writing. However, on the bases of about a hundred glosses, Macedonian words noted and explained by Greek writers, some place names from Macedonia, and a few names of individuals, most scholars believe that ancient Macedonian was a separate Indo-European language. Evidence from phonology indicates that the ancient Macedonian language was distinct from ancient Greek.

THE ROMAN OCCUPATION

Both Macedonia and Greece were annexed by the Romans after the battle of Pydna in 168 BC. It is significant that the Greeks again fought against the Macedonians during the Macedonian Wars, on the side of the Romans. The Macedonians were asked to evacuate from the whole of Greece and withdrew to Macedonia by the Romans, and the Greek fought against the Macedonian army and its king Philip V until their final defeat (Polybius, Livy). After the end of the Macedonian kingdom, Latin was the official language in Roman Macedonia from 168 BC until the demise of Roman rule at the end of the sixth century AD.

SLAV SETTLEMENTS IN MACEDONIA, GREECE, THRACE, AND ILLYRIA

In the sixth century, the Slavs penetrated Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece. The Slavs settled lands as far as Peloponnesus and the Aegean islands, and some of the Slavic tribes in Greece remained unconquered for centuries. During the following centuries, the Slavs mixed with the original Macedonians, Greeks, Thracians, and Illyrians, and thus laid the foundations to the modern nations of the Balkans, and their modern languages.

Today's modern Macedonian language has both ancient Macedonian and Slavic background. How much modern Macedonian is based upon ancient Macedonian is impossible to say since we do not have many ancient Macedonian words that have survived, except about 150 glosses. Yet, ancient Macedonian words are still present in modern Macedonian. Alexander's infantry peshatairoi literally means "armed walking men" in modern Macedonian (peshatari). Hammond says that the ancient Macedonians called their commander tchelniku, which again means in modern Macedonian "somebody who leads" (chelniku). The Macedonian prodromoi, were the openers in the battles of Alexander the Great. Today in modern Macedonian this means "somebody who penetrates" (prodir), etc. Many ancient Macedonian names are still present among today's Macedonians, and many ancient Macedonian customs have the ancients have described have survived as well among today's Macedonians. The memory of Philip II and Alexander the Great echoes in the Macedonian folklore.

The modern Macedonian language was systemized in the middle of the ninth century by SS Cyril and Methodius, the two Macedonian brothers from the largest Macedonian city of Salonica. This language has functioned as the principal literary, liturgical, and colloquial language of Macedonia ever since. This period of the Macedonian history set the foundations for the development of the modern Macedonian nation and in the centuries after the coming of the Slavs, the Macedonians continue to exist in Byzantine sources as nation. Macedonia resisted the settlement attacks by the Armenian and Syrian dynasties, who held power in New Rome (Byzantium), and by the nomadic Bulgarians. From 1014 to 1204, Macedonia was part of the multi-cultural Byzantine Empire. In the next two centuries, the Macedonians fought foreign invaders, adventurers, and bandits who failed to dominate their land, apart from the Serbs and the Bulgarians who briefly held it. In the fifteenth century, the Ottoman Turks succeeded in conquering all of Macedonia, Greece, and the rest of the Balkans, and enforced their 500-year old rule.

MACEDONIA IN THE XIX CENTURY

Greek, Serbian, and Bulgarian Independence

In 1827, the European powers intervened on behalf of the Greek rebels and forced the Turks to grant them independence. The same powers, established the first modern Greek state, chose Prince Otto of Bavaria to be the "King of the Hellenes", and sent him to Athens. Serbia freed herself also from the Turkish rule, while Russia declared war on Turkey to help Bulgaria gain its independence.

San Stefano and Berlin Conferences

The war between Russia and Turkey ended on March 3, 1878, with the peace settlement of San Stefano. The Turks had to agree to the formation of the new Bulgarian state, to also include all of Macedonia but the city of Salonika. Russia was hoping that greater Bulgaria with Macedonia would give her the strategic exit on the Aegean Sea, but she encountered fierce resistance from Austria-Hungary and England that saw their interests on the Balkans endangered. On July 13, 1878 with the Berlin Conference, they forced Russia to give up her dream and the San Stefano agreement was revised. Macedonia was returned to the Ottoman Empire. From this moment, Macedonia became a battleground where the interests not only of the Balkan states, but also of the Great Powers, collide.

The Macedonian and Greek Orthodox Churches

The Ohrid Archiepiscopy was founded as a separate church in 995 to care for the religious needs of the Orthodox Macedonians. However, under the influence of the Greek Orthodox church, the Turkish sultan abolished the Macedonian church in 1767. The Greek Orthodox church was now able to enforce its religious teachings in Greek as the only Orthodox church to exist in the Balkans. Greece hoped to spread her influence and propaganda through the newly opened Greek schools, with a goal to Hellenize the population of Macedonia. But as their influence grew bigger, so did the resistance of the Macedonians. On March 7, 1851, the residents of Enidje-Vardar (today in Greece) signed a petition, for replacement of the teachings in Greek with Macedonian. In 1859, in Kukush was formed the resistance movement against the Hellenization that quickly spread to Voden (Edessa), Kostur (Kastoria), Lerin (Florina), and the rest of southern Macedonia.

Balkan and Neutral Statistics on the Population of Macedonia

Adding to the Greek influence, the Bulgarians opened their schools in Macedonia in 1871, and the Serbs followed shortly after. This is the beginning of the so-called "Macedonian Question". The new independent Balkan states used those schools to propagate how the Macedonians do not exist, and how Macedonia was populated only by Greeks, Bulgarians, and Serbs. Ethnographers, historians, and writers begun writing books in favor of this or that propaganda. Many of them did not even visit Macedonia, while those who did already had a written scenario. Their presence there was only a simple formality. The Turkish statistics made the picture more confusing as the Turks registered the people based on religion, not on ethnic background.  Table 1 gives an excellent proof of those Balkan speculations surrounding Macedonia:

balkan views

Greek

Nikolaides

1899

Bulgarian

Kenchov

1900

Serbian

Gopchevich

1886

Macedonian Slavs
454,000
-
-
Serbs
-
400
1,540,000
Bulgarians
-
1,037,000
-
Greeks
656,300
214,000
201,000
Turks and others
576,600
610,365
397,020

Table 1. Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian Statistics of Macedonia's population

It is more than obvious that all the views coming from the Macedonia's neighbors which sharply contradict eachother, are biased. They all claim their people in Macedonia to justify their well-planned aspirations. It is important to note that both the Bulgarian and Serbian views agree that the Greeks in Macedonia represent only a small minority of 10%. The Greek ethnographer Nikolaides, on the other hand, claims three times bigger number than his colleagues in Belgrade and Sofia. However, the most important about Nikolaides is that he recognizes the Macedonian Slavs as a separate nation, separate from the Bulgarians and the Serbs, to be part of population of Macedonia. And although he tries hard to lower the numbers of those Macedonian Slavs, he still comes up with a convincing proof of their existence.

This is the time when many European slavists, ethnographers, and historians, are also attracted to visit Macedonia and conduct their own investigations. Therefore, to find the unbiased population numbers in Macedonia, we have to rely on neutral and independent statistics:

neutral views

German

Dr. K. Ostreich

1905

Austrian

K. Gersin

1903

English

Andrew Rousos

Macedonian Slavs
1,500,000
1,182,036
1,150,000
Serbs
-
-
-
Bulgarians
-
-
-
Greeks
200,000
228,702
300,000
Turks and others
550,000
627,915
400,000

Table 2. Independent and Neutral European Statistics of Macedonia's Population

Although the Macedonians are referred as "Macedonian Slavs", the main point of the statistics is the fact that they are recognized as distinct nation with cultural and historical right over their country Macedonia in which they are overwhelming majority. The reluctance to refer to them for what they are (simply as Macedonians), is explained by the overemphasizing of the contemporary Greek vs. Slavic (Serb and Bulgarian) rivalry over Macedonia in which the westerners desired to make the note that the Macedonians were more "Slavs" then "Greeks" - thus resulting in the use of the term "Macedonian Slavs" to distinguish them from all but still indicate their closer relation to their northern then southern neighbors, as interestingly was the case with the ancient Macedonians and their closer relations with the Thracians and Illyrians then with the ancient Greeks.

Yet the term "Macedonian Slavs" is erroneous since the Macedonians, although conscious of their ancient Macedonian roots and Slav admixture, did not specifically call themselves "Macedonians Slavs", but Macedonians as the documents over the last 2,500 years show. The same "Macedonian Slavs" mistake was again repeated by some western media, as the Albanian terrorists attacked Macedonia in March of 2001, and again it was done deliberately.  This deliberate bias is again there, unfortunately because of the political situation and the western media's inclination towards the goals of the Albanian terrorism for "Greater Albania".  As at the beginning of the 20th century, the Macedonians showed their outrage at the beginning of the 21st century of this racial insult and publicly instead that their nationality be respected. Not only the Macedonians all over the world vigorously accused the western media for racial bias, but also did various western independent and non-government organizations. That referring to the Macedonians as "Macedonian Slavs" was a mistake was publicly acknowledged by BBC which apologized and withdrew its reporter Paul Wood precisely for his bias reporting, and since continued to rightfully refer to the Macedonians for what they have always been - Macedonians.

From the two above tables one can easily notice that the number of Greeks in Macedonia according to the neutral authors also aligns with the numbers given by the Serb and Bulgarian authors. This is a proof that the Greeks before the partition of Macedonia, were indeed a small minority, only 10% from the total population. This fact certainly does not give them the copyright of the name Macedonia. Dr. Ostreich, Gersin, and Roussos, are only a few of the many neutral authors to prove the groundless speculations of the Balkan counties. They proved that Macedonia belongs to a separate nation, which proves that the Bulgarians and the Serbs have than simply substituted the numbers of the Macedonians for theirs. Another Austrian, Karl Hron explained why that is unjustified:

"According to my own studies on the Serb-Bulgarian conflict I came to the conclusion that the Macedonians looking at their history and language are a separate nation, which means they are not Serbs nor Bulgarians, but the descendants of those Slavs who populated the Balkan peninsula long before the Serb and Bulgarian invasions, and who later did not mix with any of those other two nations..." and:

"... the Macedonian language according to its own laws in the development of the voices, and its own grammatical rules, forms one separate language".

There were even Greek and Bulgarian writers to support what Karl Hron has written. One such example is the Bulgarian slavist and ethnographer P. Draganov, who in his studies of 1887-1894 and 1903, proved the existence of the Macedonians and the Macedonian language as a distinct language. Here is what Henry Brailsford had said about the Macedonians in "Macedonia: its Races and their Future".

"Are the Macedonians Serbs or Bulgars? The question is constantly asked and dogmatically answered in Belgrade and Sofia. But the lesson of history is obviously that there is no answer at all. They are not Serbs, for their blood can hardly be purely Slavonic... On the other hand, they can hardly be Bulgarians... They are very probably very much what they were before either a Bulgarian or a Serbian Empire existed - a Slav people derived from various stocks, who invaded the peninsula at different periods."

At the time of the emergence of the so-called Macedonian question, and the aspirations of the Macedonian neighbors for occupation of the country, the famous Macedonian Gjorgi Pulevski wrote in 1875:

"People who originate from one and the same race, speak the same language, live together in harmony, and have the same customs, songs and mentality, constitute a nation, and the place where they live is their homeland. In this way, the Macedonians are a nation and their homeland is Macedonia" and,

"I am not Bulgarian, nor Greek, nor Tzintzar, I am pure Macedonian as were Philip and Alexander the Macedonian and Aristotle Philosopher"

Pulevski was right back in 1875.  He was conscious and aware that the Macedonians were a distinct nation, a fact that the documents of the last 25 centuries clearly show.

Macedonian Uprisings

The Macedonians will first start an organized resistance in the XIX century, to free their land from the 500 year old Turkish yoke. The uprisings in Kresna and Razlog (1878 - 1879), although unsuccessful, gained sympathies of many intellectuals in Europe. Among them was W.E. Gladstone who wrote:

"... Next to the Ottoman government nothing can be more deplorable and blameworthy than jealousies between Greek and Slav and plans by the states already existing for appropriating other territory. Why not Macedonia for the Macedonians as well as Bulgaria for the Bulgarians and Serbia for the Serbians."

Gladstone was three times elected Prime Minister of England (1868 -1874; 1880 - 1885 and 1893 - 1894). He supported the Macedonian nation in its quest for freedom. Perhaps Macedonia would have gained its independence had this man been once again elected Prime Minister during the big Ilinden Uprising on August 2, 1903. Left without any support, the uprising was crushed by the Turks, followed by the massacre on the innocent Macedonian population.

THE PARTITION OF MACEDONIA AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

On October 8, 1912, the First Balkan War begun. Montenegro, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece attacked the European positions of the Ottoman Empire. More than 100,000 Macedonians also took active part and contributed in driving the Turks out of Macedonia. Turkey capitulated soon, but Macedonia did not free itself. The victorious Balkan kingdoms convened in Bucharest in August 1913 to divide the spoils. The partition of Macedonia is best illustrated with the following maps:

Macedonia within Turkey before 1912 and its partition in 1913 among Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Albania

Greece was awardedAegean Macedonia and renamed it to "Northern Greece"; Bulgaria annexed Pirin Macedonia and abolished the Macedonian name, and Serbia took over Vardar Macedonia and renamed it to "Southern Serbia".The same year, N. Pasich of Serbia and E. Venizelos of Greece agreed on the newly formed Greek-Serbian (later Yugoslavian) border, so that there would be "only Serbs to the North and only Greeks to the South", and no "Macedonians" on either side. Thus, the politics to assimilate the Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia had already begun.

The Greek Atrocities in Aegean Macedonia

1.      On June 21, 22, and 23, 1913, the Greek army completely burned to the ground the city of Kukush (today Kilkis), known for its resistance against Hellenism in the XIX century and the birthplace of Gotse Delchev.

2.      Between June 29 and 25, 39 villages in the Kukush area were also burned down.

3.      On June 23 and 24, the city of Serres (today Serrai) was set on fire where 4000 houses perished. In the Serres gymnasium the Greeks murdered about 200 people.

4.      During these days the larger portion of Strumica was also destroyed by the Greek army.

5.      Between June 23 and 30, many villages in the Drama and Serres districts were burned down.

6.      From June 27 to July 6 all Macedonian quarts of Salonika were set on fire.

The Carnegie Commission composed of members from USA, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, and England, witnessed the Greek atrocities when visited Aegean Macedonia. Their final conclusion was that the Greek army has burned to the ground 170 villages with over 17,000 houses.

Since 1913, official Greece has been trying to banish native Macedonian names of villages, towns, cities, rivers, and lakes in Aegean Macedonia. For example, the little stream which issues from Mount Olympus and flows into the Aegean Sea is labeled Mavroneri ("black water") on the maps made by Greek cartographers after 1913. However, the same river appears as Crna Reka, a native Macedonian name meaning "black river" on the maps made before 1913. Kukush has been dropped for Kilkis and Serres for Serai, together with at least 300 other places all over Macedonia.

Forced Change of the Ethnic Structure of Aegean Macedonia

The presence of the Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia could not allow Greece to claim that land to be Greek and only Greek. Since it was proven that they resisted the Hellenization, Greece decided to drive them out of Macedonia. Greece made agreements with Bulgaria (signed 10/27/19), and Turkey (1/30/23 in Lausanne), for exchange of population. This provided for the Macedonians of Aegean to leave for Bulgaria, while the Greeks in Bulgaria and Turkey settled in the Aegean part of Macedonia. These measures changed the ethnic character of the Aegean Macedonia. According to the "Great Greek Encyclopedia", there were 1,221,849 newcomers against 80,000 "slavophones". The "Ethnic Map of Greek Macedonia Showing the Ratio Between Various Ethnic Elements in 1912 and 1926," claims there were 119,000 "bulgarisants" in 1912, and 77,000 in 1926. The Greek ethnic map of Aegean Macedonia was submitted to the League of the nations by the Greek government. The League of the Nations had not visited Aegean Macedonia and did not participate at all in conducting this statistics. Greece here refers to the Macedonians as "bulgarisants", which means "those who pretend to be Bulgarians" and obviously non-Bulgarians. However, Greece uses many other names in falsifying the identity of the Macedonians. Slavophones, Slav Macedonians, Makedoslavs, Slav Greeks, and Bulgarisants, are only some of the names that prove Greece's unpreparess in this mean falsification of the Macedonian people and language. There are also other Greek sources that contradict the previous numbers of the Macedonians in Greece. The Athenian newspaper, "Message d' Aten" wrote on February 15, 1913, that the number of "Bulgar-echarhists" was 199,590 contradicting with those 119,000 of the "Ethnic Map of Greek Macedonia".

How many Macedonians remained in Greece?

When the Bulgarian and Serbian views are added, the confusion gets only bigger. According to the Bulgarian Rumenov, in 1928 there were total of 206,435 "Bulgarians", while the Serb Bora Milojevich claimed 250,000 "Slavs" in Aegean Macedonia. Belgrade's "Politika" in its 6164 issue of June 24, 1925 gave three times greater numbers for the Macedonians in Greece than official Athens:

"The Greek government must not complain that we are pointing to the fact that the Macedonian population of West Macedonia - 250,000 - 300,000 - is the most unfortunate national and linguistic minority in the world, not only because their personal safety in endangered, but also because they have no church nor school in their own language, and they had them during the Turkish rule."

The speculations with the real number of Macedonians is obvious again. Their true number remains disputable in the Balkan documents, same as it was the case before the partition of 1912. Unfortunately, the Greek government would not allow anybody, including neutral observers to conduct statistical studies. Forced to leave, the Macedonians emigrated in large numbers to Australia, Canada, and the USA. As a result, there are about 300,000 Macedonians that presently live in Australia. In the city of Toronto, Canada, there are about 100,000. The present Macedonian colonies in these counties are represented mostly by the descendants of those Aegean Macedonians who settled there in the 1920's.

According to the "Ethnic Map of Greek Macedonia Showing the Ratio Between Various Ethnic Elements in 1912 and 1926", only 42,000 left their homes. If we take the statistical tables of the Balkan and neutral sources above, by 1913 in the whole of Macedonia lived around 1,250,000 Macedonians. In the Aegean part (51%) which Greece took after 1913, half of the Macedonian nation remained under Greek rule - that would be 625,000 people. If up to 1926 42,000 out of these 625,000 left, in the Greek part of Macedonian thereafter remained 583,000 Macedonians.

Recognition of the Macedonian Language by Greece

After World War I and under the international law, Greece signed the agreement to provide education in the languages of the minorities that remained in its borders. As a result, Sakerlarou Press in Athens printed a primer in the Macedonian language called "Abecedar" in 1924. It was intended for the Macedonian children in the soon to be opened new schools and it was a clear recognition of the existence of the Macedonians in Greece. The Greek government, however, later changed its position and the primer never reached the schools.

The Macedonian Language Forbidden in Greece

The Englishmen B. Hild who traveled through Aegean Macedonia in 1928 has recorded that the Greeks are chasing not only the alive Macedonians, to whom they sometimes refer to as "bulgarophones" and sometimes as "slavophones", but also the graves of dead Macedonians, by destroying all non-Greek signs on the crosses. The use of the Macedonian language was forbidden and punishable when dictator Metaxis gained power in Greece. Between 1936 and 1940, some 5,250 Macedonians were persecuted for speaking their native language. The official order of the National Garde in Nered (Polipotamos):

"All residents from two to fifty years of age are forbidden to use any other language but Greek. I direct special attention to the youth. Anyone to break this law will be punished."

But as the facts point out, the Macedonians were not wiped out from Aegean Macedonia in spite of the many assimilation attempts by the Greek government. One such fact is the ethnic map of Europe in The Times Atlas of World History, where the Macedonians presented as separate nationality cover the territory of complete Macedonia, including Aegean Macedonia in Greece.

Here is another map, part of a larger Balkan map and made by German ethnographers, first published after World War I, which proves that the ethnic Macedonians are the majority in Aegean Macedonia while the Greeks consist only a small minority.

The Macedonians on this map (Mazedonier in German, and presented in green with stripes), populate the largest area of Aegean Macedonia, including the cities of Kostur (Kastoria), Lerin (Florina), Voden (Edessa), Ber (Veroia), and Salonika (Thessaloniki), the largest Macedonian city. This map is yet another clear proof that the Macedonians do exist as large minority in Greece. It is also very important to note, that southernmost river in Macedonia which many ethnographers consider to be Macedonia's border with Greece, is labeled on this map with the native Macedonian name Wistritza (Bistrica). However, Greek maps that date after the partition of Macedonia, have changed this name with the Greek Aliakmon. Another examples on wiping off the native Macedonian names from this map, would also be the second largest city in Aegean Macedonia, Serres which Greece changed to Serrai later, the river Mesta which was changed to Nestos, or the lake Beschik which today appears as Volvi.

The CIA Ethnic Map of Balkans and Macedonia is yet another proof that the ethnic Macedonians today represent a big national minority in northern Greece or Aegean Macedonia. According to this CIA source, the Macedonians live in all parts of Macedonia: today's Republic of Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia in Bulgaria, and Aegean Macedonia in Greece.

Macedonians Oppressed in Greece

Following are several documents regarding the oppression of the Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia before the World War II. They appeared in "Rizospastis", a newspaper published by the Greek Communist Party (KKE).

April 15, 1934

Serres (Serrai). The town square was covered with leaflets with revolutionary proclamations calling upon the soldiers to straggle for a solution to their problems and against the beastly reign of terror. Officers imprisoned the soldiers who read the leaflets... The most barbarous methods were used against us Macedonians, soldiers of the 6th Heavy Artillery Regiment. The majority of us are illiterate, we do not know Greek and therefore we frequently do not understand their orders. The officers tried to teach us to read and write, but their efforts were abandoned too soon and were performed so improperly than none of us learned anything.

June 6, 1934

Voden (Edessa). Here, in Voden, and in our whole district, in the heart of Macedonia, here where we Macedonians do not know any other language but our own Macedonian, various agents of the Greek capitalism fore us to speak Greek. Consequently, they threaten us constantly with expulsion to Bulgaria, they call us Komitajis, expropriate our fields which we have drenched with our sweet just to produce a piece of bread. In addition, they deprive us of the freedom which our fathers won after many years of struggle in which they gave their lives for the liberation of Macedonia. We live under the yoke of Greek capitalism, literally as slaves. In the elementary schools, the young children who speak their own language are beaten every day. Particularly here in Voden, the henchman and fascist Georgiadis beats the children if they speak their Macedonian tongue.

June 8, 1934

Lerin (Florina). It has been some time now that the whole bourgeois press launched a campaign against the Macedonian people. It represents a part of the fascist and military measures which the Government of Tsaldaris carries out in its orientation towards an increasingly brutal oppression of the people's masses in Macedonia. The Chief of the Security Forces here, Karamaunas, whenever he meets us on the streets threatens us with the words: "You are Bulgarians and if by any chance I discover any sort of organized movement, I will beat you without mercy and than I will deport you." We Macedonians should rise with greater courage and by means of increased activities should reject this campaign because it brings us an even more brutal oppression, starvation, misery, and war.

MACEDONIA AND GREECE AFTER WORLD WAR II

The end of World War II brought both joy and sadness to the Macedonian people. Joy because the Macedonians were finally recognized as a distinct people with their own nationality, language, and culture in Yugoslavia. The Republic of Macedonia was not anymore "Southern Serbia" but an integral part of federal Yugoslavia. The possible unification of all three parts of Macedonia failed however as Great Britain intervened and blocked that idea, afraid that the Macedonian unification will endanger her interests on the Balkan peninsula.

The Greek Civil War

During the Greek Civil War that followed World War II, the Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia fought on the side of the Greek Communist Party (KKE) who promised them their rights after the war. After two years of KKE's success in the civil war, the United States decided to side up against them, afraid that Greece would become another communist country. With the military support that came from the United States and Great Britain, the communists lost the war, and the Macedonians once again did not get their human rights.

The Yugoslav - Greek Relations

In the years following the war, Yugoslavia urged Greece many times to recognize the Macedonian minority in Aegean Macedonia. The Greek paper "Elefteros Tipos" wrote that in September of 1986 the Prime-Minister Papandreu in the talks with Yugoslav presidency member Stane Dolanc has agreed to recognize the Macedonian language as one of the official languages in Yugoslavia. As a result of those talks, on March 16, 1988, the Greek Prime-Minister Papandreu and the Foreign Affairs' Karolos Papulias, even agreed to recognize the Macedonian language in Greece. However, the bankers affair "Koskotas" emerged, the PASOK government fell, and the documents were never signed. Greece continued to refer to the Macedonians as "Slavophones" who speak an idiom.

THE MACEDONIAN - GREEK RELATIONS

When the Republic of Macedonia seceded from Yugoslavia and became independent in 1991, Greece urged the world not to recognize Macedonia under that name because Macedonia's Constitution "threatens the security and integrity of Greece". What Greece is referring to is the Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia which states:

"The Republic of Macedonia cares for the statue and rights of those persons belonging to the Macedonian people in neighboring countries, as well as Macedonian ex-parties, assists their cultural development and promotes links with them."

Athens sees Article 49 to be a direct threat for the security of Greece because Macedonia cares for the people in Greece who consider themselves Macedonians? How can a country of two million be a danger to Greece's ten million? Furthermore, Greece has also similar article in her Constitution, as any other country in the world, to care for her minorities in the neighboring countries. Should Albania, Bulgaria, and Turkey, urge the world not to recognize Greece because of her Constitution to care for her minorities in these neighboring countries? What Greece is doing is against the international law. Greece demands that Macedonia change its Constitution because there are "no Macedonian people" in Greece but this will be proven to be a lie once again, when Human Rights Watch / Helsinki, visited Aegean Macedonia in 1994.

Violation of the Human Rights of the Macedonians in Greece

The 80-page human rights violation report on Greece entitled "Denying Ethnic Identity - Macedonians of Greece" was published in May 1994. After visiting Aegean Macedonia, The Human Rights Watch/Helsinki concluded:

"Although ethnic Macedonians in northern Greece make up large minority with their own language and culture, their internationally recognized human rights and even their existence are vigorously denied by the Greek government. Free expression is restricted; several Macedonians have been persecuted and convicted for their peaceful expression of their views. Moreover, ethnic Macedonians are discriminated against by the government's failure to permit the teaching of the Macedonian language. And ethnic Macedonians, particularly rights activists, are harassed by the government - followed and threatened by the security forces - and subjected to economic and social pressure resulting from this harassment. All of these actions have led to a marked climate of fear in which a large number of ethnic Macedonians are reluctant to assert their Macedonian identity or to express their views openly. Ultimately, the government is pursuing every avenue to deny the Macedonians of Greece their ethnic identity."

The Helsinki Watch has, therefore, proven that there is nothing wrong with the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia. The Macedonians indeed exist in Greece as a large minority and, therefore, Macedonia has the full right to care for them. Helsinki Watch found the Greek government guilty for oppressing the Macedonian minority and demanded they be given their basic human rights to which they are entitled to. Another human rights organization, Amnesty International, also urged the Greek government to respect the human rights of the ethnic Macedonians. The European Union has furthermore recognized the Macedonian language as one of the languages spoken within the EU borders. The Republic of Macedonia is not a member of the European Union, but Aegean Macedonia in Greece, is within those borders.

The Greek Embargo

Greece slapped a trade embargo on Macedonia because of the refusal of the Macedonian President Gligorov to rename the country, nation, and language, and change the constitution.The embargo had devastating impact on Macedonia's economy. Macedonia was cut-off from the port of Salonika and became landlocked because of the UN embargo on Yugoslavia to the north, and the Greek embargo to the south. Greece said it will remove the embargo only if Macedonia satisfies her demands. This blackmail was not acceptable to the Republic of Macedonia which considered the embargo illegal. At the same time, Greece withdrew from the Greek - Macedonian talks, monitored by the UN as a mediator, and blocked any acceptance of Macedonia in the international institutions by using its power to veto new members.

CONCLUSION

The claims put forward by Greece that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, that their native language was Greek, and that Macedonia had always been a region of Greece are all false. The historical truth is that Greece was inhabited by ancient Greeks, Macedonia by ancient Macedonians. Today, it is the modern Greeks and the modern Macedonians to occupy those lands. It is a total absurdity to hear the Greeks of today to claim they are the Macedonians, the Greek Macedonians, the only and true Macedonians. How can they be "the only and true Macedonians", when today's Greek population of Aegean Macedonia immigrated there just 80 years ago joining that small Greek minority of 10%? How can they overlook the atrocities they committed on the people who than, as centuries before, proudly called themselves Macedonians? What about the statistics and maps made by neutral and independent ethnographers, slavists, and writers, to prove the existence of the Macedonian nation? And finally, what about the ethnic Macedonians whose discrimination by the official Greek government was witnessed by the independent Human Rights Watch / Helsinki and Amnesty International in 1994?

The existence of the Macedonian nation and the ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece can not be questioned. There is, however, a great deal of irony surrounding the issue. In spite of the truth about Macedonia and the Macedonians, many Western countries have not yet recognized the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name but under the reference "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". This includes the United States which after the recognition, did not send an ambassador to Skopje for more than a year. Interestingly enough, this "freeze" coincides with the visit of the most powerful representatives of the Greek-American lobby to President Clinton in the White House, behind closed doors, and in the presence of Clinton's adviser George Stefanopoulos, who himself, is a Greek-American.

How it is possible that the Western countries have chosen to follow "democratic" Greece where lies prevail over the truth? The European Court found the Greek embargo illegal and put Greece on trial, but did nothing to stop it while it was so harmful to the Macedonian economy. They never cared about the rights of the Macedonians in Greece while the Macedonians of the Aegean are still facing daily oppression and persecution. Finally, they still play that game for the Macedonia's name, the way Greece wants them to. Yes, this is yet anotherproof that interests are stronger than the truth. Greece is a member of the European Union, NATO, an important ally that occupies a very strategic position. On the other hand, all other countries that do not belong to those organizations have recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name. Russia and China are among those countries. The question now is if the West is willing to risk losing Greece for the small landlocked Macedonia? But by standing silent on the issue, they are taking an active role in Greece's politics.

Yet, on every atlas (like National Geographic), encyclopedia (like Britannica), newspaper (like New York Times), and TV media (like CNN), Macedonia is referred simply as Macedonia. Even the US Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and Defense Secretary William Perry, speak of Macedonians and refer to Macedonia as Macedonia. Matthew Nimitz, the US mediator in the Greek - Macedonian talks has said that "the country has an Constitutional name - Republic of Macedonia" and that besides the opposing of Greece, Macedonia was admitted at UN under the reference "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", but that is "only a reference and not name". The truth about Macedonia slowly but surely is coming to the top, working towards a final end to the century-old shadow of Greek lies and propaganda. That is until the change of the Balkan policies and interests might push it all back to where it started. But regardless of everything, the Macedonians continue to exits on every part of divided Macedonia - the Republic of Macedonia, and the Macedonian parts which are today held by Greece and Bulgaria. They have survived as Macedonians for almost 3,000 years and nobody by renaming them will change the fact that they are and will remain Macedonians.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.      Karl Hron. Das Volksthum der Slaven Makedoniens. Wien, 1890.

2.      P. Draganov. Makedonski Slavjanski Sbornik. St. Petersburg, 1894.

3.      Spiridon Gopchevich. Makedonien und Altserbien. Wien, 1899

4.      Dr. Cleonthes Nikolaides. Macedonien, die gesschichtliche Entwickelung der makedonischen Frage in Alterthum und in die neuren Zeit. Berlin, 1899.

5.      Newspaper The Times, London. Saturaday, February 6, 1897 edition.

6.      K. Gersin. Macedonian und das Turkische Problem. Wien, 1903.

7.      Dr. K. Ostreich. Die Bevolkerung von Makedonien. Leipzig, 1905.

8.      Dr. Karl Peucher. Statistische Angaben. Die Volker Macedoniens und Altserbiens. 1905.

9.      Henry N. Brailsford. Macedonia, its Races and their Future. London, Metheuen and Co, first published in 1906.

10.  Volker und Sprachenkarte der Balkan - Halbinsel vor den Krigen 1912-18. Bibliographisches Institut, Leipzig.

11.  Newspaper Message d' Aten. Athens, February 15, 1913.

12.  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Report of the International Commision to Inquire the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars. Washington, 1914.

13.  R.G.D. Laffan. The Serbs. New York, 1917.

14.  League of the Nations. Ethnic Map of Greek Macedonia Showing the Ratio Between Various Ethnic Elements in 1912 and 1926. Lausanne, 1926.

15.  Newspaper Politika. Edition 6369. Belgrade, January 5, 1926.

16.  Andrew Roussos. The British Foreign Office and Macedonian National Identity 1918 - 1941.

17.  Newspaper Rizospastis, ar.195 (7132), 4/12/34, p.3 and ar.89 (7026), 6/10/34, p.3 and ar.87, (7024), 6/8/34, p.1.

18.  Dr. Vladimir Rumenov. Makedonski pregled. Sofia, 1941

19.  Elisabeth Barker. Macedonia - Its Place in Balkan Power Politics. London, 1950.

20.  Spoljnopoliticka Dokumentacija No 36. Belgrade, 1951.

21.  Lazar Moysov. Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia. Skopje, 1953.

22.  Hammond Incorporated. The Times Atlas of World History. Maplewood NJ, 1989. Copyright Times Books Limited, London.

23.  Stoyan Prebicevich. Macedonia, Its People and History. The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1982.

24.  Jacques Bacid, Ph.D. Macedonia Through the Ages. Columbia University, 1983.

25.  Quantis Curtius Rufus. History of Alexander the Great of Macedon, VI. Harmondsworth, 1984.

26.  Rand McNally and Co. Inc. The Random House Encyclopedia Random House, New York, 1990.

27.  Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western CivilizationThe Pennsylvania State University, West Publishing Company, 1991.

28.  Human Rights Watch / Helsinki. Denying Ethnic Identity - Macedonians of Greece, New York, 1994.

29.  Newspaper Elefteros Tipos. Athens, September 20, 1994.

30.  The Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 02.Септември.2006 во 20:57
Девојче, убаво, убаво, јас рпетходно ја постирав целокупната македонска историја од антика до денес.
My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
valentina Кликни и види ги опциите
Нов член
Нов член
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 01.Септември.2006
Локација: Macedonia
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 13
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 02.Септември.2006 во 15:45

Chronology of Macedonian History

C. 653 B.C.
Ancient Macedonia has been divided as Up and Down Macedonia. King Perdiccas I establishes the Macedonian Kingdom. Ancient Macedonian kings from Perdicca I to Perdicca III .

359-336 B.C.
Significant military and financial reforms carried out during the reign of Philip II , determining the geographical, historical, and ethnic boundaries of Macedonia.

336-323 B.C.
Reign of Alexander the Great , King of Macedon. Macedonia reaches the peak of its military power. He spreads Macedonian culture to the East.

215-205, 200-193, 171-167 B.C.
Macedonian - Roman wars. Macedonia falls under Roman rule.

A.D. 535
The Byzantine Emperor establishes the town of Justiniana Prima (in the vicinity of Skopje), an important church (archbishop's seat) and political centre in the Balkans.

855
The brothers Cyril and Methody -- create the first Slavonic alphabet .

886
Clement comes to Macedonia, spreads Christianity in the Slavonic language and founds the Ohrid Literary School. After Clement of Ohrid Naum was the most consistent and worthy of the pupils of the Salonica brothers Cyril and Methodius .

969
The sons of komes Nicholas (David, Moses, Aaron, and Samuil) rebel against Bulgarian authority and establish the medieval Macedonian state, which in 997 becomes the Macedonian Empire.

1014
Battle of Mount Belasica. The army of the Macedonian Tsar Samuil is defeated by the Byzantines.

1018
The Macedonian Empire falls under Byzantine rule.

1040-1042
Insurrection against Byzantine authority led by Petar Deljan.

1072-1073
Gjorgji Vojteh's insurrection based in Macedonia.

1371
The Battle of Marica and penetration of the Turks into the Balkans.

1395
Macedonia falls under Turkish domination.King Marko dies in a battle near Rovin.

1564-1565
The Mariovo - Prilep Rebellion, the first known rebellion of the Macedonian peasants.

1689
The Karpos Uprising, insurrection of the Macedonian people against the Turks in the Kriva Palanka and Kumanovo regions.

1767
The Abolition of the Archbishopric of Ohrid by an irade of the Sultan under the pressure of the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople.

1822
The Negus Uprising, insurrection of the Macedonians for liberation in the Aegean part of Macedonia.

1876
The Razlovci Uprising, insurrection in eastern Macedonia which heralded the national liberation struggle.

1878-1879
The Macedonian Kresna Uprising, insurrection which adopted a constitution known as The Rules of the Macedonian Uprising Committee.

1894
Establishment of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. Gotse Delchev joins the Organization.

1902
Foundation of the Slavonic - Macedonian Scholarly Literary Society in St. Petersburg, Russia.

1903
The Ilinden Uprising and the ten days of the Krushevo Republic. The Manifesto of the Krushevo Republic

1909
Establishment and activity of the Popular Federal Party.

1912-13
The Balkan Wars and Macedonia's partition with the Peace Treaty of Bucharest.

1914-1918
The First World War.

1919
The Treaty of Versailles sanctions the partition of Macedonia.

1924
The May Manifesto, resolution of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia on the right of the Macedonian people to self- determination.

1925
The establishment of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (United).

1934
The Fourth Nationwide Conference of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. This passed a decision on the establishment of a national party in Macedonia.

1936
Establishment and ideational-political formation of the MANAPO (Macedonian National Movement).

1936
Foundation of the Macedonian Literary Society in Sofia by outstanding Macedonian writers.

1940
The Fifth Nationwide Conference of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. This passed a resolution on the equality and self- determination of the Macedonian people.

1939-1945
The Second World War.

1941-1944
Macedonia's participation in the Second World War (National Liberation War of Macedonia).

1944
Proclomation of the Macedonian state. (August 2).

1945
Formation of the first government of the People's Republic of Macedonia (April 16).

1945
Adoption of the Macedonian alphabet.

1946
Start of university education in Macedonian (Faculty of Philosophy).

1946
Adoption of the first constitution of the People's Republic of Macedonia.

1967
Foundation of the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences.

1967
Proclomation of the autocephalous Macedonian Orthodox Church (Restoration of the Archbishopric of Ohrid).

1991
Referendum on a sovereign and independent state (September 8).

1991
Adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia (November 17).

1993
Macedonia is admitted to the United Nations.

1995
Macedonia becomes a member of the Council of Europe.

Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 01.Септември.2006 во 13:10

For over two thousand years Macedonia has been overrun, ransacked, and conquered by many invaders but never with such ferocity as that of the last 150 years. The violence has not only fractured the country but it has left the Macedonian population permanently in limbo.

In this document I intend to expose Greek and Bulgarian acts aimed at bringing division and conflict among the Macedonian people.

I will begin by recounting an example of my own experience.

For years (in Toronto, Canada) I worked with a man who had a complicated name which was difficult to pronounce. My co-workers called him "George the Greek". For a long time I avoided contact with George believing that it was better to avoid him than to be confronted by him. I am proud of my Macedonian identity and at the same time I am well aware of what Greeks think of it. I believed that if George found out that I was Macedonian he would challenge my identity in public, in the most demeaning manner, and I would have to defend it with equal ferocity.

That, I couldn't do, my co-workers would never understand let alone appreciate my less than gentlemanly manner. What would I say to someone who insisted on telling me "you are Greek" and that "there is no such thing as a Macedonian"? And if I continued to argue with him, he would ask me (in front of everyone) to show my passport or produce a map and show my country of origin on it. How would I respond to that? What would my non-Macedonian co-workers know or care about my argument with a Greek?

One day the inevitable happened. I was in a meeting with a dozen colleagues, when to my surprise George sat next to me. He looked at my notes and saw my name. Then without much hesitation and in a predictable manner, he uttered the words I despised most. "Are you Greek?" he asked me. Silence filled the room, as I replied, "No I am not". Then in a low quiet voice he again asked, "What are you then?" The silence was overwhelming and I felt trapped feeling my anger rising. I paused for a second then answered, " I am Macedonian". There was a long pause before George came back with the reply "I am also Macedonian". Baffled and surprised by his response, without thinking, I asked him, "Are you a real Macedonian or a Greek-Macedonian"? A "real Macedonian," he replied. A roar of laughter erupted around the room as I tried to regain my composure.

I got to know George not only as a fellow Macedonian, but also as a friend with whom I shared a close origin. I found that George was a typical Macedonian who learned about his past from his family. He was easy going, avoided politics and didn't mind his co-workers calling him Greek.

After that episode I thought a lot about what had happened. I also found out that I was not the only one with such strong feelings. How could I have mistaken George (a Macedonian) for a Greek? And, why did I harbor such strong feelings towards the Greeks?

Looking for answers took me back to the mid-1850s to when Macedonia was nearing half a millennium of Ottoman occupation. By this time most Macedonians lost ownership of their lands and became servants to the Turkish Chiflicks (estates). The Chiflicks were owned by Turkish settlers and protected by Turkish police and by the Turkish Army based in Macedonia.

After two prior failed attempts to liberate themselves, Macedonians shielded by the Ottoman occupation, lived in isolation having little to do with the Ottomans or other outsiders. There were no schools or education for Macedonian children and (almost) all of the population was illiterate. The only awareness of the outside world came from Greek clergy, travelers or migrating workers (pechalbari). The established Greek Patriarch Church showed little to no interest in the welfare of the Macedonians.

After Bulgaria achieved independence however, people began to once again believe that it was possible to liberate Macedonia from the Ottoman grasp. The notion of a free Macedonia did not go unnoticed by the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian expansionist governments, which began to show interest in Macedonian affairs. Greek factions were already laying claim to Macedonia through the Greek Patriarch Church. It was through the influence of the Bulgarian Exarchist Church however, that encouragement for liberation was being promoted.

"Two Nations one People" was the Bulgarian motto echoed in propaganda campaigns throughout Macedonia. The Bulgarians believed in an independent Macedonia but under Bulgarian control. They refused to recognize the Macedonian people as a separate entity. Most Macedonians did not agree with that ideology and believed in the motto "Macedonia for the Macedonians".

Some however, believed in the safety of numbers and felt it would be better if they fought alongside the Bulgarians ("Christian Brothers") than to take on the Turks alone. The arguing and infighting split the Macedonian people into two groups, the Macedonian central committee faction and the pro-Bulgarian Verhovist committee faction. They both took on the name Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) and began to arm for revolt. The IMRO-Central was formed in Solun by Macedonians. The IMRO-Verhovist was formed in Sofia Bulgaria with help from the Bulgarian Government and the Bulgarian King and took orders directly from the Bulgarian Verhovist Committee.

The Bulgarian involvement prompted Greece and later Serbia to take up similar actions and they also stepped up activities and propaganda inside Macedonia. In addition to church services all respective churches began to offer free education for Macedonian children. Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian schools were opened in most villages each offering education in its respective language. No one offered education in the Macedonian language. In fact all sides took extreme measures to avoid the Macedonian language.

All sides published their own version of statistics showing various proportions of nationalities living in Macedonia. None of them showed Macedonians living Macedonia. Competition to match statistics with student enrolment intensified as all sides were vying for the same children. As rivalry between factions escalated and agents failed to increase the numbers by propaganda alone, they began to use intimidation and scare tactics. Where intimidation failed violence took over. To meet their objectives, Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian agents, sponsored by their respective churches, began to enlist the services of the disgruntled and criminal elements of society.

Threats of violence and intimidation polarized the Macedonian people and forced them to join pro-Greek, pro-Bulgarian or pro-Serbian alliances for protection. Extreme elements on all sides exerted influence by intimidation, blackmail and even murder. Priests were murdered for defecting from one church to another, children were beaten for switching schools and families were frowned upon for supporting or opposing one faction or another. Although Macedonians were rarely accused of murder, they were often accused of collaborating with the murderers.

Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian agents, gangs, bounty hunters and hoodlums were paid by high ranking church officials to roam the Macedonian villages burning houses, intimidating people and committing crimes, all of this under the noses of the Turkish authorities. And when the authorities decided to take action, it was usually against the victims.

The situation for Macedonians worsened after the unsuccessful Ilinden rebellion against the Turks in 1903. The rebellion was poorly organized and prematurely executed. Some groups of the IMRO-Central were fooled into believing that once the rebellion was initiated, the Bulgarian army would march in to the rescue. Other IMRO groups did not trust the Bulgarians and felt the Macedonian people were not yet ready for a revolt. Finally when the order was given, only the Bitola and Kostur regions initiated revolt, the rest abstained.

Short sightedness and external meddling from the Bulgarians cost Macedonia her liberation and brought death and destruction to her people. The Turkish army crushed the rebellion in days and in retribution, burned many villages to the ground. To make matters worse, Greek armed bands (Andary) roaming the Macedonian countryside committed crimes and blamed them on the Macedonian revolutionaries (komiti) thus causing further misdeeds against the Macedonian people.

Under the guise of "educating the Christian children " and in the name of progress Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia committed acts of violence against the Macedonian people. Between 1850 and 1913 Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian interference in Macedonian affairs robbed Macedonians of their nationhood and brought about irreparable divisions among the Macedonian people. These acts of violence also inspired division, hatred, mistrust and hard feelings between the people of Macedonia and the people of Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia.

After Macedonia's partition (1913) all known Bulgarian sympathizers, including the pro-Bulgarian komiti, were expatriated (from Greek occupied Macedonia, Serbia had no influence in that region). Greek officials, accompanied by military and police support, went from community to community ordering people to take the dreaded oath of swearing loyalty to the Greek nation. Those who refused were told to "grab what you can carry and get out, this is Greece now and only Greeks live here". When they were finished, authority over Macedonia was handed over to the Greek police and the Greek military whose officers were all outsiders and foreigners to Macedonians.

The new masters turned out to be crueler than the old ones. They indiscriminately abused all Macedonians especially those who showed Macedonian nationalistic tendencies. Threats and intimidation became common practice. Over time and under extreme pressure some Macedonians were truly assimilated, willingly or out of fear, they pledged loyalty to the Greek nation. This new class of people became known as the Greek-Macedonians and laid claim to the ancient Macedonian heritage.

During the 1920's and 1930's a new form of division was instituted. The Greek Government implemented ethnic cleansing and Hellenization policies designed to erase the Macedonian character of both the people and their land. This time they targeted the heart of the Macedonian consciousness, the Macedonian language. Speaking Macedonian in Macedonia became illegal. If that wasn't enough, the Greek Government also instituted policies to erase all Macedonian names. Every first name, last name and place name in Macedonia was replaced with a Greek sounding name. Even gravestones with Macedonian inscriptions were defaced or destroyed.

Before their names were changed, Macedonians had a simple method of identifying each other. Each individual had a given name, family name and a community or village name. People didn't have last names like today. Their family name was usually derived from the given name of the eldest family member in the household. As families grew large and split up they assumed new family names. Everyone knew everyone else.

After the names were changed it became difficult for Macedonians to identity with each other. Some assumed last names that were different from others in their family. This did not only disconnect families from their roots, it created an identity crisis among Macedonians. They could no longer recognize each other by name alone or identify themselves from the Greeks. As a result people began to be suspicious of strangers. This explains why some Macedonians, including myself, continue to be suspicious of strangers with Greek sounding names.

Even though the situation improved somewhat for Macedonians during the occupation (1940-1945), many continued to be suspicious of strangers. Macedonians that fought side by side with the Greeks during the Partisan wars kept their nationality a secret. Many even refused to divulge their place of origin. They were suspicious of the Greeks and feared being shot in the back.

The Greek civil war was another dark chapter in Macedonia's history. It not only displaced most of the Macedonian population from its homeland, but more sinisterly it forced people to take up arms against each other where brother fought against brother and wife against husband, one in the name of Greece and the other in the name of Macedonia. To this day families have not reconciled the differences imposed upon them by this dreadful war.

After Greece capitulated to Nazi Germany at the start of World War II, the Greek army disbanded and left Macedonia. Remnants of the Greek police however, together with roaming armed bands (Andari) of the Greek paramilitary remained active and wreaked havoc. To counter this threat, the old revolutionary bands (komiti) from Turkish times were resurrected and armed with Italian help. After the rise of the Partisans most bands disbanded and surrendered their weapons to the Partisans. Some were isolated and later organized by Bulgarian agents to fight the Greek Andari and the Partisans on Bulgaria's behalf.

In the beginning all efforts by the Greeks to start a Greek Partisan movement in Macedonia, failed. Initially, the Greeks did not want Macedonian involvement. Failed attempts to gain support from the Macedonian people however, made them realize that they could not succeed alone. Permission was granted to Macedonian leaders to mobilize the Macedonian people.

When the Greeks saw a large battalion forming (in the Lerin, Kostur and Prespa Regions) beyond their expectations, they began to worry of a Macedonian uprising. Fearing they would lose control of Macedonia they ordered the battalion to move south to Ipiros. The Macedonian leaders refused, asserting that they mobilized the movement to protect Macedonia not some foreign land. The Greeks gave them an ultimatum, move or be prepared for a military response. They moved, but not to Ipiros as ordered but across the Yugoslav border where they joined other Macedonian forces in the fight to liberate today's Republic of Macedonia.

When the war was over, Yugoslav (Serbian) occupied Macedonia earned Republic status in the Yugoslav federation. The Macedonians in Greece meanwhile entered a new phase of warfare, the Greek civil war. It is interesting to note that up until now the Greeks wanted nothing to do with Macedonians. During this phase however, a new set of promises began to surface. As the Greek Partisans began to lose the war against the Royal forces, they began to enlist more and more Macedonians with promises of recognition as a separate nationality, equal rights and outright independence from Greece. With lies and empty promises the Greeks even tried to enlist the Macedonian Partisans they pushed out to Yugoslavia. Some, wanting to reunite with their families came back. Both sides (Greek Partisans and Greek Royalists) enlisted from the same population, pitting brother against brother in this insane war.

The failed Macedonian uprising against the Ottoman Empire (1903), the Balkan wars (1912-1913) and later the Greek civil war (1945-1949) displaced many Macedonians from their homeland.
Most of the displaced population from the 1903 uprising and from the 1912-1913 Balkan wars fled to Bulgaria or immigrated to Canada, the USA and Australia.

Most of the displaced population from the Greek civil war, including the refugee children, fled to Eastern Block countries such as Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the Soviet Union. After the civil war, the majority, including children were not allowed to return home. So, after years of life in limbo away from home and loved ones, most immigrated to the Republic of Macedonia, Canada, the USA and Australia in an attempt to re-unite with their families and find a better life.

What they found is that Greek and Bulgarian torment was not confined to Macedonia. The Greek and Bulgarian campaigns of the late 1800's were alive and well in the Diaspora. Organizations such as the pro-Bulgarian "Macedonian Patriotic Organization" (MPO) and the pro-Greek Pan Macedonians were formed to attract and divide the growing Macedonian immigration. Macedonians that immigrated early (start of the 20th century) organized village associations to assist fellow immigrants adjust in their new countries. These village associations were now becoming a threat to Greek influence over the Macedonian population at home and in the Diaspora.

As the associations grew in strength so did their threat. With help from Greek Embassies and Consulates pro-Greek factions infiltrated some associations and rendered them mute. Many resisted and managed to preserve their unique Macedonian identity. For those that resisted the Greeks formed parallel pro-Greek associations. This way when the Macedonian association organized an event the pro-Greek association organized a similar event at the same time. Macedonians that could be influenced were discouraged from joining Macedonian organizations and were offered the Greek alternative.

While the pro-Greek organizations worked openly to divide Macedonians, the pro-Bulgarian MPO took a more covert approach. While its rhetoric openly promoted "Macedonian for the Macedonians" its constitution harboured pro-Bulgarian agendas.

Macedonians may have become a minority in Greece but they are strong in numbers in the Diaspora. In addition to village associations the Macedonian communities built churches, schools and formed cultural groups over the years. Organizations, such as the United Macedonians of Canada, with primary objectives to "unite all Macedonians", were formed and have grown in strength but have not totally eliminated Greek and Bulgarian influence. Financed by Greece many newspapers, publications, radio and television programs continuously bombard the people with Greek propaganda.

One hundred and fifty years ago there were no Greek-Macedonians, Bulgarian-Macedonians, Serbian-Macedonians, Albanian-Macedonians or Slav-Macedonians, there were only Macedonians. No matter what they call us we are still "Macedonians".

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 01.Септември.2006 во 13:09

The British Foreign Office
and Macedonian National Identity -
1918-1941

by Andrew Rossos

Slavic Review, vol. 53, number 2, Summer 1994

click here for a printer-friendly version

The study of the Macedonian identity has given rise to far greater controversies and debates than that of most, if not all, other nationilisms in eastern Europe. This has been only in part due to the hazy past of the Slavic speaking population of Macedonia and to the lack of a continuous and separate state tradition, a trait they had in common with other "small" and "young," or so-called "non-historic," peoples in the area. Controversy has been due above all to the fact that, although it began in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, Macedonian nationalism did not enjoy international acceptance or legitimacy until the Second World War, much later than was the case with other similar national movements in eastern Europe.[1] Recent research has shown that Macedonian nationalism developed, generally speaking, similarly to that of neighboring Balkan peoples, and, in most respects, of other "small" and "young" peoples of eastern, as well as some of western, Europe.

But Macedonian nationalism was belated, grew slowly and, at times, manifested confusing tendencies and orientations that were, for the most part, consequences of its protracted illegitimate status.[2]

For a half century Macedonian nationalism existed illegally. It was recognized neither by the theocratic Ottoman state nor by the two established Orthodox churches in the empire: the Patriarchist (Greek) and, after its establishment in 1870, the Exarchist (Bulgarian). Moreover neighboring Balkan nationalists-Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian-who had already achieved independence with the aid of one or more of the Great Powers, chose to deny the existence of a separate Macedonian identity; indeed they claimed Macedonia and the Macedonians as their own. They fought for Macedonia with propaganda and force, against each other and the nascent Macedonian nationalists. A prolonged struggle culminated in 1913 with the forceful partition of Macedonia after the Second Balkan or Inter-Allied War between Bulgaria, on one side, and allied Greece and Serbia, on the other.[3] Each of these three states consolidated their control over their respective parts of Macedonia, and throughout the inter-war years inaugurated and implemented policies intended to destroy any manifestations of Macedonian nationalism, patriotism or particularism- Consequently, until World War II, unlike the other nationalisms in the Balkans or in eastern Europe more generally, Macedonian nationalism developed with-out the aid of legal political, church, educational or cultural institutions. Macedonian movements not only lacked any legal infrastructure, they also were without the international sympathy, cultural aid and, most importantly, benefits of open and direct diplomatic and military support accorded other Balkan nationalisms.[4] Indeed, for an entire century Macedonian nationalism, illegal at home and illegitimate internationally, waged a precarious struggle for survival against overwhelming odds: in appearance against the Turks and the Ottoman Empire before 1913 but in actual fact, both before and after that date, against the three expansionist Balkan states and their respective patrons among the Great Powers.[5]

The denial of a Macedonian identity by the neighboring Balkan states, and their irreconcilably contradictory claims, motives, justifications and rationalizations, are mirrored by the largely polemical and tendentious Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian literature on the Macedonian question.[6] But the attitudes of the individual Great Powers and the thinking, motivations and internal foreign policy establishments have not yet been studied. In this article I will focus on the British Foreign Office and its attitude toward the Macedonian question during the inter-war years. The British Foreign Office provides a case study because Great Britain played a leading role in the area after the 1878 Treaty of San Stefano; during the inter-war years respect for national self-determination and for the rights of national minorities was, at least in theory and in official policy, the accepted and prevailing norm.

For the Macedonians the inter-war period was conditioned by the Balkan wars and the partition of their land. The peace conferences and treaties which ended the Great War, represented for many "small" and "young" nations of eastern Europe the realization of dreams of self-determination. But with some minor territorial modifications at the expense of Bulgaria, these treaties confirmed the partition of Macedonia agreed upon in the Treaty of Bucharest. For the victorious allies, especially Great Britain and France, this meant putting the Macedonian problem finally to rest. It also meant that the allies could satisfy two of their clients which were pillars of the new order in south-eastern Europe: the Kingdom of Greece and the former Kingdom of Serbia, now the dominant component in the newly created Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Yugoslavia. Even though their territorial acquisitions in Macedonia did not necessarily satisfy their max-imal aspirations, official Athens and Belgrade also pretended that Macedonia and the Macedonian problem had ceased to exist. Belgrade proclaimed Vardar Macedonia to be Old Serbia and the Macedonians Old Serbians; for Athens, Aegean Macedonia became simply northern Greece and the Slavic speaking Macedonians were considered Greeks or, at best, "Slavophone" Greeks. Although Bulgaria had enjoyed the greatest influence among the Macedonians, because of its defeat in the Inter-Allied and the Great Wars, it was accorded the smallest part, Pirin Macedonia, or the Petrich district, as it became known during the inter-war years. Unlike official Athens and Belgrade, the ruling elite in Sofia did not consider the settlement permanent; but without sympathy among the victorious Great Powers and threatened by revolutionary turmoil at home, they had to accept the settlement for the time being. In any event, the Macedonian question was not a priority for the Agrarian government of A. Stamboliski.[7] Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria all sought to destroy all signs of Macedonianism through forced deportation, so-called voluntary exchanges of populations and internal transfers of the Macedonian populations. They also implemented policies of colonization, social and economic discrimination, and forced denationalization and assimilation based on total control of the edu-cational systems and of cultural and intellectual life as a whole.

These policies were particularly pursued with great determination in Yugoslavia and Greece. Though he approved of these policies, C. L. Blakeney, British Vice-Consul at Belgrade, wrote in1930:

It is very well for the outsider to say that the only way the Serb could achieve this [control of Vardar Macedonia] was by terrorism and the free and general use of the big stick. This may be true, as a matter of fact one could say that it is true ...On the other hand, however, it must be admitted that the Serb had no other choice ... He had not only to deal with the brigands but also with a population who regarded him as an invader and unwelcome foreigner and from whom he had and could expect no assistance.[8]

Ten years later, on the eve of Yugoslavia's collapse during the Second World War, it was obvious that the Serbian policies in Macedonia had failed. R.I. Campbell, British minister at Belgrade, now denounced them to Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary:

Since the occupation by Serbia in 1913 of the Macedonian districts, the Government has carried out in this area, with greater or lesser severity, a policy of suppression and assimilation. In the years following the Great War land was taken away from the inhabitants and given to Serbian colonists. Macedonians were compelled to change their names and the Government did little or nothing to assist the economic development of the country...[9]

Athens was even more extreme than Belgrade: under the guise of "voluntary" emigration they sought to expel the entire Macedonian population. Colonel A.C. Corfe, chairman of the League of Nations Mixed Commission on Greco-Bulgarian Emigration, reported in 1923: "In the course of conversation, Mr. Lambros [Governor General of Macedonia], actually said that the present was a good opportunity to get rid of the Bulgars [sic] who remained in this area and who had always been a source of trouble for Greece." [10] This could be achieved at least superficially: Athens made a concerted effort to eradicate any reminders of the centuries old Slav presence in Aegean Macedonia by replacing Slav Macedonian personal names and surnames, as well as place names, etc., by Greek. This policy reached its most extreme and tragic dimensions during the late 1930s under the dictatorship of General Metaxas when use of the Macedonian language was prohibited even in the privacy of the home to a people who knew Greek scarcely or not at all, and who in fact could not communicate properly in any other language but their own. [11] In 1944 Captain P.H. Evans, an agent of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) who spent eight months in western Aegean Macedonia as a British Liaison Officer (BLO) and station commander, condemned the Greek policies in a lengthy report for the Foreign Office. He described the attitude "even of educated GREEKS towards the SLAV minority" as "usually stupid, uninformed and brutal to a degree that makes one despair of any understanding ever being created between the two people." However, he also left no doubt that the Greek government's policies had failed:

It is predominantly a SLAV region not a GREEK one. The language of the home, and usually also of the fields, the village Street, and the market is MACEDONIAN, a SLAV language... The place names as given on the map are GREEK...; but the names which are mostly used - - - are - - - all Slav names. The GREEK ones are merely a bit of varnish put on by Metaxas... GREEK is regarded as almost a foreign language and the GREEKS are distrusted as something alien, even if not, in the full sense of the word, as foreigners. The obvious fact, almost too obvious to be stated, that the region is SLAV by nature and not GREEK cannot be overemphasized.[12]

Revisionist Bulgaria, where major trends in Macedonian nationalism were well entrenched in Pirin Macedonia and among the large Macedonian emigration to its capital, assumed a more ambiguous position. Sofia continued its traditional attitude towards all Macedonians, acting as their patron but claiming them to be Bulgarians. To a certain extent it left the Macedonians to do what they wanted; unlike Athens and Belgrade, it tolerated, or felt compelled to tolerate, the free use of the name "Macedonia" and an active Macedonian political and cultural life.[13] In its annual report on Bulgaria for 1922, the British Legation at Sofia referred to the Pirin region as "the autonomous kingdom of Macedonia" and stressed that "Bulgarian sovereignty over the district - - - is purely nominal and, such as it is, is resented by the irredentist Macedonian element no less strongly than is that of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government over the adjacent area within their frontier." [14] Indeed, it could be argued that, after the overthrow of the Stamboliski regime in June 1921, Sofia not only encouraged Macedonian discontent in all three countries but also sought to take advantage of it to further its own revisionist aims.[15] Bulgaria's revisionism split the ranks of the partitioning powers and was of great significance for the future of Macedonian nationalism. For no matter how much Greece and Yugoslavia, and their patrons among the Great Powers, especially Great Britain, pretended officially that the Macedonian question had been resolved, Bulgarian policies helped to keep it alive. [16]

More importantly still, the Macedonians, both in the large emigration in Bulgaria and at home, rejected the partition of their land and the settlement based upon it. As the British Legation at Sofia warned: "the Governments of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, if not that of Greece, are faced with practically an identical problem in the pacification and control of a district overlapping both the frontiers inhabited by a population hostile to both Governments for different reasons and determined on strengthening the hands of the opposition parties in each country."[17] Disturbing to London were calls for open resistance to foreign rule. Early in 1922 W.A.F. Erskine, the minister in Sofia, drew Lord Curzon's attention to an anonymous article in the newspaper Makedonija, purportedly from a Macedonian professor at the University of Sofia, which exhorted the Macedonians to follow the example of the Irish, who after a bitter struggle lasting through centuries, have succeeded in gaining their autonomy. "Their country is today free. Ours, too, will be free if we remain faithful to our own traditions of struggle and if we take as our example the lives of people, who, like the Irish, have "never despaired of the force of right." [18]

To be sure, organized Macedonian activity in Aegean and Vardar Macedonia, which had declined after the bloody suppression of the Ilinden uprising of 1903 and the repeated partitions of 1912-1918, came to a virtual standstill immediately after World War I. Virtually the entire Exarchist educated elite, most Macedonian activists from Aegean Macedonia and large numbers from Vardar Macedonia had been forced to emigrate and now sought refuge in Bulgaria.[19] Furthermore, the remaining Macedonian population in Aegean Macedonia, overwhelmingly rural and lacking an educated elite, found itself after the Greek-Turkish War (1919-1922) a minority in its own land as a result of the Greek government's settlement there of large numbers of Greek and other Christian refugees from Asia Minor.[20] The situation among the Macedonians in Bulgaria was only slightly more encouraging: while there were large concentrations of Exarchist educated Macedonians and Macedonian activists both in the Pirin region and in Sofia, there were deep divisions within each group. Demoralization had set in and a long process of regrouping ensued among the Macedonians there.[21]

Nonetheless, opposition to foreign rule existed in all three parts of Macedonia from its imposition and systematic anti-Macedonian policies only intensified it. That this discontent was considerable was clearly evident in the support given to the terrorist activities of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) in the 1920s. A popular revolutionary movement in the early twentieth century, by the mid-1920s IMRO had emerged as a terrorist organization. It virtually ruled Pirin Macedonia and was a state within the state of Bulgaria, pursuing its own self-saving ends by relying on Bulgarian reaction and Italian fascism, and allowing itself to be used by both. However, officially and very conspicuously-it promulgated the aims and the slogans of the older movement: "united autonomous or independent Macedonia" and "Macedonia for the Macedonians." IMRO conducted repeated, so-called "Komitaji," armed raids and incursions into Vardar and, to a lesser extent, into Aegean Macedonia until the military coup in Sofia of May 1934 when the new regime liquidated the organization. More than anything else, it succeeded in maintaining the Macedonian question on the international scene and, as champion of Macedonia and the Macedonians, it continued to enjoy considerable support throughout most of the 1920s.[22]

Widespread opposition to foreign rule is also demonstrated by the results of the first post-war elections held in Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, the freest to be held during the inter-war years.

Significant support in all three parts of Macedonia went to the newly formed communist parties, which also rejected the status quo and declared themselves champions of Macedonia and the Macedonians.[23] As Erskine reported from Sofia: "The program of the Communists, therefore, at the instigation of Moscow, was modified to a form of cooperation with the Macedonian revolutionaries - - - to stir up trouble generally - - - and to pave the way for a revolution by creating disorder."[24] Commenting on the election in Yugoslavia, the British minister at Sofia, R. Peel, stressed that although Serbian troops had resorted to the worst excesses in order to terrorize the inhabitants into voting for government lists, "...a large proportion of communist deputies were returned from Macedonia."[25] Clearly, the communist vote was, in effect, a Macedonian protest against foreign rule.[26] This cooperation between communists and Macedonians, dating from the end of World War I, intensified in the late 1920s and early 1930s, when the Balkan communist parties, after long and heated debates, officially recognized Macedonia as a distinct Slav nation with its own language, history and territory. The Comintern followed suit in 1934 and thus supplied the first formal international recognition of Macedonian nationalism.[27]

Both rightist and leftist activities-the renewal of terrorism by IMRO, led by I. Mihailov, and the association of Macedonian nationalism with international communism-led to a revival of the Macedonian question as the central issue dividing the Balkan states and hence as the major cause of instability in southeastern Europe. These activities not only represented rejections of the territorial and political terms agreed to at the Paris Peace Conference, but also were serious challenges to Great Britain, one of the architects of the treaty and its main defender throughout the inter-war years.

For some time following World War I, London refused to consider the unrest in Macedonia and, hence, the revival of the Macedonian question. A lengthy memorandum, "The Macedonian Question and Komitaji Activity," prepared by the Central Department of the Foreign Office in 1925, maintained that "While amongst the Slav intellectuals there is violent partisanship, probably the majority of Slavs - - - do not care to what nationality they belong."[28] DJ. Footman, the vice consul at Skopje, echoed a similar sentiment when he wrote, "I believe that 80 percent of the population merely desire a firm, just and enlightened Administration, and regard Nationalism as of minor importance." [29] If there was a problem, the explanation for it could be found in Bulgaria: London blamed Sofia not only for tolerating, but for encouraging and sponsoring an organized Macedonian movement, revolutionary organizations and armed bands on its own territory.[30] A more sophisticated explanation for the unrest could be based on a combination of social, economic and especially administrative causes: reports from the Balkans pointed to the economic backwardness of Macedonia and to the exacerbation of its economic woes by the partition, which had destroyed traditional trade routes and markets. They further stressed the lack of government reforms and constructive policies to alleviate the prevailing condition: communications remained as primitive or non-existent as they had been before the Great War, and towns such as Bitola, Skopje and Ohrid were in a state of general decline. The peasantry appeared to be slightly better off, but "this was less the result of agrarian reform or of the government colonization policy than of the energy and initiative shown by the peasantry, who have, in many cases, bought land either individually or in corporations, from Turks or Albanians who have emigrated to Anatolia."[31] "Such discontent as exists springs from genuine economic distress," wrote O.C. Harvey of the Foreign Office after a visit to Yugoslav and Greek Macedonia in April 1926: "Although the peasants are said to be doing well, the towns are dying from lack of trade. And wherever else the Serb is spending his money, he does not seem to be spending it in Macedonia. Yet this country is perhaps really the biggest problem for the Serbs." [32] Or, as R.A. Gallop, third secretary in the legation in Belgrade, put it: "What discontent there is comes from economic causes and the Government must seek palliatives. This of course will take time and cost money, but to my mind the key to the Macedonian question is now this: a prosperous Macedonia will be a contented one." [33]

But most reports to London singled out the administration as the root cause for discontent in Macedonia. The new rulers had forced on the Macedonians their own, that is foreign, administrative and legal codes ''without regard to local conditions or requirements." Their manner of administration was considered even worse:[34] it was described as invariably harsh, brutal, arbitrary and totally corrupt. As Colonel Corfe wrote: "One of the Macedonian's chief grievances is against the Greek Gendarmerie and during our tour we saw many examples of the arrogant and unsatisfactory methods of the Gendarmerie, who comandeer from the peasants whatever food they want...One visits few villages where some of the inhabitants are not in Greek prisons, without trial..."[35] DJ. Footman described the Serbian officials in Vardar Macedonia as poorly qualified, underpaid, arbitrary and corrupt. "Officials depend for their promotions and appointment on the service they can render their political party... ," he wrote. "It is therefore only natural for them to make what they can while they are in office. I regard this as the factor which will most militate against improvement in administration."[36] And, after a twelve-day motor tour in the same part of Macedonia, Major W.H. Oxley, the military attaché at Belgrade, reported: To start with they [the Prefects] have practically unlimited power over the local inhabitants and ... I gathered that they must exercise a pretty firm control. Further, we were informed that on the whole they were corrupt and were liable to use their power either to blackmail their flock or to accept bribes from over the frontiers, in order to allow terrorists to pass through their areas...[37]

The Central Department of the Foreign Office admitted all this and more. Its lengthy review of 1930 of the Macedonian question stated: At present Jugoslavia lacks the material out of which to create an efficient and honest civil service. This want is especially felt in the new and "foreign" provinces such as Serb-Macedonia. To make matters worse, the Jugoslav Government,... are compelled to pursue a policy of forcible assimilation, and, in order to "Serbise" the Slavs of Serb-Macedonia, must necessarily tend to disregard those grievances of the local inhabitants which spring from the violation of their local rights and customs.[38]

Although this authoritative statement of the Foreign Office acknowledged the existence and the seriousness of the Macedonian problem, the underlying assumption was that, once the economic and administrative causes for grievance were allayed, it would be finally resolved. But while the Foreign Office endeavored to avoid dealing with the national dimension and implications of the problem until as late as 1930, by the mid-1920s its position was already being questioned and challenged by Foreign Office officials in the Balkans, and was becoming untenable. It was difficult to reconcile the use of three different terms-Slavophone Greeks, Old Serbians and Bulgarians-when referring to a people who called themselves Makedonci and spoke Macedonian or dialects of it.[39] The British could maintain their position only as long as relations between Athens and Belgrade remained friendly; and a crisis in Greek-Yugoslav relations in the mid-1920s provoked a heated debate over the national identity of the Macedonians -Although unwillingly, the Foreign Office was also drawn into this debate and was forced to consider: "Who are the Macedonian Slavs?"

Ironically, the crisis in Greek-Yugoslav relations was sparked by the conclusion of the abortive Greek-Bulgarian Minorities Protocol of 1924, which "connoted the recognition on the part of Greece that the Slavophone inhabitants of Greek Macedonia were of Bulgarian race."[40] This infuriated the Serbs and the Belgrade government broke off its alliance with Greece on 7 November 1924; [41] it also launched a press and a diplomatic campaign that Greece protect the rights of what it called the "Serbian minority" in Aegean Macedonia.[42] The Yugoslav government clamored for a special agreement with Greece similar to the abortive protocol between Bulgaria and Greece. "The object of this move is quite patent," wrote C.H. Bateman of the Foreign Office. "All that the Serbs want is that the Greeks should recognize a Serbian minority in Greek Macedonia in the same way as they recognized a Bulgarian minority in l924."[43] In the end, even though Greece did not sign such an agreement with Yugoslavia, relations between these two countries returned to normal; but the debate concerning the national identity of the Macedonian Slavs that this crisis had instigated in the Foreign Office continued well into the 1930s.

The debate was not entirely new or confined to Britain. The national identity of the Macedonians had sparked continuous and heated controversies before the Balkan Wars and the First World War. However, the debate assumed far greater relevance and urgency after the peace settlement because all democratic governments had embraced the principle of national self-determination. This principle was supposedly the basis for the entire settlement in east central Europe; and it supposedly bound all overnments of the "New Europe" to respect the national rights of those national minorities who for one reason or another could not exercise their right to national self-determination. Hence, to a certain extent the fate of the peace settlement in this part of Europe hinged on this principle and it was thus of particular interest to Great Britain, perhaps its chief architect and defender.

Even before the Greek-Serbian dispute London had received reports that the causes for the revival of the Macedonian problem were not solely economic or administrative, but rather that they were primarily ethnic or national. While noting in its annual report on Bulgaria for 1922, that "the province known as Macedonia has, of course, no integral existence," the Chancery of the British Legation at Sofia had emphasized that as an entity it still existed "in the aspirations of men of Macedonian birth or origin scattered under the sovereignty of Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria." It also had added that Macedonia has "clearly defined geographical boundaries."[44] Colonel Corfe had written in 1923 that the Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia, and incidentally in the other two parts, were fearful of state officials and had nothing to say in their presence:

But in the evenings in their own houses or when we had given the officials the slip, we encouraged them to speak to us. Then we in-variably heard the same story as "Bad administration. They want to force us to become Greeks, in language, in religion, in sentiment, in every way. We have served in the Greek army and we have fought for them: now they insult us by calling us 'damned Bulgars"' ... To my question "What do you want? An autonomous Macedonia or a Macedonia under Bulgaria?" the answer was generally the same: "We want good administration. We are Macedonians, not Greeks or Bulgars...We want to be left in peace."[45]

The Greek-Serbian crisis, however, forced the Foreign Office to concentrate its attention, as never before, on the national identity of the Macedonian Slavs and, indeed, on the question: who are the Macedonians? On 30 June 1925, DJ. Footman, the British vice consul at Skopje, the administrative center of Vardar Macedonia, addressed this issue in a lengthy report for the Foreign Office. He wrote that "the majority of the inhabitants of Southern Serbia are Orthodox Christian Macedonians, ethnologically slightly nearer to the Bulgar than to the Serb.." He acknowledged that the Macedonians were better disposed toward Bulgaria than Serbia because, as he had pointed out: the Macedonians were "ethnologically" more akin to the Bulgarians than to the Serbs; because Bulgarian propaganda in Macedonia in the time of the Turks, largely carried on through the schools, was widespread and effective; and because Macedonians at the time perceived Bulgarian culture and prestige to be higher than those of its neighbors. Moreover, large numbers of Macedonians educated in Bulgarian schools had sought refuge in Bulgaria before and especially after the partitions of 1913. "There is therefore now a large Macedonian element in Bulgaria," continued Footman, "represented in all Government Departments and occupying high positions in the army and in the civil service...." He characterized this element as "Serbophobe, [it] mostly desires the incorporation of Macedonia in Bulgaria, and generally supports the Makedonska Revolucionara [sic] Organizacija [the IMRO]." However, he also pointed to the existence of the tendency to seek an independent Macedonia with Salonica as its capital. "This movement also had adherents among the Macedonian colony in Bulgaria. It is supported by the parties of the Left in Bulgaria, and, at least theoretically, by large numbers of Macedonians."[46]

The Central Department of the Foreign Office went even further in clarifying the separate identity of the Macedonians. In a confidential survey and analysis of the entire Macedonian problem it identified the Macedonians not as Bulgarians, Greeks or Serbs, but rather as Macedonian Slavs, and, on the basis of "a fairly reliable estimate made in 1912," singled them out as by far the largest single ethnic group in Macedonia.[47] It acknowledged, as did Footman, that these Slavs spoke a language "understood by both Serbs and Bulgars, but slightly more akin to the Bulgarian tongue than to the Serbian"; and that after the 1870 establishment of the Exarchate, Bulgarian propaganda made greater inroads in Macedonia than the Serbian or Greek. However, it stressed that "While it is probable that the majority of these Slavs are, or were, pro-Bulgar, it is incorrect to refer to them as other than Macedo-Slavs. To this extent both the Serb claim that they are Southern Serbs and the Bulgarian claim that they are Bulgarians are unjustified."[48]

By declaring that the Macedonian Slavs were neither Bulgarians nor Serbs, the survey acknowledged implicitly that they were different from both and hence that they constituted a separate south Slav element. However, it did not go so far as to recognize them explicitly as a distinct nationality or nation. It sought to explain this omission by maintaining, without convincing evidence, that "while amongst the Slav intellectuals there is violent partisanship, probably the majority of Slavs... do not care to what nationality they belong."[49] The real reason for the omission, however, lay elsewhere. In view of the prevailing acceptance of the principle of national self-determination, the recognition of the Slav Macedonians as a distinct nationality would have legitimized the Macedonian claims for autonomy or at least for national minority rights. This would have connoted the tearing up or at least the revision of the peace treaties and of the frontiers, neither of which was acceptable to Britain's clients, Greece and Yugoslavia, or indeed, to Great Britain itself. "In all the circumstances the present partition of Macedonia is probably as good a practical arrangement as can be devised," declared the Central Department, "and there is no real reason or consideration of political expediency which could be quoted to necessitate a rearrangement of the present frontiers."[50]

Indeed, the Foreign Office was contemplating a different and, as it turned out, an illusory solution to the Macedonian problem. It accepted as valid the official Greek determination of the low number of Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia and assumed that with time they would be assimilated.[51] It also assumed that with time the Yugoslav hold on Vardar Macedonia would become more secure, that this would be followed "as a natural consequence" by the "rounding up of Macedonian agents," and that the Macedonian organization operating from Bulgaria would "suffer correspondingly through the lack of funds and general support forthcoming from that district...." And, as organized Macedonian activity declined, the prospect of more cordiality between Bulgaria and the Serb-Slovene-Croat kingdom will become brighter, and pro tonto, the idea of Serb-Bulgar Slav confederacy will become more feasible. The formation of such a Slav State in the Balkans will settle the Macedonian question once and for all. Other considerations arising out of the formation of such a confederacy must be reserved for the future. [52]

A few months later, on 3 March 1926; C.H. Bateman, a second secretary in the Foreign Office, issued the official position in a separate "Memorandum on 'Serbian Minorities' in Greek Macedonia."

In this strong statement he reiterated the main points of the Central Department's memorandum of 26 November 1925: "Most authorities are agreed that by all ethnological and language tests the Macedonian Slav is more akin to the Bulgar than to the Serb." Again, without substantiation, he declared that the deciding factor in the national allegiance of the Macedonian Slavs "is the national consciousness of the individual who changes his allegiance according to circumstances... His national allegiance is largely a matter of the propaganda which is exercised upon him...,"[53] in effect, under the influence of propaganda, Bulgarian, Greek or Serbian, the Macedonian Slav would become a loyal Bulgarian, Greek or Serb. Bateman therefore sided with the Greeks in the Greek-Serbian dispute: "Taking the broadest interpretation of the Macedonian Slavs, one thing is certain, namely, that the Serbs have only the flimsiest of rights to intervene at all on their behalf. The Greeks are correct in contesting this right and contending that it is a matter that touches the internal administration of Greece."[54] If, as it appears, Bateman's aim was to put an end to the Foreign Office debate concerning the Macedonian national question, he failed. Although the Greek-Serbian dispute came to nothing, this debate intensified. R.A. Gallop, third secretary of the Legation at Belgrade, spent a week in April 1926 in Vardar Macedonia; his report after the tour is most revealing:

The most striking thing to one familiar with North Serbia [Serbia proper], who has been accustomed to hear Macedonia described as Southern Serbia and its inhabitants as Serbs, was the complete difference of atmosphere which was noticeable almost as soon as we had crossed the pre-1913 frontier some miles south of Vranje. One felt as though one had entered a foreign country. Officials and officers from North Serbia seemed to feel this too, and I noticed especially in the cafes and hotels of Skopje that they formed groups by themselves and mixed little with the Macedo-Slavs. Those of the latter that I met were equally insistent on calling themselves neither Serbs nor Bulgars, but Macedonians.... There seemed to be no love lost for the Bulgars in most places. Their brutality during the war had lost them the affection even of those who before the Balkan War had been their friends...[55]

Moreover, in his response to Bateman's memorandum, Gallop defined more clearly than ever before the central issue in the Greek-Serbian dispute. He reminded Bateman that the Serbian claim is founded not on the contention that among the Slavs of Greek Macedonia there are some that can be picked as Serbs, but on the contention that the population is of exactly the same stock on both sides of the border. The Serbs see that to admit that the Macedonians in Greece are Bulgars weakens their case that the Macedonians in South Serbia are Serbs. While he agreed with Bateman "that the Macedonian Slavs used, before the days of propaganda, to call themselves 'Christians' rather than Serbs or Bulgars," Gallop did not agree "that the Macedonian Slavs are nearer akin to the Bulgar than to the Serb." In any case, he questioned the impartiality of so-called "authorities" and emphasized the actual reality that "nowadays" the Macedonian Slavs considered and called themselves "Makedonci." [56]

Oliver C. Harvey of the Foreign Office, who visited both Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, reinforced Gallop's views. Indeed, in his "Notes" on the fact-finding mission he left no doubt about the existence of a distinct Macedonian consciousness and identity. In connection with Vardar Macedonia he reported that "The Slavophone population of Serb Macedonia definitely regard themselves as distinct from the Serbs. If asked their nationality they say they are 'Macedonians,' and they speak the Macedonian dialect. Nor do they identify themselves with the Bulgars, although the latter seem undoubtedly to be regarded as nearer relatives than the Serbs."[57] As far as Aegean Macedonia was concerned, Harvey noted that in its eastern and central part "the Slavophone population had 'voluntarily' emigrated and their place had been taken by 500,000 Greek refugees" from Asia Minor. "'Voluntary' emigration," he observed, "is a euphemism; incoming Greeks were planted on the Slavophone villagers to such an extent that life was made unbearable for them and they were forced to emigrate." Such upheaval did not take place in its western part and large numbers of Slavophones remained there, in the area around and south of Florina (Lerin). "These of course constitute the much advertised "Serb minority," he continued. "But they are no more Serb than the Macedonians of Serbia-they speak Macedonian, and call themselves Macedonians and sentimentally look to Bulgaria rather than to Serbia."[58]

Through this internal debate, the Foreign Office appeared to have reached a virtual consensus that the Macedonian Slavs were neither Serbs, nor Bulgarians nor Greeks, a de facto acknowledgment that they comprised a separate southern Slav national group. But they were not given official recognition as a distinct nationality or nation; as I have already shown, the Foreign Office hoped to see the Macedonian problem disappear by their eventual assimilation into the three nations that ruled over them. In the meantime, during the second half of the 1920s and until its dissolution in 1934, the IMRO intensified its activities in Bulgaria and armed incursions into Vardar Macedonia, thereby reminding London of the Macedonian national question.

Unlike in Greece and Yugoslavia, in Bulgaria the various aspects of the Macedonian problem were generally argued freely and publicly. This was only partly due to the traditional Bulgarian paternalism toward the Macedonians; it also reflected the strength and influence of the organized Macedonian movement in the Pirin region, in Sofia and in other major urban centers. Consequently, British diplomats there were more deeply and broadly versed in all the intricacies of the Macedonian problem than their counterparts in Athens and Belgrade, and they were more apt to search for alternative solutions.

` Early in 1928 Charles ES. Dodd, the charge d'affaires at Sofia, assured the Foreign Office that the IMRO "would at once desist from its sinister activities" "if the Jugoslav Government would grant educational and religious autonomy to Macedonia." To DJ. Footman, whose reaction from Skopje had been sought by the Foreign Office, this read "like pious hope" rather than "a practical proposition." He did not reject the idea in principle; indeed, he even used the terms "nationality" and "national minority" when referring to the Macedonians, and argued that if such autonomy had been introduced immediately after the war "the results would no doubt have been beneficial." Now, however, "it would not suffice to wipe out the bitterness felt against the Serbs"; it would no longer satisfy the entire Macedonian movement. Instead, he warned, Macedonian activists would interpret it "as a confession of failure and a sign of weakness on the part of Serbs, to be exploited to the utmost possible extent." He considered (and the future proved him right) that "the best chance for real progress in Macedonia" was "the removal of the Serb predominance in the Jugoslav state."[59] The Foreign Office dismissed Dodd's suggestion and showed little appreciation of Footman's pessimistic, but rather sensitive and measured analysis of the Macedonian problem in Yugoslavia. "It is quite clear, however," wrote Orme Sargent, a counselor and a future assistant under secretary of state, "that it would be impossible to expect the Jugoslav Government to adopt measures which would recognize the population of Southern Serbia as a political minority." Inasmuch as he had convinced himself that the discontent in Macedonia was "due to economic and administrative conditions rather than psychological or racial issues," he endorsed instead a proposal made by H.W. Kennard, the minister at Belgrade, to grant financial loans to Yugoslavia to improve internal conditions "in Southern Serbia and thus help to lessen the present sullen discontent of the population." Most important, such expenditure, Sargent concluded, would not have the appearance of being extorted from the Jugoslav Government at the point of the Macedonian bayonet, nor would it commit the Jugoslavs in any way to a recognition of the claim of a separate Macedonian nationality. Reforms on these lines could therefore be carried out at any time without loss of face by the Jugoslav Government. [60]

Obviously Sargent was concerned with the sensitivities and interests of the Yugoslav government and not with the demands of the Macedonians and consciously sought to minimize "the psychological and racial issues" as the basis of Macedonian discontent. This did not go unnoticed at the British Legation at Sofia: in a rather blunt and less than diplomatic manner, R.A.C. Sperling, the new minister at Sofia, accused the "Powers," meaning, of course, primarily his own government and that of France, of always unfairly taking the side of Yugoslavia against Bulgaria and the Macedonians. Or as he put it, "Jugoslavia continues flagrantly to violate the provisions of the Minorities Treaty of 1919. The Powers as well as the League of Nations accept any quibble advanced by the Jugoslav Government as a pretext for not raising the question of the Macedonian minority."[61]

The exchange of views provoked by Sperling's "outburst," as O. Sargent called it, is most revealing about the Foreign Office's thinking on the Macedonian national question. Howard Kennard, Sperling's counterpart at Belgrade, was so taken aback by it that he did not wish to comment on it officially. In a letter to 0. Sargent, however, he expressed his "private regrets that Sperling cannot understand that it is not a question of taking sides one way or the other, but of assisting in preserving the peace in the Balkans, which is, after all, our only political raison d'etre here."[62] C.H. Bateman accused Sperling of holding general views "that are not only erroneous but certainly dangerous ...His Majesty's Government has long since decided that what are nebulously called Macedonian aspirations are impossible of realization, and that to give way to Macedonian agitation would be the best way to create upheaval in the Balkans." [63] Sargent felt that Sperling's "outburst" ought not to go unnoticed; but instead of an official reprimand he proposed to send him a private letter.[64] This was approved by R.G. Vansittart, private secretary to the Prime Minister and assistant under secretary of state in the Foreign Office, who added that "the next time this sort of thing happens, he [Sperling] should have it officially."[65] Sargent's lengthy private letter was polite, but direct. He pointed out that Serbia was the signatory "of one minorities treaty," that signed at St. Germain on 20 September 1919. "In your dispatch you make mention of a Macedonian minority. But what is this minority?" he asked. "You will find no mention of it in the Jugoslav Minorities Treaty... He also reiterated the well known view of the Foreign Office that the grievances which "the population of Southern Serbia complain of are common to all and are due to the general low level of administrative ability among the local officials and not to the intentional ill treatment of any particular race, sect or language." Finally, he rejected Sperling's suggestion that some satisfaction of the "Macedonian national aspirations" might lead to a solution of the Macedonian problem. "What are we to understand by such aspirations?" asked Sargent. "If Macedonian autonomy is what is aimed at it can be said at once that it is impossible of realisation." To aim at it would be to play into the hands of Italy and other revisionist elements, and Britain was determined "to stick strenuously to the peace terms."[66]

Sperling was not deterred by the hostile reaction of his superiors. He responded to Sargent with a lengthy letter of his own in which he reduced the Macedonian problem to its bare essentials by asking bluntly two questions: "a, Is there such a thing as a Macedonian minority?" and "b, If there is, is it ill treated by the Serbs?" He then went on to answer them. "Sounds superfluous," he wrote, "but you ask 'What is the Macedonian minority?' I can hardly believe you want me to quote all the authorities from the year one to show you that there is such a thing as a Macedonian." He referred him specifically to the earlier reports by Gallop, Harvey and Footman, and stressed that the Slav inhabitants of Macedonia called themselves neither Serbs nor Bulgarians, but Macedonians. With regard to the second question, Sperling argued that it made no difference to the Macedonians "whether these things were due, as you say, to the general low level of Serbian administrative ability or to the intentional ill treatment of a particular race. ... The fact remains that their charges stand..."[67]

London was not prepared to listen and, indeed, wished to put an end to the expression of views that seemed to run counter to the main tenets of Britain's policies in southeastern Europe. C.H. Bateman suggested to Sargent that "a short reply would be sufficient to point to the confusion of thought which appears to exist at our legation at Sofia on this Macedonian question."[68] Otherwise, his comments, which were drafted by Sargent into a letter to Sperling, reveal a characteristic British slighting of nationalism and national movements among the so-called "small" and "young" peoples in eastern Europe. He argued that just because the Slavs of Macedonia called themselves Macedonians, "there was no reason why We or you should consent to give them a name which coincides with a piece of territory... which has not for a thousand years been an autonomous entity in any sense..."[69] However, he could not come up with another, more acceptable name for them, except perhaps "Macedo-Slavs," which was in effect the same thing.[70]

Such intervention and argumeilts do not seem to have been sufficient to silence the legation at Sofia. At any rate, R.A.C. Sperling left Sofia shortly after,[71] and his successor-, Sidney P.P. Waterlow, held views on the Macedonian problem that were, if anything, even more revisionist. He expressed them most cogently in a long, thoughtful and courteous letter to R.G. Vansittart,[72] who had in the meantime become permanent under secretary of state for foreign affairs. He did not believe, as the Foreign Office did, that the Macedonian problem would simply disappear when the militant revolutionaries had been destroyed in Bulgaria and when Yugoslavia had provided the Macedonians with good administration and a civilized minority regime. Unlike Nevile Henderson, Kennard's successor as minister at Belgrade, he could not see how any amount of good administration, even if it would improve the atmosphere and facilitate the suppression of the IMRO, could be an ultimate solution. He argued that only genuine home rule-freedom to manage local affairs, churches, schools, etc.-could do that, but even here he had doubts. In any case, he seemed convinced that Belgrade was not capable of giving its Macedonian subjects anything like real local autonomy or, at least, not so long as the Macedonians considered themselves Macedonian.

It is this that dictates the present policy of intense Serbification. But it is this that makes it impossible to introduce a genuine minority regime until there is no minority to give the regime to, and it is just this that Bulgaria, with her Macedonian exiles (the most stubborn and intelligent people in the Balkans) and her indigenous Macedonian population, can never wholeheartedly accept ...[73]

Thus, even if the revolutionaries were destroyed and Serbian Macedonia was ruled with "kindly wisdom," the Macedonian question would most likely remain unresolved, an apple of discord, a stumbling block to stability in the Balkans, etc. In Waterlow's search for a solution "that might bring real peace at long last," he seriously considered the idea, which seemed entirely logical to him but at the same time not altogether practical from the perspective of British foreign policy, of an autonomous united Macedonia. "I do not share the view of the department that Macedonia never having been a geographical or racial entity, the idea [an autonomous united Macedonia] is inherently absurd;" he wrote, "that is an exaggeration, inherited, I fancy, from the predominance of Serb views at the Peace Conference." He believed that, united and independent, the Macedonians "might play the part which God seems to have assigned to them in the Balkans, but which man has thwarted-that, namely, of acting as a link between their Serb and Bulgar brothers, instead of being a permanent cause of division." [74] He did not really expect a positive reaction to this idea from the Foreign Office; yet, as he concluded, "one's mind keeps flying back in this direction, as one goes over the problem day after day, only to find Alps upon Alps of hopelessness arise."[75] But when John Balfour at the Foreign Office read Waterlow's report, he did not consider this a logical idea and maintained that Britain "must continue to concentrate [on the peace treaties] in the forlorn hope that they will pierce a Simplon Tunnel through the Alps of despair."[76]

On the basis of this lengthy debate, which involved those in the Foreign Office and service most concerned with the Macedonian question, the Central Department drafted a new, updated memorandum on the Macedonian question in 1929.[77] Parts of the first version were revised shortly thereafter as a result of last minute critical comments and objections voiced by Waterlow.

The final draft of this lengthy and valuable document, dated 2 July 1930, presented the official British interpretation of the history of the Macedonian question since the 1860s, as well as an analysis of the contemporary political problem.[78] It acknowledged once again that the Slav inhabitants of Macedonia, the Macedo-Slavs or Macedonians, were neither Serbs nor Bulgarians, and thus implicitly recognized their separate and distinct identity. It also admitted the existence in Yugoslav Macedonia of "a uniquely dangerous minority problem, which is aggravated by the fact that the Macedonians are the most stubborn and hard-headed people in the Balkans." [79] It was therefore deeply concerned that the League of Nations could be dragged into the Macedonian problem, first of all, because it was a threat to international peace and, secondly and more importantly, because the Yugoslav minorities treaty, concluded at St. Germain in 1919, applied "to all territories acquired by Serbia as a result of the Balkan wars, and the enforcement of which is entrusted to the League Council."[80] Great Britain, however, could not allow the consideration of the Macedonian question in Yugoslavia by the League of Nations, the body that was specifically delegated to deal with and arbitrate national problems, conflicts and grievances, for it would "inevitably involve the airing of the whole Macedonian problem at Geneva and its discussion could hardly fail to precipitate a crisis which the League Council might find it very difficult to control."[81] London feared that League of Nations consideration of the Macedonian problem in Yugoslavia would amount to a de facto recognition of the Macedonian nationality. This would in turn legitimize to a certain extent the Macedonian demands for a united and independent Macedonia, thus challenging the existing status quo in the Balkans. The Memorandum made this quite clear: "Indeed, once the existence of a Macedonian nationality is even allowed to be presumed there is a danger that the entire Peace Settlement will be jeopardized by the calling into question, not merely of the frontiers between Jugoslavia and Bulgaria, but also of those between Jugoslavia and Greece and between Jugoslavia and Albania" [82] It strongly recommended that "this Balkan cancer" be treated "not by drastic surgical excision (e.g. plebiscite resulting in a change of frontiers....)" but rather "by the use of the healing properties of time and by the use of radium treatment of persuasive diplomacy, which while basing itself on the territorial status quo, shall endeavor gradually to eradicate the open sore that has for so long poisoned the relations of the Balkan states."[83]

The analysis and the recommendations of this memorandum remained the official British position on the Macedonian question virtually until the outbreak of World War II.

The Foreign Office interpreted the subsequent "degeneration" of the IMRO of Ivan Mihailov and, after the military coup in Sofia in 1934, the decline and cessation of its terrorist activities, as signs of the gradual eradication of "this Balkan cancer." In actual fact, this view represented a serious misreading, indeed, a rather crude misunderstanding of the transformation of Macedonian nationalism at the time. The IMRO, which had been divided between a right and a left wing from its very inception, finally split in 1924-1925. The left formed its own separate organization, the IMRO (United) and joined the Balkan Communist Federation and the Comintern. Unlike the right, it had a clearly defined social, economic and particularly national program; unlike the terrorist campaign of the right, it enhanced the cause of both nationalism and communism in Macedonia through underground work. By the early 1930s it had attracted a large following and was challenging Mihailov's IMRO for leadership. Waterlow informed the Foreign Office of the split and the growing strength of the left in his report on the proceedings of the Tenth Congress of the Macedonian Brotherhoods in Bulgaria, the legal organization of Mihailov's IMRO, held in Sofia on 24-27january 1932.

The opposite view [the left], which has lately grown within the movement, which was suppressed at the congress, but which was clearly set out in the communist press, is that Mihailoff has forsaken the ideal of the Macedonian movement, that he does not fight for the liberation of Macedonia and that he has become the tool of the Fascist regime in Bulgaria, which uses the Macedonian organization for the sole purpose of maintaining its dictatorship ...

The Macedonian movement should again become national and independent, it should throw off the tutelage of the Bulgarian Government, which supports it only for its own ends, and it should fight for a genuinely independent Macedonia as part of a Balkan Federation under Soviet protection.[84]

The growth of the left undermined the support of the IMRO of Mihailov and forced the latter, for reasons of self-preservation, to free itself from the tutelage of the Bulgarian government and to identify itself with a Macedonian national program clearly calling for "the unification of Macedonian territories held by Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria, into an independent political entity within its natural geographical frontiers."[85] But it is safe to assume that this reorientation of the IMRO contributed to its suppression in 1934: by the second half of the 1930s most Bulgarians had become convinced "that the Macedonians have been more trouble in Bulgaria than they were worth and merely gave the country a bad name abroad without helping the national [Bulgarian] cause...."[86]

IMRO's suppression, in turn, helped to enhance the role of the Macedonian left, whose nationalist activities had previously been hampered by the IMRO and whose many activists had fallen victims of the mihailovist terror. As Bentinck, the new minister at Sofia, pointed out:

Since the coup d'etat last year, however, the Macedonian communists became much more active, especially in Sofia and Bulgarian Macedonia. I am told the intention was to detach the three portions of Macedonia belonging to Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, and to unite them into a Soviet Republic - - - At the same time the communist parties in Bulgaria, Jugoslavia and Greece were ordered by Moscow to support the Macedonian communists...[87]

Thus, contrary to the hopes and expectations of the Foreign Office, neither the dissolution of the terrorist IMRO nor "the healing properties of time" resolved the Macedonian problem or caused it to disappear. Macedonian nationalism was forced underground and into the embrace of international communism, where it continued to grow. As Simeon Radev, a prominent Bulgarophile Macedonian and a well known retired Bulgarian diplomat, pointed out to Waterlow, "no solution of the [Macedonian] problem could be expected by the mere aflux of time. There was no prospect whatever of the population acquiescing in the policy of Serbianisation pursued by Belgrade...." He also emphasized "that the Macedonian sense of nationality was not a sense of Bulgarian nationality. It took the shape, especially with the younger generation, of an aspiration for autonomy." [88] On a private visit to Istanbul in September 1933, E. Venizelos, the great Greek statesman, expressed similar sentiments to Sir George Clerk, the British ambassador: Venizelos had always counselled that the Jugoslav Government should make a serious effort to content the Slav Macedonian minority... M. Venizelos maintained that these people, of which Greece has a small share...., are not pure Bulgarians, but something between Bulgarian and Serbian, and he had, he said, always been ready to give them Slav Macedonian schools and other reasonable privileges.[89]

Furthermore, as Radev had also argued, a driving force behind the Macedonian movement at this time was the fundamental belief that anything, however improbable, might occur in a world of flux. And central to this belief was "a desire for a union of all Macedonians in an autonomous state..." [90] As the outbreak of the Second World War approached the growing challenges to the status quo in Europe intensified this belief and desire in the second half of the 1930s.[91] In addition to the USSR or, rather, the communist movement, which already enjoyed widespread support among the Macedonians, by the end of the decade both Germany and Italy actively advocated schemes for "the liberation of Macedonia" with which "they are trying to attract Macedonians ..."[92]

While the Foreign Office either minimized or was ignorant of the strength of Macedonian nationalism on the left, it was not ready to overlook the spread of German and Italian influence in the area. And it was this more than anything else, that brought about a renewed British interest in the Macedonians and the beginning of a British reappraisal of the Macedonian national problem. After the fall of France in summer 1940, G.W. Rendel, the minister at Sofia, warned of the increased Soviet, German and Italian activities in Macedonia and concluded that "Presumably' however the Macedonians would accept any 'autonomous' Macedonian state which a great power succeeds in establishing."[93] He analyzed the aims of the Macedonians in greater detail in a private letter to P.B.B. Nichols of the Foreign Office written ten days later:

My impression is that there is now a fairly large section of the Macedonians who look to Russia for their salvation. ... I think the pro -Russian groups probably hope for the eventual creation of an autonomous Macedonian Soviet Republic as one of a chain of South Slav Soviet states running from the Black Sea to the Adriatic and to the German and Italian frontiers. On the other hand, there are certainly a number of Macedonians who are short sighted enough to be ready to intrigue with Germany and Italy...The Macedonians are notoriously difficult, and have many of the characteristics of the Irish, and my impression is that they are happiest in opposition to any existing regime...[94]

Early in 1941 the vice consul at Skopje provided the Foreign Office with an even more extensive and perceptive analysis of the current state of the Macedonian problem. He claimed that the vast majority of the Macedonians belonged to the national movement; indeed, he estimated "that 90 percent of all Slav Macedonians were autonomists in one sense or another...." Because the movement was wrapped in secrecy, however, it was extremely difficult to gauge the relative strength of its various currents, except that it could be assumed that IMRO had lost ground since it was banned in Bulgaria and its leaders exiled. While the vice consul acknowledged the close relationship between communism and "autonomism" or nationalism in Macedonia, he downplayed the frequently expressed contention that the communists used the Macedonian movement for their own ends.

Instead, he argued that since virtually every Macedonian was an autonomist, it was almost certain "that the Communists and autonomists are the same people..."; and, in any case, that Macedonian communists were not doctrinaire and were "regarded by other Balkan communists as weaker brethren...." "My own opinion," wrote Thomas, "is that they are autonomists in the first place and Communists only in the second."[95] He concluded his lengthy report by stressing what by then should have been obvious: the Macedonian problem was "a real one" and "an acute one" and that it "has in no way been artificially created by interested propaganda." He considered change unavoidable and felt that it was "in the interest of Jugoslavia to satisfy the aspirations of Macedonia."

He was equally convinced, however, that it was highly improbable, "in view of the instinctive dislike of the Serbs engendered by twenty years of Serbian rule, that anything short of autonomy would be acceptable.'' [96]

Rendel's and Thomas's appraisals of the Macedonian situation were not radically different from many produced by their predecessors stationed in the Balkans. However, with the world once more at war, the Foreign Office now accorded them more serious consideration and appeared, although grudgingly, to accept them. It seemed to accept the fact that Britain's hitherto refusal to officially recognize the existence of a Macedonian nationality, a policy that it had shaped and defended for over twenty years, might no longer prove tenable and most likely would not survive the war. In a highly revealing, indeed almost prophetic, comment on Thomas's report, Reginald J. Bowker of the Foreign Office conceded this when he wrote: "To the layman the only possible solution of the Macedonian problem would seem to be in giving the Macedonians some sort of autonomy within Jugoslavia. Possibly after the war the Jugoslavs may be willing to consider this. But such a measure would, no doubt, incur the risk of whetting the appetite of the Macedonians for complete independence."[97]

The lack of official recognition or legitimacy internationally and in the three Balkan states obviously had hindered the normal and natural development of Macedonian identity. However, it could not destroy it. Macedonianism in its various manifestations-particularism, patriotism, nationalism-was too deeply entrenched among the Macedonian people and among the small, but vibrant and dynamic intelligentsia, especially on the political left. During World War II, which began for the Balkans in late 1940 and early 1941, Macedonians in all three parts of their divided land joined resistance movements in large numbers and fought for national unification and liberation.[98] They did not achieve national unification; however, the Macedonians in Vardar or Yugoslav Macedonia won not only national recognition but also legal equality with the other nations of the new, communistled, federal Yugoslavia.

Notes

1. For a discussion of the significance of international recognition or legitimacy in the development of Balkan nationalisms, see especially John Breuilly, Nationalism and the State (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1982), 103-11, 115-16 and 373; and Alan Warwick Palmer, The Lands Between: A History of East-Central Europe since the Congress of Vienna (London: Macmillan, 1970), 28-29.

2. See especially Blaze Ristovski, Makedonskiot narod i makedonskata nacija (Skopje: Misla, 1983), 1: 75-86, 163-87, 263-80. Ristovski is the leading authority on Macedonian national thought and development. His two volumes contain previously published studies on the subject. See also the following works published recently in the west: Fikret Adanir, Die Makedonische Frage. Ihre Entstchung und Entwicklung bis 1908 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1979); Marco Dogo, Lingua e Nazionalita' in Macedonia: Vicende e pensieri di profeti disarmati, 1902-1903 (Milan: Jaca Book, 1985); Jutta de Jong, Die nationale Kern des makedonisehen Problems: Ansatze und Grundlagen einer makedonischen Nationalbeweguag (1890-1903) (Frankfurt: Lang, 1982); Andrew Rossos, "Macedonianism and Macedonian Nationalism on the Left" to be published in Ivo Banac and Katherine Verderv. eds.. Nationa1 Character and National Ideology in Interwar Eastern Europe.

3. The literature on the struggles in Macedonia is vast but rather uneven and polemical in nature. A good documentary survey in English of the activities of the neighboring Balkan states in Macedonia is to be found in George P. Gooch and Harold Temperley. eds., British Documents on the Origins of the War, 1898-1914 (London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1926-1938), 5: 100-23. Among the more useful works in western languages are Duncan M. Perry, The Politics of Terror: The Macedonian Revolutionary Movements, 1893-1903 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1988); Henry N. Brailsford, Macedonia: Its Races and Their Future (1906, reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1980); Elizabeth Barker, Macedonia: Its Place in Balkan Power Politics (1950, reprint, Westport: Greenwood Press, 1980); Jacques Ancel, La Macedoine (Paris, 1930); Gustav Weigand, Ethnographie von Makedonien (Leipzig, 1924). For a representative sampling of the divergent points of view, see Jovan M. Jovanovic. Juzna Srbija od kraja XVIII veka do oslobodjenja (Belgrade. 1941) (Serbian); G. Bazhdarov, Makedonskjat vapros vchera i dnes, (Sofia, 1925) (Bulgarian); Georgios Modes, 0 makedonikos agon kai i neoteri makedoniki istoria (Salonica: Etaireia Makedonikon Spoudon. 1967) (Greek). Macedonan historians have turned their attention to this problem more recently. See Kliment Dzambazovski, Kulturno-opstestvenite vrski na Makedoncite so Srbija vo tekot na XIX vek (Skopje: Institut za nacionalna istorija (Ini), 1960); Risto Poplazarov, Grckata politka sprema Makedonija vo vtorata polovina na XIX i pocetokot na XX vek (Skopje: Ini, 1973); Slavko Dimevski, Makedonskoto nacionalno osloboditelno dvizenie i egzarhijata (1893-1912) (Skopje: Kultura, 1963); Krste Bitoski, Makedonija i Knezevstvo Bugarija (1893-1903) (Skopje: Ini, 1977). On the partition of Macedonia, see Andrew Rossos, Russia and the Balkans: Inter-Balkan Rivalries and Russian Foreign Policy. 1908-1914 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981); Petar Stojanov, Makedonija vo vremeto na balkanskite i prvata svetska vojna (1912-1918) (Skopje: Ini, 1969).

4. Blaze Ristovski, Portreti i procesi od makedonskata literaturna i nacionalna istorija (Skopje: Kultura, 1990), 3: 34.

5. Ristovski, op cit. and 2: 24-72; and my forthcoming study "Macedonianism and Macedonian Nationalism on the Left."

6. The Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian claims were extensively publicized. For a representative sampling of the divergent points of view, see Tihomir R. Georgevich, Macedonia (London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1918) (Serbian); Iordan Ivanov, La question macedoine (Paris, 1920) (Bulgarian); Cleanthes Nicolaides, La Macedoine (Berlin, 1899) (Greek). See also the works cited in note 3.

7. See (London) Public Record Office, FO371/10667, Central Department, Memorandum, "The Macedonian Question and Komitaji Activity," 26 November 1925, 3-4. (All Foreign Office documents cited hereafter are found in the Public Record Office). See also Hristo Andonov-Poljanski, Velika Britania i makedonskoto prasnje na pariskata mirovna konferencija vo 19l9godina (Skopje: Arhiv na Makedonija, 1973); Ivan Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje. Makedonskoto nacionalno prasanje megju dvete svetski vojni (1919-1930) (Skopje: Kultura, 1977), 1: chap. 1. Katardziev provides the most comprehensive, valuable and interesting treatment of the Macedonian national question in the 1920s.

8. FO371/14316, A. Henderson (Belgrade) to N. Henderson, 9 May 1930, Enclosure 2, "Memorandum by Vice-Consul Blakeney."

9. FO371/29785, Campbell (Belgrade) to Halifax, 6 January 1941. On developments in Vardar Macedonia during the interwar years, see also Katardziev, op.cit., 1: 23-85; Institut za nacionalna istorija, Istorija na makedonskiot narod (Skopje, 1969), 3: part 11; Aleksandar Apostolov, Kolonizacijata na Makedonija vo stara Jugoslavija (Skopje: Kultura, 1966), and "Specificnata polozba na makedonskiot narod vo kralstvoto Jugoslavija," Glasnik (Skopje) 16, no.1(1972): 39-62.

10. FO 371/8566, Bentinck (Athens) to Curzon, 20 August 1923, Enclosure, Colonel A.C. Corfe, "Notes on a Tour Made by the Commission on Greco-Bulgarian Emigration in Western and Central Macedonia," 5. By "Bulgars," Lambros meant Macedonians.

11. On the situation of the Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia, see Andrew Rossos, The Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia: A British Officer's Report, 1944," The Slavonic and East European Review (London) 69, no.2 (April 1991): 282-88. See also Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje, 1: 85-106; Istorija na makedonskiot narod, 3: part 13; Stojan Kiselinovski, Grckata kolonizacija vo Egeiska Makedonija (1913-1940) (Skopje: Ini, 1981); Lazo Mojsov, Okolu prasanjeto na makedonskoto nacionalno malcinstovo vo Grcija (Skopje: Ini, 1954), 207-87; Giorgi Abadziev, et al., Egejska Makedonija vo nasata nacionalna istorija (Skopje, 1951).

12. Rossos, "Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia," 293-94. Captain P.H. Evans' "Report on the Free Macedonia Movement in Area Florina 1944" is given verbatim, 291-309.

13. FO371/12856, Kennard (Belgrade) to Sargent, 16 February 1928

14. FO371/8568, 22. A few years later, O. Sargent, a counselor in the Foreign Office, complained that "the Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation... defies openly the Bulgarian Government and practically administers and governs part of the Bulgarian territory" (FO371/12856, Sargent [London] to Sperling, 1 October 1928).

15. On Pirin Macedonia as well as the Macedonians in Bulgaria, see Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje, 1: 107-19; Istorija na makedonskiot narod, 3: part 12; Dimitar Mitrev, Pirinska Makedonija (Skopje: Nasa Kniga 1970), 126-202.

16. See Stefan Troebst, Mussolini, Makedonien und die Machte, 1922-1930: Die "Innere Makeodnische Revolutionare Organisation" in der Sudosteuropapolitik der faschistischen Italien (Cologne: Bohlau, 1987); and Barker, Macedonia, chap. 2; Leften S. Stavrianos, Balkan Federation: A History of the Movement Toward Balkan Unity in Modern Times (1944, reprint, Hamden: Archon Books, 1964), chaps. 8 and 9.

17. FO371/8568, p.22.

18. FO371/7375, Erskine (Sofia) to Curzon, 25 January 1922. Harold Nicolson commented: "There is less disparity between the Irish and Macedonian temperament than might be supposed" (Minute, 1 February 1922).

19. Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje, 1: part 2, chap. 1.

20. Kiselinovski, Grckata kolonizacija, chap. 4.

21. Katardziev, op.cit.; Dino Kiosev, Istoria na makedonskoto natsionalno revoliutsionerno dvizhenie (Sofia: Otechestven front 1954) 493-99

22. Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje, 1:171-83 and part 2, chap. 2; Kiosev, ibid., 512- 28. On the activities of the IMRO in all three parts of Macedonia, see also the memoirs of its leader after 1924: Ivan Mikhailov, Spomeni, 4 vols. (Selci, Louvain, Indianapolis, 1952, 1965, 1967, 1973).

23. Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje, 1: 375-76; Istorija na makedonshiot narod, 3: 20-23, 176-78; Evangelos Kofos, Nationalism and Communism in Macedonia (Salonica: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1964), 69; Dimitrios G. Kousoulas, Revolution and Defeat: The Story of the Communist Party of Greece (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), 65.

24. FO371/7377, Erskine (Sofia) to Curzon, 20 March 1922.

25. FO371/6197, Peel (Sofia) to Curzon, 10 February 1921.

26. See FO371/8568.

27. On communism and Macedonian nationalism, see Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje, 1: part 3, chaps. 1-4, 2: part 5, and ed., Predavnicite na makedonskoto delo (Skopje: Kultura, 1983), 5-56; Stojan Kiselinovski, KPG i makedonskoto nacionalno prasanje, 1918-1940 (Skopje: Misla, 1985), chaps. 2-4; Kiril Miljovski, Makedonskoto prasanje vo nacionalnata programa na KPJ (1919-1937) (Skopje: Kultura, 1962), 24-140; Dimitar Mitrev, BKP i Pirinska Makedonija (Skopje: Kultura, 1960), 42-59; Kofos, op.cit., chap. 4; Darinka Pacemska, Vnatresnata makedonska revolucionerna organizacija (Obedineta) (Skopje: "Studentski zbor," 1985). I have dealt with the subject in "Macedonianism and Macedonian Nationalism on the Left" to be published in Ivo Banac and Katherine Verdery, eds., Nationa1 Character and National Ideology in Interwar Eastern Europe.

28. FO371/10667, Central Department, Memorandum, "The Macedonian Question and Komitaji Activity," 26 November 1925, 4.

29. FO371/10793, Kennard (Belgrade) to A. Chamberlain, 6July 1925, Enclosure, Footman (Skopje) to Kennard, 30 June 1925, 5. John David Footman was a fellow of St. Antony's College, Oxford (1953-1963) and author of several books on modern Russian history.

30. See especially ibid., 14 and FO371/8568, 3 and FO371/10667, 6.

31. FO371/11405, Kennard (Belgrade) to A. Chamberlain, 21 April 1926; Enclosure R.A. Gallon. "Conditions in Macedonia," 19 April 1926, 4.

32. F0371111245, O. Ch. Harvey, "Notes on a Visit to Jugoslavia and Greece," April 1926, 6 May 1926, 3.

33. FO371/11405, 5.

34. FO371/10793, 6.

35. FO371/8566, 3.

36. FO371/10793, 6.

37. FO371/14316, N. Henderson (Belgrade) to A. Henderson, 13 May 1930, En-closures.

38. FO371/14317, Central Department, Memorandum, "The Origins of the Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation and Its History Since the Great War," 1 July 1930, 12.

39. See FO371/11337, Kennard (Belgrade) to H. Smith, Enclosure, R.A. Gallop "Notes," 23 April 1926.

40. FO371/11337, C.H. Bateman, "Memorandum on "Serbian Minorities in Greek Macedonia," 3 March 1926, 2.

41. Ibid.

42. See FO371/10793 and FO371/11337.

43. FO371/11337.

44. See FO371/8568.

45. FO371/8566.

46. FO371/10793. Footman dismissed the Serbian claims to a "Serbian minority" in Aegean Macedonia and pointed to two other factors as the real causes of the Greek- -Serbian dispute: "a) Politically, the Serb displeasure at Slav inhabitants of Greek Macedonia being recognized as Bulgars; and b) Economically, the loss suffered by Serbian Macedonia and the Kingdom as a whole by being separated by a frontier from Salonica" (6).

47. FO371/10667, Central Department, Memorandum, "The Macedonian Question and Komitaji Activity," 26 November 1925. It gave the following figures: Macedonian Slavs 1,150,000; Turks 400,000; Greeks 300,000; Vlachs 200,000; Albanians 120,000;Jews 100,000; Gypsies 10,000 (2).

48. Ibid., 4.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid., 1, 4; See also Rossos, "Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia," 284-85, 290, 293-94.

52. Ibid., 7.

53. FO371/11337,1

54. Ibid., 4.

55. FO371/11405, Kennard (Belgrade) to A. Chamberlain, 21 April 1926, Enclosure, R.A. Gallop, "Conditions in Macedonia," 19 April 1926,1.

56. "I should like to know the names of any authorities who are impartial," wrote Gallop. "Certainly none of the Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, British or German ever are!" (FO371/11337, Enclosure, 23 April 1926).

57. FO371/11245, 2.

58. Ibid., p.3.

59. Footman argued that "such local autonomy would have greater chance of success were it to be introduced by some future government in which Croats and Slovenes held the preponderating position. There is throughout Macedonia a sullen bitterness against the Serbs..." (FO371/12856, Footman [Skopje] to Kennard, 4 February 1928 in Kennard [Belgrade] to Chamberlain, 18 February 1928).

60. Ibid., Kennard (Belgrade) to Sargent, 16 February 1928, Minute, 24 February 1928; see also Sargent (London) to Kennard, 20 February 1928.

61. Ibid., Sperling (Sofia) to Cushendun, 13 September 1928.

62. Ibid., Kennard (Belgrade) to Sargent, 20 September 1928.

63. Ibid., C.H. Bateman, Minute, 20 September 1928.

64. Ibid., 0. Sargent, Minute, 28 September 1928.

65. Ibid., R.G. Vansittart, Minute, 29 September 1928. Robert Gilbert Vansittart was knighted in 1929 and created a baron in 1941

66. Ibid., Sargent (London) to Sperling, 10 October 1928

67. Ibid., Sperling (Sofia) to Sargent, 10 October 1928.

68. Ibid., C.H. Bateman, Minute, 18 October 1928.

69. Ibid., Sargent (London) to Sperling, 22 October 1928

70. "The fact was of course that the framers of the Minorities Treaty hesitated to mention them under any specific name," wrote Bateman. "The most they could be called is Macedo-Slavs" (ibid., C.H. Bateman, Minute, 18 October 1928).

71. Great Britain, Foreign Office, The Foreign Office List and Diplomatic and Consular Year Book for 1935 (London, 1935), 416.

72. FO371/14316, Waterlow (Sofia) to Vansittart, 21 May 1930.

73. Ibid., 7.

74. Ibid., 8-9.

75. Ibid., 9.

76. Ibid., J. Balfour, Minute, 2 June 1930.

77. FO371/13573, Central Department, Memorandum, "The Macedonian Question and Komitaji Activity," 6 December 1929, 9 pp.

78. FO371/14317, Central Department, Memorandum, "The Origins of the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and Its History Since the Great War," 1 July 1930,16 pp.

79. Ibid., 9.

80. Ibid., 14.

81. Ibid., 15.

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid., 16.

84. FO371/57473, Waterlow (Sofia) to Simon, 5 February 1932. According to the assistant to the Bishop of Nevrokop, one of the major centers of Pirin Macedonia, "The Revolutionary Organization itself was split by a growing Communist current, ... aiming at the liberation of Macedonia by the bolshevisation of the Balkans, while the local population was in its turn divided, about half being for the organization and half against, and the hostile half being largely Communist in feeling (FO371/15896, Waterlow [Sofia] to Simon, 22 June 1932; see also FO371/19486, Bentinck [Sofia] to Hoare, 16 September 1935 and 26 September 1935). On the left of the Macedonian movement see also the works cited in note 27.

85. FO371/16650, Waterlow (Sofia) to Simon, 27 February 1933.

86. FO371/24880, Rendel (Sofia) to Nichols, 25 August 1940.

87. FO371/19486. Bentinck (Sofia) to Hoare, 26 September 1935.

88. FO371/16651, Waterlow (Sofia) to Simon, 21 July 1933.

89. FO371/16775, Clerk (Constaninople) to Simon, ^ October 1933.

90. FO371/16651

91. On the aims of Macedonian nationalism on the left in the 1930s, see Biblioteka "Makedonsko zname," no.1, Ideite i zadachite na Makedonskoto progresivno dvizenje v Bulgaria (Sofia, 1933); Ristovski, Makedonskiot narod i Makedonskata Nacija, 2: 481-560; and my forthcoming study "Macedonianism and Macedonian Nationalism on the Left."

92. FO371/24880, Rendel (Sofia)to F.O., 15 August 1940.

93. Ibid.

94. FO371/24880, Rendel (Sofia) to Nichols, 25 August 1940. George L. Clutton of the Foreign Office described the Macedonians as "discontented peasants who are anti-Jugoslav, anti-Greek, anti-Bulgarian, anti-German, and anti everything except possibly anti-Russian" (FO371/24880, Campbell [Belgrade] to F.O., 4 September 1940, G.L. Clutton, Minute, 10 September 1940).

95. FO371/29785, Campbell (Belgrade) to Halifax, 6 January 1941, Enclosure, "Report on the General Situation in Southern Serbia by Mr. Thomas, British Vice-Consul at Skoplje."

96. Ibid..

97. Ibid., Reginald J. Bowker, Minute, l6 January 1941.

98. On the aims of Macedonian nationalism during the Second World War, see the informative and illuminating discussions by Kiril Miljovski, "Motivite na revolucijata 1941-1944 godina vo Makedonija," Istorija (Skopje) 10, no.1 (1974): 19ff; and by Cvetko Uzunovski, "Vostanieto vo 1941 vo Makedonija," Istorija, 10, no.2 (1974): 103 if.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:38

After the second Macedonian-Roman war, Philip V’s influence and movements in Europe were restricted to Macedonia proper. Rome, still fearing Macedonia’s wrath, made Philip an ally ignoring Aetolian demands for his removal from the Macedonian throne. Control of strategic military points such as Demetrias, Acrocorinth and Chalcis (the Fetters) was taken over by Roman garrisons. The Aetolian and Achaean leagues, expecting to be liberated, exchanged one tyrant for another and now found themselves under Roman control. Before they were complaining about the Macedonians taking their freedom, now they were complaining about the Romans, who not only took their freedom, but also robbed them of their material possessions.

Soon after Philip’s defeat world attention was beginning to focus on Antiochus III who, at the time, was aggressively campaigning in Asia Minor. First to react to Antiochus’s activities was Eumenes II, king of Pergamon. Eumenes was Attalus I’s son and successor to the kingdom of Pergamon. Eumenes had much to complain about since his kingdom had suffered the most at the hands of the ambitious Antiochus.

Fed up with Antiochus’s aggression, Eumenes turned his attention to Rome and found many Roman ears willing to listen to his complaints. Antiochus, on the other hand, made attempts to appease Eumenes by offering him the marriage of his daughter, but Eumenes refused.

Eumenes was hard at work portraying Antiochus as an ambitious imperialist, dangerous not only to his kingdom but also to Rome. He even encouraged and coached other cities in Asia Minor to also go to Rome and complain. His unrelenting complaining finally paid off in 196 BC when Flamininus, through an envoy, sent word to Antiochus to leave the autonomous cities in Asia Minor alone, stay out of Europe and return Ptolemy’s towns, taken by force.

Like Philip V, Antiochus III was not afraid of Roman threats and told Flamininus that Rome had no authority to speak for the cities in Asia Minor. Furthermore, Antiochus reiterated his claim to Asia Minor by right of prior conquest and possession. He told the Romans that he was simply recovering his ancestral domains. As for Ptolemy’s towns, Antiochus made reference to a forthcoming treaty with Ptolemy V.

Being unable to persuade Antiochus by any other means, Rome offered to act as arbitrator between him and the complainants. That offer was also snubbed and the Romans broke off the talks and left.

By the winter of 195 BC, the Roman Senators were getting nervous again. They learned that the exiled Hannibal of Carthage had found asylum with the Seleucids at Ephesus and was urging Antiochus to invade Italy. The Senators feared that Antiochus was planning to invade Europe. To safeguard against such an invasion Scipio Africanus, a leading Roman, along with a group of Senators recommended to the Senate that it approve the re-enforcement of the garrisons in Aetolia and Achaea. The Senate, however, voted against the request and in 194 BC evacuated the entire Roman force, including the garrison at Acrocoring.

The fact that Flamininus did not organize any sort of federal defense league among the Aetolians, Achaeans and Spartans and did not arrange for any Roman liaison to oversee the transition suggests that Antiochus was given an easy target for invasion. Was this cleverly done to divert his attention away from Italy? It would appear so. Even Philip was encouraged to go after the Aetolians to recover some of the lands he had lost earlier, perhaps to bait Antiochus?

It has been said that to adorn his triumph, when he left for Rome Flamininus took with him many pieces of art and treasures that he had looted from the Aetolians. He also took one of Philip’s sons, Demetrius, as his hostage.

The Aetolians, unhappy with the Roman experience, celebrated the Roman evacuation. Fully aware, however, that the Romans would soon return they went in search of new allies. The most obvious ones besides the Spartans were the Macedonians, Philip and Antiochus. Philip flatly refused the Aetolian offer, remembering that not too long ago they were calling for his removal from the throne. The Spartans, on the other hand, were quick to accept and immediately launched an attack on the newly autonomous cities in Laconia. No sooner had the aggressions begun than the Romans intervened and drove the Spartans back. Sparta itself was spared, as the Romans needed the Spartans to keep the balance of power in the Peloponnese.

After the Spartan de*acle the Aetolians turned to Antiochus. Antiochus unfortunately had mixed feelings about getting involved in someone else’s mess. On one hand he was encouraged by Hannibal to attack Italy and on the other he was openly invited to invade the Peloponnese. Facing a dilemma, Antiochus decided to secure his position with Rome first. In 193 BC he made another attempt at negotiations with Flamininus in Rome. Flamininus, acting on behalf of the Senate, made Antiochus an offer he could not refuse. In exchange for abandoning his claims in Thrace and allowing Rome to act as diplomatic arbiter in Europe, Rome was prepared to give Antiochus a free hand in Asia Minor. He was however warned that, should he refuse the offer, Rome would continue to pursue alliances in Asia.

Antiochus’s heart was set on recovering all of his ancestral claims and decided to hold out for Thrace, thus breaking off the negotiations. Antiochus did not want to antagonize the Romans so he took his time deciding what to do.

During the fall of 192 BC, Antiochus accepted the Aetolian invitation and prepared to invade the Peloponnese. He crossed the Aegean Sea and landed in the port of Demetrias (present day Volos). In the meantime, the Aetolians attacked and began to loot Sparta, which immediately drew in the Achaean league. The Achaeans drove the Aetolians out of Sparta and encouraged the Spartans to join their league, which they did. As the Achaeans grew in strength, they drew in more and more Aetolian allies. By the fall if 191 BC almost everyone had defected from the Aetolians and the Peloponnese was in Achaean hands.

By the time Antiochus was ready to make his move, the Aetolians had no allies to support him. It was now too late for him to turn back so, with no more than ten thousand men and only six elephants at his disposal, he invaded Chalcis. To strengthen his position he married a Chalcidian bride and re-named her Euboea to impress the Euboeans.

Antiochus’s actions were viewed with suspicion not only in Rome but in Macedonia as well. His presence in Europe was a threat to both Macedonia and Rome so a combined Macedonian-Roman force was assembled and dispatched to drive him out. The armies met at Thermopylae and Antiochus’s forces were defeated. The Romans, however, were not content with just driving him out of the Peloponnese. They wanted him out of the Hellespont as well.

After forgiving the Aetolians their deeds, the Romans went off in pursuit of Antiochus. This was the first time ever that a Roman force crossed into Asia, a sign of things to come.

Before venturing into Asia, the Romans shored up alliances with Rhodes and Pergamon and set up a naval base in Tenos.

Displeased with its shift in loyalties, Antiochus, with his Galatian mercenaries, attacked and besieged Pergamon. The threat of a combined Roman-Rhodian navy at his doorstep, however, was cause enough to re-consider and he decided to pursue a peaceful settlement instead. A peaceful settlement would have been just fine for the Romans and the Rhodians but, unfortunately, the Pergamenes wanted revenge. Eumenes insisted on exacting his revenge.

With help from the Achaeans, the siege of Pergamon was lifted and the Roman-Rhodian fleet attacked and destroyed Antiochus’s naval bases. Antiochus, determined to maintain influence in the waters, rebuilt his fleet and was ready for action again. He even inducted Hannibal in his navy and gave him command of one of his squadrons, but was again beaten.

If losing at sea was not enough, Antiochus was now facing threats on land. News came that Roman legions were crossing the Hellespont and invading Asia Minor. Lucius Scipio and his brother Scipio Africanus led the Roman legions. The Scipios were aided by Philip who allowed them passage through Macedonia in exchange for canceling his war indemnity and returning his son Demetrius, who was earlier taken to Rome as hostage.

Antiochus had a formidable army of seventy-five thousand while the Roman force numbered no more than thirty thousand. The Seleucid soldiers, however, were not Macedonians and Antiochus was well aware of the fighting potential of the Roman legions. So instead of offering battle, Antiochus invited the Scipios to negotiate peace. To avoid war, he offered to pay Rome a partial war indemnity and return most of the towns he occupied in Europe and Asia Minor. The Scipios, however, rejected his offer and made him a counter offer demanding that he completely evacuate Asia Minor to the Taurus Range and pay full indemnity for the campaign. Of course this enraged Antiochus who politely turned down the Roman offer and, like Philip before him, decided it was better to fight than surrender.

In late 190 BC, at Magnesia-by-Sipylos, near the confluence of the Phrygios and Hermos Rivers, Antiochus, like many of his Macedonian predecessors, staked everything on a single battle. A massive cavalry charge was led by his right wing smashing the enemy line to pieces. Unfortunately, the cavalry failed to disengage their pursuit in time to return to the battleground. The phalanx fought hard and stood its ground but, in spite of all efforts, without cavalry support at its flanks, it broke up and the Romans hacked it to pieces. It has been said that this was the bloodiest slaughter since the Roman defeat at Cannae. Antiochus III, the greatest conqueror since Alexander the Great, was unable to stop the Romans. The battle of Magnesia not only brought Rome victory and new alliances but it also opened up new opportunities for Roman conquest in the east. Soon after the battle was over, the Scipios marched eastward into Sardis and occupied it without a fight

Antiochus’s penalty for losing to the Romans was a war indemnity of fifteen thousand talents, the highest fine ever recorded. Antiochus was expected to pay five hundred talents immediately then twenty-five hundred after the treaty ratification. After that he was required to pay twelve annual installments of a thousand talents each. Additionally, he was required to supply Rome with large quantities of wheat and pay off his four hundred silver talent debt to Eumenes. If that was not enough, the Seleucids were required to renounce all claims to Thrace and evacuate Asia Minor to the Taurus Range. Antiochus was literally barred from Europe and Asia Minor but was allowed to keep Cilicia, Phoenicia and Coele-Syria. The territories of Asia Minor taken from the Seleucids were awarded to Rome’s allies the Rhodesians and the Pergamene. Lycia and much of Caria were given to Rhodes while most of western Asia Minor, including Lydia and Hellespontine Phrygia, was given to Pergamon. The rest of the cities were made autonomous. The Romans made it clear, however, that these were gifts and could be revoked at their discretion at any time.

To make sure that he did not forfeit his commitments, Antiochus was required to provide the Romans with hostages, including his son the future Antiochus IV. There was also a request to surrender Hannibal but he was aware of the Roman plan and fled before he could be captured.

To ensure that he wouldn’t wage war again, Antiochus’s army, navy and elephants were disbanded, leaving only ten vessels at his disposal. Additionally, Antiochus was banned from either recruiting or campaigning in Roman controlled territories.

After they were finished with the Seleucids the Romans, with the assistance of the Pergamenes, turned their attention to the Galatians. In 189 BC, Scipio was replaced by Gnaeus Vulso who, together with Eumenes’s brother Attalus, conducted a successful and profitable campaign against the Galatians of Asia Minor. When the campaign was over, the Romans evacuated Asia leaving Pergamon and Rhodes in charge of keeping the peace. A treaty was negotiated with the assistance of the Roman Senate and was ratified at Apamea in 188 BC. The treaty literally removed Seleucid control from Asia Minor but left the rest of the Seleucid Empire intact.

The terms of the treaty left the Seleucids short of cash and with many obligations. Antiochus, however, never lost hope and felt confident that he would eventually regain his lost territories if only he could stay ahead of his financial obligations. To rebuild his fortune and pay off his indemnity, he went off campaigning in the east. Before he left he appointed his son, the future Seleucus IV, co-regent. Unfortunately, as luck would have it, in midsummer 187 BC Antiochus was killed. Soon after his death, Seleucus IV inherited the Seleucid Empire along with all responsibility for observing the terms of the treaty of Apamea.

Antiochus’s death brought an end to Seleucid ambitions of recovering the ancestral empire. This was a relief for the Romans who no longer needed to fear a westward Seleucid expansion. Antiochus’s death was also a relief for Eumenes and his Rhodian partners who had suffered badly at his hands. Most relieved were the Ptolemies of Egypt who no longer feared losing their empire.

With Antiochus out of the way, Roman attention was now turned to Macedonia. The trouble started when Philip refused to evacuate some Thracian and Thessalian towns which the Romans had promised to Eumenes. Unable to push Philip out by himself, Eumenes complained to the Romans. Rome dispatched Quintus Metellus with a Senatorial commission ordering Philip to evacuate the towns. Stubbornly, Philip refused and not only retained the existing towns but also occupied two neutral towns close to Pergamon. As the complaints continued to pile against him, Philip decided it was time to do something. He sent his younger son Demetrius, who earlier had been a Roman hostage, back to Rome to lobby on his behalf. Demetrius was very popular in Rome and had made friends with important people. With their help he was hoping to change Rome’s impression of Macedonia. Unfortunately, Eumenes’s ambassador was also a good diplomat with equally important Roman friends and became an obstacle for Demetrius.

In the spring of 183 BC, another Senatorial commission was sent and Philip was evicted from the neutral towns. But Roman treachery did not end there. Soon afterwards, Demetrius was sent home decorated with diplomatic laurels and promises to the Macedonian throne. It was a ploy to create trouble for Philip and it worked like a charm sending Perseus, Demetrius’s half brother and heir to the Macedonian throne, into a jealous fit. Rivalry between the two brothers continued for some time until Perseus produced a Roman letter, perhaps a forgery, proving that Demetrius had treasonable aspirations to the throne. Having no other choice, Philip was forced to exercise judgment against his own son and enforce the full extent of the law. Demetrius was executed in 180 BC. No sooner had the deed been done than Philip discovered that Perseus’s testimony was a fabrication. Being unable to accept the tragedy, Philip died of remorse. Philip V died in 179 BC and was succeeded by his eldest son Perseus.

Perseus was not a popular king, especially with the Romans, who had discovered that he was responsible for Demetrius’s execution. Perseus, well aware of his weak popularity outside Macedonia, tried to improve his position by making alliances with his neighbours. He first tried to convince the Roman Senate to ratify him as king with all the privileges granted to his father. He then married Seleucus IV’s sister Laodice while he married off his own half-sister to Prusias II of Bithynia.

His attempt at forming mass alliances with his neighbours, unfortunately, did not bolster his popularity as expected. In fact they did the opposite, raising the suspicions of his enemy Eumenes who kept a vigilant eye on him, reporting his every move to the Romans, interpreting it as an anti Roman act.

During his first years as king, Perseus strengthened his northern frontiers in an attempt to stop tribal invasions, amnestied exiles, wrote off taxes and cancelled debts. Although these acts were a considerable cause for public enthusiasm inside Macedonia, they caused Perseus problems outside. Among other things, Perseus was blamed for Aetolia’s troubles with the pro-Roman landowners. This alone was cause to send yet another Roman embassy to investigate him. The embassy arrived in 173 BC but instead of investigating him, it completely ignored his explanations and reported back that he was preparing for war. Dissatisfied with the report, Perseus sent his own Macedonian envoys to Rome to plead his case but once again his attempts were thwarted. To strengthen the validity of its report, the Roman embassy called on Eumenes to testify before a Senate committee hearing. Eumenes arrived in Rome in 172 BC convincing the Senate, with his rhetoric, that indeed Perseus was preparing for war.

The Senatorial audience was predisposed to believe Eumenes, even though he was known to exaggerate. The Macedonian plea was rejected and the Senatorial commission made its recommendation to go to war.

Eumenes and certainly some of his Roman supporters went to a lot of trouble, even committing perjury, to convince the Senate to go to war with Macedonia. Perseus may not have been a saint but some of the charges against him were ridiculous at best. In one instance he was accused of conspiring to poison the Roman Senate. In another, Eumenes was nearly killed by a rockslide and that too was blamed on Perseus as an attempted murder. Outrageous charges such as these speak more of the character of the Romans who believed Eumenes, than of Perseus and the Macedonians. It would seem that the Senators would believe someone because they knew him and couldn’t care less if he was telling the truth or not. This was indeed Roman justice.

The Senate decided to trust Eumenes who purposely and falsely placed Macedonia in peril. No single person ever worked so hard as Eumenes to start a war between Macedonia and Rome. Why? Some say that he feared an alliance being formed between the Seleucids and the Antigonids. Such an alliance would have been a threat to his ambitions of expanding Pergamon.

Perseus, from the outset, tried very hard to stay out of trouble but the Romans were determined to deal with him one way or another. In 171 BC a new Senate was elected and a conditional war was declared on Macedonia. A strong Roman expedition was put together and dispatched to Macedonia. The Romans had high expectations that, in the face of a strong Roman force, Perseus would capitulate. Perseus, however, did not wish for war and made it abundantly clear through the three embassies he sent to Rome. Perseus was prepared to make concessions but there were limits to the terms he would accept. The Senate, unfortunately, was unwilling to compromise and continued to push further and further.

By mid 171 BC, after a failed attempt to negotiate a settlement, it became clear that Perseus had no intention of giving in. It was then that the Romans unleashed their expeditionary force.

It was clear from the start that Rome underestimated Macedonia’s military strength. But after they crossed the Adriatic it was too late and would have been humiliating for them to turn back.

After the catastrophic battle at Cynoscephalae, Philip had rebuilt his military and replenished his losses but Perseus was still unwilling to go to war. From 171 to 168 BC he remained on the defensive and committed only to minor engagements, all the while hoping that a peaceful settlement could be reached.

The four year war (Third Macedonian War) came to a climax on June 22nd, 168 BC when the Romans marched on mass northward and met the Macedonian army at Pydna in southern Macedonia.

In the style of his predecessors, Perseus struck first by unleashing the full might of the Macedonian phalanx. This was not the usual phalanx. It was reinforced with spears all round like a hedgehog, especially at the flanks. “Aemilius Paullus, a veteran commander, declared afterwards that this advance was the most terrifying thing he had ever witnessed.” (Page 430, Peter Green, Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age).

The Macedonians did their best and fought bravely to the last soldier but the disciplined Roman military machine and its fighting style, once again, proved to be superior and the battle was lost. It was the end of Macedonia and Macedonian independence. Perseus was taken to Rome as a prisoner of war, or as Peter Green puts it, “to adorn Paullus’s treasure rich triumph”. The Macedonian monarchy was abolished and Macedonia was demilitarized and partitioned into cantons so that she would never again be able to fight back. As further insurance of her passivity, Macedonian leaders were rounded up and taken to Rome.

The real horror of the Macedonian defeat was not Pydna but what the Roman army did afterwards. Before leaving Macedonia, the Roman army was unleashed on the civilian population and allowed to loot, pillage and rape uncontrollably. It has been said that an unimaginable amount of treasure, including gold, jewels and art, was carried off to Rome. A large segment of the population was taken into slavery. Severe restrictions were placed on trading commodities including lumber, and most of the state taxes were now diverted to Rome. According to Livy, Macedonia was divided into four regions, each with its own Roman council, and was forced to pay half the tribute to Rome. This would have otherwise been paid to the Macedonian king. If that was not enough, Paullus lent the Aetolians five hundred soldiers so that they too could exact their own brand of revenge on the Macedonians. What happened next is a tragedy of great proportion that not even the old authors dare describe. The Romans indeed proved themselves to be ruthless and the “true barbarians” that they were, but this was only the beginning.

Athens participated in the anti-Macedonian campaign by supplying the Romans with grain and by fighting side by side with the Romans at Pydna. To the end, the Athenians remained anti-Macedonian

With Macedonia subdued, the Romans turned their attention to Asia. After Antiochus III’s death, the Ptolemies restored law and order in Egypt and managed to stabilize Coele-Syria. Unfortunately, after a long struggle to put down the last of the insurgents in the Nile Delta, in 181 BC Ptolemy V died at age twenty-eight. He left Cleopatra I, Antiochus’s daughter, as regent for their young son but she too died prematurely in 176 BC, leaving Ptolemy VI Philometor in the guardianship of strangers.

In Asia meanwhile, Seleucus IV was assassinated in 175 BC by one of his ministers and was succeeded by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Unlike Seleucus IV, Antiochus was interested in stabilizing his kingdom and wanted the rich, fertile region of Coele-Syria back. Another confrontation broke out (the Sixth Syrian war) and lasted from 171 to 168 BC. Ptolemy VI was no more than sixteen years old when war broke out and was still under the advice of strangers who urged him to fight on. While Rome was busy fighting Macedonia, Antiochus attacked Ptolemy’s Egyptian expeditionary forces and captured virtually all of Egypt except for Alexandria. After this catastrophic defeat Ptolemy replaced his advisors and decided it was time to negotiate with his uncle. During the negotiations some of Antiochus’s troops invaded Alexandria and began to loot the temples. These events sparked an uprising and the Alexandrians decided it was time for Ptolemy VI to go. After his ousting they proclaimed his younger brother Ptolemy VIII Euergetes joint ruler with his sister Cleopatra II. Upset about the whole incident, Antiochus attempted to besiege Alexandria but was unsuccessful and withdrew in 169 BC leaving the two rivals to fight it out on their own. Instead of fighting the siblings patched up their differences and joined forces against him. By 168 BC Antiochus was back, this time with his fleet. He attacked and defeated Cyprus, a Ptolemaic stronghold.

Antiochus’s illusions of grandeur were shattered when an official order from Rome arrived ordering him to leave Egypt and evacuate Cyprus. The Roman envoy Popillius Laenas met him in Alexandria and read him the dispatch. When Antiochus asked for time to consider the order Laenas pushed him for an immediate answer, yes or no. The Macedonian king swallowed his pride, bowed to the arrogant Roman and answered yes. He then surrendered his new possessions and left for home.

Humiliated as he was, Antiochus set his own pride aside and sent an envoy to Rome proclaiming that peace with the Roman people was preferable to any victory over Egypt. In the meantime Antiochus, in spite of the Roman ban, began to rebuild his military. He added a corps of elephants to his already growing army of fifty thousand soldiers. When a Roman commission showed up at his doorstep to investigate his activities, he made sure they were all well looked after and personally reassured them that the army was being prepared for an eastern campaign. Antiochus went out of his way to ease all Roman fears and it seemed to have worked. The restrictions on his military buildup were ignored and Antiochus was allowed to function unabated

For years the eastern satrapies were left unattended and things were beginning to slide. There was also a Jewish revolt building up in Jerusalem which required attention.

In 165 BC, Antiochus was ready for his eastern campaign but first he had to deal with the Jews in Jerusalem. In his absence, he left his nine-year old son and heir designate, the future Antiochus V, in the guardianship of his chief minister Lysias.

Unfortunately, before Antiochus was able to complete his eastern campaign, he fell ill and died. He died in his early forties in Persia, in 164 BC, while on route to Jerusalem.

On his deathbed Antiochus rescinded the decree of persecution against the Jews and dispatched Philip, one of his trusted military commanders, with orders to replace Lysias as chief minister and take over the guardianship of his son. Lysias well aware of his predicament, instead of bringing victory, made peace with the Jews (with Senatorial approval), granting them the first step towards independence.

Lysias did not want to give up his position as chief minister and did everything he could to avoid being removed. He even helped Demetrius, the son of the murdered Seleucus IV, lay claim to the Seleucid throne. Demetrius at the time was a hostage of Rome. Demetrius was twenty-four years old when he found out his uncle had died and went straight to the Senate to lay claim to the throne. Unfortunately, he was turned down and his claim rejected.

In the meantime a Roman commission, under the leadership of Gnaeus Octavius, was sent to Antioch to check on Seleucid military resources and Seleucid compliance with the treaty of Apamea. The commission arrived in 163 BC and found a large concentration of troops, a large fleet and numerous royal war elephants. What was most amazing is that the arrogant Romans took it upon themselves, without permission from the Senate or the Macedonian king, to burn the fleet and kill the elephants. At this horrific sight, an observer became so upset that he assassinated Octavius.

Frustrated with official channels, Demetrius escaped from Rome and went straight for Antioch where he was welcomed as the legitimate heir to the throne. Opposition quickly evaporated and Lysias and the young Antiochus V, as well as other pretenders, were rounded up and executed.

The news of Demetrius’s arrival in Antioch was cause for the Romans to dispatch yet another embassy. Tiberius Gracchus was dispatched to observe and report on Demetrius’s activities. When the Romans arrived, Demetrius received them well and gave them full cooperation. He even gave them Octavius’s murderer along with a gold crown to show respect. In return he received an excellent report. His crown was accepted and the murderer released, agreeing that his actions were well justified. When the report was filed with the Senate, Demetrius was recognized as king on condition that he maintain his good conduct.

In 161 BC Rome concluded a treaty with the Jews effectively recognizing Judea as an independent state. Demetrius unfortunately was not happy with the Roman resolution and reversed it by crushing the Jewish rebellion. The Romans did not react to the Macedonian king’s actions because they never agreed to guaranty the Judean independence. So much for treaties with super powers!

From here on forward things went downhill for Demetrius. First he was in trouble with the Cappadocian dynasty for interfering in their internal affairs. He then violently crushed an uprising in Antioch, which made him very unpopular with his own people. He got into worse trouble in 160 BC with Attalus II, after Eumenes’s death, when Attalus produced a pretender to the Seleucid throne, named Balas. Balas, who claimed to be the son of Antiochus IV, was certainly an imposter but was backed by Attalus II of Pergamon (Eumenes’s successor) who, like Eumenes, was very popular with the Romans. Balas was sent to Rome and with Attalus’s help was validated as a Seleucid king. Upon his return, in 152 BC, Balas landed at the city of Ptolemais-Ake where he challenged Demetrius and, after gaining local support, defeated him in battle. Demetrius died fighting and the imposter Balas usurped his crown in 151 BC.

It was one thing to have a Macedonian on the Seleucid throne but another to knowingly allow an imposter to usurp it, especially since Coele-Syria was at stake. The Ptolemies were definitely not content with the situation and something had to be done. War was out of the question so Ptolemy VI came up with a devious plan. While offering Balas peace by marriage to his daughter Cleopatra Thea, Ptolemy offered Demetrius’s son, Demetrius II who had escaped Balas’s massacre, assistance to return and re-claim his father’s throne. With Ptolemy’s help, young Demetrius raised an army of mercenaries and returned to Syria. Ptolemy, under the pretense of coming to his son-in-law’s aid, swept into Palestine and was pressing for Antioch before his plans were discovered. Being unable to stop Ptolemy, Balas made an attempt to assassinate him. After his failure, Balas fled Antioch and was killed later while fighting in northern Syria. Cleopatra in the meantime had her marriage declared void.

The people of Antioch, having transferred their allegiance from Balas to young Demetrius, acclaimed Ptolemy as their new Seleucid monarch. Like his predecessors before him Ptolemy had enough sense not to tempt fate and gratefully declined, allowing Demetrius II to take his rightful place. But all was not lost, by offering Demetrius the marriage of his daughter Cleopatra, Ptolemy was able to gain a foothold in Coele-Syria. Unfortunately, not too long afterwards Ptolemy VI Philometor was wounded in battle and died. The way was now open for his rival brother, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes, to make a come*ack.

I want to backtrack a bit at this point to Egypt 169 BC. As I mentioned earlier, the rival siblings Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes, along with their sister Cleopatra II, had patched up their differences but not for long. After the Romans ordered Antiochus out of Egypt and the danger of an invasion diminished, rivalries between the siblings resurfaced. Being unable to take sides Cleopatra II resigned her position. During all this the Ptolemies were also facing discontentment from the Egyptians and minor revolts were erupting everywhere. Being unable to break the impasse the brothers finally decided, with Roman approval, to split Egypt into two kingdoms. In May 163 BC the older Ptolemy Philometor took Egypt and gave his younger brother Ptolemy Euergetes the western province of Cyrenaica. Even though the arrangement was agreed upon by both, Euergetes was reduced to a crown prince and was not completely satisfied with his share. The rivalries continued until Philometor’s death in 145 BC. Still in Cyrene, Euergetes sought the chance to recover the entire kingdom after his brother’s death. He arrived in Alexandria and drummed up support for a coup but was unsuccessful. Cleopatra II, Philometor’s widow, along with her sixteen-year old son, Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator, opposed him.

Unable to gain control by force, Euergetes offered to marry Cleopatra and jointly rule Egypt. Cleopatra agreed and a wedding ensued.

During the wedding celebrations Euergetes had the young Ptolemy assassinated. With Ptolemy VII’s elimination there were no other legitimate claimants to the throne but Euergetes.

Euergetes proved himself a terrible ruler. A year after becoming king he had himself enthroned as Pharaoh at Memphis. When he came back to Alexandria, he celebrated his return by purging and expelling, on mass, all those who opposed him during Ptolemy VII’s brief reign. Among those expelled were many teachers, scholars, artists and intellectuals, including the chief librarian and the geographer. In spite of his brutal ways, however, Euergetes managed to survive many years and ruled Egypt with an iron fist until 116 BC.

Back in Macedonia meanwhile, Roman rule was harsh and much tension developed between the Macedonians and their new masters. The economic situation was particularly distressful and at times unbearable. Relief however did arrive in the form of a pretender named Andriscus. Andriscus claimed to be Philip VI, son of Perseus by Laodice, Seleucus IV’s daughter who was also Demetrius I’s sister. In 153 BC, with Demetrius I’s help, Andriscus went to Rome to plead his case for the Macedonians but the Senate was not interested in a hearing. Frustrated, Andriscus returned and sought help from the Macedonian people who gave him what he needed including royal robes, a diadem, recognition and troops. He received recognition from Byzantium and troops from various Thracian chieftains.

Given the circumstances in Macedonia, rule by a pretender was preferable to being divided and ruled by Romans. When he was ready Andriscus advanced on Macedonia from Thrace and, after two battles in 149 BC, took control of Macedonia. Unfortunately, Macedonia’s freedom was short lived. Two Roman legions, under the leadership of Quintus Macedonicus, were dispatched and ironically ended Andriscus’s career at Pydna in 148 BC.

After this unsuccessful revolt, Macedonia lost her independence entirely and became a Roman province.

Macedonia’s total demise and the witness of Roman brutality brought fear into the hearts of the leaders of the Achaean League. Roman atrocities in Macedonia turned the Achaeans from Roman allies to Roman enemies. In 146 BC, in a desperate last ditch effort, the Achaeans engaged the Romans and lost. Roman reprisal was decisive and brutal, involving looting, burning, raping and taking civilians into slavery. Corinth was reduced to rubble and remained a heap of ruins until 44 BC when it was again rebuilt by Caesar.

Back in Egypt, the Alexandrians were fed up with Ptolemy VIII Euergetes’s misrule and in 132 BC riots broke out. The people of Alexandria, backed by Cleopatra II who was sympathetic to their plight, wanted Euergetes out. Daily violence escalated and reached a peak when the mobs, in frustration, set fire to the royal palace. In panic Euergetes and his family, wife Cleopatra III and children, fled to Cyprus leaving Cleopatra II as sole sovereign. According to Macedonian law, Cleopatra, as a woman, could not rule alone. The only possible male she would agree to replace Euergetes with was her twelve-year old son Ptolemy Memphitis, who at the time was not in Alexandria. In any case Cleopatra had Ptolemy acclaimed co-ruler in absentia, which unfortunately was a mistake. The moment Euergetes found out he searched for the boy and had him executed.

In 130 BC, Euergetes snuck back into Egypt and hid in Memphis where he made preparations to restore himself. He rallied the support of Cleopatra II’s opponents and revolted against her. While blockaded in Alexandria, Cleopatra II sought the assistance of her Seleucid son-in-law Demetrius II Nicator. She offered him the Egyptian throne in exchange for his assistance to overthrow her brother Euergetes. Demetrius accepted but found Euergetes a tougher opponent than expected. While fighting Euergetes, Demetrius was recalled to Syria to deal with more personal matters. Cleopatra, foreseeing her own demise, also decided to leave Alexandria and joined him. Leaderless, the Alexandrians fought back and held out for another year, but unrelenting Euergetes continued to press on until he was back in power in 126 BC.

Upon his return to Syria, Demetrius was attacked by a rebellious mob led by his wife Cleopatra Thea, Cleopatra II’s daughter. Cleopatra Thea, like her mother, was sympathetic to the plight of her people and rallied behind them in ousting Demetrius. Demetrius, like Euergetes, was not a well liked ruler and the Antiochenes had had enough of him.

The trouble started when Euergetes, to pay Demetrius back for his meddling in Egypt, sent a pretender named Zabinas to challenge him for his throne. Zabinas claimed to be the son of pretender Balas, mentioned earlier. Unlike Demetrius, Zabinas was a kind and generous person, well liked by the Antiochenes.

Zabinas challenged Demetrius to a battle and scored a major victory against him. Demetrius fled to Ptolemais-Ake but found that there too he was unwelcome. His wife refused to even give him shelter for the night. From there Demetrius fled to Tyre where he was captured and tortured until he died in 126 BC.

In Demetrius’s absence, Cleopatra II reconciled her differences with her brother Ptolemy VIII Euergetes and by 124 BC was back in Alexandria. After exacting his revenge on Demetrius, Euergetes dropped his support for Zabinas and placed it behind his niece Cleopatra Thea.

Thea’s eldest son who ruled as Seleucus V for a brief time was murdered, probably by Thea. In his absence, Thea made her sixteen-year old son, Antiochus VIII Grypos, her co-regent. A year or so later Grypos married one of Euergetes’s daughters, named Cleopatra Tryphaena, and kept the Seleucid-Ptolemaic alliance strong.

Zabinas, without Euergetes’s support, resorted to raising funds by robbing temples. This unfortunately caused him to fall out of favour with his supporters and with the law. In 123 BC, after being pursued by Antiochus VIII, Zabinas was captured and executed.

Antiochus VIII, on the other hand, did not turn out to be as amenable as his mother would have liked so in 121 BC she attempted to poison him. Aware of her plans, however, Antiochus forced her to drink the poison. After her death Antiochus became sole ruler of Syria, at least until 114 BC.

In Egypt, meanwhile, Euergetes’s misrule continued to cause unrest. Faced with a dilemma in 118 BC he was forced to make long overdue concessions. Amnesties were decried, taxes written off, official abuses were condemned and punitive penalties were cancelled. Unfortunately, by this time the Egyptian bureaucracy was so corrupt that without effectively enforcing the law none of the concessions were worth the papyrus they were written on. As a result the status quo was maintained until Euergetes’s death in 116 BC.

Ptolemy VIII Euergetes died at age sixty-five and left his wealth and power to his young wife Cleopatra III. The choice of which of her sons was to rule was also left up to her. Cleopatra III had two sons and three daughters. Her oldest son Ptolemy IX Philometor was born in 142 BC and, at the time of Euergetes’s death, was governor of Cyprus. Her younger son born in 139 BC was named Ptolemy X Alexander and her daughters were Cleopatra IV, Cleopatra Tryphaena, mentioned earlier, and Cleopatra Selene. There was also a bastard son by Euergetes’s mistress named Ptolemy Apion who at the time was governor of Cyrenaica.

Cleopatra was not very fond of her older son. Perhaps she could not manipulate him as easily as she would have wanted and preferred to co-rule with her younger son Alexander. The Alexandrians, however, preferred the company of Philometor and would not support her choice.

Stubbornly, Cleopatra ignored her subjects and attempted the appointment anyway. In a fury of opposition she recanted and settled for Philometor.

Philometor was brought to Alexandria and Alexander was sent to Cyprus to replace him. Discontent in her position as co-ruler with Philometor, Cleopatra continued to cause friction and in 115 BC launched a full campaign of attrition against him. She broke Philometor’s marriage to his sister Cleopatra IV and forced him to marry Selene, his other sister. She then attempted to oust him from his throne but was unsuccessful. Her daughter Cleopatra IV, after her break up with Philometor, fled to Cyprus and after raising an army challenged Alexander for his position. It was a ploy to convince him to marry her but he was not interested. Unsuccessful, she fled to Syria and after offering her army as dowry to Antiochus IX Cyzicenus, son of Antiochus Sidetes and Cleopatra Thea, he accepted and married her. Not content with just being a princess, Cleopatra IV pushed her husband into challenging his cousin Antiochus VIII Grypos, mentioned earlier, for the Seleucid throne. Family rivalries broke out and escalated into a full scale war.

The Seleucid conflict attracted the Ptolemies and pitted mother against son. Philometor sent six thousand soldiers to help Cyzicenus, which infuriated Cleopatra III. Unfortunately, this little tiff between siblings ended in disaster. In 112 BC Cleopatra IV was captured and executed by her sister Tryphaena. A year later Tryphaena was captured and made a sacrificial offering to her sister’s vengeful ghost. In the end Grypos won and took back his kingdom while Cyzicenus was driven out and left with only a couple of coastal cities in his possession.

In Egypt meanwhile, in 107 BC, Cleopatra III tried again to oust her son from his throne. This time she succeeded. She convinced her supporters in Alexandria that Philometor was attempting to murder her and that she was in mortal danger. The Alexandrians whipped up a mob and stormed the palace to rescue her. Philometor fled in panic leaving his second wife Cleopatra Selene with her two young sons in the palace.

Philometor’s departure was good news for Ptolemy X Alexander who promptly returned from Cyprus and took his place as king. Ptolemy IX Philometor, meanwhile, fled to Syria and from there re-established himself in Cyprus.

By 103 BC, the Ptolemaic empire was split into three independent principalities. Cleopatra and Alexander ruled Egypt, Philometor ruled Cyprus and Ptolemy Apion ruled Cyrenaica. Rivalries between mother and son continued and spilled over into Syria where Cleopatra III continued to support Grypos, while Philometor gave his support to Cyzicenus.

Cleopatra III’s intrigues abroad did not seem to satisfy her appetite for excitement so she turned against her son Alexander at home and had him ousted.

Pleading with his mother for his return, in 101 BC, under the pretense of reconciliation, Alexander stormed the palace and assassinated her. With Cleopatra III’s death so ended the sibling rivalries between Alexander and Philometor. They made peace and strengthened their alliance through Alexander’s marriage to Cleopatra Berenice, Philometor’s daughter.

Ptolemy Apion, on the other hand, being unwelcome by Cleopatra III, remained an outsider and on his deathbed in 96 BC bequeathed Cyrenaica to Rome.

Also in 196 BC during a coup instigated by his rival Antiochus Cyzicenus, Antiochus VIII Grypos was assassinated by one of his generals

.

In 95 BC Cyzicenus was defeated in battle and killed by Grypos’s eldest son, Seleucus VI Epiphanes. Cyzicenus’s reign was passed on to his son Antiochus the Pious.

Between 96 and 80 BC the Ptolemaic dynasty experienced great changes. In the spring of 87 BC Ptolemy X Alexander was driven out of Egypt for selling Alexander the Great’s gold coffin. He later was killed during a naval battle near Cyprus. Before he died, however, he also willed his kingdom to Rome.

Ptolemy X Alexander’s death opened the way for his older brother Ptolemy IX Philometor to return. Upon his return, however, he found himself unwelcome. With assistance from his daughter Berenice (Ptolemy X’s wife) he was able to restore himself as co-ruler to Berenice.

Besides Philometor there were three other claimants to the Ptolemaic throne but at the time of Alexander’s death they were hostages of the Parthians. Mithridates VI of Pontus had captured them in Cos in 88 BC. They were sent there by their grandmother Cleopatra III for their own safety. One of them, Alexander’s son, escaped and surrendered to the Roman proconsul Sulla.

In Asia, meanwhile, an Armenian attack on Syria in 83 BC forced the Seleucids to flee Antioch. In their absence, the Antiochenes offered the Seleucid throne to Tigranes of Armenia. Cleopatra Selene resisted the Armenian takeover and fought back from Ptolemais-Ake.

In 69 BC, Mithridates was attacked and defeated by the Romans and Seleucid rule was briefly restored. Antiochus XIII Asiaticus (son of Cleopatra Selene and Antiochus X Eusebes) was made a Roman client king.

From 83 BC onward Seleucid rule in Asia was never fully restored. Remnants of the former empire existed as kingdoms under various client kings until the entire region fell to Rome.

In 81 BC Ptolemy IX Philometor died at age sixty-two leaving no male heirs to replace him. He had two sons but both died very young. He did however have a daughter named Cleopatra Berenice who, for a while, ruled on her own.

With no available male to replace Philometor, the Romans resolved the problem by installing a puppet king. Ptolemy XI Alexander II, Alexander’s son who had earlier surrendered to Sulla, by the will of his father who had earlier bequeathed Egypt to Rome, was now given the rule of Egypt. The new Ptolemy was not allowed to wear a crown and was forced to marry Cleopatra Berenice as part and parcel of his installment.

Unhappy with his chosen bride, a few weeks after his marriage, young Ptolemy murdered his middle-aged wife and in turn was lynched by the Macedonian Alexandrian mobs loyal to Berenice.

After Ptolemy XI’s death, the only live heirs to the Ptolemaic throne were two of Philometor’s illegitimate sons (prisoners of the Parthians) living in Syria. The Romans, not yet ready to annex Egypt, asked the Parthians to have the boys released. Upon their arrival, the younger boy was made governor of Cyprus while the older boy was taken to Alexandria and given the title king. Although history referred to the older boy as Ptolemy XII Auletes, to his Alexandrian subjects he was always known as the Bastard or the Flute Player.

Ptolemy XII was a ruthless ruler. The only contribution he made worthy of mention was siring his famous daughter, Cleopatra VII.

Ptolemy XII ruled undisturbed for thirty years until 59 BC when he was thrown out by the Alexandrians for allowing Rome to annex Cyprus and for willingly being a Roman puppet. In his absence, his eldest daughter Berenice IV was proclaimed co-regent with her mother. Ptolemy XII also had two infant sons but they were too young to rule.

When the queen mother died in 57 BC, Berenice IV married Seleucus Kybiosaktes believed to be a descendent from the Seleucid dynasty. When it was revealed that usurpation of the Ptolemaic throne was the motive behind Kybiosaktes marrying Berenice, she had him strangled. She then married Archelaus, a non-Macedonian, who may have had Roman roots. Archelaus’s rule lasted until 55 BC. He was defeated by the exiled Ptolemy XII, with Pompey’s blessing, in an attempt to reclaim his throne.

During his return to the palace, Ptolemy XII was accompanied by a young Roman cavalry commander named Mark Anthony who found himself attracted to his fourteen year old daughter Cleopatra. Cleopatra, however, paid no attention. Being a princess and a future heir to the Ptolemaic throne she had her sights set high and Anthony was not yet there.

Still having no interest in annexing Egypt, the Romans allowed Ptolemy XII to rule until he died of old age in 51 BC. Upon his death, his kingdom was left in the joint care of his eighteen year old daughter Cleopatra VII and her twelve year old brother Ptolemy XIII.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:36

Macedonia's decline began with Demetrius's death in 229 BC. Demetrius lost his life during a valiant battle defending Macedonia against Dardanian invasions. After his death, his kingdom was left to his nine year-old son Philip. Philip unfortunately was too young to rule so guardianship was awarded to Demetrius's cousin Antogonus Doson who agreed to look after the kingdom until Philip came of age.

Antigonus Doson, sometimes referred to as Antigonus III, did his best to maintain peace and stability in keeping Philip's kingdom intact.

After Demetrius's death, while Macedonia was preoccupied with domestic affairs, Athens took the opportunity to liberate the port of Piraeus, removing the Macedonian garrison stationed there. Athens did this not by battle but by bribery. After that, Athens declared her neutrality and prudently refused to join any alliances. Sparta on the other hand, under the leadership of Cleomenes III who was unable to sit still, initiated a number of social reforms. Sparta's northern neighbours, the Achaean League, however, feared that a reformed Sparta would pose a threat to the League's dominance and took action against it. Unable to negotiate a suitable settlement, the Leagues turned to Antigonus for help. To entice him to intervene, the League offered him Acrocorinth, a strategically valuable place. Antigonus graciously accepted and with twenty thousand troops confronted Cleomenes. The mere sight of the Macedonian army marching down the Peloponnisos must have given Cleomenes's allies cold feet because they quickly withdrew leaving Cleomenes on his own.

As it turned out, Cleomenes's soldiers were mostly hired mercenaries paid for with Ptolemy's money. Ptolemy, as usual, was the instigator of these intrigues never missing an opportunity to expand his own influence. When Antigonus found this out he quickly gave Ptolemy what he wanted, territorial concessions in Asia Minor, and in exchange Ptolemy removed his support for Cleomenes. Without Ptolemy's financial support, Cleomenes lost his influence and decided to stake everything on the outcome of a single battle. In 222 BC, in Sellacia about 120 kilometers north of Sparta, Cleomenes engaged the Macedonians and lost. From there he fled to Egypt. Antigonus, meanwhile, triumphantly walked on Spartan soil as the first foreign conqueror to do so in a long time.

Victorious, Antigonus reconstituted the Hellenic League of Philip II with himself as hegemon and placed Macedonian garrisons in Acrocorinth and Orchomenos. He also left a senior Macedonian officer in charge of Peloponnesian affairs. Sparta's bid for freedom was not only lost but Sparta herself was now forced into a new confederacy with her former enemies the Achaeans, Thessalians, Epiriotes, Acarnanians, Boeotians, Phocians and worst of all, she came under Macedonian control.

Geographically, the new alliance literally encircled Aetolia, which was now an enemy of the entire confederation. The Aetolian league was not at all pleased with the new circumstances and retaliated by waging war on confederation allies.

Antigonus meanwhile, hardly given any time to enjoy his victory, had to return home to deal with another barbarian invasion. While in battle, unfortunately, he received a fatal wound from which he later died. Antigonus Doson, barely in his forties, died in the early summer of 221 BC, but not before he made arrangements to place his young nephew Philip V on the Macedonian throne.

Macedonia was not the only kingdom to have established a young king on the throne in 221 BC. Antiochus III of Asia and Ptolemy IV of Egypt were also crowned the same year.

In Asia, as I mentioned earlier, Seleucus II, coaxed by his mother Laodice, ceded Asia Minor to his brother Antiochus Hierax, something he soon came to regret. Unfortunately, neither brother was happy with the outcome and it did not take long before conflict broke out between them lasting from 239 to 236 BC.

Preoccupied with this brotherly struggle, Seleucus neglected his eastern satrapies and almost lost them. Antiochus, backed by Ptolemy III, was able to maintain pressure on his brother until Seleucus realized that this fratricidal struggle was unproductive, to say the least. In 236 BC, Seleucus made peace with Antiochus and gave him all of Asia Minor north of the Taurus Mountains. Unfortunately, Antiochus was not happy with his gains and with the help of the Galatians conspired to extort money from the surrounding city-states in Asia Minor. He even conspired to overthrow Attalus I of Pergamon.

Attalus was the son of Eumenes of Pergamon and had previous encounters with the Galatians. In fact he had won a great victory against them in 237 BC after which he proclaimed himself king. Having had experience in dealing with Galatians, Attalus was not afraid of them and went in pursuit of Antiochus chasing him through Phrygia, Lydia, Caria and beyond. During his four year pursuit from 231 to 228 BC, Attalus beat Antiochus in three major battles and took over his territories in Asia Minor. Driven out of his own domain, Antiochus, with the help of his aunt Stratonice, made a move to overthrow his brother, Seleucus. While Stratonice organized an insurrection in Antioch, Antiochus made a move against Babylonia. While this was happening Seleucus was campaigning in Parthia, which he had to abandon in order to deal with his brother. When Seleucus caught up with him he drove him out of Asia. Antiochus at this point fled to Egypt where Ptolemy imprisoned him. Soon afterwards, however, he escaped to Thrace where he was murdered by the Galatians in 227 BC.

After driving Antiochus out of Asia, Seleucus captured and executed Stratonice and was about to turn on Attalus. Before he had the chance he died from an accidental fall from his horse. In 226 BC, Seleucus II was succeeded by his first son Seleucus III Soter who held the throne for the next three years before he was murdered by his own officers while campaigning against Attalus. Upon his death, his cousin Achaeus was nominated governor of Asia Minor. He in turn in 223 BC, had Seleucus III's younger brother Antiochus III, proclaimed king. As governor of Asia Minor, Achaeus went after Attalus and by 222 BC pushed him back to Pergamon, thus recovering all the lost Seleucid territories in Asia Minor.

In Egypt, as I mentioned earlier, Ptolemy III dropped his support for Sparta and made amends with Macedonia. But in Asia, he continued to harass the Seleucids and took from them parts of the eastern Mediterranean, Thrace and the Hellespond.

After his death in 221 BC, Ptolemy III was succeeded by Ptolemy IV Philopator.

In Europe, by forming the federation, Antigonus Doson had surrounded the Aetolians. Unhappy about their predicament, they began to fight back by carrying out raids against their neighbours, the Achaean League. By now Philip V was of age and succeeded Antigonus, assuming the title hegemon. As the new hegemon he felt it was his duty to appropriately respond to the Aetolian aggression so he declared war on them. To make matters worse, news of Cleomenes's death in 219 BC inspired a Royalist coup in Sparta and an unfriendly king was appointed to the throne. The anti-federation king quickly broke off relations with Macedonia and allied himself with the Aetolians. Philip responded conclusively with speed and energy.

In the campaigns that followed, reminiscent of Alexander III, Philip V with his well trained and disciplined Macedonian army consistently outmaneuvered and outfought his opponents.

In 217 BC, however, Philip was needed elsewhere and had to wind down his campaigns so an armistice was concluded on the basis of the status quo.

In Asia, soon after his crowning, the ambitious Antiochus III revealed a grand plan to recover lost Seleucid territories and restore his great grandfather's (Seleucus I Nicator) empire. His plan included the re-acquisition of Coele-Syria down to the Egyptian Gates, the recovery of the great eastern satrapies, recovery of the Asia Minor seaports, the Hellespond and eastern Thrace on the European side. He even mounted an expedition worthy of Alexander III, which took him to Bactria and India.

Claiming that Syria and Phoenicia once belonged to Seleucus I, Antiochus launched a major offensive against Syria thus initiating the Fourth Syrian War which lasted from 219 to 217 BC. In his effort to recapture his great grandfather's empire he repossessed his old capital Selucia, the port cities of Tyre and Ptolemais-Ake and opened the road from Palestine to Egypt. Unlike Alexander III however, the more cautious Antiochus did not go conquering Egypt and instead focussed his energies on consolidating his position in Galilee and Samaria. There he spent a great deal of time negotiating peace with Ptolemy who was secretly gathering a large army for a counter attack.

Prolemy's intentions became very clear in the summer of 217 BC, when he and his younger sister Arsione showed up prepared for battle with an army of fifty-five thousand soldiers. They took to the fields of Raphia in Palestine and came face to face with Antiochus and his army of sixty-eight thousand. This was not only the biggest battle since Ipsus, but it took shape in a similar manner. Antiochus, like Demetrius before him, struck the battle line with his cavalry at lightning speed, receiving a quick victory. Unable to resist the urge to pursue his opponent, Antiochus left the battlefield, allowing Ptolemy's commanders to regroup and launch a counter attack. Without Antiochus's leadership and in the absence of cavalry support, the Seleucid phalanx broke up and was defeated. Victorious, the Ptolemies saved Egypt and cut Antiochus's ambitions short. With the exception of giving back the naval base in Seleucia, Ptolemy was happy to settle for the status quo with Coele-Syria safely back in his hands. But all was not well in Egypt. The Egyptian troops had tasted victory and wanted more, not for Ptolemy but for themselves.

A shortage of silver in Egypt forced the Ptolemies to use bronze coins, which were not very popular with the foreign mercenaries. Without foreign mercenaries, the Ptolemies had no choice but to recruit locally from the less expensive native pool of soldiers. The concentration of Egyptians in the military unfortunately stimulated a strong nationalistic sentiment, which had negative consequences for the Ptolemies. At the onset the discontentment manifested itself as sporadic outbursts of guerilla campaigns but with time it grew into an outright rebellion. In a bloody coup against the central government the Egyptians managed to free Upper Egypt from Ptolemaic control. Without the resources of Upper Egypt, the Ptolemies were forced to raise more taxes in order to maintain their state's security, thus further aggravating the situation.

While Antiochus was busy fighting the Ptolemies in Syria, his uncle Achaeus, was busy re-conquering Asia Minor for himself. Then after Antiochus lost to Ptolemy at Raphia, Achaeus made a bold move and proclaimed himself king of Asia Minor. His army, however, did not agree with his proclamation and refused to support him. In 216 BC, Antiochus returned to Asia Minor, cornered his uncle in Sardis and in 213 BC caught him trying to escape. He had him mutilated and then crucified.

For the next seven years, from 212 BC to 205 BC, Antiochus turned his attention eastward in an attempt to recover the eastern satrapies. Having first conquered Armenia he turned his attention to Media Atropatene. He invaded Media and spent two years organizing his army and raising funds to pay for his campaign. Most of the money came from the treasures of the great temple of Ecbatana. In 209 BC Antiochus III, like Alexander III before him, marched with his army eastward conquering territory after territory. Parthia fell to him without a fight and after campaigning in Bactria for two years she too fell into his hands. He crossed the Hindu Kush and signed a treaty with the Indians, after which he began his journey back via Arachosia, Drangiana, and the Persian Gulf. He also sent an expedition to conquer the Gerrhaean Arabs and won tributes of money and spices. In 205 BC, Antiochus reached Seleucia on the Tigris. There he was welcomed as a champion who had regained most of his great grandfather's empire and had restored Seleucid imperial hopes. Yet still he was not happy as Coele-Syria, the Anatolian coastal cities and the Hellespondine regions were still beyond his grasp.

The loss of Upper Egypt to the native pharaohs not only deprived the Ptolemies of substantial resources, but also brought poverty and oppression to the region. Events turned from bad to worse after Ptolemy's death in 205 BC when the Egyptian priests began to revolt against his rule. Things were no better in Alexandria either. Ptolemy V Epiphanes was still a child when Ptolemy IV died and his regency was fought over with bloody consequences. While Ptolemy IV ruled the palace was dominated mostly by women, especially Ptolemy IV's wife and sister. Now that he was gone, they too made a pitch for the throne. Arsinoe, Ptolemy IV's sister was most eager to rule but soon ran into trouble with Ptolemy's ministers who themselves were interested in his throne. To keep her from taking control, Arsinoe was murdered by two of the most powerful ministers. They in turn were later killed by an Alexandrian lynch mob. The five year-old king, meanwhile, was passed from one ambitious advisor to another. To make matters worse, Antiochus III was eyeing Egypt and, in its weakness, was preparing to invade Coele-Syria in what was later to be called the Fifth Syrian War.

In Macedonia, meanwhile, young Philip V anxious to prove himself became entangled in all kinds of Balkan intrigues. He was involved with an Illyrian pirate called Demetrius of Pharos who, at the moment, was seeking refuge in his court. Demetrius was expelled from Sicily by the Romans in 219 BC for raiding and being a nuisance to the Rhodians and Romans in both the Aegean and Adriatic Seas. Demetrius, however, was welcomed in Philip's court because he contributed troops to Antigonus Doson's Sellacian campaign. Philip also valued his so-called "sound advice".

When Rome was defeated by Hannibal in 217 BC, at Lake Trisamene, Demetrius convinced Philip to reinstall him on the Adriatic coast. Philip took his advice, moved into southern Illyria, drove out Scerdilaidas, his rival pirate and enabled Demetrius to recover his former place. Unfortunately, Scerdilaidas was not too happy about being pushed out and quickly appealed to Rome for help. Rome lost no time in sending a patrol to investigate. Anxious to avoid a showdown Philip retreated at once. He burned 120 of his own ships to avoid capture and fled with his army over the mountains. Although nothing came of this, suspicions were raised in Rome about Philip's real motives. After reaching its destination the Roman patrol remained in Illyria to safeguard against any future raids.

Another mistake young Philip made, again acting on the advice of Demetrius, was to sign a treaty with Hannibal the Carthaginian. Drafted by the Carthaginians, this treaty required Philip to become an ally of Carthage in the event of a war with Rome. In return, should Carthage win the war, she would ensure that the Romans would be forced to abandon their sphere of influence in Illyria. The only reason I believe Philip agreed to this was to humour his confidant, Demetrius. Philip at the time did not believe that Rome would risk going to war with a powerful Macedonia over a trivial document. Rome also, at the time, had no plans for any serious eastward interventions. What Philip failed to realize, however, is that his trivial actions would have serious consequences for Macedonia in the future. For the moment, however, Rome remained content and Philip continued to look for ways to gain influence in Illyria.

Still under Demetrius's influence, Philip began to look southward for adventure, always keeping one eye open for conquest. Unfortunately he continued to make mistakes. By inciting various factions in the Peloponnese to fight against one another he caused torment and senseless bloodshed. His bad influence, however, came to an abrupt end when Demetrius of Pharaos was killed in 215 BC during an unsuccessful assault on Ithome. Unfortunately, by now Philip's conquered subjects didn't see him as a reasonable ruler but as a somewhat wild, cruel and politically motivated adventurer. His ravaging of Messenia ended with Demetrius's death. For the next two years, 213 to 212 BC, Philip turned his attention to Illyria. He replaced the ships he lost during his last contact with the Romans and, being careful not to be detected, marched his army north into Scerdilaidas's territory. When the time was right he descended upon Lissos on the Adriatic and established his western base of power.

It is not known why Philip turned his attention westward at this time. His rationale may have been to put a barrier between himself and Rome or perhaps, as some believe, to gain control of the lucrative western maritime markets and trade routes in the Adriatic. In any event, his appearance in the Adriatic caused panic and hysteria in Rome. Fearing an invasion of Italy, Rome was determined to stop him and quickly sought allies among his enemies. As it turned out, the Aetolians were having problems with Philip and were also looking for allies among Philip's enemies. A Roman-Aetolian coalition not only distracted Philip from his western campaigns but also caused him to strengthen his alliance with the Achaean League. The Aetolians and Romans proved to be brutal in their habits and wreaked havoc in Illyria, Thrace, Thessaly and Acarnania. To make matters worse, Attalus of Pergamon joined the Roman-Aetolian coalition and in 209 BC was appointed general of the Aetolians.

Philip, with his disciplined Macedonian army, quickly retaliated and did well against the Aetolians on land but hesitated to challenge the Romans at sea. The Achaeans also had some success and were able to crush the Spartans at Mantinea. Before things could be settled however, both Philip and Attalus were recalled to their homeland to deal with yet another large Dardanian invasion.

After Philip left for home and was no longer a threat, the Romans lost interest in the Aetolians and abandoned them altogether. Without Rome's support, the Aetolians were no match for Philip and they quickly capitulated after his return. In 206 BC they broke their treaty with Rome and made peace with Philip, giving him back all that they had previously taken. The Romans unfortunately did not take this breakup well and were anxious for a renewed alliance. Their chance came when Rhodes and Chios started accusing the locals of disrupting international commerce with their petty wars. In the spring of 205 BC the Romans came back with thirty-five ships and eleven thousand troops. They landed in Epidamnus where Philip met them and offered them battle but the Romans refused to fight. Their real objective was to break up the Macedonian Aetolian treaty. They figured that with their massive support they could spur the Aetolians back into action, break off relations with Macedonia and wage war on Philip. When the Aetolians refused, the Romans reconsidered and negotiated separate peace agreements with the various parties involved. The result was the treaty of Phoenice which was concluded in the summer of 205 BC, thus ending the First Macedonian War.

On the surface it appeared that Macedonia was the biggest winner. Philip was allowed to keep his gains in inland Illyria. Even though the status of Lissos remained uncertain, Lissos was still under Macedonian control. Rome, on the other hand, appeared to be the loser because all she received were words of assurance that Macedonia would not interfere in Adriatic affairs. Beneath the surface however, Rome was the real winner because she managed to evade an active alliance between Macedonia and Carthage.

The conclusion of the First Macedonian War was a crossroad for both Macedonia and Rome. Philip's treaty with Rome left Philip content reassured that his problems with the Romans were over. He no longer had reason to fear the west. Similarly, Philip's word of non-interference in Roman affairs was good enough for the hysterical Roman Senators who now felt they could freely devote their full attention to dealing with Carthage. Had Philip paid heed to the growing menace west of him, he would have sided with Carthage just to maintain a balance of power. Unfortunately he allowed Rome to grow powerful. Instead of striking a crippling blow, while he still could, Philip closed his eyes and for the next five years left Rome to ravage Carthage unabated.

In Asia meanwhile, at about the same time as Philip was concluding his peace with the Romans, Antiochus III was moving towards the Hellespond by way of Asia Minor and the Aegean Sea. Philip by now must have known about Antiochus's exploits and his big ambitions to expand his great grandfather's empire and was probably anticipating an invasion. As it turned out, however, Antichus's preoccupation was not with Europe but with Coele-Syria. So, instead of attacking Philip, he made a secret pact with him to conquer and divide up Ptolemy's possessions. Surprisingly enough Philip went along with the plan and while Antiochus prepared to invade Coele-Syria, he went after Ptolemy's Aegean possessions.

Antiochus wasted no time and in 202 BC swept through Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, inflicting a crushing defeat on Ptolemy's forces. By the time he was done, he had reclaimed the port of Sidon and all coastal strongholds from Caria down to Cilicia. Then in 197 BC, he invaded the territories of Pergamon which sent Attalus running to the Romans. Egypt must have gone crying to the Romans as well, because around 199 BC Rome sent a stern warning to Philip asking him to inform Antiochus not to invade Egypt. Antiochus promptly complied since he had no intention of invading Egypt in the first place.

Here again the Macedonian monarchs underestimated Rome's importance and missed another important clue. Rome didn't care about Egypt or Ptolemy's survival. What she did care about was a healthy competition between Ptolemy and Antiochus. Put another way, Rome did not want one large consolidated Asian Empire under one ruler at her doorstep and was making sure it didn't happen.

I believe the shortsighted Macedonian monarchs preoccupied with their own petty squabbling missed the real threat lurking in the west. That eventually not only destroyed their homeland but also changed the course of history forever.

In 196 BC, blinded by his rash of victories, Antiochus crossed over the Hellespond from Asia into Europe and began to rebuild the abandoned city of Lysimachea. It was going to be a military base and a home for his son Seleucus. Unfortunately, his well-deserved reputation as a conqueror was too much for the hysterical Roman Senators. They issued him an ultimatum to stop his hostilities, relinquish the territory he had won in Asia Minor, refrain from further attacks on cities and above all keep out of Europe. Antiochus took very little notice of the ultimatum and continued his business as usual. When a Roman mission arrived in Lysimachea, delivering the Senate's earlier demands for a second time, Antiochus exclaimed that his presence in Asia Minor and Thrace was well justified because the territory was won by Seleucus I's defeat of Lysimachus in 281 BC. By rite of inheritance the territory belonged to him. Antiochus must have suspected that the ultimatum was a bluff and the Romans were in no mood to fight so he continued to rebuild Lysimachea which served as his outpost until at least 190 BC.

In 195 BC, Antiochus concluded his seven year war (Fifth Syrian War) with Egypt with a peace agreement that included his daughter's engagement to Ptolemy. Soon afterwards, in 194 BC, Ptolemy married (Antiochus's daughter) Cleopatra, sealing the deal.

In Macedonia meanwhile, after the treaty of Phoenice, Philip decided it was time to strengthen his navy and went to work building a powerful fleet. By 201 BC, his fleet was ready and operational. After his secret pact with Antiochus, Philip captured the island of Thasos, a strategic post for keeping an eye on the Bosporus and Black Sea trade routes. In 201 BC, he captured Ptolemy's naval base at Samos and added the large number of ships there to his own fleet. He later attacked and defeated the Rhodian fleet and invaded Ionia and Pergamon.

Unfortunately, the Macedonians were never good at fighting at sea but still it took the combination of Rhodes, Chios, Pergamon and Byzantium to stop the Macedonian navy. At a naval engagement near Chios, the Macedonian fleet suffered a crippling defeat, losing almost half the ships in the navy. What was most alarming about this battle was that more Macedonians were lost here than in any previous engagement on land or at sea.

Broken up by his defeat, Philip quickly withdrew to Miletus and later regrouped his forces in an enclave in Caria where he rested until 196 BC. Unfortunately his remaining fleet had to stay at sea and during the winter of 201-200 BC it was blockaded in Bargylia by the Rhodians and the Pergamenes who quickly ran to Rome to denounce Philips actions.

During the spring of 200 BC the Macedonian fleet broke free from the blockage and was back in Europe in good time to become involved in yet another war, this time between Athens and Acarnania. Being allies with the Acarnanians, Philip sent an expeditionary force to attack Athens and a squadron to capture four Athenian triremes at the port of Piraeus. The triremes however were just as easily lost as they were captured. Unbeknownst to the Macedonians, Rhodian and Pergamene squadrons were pursuing them across the Aegean and suddenly appeared from their base in Aigina, recovering the stolen ships. The Athenians were happy to have their ships back but, more importantly, were thrilled to have such friends who would come to their aid, risking the wrath of Philip. But as it turned out it was all done for political gains not for friendship. The Athenians, behind Macedonia's back, were entertaining a Roman delegation, which at the time happened to be visiting their fair city. When seventy year-old Attalus found out he couldn't wait to invite himself. Besides the prestige of being with the delegation the Athenians bestowed great honours on the old man. Athenian excitement reached its peak when Rome, Rhodes and Pergamon all pledged their support for Athens, against Macedonia.

This indeed was a moment of glory for Athens that was jubilantly celebrated with a declaration of war on Macedonia. It was an impulsive move, which unfortunately backfired. At the sight of the Macedonian army Athens lost her new friends. They had better things to do than fight for her, and left her alone to absorb the full might of the Macedonian army. Philip's reaction to the Athenian move was prompt, vigorous and characteristic of a Macedonian king, to say the least. The Macedonians did not tolerate insubordination especially from Athens. Philip dispatched general Nicanor with orders to decimate Attica, including the Academy in Athens where the Roman mission was staying. Even though no Romans were killed in the attack, in retrospect, this was a mistake. News of the savage attacks quickly reached the Roman Senate persuading the optimists that Philip's contemptuous behaviour could not be tolerated and something had to be done. The Romans felt that they had no choice but to deliver an ultimatum ordering Philip to stop his aggressions against Attica and to settle his differences with Attalus by arbitration.

Philip knew that Rome, so soon after the war with Hannibal, was in no shape to take on Macedonia. He was not in the least perturbed by the prospect of war and completely ignored the ultimatum. He ordered more attacks on Attica and also attacked the cities around the Hellespond hoping to disrupt the Athenian Black Sea grain route.

The Romans dispatched a second ultimatum, which repeated the first and added two more clauses. This time he was required to compensate Rhodes for losses as well as refrain from attacking Egypt and Egyptian possessions. My guess is that the Romans found out about the secret pact between Philip and Antiochus.

Who were these Romans anyway and how did they dare dictate terms to a superpower? Philip stood his ground and refused to be intimidated. It should have been obvious to him by now that Rome was not going to go away. In fact, after her victory in Carthage, Rome was getting bolder by the day. Philip's response to the ultimatum was very simple, if there was going to be war then the Macedonians would fight. Still unperturbed, Philip continued with his attacks until he was satisfied and then returned to Macedonia. His arrogance had finally caught up with him. His non-compliance with Roman demands and his continual harassment of his neighbours not only robbed him of his dignity as a good statesman, but also convinced the Roman Senate that he was dangerous and should be dealt with as soon as possible.

In spite of their weakened condition, due to the Roman-Carthagian Punic Wars, the Romans actually accepted Philip's war challenge. It was fall, 200 BC, when news reached Macedonia that the Roman army had already landed at Apollonia and a Roman fleet was wintering in Corcyra.

What was worse than having Rome at Macedonia's gates was the state of Philip's affairs with his neighbours. His recent rash of unwarranted attacks on his Aegean neighbours had left him with very few allies. In fact he now had more enemies eager to defect to Rome than he had allies. The Achaean League, which at the time was preoccupied fighting a war with Sparta, figured it had a better chance of winning with Rome than with Macedonia on its side. In 199 BC, the Aetolians also made their choice and joined Rome because they believed Rome would win if a war broke out. Athens too made her choice and cast her Macedonian shackles in favour of Rome. Also, as Livy puts it, "the priests, whenever they prayed for Athens and her allies, were also bidden to curse and execrate Philip, his children and kingdom, his sea and land forces, and the entire race and name of the Macedonians". (Page 309, Peter Green, Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age).

None of these actions mattered to Philip. He was confident that he could meet any challenge and win just as his ancestors had done for centuries before.

For the next two years Philip continued his business as usual and crushed the Dardanian invasion, blockaded the Romans in Illyria, and showed no mercy to the troublesome Aetolians. Unfortunately, with all his efforts, Philip could not turn the tide as he was about to meet the Romans head on. It started with the arrival of the young Roman consul, Flamininus, who was sent by the Roman Senate to meet with Philip and deliver Rome's conditions for peace. Philip agreed to a meeting, which took place at the Aoos River in Illyria, but disagreed with the Roman terms. According to Roman demands, Macedonia was to evacuate and remove all its garrisons from the cities in Thessaly, Euboea and Corinth and give the cities autonomy. In other words, Macedonia was expected to surrender all the strong positions at her doorstep. Philip was insulted by the offer and quickly stormed out of the meeting. Flamininus lost no time and began his invasion, driving the Macedonians back into Thessaly. By late summer 198 BC, the Roman legions had reached the Gulf of Coring and a battle with Philip seemed imminent. Roman presence in the region convinced all but a few Achaean League members to abandon Macedonia and ally themselves with Rome. Philip weighed the situation carefully and, in November of 198 BC, returned to the negotiating table with a counter offer which would virtually restrict him to Macedonia only. The offer was neither accepted nor rejected as the Romans kept stalling for time. It was an election year and Flamininus had to leave for Rome. Philip was told to send an embassy there and negotiations resumed. Unfortunately things did not go well. The main points of contention were Philip's insistence on retaining control of the city of Demetrias, Chalcis and Corinth, better known as the shackles of his southerly neighbours. Once Flamininus was re-elected the negotiations came to an abrupt end and the legions were on the move again. Philip, now desperate, turned to the Spartans for assistance. He offered them Argos, one of the Achaean allies who remained loyal to Macedonia, and the marriage of Philip's daughter to the Spartan king's son. The treasonous Spartans unfortunately were not trustworthy. They took Philip's offer and then stabbed him in the back by making a separate deal with Flamininus. What was worse, there was now an armistice between Sparta and the Achaean league and the Spartans were obliged to provide Flamininus with troops to fight against Macedonia. All the while the Romans and their allies were gaining strength, Macedonia's army was being reduced to about twenty-five thousand remaining troops. Philip realized that with time his strength was eroding and he had to act quickly. Like many of his predecessors he decided to stake everything on a single battle.

In June 197 BC, at Cynoscephalae in Thessaly, the unbeaten Macedonian army came face to face with the Roman legions. With a massed charge the Macedonian phalanx gave the Romans a terrifying battle that they would never forget. During the first charge the Macedonians were successful and won the first round. It was a horrific spectacle for the battle hardened Romans who for the first time had made serious contact with the Macedonian phalanx. During the second charge, unfortunately, the phalanx overreached the Roman battle line and lost formation. The Romans quickly took advantage by outflanking the phalanx and cut it to pieces. Each individual Roman soldier was equipped with tools to fight in formation and in single-handed combat, something the Macedonians had never experienced before. Unable to regroup, the phalanx fell back and was destroyed. Without the phalanx, the Romans made short work of the rest of the Macedonian army. The Romans were not only more disciplined than Philip had anticipated, but they were also fast learners and able to quickly adapt to their opponent's fighting techniques. Even though the armies were equally disciplined, the Romans proved to be more flexible, giving them the advantage they needed to win.

Victorious, Rome took control of the region, restricting Philip to Macedonia. The terms of the agreement were far stiffer than those proposed earlier. Now Philip was required to evacuate all previously held regions in Asia and Europe, with the exception of Macedonia. In addition, Macedonia was required to pay Rome a one thousand talent war indemnity. It was a hard pill to swallow for Philip but what other choice did he have?

Before I continue with the main story, I would like to take a little diversion and examine what other contributions, besides conquests, the Macedonians bestowed upon the world. Again I want to emphasize that even though Alexander's empire was split into three kingdoms, the Antogonids, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, it was still ruled by Macedonians and was very much under Macedonian control. In spite of Alexander's attempts to integrate his Macedonian soldiers into the cultures he conquered, they resisted and after Alexander's death, they cast off their foreign robes and divorced their foreign wives thus abandoning Alexander's concept of "fusion between races in a universal empire". For a Macedonian, especially for a Macedonian soldier, there was no greater honour than being Macedonian. So why would they want to be any less?

With regard to spreading the Hellenic language and culture, I am in complete agreement with Peter Green when he says, "Hellenization, the diffusion of Greek language and culture that has been defined, ever since Droysen's Geschichte der Diadochen (1836), as the essence of Hellenistic civilization, is a phenomenon calling for careful scrutiny. Its civilizing, even its missionary aspects have been greatly exaggerated, not least by those anxious to find some moral justification for imperialism." (Page 312, Peter Green, Alexander to Actium, The Historical Evolution of the Hellenic Age).

It has never been the mission of any empire, ancient or modern, to spread its language and culture to the conquered. The cold truth is that empires seek conquest for profit and land so that they can better themselves, not those they conquer. The Macedonian imperialists were no different. Their propaganda may have claimed many things but, as history has shown, what they did was indeed very different from what they said.

The greatest contribution the Macedonians made to the world, especially to Europe, was the opening of Asia and Africa to European trade. The Macedonians made sure trade routes were created wherever they went and afterwards guaranteed their safety. Trade routes were not confined to the sea-lanes alone. Much trade was done over land and stretched from Europe to as far as the Hindu Kush. The area of trade, connected by a large grid of trade routes, was a huge rectangle that stretched from the Hellespond east to the Hindu Kush, south to the bottom of the Persian Gulf, west through Arabia to the Nile Valley and north back to the Hellespond. Trade was heavily concentrated on the Aegean side of Asia Minor and down the Nile valley. The western part of Asia Minor was the hub of economic activities both on shore and at sea.

Second to trade, the Macedonians during this period contributed a wealth of information to natural sciences, navigation, geography, biology, botany, astronomy, history and literature. It has been said that the city of Alexandria in Egypt in her glory days possessed the greatest collection of books and knowledge ever assembled in a single library. Built by Ptolemy Soter, the magnificent library of Alexandria was in possession of nearly half a million scrolls. Most of these scrolls were written in koine and were self-serving. There was very little for or about the common Egyptian, which is a contradiction to Droysen's claims regarding the Diadochoi's mission to disseminate the so-called "Hellenic Culture" to foreigners.

If anything was disseminated or shared between cultures it was technical skills. The most striking example of effective adaptation of skill was in the evolutionary techniques of warfare. Both Macedonians and foreigners learned from each other and quickly adapted to each other's fighting styles and techniques. Alexander learned about mounted archers from the nomads, a technique he adapted and employed against guerrilla attacks.

Exchange of skills was not limited to warfare. One example of effectively passing on knowledge from one culture to another was in the field of medicine. There are many examples where Macedonians taught other cultures to prepare and apply medicines to cure various illnesses.

With regard to their language, the Macedonians did spread the international koine or lingua franca, but solely for commercial, administrative and religious purposes, leaving the common men out. Back then anyone important, particularly a businessperson had to learn koine in order to interact and communicate at an international level, especially in Egypt where the Ptolemies insisted on using koine. These were exceptions, however, since the majority of the conquered populations were excluded.

It has been said that Macedonians employed local slaves, as domestics, who were taken along with them to foreign lands. While living in isolation these slaves often became accustomed to the language and culture of their masters, the Macedonians, and passed them on to their descendants. One example of this is the Jews of Alexandria in Egypt. It is believed that the first Jews to arrive in Alexandria were prisoners of war brought there by Ptolemy I. Their prolonged isolation from their own communities and the continual contact with a large Macedonian population influenced them to learn to speak the language of the Macedonians.

The cities the Macedonians built in foreign lands served multiple purposes. The port cities were gateways to maritime commerce and support centers for the Macedonian military. Other cities, such as the many Alexandrias that Alexander III commissioned and built during his conquests were there to support military needs. As I mentioned earlier, whenever Alexander encountered a hostile people he built a city and populated it with Macedonian settlers to support the needs of the Macedonian military. In time, and through further conquest, a network of Macedonian cities were built and settled with Macedonians throughout Asia and Egypt. These settlers came directly from Macedonia and brought with them their native Macedonian language, customs, skills and culture. The settlements served as military colonies and were concentrated around Lydia and Phrygia. Some were large cities serving the trade sector while others were garrison outposts spread throughout the empire serving the needs of the Macedonian troops.

Unlike any other cities, the new Macedonian cities were built on axial-grid patterns and were far larger and cosmopolitan then any previously built cities. Pergamon, Antioch, Seleucia-on-Tigris and certainly Alexandria of Egypt were vast cities and major focal points for international trade and cultural development. They were far greater than Athens ever was even at the height of her glory. That being said, one wonders why modern Europe has bestowed such great honours on Athens and almost none on Alexandria? After all Alexandria was the most important city of the so-called "Hellenistic period". Poised between Africa and Europe, Alexandria was the meeting place of all races and creeds. Still flourishing to this day, she has endured two and a half millennia of violence and survived. She is a tribute to the greatness of her builders, the Macedonians.

While on the subject of ancient Macedonian cities, I want to mention that Alexandria did not stand alone in magnificence. There were dozens of magnificent cities built after Alexander's conquests but only a few stood out. One of those few was Antioch. Antioch was built on the fertile coastal plain linking southern Anatolia with Palestine, on the left bank of the Orontes River under the towering peak of Mount Silpios. It was a site where Alexander III had previously passed by and drank water from the plentiful, cool springs. But it was Seleucus in 300 BC, who chose it for its access to the inland caravan routes, its cool breezes off the sea and for its rich surrounding lands that offered wine, grains, vegetables and oil. Like Alexandria, Antioch was an ethnically mixed city, a community of many races including retired soldiers. Antioch gained its importance when it became the capital of the Seleucid empire under Antiochus I's rule. The Ptolemy's annexed Antioch, for a brief period, but it was during Antiochus IV's rule that the city was re-developed and expanded. From 175 BC onwards its luxury began to rival that of Alexandria.

The ancient Macedonians of this period, especially those living in the Diaspora, were cosmopolitan people and freely traveled throughout their world from city to city to fight for their king, seek work or make their fortunes in trade. It was not beneath them to exchange ideas and to pass on to other cultures, their skills, customs and knowledge. Macedonian scientists, architects, engineers, artists, craftsmen and physicians traveled with the Macedonian armies wherever they went and no doubt left their mark.

With regard to education, in those days, there were no public institutions to serve the needs of the masses. Education was strictly a private affair, managed by professional tutors and only available to those who could afford it. Theater and games were also privately owned and restricted to club members only and were rarely attended by foreigners. Even the uneducated Macedonian settlers and soldiers kept to themselves and rarely socialized with those of other cultures. The Dura-Europos inscriptions, mentioned before, are good examples of such behaviour. Even after nearly three centuries of living in the Diaspora, the Macedonians of Dura-Europos still spoke their native Macedonian language and practiced their Macedonian customs.

If there was any Macedonian language and culture dissemination in the post-Alexandrian era it was to the Macedonian Diaspora of Asia and Egypt. As I mentioned earlier, Macedonians often traveled between Europe, Asia and Egypt. With them they brought news, gossip, art, music, inventions, etc., which only appealed and made sense to other Macedonians.

It has been said that a great many Macedonian settlers from Asia Minor to India, who were initially brought there to serve the military, in time, became rich land owners and built Macedonian style estates and villas, decorating them with all kinds of Macedonian art. Many of these landowners and their families remained there and practiced their customs and culture for years after the Macedonian empires collapsed. An example of this is the ancient settlement of Ai Khanum in northern Afghanistan. There, French excavator Paul Bernard and his team found a so-called "Hellenistic type" mausoleum and a villa decorated with a beautiful fountain that has carved gargoyles and water spouts in the form of lion and dolphin heads. The art and architecture is identical to that found in Macedonia. History cites many examples where ancient Macedonian cultures had survived for centuries after Macedonia proper had succumbed to Roman rule.

In terms of literature, the Macedonians were more interested in learning from the conquered than in teaching them. Being uninterested in learning the languages of the conquered, the Macedonian elite often commissioned translations of their works. Ptolemy Soter commissioned Egyptian priest Manetho to write the history of Egypt in koine. Similarly, Seleucus Nicator commissioned priest Berassos to write a digest of Babylonian wisdom, again in koine.

In terms of government, a monarch who, in theory, was a triumphant warrior, honoured truth and was accessible to his subjects, ruled the Macedonians of Macedonia proper. This was true for Macedonia but not necessarily true for Asia and Egypt, the lands won by the spear and held down by the right of conquest. The Asian and Egyptian dynasties were ruled by autocratic monarchies supported by centralized bureaucracies. There was no national power base or local ethnic support. Both Asian and Egyptian dynasties employed paid armies to maintain the status quo. Both dynasties imported Macedonians from Macedonia to administer their bureaucracies. Furthermore, the Macedonian elite maintained its rule by force and bureaucracy over a native labour force. The crown owned all lands and everything in Asia and Egypt was done in support of the king.

The difference between Macedonia proper and the other two Macedonian empires was that Macedonia proper had a national power base and Macedonians ruled Macedonians.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:32

Alexander's sudden death at Babylon in June 323 BC came as an unexpected surprise and threw the empire into upheaval. Alexander had made himself irreplaceable but had never considered the idea of appointing a qualified successor should the tragically unexpected ever happen. After all, he was a soldier and soldiers do get killed. If Alexander had a weakness, this was it. There are those who say that it was Alexander himself who brought this tragedy upon his empire. Had he appointed a successor, his empire may have survived to endure the Roman onslaught. Better yet, had he not ventured into Asia he could have followed in his father's footsteps and made Macedonia even greater. By allowing the empire to be split, however, Alexander's successors weakened Macedonia enough to fall prey to the Romans.

The stage was set for the Great Macedonian Empire to decline when the army failed to appoint a single strong leader. It was apparent from the start that Arrhidaeus, Philip II's epileptic and dimwitted son and Alexander III's unborn child were not chosen for their leadership skills but rather for their non-interference. Who then was truly going to rule the empire? Obviously Alexander had surrounded himself with men who were more interested in their own careers than the fate of the empire. For the next fifty years or so, the most powerful and influential military leaders fought each other for control of the empire. After fifty years of struggle and strife they partitioned the empire into three pieces. In the end, the Antigonids took Macedonia and Greece, the Ptolemies took Egypt and the Seleucids took Asia. Many died senselessly before the conflicts reached equilibrium and the partitioned lands assumed a sense of normalcy (see Arrian). There was one positive result even though the empire was partitioned and ruled by different dynasties. For centuries Macedonians ruled the empire and traveled freely throughout their world, which stretched from the Adriatic to the Punjab and from Tadzhikistan to Libya. They maintained contact with each other and with their homeland as many traveled back and forth to seek employment and visit family and friends.

On their way back to Macedonia, Craterus and the discharged veterans received news of Alexander's death and the army's order for Antipater to remain general of Europe. Craterus in the meantime was to assume the position of protector of the kingdom of Arrhidaeus. Roxane did give birth to a baby boy who was named Alexander IV and both he and Arrhidaeus were summoned to Asia in the care of Perdiccas.

According to Diodorus, the most influential players remaining in Babylon after Alexander's death were Perdiccas, the most senior cavalry officer, bearer of Alexander's ring and guardian of the two kings, Meleager, the most senior phalanx leader, Ptolemy, Leonnatus, Lysimachus and Peucestas, all of whom held relatively important positions in the empire. Less important at the time but who later rose to the ranks of important players were Seleucus, commander of the crack guards' regiment, Eumenes, Alexander's secretary and only foreigner among the leading Macedonians, Antipater's son Cassander and Antigonus the one-eyed, the influential satrap of Phrygia. Absent were Craterus and Antipater, who as I mentioned earlier were still in Macedonia.

The struggle for control of the empire began right after Alexander's death and lasted for more than fifty years. During the first few years or so Perdiccas was the first to make a serious attempt at gaining control of the empire. By offering a compromise settlement to the others he hoped to gain power for himself. Unfortunately he made too many diplomatic errors and his scheming landed him in hot water. He was assassinated by his own men the day before he was planning to attack Ptolemy at the Nile Delta.

Before I continue with Perdiccas's story, I want to mention that Leonnatus had also met his demise. In the spring of 322 BC, while Antipater and Craterus were busy putting down the Greek rebellions, Leonnatus brought his army across the Hellespont hoping to lay claim to Macedonia through marriage. Alexander's sister Cleopatra had written him with an offer of marriage. Unfortunately, Leonnatus was killed in battle and did not achieve his ambitions.

Perdiccas's decline began back in the palace of Babylon when he attempted to assert his own authority above the others by announcing a purification of the army after Alexander's death. This was in response to Meleager who was attempting to assert Arrhidaeus's authority over Perdiccas by force. A squabble broke out and Meleager's supporters were rounded up and executed, on Perdiccas's orders. Meleager was spared at the time only to be murdered later, no doubt by Perdiccas's assassins. It was also at Perdiccas's insistence that Antipater was left in charge of Europe and Craterus was given the administrative role of guardian of the kings. Perdiccas was well aware of Craterus's popularity with the infantry and wanted him as far away from it as possible. Perdiccas was also secretly plotting to overthrow Antipater through intrigues and by attempts to marry into power. When all this was revealed, Antipater as well as Craterus, Lysimachus and Antigonus lined up against him.

His problems did not end there. Macedonian custom decreed that to be king one had to bury the predecessor and Alexander was not yet buried. In fact, Perdiccas no longer had possession of Alexander's body. To curb Perdiccas's chances of becoming king, Ptolemy had bribed the commander of the funeral cortege to hide the body. It is still unknown where Alexander was buried. His body was neither taken home to the royal tombs at Aigai nor was it conveyed to the Siwah oasis. According to Peter Green, Ptolemy took the body first to Memphis for a pharaoh's burial and then to Alexandria where it was put on permanent display in a gold coffin.

In the spring of 320 BC Perdiccas left Asia for Egypt to attack Ptolemy. However, Ptolemy was ready for him and sabotaged his chances at a victory. A few days after Perdiccas's death, word came that Eumenes fought a great battle against Craterus near the border of Cappadocia and won an overwhelming victory, which unfortunately left Craterus dead. Before leaving for Egypt, Perdiccas had appointed Eumenes in charge of Asia and now that Perdiccas was dead, Eumenes made a bid for Perdiccas's portion of the empire. The army, however, did not agree with Eumenes's actions and, during an assembly in Egypt, formally condemned Eumenes and his supporters to death. It was now a matter of time before they were hunted down and executed.

The power vacuum left by the loss of Craterus and Perdiccas created some concern for Alexander's successors who in 320 BC again assembled the army, this time in Syria. After some deliberation the assembly decided to appoint Antipater guardian of the kings with full powers and gave Antigonus command of the troops in Asia with a specific assignment to hunt down Eumenes.

For the next twenty or so years, it was Antigonus who dominated the Asian front. He made a great effort to bring as much of the whole empire as possible under his control but he too unfortunately paid for his ventures with his life.

Before his appointment, Antigonus had shown himself to be very ambitious and Antipater did not trust him with all that power in his hands. Antipater's son Cassander, however, was comfortable with the choice and convinced his father to allow the appointment. To safeguard Antigonus's loyalty Antipater married off his daughter Phila, Craterus's widow, to Antigonus's son Demetrius. As a further safeguard, Cassander attached himself to Antigonus's staff as cavalry commander and remained in Asia. Antipater returned to Macedonia to resume his former duties and to bring the two kings back to their homeland.

It took Antigonus about five years to catch up to Eumenes. It was not Antigonus who caused the death of Eumenes but his own soldiers who let him down in battle. Here is what Peter Green has to say. "He was destroyed in the end only by repeated betrayals (the price of reliance on over-independent and quasi-mercenary commanders), and by the fundamental greed-cum-xenophobia of Macedonian troops, who at heart resented being led by a smooth Greek intellectual, especially one who failed to bring them loot as well as victories. They may on one occasion have greeted him in Macedonian, as a kind of backhanded compliment, but they let him down badly during their first campaign against Antigonus in Cappadocia." (Page 17, Peter Green, Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age).

Being humiliated by his defeat, Eumenes and about six hundred of his followers fled to the fortress of Nora in the northern Taurus range. Antigonus at once took over both of Eumenes's satrapy and his army and laid siege to Nora. Antigonus did not stop with Eumenes but continued to pursue his allies with much success. It was during these campaigns that Antigonus began to seriously consider taking over the entire empire.

Late in 319 BC Antipater, who was in his seventies, died of old age. His death gave Antigonus encouragement to pursue his dream but, unfortunately, like Perdiccas before him he began to make diplomatic blunders.

During his last hours of life, Antipater passed on his authority to a loyal Macedonian officer named Polyperchon who was a good soldier but had very little experience in diplomatic matters. The new appointee's first mistake was to bring back Alexander III's mother Olympias from Epirus and appoint her royal guardian of young Alexander. The first to react to this appointment with outrage was Antipater's son Cassander who had expected the appointment himself and did not agree with the present arrangement. Cassander immediately formed a coalition with Ptolemy of Egypt, Antigonus of Asia and Lysimachus of Thrace against Polyperchon.

The alliance with Cassander had possibilities for Antigonus but first he had to conclude the siege of Nora. Not being able to seize the impregnable fortress by force, Antigonus turned to diplomacy and offered Eumenes an alliance. Being anxious to get out of his current predicament, Eumenes agreed to the terms of the alliance and swore allegiance to Antigonus. In early summer of 318 BC the siege was lifted. A few months later Eumenes received an offer of alliance from Polyperchon and Olympias, who at the time were enemies of Antigonus and Cassander. Eumenes accepted their offer and switched sides. Antigonus made a counter offer but it was rejected. Not too long afterwards war broke out in Asia between Antigonus and Eumenes which lasted two years. Then in the fall of 316 BC, during the battle of Paraetacene, Eumenes was again betrayed by his men which resulted in his capture by Antigonus, who in turn had him executed.

In Macedonia, meanwhile, Polyperchon made attempts to gain the support of the Greek city- states against Cassander but without much success. Olympias, on the other hand, made matters worse for Polyperchon by invading Macedonia from Epirus. Bent on seeing her grandson on the throne, Olympias, in early 317 BC, invaded Macedonia with a small force. She was provoked by Philip Arrhidaeus's wife Eurydice who had openly declared her support of Cassander as regent of Macedonia. With the threat of invasion, Eurydice came out, in full armour, at the head of her troops to meet Olympias at the Macedonian-Epirot frontier. However, seeing Alexander's mother she backed off and laid down her arms. Olympias unfortunately was not the forgiving type and got back at her by executing her husband Philip Arrhidaeus. Without her husband's support Eurydice could not bear the pain of being a widow and in the fall of 317 BC she committed suicide.

Olympias's revenge did not stop with the murder of Philip Arrhidaeus. Believing that her son Alexander III was poisoned by the cupbearer, Iolaus (Antipater's son), she had his corpse exhumed from the grave and his ashes scattered. She also executed hundreds of supporters of Philip Arrhidaeus and Eurydice. Fortunately, her killing spree was short lived. After making amends with Athens, Cassander invaded Macedonia and had the Macedonian army pronounce a death sentence on Olympias, which drove her back to Pydna. Starved of support she surrendered in the spring of 315 BC and was executed by stoning. Young Alexander was now left in Cassander's custody, which itself may just as well have been a death sentence. Cassander in time began to act as king of Macedonia and had no intention of stepping down for anyone. He made his intentions clear by giving Philip Arrhidaeus and Eurydice a royal burial at Aigai and by marrying Philip II's daughter Salonica.

As I mentioned earlier, Antigonus's pursuit of Eumenes allowed him to exercise his influence over the vastness of Asia. With Eumenes out of the way, Antigonus was now in charge of all the lands from Asia Minor to the uplands of Iran. He exercised his powers like an independent monarch, appointing satraps at his own discretion and even taking money from the empire's treasuries to shore up support and hire mercenaries for his army. He used bribery and favouritism to dispose of his enemies and those who did not agree with his policies. He even ordered an audit of Seleucus's accounting hoping to find indiscretions so he could get rid of him. Seleucus at the time was satrap of Babylonia and sensing that his life was in danger, fled to Egypt leaving Antigonus in control of almost all of Alexander's Asian empire.

Antigonus's actions, however, did not go unnoticed and in fact created great alarm in his rivals. His pursuit of Alexander's old officers was enough cause for concern which prompted not only Seleucus, who lost his lucrative position, but also for Ptolemy, Cassander and Lysimachus to serve him an ultimatum. While making his rounds raiding treasuries and collecting tributes in Syria, the envoys sent by Ptolemy, Cassander and Lysimachus met up with Antigonus. They served notice, ordering Antigonus to restore Seleucus to his former satrapy in Babylon and to surrender Syria to Ptolemy, Hellespontine Phrygia to Lysimachus and Lycia and Cappadocia to Cassander. Of course these were outrageous demands which Antigonus flatly rejected. But they were serious enough that if ignored would lead to war which Antigonus felt confident he could win. Antigonus had one weakness in not having a fleet but that could easily be remedied in the future because he had the money to build one.

Antigonus built shipyards at various port cities including Tripolis, Byblos and Sidon. He also secured alliances with Cyprus and sent troops to guard the Hellespont against a possible crossing by Cassander. He even tried to buy help from Polyperchon in the Peloponnisos encouraging him to start a war with Cassander. To rally their support, Antigonus even made a pitch to his troops accusing Cassander of the murder of Olympias, of marrying Salonica by force and of trying to make a bid for the Macedonian throne. In his propaganda communiqué, in a bid to gain more support, Antigonus offered the Greeks a number of concessions including freedom, autonomy and the removal of the Macedonian garrisons. The actual communiqué that was handed down to the Greeks by Polyperchon, however, was revised and the words "freedom" and "autonomy" were removed.

In 311 BC, war did break out and Antigonus found himself fighting on two fronts, one in Syria and the other at the Hellespont. A war also broke out in Susa, which involved Antigonus's son Demetrius and his army on one side against Ptolemy's superior forces reinforced with elephants, on the other. In battle Demetrius was no match for Ptolemy and was easily defeated. Ptolemy's victory opened the door for Seleucus to regain his satrapy. With borrowed troops (from Ptolemy), Seleucus marched in and recaptured Babylon, Media and Susiana, thus restoring himself to his former glory.

The conflict with Ptolemy drew Antigonus to Syria but in view of Ptolemy's victory Antigonus decided now was not the right time to pursue matters further. Antigonus's withdrawal signaled an end to the aggressions. Terms of a peace agreement were renegotiated and each of the players was reconfirmed. Cassander was to remain general of Europe until young Alexander came of age, Lycimachus was to remain in Thrace, Ptolemy in Egypt and Antigonus was to be first in rank in Asia. Seleucus and Polyperchon were not present at the peace talks and therefore were not included in any of the agreements. So, technically, Antigonus was still at war with Seleucus. Of all the promises made to the Greeks, event though a great deal of discussion took place about them, nothing concrete materialized.

In 311 BC, after the conclusion of the peace treaty, Alexander's empire still remained intact but was now controlled by Ptolemy, Antigonus, Lycimachus, Seleucus and Cassander, all of them Macedonians.

As it turned out, however, the 311 BC peace agreement was nothing more than a temporary truce, a break in a never-ending struggle for power. Antigonus, Lycimachus and Seleucus each still possessed ambitions to unite Alexander's empire but under their own rule.

No sooner were the details of the peace agreement worked out than each of the protagonists went back to work preparing for the next round of conflict. Ptolemy's wish was to recover the satrapy of Syria and Phoenicia. Demetrius busied himself rebuilding his base of power and Antigonus could not wait to deal with Seleucus.

By 310 BC a new round of conflict was about to erupt, propagated by Ptolemy's accusations of Antigonus's infringements on the freedom of the Cilicians. Not to be outdone, rumours were coming out of Macedonia that young Alexander and his mother Roxane were dead, executed by Cassander. It is unknown whether Cassander carried out the executions immediately or later but their deaths were confirmed in 306 BC.

While this was going on Antigonus and Polyperchon were scheming and revealed that Alexander III had an illegitimate son named Heracles born to a woman named Barsine. Heracles at the time was sixteen years old. Armed with this new information, Polyperchon was ready to march on Macedonia and claim the throne for Heracles. When confronted by Cassander, however, all Polyperchon wanted was to be confirmed general of Peloponnisos. Cassander was more than willing to oblige him in return for the murder of Heracles. After that nothing more was heard of Polyperchon until his death in 302 BC.

With Heracles out of the way, the only remaining living descendant of the Argead line was Alexander III's sister Cleopatra, who at the time was living in Sardis looking for a husband. Unfortunately she too was murdered around 309 BC, no doubt by Antigonus's henchmen, which brought the Argead line of Philip II and Alexander III to an end.

Having lost his chances at making gains in Macedonia, Antigonus turned his attention to Seleucus. Around 309 BC, he sent general Nicanor to attack Seleucus at his home base but instead of obtaining a victory Nicanor met with defeat and soon afterwards Antigonus agreed to sign a non-aggression pact with Seleucus. The struggle between Antigonus and Ptolemy over control of the Mediterranean waters continued until around 308 BC when Ptolemy invaded a small region of coastal Peloponnisos. Demetrius, in 307 BC, was dispatched by Antigonus to free Athens from Cassander. Conflict between Antigonus and Ptolemy broke out in Cyprus and the victorious Demetrius was once again dispatched and in 306 BC pushed Ptolemy back to Egypt.

To celebrate his victory in Cyprus, Antigonus took the title of king for himself and for his son Demetrius. Antigonus was the first of Alexander's old marshals to declare himself king and establish the idea of forming a new dynasty. By 305/304 BC, both Ptolemy and Seleucus followed suit and they too proclaimed the title king and began their own dynasties. Not to be outdone Lysimachus and Cassander followed suit.

With Demetrius delivering victory after victory, Antigonus was growing stronger and bolder. In 302 BC, he refused Cassander's peace offer and dispatched Demetrius to finish him off. Facing a call for an unconditional surrender or an all out war, Cassander turned to the other Macedonian marshals Ptolemy, Seleucus and Lysimachus and asked for assistance. By now just about everyone had had enough of Antigonus and welcomed the idea of forming a coalition against him. They developed a plan together and put it into action.

They needed to draw both Antigonus and Demetrius out to Asia Minor. Ptolemy struck first with a diversionary invasion of Syria. This prompted Antigonus to abandon his campaign in Europe and quickly dispatch Demetrius to Syria. But soon after Demetrius arrived in Asia he and his father were drawn into a battle in Phrygia. Lysimachus, Seleucus and Cassander were waiting for them at Ipsus. Sensing a victory, Demetrius charged with his cavalry and broke through the enemy battle lines.

His immediate success gave him confidence to pursue his fleeing opponents beyond the battleground. Seleucus then sought the chance to plug up the gap with his Indian elephants, virtually cutting off Demetrius's chances of returning to the battle. Antigonus fought vigorously but, without Demetrius, was no match for his opponents. To make matters worse, Antigonus himself was mortally wounded and died while the battle raged on.

Without Antigonus or Demetrius to lead, Antigonus's army was easily defeated. Demetrius, with about 9,000 of his troops, managed to escape and flee to Ephesus but the humiliating defeat left him without much of an army. Demetrius did not lose everything however. He had his father's navy and was still in control of Cyprus and some scattered coastal cities nearby. The victorious allies, on the other hand, now possessed the vastness of Asia and all its wealth.

In 301 BC, at the dawn of the 2nd century, after twenty years of struggling to rebuild Alexander's empire another great Macedonian marshal came to pass. Antigonus was dead and his share of the empire went to his surviving colleagues who showed no hesitation in carving it up for themselves. Lysimachus, with the exception of parts of Lycia, Pamphylia and Pisidia, took most of Asia Minor up to the Taurus Mountains. Ptolemy's diversionary invasion won him all of Syria and Phoenicia. Seleucus received the eastern portion of Asia but was not quite satisfied and also asked for Coele-Syria. Ptolemy who was in control of it at the time refused to give it up. Cassander made no claims in Asia but expected to be given full concessions in Europe.

Before I continue with the main story, I would like to take a small diversion and talk a little bit about one of the Seven Wonders of the World.

It has been said that the so-called Colossus of Rhodes, which stood at the entrance of the harbour, was a statue of Helios built by the people of Rhodes.
The story begins with Antigonus's desire to control and dominate the sea-lanes in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean waters. In order to achieve this, Antigonus had to take control of all ports including the neutral and fiercely independent port of Rhodes Island. The traders of Rhodes, who at the time were allowed to do business throughout the Mediterranean waters, were exceptionally wealthy and even though they were neutral had leanings towards Ptolemy because most of their business was done in places under his control.

Knowing the situation that they would be in, at first, the Rhodians refused to surrender. But the threat of war caused them to reconsider and they did surrender without a fight. Unfortunately, Antigonus did not trust them and wanted one hundred of their noblest citizens as hostages. The Rhodians refused to part with their noblest citizens and thus rescinded the offer to surrender. Antigonus immediately dispatched Demetrius with a strong force of four hundred ships and great siege engines and began the siege. A compromise was reached after a year of fighting with no result. The hostages were surrendered and in return the Rhodians received autonomy and were allowed possession of their own revenues.

The agreement forced the Rhodians to ally themselves with Antigonus except in campaigns against Ptolemy. In gratitude for Ptolemy's unwavering military and economic support during the siege, the Rhodians established the cult of Ptolemy the Saviour. To commemorate their struggles during the siege they commissioned a giant 105 foot high statue of Helios which took 12 years to complete and which later was recognized as one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world.

What is remarkable is that with the exception of some minor battles between Seleucus and the Indians, in the twenty years after Alexander's death, no power rose to challenge the Macedonians.

The battle of Ipsus was a turning point for the Macedonian protagonists who by their rivalry had pushed away any real chance of reuniting the empire. What was even worse is that with each new generation assuming power, the chances of reuniting the empire became more remote. In the next twenty-five years the protagonists would be facing different challenges but their rivalries would be a constant. The old guard would pass on but the empire would still remain in Macedonian hands.

Demetrius may have been down but he was not out. In the next fourteen years or so between 301 BC, and 286 BC, he tried to restore his power but without success. He still possessed the strongest fleet in the Aegean and held Cyprus, Tyre and Sidon. After establishing himself in Corinth around 295 BC he managed to take Athens. His gains, however, did not go unnoticed. If Demetrius were to take Greece and Macedonia then he could use them to invade Asia. None of his rivals was prepared to accept that so while Demetrius was busy playing politics in Athens, they lost no time in taking his few possessions. Lysimachus took the Ionian ports, Seleucus took Cilicia and Ptolemy took Cyprus.

In Macedonia meanwhile, Cassander died in 298/297 BC, and was succeeded by his eldest son Philip IV who also died soon afterwards. Cassander had two younger sons named Antipater and Alexander who under Salonica's (their mother and Philip II's daughter) guidance became rivals. Salonica favoured her younger son Alexander and insisted that her sons equally divide up their father's empire so that each could have his own place to rule. Antipater, however, insisted that, according to Macedonian law, being the oldest male he had priority over all others and it was his right alone to rule his father's empire.

His disagreements with his mother caused him to resent her so much that he had her murdered. He then appealed to Lysimachus for assistance against his brother. The younger Alexander, on the other hand, did not take well to the situation and decided to oppose his brother by forming alliances with their two closest neighbours Demetrius and Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus was a new player in the Macedonian games, installed by Ptolemy as the king of Epirus. Before his installation as king, young Pyrrhus was a hostage of Ptolemy's given to him by Demetrius. Ptolemy took a liking to Pyrrhus and made him his protégé. After Cassander's death, Ptolemy supplied Pyrrhus with an army and restored him to the Epiriot throne.

While Demetrius was busy in Athens, Pyrrhus quickly acted on Alexander's appeal and began to acquire lands on his western frontiers. Demetrius, who at the time was fighting battles in the Peloponnisos, abandoned his immediate plans and began to move northward. Demetrius came to Alexander's aid too late. Pyrrhus had already done the job and convinced Alexander to inform Demetrius that his services were no longer required. Demetrius did not take Alexander's high and mighty attitude lightly so the moment he got his chance he had him murdered.

Demetrius lost no time and had his supporters in the Macedonian army proclaim him king of Macedonia. Then in 293 BC, he turned southwards, conquered Thessaly and established a new port city, today's modern Volos which he named Demetrias. Around 292/291 BC he made some gains in Greece and destroyed Thebes twice. By 291 BC he again came into contact with Pyrrhus and a new round of conflict was about to erupt.

All the while Demetrius was campaigning, Pyrrhus was not sitting idle. Sensing Demetrius's growing strength Pyrrhus decided to bolster his own defenses by forming alliances. In 290 BC he allied himself with the Aetolians, seized the Phocis and banned Demetrius and his allies from the Pythian games at Delphi. This brought him in direct conflict with the Athenians. It seemed that war was inevitable, only a matter of time. Pyrrhus was not the only threat for Demetrius. Ptolemy, Seleucus and Lysimachus were also not content with Demetrius's gains and wanted him out of the way.

Lysimachus and Pyrrhus, in the spring of 288 BC, were first to strike from the east and the west catching Demetrius off guard. Even though Demetrius possessed the strongest fleet and had in excess of 100,000 soldiers, his support quickly crumbled and by mid-summer of the same year he lost everything. When it was over, Macedonia went to Pyrrhus while the region around the Strumitsa Valley, including Amphipolis, went to Lysimachus. Demetrius himself escaped and went into hiding at Cassandra in the Chalcidic Peninsula.

Once again Demetrius was down but not out. While in hiding he continued to campaign for support and he got it. It was not too long before he whipped up enough support to build an army and invade the Peloponnisos. His appearance at the gates of Greece prompted the Athenians to act but they were no match for Demetrius's formidable army so they called Pyrrhus for help. When Pyrrhus arrived, along with Ptolemy's powerful fleet, neither Pyrrhus nor Demetrius wanted war so a settlement was reached. By mid 287 BC, a peace agreement was signed removing Demetrius from Athens but allowing him to keep the fortress of Corinth, Chalcis and a few other regions around Attica.

With the loss of Athens, Demetrius for the moment lost his appetite for conquests in Greece and left for Asia Minor, leaving his son Antigonus Gonatas in charge. Demetrius unfortunately could not sit still and started causing trouble for Lysimachus, which again landed him into hot water. By the spring of 286 BC, Demetrius built an army and was attacking cities in Asia Minor and taking them by force. After capturing Sardis he got Lysimachus's attention. Lysimachus then sent his son Agathocles in pursuit of Demetrius. In the meantime, Lysimachus invaded Demetrius's rear, cut him off from his fleet and blocked his communication lines.

Demetrius was literally trapped but instead of turning back he decided to go deeper into Asia past the Taurus Range and into the hands of Seleucus. Unable to take on Seleucus, Demetrius, in the spring of 285 BC, surrendered and was taken to Apamea on the Orontes and left there to live in luxury. Unfortunately a luxurious life in confinement did not agree with Demetrius and by late summer 283 BC, at age fifty-four he died of drunkenness and boredom.

Without his father Demetrius, Antigonus Gonatas was not a threat to anyone and for the time being kept to himself. Unfortunately, that was not the case with Lysimachus who, in the power vacuum left by Demetrius, sought the opportunity to enlarge his own domain but at the expense of Pyrrhus. In 285 BC, Lysimachus proceeded to seize both western Macedonia and Thessaly. Pyrrhus, the weaker of the two rivals, retreated to Epirus.

With Pyrrhus out of the way, Cassander's son Antipater had great expectations of being restored to his father's throne. That unfortunately did not happen. Lysimachus, who now was in control of Macedonia, convinced his loyal supporters in the Macedonian army to proclaim him king instead. As the new king of Macedonia Lysimachus's first act was to execute young Antipater for protesting his claim. Antipater's death literally ended Cassander's rule.

Having very few assets, Antigonus Gonatas could not pay his father's navy for services rendered and most of it, along with his western port cities, went to Ptolemy. With Pyrrhus and Antigonus Gonatus down, the clear winners of this bout, at least for the moment, were Ptolemy, Lysimachus and Seleucus.

Ptolemy was a clever man who knew that too much ambition was dangerous and managed to stay out of trouble and gained just as much from sitting on the sidelines as the others did from being in the center of focus. Ptolemy was getting old and unlike his rivals prepared an heir to take his place when he was gone. Two years before his death, in 285 BC, Ptolemy appointed Ptolemy II as his co-ruler and successor. Unfortunately his appointment did not go well with another son, from a different wife, named Ptolemy Keraunos.

Immediately after Ptolemy II's appointment, Keraunos took his grievance to Seleucus. Seleucus recommended he wait until Ptolemy died before taking any action but unfortunately that was not what Keraunos wanted so he left Seleucus and went to Lysimachus for help. Lysimachus did offer him help but again it was not what Keraunos expected. In fact, after Ptolemy's death in 283 BC, Lysimachus changed his mind and instead of helping Keraunos he attempted to gain an alliance with his rival, Ptolemy II by offering him one of his daughters in marriage. Even though he was disappointed by Lysimachus's move, having no other options for the moment, Keraunos decided to stay with him as one of his lieutenants and carry on his agitation from there.

Lysimachus was now over eighty years old and it was a matter of time before he died but he had yet to select an heir. So before things could be settled, Seleucus, in 282 BC, decided to attack him and strip him of his domain. The attack was not only successful, but it encouraged some of Lysimachus's governors to switch alliances voluntarily. By 281 BC, most of Anatolia was surrendering to Seleucus. Lysimachus retaliated with a counter attack giving everything he had, gambling that he would win a decisive victory in a single battle. A great battle was fought at Curapedion. Like his old rival Antigonus before him, Lysimachus lost everything including his life. Keraunos was captured but was not harmed and Seleucus continued to ignore his pleas for assistance to regain the Egyptian throne.

Victorious, Seleucus set out for Europe so he could lay claim to his homeland, Macedonia. But on his way, during a heated argument with Ptolemy Keraunos, he was stabbed to death. Raging with anger Keraunos instantly killed the old Seleucus.

With Seleucus's demise so ended the line of all of Alexander the III's marshals. Unfortunately their legacy and rivalry continued to live on in their offspring.

From the cheerful reception Ptolemy Keraunos received in Macedonia, it would have appeared that either Lysimachus was missed or Seleucus was not popular at all.

Soon after his arrival, Lysimachus's veteran soldiers acclaimed Keraunos king of Macedonia. Afterwards he married Lysimachus wife and adopted his children as his own. One of the sons, young Ptolemy, refused to go along with the marriage and fled to Illyria, with good reason. Soon after his mother's wedding to Keraunos, his siblings were murdered. His mother barely escaped her demise and went into hiding in Samothrace.

Not being satisfied with Macedonia alone, Keraunos attacked Antigonus Gonatas and with the exception of Demetrias (port of Volos) he also took all of Gonatas's possessions. But as luck would have it, being the miserable man he was, Keraunos was attacked by the Gauls. When Lysimachus was defeated, his frontier defenses were broken and left undefended. This gave the Gauls an opportunity to invade and sack Macedonia, killing Keraunos in the process. It has been said that the Gauls cutoff Keraunos's head, impaled it on a stake and carried it wherever they went.

The Gauls continued to plunder Macedonia, especially the countryside, until there was no more to plunder. Then they moved on to the south and eventually invaded Asia Minor. With Keraunos out of the way, Cassander's young nephew Antipater reappeared for a brief time in an attempt to retake the Macedonian throne but without success.

In an attempt to fill the power vacuum in Macedonia two new rivals appeared. The first was Seleucus's son and successor Antiochus I who wanted the Macedonian crown. Opposing him was Antigonus Gonatas who also was claiming Macedonia for himself. Personal rivalries soon broke out and escalated into a full-scale war.

While Seleucus and Antigonus were fighting each other, a new champion rose to the task and occupied Macedonia, deposing young Antipater in the process. He was a mere general who fought the Gauls and won but did not really want Macedonia for himself.

Antigonus finally reached his turning point when he defeated the Gauls in a single decisive battle. While on patrol, his forces by accident ran into a vast column of over eighteen thousand Gauls marching through Thrace towards the coastal city of Chersonese. By a clever move, Antigonus outmaneuvered, trapped and massacred the Gauls, winning a bloody but decisive victory. This gave him the recognition he needed to reassert himself in the power game and won the Macedonian throne he so desired. It didn't take him too long to drive young Antipater and the other rivals out. But before he could sit contentedly on the Macedonian throne he had yet to face Pyrrhus.

By 276 BC, the old rivalries of who was going to replace Alexander III as supreme ruler of the whole Macedonian empire no longer mattered and the Antigonids, Seleucids and Ptolemies had reached a balance of power.

While Antigonus was basking in his glory in Macedonia, Pyrrhus had some matters to attend to in Italy but by late 275 BC, he was back again. It took him a good part of the winter to prepare and by early spring he invaded Macedonia. His reasons for the invasion were personal and a matter of necessity. Pyrrhus wanted to pay back Antigonus for refusing him assistance during his war with Rome. His campaigns in Italy had reduced Pyrrhus to a pauper and he needed loot to pay his soldiers and what better place to get it than from his old rival Antigonus. Most importantly however, Pyrrhus wanted Macedonia for himself.

Antigonus Gonatas's forces were attacked and defeated. Antigonus himself fled with some of his cavalry to Salonika. The rest of his army surrendered to Pyrrhus. Like his father before him, Antigonus was down but not out. He still had some coastal cities and a powerful fleet in his possession. And most importantly he was still a king.

Pyrrhus managed to recover Macedonia and Thessaly but was not popular with the Macedonian people, especially since he allied himself with the Gauls and let them plunder the Royal tombs at Aigai. When Pyrrhus completely lost his popularity with the Macedonian people he left Macedonia to do some campaigning in Greece. While he was away his son Ptolemaeus was left in charge of Macedonia.

While campaigning in Greece Pyrrhus was too busy fighting to notice Antigonus's return. With Macedonia firmly in his hands, Antigonus, during the summer of 272 BC, dispatched his fleet to Greece and went in pursuit of Pyrrhus. When the opposing armies met a battle ensued and Pyrrhus himself was knocked unconscious. While lying down an enemy soldier recognized him, lopped his head off and took it to Antigonus.

Soon after Pyrrhus's death, the battle was over and there was no further resistance from Pyrrhus's allies. With Pyrrhus out of the way, Antigonus had an opportunity to retake all of Greece and bring it under his control but like Ptolemy before him, he exercised caution and did not allow his ambitions to get hold of him.

From here on, with some minor clashes at the frontiers, Alexander's empire was to be ruled by three dynasties, the Antigonids, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. Fifty years after his death, Alexander's empire remained intact and was still ruled by Macedonians.

By 268 BC, things were stirring up again as Ptolemy II incited the Athenians into ejecting the Macedonians and declaring war on Antigonus. Antigonus was planning to bolster his naval power in the Aegean, which would have become a direct threat to Ptolemy's naval trade. Ptolemy had no intention of helping the Greeks but their desire to free themselves from Macedonian rule was so great that many of the city-states, including Sparta, ignored the risks and began preparations for war.

The situation escalated and Antigonus decided to take action. He met the Spartan army outside Corinth where a battle ensued and the Spartans lost. To quell the situation completely Antigonus put Athens, the main instigator, under siege. Ptolemy's promise of naval assistance never materialized and Athens was left to starve into surrender. After its surrender, Athens lost its autonomy and Macedonians were once again put in control of its affairs.

With the Greeks put down, Antigonus, in 261 BC, attacked Ptolemy's navy in the Aegean and scored a major victory. To reinforce his positions, Antigonus also placed strategic defensive posts along the Attic coastline.

In Asia meanwhile, Antiochus I of the Seleucid Dynasty was having problems of his own. Unable, sometimes unwilling to hold his empire together Antiochus I began to lose some of his frontiers to secession. He had lost Cappadocia, Pontus and Bithynia and the satrapies of Bactria and Sogdiana were about to go independent. Then as things began to slide, in 261BC, at the age sixty-four Antiochus I died and was succeeded by his son Antiochus II. Antiochus II quickly formed a welcomed alliance with Antigonus Gonatas. Together they were now able to check Ptolemy and keep him at bay. Unfortunately this alliance gave Antigonus and Antiochus an advantage over Prolemy and prompted them to take action in recovering some of their lost possessions.

While Antigonus continued to build his naval power, Antiochus began his own campaigns against Ptolemy, prompting the so-called second Syrian war. Sensing that he was about to lose ground, Ptolemy II, in 253 BC, made his peace with Antiochus II. To seal the dynastic alliance, Antiochus married Ptolemy's daughter Berenice Syra who in the process brought him a vast dowry. Unfortunately Antiochus was already married to Laodice whom he had to repudiate with a sizable payoff, to which she refused consent.

While playing good politics with Antiochus, Ptolemy II was playing bad politics with Antigonus by backing a revolt against him in Corinth. In 253/252 BC, Antigonus's nephew Alexander, the governor of Corinth, revolted against Antigonus and proclaimed himself king.
As it turned out, however, before any of these matters could be fully settled both Ptolemy and Antiochus died. Ptolemy II died in January 246 BC, and Antiochus II died in August of the same year.

While Ptolemy II was replaced by his son Ptolemy III, Antiochus did not leave an heir. It has been said that Antiochus died prematurely, probably from poison. His ex-wife, Liodice, who at the time of his death was visiting the palace, may have poisoned him. In any event, after Antiochus's death hostilities broke out between his new wife Berenice, who had just born him a son, and his ex-wife Liodice, who claimed that on his deathbed Antiochus had appointed her son Seleucus as his heir. Berenice, feeling the pressure from Liodice, made an appeal for help to her brother Ptolemy III in Alexandria who quickly came to her aid only to find her and her child dead.

As a result of the assassinations, hostilities broke out between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies and escalated to a full scale war, termed the Third Syrian War which lasted until about 241 BC, with Seleucus II as victor. His victory however did not save his empire, especially from his own brother who, encouraged by his mother Liodice, wanted co-regency. When Seleucus II refused him, the young Antiochus Hierax set himself up as an independent sovereign. With all the rebellions and dynastic rivalries going on, the future of the Seleucid empire did not look very bright.

Also in 241 BC, there was a turn of events in Europe where Antigonus Gonatas had to make amends with the Achaean League which year after year was gaining strength. His rebellious nephew Alexander died in 246 BC and by 245 BC Antigonus recovered his losses in Corinth.
Satisfied with his accomplishments in one lifetime, Antigonus Gonatas died early in 239 BC, at age eighty. His tough and ambitious son Demetrius II, another Macedonian, succeeded him.

Before I continue with the main story, I want to take a small diversion here and explore development in the west, with Rome in particular.

As I mentioned earlier, had Alexander lived longer he would have attacked Carthage and the Cartagean-Roman conflict and Punic Wars would have not taken place. Carthage was sister-city to Tyre and helped Tyre defend herself against Alexander's prolonged siege. Tyre's prolonged resistance cost Alexander, men, resources, money and time. Alexander was not the forgiving type and would have made Carthage pay dearly for her meddling in his affairs. Unfortunately, Alexander died, his plans were abandoned and none of his successors had the foresight to see the impending dangers lurking in the west.

During and after Alexander's time there was very little interaction between the Macedonian rulers and those of the west. There were Greek cities along the coastline, Sicily in particular but for the most part, they were left alone to fend for themselves.
The first major encroachment by Rome on the east was in Sicily during the first Punic War which started in 264 BC and ended in 241 BC. After that Rome occupied Sicily and in 212 BC made it a Roman province, an ideal staging ground for carrying out campaigns against the Great Commercial Empire of Carthage.

Sicily, at the time, was a region full of barbaric states where violence, mass executions, torture, rapes, pillaging and enslavement, with the Romans as the worst offenders, were commonplace. Before the Roman encroachment, Sicily served as a barrier or a neutral zone between the major powers and both east and west tended to interfere in its affairs. Sicily was also the staging ground for much of the piracy taking place in the Mediterranean waters.

The city of Syracuse played an important role during these times because it was a place where the exiled, deposed and tyrants usually ended up after being evicted from their own homelands. For those with power and influence, rule was an easy grasp and the Sicilians had their share of good times and bad, but mostly bad. After the Romans made Sicily their province, life for the ordinary Sicilian took a turn for the worse. Romans cared not for the Sicilians or for human values for that matter. They only cared for profit and pillaged Sicily to no end. But this was only the beginning. The Romans were just acquiring a small taste for what was about to come.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the power players from the Macedonian world to venture westward and make a significant impact on Rome was Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus was summoned to Italy in 280 BC, by a plea for help from the Tarentines who had problems of their own with the Romans. Pyrrhus answered their call and was even given assistance by the other Macedonian rulers who were happy to see him go and stay out of their affairs. Pyrrhus, using the elephants given to him by the Macedonian rulers, scored a number of victories in Sicily but caused a chain of events to occur that would have repercussions in the future.

His presence and series of victories caused much concern for Carthage to a point were she was willing to set her differences with Rome aside and formed a temporary alliance with her against Pyrrhus. To prevent him from carrying out campaigns in Africa, Pyrrhus's fleet was attacked and sunk by the Carthegians. Then after crossing into Italy, Pyrrhus spent the winter in Taras, with plans for a north offensive in the fall, which never materialized. During the summer of 275 BC he was attacked and beaten by the Romans who by now had learned how to deal with elephants. During the same year the Romans invaded and took Taras, which brought them yet another step closer to Macedonia. With Pyrrhus beaten and out of the way there was no formidable force outside of Carthage to stand against Rome in the west or to challenge her at her home base.

After Alexander's death and the conclusion of the Lamian Wars, most of what we refer to today as Greek city-states lost the privileges granted to them by Philip II and Alexander III. For the fifty or so years after Alexander's death, they were ruled by Macedonians and were used as pawns in a power struggle for dominance. During the later years, however, some of the states organized themselves into leagues but unfortunately they were never able to hold alliances for too long. This was partly due to the characteristic politics they played internally and mainly due to outside influence from the rich and powerful Macedonian rulers. The Ptolemies never hesitated to supply Athens with grain just to stir trouble for the Antigonids. Almost every conflict was initiated in the name of restoring the rights of the Greeks and ended with more rights lost than gained.

While the southern Greeks were unsuccessfully attempting to shore up alliances among themselves, Antigonus Gonatas's son and successor Demetrius II was busily shoring up his own alliances. In 239 BC, to shore up support against the Illyrians on his western frontiers, he married an Epiriot princess named Phthia. In 238 BC Phthia bore Demetrius a son whom he appropriately named Philip who in the future would become Philip V of Macedonia. Right about this time the Greek leagues were beginning to gain ground in the development of their alliances and with strength came anti-Macedonian sentiment.

Determined to intervene, Demetrius, due to internal conflicts, lost his support from Epirus and was unable to do it alone. If that was not enough, the Leagues were now threatening his former allies with severe punishments should they intervene. Determined to turn the tide, Demetrius sought help from the Illyrians who were eager to assist only to help themselves. Paid by Demetrius, the Illyrians first invaded Epirus then the Adriatic coast and looted everything in their path. They managed to invade some of the League's territories and looted them as well. By 229 BC, they crossed over and invaded the Italian coastline and by now had attracted Rome's attention.

In the Peloponnisos in the meantime, the Illyrians started to form alliances with some of the Greek Leagues and were considering invading all of Greece. In the meantime complaints were being generated from both sides of the Adriatic. Italian traders feeling the pinch from the constant raids took their complaints to Rome. Rome in turn sent envoys to investigate with recommendations to make a move. They attacked violently with devastating speed and crushing numerical superiority. The Illyrians, whose true aim in all this was to make profit and not war, quickly collapsed and in 228 BC consented to a treaty. Demetrius's messy problems were solved without him having to lift a finger but his inaction allowed Rome to gain a foothold in Illyrian affairs. Even though Rome, at the time, had no ambitions of expanding her sphere of influence east of Italy she did demonstrate her military might and will to fight.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:30

By 328 BC, Alexander had conquered the entire Persian Empire, at least the empire that belonged to Darius III. The ancient authors gave no account as to why Alexander wanted to go beyond the Persian realm but as soon as he completed his conquests of eastern Iran, Alexander began preparations to invade India. I believe Alexander acted not so much on his desire for conquest but on his overwhelming curiosity to see what was beyond the eastern realm of the then known world. No doubt, while dealing with the mountain Indians of Eastern Iran, he had heard stories about India that did not fit with his previous knowledge of that part of the world.

Before leaving Bactra, Alexander parted with tradition and appointed Amyntas, a Macedonian, instead of a foreign satrap to secure the important satrapy of Bactria. Amyntas was left well armed with 10,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry, more soldiers than what Alexander had started with seven years before.

In the spring of 327 BC, while his army stood at the Hindu Kush contemplating the sight of the eastern edge of the world, Alexander meticulously planned the next step of his campaign.

For the Indians, Alexander's approach through the Hindu Kush was a reminder of the long ago Aryan invasion. Nomadic Aryans invaded India around 1500 BC, destroyed the Indus valley civilization and exterminated the Indus inhabitants, thus ending the most brilliant civilization of the ancient world.

On his journey to India, Alexander brought with him his young queen Roxane, who a year later bore him a son. Unfortunately the child died soon after birth.

In early summer 327 BC, Alexander divided his army into two. The main column, commanded by Hephaestion and Perdiccas, went down the Kabul River and over the Khyber Pass to build bridges and prepare for the invasion. Alexander, meanwhile, with his lightly armed units took a different path along the Kunar Valley in east Afganistan and from there he crossed into northwestern Pakistan.

Along his journey Alexander encountered stiff opposition, which required severe fighting. The fearless Indian tribes along the mountainous terrain had numerous warriors and presented difficulties for Alexander's advance. The fighting was so severe that during the first contact both Alexander and Ptolemy were wounded.

After crossing the Swat River, Alexander encountered more formidable tribes and the fighting became even more intense. The Indians fought bravely but eventually relented. After losing Massaga, their chief fortress, the Indians left for Aornos (Pir-Sar), another fortress.

Situated at the bend of the Indus River, this 1,500-meter high fortress was impossible to scale. Sensing the limits of his army's capability, Alexander, for the time being, decided not to pursue the enemy any further. He turned his army around and marched southward down the Indus River.

Later, using different strategies, Alexander attempted to besiege the Aornos fortress several times without success. Alexander could not enter Punjab with Aornos intact. He had to break its resistance. If conventional means did not work then he had to invent new methods of attack. Of all the new methods attempted, the most successful proved to be the flooding of the ravines surrounding the fortress.

As soon as the water rose high enough in the ravine to bridge the army's position with the rock, Alexander's siege-engines moved in for the kill. The resistance soon broke and the army was able to rush in and subdue their opponents. Alexander was the first to reach the top, completing the conquest of Aornos. This was one of the most brilliant feats of strategy and tactics in his career.

With Aornos out of the way Alexander was now free to pursue his journey to Punjab. The downing of Aornos gave birth to the legend of the Macedonian supermen. The Indians regarded the fortress impregnable and believed that the god Heracles once tried to conquer it without success.

In March 326 BC, Alexander turned southward on a journey to catch up with Hephaestion and Perdiccas. When he reached them he gave his army a month of well-deserved rest. After crossing the Indus River, over the pontoon bridge previously built by Hephaestion's engineers, Alexander entered into the land of his ally Ambhi. Alexander, trusting no one, marched into Taxila battle ready but none materialized. Ambhi welcomed Alexander with many gifts and received him as his guest in the capital Taxila.

In Taxila the Macedonians, for the first time, encountered many wonders, strange manners and customs. To the scientists' delight they also discovered flora they had never seen before. It was here too that Alexander met those "naked philosophers" (Buddhist monks) and came in contact with the doctrine of Buddha.

For the next three days the Macedonians were treated royally with lavish gifts. Not to be outdone, Alexander reinstated Ambi as rajah of Taxila and showered him with gifts of his own, which included thirty horses and no less than 1,000 talents. This generosity was motivated by Alexander's wish to have Ambi on his side, as he was receiving intelligence reports of large concentrations of enemy troops ahead. In spite of making him rajah, Ambi was still a vassal king. A Macedonian military governor, with a strong garrison at his disposal actually governed Taxila.

Alexander invested a great deal of time and considerable effort negotiating peaceful terms with the other two Indian rajahs in that region but it seemed that peace was not possible before war. Porus, one of the rajahs negotiating with Alexander, made his terms very clear. If Alexander wanted his kingdom, he had to earn it in battle.

Porus's army was already amassing at the banks on the other side of the Jhelum River as more reinforcements began to arrive. Alexander could not afford to waste much time so he ordered his engineers to build a bridge. Since there were no building materials available in the vicinity, Alexander sent Coenus to dismantle the pontoon bridge from the Indus River, cut it into small sections and transport it over land on oxcarts. While Coenus was looking after the bridge, Alexander reinforced his army by adding elephants and Indian recruits to his infantry.

As he was getting ready to meet Porus Alexander did not count on a monsoon. Perhaps unaware of the Indian climate in June, Alexander led his army during continuous, steaming, torrential rain. The skies had opened up and pounded the unknowing Macedonians for over two months without a break.

Alexander traveled over the Salt Range covering about 180 kilometers in a little over two days before reaching the Jhelum River. A great achievement under monsoon conditions.

Unfortunately, the Jhelum was so swollen from the monsoon rains that it was impossible to cross. Besides, even if crossing was possible, Porus was waiting on the other side with archers, chariots and elephants. To a casual observer it would have appeared that the opposing armies had reached a stalemate. Neither could act without severe consequences.

To reinforce the idea that he was going to wait for more favourable conditions before attacking, Alexander ordered continuous supplies to be delivered to his camp in full view of his enemy. While doing that he sent surveyors up and down the river in search of a good place to cross. In the meantime, the troops were kept on full alert with activities suggesting the possibility of an imminent attack.

When nothing happened for a long time, the enemy tired of Alexander's antics and began to ignore the distracting maneuvers. As luck would have it, the surveyors did find a good place to cross. It was on a large wooded island where the channels at both sides were narrow. The spot was located about 25 kilometers upstream from camp and was ideal since there was a ravine on the near side of the bank, a good place to hide troops.

To ensure a successful crossing, Alexander had to thoroughly confuse the enemy about his real intentions so he ordered his troops to light fires over a wide area every night. At the same time Ptolemy would take a large cavalry force and run up and down the riverbank making as much noise as possible while making false attempts to cross.

Initially, all these demonstrations were taken seriously and every move and maneuver was counteracted with opposing forces on the other side. After some time, however, when it became obvious that these were only tricks to agitate the opposing troops and lower their morale, Porus began to relax his vigilance. Porus must have thought that Alexander's real aim was to break his army's morale and attack him when he was at his weakest. Unfortunately for Porus, Alexander was much cleverer than that.

Alexander had to make his move in less that two days because the other rajah, Abisares of Kashmir, was about 80 kilometers to the north and coming his way.

Even though Porus was at ease with Alexander's exercises, his patrols kept constant watch. Any attempt at crossing, even undetected, would be overwhelmed by Porus's forces as soon as it was spotted. To maximize his chances, Alexander divided his army and directed simultaneous but separate attacks at different points on the river. Not knowing where the attack was going to come from, Porus too had to divide his forces in order to counter the Macedonians. In the meantime, the pontoon bridge was assembled in secrecy and ready to be deployed.

In the dark of night, Alexander, with a force of 10,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry, slipped away up the banks to make the 25-kilometer trek to attempt the crossing at dawn. The baggage train and a large part of the army remained at the base camp. Alexander had given orders to openly start making preparations for an attack at the crack of dawn. He even had one of his men, an Alexander look alike, come out of his royal tent wearing the royal cloak, barking out orders.

A second group, consisting of three battalions of the phalanx, the mercenary cavalry and infantry, was dispatched from the main camp to the halfway point between the main camp and Alexander's crossing, with orders to wait and cross only after Alexander was engaged in battle.

Craterus, in command of the forces at the main camp, was also given orders to wait and not cross until Porus had moved from his current position in pursuit of Alexander.

This was indeed a brilliant plan and certainly posed a dilemma for Porus. What was Porus to do? Porus did what any skilled commander would have done. He dispatched a strong force to stop Alexander from crossing. Alexander, however, anticipating his move countered it by depending on his best Macedonian troops to make the crossing at lightning speed and put up a great fight on the other side; a move that to this day remains unparalleled.

Alexander did receive some help from his gods who provided him with deafening thunderclaps and torrential rain, which masked the noise of the embarkation.

Even though the crossing was made successfully, all was not well. It seemed that Alexander's surveyors had made an error. The bank Alexander landed on was not the expected shore, but another elongated island. It was a long and arduous struggle to get across the fast flowing torrents of the mighty Jhelum River. Exhausted and drenched in mud the Macedonians finally made it across. Porus still did not know where the main attack was going to take place. This exhausting and pointless exercise of Alexander's he suspected was another deception to lure his forces away from the main attack. After some hesitation, however, and to be on the safe side, Porus eventually did dispatch his son with 2,000 cavalry and 120 chariots, but by then it was too late. Most of Alexander's assault force had made it across and easily subdued the Indians.

After a brief clash the Indians fled leaving behind about four hundred dead, including Porus's son. While pursuing the fleeing Indians Alexander was joined by the second group of his army, which by now had also made it across. Alexander again divided up his forces and took command of the cavalry which ran ahead at galloping speed while the foot soldiers followed behind at a fast marching pace.

When Porus received news that his son was dead and that Alexander had crossed the river, he decided it was time to face him and marched his forces upstream to do battle. Only a small force, consisting mostly of elephants, was left behind to hold back Craterus.

It is estimated that Porus had at his disposal approximately 2,000 cavalry, 20,000 infantry, 130 elephants and 180 chariots. Porus chose a level, sandy plain for the battleground and positioned his infantry in a wide central front reinforced with elephants about 30 meters apart. At the wings he positioned his chariots and cavalry along with a flanking body of infantry.

Alexander's cavalry arrived first but stayed back and would not engage the enemy until the infantry arrived. Alexander had about 11,000 Macedonian infantrymen and 6,000 cavalrymen. While waiting, Alexander kept his forces out of sight and carried out detailed reconnaissance of Porus's dispositions. A frontal attack using his cavalry would be difficult, pitting horse against elephant. The phalanx might do the trick but not while Porus's cavalry was still active. The cavalry would have to be disabled first so that there was no chance that it would outflank the phalanx.

To knock out the Indian cavalry Alexander decided to attack Porus's left wing. The idea was to keep two cavalry divisions hidden from the enemy while carrying out the attack with his entire visible cavalry, which numbered a little less that the enemy's total mounted force. A force that size was sure to overwhelm Porus's left wing and he would have to draw reinforcements from his right wing. The commander of the hidden divisions was given specific orders to circle around Porus's right wing and stay out of sight until the left wing was engaged. If Porus transferred troops from the right wing to feed the engagement, he was to charge across behind the enemy lines and attack from the rear. Otherwise he would engage the enemy normally. The phalanx was ordered to delay engagement until there was evidence that the enemy was thrown into confusion.

The mounted archers attacked first and almost immediately disabled the chariots. Alexander's cavalry charged next and, as expected, Porus committed his right wing to deliver a striking blow. The two hidden divisions, under the command of Coenus and Demetrius, broke cover and engaged the Indians from the rear. Instead of striking a blow at Alexander, Porus's cavalry received a blow and the Indians fell back to the protection of the elephants.

With the enemy cavalry put out of action, the Macedonian phalanx and heavy infantry advanced on Porus's center. But attacking angry elephants was not an easy task. Each elephant had to be encircled, its driver picked off by the archers and while the elephant fought back it had to be speared and slashed until it was brought down. The infantrymen had to resort to slashing the elephant's trunk with swords and chop at its feet with axes before the animal could be brought down. Many of those doing the hacking and chopping did not fare well either since the elephants fought back smashing, impaling, stamping and crushing their tormentors to a bloody pulp.

As Porus's battle line was pressed back, the elephants squeezed together and began to trample their own troops causing further casualties. As Alexander drew his cavalry ring tighter around Porus's army, he ordered his phalanx to lock shields and move in for the kill. By now Craterus had crossed the river and was in pursuit of those who had broken through Alexander's ring. The Macedonians had just had a traumatic experience and were in no mood for forgiveness as the battle soon turned into a massacre.

The elephants became frantic and trampled more Indians than enemies. The Indians, including Porus, fought and resisted to the bitter end. Wounded by a javelin, Porus saw no point in resisting any further and rode off on his elephant. Alexander pursued him and with diplomacy convinced him to surrender. Alexander showed great admiration for Porus and gave him the respect a king deserved. This was the last great battle the Macedonians would fight and considering that it took place under monsoon conditions, something the Macedonians had never before experienced, this may have been the most difficult battle of their entire campaign.

When it was all over, Alexander appointed Porus king of his own dominions and later extended his kingdom to the Hyphasis. Porus in turn remained loyal to Alexander until he died. To secure his position in Punjab, Alexander commissioned two new cities, Necaea and Bucephala, to be built on the Jhelum. Necaea was built where Alexander crossed the mighty Jhelum River in honour of his success. Bucephala was built where the battle took place and was dedicated to Alexander's horse Bucephalus, which was said to have died of old age.

After a month long, well-deserved rest Alexander summoned his army and headed eastward. He crossed the Chenab River which was three kilometers wide due to excessive rain. By the Chenab he founded another city which of course he named Alexandria (Sohadra). Somewhere east of the Chenab, near a city called Sangala, the Macedonians ran into stiff resistance and a horrific battle ensued where 17,000 Indians were slaughtered and 70,000 more were taken captive.

Alexander continued his eastern journey traveling below the high mountain ranges and making his way through water drenched fields in stifling heat and dripping monsoon skies. Long lines of dirty, tattered Indian refugees followed as the Macedonian army snaked its way across the countryside. After crossing the Ravi and the Beas Rivers into modern Punjab, the army camped for a short rest only to be frustrated by Alexander's future campaign plans.

It must have been some time ago that Alexander had realized that his original assumption about the geography of this region was in error. He also must have found out from the Indians that the Indus River did not empty into the Nile, as he had earlier informed his troops. Why he kept this information a secret from his troops is unknown.

Alexander waited for an opportune time to inform his troops that his maps were in error and that they were nowhere near the end of the world. In fact he informed his troops that they had to march twelve more days in the desert and cross another great river, the Ganges, before they might reach the end of the world. This information was not well received by his troops.

It appears that Alexander wanted to continue his campaign eastward and venture towards the Ganges but his giant plan was met with refusal. His army was getting tired to the point of exhaustion and would no longer follow him. They had traveled 18,000 kilometers in eight and a half years and they were tired. The sweltering weather and continuous torrential rain, which they had endured for seventy days, did not help the situation. Alexander found the predicament he was in hard to accept. Even after making many speeches and doing much sulking, his men would not relent and stood their ground. Alexander was powerless to act. After spending three days in his tent contemplating his predicament, he came to the realization that his men were right, it was time to turn back.

To commemorate his great advances and honour the gods who gave him to his victories, Alexander ordered the construction of twelve tower altars on the east side of the Beas River, one for each Macedonian god. He had his army construct the towers from square stones, which stood seventeen meters square and twenty-five meters high.

With a heavy heart Alexander turned his army around and sometime in mid September 326 BC started his march back towards his newly founded city near the Jhelum River. The next major task he would undertake would be to build a fleet of ships that would carry his army down the Indus River and into the ocean to the south.

Approximately 800 vessels were constructed to transport horses, grain, men and cargo. About 80 thirty-oar warships were built for defense. Alexander did not intend to command the fleet so he appointed Nearchus, his intimate friend from youth, as admiral.

In November 326 BC Alexander divided his army into two columns, boarded the ships and began his voyage down the Jhelum River. A blast of trumpets gave the signal to start rowing as each column took its position at opposite banks. Craterus commanded the column on the right and Hephaestion commanded the one on the left.

There was a great commotion as the pilots called out rowing commands and the oars splashed in unison, attracting onlookers who came to see the spectacle and serenade the soldiers on their voyage. Unfortunately, all was not well and before the fleet reached the Chenab, Alexander received information that a couple of tribes, the largest and most warlike, were preparing to do battle with him down river. Alexander, at the time, was not certain where the battle was going to take place so he hastened his pace down the Jhelum in hopes of passing the junction of turbulent waters where the Jhelum met the Chenab.

As it turned out, there was no sign of the enemy at the river junction but the turbulence did cause a great deal of damage and many ships were in need of repair. While repairs were made the army set camp near the banks, giving Alexander time to formulate a battle plan. The enemy territory was located between the Chenab and Ravi Rivers and a waterless desert protected their settlements. The most logical and efficient method to reach them was by water up the Chenab River. Alexander expected that the enemy too would think along the same lines so his plan included a bit of a surprise.

After his repairs were completed Alexander divided his army into three columns. He took the first column by land through the desert into the heart of enemy territory. The second column, commanded by Hephaestion, was sent up the Chenab River. The third column, commanded by Craterus, was ordered to hold the territory near the mouth of the Ravi River.

Alexander's land column encountered much resistance and a bloody battle ensued when he stormed and took several towns. Many attempted to escape but were intercepted by Hephaestion and Craterus. During the storming of one of the towns Alexander was wounded. While climbing a castle wall he fell victim to an enemy arrow which penetrated his chest. Believing him to be slain, his troops vented their fury on the enemy who fought back with equal ferocity.

Alexander was laid on his sacred shield and carried out on a stretcher to his ship. News of his alleged demise traveled like wildfire bringing grief to his troops. But Alexander was not dead and quickly regained consciousness after the arrow was extracted. In spite of all assurances, however, his men were not convinced until he himself rose to his feet, walked out of his tent and mounted a horse so that everyone could see him from the distance. Seeing their king alive brought joy to the troops whose shouts echoed throughout the land. His soldiers, from all sides, came to gaze upon him, shake his hand and show their affection. But most surprising of all was his enemy's reaction. Alexander's sudden rise from the dead spread terror and panic among the enemy ranks, causing mass surrenders. Even the enemy tribal kings voluntarily and humbly submitted themselves to Alexander's will.

After Alexander recovered from his wound, the fleet resumed its course down river until it reached the Indus where Alexander founded another city, which he named Alexandria (at the confluence).

By now it was February 325 BC and Alexander had reached the halfway point of his river voyage.

The second part of the voyage was just as turbulent as the first and even more fighting was needed before the region was conquered. Fortunately, Alexander had developed a reputation as a fierce fighter and many tribes were reluctant to fight him and acquiesced. There were others further south, however, who were influenced by the Brahmins and fought back fiercely.

After achieving victory, Alexander severely punished the Brahmins by having some of them hung for inciting riots and influencing the population to take up arms against him.

It was July 325 BC, when Alexander arrived at the Indus delta and camped for a rest at the city of Patala. Here Alexander reflected on the journey that took him from Kashmir through the entire Punjab down to the Indian Ocean. India was a great, rich and fruitful country and now she belonged to Macedonia.

While Alexander was busy conquering new land, his scientists and explorers were busy examining the country's exotic plants and animals, studying the Indian political and religious systems and cataloging the mineral wealth of this vast territory. Besides learning about India, much knowledge was imparted the other way. Being more advanced in metallurgy, the Macedonians taught the Indians how to smelt their silver and gold. The Macedonians also shared their knowledge of medicine and art, especially sculpting. Having been mislead before by geography, Alexander was determined to correct that problem as well.

During his rest at Patala Alexander and his advisors busied themselves looking for a sea passage from the Indus into the Tigris and the Euphrates. Alexander sent expeditions to explore the western and eastern branches of the Indus River delta in hopes of finding a safe passage.

It was during these expeditions that the Macedonians experienced, for the first time, the sudden and frightening ebb tide of the ocean.

After determining that the eastern branch of the Indus delta was easiest to navigate, Alexander dug wells and set up grain depots for his fleet all along the coast before returning to Patala.

By now it was nearing the end of August 325 BC and Alexander was anxious to get going. While admiral Nearchus and the fleet were ordered to wait until the end of the monsoon season, Alexander left Patala to make preparations for provisioning the fleet along the way.

On his way, Alexander ran into resistance again and had to subdue more tribes before turning westward. After appointing a Macedonian satrap to keep the region secure, Alexander left Hephaestion behind with orders to build another Alexandria city. At the coast before turning westward, Alexander left Leonnatus behind with orders to wait for the fleet and to build a second Alexandria city.

To further secure a supply line for his fleet, Alexander and his army turned westward into the Gedrosian Desert. This may have been one of the most difficult journeys Alexander and his army had ever encountered. There were no enemies to speak of only the scorching sun. Provisions, especially water, were in short supply and the army suffered immensely. Discipline, however, did not break down because the officers and Alexander himself suffered along with the men. Alexander even refused to drink water if there was not enough for everyone. His soldiers respected that and would not let him down. They traveled by night because it was too hot during the day and many perished from exhaustion, dehydration and starvation. They resorted to slaughtering their animals, including their horses, to survive. The desert was completely barren and dry and the local population subsisted strictly on seafood, consisting mostly of mussels.

It took Alexander sixty days to cross the desert before reaching Pura, the capital of Gedrosia. He marched on foot with his soldiers and shared with them his provisions as well as his courage and perseverance. He showed great respect for his men and treated them not like common soldiers but as comrades. This is the kind of man Alexander was. He always came through for his men, even in the worst of circumstances, which exemplified his true character as a person and his feelings for his Macedonians.

It is unknown how many of Alexander's people the desert took, but according to ancient sources (Arrian) a great many were lost. Even at times such as these, Alexander's scientists paused to observe and note the desert plant life.

Pura was like heaven for the survivors who, with plenty of food and drink, quickly recovered from their ordeal.

By the conquest of Gedrosia, Alexander's full subjection of Asia was complete.

It was now the beginning of December 325 BC, and Alexander was on the move again headed westward to Carmania where he had made prior arrangements to meet with Craterus. Before its departure the army was split and Craterus was sent via a different route to Carmania where he was expected to rendezvous with the main army. Craterus took the north road via the Bolan Pass and turned westward past Kandahar (Alexandria in Arachosia) where he did some fighting, before turning to Carmania. Here the field armies were again recombined and supplied with animals and provisions by the local satrap. Before leaving, Alexander held a festival of thanksgiving for his successes in India and for his passage through the deserts of Gedrosia. Here too, Alexander received news that the fleet had to depart a month earlier than expected due to the change in mood of the Indian population which had started to become hostile after Alexander's departure. According to reports, the sea voyage seemed to have had more success than the land trek with no crew losses except for some suffering due to bad food and water. With the exception of one minor skirmish, the sailors faced no armed resistance.

Like Alexander, Admiral Nearchus never bypassed an opportunity to have the scientists study the local flora and fauna, as well as record the customs of the native Indian coast dwellers. It was here too that the Macedonians saw whales for the first time. The sea voyage unfortunately was no pleasure cruise and the prolonged exposure to the hazards of the sea and lack of proper diet took its toll on the men. When they finally landed on shore and met their comrades, they were weakened, scruffy and unrecognizable. Nearchus and a few others came ahead of the fleet to report their arrival. When Alexander met them, even before a single word was exchanged, he was gripped by despair and devastated at the sight of their condition. Thinking that they were the only survivors of the fleet he wept uncontrollably. When finally Alexander gained his composure and Nearchus informed him that the fleet was safe, Alexander wept even more with joy and held a festival with offerings of thanks for its safe return.

Soon afterwards, Nearchus joined the fleet for its final voyage to Susa. Hephastion was sent by the south road to Persia to acquire provisions while Alexander, with the light troops, took the north road on a direct course to Pasargadae.

It was January 324 BC and this would be Alexander's second visit to Pasargadae. More than five years had elapsed since he had last visited this city but to Alexander it seemed like an eternity. The last time he entered Pasargadae he was a mere Macedonian general but this time he was a Great King who had outdone not just mere mortals but legendary gods. Unfortunately his accomplishments alone could not keep the peace in his empire. His prolonged absence gave the impression that he was either dead or not going to return. Thinking along the same line many of his Persian satraps, in his absence, became rebellious attacking Macedonian garrisons, plundering Macedonian temples and generally mistreating Alexander's subjects.

Alexander was now back and needed to make an example of those who had turned against him. By stern punishment he hoped to warn all others that such behavior would not be tolerated.

In one instance he executed a satrap along with his followers for usurping the title of Great King. In another, he tortured the priests in charge of a tomb that was plundered. At Persepolis Alexander had a man hanged for usurping the satrapy of a previously appointed satrap who had since died. Peucestas, a Macedonian who was comfortable with Persian customs and had learned to speak the Persian language, replaced the hanged Persian satrap.

According to Arrian, upon his return to Persepolis Alexander was saddened to tears after he gazed at the destruction he had caused the last time he was there. He was stricken with grief as he realized the symbolic value of the age-old buildings and temples that he had torched, now lost forever. He had done this for the sake of the Greeks to take vengeance for the crimes of Xerxes. Seeing the rubble and charred remains of what was once a great civilization and realizing that he had done this made him feel great remorse. The Greeks were now but a distant thought for which he cared not at all. In the last years he spent in Asia Alexander had come to the realization that here too many rich civilizations existed far beyond what he had previously imagined. The Greek idea that Asia was populated with uncultured and unworthy barbarians was only a narrow Greek concept that reflected more on the Greeks than on the Asians. The effects of his conquests did not change Alexander's character as many have claimed. What had changed was Alexander's perception of the new worlds, which he came to understand and respect.

About February 324 BC, Alexander left Persepolis and went to Susa where he was reunited with Nearchus and the fleet. Here too he had to deal with unruly satraps. Alexander had appointed Harpalus, his boyhood friend, as treasurer of Ecbatana in 330 BC. Harpalus escaped with much of Alexander's treasure and squandered it away on his own extravagant lifestyle.

During his stay in Susa, which lasted the spring and summer of 324 BC, Alexander encouraged the idea of mixed marriages. To show that he was sincere he married Stateira, Darius's daughter. He convinced some of his officers and soldiers to marry foreigners and rewarded them with gifts and dowries.

During this time Alexander also amnestied all exiles (about 20,000) in his empire, except those who were criminals, and allowed them to return to their homes. This order was begrudgingly obeyed by the Greek states. Athens especially disliked it since the majority of the 20,000 were political exiles and displaced persons from that region.

During the summer of 324 BC, Alexander left Susa for Ecbatana. He sent the bulk of his army ahead with Hephaestion on a march to the Tigris River while he and his light armed units sailed down the Eulaeus River to the Persian Gulf. After observing the scenery and satisfying his longing to sail, Alexander went up the Tigris and joined Hephaestion at Opis. Just before reaching Opis near Babylon, Alexander decided to reveal his future plans for his army's reorganization. One of his objectives, which became a bone of contention with the Macedonians, called for the retirement of the old Macedonian veterans who Alexander believed could no longer fight because of old age or debilitating wounds. His army did not take the news well, especially the idea of losing its respected veterans, and Alexander had a mutiny on his hands. Alexander's intentions may have been noble but his men did not see it that way. To some it appeared that Alexander was phasing out the conservative Macedonians only to replace them with foreigners. For some time now Alexander had been building his army with foreign recruits, mostly from Persia. The Macedonians had fought them in the past and were not happy having them among their ranks. To the conservative Macedonians it appeared that Alexander wanted to make the Persians partners and equals and that did not sit well with them.

During the mutiny harsh words were exchanged. Alexander was infuriated to the point of rounding up thirteen of the ringleaders and executing them immediately. He then dismissed the entire Macedonian army and stormed away shutting himself in his royal castle for three days, entertaining only Persians and refusing to speak to any Macedonian. On the third day some Macedonians requested an audience with him. After pleading for his time they were granted permission to see him. It was an emotional reconciliation as Alexander greeted his comrades speechless and in tears. When it was over, Alexander threw a great festival in honour of this reconciliation. As it turned out, it was not reconciliation between himself and his troops but, in the interest of the empire, it was reconciliation between the Macedonians and Persians.

At the great festival, Alexander had his Macedonians sit next to him and next to them sat the Persians and other nationalities from the empire. It was said that in all about 9,000 people of various nationalities attended. Religious ceremonies were conducted in both the Macedonian and Persian traditions without incident. This reinforces the idea that even then, as today, many cultures could live together in peace and harmony.

Alexander knew that without peace and harmony between the various people he had little or no hope of holding on to such a vast empire for any reasonable length of time. Peace and harmony however, could only be achieved through freedom and the equality of all races. This feast was a great moment for Alexander, not only because he attempted to bring reconciliation between the races but more importantly because he gave birth to multiculturalism, a concept that was well ahead of its time.

Following the festival, Alexander went ahead with his original plans and dismissed about 10,000 of his veteran soldiers. Each man, in addition to his due pay, also received an extra talent. The task of leading the veterans back to Macedonia, was given to Craterus. Upon arriving in Macedonia he was also instructed to replace Antipater. Antipater in turn was to be given orders to lead fresh troops back to Alexander.

Alexander felt that Antipater and Olympias could use a break away from each other and he himself could also use a break from their incessant complaining and bickering.

When the great festival was over, Alexander left Opis and resumed his trip to Ecbatana. After spending a few months there, he went to Babylon where he began to unfold his grand plans for the future.

From a commercial aspect Alexander revealed, via the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, a connection between the Indus, the Euphrates and the Tigris Rivers. This connection, in the future, could be exploited for trade for the benefit of the empire. Alexander was also curious as to what was on the opposite side of the Persian Gulf, in Arabia. To find out he began to organize an exploratory expedition. He was also interested in finding a quick route through Arabia to Egypt. Another curiosity of Alexander's, that had its roots back at school in Pella, was whether the Caspian Sea was an island sea or the gulf of another sea. Now that he had the means he wanted that verified as well and began to organize another discovery expedition. Yet another plan in the works was the building of 1,000 warships to be constructed in Phoenicia, Syria, Cicilia and Cyprus for future campaigns against the Carthaginians and other coastal people of the western Mediterranean. Carthage, at that time, was the most important naval and commercial power in the west. Had Alexander lived long enough to carry out his campaigns against her, the world would be a different place today.

Alexander's campaign plans against the west were based on intelligence information he had obtained beforehand about the strength of the various states and their political ties to one another. Besides military plans, Alexander had made plans for scientific exploration, constructing geographical maps, plotting ocean routes between Alexandria and Susa and developing trade routes between the various regions of his empire. Planning for world conquest was never too far from his mind but that plan Alexander only shared with his most trusted companions like Hephaestion. Unfortunately he was no longer alive. Not too long ago, while at Ecbasana during a festival, he had contracted a fatal fever and died. It was a terrible loss for Alexander and for the Macedonians. Alexander took the loss with great difficulty and mourned him for days without food or drink. Hephaestion's corpse was taken to Babylon where a great monument was erected in his honour. Also, to preserve his memory, he was never replaced as second in command next to the king. That position, forever remained vacant.

As I mentioned earlier, Alexander left Ecbatana and went to Babylon. On his way, in the middle of the winter on Mt. Zagros, he ran into resistance from a warlike tribe known as the Cossaeans who preferred to fight for their independence rather than give it up. It took Alexander forty days to subdue them and they too became part of his empire.

When it was over, he marched to Babylon and on his way he was met by Libyans, Ethiopians, Carthaginians, Lucanians, Etruscans, Romans, Iberians, Celts, dignitaries and ambassadors from all over the world. It seemed that the entire world was impressed with Alexander's achievements and wanted his friendship. Little did they know of Alexander's plans for world conquest, especially the Carthaginians who had already suffered the loss of their sister city Tyre. I still can't help but wonder what the world would have been like today had Alexander lived long enough to conquer the west.

After arriving in Babylon, Alexander's first priority was to prepare an expedition to explore Arabia. For the time being his interests in Arabia were to explore the region and gain information. He had no intention of invading the mainland. He only wanted the coastline and islands, which offered good harbours for his trading ships. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander's greatest ambition was to establish a connection by sea between Alexandria and Babylon. He was so certain his dream would become reality that he ordered the excavation of a huge harbour at Babylon. It was large enough to hold over 1,000 ships, which included his entire Asian navy and all the merchant ships in the region.

After initiating that project, Alexander became involved in the building of canals to regulate the flow of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Alexander wanted the region to prosper so he made arrangements to settle the north coast of the Persian Gulf. To promote trade on the Gulf between the mouths of the Tigris and the Euphrates he founded Alexandria Charax, a town suited by its geographical position to become a great harbour for Babylon.

While stationed at Babylon, Alexander received new recruits from various regions of his Asian Empire as well as cavalry reinforcements from Macedonia. Here for the first time Alexander started to reorganize his army to include mixed nationalities among his ranks, entrusting command positions to Macedonians. Unfortunately, Alexander's attempts to reorganize his army, along with his many other plans would not come to fruition. It has been said that on June 2, 323 BC, after participating in several festivities that lasted through the night, Alexander began to show symptoms of a fever. Some say that he may have contracted malaria, which is common during the hot summer months in the marshy areas of Babylon. Alexander was physically fit but his personal involvement in so many activities and the stress he subjected himself to during the planning and preparation of the various expeditions had weakened his strength to resist the disease. Alexander himself believed that he would recover because on June 3rd he ordered his generals to make plans to set sail on June 7th.

On the evening of June 3rd, Alexander was taken to the royal gardens on the west bank of the Euphrates for some fresh air and a speedy recovery. The next day he was feeling better and sent word for his generals to come and meet with him on June 5th. That night unfortunately his fever came back and did not leave him. On June 7th when the fleet was ready to move he ordered it to stand by, hoping that he would soon be well and able to join it. Instead of getting better he became sicker as the day progressed and by the next day he was so ill he could hardly speak.

On June 9th he called for his generals to assemble overnight in the court. The other officers waited outside in front of the gates. The next day his condition worsened and he was moved back into the palace. When his generals came to him he could recognize them but was so weak he was not able to speak a word to them. During the night and the next day his fever worsened and he was no longer able to see visitors. His troops, fearing the worst, demanded an audience with their king but the officers would not allow it. However, by threats they forced the doors open and filed past his bed in a long procession only to witness his weakened condition. Alexander with difficulty could only nod slightly and greet his companions in arms with his eyes as they filed past him in silence and deep emotion.

During the evening of June 13th, 323 BC, Alexander passed away. He was not yet thirty-three when his life was snatched away, not in a glorious battle by the enemy's sword, but by malaria, a mere microscopic parasite, a terrible way for the greatest conqueror of conquerors to die.

No one expected Alexander would die, let alone this quickly. With Hephaestion dead, there was no single leader who could step in and take charge of the empire. The leaders of the army at Babylon were suddenly faced with difficult problems. The only one who now had any authority to act was Perdiccas to whom the dying Alexander had handed his signet ring. Once more the assembly of the Macedonian army was summoned to the forefront to do its duty and elect a new king. Unfortunately, new problems arose as old traditions clashed with new ones. The wishes of the infantry, in whom the old Macedonian spirit was entrenched, could not reconcile its differences with the wishes of the more modern cavalry which was loyal to Alexander's modern ideas. Arguments came to blows before an uneasy compromise was reached where Arrhidaeus, the candidate of the infantry, was to conjointly rule with the cavalry's choice, the unborn son of Alexander and Roxane. These were indeed unfortunate choices since Arrhidaeus, Philip II's son was epileptic and dimwitted, and Alexander's child had not yet been born. Additionally, it was decided that each general was to assume responsibility for designated satrapies in accordance with the decisions reached in Babylon. Ptolemy of Lagus went to Egypt, Lysimachus went to Thrace, Antigonus went to Greater Phrygia, and Perdiccas remained in Babylon. There was one more issue placed before the assembly and that was what to do about Alexander's latest plans. Not surprisingly, the assembly unanimously decided to cancel them.

The news of Alexander's death traveled like wildfire throughout the empire but hardly caused a stir in Asia. In Greece, on the other hand, it was welcome news causing an explosion of emotions that resulted in the dissolution of the Corinthian League. Athens was the first to rise and summon the Greeks to fight against Macedonia. A new League, headed by Athens, was formed and rose up against Macedonia in what was called the "Lamian War". The Greeks could not contain their hatred for Macedonia and unleashed their fury with all their might. Unfortunately, the entire Greek might was not strong enough to overwhelm Antipater's Macedonians. Victorious, Antipater stripped Athens of her position as a power at sea and restored Samos to the Samians. He then forced a change of constitution on the Athenians, stripping them of their democratic powers. Additionally, a Macedonian garrison was installed on Athenian soil to remind the Athenians of who was in control. Antipater made peace with the rest of the insurgent states individually and dissolved their newly formed League.

Unlike Greece, with the exception of a few minor disturbances, caused mostly by disgruntled Greeks, Asia remained peaceful for a relatively long period. Unfortunately without Alexander's persuasive politics, peace slowly gave way to conflict. Even though our ancient sources fail to reveal the real motive for the conflict, I suspect it was greed for wealth and the desire to rule.

Initially it was the more ambitious satraps in Asia who fought each other for a bigger piece of their empire. Later it involved Alexander's generals who each ruled a piece of his empire but were not content with what they had and wanted more. The most powerful of these successors were Antigonus and his son Demetrius who gradually acquired most of Asia. Against them were a coalition of Ptolemy of Egypt, Seleucus of Babylon, Lysimachus of Thrace and Cassander, son of Antipater, of Macedonia.

About six years after Alexander's death, in 317 BC, a chain of events took place in Macedonia that would forever change its course in history. It began when Olympias murdered King Philip Arrhidaeus, which gave Cassander reason to vanquish her. Without Olympias's protection Cassander murdered the unhappy Roxane and young Alexander. With Alexander's family dead and no king to rule, the fate of the empire remained in the hands of his generals who were now fighting each other.

And now here is the last inscription of Dura-Europos as translated by Anthony Ambrozic.

NOTE: the letter "Š" is pronounced as "SH"

[ XXXXVII

The Cynic

Inscription on a small pedestal to the left of the entrance to the atticum of the temple of Artemis, ornamented by projecting mouldings at the upper end.

Division and Alphabetization:

GOT JE I CINIC JE ŠELE

I KOJ ŠELE I KOJ D' JEST

RAT JE GOT GYNAIKOS

Translation:

"Whoever is also a cynic is yet to be, and whosoever is yet to be and whoever already is both like to be on top of a woman."

Explanation:

GOT - "whoever, whosoever" - see GOD in passage XXXXVI supra

JE - "is"

I - "and, also"

CINIK - "cynic"

JE - "is"

ŠELE - "only then, not before"

I - "and, also"

KOJ -"who is" - KOJ is a dialectal contraction of KOJE

ŠELE - see ŠELE supra

I - "and, also"

KOJ - "who, whoever" - This KOJ is a dialectal version of the current SC. KOJI.

D' - "that, so that" - Here the dialectal D' (for the literal DA) serves as an emphasis to JEST.

JEST - "is, exists" - an archaic dialectal third prs., sing., pres. of BITI - "to be" - With D' serving to emphasize an existence that already is, JEST offers a reality counterpoint to the cynic's embryonic ŠELE.

RAT JE - "likes" - This is an idiom composed of the adv. RAD and JE to show a preference. We have seen the Venetic preference of utilizing a harder T for a softer D in several instances, the latest having been in GOT for GOD at the beginning of this and last passage.

GOJ - "on, on top of" - As in passage XVIII (GOJREJ), GOJ is the Venetic form for the gsl. GOR - "on, on top of, above."

GYNAIKOS - "woman" in Greek.

] (Pages 80-81, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

 

 

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:25

The victory at Issus ushered in a new era for Macedonia. Alexander's thinking was no longer "if" but "when" was he going to become the new master and lord of Asia. He was tempted to go after Darius immediately to make it happen but it was too risky, especially with the Persian fleet still intact at his rear and in control of the Aegean waters.

Alexander possessed almost no ships and no navy to speak of, let alone a powerful one to subdue the Persian fleet. He wanted to win his battles so he always chose the terms of engagement. His thinking was that if he couldn't engage his enemy and win in the water then he would have to bring the fight to shore where he had the advantage. The only way to do that was by cutting off the Persian navy from its ports. His plan, therefore, was to eventually occupy all cities around the eastern Mediterranean coast to starve the Persian fleet of its supplies.

Soon after the battle of Issus, Alexander marched his Macedonians south in an effort to secure the coastline by occupying the various port cities. In the meantime Parmenio was dispatched to Damascus to seize the city and recover Darius's treasure, which had been sent there along with the Persian baggage train before the battle of Issus.

Parmenio seized the city with ease (some say by treachery) and took possession of the treasury. He also captured many Greek traitors including Greek ambassadors to Persia who had previously conspired against Macedonia.

With Darius's treasury in his possession, Alexander secured the finances he needed to pay his debts and continue with his campaign. In comparison to Alexander, Darius was a very rich man, rich enough to carry 2,600 talents of coins, 500 pounds of silver, 4,500 pounds of gold and 3,400 pounds of precious stones. This however was not all of Darius's money. Compared to his total wealth this was only pocket change, which he carried with him during his travels.

Alexander's journey into Syria took him to many port cities. One by one they all opened their gates to him, that is until he reached the Phoenician city of Tyre. Tyre was an independent city and the most powerful naval and commercial port in the region. Most of the sailors in the Persian fleet were either from Cyprus or Tyre. Being independent (not under Persian rule) the citizens of Tyre wished to remain neutral (neither under Persian nor Macedonian rule). This however was not an option for Alexander. He needed to control all ports, especially Tyre if he were to close off the Persian fleet. Being unable to negotiate a peaceful surrender Alexander declared war on Tyre and around January 332 BC began the siege.

Tyre stood on an island about a kilometer offshore. The city was fortified on all sides by high stone walls and defended by the powerful Tyrian fleet. At the time both Alexander and the Tyrians felt confident that they could outlast each other and neither was willing to relent. The Tyrians, trusting their city to be impregnable, found the very idea that Alexander would think of attempting a siege absurd. How could he seize an island when he didn't even have a fleet? Alexander, on the other hand, could not afford to allow the powerful Phoenician city to exist free behind his lines, especially since he was planning to venture deeper into Asia. He had no choice but to seize it by force. When the siege began, no one had any idea of the enormity of the task.

While Alexander's military strength lay on land, the city he wanted to besiege lay in water. The only way he could turn the situation to his advantage was by building a bridge and linking the island to the shore. His army could then rush in with its siege engines, knock down the walls and seize the city.

While the army drafted labour from the local vicinity and neighbouring towns to build the bridge, Alexander's craftsmen and engineers began the construction of the colossal siege towers. Building the bridge proved a lot more difficult than expected. Even though the water was shallow, the bottom was all mud and stakes had to be driven deep down, supported by stone before the sixty-meter wide road could be constructed. As the building of the causeway progressed, every stone found in the vicinity was carried and deposited into the water.

The Tyrians taunted and mocked the workers telling them that Alexander was wasting his time. But as the road began to materialize and approach the island the Tyrians panicked. Physical attacks and countermeasures replaced mocking and taunting. Initially Tyrian commandos were attacking Alexander's supply lines on land hoping to slow down the building effort. Then the fleet began its raids by sea, sending ships with archers, slingers and catapults to attack the workers. Alexander in the meantime took every precaution possible to protect his men and maintain his schedule.

When it become obvious that Alexander was not going to give up and his chances of actually besieging Tyre improved, many of the local cities, including Sidon a former enemy of Tyre, offered him assistance including ships. Alexander quickly assembled a strong enough sea force to bottle the Tyrian fleet in its own harbour and to repel Tyrian raids at the causeway.

There was one major incident that could have turned the tide on Alexander but his confidence in his army's abilities and his unwavering persistence paid off. The Tyrians put together a large floating craft, set it on fire and by using the wind managed to burn most of the causeway. Alexander was away at the time on an expedition to find more lumber. When he returned he was shocked to find that his road had been destroyed. Instead of giving up, Alexander built a new causeway north of the old one.

As the artificial harbour approached the island shore the Tyrians became desperate. They tried everything to stop it including pouring boiling sand on the soldiers. But, in spite of their gallant effort, nothing worked and the Macedonians eventually besieged the city.

Tyre fell in August 332 BC. It was a grueling seven-month effort on both sides but in the end the most determined won. The Tyrians, on several occasions, were given a chance to surrender. Unfortunately wisdom gave way to stubbornness and they fought bravely to the end. When it was over, about six to eight thousand were killed and about thirty thousand were taken prisoners and sold into slavery. The Tyrian leaders along with about two thousand of their fighting men were executed. The city itself was spared and resettled, continuing to function as an important naval and commercial port under Macedonian rule.

I want to mention at this point that Tyre was the Sister City to Carthage. Carthage is located on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea south of Rome and played a key role in Rome's development as a super power. Had Alexander sacked Carthage as he intended to, it would have been a different world today.

After his gallant struggle and long delay in Tyre, Alexander resumed his trek southward through Palestine, heading for Egypt. His voyage, expectedly, was interrupted as he ran into resistance at the city of Gaza. Gaza was well fortified and defended by Persian soldiers supplemented by a strong force of Arab mercenaries. Unable to break through the city's fortification by conventional means, Alexander employed his siege engines and within two months reduced Gaza's fortification to rubble. During the course of the siege Alexander received a wound to his shoulder, which put him out of action for a couple of weeks. Being physically fit, however, he recovered quickly and joined the final assault on the city. After breaking through the fortification a vicious struggle ensued spilling into the streets where Alexander was again wounded, this time in the leg. When the battle was over, ten thousand were killed and the civilian population was rounded up and sold into slavery. Gaza too was resettled with people from the local region, converted into a fortress and placed under Macedonian control.

From Gaza, Alexander's army marched along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea and then turned south into Egypt where huge crowds greeted him as a liberator.

Having conquered all the port cities around the eastern Mediterranean coast, the threat from the Persian fleet was finally removed.

Before penetrating the interior of Asia, Alexander planned to occupy Egypt by force but it fell without a fight. The Egyptian people hailed Alexander as a liberator, giving him the citadel of Memphis along with its treasury amounting to 800 talents. Egypt was a strategic location for Alexander's Asian campaign and it was now secure.

Something else happened to Alexander in Egypt, something unexpected. Having defeated the Persian King who ruled in place of the Pharaoh of Egypt, in the eyes of the Egyptian priests, Alexander now became Egypt's new ruler but not a Pharaoh. For the priests, unfortunately, it was impossible to accept a foreigner as a true Pharaoh. If Alexander were to continue on his campaign deep into Asia he had to pacify Egypt and gain its loyalty. Egypt was a large, rich country with a huge population capable of supplying his army with all the necessities for the entire campaign. He had to do whatever was necessary to secure it, which meant that Alexander had to become Egypt's undisputed ruler. The only way to do that was by becoming an Egyptian Pharaoh. Unfortunately, a foreigner could only become a Pharaoh by divine intervention. Accepting this challenge Alexander took a trip to Siwa to visit the religious order. When he arrived at the temple of the oracle, the high priest greeted him as the "son of Zeus-Ammon and master of all lands". Why the priest greeted him this way is unknown, perhaps an error in translation? Alexander was delighted with the pronouncement and humbly accepted his proclamation as the "Son of God".

After returning to Memphis during the winter of 332-331BC, Alexander took a small division from his army and went down the Nile River. Just before reaching the Mediterranean coast he saw a perfect strip of land upon which to lay the foundation of a great city, which would bear his name, Alexandria of Egypt. Alexandria, in time, would bring about change in intellectual and economic life as never before experienced and for the next one thousand years would become the center of civilization

.

With the founding of Alexandria, a port city facing the Mediterranean, Alexander transformed his military efforts into business opportunities not just for the Macedonians but for the entire known world. Alexandria was to become the leading multinational, multicultural, commercial trade centre of the world.

The closing of the entire Eastern Mediterranean coast forced the Persian navy to move on and opened the way for the Macedonian fleet to dominate the waters.

After returning to Memphis, Alexander met the reinforcements sent to him by Antipater and ordered the army to prepare to march. Before leaving, however, he sent a scientific expedition up the Nile River on a discovery mission and also appointed a couple of native satraps and Macedonian overseers to govern Egypt. Alexander did not want to entrust the governing of such a large country to a single person.

In early spring of 331BC Alexander left Memphis and headed for Phoenicia. He stopped at Tyre for a while and made some changes to the government there before proceeding north towards Damascus.

The Great King Darius, in the meantime, having received Alexander's answer to his peace offer began to amass a great army. Darius offered Alexander the marriage of his daughter, 10,000 talents and the lands east of the Euphrates in exchange for peace. Parmenio and his older officers encouraged Alexander to accept the offer but Alexander declined wanting it all: Darius's lands, money and his crown. Having no alternative the Great King began preparations for another battle.

The Persian Empire was vast and Darius had no problem raising an army. Besides the Persians there were many other races that offered assistance. The Indians even sent him fifteen elephants. Besides raising a great army Darius was also careful to find open space for his choice of battleground, the kind that would give him an advantage over Alexander. This time Darius was determined to get things his way and made sure everything was done correctly.

While Darius was raising an army, Alexander was marching northward preparing to cross the Euphrates River. As expected during war, his advance force, which was sent to build a bridge over the mighty river, faced opposition from the satrap of Syria and Mesopotamia. But the moment Alexander arrived with his army the Satrap fled and the bridge was built with relative ease. Then as Alexander advanced towards the Tigris River the local spies led him to believe that Darius was on the other side waiting to prevent his passage. Assuming the reports were accurate, Alexander force-marched his army to catch up but Darius was nowhere to be found. Alexander's army crossed the Tigris on September 20th, 331 BC and marched on in a southeasterly direction until it reached the village of Guagamela. There he found Darius's army clearing and leveling the land to give his chariots advantage over the Macedonian phalanx.

In battle formation, Darius stood on his chariot at the center. By his sides stood the mounted guard and Persian infantry. To the right and to the left stood the Greek mercenaries. At both wings stood a combined force of cavalry and infantry. In front of the wings stood the allied cavalries and front and center stood fifteen elephants. In front of the battle line stood 200 Scythian chariots ready to roll along the cleared, smoothed out ground.

Alexander was initially planning to deploy the usual oblique formation with the offensive right wing commanded by himself and the defensive left wing commanded by Parmenio. Due to the overwhelming numerical superiority of his opponent, however, Alexander decided to add a second battle line capable of fighting a second front behind him, in case he was surrounded. In other words, if Alexander's forces were to be surrounded their formation would take the shape of a flexible square and push the enemy outwards on all four fronts.

Expecting to be immediately attacked, Darius ordered his battle line to form and waited. After sizing up the situation, Alexander decided not to attack and camped his troops about four kilometers away from Darius's camp. That evening Alexander ordered his men to rest for the night. Darius's men, expecting an attack at any time, stood ready all night.

The morning after, October 1st, 331 BC, Alexander, with a well-rested army, approached from the north but found his right wing too short to match the opponent's. To compensate he continued to stretch his line but his opponent continued to match his moves. Darius, however, feared that if he moved too far off the cleared ground he would compromise the mobility of his chariots and ordered the attack. The chariots rushed to outflank Alexander but Alexander's men were prepared. The archers struck first and took out most of the charioteers while Alexander's front line quickly formed into columns, allowing the rushing chariots to pass. Trapped by columns of men and unable to maneuver, the horses were overpowered by Alexander's grooms, effectively disabling the chariots. Now, as the two lines of battle were drawing close, Alexander noticed a gap in the Persian left and sought the opportunity to take the offensive. Leading his companions he swerved and rushed into the gap and began to roll towards the center. The phalanx also pushed hard towards the center squeezing the battle towards Darius. Frightened by this sudden fierce attack, Darius turned his chariot around and fled. His guards formed a protective circle around him and they too fled. In his absence, his troops in the center and left wings followed suit. It was Issus all over again. Darius left the battlefield before the battle was decided.

The rapid movement of the phalanx in the center of Alexander's formation caused a gap in the Macedonian line, which could have been exploited by the enemy. But instead of closing in on the line, the undisciplined Persians and their allies rushed in to plunder Alexander's camp. The moment the enemy disengaged, Alexander's second front line went into effect and chased the looters back.

In the meantime, Parmenio was having trouble and had sent for Alexander to help him. By now Alexander's companions had broken through the enemy lines and were just about to pursue Darius. As much as he wanted to catch him, Alexander could not leave the battle unattended. Disappointed as he was, he turned his companions around and made his way towards Parmenio, only to run into the fleeing looters. A bloody cavalry engagement ensued as the trapped enemy soldiers now desperately fought for their lives. By the time Alexander reached Parmenio, the battle was over. Parmenio had overwhelmed his attackers and was now free. Unfortunately, so was Darius. This was the second time Alexander was robbed of his chance at gaining a total victory, complete with the capture of Darius.

Even before the battle of Guagamela was over Alexander acted quickly and sent an advanced force to Susa to take possession of the treasury before it was looted.

With the battle won, Alexander went in search of Darius and rode through the night. Unable to find him, the next day he returned to Guagamela (Arbela) to harvest the fruits of his victory and bury his dead.

It is estimated that enemy losses were between fifty and sixty thousand while Macedonian losses were estimated at less than one thousand.

When the dust settled, Alexander's victory was celebrated with the burial of the fallen soldiers, with gift giving ceremonies and with Alexander's acclamation as King of Asia.

Confident that the Persian threat was over, to ease the tension back home, Alexander loosened his tight grip on the Greek cities by giving them autonomy. With the Persians defeated, Alexander no longer feared a Greek-Persian alliance but he could not completely discount the Spartan threats in the potentially explosive Peloponnesos.

Soon after his victory, Alexander left Arbela and continued to journey southwards to Babylon expecting to run into resistance from the surviving Persian army. To his surprise, however, the same Persian satrap who fiercely fought Parmenio in Guagamela now came out with his sons to peacefully greet Alexander and surrender the city. What was more surprising was that not only the city leaders but also the entire general population came out on mass to greet their new King. They decorated the streets with wreaths and flowers to welcome the Macedonians. Like the Egyptians, the Babylonians too saw Alexander not as a conqueror but as a liberator. Alexander was more than happy to accept sovereignty over Babylon when the Babylonians offered it to him. He even took a step further and made the great city into a separate kingdom with its own religion, traditions and civil government. As in Egypt, Alexander appointed a native satrap as the head of the civil government while military, financial and taxation responsibilities remained in the hands of the Macedonians.

The Babylon story unfortunately was not entirely a happy one. According to Michael Wood there are newly discovered Babylonian texts, which tell us that not everyone in Babylon was happy with Alexander and his plundering of their world.

After spending about a month in Babylon, on November 25th, 331 BC, Alexander set off for Susa. On his way there he received word that his advance force, previously sent to secure the city and take possession of the treasures, had successfully completed its mission.

Like Babylon, Susa surrendered without a fight with the great treasure depot of the Persian King intact. In spite of spending great sums of money to finance his campaigns, Darius still had enough treasure left to purchase a small country or as Michael Wood puts it, equivalent to the national income of the fifth century Athenian empire for 150 years. It is estimated that apart from the precious stones, 40,000 silver talents and 9,000 gold daries (coins) were also discovered and fell into Alexander's hands. Alexander was a happy man indeed.

Alexander arrived in Susa on December 15th, 331 BC, and was greeted by the governor and a delegation of important people bearing rich gifts including a dozen Indian elephants.

Some of the money received was sent to Macedonia to finance Antipater's campaign against the Spartans. In the spring of 331 BC, the Spartans formed a Peloponnesian coalition and were preparing to fight Macedonia. Antipater unfortunately had his hands full putting down Thracian uprisings and was unable to immediately respond to this Spartan provocation. The Spartans took this as a sign of weakness and began to attack cities loyal to Macedonia. Antipater stepped up the pace finishing the northern campaign before quickly marching south. When he arrived he found the Spartans and their allies besieging the city of Megalopolis in Arcadia, which had remained loyal to Macedonia and would not surrender. There was a great battle and Antipater won a decisive victory. The mighty Spartans were vanquished and begged for peace. Antipater took most of the nobles as hostages and referred their fate to the League as Alexander had previously done with the Thebans. Unfortunately, the League of Corinth, seeing this as another blow to their freedom, did not have the stomach to pass judgement and left the fate of the captured undecided. It was now up to Alexander to determine their punishment.

When they arrived in Asia, Alexander held a trial where it was decided that the troublemakers would be executed and the rest freed. Sparta, however, was forced to join the League of Corinth.

With the defeat of Sparta, the legacy, culture and way of life of the ancient Greeks ended forever. From then forward, Macedonia ruled over Greece for centuries until the Roman wars.

After collecting his treasure, Alexander appointed a Persian satrap in charge of civil duties and two Macedonian commanders in charge of the troops and citadels. While still in Susa, he also received several thousand fresh Macedonian troops for his next campaign.

After a bit of rest and relaxation, Alexander was on the move again, this time headed for Parsa (Persepolis) but first he had to cross the land of the Uxii. While the people of the plains submitted without a fight, the highlanders, bound by old traditions, demanded tribute as payment for passage through their lands. Everyone had to pay, including the Persian King as many had done before him. Alexander unfortunately was not the sort who would easily yield to bandits and marauders. Instead of paying tribute he unleashed his army upon them. He sent a strong detachment behind their lines to cut off their retreat while his main army attacked from below. After a short battle the Uxians were overpowered and fled, only to be annihilated by the Macedonians waiting at their rear. It was now Alexander's turn to impose a penalty demanding annual tributes of 100 horses, 500 draught animals and 30,000 sheep.

At this point Alexander decided to split his army in two. Parmenio went with the allied forces to Parsa via the main southern road while Alexander with the second force took a shortcut to the Persian Gates through the treacherous mountains. After five days of forced march, Alexander arrived at the pass only to run into serious resistance. In anticipation, the Persians had built a wall across the pass. A sizable force was waiting for the Macedonians to arrive. Upon contact, Alexander initiated a direct siege but was unable to penetrate the barriers. The Persians had artillery and archers mounted above the wall. From there they rolled great boulders and rained arrows and javelins down upon the Macedonians below. Alexander suffered heavy casualties and had to retreat. Discouraged by the heavy losses, Alexander's officers were about to give up the siege claiming that it would be easier to go around than lose more men attempting the impossible. "Impossible? It is not impossible." Alexander exclaimed. "It is so simple that even that old shepherd over there can show you how it is done. Bring me the old man here and I will prove it to you." When the old man arrived, Alexander had him questioned about the local terrain. Being a shepherd all his life the old man was familiar with the local landscape, especially the passes that led through the treacherous terrain. With relative ease the old shepherd was able to lead Alexander's army behind the Persian position.

Alexander left a strong cavalry force and two battalions of the phalanx at the entrance to the gorge. To deceive the enemy about his numbers, Alexander ordered his men to burn the normal number of campfires at night. Then when the signal was given, they were to assault the wall. Alexander in the meantime took a commando force and assault troops through the long and winding twenty-kilometer path and after a day and two nights travel, reached his destination. He gave the signal to attack at dawn and after a bloody clash the Persian force was totally annihilated.

Victorious, Alexander resumed his journey towards Parsa only to be bogged down by heavy snowdrifts, ravines and watercourses.

Part way he received incentive to get moving again when a messenger arrived with news that Parsa was ready to surrender. If, however, Alexander didn't hurry to get there in good time the inhabitants would plunder its treasures.

Alexander acted at once ordering the infantry to follow as best as it could while the cavalry dashed all night at breakneck speeds until it reached the Araxes River at dawn. There was no bridge so his engineers hurriedly built one from timbers and stones in record time, allowing the cavalry to cross and ride on. Alexander arrived in time to marvel at the splendor of Persian culture and to secure his treasure. His gaze at the city's magnificence reinforced the reality that Persian rule was over. Alexander was now the new lord and master of Asia as he planted his feet in Parsa and sat himself at the throne of Xerxes.

Soon after taking control of the city, Alexander ordered his troops to burn down Xerxes's building as a symbolic act to show that he had now accomplished what he had set out to do. It was an act that he would later regret.

While in Parsa, Alexander received news of the final Macedonian victory over the Spartan coalition. Alexander must have been ecstatic at the knowledge that the once feared and mighty Spartans had folded not before him but before Antipater, a mere general. There was nothing that could stand in Alexander's way now. His army proved itself invincible against any foe and amply demonstrated its cunning and might in all kinds of battles and under all conceivable circumstances.

With the Spartan threat out of the way, the last bastion of Greek resistance was over and Alexander no longer needed to hold the Greek armies hostage. With much fanfare, gift giving and bonus pay he dismissed the entire League troops from their duty. The Thessalian cavalry, which proved itself worthy in battle, he rewarded handsomely and sent home. Those who preferred to stay in Alexander's commission were accepted as paid mercenaries, not as allied soldiers. With the fall of Sparta the so-called "alliance" also ended and Alexander's campaigns from here on forward were waged by Macedonians only.

And now I would like to take you on a short diversion to a different time, to a different place where a later generation of Macedonians proudly displayed their mark.

This is another inscription of Dura-Europos as translated by Anthony Ambrozic.

NOTE: the letter "Š" is pronounced as "SH"

[

XXXXIX

The Beggar's Magnanimity

This graffiti appears in the temple of Artemis, at the entrance to the odeon, on the east side of the door, at the foot of the stairway leading to the upper tier.

Division and Alphabetization:

AB DADOŠ MEM JE ON BARGAŠ.

AB DAŠ JE MENI KOS

SJOTER ROJ MAŠ.

Translation:

"If you add to him, he is a rich man. If you also give to me only a portion, you shall tomorrow have paradise."

Looser Translation:

"If you add to what he already has, he will be a rich man. If you also give to me but a portion, you shall tomorrow have paradise.

Explanation:

AB -"will it?, would it?, were it to: - This is a very dialectal, shorter form of the literal ALI BI or a more colloquial A K'.

DADOŠ -"you add" - second prs. sing. pres. of DODATI - "to add" - DADOŠ still very much resonates in the current literal DODAŠ. In English, one does not add to a person but rather to his possessions or wealth. As a result, the initial translation seems strained.

MEM - "to him, him" - This is a disused, archaic, dialectal form of NJEM' or the literal NJEMU.

JE - "is"

ON - "he"

BARGAŠ - "rich man" - Today's usage is BOGATAŠ. - BARG for BOG is a vernacular variation, but very archaic.

AB - see supra

DAŠ - "you give" - second prs. sing. of DATI - "to give"

JE - "and, also" - JE here is a shortened JER which corresponds to the current literal TER which is slowly being undercut into erosive archaity, especially in speech.

MENI - "me, to me" - This is still the current literal usage.

KOS - "share, portion, piece"

SJOTER - "tomorrow" - This disused form still carries its antique sparkle whether one seeks its DNA in the Sln. JUTRI or the SC. SUTRA,

ROJ - "paradise" - RAJ is the current usage.

MAŠ - "you have" - second prs., sing. of IMETI - "to have" - The literal form would be IMAŠ, but MAŠ is the colloquial equivalent.

Please note the upper extension of the letter C. Another example of the Venetic mode of communication by any means whatsoever! The C is here meant to have the added Š value and not merely the S sound of an ordinary C. Giving the C a forehead was an imaginative way this could be accomplished before the age of diacritics.] (Pages 83-85, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

A reminder to the reader that these inscriptions were made by the descendents of Alexander's soldiers centuries after Alexander's time and the words are similar to (and some are the same as) the words of the modern Macedonian language of today.

And now back to Alexander's story.

Alexander and his army took a long deserved rest during the winter months before setting out to occupy Ecbatana, the last of the Persian capitals.

The treasures Alexander found in Parsa were even greater than those found in Susa. It is estimated that he collected 120,000 Persian talents from Parsa alone and another 6,000 talents from Pasargadae, a nearby town that also surrendered without a fight.

In May 330 BC, after about four months of rest, Alexander left Parsa and headed northwards. It seemed unusual that Alexander would remain still for this long but Peter Green believes that he was waiting for the Persian New Year festival to commence so that he could participate in it. That unfortunately did not happen and Alexander left for Ecbatana to again look for Darius. Darius, in the meantime, hoped that Alexander would be so intoxicated by the overwhelming treasures and the decadent life in Parsa that he would retire in the luxurious quarters of the western palaces and forget about pursuing him. Just to be on the safe side, however, Darius began to amass a new army in case Alexander dared to attack. Darius would then quickly escape into Bactria destroying the countryside and leaving nothing behind.

When Alexander found out that Darius was in Ecbatana he went after him. Anticipating Alexander's move Darius quickly sent his baggage train and harem to the Caspian Gates while he prepared a trap for Alexander in Ecbatana. Counting on the assistance of his allies, the Scythians and Cadusians to provide him with massive reinforcements, Darius challenged Alexander to a battle. When Alexander heard of Darius's challenge, he instructed his baggage train to follow behind while he force-marched his Macedonians in pursuit. But before reaching Ecbatana, Alexander learned that Darius had not received the reinforcements he expected and had resolved to flee. When Alexander arrived at Ecbatana he was a week too late. His 500-kilometer break neck march was for nothing. Darius had cleared the city treasury of its 7,000 talents and had slipped away eastwards with 6,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry troops.

This was a great disappointment for Alexander, which made him even more determined to hunt Darius down.

Before leaving on his journey deep into Asia, Alexander built a treasury house at the citadel of Ecbana to safeguard the 180,000 or so talents that he had amassed from Susa and Parsa. Parmenio was put in charge of guarding it. After dismissing the allied forces, his loyal Macedonian general Parmenio, having no army to command, was reduced in rank to military area commander. He was then placed in charge of guarding Alexander's treasury house at Ecbana and securing his communication lines to the rear. Parmenio was seventy years old when Alexander diplomatically coaxed him into retiring from the front lines.

With his treasury secured and Parmenio in charge of local affairs in Persia proper, Alexander was free to pursue Darius in present day Iran, by way of the Caspian Gates.

It is a shame that such great effort was expended in the pursuit of a single man in such a reckless manner during July in the heat of the desert.

Alexander force-marched his army northward and covered 320 kilometers in eleven days, moving relentlessly in an attempt to overtake the Persians before they crossed the Caspian Gates. When they reached Rhagae, about eighty kilometers from the Caspian Gates, Alexander discovered that Darius had already passed through. Alexander at that point decided to stop the pursuit and allowed his army rest for five days before continuing on through the Gates.

When they crossed the Gates, Alexander was informed that Darius had been deposed by his own satraps and was now their prisoner. Alexander quickly deployed his fastest cavalry on an all night pursuit and in the morning when they reached Darius's camp they discovered that Darius had been arrested and taken away.

Alexander continued his search and when his Macedonians finally caught up to him they found Darius in chains and weakened from stab wounds. After a wild all night chase, the next day Alexander's men discovered Darius mortally stabbed by javelins. Darius's own satraps murdered him to prevent him from falling into Alexander's hands, alive. Darius was around fifty years old when he met his tragic end in July of 330 BC.

After learning of the agonizing circumstances under which Darius had died, Alexander took his body back to Parsa and gave him a kingly burial in one of the Archaemenid royal cemeteries. Alexander, to the surprise of his Macedonians and especially the Greeks, did something unusual by declaring his desire to avenge the murdered Darius. He declared that the rebels who had murdered their royal master would be punished severely while those faithful to him would be held in high honour.

With the death of Darius, the impression was that the war was over. A rumour was started around the camp that the crusade might be over and everyone would soon be allowed to go home. After all, the allied forces had been dismissed and Darius was dead, what other purpose would there be to go on? This was obvious to everyone of course except to Alexander who now wanted to avenge Darius's death by going after his murderers. It was obvious that Alexander had motives different from his Macedonians. Alexander was not out to avenge anyone but rather to continue the conquests that would satisfy his own desires. His loyal soldiers, unfortunately, were becoming weary and wondered when, if ever, they would be able to go home to enjoy their hard-earned earnings in peace?

Alexander convened a meeting of his officers and soldiers and put an end to the rumours about going home and then ordered the army to prepare to move again. Even though Alexander got his way (again), this time unfortunately a rift began to develop between his own desires and those of his men. Alexander was well aware of the problems he was about to face and began to look at non-Macedonians as possible candidates for his civil as well as military administration. To lessen their loneliness, he even encouraged his men to take wives from the captive women and bring them along on the campaign. As he was moving away from Macedonia, Alexander knew all too well that receiving new recruits and maintaining a long distance communication link with home would become more and more difficult, especially since he was planning to make "conquering" a way of life.

After a few days rest the army was on the move again and headed east towards Hyrcania. On his way through Iraq, Alexander encountered wild tribes that had never before been conquered and fierce battles broke out. After subduing some he made them pay tributes of horses and livestock. Some, especially the very skilled horsemen and archers he drafted into his service.

While crossing Iran, Alexander found a new enemy with different fighting skills that offered him no great battles. It was an enemy in small numbers that hid during the day and attacked at night. It appeared in the rear and hit at several places simultaneously and quickly disappeared. When Alexander went in pursuit, it entrenched itself in inaccessible terrain or dispersed itself and vanished into the woodlands. Alexander, in response to these terror attacks, reorganized his army into small mixed units that could fight many independent battles simultaneously or come together as one large unit if necessary. Alexander also, for the first time, employed riding archers and javelin throwers who could attack on the move. With the new fighting methods and the conscription of foreigners into his military, Alexander's army was no longer the same army as when he had started out.

After spending two weeks of summer in Hyrcania, Alexander moved eastward to the northern side of Areia. There he received news that Bessus, one of Darius's satraps who was also a suspect in Darius's murder, had been recognized in the province of Bactria as King of Asia. Alexander was about to set out for Bactra, the capital city of Bactria, in pursuit of Bessus when he received news that the satrap of Areia was in support of Bessus's recognition and himself was planning an insurrection in Areia. Without losing any time, Alexander, with part of his army in a fast paced two days march, showed up unexpectedly in Artacoana, the capital of Areia. His presence brought great fear among the rebels and the insurrection collapsed.

Unfortunately, during the forced march Alexander lost Nicator, Parmenio's son and commander of his Guards Brigade. Nicator fell ill and died on his way to Artacaona. Alexander was too much in a hurry to honour him as a fallen soldier so he left that task to Philotus, Nicator's brother. Alexander was determined to put down Bessus as soon as possible and after arriving in Artacoana, went on the move again. He had learned that Bessus was raising a large army recruiting from Bactria and from the wild nomadic tribes from beyond the Oxus.

Alexander was now entering uncharted territory and did not know what to expect. To avoid further trouble he founded a Macedonian settlement, which he named Alexandria -of-the- Areians, the first of many military garrisons positioned at strategic points throughout the eastern provinces.

For some reason Alexander abandoned his haste to reach Bactra by direct route and decided to travel south, perhaps to tame the rest of the provinces before heading north for the Hindu Kush. He secured these regions too by founding several new Macedonian settlements such as Alexandria-in-Arachosia, present-day Kandahar and Alexandria-at-the-Caucasus. To build his cities, Alexander's army laboured all through the winter without rest.

In the spring of 329 BC, after a short rest, Alexander led his army over the snowy Hindu Kush. Despite the opposition Bessus offered him Alexander emerged victorious and entered Bactria. Bessus fled and disappeared in Sogdiana. Alexander occupied Bactria including the capital Bactra and then advanced northward across the Oxus River. It has been said that there was no wood to build a bridge so it took the army five days to cross the Oxus River. They swam across the river using inflated leather skins, which had been sewn together from their tent coverings.

No sooner had Alexander entered Sogdiana than Bessus fell out of favour with his supporters for not putting up a fight and gradually even his own troops deserted him. Bessus's fall from grace did not mean that the rebellion was over. In time a new and much more dangerous antagonist would take his place and carry on the national resistance.

After capturing Bessus, Alexander continued his trek northward past Maracanda until he came upon the Jaxartes River where he reached the extreme northeast limit of the Persian Empire. Beyond there, in the broad steppes, lived nomads who were always a danger to the empire. To defend against attack and keep watch on the river, Alexander founded a frontier Macedonian settlement and named it Alexandria-Eschate or Khojend.

While Alexander was occupied with the preparations for the founding of his new city, the Persian rebellion was festering until it erupted into a violent revolt in a number of localities. Alexander did not waste time before unleashing his army and crushing the insurrection with much bloodshed. All the towns that participated were destroyed and their inhabitants were executed. But instead of crushing their spirits, Alexander's actions inflamed the rebels and soon afterwards even more uprisings took place and on a greater scale. At one point the rebels managed to defeat the Macedonian expeditionary force and besiege Maracanda. Their action however, angered Alexander to a point where he himself took a contingent of light troops and force-marched 300 kilometers in three days in pursuit of the rebels until they were subdued and severely punished. When he was finished, he headed south into Bactra where he spent the winter of 329-328 BC resting.

During the following spring, Alexander split his army in two and left Craterus behind in Bactria to protect the city while he moved north into Sogdiana to put down more rebellions. While Alexander was rounding up rebels, he instructed Hephaestion to plan out several cities in Sogdiana. A new city named Alexandria-the-furthermost emerged which was later populated by Macedonian immigrants.

Victorious over the rebels, Alexander gave command of Sogdina to Coenus while he and his army moved on to Nautaca to spend the winter.

Of all the rebellions that erupted between 329 and 327 BC, only one remained undefeated. The rebels here were perched high upon an inaccessible rocky citadel in the mountains of Sogdiana.

In the spring of 327 BC, Alexander marched his army from the wintering grounds of Nautaca to the high fortress of Sogdiana and summoned the rebels to surrender. Unfortunately, the only answer he received was laughter and ridicule. They said that the only way they would surrender was if Alexander's soldiers suddenly developed wings.

Alexander turned to his men and asked for volunteers, offering high rewards to those who would scale the highest peak. As it turned out, among the Macedonian soldiers were mountain climbers and some 300 of the bravest and bold volunteered. They undertook the climb in the dark of night using ropes and iron tent pegs for spikes, which they drove into the icy cold rock. Thirty of them fell to their death during the climb but the rest made it to the top. Then early the next morning, in the dawn of first light, the rebels saw, to their astonishment, these Macedonian supermen high above them and immediately capitulated, surrendering their fortress. Among the rebels captured was the Bactrian prince, Oxyartes, who had with him his beautiful daughter Roxane. In the judgement of Alexander's companions, Roxane was the most beautiful woman they had ever seen, second only to Stateira, the wife of Darius. Alexander fell passionately in love with her and soon afterwards made her his wife.

Soon after this campaign was over, Alexander marched eastwards towards Paraetacene to put down another citadel of resistance. Here too Alexander found the fortress perched high on a steep rock surrounded by deep ravines and very rough terrain. It seemed that the more impregnable the fortress looked the more Alexander was determined to penetrate it. He loved challenges and so did his Macedonians because they too seemed eager to do the impossible.

With a bit of Macedonian ingenuity, a lot of determination and with whatever nature had to offer, the Macedonian engineers constructed long ladders from the surrounding tall pine trees descending into the ravines. From the bottom they raised a causeway over the ravine to the citadel walls. They then built a penthouse above the causeway to protect the soldiers from falling artillery and began to bombard the citadel walls. It did not take too long before the shaken rebels offered to surrender.

This being the last bastion of resistance, Alexander had put down all resistance in the Far East and was free to return to Bactra. Alexander was hesitant to leave Sogdia unresolved before continuing on his trek to India. Here he met a fighting people with great determination much like his own. He needed to pacify them but not by just defeating them in battle. He needed to show them that he had earned their respect but not just by employing them into his services. He needed to make them partners the old fashioned way, by marrying one of their kind, the way Philip would have done.

Before returning to Bactra Alexander married Roxane at the top of the citadel in the castle he had just conquered. His marriage to Roxane was a symbol of reconciliation with his former enemies and was meant to have great political importance. The marriage ceremony was conducted according to Iranian customs, which was meant to flatter the Iranian national pride. Unfortunately, what was good for the Persians and non-Macedonians was certainly viewed with contempt by some Macedonians, so we are told.

A great deal of this information comes to us from Greek sources and personally I believe it is biased. There may have been differences of opinion between Alexander and his officers but not to the extent emphasized. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander showed interest in foreign cultures because he knew that he could benefit from their diversity. Alexander also knew that he could not rule a vast empire such as this by spear alone. He needed to elevate the feeling of belonging among all people. What better example than for Alexander himself to show everyone that even a king was not beneath participating in other peoples' customs. There was bound to be some friction between his more conservative officers and himself but I don't believe it was mutinous. Philotas may have had good reason to despise Alexander's fraternization with the enemy. His brother died for Alexander and yet Alexander was too busy to give him a proper burial. There were also those who were tired of fighting a war without end and who were bound to complain. What good is wealth if one can't enjoy it?

History should judge the Macedonians not by what other people, especially the Greeks, have said but by what the Macedonians did. Despite the negative comments from ancient authors, there is one overriding truth that can't be denied. The Macedonian army remained loyal to Alexander to the end. No army can remain intact or win battles the way the Macedonians did if there is dissension between its leaders. Alexander was unquestionably loyal to the Macedonians and the Macedonians were in turn unquestionably loyal to Alexander, the rest is nothing but rumours. Outside of these rumours, no ancient author has left any record of a real mutiny or conspiracy that may have allegedly taken place within the Macedonian army. There is not a single record of one Macedonian raising arms against another Macedonian. By this I am referring to Philotas's trial and Parmenio's execution. There are claims that Philotas was aware of a conspiracy to murder Alexander and Parmenio may have been part of the same conspiracy. It seems to me that in their preoccupation with their tabloid style denigration of Alexander, the ancient authors "simply forgot" to mention his more important accomplishments. They simply forgot to mention Alexander's desire to unite all cultures of the world as equals, which has been a Macedonian quality passed on from generation to generation and has survived in the hearts of many Macedonian revolutionaries.

Those who had contempt for Alexander have left us with the impression that Alexander and his officers were disgusting drunkards and petty, suspicious little men spying and exacting revenge on one other. Is this the making of a great army? Are we to believe that Alexander and his officers who, at all odds, won every single battle they fought and made possible out of the impossible because they were a bunch of drunk paranoid megalomaniacs?

It is truly a shame that we know practically nothing of Alexander's vision of a future world. His desire to create a truly democratic and pluralistic society has been clouded and coloured by the dwelling of those too small to see beyond themselves and their own prejudices.

Alexander's vision, be it out of necessity or by design, was so far ahead of its time that we today are grasping to comprehend it. Alexander may have conquered the world by force but there is no doubt that he had desires to turn it into a modern "United Nations".

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:24

Alexander, son of Philip II and Polyxena (Olympias) was born in Pella on July 22nd, 356 BC. Alexander's father Philip was the son of the Macedonian king Amyntas III and of Eurydice, an Illyrian princess. His mother Polyxena, or Olympias as she became known in Macedonia, was the daughter of the Molossian king Neoptolemus.

Alexander was born into a dynamic world where violence was a way of life. He enjoyed war stories told around the palace and no doubt relished in his father's victories. Philip was very fond of his son and spent a great deal of time giving him affection and telling him stories.

Alexander's earliest education was entrusted to Leonidas, a relative of Olympias. But as Leonidas found out, Alexander was no ordinary student and his defiance could not be influenced by the usual methods. So in 343 BC, when Alexander was thirteen, Philip summoned Aristotle to tutor him. Aristotle, at the time, was not the famous man we know today but simply a teacher with a good reputation. Philip chose him on the recommendation of others.

Aristotle was born in Stagira (a city in Chalcidice, conquered by Philip) and was the son of Nicomachus (once physician to Amyntas III). At age 40 (or more), Aristotle left his newly opened school in Mylitine, Lesbos and went to Pella where he was given residence in the quiet little village of Mieza. There, near the sanctuary of the Nymphs, away from the hustle and bustle and constant disruptions of Pella, Aristotle spent the next three years, educating Alexander along with a few other children. One of those children was Hephastion, whom Alexander befriended for life.

Aristotle, in addition to teaching Alexander of life's wonders, inspired in him a passionate love for culture and intellect that profoundly affected his life and the way he viewed the world. But it was Homer's books that inspired Alexander the most. The Iliad, the best book ever written, and his two heroes Heracles and Achilles where the driving forces that championed Alexander's desires for conquest and seeking the unknown.

In addition to teaching him how to be king, Aristotle also inspired in Alexander a keen interest in the natural sciences.

In 340 BC at age sixteen, while his father Philip campaigned against Byzantium, Alexander was made regent of Pella. It was then that Alexander got a taste of what it was like to be in command, especially to command a battle and put down a rebellion. It was an insignificant rebellion instigated by the Thracian Maidoi but none-the-less it was a joy for the young prince to command. After defeating the enemy, Alexander took the town, resettled it with Macedonians and renamed it Alexandropolis after himself. This would be the first in a line of many cities to be named after the young conqueror.

Two years later in 338 BC, at age eighteen, Alexander had gained his father's confidence to be given command of the Macedonian cavalry during the most important battle of Philip's career. This was a pivotal battle that not only thrashed the allied Greeks but also ushered in a new age of warfare. Eighteen years old, Alexander was part of it in every respect.

Unfortunately, on that dreaded day in 337 BC when Philip decided to marry Cleopatra, the niece of general Attalus, Alexander's pleasant relation with his father came to an abrupt end. Some say that at the marriage feast Alexander exchanged bitter words with Attalus and then caused a scene with his own father. Be it as it may, Alexander's feelings were badly hurt.

Feeling let down by his own father, Alexander, along with his mother, left Macedonia for Epirus. After taking his mother home Alexander left and went to live with the Illyrians, with a Macedonian client king. There, through the work of a mediator, he reconciled his differences with his father and soon after returned home to Pella.

Even though his father forgave him, Alexander still felt insecure and his insecurity surfaced when Philip offered the marriage of the daughter of a Carian ruler to his illegitimate son Arrhidaeus, instead of to Alexander. The Carian ruler happened to be a vassal to the Great King of Persia. Philip felt it was unsuitable for his son Alexander, heir to the Macedonian throne, to marry the daughter of a Persian vassal.

Alexander, feeling insecure, unfortunately did not believe his father and listened to some bad advice given to him by his friends. Ignoring his father, Alexander secretly offered himself as the son-in-law to the Carian ruler. When Philip found out, one would expect him to be furious but he wasn't. He consoled his son and explained to him his real motives behind the marriage, then pardoned him for his misdeeds.

As for Alexander's advisors Nearchus, Harpalus and Ptolemy, they did not get off that easily. For their misdeeds and bad advice to the prince, Philip had them exiled from the Pelan court.

The next year in mid-summer 336 BC, Alexander's life was changed forever as tragedy struck and his father was assassinated. The incident took place in the theater of Aegae at the worst possible time for Alexander's sister Cleopatra. Expecting to be away on the Asian campaign, Philip took the opportunity to marry off his daughter Cleopatra to his protégé Alexander, king of Molossia. No one expected that during the procession, the crazed bodyguard Pausanius would lunge at Philip and stab him to death right in the middle of Cleopatra's wedding.

Fortunately for Alexander, Philip and Olympias had resolved their differences and Olympias was back in the Macedonian court at Philip's side when it happened so Alexander had his mother's support when he needed it the most.

Philip was forty-six years old, at the height of his power and fortune, when his life was taken. There were many rumors as to why he was assassinated but none were proven since his killer was also slain before he was interrogated. It was now up to Alexander to set things right.

When a king or head of state is assassinated, the state and its foreign relations are shaken to the very foundation. Macedonia, after Philip's death, was no exception. The question on everyone's mind, especially his enemies, was who would succeed him?

In Philip's case a group of Macedonian soldiers and ex-soldiers loyal to the king, mostly from the near vicinity, were quickly assembled in Aegae. Without hesitation they chose Alexander as Philip's successor, the new king to lead them. The following day, one by one, his soldiers took an oath of loyalty as was required by Macedonian custom.

Alexander chose his own bodyguards and was given his personal Royal Infantry Guard. His first task as king was to investigate his father's murder.

The fact that there were horses involved for Pausanius's getaway suggests that Philip's murder was premeditated and accomplices were involved. But who would have had the audacity to murder a powerful king and at his daughter's wedding at that? That, we will never know for sure! What is important, however, is to examine how Alexander used this tragedy to secure his own position in the Macedonian kingdom and rid himself of some undesirable elements.

For killing Pausanius before he could be interrogated, Alexander placed blame on the bodyguards and had them executed. For Pausanius's act as a traitor, his three sons were also executed. Many of the people present in the theater that day were suspects and found guilty of conspiring to murder both father and son. Of those found guilty, Alexander pardoned few while most he condemned to death. Later that same year new evidence came to light and general Attalus became a suspect. It was Alexander's belief that Attalus had something to do with Demosthenes's secret communication conspiring to prevent Alexander from becoming heir to the Macedonian throne. Alexander dispatched an officer to Asia to arrest Attalus or kill him if he resisted. As I mentioned earlier, Attalus along with Parmenio were leading an expeditionary force into Asia. As expected, Attalus resisted and was killed.

After his death an assembly of soldiers tried and found him guilty of treason and, in accordance with Macedonian custom, his relations were condemned to death. Among his relatives were his niece Cleopatra and Philip's newborn infant.

Over the course of the winter, Amyntas, son of Perdiccas III, was also found guilty and condemned to death. In fact, before contemplating crossing into Asia Alexander had killed all the male members of his family who could potentially threaten his position.

The news of Philip's murder attracted the attention of the whole world, especially the Greeks who rejoiced in knowing that he was gone. Alexander was quick to let them know that he expected from them the same loyalty as they had for his father. He reminded the Greeks that the treaty of the League of Corinth was perpetual and gave him a legal claim to be Hegemon, same as his father. But Alexander's words did not phase the Greeks in the least, for in Athens they were dancing in the streets with joy. Demosthenes, intoxicated with the prospect of liberty, appeared in council dressed in white with a wreath on his head making offerings to the gods for the joyful news. The call to freedom from Athens spread like wildfire to the rest of the Greeks. The Aetolians recalled all those exiled by Philip, the Ambraciots expelled the Macedonian garrison, the Thebans took up arms to liberate Cadmeia and there were signs of rebellions in Peloponnese, Argos, Elis and Arcadia.

When news was received that Alexander was to take Philip's place, Demosthenes became enraged, immediately sending a secret communication begging Parmenio and Attalus to intervene.

Fortunately, Attalus and Parmenio were loyal to their new king and allowed Alexander to be seated on the throne without interruption. So in the end, like his father before him, Alexander became Demosthenes's mortal foe and worst nightmare.

Failing to enlist help from Macedonians inside Alexander's circle, Demosthenes entered into strange relations with the Persian King and continued to work against Macedonia.

The revolts after Philip's death were not exclusive to the Greeks. Reports were also coming in from the north with claims that were disturbances and rebellions there too.

On hearing this Alexander moved quickly, put a strong force together and with lightning speed descended upon his enemies. The Greeks were first on his agenda to subdue as he force- marched his army in a surprise visit to Thessaly. Upon seeing Alexander, the Thessalians not only submitted but they showed an eager willingness to recognize him as their Hegemon. They even offered to help him punish Athens and the other Greeks for their misdeeds.

After subduing Thessaly, Alexander pushed southward overrunning all who stood in his way, including Thermopylae. After quelling Thermopylae, he summoned a meeting with the Amphictyonic Council who, without hesitation, also gave him recognition as Hegemon. He then quietly slipped out, marched to Boeotia and set up camp near Cadmeia. His sudden appearance in Thebes frightened the wits out of the Thebans and sent shock waves of chilling terror to Athens, especially after delivering an ultimatum demanding to be recognized as Hegemon or prepare for war. The Athenians, expecting the worst, were prepared for war but were relieved by the alternative. Through their ambassadors they asked for pardon for not having his hegemony recognized sooner.

At the conclusion of his campaign, Alexander summoned all members of the League of Corinth for a meeting. Here he asked the Greeks to give him recognition as Hegemon of the League in accordance with the agreement made with Philip. The Spartans, whose response was, "It was their custom to follow themselves and not others who wish to lead them." did not attend.

When his business with the Greeks was finished, Alexander turned his attention to the troublemakers in the north. First on his list were the Thracian Triballian tribe, living between the Balkans and the Danube, who Philip fought but did not subjugate. This was Alexander's first campaign carried out without the tactical brilliance of general Parmenio or the trusted help of friend and advisor general Antipater. The success of this particular campaign has to be attributed singularly to Alexander's own genius.

Before setting off to meet the Triballians, Alexander sent his war ships from Byzantium via the Black Sea into the Danube and ordered them to sail upriver and hold their position at a pre-designated location.

In the spring of 335 BC, Alexander marched his army northward until he found the Thracians. The Thracians had occupied the Shipka Pass and had secured their position atop a hill behind a fort made of wagons. Perched on top of this hill they waited until Alexander's army attempted the climb. Before they reached the top the Thracians released a barrage of wagons hoping to run the Macedonians down. Alexander, however, anticipated their plan and ordered his men at the top to form columns with alleys for the wagons to hurtle down and the men further down the hill to lie down in close formation with their shields over their heads.

As the wagons hurtled downhill, they were guided into the alleys by the formation and as they gained momentum, the wagons rode over a roof of shields without doing any damage to the men. With superb discipline exercised, not a single man was lost.

Alexander stormed the Shipka Pass and descended upon the northern plains in pursuit of the Triballian king who sought refuge on an island in the Danube. The Triballian army, which withdrew southwards, suffered an annihilating defeat.

Three days later, when Alexander reached the Danube, he found his fleet waiting. He ordered his ships to pursue the Triballian king but the banks of the island were so steep that they couldn't land.

Although frustrated, Alexander was not about to give up and came up with a new plan, which at the time may have seemed irrational to his officers but they gave him their support anyway. Alexander's plan was to "frighten the king into submission". He figured that by a surprising demonstration of force he would break the enemy's inclination to resist him. The idea was to cross the Danube undetected and force the Getae, who lived on the opposite bank, into flight and by this demonstration, startle the king to surrender. An irrational plan indeed!

Having earned the loyalty and trust of his Macedonians, they did as he ordered and made silent preparations to cross the river. They collected as many local fishing boats as they could find, filled their canvas tents with hay and under the cloak of darkness put as many troops as possible across the river. Before dawn 1,500 cavalry and 4,000 infantry were on the opposite side of the bank. Before they could be seen the troops hid in the cornfields, which masked their approach. Then, like wild animals, the cavalry burst out and charged the Getae who were encamped in front of their town. Completely surprised, the Getae, far superior in numbers, rushed back into town, grabbed their wives and children and ran north to safety in the steppes. The town was taken and not a single man was lost.

Alexander's bluff not only worked with the Triballian king who made his submission to Alexander but, when word spread, neighbouring tribes send their envoys to pay Alexander homage. Even the Celts, who had ventured eastward from the Adriatic, asked Alexander for his friendship.

When his northern campaign was over, Alexander was preparing to return home when he received news of an Illyrian revolt.

Alexander marched his army at great speed to western Macedonia and, just beyond his frontier, found a very large Dardanian army assembled and waiting. A battle ensued and the Illyrians were driven back into a fortified town. Alexander set camp for the night intending to besiege the town the next day. Unfortunately, by morning another enemy army had arrived. A large Taulantian army had joined the Dardanians and cut off Alexander's retreat and supply line. The Macedonian army of some 25,000 men and 5,000 horses were quickly running out of supplies. Alexander had to do something and soon, but what? He was completely surrounded. Leave it to Alexander to come up with another uncanny plan. He ordered his men to put on a show. Ignoring the enemy, he ordered his phalanx into formation to quietly march back and forth as he motioned their maneuvers with his arm. The show attracted onlookers around his camp who not only were surprised but mesmerized by this action.

When the time was right, Alexander motioned and the soldiers, in unison, slapped their shields hard with their javelins. The sudden thundering roar, after the mesmerizing silence, startled the enemy causing some of the horses to bolt in fright. At lightening speed Alexander's best cavalry, supported by his archers, bolted through the pass, making an opening for the army to escape through. The army, with catapult, archers and cavalry support, then punched a hole right through the middle of the enemy forces and landed on home territory in the meadows around Lake Little Prespa. Not a single man was lost.

Three days later in a surprise attack at night Alexander led an assault force through the pass and inflicted a decisive defeat on his enemy. As the enemy bolted, the Macedonian cavalry pursued, chasing them for over one hundred kilometers, instilling fear and causing them severe damage. Both kings submitted to Alexander's will and instead of being punished for their misdeeds they were made client-kings with thrones of their own.

No sooner were the Illyrian revolts put down than Alexander received news of a dangerous uprising in Greece requiring his immediate intervention. It appears that the Thebans were in revolt and had killed Macedonian officers stationed in a local garrison.

Alexander quickly assembled his army and set out on a fast paced march, living off the land as he traversed south through the mountainous terrain. After crossing the Pass of Thermopylae he headed for Thebes. Alexander arrived just in time to prevent his garrison from being attacked so no serious damage was done. But to his surprise, it was not just Thebes that was causing trouble. Athens too had become involved when she entered into an alliance with Thebes and sent arms and her citizen army to support the Theban rebellion. Encouraged by Demosthenes and supported by Persian gold, other Greeks also joined the rebellion.

The whole thing was started by rumors, no doubt spread by Demoshenes himself, claiming that Alexander had been killed and his army defeated in Illyria.

But when Alexander arrived alive and well with an intact Macedonian army a chill must have run down their spines. Being the rightful Hegemon of the Greek League, Alexander asserted his rights and demanded that the rebels disband. In the presence of Alexander, some of the Greek armies obeyed and turned away. Some, like Athens, remained stationary and made no attempt to engage him. The Thebans decided to break away and fight, hoping that an engagement would draw others into the war. They relied mostly on their own forces and the strong fortifications of their city to defend them.

After hearing rumors of his supposed death, Alexander endeavoured to give the rebels a chance to end the impasse peacefully and gave them three days to surrender. Unfortunately, instead of submitting peacefully their cavalry charged his outposts.

The next day Alexander marched his army all around the city and stopped in front of the south gate. Angered by the reply of the previous day, Alexander ordered an attack. In no time the Theban defenses were breached and the Macedonian and League armies penetrated the city. The Thebans fought fiercely but were no match for the well trained, battle experienced Macedonian army. The battle turned tragically when League soldiers turned on the general population massacring everyone in sight.

After sacking it, Alexander left the final fate of Thebes to the League to decide. Those in the League who for many generations suffered under the supremacy of Thebes finally found an outlet to vent their anger. Without hesitation they found Thebes guilty of treason for their current misdeeds as well as those in the past. In a resolution backed by the entire League Alexander ordered the city to be leveled to the ground. Women and children were sold into slavery.

Alexander allowed the resolution to pass so that an example could be made to remind the rest that this kind of behavior would no longer be tolerated. As for the Athenians, the real instigators of the rebellions, Alexander left them unpunished. Alexander was careful not to drive them further into the Persian King's arms. But, as fate would have it, those who were unhappy with the League's resolution left for Persia anyway.

After restoring peace in Greece, Alexander and his army returned to Macedonia. By the time he arrived it was already October (335 BC) and still much preparation was needed before he could depart for the Asian spring offensive. Alexander also needed time to secure the route to Asia and strengthen Macedonia's defenses. Being mistrustful of the Greeks, Alexander in his absence left Antipater, a competent soldier, a man of strong character and a trustworthy friend, in charge as regent of Macedonia. He gave Antipater special powers to represent him as deputy-Hegemon of the League of Corinth. To keep the peace, Antipater was given 12,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry from Alexander's best Macedonian troops.

During the winter of 335 BC, Alexander convened a meeting with his officers and advisors and discussed his plans and general strategy regarding the Asian campaign. In addition to his own troops, who formed the core of his army, it was decided that Alexander would appeal to the Greek League to supply him with infantry, cavalry and a fleet of ships and sailors. The League approved Alexander's request and supplied him with approximately 160 war ships and 29,000 crewmen, 7,000 infantry and 2,400 cavalry. Some believe that Alexander only took these men so that he could hold them hostage to prevent the Greeks from attacking Macedonia while he was campaigning in Asia. If we take into consideration that Alexander was always suspicious and never trusted the Greeks, and the fact that he relied solely on the Macedonian soldiers to do his fighting, then I would agree that the League forces were redundant and with no other purpose. By solving one problem Alexander created another. The Greek soldiers taken as hostages could possibly, in a moment of weakness, be a danger to him. Alexander trusted his Macedonians with his life and he knew that they would never intentionally let him down, however, there was always the possibility that they could be overwhelmed in battle. If that were to happen, Alexander was certain the Greeks would turn on him. So after crossing into Asia, Alexander separated his forces. He took an all Macedonian infantry and a mixed Macedonian Thessalian cavalry force and placed the League forces in Parmenio's command.

Even though Antipater was a trusted friend, Alexander was always cautious and well aware that in his prolonged absence anything could happen. To counterbalance Antipater's power, Alexander appointed his mother Olympias to be in charge of religious, ceremonial and financial matters in Pella.

Alexander selected and took with him the best and most battle hardened troops in his army consisting of 12,000 infantrymen and 2,700 cavalrymen. Philip himself had trained and campaigned with most of these men in all hazards of war.

While Alexander was preparing his Asian force, Parmenio's vanguard in Asia was struggling to regain control of the Hellespond. In 336 BC Parmenio had won control of the Dardanelles bridgehead but lost it again in 335 BC when he was driven back by Greek mercenaries commanded by general Memnon. The Greeks had taken control of an area near the crossing, killed off and expelled the Persian juntas, and had taken over the local cities. It didn't take long, however, before the pro-Persian factions rebelled. Parmenio sought his chance and again took control of the crossing. The Macedonians now controlled the waters of the Hellespond and held them until Alexander arrived.

In early spring of 334 BC, with the help of some 160 ships, the main body of the Macedonian expedition force was ferried across the strait. While the army was helped across, Alexander took a diversion to explore the various sacred sites of the Iliad. While visiting the Ilium he dedicated his armour to Athena and in exchange took back an old, sacred shield supposedly dating back to the Trojan War.

Soon after rejoining his army, Alexander set out to find the enemy. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander separated his forces and took with him only Macedonians and some Thessalians, leaving the Greeks behind with Parmenio. In all 13,000 infantry and 5,100 cavalry set off in search of the Persian army. Another reason for not taking the Greeks was that Alexander had no money for provisions. When he crossed the Hellespond he was almost broke. Some say he only had 70 talents in cash and that was hardly enough to feed his army for more than a couple of weeks. But that did not stop Alexander because he had confidence in his Macedonians to give him victories and then his enemies would be obliged to feed the army.

Besides his military, Alexander also enlisted the services of historians, philosophers, poets, engineers, surveyors, doctors, botanists and natural scientists to accompany him on his Asian expedition. His official historian was Callisthenes of Olynthus, nephew and pupil of Aristotle. The surveyors were there to measure distances traveled by the army as well as make notes of peculiarities in the terrain traversed. The engineers were engaged in building bridges, rafts, ladders, siege engines and equipment to scale steep slopes and cliffs. The botanists and natural scientists were there to investigate the flora, fauna and mineral wealth of the newly discovered lands. Right from the start the Asian expedition was not just a military campaign but a great research and discovery mission.

As luck would have it, on the third day of his search, Alexander's scouts spotted the Persian army holding its position on the far bank of the river Granicus. As Alexander made his advance, he noticed a much superior cavalry force holding its position on the level ground. Beyond the steep riverbank he could see a large, Greek mercenary infantry force holding the ridge behind the level ground. He estimated the enemy to be about 20,000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry.

Alexander immediately formulated his battle plans and took the offensive. The Macedonian infantry phalanx took the center while the cavalry formed the wings with the archers posted on the extreme right. Alexander's battle line now matched the three-kilometer wide enemy line. According to Peter Green, Alexander badly needed a victory in order to secure booty to pay off his loans and to finance future campaigns. At the moment, Alexander was badly in debt.

Among the Persian commanders was general Memnon. Memnon was well aware of Alexander's financial predicament and wanted to starve him out. During an earlier meeting with the Persians, Memnon opposed a direct confrontation and proposed to deprive Alexander of all provisions. This would have required burning all the crops in the vicinity and withdrawing the Persian army. Having no provisions to sustain him, Alexander would have had to turn back and return to Macedonia. When he did, Memnon proposed to go after him by means of the huge Persian fleet. The Persians, however, due to their army's numerical superiority felt confident that a battle with Alexander would give them victory.

After surveying the situation, Alexander noticed that the best Persian cavalry stood atop the steep, eight-foot riverbank. From that position a cavalry charge would have been difficult to execute. In spite of Parmenio's advice to retire for the evening and attack the next morning, Alexander exploited the situation and ordered a surprise attack.

The battle of Granicus started with a blare of trumpets and with the terrifying battle cry of Alexander and his Macedonians. His men quickly took their positions as Alexander's horsemen rushed across the swollen river and swooped up the steep bank violently engaging the Persian cavalry. His infantry phalanx, which by now was used to forming a battle line on the fly, maneuvered into an oblique battle-array and positioned itself to follow suit. As the army frontlines clashed, Alexander and his companions rode back and forth behind the lines looking for weaknesses and to confuse the enemy. Moments after the engagement started, most of the Persian cavalry was pinned down by the Macedonian phalanx as both armies desperately tried to push forward. The Persians were expecting Alexander to attack at the extreme left where the terrain was easiest to navigate. Memnon's most experienced mercenaries were placed there in thick columns in close proximity and ordered to lay in wait. But instead of doing what was expected Alexander took a defensive stand and attacked the position with a light force of infantry and some cavalry, with just enough men to hold the mercenaries back.

As the battle raged on Alexander himself became engaged and fought several Persian nobles, among them the son in law of Darius the Great King. While Alexander was dealing a deathblow to the King's son in law he nearly became a casualty himself. The world would not have been the same had it not been for Cleitus who came to his rescue.

As the phalanx succeeded in pushing back the Persian cavalry, Alexander's horsemen charged the center and punched a whole right through the enemy formation. The enemy took flight and the Macedonian cavalry went in pursuit leaving many dead in their wake.

No sooner had the Macedonians moved in for the kill than they were confronted from the rear by the Greek mercenaries who had lain in wait throughout the entire battle. Alexander turned his phalanx around and ordered a frontal attack while his cavalry took on the flanks. In a matter of minutes the elite Greek mercenary force was annihilated leaving only 2,000 survivors out of a force of 20,000. By sacrificing themselves, the Greek mercenaries saved the Persian cavalry.

Before the evening was over, in a few short hours on a bright day in May 334 BC, the Macedonians won a great victory.

The day after the battle all the dead, including the Persians, were buried with honour. Special attention and care was given to the wounded, each receiving a visit from Alexander himself.

Compared to the enemy Macedonian losses were insignificant, totaling about a couple hundred.

Soon after the battle of Granicus, Alexander organized an administration to manage his lands "won by his spear". Instead of incorporating these lands as part of a Greater Macedonian kingdom, Alexander did the unexpected and appointed a Macedonian "satrap". By that I mean Alexander left the old Persian government and way of governing intact. He only replaced the top Persian official (satrap) with a Macedonian. His only demands were that the Persians now pay him what was owed to the Great King. In addition to taking taxes, Alexander also took possession of the Great King's crown lands.

Alexander's idea of replacing the Great King with himself instead of incorporating the conquered lands into a "Greater Macedonia" had its merits. After seeing that no harm had come to their neighbours, other parts of Asia Minor began to surrender peacefully. When Alexander reached Sardis, the Lydian city, the people surrendered without a fight entrusting Alexander with the city's treasures, satrapy and citadel. In return, Alexander freed the Lydians from Persian rule and gave them back their old culture, laws and way of life. He also replaced the Persian satrap with a Macedonian. Here again Alexander demonstrated his respect for other cultures choosing to liberate instead of enslave.

After looking at the vastness of Asia, Alexander quickly realized that he could never hold a world that size with a spear. This foresight, along with the Macedonian values instilled in him (to respect people of all classes and cultures), Alexander became a liberator and a champion of the oppressed nations. His conquests became a mission of liberation not enslavement. He did NOT do this to spread Greek culture, as many authors claim, he did it to spread Macedonian values for the glory of Macedonia and the Macedonian people.

The Greeks are credited with being the fathers of democracy but in reality they were not democratic at all. Athens, the most democratic of all Greek states, was ruled by a small faction of wealthy men who employed slave labour to toil for them and amass their wealth. Athenian women had no rights and neither did the majority of the Athenian population. Ironically Athens is credited as being the cradle of democracy. In case you were wondering, The Oxford dictionary defines democracy as "government by all the people, direct or representative; State having this; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views". (Page 193, The Oxford Dictionary of Current English). Ironically our modern concept of democracy is nothing like the "brand" of democracy the ancient Greeks practiced. Modern democracy is more like the practices of the ancient Macedonians. Even though ancient Macedonia was a monarchy, in practice, it was more closely linked to the common man than the best Greek democracy could ever dream of being. Through Alexander's exploits we find that the Macedonians not only tolerated other cultures but also took great care to preserve them. The Greeks, on the other hand, loathed other cultures. The Macedonians saw the world as many states with various cultures, customs and languages. All we ever hear from the Greeks is that the world was populated by "Greeks and barbarians". Even though the Greeks called other cultures barbarian, the worst case of barbarism was demonstrated by the Greeks themselves in the way they treated one another.

This modern infatuation with the ancient Greek culture is nothing more than a lingering side effect of 19th century British and German "supremacist" romance with "a white intellectual male dominated society", run by a small minority of men in robes.

It is time to reveal the ancient Greeks for who they truly were and give the ancient Macedonians the credit they deserve.

The ancient Macedonians, as I mentioned earlier, were a tolerant people when it came to respecting other peoples' cultures, customs and languages but there was one thing they would not tolerate and that was Greek arrogance.

Here is another Dura-Europos inscription as translated by Anthony Ambrozic -- (pages 78-80, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms):

XXXXVI

PLUS CA CHANGE ...

Inscription found on a separated block of stone dug up within the grounds of the temple of Artemis.

Division and alphabetization:

GOT ATHENOI: LA LEJ KOJ PID JE NOS D' JE TOJ, DA NI POJ GINA I KOS.

Translation:

"To all Athenians: See to it that your nose is a span's length, so that then the cock does not perish."

Looser Translation:

"To all Athenians: See to it that your nose is so keen as if it were a span's length, so that you do not end up losing your cock."

Explanation:

GOT - "whosoever, whoever, all" - GOD is an all-encompassing combinational form which in SC. joins with KO and TKO - "who" and STO - "what" to become "whosoever" and "whatsoever." - It seems that the Venetic does not join in this combinational discrimination between objects and persons.

ATHENOI - "Athenians" in Greek

LA - "make sure that" among others, depending on context and idiom - This is an archaism of the current LE.

LEJ - "see, see to" - second prs., sing., pres., imp. of GLEDATI - "to see, to watch, to see to" - The guttural G is abandoned for easier speech without any damage to recognizability of LEJ in rapid vernacular.

KOJ D' JE - "so that it is" - This idiom is a dialectal archaism of the current literal KO

DA JE, having the same meaning.

PID - "span: (measure of length) - PID is Cz. for the gsl. PED

JE - "is"

NOS - "nose"

TOJ - "your, yours"

DA - "that, so that"

NI - "no, not, is not"

POJ - "then, later, after" - This very dialectal form is somewhere between PO - "after" and PO-TEM - literally, "after this, after that" but invariably meaning "then."

GINA - "perishes, dies, disappears" - third prs., sing., pres. of GINITI - "to perish, to die, to disappear" - This is very dialectal form of the current literal GINE.

I - "and, also"

KOS - "piece, portion, cock" (depending on context) - see passage VIII supra

Words of wisdom for the Athenians, perhaps?

Again I want to remind the reader that this inscription was found in Dura-Europos, a city in the Syrian Desert founded by Alexander's lieutenant, Seleucus Nicator, of the post-Alexander Seleucid Empire. The script was written using Greek and Latin letters but the language is Slav or, as Ambrozic calls it, Venetic. The script predates the Roman invasion of that region and could only have been written by Macedonian soldiers stationed at a nearby garrison.

What is most curious is that the words are very similar (some are exactly the same) to those of the modern Macedonian language and NOT AT ALL like those of the ancient or modern Greek languages.

Some of Alexander's Macedonians resisted change and managed to preserve their language for many generations, as demonstrated by the Dura-Europos inscriptions. Alexander, however, encouraged change and believed that in order to win over the hearts of the conquered people one had to become one of them or at least act like them. He believed that, that was only possible with a clear understanding of language and custom. So in time, as Alexander moved deeper into Asia, to some he became a liberator, to some a ruler and yet to others a god.

If Alexander is to be judged for his deeds let it be for all his deeds and not just for his conquests and military genius. Alexander was a seasoned politician with a vision of uniting all the world's nations together as equals in a democratic system (in the modern sense). Besides his political qualities Alexander also had a great interest in culture and the natural sciences. Wherever he went he built cities, libraries, cultural centers, museums and many other wonders. He listened to poetry and comedy and took part in debates. He met many people with varying interests and the people whose accomplishments he admired most, he sent to Macedonia for the Macedonians to enjoy. He had his natural scientists study and document the flora, fauna and mineral wealth of this new world. Techniques and knowledge learned then still apply today. He adorned all the gardens of Macedonia, including those in Pella, with plants bearing the best fruits and flowers that Asia had to offer. Wherever he went, he taught the local people culture, artistic skills and natural medicine. As Michael Wood found out, "In the footsteps of Alexander the Great", these gifts that Alexander gave the Asian people are still remembered to this day.

As he proceeded to free the Asian people from Persian dominion, Alexander was greeted with enthusiasm and celebrated as a liberator.

With the victory of Granicus under his belt, Alexander turned southward encountering little or no resistance until he reached Miletus and Halicarnassus where Greek mercenaries were found in large numbers. The Persian commander in Miletus was ready to surrender his city but convinced that the Persian fleet was on its way he resisted. Before the Persian fleet has a chance to enter the bay, Alexander's navy intervened and closed off the mouth of the harbour. Without the help of the Persian fleet, the city defenses were no match for Alexander's siege engines. Alexander stormed the city but did not harm its population.

In an unexpected turn of events, after the battle of Miletus, Alexander disbanded his fleet. Even though his ships were of help to him during the battle, Alexander decide to disband them anyway, retaining only twenty Athenian ships as hostages. At that time there was no obvious reason given but, as we later learned, he did it to save them. He did not have the naval strength to take on the powerful Persian fleet and win, so why waste his ships? Also, he did not trust the Greek navies behind him for they too, in a moment of weakness, could have turned on him and cut off his retreat and supply lines. As for destroying the powerful Persian fleet, Alexander had a different plan.

At the city of Halicarnassus, the capital of Caria, Alexander met with his old adversary Memnon, who at the time was supreme commander of the Asian coast and of the Persian fleet. With a division of Persians ships guarding the waters, the fortified city gave Alexander much resistance but it could not hold out indefinitely and fell to his superior siege-craft. When it was over Alexander appointed an old woman, a princess named Ada of the Carian dynastic house, to the satrapy. Ada met Alexander earlier when he entered Caria. She offered him her city of Alinda and a proposal to adopt him as her son. Alexander was so impressed that he accepted her adoption proposal and gave her back her city. After that Alexander was known in Caria as the son of the ruler. Caria was liberated and free of foreign dominion and her satrapy granted to a native woman. Here for the first time Alexander separated civil from military responsibilities. Ada was given charge of civic functions while a Macedonian officer was responsible for the military.

During the winter of 334 BC, before heading south, Alexander sent his newly wed soldiers home on leave to visit their families and wives. Parmenio, who earlier was given command of the League troops was dispatched to occupy Phrygia. Alexander, with the Macedonian army, spent late fall securing the western coast of Asia Minor before heading for Gordius.

Alexander's plan, as I mentioned earlier, was to paralyze the enemy fleet by occupying all the ports of the western Asia Minor seaboard.

Alexander's coastal trek was mostly trouble free except when he passed through Pisidia. There he encountered stiff resistance and severe fighting from the mountain men whom he subdued. After his victory, Alexander went to Gordium, the Phrygian capital, to spend the winter.

While Alexander was making his way to Gordium, Memnon, his old adversary, was convincing his Persian lords to allow him to resurrect the old idea of bringing the war to Europe. Using the Persian fleet he began to invade the Aegean islands one by one starting with Chios then Lesbos, hoping to get Alexander turned around. News of this brought excitement to the Greeks who had hoped that Memnon's intervention would turn the tide of the war in their favour. Unfortunately, their enthusiasm was cut short when suddenly Memnon fell ill and died. I can't say that Alexander was not relieved.

Next spring, the soldiers on leave and some reinforcements arrived from Macedonia and joined Alexander at Gordium as he prepared for departure.

In April 333 BC, Alexander came across the famous Gordian Knot which many tried but failed to untie. Legend has it that he who untied the knot would become King of Asia. Alexander tried his luck but found the tangle too complicated and impossible to untie. But Alexander was not about to give up so he did the next best thing; he drew his sword and hacked it to pieces. The end result was the same, the knot was removed and the yoke-pole of King Gordius's chariot was now bare. That night thunder and lightning followed which was interpreted as a good sign and that the gods were pleased.

With his army ready to march, Alexander passed by Ancyra before turning south to continue to occupy more Persian ports. His intention was to quickly march south through Cappadocia and occupy the passes of the Taurus mountain range on the southern coast of Cilicia. Having no time to conquer all of Cappadocia, he appointed a native satrap, instead of a Macedonian.

When Alexander arrived in Cilicia he took the Persian garrison by surprise when his men climbed up the strongholds in the night. Surprised by the sudden appearance of Macedonians in their midst, the guards ran off and left the pass unguarded. The pass was taken without a fight.

Alexander then marched down the mountain to seize the city of Tarsus but at the mere sight of the approaching Macedonian cavalry, its defenders also ran off.

His victory at Tarsus was bittersweet as Alexander contracted an illness from swimming in icy cold waters. He would have died had he not been so physically fit. His recovery unfortunately was long and arduous.

As soon as he was well enough, Alexander and his troops were on the move. To recover lost time, he divided his army and sent Parmenio east to secure the Cilicia to Syria pass. Alexander, meanwhile, went west to secure the western coastline as well as reinforce his supply line. On his way back he took time off near Tarsus to rest and celebrate his eventual victory at Halicarnassus. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander conquered the city of Halicarnassus but not all the citadels. After he left, a couple of citadels were still intact so he left that job to his officers to finish.

Soon after departing Tarsus, Alexander got word from Parmenio that the Great King Darius, with a large army, was encamped on the plains of Northern Syria, about two days journey from the pass that Parmenio was now holding.

After finding out what Alexander did to his army at Granicus, the Great King was furious with him and wanted to squash him like a bug. Who was this insolent man who dared challenge the Great King and prance in his backyard?

After finding out that Alexander was in Cilicia in the fall of 333 BC with plans to head south, the Great King amassed a great army and prepared a trap. Expecting Alexander to come after him, Darius picked a suitable place with battle advantage and lay in wait. Because of his numerical superiority, Darius was convinced he could crush Alexander's little army in battle.

When Alexander didn't show up as expected, the Great King became anxious. Thinking Alexander was afraid to face him, Darius decided it was time to pursue him instead. Alexander did not show up because he had fallen ill. But now that he learned Darius was out there, he mustered his forces and went after him. Unfortunately, as Alexander moved south quickly through the Cilician Gates along the Syrian coast, Darius moved north towards Cilicia on the opposite side of the same mountain range.

Unbeknownst to Alexander, Darius had broken camp. Alexander left his sick and wounded at Issus and continued to travel south, hugging the coastline. Camped overnight and weathering a storm, Alexander expected to do battle the next day, but to his surprise he learned that Darius had already broken camp and was now after him.

Without any knowledge of each other's positions the two armies passed one another over the mountain range of Amanus. Darius was first to learn of this from Alexander's wounded at Issus.

It has been said that Darius was so frustrated that he took his anger out on Alexander's sick and wounded by ordering his soldiers to cut off their hands so that could they never fight again.

By cutting off his retreat and supply lines, Darius was now resolved to follow Alexander into the plains of Syria and trample him and his little army to death with his cavalry. Unfortunately for Darius, Alexander had different ideas. On finding out that Darius was behind him and pursuing him, Alexander expediently turned his army around. Determined to meet Darius on his (Alexander's) terms, Alexander ordered a battle plan for the next day. After allowing his troops to have a quick meal, he mobilized the entire army and marched through the night until he arrived at the battlefield of his choice. The battle was going to take place not in the broad open plain of Syria, but in the narrow plain of Pinarus, encircled by the mountains and sea.

Hidden from view, Alexander's army spent the rest of the night laying in wait. At the crack of dawn, Alexander ordered their descent to the plain, infantry first in long narrow columns followed by the cavalry. In the face of a large enemy, Alexander formed the battle lines with ease as if performing a routine exercise. The Macedonian troops displayed great discipline and courage as they took their positions, knowing that they were about to face the largest army they have ever seen.

With only about 16,000 Macedonian infantry and 5,600 cavalry troops, Alexander was facing a huge Persian cavalry force of 450,000, a Greek mercenary infantry force of 30,000, a light infantry force of 20,000 and 60,000 Persians armed as hoplites.

The Persian battle line (this time) had the Greek mercenaries placed front and center, while right and left of them stood the hoplites with the bulk of the cavalry stationed to the right of the Greek mercenaries. The remaining troops stood behind the lines in column formations. Darius, sitting on his magnificent chariot, stood in the center behind the Greek mercenaries.

Before the battle started, Alexander secretly rearranged his cavalry formation moving some of it behind and to the left of the frontline. Alexander was in command of the right wing while Parmenio was in command of the left wing with strict orders not to break contact with the sea.

Alexander charged first in an oblique formation, the right wing cavalry followed closely by the phalanx. As (bad) luck would have it, soon after the charge, Alexander received a leg wound. At the same time the phalanx had become dislocated and had broken line while attempting to climb the steep bank of the river. While Alexander seemed to have regained his composure, the Greek mercenaries sought the opportunity and entered the gap in the open phalanx formation. The Greeks fought like demons displaying their hatred for the Macedonians. But soon after overwhelming the enemy's left wing Alexander turned inward and attacked the center. The moment Darius saw Alexander coming for him, he turned his chariot around and fled. Choosing not to pursue him, Alexander first turned on the Greek mercenaries and then on the numerically superior cavalry which had engaged Parmenio in a fierce battle across the Pinarus River.

Darius's flight left his army in disarray and confusion, running in all directions. As soon as the Persians began fleeing the Macedonians gave chase. Alexander, hoping to catch up to Darius, went after him. Anticipating a chase, Darius gave up his chariot for a horse and was nowhere to be found. The pursuit inflicted catastrophic losses on the Persian army especially since it had to exit through a narrow pass. The pursuit finally ended when darkness fell.

When it was over, only 8,000 of the Greek mercenary force was left intact. It is unclear how many Persians died but according to Ptolemy, who was there at the time, the pursuit at the narrow pass alone yielded a ravine full of enemy corpses.

So before the year 333 BC was over the Great King's army was beaten and the Great King himself became a fugitive, leaving his royal family and great wealth to Alexander.

After the long pursuit, Alexander returned to the Pinarus and took a stroll through Darius's camp to find Darius's mother, wife and three children weeping for him. They presumed he was dead and were worried about their own fate. Here too Alexander showed compassion by not harming the royal family and treating them with utmost respect. He informed them that Darius was still alive.

Alexander's victory at Issus was welcome news in Macedonia and a crushing disappointment for Persia and her Greek allies. I can just imagine the thoughts that went through the minds of the various Greek members of the Corinthian League at the 332 BC, Isthmian Games when it was suggested that a golden wreath be sent to Alexander to congratulate him on his victory.

The worst disappointment, however, goes to the Persian admirals in the Aegean who by now were fed up with the poor performance of the so called "superior Greek fighting skills" and opted out of their strange partnerships.

After his victory at Issues, Alexander became confident that he could win over all of Asia but there was still the matter of the Persian fleet in the Aegean and the Spartans were starting to make noise.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:21

Philip II was born in Pella, the capital of ancient Macedonia, in the year 382 BC and ruled Macedonia from 359 to 336 BC. Philip was the youngest son of King Amyntas III and Eurydice.

After the death of Amyntas III, Macedonia's stability began to decline as Alexander II and later Perdiccas III unsuccessfully fought to keep it intact.

The instability was triggered mainly by external attacks from the neighbouring Thracians, Illyrians and Greeks. The Thracians occupied parts of eastern Macedonia while the Illyrians were making their threats from beyond northwestern Macedonia. Thebes, the mightiest military power at that time, often interfered in Macedonia's affairs while the Greek colonies in Chalcidice posed obstacles to Macedonia's economic prosperity and were often a threat to Macedonia's security.

From what Diodorus Siculus tells us, while the Thebans held him hostage between 368 and 365 BC, Philip showed extraordinary interest in studying their military techniques and weapons. Philip was especially interested in understanding the fighting style of the Theban elite Sacred Band, which would become important to him later in his career while reforming his own military.

After Philip was released from Thebes, at his brother's (Perdiccas III) request, he immediately began to implement his reforms and reorganize the Macedonian military.

Unfortunately, before Philip was finished he lost his brother. While fighting the Illyrians in northwestern Macedonia, Perdiccas III was mortally wounded and died in battle. Worse yet, during the same battle, the Macedonians suffered a demoralizing defeat losing about 4,000 soldiers, which constituted most of the Macedonian army.

Victorious, the Illyrians moved in and occupied northwestern Macedonia. Perched on the mountains of Lyncus they became a threat to the very existence of the Macedonian kingdom.

Appointed by the Macedonian army, after his brother's death, Philip ascended to the Macedonian throne in the most difficult times. His kingdom was virtually on the brink of collapse and his neighbours, hovering like vultures, were poised to put an end to his existence.

Besides the usual threats from outside, Macedonia was further weakened by internal strife. There were pretenders from inside who wanted to usurp the Macedonian throne for themselves. Some of them were encouraged and supported by foreign powers.

Despite tremendous pressure, the 21-year-old king was not discouraged and soon demonstrated his abilities, not only as a competent ruler but also as a skilful diplomat.

Soon after taking control of his kingdom he bribed the Thracian king with gifts and convinced him to execute the first Macedonian pretender who, at the time, was hiding in the Thracian court. The second pretender, supported by Athens, he defeated in battle. Careful not to upset the Athenians, he appeased them by signing a treaty ceding Amphipolis to them.

In a little more than a year he removed all internal threats and secured his kingdom by firmly establishing himself on the throne.

Determined to free northwestern Macedonia, in 358 BC Philip put his improved army to the test and fought the Illyrians face to face in a fierce battle. Setting aside all fears from the previous battle, the mighty Macedonian army faced the legendary Illyrians and won an overwhelming victory. The Illyrians fled in panic leaving 7,000 dead behind, almost three-quarters of their entire army.

"Without delay he (Philip) convened an assembly, raised the war-spirit of his men by suitable words, and led them into the territory held by the Illyrians, his army numbering not less than 10,000 infantry and 600 cavalry. Bardylis (the Illyrian chief) had not yet mustered the huge forces he had intended to lead into lower Macedonia. He therefore offered peace on the basis of the status quo. Philip replied that peace was acceptable only if Bardylis would evacuate his troops from all the Macedonian cities. This Bardylis was not prepared to do. Confident in the marvelous record and the numerous victories of his elite Illyrian troops, numbering 10,000 infantry and 500 cavalry, he advanced to engage in the open plain of Lyncus. The battle-cries of 20,000 voiced resounded from the hills.

Whether there was a preliminary cavalry engagement or not, Bardylis realized that he was outclassed in cavalry. In order to protect the flank and rear of his spearmen-phalanx from attacks by the enemy cavalry, he made his infantry form a hollow rectangle, of which the front facing the enemy was held by his best men and the other sides by less skilled troops, all facing outwards. The disadvantage of this formation was its immobility. The initiative lay now with Philip, who saw at once the merit of an attack on the enemy's leftmost front and left-hand side. He marched his phalanx forward at an oblique angle to the enemy's front, his right being advanced and his left retarded, and he massed his cavalry on his right. The king and the Royal Guardsmen were the leading infantrymen of the Macedonian right. As they approached the stationary Illyrians, they charged the enemy's left front with their massed pikes lowered (pikes never before seen by the Illyrians), smashed the corner of the square completely and let the cavalry in to attack the disrupted formation in flank and rear. The Illyrians broke and fled. The pursuit by the cavalry over the plain caused huge casualties: 7,000 out of 10,500. Bardylis sent envoys to sue for peace. Philip buried his dead on the battlefield in accordance with Macedonian custom, and made terms for peace, which included not only the recovery of all Macedonian cities but also the cession of territory up to the north-east shore of Lake Lychnitis. The peace with Bardylis was cemented by the marriage of Philip to an Illyrian princess, Audata". (Page 62, Nicholas G. L. Hammond, The Miracle That Was Macedonia).

Northwestern Macedonia was now free, all the Upper Macedonia cantons, including Lyncestia, the birthplace of Philip's mother, were now firmly under Macedonian control and loyal to their liberator Philip II.

Philip was aware that with a small army of 10,000 he could not defend his kingdom, not even against the defeated Illyrian chief who had even more reserve troops at his disposal. To secure his kingdom and create a pool of new recruits, Philip convinced the chiefs of the smaller kingdoms to join him. To those who did he offered honourable positions in his court.

With his western frontier secure, Philip moved on to the east to secure the Struma basin north of Chalcidice. His presence there alarmed the Greek colonies, especially Amphipolis, and sent them in panic complaining to Athens. But Athens, having problems of her own, was powerless to act and allowed Philip to conduct his operations unabated.

After unsuccessfully trying to secure an alliance by peaceful means, Philip amassed a larger army and attacked Amphipolis. By using his improved siege-train he was able to quickly break through the city's heavily fortified barriers. "In 357, after breaking through the walls with his siege engines (Diod. 16.8.2), he took Amphipolis, thereby accomplishing in a few weeks what the Athenians failed to achieve in more than sixty years". (Page 213, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon).

As promised before the siege and true to his word, Philip after occupying her, gave Amphipolis independence under the supervision of Macedonian overseers.

During the same year (357 BC), Philip, in spite of Athenian opposition, acquired the city of Potidaea in Chalcidice. Turning northward Philip also conquered Pydna, a Greek colony on the Macedonian coast.

A couple of years later, Philip acquired the city of Methone, a long time Athenian base located near Pydna. Unfortunately, this particular victory was bittersweet as Philip, during the siege, lost his sight in one eye to an arrow. In the same year, the Macedonian army advanced eastward into Thracian territory and took the town of Crenides (located near modern day Drama) which its residents later renamed Philippi.

Crenides was not just an ordinary outpost; it was also the processing headquarters for the hinterland and mountain gold mines, which Philip added to his Macedonian possessions.

Some of the revenues derived from gold mining were reinvested to drain the nearby marshlands making the region around Philppi a showcase for new development.

The Macedonian eastern frontier extending to the River Mesta was now secure.

Before I continue with Philip's exploits to the south, I want to digress for a moment and talk about Philip's many marriages.

The Macedonian tradition of securing alliances by marriage was practiced long before Philip's time. It was probably invented during the Stone Age to strengthen family ties.

According to Borza, the best source to explain Philip's complicated marriages is the biographer Satyrus. I doubt however, if Satyrus ever understood the true meaning of this tradition.

I also want to make it clear that ancient behaviour towards marriages has nothing to do with our modern perception and values of marriage.

Here is what Borza has to say:

"He married Audata the Illyrian and had from her a daughter, Cynna. And then he married Phila, the sister of Derdas and Machatas. The, he wanted to appropriate the Thessalian people as well, on grounds of kinship, he fathered children by two Thessalian women, one from whom was Nikesipolis of Pherae, who bore him Thessalonike, and the other, Philinna of Larisa, by whom he fathered Arrhidaeus. Then he acquired the kingdom of Molossians as well, by marrying Olympias. From her he had Alexander and Cleopatra. And then, when he conquered Thrace, Cothelas, the King of the Thracians, came over to him bringing his daughter Meda and many gifts. Having married her too, he brought her into his household besides Olympias. Then, in addition to all these, he married Cleopatra, the sister of Hippostratus and niece of Attalus, having fallen in love with her. And when he brought her into his household beside Olympias, he threw his whole life into confusion. For immediately, during the actual wedding celebration, Attalus said, 'Now surely there will be born for us legitimate kings and not bastards.' Now Alexander, when he heard this, threw the cup, which he was holding in his hands, at Attalus; thereupon he too threw his goblet at Alexander. After this Olympias fled to the Molossians and Alexander to the Illyrians. And Cleopatra bore Philip the daughter named Europa." (Page 206-207, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon).

The following quote is a small part taken from the book "The Daughter of Neoptolemus" describing Olympias's wedding to Philip, masterfully conceptualized and dramatized by Michael A. Dimitry.

"Guests were arriving from not only Epirus, but also Macedonia, lliyria, Paeonia, Thessaly, Athens, and Sparta. Polyxena and Sophia had nearly gone insane with preparations since Polyxena had resigned herself to being a priestess and thus had not prepared much of a trousseau. Troas, her elder sister, did as little as possible to help and merely went through the public actions which were required of a sister at this time.

Because Arybbas also did as little as he could get away with since he liked neither Polyxena nor Philip, the Macedonians who had arrived began holding their own celebrations. Some of these customs seemed strange to Polyxena, but sweet in their intent. For Polyxena had been curious as to why Philip would go to such elaborate extremes since this was his fourth marriage, not his first. Sophia then explained that it was because Philip wanted his bride to know how special she was to him and that she would not be just another mistress. 'Philip,' Sophia said at each opportunity, 'loves you which is why he is paying attention to every custom and superstition no matter how silly. He wants to insure that your marriage is not cursed as the others but fruitful.'

Sophia was right. Besides, all were enjoying themselves.

The night before the wedding, for example, there was a lot of commotion in the hall outside of Polyxena's chamber. Sophia opened the door and welcomed a small band of dancers who apparently had arrived to entertain the bride. Sophia, little Alexander Amaxis, who had remained close to his sister's side since her return from Dodona, and the other servants began to laugh. When Polyxena looked more closely at the dancers, she realized why; they were men dressed as women! One elderly male/female played the flute as the others twirled and gyrated like maenads in a frenzy. When they had at last finished their dance, Sophia served them honey-cakes and wine before sending them on their way.

When the Macedonians had gone, Sophia explained, 'It is an ancient custom. The purpose of the visit is to distract the bride's family so that the groom's side can steal something from the house. Perhaps this represents the groom stealing the bride from the father's house since the superstition decreed that if the raiding party were successful at stealing the object, the marriage would be successful too. If they fail, so does the marriage.'

Everyone immediately looked around and with relief discovered that a small vase which had allegedly been passed down from Achilles by means of his son Neoptolemus through generations of Molossians was missing.

'The marriage will be a success!' Sophia shouted and she along with the other women present offered repeated toasts to the bride.

But the evening's festivities soon faded and Polyxena, left alone in her bed and rooms, stripped of her belongings which had been packed for her journey, could not rest. Something inside her would not let her rest and the short time she did sleep a nightmare tormented her. When Sophia and Troas arrived in the morning to help Polyxena get ready for the day's long awaited event, the bride was unwilling.

'I cannot marry Philip,' she announced.

Troas rolled her eyes but Sophia replied, 'Of course you can. Everything is ready. You have nothing to fear.'

'No!' Polyxena snapped back crying into her pillow.

Sophia ran over and grabbed Polyxena by the shoulders to turn her around. 'What is it? What is wrong?''

'She's a stupid, selfish girl,' interrupted Troas who had walked to the end of the bed. 'She only went through with the preparations to make fools of her uncle and me as well as our ancestors. Why, I've often said...'

But Sophia's stare stopped Troas's words in her throat. Sophia turned to face Polyxena again and began to wipe the tears off her young face.

'I've had a dream,' Polyxena began, 'a warning. I will not offend the gods.'

'What dream?' asked Sophia. 'Share it with us.'

'Yes, share it with us,' mocked Troas.

Looking deep into Sophia's warm eyes, Polyxena began, 'I was lying here, trying to rest when there was a loud clap of thunder and a flash of light.'

'Too much wine,' Troas added.

'Will you shut up?' Sophia snapped back.

'I had very little wine last night. No, it was Him. The Oak-god I am to serve. He appeared in his youthful form as Dionysus, god of epiphanies, but in the same instant, he disappeared. There was silence for a moment, then another crash of thunder. Just then a lightning bolt struck my womb. There was a blinding flash and flames exploded in every direction. I was in the flames and yet not harmed by them. I felt the whole world burning because of me until it finally burned no more.'

Polyxena, Sophia, and Troas were all silent.

'Don't you see?' Polyxena begged Sophia. If I marry Philip, I am ruined. Many will suffer.'

'Especially Philip,' Troas quipped. 'You are a curse to your family, you will be a curse to your husband's, but you will marry and you will leave Passaron for good. You have no choice.'

Polyxena began to cry. Sophia stood up and rushing over to Troas, grabbed her by the arm and pulled her out of the room.

'Who's the queen here?' Troas protested as a timid warning. 'Who is the slave?'

'I am a servant, but I am no more a slave than you are truly a queen,' Sophia shouted back as she slammed the door shut.

Polyxena heard Sophia approach the bed again and felt her friend's arms go around her to offer her comfort. 'Ignore your sister,' Sophia said. 'She wants you out of Passaron because you and your brother are a threat to her rule. You'll avenge yourself someday.'

'But what of my dream?' Polyxena asked.

'It may well be from the gods, but it is not the kind of warning you believe. Dreams like lightning are sent by the gods and both have meaning. You said the bolt struck you in the womb and there lies its significance; you will become pregnant and your child, like its ancestor Achilles, will have a short but glorious life.'

'How do you know this?'

'Trust me. Now let's get you ready for your wedding. It's normal to have cold feet, but we can't let it keep you from going to your future husband.'

Polyxena climbed out of bed and gradually followed Sophia through the motions of the day.

First, after breakfast, Polyxena with Sophia and the other women of the palace, went to the household altar with her childhood possessions. One by one, Polyxena dropped her toys, clothing, and other belongings of youth into the fire and watched them burn. Last, she placed a doll that her father Neoptolemus had given her into the flames.

'You are now no longer to be known as the Daughter of Neoptolemus,' the women said. 'You are now the wife of Philip of Macedonia.'

After spending the rest of the afternoon greeting well-wishers in her chamber, it was time to get dressed. Sophia managed to get everyone else out of Polyxena's quarters and Polyxena, feeling the anticipation of seeing Philip overwhelm her, was grateful for Sophia's help. After bathing, Sophia brought out the wedding dress and veil that she had made herself for Polyxena out of a shiny, soft purple cloth that the bride had never seen before. As she put it on, Polyxena couldn't help but stop repeatedly to admire the beauty of the gold embroidery on it. Finally, Sophia attached the soft veil to Polyxena's hair.

'We can't forget this,' Sophia said suddenly as she rushed to open a nearby package. 'This is from your future husband.'

Polyxena watched as Sophia slowly pulled a crown made of gold beaten into the form of an oak-leaf garland from the package. Its leaves were so thin that Polyxena could see the light shining through them as Sophia placed it on her head.

'Now do you believe you will live as Philip's queen?' Sophia asked.

Polyxena smiled weakly.

'Now there is one more gift...' Sophia said as she pulled a plain, gold-chain necklace from her pocket. 'This was a gift from my mother to me. It was to be passed down again to my daughter on her wedding day. I am giving it to you because you are like my own flesh and blood.'

Sophia began to cry and Polyxena joined her in an embrace of tears. After a few minutes, Sophia stepped back, and said, 'Well, it must be nearly time. I'd better go check if everything is ready.'

Polyxena watched Sophia leave the room. She stood there alone in her nearly empty room. A melancholy sadness began to overcome her. What would happen when she left Passaron? What would life in Pella be like? Would Philip keep his promise not to make her just another mistress? And if he did keep his word, how could she possibly know how to be a good wife and 'queen' in a more sophisticated society like that in Macedonia?

And what about the dream? Was she betraying the god for the weak mortal need of love? Would she be punished again? Would Sophia's prediction come true? Or Troas's?

But, no. There is no turning back now. Polyxena knew that the treaty had already been signed and she, whether for love or alliance, was a part of the agreement. She would have to marry Philip. She would have to live in his house according to his customs and traditions. 'I am no longer the Daughter of Neoptolemus,' Polyxena told the room, 'I am the wife of Philip of Macedonia.' Still, she was glad that Sophia would be going to Pella with her.

A knock at the door interrupted her thoughts. She opened it to find Arybbas standing there. Without saying a word, he hooked his arm under hers and led her down the hall and down the stairs into the banquet hall where the wedding was taking place.

As she descended the steps with her uncle, for the first time in her life, Polyxena felt like a princess. She looked out over the hall with its garlands, ribbons, flowers, and other elaborate decorations and couldn't help but feel proud. She was a Molossian princess, a descendant of Achilles, the greatest warrior who had ever lived, a daughter of one of the most noble kings of Epirus, and now, the wife of the new leader of the Macedonians. When Polyxena came into view, all the guests stood up in honor of the bride. Loud cheers and applause broke out and rang through the hall as she took her seat next to Philip.

Briefly as she approached her couch and turned to lie upon it, her eyes met Philip's. In the two years which she had not seen him, he had become even handsomer. His dark piercing eyes seemed a bit more recessed and he had been hardened by his recent wars and troubles at home. He had even grown a beard which made him look more dignified and serious. As she sat next to him she could feel the same excitement radiating from him as she had felt at Samothrace what seemed like an eternity ago. She wanted to touch him or to look at him as she had then but resisted so as not to disgrace her family in public at seeming anxious for this union for a lower reason.

But the ceremony itself seemed to be taking place in a fog. Polyxena barely remembered the symbolic yoking of the couple with its ritual blessing by the priest, the cutting and sharing of the bread by she and her husband, the dancing, the food, the wine, or the endless jokes and toasts. As soon as each of these events occurred, it became a hazy memory due to her love for Philip. At last Philip stood up to end the evening. Offering his wish that this marriage would provide a fruitful union of their two nations as well as of their two families, Philip thanked everyone for coming to help him celebrate one of the happiest occasions of his life. Polyxena forgot to raise her glass to the toast when, at it conclusion, Philip turned toward her and winked. After Philip and his groomsman had departed to bring the wedding coach to the front of the palace, Arybbas again took his niece by the arm and led her gently through the crowd to the front doors of the palace. The procession was interrupted briefly by the crying of little Amaxis. Polyxena wanted to run to him, to hold him one more time before leaving, but she knew she could not. They had said their goodbyes earlier and she had promised to send for him as soon as she could.

Polyxena thought briefly, as she walked by him, of her silly childhood wish to marry her Uncle Leonidas but as they reached the outside and Arybbas gave her hand to Philip, she forgot the past.

Philip then led Polyxena down the stairs to the street and helped Polyxena into the coach. Philip then climbed in and as the couple waved goodbye to the crowd, Philip introduced Polyxena to his groomsman, Antipater. Without taking his eyes from her, Philip explained how Antipater had been a loyal page to Philip's father, Amyntas and later a general to Philip and his three brothers who preceded him as leader of the Macedonians. Antipater, Polyxena was told, was about fifteen years older that Philip and had been like a father to him since his own father's death. Antipater seemed to enjoy the role and had fulfilled it during the wedding by giving Philip his final shave before the celebration and had even sat in the place of honor that evening holding a tray for collecting gifts from well-wishers. 'Antipater even cried!' Philip exclaimed to Polyxena. All the while, however, she knew why he rattled on so about Antipater. Each had a number of questions for the other that they were asking with their eyes and the answer to the most important one was reciprocated over and over again: Yes, I still love you.

The night was warm and there was a gentle breeze as the coach progressed through the streets to the guest-house Polyxena and Philip would consummate their marriage in. Molossians, Macedonians, and others lined the route to throw garlands and flowers in their path.

Finally, as they reached the house and stopped in front of its doors, Antipater handed Polyxena down to Philip according to tradition, and Philip carried his new bride across the threshold to begin their new life together. After two lonely years, thought Polyxena, Philip had fulfilled his promise to take as his wife the Daughter of Neoptolemus." (Pages 42-50, Michael A. Dimitri, The Daughter of Neoptolemus). If you wish to obtain the book, click on http://www.michaeladimitri.com/.

From the union of Philip and Polyxena (nicknamed Olympias by Philip), in 356 BC, was born Alexander who in a few short years would become king Alexander III.


Before I continue with Philip's story, I want to take you to Dura-Europos, to a time before the arrival of the Romans, to a place where only Macedonian soldiers ventured and dared to leave their mark. Unbelievable as it may sound, that mark buried for centuries and long forgotten has recently surfaced and speaks to us not in ancient Greek but in ancient Macedonian, the very same language that the modern Macedonians speak. The same language that the modern Greeks have tried so hard to extinguish. The very language that the modern Greeks claim does not exist.

How is it possible that Alexander's army spoke the same Macedonian language spoken today, when according to "mainstream history" the modern Macedonian language is the language of the Slavs, a people who did not arrive in the Balkans until after the 6th century AD?

You may believe what you like but you can't deny the evidence, which in spite of all denials, points to one truth which is that the modern Macedonians did not come from anywhere but rather have always been where they are today.

It is well documented that the ancient Macedonians spoke a different language, an unknown language that was NOT Greek.

We now know that the language of the ancient Macedonians is the same language the modern Macedonians speak today.

Here is what Ambrozic has to say:

[ XXXXV

The Spoof

This graffiti which appears clearly near the head of a soldier in a votary representation at Dura-Europos is a mocking spoof of the reverence shown in the solemn scene found on the north wall of the anticum in the temple of the Palmyrian gods.

Division and Alphabetization:

KON ON NI KOS TRATOJ

KON ON NI KOST RATOJ

Translation:

"The horse, it did not waste its portion; the horse, it did not become bone."

Loose Translation:

"The horse ate every morsel; therefore, the horse did not become skin and bones."

Explanation:

KON (KONJ) - "horse" -dialectal form of the literal KONJ - still very much in current use

ON - "it" - Since the reference is to KON which is masc., ON has to agree in gender.

NI - "not, did not" - still the same dialectally and literally

KOS - "portion, share, piece"

TRATOJ - "waste, squander" - very archaic - past tense, third prs., sing. form from TRATITI - "to waste, to squander"

KOST - "bone" - still exactly the same now - By underlining OST, the inscriber of the graffiti indicates that the second time KOST comes around it is not to be split up.

RATOJ - "became" - very dialectal third prs., sing., past tense form from RATATI - "to become"]

(Pages 77-78, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms)

It is most curious to be able to find evidence of Slav heritage in the ancient Macedonians, especially since we have all been brainwashed for so long to believe that the ancient Macedonians were Greek.

Fortunately at last, there is "evidence" that proves that the ancient Macedonians were not only "non-Greek" but had a "Slav" heritage, which was passed on to the modern Macedonians of today. The so-called "unknown" language the ancient Macedonians spoke has now been identified and has many elements of the same language the modern Macedonians speak today!

Strange as this may sound it is "natural" and makes "perfect sense" that Macedonians live where they always lived, speak the same (but evolving) language they always spoke and share in the same traditions that the ancients practiced and enjoyed.

In spite of all evidence, ironically modern Greeks today still insist that the ancient Macedonians were 100% Greek and that the modern Macedonians are not at all (0%) related to them. What is even more ironic is that while denying the modern Macedonians their heritage, modern Greeks, proven to be of mixed races, are officially still claiming to be homogeneous and pure descendants of the ancient Greeks. Worse yet the Pontic Turks, forcibly relocated from Asia Minor to Macedonia in the early 1920's, are now claiming to be more Macedonian than the Macedonians they displaced. Bizarre as this may sound, the new generations of the transplanted people now fully Hellenized and poisoned by Greek propaganda are themselves claiming to be "pure Hellenes" and direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians.

And now back to Philip's story.

Early in his career Philip realized that in order to defend against ongoing aggression he needed a full time army. He built his army by making the military a way of life for the ordinary Macedonian. Soldiering became a professional occupation that paid well enough to make a living, year-round. Unlike before when soldiering was a part-time job, something that men would do during their free time, Philip's soldiers could be counted on at all times. The new Macedonian soldier was given the opportunity to develop team skills, unity, cohesion and trust in his peers, the kind of qualities a part time soldier would lack.

The Macedonian soldiers were not the only ones to benefit from Philip's reforms. A full time army required arms, shelter, food and clothing. To support it, a whole new industry had to be developed employing a variety of people and skills.

I also want to point out that we must not forger the general contribution of the Macedonian population who not only supplied their king with soldiers but also provided the labour to cultivate his lands and feed his army, build his roads, weapons, siege engines and ships. Philip would have been powerless without the support and loyalty of the Macedonian people.

With his army reorganized, full of confidence, and equipped with modern weapons, Philip turned his attention south. He first went to Thessaly where he won an easy victory and by 352 BC, was in firm control of a region extending as far south as the pass of Thermopylae. As part of the peace deal with the Thessalians, Philip married Nicesipolis, a local woman of prominence. Nicesipolis bore Philip a daughter whom he named Thessalonika to commemorate his victory over Thessaly.

With Thessaly on his side Philip was now staring down at the northern gate of Greece, which at the time, was well guarded by powerful Athenian, Spartan and Achaean forces.

With his southern frontier secured, Philip returned to Macedonia to take care of business closer to home. In 348 BC, he sent his Macedonian army to the Chalcidice peninsula and cleared out some of the Greek encroachments, starting with the city-state of Olynthus. Olynthus was the grand city of the northern Greeks, a symbol of Greek power that stood in Macedonia's way. Philip sacked Olynthus and sold its population into slavery, a practice which at that time was expected of Greeks but not of Macedonians. Like Methone before, Olynthus and some 31 other Chalcidician cities were cleared of intrusions and their lands were redistributed to the Macedonians. One of the cities sacked was Stageira, the birthplace of Aristotle.

When Philip was finished, he ended foreign encroachment and reclaimed the entire Chalcidice peninsula for his Macedonians.

Up until 348 BC, even though Philip controlled virtually everything north of the Lamian Gulf, he was never a real threat to the powerful Greeks in the south. He may have annexed Greek colonies, cut off access to some of the Greek markets but was never a threat to the Greek way of life or existence.

In 348 BC, however, things started to change. It began with Philip's intervention, on Thessaly's behalf, to free Delphi from rebel elements. Delphi was a religious center whose neutrality was guarded by the Amphictyonic League, an ancient and mainly religious association of central Greeks. When a rebellious splinter faction of the Amphictyonic League broke away and threatened the center's neutrality, Philip was called in to sort things out.

Philip was more than willing to oblige his Thessalian allies but at the same time he had to be cautious not to upset the Athenians and Thebans who opposed each other but also had vested interests in Delphi. At this stage, an Athenian-Theban alliance would have been catastrophic for Macedonia and had to be avoided at all costs.

Being already allied with Thebes, Philip considered a diplomatic move with Athens by offering the Athenians joint participation in removing the rebels. Unfortunately, the Athenians in Athens, being suspicious of Philip's motives, declined and among themselves proposed to take countermeasures to stop Philip from intervening altogether, even by force if necessary. Fortunately, before any damage was done, wisdom prevailed and the Athenians decided to talk to Philip before attacking him. Being a master of diplomacy, the wily Philip convinced his elder Athenians that he meant no harm and only wished to see this matter solved peacefully. To appease the Athenians he went a step further and personally offered guarantees of Athenian hegemony over several regions near Attica, something the Athenians had desired for a long time.

Philip's latest proposal was a success and gained full Athenian acceptance. It even gained support from Demosthenes, Philip's staunchest critic.

Unfortunately, what was viewed as fair by Athens was obviously viewed as unfair by Thebes and problems began to arise.

To get himself out of this, Philip turned to the Amphictyonic Council and asked the council members to disbar the rebel group by vote and replace it with the Macedonian king.

In a stroke of genius Philip evaded an impending war with Athens, ended the rebellion at Delphi, saved the Amphictyony, averted a war with Thebes, made an alliance with Athens and made himself a voting member of the Amphictyonic League. This indeed was a diplomatic victory, worthy of the Macedonian king

.

Philip's antagonists unfortunately, viewed what was good for Macedonia with suspicion. This included the great Athenian orator, Demosthenes.

Demosthenes in 351 BC delivered his first Philippic, a series of speeches warning the Greeks about the Macedonian threat to their liberty. His second Philippic was delivered in 344 BC, his third in 341 BC and his three Olynthiacs in 349 BC, all directed to arouse Greece against Philip.

Demosthenes's most famous oration was the third Philippic which speaks of Philip as being "not only not 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" (Third Philippic, 31). Words which echo the fact that the ancient Greeks regarded the ancient Macedonians as "dangerous neighbors" but never as kinsmen.

Despite Demoshenes's castigation, peace held out, at least for now, and having an equal seat in the council of Greek power, Philip was free to return to Macedonia.

Most of 345 BC, Philip spent leading his army against the Illyrians, Dardanians, and the Thracians and generally quelling rebellions. In 344 BC the Thessalians rebelled but were put down swiftly. In 342 BC, Philip marched into Epirus and replaced King Arybbas with his young protégé and brother-in-law Alexander (Amaxis).

Sensing growing discontentment in the Athenians, Philip estimated that it would be a matter of time before war would break out between Macedonia and Athens, especially since Athens amended the Macedonian-Athenian peace agreement hoping it would be unacceptable to Philip.

Determined to attract Greek states to his side, Philip continued to make alliances with the smaller cities. He was determined to attract the cities that were hostile to the more powerful states in hopes of dividing and weakening the Greeks.

By 340 BC, a point of no return was reached with Athens when Philip could no longer accommodate Athenian demands to sustain the peace treaty, especially after Athens sponsored anti-Macedonian uprisings in the northern Aegean.

In retaliation for this latest Athenian treachery, in 340 BC while campaigning against internal rebellions in the east, Philip captured the Athenian grain fleet. This was the last straw for Athens and under the personal leadership of Demosthenes the Athenians persuaded the Thebans to jointly declare war on Macedonia. The weaker states, having little choice in the matter, also joined the declaration. What Philip tried to avoid at all costs was now unavoidable.

Before Philip could accommodate the Greeks to the south, he had some unfinished business to take care of in the north. He quickly assembled a large army and marched deep into Thracian territory and by 339 BC, conquered most of Thrace. Unfortunately, he was unable to subdue the eastern coastal cities of Byzantium and Perinthus, which withstood even his most severe sieges. It was certain that neither city would have survived had it not been for the assistance received from the Greeks and Persians. Ironically, even though Persia, for more than a century, had been the most hated nation in Greece, still the Greeks sided with the Persians against the Macedonians.

Responding to a Scythian challenge Philip abandoned the eastern city sieges and, in the spring of 339 BC, led his Macedonians beyond Thrace. There, near the Danube River, he clashed with the Scythians and won a stunning victory crowned only by the death of Areas, the Scythian king.

Unfortunately, on his return trip home Philip's convoy was attacked and his booty was lost to Thracian Triballians. During the skirmish, Philip suffered a severe leg injury, which left him lame for life. After returning home he spent several months recovering.

While Philip was recovering, the Greeks to the south were making alliances and amassing a great army to invade Macedonia.

On hearing this, Philip decided it was time to meet the Greek aggression head on and end this treachery once and for all.

On August 2nd, 338 BC, in the shallow Cephisus River valley near the village of Chaeronea on the road to Thebes, the two opposing armies met face to face.

On the north side stood Philip's Macedonians with 30,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, the largest Macedonian army ever assembled. Among Philip's commanding generals was his 18 year-old son, Alexander, in charge of the cavalry.

On the south side, stood the united Athenians, Thebans, and the Achaeans who assembled 35,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, the largest army ever assembled since the Persian invasion.

Closely matched, the armies clashed and while the battle ensued the Macedonian right flank fell back and began to retreat. Seeing the Macedonians weakening, the Greek general gave orders to push on and drive the Macedonians back to Macedonia. As the Macedonians retreated, the Greek flanks broke rank and began the pursuit. Not realizing it was a trick, the Greeks found themselves surrounded and slaughtered by Alexander's cavalry.

When it was over, the majority of the Greek army, including the elite Theban Sacred Band lay dead in the fields of Chaeronea.

Philip erected a statue of a lion to commemorate the sacrifice of the Theban Sacred Band who upheld their tradition and fought to the last man.

Ancient Greek and Roman historians consider the battle of Chaeronea as the end of Greek liberty, history and civilization.

Victorious, soon after the battle, Philip proceeded to secure his newest conquests by strategically placing Macedonian garrisons in Thebes, Chalcis, Ambracia, Corinth and the Peloponnesus. He then summoned the representatives of all Greek states to a grand peace conference at Corinth where he made peace with each one of them. Sparta was the only one that abstained. Being no threat to him, Philip decided to leave Sparta alone.

Philip organized the Greek City States into an alliance known as the "League of Corinth". It was an alliance among the Greeks and an alliance between the Greeks and the king of Macedonia. The league formed a separate alliance with Macedonia, but Macedonia itself was not a member of the Greek league. This was an alliance that treated all nations great and small as equals. Conversely, the lesser states looked up to Macedonia, as a great power, to guarantee their rights and existence among the greater states.

Living in peace with his neighbours is what Philip had envisioned ten years earlier. It could have been achieved through diplomacy. Even at this stage I believe Philip wanted to secure his kingdom by peaceful means and only resorted to war when all other means were exhausted. If there is any blame to be placed, it should be placed on the Athenians for their suspicions and mistrust.

Having secured peace with the Greeks, Philip was now looking at neutralizing the next major threat, Persia. The idea of subduing Persia appealed to some but not all Greeks. Those who favoured the idea, especially those who belonged to the League of Corinth, elected Philip as the commander-in-chief of the Asian expeditionary force. Those who opposed the idea, especially the Greek military and its commanders who were now out of work, made their way to Persia to swell the ranks of the Persian mercenary and fight for pay against the Macedonians.

According to the Roman historian Curtius, by the time the Macedonian army set foot in Asia, a force of 50,000 Greeks had joined the Persian king's army and lay in wait to face the Macedonians.

Philip, being more or less satisfied with the conclusion of Greek affairs, returned home to prepare for the Asian campaign.

It has been said that if Philip ever made a mistake, it was in "marrying for love", a rare luxury for any monarch let alone one that had been married not once but six times before. The woman of his desire was Cleopatra, a Macedonian girl of nobility.

Blinded by his love for young Cleopatra, Philip neglected to see that his marriage to her would lead to his break up with Olympias and the estrangement of his son Alexander. Olympias was a proud woman and very protective of her son. Philip's marriage to a younger woman and a Macedonian at that, made her feel both unwanted and an outsider in her own home. To her, Philip's latest marriage was a dishonour to her reputation as a wife and a threat to her son's legitimacy as heir to the Macedonian throne.

Not knowing what else to do, Olympias and Alexander left for Epirus. Immediately after taking his mother home, Alexander left Epirus and went to the Illyrians. From there he negotiated his way back to Pella where his father forgave him for his misdeeds.

Unfortunately for Olympias, Philip's marriage to Cleopatra lasted longer than expected and she bore him a child.

During the following spring (336 BC), in preparation for the Persian offensive, Philip decided to send ahead an advance force. Commanded by generals Attalus and Parmenio, 10,000 Macedonian soldiers were prepared and sent across to Asia Minor to pave the way for the next spring's offensive.

While the soldiers were making their way across the Hellespont, the Macedonians in Aegae were preparing for a grand celebration. Philip's daughter Cleopatra was about to be wed to Prince Alexander (Amaxis) of Epirus. It was indeed going to be a lavish festival with much entertainment and games. Philip had invited various guests from all over his kingdom to partake in the activities and witness the marriage of his daughter. Also among the invited was Olympias. Being the sister of the groom, Olympias was obliged to attend. At first, she was apprehensive, but after being assured that Philip would welcome her, she accepted the invitation. True to his word, Philip was courteous and made up with her the same day she arrived.

It has been said that after the first day's activities, Philip visited with Olympias and among other things discussed Olympias's concern about Alexander's chances for the throne. Philip promised her that she had nothing to fear and reassured her that Alexander was his first choice to replace him, when the time came.

The first day's activities concluded without incident, but disaster struck on the second day. During a procession in the theater at Aegae while standing between his son Alexander and his new son-in-law Alexander, a member of the royal guard named Pausanias, struck and killed Philip with a dagger thrust. Pausanias ran to escape, towards some waiting horses, but tripped and fell down. His pursuers caught up to him and speared him to death.

The "Greatest of the Kings of Europe" who liberated Macedonia from foreign occupation, brought her back from the edge of extinction and made her into a world power, now lay dead in his own palace, killed by his own body guard.

Philip II King of Macedonia from 360 BC to 336 BC died a senseless death and was succeeded by his son Alexander.

Many historians have laboured looking for reasons to explain why Philip was murdered. Was it a foreign plot? A conspiracy premeditated by his son Alexander? Was it an act of rage by a demented soldier? Or was it Olympias's revenge for embarrassing her by marrying Cleopatra? I guess we will never know for sure.

Philip's plans for Persia now lay in the hands of his successor. He did whatever he could to make Macedonia great but even he couldn't have imagined how great she would become.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:20

Besides the Athenians, Perdiccas now had three more enemies. Arrhabaeus was still alive and well and prepared to attack from the north. The Spartans, upset with Perdiccas, were preparing to attack from the south and the fierce Illyrian mercenaries were loose in his kingdom.

What was Perdiccas to do?

Perdiccas considered his situation carefully and decided to go to the Athenians for help. He was certain that Athens would welcome his alliance just to counter the meddlesome Spartans. Sure enough, the Athenian generals in Chalcidice accepted Perdiccas's offer but not without conditions. For securing an alliance, Perdiccas had to provide Athens exclusive rights to his timber industry and join her in fighting the Peloponnesians. Perdiccas hesitantly accepted and honoured the agreements.

As for Arrhabaeus, Athens offered him a friendship agreement and a chance to reconcile his differences with Perdiccas. The Spartans on the other hand, after losing financial backing from Perdiccas and Arrhabaeus, scaled down their campaigns. Additionally, Perdiccas used his influence and persuaded Thessaly not to allow any more Spartan reinforcements to pass through.

The deal Perdiccas received from Athens may seem skewed in Athens favour, but it had its advantages for the Macedonian king. Athenian presence maintained peace and stability in the region and with the loss of Amphipolis, Macedonia became the main supplier of timber for the large Athenian market. I couldn't find any information as to what happened to the Illyrian mercenaries, but I am certain that after losing Arrhabaeus's support, they went back to Illyria.

All through the first phase of the Peloponnesian war, Perdiccas kept his alliance with Athens and tried not to become embroiled in Athenian affairs. But in 421 BC Athens reached a peace agreement with the Peloponnesians and regained control of parts of her northern empire. Although the Peloponnesians sanctioned the agreement, the Chelcidicians, who preferred autonomy to occupation, did not. Refusal of the agreement brought the war back and the region was again engulfed in hostilities. The war lasted until Amphipolis gained her independence. Perdiccas meanwhile, managed to stay aloof and avoided becoming involved in the conflict.

With peace in place, Athenian power was again on the rise, which troubled Perdiccas. But Perdiccas was not the only one troubled. Sensing Athenian assertiveness in the north, in 418 BC, Sparta attempted to counter Athens by recruiting Perdiccas into a Macedonian-Peloponnesian alliance. Athens, on the other hand, had hoped for an Athenian- Macedonian alliance. The prospect of losing Perdiccas, especially to the enemy, infuriated the Athenians. Athens was counting on Macedonian help to aid her fleet in challenging the Chelcidice coalition.

In view of the Spartan offer, Perdiccas considered his options carefully and decided to join the Peloponnesian alliance.

As punishment, in the winter of 417 BC, Athens blockaded the southern Macedonian coast and stopped all shipments of lumber. The blockade didn't hurt Macedonia as much as it did Athens, so in 414 BC a new arrangement was reached and Macedonia and Athens once again became allies.

Perdiccas died a year later and was succeeded by his son Archelaus in 413 BC. Archelaus's reign, which lasted approximately fourteen years from 413 BC to 399 BC, was a little more stable than that of his father. Unlike his father, Archelaus remained loyal to Athens, which gave him a firm market for his timber industry and the security he needed to take care of business at home. Archelaus maintained his father's policy with regard to the Lyncestians and Illyrians along the western frontier and managed to keep them at bay. Along the eastern frontier, the absence of Athenian influence and the decline of Thracian power granted Archelaus an opportunity to gain control of Basaltia and its valuable mines.

Due to political and social changes in Thessaly, Archelaus was given the opportunity to intervene on behalf of the ruling faction for which he was awarded Larisan citizenship and the lands of Perrhaebia, an important strategic location to the west of Olympus which connects Macedonia to Thessaly.

As for internal changes, Archelaus made improvements to roads, built fortresses in the countryside, fortified entry points into Macedonia and modernized his army. But most importantly, Archelaus is credited for moving the Macedonian principal city from Aegae to Pella. Aegae still remained a royal city but Pella became a royal residence for Archelaus and an administrative and military centre for his kingdom.

The main reason for making Pella the principle city was its strategic location within the Macedonian kingdom. "The largest of the Macedonian towns in classical times, Pella, was constructed on a low plateau where Mt. Paiko merges with the marshland of the central plain, and where the route of the Via Egnatia hugged the northern edge of the swamps. Pella might have been (or had) a seaport, as the head of the Thermaic Gulf extended some distance into the plain in those days. Pella's strategic position lying across the main east-west route near the west bank of the Axios gave it an importance surpassed only by Salonica at a later time." (Pages 41-42, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Archelaus chose Pella to be his principle city because it gave him easy access to the many waterways which would provide him passage to a wider area than just the central Macedonian plain. Pella was built by design, laid out on a grid plan, using blocks approximately 100 meters by 50 meters. Archeological excavations of the site have revealed "a series of elaborate private houses, in which were discovered the well-wrought floor mosaics... These large pebble mosaics, which formed the floors of rooms and passageways of Pella's villas, depict a variety of scenes, including Dionysus riding a panther, a lion hunt, an Amazonomachy, and a magnificent stag hunt..." (Page 170, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

The move to Pella was the first step on the road to greatness for Macedonia. Pella was becoming an impressive Macedonian political, military and cultural showcase, which in time would become the birthplace of Alexander III, the greatest conqueror that ever lived to earn the title "Great".

I would like to mention at this point that Archelaus is also credited with establishing the uniquely Macedonian Olympic festival that took place at Dion in honour of Zeus and the muses. Dion was an important place where Macedonians participated in their own Olympic games, dramatic contests and celebrated many of their religious rites.

Archelaus was accidentally shot during a hunting accident in 399 BC and died of his wounds. His premature death cast the Argaed house into chaos for almost six years after which Amyntas III surfaced as the leading figure who would rule Macedonia next. Amyntas III was the great grandson of Alexander I.

The shakeup of the Macedonian kingdom due to the early and unexpected departure of Archelaus, was a signal for Macedonia's enemies to make their move. Just barely on the throne, in 394 BC, Amyntas found himself at odds with the Illyrians. Ever since the incident between Perdiccas II and Arrhabaeus of Lyncestia, Illyrian-Macedonian animosities had been on the rise. The situation climaxed in 394/93 BC when a powerful Illyrian force attacked and invaded Macedonia, driving Amyntas off his throne and out of his kingdom.

Only with a great deal of diplomacy, land concessions and Thessalian help did Amyntas appease the Illyrians, allowing him to regain his throne. As it turned out, the Illyrians raided Macedonia for her booty not political gain, which was common practice in those days.

Amyntas was lucky this time but his enemies were too numerous to allow chance to guide his fate so he worked hard to establish an alliance with his immediate neighbours to the southeast, the Chalcidic cities. The treaty, signed in desperation, seemed one-sided favouring the Chalcidic cities. It was, however, necessary for Amyntas, if Macedonia were to survive.

Free to help themselves to Macedonian timber and pitch, the Chalcidic cities grew wealthy and powerful with each passing year.

Feeling uncomfortable by this unfair alliance and by the steady buildup of Illyrian power, Amyntas was not happy with the Chalcidians and felt compelled to seek new allies.

In 386 BC, he made his move and through his adopted son, who was married to the daughter of a prominent Thracian chief, Amyntas established contact with the Thracians.

Sensing the Macedonian-Thracian alliance, the Illyrians bypassed Macedonia and made their move against Epirus. In 385 BC the Illyrians attacked Epirus, unaware that they would provoke a Spartan counterattack. Sparta was quick to react and invaded the region. This bold move became worrisome not only to the Macedonians but also to the Thessalians who soon would become willing partners to a Macedonian-Thessalian league.

Having secured his western boundaries, Amyntas now turned his attention to the greedy Chelcidic cities. Having greatly benefited from this unfair alliance, the Chelcidites were not enthusiastic about breaking it off. When Amyntas turned to the Spartans for help he found them to be willing partners. An allied Spartan force under Spartan leadership was dispatched from Sparta and arrived in the vicinity in the spring of 382 BC. With some Macedonian and Thracian assistance, the Spartans attacked the Chelcidic League but were unable to subdue it. The Spartan commander called for reinforcements and in 381 BC the attack was renewed and by 379 BC the Chalcidic League was dissolved.

Athens and her allies did not approve of the Spartan presence in Chalcidice, so within a year or so a new and more powerful anti-Spartan alliance was formed. Being clever enough not to be caught on the losing side, Amyntas slowly withdrew from the Spartan alliance and began to draw closer to Athens. The new relationship not only strengthened Macedonian security but also brought back an old and dependable timber and pitch customer. Unfortunately, there was never a "good" relationship with the "Greeks" without a catch. Soon after establishing ties with Macedonia, Athens demanded that Amyntas support her claims for control of Amphipolis. This called for a total reversal on the long-standing Macedonian position, which had always been in support of an independent Amphipolis. Giving Athens control of Amphipolis was a disaster waiting to happen for Macedonia's economic and political interests.

Having left his kingdom's affairs unsettled, Amyntas III died in 370 BC (perhaps assassinated by his former wife?) leaving his throne to his eldest son Alexander II. "The decade of the 360s plunged the kingdom of Macedon into a new dynastic crisis, intensified by continuing external threats. Early in his reign, Alexander was forced to buy off the Illyrians, although it is problematic whether he also gave his younger brother, Philip (the future Philip II), over as a hostage." (Page 189, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Hammond believes that Philip was an Illyrian hostage before he was turned over to the Thebans. Borza, however, believes that the chronology of events does not support this occurrence.

The new Illyrian campaign against Macedonia did not start until after the winter of 370/69 BC. "Within a year (368, by Hammond's own chronology) Philip had been shipped off as a hostage to Thebes. It seems unlikely that Prince Philip would have been shunted around so (what prompted the Illyrians to give him up?), the chronology is too tight, and our best sources for Philip, Diodorus, gives mixed signals to the matter of an Illyrian hostageship. Griffith (HM 2: 204 n. 5) also has some doubts about Philip in Illyris." (Page n 189, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Young Alexander did not have enough experience to maintain a strong and stable kingdom, or to secure any permanent alliances. He was given a chance in Thessaly but he couldn't make it work.

Experiencing internal problems, the feuding royal families of Thessaly turned to Macedonia for help. Alexander intervened, occupied Larissa and restored one of his former allies to the throne. This, unfortunately, disappointed another ally to whom Alexander had also promised the throne. While unable to secure peace by diplomacy, Alexander continued to occupy Thessaly by force. Discontent with Alexander's inability to resolve the impasse, the faction in power abandoned Alexander and turned to the Thebans for help. The Thebans accepted without hesitation and brought a force to drive Alexander out. Unable to resist, Alexander withdrew from all Thessalian territory.

Dissatisfied with his inability to rule and especially with the way he handled the Thessalians, Alexander's position as ruler was challenged at home by Ptolemy. Being unable to resolve the challenge, Alexander agreed to bring in an outside arbitrator. On Ptolemy's request, the arbitrator chosen was a Theban commander, the same Theban commander who drove Alexander out of Larissa.

The dispute was eventually resolved in Alexander's favour but not without a price. To ensure Alexander would not take action against his rivals or renew activities in Thessaly, prominent members of his family, including his younger brother Philip II, were taken to Thebes to be held hostage. Philip at the time was only thirteen years old.

Even though he was secure back on his throne Alexander's problems, unfortunately, were not yet over. He was assassinated while taking part in a festival. Ptolemy of course was suspected since he had the most to gain.

Alexander II died in the spring of 367 BC and the rule of Macedonia was passed on to Ptolemy.

A woman named Eurydice, it is believed, was allegedly involved in plotting Alexander's assassination. During the investigation it was noted that before Alexander's death, Ptolemy and Eurydice closely collaborated and may have planned Alexander's deposition. When that failed, they conspired to have him assassinated.

Just to give you an idea of who this woman was, her mother was the daughter of the Lyncestian king Arrhabaeus and her father was Sirrhas, an Illyrian tribal chief. Eurydice was the wife of Amyntas III from an arranged marriage. Her relationship to Ptolemy is unknown (perhaps a lover?) but she was instrumental in his rise to power.

Eurydice's deeds, even though disreputable, have been etched in the history of the Macedonian royal court as the acts of a strong willed woman who wished to rule.

It goes to show that unlike their neighbours to the south, the Macedonians showed respect and admiration for their women both as leaders and as equals. In fact the Macedonians were vastly different from those to the south when it came to customs, culture and mannerisms. "The Macedonians were a thoroughly healthy people, trained not by Greek athletics, but, like the Romans, by military service. But alongside much that was good, they had many rougher habits,... which tended to make them appear as barbarians in Greek eyes. The dislike was reciprocal, for the Macedonians had grown into a proud masterful nation, which with highly developed national consciousness looked down upon the Hellenes with contempt." (Page 26, Ulrich Wilcken, Alexander the Great).

Alexander's death seemed like an easy victory for Ptolemy, but in actual fact it was not. Ptolemy's relations with Eurydice, a known troublemaker and a suspect in the plotting of her own husband's assassination landed him in hot water. Even though Ptolemy was a legitimate heir to the throne, the way he achieved his appointment upset many Macedonians. New challengers rose to the task and for the next three years the kingdom was in turmoil.

One of the more serious challengers was an exiled Macedonian named Pausanius. He put together a small army and occupied parts of central Macedonia. Unable to drive him out, Ptolemy and Eurydice called on Athens for support. Eager to regain influence in the north and hoping to regain access to Amphipolis, Athens accepted the challenge and helped Ptolemy drive Pausanius out of Macedonia.

Another challenge came from a faction loyal to the dead Alexander who called on the Thebans for support. Losing no time, the powerful Thebans invaded Macedonia and forced Ptolemy into an undesirable alliance imposing more conditions on his kingdom and taking more hostages. One good thing that came out of this alliance was the breakup of Macedonian relations with Athens putting an end to Athenian ambitions in Amphipolis and in the north.

Ptolemy died in 365 BC, probably assassinated by Perdiccas, Amintas III's second son who became the next ruler of Macedonia.

Soon after Perdiccas III was installed ruler of Macedonia, he brought back his younger brother Philip from Thebes. Philip was sixteen years old at the time.

Since the Spartan defeat in 371 BC, Theban power was on the rise and by 365 BC it was formidable enough to challenge the Athenian navy at sea.

Being a Theban ally under these conditions had its advantages. In exchange for Macedonian timber, Thebes was willing to provide long-term guarantees of security for Macedonia as well as protection of her frontier interests, especially against Athenian interference in Amphipolis.

Athens however, wasn't at all phased by this Theban generosity and had some plans of her own.

When a formidable Athenian naval force made its presence in the Thermaic Gulf and began to seize Macedonian ports and threaten the sovereignty of Macedonia, Perdiccas quickly gave in to the Athenian will. When informed that Thebes was about to attack the Athenian fleet, Perdiccas reconsidered and withdrew his support for Athens. Furthermore he reverted back to opposing Athenian desires for Amphipolis. The expected Theban naval attack unfortunately never materialized but that didn't stop Perdiccus from continuing to oppose the Athenians anyway.

Just as the war started to stabilize in the southern frontier, a serious Illyrian attack materialized from the north drawing Perdiccas's army into a second conflict. With his forces divided Perdiccas bore the full brunt of two fronts. His army, well trained and equipped, could have met the challenge. Unfortunately, Perdiccas's luck ran out and he was killed in one of the battles.

Perdiccas III died in 360 BC defending his homeland and like his father before him, left his kingdom in disarray. It was now up to his younger brother Philip to make things right.

Philip II replaced his brother Perdiccas III as ruler of Macedonia in 360 BC.

Philip was well aware that in order for Macedonia to achieve peace and economic prosperity she needed to free herself from outside interference and from the constant bickering and infighting. Philip was also aware that this was only possible through a strong defense.

It is my belief that historians misunderstood Philip II. Given the weakness of his kingdom and his experience in a world of turmoil, Philip's only desire was for the security of his kingdom. By his actions and not by the words of others, we can see that Philip's early ambitions were not of conquest but of defense. His idea of achieving security and peace was through building a protective zone or buffer all around his kingdom. What made Philip truly great was the fact that he achieved this economically and in a relatively short period of time.

By his actions alone one can see that Philip had no ambition to "unite" the Greeks but rather to extinguish their desire to interfere in his affairs. Philip knew that by destroying his enemy's ability to wage war, his enemy would no longer be a threat to him.

At this point I would like to digress for a moment and take the opportunity to analyze some other issues.

We have been repeatedly bombarded with information, mainly from Modern Greek propaganda sources, that the ancient Macedonians spoke a Greek language, worshipped Greek Gods etc., and as such were Greeks.

Trivial as this may sound, there are people today who still subscribe to this idea. Since we have no genuine data to concretely dispute them and almost all the information that we have is derived from Greek or Latin sources, we have no choice but to challenge them purely on merit.

Given that our basic understanding of the ancient Macedonians comes from non-Macedonian sources that had little or no understanding of Macedonian affairs, makes such claims questionable and perhaps biased.

Since Modern Greece occupied Macedonian territory in 1912-1913 no Macedonian has ever been allowed to conduct archeological research. Greek authorities control all archeological discoveries; the very sources of data needed to conduct such studies. Any new evidence that may surface is automatically scrutinized and is either hidden or distorted to protect Greek interests.

With regard to the ancient Macedonians speaking a Greek language, I offer you this:

If 19th century archeologists were to dig in Macedonia instead of Greece, and if they were to find inscriptions written in the language of the ancient Macedonians, would they have called it Greek?

If the same archeologists continued digging in Greece and Egypt and found the same language spoken there as well, would they have called it Greek?

The logical answer, of course, would be no! They would have realized their error and called it a "common" language to all three nations.

In my estimation it is more accurate to state that "besides speaking their own languages, the more enlightened of the ancient people, including the Macedonian royalty, also spoke a 'common' language or 'lingua franca' if you prefer".

It is more accurate therefore to state that "Koine" was not a "Greek" but rather a "common" language or "lingua franca", spoken by the various educated and enlightened people.

Modern Greeks make such outrageous claims not because they are interested in the pursuit of truth but rather because it serves their political interests. Given that the Modern Greeks have vested political interests in the ancient Macedonians would naturally make their claims dubious at best.

The real question however, is not what language the royal Macedonian families spoke but rather what language did the common ancient Macedonians speak?

To find out I will again take you back to Dura-Europos, this time to 3 BC,

[XXXXVIII

3 B.C.

This inscription on a slab of stone is ascribed by scholars to 3 B.C.

Division and Alphabetization:

NOS TOJ JE TOJ, SMRDOT

FILOPATRASTES, DIO DO TOJ. TOJ DA NI

MOJ MI DIO NOS D'JE TOJ AL JE SAN

D'ROJ GYNAIKOS.

Translation:

"Your nose, yours, having smelled the pederast, spoke to you. Your nose itself, and not mine, said to me that it is yours that prefers women."

Explanation:

NOS - "nose"

TOJ - "yours, your" - TOJ, for the literal TVOJ, is dialectally still very much in use.

JE - auxiliary to DIO (DJAV) to form the past tense

SMRDOT - "having smelled" - If we insert the Italian

MERDA - or French MERDE ("sh*t") for the

punctuated O, the Indo-European SMERHD -

"stink" ensues to odorize the Venetic.

FILOPATRASTES

- "pederast, professional sodomite" - in Greek

DIO - "said, spoke" - The dialectal variant now is DJAV

- "said, spoke" which is here governed by the

auxiliary JE above.

DO - "to, at, towards"

TOJ - "you" - The form is very archaic and dialectal and

no longer in use. DO TOJ in current usage would be described by TEBI or TI in the genitive case and not via a preposition.

TOJ - "your, yours"

DA - "that, but" - Here it means "but not" together with NI, however, in the sense of "and not." This is still the literal form.

NI - "no, not" - still exactly the same literally and dialectally

MOJ - "mine" - exactly the same literal and dialectal form

MI - "me, to me" - still the same dialectally and literally

DIO - "said, spoke" -see supra - It is governed by the auxiliary JE, which follows three words later.

TOJ - "your, yours"

AL - "but, and, or" depending on context

JE - auxiliary to DIO which is not repeated but the meaning is clear that the nose was very emphatic in saying it itself by repeating JE.

SAN - "itself, the one, the very one" - The present literal form SAM still has dialectal SAN echoes. (Prekmurje)

D' - "that" - Dialectally this is still current.

ROJ - "would rather, likes, prefers" - The current literal and dialectal usage is RAJ.

GYNAIKOS -"woman" in Greek]

(Pages 81-83, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

The meaning of the inscription is not as important to us as the language in which it is written. Granted these are not words of wisdom but they are clearly of Venetic (Slav) origins.

The following quotation was taken directly from Anthony Ambrozic's book "Gordian Knot Unbound".

I decided to include this in its entirety to give you a glimpse of Ambrozic's work. My main motivation however, was to show you that he makes a connection between the Old Phrygian and Early Thracian on one side and the Pelasgic, Etruscan, and Venetic languages on the other.

Here is what Ambrozic has to say:

[

Reflection

Even though the transcriptions for the Early Thracian and the Old Phrygian inscriptions by Vladimir Georgiev, Claude Brixhe, and Michel Lejeune have, with minor exceptions, been accepted in both Part I and Part II of this study, a dilemma in respect to several characters in each group stands out begging for answers. The | | symbol for N in the Kjolmen inscription is the most glaring. No other alphabet of the time has it. Not the Pelasgic, nor the Etruscan, Old Phrygian or Greek, nor the Venetic. Plainly and simply, it is unique to that inscription, which, incidentally, is the oldest of the five Early Thracian passages. In the same vein, the Early Thracian and Old Phrygian sigmoid S and snaking S have no ancient counterparts.

The inverted ) character, to which Georgiev incorrectly ascribes the value of a gamma, is found also in the Palasgic and the Etruscan alphabets, where it has the sound value of a C. The Venetic mirrors it in the symbol >.

The symbol I, prominent especially in the Ezerovo inscription, and according to Georgiev having a Z sound value, is not repeated in either the Kjolmen Z (i.e. in Zesasan) nor the Duvanli one. However, we find the same character in the Pelasgic alphabet, and as a variant, in the Etruscan (single vertical bar with two horizontal crossbars).

Again, the Pelasgic and the Old Phrygian contain the symbol (PSI) for H (and G on occasion). The Greek PSI approximates it but has a different sound value. On rare occasions, the Old Phrygian and the Etruscan make use of the arrow (the Old Phrygian pointing up and the Etruscan pointing down). However, each assigns different sound value to it. And lastly, the Old Phrygian and the Dura-Europos 8s resonate with the same sound value in the Venetic (fat 8).

From the foregoing a tangible connection between the Old Phrygian and the Early Thracian on one side and the Pelasgic, Etruscan, and Venetic on the other is established. This confluence brings into question the conventional wisdom that the source of early writing had its origins only in the Middle East. It insinuates the need for reexamining assumptions heretofore regrettably far too often taken for granted.

If the Pelasgi, the ancient pre-Hellenic peoples, who occupied Greece before the 12th century BC, and who were said to have inhabited Thrace, Argos, Crete, and Chalcidice, had their own alphabet, it unquestionably predated the alleged import of the Greek from the Phoenician. And again, to quote the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1973-74 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 1, p. 624), if the Etruscan alphabet had been the prototype for the Greek, we can not look upon the Greek as having been the precursor of either the Early Thracian nor the Old Phrygian. Both of these appear to have too many home-grown elements.

Concrete evidence for such reevaluation comes from excavations of the Vincha culture sites in the Balkans itself. The archeological site at Banjica (near Belgrade), in particular, is of significance. According to the C-14 method, its artifacts have been assessed as dating no later that 3473 BC. This makes the script found there 373 years older than the Proto-Sumerian pictographic script. (See Radivoje and Vesna Pesic, Proceedings of the First International Conference, "The Veneti within the Ethnogenesis of the Central-European Population," Ljubljana, 2001, p.66).

Indeed, Vesna Pesic, the co-author of the above article, has made a comparison study of the Vincha script with the known ancient scripts. The number of identical letters in the said comparison scripts was as follows:

1. The Brahma script -5

2. The Cretan Linear A - 4

3. The Cretan Linear B - 2

4. The West Semitic -8

5. The Old Phoenician -10

6. The Cyprian - 9

7. The Palestinian - 7

8. The Old Greek - 12

9. The Anglo-Saxon Runic - 4

On page 67 Pesic concludes as follows: "The comparison of the Vincha and Etruscan scripts is very interesting; the complete Etruscan alphabet is totally identical with the Vincha script."

According to Pesic, it had been the sea-faring, merchant rivermen, the Veneti, who had disseminated the Vincha script to the Etruscans as early as the end of the second millenium BC. The Veneti at this time are attested to have existed not only on the great bend of the Danube, but also on the Morava, Timok, and Vardar (69). In fact, the etymology of several toponyms in the area points directly to them. They join a host of others named after them. Invariably found along the waterway turnpikes of the ancient world, these range from as far afield as Vannes on the Atlantic to Banassac on the Lot, and Venice on the Adriatic. We find them on the lower Tisza in Banat, down the Morava to the river banks of northern Thrace, where Herodotus records them in the 5th century BC (I, 196). ] (Pages 85 to 87, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound).

With regard to ancient names, I want to inform you that in South-Western Macedonia, there is a tributary running into the River Bistritsa named "Veneticos". This tributary is located about ten kilometers southeast of the city of Grevena in southwestern, geographical Macedonia. The tributary lies south of Kostur (Orestikon), inside the heartland of what once was prehistoric Macedonia. Could this be a coincidence or a sign of Venetic presence in prehistoric Macedonian origins?

With regard to Macedonians worshiping Greek gods or worshiping the same gods as the Greeks, I offer you this:

Gods by definition do not belong to a race but rather to a sect of people sometimes encompassing many races and cultures. Worshiping the same gods as the Greeks, does not make the ancient Macedonians Greek.

The following quote was taken from John Shea's book "Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation". It is included here in order to provide you with an alternative to the modern point of view regarding the ancient Greek language and religions.

"Linguistic evidence and the ancient model. Bernal provides evidence in support of his view that Egyptian and Phoenician elements were powerful in the development of ancient Greek culture. He notes that it is generally agreed that the Greek language was formed during the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries B.C. Its Indo-European structure and basic lexicon are combined with a non-Indo-European vocabulary of sophistication. He argues that since the earlier population spoke a related Indo-European language, it left little trace in Greek; thus the presence of that population does not explain the many non-Indo-European elements in the later language. Bernal suggests that it has not been possible for scholars working in the Aryan model over the last 160 years to explain 50 percent of the Greek vocabulary and 80 per cent of proper names in terms of either Indo-European or the Anatolian languages supposedly related to "pre-Hellenic." Since they cannot explain them, they simply call them pre-Hellenic.

Bernal suggests to the contrary: that much of the non-Indo-European element can be plausibly derived from Egyptian and West Semitic and that this would fit very well with a long period of domination by Egypto-Semitic conquerors. He claims that up to a quarter of the Greek vocabulary can be traced to Semitic origins (which for the most part means the Phoenicians), 40 to 50 percent seems to have been Indo-European, and a further 20 to 25 percent comes from Egyptian, as well as the names for most Greek gods and many place names. Thus 80 to 90 percent of the vocabulary is accounted for, as high a proportion as one can hope for in any language.

Bernal argues that the Indo-European component of the Greek lexicon is relatively small. There is a low proportion of word roots with cognates in any other Indo-European language. Further, the semantic range in which the Indo-European roots appear in Greek is very much the same as that of Anglo-Saxon roots in English, another culture strongly influenced by invaders (in this case, the French-speaking Normans). These roots provide most pronouns and prepositions, most of the basic nouns and verbs of family, and many terms of subsistence agriculture. By contrast, the vocabulary of urban life, luxury, religion, administration, political life, commercial agriculture and abstraction is non-Indo-European. Bernal points out that such a pattern usually reflects a long-term situation in which speakers of the language which provides the words of higher culture control the users of the basic lexicon. For example, he claims that in Greek the words for chariot, sword, bow, march, armor, and battle are non-Indo-European. Bernal explains that river and mountain names are the toponyrns that tend to be the most persistent in any country. In England, for instance, most of these are Celtic, and some even seem to be pre-Indo-European. The presence of Egyptian or Semitic mountain names in ancient Greek would therefore indicate a very profound cultural penetration. Bernal presents many examples of these and notes that the insignificant number of Indo-European city names in Greece, and the fact that plausible Egyptian and Semitic derivations can be found for most city names, suggest an intensity of contact that cannot be explained in terms of trade.

Bernal maintains that when all sources, such as legends, place names, religious cults, language and the distribution of linguistic and script dialects, are taken into account alongside archaeology, the ancient model, with some slight variations, is plausible today. He discusses equations between specific Greek and Egyptian divinities and rituals, and the general ancient belief that the Egyptian forms preceded the others, that the Egyptian religion was the original one. He says that this explains the revival of the purer Egyptian forms in the fifth century B.C. The classical and Hellenistic Greeks themselves maintained that their religion came from Egypt, and Herodotus even specified that the names of the gods were almost all Egyptian.

Using linguistic, cultural, and written references, Bernal presents interesting evidence connecting the first foundation of Thebes directly or indirectly to eleventh-dynasty Egypt. He argues that both the city name Athenai and the divine name Athene or Athena derive from Egyptian, and offers evidence to substantiate this claim. He traces the name of Sparta to Egyptian sources, as well as detailing relationships between Spartan and Egyptian mythology. He says that much of the uniquely Spartan political vocabulary can be plausibly derived from late Egyptian and that early Spartan art has a strikingly Egyptian appearance. For Bernal, all these ideas link up with the Spartan kings' belief in their Heraklid - hence Egyptian or Hyksos - ancestry, and would therefore account for observations such as the building of a pyramid at Menelaion, the Spartan shrine, and the letter one of the last Spartan kings wrote to the high priest in Jerusalem, claiming kingship with him.

Bernal claims that there has been a movement, led mainly by Jewish scholars, to eliminate anti-Semitism in the writing of ancient history, and to give the Phoenicians due credit for their central role in the formation of Greek culture. A return to the ancient model is less clear with regard to Egyptian influence. However, Bernal proposes that the weight of the Aryan model's own tradition and the effect of academic inertia have been weakened by startling evidence showing that the Bronze Age civilizations were much more advanced and cosmopolitan than was once thought, and that in general the ancient records are more reliable than more recent reconstructions. He believes the ancient model will be restored at some point in the early twenty-first century. For our purposes it is sufficient to note that even the current acknowledgment of the significance of Phoenician influence in the formation of ancient Greek culture indicates some of the ethnic mix that made up ancient Greece". (Pages 81 to 83, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation).

There is one more item I would like to mention before I continue with Philip's story. Unlike the ancient Greeks who despised everything foreign, the ancient Macedonians on many occasions adopted other peoples' customs, religions and ideas in order to enrich their own. This was most prevalent and well documented during Alexander's exploits to the east. Wherever Alexander went he took with him craftsmen, philosophers, poets, physicians, etc. Wherever Alexander found people of skill and wisdom, whom he admired, he sent them back to Macedonia.

It is grossly misleading to state that the ancient Macedonians were just mere conquerors.

From what the ancient authors (Diodorus Liculus) tell us, Philip was no ordinary man. When he was taken hostage to Thebes he was only thirteen years old and yet at that young age he was more interested in the affairs of the Theban government and military than playing with his peers.

At age fourteen, Philip studied the equipment and tactics of the Theban army including those of the elite Sacred Band. Becoming eighteen in 364 BC, he was given a force of Macedonians to command.

After Perdiccas's death, Philip was recalled to the Macedonian court where he was given the position of leader of the military. "Philip knew the Macedonians as soldiers and they knew him, when they elected him not as king (that office having been given to Amyntas IV, the infant son of Perdiccas) but as guardian and deputy of the king as commander-in-chief." (Page 58,Nikolas G.L. Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia).

There is some disagreement between Hammond and Borza with regard to Philip's appointment. Borza (and others) believe that Philip may have been appointed king and not guardian to Amyntas.

In any case, it was Philip who took over the reign from Perdiccas and who prepared his army to defend his kingdom. With the Illyrians, Paeonians, Thracians and Athenians poised to invade no one would have predicted what was going to happen. But as Diodorus tells us, Philip dealt with all issues directly.

Philip's first act as ruler was to buy off the Paeonians and Thracians. To deal with the Athenians however, Philip had to learn to use his famous diplomatic charm.

Athens had a long-standing ambition to possess Amphipolis; her motives were made very clear. Reassuring that he would not interfere in her affairs, bought Philip some time to continue reorganizing his military and building his power.

After some success in his reorganization, Philip got the chance to test his troops in action. During the spring of 358BC the Paeonian king died and an opportunity to secure the northern frontier presented itself. A short campaign gave Philip a decisive victory and a secure northern frontier.

The invading Illyrians were next on his list as he approached them with a warning to vacate western Macedonia. Perched atop the western mountains of Lyncus, the fierce Illyrians were confident they could hold their own and ignored Philip's warnings. In fact they were so confident of a victory that they made Philip a counteroffer "peace for status quo". Philip was not amused and a battle ensued.

Equally matched, the Macedonians fought bravely and decimated the Illyrian army giving Philip another victory. "The antagonists were equally matched, each side fielding about 10,000 foot, with the Macedonians maintaining a slight edge in cavalry, 600 to 500. More than 7,000 Illyrians lay dead on the field, according to our source, Diodorus." (Page 202, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Was this overwhelming victory a result of Philip's superior military training, his tactics or simply Illyrian overconfidence? In my estimation, at this point in time, it was a combination of all three. This victory against a feared opponent not only saved Macedonia but also gave Philip and his military the needed confidence to take on more formidable foes.

Philip wasted no time and began his reorganization the day he took over running his kingdom.

Despite what historians may claim, I believe Philip's main motivation for rebuilding his military was to create a formidable and lasting defense barrier around his kingdom. The Macedonia Philip inherited was surrounded by warlike, aggressive tribes who desired conflict. Philip's vision was to achieve peace through strong defense. To do that he had to subdue the aggressive elements all around his kingdom and ensure that they were kept down. There was also the matter of the greater powers who would not agree to a strong and large Macedonia and would challenge him just to safeguard their own interests and survival.

As problems presented themselves, Philip used his extraordinary talents to seek solutions.

To fight a mightier opponent, Philip had to invent better military strategies and superior weapons. To keep a lasting peace Philip needed a well-trained, professional and full time army. To keep his opponents down, he needed to crush their military abilities and to hinder them from rebuilding. All these factors were combined to produce the greatest military might the ancient world had even seen.

Up to Philip's time, soldiers were selected from the nobility and usually lived and trained at home only to be called to duty before battle. Philip, on the other hand, raised and rigorously trained a full time professional army. Additionally, Philip combined the use of infantry and cavalry in coordinated tactics in ways never before applied. In terms of weapons, Philip used his experience from Thebes to enhance his military techniques and created modern weapons for his army. The most effective weapon was the Macedonian Phalanx which employed sixteen to twenty foot spears or pikes known as Sarissas. The body of the pike was made of dogwood (Dren) while the tip was made of a foot long, sharp metal blade. The Phalanx was employed in a rectangular or oblique battle array of soldiers each holding a pike underhand tipped at an angle. The first row held the pikes parallel to the ground while succeeding rows elevated them slightly. The twenty-foot long sarissas extended five rows beyond the first row of soldiers making the Phalanx an impenetrable fortress of very sharp pikes. The front and rear rows of soldiers wore body armour and heavy shields while all inside rows wore no armour and carried only light shields.

Despite popular beliefs otherwise, it took Philip a long time to transform his army into an efficient fighting machine. Much time was needed to recruit men, develop the administration, build up finances, train soldiers and gain field experience before his army would be ready for serious engagements.

"The new Macedonian army was marked by its great speed in movement, by versatility in tactics and weapons, and by the coordination of cavalry with infantry. Finally, there can be no doubt that unusual skills in personal and military leadership created, reflected, and depended upon excellence in the Macedonian army, as kings and men complemented one another". (Page 205, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Let's not forget the contributions of the Macedonian corps of engineers who designed the magnificent machines and built the siege engines that made Alexander famous.

Again I must emphasize that there is no evidence to indicate that Philip possessed consistent policies for empire building or plans for conquest beyond his own needs to secure his kingdom. Philip simply reacted to events as they unfolded and, judging from his actions, he preferred to use diplomacy over force. I believe it was Greek hatred and mistrust that gave Philip a bad wrap. "...it was Philip's ill fortune to be opposed by the most skilled orator of his era, and most nineteenth- and twentieth-century classical scholarship, impressed by the power of Demosthenes's oratory, has seen Philip as a barbarian determined to end the liberty of Greek city-states." (Page 198, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

"At this most critical moment of Macedonian history, Philip, who was then twenty-four, acted with astounding energy and skill. By brilliant feats of arms and by most subtle and cunning diplomatic skill, he promptly succeeded in removing perils from without and within, and was soon acclaimed king by the Macedonian army.

In the first year of his reign Philip has reached the height of his powers. His extraordinary capabilities as general, statesman and diplomat, which made possible this rapid and thorough salvation of the state, explain to us also the extraordinary success of his career. Yet the greatness of this man was not understood till the nineteenth century. Not merely was his fame obscured by the glittering achievements of his son Alexander. His memory has suffered from this disadvantage too: the greatest orator produced by Greece, Demosthenes, was his political opponent, passionately attacked him in his incomparable speeches, and, in the interest of his policy, presented to the Athenians a picture-distorted by hatred-of Philip 'the barbarian'. In the age of classicism especially, everyone was dazzled by the fine periods of Demosthenes, and accepting them literally, judged the life work of Philip purely from the Athenian standpoint-and that too from the standpoint of Demosthenes. This was accentuated by the political tendencies of the period. Barthold Georg Niebuhr had a passionate hatred for Philip, in whom, with his vivid conception of history, he saw a parallel to Napoleon, and before Austerlitz published a translation of the first Philippic of Demosthenes, to produce a political effect against the Gallus rebellis, as is shown by the motto he affixed to it. To reach a just estimate of Philip, historical science had first to be liberated from the Athenian-Demosthenic point of view. It is modern research alone that, following the lead of J. G. Droysen, has tended more and more to set out from the one correct point of view; the Macedonian King Philip must be judged by the standard of Macedonian interests only.

If we do this, Philip stands before us as one of the great rulers of the world's history, not only because he laid the foundations for the exploits of his still greater son Alexander, on which Alexander, in conformity with his own genius, erected a new world, but also as a man in himself of far-seeing aims and achievements". (Pages 27 to 29, Ulrich Wilcken, Alexander the Great).

The drive to secure his kingdom took Philip west to Orestis and Lyncus where he erected defensive barriers and created new frontiers which to this day mark the western borders of geographical Macedonia. To the south in 357 BC, Philip sought and secured the alliance of Epirus sealed in part by his marriage to Olympias, a very important figure in Macedonia's future and the Epirian Chieften's niece, and in part by taking Olympias's brother, Alexander into the Macedonian court. Being Philip's protégé, in the long term, Alexander proved himself a good ally to Macedonia.

Macedonia's neighbours to the north and to the south viewed all these good things that were happening in Macedonia with great suspicion.

What happened so far was only a prelude of things to come and the major battles for Philip were yet to be fought.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:19

"Although the darker side of modern politics has cast its shadow in Macedonia and its people for decades, new light is beginning to shine in this area. Some of that incandescence derives from continuity in the past. The ancient Macedonians did not vanish, but continue to provide the world with endowments in education, religion, art, and architecture. They also provided their inheritors with ideals of world unity, religious freedom, and the invincibility of the human spirit. The brightness of the ancient Macedonians, therefore, shines into the present like the sunburst which best represents the radiance of ancient Macedonia." (Michael Dimitri)

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series of articles I introduced various independent discoveries relating to rock art, translations of prehistoric inscriptions, translations of words from ancient texts, and a number of prehistoric linguistic assessments.

In this article I will summarize the findings from parts 1 and 2 and provide my own assessment. For the remainder of the article, my main focus will be to present Macedonian events and actions, from the time of Perdiccas I to the time of Perdiccas II, which have been recorded in the annals of history.

It has been estimated that approximately fifty thousand years ago a glacier covered Europe. It is also known that the glacier's retreat began from the south and advanced northward. It is therefore safe to assume that the Balkans were the first lands in Europe to be thawed and to support life. It is also safe to assume that the first humans to resettle Europe came through the Balkans making it the oldest hospitable place in Europe since the latest ice age.

From analyzing cave drawings and rocks in Macedonia, we can deduce that the earliest "rock art" came into existence about forty thousand years ago. Rock art represents the earliest and most primitive form of written communication.

It is my belief that rock art began with the drawing of stick objects depicting simple messages. Over time rock art evolved into sophisticated shapes and patterns depicting more and more complicated messages. Once the artists realized the power of their "written message" there was no stopping them. Over time, pictographs evolved into symbols not only of objects, like the Egyptian hieroglyphics, but also of sounds, which make words. From the evidence discovered, Neolithic Macedonians, if I can call them Macedonians, may have been the inventors of the "phonetic language".

Because of the great number of rock art objects found, scientists are becoming convinced that the first phonetic alphabet may have originated in Macedonia. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of people like Dusko Aleksovski, the Republic of Macedonia is becoming the leader in rock art research.

Many prehistoric inscriptions and artifacts discovered in the southern Balkans in the past thirty years or so, were deemed to be of unknown origin. Scientists were unable to decipher them because they did not fit any of the "known" ancient or prehistoric languages. Thousands of these inscriptions have now been translated thanks to the efforts of dedicated scholars Vasil Ilyov, Anthony Ambrozic, Matej Bor, Anton Skerbinc, and many others. What was deemed an "impossibility" for mainstream scientists proved to be a simple task for the scholars of the Slavic languages. "Even an ordinary Slovene at a simple glance can tell you what they mean", says Anthony Ambrozic.

What is most interesting about these inscriptions, which puzzled scientists for many years, is that they are of "Slavic" origin. "No one ever thought of looking at them from a Slavic perspective because it was thought that Slavs did not exist in that region during this period." At least that is what mainstream science claims.

Archeologists and linguists are now in the process of collecting evidence that will not only prove that prehistoric Macedonians spoke a proto-Slav language but that they have Venetic roots which originated in Macedonia.

In part 2 of this series I mentioned that six inscriptions of Venetic origins have been found in Dura-Europos, a city in the Syrian desert founded by Alexander the Great, or more correctly by Alexander's lieutenant, Seleucus Nicator, of the post-Alexander Seleucid Empire.

"The Macedonians built Dura as a frontier town to control the river trade. Goods including silks, jade, spices, ebony, ivory, and precious stones were brought from the east and transferred onto camels for the desert leg of the journey, via Palmyra, to the Mediterranean.

Dura was an outpost bordering a clutch of kingdoms in unsettled times. It became an ethnic melting pot. Greeks, Byzantines, Persians, Christians and diaspora Jews lived and worked side by side. In 140 BC the nomads of Parthia in the east captured the city, which was then passed backwards and forwards between the Romans and the Sassanians, another Persian people. It was the Sassanians who finally destroyed Dura Europos in AD 256, possibly because of a revolt by the inhabitants." (http://pages.cthome.net/hirsch/dura.htm)

I have seen all six Dura-Europos inscriptions and translations but for the sake of saving space, I will only show one of them. Here is what Anthony Ambrozic, the translator of the inscriptions, has to say:

"The following six passages were found in different places of the Roman fortress of Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River. In view of the fact that the commander of the archers makes his dedication to Mithras in the Venetic language, as can be seen in the passage that follows, it is highly likely that there are other Venetic inscriptions at this site. Further research will undoubtedly reveal them. The passages that follow are only representative samples and by no means exhaustive." (Page 74, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

The passage I am going to describe appears on a relief of Mithras in a temple at Dura-Europos along the Roman Euphrates defense line. One of the dedicators (in the company of two distinguished acquaintances) is commander of the archers, Jaribol.

The Oblate is marked passage XXXXIV.

{Division and alphabetization:

...DI MI HRANET TO JESEN ZHENO H IO SDRAIE IA JE I RASIA RIBOLEUJC

..."AT JE" (?) GOSTOJETOT ON JE TOJI DE I TE ROJ...J

Transcription:

...DI MI HRANET TO JESEN ZHENO H JO SDRAJE JA JE

I RASJA RIBOLEUJC

..."AT JE" (?) GOSTOJEDOT ON JE TOJI

DE I TE ROJ (VAR) J!

Translation:

"...May you save me the wife this fall so that she is healthy and that the fisherman grows...'AT JE' (?) [Guest-food] he is yours. May heaven also protect (?) you!"

Looser Translation:

"...May you save my wife in the fall so that she stays healthy and the little fisherman grows...'AT JE' is your [guest-food]. May heaven also protect you!"

Explanation:

DI (DE) - "so that, may" - DA is the current literal usage but DE and DI are also still in dialectal use. Please note that the last sentence DE is used with the same meaning.

MI - "to me, me" - dat., sing. of JAZ - "I"

HRANET - "save" from HRANITI - "to save, to preserve, to keep" - The symbol "8" for "H" had to be sought from Venetic sources since neither Greek nor Latin had anything undiacritical for the sound.

TO - "this"

JESEN - "fall, autumn"

ZHENO - "wife" - fem., acc,. sing. of ZHENA- the ZH comes from as far back as the ancient Venetic writings at Este, Italy.

H (K') - "so that" - still very much in dialectal usage - Again, please also note the "8."

JO - "her" - shortened from fem. acc., sing. form of ONA - "she"

SDRAJE - "health" - The form of a phonetic twin of ZDRAVJE, the current literal use.

JA - "to her, her" - This archaic and dialectal form is a repetition of JO (above) and has the same meaning, but the reflexivity of it is an idiom. The literal form now - fem., dat., sing. of ONA "she" - is JI.

JE - "is"

I - "and"

RASJA - "grows" - from RASTI - "to grow" - The form used has discarded the T between the two consonants.

RIBOLEUJC - "the fisherman" - "the fetus", in a colloquial fashion - This is a combination of RIBA - "fish" and LOV - "to catch, hunt."

"AT" (?) - It is impossible to guess what precedes these two letters.

JE -"is"

GOSTOJETOT (GOSTOJEDOT) - from GOST - "guest" and JESTI - "to eat" - This combinational form has no comparable dialectal, archaic, or literal form and will therefore have to remain rendered only in its basic components. It is realized that an exact translation is called for since the word is at the very core of Jaribol's votive intent, but anything more than the above would be presumptuous.

ON - "he"

JE - "is"

TOJI - "your, yours" - a somewhat archaic form in that even dialectically the current form would be TOJ and not TOJI

DE - "may, so that" - see DI supra

TE - "you"

ROJ - "paradise, heaven" - dialectal of RAJ

I - "and, also"

(VAR)J - "protect"}. (Pages 74-77, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

After translating the six passages here is what Ambrozic had to say. "Since scholars ascribe passage XXXXIV to 170 A.D., passage XXXXVII to 61 A.D., and passage XXXXVIII to 3 B.C., we can safely conclude that the Venetic speaking presence at Dura-Europos preceded the Roman annexation of 165 A.D.

Throughout the Seleucid (Macedonian) ascendancy between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C., the position of the commander (strategos) had been the privileged preserve of the scions of the original Macedonian conquerors. Upon the annexation of the site, the Romans adhered to this practice, if for no other reason than the lack of other sources of leadership in the far-flung border zone. Accordingly, we see a descendant of the erstwhile Macedonian rulers make a dedication to his god in the still extant Venetic language of his ancestors some four-and-a-half centuries after the conquest. The survival of the language may be attributed to the closed-circle, tight-knit Macedonian plutocracy reigning over the indigenous peoples in an hegemonic desert bailiwick.

Founded by Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander's Macedonian generals (whose father had been a general of Philip of Macedon's), Dura-Europos, having languished buried mute on the banks of the Euphrates all these many centuries, now speaks to us about a people on another river, in another time, on another continent. In the fifth century B.C., Herodotus (I, 196), having found them on the lower Danube, called them Enetoi (Veneti)." (Page 86, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

Coincidental to the inscription research, linguistic research has also been conducted independently on various ancient texts. Hundreds of Macedonian words of Slavic origin have been found and translated from Homer's books. Macedonian inscriptions from Alexander's time have also been translated and proven to contain words of Slavic origin. Thanks to the efforts of Alexander Donski, Tashko Belchev, Odisej Belchevski, and others these discoveries have been brought out into the open.

Let's not forget that there are also vast regions in southern, central, and eastern Europe, including the Pelloponisos, which to this day still bear many Slav toponyms, some of which date back to prehistoric times.

On a different subject, it is my belief that a number of great wars took place in Macedonia between 1,200BC and 800BC which may have been responsible for the destruction of Macedonia's proto-Slav civilization. Based on Bronze Age evidence, found in the many urn-filled tombs in Macedonia, these wars may also have been responsible for decimating the Macedonian population.

Independent evidence of these wars can be found in Homer's epic stories, which places them before the 8th century BC.

I have not been able to find information about the scope and duration of these wars, however advancements in metal weapons made them lethal and devastating to Macedonians and surrounding populations.

Traumatized by the devastation, the war survivors lost their modern ways, became isolated, and sank back into tribal life. Defenseless and devoid of population the small Macedonian kingdom was now vulnerable to invasions.

After the wars, the sparsely populated, war torn regions experienced population influx from neighbouring tribes. At the most southern tip of the Balkans, near the Mediterranean coast, the influx was predominantly from the Middle East. Further inland the influx was predominantly from the north and east.

It is believed that the prolonged isolation and unusual population influx caused great changes in some places in a relatively short period of time and almost none in others. The coastal people to the south, influenced by the more advanced Middle Eastern civilizations, developed a democratic political system and advanced agriculture, capable of sustaining large cities. The inlanders, on the other hand, influenced by their primitive neighbours advanced very little.

I have not found any information that would show whether or not a Macedonian civilization existed before the great wars. If it did, we can say that by 800BC Macedonia was on its way back to recovery, again re-asserting herself as a major force in the region and again headed on a collision course with her neighbours. It was now only a matter of time before another great war would take place and again engulf the entire region. Fortunately however, it would not be for another five hundred years.

Mainstream historians have attributed much to the ancient Greeks and almost nothing to the ancient Macedonians. The Greeks for example were civilized, "spirited and intelligent, were able to govern themselves. But the barbarians, being 'servile by nature', or spirited but stupid, or both servile and stupid could not govern themselves." (Page 7,8, Nicholas G. L. Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia). If that were the case shouldn't the Greeks have won the battle at Chaeronea?

If the Greeks were the most civilized and dominant people in ancient times as Hammond puts it, why don't they dominate the world today? Why are there so few Greek speakers in the world today (there were almost none at the start of the 19th century)?

Putting it another way, why are there virtually no Greek yet so many Slav speakers in Central and Eastern Europe today if that region was supposedly dominated by civilized Greek speakers? It has been scientifically proven that civilized people have greater influence over uncivilized ones. Conversely, uncivilized people have very little influence over civilized ones regardless of which ones are more dominant. Egypt is an excellent example of this.

Why are there so many people in such a vast territory today speaking derivatives of the prehistoric Macedonian language if the Greek language was supposedly the most dominant language?

Why is there not a single pre 1912 village in Macedonia that bears a Greek name or speaks the Greek language? If the primitive Slavs conquered and assimilated the so-called Hellenized and civilized Macedonians, why did they not adopt their more advanced language, culture, and toponomy?

The answer is very simple. The Macedonians were never Hellenized and thus retained their Slav language and culture from the time of the Veneti. Recent and independent DNA and genetic studies confirm that the Modern Macedonians are one of the oldest people living in the Balkans today. To think that an intellectually inferior race would replace a superior one is not only remote but also unscientific.

There is no doubt that today's Slavic languages are literary derivatives of Slavic dialects that existed in the various regions before the Slavic States were formed. Nevertheless, in order for dialects to exist, there had to be a common root or mother language at some point earlier in time. It is impossible for dialects to form without a root language. Also, the divergence in language and the formation of dialects is directly proportional to the age of the root language. The more divergent the dialects, the older the root language. Divergence in a language can be attributed to two factors, prolonged isolation and external influence. We know that the brothers Kiril and Metodi instituted a revision of the Macedonian language during the 8th and 9th centuries AD. We also know that the brothers did not invent but rather updated the Macedonian script to properly represent the natural evolution of the spoken language. The Macedonian oral language always existed and naturally evolved. Unfortunately, due to prolonged Roman influence, the written form of the Macedonian language was neglected. The brothers updated the written part of the Macedonian language in order to take advantage of its natural evolution and keep it phonetic. This is something the English language desperately needs. With a phonetic language no one would ever need years of lessons to learn how to spell.

Unlike the Macedonian language, which was spoken by all Macedonians through the ages, the Greek language was lost to a point of extinction, only to be resurrected and artificially imposed as the "katharevusa" in the late 19th century.

During the 8th and 9th centuries AD, free from Roman oppression and positively influenced by Christianity, the Macedonian civilization flourished and again rose to its former glory. (More on this in future articles). The Greeks, on the other hand, lost their ways and remained subordinate to the Byzantine and later to the Ottoman up until the 19th century.

According to Mario Alinei's theory of continuity, the Slavs have always existed where they exist today. With much certainty, I can make the same claim about the Macedonians. Supported by the theory of continuity and by recent independent DNA and genetic studies, the Macedonians are one of the oldest groups of people to exist in the southern Balkans. I have to also emphasize that this negates old beliefs that the modern Macedonians migrated to the Balkans during the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries AD during the so-called Slav invasions. These politically motivated assertions are purely concoctions of 19th century Greek and Western scholars, fabricated to allow Greece to lay claims to Macedonian territory. Serbian and later Yugoslavian authorities went along with this idea for the sake of keeping the south Slav people unified under the slogan "one Slav people, one Slav nation". This, however, is not true. As has been shown, the Macedonians are a unique nation, different from other Slav nations, and have been this way for at least 3000 years. The Slovenians too, are making similar claims in that their roots also may run back to the prehistoric Proto-Slav Veneti.

There is evidence that shows "people moving" during the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries AD but these were not invasions as described by modern scholars, but rather refugee movements. Pressure and terror tactics from the invading proto-Turk and Tartar tribes from the north pushed the indigenous people off their lands sending them deeper and deeper into the Balkans. (More on this in future articles).

The fact that there are so many Macedonians today who have retained their Macedonian language and culture without institutionalized support and have endured much oppression and many attempts at assimilation by other nations, shows that they have an immense desire and great determination to remain Macedonian. What is true today was probably true three thousand years ago when the small Macedonian kingdom was re-awakening in the aftermath of the horrible wars.

It is unknown who the first tribal kings of Macedonia were and how far back their line extended. Mainstream history places the birth of Aegae (the Argead Macedonian Royal House) around the start of the 7th century BC, with Perdiccas I as its first ruler. (Page 98, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990)

Before the Macedonians expanded their territory beyond the Kostur/Lerin mountainous regions their center was located at Rupishcha (Argos). Legend has it that the first ruler to establish the Argead house in Rupishcha was Caranus. He is believed to have been the first king to rule the Macedonian kingdom from approximately 808BC to 778BC. (http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/timeline.html)

It is my belief that Caranus was not a ruler at all but the name of a starting point used by the Macedonians to establish the beginning of their royal lineage. We can derive a more appropriate meaning for Caranus if we strip the Latin "us" to form Caran. Now if we convert Caran to its Macedonian equivalent we have Koren. The English meaning of the Macedonian word "koren" translates to "root" or "beginning". In other words, it is estimated that the lineage of the Argead Macedonian royal house began in approximately 800BC. Alexandar Donski has a different interpretation for Caran(us). "This name might be connected to the present day Macedonian noun 'kruna' (a crown). The name 'Karanche' is present in today’s' Macedonian onomasticon."

It took the small Macedonian kingdom about 200 years to build up its population before it was able to fully occupy the lush and fertile Phrygian abandoned lands of Voden.

We know from Herodotus that Perdiccas and his brothers moved the Macedonian center but no date for the move was given. "Herodotus (8.183) wrote that '[Perdiccas] came to another part of Macedonia and settled near the gardens named after Midas, son of Gordias...above the garden rises the mountain called Bermion, unassailable in winter'." (Page 65, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990). I believe this other part of Macedonia, to which Herodotus is referring is located near the city of present day Voden. Being capable of living in mountainous terrain, the Macedonians, I believe, descended to Voden via a more direct route over the mountains rather than following the Bistritsa River, as some historians have argued. Unconfirmed, is my belief that Aegae was established near Voden during the 7th century BC and became the second Macedonian capital. Hammond estimates that Perdiccas came to the throne in 650BC. (Page 11, Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia).

Beyond some stories about his younger days, there is little information written about Perdiccas and his accomplishments as the first king of Aegae.

Translated by George Rawlinson, here is what Herodotus has to say about Perdiccas. "Three brothers, descendants of Temenus, fled from Argos to the Illyrians; their names were Gauanes, Aeropus, and Perdiccas. From Illyria they went across to Upper Macedonia, where they came to a certain town called Lebaea. There they hired themselves out to serve the king in different employs; one tended the horses; another looked after the cows; while Perdiccas, who was the youngest, took charge of the smaller cattle. In those early times poverty was not confined to the people: kings themselves were poor, and so here it was the king's wife who cooked the victuals. Now, whenever she baked the bread, she always observed that the loaf of the labouring boy Perdiccas swelled to double its natural size. So the queen, finding this never fail, spoke of it to her husband. Directly that it came to his ears, the thought struck him that it was a miracle, and boded something of no small moment. He therefore sent for the three labourers, and told them to begone out of his dominions. They answered, 'they had a right to their wages; if he would pay them what was due, they were quite willing to go.' Now it happened that the sun was shining down the chimney into the room where they were; and the king, hearing them talk of wages, lost his wits, and said, 'There are the wages which you deserve; take that- I give it you!' and pointed, as he spoke, to the sunshine. The two elder brothers, Gauanes and Aeropus, stood aghast at the reply, and did nothing; but the boy, who had a knife in his hand, made a mark with it round the sunshine on the floor of the room, and said, 'O king! we accept your payment.' Then he received the light of the sun three times into his bosom, and so went away; and his brothers went with him. When they were gone, one of those who sat by told the king what the youngest of the three had done, and hinted that he must have had some meaning in accepting the wages given. Then the king, when he heard what had happened, was angry, and sent horsemen after the youths to slay them. Now there is a river in Macedonia to which the descendants of these Argives offer sacrifice as their saviour. This stream swelled so much, as soon as the sons of Temenus were safe across, that the horsemen found it impossible to follow. So the brothers escaped into another part of Macedonia, and took up their abode near the place called 'the Gardens of Midas, son of Gordias.' In these gardens there are roses which grow of themselves, so sweet that no others can come near them, and with blossoms that have as many as sixty petals apiece. It was here, according to the Macedonians, that Silenus was made a prisoner. Above the gardens stands a mountain called Bermius, which is so cold that none can reach the top. Here the brothers made their abode; and from this place by, degrees they conquered all Macedonia." (From the first Book of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, ~440 BC THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS, translated by George Rawlinson).

I will not, at this point, get into the details of the family makeup of the Macedonian Royal House because it is very vague and conjecture at best. If you wish to learn more about it consult page 31, Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia or page 80, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon.

Herodotus continues "From the Perdiccas of whom we have here spoken, Alexander was descended in the following way Alexander was the son of Amyntas, Amyntas of Alcetas; the father of Alcetas was Aeropus; of Aeropus, Philip; of Philip, Argaeus; of Argaeus, Perdiccas, the first sovereign". In other words, the known kings of Macedonia before Herodotus's time reigned as follows: Perdiccas I, Argaeus, Philip I, Aeropus I, Alcetas, Amyntas I, and Alexander I.

Again, I have not been able to find much about the Macedonian Royal lineage and the accomplishments of the reigning kings up to Alexander I's reign (498-454).

Borza, in the beginning of chapter 5, in his book, "In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon" describes the Macedonian kingdom during the reign of Amyntas I as weak, thinly populated, and surviving in the absence of external threat. Amyntas's territory of control during his reign included the central Macedonian plain and peripheral foothills, the Pierian coastal plain (Katerini) beneath Mt. Olympus, and perhaps the fertile, mountain-encircled plain of Almopia (Meglen). To the south lay the people of Thessaly and on the western mountains were the Molossians or people of western Epirus, tribes of non-Argaed Macedonians. Beyond lay the fierce Illyrians and east of the river Bistritsa lay the Paeonian and Thracian tribes.

As the Macedonian kingdom expanded and made its way to the lowlands and to the shores of the Aegean Sea, it was no longer isolated and began to enjoy the economic and cultural currents of the Aegean world as well as tangling in its politics.

After moving their capital to Aegae the Macedonians were no longer seen as a tribal but rather as a monarchic kingdom. Then, just as Alexander I was about to be crowned, the Macedonian Kingdom was seen as a power of influence. Unfortunately, it was still too weak to hold its own, militarily, against its powerful neighbours.

Unlike his father, Alexander I was born into a world of social turbulence and political change. With the rise of the Persian Empire and its westward movement, new conflicts were about to take place that would forever alter the balance of power in the Balkans.

In an attempt to encircle the Black Sea, Persian forces crossed over the Bosporus Strait around 513 BC, defeated eastern Thrace, and marched westward up to the Struma basin. Victorious over the Thracians, King Darius left Megabazus, one of his commanders, in charge of his forces and returned to Persia. After making peace with the rest of the Tharacian tribes, Magabazus deported some of the captured population to Asia, presumably for slave labour, and sent envoys to Macedonia to offer the Macedonians an opportunity for a peaceful settlement.

Fearing the Persian wrath, king Amyntas offered no resistance and graciously accepted the envoys. As the story goes, everything went well until the Persians demanded that Macedonian women entertain them for the night. That demand did not sit well with the Macedonians and the Persian envoys disappeared, never to be found.

Here is what Herodotus had to say. {As for Megabazus, he no sooner brought the Paeonians under, than he sent into Macedonia an embassy of Persians, choosing for the purpose the seven men of most note in all the army after himself. These persons were to go to Amyntas, and require him to give earth and water to King Darius. Now there is a very short cut from the Lake Prasias across to Macedonia. Quite close to the lake is the mine which yielded afterwards a talent of silver a day to Alexander; and from this mine you have only to cross the mountain called Dysorum to find yourself in the Macedonian territory. So the Persians sent upon this errand, when they reached the court, and were brought into the presence of Amyntas, required him to give earth and water to King Darius. And Amyntas not only gave them what they asked, but also invited them to come and feast with him; after which he made ready the board with great magnificence, and entertained the Persians in right friendly fashion. Now when the meal was over, and they were all set to the drinking, the Persians said- "Dear Macedonian, we Persians have a custom when we make a great feast to bring with us to the board our wives and concubines, and make them sit beside us. Now then, as thou hast received us so kindly, and feasted us so handsomely, and givest moreover earth and water to King Darius, do also after our custom in this matter." Then Amyntas answered- "O, Persians! we have no such custom as this; but with us men and women are kept apart. Nevertheless, since you, who are our lords, wish it, this also shall be granted to you." When Amyntas had thus spoken, he bade some go and fetch the women. And the women came at his call and took their seats in a row over against the Persians. Then, when the Persians saw that the women were fair and comely, they spoke again to Amyntas and said, that "what had been done was not wise; for it had been better for the women not to have come at all, than to come in this way, and not sit by their sides, but remain over against them, the torment of their eyes." So Amyntas was forced to bid the women sit side by side with the Persians. The women did as he ordered; and then the Persians, who had drunk more than they ought, began to put their hands on them, and one even tried to give the woman next him a kiss. King Amyntas saw, but he kept silence, although sorely grieved, for he greatly feared the power of the Persians. Alexander, however, Amyntas' son, who was likewise there and witnessed the whole, being a young man and unacquainted with suffering, could not any longer restrain himself. He therefore, full of wrath, spake thus to Amyntas:- "Dear father, thou art old and shouldst spare thyself. Rise up from table and go take thy rest; do not stay out the drinking. I will remain with the guests and give them all that is fitting." Amyntas, who guessed that Alexander would play some wild prank, made answer:- "Dear son, thy words sound to me as those of one who is well nigh on fire, and I perceive thou sendest me away that thou mayest do some wild deed. I beseech thee make no commotion about these men, lest thou bring us all to ruin, but bear to look calmly on what they do. For myself, I will e'en withdraw as thou biddest me." Amyntas, when he had thus besought his son, went out; and Alexander said to the Persians, "Look on these ladies as your own, dear strangers, all or any of them- only tell us your wishes. But now, as the evening wears, and I see you have all had wine enough, let them, if you please, retire, and when they have bathed they shall come back again." To this the Persians agreed, and Alexander, having got the women away, sent them off to the harem, and made ready in their room an equal number of beardless youths, whom he dressed in the garments of the women, and then, arming them with daggers, brought them in to the Persians, saying as he introduced them, "Methinks, dear Persians, that your entertainment has fallen short in nothing. We have set before you all that we had ourselves in store, and all that we could anywhere find to give you- and now, to crown the whole, we make over to you our sisters and our mothers, that you may perceive yourselves to be entirely honoured by us, even as you deserve to be- and also that you may take back word to the king who sent you here, that there was one man, a Greek, the satrap of Macedonia, by whom you were both feasted and lodged handsomely." So speaking, Alexander set by the side of each Persian one of those whom he had called Macedonian women, but who were in truth men. And these men, when the Persians began to be rude, despatched them with their daggers. So the ambassadors perished by this death, both they and also their followers. For the Persians had brought a great train with them, carriages, and attendants, and baggage of every kind- all of which disappeared at the same time as the men themselves. Not very long afterwards the Persians made strict search for their lost embassy; but Alexander, with much wisdom, hushed up the business, bribing those sent on the errand, partly with money, and partly with the gift of his own sister Gygaea, whom he gave in marriage to Bubares, a Persian, the chief leader of the expedition which came in search of the lost men. Thus the death of these Persians was hushed up, and no more was said of it.} (From the first Book of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, ~440 BC THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS, translated by George Rawlinson).

Borza does not quite agree with Herodotus's story but does agree that Gygaea's marriage to Burbares was real. Borza believes that it was Amyntas, not Alexander, who arranged the marriage as part of negotiating the Macedonian-Persian alliance. (Page 102-103, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Outside of the tall tales surrounding Alexander, I couldn't find any more information about Amyntas's reign. It is believed that Amyntas died in 498 or 497 BC and was succeeded by Alexander I the same year.

Life in Macedonia was relatively peaceful until 492 BC when a Persian expeditionary force, under the command of Mardonius, crossed over into Europe with orders to attack Athens. But before marching into Athens and with total disregard for the Macedonian-Persian alliance, Mardonius decided to attack local towns, captured Tracian and Macedonian civilians and made them slaves. The Persian action provoked the local people and prompted a counter attack. The Persian fleet was attacked and sunk by the Bryges (Phrygians) of Thrace as it attempted to navigate around Athos (Sv. Gora). Weakened by the attack, Mardonius could not fulfill his mission so he returned to Persia. Seeing his people enslaved by an ally did not sit well with Alexander.

The loss of the Persian fleet in 492 BC was only a minor setback for the Persian plans. The next scene to be played out would be two years later on the Athenian plains of Marathon.

With the accession of Xerxes to the throne in 486 BC, an enormous Persian force was prepared and in 480 BC, was led into Europe. The force was allowed to pass through Macedonia unchallenged.

As a Persian envoy, Alexander's diplomatic skills were tested in the winter of 480/479 BC, when the Persian commander Mardonius dispatched him to Athens to negotiate an Athenian surrender. In spite of his accomplished skills, no peaceful settlement could be reached and war broke out. The Macedonians fought on the Persian side against the Athenians. Although there is no reason given for his motives, Alexander seemed helpful to the Athenians. Some say that he was a double agent and played both sides against each other. There is evidence however, that suggests that Alexander did, on several occasions, warn the Athenians of Persian plans.

The Persian invasion of Athens proved unsuccessful. After Mardonius's death the invasion collapsed and the Persian expeditionary force abandoned its plans and made a hasty retreat back to Persia. With the Persians gone, Alexander was left with a couple of problems. On the one hand, he was facing the powerful Athenians to whom he had to answer for his involvement with the Persians. On the other hand, the Persian devastation in Thrace weakened the Thracian strongholds and made them easy prey for adventurers. The Thracian lands were rich in mineral deposits, very valuable, and very attractive to possess.

From what Herodotus tells us, Alexander played his part convincingly well with the Athenians. He was quick to point out the great deeds he did for them and the good will he had towards all Greeks. His pleading must have worked because the Athenians brought him no harm and most importantly, they continued to purchase lumber from his kingdom.

As for the eastward expansion, the Macedonians were not the only ones with desires to possess the mineral rich Thracian lands. After the Persians withdrew, the Greeks also made it clear that they too wanted a piece of the action. But Alexander was first to make his move and occupied the abandoned Crestonian territory, the hilly region between the Vardar plain and the Strumitsa valley. The Thracians, who disliked the Persians, chose to abandon their homes rather than submit to Persian rule, leaving their land unprotected.

With the newly acquired territory came the rich Dysoron silver mines that would yield much needed silver for the Macedonian mint.

Athens, unfortunately, was not pleased with Alexander's move so in 476 BC an Athenian expedition was sent to seize the lower Strumitsa valley, an area that was once a vital Persian supply base. After defeating and expelling the remnant Persians and local Thracians, Athens settled the area with some 10,000 Athenians. This was indeed troublesome for Alexander and by 460 BC, conflict between Macedonia and Athens was imminent. It appears that the Athenians were preparing to invade Macedonia. But, before they got their chance, rebellious Thracians who did not appreciate Athenian presence on their lands, especially the settlers, attacked them and annihilated their armies. This latest encounter not only saved Macedonia but also indirectly created a new Thracian-Macedonian alliance. As for the Athenians, for the next ten years or so they redirected their interests to the south and west leaving Macedonia and Thrace alone.

Herodotus seems to be silent about the last years of Alexander's reign, perhaps nothing happened which was of significance or worthy of reporting. It is believed that Alexander I, died of old age, at age 80, in 454 BC. Alexander's reign lasted 43 years from 497 to 454 BC.

Alexander fathered at least six children. Three were male and legitimate heirs to the Macedonian throne but it was his son Perdiccas who rose above all and became ruler and king.

What began as Athenian interests in the Aegean coastline to protect the Balkans from Persian invasions, over time, turned into an Athenian empire. By late 450 BC, Athens was exploiting the region for her own economic and military interests.

Coincidental with Alexander's death, Athens resumed her interests in the north and began to import more settlers. Her plans were to settle the northern and eastern coasts of the Thermaic Gulf near the Vardar-Galik delta. This was indeed a bold move but her crowning achievement did not materialize until the establishment of Amphipolis in 437 BC. I could not find any information about the Macedonian reaction to this but I am certain that Perdiccas was not too happy. It is unknown whether Perdiccas was a friend of Athens before this, but now for certain he had become an enemy. To make matters worse, Athens started an anti-Perdiccas campaign by openly supporting his enemies, including the rebellious factions within his own family. The stakes for Macedonia were high. Athens was a powerful empire, too powerful to challenge militarily. Also, she was a good customer of Macedonia's timber and pitch, which Perdiccas could not afford to lose. If he did nothing Perdiccas could risk losing the Dysoron mines, something he could not afford to do either. Athens, on the other hand, could profit from gaining the mines and could set up her own lumber industry on Macedonian land if Perdiccas did nothing to stop her.

As it turned out Athens had no intention of starting a war with Macedonia. Instead she believed that by supporting rebellious factions within the Argead house she could keep Perdiccas busy at home, too busy to notice Athenian incursions into the Struma basin where she was hoping to set up her own timber industry.

Because of this Athenian treachery, Perdiccas faced two decades of rebellions and unrest. Too weak to do anything, he allowed the Athenians to further settle the region uninterrupted.

"By 432 BC Perdiccas and Athens were at odds, and their hostility produced the opening northern volleys of the Peloponnesian war. To counter an Athenian policy directed against his throne, Perdiccas, sensitive to events building in Greece, attempted to start a general war by involving Athens in hostilities against the Peloponnesians, Sparta in particular. He encouraged the Corinthians to support a revolt of their loyal Chalcidic colony at Potidaea, which had been tributary to Athens since at least 446/5, and he stirred up rebellion against Athens among the Chalcidians and Bottiaecans. It was an aggressive foreign policy, and one wonders how Perdiccas hoped to support it with force." (Page 141-142, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Predictably, the Athenian reaction was quick and decisive. In early summer of 432 BC, Athens sent a strike force to attack Perdiccas and quell the uprising. When they arrived, the Athenians realized that their force was too weak to do the job. They remembered what had happened to them the last time they clashed with the Thracians. Prudently, no engagement took place.

The Athenian commander sent for reinforcements and when they did arrive, they joined with the Macedonian rebels hoping to cut off Perdiccas from Chelcidice. Knowing he could not successfully engage them, Perdiccas convinced his allies to abandon their defenses and flee to the mountains. Even in the safety of the mountains the Macedonia-Chelcidice coalition was still no match for the reinforced Athenian army, but as luck would have it, time was on their side.

Concerned for their own interests, the Corinthians intervened by sending an army to counter Athens. In view of this counter check, Athens abandoned her plans and instead of attacking Perdiccas, she turned to him for assistance. But, as it turned out, this was another treacherous Athenian ploy to break up the Macedonian-Thracian alliance. In the end, Athens did prevail, but just barely.

Athens then turned her attention to suppressing the rebellions in Chalcidice and left the Macedonian king alone. The uneasy peace unfortunately, had its price. Perdiccas was forced to abandon his allies and withdraw his support from Chelcidice. For his cooperation and for his promise to protect Athenian interests in the north, Athens returned the occupied lands at Therme and withdrew her support from the rebellious factions in Perdiccas's family.

This uneasy relationship between Macedonia and Athens didn't last too long. In 429 BC, Athens was again preparing to invade Macedonia, this time with Thracian help.

At the same time Athens was squeezing Perdiccas for concessions, she was befriending the Thracian tribal chiefs with handsome tributes and gifts.

Athens planned to have the Thracians attack Macedonia from the north while her fleet attacked from the south. The Thracians did as expected and emerged from behind the Rhodopi mountains, invaded Macedonia, and moved into the lower Vardar valley. Outnumbered, the Macedonians fled up the mountains and regrouped in their traditional strongholds.

Borza believes that this latest Athenian change of heart towards Macedonia was provoked by Perdiccas's secret dealings with Athens enemies, the Peloponisians. (Page 146-147, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

This time Athens was determined to destroy Macedonia and rid herself of those meddlesome Argeads once and for all, but circumstances would rob her of this victory as well.

While the Thracians were advancing on Aegae, a sizable cavalry force from western Macedonia arrived just in time to repel them. The force was not strong enough to subdue the Thracians, but it was intimidating enough to stop their advance. Even though no engagement took place, the Thracian attack was averted.

Problems at home prevented Athens from sending the fleet so the attack from the south never materialized.

With the Thracians roaming the Macedonian lowlands, Perdiccas knew there would be no easy solution so he turned to diplomacy and offered the Thracians a peaceful way out. To show that he was sincere, he offered the marriage of his own sister Stratonice to the nephew of one of the Thracian chiefs.

Perdiccas's problems unfortunately, were not over. A new threat was beginning to surface, this time from within Macedonia. I couldn't find any information detailing the problem but in 424 BC, king Arrhabaeus of Lyncestia (Bitola/Ohrid region) became hostile to Perdiccas. Unable to quell him on his own, Perdiccas turned to the Spartans who themselves were desperately looking for allies in the north. By acquiring the assistance of a Thessalian friend, Perdiccas was able to provide passage for 1,700 Spartan hoplites through Thessaly. When Athens got wind of this, she immediately reacted by breaking relations with Macedonia and sent reinforcements to her colonies in Chalcidice. Still desperate to make allies, when the Spartans arrived in Lyncestia, instead of attacking Arrhabaeus as they had agreed with Perdiccas, they asked him to become a Poloponnesian ally. Given the choice between fighting the Spartans or joining them, Arrhabaeus chose the latter and agreed to finance part of the Spartan campaign. Arrhabaeus was spared for now but Perdiccas was unhappy with the outcome.

Loose on the northern frontiers, the Spartans wreaked havoc on the Athenian towns and outposts. As a result of these encounters, Athens, in the future, would be re-considering policies regarding venturing to the north.

Unhappy with the Spartan outcome, Perdiccas turned to the Illyrians who were more than happy to subdue Arrhabaeus. After arriving in Lyncestia however, the Illyrians had a change of heart. Instead of attacking Arrhabaeus, they decided to join him and attack Perdiccas instead. When Perdiccas's army got wind of this they broke ranks and fled to the mountains in panic.

Perdiccas was now in serious trouble. Besides the Athenians, Perdiccas now had three more enemies closing in on his kingdom, Arrhabaeus from the north, the Spartans from the south, and the fierce Illyrian fighters on the loose.

What was Perdiccas to do?

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
 Внеси реплика Внеси реплика страница  12>
  Сподели тема   

Скок до Овластувања Кликни и види ги опциите

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03
Copyright ©2001-2011 Web Wiz Ltd.

Страницата е генерирана за 0,234 секунди.