| Podatoci i Citati od prof. Eugene Borza | |
| Obi | Na ovoj covek treba spomenik da mu se izgradi vo Makedonija. SPecijalist e po Makedonska istorija. Profesor po Anticka Istorija na Pennsylvania State University. Ima napishano polno knigi i site se vo nasha korist poradi nekolku pricini: 1. Ne e Makedonec...taka da neutralen izvor e 2. Ubedlivo dokazuva deka Makedoncite ne bile Heleni i sosem e svesen za antimakedonskata propaganda. Tuka pastirajte se sho ke najdete od nego no ve molam ako kopirate od web sajt...pastirajte go i linkot. Ako pishuvate od kniga...napishete od koja kniga koe izdanie i koja stranica. pozdrav Quintus |
| Obi | http://faq.macedonia.org/history/ancient.macedonia/borza.html EUGENE BORZA Professor of Ancient History at the Pennsylvania State University Makedonika and In the Shadow of Olympus The American Philological Association refers to E. Borza as the "Macedonian specialist". In the introductory chapter of "Makedonika" by Carol G. Thomas, Eugene Borza is also called "the Macedonian specialist", and his colleague Peter Green describes Eugene's work on Macedonia as "seminal". Do Ancient Historians hold Eugene Borza in high esteem? Please read what P. Green thinks of Borza's approach to the studies of ancient history, and of his method of abstraction of truth: "Never was a man less given to the kind of mean-spirited odium philologicum that so often marks classical debate. Gene could slice an argument to pieces while still charming its exponents out of the trees." Ernst Badian from Harward University writes: "It is chiefly Gene's merit that recognizably historical interpretation of the history of classical Macedonia has not only become possible, but it is now accepted by all ancient historians who have no vested interest in the mythology superseded by Gene's work. Needless to say, I welcome and agree with that approach and have never disagreed with him except on relatively trivial details of interpretation." Here are some excerpts from Borza's writings regarding the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks. I will offer no interpretations, for none is needed, indeed. On the matter of distinction between Greeks and Macedonians: [1] "Neither Greeks nor Macedonians considered the Macedonians to be Greeks." [2] On the composition of Alexander's army: "Thus we look in vain for the evidence that Alexander was heavily dependent upon Greeks either in quantity or quality." [3] "The pattern is clear: the trend toward the end of the king's life was to install Macedonians in key positions at the expense of Asians, and to retain very few Greeks." [4] "The conclusion is inescapable: there was a largely ethnic Macedonian imperial administration from beginning to end. Alexander used Greeks in court for cultural reasons, Greek troops (often under Macedonian commanders) for limited tasks and with some discomfort, and Greek commanders and officals for limited duties. Typically, a Greek will enter Alexander's service from an Aegean or Asian city through the practice of some special activity: he could read and write, keep figures or sail, all of which skills the Macedonians required. Some Greeks may have moved on to military service as well. In other words, the role of Greeks in Alexander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the services of Xerxes and the third Darius." [5] On the policy of hellenization with Alexander conquest of Asia and the Greek assertion that he spread Hellenism: "If one wishes to believe that Alexander had a policy of hellenization - as opposed to the incidental and informal spread of Greek culture - the evidence must come from sources other than those presented here. One wonders - archeology aside - where this evidence would be." On the ethnic tension between Macedonians and Greeks, referring to the episode of Eumenes of Cardia and his bid to reach the throne: "And if there were any doubt about the status of Greeks among the Macedonians the tragic career of Eumenes in the immediate Wars of succession should put it to rest. The ancient sources are replete with information about the ethnic prejudice Eumenes suffered from Macedonians." [6] On the issue of whether Alexander and Philip "united" the Greek city-states or conquered them: "In European Greece Alexander continued and reinforced Philip II's policy of rule over the city-states, a rule resulting from conquest." [7] "The tension at court between Greeks and Macedonians, tension that the ancient authors clearly recognized as ethnic division." [8] On Alexander's dimissal of his Greek allies: "A few days later at Ecbatana, Alexander dismissed his Greek allies, and charade with Greece was over." [9] On the so called Dorian invasion: The theory of the Dorian invasion (based on Hdt. 9.26, followed by Thuc. I.12) is largely an invention of nineteenth-century historography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archeological or linguistic evidence." [10] "The Dorians are invisible archeologically." [11] "There is no archeological record of the Dorian movements, and the mythic arguments are largely conjectural, based on folk traditions about the Dorian home originally having been in northwest Greece. [12] "The explanation for the connection between the Dorians and the Macedonians may be more ingenious than convincing, resting uncomfortably on myth and conjecture." [13] On the Macedonian own tradition and origin: "As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adopted any existing language, even though they were now in contact with neighboring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues." [14] On the Macedonian language: "The main evidence for Macedonian existing as separate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the train of Alexander the Great, where the Macedonian tongue is mentioned specifically." [15] "The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from ordinary Attic Greek used as a language of the court and of diplomacy." [16] "The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from Greek - do not show the changes expected from Greek dialect." [17] On the Macedonian material culture being different from the Greek: "The most visible expression of material culture thus far recovered are the fourth - and third-century tombs. The architectural form, decoration, and burial goods of these tombs, which now number between sixty and seventy, are unlike what is found in the Greek south, or even in the neighboring independent Greek cities of the north Aegean littoral (exception Amphipolis). Macedonian burial habits suggest different view of the afterlife from the Greeks', even while many of the same gods were worshipped." [18] "Many of the public expressions of worship may have been different." [19] "There is an absence of major public religious monuments from Macedonian sites before the end of the fourth century (another difference from the Greeks)." [20] "Must be cautious both in attributing Greek forms of worship to the Macedonians and in using these forms of worship as a means of confirming Hellenic identity." [21] "In brief, one must conclude that the similarities between some Macedonian and Greek customs and objects are not of themselves proof that Macedonians were a Greek tribe, even though it is undeniable that on certain levels Greek cultural influences eventually became pervasive." [22] "Greeks and Macedonians remained steadfastly antipathetic toward one another (with dislike of a different quality than the mutual long-term hostility shared by some Greek city-states) until well into the Hellenic period, when both the culmination of hellenic acculturation in the north and the rise of Rome made it clear that what these peoples shared took precedence over their historical enmities." [23] "They made their mark not as a tribe of Greek or other Balkan peoples, but as 'Macedonians'. This was understood by foreign protagonists from the time of Darius and Xerxes to the age of Roman generals." [24] "It is time to put the matter of the Macedonians' ethnic identity to rest." [25] "There is other aspect of Alexander's Greek policy, and that is his formal relationship with the Greek cities of Europe and Asia. In European Greece Alexander continued and reinforced Philip II's policy rule over the city-states, a rule resulting from conquest. As for the island Greeks and the cities of Asia Minor, their status under the reigns of Philip and Alexander has been much debated. Fortunately, for my purposes, the status of these cities, whether as members of Philip's panhellenic league or as independent towns, is not crucial, as they were in fact all treated by Alexander as subjects. Much of the debate on this issue, while interesting and occasionally enlightening, has sometimes obscured a simple reality: Greeks on both sides of the Aegean were subjects to the authority of the king of Macedon." Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander's Court. Makedonika [26] "I have not cited several pieces of anecdotal evidence from the sources on Alexander that establish the continuing tension at court between Greeks and Macedonians, tension that the ancient authors clearly recognized as ethnic division. A fuller version of this study will consider these incidents to support my view that Greeks and Macedonians did not get along very well with one another and that this ethnic tension was exploited by the king himself." Makedonika p.158 [27] "What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information", writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility." |
| Obi | komentari na Borza za ona shto go ima kazano Thucydides. Kako shto moze da vidite tie si gi odbiraat onie citati koi im odgovaraat a spekuliraat za site onie sho ne im vleguvaat vo nivnata shema. THUCYDIDES Greek Commander and Historian [1] The modern Greeks claim that the ancient Macedonians were Greek based on the below passage of Thucydides: "The country by the sea which is now called Macedonia... Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his forefathers, who were originally Temenidae from Argos" (Thucydides 2.99,3) That this myth does not prove that the Macedonians were Greek I offer the extensive study conducted by the Macedonian specialist, Professor Eugene Borza. Analyzing the Temenidae myth transmitted by Herodotus and Thucydides, in details in two Chapters, Eugene Borza - In the Shadow of Olympus p.82-83 gives the following conclusion: a) "It is clear that the analysis of our earliest-and sole-source cannot produce a consistent and satisfactory sequence of events. My own view is that there is some underlying veracity to the Mt. Vermion reference (as evidenced by the Phrygian connections), that among the Makedones a family of Vermion background emerged as pre-eminent, but that the Argive context is mythic, perhaps a bit of fifth-century B.C. propaganda (as I argue in the next chapter). To deny such fables and attribute them to contemporary Macedonian propaganda may appear minimalistic. But given the historical milieu in which such stories were spawned and then adorned, the denial of myth seems prudent. b) The Temenidae in Macedon are an invention of the Macedonians themselves, intended in part to give credence to Alexander I's claims of Hellenic ancestry, attached to and modifying some half-buried progenitor stories that had for a long time existed among the Macedonians concerning their own origins. The revised version was transmitted without criticism or comment by Herodotus. Thucydides (2-99.3; 5.80.2) acquired the Argive lineage tale from Herodotus, or from Macedonian-influenced sources, and transmitted it. His is not an independent version. [There is no hard evidence (pace Hammond, HM i: 4) that Thucydides ever visited Macedonia, but it makes no difference; Thucydides is reflecting the official version of things.] What emerged in the fifth century is a Macedonian-inspired tale of Argive origins for the Argead house, an account that can probably be traced to its source, Alexander I (for which see Chapter 5 below). The Temenidae must disappear from history, making superfluous all discussion of them as historical figures. c) There were further embellishments to the myth of the early royal family. In the last decade of the fifth century B.C. Euripides came to reside in Macedon at the court of King Archelaus, thereby contributing a new stage to the evolution of the Macedonian creation-myth. Euripides' play honoring his patron, Archelaus, probably adorned the basic story, replacing Perdiccas with an Archelaus as the descendant of Temenus-no doubt to the delight of his royal host. Delphic oracles were introduced, and the founder's tale was extended by the introduction of Caranus (Doric for "head" or "ruler"). In the early fourth century, new early kings were added during the political rivalry among three branches of the Argeadae following the death of King Archelaus in 399, another example of the Macedonian predilection to rewrite history to support a contemporary political necessity. The story continued to be passed through the hands of local Macedonian historians in the fourth century B. C., and by Roman times it was widely known in a number of versions. Nothing in this later period can be traced back earlier than Euripides' revision of the Herodotean tradition. The notion that Alexander I or one of his predecessors obtained a Delphic oracle to confirm the Macedonian tie with Argos has no evidence to support it. Had such an oracle existed we can be confident that Alexander, eager to confirm his Hellenic heritage, would have exploited it, and that Herodotus, who delighted in oracles, would have mentioned it. In the end what is important is not whether Argive Greeks founded the Macedonian royal house but that at least some Macedonian kings wanted it so". d) Borza also mentiones that the "two advocates of the Argos-Macedon link are Hammond, HM, vol. 2, ch. I, and Daskalakis, Hellenism, Pt. 3, both of whom support the notion of a Temenid origin for the Macedonian royal house", however, we have seen above that both of them were corrected with the extensive evidence that Borza carefully reviewed. We have already seen that both Daskalakis and Hammond were incorrect on many matters on the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians, therefore it should come to no surprise that their now outdated and poor in evidence material can not be used to claim a Greek identity to the ancient Macedonians. Click here for Daskalakis and Hammond. [2] Thucydides however, did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek, despite the above myth which wasn’t his original work but it as we saw was only transmitted by him. Here Thucydides clearly separates the Macedonians from the Greeks (Hellenes): "In all there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians." (Thucydides 4.124) Borza comments: "The use of barbaros [barbarians] is problematic, although it would appear that he normally includes at least some of the Macedonians in this category. See 4.125.3 and Gomme, Comm. Thuc.,3:613,615 and 616 on Thuc. 4.124.1, 126.3 and 126.5 respectively. In the Shadow of Olympus p 152. Conclusion "Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a distinct people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states" – Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p. 96 |
| Obi | http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/martis.html A.B. Daskalakis – Hellenism Nicholas Martis - The Falsification of Macedonian History Modern Greek Writers Speaking of the statement where the ancient Greek Thrasymachus refers to the Macedonian king Archelaus as barbarian i.e. non-Greek, the modern Greek writer Daskalakis claims that the ancient Macedonians were nevertheless Greek, despite what Thrasymachus had written. Here is Professor Eugene Borza’s response to Daskalakis: "Daskalakis (Hellenism, 234) contended that Thrasymachus was not referring to barbarians in a usual sense. The passage, he argued, should be taken ‘in its rhetorical slant of a difference between advanced and backwards Greeks in an intellectual sense.’ This is strained and unconvincing." (Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, p.165) Borza, who is referred by the American Philological Association as a "Macedonian Specialist" can not be more correct. The Greeks clearly called all non-Greeks barbarians. Based on Daskalakis's statement, are we now supposed to believe that the Thracians (which the Greeks also called barbarians) were also some kind of "backward Greeks" in an "intellectual sense"? We do not see however the modern Greek authors claim that. Daskalakis's argument is simply incorrect. Speaking of the credibility of the modern Greek writers, Professor Borza had written regarding Daskalakis and Martis the following: "The fullest statement of the "Greek" position, and also the most detailed study of the Macedonian language, is by Kallaris, Les anciens Macidoniens, esp. 2: 488-531, in which alleged Greek elements in the Macedonian language are examined exhaustively. A more chauvinistic (and less persuasive) point of view can be found in Daskalakis, Hellenism, esp. pts. 2. and 3. The most blatant account is that of Martis (The Falsification of Macedonian History). This book, written by a former Minister for Northern Greece, is an polemical anti-Yugoslav tract so full of historical errors and distortions that the prize awarded it by the Academy of Athens serves only to reduce confidence in the scientific judgment of that venerable society of scholars." (Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, p.91-92) It is clear that the modern Greek writers, in their quest to forcefully portray the ancient Macedonians as Greek, are failing in the eyes of scientific judgment. Their works are described as "chauvinistic", "not persuasive", and "full of historical errors and distortions". Furthermore, it is obvious that the modern Greek writers are writing such blatant books not because of their scientific beliefs that the Macedonians were Greek, but because of their political motivation to justify the Greek occupation on 51% of Macedonian territory with the partition of 1913. This is precisely why Martis’ book is a depicted as an anti-Yugoslav tract. These books should be barred from any library since their creators are not historians but chauvinistic fabricators. |