Jump to content

Talk:Ancient Macedonians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAncient Macedonians has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starAncient Macedonians is part of the Macedonia (ancient kingdom) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 28, 2017Good article nomineeListed
October 25, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Many mistakes

[edit]

I have noticed that are many mistakes. For example:

1)"as in George Norlin's translation, Isocrates describes Perdiccas' people as being rather of "kindred race" with the Greeks" when the the source provided says "because he alone among the Hellenes did not claim the right to rule over a people of kindred race"


2)" According to Hammond, the Macedonians are missing from early Macedonians historical accounts" when clearly the correct is "" According to Hammond, the Macedonians are missing from early Greek historical accounts"


3)"In the first book of the Histories, Herodotus recalls a reliable tradition according to which the Greek ethnos, in its wandering, was called "Macedonian" when it settled around Pindus and "Dorian" when it came to the Peloponnese,[1] and in the eighth book he groups several Greek tribes under "Macedonians" and "Dorians", implying that the Macedonians were Greeks" when the sources says “" For these were the most eminent races in ancient time, the second being a Pelasgian and the first a Hellenic race: and the one never migrated from its place in any direction, while the other was very exceedingly given to wanderings; for in the reign of Deucalion this race dwelt in Phthiotis, and in the time of Doros the son of Hellen in the land lying below Ossa and Olympos, which is called Histiaiotis; and when it was driven from Histiaiotis by the sons of Cadmos, it dwelt in Pindos and was called Makednian; and thence it moved afterwards to Dryopis, and from Dryopis it came finally to Peloponnesus, and began to be called Dorian” and

“From Peloponnese the Lacedemonians furnishing sixteen ships, the Corinthians furnishing the same complement as at Artemision, the Sikyonians furnishing fifteen ships, the Epidaurians ten, the Troizenians five, the men of Hermion three, these all, except the Hermionians, being of Doric and Makednian race”  Hammond doesn’t mention anything similar to “implying that the Macedonians were Greeks”  nor that the “Greek ethnos in its wandering, was called "Macedonian"


I would suggest to correct it SolderUnion (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting Nature of sources section 176

[edit]

Line 176 says "Ernst Badian notes that nearly all surviving references to antagonisms and differences between Greeks and Macedonians, such as belonging to different génē,[1] exist in the written speeches of Arrian" which makes no grammatical sense and doesn't correspond to what the source is saying. I would recommend changing it to "Ernst Badian and Jonathan Hall note that Arrian (Anabasis 2.10.7) refers to Greeks and Macedonians as belonging to different races a term that explicitly articulates notions of descent.[2] Arrian". to correspond to what the source is says. SolderUnion (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The existing version makes perfect sense. Your proposed edit does not. Golikom (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate what " nearly all surviving references to antagonisms and differences between Greeks and Macedonians, such as belonging to different génē exist in the written speeches of Arrian" means and where the sources mention this? SolderUnion (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It means exactly what it says which is perfectly good English, and cities a source. Golikom (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful contribution. Let's wait and see what other users have to say. As far as I understand, if we don't reach consensus in a week, the issue will go to an Arbitration Committee. The same applies for the other topics. SolderUnion (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How Greeks perceived the Mcedonians

[edit]

The 3rd paragraph says "Authors, historians, and statesmen of the ancient world often expressed ambiguous if not conflicting ideas about the ethnic identity of the Macedonians as either Greeks, semi-Greeks, or even barbarians.". I think there is a general academic consesus that literary evidence into the fourth century B.C. suggests that most Greeks did not accept the non-royal Macedonians as brothers. Here are some of the sources (I can find many more) [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Would suggest changing "Authors, historians, and statesmen of the ancient world often expressed ambiguous if not conflicting ideas about the ethnic identity of the Macedonians as either Greeks, semi-Greeks, or even barbarians" to "There is a general academic consesus that literary evidence into the fourth century B.C. suggests that most Greeks did not accept the non-royal Macedonians as brothers." SolderUnion (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This just ignores all the other sources to the contrary that are already in the article. The current wording was hammered out between myself and another user after an extremely long and difficult consensus-finding process and I am against changing it. Khirurg (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Khirurg. Not to mention that some of the references, presented above (such as Carol and Borza), that I checked agree with the original version of the text rather than the one proposed by SolderUnion. Scholars note that there is little evidence to make a conclusive statement (see Carol), which contradicts the assertion that there is such a consensus among scholars. A.Cython (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, checking those sources that are available online - Freeman, King, Roisman - suggest an NPOV and synthy reading of the sources in the proposed revision, not to mention that this is the lead, and so if te place for a general summary, and not the place to specifcally assess the 4th cBC. Additionally "accept the non-royal Macedonians as brothers." is both unencylopaedic in tone and clumsy. Golikom (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The correct page reference for Borza is 96 not 66. My proposal has to do specifically with the statement "Authors, historians, and statesmen of the ancient world often expressed ambiguous if not conflicting ideas about the ethnic identity of the Macedonians as either Greeks, semi-Greeks, or even barbarians". That means how ancient "Authors, historians, and statesmen of the ancient world saw them" not about modern discourse. This statement is specific to the non-royal Macedonians. The article is about about them. The royals have their own articles. SolderUnion (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does it say that this article excludes Royal Macedonians, and there's no reason why it should. Golikom (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Macedonian people. Alexander, Phillip and the rest Royals have their own articles. All of you have agreed to start the 3rd paragraph with the following "Authors, historians, and statesmen of the ancient world often expressed ambiguous if not conflicting ideas about the ethnic identity of the Macedonians as either Greeks, semi-Greeks, or even barbarians." without giving not even one source. You have decided to put the word Greek first then semi-Greek and then even barbarians as if the majority saw them as Greeks. Now I challenge that and I argue that there is a consensus among academia that "Authors, historians, and statesmen of the ancient world" (phrase that you have used) considered the non-royal ancient Macedonians as distinct or barbarians or foreigners or you can name as you wish and I gave 9 references that support this. A significant question arises because all of you have accepted another interpretation without providing not even one source. Also a significant question arises by the fact you've collectively decided to revert my post without providing any satisfactory reason. SolderUnion (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not even one person has supported my position which is extremely weird. Why when they reverted my post no one came to support me? At least o check if my references are correct? SolderUnion (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are articles about the Royals as inidividuals is entirely irrelevant. Go and read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:LEADCITE. No one has supported your position because you are wrong. Multiple people have said they've check your sources, and that they don't support your statements.Golikom (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Golikom @Khirurg Thank you for you due diligence on this, for checking and verifying content in the secondary sources cited, and for noting basic guidelines about article construction. It's worth noting the article has been vetted by the community for its "Good" status, let alone the "Featured" status "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)" article that has also come into question by this same editor. He has also made wrong and confused claims about Wiki guidelines at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom), in particular about the use of primary versus secondary sources. I don't think we need to spend a great deal of time refuting obviously wrong suggestions by one particular user who is currently under the microscope at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Pericles of AthensTalk 20:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate on this? I have provided 9 sources and can provide even more if required. Why are you objecting when the initial statement "Authors, historians, and statesmen of the ancient world often expressed ambiguous if not conflicting ideas about the ethnic identity of the Macedonians as either Greeks, semi-Greeks, or even barbarians" is supported with only 0 sources and not my proposal which is supported by 9? This is literally the definition of academic consensus. Why 0 sources were initially accepted and no one objected? SolderUnion (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly becasue it's is the lead and is a summary of the content of the article as a whole, where the information are supported with citations. Read Wikipedia:LEADCITE Golikom (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes OK I agree with you on the Wikipedia:LEADCITE Nevertheless that fact is that the majority of the academia acknowledges that most ancient Greeks saw the Macedonians as foreigners and vice versa. SolderUnion (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, broadly they agree that Greek views were mixed and shifted over time - which essenitally aligns with twhat the lead says now. Golikom (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK I respect your opinion but I disagree. SolderUnion (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The correct reference in Borza's book is page 96 not 66. SolderUnion (talk) 08:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the phrase "Essentially an ancient Greek people"

[edit]

I would like to propose the removal of the phrase "Essentially an ancient Greek people" in the introduction. Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander Book 2 sec.10 par.6 says "καί τι καὶ τοῖς γένεσι τῷ τε Ἑλληνικῷ καὶ τῷ Μακεδονικῷ φιλοτιμίας ἐνέπεσεν ἐς ἀλλήλους." which translates to "Moreover the feeling of rivalry which existed between the Greek and Macedonian races inspired each side in the conflict". It explicitly mentions that Greek and Macedonians were different races. "essentially Greek people" is very misleading and it's not justified by ancient and modern literature. You cannot claim that Irish or Americans or Welsh or Scots are essentially English people because they have adopted the English language and some aspect of English culture. SolderUnion (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is extensively discussed in the article, the current lead is an adequate summary of the majority of scholarly consensus. What you're proposing isWP:OR based on one passage in Arrian, which is discussed in the main body. This is Wikipedia:DEADHORSE Golikom (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrase is totally propagandistic and doesn't correspond to reality. The issue is that the majority of historians agree that Greeks saw the non royal Macedonian as foreigner people and vice versa. There is explicit mention that are different races which in ancient Greece (γενος) means different blood. Isocrates introduced the idea of barbaroi becoming Greeks by education (Ελληνικη παιδεια). On top of that the whole article doesn't mention about the context of today reality in which the government of Greece has nationalistic archaeological agenda. Wikipedia in not a place to promote this kind of narrative. It's against the purpose of Wikipedia SolderUnion (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrase is totally propagandistic and doesn't correspond to reality. The issue is that the majority of historians agree that Greeks saw the non royal Macedonian as foreigner people and vice versa. There is explicit mention that are different races which in ancient Greece (γενος) means different blood. Isocrates introduced the idea of barbaroi becoming Greeks by education (Ελληνικη παιδεια). On top of that the whole article doesn't mention about the context of today reality in which the government of Greece has nationalistic archaeological agenda. Wikipedia in not a place to promote this kind of narrative. It's against the porpuse of wikipedia. SolderUnion (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're obviously not bound to agree with whatever distinctions are drawn by our historical subjects. Otherwise, new histories would never be necessary and we'd just cite Arrian directly as a matter of course. We're not going to do that, so your suggestions that would effectively require us to are pointless. Remsense ‥ 论 20:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Malkin2001-161 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Malkin 2001, p. 161.
  3. ^ King, Carol J. (2018). Ancient Macedonia. p. 11.
  4. ^ Anson, Edward (2004). Eumenes of Cardia: A Greek Among Macedonians. p. 41.
  5. ^ Roisman, Joseph (2010). A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. p. 20.
  6. ^ O'Brien, John Maxwell (1994). Alexander the Great: The Invisible Enemy. p. 25.
  7. ^ Green, Peter (1992). Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC – A Historical Biography. p. 27.
  8. ^ Freeman, Philip (2011). Alexander the Great. p. 7.
  9. ^ Borza, Eugene N. (1990). In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon. p. 66.
  10. ^ Kinzl, Konrad H. (2006). A Companion to the Classical Greek World. p. 554.
  11. ^ Heckel, Waldemar (2020). Lexicon of Argead Makedonia. p. 100.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Macedonians&oldid=1289312098"