Part 3 - The Early
Macedonian Kingdom
by Risto Stefov
June 2003
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?
To be continued...
And now I will leave you
with this:
Many of you have written
encouraging notes to use western and foreign
sources because you believe they are neutral
and impartial. Let me assure that I have
and I will. Also, allow me to remind you
that foreign scholars are like foreign
soldiers who will do their best as long
as it serves their own interest. The true
fighters are those who will go the extra
mile for Macedonia because they are patriots
and not because it serves their personal
interests. I can assure you that the true
fighters and patriots of Macedonia will
always be the Macedonians and not the
foreigners. Let us give our Macedonian
scholars the respect they deserve. They
are our soldiers who will protect our
history and culture, they are our patriots
who will fight our battles to the end
and will safeguard our nation's honour.
References:
Michael Dimitri, The Radiance
of Ancient Macedonia, 1992.
Josef S. G. Gandeto, Ancient
Macedonians, The differences Between the
Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks.
Eugene N. Borza, In the
Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon.
Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor,
Ivan Tomazic, VENETI: First Builders of
European Community.
George Nakratzas M.D., The
Close Racial Kinship Between the Greeks,
Bulgarians and Turks, Macedonia and Thrace.
Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian
Knot Unbound.
Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu
to Brittany.
Anthony Ambrozic, Journey
Back to the Garumna.
Nickolas G. L. Hammond,
The Miracle that was Macedonia, Sidwig
and Jackson, London 1991.
Vasil Ilyov, Macedonian
Artifacts, Ancient Inscriptions and their
Translations, http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/index.html.
Macedonian Rock Art: http://www.unet.com.mk/rockart/angliski/prva.htm.
Macedonian History: http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/timeline.html
Dura-Europos: http://pages.cthome.net/hirsch/dura.htm
You can contact the author
at: rstefov@hotmail.com
