Anyone that studies history knows that without Philip , Alexander would not exist nor would have the means to be "Great". So I will have to disagree, at least here in Greece Philip is as big as his son , if not bigger. But then Philip would have to stand on the shoulders of previous leaders , who stand in shoulders of other city-states inside Greece who stood in the shoulder of other countries , etc etc and etc. Overemphasising historical figures is for people that learn their history from Hollywood movies.
What really gets no billing is the Wars of the Diadochi. I'm reading Ussher's "Annals of the World" and its quite amazing all the twists and turns in the battle for the empire.
It is a bit weird that the headlines around this find are mostly being phrased like that. We studied both in school, and I had assumed they were both pretty well known.
I guess for a headline-writer, though, "Alexander the Great" has near-universal recognition, while "Philip of Macedon" doesn't have enough to assume that a general audience will have their eye caught by the headline. So it ends up with this slightly dumbed-down phrasing.
From reading the article it's obvious that they have tons of very detailed information on Philip II. The only part of this title that fails to convey this is the title.
I am always amazed of the tenacity of factual information from past generations to survive. Even though Philip reigned in a historical age, the substrate which carried the stories to future generations has always been quite fragile. Writing is truly the most magical of our inventions, surpassing any others (until at least our AI descendant overlords arrive :) )
Personally I find that modern historians tend to be "jealous" of old historians and are quick to accuse them for misinformation, prejudice and superstition. But again and again the "myths" are proving to be the truth. Obviously not always. We live in an age that we tend to overestimate to great degree of our technology and underestimate the raw power of human mind. The ancients had both the means and the method to produce high quality work. Moreover a historian that would lie most likely he would be discredited quite easily by other historians of his time and his books would fall into disuse. We should not also forget that the world back then was way smaller than it is now , news would spread fast and vocal accounts would have been much easier to be kept in memory for centuries.
You have to consider that, especially in Roman times, ancient historians tended to produce works at the behest of a sponsor. Assuming that political motivations may twist their objectivity is not a stretch.
Not only that but sometimes the works that have been preserved the best are obvious political tools. E.g. Julius Cesar's "The Gallic war".
Which, since we are on the topic, I absolutely must suggest as a reading for anyone who has the slightest interest in historical fact - or fiction - for that matter. Yes, the work is political boast about the campaign - but it is filled with juicy details on roman logistics, political action in the region, and so on.
I think this is why I enjoyed reading Montifiorre's Stalin biographies. Stalin was so universally hated in his native Georgia that there was no taboo in or desire to withhold all the details of his life that would have been omitted in a biography of a more respected leader.
Certainly the Art of Writing is the most miraculous of all things man has devised. Odin's Runes were the first form of the work of a Hero; Books, written words, are still miraculous Runes, the latest form! In Books lies the soul of the whole Past Time; the articulate audible voice of the Past, when the body and material substance of it has altogether vanished like a dream. Mighty fleets and armies, harbors and arsenals, vast cities, high-domed, many-engined,—they are precious, great: but what do they become? Agamemnon, the many Agamemnons, Pericleses, and their Greece; all is gone now to some ruined fragments, dumb mournful wrecks and blocks: but the Books of Greece! There Greece, to every thinker, still very literally lives: can be called up again into life. No magic Rune is stranger than a Book. All that Mankind has done, thought, gained or been: it is lying as in magic preservation in the pages of Books. They are the chosen possession of men.
—Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero-worship, and the Heroic in History, 1840
> The current schedule calls for HPMOR to complete in early 2015. I am still writing the final arc so that I can post it without delays. As of Oct 1st I am 65,000 words in and working on Ch. 116. I will post Ch. 103, a brief one-shot, to announce when I have a definite schedule for posting the final arc.
No they didn't. They found someone of elite burial with injuries similar to Philip II (how many elite burial sites are there..many). This is sensationalism not science. This will be argued for a long time.
As someone with a Macedonian background, what bothers me most is my father's reaction to this news when I told him about it. I am legitimately excited about this news, and all he could really think of was if the Greeks would claim Philip II as theirs and began ranting about the whole Alexander being Macedonian/Greek debate.
I understand his justification for thinking that way, but it's just sad that the Macedonians and Greeks won't be getting excited about the discovery, but will instead be using it to fuel the existing hatred between the countries.
You exaggerate , Greeks dont hate you. Some angry, some frustrated , some don't care. As a Greek myself, I don't like to say to other countries what they should name themselves but there is an entire area in Greece already that is called Macedonia that is even more ancient than Alexander himself. So at best case scenario the name is at least an inconvenience for us. Its like France deciding to name itself London, how you think English people would feel ?
The fact remains that much of the world does have just the very same issue of different places being named the same. Texas has a town called Paris, France has a somewhat larger and more amount town also called Paris. There's a La Paz, Mexico and a La Paz, Bolivia too.
From my perspective, nowhere else is the duplication of names quite so big a deal as it is in the context of Macedonia.
The argument is more caused by disputes over history than by the name duplication (though there is some dumb arguing over just the name). What mostly inflames Greek opinion is the other set of claims that goes along with the name: for example, a number of historians from the Republic of Macedonia claim that the ancient Macedonian language was a Slavic language (rather than a Greek dialect), and that the people of the modern Republic of Macedonia are the modern cultural descendants of the ancient Macedonians. Whereas Greeks see the ancient Macedonians as part of their own ancient history, like the Ionians and Athenians and Minoans and other Greek peoples. Also a particularly important part of it due Macedonia's role in instigating the Hellenistic age. Third-party historians generally side with the Greek view (Slavic migration to the Balkans far postdates the ancient Macedonians). But the use of the name by the Republic of Macedonia, especially together with its use of ancient Macedonian symbols, and unorthodox historical claims made by some of its leading figures, does seem to have confused some laypeople, which annoys Greeks, who feel some of their history is being appropriated.
Purely geographically speaking, just about anyone vaguely in the region does have a claim to be in Macedonia, because it's been the name of a number of territories over the years [1]. The real dispute is more over cultural legacy than whether Skopje or Thessaloniki are more geographically "in" Macedonia.
However what you choose to forget is that in USA there is also a town called Athens , actually I think there are two, and yet we Greeks have no issue with that either , why ?
In any case I agree with user comment this is not the topic of the thread I will respect that and I will let people who can think for themselves and can do their own thorough research draw their own conclusions on the matter.
Frankly the one thing that bothered me the most was the word "hate".
The USA calling itself America and claiming only its citizens can be called Americans, when really all people from Canada to southern Argentina are Americans. Europeans live on the continent of Europe, Africans in Africa, Asians in Asia etc.
People counter with Canada, Mexico etc. are in North America and South America so why isn't the USA the USNA?
The USA contains the name of the continent, which is unique in being named after a person, and he was from a different continent. There are three (other) countries named after people: Bolivia, Colombia and the Philippines. The capital of the USA is named after a US president, and so is the capital of Liberia. Venezuela is named after a city in another country. California is named after a fictional island with a name inspired by a muslim ruler!
Because the USA incorporated 'America' into its name before anyone else did? Because the US Naval Academy has already claimed USNA? Because custom tends to outweigh pedantry?
In fact, did ANYBODY else use 'America' in their name?
Really, the USA is not so much a name as a description. Its maybe the only country on two continents that fits that description. So its a really good name.
There are actually two other large federal republics on the same continent. One is Estados Unidos Mexicanos, "United Mexican States", and the other is República Federativa do Brasil, "Federative Republic of Brazil".
As a Macedonian (the Greek kind), your father isn't that wrong. The government is already trying to use the tomb of Amphipolis for that, even contrary to scientific evidence.
I don't think anyone will even dispute that ancient Macedonia was this entire region, it stands to reason that tombs would be found all over the place. The claims over heritage/language/etc are rather different from that.
