The Global Times frames an article on Europe’s future within the context of Macedon’s and Greece’s past. It writes,
In the 4th century BC Macedonia, a Greek-speaking kingdom of Northern Greece, under the leadership of Phillip II, set out to unify the Mediterranean world. Macedonia’s quest for hegemonic stability brought it into a direct conflict with old established Hellenic powers like Thebes, Sparta and most of all Athens.
The ancient Macedonians did not speak Greek. As I understand it, their tongue was a Greek dialect (which could not be understood by the Greeks).
During Philotas’ trial, Alexander asks Parmenion’s son if he will give his defence using his ‘native language’. When Philotas replies that he will speak Greek, Alexander uses this to score a nationalist point against him (see Curtius VI.9.34-36). Ironically, the reason why Philotas decides to use Greek is because he wants more people to understand him.
Rather than use the word ‘unify’, which for me suggests that Philip wanted to make all peoples equal under his rule, I would say simply that he wanted to conquer them. I have to admit here I am no expert on Philip’s foreign policy so what I say could be wide of the mark; however, I don’t get the impression that Philip was an idealist. He was in the business of winning power. Had he lived longer, maybe that would have changed - we’ll never know.
Macedon never came ‘into direct conflict’ with Sparta. In fact, both Philip II and Alexander left the Spartans alone. Not because they were afraid of the Lacedaemonians but because the latter were militarily and politically irrelevent. There was simply no need to waste time subduing them.
The article concludes
Germany must lead Europe without being hubristic toward other EU states. When Alexander the Great, Phillips’s heir, won his first battle against Persia, he dedicated his triumph to Athens and adorned the Parthenon with the shields of the Persian generals.
The exact truth of this statement depends upon which of the sources you read and trust.
Plutarch (Life of Alexander 16) states that the Macedonian king sent 300 shields (‘captured from the enemy’) to Athens. He writes
… over the rest of the spoils he had this proud inscription engraved: Alexander, the son of Philip, and the Greeks except the Spartans won these spoils of war from the barbarians who dwell in Asia’.
Arrian says that Alexander sent 300 panoplies to Athens as
… an offering to the goddess Athena… with the following inscription: Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks (except the Lacedaemonians) dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persians who dwell in Asia
If we follow Plutarch, the article is right to say that shields were sent, though not necessarily from ‘Persian generals’.
Was this a humble gesture on Alexander’s part? It is hard to say as Plutarch doesn’t give the king’s motive for sending them.
The article says that Alexander dedicated his victory at the Granicus to Athens. Plutarch doesn’t say this, and Arrian disagrees. He states that the panoplies were sent as ‘an offering to… Athena’. That makes sense; they were going to the Parthenon, after all.
Sending the panoplies as ‘an offering to… Athena’ sounds like a very humble gesture. However, as the notes to my Penguin Classics edition of Arrian point out, Greeks only played a small part in the Macedonian victory. And note what Alexander says about the Spartans. This inscription - and therefore the spoils - have less to do with humility, therefore, and much to do with propaganda (as my notes suggest) and public shaming. These two things are not evidence of hubris but neither are they good examples of behaviour for Germany or anyone else to follow.
The Second Achilles 
Mr. Trigkas’s article is problematic in a number of ways, and you do a good job of noting some of the salient examples. I noted myself, as I read it, that very likely many readers will have little exposure to what he is talking about, and his vague characterizations of figures such as Demosthenes and Isocrates, coupled with the dubious parallels he draws between them and the modern world, really serve little better than to make a fairly brief article very confused. Indeed I think his comparison of ancient “unification” with the modern world has far too many flaws to be dealt with in any kind of intelligent way in so short a piece as he has written for the Global Times.
On a lesser note, I’m not so sure that the ancient Macedonian language was unintelligible to the rest of the Greek world. There is so little of it, really just scant fragments, surviving in writing, and the ancient references to it that have survived tend not explicitly and decisively to address the question of mutual intelligibility. It wasn’t Attic, but it may have been understandable and related enough to qualify as Greek. Of course, just saying “Greek-speaking kingdom of Northern Greece” is a vague statement that would lead naive readers with the impression that Greek was some “unified” language back then, which it was not, regardless of where Macedonian falls in relation to it. Perhaps Mr. Trigkas also betrays a certain bias of his here. A bias I might sympathize with, given my own ancestry, but a bias offered in a somewhat misleading way in his words.
Good post.
LikeLike