the Persian war; after that war, during which Amyntas had been obliged to
submit, affairs were for a time stagnating; Perdiccas at the beginning of
the Peloponnesian war was but a very contemptible enemy of the Athenians.
After the Peloponnesian war, too, Macedonia was so powerless and so much
inferior to Olynthus, that this city was enabled to take from it all
the country about the Thermaic gulf. Amyntas, the father of Philip, was
pressed extremely hard by the Illyrians, and was on the point of giving
up his country altogether: he implored the assistance of the Thebans,
and sent them his son as a hostage. These circumstances render it all
the more wonderful, that Philip raised his kingdom in so extraordinary a
manner: a greater contrast can hardly exist. Terrible as the history of
Philip is to every friend of Greece, it must nevertheless be owned that
he was an extraordinary man. In the very first year of his reign he laid
the foundation of the greatness of a state which was almost annihilated.
Although only twenty-four years old, he ascended the throne with mature
thoughts, and immediately set about carrying them into effect, not
scrupulous as to what means were most desirable, but only thinking how
he could make the best use of those at his command. And he did this
with uncommon surety and adroitness. He was quite aware that he lacked
the means of overcoming the Greek tactic by a higher one, as the Romans
did; he therefore endeavoured to overpower them with greater masses,
and in this he was successful. He did not, however, confine himself to
this course, but, like the Italian and Spanish courts of the sixteenth
century, became powerful by means of cunning, intrigues, faithlessness
and bribery. His plans, though favoured by the circumstances of the
time, would have been checked by great and towering difficulties, if he
had not carried them out by infamous means; he could not have destroyed
Olynthus, to mention one example, had he not deceived the Olynthians and
hired traitors in the place. At Philip’s death, Macedonia was already a
compact empire; its boundaries had been extended into Thrace as far as
Perinthus, and the Greek coast and the Greek towns belonged to it. The
Odrysian princes maintained themselves in the mountains of the interior,
in the neighbourhood of Adrianople. Thessaly had chosen Philip as its
protector, and the towns of eastern Epirus, Ambracia and Amphilochia, had
Macedonian garrisons. Every one knows in what manner Alexander extended
this empire. After his death, a new Macedonian kingdom arose under
the dynasty of Antipater, which, however, no longer embraced Thrace,
for that country then belonged to the dynasty of Lysimachus. We know
nothing about the boundaries of Macedonia and Thrace at that time; it
may have been the Strymon or the Nestus; we have nothing but the scanty
information in Diodorus. Afterwards Lysimachus united the two states,
and Ptolemy Ceraunus appears still to have possessed the greater part
of the empire of Lysimachus in Thrace. Then follows the great invasion
of the Gauls, who made themselves masters of the whole of the northern
parts, until they established themselves in Thrace and Upper Macedonia.
Antigonus Gonatas restored Upper Macedonia and extended it as far as
the river Nestus, and Magnesia also belonged to it, though Thessaly was
only under the protection of Macedonia, just as Napoleon distinguished
between France and Italy.[96] We now have to draw a distinction between
Macedonia proper and Μακεδονία ἐπίκτητος. The latter comprised all the
country east of the river Strymon, that is, Magnesia, Orestis, and
probably also several small tribes in the Thessalian mountains, though
not the peninsulas of Pallene, Sithonia, and Athos, which were again
regarded as parts of Macedonia proper. Philip III. lost Magnesia and
Orestis, which fell into the hands of the Romans; but he recovered the
former, and for a time was in possession of the country of the Dolopians
and Athamanians.[97] This was the extent of Macedonia at the time
when the Romans conquered Perseus. They now separated Magnesia, and
divided the remaining country into four parts. Livy has here translated
Polybius somewhat hastily, but on the whole he has stated the division
rightly; the editions, however, are faulty, on account of the Vienna
MS.; criticism has yet much to do here, for the passage contains several
obscurities. These four districts would not interest us at all, were
it not that they are important in a numismatic point of view; we have
an extraordinary number of tetradrachmae belonging to them, although
the division into four districts did not exist longer than about twenty
years. The Roman governors, even after the abolition of autonomy, in
consequence of the revolt of the Pseudo-Philip, must have continued to
coin money with the same matrices, or else the barbarians, who otherwise
imitated Greek coins in quite a ridiculous manner and with numerous
faults, must in this instance have employed Greek die-cutters for the
purpose of imitation; this may have been the case, for example, with the
Gauls and other nations.
_Macedonia prima_, Μακεδόνων ἡ πρώτη (so on coins, and not Μακεδονία ἡ
πρώτη), is the country on the east of the river Strymon as far as the
Nestus, comprising the towns of the interior on the eastern bank of the
Nestus. The Romans divided the country in such a manner as to make rivers
the boundaries, in order to tear the races to pieces, the same as was
done in modern times, when what are called the natural boundaries began
to be talked of.[98] By this process the Romans produced that state
of dissolution, which was the object of their policy. They further
abolished the _commercia_, that is, no one was allowed to have property
in another district, in order that people of different parts might
become entirely estranged from one another; the ἐπιγαμία, lastly, was
probably likewise prohibited. The result is the strongest refutation of
the doctrine, that rivers form the natural boundaries. Mountains are
the true barriers between nations; think, e.g., of the Alps in Wallis,
which separate Germany from Italy; for, although on one side or the other
there may be a little village of people from the opposite side, still
the inhabitants are distinctly marked by their language, manners, and
mode of dress. Now in Macedonia prima, Greeks, Thracians, Paeonians,
Macedonians, and others, were jumbled together as one nation; the second
division again contained Greeks, many Paeonians, a few Thracians, and
some Macedonians; the third consisted almost wholly of Macedonians and
some Greeks; while the fourth contained many Macedonians, but at the
same time a great number of Gauls and Illyrians. The first division of
Macedonia, as I remarked before, was on the east of the river Strymon,
bounded on the east by the river Nestus, though some parts beyond it also
were included. The second, with its capital of Thessalonica, extended
between the rivers Strymon and Axius, along the entire length of these
rivers. The country west of the Axius was again divided into two parts,
forming the third division, which comprised Lower Macedonia and Pieria
with the capital of Pella; and the fourth comprising Elimiotis, Lyncestis
and the Illyrian and Gallic districts belonging to it. The whole of
the Chalcidian Acte, the coast of which was occupied by Greeks, was
thus included in Macedonia. These are the four parts into which, in all
probability, Macedonia was divided when it was a Roman province, and in
which it continued to enjoy some kind of existence. This we must infer
from the number of coins; those belonging to Macedonia prima are far more
numerous than those of all the Macedonian kings together.
In the Epitome of Strabo, the name Macedonia is used in a very singular
sense, for it is made to include Illyricum. He considers Macedonia as
a parallelogram, of which mount Scardus forms the northern, and the
river Hebrus the eastern side; in the south is the _via Egnatia_, a line
drawn from Epidamnus to Thessalonica. This outline excludes southern
Macedonia, and embraces many countries which do not belong to it. He may
have regarded this as the extent of the Roman province; but it never
had such boundaries. No one can say what his thoughts were; but it is
possible that he made a mistake in copying. We know, on the contrary,
that Thessaly was added to Macedonia as part of the province. When I come
to the survey of the Roman state, I shall speak of the boundaries and the
differences of the provinces at different times, a subject which must not
be overlooked, because on this point great errors still prevail.
The extent which Macedonia acquired under the Antigonids,[99] (that
is, from the time of Antigonus Gonatas and his successors until the
reign of Perseus, a period of about a hundred years), with tolerably
natural boundaries, embraced the countries as far as the ridge of the
high mountains, but Orestis, though situated beyond the chain of these
mountains, also belonged to it. The geography of these countries has as
yet been very little inquired into by Europeans, whence the maps are
still as confused as they were about fifty or sixty years ago. No modern
traveller, as far as I know, has yet visited all the countries on the
side of Skupi (Uskup?) and the high mountains. The notices contained in
the ancients of these countries, cannot be applied with certainty, the
names of the mountains being too indefinite; those countries are quite
beyond the reach of classical literature, and we know mounts Orbelos and
Rhodope scarcely more than by name. These north-western mountains may be
most correctly conceived as a western continuation of mount Haemus, which
is itself a continuation of the Alps. The Alps pass through Carniola
close by the Adriatic, and enter into southern Bosnia; another branch
runs through Styria to the north; on the borders of Hungary its breadth
is not great, and it forms a hilly country until it disappears in the
great plain of Slavonia and Lower Hungary; but in Bosnia the mountains
again extend as far as the Save. All Bosnia and Servia is a mountainous
country, while Slavonia opposite has rich and fertile plains and but
few mountains. In the neighbourhood of Belgrade, the mountains approach
the Danube, extend again, and occupy nearly the whole space between the
Danube and the Adriatic; they then, shutting in the Danube, extend to the
territory of Widdin, retreat into the splendid country of the Bulgarians,
and there leave an extensive and extremely fertile space between the
river and mount Haemus. From Illyricum and Dalmatia the mountains
proceed, so as to form a hilly country in the neighbourhood of Scutari.
Between the Drino and mount Haemus, Scardus is the highest point on the
road from Ragusa to Constantinople. The Macedonian dominion extended
to this point; here dwelt the Dardanians, the north-western people of
Macedonia. The mountains then following are probably Scomios and Orbelos,
which seem to be parts of the mountains proceeding from Haemus. Rhodope,
a mountain between the Strymon and Nestus, is probably a branch of mount
Haemus. Pangaeos seems to be a southern continuation and extremity of
Rhodope.
The whole of the Thracian mountains running parallel with the sea between
the Strymon and Nestus are rich in gold and silver mines. They were taken
possession of at an early time by the neighbouring nations, especially
the Thasians, and it appears that the Phoenicians, at a very remote
period, also had settlements on the southern coast. Afterwards many
Greeks established themselves there, and Thucydides, e.g., is known to
have possessed a mine in those parts. The richest mines were in mount
Pangaeos, but the other mountains as far as Haemus also contain many
precious metals. I know for certain, that Bosnia and the mountains near
Skupi also contain silver mines, which are known but not worked. Should
those countries ever pass from the hands of barbarians, and come under
the dominion of Europeans, it will be seen that the ores of precious
metals extend even much further. The silver mines were worked even before
the Peloponnesian war, under Alexander I., the son of Amyntas; but where
they existed is uncertain. The gold mines of Pangaeos were first worked,
but not vigorously, by the Athenian Callistratus,[100] but afterwards
by Philip with great industry: he is said to have annually derived from
them 1000 talents; they existed in the neighbourhood of Crenidas, where
afterwards the mountain-city of Philippi was built.
In the west, a mountain branches off from Scardus, which we know under
the name of the CANDAUIAN (not CANDAVIAN, according to a passage in
Polybius) mountains; the name is familiar to us from the unfortunate
expedition of P. Sulpicius Galba; it forms the boundary between upper
Macedonia, parts of which are situated in the valleys of the mountain,
and Illyricum. This is a cold mountain, not that the more northern ones
are not still colder, but the latter were thinly, and the former thickly
peopled. According to the accounts of travellers, those mountains must
be very cold and ungenial. But as soon as you come to the part where the
mountains descend towards the sea, and where the rivers empty themselves
into it, the climate becomes all the more splendid, and the valleys more
lovely and mild: the whole country changes into the most beautiful plains
with smiling hills.
Macedonia thus forms the greater part of a circle, of whose periphery
about one-third is cut off by a line from mount Olympus to the river
Nestus.
The AXIUS, οὗ κάλλιστον ὕδωρ ἐπικίδναται αἶαν, is the most important
river of Macedonia, though it flows beyond the real country of Macedonia
in its narrowest sense. In its upper course it is a rapid torrent;
further down it becomes muddy, whence its water is, in point of fact,
not particularly excellent. For this reason, attempts were made even
in antiquity to emend Homer, because it was thought impossible that he
should have made any mistake at all. Connected with the Axius were the
LUDIAS and the HALIACMON, a beautiful river descending from the western
mountains. The STRYMON is altogether a Thracian river, and is called so
by the poets; its banks, at least in later times, are more particularly
the seats of the Thracians, but at an earlier period Paeonians also dwelt
there. The Strymon is a mighty river without any fords, whence it was
crossed only by bridges, as at Amphipolis. The NESTUS has nothing that is
particularly remarkable.
Gulfs to be noticed are:—the Pierian, and the gulf of Therma or
Thessalonica; the Toronaean, the Strymonian, and Singitian gulf.
The hilly districts of Macedonia produce everything that is grown in
those southern countries; they are among the most fertile parts of the
earth, especially in the neighbourhood of Thessalonica and Pella; such
also is the narrow Pierian country, from Olympus as far as the sea: it
is a real garden. At present the chief products there are cotton and
tobacco, which of course did not grow there in ancient times, though
cotton may have been cultivated during the later Macedonian and the Roman
period in some islands of the Aegean.
Having spoken of the Macedonians inhabiting the western country, we
now proceed to MACEDONIA PROPER, also called EMATHIA, with its capital
Aegeae. I have no doubt that you will be convinced, that what I am going
to bring forward as a hypothesis, is not said lightly nor without full
persuasion, or that such a persuasion has been arrived at without much
labour. It is my opinion, that the Thracians did not spread themselves
in those countries until a later period: the Pelasgian race which we
find in Asia as far as Bithynia and the Maeander, undoubtedly once
occupied the whole of the southern coast. To that period we have to
refer much of what is related about the Thracians, as for example, the
tradition about Orpheus, who is conceived to have dwelt in Pieria, on
the slope of Olympus, near the well Pimplea. It is opposed to all our
feelings, and it can have no historical meaning to conceive him as a
Thracian; but the matter becomes intelligible, if we suppose that the
Thracians immigrated into those countries at a later period, and that
the recollections connected with the places which fell into the hands
of the Thracians, were transferred to this people. Mount Olympus was
considered as the seat and centre of the gods, because it was situated,
in a measure, in the midst of the great Pelasgian nation, which we must
conceive to have extended farther northward. It is not likely that the
Greeks should have assigned to their gods a habitation at the extreme
end of their father-land. We must therefore suppose that the Thracians
spread over these countries from the Strymon and Nestus. Now, as in the
west, we find the Macedonians as a Pelasgian people, so we meet in the
central part, about the Axius and Strymon, the Paeonians, whom Herodotus
expressly mentions among the Teucrian Trojans, who were as much a
Pelasgian people as the Siceli. The statement of Herodotus that they were
ἄποικοι τῶν Τευκρῶν, means nothing else than that they and the Teucrians
belonged to the same race. I consider these Paeonians to have been a
remnant of the ancient inhabitants, who maintained themselves against the
invading Thracians. Before the Macedonian kings, the so-called Temenids,
established their kingdom, the Thracians occupied the country down to the
borders of Thessaly, not only as far as the river Strymon, but also the
country on the west of it: the Crestonaean, Crossaean, Mygdonian, and
Pierian countries were in fact all inhabited by Thracians, before the
Macedonians of Aegeae spread over those parts. This gradual conquest of
Mygdonia and Pieria belongs to a period previous to the Persian wars,
certainly that of Pieria, and it is highly probable that the conquest of
Mygdonia also belongs to the same period. Perdiccas was extending his
empire as early as the time of the Peloponnesian war, but it was as yet
ill consolidated. Archelaus did most, he first fortified towns, made
roads, and prepared Macedonia for that career which it completed under
Philip; still, however, after the death of the latter, the state of
Macedonia was powerless. But Archelaus, nevertheless, has the merit of
having laid the foundation.
The name PIERIA is sufficiently familiar to us from the poets. It is odd
enough that the country, which was afterwards inhabited by the barbarous
Thracians, and at a still later period by the Macedonians, who after
all were always an ἄμουσον ἔθνος, should in the remotest ages have been
the seat of the Muses, who are hence called _Pierides_, and from the
wells of the country, _Pimpleides_, _Libethrides_ (_Pimplei dulcis_,
in Horace: Λειβηθρίδες). The BOTTIAEANS, a kindred people, dwelt east
of the Macedonians proper; being expelled by the Macedonians from the
neighbourhood of Pella, originally a Bottiaean place, they went to the
Chalcidians, to whom they were no doubt welcome, as they must have
preferred a kindred people in their neighbourhood to the Thracians. Then
follow the PAEONIANS about the Axius and Strymon, who were pushed away
from the coast into the interior. Herodotus relates that during the
expedition of Darius Hystaspis, the nations dwelling about the Strymon
as far as the sea, were carried away by the Persians, and received
settlements in Phrygia: these are the Paeonians of the lower districts,
and their country was thereupon taken possession of by the Thracians.
Hence it cannot be surprising that afterwards no Paeonians were found
there. MYGDONIA, the lower country, east of the Axius, about the Thermaic
gulf, was, previously to the extension of the Macedonians, inhabited by
Thracian Edonians. The EDONIANS are remarkable on account of the many
allusions to them in the Latin poets, especially in reference to the
worship of Bacchus (_Non sanius ego Bacchabor Edonis_, says Horace). This
worship is, in a certain sense, Thracian, especially in regard to women,
and existed by the side of the Phrygian. Following the narrow tract of
land along the coast, we first arrive in the most southern province,
_Pieria_; next follows _Bottiaeis_, with Pella, as far as the Axius;
then _Mygdonia_ along the coast, beginning with the cape forming the
entrance to the bay of Thessalonica, and extending to the town of Aenea;
the country, from this point to the neighbourhood of Potidaea, is called
_Crossaea_, and had an ancient Thracian population. During the subsequent
extension of the Macedonians, those nations were not expelled, nor did
they become serfs, but were only reduced to the condition of subjects.
All this is correctly indicated in the maps of D’Anville and Barbié du
Bocage; but Anthemus is erroneously marked in all maps, for, instead of a
country, it is put down as a town. It is a district of small extent, but
plays a prominent part in the history of Olynthus.
The capital of Pieria was DION, a native Macedonian town, not Greek,
but adorned with beautiful buildings, prosperous and handsome, until
it was destroyed by the Aetolians on a predatory excursion. PYDNA and
METHONE, both Greek towns, were situated to the north of it. Pydna was
the first conquest of Philip; both towns had until then preserved their
independence, which is a proof of the great weakness of the Macedonian
kings. Philip is said to have destroyed them both; in regard to Methone
this is certain, for during its siege he lost one eye, and for this
reason gave vent to his barbarous rage against the town; but Pydna, if
it was destroyed, must have been restored, for it is mentioned under the
later Macedonian kings; in history it is remarkable especially on account
of the decisive battle fought there, in which Perseus lost his kingdom
and his crown.
The real EMATHIA is in the interior of Macedonia.[101] This lower
Macedonia, in its proper sense, below the slopes of the Candauian
mountains, does not extend to the sea, from which it is separated by
Pieria and a narrow strip of the ancient Bottia. This was ancient
Macedonia proper, the kingdom of the ancestors of Alexander, and
contained the ancient Macedonian capital of AEGEAE,[102] which was the
residence of the kings before the reign of Philip. There is a story about
the name of this town, according to which it is derived from αἶγες: the
founder of the Macedonian kingdom is said to have conquered the town by
following, during a thunder-storm, close behind a herd of goats, and
thus entering the open gates with a small band of followers. The royal
sepulchres existed there as late as the time of Pyrrhus, but the Gauls
in his army plundered them. When at Rome, I heard a very vague report:
an English traveller, it was said, had discovered in 1819 or 1820, by
excavations, the tombs of Macedonian kings; but Aegeae was not mentioned
in the report. The person who told me this, was too ignorant to invent
such a thing; but whether there is any truth in it, I do not know; I have
never heard anything more about it. This place has two names, EDESSA
and Aegeae; the former has been transferred to several other places, and
above all to the very ancient town of Roha in Mesopotamia. It is with
these places as it is with Boston, which in England is an insignificant
town, while the Boston in America is a great city. In like manner, Edessa
in Syria is far more important than Edessa in Macedonia. The names of
many other Greek and Macedonian places, as Beroea, Cyrrhos, Chalcis,
Amphipolis, and others were similarly transferred to places in Syria.
Even names of Macedonian districts re-appear there. This shows a peculiar
attachment to Macedonia, and characterises the sentiments of the founder
of the Syrian empire. If we compare Seleucus with Ptolemy Soter, the
former is far more attached to Macedonia; in Egypt we find nothing of the
kind, everything there beginning anew.
BEROEA (now Veria) is the second place in Emathia; its name-sake in Syria
was far more important, but both still exist. Beroea was a flourishing
place throughout the middle ages, and continued to be a wealthy town
until its present destruction. Edessa is at present only a village.
Whenever the ancient seat of the Macedonian kings is mentioned, when
you read in Thucydides of Perdiccas and Archelaus (the latter is spoken
of also by Plato as a prince who drew to his court the wits and talents
from Athens, just as German princes formerly invited Frenchmen), and
even when Amyntas, Philip’s father, is spoken of, you must always
conceive them as residing at Aegeae. Philip was the first to make
PELLA on the Ludias great; it was previously a small Bottiaean place,
which was conquered by the Macedonians, when they drove the Bottiaeans
into Chalcidice; Herodotus calls it a πολίχνιον. The district lost its
name Bottiaeis, which in Herodotus it still bears, and became part of
Macedonia. Philip, who, like Peter the Great, from the moment of his
accession, set about raising the kingdom from its obscurity, took the
first step towards this object in transferring his residence from the
distant Aegeae to Pella, which was near enough to the sea to carry
on commerce. The rivers in that part of the country, especially the
Ludias, were then navigable, but they are now filled up with sand. Pella,
however, was not so near the sea as to enable the Athenians to take it
by surprise in a maritime expedition. Its situation on a hill surrounded
by waters (τόπος χερσονησοειδής) was very strong. It was now quickly
changed into a considerable city, though we must not conceive it to have
been very large. Had Alexander not become estranged from Macedonia,
it would probably have risen to still greater importance; but it
remained the capital of an empire which was at all events considerable.
Antipater lived there as regent of Macedonia in his barbarous and cynic
simplicity, the picture of an Albanese or Illyrian chief in his affected
wretchedness: he had a disgust for regal splendour, and his government
certainly added nothing to the beauty of Pella. He appeared in public as
a common Macedonian soldier, wrapped up in his cloak (τρίβων), wearing
the καυσία (the Illyrian cap), and a stick. Cassander spent less of his
time at Pella than at Thessalonica and Cassandrea; but the Antigonids
resided there, and from the time of Antigonus Gonatas till that of
Perseus, a period of nearly a century, Pella remained the capital, and
was a splendid town, though not to be compared with the great cities
of Antioch and Alexandria. After the wars of Perseus, the Romans took
it without resistance, and carried off a large number of works of art,
with which Alexander had adorned the city; the masterworks of Lysippus,
which were erected at Pella, were carried away by Aemilius Paullus. Dion
Chrysostomus,[103] in his very excellent Tarsian oration, says that
Pella was a heap of ruins. The destruction must have taken place either
after the war of the Pseudo-Philip (of whom we scarcely know anything,
except a few traits occurring in the newly-discovered ἐκλογαὶ περὶ γνωμῶν
published by Mai), or about sixty years later, during the campaigns of
Archelaus and Taxilas, the generals of Mithridates. It is afterwards
not mentioned again. Pella is one of the places which I have often
suggested to travellers as a place where excavations ought to be made,
and where undoubtedly a rich harvest might be made. Felix Beaujour, the
late consul-general at Salonichi, states in his excellent description
of Macedonia, that the whole district is covered with ruins, a proof
that no excavations have been made there for many years. Certain it is,
that the Romans did not carry away everything, that works of art of the
most exquisite kind, nay perhaps even works of Lysippus himself, might
be discovered there; inscriptions, too, may exist there, although, as I
have already remarked, inscriptions are not found in any other part of
Macedonia.