Thucydides, the Ancient Greek historian and general defined the identities of Greeks and “barbarians” specifically in relation to the northern settlements based on their geography, politics, and degree of Greek cultural influence.
Researcher Ioannis Xydopoulos, professor of Ancient Greek History at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, argues that the northern colonies in the northern Aegean and the Propontis significantly shaped how southern Greeks perceived Macedonians and other peoples in northern Greece and beyond.
In his paper “The Concept and Representation of Northern Communities in Ancient Greek Historiography: The Case of Thucydides,” Xydopoulos examines how Thucydides represented Macedonians, Thracians, and other groups inhabiting the coastal regions of the northern Aegean, as well as how southern Greeks conceptualized them based on Thucydides’ criteria of ethnicity.
The ancient Greek historian did not portray Macedonians and Thracians as exotic or barbarian, nor did he note sharp distinctions in religious practices between Athenians and northern Greeks. The period studied spans from the middle of the 5th century BC to the end of the Peloponnesian War in 404 BC, during which Athenians’ perceptions of northern peoples were framed by the broader Greek-barbarian distinction.
Hellas, Hellenes, and barbarians
Edith Hall, Professor of Classics at King’s College London, argues that the distinction between a Hellen (Greek) and a barbarian existed even prior to Homer’s Iliad (725–675 BC). These two notions developed simultaneously between the 8th and late 6th centuries BC, laying the groundwork for Greek self-identification. The Persian Wars further reinforced this emerging identity, establishing a collective Panhellenic consciousness. Although a sense of ethnicity already existed in the Archaic period, the conflicts and cultural encounters of the Persian Wars intensified the polarization between Greeks and barbarians.
There were linguistic reasons for distinguishing a Greek from a barbarian. Greek speakers could recognize themselves as distinct from speakers of non-Greek languages during the Archaic period. Reflections of this linguistic difference appear in archaic literature. The presence and use of the word “barbaros” in literary sources up to the 5th century BC further supports this hypothesis. Archaic literature contains at least three passages where “barbaros” or its derivatives are used.
In the Iliad (2.867), the term “barbarophonos,” meaning “a speaker of a foreign language,” refers to the Carians, while barbaros appears in an opaque fragment of Heraclitus of Ephesus (22, B 107). This is sufficient evidence of the Greeks’ awareness of their linguistic and cultural distinction from other ethnic groups.
A similar distinction appears in the works of the lyric poet Pindar. He celebrated victories against barbarians but also used the term culturally to occasionally denote groups or behaviors considered foreign, such as the Carthaginians and Etruscans, as in one of his odes honoring a Sicilian king.
Along with illustrating the historical development of the word “barbaros” itself, these sources support the argument that the Greek–barbarian distinction existed in the Archaic period, even though the stark opposition between Greek and barbarian did not fully evolve until the 5th century BC.
Homer did not use the collective “Hellenes” in the Iliad
From the 8th century BC onward, populations became more sedentary, and the conception of territory evolved. Two key factors explain why the Greeks prioritized language as the criterion for defining their ethnic identity.
Firstly, after colonization westwards, Greek speakers could reliably distinguish themselves from those who spoke a different language. During the Archaic period, there was a considerable degree of interaction between Greeks and the peoples they would later categorize as “barbarians.” For instance, Themistocles’ mother was either from Thrace or Caria, while Cimon’s mother was a Thracian princess. Secondly, privileging the linguistic criterion for ethnic self-determination helped counter the heterogeneity of Greek social customs, political allegiances, cults, and traditions, which varied among Dorian, Ionian, and Aeolian communities.
Although Homer’s epics offered the Greeks an ordered representation of their past, they also reflect a time when Greeks did not use a collective name, such as Hellenes, to describe themselves. In the Iliad, the various ethnic groups mentioned include the Aetolians, Cretans, and Boeotians. Other collective terms used comprise the Achaeans (occasionally Panachaeans), Argives, and Danaans.
In the Homeric texts, “Hellenes” still refers only to the inhabitants of Hellas, a district in Thessaly. Thus, Achilles comes from “Hellas and Pthia” (Iliad 9.395). The term Hellas is limited to the central-northern geographical region of Greece.
Between the creation of Homer’s epics and Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women (Opera et Dies, 653) in the early 6th century BC, the significance of Hellas shifted to encompass all of mainland Greece. Consequently, they began to identify themselves as Greeks. The concept of an extended Greece, therefore, must have existed by at least the beginning of the 7th century BC, and possibly even earlier, according to researchers.
Hellenic self-consciousness and the Ancient Greeks: Background for Thucydides’ perspective
While there was no unified concept of Hellas prior to the 8th century BC, there is ample evidence that Hellenic self-consciousness emerged between the 8th and 6th centuries BC. Several factors contributed to this development, with colonization playing a major role. By establishing colonies throughout the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions, Greeks came into contact with diverse cultures speaking various languages.
In these colonies, Greeks maintained strong ties with their mother cities. The diffusion of the alphabet and the epic poems reinforced Greek linguistic identity. The foundation of Panhellenic institutions and cult centers established a socio-cultural presence while providing important channels for ideological expression. A notable example was the Olympic Games.
Although the games initially served only Peloponnesian participants, by the 6th century, competitors from Greek cities as far afield as Ionia and Sicily participated, and the judges were called the “Hellanodikai,” or “Hellenic judges.” The concept of Panhellenic games was significant in fostering a shared Greek identity. In the Odyssey (1.344), the term “Hellas” is used to refer to all Greeks collectively, (ἀνδρός, τοῦ κλέος εὐρὺ καθ’ Ἑλλάδα καὶ μέσον Ἄργος).
The term “Hellas” also appears in Hesiod (Opera et Dies, 528), Archilochus (Fragment 102), and Pindar (Isthmia II.38; IV.49; Paean 6.62). In these contexts, it signifies that Greeks of diverse origins lived together in newly founded settlements, further reflecting the emergence of a shared Hellenic identity.
Herodotus and the various cultures
Xydopoulos argues that the key change between the Archaic and Classical periods was the mechanism of Greek self-definition. During this transition, a stereotypical and generalized image of the barbarian—as exotic, servile, and unintelligible—became firmly established. Greek identity could thus be constructed in direct opposition to this image. To find the language, culture, or rituals of the barbarian profoundly alien was, in effect, to recognize oneself as Greek.
Herodotus’ Histories contributed significantly to the development of empirical knowledge about non-Greek peoples, offering detailed geographical and ethnographic accounts of the populations within the Persian Empire’s reach. Although he described many customs that seemed strange to Greek readers, Herodotus presented them with respect, treating each as a reflection of a distinct cultural system.
His writings suggest a nuanced awareness that the notion of “barbarian” was relative, and they challenge the later idea—emerging after the Persian Wars—that the Greeks were inherently superior by nature.
The Ancient Greek historian Thucydides and barbarians
While Herodotus suggested that a different culture was not necessarily barbaric, Thucydides viewed Greeks and barbarians as polar opposites. In his description of the Eurytanians, who made up a large part of the Aetolian ethnos, Thucydides reflects broader Athenian prejudices toward northern Greece as a whole.
His remark that the Eurytanians “spoke a completely unknown tongue and ate raw meat” (Thuc. III.94.5) underscores the use of linguistic and cultural criteria to distinguish between Greeks and the Eurytanian “other.” Thucydides makes similar observations about other regions of Ancient Greece: “Up to this date, the people in many parts of Greece—the Ozolian Lokrians, the Aetolians, the Akarnanians, and those of the neighboring mainland—live in the ancient manner.”
When it comes to the Macedonians and Thracians of the 5th century BC, the question of identity becomes more complex. As scholars note, few sources provide direct evidence of how the Macedonians perceived themselves, and no written testimonies reveal the self-consciousness of the Thracians. Therefore, since Herodotus and Thucydides are the primary sources for this period, it must be remembered that these identities were largely constructed and ascribed by southern Greeks, especially by Thucydides.
The Macedonians, according to Thucydides
According to the researcher, Thucydides’ references to the Macedonian people are largely circumstantial.
In his account of Spartan general Brasidas’ campaign with the Macedonian king Perdikkas in Lynkestis, he writes that “the Chalkidians and Macedonian cavalry [came to] nearly a thousand, and there was also a large mass of barbarians.” This raises the question of how Thucydides viewed Macedonian ethnicity: did he regard the Macedonians as Greeks or as barbarians? The English classicist Simon Hornblower, in his Commentary on Thucydides, argues that “Thucydides meant to suggest that the Macedonians were intermediate between Greeks and (utter) barbarians.”
However, the researcher notes that Thucydides does not ascribe any explicit negative value to the Macedonians. As Hornblower observes, Brasidas’ words—or Thucydides’ rendering of them—reflect the kind of rhetoric a commander would use to motivate soldiers before battle, rather than a literal judgment of ethnicity. It may also be argued that it is unlikely Thucydides personally viewed the Macedonians as barbarians or intermediates, since the royal Macedonian dynasty had already been recognized as Greek in Herodotus’ writings—a view that Thucydides seems to have accepted.
Herodotus and the Macedonians
According to Herodotus, regarding whether the Macedonians were considered barbarians, he notes in the Histories that in the early 5th century BC, the Macedonian prince—and later king—Alexander I was allowed to participate in the Olympic Games after proving his Hellenic descent to the Hellanodikai. Admission to and participation in these Panhellenic Games were undisputed markers of “Greekness.”
This raises the question of whether Greek perceptions of the Macedonians were shaped by their complex interactions: on one hand with the Greek colonies along the Thermaic Gulf and the Northern Aegean coasts, and on the other hand with the inhabitants of the Macedonian kingdom itself.
One possible explanation for Thucydides’ occasional use of the term “barbarians” may lie in these interactions among different peoples, or “ethne.” It seems likely that his references reflect a colonial context in which conflicts and competitions between local “barbarians” and Greek communities were enacted, rather than an absolute judgment of ethnicity.
For example, Thucydides’ account of Spartan General Brasidas’ expedition in the Chalkidike peninsula notes that its cities were inhabited by a mixed population of barbarians (“barbarian ethne”), who spoke Greek alongside their own languages. In this passage, Thucydides emphasizes the linguistic criterion, though it appears not to have been of central importance to him. His use of the term diglosson (“speaking two languages”) should be understood simply as referring to populations who spoke both Greek and non-Greek languages.
The Ancient Greek historian Thucydides and his view of “barbarians” and Greek-speaking peoples
One important reason for this linguistic condition was that many of these so-called barbarian towns had been established on the sites of earlier Greek settlements. Thucydides’ specific view of the Macedonians offers insight into contemporary Athenian perceptions of the entire region. Viewed in this light, his text shows, first, that the Macedonians were not classified with the “barbarian ethne,” and second, that Thucydides distinguished between barbarians and those who spoke Greek.
Overall, Thucydides approached the northern communities of the Macedonians and Thracians from a Hellenic perspective, and he did not treat either group as extremely exotic or utterly barbarian. Irad Malkin, Professor of Ancient Greek History at Tel Aviv University, has argued that this treatment reflects the fact that the colonized outskirts of the Greek world were not entirely alien but rather perceived as extensions of “the same.”
According to the researcher, the Greek world was geographically proximate and well-connected through maritime contacts, and its communities could be approached through personal relations and trade. Religious practices also did not present sharp distinctions; the primary differences lay in rituals and priorities rather than in underlying mental outlooks.
By the Classical period, Greeks had developed a clear recognition of a collective “we.” As Xydopoulos concludes, their sense of identity in contrast to the barbarians rested on three pillars: the colonial experience, geographical awareness, and political affiliation.
See all the latest news from Greece and the world at Greekreporter.com. Contact our newsroom to report an update or send your story, photos and videos. Follow GR on Google News and subscribe here to our daily email!
