by Ascan Kelmendi

This passage is one of the clearest ancient testimonies showing that, in the eyes of a 5th-century BC Athenian historian, these northwestern peoples, including the Macedonians were not considered Greeks but rather borderland barbarian tribes.

“And there were present of the Hellenes the Ambraciots, the Anactorians, and the Leucadians; and those whom he himself brought: a thousand Peloponnesians, But of the barbarians there were a thousand Chaonians, who had no king, and they were led by Photios and Nikanor, from the ruling family. With the Chaonians there also marched the Thesprotians, who likewise had no king. The Molossians were led by Sabylinthos, who was guardian of Tharyps, the king, who was still a child.”

The passage from Thucydides offers one of the most direct and contemporaneous testimonies for how a 5th-century BCE Greek observer understood the peoples of northwestern Greece.

Read in its historical context, it strongly supports the interpretation that groups such as the Epirote tribes—and by extension other northern populations like the Ancient Macedonians—were not regarded as fully part of the Hellenic world, but rather as culturally distinct “barbarians” living on its margins.

First, the clarity of Thucydides’ language is striking. In his narrative of the Peloponnesian War, he explicitly separates “Hellenes” from “barbarians,” placing the Chaonians, Thesprotians, and Molossians in the latter category. This is not an incidental or ambiguous remark; it is part of a systematic classification used throughout his work. For Thucydides, who is often regarded as one of the most rigorous historians of antiquity, such distinctions reflect meaningful cultural boundaries rather than casual labeling.

Second, the criteria underlying this classification reinforce the argument. These northwestern groups are described as lacking kings in some cases, or having forms of leadership that differ from the polis-based political structures typical of southern Greek states.

This aligns with the broader Greek tendency to define “Hellenes” not only by language but also by shared institutions, civic organization, and ways of life. The absence of these features in Epirus, as depicted by Thucydides, places these peoples outside the core Hellenic cultural sphere.

Third, the passage gains additional weight when considered alongside the broader pattern in classical Greek literature. Earlier and contemporary authors frequently portray northern and western populations as peripheral and less “civilized” according to Greek norms.

Thucydides’ account is therefore not an isolated opinion but part of a consistent tradition of distinguishing between the Greek heartland and its surrounding regions. In this sense, the classification of these tribes as “barbarians” reflects a widely shared perception rather than an individual bias.

Importantly, this supports the view that Greek identity in the 5th century BCE was relatively restrictive. Even if some of these groups later became more integrated into the Greek cultural world, Thucydides’ testimony shows that, at this earlier stage, they were not fully accepted as such. The same reasoning can be extended cautiously to the Ancient Macedonians, who occupied a similar geographic and cultural frontier and were often viewed with comparable ambiguity in classical sources.

In sum, the passage is valuable precisely because it provides a contemporary, explicit, and contextually consistent distinction between Greeks and neighboring peoples. Far from being a vague or symbolic statement, it offers concrete evidence that, in the eyes of a leading 5th-century BCE historian, the northwestern tribes—and likely other frontier populations—were regarded as non-Greek “barbarians,” reinforcing the interpretation that Hellenic identity at the time excluded these groups.