Critical Evaluation of Historical Scholarship on Ancient Macedonia
Table of Contents
Greek Claim: “Alexander’s Empire” by John Pentland Mahaffy (University of Dublin) P 8 “… for with Alexander the stage of Greek influence spread across the world. ” (John Pentland Mahaffy, Alexander’s empire, G Putnam’s sons, London, 1881)
REPLY:
This quote does not show anywhere that the Macedonians were Greek. We know that Alexander accepted and spread the standard koine Greek as a spoken language for his multi-ethnic empire, the only international language on which the whole Mediterranean world had already communicated even prior to the conquest of the Macedonians (just like English is international language today). Alexander was smart enough to keep this international Greek language for the Persians, Egyptians, Jews and all the nations of his empire to communicate. Forcing all those people to learn now a new foreign Macedonian language would have only provoked an additional hatred and multi-ethnic resistance for the Macedonian occupation of Asia, Egypt, and Greece, which the Macedonians obviously wanted to avoid. Unlike the Roman Empire, there was no single powerful centralized Macedonian Empire, but three main Macedonian kingdoms (Macedonia, Asia, Egypt) which were fragile and in conflict occasionally among each other, and the Macedonians needed such language standardization to help them maintain their power. That of course, does not mean that although the Macedonians, Persians, Egyptians, Jews, now communicated in Greek, that they all turned into Greeks, just like the African nations did not turn into French and English, just because of their usage of those two languages to communicate among themselves.
What is for certain however, is that Alexander spoke Macedonian with his own Macedonian troops and used Greek in addressing the Asians and Greeks. After all, the Macedonians were his kinsmen (precisely the way he calls them), not the Greeks. The ancient sources specifically refer to Macedonian as a language and not as a dialect of Greek, and Alexander himself specifically calls the Macedonian language – “our native language“. During the trial of Philotas, Alexander himself clearly distinguishes his native Macedonian language from the Greek language which was used at the Macedonian court as well as a second language in diplomacy, a fact we find in the Philotas trial (Q. Curtius Rufus).
The conclusion is clear – that the Macedonian kings admired a foreign culture (Greek in this case) does not prove they were Greek. Similarly, the Russian czars admired the French culture and French was even spoken on the Russian court. The African nations also use international English language to communicate among themselves. That of course does not prove that the Russian czars were French, nor that the Africans were English. Therefore, the above quote from the Greek internet page can not be used as a ‘proof’ that the Macedonians were Greek.
GREEK CLAIM: PETER GREEN’S “ALEXANDER THE GREAT”
“Macedonia as a whole was tended to remain in isolation from the rest of Greece.” P20
“For the first time he (Philip II) started to understand how Macedonia’s outdated institutions of feudalism and autocratic monarchy, so despised by the rest of Greece, might prove a source of strength when dealing with such opponents.” Page 29
“In less than four years he (Philip II) had transformed Macedonia from a backward and primitive kingdom to one of the most powerful states in Greece.” Page 37
REPLY:
Here we find more examples of misleading quotes that the Greeks want to pass as a “proof” that Macedonia was a “Greek land”. Peter Green is quoted only on quotes that suit their purpose, and they avoid (again purposely), the overwhelming majority of Green’s quotes, i.e. the ones that clearly separate the Macedonians from the Greeks. In fact, Green does not consider the Macedonians to be Greek at all and we will present that below.
GREEK CLAIM:
“Like most intellectuals with a racialst axe to grind, Aristotle, drew facts from geopolitics or ‘natural law’ in support of his thesis. In a celebrated frangment he counselled Alexander ‘to be a hegemon [leader] to the Greeks and a depot to the barbarians to look after the former as after frinds and relatives and to deal to the latter as with beasts and plants’.” (Peter Green, “Alexander the Great”, Weidenfield and Nicholson, 1971)
“It was now that the veteran Athenian pamphleteer Isokratis published his Address to Philip calling for a Panhelleinc crusade against Persia under Philip’s leadership.” Page 40.
REPLY:
Here, the Greek propaganda gives us a fragment from page 40, however, it purposely avoids commenting on what else had Peter Green written on page 49, 50, and 157, after Isocrates published his Address to Philip calling for a Panhelleinc crusade. Here is the full picture:
a) Isocrates’ letter to Philip II where he, Isocrates refers to Philip “as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom to consider Hellas your fatherland” Green calls this a “rhetorical hyperbole”. “Indeed, taken as a whole the Address to Philip must have caused its recipient considerable sardonic amusement“. [p. 49] “Its ethnic conceit was only equaled by its naivety” [p.49]
b) “And though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage (a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda-line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his Macedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress.” [p.50]
c) “This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the king’s propaganda section continued – for the time being – to present it. No one, so far as we know, was tactless enough to ask the obvious question: if this was a Panhellenic crusade, where were the Greek troops? [p. 157]
An obvious question, since Alexander relied on his Macedonians, not Greeks to conquer Persia. Let us now see the all of Green’s quotes, the ones that the Greek propaganda did not show, and which showed us that Professor Green does not consider the Macedonians to be Greek:
PETER GREEN Professor of Classics at the University of Texas Alexander of Macedon and Alexander to Actium
[1] “The Colonels, as it happened, promoted Alexander as a great Greek hero, especially to army recruits: the Greeks of the fourth century B.C., to whom Alexander was a half-Macedonian, half-Epirote barbarian conqueror, would have found this metamorphosis as ironic as I did.” [The Greek island on which Peter Green stayed while working on his book, happened to be the same island on which the Greek Colonels, after assuming power in Greece, used it as a dumping-ground for royalist officers and “thinkers with mind of their own”.][2] “Macedonia was the first large territorial state with an effective centralized political, military and administrative structure to come into being on the continent of Europe”. [p.1][3] “No one had forgotten that Alexander I, known ironically as ‘the philhellene’, had been debarred from the Olympic Games until he manufactured a pedigree connecting the Argeads with the ancient Argive kings”. [p.7] [On p.9 Green refers to this Argive link as ‘fictitious’. That means that the Macedonians did not have a Greek origin][4] Isocrates’ letter to Philip II where he, Isocrates refers to Philip “as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom to consider Hellas your fatherland” Green calls this a “rhetorical hyperbole”. “Indeed, taken as a whole the Address to Philip must have caused its recipient considerable sardonic amusement”. [p. 49] “Its ethnic conceit was only equaled by its naivety” [p.49][5] “And though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage ( a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda-line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his Macedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress.” [p.50][6] “The Greeks had done a deal with Artaxerxes, [Persian commander], and if Philip did not move fast it would be they who invaded his territory, not he theirs. In the event, he moved faster than anyone could have predicted.” [p.69][7] “The Greek states retained no more than a pale shadow of their former freedom”. [p.80] [This is how Philip “united” the Greek states.][8] “The dedication of the Philipeum was a salutary reminder that from now on, whatever democratic forms might be employed as a salve to the Greeks’ self-respect, it was Philip who led and they who followed.” [p.86][9] “The Greek states were to make a common peace and alliance with one another, and constitute themselves into a federal Hellenic League. Simultaneously, the league was to form a separate alliance with Macedonia, though Macedonia itself would not be a league member.” [p.86][10] “Philip’s Panhellenism was no more than a convenient placebo to keep his allies quiet, a cloak for further Macedonian aggrandizement.” [p.87][11] “Most Greek statesmen recognized this only too well. To them, their self-styled hegemon was still a semi-barbarian autocrat, whose wishes had been imposed on them by right of conquest; and when Alexander succeeded Philip, he inherited the same bitter legacy of hatred and resentment – which his own policies did little to dispel.” [p.87][12] “The military contingent they supplied were, in reality, so many hostages for their good behavior. As we shall see, whenever they saw the slightest chance of throwing off the Macedonian yoke, they took it.” [p. 87][13] “Some 15,000 Greek mercenaries, not to mention numerous doctors, technicians and professional diplomats, were already on the Persian pay-roll; twice as many men, in fact, as the league ultimately contributed for the supposedly Panhellenic crusade against Darius.” [p.95][14] “In the early spring of 336, an advance force of 10,000 men, including a thousand cavalry, crossed over to Asia Minor. Its task was to secure the Hellespont, to stockpile supplies, and in Philip’s pleasantly cynical phrase, to ‘liberate the Greek cities’.” [p.98] [The operative word is “cynical phrase” to ‘liberate the Greek cities’.][15] “Only the Spartans held aloof. The traditions of their country, they informed the king, did not allow them to serve under a foreign leader. (So much for Macedonia’s pretensions to Hellenism.) Alexander did not press the point…..” [p.121] [The operative word is “a foreign leader” referring to Alexander.][16] [Regarding the news of Alexander’s death.] “If anyone had doubts about the report, he quickly suppressed them: this, after all, was just what every patriotic Greek had hoped and prayed might happen.” [p.136][17] “Darius reversed his earlier policy of non-intervention, and began to channel gold into Greece wherever he thought it would do most good. He did not, as yet, commit himself to anything more definite: clearly he hoped that the Greek revolt would solve his problem for him. But the mere thought of a Greek-Persian coalition must have turned Alexander’s blood cold.” [p.138][18] “This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the king’s propaganda section continued – for the time being – to present it. No one, so far as we know, was tactless enough to ask the obvious question: if this was a Panhellenic crusade, where were the Greek troops? [p. 157][19] “Indeed, despite the league’s official veto, far more Greeks fought for the Great King – and remained loyal to the bitter end – than were ever conscripted by Alexander.” [p.157][20] “What is more, the league’s troops were never used in crucial battles (another significant pointer) but kept on garrison and line-of-communication duties. The sole reason for their presence, apart from propaganda purposes, was to serve as hostages for the good behavior of their friends and relatives in Greece. Alexander found them more of an embarrassment than an asset, and the moment he was in a position to do so, he got rid of them.” [p.158][21] “Alexander lost no time in getting rid of the league’s forces which accompanied him – another ironic gloss on his role as a leader of a Panhellenic crusade.” [p.183][22] On the subject of “liberating the Greek cities in Asia: “But the euphemism of a ‘contribution’ did not carry the same unpleasant associations; and the whole scheme, with its implication of a united Greek front, must have made splendid propaganda for home consumption.” [p. 188][23] On the league’s crews: “Their own crews, he pointed out, were still half-trained (the cities of the league must have been scraping the bottom of the barrel when they chose them); and – a revealing admission – a defeat at this point might well trigger off a general revolt of the Greek states. So much for the Panhellenic crusade. Alexander’s main fear, we need scarcely doubt, was that the league’s fleet might actually desert him if the chance presented itself.” [p.190][24] “The truth of the matter seems to have been that Alexander distrusted his Greek allies so profoundly – and with good reason – that he preferred to risk the collapse of his campaign in a spate of rebellion rather than entrust its safety to a Greek fleet.” [p.192][25] “The case of Aspendus exposes, with harsh clarity, Alexander’s fundamental objectives in Asia Minor. So long as he received willing cooperation, the pretence of a Panhellenic crusade could be kept up. But any resistance, the least opposition to his will, met with instant and savage reprisals.” [p.208][26] “The burning of Persepolis had written finish to the Hellenic crusade as such, and he used this excuse to pay off all his league’s troops, Parmenio’s Thessalians included. The crisis in Greece was over: he no longer needed these potential trouble makers as hostages.” [p. 322] [This is what Alexander thought of his Greek allies][27] “But Greek public opinion was something of which Alexander took notice only when it suited him; and the league served him as a blanket excuse for various questionable or underhand actions, the destruction of Thebes being merely the most notorious.” [p.506-7][28] “It is significant that two native rising occurred on the news of Alexander’s death, and both of these, as we shall see in a moment, involved Greeks; there were otherwise no ingenuous revolts against the colonial government.” [p.6. “Alex. to Actium”][29] “But then, Eumenes was a Greek, and Macedonian troops, especially the old sweats who had served under Philip II, were never really comfortable being led by non-Macedonians.” [p.7. “Alex. to Actium”.][30] “Nearcus never came to much among the Successors: but then he, like Eumenes, was a Greek; worse still, he was a Cretan, and thus a proverbial liar.” [p.7. “Alex. to Actium”]
We can see a clear ethnic separation between Macedonians and the Greeks by Green. Thus, we have proven that the modern Greek’s assertion and propaganda had been selective and indeed misleading.
GREEK CLAIM: FROM “A HISTORY OF MACEDONIA” BY MALCOM ERRINGTON (Philipps-Universitat in Marburg, Germany) Page 3
“That the Macedonians and their kings did in fact speak a dialect of Greek and bore Greek names may be regarded nowadays as certain.” (Malcom Errington “A History of Macedonia”, University of California Press, 1993)
REPLY:
Malcolm Errington is a typical western writer which concludes that the “Macedonians are Greek”, despite the overwhelming ancient evidence that clearly shows the opposite. His conclusion however, is extremely unconvincing. We have already explained above that it is incorrect to claim that the “Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek” and “had Greek names”. Alexander himself called the Macedonian language “our native language“, as opposes to the Greek language, not a dialect of Greek! (the trial of Philotas – Curtius Rufus). Errington uses the following words on page 4 to back up his claim that “the Macedonians were Greek”:
“Ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greek all had their origin in Athens at the time of the struggle with Philip II.”
Simply put – this is wrong. First of all, the supposed “ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greek” do not have “their origin in Athens” in the time of Philip II. Errington avoids mentioning here that the Macedonians were called non-Greeks (barbarians) since the reigns of the Macedonian kings Alexander I and Archelaus – full 100 years before Philip II conquered the Greeks. Please visit Thrasymachus and Herodotus on the matter. Furthermore, we explained above with facts that Alexander I did not participate in the Olympic Games (his name is not on the list of the victors among the other things), and his Greek claim was only an invention, a propaganda, directed towards the Greeks with a clear political goal (Borza, Badian, Green). Errington fails to notify the reader of that fact, and he is furthermore ignorant on the facts that all ancient Greek writers, historians, and scholars (Herodotus, Thrasymachus, Thucydides, Isocrates, Demosthenes, to name a few) did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek. Yet, he “concludes” based on not a single credible evidences whatsoever that the “Macedonians were Greek”. Let us further examine his conclusion. We will bring the words of Demosthenes for that purpose:
“… not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave“ – Demosthenes, Third Philippic, 31. These are the famous words that this Greek orator from Athens, used to describe the Macedonian king Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great, prior to Philip’s conquest of Greece.
We know for a fact that the ancient Greeks stereotyped and called all non-Greeks barbarians. These included the Persians, the Thracians, Illyrians, Macedonians, etc. Errington on page 4 suggests that Demosthenes called Philip “not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks” and “barbarian”, only because of “a political struggle” which “created the prejudice”. This is completely unconvincing since it is very clear from Demosthenes’s words that he regards the Macedonians and their king Philip II as non-Greeks. Errington’s position is easily debunked, however, when we consider the following two points:
The lesson is clear. The ancient Greeks called all non-Greeks barbarians, and Errington’s argument simply does not make any sense. The Third Philippic is entirely dedicated to the danger that threatens all of Greece. Similarly, when the past and future are compared, it is the whole of Hellas that is considered, not Athens alone. It is indeed unfortunate to see people such as Michael Errington, write books about the history of Macedonia, based on false assumptions and incomplete (or biased) research, and still call themselves “historians.”
GREEK CLAIM: POLYBIOS (POLIBIUS)
“In the past you rivaled the Achaians and the kinsmen Macedonians and their ruler, Philip, about the hegemony and glory, but now that the freedom of the Hellenes is at stake at a war against an alien people (Romans), …but now if you invite them do not you see that you invite them against your ownself and the whole of Hellas. …And does it worth to ally with the barbarians against the Epeirotans, the Achaians, the Akarnanians, the Boiotians, the Thessalians, almost all the Hellenes with the exception of the Aitolians who are a wicked nation… So Lakedaimonians it is good to remember your ancestors, … be afraid of the Romans… and do ally yourselves with the Achaians and Macedonians. And if the most influential amongst yourselves oppose that then stay neutral and do not side with the unjust. (Polybios 9.37.7-39.7; Speech of Lykiskos, the representative of Akarnania)
“How highly should we honour the Macedonians, who for the greater part of their lives never cease from fighting with the barbarians for the sake of the security of Hellas? For who is not aware that Hellas would have constantly stood in the greater danger, had we not been fenced by the Macedonians and the honorable ambition of their kings?” (The Histories of Polybios, IX, 35, 2)
REPLY:
This quote by Polybius does not say at all or even less “prove” that the Macedonians were Greek. It simply says that the Macedonians should be praised for protecting Greece from the barbarian attacks. There is nothing strange in that. Since Greece was conquered by Macedonia (where the Macedonian garrisons were established to ensure that conquest), it is clear that the Macedonians would protect every inch not only of their own Macedonia, but also of every land that they had conquered (Egypt, Asia, and Greece included). To anybody who admired ancient Greek culture, that was a thanks to the Macedonians that have preserved it from the barbarians.
But the Greek propaganda however, had purposely avoided (once again) telling us what else had Polybius said. The overwhelming majority of his quotes in fact show quite clearly that Polibius did not regard the Macedonians as Greek and he distinguishes between the two nations. Here is that overwhelming proof:
POLYBIUS Greek Statesman and Historian. [c 200-118 B.C.]
The Rise of the Roman Empire
“The fact is that we can obtain no more than an impression of a whole from a part, but certainly neither a thorough knowledge nor an accurate understanding. We must conclude then that specialized studies or monographs contribute very little to our grasp of the whole and our conviction of its truth. On the contrary, it is only by combining and comparing the various parts of the whole with one another and noting their resemblances and their differences that we shall arrive at a comprehensive view, and thus encompass both the practical benefits and the pleasure that the reading of history affords.” [p 45][How true, indeed. By combining and comparing various statements from the ancient authors can we arrive to the truest picture of the ancients themselves. Let them speak of themselves, and let their true sentiments flood the pages uncorrupted and free of any biased and preconceived prejudices. Only then, can we assess the magnitude of their purity of soul, and the passion for their national aspirations.][1] Polibius reports on the speech made by Agelaus of Naupactus at the first conference in the presence of the King and the allies. He spoke as follows:
“I therefore beg you all to be on your guard against this danger, and I appeal especially to King Philip. [Macedonian king Philip V] For you the safest policy, instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them an easy prey for the invader, is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions. If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in case of attack, and foreigners will be the less inclined to plot against your throne, because they will be discouraged by the loyalty of the Greeks towards you.” [p .300] book 5.104
Points of Interest: Clear distinction between Greece (to protect every province of Greece) and Macedonia (as you would if it were a part of your own dominions). Furthermore, the Macedonians were still wearing down the Greeks even into the times of Philip V.
[2] [Book XVIII, 1] Philip V from Macedon invites Flamininus (Roman commander) to explain what he, Philip, should do to have peace:
“The Roman general replied that his duty dictated an answer which was both simple and clear. He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece, restore to each of the states the prisoners and deserters he was holding, hand over to the Romans the region of Illyria which he had seized after the treaty that had been made in Epirus, and so on….”
[Point of interest: “Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece,” Flamininus, the Roman general, clearly separates Macedonia from Greece, and demands from the Macedonin king to withdraw from Greece into his own Macedonia.][3] (Book XVIII. 3) A man named Alexander of Isus, who had the reputation of being both an experienced statesman and an able orator, rose to speak:
‘Why,’ he asked Philip V, ‘had he sold into slavery the people of Cius, which was also a member of the Aetolian League, when he himself was on friendly terms with the Aetolians?’
[Philip sells the people of Cius into slavery. Cuis’ population was not a Macedonian population. Philip’s action underlines one fundamental fact: Greece was a conquered territory, and Greek cities were dispensable.][4] (Book XVIII. 5) Philip V from Macedon responds to the Greek and Roman demands:
“But what is most outrageous of all is that they should attempt to put themselves on the same footing as the Romans and demand that the Macedonians should withdraw from the whole of Greece. To use such language is arrogant enough in the first place, but while we may endure this from the Romans, it is quite intolerable coming from the Aetolians. In any case,’ he continued, ‘what is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and how do you define Greece? Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Aphilochians cannot be regarded as Greek. So do you allow me to remain in those territories.”
From the above encounters we infer: They, the Greeks, would like to see him, King Philip V from Macedon, leave Greece and go to his own kingdom in Macedonia, and by the strongest implication, we concur that:
(a) Ancient Greeks did not regard the ancient Macedonians as their kinsmen. (b) Ancient Macedonians did not regard the Greeks as their own people. (c) Ancient Macedonians had conquered the Greek states. (d) Ancient Macedonians had enslaved the Greeks and sold them as slaves. (e) Macedonia was not a Greek land.
[5] …”For there can be no doubt that by their indefatigable energy and daring they raised Macedonia from the status of a petty kingdom to that of the greatest and most glorious monarchy in the world. And apart what was accomplished during Philip’s lifetime, the successes that were achieved by Alexander after his father’s death won for them a reputation for valour which has been universally recognized by posterity.”…. [Polybius: The Rise of the Roman Empire, published by Penguin Classics, Book VIII.9 page 371.]
As with his predecessors, other ancient authors, Polybius clearly separates the ancient Macedonians from the ancient Greeks. As a matter of fact, the ethnic difference between these two people was not a matter for discussion – it was an accomplished fact.
We have thus, proven that the Greek propaganda had again been passing misleading quotes.
GREEK CLAIM: HERODOTUS
“Now that the men of this family are Hellenes, sprung from Perdiccas, as they themselves affirm, is a thing which I can declare on my own knowledge, and which I will hereafter make plainly evident. That they are so has been already adjudged by those who manage the Pan-Hellenic contest at Olympia” (Herodotus, The Histories 8.43)
“Tell your king who sent you how his Hellenic viceroy of Macedonia has received you hospitably… ” (Herodotus V, 20, 4)
“Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Hellenes, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know” (Herodotus V, 22, 1)
REPLY:
Herodotus’s stories above regarding the legend of the supposed Greek (Temenidae) origin of the Macedonian kings (not of the Macedonian nation), have been analyzed in great detail by Professors Borza, Green, and Badian, and rejected as propaganda designed by the Macedonian kings for the Greeks on the south with a specific purpose. In fact, Herodotus did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek, but a distinct nation. Here is that proof about Herodotus the “father of history” in his Histories:
The modern Greek position relies on Herodotus’ support for their quest to make the ancient Macedonians Greek. Herodotus, being one of the foremost biographer in antiquity who lived in Greece at the time when the Macedonian king Alexander I was in power, is said to have visited the Macedonian Kingdom and supposedly, profited from this excursion, wrote several short passages about the Macedonians. What did he say, and to what extent can these passages be taken as evidence for the alleged ‘greekness’ of the ancient Macedonians, will be briefly presented for your adjudication.
[1] Eugene Borza – In the Shadow of Olympus p.82-83 gives the following conclusion:
a) “It is clear that the analysis of our earliest-and sole-source cannot produce a consistent and satisfactory sequence of events. My own view is that there is some underlying veracity to the Mt. Vermion reference (as evidenced by the Phrygian connections), that among the Makedones a family of Vermion background emerged as pre-eminent, but that the Argive context is mythic, perhaps a bit of fifth-century B.C. propaganda (as I argue in the next chapter). To deny such fables and attribute them to contemporary Macedonian propaganda may appear minimalistic. But given the historical milieu in which such stories were spawned and then adorned, the denial of myth seems prudent”.
b) “The Temenidae in Macedon are an invention of the Macedonians themselves, intended in part to give credence to Alexander I’s claims of Hellenic ancestry, attached to and modifying some half-buried progenitor stories that had for a long time existed among the Macedonians concerning their own origins. The revised version was transmitted without criticism or comment by Herodotus. Thucydides (2-99.3; 5.80.2) acquired the Argive lineage tale from Herodotus, or from Macedonian-influenced sources, and transmitted it. His is not an independent version. [There is no hard evidence (pace Hammond, HM i: 4) that Thucydides ever visited Macedonia, but it makes no difference; Thucydides is reflecting the official version of things.] What emerged in the fifth century is a Macedonian-inspired tale of Argive origins for the Argead house, an account that can probably be traced to its source, Alexander I (for which see Chapter 5 below). The Temenidae must disappear from history, making superfluous all discussion of them as historical figures”.
c) “There were further embellishments to the myth of the early royal family. In the last decade of the fifth century B.C. Euripides came to reside in Macedon at the court of King Archelaus, thereby contributing a new stage to the evolution of the Macedonian creation-myth. Euripides’ play honoring his patron, Archelaus, probably adorned the basic story, replacing Perdiccas with an Archelaus as the descendant of Temenus-no doubt to the delight of his royal host. Delphic oracles were introduced, and the founder’s tale was extended by the introduction of Caranus (Doric for “head” or “ruler”). In the early fourth century, new early kings were added during the political rivalry among three branches of the Argeadae following the death of King Archelaus in 399, another example of the Macedonian predilection to rewrite history to support a contemporary political necessity. The story continued to be passed through the hands of local Macedonian historians in the fourth century B. C., and by Roman times it was widely known in a number of versions. Nothing in this later period can be traced back earlier than Euripides’ revision of the Herodotean tradition. The notion that Alexander I or one of his predecessors obtained a Delphic oracle to confirm the Macedonian tie with Argos has no evidence to support it. Had such an oracle existed we can be confident that Alexander, eager to confirm his Hellenic heritage, would have exploited it, and that Herodotus, who delighted in oracles, would have mentioned it. In the end what is important is not whether Argive Greeks founded the Macedonian royal house but that at least some Macedonian kings wanted it so“.
d) Borza also mentiones that the “two advocates of the Argos-Macedon link are Hammond, HM, vol. 2, ch. I, and Daskalakis, Hellenism, Pt. 3, both of whom support the notion of a Temenid origin for the Macedonian royal house”, however, we have seen above that both of them were corrected with the extensive evidence that Borza carefully reviewed. We have already seen that both Daskalakis and Hammond were incorrect on many matters on the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians, therefore it should come to no surprise that their now outdated and poor in evidence material can not be used to claim a Greek identity to the ancient Macedonians. Moving along…
Herodotus describes the episode with the Persian envoys, who apparently visited Macedon when Alexander I’s father Amyntas was in power, and how Alexander I succeeded in ‘taking care of the Persians’ by murdering all of them and removing their luggage and carriages. When the Persians attempted to trace the lost envoys, Alexander I cleverly succeeded in manipulating the Persians by giving his own sister Gygaea as a wife to the Persian commander Bubares. Here Herodotus writes:
“I happen to know, and I will demonstrate in a subsequent chapter of this history, that these descendants of Perdiccas are, as they themselves claim, of Greek nationality. This was, moreover, recognized by the managers of the Olympic games, on the occasion when Alexander wished to compete and his Greek competitors tried to exclude him on the ground that foreigners were not allowed to take part. Alexander, however, proved his Argive descent, and so was accepted as a Greek and allowed to enter for the foot-race. He came in equal first.” book 5. 22.
First, notice that it is not Herodotus that says that the Macedonian kings were of Greek nationality, but the Macedonian kings as they themselves claim. Now, let us peruse the modern literature and see if we can shed some light on this particular passage from Herodotus which is so ‘dear’ to all Greek presenters, and one that occupies the central position of their otherwise feeble defense. Eugene Borza [In The Shadow of Olympus p. 112] writes:
a) “Herodotus’ story is fraught with too many difficulties to make sense of it. For example, either (1) Alexander lost the run-off for his dead heat, which is why his name doez not appear in the victor lists; or (2) he won the run-off, although Herodotus does not tell us this; or (3) it remained a dead heat, which is impossible in light Olympic practice; or (4) it was a special race, in which case it is unlikely that his fellow competitors would have protested Alexander’s presence; or (5) Alexander never competed at Olympia. It is best to abandon this story, which belongs in the category of the tale of Alexander at Plataea. In their commentaries on these passages Macan and How and Wells long ago recognized that the Olympic Games story was based on family legend (Hdt. 5.22: “as the descendants of Perdiccas themselves say [autoi legousi]”), weak proofs of their Hellenic descent. Moreover, the Olympic Games tale is twice removed: Herodotus heard from the Argeadea (perhaps from Alexander himself) that the king had told something to the judges, but we do not know what those proofs were”.
b) “The theme of the Olympic and Plataea incidents are the same: “I am Alexander, a Greek” which seems to be the main point. The more credible accounts of Alexander at Tempe and at Athens do not pursue this theme; they state Alexander’s activities without embellishment or appeal to prohellenism. Moreover, the insistence that Alexander is a Greek, and descendant from Greeks, rubs against the spirit of Herodotus 7.130, who speaks of the Thessalians as the first Greeks to come under Persian submission–a perfect opportunity for Herodotus to point out that the Macedonians were a non Greek race ruled over by Greek kings, something he nowhere mentions”.
c) “In sum, it would appear that Olympia and Plataea incidents—when taken together with the tale of the ill–fated Persian embassy to Amyntas’ court in which Alexander proclaims the Greek descent of the royal house–are part of Alexander’s own attempts to integrate himself into the Greek community during the postwar period. They should be discarded both because they are propaganda and because they invite suspicion on the general grounds outlined above”.
In support of his position Borza brings forward many interesting questions. He asks:
d) “Why is it that no “Spartan or Athenian or Argive felt constrained to prove to the others that he and his family were Helenes? But Macedonian kings seem hard put to argue in behalf of their Hellenic ancestry in the fifth century B.C., and that circumstance is telling. Even if one were to accept that all the Herodotian stories about Alexander were true, why did the Greeks, who normally were knowledgeable about matters of ethnic kinship, not already know that the Macedonian monarchy was Greek? But–following Herodotus–the stade- race competitors at Olympia thought the Macedonian was a foreigner (Hdt. 5.22: barbaros) Second, for his effort on behalf of the Greek cause against the Persians Alexander is known as “Philhellene”. Now this is kind of odd to call a Greek a “friend of the Greeks”. “This title”, writes Borza, “is normally reserved for non–Greeks“.
e) Borza concludes: “It is prudent to reject the stories of the ill–fated Persian embassy to Amyntas’s court, Alexander’s midnight ride at Plataea, and his participation in the Olympic Games as tales derived from Alexander himself (or from some official court version of things).”
[2] Peter Green – [Classical Bearings p.157]
“All Herodotus in fact says is that Alexander himself demonstrated his Argive ancestry (in itself a highly dubious genealogical claim), and was thus adjudged a Greek—against angry opposition, be it noted, from the stewards of the Games Even if, with professor N.G.L. Hammond, we accept this ethnic certification at face value, it tells us, as he makes plain, nothing whatsoever about Macedonians generally. Alexander’s dynasty, if Greek, he writes, regarded itself as Macedonian only by right of rule, as a branch of the Hanoverian house has come to ‘regard itself as English’. On top of which, Philip II’s son Alexander had an Epirote mother, which compounds the problem from yet another ethnic angle.”
[3] Ernst Badian – “Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical Early Hellenistic Times”
“We have no way of judging the authenticity of either the claim or the evidence that went with it, but it is clear that at the time the decision was not easy. There were outraged protests from the other competitors, who rejected Alexander I as a barbarian–which proves, at least, that the Temenid descent and the royal genealogy had hitherto been an isoteric item of knowledge. However, the Hellanodikai decided to accept it–whether moved by the evidence or by political considerations, we again cannot tell. In view of the time and circumstances in which the claim first appears and the objections it encountered, modern scholars have often suspected that it was largely spun out of fortuitous resemblance of the name of the Argead clan to city of Argos; with this given, the descent (of course) could not be less than royal, i.e., Temenid.”
Badian, like Borza, believes that Alexander I “invented the story (in its details a common type of myth) of how he had fought against his father’s Persian connection by having the Persian ambassadors murdered, and that it was only in order to hush this up and save the royal family’s lives that the marriage of his sister to a Persian had been arranged.”
Badian sums it up:
“As a matter of fact, there is reason to think that at least some even among Alexander I’s friends and supporters had regarded the Olympic decision as political rather than factual–as a reward for services to the Hellenic cause rather than as prompted by genuine belief in the evidence he had adduced. We find him described in the lexicographers, who go back to fourth-century sources, as “Philhellene”,–surely not an appellation that could be given to an actual Greek.”
[4] Here, I would like to offer another episode, reported by Herodotus, which clearly indicates that ancient Greeks did not regard the ancient Macedonians as brethren. Episodes like this stand in sharp contrast to today’s claims propagated by modern Greeks. The Persian armies were ready and poised to strike Greece. Greek allies were assembled and prepared to defend their nation. Mardonius, the Persian commander, sends Alexander I to Athens with a message. On his arrival to Athens as Mardonius’ ambassador Alexander spoke to the Athenians urging them to accept the terms offered by Mardonius.
In Sparta, the news that Alexander brought message from the Great King, caused great consternation. Sparta feared that an alliance between Athens and Persia was in the making. She, then, quickly rushed an envoy to Athens herself. As it happened, Alexander I and the Spartan envoy had their audience at the same time.
When Alexander I was done the Spartan envoy s spoke in their turn: “Do not let Alexander’s smooth-sounding version of Mardonius’ proposals seduce you; he does only what one might expect of him–a despot himself, of course he collaborates with a despot. But such conduct is not for you – at least, not if you are wise; for surely you know that in foreigners there is neither truth nor trust.” (Hdt. 8.142)
[Please note the reference to Alexander I as a foreigner who is neither truthful nor trustworthy]
Then, the Athenians gave answer to Alexander I. Among the other things, they told Alexander that they, the Athenians, will never make peace with Mardonius, and will oppose him ‘unremittingly’. As to Alexander I’ advice and urgings that they accept the terms offered by Mardonius they said:
“Never come to us again with a proposal like this, and never think you are doing us good service when you urge us to a course which is outrageous – for it would be a pity if you were to suffer some hurt at the hands of the Athenians, when you are our friend and benefector.” (Hdt. 8.143)
To the Spartan envoys they said the following: “No doubt it was natural that the Lacedaemonians should dread the of our making terms with Persia; none the less it shows a poor estimate of the spirit of Athens. There is not so much gold nor land so fair that we would take for pay to join the common enemy and bring Greece into subjection. There are many compelling reasons against our doing so, even if we wished: the first and greatest is the burning of the temples and images of our gods – now ashes and rubble. It is our bounded duty to avenge this desecration with all our might – not to clasp the hand that wrought it. Again there is the Greek nation – the community of blood and language, temples and rituals, and our common customs; if Athens were to betray all this, it would not be well done. We, would have you know, if you did not know it already, that so long as a single Athenians remains alive we will make no peace with Xerxes.” (Hdt. 8.144)
CONCLUSION
Among the Greeks there exist a common bond, a community of blood and language, temples and rituals and common customs. This expressed kinship between the Greek allies is evident and it stands in stark contrast against the references used towards the Macedonians who were addressed as foreigners. We have seen that Herodotus (7.130) speaks of the Thessalians as the first Greeks to come under Persian submission (although the Persians entered Macedonia first), and here he, using his own words clearly excludes the Macedonians from the ancient Greeks. We are therefore, left with the conclusion that Herodotus did not consider the Macedonians to be Greeks. As Borza had written, “Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a distinct people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states” – Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p. 96.
GREEK CLAIM: THOUKIDIDIS (THOUCYDIDES)
“The country by the sea which is now called Macedonia… Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his forefathers, who were originally Temenidae from Argos” (Thucididis 99,3)
“In all there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians.” (Thukididis 4.124)
REPLY:
Thoucydides also didn’t consider the Macedonians to be Greek as well, and the legend of Temenidae from Argos was not his original work but was only copied and transmitted by him. Here is the proof of that:
[1] The modern Greeks claim that the ancient Macedonians were Greek based on the below passage of Thucydides:
“The country by the sea which is now called Macedonia… Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his forefathers, who were originally Temenidae from Argos” (Thucydides 2.99,3)
That this myth does not prove that the Macedonians were Greek I offer the extensive study conducted by the Macedonian specialist, Professor Eugene Borza. Analyzing the Temenidae myth transmitted by Herodotus and Thucydides, in details in two Chapters, Eugene Borza – In the Shadow of Olympus p.82-83 gives the following conclusion:
“The Temenidae in Macedon are an invention of the Macedonians themselves, intended in part to give credence to Alexander I’s claims of Hellenic ancestry, attached to and modifying some half-buried progenitor stories that had for a long time existed among the Macedonians concerning their own origins. The revised version was transmitted without criticism or comment by Herodotus. Thucydides (2-99.3; 5.80.2) acquired the Argive lineage tale from Herodotus, or from Macedonian-influenced sources, and transmitted it. His is not an independent version. [There is no hard evidence (pace Hammond, HM i: 4) that Thucydides ever visited Macedonia, but it makes no difference; Thucydides is reflecting the official version of things.] What emerged in the fifth century is a Macedonian-inspired tale of Argive origins for the Argead house, an account that can probably be traced to its source, Alexander I (for which see Chapter 5 below). The Temenidae must disappear from history, making superfluous all discussion of them as historical figures”.
More on the Temenidae myth you can find above under Heroditus.
[2] Thucydides however, did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek, despite the above myth which wasn’t his original work but it as we saw was only transmitted by him. Here Thucydides clearly separates the Macedonians from the Greeks (Hellenes):
“In all there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians.” (Thucydides 4.124)
Borza comments: “The use of barbaros [barbarians] is problematic, although it would appear that he normally includes at least some of the Macedonians in this category. See 4.125.3 and Gomme, Comm. Thuc.,3:613,615 and 616 on Thuc. 4.124.1, 126.3 and 126.5 respectively. In the Shadow of Olympus p 152″.
CONCLUSION
“Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a distinct people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states” – Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p. 96
GREEK CLAIM: ARRIAN After the battle of Granicus,
“He (Alexander) sent to Athens three hundred Persian panoplies to be set up to Athena in the acropolis; he ordered this inscription to be attached: Alexander son of Philip and the Hellenes, except the Lacedaemonians, set up these spoils from the barbarians dwelling in Asia”, (Arrian I, 16, 7)
REPLY:
J.R. Hamilton, Associate professor of Classics and Ancient History from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, writes: “In view of the small part that the Greeks had played in the battle the inscription (with its omission of any mention of the Macedonians) must be regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not fail to stress the absence of the Spartans.”
a) Alexander sent these suits of armor to Athens for dedication in the Parthenon simply to tell the Greeks to stay put, to show them “what will happen to any Greeks – Athenians included – who were rush enough to oppose him.” (Green)
b) The spoils of victory, the bulk of the luxury articles were sent home to his mother in Pella, and not to Athens.
c) At Granicus Alexander captured 2,000 Greek mercenaries (commanded by Memnon) who were sent to Macedonia (notice, not to Athens), chained like felons to force labor. “Alexander’s action smacks of pure vindictiveness” (Green); same kind of vindictiveness as the one at Thebes.
d) Most importantly, Alexander erected 25 statues of the fallen Macedonian Companions at Dium in Macedonia, not Greece? Why did he not erect bronze statues of his soldiers in Athens, the most venerated cities of ancient Greece? Surely, Athens was the leading city in Greece. And if anyone is going to “impress” the Greeks, the tribute should have been designated for Athenian arrival, and not Dium, a city of markedly lesser political significance.
e) Please notice that Alexander sent 300 panoplies to Athens (by the way aren’t panoplies the armor of the Greek soldiers?) and statues to Dium where characteristically he included his own likeness in the group? The truth is, that Alexander had saved his political emotions for Athens, but his heart for Macedonia.
The logical conclusion therefore, is that the above quote does not ‘prove’ that the Alexander was Greek.
GREEK CLAIM:
Alexander’s letter to Darius: “Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Hellas and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury;… I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks… ” (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander II, 14, 4)
REPLY:
It’s interesting to point out in Arrian, that we find Alexander including Macedonia in Greece and himself as son of the Hellenes, only, and only when he responds to his enemies – the Athenians in Greece, and the Persian king Darius. It is clear that this is Alexander’s propaganda directed towards the Greeks and the Persians with a political purpose.
Professor Edmund F. Bloedow (University of Ottawa) had completed an in-depth analysis on this matter, in his Diplomatic Negotiations between Darius and Alexander: Historical Implications of the First Phase at Marathus in Phoenicia in 333/332 BC. The article focuses on the correspondence between Darius and Alexander shortly after the battle of Issus, in late 333 BC, while he (Alexander) was still at Marathus in Phoenicia. Whether Alexander wrote this letter himself, or was written by his biographers, is not the concern of this post. It is also, not my concern, whether the letter received from Darius was authentic or not, nor whether Alexander has doctored the content of same to promote his own interests. The fact that this article was written about the correspondence between Alexander and Darius did not cause any substantial reverberations in my mind. What, indeed, caused reverberations was the fact that Alexander asks of Darius, in the written response, to include Macedonia in Greece. Easily discernible is the clarity with which this author separates the ancient Macedonians from the ancient Greeks. The question is: Why would Alexander want, from Darius, the king of Persia, an inclusion of Macedonia in Greece? What were the ulterior, hidden motives for such an inclusion? Did Alexander know something that has escaped our attention? The author of this article brings up various possible alternatives by presenting the views of other writers and historians. Various accounts are being discussed and analyzed. Darius’ letter, as well as Alexander’s response, are weighed out, balanced and counterbalanced. Out of eighteen points that Alexander demanded of Darius, several will be highlighted for our discussion; especially point #2, ‘the Inclusion of Macedonia in Greece’. In lieu of the preponderance of slogans used by the Greek netters and the Greek government itself, specifically the one where “Macedonia is Greece” is used extensively to portray Macedonia as Greek land, it would be quite interesting to pit the modern Greek thinking wis-a-vis that of the ancient’s, and more importantly, against that of the modern historians’ thinking and modern revisionists’/scholars’ interpretations of the twentieth century. Point “2” text and subsequent elaboration follows:
Bloedow: “The designation of Macedonia as part of Greece has intrigued modern critics. This, according to Schachermeyr, is enough to ‘take one’s breath away’. He went so far as to suggest that, however brief, it encapsulates a whole and bold strategy: to counter the Great King’s strategy of attempting to exploit the age-old distinction between Macedonians and Hellenes. The reason for including Macedonia as part of larger Hellas was designed to justify Macedonian participation in the so-called war of revenge. Whatever the truth on this point, on the basis of what we know happened in Macedonia in 480, Alexander had no more grounds for carrying out a war of revenge on behalf of Macedonia than he had on behalf of Athens or Sparta. Of course, Macedonians never regarded their territory as forming part of Greece, and certainly the Greek poleis did not regard Macedonia as being another Greek polis. The reason why Alexander here includes Macedonia as being part of Greece may be an attempt to paper over the glaring anomaly between what Philip and he had just done to ‘the rest of Greece’ and what he is in the process of doing to the Persian empire. The Persians had never done anything significant against the Macedonians. It is noteworthy that Herodotus, although he provides considerable information on Xerxes’ activities when he passed through Macedonia in 480, does not record any acts of destruction— scarcely surprising if Xerxes was instrumental in Macedonia gaining control of Upper Macedonia.”
What are the glaring and the noteworthy points to be taken out and re-emphasized? a) The great King (Darius) knew quite well that Macedonians were not Greeks. “The age-old distinction” between Macedonians and Greeks was well known to all ancients. b) Alexander wanted to take that particular “card” (motive) out of the hands of Darius, and preclude the Great King from using it against Alexander’s attack on Persia. By including Macedonia in Greece Alexander could, as hegemon of the allied troops, justify his attack on Persia as a revenge for Persian attack on Greece. c) “Macedonians never regarded their territory as forming part of Greece”. How clear and unobtrusive this statement is; again, this statement is made by people, scholars whose profession is ancient history. They don’t kill the afternoons sipping coffee or playing cards, either. d) “The Greek poleis did not regard Macedonia as being another Greek polis”. (These are the ancient Greeks speaking) and e) “The reason why Alexander here includes Macedonia as being part of Greece may be an attempt to paper over the glaring anomaly between what Philip and he had just done to ‘the rest of Greece’ and what he is in the process of doing to the Persian empire.”
And since Alexander is conquering Persia, then Philip had already conquered Greece ‘not united it’ like the modern Greek propaganda claims. Certainly, it is not to “unite” Persia like he had “united’ the Greek city-states. The assertion that “Philip and Alexander united the Greek city-states” can be equated with “Alexander united the Persian states”. This, indeed, is extremely hard to comprehend.
In Curtius Rufus however we see a different picture of Alexander, who in a letter, responds to Darius: “His Majesty Alexander to Darius: Greetings. The Darius whose name you have assumed wrought utter destruction upon the Greek inhabitants of the Hellespontine coast and upon the Greek colonies of Ionia, and then crossed the sea with a mighty army, bringing the war to Macedonia and Greece.” The History of Alexander [p.50-1] A clear separation of Macedonia from Greece!
ARRIAN – THE FULL PICTURE
Now that we have proven that the above quotes can not serve to portray Alexander and his Macedonians as Greek, we can move along. We will prove that Arrian did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek at all. Arrian simply knew the difference between Macedonians and Greeks, he was a Greek after all. The whole book “The Campaigns of Alexander“written by none other then Arrian himself, bristles with clear demarcations between Macedonians and Greeks, which is exactly what the modern Greek propaganda does not want anybody to see. Here is the proof:
ARRIAN The Campaigns of Alexander:
[1] “Destiny had decreed that Macedon should wrest the sovereignty of Asia from Persia, as Persia once had wrested it from the Medes, and the Medes, in turn, from the Assyrians.” [p. 111][2] “Our enemies are Medes and Persians, men who for centuries have lived soft and luxurious lives; we of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and war. Above all, we are free men, and they are slaves.” [p.112][3] “When received the report that Alexander was moving forward to the attack, he sent some 30,000 mounted troops and 20,000 light infantry across the river Pinarus, to give himself a chance of getting the main body of his army into position without molestation. His dispositions were as follows: in the van of his heavy infantry were his 30,000 Greek mercenaries, facing the Macedonian infantry, with some 60,000 Persian heavy infantry- known as Kardakes.” [p.114][4] [Book II – Battle of Issus] “Darius’ Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander’s triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian.” [p.119][5] “The cavalry action which ensued was desperate enough, and the Persians broke only when they knew that the Greek mercenaries were being cut and destroyed by the Macedonian infantry.” [p.119-20][6] “The same painstaking attention to details is evident in administrative matters. Appointments of governors are duly mentioned, and throughout his book Arrian is careful to give the father’s name in the case of Macedonians, e.g. Ptolemy son of Lagus, and in the case of Greeks their city of origin.” [p.25][7] “In the spring of 334 Alexander set out from Macedonia, leaving Antipater with 12,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry to defend the homeland and to keep watch on the Greek states.” [p.34][8] “The backbone of the infantry was the Macedonian heavy infantry, the ‘Foot Companions’, organized on territorial basis in six battalions (taxeis) of about 1,500 men each. In place of the nine-foot spear carried by the Greek hoplite, the Macedonian infantryman was armed with a pike or sarissa about 13 or 14 feet long, which required both hands to wield it. The light circular shield was slung on the left shoulder, and was smaller than that carried by the Greek hoplite which demanded the use of the left arm. Both, Greek and Macedonian infantry wore greaves and a helmet, but it is possible that the Macedonians did not wear a breastplate. The phalanx (a heavy infantry), like all the Macedonian troops had been brought by Philip to a remarkable standard of training and discipline.” [p.35][9] Modern Greeks, have used this particular passage as evidence of Alexander’s greekness. Alexander sent to Athens, as an offering to the goddess Athena, 300 full suits of Persian armor, 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.” [p.76]
J.R. Hamilton, Associate professor of Classics and Ancient History from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, writes: ‘In view of the small part that the Greeks had played in the battle the inscription (with its omission of any mention of the Macedonians) must be regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not fail to stress the absence of the Spartans.’
[10] Alexander’s rationale as to why he would not like to engage the Persian fleet in a battle:
“In the first place, it was to rush blindly into a naval engagement against greatly superior forces, and with an untrained fleet against highly trained Cyprian and Phoenician crews; the sea, morever, was a tricky thing – one could not trust it, and he was not going to risk making a present to the Persians of all the skill and courage of his men; as to defeat, it would be very serious indeed and would affect profoundly the general attitude to the war in its early stages, above all by encouraging the Greeks to revolt the moment they got news of a Persian success at sea.” [p.80][11] Alexander speaking to his officers: “…….But let me remind you: Through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now yours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia;………” [p.292][12] Alexander addressing his troops: With all that accomplished, why do you hesitate to extend the power of Macedon – your power – to the Hyphasis and the tribes on the other side? [p.293] Arrian, book 5.
[13] Alexander continues to address his troops: “Gentlemen of Macedon, and you my friends and allies, this must not be. Stand firm; for well you know that hardship and danger are the price of glory, and that sweet is the savour of a life of courage and of deathless renown beyond the grave.” [p.294][14] Alexander continues to speak to his Macedonians and allies: “Come, then; add the rest of Asia to what you already possess – a small addition to the great sum of your conquests. What great or noble work could we ourselves have achieved had we thought it enough, living at ease in Macedon, merely to guard our homes, excepting no burden beyond checking the encroachment of the Thracians on our borders, or the Illyrians and Triballians, or perhaps such Greeks as might prove a menace to our comfort.” [p.294] Arrian, Book 5.
As we can clearly see, Arrian separates the Macedonians from the Greeks. He, as a Greek author was in position to know the truth, and therefore his testimony is conclusive. Consequently, this is the same testimony on which the Greek propaganda does not even dare to comment. It is obvious why
GREEK CLAIM: PLUTARCHOS (PLUTARCH)
“But he said, `If I were not Alexandros, I should be Diogenes’; that is to say: `If it were not my purpose to combine barbarian things with things Hellenic, to traverse and civilize every every continent, to search out the uttermost parts of land and sea, to push the boiunds of Macedonia to the farthest Ocean, and to diseminate and shower the blessings of the Hellenic justice and peace over every nation, I should not be content to sit quietly in the luxury of idle power, but I should emulate the frugality of Diogenes. But as things are, forgive me Diogenes, that I imitate Herakles, and emulate Perseus, and follow in the footsteps of Dionysos, the divine author and progenitor of my family, and desire that victorius Hellenes should dance again in India and revive the memory of the Bacchic revels among the savage mountain tribes beyond the Kaukasos…’ ” (Plutarchos, On the Fortune of Alexander, 332 a-b)
“Yet through Alexander, Bactria and the Caucasus learned to revere the gods of the Hellenes … Alexander established more than seventy cities among savage tribes, and sowed all Asia with Hellenic magistracies … Egypt would not have its Alexandria, nor Mesopotamia its Seleucia, nor Sogdiana its Prophthasia, nor India its Bucephalia, nor the Caucasus a Hellenic city, for by the founding of cities in these places savagery was extinguished and the worse element, gaining familiarity with the better, changed under its influence.’
(Plutarchos Moralia. On the Fortune of Alexander, I, 328D, 329A)
“When he (Alexander the Great) arrived at Ilion he sacrificed to Athena and offered libations to the Heroes.” (Plutarchos, Alexander 15)
REPLY:
Here we come across more selective and misleading quotes, which the Greek propaganda had taken out of the ancient author Plutarch, and wants to pass it as a “proof” that the Macedonians were Greek. Notice that nowhere does Plutarch say that the Macedonians are Greek. Let’s not forget that Alexander also sacrificed to Macedonian, Egyptian, and Persian customs and gods, not only Greek. Does that make him Greek, Egyptian, and Persian too? Of course not. He was a smart ruler who did sacrifices to foreign gods and traditions in order to establish trust to his subjects. He was nevertheless Macedonian, and proud of his nationality as Pierre Jouguet says. The cities that Alexander established were not just Greek. It is true the Greek colonists were imported from Greece, but it is also true that many Macedonians from Macedonia also settled the cities that Alexander and his successor founded. It is not accidental that Pierre Jouguet refers to Syria as “New Macedonia” due to the magnitude of the Macedonian ethnic element.
But let us get back to Plutarch. The reality is however, that Plutarch also did not consider the Macedonians to Greek, and that the misleading Greek propaganda had once again purposely avoided to comment on all those overwhelming Plutarch’s quotes that clearly show that the Macedonians were different nation from the ancient Greeks. Here is the proof of that too in Plutarch’s The Age of Alexander:
[1] “Alexander was born on the sixth day of the month Hecatombaeon, which the Macedonians call Lous, the same day on which the temple of Artemis at Ephesus was burned down.” [p.254][2] Alexander was only twenty years old when he inherited his kingdom, which at the moment was beset by formidable jealousies and feuds, and external dangers on every side. The neighboring barbarian tribes were eager to throw off the Macedonian yoke and longed for the rule of their native kings: As for the Greek states, although Philip had defeated them in battle, he had not had time to subdue them or accustomed them to his authority.
Alexander’s Macedonian advisers feared that a crisis was at hand and urged the young king to leave the Greek states to their own devices and refrain from using any force against them. [p.263] [Alexander chose the opposite course] Plutarch never said that Philip “united” the Greeks, but he states that Philip “defeated” them in battle.
[3] Alexander returns from the campaigns at the Danube, north of Macedon. When the news reached him that the Thebans had revolted and were being supported by the Athenians, he immediately marched south through the pass of Thermopylae. ‘Demosthenes’, he said, ‘call me a boy while I was in Illyria and among the Triballi, and a youth when I was marching through Thessaly; I will show him I am a man by the time I reach the walls of Athens.’ [p.264][4] “Thebans countered by demanding the surrender of Philotas and Antipater and appealing to all who wished to liberate Greece to range themselves on their side, and at this Alexander ordered his troops to prepare for battle.” [p.264][5] Alexander asks a women, who was being taken captive, who she was, she replied: ‘I am the sister of Theogenes who commanded our army against your father, Philip, and fell at Chaeronea fighting for the liberty of Greece.‘ [p.265][6] There is a story that on one occasion when a large company had been invited to dine with the king, Callisthenes (Alexander’s biographer) was called upon, as the cup passed to him, to speak in praise of the Macedonians. This theme he handled so eloquently that the guests rose to applaud and threw theig garlands at him. At this Alexander quoted Euripides’ line from the Bacchae On noble subjects all men can speak well. ‘But now’, he went on, ‘show us the power of your eloquency by criticizing the Macedonians so that they can recognize their shortcomings and improve themselves.’ Callisthenes then turned to the other side of the picture and delivered a long list of home truths about the Macedonians, pointing out that the rise of Philip’s power had been brought about by the division among the rest of the Greeks, and quoting the verse Once civil strife has begun, even scoundrels may find themselves honoured. The speech earned him the implacable hatred of the Macedonians, and Alexander that it was not his eloquence that Callisthenes had demonstrated, but his ill will towards them. [p.311][7] Alexander’s letter to Antipater in which he includes Callisthenes in the general accusation, he writes: ‘The youths were stoned to death by the Macedonians, but as far as the sophist I shall punish him myself, and I shall not forget those who sent him to me, or the others who give shelter in their cities to those who plot against my life.’ In those words, at least, he plainly reveals his hostility to Aristotle in whose house Callisthenes had been brought up, since he was a son of Hero, who was Aristotle’s niece.’ [p.133][8] Cassander’s fear of Alexander ‘In general, we are told, this fear was implanted so deeply and took such hold of Cassander’s mind that even many years later, when he had become king of Macedonia and master of Greece, and was walking about one day looking at the sculpture at Delphi, the mere sight of a statue of Alexander struck him with horror, so that he sguddered and trembled in every limb, his head swam, and he could scarcely regain control of himself.’ [p.331][9] ‘It was Asclepiades, the son of Hipparchus, who first brought the news of Alexander’s death to Athens. When it was made public, Demades urged the people not to believe it: If Alexander were really dead, he declared, the stench of the corpse would have filled the whole world long before.’ [p.237][10] Lamian War 323-322 is also known as the “Hellenic War” by its protagonists. The Greeks, the Hellenes, were fighting the Macedonians led by Antipater at Lamia.
[11] [Modern day Greeks would like to dispatch off Demosthenes castigations of Philip II as political rhetoric, and yet Demosthenes was twice appointed to lead the war effort of Athens against Macedonia. He, Demosthenes, said of Philip that Philip was not Greek, nor related to Greeks but comes from Macedonia where a person could not even buy a decent slave. ‘Soon after his death the people of Athens paid him fitting honours by errecting his statue in bronze, and by decreeing that the eldest member of his family should be maintained in the prytaneum at the public expense. On the base of his statue was carved his famous inscription: ‘If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares’ [p.216][12] “While Demosthenes was still in exile, Alexander died in Babylon, and the Greek states combined yet again to form a league against Macedon. Demosthenes attached himself to the Athenian convoys, and threw all his energies into helping them incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Greece.” [p.212][13] The news of Philip’s death reached Athens. Demosthenes appeared in public dressed in magnificent attire and wearing a garland on his head, although his daughter had died only six days before. Aeshines states:
“For my part I cannot say that the Athenians did themselves any credit in puting on garlands and offering sucrifices to celebrate the death of a king who, when he was the conqueror and they the conquered had treated them with such tolerance and humanity. Far apart from provoking the anger of the gods, it was a contemptible action to make Philip a citizen of Athens and pay him honours while he was alive, and then, as soon as he has fallen by another’s hand, to be besides themselves with joy, tremple on his body, and sing paeans of victory, as though they themselves have accomplished some great feat of arms.” [p.207][14] “Next when Macedonia was at war with the citizens of Byzantium and Perinthus, Demosthenes persuaded the Athenians to lay aside their grievances and forget the wrongs they had suffered from these peolples in the Social War and to dispatch a force which succeeded in relieving both cities. After this he set off on a diplomatic mission, which was designed to kindle the spirit of resistance to Philip and which took him all over Greece. Finally he succeeded in uniting almost all the states into a confederation against Philip.” [p.202][15] “The maladies and defects in the Greek scene of the fourth century were not hard to find. But its great and ovrriding merit is summed up in the word ‘freedom.’ With allowance made for the infinite variety promoted by so many independent governments, Greece was still broadly speaking a free country. This freedom was threatened and in the end extinguished by the coming of the great Macedonians.” [p.8] [In Plutarch The Age of Alexander, noted by J.T.Griffith][16] “What better can we say about jelousies, and that league and conspiracy of the Greeks for their own mischief, which arrested fortune in full career, and turned back arms that were already uplifted against the barbarians to be used against themselves, and recall into Greece the war which had been banished out of her? I by no means assent to Demaratus of Corinth, who said that those Greeks lost a great satisfaction that did not live to see Alexander sit on the throne of Darius. That sight should rather have drawn tears from them, when they considered that they have left the glory to Alexander and the Macedonians, whilst they spent all their own great commanders in playing them against each other in the fields of Leuctra, Coronea, Corinth, and Arcadia.” [Plutarch “Lives” vol.2 The Dryden Translation. Edited and Revised by Arthur Hugh Clough p.50]
We have proved once again a) that yet another ancient author did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek, and b) that the Greek propaganda had been passing misleading quotes, and avoiding evidence that does not suit their purpose.
GREEK CLAIM: ISOKRATIS (ISOCRATES)
“It is your privilege, as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom, to consider all Hellas your fatherland, as did the founder of your race.” (Isokratis, To Philip 127)
REPLY:
And yet another misleading quote that the Greek propaganda is trying to pass it as a ‘proof’ that this Greek writer considered the Macedonians to be Greek, when it is a fact that Isocrates did not. It’s ironic that even the modern Greek writer Sakellariou in his Macedonia 4000 years of Greek History, had written that Isocrates does not see the Macedonians to be Greek. This Greek internet propaganda page is therefore contradicting other Greek claims. Regarding Isocrates, we have already seen the 3 points from Green above:
a) Isocrates’ letter to Philip II where he, Isocrates refers to Philip “as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom to consider Hellas your fatherland” Green calls this a “rhetorical hyperbole”. “Indeed, taken as a whole the Address to Philip must have caused its recipient considerable sardonic amusement”. [p. 49] “Its ethnic conceit was only equaled by its naivety” [p.49]
b) “And though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage (a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda-line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his Macedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress.” [p.50]
c) “This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the king’s propaganda section continued – for the time being – to present it. No one, so far as we know, was tactless enough to ask the obvious question: if this was a Panhellenic crusade, where were the Greek troops? [p. 157]
Here is the rest of the real truth about Isocrates:
[1] “The feeling of being peoples of nonkindred race existed on both side” referring to Isocrates’ statement. Earnst Badian
[2] Isocrates’ letter to Philip II where he, Isocrates refers to Philip “as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom to consider Hellas your fatherland” Green calls this a “rhetorical hyperbole”. “Indeed, taken as a whole the Address to Philip must have caused its recipient considerable sardonic amusement”. [p. 49] “Its ethnic conceit was only equaled by its naivety” [p.49] Peter Green
[3] “And though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage (a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda-line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his Macedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress.” [p.50] Peter Green
[4] “This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the king’s propaganda section continued – for the time being – to present it. No one, so far as we know, was tactless enough to ask the obvious question: if this was a Panhellenic crusade, where were the Greek troops? [p. 157] Green
[5] “Isocrates never for an instant thought of a politically unified state under Philip’s leadership. It is simply the internal unification of Hellas which he calls on Philip to bring about.” [p.37] [Macedonia specifically excluded from Greece] Wilken
Note: Macedonians were not Hellene, and Macedonia was never a member of the Hellenic League, a league that encompassed and “united” all the Greek city-states. Isocrates expanded the term Hellene to include, no racial descent, but mode of thought, and those who partook of Attic culture, rather than those who had a common descent were called Hellene. He saw the true Hellene only in the Greek educated in the Attic model. He did not regard the barbarians of Attic education as Hellenes.
[6] “When Philip read the book, the insistence of his descent from Heracles must have been welcome to him; for in his policy he had to stress this mythical derivation, as the types of Heracles on his coins show. But on the other hand he must have smiled at the naivete shown by Isocrates.” [p.36] Wilken
[7] Isocrates must have taken this strong realist for an idealist, such as he was himself, if he believed that Philip would draw his sword for the beaux yeux of the Greeks.” [p.36] Wilken
[8] “When Isocrates in this treatise makes so much of Heracles as Philip’s ancestor, this was meant not merely for Philip, but for the Greek public as well.” [p.35] Wilken
[9] “At the end of his speech, Isocrates, summarizing the programme which he was proposing to Philip, advised him to be a benefector to the Greeks, a king to the Macedonians, and to the barbarians not a master, but a chief.” [p.106] PIERRE JOUGUET Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World
[10] [On Macedonian ethnicity] So little do the Macedonians seem to have belonged to the Hellenic community at the beginning, that they did not take part in the great Games of Greece, and when the Kings of Macedon were admitted to them, it was not as Macedonians, but as Heraclids. Isocrates, in the ‘Philip’ praises them for not having imposed their kingship on the Hellenes, to whom the kingship is always oppressive, and for having gone among foreigners to establish it. He, therefore, did not regard the Macedonians as Greeks.” [p.68] PIERRE JOUGUET Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World
[11] “In the Panegyricus he [Isocrates] had urged an understanding between Sparta and Athens, so that the Greeks might unite in a common expedition against the Persian empire. Nothing of that sort was any longer thinkable. But the policy of which he now had such high hopes offered a surprisingly simple solution for the distressing problem that lay heavily on all minds the problem of what was to be the ultimate relationship between Greece and the new power in the north (Macedonia).” [p.152] WERNER JAEGER Demosthenes
[12] “But for Isocrates that was no obstacle. He had long since come to recognize the impossibility of resisting Macedonia, and he was only trying to find the least humiliating way to express the unavoidable submission of all the Greeks to the will of Philip. Here again he found the solution in a scheme for Macedonian hegemony over Greece. For it seems as if Philip’s appearance in this role would be most effective way to mitigate his becoming so dominant a factor in Greek history; moreover, it ought to silence all Greek prejudices against the culturally and ethnically alien character of the Macedonians.” [p.153] WERNER JAEGER
[13] “With the help of the role that Isocrates had assigned to him, he had the astuteness to let his cold-blooded policy for the extension of Macedonian power take on the eyes of the Greeks the appearance of a work of liberation for Hellas. What he most needed at this moment was not force but shrewd propaganda; and nobody lent himself to this purpose so effectively as the old Isocrates, venerable and disinterested, who offered his services of his own free will.” [p.155] WERNER JAEGER
[14] “Looking far beyond the actualities of the Greek world, hopelessly split asunder as it was, he (Isocrates) had envisaged a united nation led by the Macedonian king.” [p.172] WERNER JAEGER
[15] “Quite apart, however, from any theoretical doubts whether the nationalistic movement of modern times, which seeks to combine in a single state all the individuals of a single folk, can properly be compared with the Greek idea of Panhellenism, scholars have failed to notice that after the unfortunate Peace of Philocrates Demosthenes’ whole policy was an unparalleled fight for national unification. In this period he deliberately threw off the constrains of the politician concerned exclusively with Athenian interests, and devoted himself to a task more lofty than any Greek statesman before him had ever projected or indeed could have projected. In this respect he is quite comparable to Isocrates; but an important point of contrast still remains. The difference is simply that Demosthenes did not think of this “unification” as a more or less voluntary submission to the will of the conqueror; on the contrary, he demanded a unanimous uprising of all the Greeks against the Macedonian foe.” [p.172] WERNER JAEGER
[16] “His Panhellenism was the outgrowth of a resolute will for national self-assertiveness, deliberately opposed to the national self-surrender called for by Isocrates – for that was what Isocrates’ program had really meant, despite its being expressed romantically as a plan for a Persian war under Macedonian leadership.” [p.172-3] WERNER JAEGER
[17] The first resolution passed by Synedrion at Corinth was the declaration of war against Persia. “The difference was that this war of conquest, which was passionately described as a war of vengeance, was not looked upon as a means of uniting the Greeks, as Isocrates would have had it, but was merely an instrument of Macedonian imperialism.” [p.192] WERNER JAEGER
[18] “For the six years or more that follow, Philip’s life, alas! is withdrawn, except at rare intervals, from our knowledge. Alas, indeed! for these are the years in which his men at arms marched, the first foreigners since history has begun, into the Peloponnese, and he himself besieged and took cities on the Adriatic, and led his spearmen up to, or even beyond, the Danube; years, too, in which his final ambition took shape, ‘for it was coming to be his desire to be designated Captain- General of Hellas, and to wage the War against the Persians’.” (p.97) David Hogarth
[Please visit “Green” and “Isocrates’ Letter to Philip” (345), for further enlightenment] Notice also the usage of quotes by David Hogarth, regarding Philip’s desire to be Captain-General of Hellas.]
[19] “The dispute of modern scholars over the racial stock of the Macedonians have led to many interesting suggestions. This is especially true of the philological analysis of the remains of the Macedonian language by O. Hoffmann in his Makedonen etc. Cf. the latest general survey of the controversy in F. Geyer and his chapter on prehistory. But even if the Macedonians did have some Greek blood- as well as Illyrian- in their veins, whether originally or by later admixture, this would not justify us in considering them on a par with the Greeks in point of race or in using this as historical excuse for legitimizing the claims of this bellicose peasant folk to lord it over cousins in the south of the Balkan peninsula so far ahead of them in culture. It is likewise incorrect to assert that this is the only way in which we can understand the role of the Macedonian conquest in Hellenizing the Orient. But we can neglect this problem here, as our chief interest lies in discovering what the Greeks themselves felt and thought. And here we need not cite Demosthenes’ well-known statements; for Isocrates himself, the very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates the people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil.108. He purposely avoids the word barbaroi but this word is one that inevitably finds a place for itself in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of every true Hellene. Even Isocrates would not care to have the Greeks ruled by the Macedonian people: it is only the king of Macedonia, Philip, who is to be the new leader; and the orator tries to give ethnological proof of Philip’s qualifications for this task by the device of showing that he is no son of his people but, like the rest of his dynasty, a scion of Heracles, and therefore of Greek blood.” [p.249] WERNER JAEGER
(a) Macedonians cannot be considered as Greeks even if they had some Greek blood in their veins. (b) Macedonia’s conquest of the Orient should not be contingent upon Greek culture. (c) Isocrates places the Macedonians with alien races and hitherto, outside the Hellenic world. (d) Isocrates takes care of this “alien race” not to be seen as leaders of Greece. He isolates their king Philip as not of the same race as the people over which he governs.
GREEK CLAIM: PAUSANIAS
“They say that these were the tribes collected by Amphiktyon himself in the Hellenic Assembly: … the Macedonians joined and the entire Phocian race … In my day there were thirty members: six each from Nikopolis, Macedonia and Thessaly … ” (Pausanias Phokis 8,2 & 4)
The Phocians were deprived of their share in the Delphic sanctuary and in the Hellenic assembly, and their votes were given by the Amphictyons to the Macedonians. (Pausanias Description of Greece 10.3.3)
REPLY:
The Macedonian king Phillip, the father of Alexander the Great, did not represent Macedonia as a nation in the Delphic Amphictyony. Phillip’s membership of the Delphic Amphictyony was a personal gift to him, and not to the nation of Macedonia. Macedonians as “oppose” to their kings were regarded as “peoples of non-kindred race” (Isocrates) as we saw above. Phillip’s interests were multi-layered and deeper than he usual squabbles between two neighboring city-states; he prayed upon anti-Spartan feelings in the Peloponnesus, upon the tangle of Amphictyonic politics in central Greece, and upon disorder in the Thessalian federation. (Borza). Phillip exploited Greece’s internal weakness for purely Macedonian gains. Phillip needed Greece for security and coalition. What he offered Greece in 346-344, was not much different from what he obtained through a military conquest in 337. Once he settled the Greek question in 338-37, Phillip turned immediately to preparations for the Asian venture. (Ellis). It is indeed difficult to digest the fact that Philip had no interest in Greece at all and that this Barbarian from Pella had no desire to conquer the Hellenes.
Getting back to the Amphictyonyc League… However, although the Amphictyonyc League was only open to Greeks, the membership to this league was also open to other foreigners as well (next to the Macedonian kings) – Persian envoys and /or commanders! Therefore, the fact that some Macedonians participated in the Greek Amphictyonic League, does not prove that they were Greeks, since foreigners like certain Persians could participate as well, next to the Greeks. When we add to that the fact that Macedonia did not belong to the Greek Hellenic League as well, the conclusion is complete – Macedonia was not part of the ancient Greece, but it’s northern neighbor.
Therefore, the above quote by Pausanias does not prove that the Macedonians were Greek, and this again shows us how the Greek propaganda does not present the full picture but instead passes misleading quotes. It is clear from the overwhelming evidence, both ancient (including ancient Greek) and modern that the Macedonians were not part of the ancient Greek nation. To see the complete evidence on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians.
Republic of Macedonia Home Page
Here at Virtual Macedonia, we love everything about our country, Republic of Macedonia. We focus on topics relating to travel to Macedonia, Macedonian history, Macedonian Language, Macedonian Culture. Our goal is to help people learn more about the "Jewel of the Balkans- Macedonia" - See more at our About Us page.
Leave a comment || Signup for email || Facebook |
History || Culture || Travel || Politics
The church is home to the richest preserved medieval fresco ensemble in the region of…
The letter A is the first letter in the Macedonian Alphabet
The Church Holy Virgin Of Pestani is one of the most visited cave churches in…
This website uses cookies.