DISCOVERIES ABOUT THE LITERACY, LANGUAGE

AND CULTURE OF THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS

Introduction -Ancient Macedonia
Macedonia belongs to one of the richest archaeological findings on the Balkan pe
ninsula, and without its artifacts completing the history of Europe and the worl
d is impossible.Her cultural layers are rich of remains of a material culture wh
ich, up till now can be dated: starting somewhere at the end of the Mesolithic a
nd the beginning of the Neolithic period.(Picture 1), i.e. from 7.000 - 6.000 B.
C. up till now. An absolute chronology of her development suggests a long contin
uity of people living in these places, of many changes and events, of the presen
ce of a high culture of the so called pre Slav population, of the coming and lea
ving of invading waves,
of catastrophies and violence, of attempts of assimilation and syncretism, but
also of the survival of the identity of the Macedonian people, of the prevedic
culture mythology and a cult of the sun and the cosmos ( space, universe) of the
prehistoric Macedonian phonetic alphabet and the prehistoric Macedonian languag
e, of the existence of prehistoric Macedonian laws and prehistoric Macedonian st
ate. Homer in the "Iliad" mentions Macedonian tribes (Payonian, Pelazgian, Vene
ts or Enets, Brygian or , Phrygian etc.) that fight on the side of the Trojans a
gainst the allies of the new coming conquerors of the Balkans - Danaians, i.e. i
n the "Iliad" is portrayed a happening that occurred in 1193 - 1183 B.C. that is
according to the famous alexandrian scientist Eratosten (III century B.C.) the
happening which in the epic is portrayed on 15.693 should be treated in fact as
the WW I between the so called pre Slav population of the Balkan - Anadolian cu
ltural complex and the allies of the new incoming conquerors on the Pelopones (M
orea) and Atica - the Danaians. Beside this, it is also known that in the IV cen
tury B.C. the Macedonians succeeded to create a Macedonian kingdom or Macedonian
empire on a territory of about 3.8 mil km2, (map2) and later in the epoch Maced
onian period in the shape of 4 kingdoms with their Macedonian dynasties conti
nued to spread Macedonian culture and to breed the spirit of creativity and brin
ging the peoples, cultures and regions of the world together. Macedonians were a
nd remain an authentic people on the Balkan peninsula while others came and went
as guests or conquerors.

Probably it is the reason why Herodot (484 - 424 B.C.) mentions: "Macedonian", "
Macedonians", "Macedonia", "Upper Macedonia", "Lower Macedonia", "Macedonian mou
ntains", "Macedonian roads" etc. In the "Holy Scriptures" she is mentioned as a
biblical country, biblical people, Macedonia and Macedonians.
http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------Important communication axes in Macedonia
Many important communication links pass through Macedonia. These have left the
ir influence on the development of many so-called cultures that date from the en
d of the Mesolithic and beginning of the Neolithic period up till the present d
ay. The following stand out among the more important communication links:
The Vardar Morava road is one of the basic natural links on the Balkan peninsula
because it connects Macedonia with the interior of the Balkan and central Europ
e.The road through the town of Strumitsa and the valley of the Struma River enab
les relatively easy communication with the upper flow of the Morava River.The ro
ad along the valley of the river Bistritsa was of prominent importance to the lo

cal culture development of part of the Macedonian people. It enabled specific v

ariations of cultural development during various stages of Macedonian prehistory
, especially in the Neolithic (crossing from the bronze age to the iron age).Ano
ther important road runs along the Drim river. A road of exclusive importance, k
nown in during the Roman period as Via Egnatia, runs through Drach, Ohrid, Bitol
a, Voden, Pela, Solun, Kavala, Tcarigrad (Istanbul) and connects a large part of
Macedonia with the Adriatic, Aegean and Mramara seas. The road that connected
the Pelagonia field with the Polog field enabled links with Kosovo, and also thr
ough the Idarian valley with the northern parts of the Balkan, and from there wi
th central Europe.The road links from Skopje to Kumanovo and Kriva Palanka, and
from Skopje via Ovche Pole were also particularly important because they enabled
unhindered links with Thrace and other eastern regions on the Balkan and the Ba
lkan Anadolian cultural complex.
http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians/comunikacii_a.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------Macedonian "Neolithic revolution"
With a relatively well spread network of road communications it was possible
of unhindered links between the proto Macedonian tribes, and their incorporation
in the system of the so called "Neolithic revolution", because of that, today w
e have more proof of organised inhabitation since the early stone age (early Neo
lithic) and with indications of an older period, which means that Macedonia has
evidence of an evolution of her own culture, of a long continued period of imp
lementing links with other civilisation areas in the Balkan and even wider regio
ns (map 3). Example: The Neolithic material of east Macedonia Vrshnik at Tarints
i (close to Shtip) shows a narrow connection with some occurrences in Trakiya (
Karanovo) as well as with the early so called cultural groups in Anadolia. A Neo
lithic culture of the Skopje region shows certain similarities with that of the
so called Starchevo group and Vincha group, while the older phase of the art
and the literacy on the cliffs of Tsrna Loma (Black Ruin) or Ilina Gora (Solar F
orest) at Osinchani close to Skopje corresponds with the Lepenski Vir Culture .
Neolithic inhabitation of the so called Porodin group on Pelagonija show a speci
fic sign on living and burial. The archaeological material found in the many tom
bs near the Black river (map 4) show an exceptional knowledge of organising spac
e, and semantic shaping of the Neolithic pots which are a clear testimony of
the respect for the cult of the sun and the cult of the cosmos, (space, univers
e) and a longer cultural continuity with the oldest (up to now) registered sola
r symbols and diverse cosmographies, cosmogonies and cosmologies from around 5.
500 B.C..

Similar symbols are discovered in the localities in Skochivir canyon and in the
Kratovo region, the Skopje region abundans of cosmography, cosmonomy , astrology
and solar symbols in the area of Tsrna Loma or Ilina Gora near the village Osi
nchani (picture 3), dated at about 7.000 - 6.000 B.C. in the place "Tserje" at G
ovrlevo at the age of 6.000 B.C.[Picture 5] [Picture 6]
The Macedonian Neolithic revolution and evolution , as well as the one from the
Balkan - along the Danube and Balkan - Anadolia (map5) spaces is not cut of as
some modern archaeologists would claim, but instead it has transformed and evolv
ed to a higher degree of development of the material and spiritual culture. Poss
ible migrations of some populations from East to West, from North to South and b
ack could not be the cause or reason for the complete demise of cultures and pop
ulations of the Balkans. The established road communications enabled awareness a

mong people of all the innovations and discoveries, they enabled trade and econo
mic links among members of different tribes and later nations, they also enabled
invasions of members of one tribe on other tribes, of one people on others but
all of this could not contribute to a drastic or catastrophic radicalisation of
the situation and a total wiping off the prehistoric and historic scene of all t
he tribes or the peoples in other words the whole population on the Balkan penin
sular north of the Thermopiles. To this type of a conclusion we come from our pa
laeographic and paleolinguist research because in Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, an
d wider there is a conformation to the continual presence of the so-called pre
Slav population which used an alphabet and language which today could be identif
ied as ancient Macedonian through different stages of development of its materia
l culture on the Balkan peninsular.
Beside the shown constatations it should be emphasised that common elements of t
he material culture of the so called pre Slav population from the so named dif
ferent cultural groups from the separate territories on the Balkan actually just
confirme the closenes or relatedness of the ethnic members to their so called c
ultural groups from the end of the Mesolithic and the beginning of the Neolithic
right up till today on the Balkan mild comfortable space for living and surv
iving that are situated between the geographic lattitude of 20 degrees and 45
degrees northern lattitude, i.e. between the parallel that forms a belt where th
e oldest civilation centres in the world are found(map 3). The often registered
migration of certain inhabited suburbs and places from one location to another
as well as the appearance in the stratography of the cultural layers from differ
ent inhabitants of all kinds of artefacts made out of different material, colou
r, symbols, quality etc. is not relevant to the so claimed total disappearance o
f a suburb, culture or population, but on the contrary it could be a testimony t
o the existence of cycles of evolution and evolutionary transformations in the
cultural continuity of a separate suburb, cultural group, population.
http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians/neolithic.htm
----------------------------------------------------------Archeological sites close to village Osinchani-Skopje
The archeological site close to the village Osinchani at about 13,0 km as the cr
ow flies from the centre of Skopje abundans in an exceptional specific material
culture which testifies of a long continual period of living on these Macedonian
regions.At the locality "Dabye" there has been registered probably a grave pla
te (1.20 x 0.60 x 0.10) with a bare relief composition in the shape of a deer s he
ad with emphasised eyes and nose (P.1) which from its general artistic visual tr
eatment associates of the motives found on the sculptures at the Lepenski Vir.
Right on top of Tsrna Loma or Ilina Gora
just above the village Osinchani megalithic structures are preserved in the shap
e of "Dolmeni" (picture 7)which form a temple, i.e. first type of organised spac
e inclosed from 3 sides with cliffs and covered with a bigger massive stone. Tow
ards the temple leads a "path" covered with bigger unshaped (unprocessed) stone
blocks.n the close vicinity of the temple many inscriptions have been registered
on the cliffs and rocks with the association of a symbolic presentation of the
"Scorpio", "Libra", "Rams" and "Piscies" constelations and a larger stone with t
he dimensions 3.80 x 2.85 m (on which) is engraved a circle with the following d
iametre 8 cm on the surface of the circle (P. 3) which together forms in fact a
planetary sign if the sun.On the south side of Tsrna Loma or Ilina Gora a the lo
cality "Prisoy" two more temples have been registered "Dolmeni" type from which
one with its space
Picture 1
organisation symbolises the constellation "Sagittarius" and it`s g
ot elements of an emphasised cosmography, i.e. a space organisation of the type
of concentric circles with a centre circle with a diametre of 3.5 m (picture 8).

In the vicinity of the middle temple exists an accumulated heap of ruined bla
ck cliffs
(picture 9) hence the name of the mountain Tsrna Loma (Black Ruin)
. Close by to the three temples (upper, middle and lower one) at least 27 on th
e grave rocks are registered as well as cliffs with solar, astrological or cosm
ographic symbols together with written signs of the prehistoric Macedonian phone
tic alphabet and in the ancient Macedonian language. It s contents is diverse, th
e written material is relatively disciplined and the texts are mostly written fr
om the right hand side going to the left and from top to bottom or combined.
Bearing in mind that the "Dolmeni" in western Europe were erected between III
and II millennium B.C. while the first megalithic monuments in Bulgaria that is
the ones on the mountain Sakar in the eastern Rodopes, the Bulgarian scientists
attach them to the appearance of the Thracian (1.900 - 900 years B.C.), knowing
that the Mesolithic and early Neolithic culture at the Lepenski Vir are dated at
7.000 to 5.500 B.C. we come to a possible absolute chronology for the signs fro
m Osinchani from 7.000 to 1.000 B.C. A more thorough detailed dating of the insc
riptions from Osinchani and other elements of the material culture should result
from the appropriate scientific research done on them and that separately refer
s to the indication of the existence of preceramic suburbs. By the way still kee
ping in mind the fact that at the locality "Tserye" close to the neighbouring vi
llage Govrlevo inscriptions are found of cosmography on a ceramic seal from 6.00
0 B.C. (P. 5) and on a bronze seal 1.500 B.C. (P. 6) a certain insight is impose
d, that part of the inscription and cosmography from Osinchani originates from t
he end of the Mesolithic and early Neolithic (7.000 - 6.000 B.C.) that includes
those more monumental cliffs and certain monuments, while on the grave monuments
and certain chronicles where Thracian are mentioned including some of the megal
ithic structures probably originate from 1900 - 900 B.C. period unless the C14
dating shows any different results.
Among the older inscriptions from Osinchani is the pre Vedic on the grave monum
ent (P. 4) made on a rock with an irregular shape and an aproximate gabarith: 2.
0 x 1.20 m with separate denivelated surfaces and a clear cosmogonic, cosmonomic
mythical semantics with pre Vedic presentation of the trinity on the levels of
the Vedic Pantheon (Heaven, Earthly and Underground gods), where on a separately
formed groundbase composition and well carved slanted surface of the stone the
following prehistoric Macedonian text is engraved:
Picture 4
which decoded from the right towards the left and appropriately transcribed with
written signs in the modern Macedonian alphabet sounds "" [kret se si u l t
s l s i u] and translated in the modern Macedonian language it would say: "
" ("KRESKAY SE SI VO LET SAL SO ILYU"), " " (" KRESKAY SE SI VO LET SAMO SO SONT
SETO") which in English means "Crackle you are in flight only (solely) with the
sun" and it has the following connotations
"
" ("Crackle you! You are in flight only (solely) with the sun") or " " ("Crackle
everything, you are in flight only (solely) with the sun!").
To argue in favour of our claim that in the Balkan and in the Danube countries
existed a prehistoric population that today could be identified under the term
of pre Slav population we should also take into consideration the so called pre
historic seals that up till now have been collected by the Hungarian academic J
anos Makay. These are 311collected and published prehistoric ceramic and clay s
eals from the Alps to the Ural and from Hungary to Peleponeas on which Vedic mit
hological symbols are registered and which suits the culture of the cult to the
sun and cosmos. On some seals there is a ligature saying "Aum" or inscriptions w
ith signs of the so called secret Macedonian alphabet while there is also some c
eramic seals with prehistoric text written on the ancient Macedonian alphabet an
d in the ancient Macedonian language.
http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians/osincani_a.htm
---------------------------------------------------------ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE "TSERYE" AT THE GOVERLOVO VILLAGE

One exceptionally meaningful piece of evidence that a prehistoric Macedonian sta

te did exist consists of the seals from the archeological site "Tserye" at the G
ovrlevo village, close to Skopje. Archaeologist Milosh Bilbiya, while researchi
ng the Neolithic suburb at Govrlevo on the 2nd horizon of living in 1982 - 1983,
discovered a round ceramic seal with a handle in the shape of a stylized head o
f a bird, with a deeply
engraved inscription on the round periphery of the artifact and on the round sur
face of the seal. (P.5.) The
general composition of the inscriptions of the seal have a solar, cosmographic s
ymbolism made up of written signs with the ancient Macedonian phonetic alphabet
and in the ancient Macedonian language. On the
surface of the circle a cosmography has been performed in the shape of concentri
c circles with graphemes
and ligatures of the phrase:
which deciphered from the right to the left, properly transcribed with the lette
rs of the modern Macedonian
standard language, would say: "" [sl s bo sm] and that in the modern macedonia
n language means: "" ("SAL SO BOGA SUM") or
" "("SAMO SO GOSPOD SUM") in English means "Solely with god I am", which with di
fferent semantics means: "" ("SAL SO BOGOT SAM") or "" ("SAMO SO GOSPOD SAM") wh
ich in English means "Only (solely) with the god alone" .On the oval surface alo
ng the circle (i.e., the perimeter round lateral side of the seal) the
same phrase is engraved, but this time with calligraphic stylized letters of the
ancient Macedonian alphabet, which forms the written signs of the so-called sec
ret Macedonian alphabet, which was used for separate
mythological, Vedic ligatures for marking secret messages or symbolic writing of
different divine
expressions while in the case of the seal from Govrlevo where the first two grap
hemes, the secret
inscription of the phrase "" [sl s bo sm] has the following graphic:
(P.5) so that is why, on the damaged part of the inscription in the ancient Mace
donian continuous language,
from the right to the left we read: "..." [s bo sm], i.e. "" ("...SO BOGA SUM")
which means "With god I am".
From the bronze age (3000 - 1200 BC) probably from around 1500 BC originates the
prehistoric bronze
seal from the locality "Tserye" at Govrlevo, close to Skopje (P. 6). On the elli
psoide base of the seal, beside the applicated ray symbols of the 12-ray sun (wh
ich is composition-wise formed with a relief continuos zig - zag line, which cre
ates 12 triangles as 12 rays of the sun) there is the following ancient Macedoni
an inscription:
This inscription is written with graphemes of the prehistoric Macedonian phoneti
c alphabet, and from right-to-left it is deciphered and transcribed as "" [dz nl
] which means saw, peeped, looked at, etc. (in the sense that he saw, checked).
On two oval sides of the pyramid shape of the seal, among the solar symbols in
the shape of a crown with six sharp ends (triangle rays), there is an inscriptio
n which could be deciphered from right-to-left as the phrase:
This could be transcribed as "" [mi im] and read as "" ("NIE NIM"), which means
"We to them". On a track with a developed length of 5.0 cm and height (width) o
f 1.5 cm with written signs from the ancient Macedonian sound alphabet and in th
e ancient Macedonian language, with the following separate sintagmes:
and

which deciphered from the right to the left and with the appropriate transcribed
letters of the contemporary Macedonian alphabet means: "" [k si iz psd] and ""
[l si iz psd] in the sense that "" {"KUSI (KUSIOT) OD PSD"} in English "shorty (
the short one) of psd" and
"" {"LISI (KYELAVIOT) OD PSD"} in English "The bold one of PSD". The concept "PS
D" [ps d] in those ancient times when the vowels were not still opened for all t
he syllables in the words, probably meant "" ("PUSAT") which in archaic Macedoni
an means weapons, armed or "" ("POSADA") which even today in the Macedonian stan
dard language means a "Garrison in a fortress, place". If we know that close by
to the village Govrlevo there is a fortress from before the roman period, and an
Eneolithic suburb on the Upper City of the Skopje fortress dates far back to th
e 3.500 - 3.000 B.C. then it becomes clear that the bronze seal from "Tserye" (P
. 6) belonged to people who were obligated by the Macedonian army administration
who in the XV century B.C., that is 3.500 years ago, had the authority to check
and confirm deals and transactions on the territory of upper Macedonia or Payon
iya close to Skopje which was under the control of the Posada (garrison) from th
e Govrlevo fortress and maybe from Skopje even. That is why the integral text of
the inscription of the bronze seal from "Tserye" close to Govrlevo sounds as fo
llows:
and
which deciphered from the right to the left and appropriately transcribed with g
raphemes of the contemporary Macedonian alphabet, the graphs mean : "" [dz nl ks
i iz
psd] and "" [dznl lsi iz psd] which in the modern standard Macedonian language h
as the following meaning: "" {"DZIRNAL KUSI (KUSIOT) OD PUSATOT"} or "" {"DZIRNA
L KUSI (KUSIOT) OD POSADATA"} and
"" {"DZIRNAL LISI (KYELAVIOT) OD PUSATOT"} or "" {"DZIRNAL LISI (KYELAVIOT) OD P
OSADATA"} which respectively means "The short one has seen (looked, peeped, chec
ked) from the Pusat or Posada (garrison)" and "The bold one has seen (looked, pe
eped, checked) from the Pusat or Posada (garrison)". It is interesting to note t
hat the name "" [l si] boldy today in the Ukraine figures as a root of some sec
ond names for instance Lisenko, Lisovski etc. and in Macedonia the name "" [l si
] or "" [lisi] in English "boldy", even today can be encountered as a root of th
e following second names: Lisinats, Lisichov, Lisichkov, Lisovski etc. while the
name ""("") {[k si] [kusi]} in English "Shorty", today could be met in Macedoni
a in the form of a root to many second names as follows: Kusakatov, Kusakatski,
Kusakovski, Kusev, Kusevski, Kusemilev, Kusinikov, Kusitasev, Kusitasevski, Kusa
rovski, Kuskinski etc.
http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians/govrlevo_a.htm
---------------------------------------------------------SITOVO CAVE
On this occasion we should note as well that we have deciphered fifty inscriptio
ns, writings from Osinchani, Lepenski Vir, Vincha, Gradeshnitsa, Sitovo, Tartari
ya, Lemn, Lesb, Corinth, Skochivir canyon, Kratovo region etc. which are written
in the ancient Macedonian language and with the ancient Macedonian alphabet. St
ill one of the most startling written monuments which with it's graphics as well
as it`s contents and can be dated at about 4,500 B.C. is the one on the wall of
the Sitovo cave close to Plovdiv Bulgaria. Besides the inscription, Neolithic c
eramics were registered in the cave as well which with their characteristics cor
respond to the ones from the so- called Vincha group. The inscription is rather
imposing because it is performed in two lines which are 3.40 m long and the writ
ten signs are 40 cm tall. The text is written from the right going to the left w
ith written signs of the prehistoric Macedonian phonetic alphabet and on the anc
ient Macedonian language. The alphabet itself is exceptionally disciplined. This
written monument was published for the first time in the archaeological literat
ure in 1950 by Z. R. Morfova and in 1971 with an inverseordinaire it was publish

ed by J. Todorovic. Up till now we are not familiar with any attempts to deciphe
r this text from Sitovo and our results from the deciphering have been completed
by the beginning of 1995. The authentic text from the inscription from the cave
at Sitovo close to Plovdiv has the following graphics:
and the same from the right to the left and transcribed with written signs from
the contemporary Macedonian alphabet it sounds:
"
[i tet ni nlti : i u sj lt u si njg su titili i
ete ps lmi kt: i: ur gst si utk : id s nj]
This exceptional text in verse translated in contemporary Macedonian standard la
nguage and with respect to the information of the prehistoric punctuation of the
distribution of the verse lines, we come up with the following contents and for
m:
("I TESTOT NI NALETA
I VO OVOY LET U ZHASI NEGO GO TISHTELE I
ETE PSALI KUKYATA:
"I
VO RESH SI GOSTIN NA UTKITE
ODI, SONUVAY!")
in English:
"AND THE FATHER - IN - LAW RAN IN (FLEW IN)
AND IN THIS FLIGHT HORRORS HAVE HAUNTED HIM AND
THERE THE HOUSE PSALMS (IN THE HOUSE THEY SING PSALMS)
AND
IN ROAST YOU ARE A GUEST OF THE DUCKS - GO, DREAM!"
The term "" [utka] in the text of the inscription from Sitovo probably refers to
a swamp bird that is a : ""[patka], "" [pajka] or "" [ atka] (in latin "Anas")
as it still remains today and is understood by the Russians under the same name,
and not as we today under the same term of "" [utka] which on English means "du
ck" understand an owl, what the Russians know as "" [sova], "" [s it ] (Lat."Str
igiformes") . We emphasise this from the simple reason that in the above mention
ed text from Sitovo it alludes to the swamp bird which has to ascend the decease
d to rhe big blueness. This motive is clearly known to archaeology as the votive
monument in the shape of an anthropomorphic figure with a chariot that has swam
p birds put to harness where the elements of the votive monument (humanlike figu
res, chariot and ducks) are decorated with many planetary signs of the sun as we
ll as the most representative votive chariot could be considered (recommended) t
he one from Duplyaya at Vrshats (21.9 cm long and 13.4 cm high) In other words t
he one from the archeological site "Grad" at Bela Tsrkva which is kept in the Pe
oples museum in Belgrade and which is dated from the late bronze age that is fro
m the first half of the II millennium B.C. which of course gives another perspec
tive to the dating of the inscription from Sitovo at Plovdiv.
http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians/sitivo_a.htm
--------------------------------------------------------

MACEDONIANS ARE THE OLDEST WORLD'S NATION Macedonians belong to the "older" Medi
terranean substratum...Macedonians are not related with geographically close Gre
eks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum... http://online
library.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057002118.x/abstract;jsessionid=1
337AECE34A045AB0F15E458410BE398.d01t04 http://www.makedonijaese.com/storia_EN.ht
m http://www.makedonijaese.com/storia_GR.htm http://www.makedonijaese.com/makedo
nija.htm http://www.makedonijaese.com/Macedonia_IT.htm http://www.makedonijaese.
com/MAKEDONIENS_DE.htm http://www.makedonijaese.com/storia6.htm http://bibleatla
s.org/macedonia.htm http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ http://rosetta-stone.etf.
ukim.edu.mk/ http://youtu.be/ROvmSazBczQ http://faq.macedonia.org/history/ancien
t.macedonia/ethnicity.html http://www.soros.org.mk/archive/G04/mar04.htm http://
rosetta-stone.feit.ukim.edu.mk/en/node/294 http://rosetta-stone.feit.ukim.edu.mk
/index.php?q=en%2Fnode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxnPd4O0XCo http://www.you
tube.com/watch?v=eAQhI4wUtLo http://www.makedonijaese.com/storia_EN.htm WWW.MACE
DONIA in the Bible Encyclopedia - ISBE (Bible History Online)www.bible-history.c
om KAKO DNK-TEST TAKA I NAJVALIDNATA KNIGA BIBLIJATA GO POTVRDUVA VECNOTO POSTOE
NJE NA POSEBEN MAKEDONSKI NAROD I JAZIK SO SVOJA ZEMJA MAKEDONIJA KOJA NEOKUPIRA
NA I SLOBODNA E VO GRANICI EGEJ VARDAR PIRIN (KAKO STO HONG-KONG I SE VRATI NA K
INA OD BRITANIJA TAKA I NA NAS MAKEDONCITE KE NI BIDE VRATENA CELA MAKEDONIJA BI
DEJKI ZA MAKEDONCI MAKEDONIJA E NASATA DUSA I SRCE NASE VECNO OPSTOJUVANJE A ZA
OKUPATORI KAKO ATINA I SOFIJA MAKEDONIJA E SAMO GEOGRAFIJA I TERITORIJA)
http://www.makedonijaese.com/storia_EN.htm
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/
ETHNICITY OF THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS
PART I. ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORIANS, ORATORS, WRITERS
Contrary to modern Greek claims, Macedonia was never part of Greece, and the anc
ient Macedonians were not regarded as ancient Greeks. Quite the opposite ? the M
acedonians conquered Greece and enslaved the Greeks for centuries until Rome con
quered Macedonia in 168 BC. The purpose of these pages therefore is:
To provide the reader with documented evidence for all these assertions above.
To show the reader that ancient Macedonians could not have been Greeks based on
all documented evidence.
That ancient Macedonians conquered Greece and did not unite the Greek city-state
s.
That ancient Macedonians did not regard the Greeks as their kindred.
Alexander the Great was not a Greek king, did not regard the Greeks as kinsmen.
Alexander's Macedonian Army was not a Greek army.
Alexander's Macedonian conquest was not a Greek conquest.
Ancient Macedonians were just that - Macedonians, and looked down upon the Helle
nes with contempt.
It will provide scholarly evidence that the ancient Macedonians:
hired mercenaries from Greece, and used the Greeks as foreign allies.
razed Greek cities to the ground.
sold the Greek inhabitants as slaves.
pillaged and burnt Greek cities and countryside.
garrisoned Greek cities (a sure sign of servitude).
were asked to evacuate from the whole of Greece back to their own Macedonia by t
he Romans.
were hated and cursed by the Greeks.

destroyed Greek religious temples and monuments.

enslaved the Greeks.
were not regarded as Greeks (Hellenes) by the Greeks, nor they regarded themselv
es to be Greek, but were proud of their Macedonian nationality and way of life.
the Macedonians were called barbarians, a label that the ancient Greeks attribut
ed only to all non-Greeks.
Here you will find evidence, both ancient and modern, that proves that the ancie
nt Macedonians were not Greeks, evidence that is indeed overwhelming. To the anc
ient peoples and to the ancient authors that was not a matter for debate; it was
simply an accomplished fact.
ANCIENT SOURCES
MODERN SOURCES
1) Arrian
7) Demosthenes
1) Eugene Borza
7) Pierre Jouguet
2) Plutarch
8) Thracymachus
2) E.Badian
8) Ulrich Wilcken
3) Quintus Curtius Rufus
9) Isocrates
3) Peter Green
9) M.Grant
4) Polybius
10) Herodotus
4) A.B.Bosworth
10) F.Reed

5) Livy
11) Thucydides
5) N.G.L.Hammond
11) David G Hogarth
6) Justin
12) Diodorus
6) Werner Jaeger
12) APA American Philological Association
PART II. THE MODERN GREEK PROPAGANDA
Below are the main points of the Greek propaganda which claims that the ancient
Macedonians were Greek. All of these claims are absurd in the eyes of the histor
y and are completely unsupported by credible evidence. The goal of this page is
to provide the audience with all evidence (ancient and modern), and to prove the
absurdity of the modern Greek claims that the ancient Macedonians "were Greek".
THE "GREEK" POSITION
Professor Eugene Borza who is rightfully credited as a "Macedonian specialist" b
y the American Philological Association, and who have done extensive studies reg
arding the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, had also presented in-depth ana
lysis on the modern Greek position in his In the Shadow of Olympus p.91-92:
"Thus, long before there was a sufficient ancient evidence to argue about the et
hnic identity--as revealed by language--of the ancient Macedonians, there emerge
d a "Greek" position claiming that the Macedonian language was Greek, and that t
hus the inhabitants were Greek."
The modern Greeks have therefore, developed a position that the Macedonians were
Greek, even though there was not enough evidence long before. The "Greek" posit
ion although prematurely established, had not however changed yet, despite the o
verwhelming evidence available today, which will be presented below.
Borza continues: "For example, recent work describes the funerary stelae found i
n the tumulus covering the royal tombs at Vergina. These stelae date from the fo
urth and early third centuries, and the preponderance of names are Greek". "The
excavator of Vergina, Manolis Andronikos, in a useful summary of the epigraphic
evidence, writes: "In the most unambivalent way this evidence confirms the opini
on of those historians who maintain that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe, lik
e all the others who lived on Greek territory, and shows that the theory that th
ey were of Illyrian or Thracian descent and were hellenized by Philip and Alexan
der rests on no objective criteria." Manolis Andronikos Vergina:The Royal Tombs,
83-85."
Here is Borza?s answer to Andronikos: "This argument is true enough only as far

as it goes. It neglects that the hellenization of the Macedonians might have occ
urred earlier then the age of Philip and Alexander, and can not therefore serve
as a means of proving the Macedonians were a Greek tribe."
Indeed. Not only Andronakis was obviously wrong to conclude that the Macedonians
were Greek, but also notice how the Greek archeologist does not point that the
Macedonians might have been a separate nation, but prefers instead to call it if
not Greek, either Illyrian or Thracian, two ancient nations that can not be ass
ociated with the Balkans politics surrounding Greece since 1913 in the matter of
Macedonia (see below). Also notice how Andronikos used the term "like all the o
thers who lived on Greek territory". It?s like he wants to convince us that Mace
donia is a Greek territory, which is exactly what he uses as a base for his inac
curate conclusion.
BORZA?S CONCLUSION ON THE GREEK POSITION
"The fullest statement of the "Greek" position, and also the most detailed study
of the Macedonian language, is by Kallaris, Les anciens Macidoniens, esp. 2: 48
8-531, in which alleged Greek elements in the Macedonian language are examined e
xhaustively. A more chauvinistic (and less persuasive) point of view can be foun
d in Daskalakis, Hellenism, esp. pts. 2. and 3. The most blatant account is that
of Martis (The Falsification of Macedonian History). This book, written by a fo
rmer Minister for Northern Greece, is an polemical anti-Yugoslav tract so full o
f historical errors and distortions that the prize awarded it by the Academy of
Athens serves only to reduce confidence in the scientific judgment of that vener
able society of scholars. The most sensible and scholarly Greek position is that
laid out by Sakellariou, in Macedonia, 44-63. Lest it seem, however, that the "
Greek" position is held only by modem Greeks, see Cawkwell, Philip of Macedon, 2
2: "The Macedonians were Greeks." - Borza, his In the Shadow of Olympus p.91"
Sakellariou, in his Macedonia 4000 years of Greek History, 44-63 (quite question
able of accuracy title to begin with), "proves" that the "Macedonians were Greek
" although he purposely avoided the overwhelming evidence that does not suit his
conclusion. Borza has a line for him as well: "It is indicative of the strength
of Badian?s case that his critics have succeeded only in nit-picking: e.g., Sak
ellariou, Macedonia, 534-35 nn. 52.53" (In the Shadow of Olympus p.96). Of cours
e, Badian from Harvard?s Department of History in his extensive research Greeks
and Macedonians, had presented all evidence and soundly concluded that the Maced
onians were distinct nation from the Greeks. That is precisely what Sakellariou
had avoided, and choused instead to nit-pick.
WHY IS GREECE STEALING MACEDONIAN HISTORY?
We can indeed see a trend among the Greek scholars. Sakellariou?s Macedonia 4000
years of Greek History was even donated for free to the libraries throughout th
e United States, which smells like there is a well-developed Greek propaganda st
rategy, to influence all those who are unaware that "Macedonians were Greek." Bu
t the Greeks are showing the world that the "Macedonians were Greek", regardless
of the fact that they avoid all evidence that does not suit their purpose, and
in that process they try to pass books so full of historical errors and distorti
ons that can only be awarded by their Greek Academy. It is really ironical to se
e now the former Greek politician Nicolas Martis write a book called The Falsifi
cation of Macedonian History, when in fact he is the one who is falsificating an
d lying about the history of Macedonia. We can only imagine what harm he had don
e in Macedonia while he was a minister of the Northern Greece province.
It is pathetic, but also sad and worrisome at the same time, that the students o
f the countries who have nothing to do with the modern Greek politics, must be e
xposed on historical inaccuracies, fabrications, and propaganda, all directed ag
ainst one of the most dynamic powers of the ancient times - the Macedonians.

But why is Greece doing this, what is behind it, why do they steal the history o
f the ancient Macedonians? Well it?s rather quite simple. Macedonia was partitio
ned in 1913 after the Balkan wars and Greece swallowed the biggest part - 51%. T
here was nothing in Macedonia then that connected that land with Greece, since t
he Greek minority there was not more then 10% comparing to the overwhelming majo
rity ethnic Macedonians who lived throughout Macedonia. For complete statistical
evidence, please see the "Macedonian-Greek Conflict" on this matter. Now, in 19
13, since Greece acquired obviously a foreign land, they had to provide a link t
hat would justify their claim on that ? of Macedonia, and that is exactly why th
ey claim that the ancient Macedonians are Greek, so if in the ancient times ther
e was a Greek tribe (Macedonians) living in Macedonia, then that land therefore
is Greek (just like Andronikos points above). Indeed absurd. What is not disputa
ble however, is that since 1913 till today, that modern Greek state still discri
minates against the ethnic Macedonians who now find themselves living in Greece
(see Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International) which is evidenced in the "Maced
onians in Greece" page. The other northern part of Macedonia, today?s Republic o
f Macedonia, broke out of Yugoslavia and became independent in 1991. That brough
t addition fuel to the Greek nationalists who are afraid now that one part of th
e ethnic Macedonian nation is independent, the partition of 1913 can be seen as
illegal, and that could lead to loss of their Greek Macedonian part and a reunif
ication of one Macedonia. That is exactly why they claim that there is no modern
Macedonian nation, not in Greece nor anywhere, and continue to violate the basi
c human rights of their Macedonian minority. It is indeed mean politics, filled
with paranoia, which without the revision of the ancient history could not breat
he.
THE GREEK LIES
But let us now go through the Greek Propaganda, a propaganda which extensively b
ombards the internet, the libraries, the bookstores, and try to examine it in gr
eater details:
Greek Propaganda on the Internet
Lie 1: "Macedonia is a Greek land"
Lie 2: "Ancient Macedonians were Greeks"
Lie 3: "Philip II from Macedon united the Greek states"
Lie 4: "Alexander's conquest was a Greek conquest"
Lie 5: "Alexander's army was a Greek army"
Lie 6: "There is no ancient Macedonian Language but a Greek dialect"
THE GERMAN 19TH CENTURY VIEW AND ITS NEGATIVE INFLUENCE
Late nineteenth and early twentieth century historians who were inamorata with a
nything Greek, who saw ancient Greece as the cradle of the Western civilization,
could not possibly imagine that uncouth, and brute people like the ancient Mace
donians could topple the Greek states, specifically Athens, and build an empire
of the likes that Europe has not seen yet. They regarded Philip of Macedon and h
is Macedonians as destroyer of "Greek spirit and culture", as people who extingu
ished the flame from the Athenian glory. Philip was seen as "great not for what
he was, but for what it was given him to do". (Thirwall)
Athens in particular, and the rest of the Greek city-states in general, were cul
turally and physically exhausted. Hogarth says that they suffered from "prematur

e senility", incapable of growth and re-organization of its citizenry. The enthu

siasm for Hellas in a cultivated modern age, and the romanticism with Greek art
and culture, created an atmosphere of hatred for the person and the people (Phil
ip and his Macedonians) who destroyed Greek autonomy. In the backdrop of such a
poisonous milieu, the ancient Macedonians "could not possibly be perceived as ma
sters of the world", for if anybody should achieve such a supreme act, then they
must be Greek. Thus, subsequent reference to ancient Macedonians as Greeks shou
ld not come to a great surprise. These people could not accept the fact that a)
the organism in the Greek city-state, as they have come to know and appreciate,
no longer breathed any signs of life, and b) that the Macedonians as a non-Greek
nation possessed power, discipline, and inner strength to conquer not only the
Greeks but the Persians too.
Some historians from the West, specifically German historians led by Droysen, sa
w parallelism between events which occurred in Greece and Macedonia with those i
n Prussia and Germany. The 19th century is the birth of nationalism in Europe, I
taly was unifying, and Prussia was the advocate of the German unification. There
fore:
When Philip and his Macedonians conquered the Greeks after Chaeronea it was not
a conquest but a "unification" (contrary to all ancient sources).
When Alexander undertook the conquest of Asia, it was the "Greek vengeance", not
the Macedonian plan for action (again contrary for all sources that point that
Alexander fought for the glory of Macedonia).
When the Macedonian Army conquered territories from Greece to India, it was the
"Greek Empire" that received the recognition, not the Macedonian Empire (althoug
h Alexander's empire had been correctly called Macedonian and not Greek in the a
ncient sources).
And instead of Alexander spreading Macedonism in Asia, it was the "Greeks spread
ing Hellenism".
The Macedonian kingdoms after Alexander, which were ruled till their end by Mace
donians and not Greeks, became "Hellenistic kingdoms", and so on, and so on...
Those western historians from the modern age (like the German ones followed by D
roysen), by denying Philip and his Macedonians the merit that they so rightfully
deserve, have to a certain degree ignored the writings of the ancient biographe
rs and chroniclers, and were ignorant to the truth. However, even with this occa
sional omission on their part, the inevitable recognition of Macedonians as a se
parate people from the Greeks does occur nevertheless. In the end, it was the wh
ole revisionist movement launched against the false historical interpretations a
nd led by Badian from Harvard University, to finally put an end to the historica
l inaccuracies and prove that the Macedonians were not Greeks once for all, but
a proud distinct nation who enslaved them for three centuries.
CONCLUSION
It should be no surprise that Alexander introduced the standard koine Greek lang
uage for his multi-ethnic empire. For that Greek language was already the only i
nternational language on which the people in antiquity communicated prior to the
Macedonian conquest (just like English is international language today). The Ma
cedonians were smart enough to keep this international Greek language for the Pe
rsians, Egyptians, Jews, and all the nations of his empire to communicate. Forci
ng all those people to learn now a new foreign Macedonian language (or any other
one) would have only provoked an additional hatred and multi-ethnic resistance
for the Macedonian occupation of Asia, Egypt, and Greece, which the Macedonians
did not wanted to face. Unlike the Roman Empire, there was no single powerful ce
ntralized Macedonian Empire, but three fragile Macedonian kingdoms (Macedonia, A
sia, Egypt) which were occasionally in conflict with each other, and the Macedon
ians needed such language standardization to help them maintain their power. Tha
t of course, does not mean that although the Macedonians, Persians, Egyptians, J

ews, now communicated in Greek, that they all turned into Greeks, just like the
African nations did not turn into English because of their usage of that languag
e to communicate among themselves.
What is for certain is that Alexander spoke Macedonian with his own Macedonian t
roops and used Greek in addressing the Asians and Greeks. After all, the Macedon
ians were his kinsmen (precisely the way he calls them), not the Greeks. All the
se sources, both ancient and modern, specifically refer to Macedonian as a langu
age and not as a dialect of Greek, and Alexander himself specifically calls the
Macedonian - "our native language". During the trial of Philotas, Alexander hims
elf clearly distinguishes his native Macedonian language from the Greek language
which as a second language at the Macedonian court alongside with Macedonian, w
as used in diplomacy, a fact we found in the Philotas trial (Q. Curtius Rufus).
"What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of in
formation", writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus
17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-de
rived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two
languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positio
ns the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate a
nd distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if
not outright hostility."
The conclusion is thus complete ? ancient Macedonian was a separate Indo-Europea
n language, different from ancient Greek, just like the Macedonians were a separ
ate nation different from the ancient Greek nation, and the claim that Macedonia
n was a "dialect of Greek" and that "Macedonians were Greeks", a claim that toda
y is supported only by the modern Greeks and only out of political reasons, is a
bsurd and ridiculous.
http://faq.macedonia.org/history/ancient.macedonia/ethnicity.html
Macedonians;
Greeks;
Ethiopians;
Mediterraneans;
Berbers;
Sudan;
Turks;
Egyptians;
Sahel;
Africa
Abstract: HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of M
acedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies an
d extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results co
mpared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Gr
eeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysi
s have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonia
ns belong to the older Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques)
, North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians),
Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically clos
e Greeks, who do not belong to the older Mediterranenan substratum, 3) Greeks are
found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which
separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share
quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417,
*0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greek
s and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and fin
ally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendr
ograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships mig
ht have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacem

ent of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057002118.x/abstract
Greek lie number 6
"There is no ancient Macedonian Language but a Greek dialect"
If the modern Greeks want to deny the ancient Macedonians their spoken language,
then, they need to rewrite the history to suit their version.
[1] Quintus Curtius Rufus "The History of Alexander"
"Alexander the Great speaks in front of the Macedones of his army: "The Macedoni
ans are going to judge your case," he said. "Please state whether you will use y
our native language before them."
Philotas: "Besides the Macedonians, there are many present who, I think, will fi
nd what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yoursel
f have been using, your purpose, I believe, being only to enable more people to
understand you."
Then the king said: "Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native lang
uage? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases
- only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language"
. [p.138]
This is Alexander himself talking about "our way of life" and "our language" "Ma
cedonians are going to judge your case" There is no need for any explanation.
[2] Eugene Borza. "The lesson is clear: the use of the Greek language as a form
of written expression does not by itself identify the ethnicity of a culture". (
"In the Shadow of Olympus -The Emergence of Macedon", p. 94.)
"As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peopl
es, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evid
ence that they adapted any existing language, even though they were now in conta
ct with neighboring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongu
es."
"Hammond's firm conclusion that the Macedonian spoke a distinctive dialect of Ae
olic Greek is unconvincing to me, resting as it does on an interpretation of a b
it of myth quoted by Hellanicus, who made Aeolus the father of the legendary pro
genitor Macedon". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.92.)
"The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from a Greek
- do not show the changes expected from a Greek dialect. And even had they chan
ged at some point it is unlikely that they would have reverted to their original
form". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.93.)
"As a question of method: why would an area three hundred miles north of Athens
- not colonized by Athens - used an Attic dialect, unless it were imported? That
is, the Attic dialect could hardly be native, and its use is likely part of the
process of Hellenization. To put the question differently: if the native langua
ge of the Macedonians is Greek, what is its Macedonian dialect?"
"On the matter of language, and despite attempts to make Macedonian a dialect of
Greek, one must accept the conclusion of linguist R.A.Crossland in the recent C
AH, that an insufficient amount of Macedonian has survived to know what language
it was".

[3] Earnst Badian "Stadies in the History of Art vol. 10: Macedonia and Greece I
n Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times"
Regarding the Cleitus' episode, Ernst Badian writes: "He used the only language
in which his guards could be addressed".. [Note: The guards could be addressed i
n Macedonian language.]
Episode #2. Eumenes of Cardia. In 321 B.C., Greek commander Ambiance, with caval
ry and light arms only, faced the Macedonian noble, Neoptholemus, with the Maced
onian phalanx. To avoid battle Xennias, a man whose speech was Macedonian, was s
ent by Eumenes to negotiate with the commander of the phalanx. Badian analyzes:
"Now, Xennias' name at once shows him to be a Macedonian. Since he was in Ambian
ce entourage he was presumably a Macedonian of superior status, who spoke both s
tandard Greek and his native language. He was the man who could be trusted to tr
ansmit Ambiance' message. This clearly shows that the phalanx had to be addresse
d in Macedonian, if one wanted to be sure (as Ambiance certainly did) that they
would understand. And almost equally interesting - he did not address them himse
lf, as he and other commanders normally address soldiers who understood them, no
r did he sent a Greek. The suggestion is surely that Macedonian was the language
of the infantry and that Greek was a difficult, indeed a foreign language to th
em. We may thus take it as certain that, when Alexander used Macedonian in addre
ssing his guards, that too was because it was their normal language, and because
(like Ambiance) he had to be sure he would be understood".
[4] Ulrich Wilcken in his book 'Alexander the Great' on p.22 notes that "linguis
tic science has at its disposal a very limited quantity of Macedonian words" [Wi
lken mentions Macedonian and not Greek words]
[5] "The Tumult and the Shouting: Two Interpretations of the Cleitus Episode", (
published by APA in The Ancient History Bulletin, Vol. 10, number 1, 1996) [I wi
ll not endeavor myself with "their" Hammond-Bosworth fight, for obvious reasons.
What I will do, however, is lift certain references where these giants, specifi
cally, deal/address the ancient Macedonian language in question.]
[6] p.20, line 23. "Alexander shouted out in Macedonian, and called the hypaspis
ts in Macedonian".
[7] p.25, line 4. "In my view", writes Bosworth, " there is nothing at all surpr
ising in the use of Macedonian. Alexander was calling his hypaspists, who were M
acedonians, and he addressed them in their native language/dialect. In Hammond's
view, however, the hypaspists would normally have been addressed in standard Gr
eek. Macedonian proper he restricts to the people of the old kingdom, Lower Mace
donian, while the tribes of the mountain districts of Pindus (Upper Macedonia) s
poke a dialect of West Greek. The evidence for this hypothesis is decidedly tenu
ous."
[8] p.25 elaboration: Bosworth cont. "I deliberately refrain from adopting any p
osition on the linguistic status of ancient Macedonians. It has little significa
nce outside the nationalistic propaganda of the contemporary Balkan states, in w
hich prejudice and dogma do duty for rational thought. What matters for the pres
ent argument is the fact, explicit in Curtius, that Macedonian was largely unint
elligible to non-Macedonians. Macedonians might understand Greek, and some Greek
(like Eumenes) with experience of Macedon might speak Macedonian. However, even
Eumenes took care that a vital message was conveyed to the phalangites of Neopt
holemus by a man fluent in Macedonian."
[9] p.30, line 28, we find the final statement by Bosworth: "He used Macedonian
because the troops would instantly understand and (he expected) would react imme
diately. There is no need for more complicated explanation."

CONCLUSION
It should be no surprise that Alexander introduced the standard koine Greek lang
uage for his multi-ethnic empire. For that Greek language was already the only i
nternational language on which the people in antiquity communicated prior to the
Macedonian conquest (just like English is international language today). The Ma
cedonians were smart enough to keep this international Greek language for the Pe
rsians, Egyptians, Jews, and all the nations of his empire to communicate. Forci
ng all those people to learn now a new foreign Macedonian language (or any other
one) would have only provoked an additional hatred and multi-ethnic resistance
for the Macedonian occupation of Asia, Egypt, and Greece, which the Macedonians
did not wanted to face. Unlike the Roman Empire, there was no single powerful ce
ntralized Macedonian Empire, but three main Macedonian kingdoms (Macedonia, Asia
, Egypt) which were in conflict occasionally among each other, and the Macedonia
ns needed such language standardization to help them maintain their power. That
of course, does not mean that although the Macedonians, Persians, Egyptians, Jew
s, now communicated in Greek, that they all turned into Greeks, just like the Af
rican nations did not turn into French and English because of their usage of tho
se two languages to communicate among themselves.
What is for certain is that Alexander spoke Macedonian with his own Macedonian t
roops and used Greek in addressing the Asians and Greeks. After all, the Macedon
ians were his kinsmen (precisely the way he calls them), not the Greeks. All the
se sources, both ancient and modern, specifically refer to Macedonian as a langu
age and not as a dialect of Greek, and Alexander himself specifically calls the
Macedonian - "our native language". During the trial of Philotas, Alexander hims
elf clearly distinguishes his native Macedonian language from the Greek language
which as a second language at the Macedonian court alongside with Macedonian, w
as used in diplomacy, a fact we found in the Philotas trial (Q. Curtius Rufus).
"What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of in
formation", writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus
17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-de
rived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two
languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positio
ns the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate a
nd distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if
not outright hostility."
The conclusion is thus complete ? ancient Macedonian was a separate Indo-Europea
n language, different from ancient Greek, just like the Macedonians were a separ
ate nation different from the ancient Greek nation, and the claim that Macedonia
n was a "dialect of Greek" and that "Macedonians were Greeks", a claim that toda
y is supported only by the modern Greeks and only out of political reasons, is a
bsurd and ridiculous.
Greek lie number 5
"Alexander's army was a Greek army"
Actually it is much better to call Darius' army - Greek army, since 50,000 Greek
s were fighting on Darius' side against Alexander and his Macedonians, while onl
y 7,000 Greeks served as ?hostages? the ambitions of the Macedonian king (Green)
. These hostages, Alexander got rid of only when he learned that the Macedonian
occupation troops have a firm control of the whole of Greece, when Antipater fin
ally subdued the Spartans next to the rest of the Greeks. Here are the overwhelm
ing proofs that the Alexander?s army was not a Greek army, and that Alexander di
d not care about the Greeks, but his Macedonians:

[1] "This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the kin
g?s propaganda section continued - for the time being - to present it. No one, s
o far as we know, was tactless enough to ask the obvious question: if this was a
Panhellenic crusade, where were the Greek troops? Peter Green Alexander of Mace
don [p. 157]
[2] "The truth of the matter seems to have been that Alexander distrusted his Gr
eek 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]
[3] "The burning of Persepolis had written finish to the Hellenic crusade as suc
h, and he used this excuse to pay off all his league?s troops, Parmenio?s Thessa
lians included. The crisis in Greece was over: he no longer needed these potenti
al trouble makers as hostages." [p. 322]
[4] Eugene Borza "Makedonika" on the number of Greeks serving the Macedonian kin
g together with the Macedonians:
"Of the nearly 850 persons listed by Berve, 275 are either certainly or probably
ethnic Greeks. Of this number, 126 persons are not associated with Alexander's
train, and thus outside present concerns. Of the 149 which remain, 69-- nearly h
alf-- are court figures not associated with administration. They include sophist
s, physicians, actors, athletes, musicians, jugglers, and other entertainers, an
d a variety of hangers-on. 89 names remain. Of these three are of uncertain ethn
ic origin. 24 Greeks serve the king in variety of administrative tasks: some are
envoys, some are clerks, some financial officers, some act as king's agents in
local places. They pop in and out of the historical record as Alexander sees the
need to employ them. The remaining 53 Greeks serve specific military functions.
Out of these 53 persons, 22 names are attached to a single unit (the allies fro
m Orchomenos), who, by the way, are dismissed along with the other Greek allies
in 330 B.C. (Only a few short years into the expedition). Fourteen other Greeks
hold naval appointments, either as ship commanders in the Hydaspes fleet, or in
conjunction with Nearchus' ocean voyage. Four Greeks are in charge of mercenary
units, and 9 others have unspecified, low- level military assignments. Seven hav
e duties that did not take them beyond Egypt. In summary, of the 149 known Greek
s with official connections to the king, only 35 to 40 held positions of rank- s
ome as officers, some as administrators, but only a handful in top positions."
[Now, one is seriously pressed to provide the needed evidence for the assertion
held by this Greek propaganda that Alexander's crusade and Alexander's army were
Greek. The evidence presented simply does not support such an act. An army of o
ver 40,000 soldiers cannot possibly be called Greek army where the Greeks repres
entation is so minuscule and largely insignificant. If Greeks like to claim some
body's army, then their rightful claim should be the Persian army of Darius the
III, where the number of Greeks exceeded 50,000 paid mercenaries fighting agains
t the Macedonians despite the Corinth rules that those Greeks who serve the Pers
ian will be treated as traitors.]
[5] "Of the sixty-five or so men named as hetairoi, 9 are Greek, including 3 mai
nlanders. Of the nine, four owed their position to life-long connections with Ma
cedon: Nearchus (#544) and the brothers Erygius (#302) and Laomedon (#464) were
in fact raised as Macedonians, and Demaratus (#253) of Corinth had been associat
ed with the court since the time of Philip II."
[Very small number of Greeks were hetairoi, next to the overwhelming number of M
acedonians]
[5] Eugene Borza "Makedonika" "A look at Alexander's satrapal appointments revea
ls that only 5 of all assigned positions were held by Greeks. There were 52 diff

erent persons who held satrapies in Alexander's empire. 24 were Persians and Asi
ans 23 were Macedonians 5 were given to Greeks Of these (5) satrapal appointment
s given, Nearchus and Sybirtius were from Crete. Stasenor was Cypriote. Cleomene
s was from Naucratis in Egypt, and Thoas was from Magnesia on the Meander. No ma
inland Greek ever held a satrapy in Alexander's empire."
Alexander's conquest was for the greatness of Macedonia. The Greeks served Alexa
nder only as mercenaries and were assigned low garrison duties after 330. The 7,
000 Greek 'hostages' that Alexander took with himself, were commanded by Macedon
ian officers, and had insignificant role in the Macedonian victorious battles. T
herefore, Alexander?s conquest was a Macedonian conquest, not Greek, his empire
can only be Macedonian (as it was), not Greek, an empire that was won by the Mac
edonians, not Greek.
Greek lie number 4
"Alexander's conquest was a Greek conquest"
One of the main obstacles to Alexander's Macedonian conquest of the Asian contin
ent were actually the ancient Greeks. Alexander's conquest of Asia was undertake
n for the wealth of Persia and for the greatness of Macedonia. There are but a f
ew "eras" in history that have suffered from inaccurate presentation and have go
ne uncorrected for a long period of time. It is, simply, quite puzzling to see a
n era in which the dominant protagonist, the one who dictates respect and elicit
s awe, the one whose actions and accomplishments will forever grace the pages of
history, and serve as a measuring devise for others, is overlooked and forgotte
n, and his place in history is assigned to an impostor. From the mid fourth cent
ury B.C., until the first century A.D, a span of four hundred years history revo
lved around the kingdom of Macedon. It was the legendary kings of Macedon that s
haped and turned the events of the time. The news was created and delivered by t
he Macedonians. And yet, this period of time is termed "Hellenistic".
Why? What fate will this epoch suffer if it is named after its main contributor?
Or, to put this question in a different form, what would this epoch be known fo
r if the name of the Macedonians and their kingdom of Macedon is removed from it
? Wouldn't it be left inconclusive, empty and desolate without its leader? Isn't
it more fitting and appropriate to call this epoch Macedonian epoch? And the 'H
ellenistic Kingdoms' changed to Macedonistic Kingdoms? After all, there was noth
ing hellenic with the ancient Macedonians. It looks like a marathon runner who d
ominates the race for 26 miles and the crown of victory is given to a side-road
water supplier. Alexander wuld have turned in his grave had he known that today
his conquest is labeled as Greek by some propagandists and unqualified ?historia
ns? (like Hammond, Martis, and Daskalakis above).
Most of the ancient authors offer meaningful insights from which a significant b
ody of knowledge emerges for us to create, comparatively speaking, a framework o
f referenced material. This, in turn, will enable us to weed out fallacies and i
rrelevant narration, and find infallible criterion of truth or at least a source
/narrations which is universally preferable to all others.
Let us now shift through the writings of the ancients and see if the modern Gree
k claim that "Alexander's conquest was a Greek conquest", can withstand the test
:
[1] Arrian's The Campaigns of Alexander "The cavalry action which ensued was des
perate enough, and the Persians broke only when they knew that the Greek mercena
ries were being cut and destroyed by the Macedonian infantry." [p.119-20]
[ancient Greeks fighting against ancient Macedonians and the modern Greeks calle
d Alexander's conquest Greek? Something doesn't add up here.]

[2] Arrian "The Campaigns of Alexander" "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 th
e 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]
[Paradoxical juncture: Alexander's conquest can not be called Greek conquest whi
le 30,000 Greeks are actually fighting against Alexander and his Macedonians, wh
ile far less, (7,000) were part of the Macedonian army.]
[3] Quintus Rufus "The History of Alexander" Patron, the Greek commander, speaks
with Darius:
"Your Majesty", said Patron, "we few are all that remain of 50,000 Greeks. We we
re all with you in your more fortunate days, and in your present situation we re
main as we were when you were prospering, ready to make for and to accept as our
country and our home any lands you choose. We and you have been drawn together
both by your prosperity and your adversity. By this inviolable loyalty of ours I
beg and beseech you: pitch your tent in our area of the camp and let us be your
bodyguards. We have left Greece behind; for us there is no Bactria; our hopes r
est entirely in you - I wish that were true of the others also! Further talk ser
ves no purpose. As a foreigner born of another race I should not be asking for t
he responsibility of guarding your person if I thought anyone else could do it."
[p.112-13]
[50,000 Greeks serving with Darius? army and fighting Alexander's Macedonians. A
legitimate and a very obvious question: If Alexander?s army was in fact a ?Gree
k army?, as the modern Greeks claim, then how is it possible for a ?Greek king?Alexander, to hire mercenaries - Greeks, from his 'own' country? 50,000 strong
Greeks were with Darius fighting the Macedonians, while Alexander took only 7,00
0 Greeks next to his Macedonians which served him as "hostages" and "were potent
ial trouble makers" (Green), which he got rid of only when he learned that the r
ebellion in Greece against the Macedonian occupation forces there was suppressed
(Green, Badian, Borza). The fact that 50,000 Greeks were fighting Alexander?s M
acedonians shows clearly that their loyalty and their numerical superiority lies
with Darius and his Persians, not with Alexander and his Macedonians. As Peter
Green puts it: "if this was a Greek conquest where were the Greek troops?" Alexa
nder?s conquest can not therefore be at all a Greek conquest, but simply a Maced
onian conquest.]
[4] "The turning point in the evolution of Alexander's army appears to have been
the year 330. Until then the Macedonian component was progressively reinforced,
reaching peaks before Issus and after the arrival of Amyntas' great contingent
late in 331. Alexander then thought it safe to divest himself of non Macedonian
troops. The forces from the Corinthean League, infantry and cavalry, were demobi
lized from Ecbetana in the spring of 330;
[Arr. III.19.6-7; Plut. Al. 42.5; Diod. XVII.74.3-4; Curt. VI.2.17] even the The
ssalian cavalry who re-enlisted were dismissed at the Oxus last than a year late
r (Arr. III.29.5) Alexander now relied on the Macedonian nucleus for front-line
work and the mercenaries for support function." Bosworth, Conquest and Empire. [
p.271]
Points of interest: a) (Greek) non-Macedonian troops and b) The forces from the
Corinthian League were demobilized in 330. [These forces were with Alexander les
s than four years] Those that re-enlisted as mercenaries were used sparingly and
in secondary missions.

[5] "The infantry from the allied Greek states is more problematic. They formed
a contingent numerically strong, 7,000 of them crossing the Hellespont in 334, a
nd they were predominantly heavy-armed hoplites. But once in Asia they are mainl
y notable for their absence. There is no explicit record of them in any of the m
ajor battles. At Guagamela we may infer that they provided most of the men for t
he reserve phalanx (Arr. III.12.1), but in the other engagements there is no roo
m for them. They are only mentioned as participants in subsidiary campaigns, usu
ally under Parmenio's command (in the Troad, at the Amanid Gates, in Phrygia, an
d in the march on Persis), and they never appear in the entourage of Alexander."
Bosworth, Conquest and Empire [p.264]
[6] "It is likely that Philip saw Asia as a source of wealth and new lands in wh
ich to settle the many exiles and dispossessed people who were at this time a ge
neral threat to both Greece and Macedonia, given that there were states with suf
ficient wealth to hire them as mercenaries." Isocrates was trying to sell to Phi
lip II his idea of unified front against Persia. "Philip, however, saw his enter
prise in a much more obviously Macedonian context than Isocrates had envisaged."
F.W. Walbank "The Hellenistic World" [p.30-1]
[7] Pierre Jouguet "Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World" [On the Maced
onian conquest]
"It was quite certain that Alexander would not be content. He had called himself
the avenger of Greece, and had begun the war in the capacity of Strategos of al
l the Hellenes, but he meant the war chiefly to serve the greatness of Macedonia
. That is why there were so few Greeks in the army, which was mainly Macedonian;
the Macedonians alone were sufficiently attached to the royal house of their co
untry to follow Alexander in an undertaking for which Asia Minor was already too
small a prize." [p.20]
[8] This one is taken from A.B.Bosworth's "Alexander and the East", p.6-8.
"The coins seem to emphasize the fighting potential of Porus' army, and there mu
st be conscious propaganda at work. Alexander was underscoring his victory. In a
manner unique in ancient coinage he was sending message to people who could nev
er hope to witness an Indian army in the flesh. These were the outlandish and fo
rmidable forces which he had faced in battle and crushed. Five years might have
elapsed since the Persian grand army was humiliated at Guagamela, but his army h
ad lost none of its frightful efficiency. The victory over Porus was the proof,
and the coinage ensured that its implications were not lost. In the context of t
he troubles in Greece which followed the Exiles' Decree it would constitute a bl
unt warning. Beware the consequences of revolt. The army which crushed Porus wil
l easily crush you."
All quotes below are from Professor Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon:
[9] "Darius reversed his earlier policy of non-intervention, and began to channe
l 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 revo
lt would solve his problem for him. But the mere thought of a Greek-Persian coal
ition must have turned Alexander?s blood cold." [p.138]
[10] "This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the ki
ng?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]
[11] "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]
[12] "What is more, the league?s troops were never used in crucial battles (anot
her 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. Ale
xander 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]
[13] "Alexander lost no time in getting rid of the league?s forces which accompa
nied him - another ironic gloss on his role as a leader of a Panhellenic crusade
." [p.183]
[14] 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 whol
e scheme, with its implication of a united Greek front, must have made splendid
propaganda for home consumption." [p. 188]
[15] On the league?s crews: "Their own crews, he pointed out, were still half-tr
ained (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 mig
ht well trigger off a general revolt of the Greek states. So much for the Panhel
lenic crusade. Alexander?s main fear, we need scarcely doubt, was that the leagu
e?s fleet might actually desert him if the chance presented itself." [p.190]
[16] "The truth of the matter seems to have been that Alexander distrusted his G
reek 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]
[17] "The case of Aspendus exposes, with harsh clarity, Alexander?s fundamental
objectives in Asia Minor. So long as he received willing cooperation, the preten
ce of a Panhellenic crusade could be kept up. But any resistance, the least oppo
sition to his will, met with instant and savage reprisals." [p.208]
[18] "The burning of Persepolis had written finish to the Hellenic crusade as su
ch, and he used this excuse to pay off all his league?s troops, Parmenio?s Thess
alians included. The crisis in Greece was over: he no longer needed these potent
ial trouble makers as hostages." [p. 322]
Alexander's conquest was for the greatness of Macedonia. The Greeks served Alexa
nder only as mercenaries and were assigned low garrison duties after 330. The 70
00 Greek 'hostages' that Alexander took with himself, were commanded by Macedoni
an officers, and had insignificant role in the Macedonian victorious battles. Th
erefore, Alexander?s conquest was a Macedonian conquest, not Greek, and his empi
re can only be Macedonian (as it was), not Greek.
Greek lie number 3
"Philip of Macedon united the Greek city-states"
Let us allow the ancients Greeks, themselves, to express their feelings on this
matter which modern Greeks today claim:
[1] Alexander asks a women, who was being taken captive, who she was, she replie
d: 'I am the sister of Theogenes who commanded our army against your father, Phi
lip, and fell at Chaeronea fighting for the liberty of Greece.'
[If Philip and Alexander were "uniting" the Greek states, then, why were the Gre
eks fighting for the liberty of Greece?]

[2] The epitaph at CHAERONEA I do recall reading that the Thebans and the Atheni
ans were fighting together, for the holy soil of Hellas on August the 4th, 338 a
t the sleepy village of Chaeronea. The fellow Hellenes, the Athenians and the Th
ebans, against the barbarians from the north- the Macedonians. Let us examine th
e following epitaph composed for the common grave of the fallen Hellenes:
"Time, whose overseeing eye records all human actions, Bear word to mankind what
fate was suffered, how Striving to safeguard the holy soil of Hellas Upon Boeot
ia's plain we died."
[If these Macedonians, were "Hellenes", (as the modern Greeks claim today), then
why they were not fighting to safeguard the holy soil of Hellas? Weren't they o
f the same Hellenic stock? It is clear they were not, and they fought against Gr
eece]
[3] "When Archelaus attacked Thessalian Larisa, Thrasymachus wrote what was to b
ecome a model oration On Behalf of the Larisians. Only one sentence happens to s
urvive:
'Shall we be slaves to Archelaus, we, being Greeks, to a barbarian?'.
[Ancient Greeks stereotyped and called barbarian all people who were non-Greek,
therefore, the Macedonian king Archelaus is not a Greek, but a foreigner who ens
laved the Greeks]
[4] Plutarch "The Age of Alexander" [Modern day Greeks would like to dispatch of
f Demosthenes castigations of Philip II as political rhetoric, and yet Demosthen
es was twice appointed to lead the war effort of Athens against Macedonia. He, D
emosthenes, 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 erecting
his statue in bronze, and by decreeing that the eldest member of his family shou
ld be maintained in the prytaneum at the public expense. On the base of his stat
ue was carved his famous inscription: 'If only your strength had been equal, Dem
osthenes, to your wisdom Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares
'". [p.216]
[5] Plutarch "The Age of Alexander" The news of Philip's death reached Athens. D
emosthenes appeared in public dressed in magnificent attire and wearing a garlan
d on his head, although his daughter had died only six days before. Aeshines sta
tes: "For my part I cannot say that the Athenians did themselves any credit in p
uting 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 tole
rance and humanity. Far apart from provoking the anger of the gods, it was a con
temptible 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]
[6] [Book II - Battle of Issus, in Arrian's "The Campaigns of Alexander"
"Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save th
e day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their t
urn, 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 o
f Greek and Macedonian." [p.119]

[7] Quintus Rufus "The History of Alexander"

"Alexander meanwhile dealt swiftly with the unrest in Greece - not only did the
Athenians rejoice at Philip?s death, but the Aetolians, the Thebans, as well as
Spartans and the Peloponnesians, were ready to throw off the Macedonian yoke. (D
iod. 17.3.3-5) - and he marched south into Thessaly, demanding the loyalty of it
s people in the name of their common ancestors, Achilles (Justin 11.3.1-2; cf. D
iod. 17.4.1). And with speed and diplomacy Alexander brought the Thebans and Ath
enians into submission (Diod. 17.4.4-6)
[When one unifies, there is no "yoke" to be thrown off.]
[8] Quintus Rufus "The History of Alexander" "Alexander also referred to his fat
her, Philip, conqueror of Athenians, and recalled to their minds the recent conq
uest of Boeotia and the annihilation of its best known city." [p.41]
Philip, a conqueror of Athenians, recent conquest of Boeotia. It would be redund
ant if I re-emphasize the fact that there was a "conquest" and not an "unificati
on" of the Greek city-states by Philip from Macedon. The word is a "conqueror",
and not a "unifier", as modern Greeks would like to believe.
[9] Quintus Rufus "The History of Alexander"
"Men! If you consider the scale of our achievements, your longing for peace and
your weariness of brilliant campaigns are not at all surprising. Let me pass ove
r the Illyrians, the Triballians, Boeotia, Thrace, Sparta, the Aecheans, the Pel
oponnese - all of them subdued under my direct leadership or by campaigns conduc
teded under my orders of instructions". [When one "unites", one does not force s
ubmission of the conquered people. Boeotia, Thrace, Sparta, the Aecheans, the Pe
loponnese are all Greeks]
[10] Quintus Rufus "The History of Alexander"
"Starting with Macedonia, I now have power over Greece; I have brought Thrace an
d the Illyrians under my control; rule the Triballi and the Maedi. I have Asia i
n my possession from the Hellespont to the Red Sea." [p.277]
[11] Arrian "The Compaigns of Alexander" Alexander continues to speak to his Mac
edonians 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 gua
rd our homes, excepting no burden beyond checking the encroachment of the Thraci
ans on our borders, or the Illyrians and Triballians, or perhaps such Greeks as
might prove a menace to our comfort." [p.294]
[12] This one is taken from A.B.Bosworth's "Alexander and the East", p.6-8.
"The coins seem to emphasize the fighting potential of Porus' army, and there mu
st be conscious propaganda at work. Alexander was underscoring his victory. In a
manner unique in ancient coinage he was sending message to people who could nev
er hope to witness an Indian army in the flesh. These were the outlandish and fo
rmidable forces which he had faced in battle and crushed. Five years might have
elapsed since the Persian grand army was humiliated at Guagamela, but his army h
ad lost none of its frightful efficiency. The victory over Porus was the proof,
and the coinage ensured that its implications were not lost. In the context of t
he troubles in Greece which followed the Exiles' Decree it would constitute a bl
unt warning. Beware the consequences of revolt. The army which crushed Porus wil
l easily crush you."

[The Macedonian army would crush a revolt in Greece against the Macedonian rule
there]
[13] From F.W. "Walbank "The Hellenistic World", p.91-2
We find the following references used to describe Macedonia and Greece: "In a sp
eech delivered at Sparta in 210 the Aetolian Claeneas, appealing for Spartan col
laboration in the Roman alliance against Macedonia, is said by Polybius (ix, 28,
) to have opened with the truism:
'Men of Sparta, I am quite certain that nobody would venture to deny that the sl
avery of Greece owes its origin to the kings of Macedonia'.....He goes on to des
cribe in detail the outrages which Philip, Alexander and their third-century suc
cessors have inflicted on the Greek cities."
[Common logic dictates that we ask the following questions: If Philip united the
Greek states, how can Greece feels enslaved? If king Philip was uniting the Gre
ek states, why would he inflict outrages on his own cities? It is more then obvi
ous that the Macedonian conquered Greece and kept it enslaved.]
[14] F.W.Walbank "The Hellenistic World" [p.94]
"The Greeks themselves were under no illusions about the significance of this ga
rrisons. In winter 198/7 Greek envoys sent to Rome in the hope of securing (Mace
donian king) PhilipV's complete expulsion from Greece", pleads:
"all took pains to impress on the Senate that so long as Chalcis, Corinth, and D
emetrias remained in Macedonian hands, it was impossible for the Greeks to have
any thought of liberty. For Philip V's expression when he pronounced these place
s to be the 'fetters of Greece' was, they said, only too true, since neither cou
ld Peloponnesians breathe freely with the royal garrison established at Corinth,
nor could the Locrians, Boeotians, and Phocians, feel any confidence while Phil
ip occupied Chalcis and the rest of Euboea, nor again could the Thessalians or M
agnesians ever enjoy liberty while the Macedonians held Demetrias." (Polybius, x
viii, II,4-7).
[Points of interest: Thoughts of Greek liberty, while the Macedonian had Philip
occupied Greece.]
[15] The Ancient World Readings in Social and Cultural History By Brendan Nagle
Stemley M. Burstein
"Equally important, fourth century B.C. Greece found itself once again vulnerabl
e to foreign threat, not this time from Persia in the east but from the newly un
ified and invigorated kingdom of Macedon in the north."
[16] Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire Book XVIII, 2
"Dionysodorus, the representative of King Attalus of Pergamum, was the first to
rise. He declared that Philip must surrender those of the King's ships he had ta
ken at the bottle of Chios, together with the crews captured in them, and must r
estore to their original condition both the temple of Aphrodite and the sanctuar
y of Athena Nicephorus near Pergamum which he had destroyed." [p.495]
[Points of interest: Kings do not destroy their own religious temples. If ancien
t Macedonians were Greeks they would definitely not have destroyed their own rel
igious monuments and temples. If ancient Macedonians had same religion as the an
cient Greeks, they, the ancient Macedonians, would have shown much different tre
atment of their own temples. The uncomfortable fact still persist: ancient Maced

onians were not Greeks, did not believe in same Gods as the Greeks, and most cer
tainly, they did not unite the Greek city-states, but simply ruled over them, as
in subjugation, as in having a master.]
[17] Polybius, book XVIII, 45
[This passage illustrates how Aetolians saw the Roman Senate proclamation/decree
concerning the peace settlement with Philip] "This was surely a clear indicatio
n that the Romans were taking over from Philip the so called "fetters of Greece"
, and that the Greeks were not being given their freedom, but merely a change of
masters."
[The summation is clear: Greeks were under Macedonian yoke imposed by the Macedo
nian masters. When one speaks of "being united" there is no need for one of the
parties to seek freedom and the mere exchange of masters, needs no further elabo
ration.]
The uncomfortable fact still persists: The ancient Macedonians conquered Greece.
It was a land won by the Macedonian spear. It was a subjugation by force of arm
s and the ancient Greeks were quite aware that.
Greek lie number 2
"Ancient Macedonians were Greeks"
In antiquity the two most antagonistic people were the ancient Macedonians and t
he ancient Greeks. Their animosity was racially motivated. Here are the proofs t
hat the ancient Macedonians could not have been Greek:
[1] On p. 180 in Agnes Savil's book "Alexander the Great and his Time" we find:
"For a time Hellenism revived when Demetrius of Bactria, half Macedonian, half G
reek, tried in 187 B.C. to reclaim the Indian empire of Alexander."
Now, how do we deal with this quote? Should we assume that there is a such perso
n who is half Greek and half Greek? Or better yet, do we assume that perhaps the
re is a such person who could be half Athenian and half Greek? Did they not equa
te the terms "Athenians", "Thessalians", "Macedonians" to mean one and the same?
Common logic dictates that there is no such thing as ancient Greek-Macedonian.
Ancient Macedonians were simply Macedonians and proud of it.
[2] Quintus Rufus "The History of Alexander" "Accordingly, one festive day, Alex
ander had a sumptuous banquet organized so that he could invite not only his pri
nciple friends among the Macedonians and Greeks but also the enemy nobility." [p
.188]
Points of interest: ?Macedonians and Greeks?. If ancient Macedonians were Greeks
, then, one identifier would have been sufficient. As you can see, the ancient a
uthors knew the difference between Greeks and Macedonians.
[3] Quintus Rufus "The History of Alexander" [Alexander speaks to his Macedonian
troops] Where is that shout of yours that shows your enthusiasm? Where that cha
racteristic look of my Macedonians?" [p.217]
[4] Arrian "The Compaigns of Alexander" "Gentlemen of Macedon, and you my friend
s 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]
An obvious question: If Macedonians were Greeks, and Macedonia was a Greek land,
then, how can we reconcile with the fact that Alexander calls the Greeks "his a

llies" next to his Macedonians?

[5] Quintus Curtius Rufus "The History of Alexander" [The trial of Hermolaus]
"As for you Callisthenes, the only person to think you a man (because you are an
assassin), I know why you want him brought forward. It is so that the insult wh
ich sometimes uttered against me and sometimes heard from him can be repeated by
his lips before this gathering. Were he a Macedonian I would have introduced hi
m here along with you - a teacher truly worth of his pupil. As it is, he is an O
lynthian and does not enjoy the same rights." [p.195] [Since Callisthenes was a
Greek Olynthian is clearly distinguished from the Macedonians.]
[6] Robert A. Hudley in his paper "Diodoros 18.60.1-3: "A Case of Remodeled Sour
ce Materials" dissects "Eumenes":
"We then come upon Eumenes' second observation that, being a foreigner, he has n
o right to exercise command over Macedonians. At no point, however, in Diodoros'
prior narrative does Eumenes' Greek origin excite animosity among the Macedonia
ns. More important, Eumenes does not see his foreign origin as an impediment to
accepting the dynasty' offer of a supreme command in 18.58.4 and he proceeds to
exercise that authority in 19.13.7 and 15.5 without any qualms on his part that
he is not a Macedonian. Eumenes' foreign origin does become an issue at one poin
t among the commanders of the Silver Shields."
One of the few Greeks that Alexander took with the Macedonian army - Eumenes had
a foreign Greek origin among the Macedonians. He was a Greek and not a Macedoni
an. There is no need to elaborate this quote any further.
[7] Pierre Jouguet "Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World" Speaking of E
umenes:
"He knew from experience that in the eyes of the Macedonians he was still a Gree
k, a foreigner. Plutarch praised his charming and refined manners, which were ve
ry unlike the haughty airs of the noble Macedonian officer." [p.142]
[8] More on Eumenes: "But he was not a Macedonian, and the Macedonians did not l
ook upon him as an equal. This may have been one reason for his tenacious loyalt
y to the cause of the Kings; his fortune was bound up with the Empire, and in th
e case of a partition he would not have received the support of the Macedonian t
roops in securing a portion for himself." Ibid, [p.129]
[9] On Isocrates: "At the end of his speech, Isocrates, summarizing the programm
e which he was proposing to Philip, advised him to be a benefactor to the Greeks
, a king to the Macedonians, and to the barbarians not a master, but a chief." I
bid [p.106]
[10] [On Macedonians and Greeks] "It is sufficient for our purposes to note that
the Hellenes and the Macedonians regarded themselves as different nations, and
this feeling did not ceased to be the source of great difficulties for the union
of Greece under Macedonian rule. When the union was achieved, it was only by po
licy of force." Ibid, [p.68]
[11] The Ancient World Readings in Social and Cultural History by D. Brendan Nag
le Stenley M. Burstein "Contemporary scholars hold a much less benign view of th
e nature Hellenistic society. Far from blending to form a new culture, Greek and
native societies tended to co-exist with only limited contact between them in t
he new Macedonian - ruled kingdoms that were formed out of the wreckage of the A
lexander's empire. In other words, the Macedonian kingdoms in Egypt and Asia wer
e essentially colonial regimes in which ethnicity was the principal determinant
of social and political position. Weather or not Alexander intended his empire t

o be governed by a mixed elite of Macedonians, Greeks, and natives, in Ptolemiac

Egypt and Seleucid Asia only Macedonians and Greeks belonged to the governing e
lites." [p.149]
Macedonians and Greeks once again are clearly distinguished in the Macedonian ru
led kingdoms.
[12] Wilcken's quotes from "Alexander the Great":
On p.22-23. "Even in Philip's day the Greeks saw in the Macedonians a non-Greek
foreign people, and we must remember this if we are to understand the history of
Philip and Alexander, and especially the resistance and obstacles which met the
m from the Greeks. The point is much more important than our modern conviction t
hat Greeks and Macedonians were brethren, this was equally unknown to both, and
therefore could have no political effect."
[13] On p.45 "The Greeks regarded the hegemony of Philip as, after all, a foreig
n domination; they did not look upon the Macedonians as Greeks."
[14] On p.26: "The dislike was reciprocal, for the Macedonians have grown into a
proud masterful nation, which with highly developed national consciousness look
ed down upon the Hellenes with contempt. This fact too is of prime importance fo
r the understanding of later history."
[15] Lycurgus: [after the battle of Chaeronea] "With the death was buried the fr
eedom of Greece."
[16] Homer's Greeks are variously described as Danaoi, Argives, and Achaians, bu
t never Hellene Jonathan M. Hall Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity [Macedonians
are not included]
[17] In the Catalogue of Women, the eponymous founder of Makedonia, Makedon, was
the son of Zeus and Deukalion's daughter Thuia. This line of descent excludes h
im from the Hellenic geneology - and hence, by implication, the Makedonians from
the ranks of Hellenism." [ibid., p.64]
[18] "But by the fourth century, certainly, the rulers of Macedonian Lyncestis p
rided themselves on descent from the Corinthian Bacchiads - a royal dynasty full
y comparable with the Temenid claims of their rivals at Aegae." Ernst Badian "St
udies in the History of Art vol. 10: Macedonia and Greece In Late Classical and
Early Hellenistic Times"
[Even if one is inclined to accept Macedon's genealogy for the "hellenic" descen
t of the Macedonians, one must be aware of the existence of other Macedonian tri
bes who did not trace their genealogy from Temenus.]
[19] Furthermore, the fact that Zeus is Makedon's father does not necessarily te
stify to his credentials as a "bona fide Hellene: after all, Sarpedon is the son
of Zeus but he is Lykian not a Hellene." Jonathan Hall "Ethnic Identity in Gree
k Antiquity". p.64
[20] 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 Lam
ia.
[21] [Referring to Arrian's separation of Macedonians and Greeks] "The same pain
staking attention to details is evident in administrative matters. Appointments
of governors are duly mentioned, and throughout his book Arrian is careful to gi
ve 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]

[Points of interest: Arrian pays close attention to clearly identify the Macedon
ians and the Greeks: father's name in the case of Macedonians and for the Greeks
their city of origin.]
[22] Arrian "The Campaigns of Alexander" "The backbone of the infantry was the M
acedonian 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 sp
ear carried by the Greek hoplite, the Macedonian infantryman was armed with a pi
ke or sarissa about 13 or 14 feet long, which required both hands to wield it. T
he light circular shield was slung on the left shoulder, and was smaller than th
at carried by the Greek hoplite which demanded the use of the left arm. Both, Gr
eek and Macedonian infantry wore greaves and a helmet, but it is possible that t
he 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]
[23] Quintus Rufus "The History of Alexander" At a banquet prepared by Alexander
for the ambassadors of certain tribes from India, among the invited guest prese
nt was the Macedonian Horratas and the Greek boxer named Dioxippus. Now at the f
east the Macedonian Horratas who was already drunk, began to make insulting comm
ents to Dioxippus and to challenge him, if he were a man, to fight a duel. Dioxi
ppus agreed and the two men fought rather a short fight with Dioxippus emerging
a victor. A huge crowd of soldiers, including the Greeks, supported Dioxippus. "
The outcome of the show dismayed Alexander, as well as the Macedonian soldiers,
especially since the barbarians had been present, for he feared that a mockery h
ad been made of the celebrated Macedonian valour." [p.229]
Point of interest: Two fighters, one Macedonian, one Greek. Macedonian lost the
fight. Alexander is dismayed. Why? How can a mockery be made of the Macedonian v
alour if in this fight the Greek won? If Alexander considered himself Greek, the
n, the outcome of the fight should have had no disturbing influence on him. But,
as we see, he was dismayed. Peter Green says: "it was a matter of national pres
tige", and Bosworth states that the crowd was "ethnically polarized." This needs
no further analysis. Ethnicity of the two fighters, and their affect on the pol
arized crowd, is not an option for consideration. It is a given.
[24] "Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World" By Pierre Jouguet [p.187]
"An Athenian decree, voted at his instigation [Chremonides] (266-265 or 265-264)
, declared an agreement between Athens and Sparta, always united against the ene
mies of the Hellenes" (Chremonidean War)
In this case, these "united Hellenes" were fighting against the Macedonian Antig
onos. Here you have a clear delineation between Greeks Hellenes [Athenians and S
partans] and their common enemy - the Macedonians Why not accept the fate of the
ancient authors and reconcile with the fact that ancient Macedonians were just
that - Macedonians. There was nothing Hellenic about these loyal followers of th
eir King, and there was nothing Greek with this hardy warriors of Macedon.
[25] The Rise of the Roman Empire Polybius [p 45] By combining and comparing var
ious statements from the ancient authors we can arrive to the truest picture of
the ancients themselves. Let them speak of themselves, and let their true sentim
ents flood the pages, uncorrupted and free of any biased and preconceived prejud
ices. Only then, can we assess the magnitude of their purity of soul, and the pa
ssion for their national aspirations.
[26] Polibius reports on the speech made by Agelaus of Naupactus at the first co
nference in the presence of the King and the allies. He spoke as follows: [A sel
ected segment from his speech] "I therefore beg you all to be on your guard agai

nst this danger, and I appeal especially to King Philip. [Philip V] For you the
safest policy, instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them an easy prey f
or the invader, is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to pr
otect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own domini
ons. If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithfu
l allies in case of attack, and foreigners will be the less inclined to plot aga
inst your throne, because they will be discouraged by the loyalty of the Greeks
towards you." ['The Rise of the Roman Empire' p .300.] (book 5.104)
"instead of wearing down the Greeks" "making them an easy prey for the invader"
"to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own
dominions" Polibius clearly distinguished not only between Greeks and Macedonian
s in the above passage, but also between the lands of Greece and Macedonia.
[27] "while Craterus and Antipater collaborated under the command of the latter
to suppress a Greek revolt (the so-called Lamian War ended in a crushing blow to
the Greeks and especially Athens), Perdiccas took control of the kings........"
The Hellenistic World by F.W. Wallbank p 49
Points of interest: ended in a crushing blow to the Greeks and especially Athens
. Very clearly the Lamian war ended with a victory of the Macedonians over the G
reeks (Athenians being part of that Greek force).
[28] "What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance
of information", writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diod
orus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Gre
ek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing i
n two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical po
sitions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separ
ate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy
, if not outright hostility." Eugine Borza
The conclusion is still the same - the Ancient Macedonians were not Greeks. If t
hey were, they would have been called Greeks, not Macedonians, and they would no
t have been specifically distinguished from the Greeks by ancient authors (inclu
ding ancient Greek authors). Nothing could be further from the truth than to cla
im that the ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks were brethren. There were
simply two different nations.
Greek lie number 1
"Macedonia is a Greek Land"
There is nothing in the ancient literature to suggest that ancient Macedonia was
a Greek land. On the contrary, the ancient authors knew the difference between
the Greek city-states and the kingdom of Macedon. Ancient and modern authors rep
ort:
[1] "While Demosthenes was still in exile, Alexander died in Babylon, and the Gr
eek states combined yet again to form a league against Macedon. Demosthenes atta
ched himself to the Athenian convoys, and threw all his energies into helping th
em incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Gre
ece." [p.212] Plutarch, 'The Age of Alexander' [Plutarch here specifically disti
nguishes Greece from Macedonia.]
[2] M.Cary in his book "The Geographic background of Greek and Roman History" (I
CBN 0-313-23187-7) I find the following constituent parts of Greece: Epirus, Aca
rnania, The Ionian Isles, Aetolia, Thessaly, The Spercheu Valley, Locris, Phocis
, Boeotia, Euboea, Attica, Aegina, Corinth, Achaea, Elis, Arcadia, Argolis, Laco
nia, Messenia, The Greek Archipelago, Crete, The Outer Isles, The Northern Aegea

n, The East Aegean, Rhodes, .......... and of course, No Macedonia. Why M. Cary
would omit Macedonia from the general description of Greece? Perhaps for the sam
e reason the German classical scholar Bursian failed to include Macedonia in his
otherwise comprehensive geographical survey of Greece "Geographie von Griechenl
and". Macedonia was simply different country then Greece.
[3] On p. 91 in "Hellenistic World" by F.W.Walbank we find: "It is necessary, in
any assessment of the role of Macedonia in the hellenistic world to bear in min
d that although our sources naturally, being Greek or based on Greek writers, la
y their emphasis on Macedonian policy towards Greece, Macedonia was in fact equa
lly a Balkan power for which the northern, western and north-eastern frontiers w
ere always vital and for which strong defenses and periodic punitive expeditions
over the border were fundamental policy." ".... Macedonians were an essential b
ulwark to the north of Greece". [Self-explanatory]
[4] In N.G.L.Hammond's book "The Macedonian State" on p. 141 states: "Philip and
Alexander attracted many able foreigners, especially Greeks, to their service,
and many of these were made Companions." [The operative word is "foreigners-espe
cially Greeks", which shows that even Hammond forgets to tow the line.]
[5] In "Makedonika" by Eugene Borza on p. 164 we read: "Alexander seem to have i
mported troupes of performers from Greece." [One does not import from his own co
untry, does he?]
[6] Plutarch "The Age of Alexander" "Thebans countered by demanding the surrende
r of Philotas and Antipater and appealing to all who wished to liberate Greece t
o range themselves on their side, and at this Alexander ordered his troops to pr
epare for battle." [p.264]
[7] Quintus Rufus "The History of Alexander" Alexander, 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 Hellesp
ontine coast and upon the Greek colonies of Ionia, and then crossed the sea with
a mighty army, bringing the war to Macedonia and Greece." [p.50-1]
[8] Arrian "The Compaigns of Alexander" Alexander speaking to his officers: "...
....But let me remind you: Through your courage and endurance you have gained po
ssession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia
, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now y
ours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Sus
ia;........." [p.292] ["The Greek part of Libya is now yours", Alexander and the
Macedonians conquer the Greek part of Libya.]
[9] "Only in Thessaly and Boetia, and outside Greece, in Macedonia, was there ca
valry worthy of the name."
[10] "The Peloponnesian War was a fratricidal war among the Greeks, a fact that
was not altered by the intervention of foreign powers, Macedonia, for instance a
nd later the Persian Empire."
Point of Interest: "a fratricidal war among the Greeks", and "of foreign powers,
Macedonia and Persia." Macedonia and Persia clearly painted as non-Greek foreig
n lands? Ancient and modern scholars alike seem to know much more than today's m
odern Greeks. [Excerpts taken from The Greeks and Persians, from the sixth to th
e fourth centuries; edited by Hermann Bengston; published by Delacorte Press, Ne
w York.]
[11] This passage is taken from "Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World"
By Pierre Jouguet p.179

"After crossing the Spercheios and ravaging the territory of Heracleia, which he
could not take, he marched on Thermopylae. The pass was defended. The peoples o
f Northern Greece -Locrians, Phocians, Megarians, Boeotians, Athenians- had sent
their contingents, the largest being that of Aetolians. Antigonos Gonatas and A
ntiochos had furnished 500 hoplites each."
The term "Northern Greece" does not include Macedonia. Needless to say, Macedoni
a lay north of northern Greece and it was never a Greek land.
[12] "His death (Pyrrhos) delivered Antigonos from a great danger. He readily re
cognized Alexander, Pyrrhos' son, as King of Epeiros. He remained master of Mace
don and Greece (272). He placed garrisons in Corinth, the Peiraeus, and Chalcis,
and tyrants in many cities, such as Argos, Elis, and Sicyon. So, about 270, a g
reat power was constituted, which had all the resources of Macedon and Greece at
its disposal, but had a weakness in the impatience with which the Hellenes supp
orted the yoke." ibid p.181-2 [Pierre Jouguet's book]
a) "He remained master of Macedon and Greece." (272). If Macedonia was a 'Greek
land', there would be one identifier in this sentence and not two.
b) "but had a weakness in the impatience with which the Hellenes supported the y
oke." Hellenes (Greeks) supporting the yoke? And whose yoke were the Hellenes su
pporting? The Macedonian, of course. The Hellenes, collectively were enslaved by
the Macedonians.
[13] The Geographic Background of Greek and Roman History by M.Cary, D.Litt. Oxo
n Formerly professor of Ancient History at the University of London. On p.303 we
find the following description of the Macedonians:
"Morever, the central position of Macedonia, which exposed it to converging onsl
aughts in times of weakness, gave it the opportunity of quick counter-thrust fro
m inner lines. Thus from the time of Philip II to the coming of the Romans we fi
nd its kings laying about them in all directions-eastward across mount Rhodope i
nto the Hebrus valley, where Philip II established Philoppopolis (Plovdiv) as a
bridgehead, northward across the Balkan range to the Danube (Alexander in 335 B.
C.), and westward to the Albanian coast (Cassander in 314 B.C.). The lure of Gre
ece and Asia, it is true, diverted Macedonian energies into other objects and re
duced attempts at expansion in the Balkan Lands to spasmodic and uncoordinated t
hrusts. A more systemic policy of 'fanning out', such as the Romans carried out
under similar geographic conditions in Italy, might have enable the rulers of Ma
cedon to establish a pax Balkanica."
Now, another compelling reason to dismiss the Greek propaganda as absurd and pro
vocative and they claim that Macedonia was a Greek land. M. Cary does not even i
nclude Macedonia in his otherwise extensive and detailed description of Greece.
Macedonia is included in the Balkan Lands, together with Thrace.
The lure of Greece and Asia, it is true, diverted Macedonian energies into other
objects and reduced attempts at expansion in the Balkan Lands to spasmodic and
uncoordinated thrusts. In other words, if Macedonia did not get entangled into t
he Greek scheme of things, Macedonia could have had pax Balkanica.
[14] Jean Pierre Vernant - "The Greeks" "Athens also imported wood for shipbuild
ing, wood that for the most part came from northern Greece and from Macedonia."
[p.43]
[15] Richard Stoneman
ummer 356 BC and died
3 BC. He was born the
antly pastoral region

- "Alexander the Great" "Alexander the Great was born in s

thirty-three years later in the month of Daisios (June) 32
son of Philip, the King of Macedon, a fertile and predomin
lying north of classical Greece;" [p.1]

The uncomfortable fact still remains: There is nothing Greek or Hellenic with th
e ancient Macedonians. Ancient Macedonians enslaved the Hellenes, and Macedon is
not part of Greece. The conclusion is inescapable - Ancient Macedonians were di
stinct and separate ethnicity from the ancient Greeks.
Macedonians In Greece
The Macedonian-Greek conflict is a very complex issue. Lots of books have been w
ritten about Macedonia, but many of them simply serve to justify the aspirations
, propaganda, and the partition of Macedonia of 1913, by the neighboring countri
es such as Greece. These sources are, therefore, biased. The Greek pages about M
acedonia, rely strictly on their very own Greek propaganda sources, which natura
lly makes them biased. In order to find the real truth about Macedonia, one has
to rely on the independent and neutral sources when looking into history. This p
age is such case, which browses historical independent and neutral facts, to sho
w the truth about Macedonia against the century-old Greek propaganda.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
MACEDONIA IN THE XX CENTURY
Biased Balkan Statistics on the Population of Macedonia
Neutral Statistics on the Population of Macedonia
THE PARTITION OF MACEDONIA AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
The Greek Atrocities in Aegean Macedonia
Forced Change of the Ethnic Structure of Aegean Macedonia
Recognition of the Macedonian Language by Greece
Macedonian Language Forbidden in Greece
Macedonians Oppressed in Greece
MACEDONIA AND GREECE AFTER WORLD WAR II
The Yugoslav - Greek Relations
THE MACEDONIAN - GREEK RELATIONS
VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE MACEDONIANS IN GREECE
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
"The Macedonian minority in Greece does not exist", "the Macedonian nation does
not exist at all", - are the claims of the official Greek government. The follow
ing will prove the total apsurdity of these claims, in the eyes of the history.
MACEDONIA IN THE XX CENTURY
Biased Balkan Statistics on the Population of Macedonia
In 1870's, while Macedonia was still under the Turkish Empire, the new independe
nt Balkan states started to propagate how the Macedonians do not exist, and how
Macedonia was populated only by Greeks, Bulgarians, and Serbs. This is the begin

ning of the so-called "Macedonian Question". Ethnographers, historians, and writ

ers begun writing books in favor of this or that propaganda. Many of them did no
t even visit Macedonia, while those who did already had a written scenario. Thei
r presence there was only a simple formality. Table 1 gives an excellent proof o
f those Balkan speculations surrounding Macedonia:
balkan views Greek C. Nikolaides 1899 Bulgarian Kenchov 1900 Serbian Gopchevich
1886
Macedonian Slavs
454,000
Serbs
400
1,540,000
Bulgarians
1,037,000
Greeks
656,300
214,000
201,000
Turks and others
576,600
610,365
397,020
Table 1. Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian Statistics of Macedonia's population
It is more than obvious that all the views coming from the Macedonia's neighbors
are biased. They all claim their people in Macedonia to justify their well-plan
ned aspirations. It is important to note that both the Bulgarian and Serbian vie
ws agree that the Greeks in Macedonia represent only a small minority of 10%. Th
e Greek ethnographer Nikolaides, on the other hand, claims three times bigger nu
mber than his colleagues in Belgrade and Sofia. However, the most important abou
t Nikolaides is that he recognizes the Macedonian Slavs as a separate nation, an
d not the Bulgarians nor the Serbs, to be part of population of Macedonia at all
. And although he tries hard to lower the numbers of those Macedonian Slavs, he
still comes up with a convincing proof of their existence.
Neutral Statistics on the Population of Macedonia
This is the time when many European slavists, ethnographers, and historians, are
also attracted to visit Macedonia and conduct their own investigations. Therefo
re, to find the real unbiased population numbers in Macedonia, we have to rely o
n neutral and independent statistics:
neutral views German Dr. K. Ostreich 1905 Austrian K. Gersin 1903 English Andrew

Rousos
Macedonian Slavs
1,500,000
1,182,036
1,150,000
Serbs
Bulgarians
Greeks
200,000
228,702
300,000
Turks and others
550,000
627,915
400,000
Table 2. Independent and Neutral European Statistics of Macedonia's Population
To summarize, the number of Greeks in Macedonia according to the neutral authors
, aligns with the numbers given by the Serb and Bulgarian authors. This is a pro
of that the Greeks before the partition of Macedonia, were indeed only a small m
inority of about 10% from the total population. This fact certainly does not giv
e them the copyright of the name Macedonia. Dr. Ostreich, Gersin, and Roussos, a
re only a few of the many neutral authors to prove the groundless speculations o
f the Balkan counties. They proved that Macedonia belongs to a separate nation,
the Macedonian Slavs. This proves that the Bulgarians and the Serbs have than si
mply substituted the numbers of the Macedonians for theirs. Another Austrian, Ka
rl Hron proved why that is unjustified:
"According to my own studies on the Serb-Bulgarian conflict I came to the conclu
sion that the Macedonians looking at their history and language are a separate n
ation, which means they are not Serbs nor Bulgarians, but the descendants of tho
se Slavs who populated the Balkan peninsula long before the Serb and Bulgarian i
nvasions, and who later did not mix with any of those other two nations..." and:
"... the Macedonian language according to its own laws in the development of th
e voices, and its own grammatical rules, forms one separate language".
There were even Greek and Bulgarian writers to support what Karl Hron has writte
n. One such example is the Bulgarian slavist and ethnographer P. Draganov, who i
n his studies of 1887-1894 and 1903, proved the existence of the Macedonians and
the Macedonian language as a distinct language.
THE PARTITION OF MACEDONIA IN 1913 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

On October 8, 1912, the First Balkan War begun. Montenegro, Serbia, Bulgaria, an
d Greece attacked the European positions of the Ottoman Empire. Macedonians also
took active part and contributed in driving the Turks out of Macedonia. Turkey
capitulated soon, but Macedonia did not free itself. The victorious Balkan kingd
oms convened in Bucharest in August 1913 to divide the spoils. The partition of
Macedonia is best illustrated with the following maps:
Greece was awarded Aegean Macedonia and renamed it to "Northern Greece"; Bulgari
a annexed Pirin Macedonia and abolished the Macedonian name, and Serbia took ove
r Vardar Macedonia and renamed it to "Southern Serbia". The same year, N. Pasich
of Serbia and E. Venizelos of Greece agreed on the newly formed Greek-Serbian (
later Yugoslavian) border, so that there would be "only Serbs to the North and o
nly Greeks to the South", and no "Macedonians" on either side. Thus, the politic
s to assimilate the Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia had already begun.
The Greek Atrocities in Aegean Macedonia
On June 21, 22, and 23, 1913, the Greek army completely burned to the ground the
city of Kukush (today Kilkis), known for its resistance against Hellenism in th
e XIX century.
Between June 29 and 25, 39 villages in the Kukush area were also burned down.
On June 23 and 24, the city of Serres (today Serrai) was set on fire where 4000
houses perished. In the Serres gymnasium the Greeks murdered about 200 people.
During these days the larger portion of Strumica was also destroyed by the Greek
army.
Between June 23 and 30, many villages in the Drama and Serres districts were bur
ned down.
From June 27 to July 6, all Macedonian quarts in Salonika were set on fire.
The Carnegie Commission composed of members from USA, Germany, Russia, France, A
ustria, and England, witnessed these Greek atrocities when visited Aegean Macedo
nia. Their final conclusion was that the Greek army has burned to the ground 170
Macedonian and Turkish villages, with over 17,000 houses.
Since 1913, official Greece has been trying to banish native Macedonian names of
villages, towns, cities, rivers, and lakes in Aegean Macedonia. For example, th
e little stream which issues from Mount Olympus and flows into the Aegean Sea is
labeled Mavroneri ("black water") on the maps made by Greek cartographers after
1913. However, the same river appears as Crna Reka, a native Macedonian name me
aning "black river" on the maps made before 1913. Kukush has been dropped for Ki
lkis and Serres for Serai, together with at least 300 other places all over Mace
donia.
Forced Change of the Ethnic Structure of Aegean Macedonia
The presence of the Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia could not allow Greece to cl
aim that land to be Greek and only Greek. Since it was proven that they resisted
the Hellenization, Greece decided to drive them out of Macedonia. Greece made a
greements with Bulgaria (signed 10/27/19), and Turkey (1/30/23 in Lausanne), for
exchange of population. This provided for the Macedonians of Aegean to leave fo
r Bulgaria, while the Greeks in Bulgaria and Turkey settled in the Aegean part o
f Macedonia. These measures changed the ethnic character of the Aegean. Accordin
g to the "Great Greek Encyclopedia", there were 1,221,849 newcomers against 80,0
00 "slavophones". The "Ethnic Map of Greek Macedonia Showing the Ratio Between V
arious Ethnic Elements in 1912 and 1926," claims there were 119,000 "bulgarisant
s" in 1912, and 77,000 in 1926. The Greek ethnic map of Aegean Macedonia was sub
mitted to the League of Nations by the Greek government. The League of Nations h
ad not visited Aegean Macedonia and did not participate at all in conducting the
se statistics. Greece here refers to the Macedonians as "bulgarisants", which me
ans "those who pretend to be Bulgarians" and obviously non-Bulgarians. However,

Greece uses many other names in falsificating the identity of the Macedonians. S
lavophones, Slav Macedonians, Makedoslavs, Slav Greeks, and Bulgarisants, are on
ly some of the names that prove Greece's non-preparedness in this mean falsifica
tion of the Macedonian people and language. There are also other Greek sources t
hat contradict the previous numbers of the Macedonians in Greece. The Athenian n
ewspaper, "Message d' Aten" wrote on February 15, 1913, that the number of "Bulg
ar-echarhists" was 199,590 contradicting with those 119,000 of the "Ethnic Map o
f Greek Macedonia".
When the Bulgarian and Serbian views are added, the confusion gets only bigger.
According to the Bulgarian Rumenov, in 1928 there were total of 206,435 "Bulgari
ans", while the Serb Bora Milojevich claimed 250,000 "Slavs" in Aegean Macedonia
. The speculations with the real number of Macedonians is obvious again. Their t
rue number remains disputable in the Balkan documents, same as it was the case b
efore the partition of 1912. On the other hand, the Greek government would not a
llow anybody, including neutral observers to conduct statistical studies.
Recognition of the Macedonian Language by Greece
Greece signed the agreement to provide education in the languages of the minorit
ies that remained within her borders, obligated under the international law. As
a result, Sakerlarou Press in Athens printed a primer in the Macedonian language
called "Abecedar" in 1924. It was intended for the Macedonian children in soon
to be opened new schools in Aegean Macedonia. This was a clear recognition of th
e existence of the Macedonians in Greece. The Greek government, however, later c
hanged its position and the primer never reached the schools.
The Macedonian Language Forbidden in Greece
The Englishmen B. Hild who traveled through Aegean Macedonia in 1928 has recorde
d that the Greeks are chasing not only the alive Macedonians, to whom they somet
imes refer to as "bulgarophones" and sometimes as "slavophones", but also the gr
aves of dead Macedonians, by destroying all non-Greek signs on the crosses. The
use of the Macedonian language was forbidden and punishable when dictator Metaxi
s gained power in Greece. It is believed that between 1936 and 1940, some 5,250
Macedonians were persecuted for only speaking their native language. Here is an
official order of the National Garde in Nered (Polipotamos):
"All residents from two to fifty years of age are forbidden to use any other lan
guage but Greek. I direct special attention to the youth. Anyone to break this l
aw will be punished."
Etnic Maps of Macedonia
As the facts point out, the Macedonians were not wiped out from Aegean Macedonia
in spite of the many assimilation attempts of the Greek government. One such fa
ct is the ethnic map of Europe in The Times Atlas of World History, where the Ma
cedonians presented as separate nationality cover the territory of complete Mace
donia, including Aegean Macedonia in Greece.
Here is another map, part of a larger Balkan map and made by German slavists and
ethnographers, first published after World War I, which proves that that the et
hnic Macedonians are the majority in Aegean Macedonia while the Greeks consist o
nly a small minority.
To see this map in larger format, click here.
The Macedonians on this map (Mazedonier in German, and presented in green with s
tripes), populate large area of Aegean Macedonia as the largest ethnic group, in
cluding the districts of Kostur (Kastoria), Lerin (Florina), Voden (Edessa), Ber

(Veroia), and Salonika (Thessaloniki), the largest Macedonian city. This map is
yet another clear proof that the Macedonians do exist as large minority in Gree
ce. It is also very important to note, that southernmost river in Macedonia whic
h many ethnographers consider to be at the border with Greece, is labeled on thi
s map with the native Macedonian name Wistritza (Bistrica). However, Greek maps
that date after the partition of Macedonia, have changed this centuries-old Mace
donian name with the Greek Aliakmon. Another examples on wiping off the native M
acedonian names from this map, would also be the second largest city in Aegean M
acedonia, Serres which Greece changed to Serrai later, Wodena (Voden) was change
d to Edessa, the river Mesta which was changed to Nestos, or the lake Beschik wh
ich today appears as Volvi.
Today, the CIA Ethnic Map of Balkans and Macedonia is yet another proof that the
ethnic Macedonians today represent a big national minority in northern Greece o
r Aegean Macedonia. According to this CIA source, the Macedonians live in all pa
rts of Macedonia: Vardar (today Republic of Macedonia), Pirin Macedonia in Bulga
ria, and Aegean Macedonia in Greece.
Macedonians Oppressed in Greece
Following are several documents regarding the oppression of the Macedonians in A
egean Macedonia before World War II. They appeared in "Rizospastis", a newspaper
published by the Greek Communist Party (KKE).
April 15, 1934
Serres (Serrai). The town square was covered with leaflets with revolutionary pr
oclamations calling upon the soldiers to straggle for a solution to their proble
ms and against the beastly reign of terror. Officers imprisoned the soldiers who
read the leaflets... The most barbarous methods were used against us Macedonian
s, soldiers of the 6th Heavy Artillery Regiment. The majority of us are illitera
te, we do not know Greek and therefore we frequently do not understand their ord
ers. The officers tried to teach us to read and write, but their efforts were ab
andoned too soon and were performed so improperly than none of us learned anythi
ng.
June 6, 1934
Voden (Edessa). Here, in Voden, and in our whole district, in the heart of Maced
onia, here where we Macedonians do not know any other language but our own Maced
onian, various agents of the Greek capitalism force us to speak Greek. Consequen
tly, they threaten us constantly with expulsion to Bulgaria, they call us Komita
jis, expropriate our fields which we have drenched with our sweet just to produc
e a piece of bread. In addition, they deprive us of the freedom which our father
s won after many years of struggle in which they gave their lives for the libera
tion of Macedonia. We live under the yoke of Greek capitalism, literally as slav
es. In the elementary schools, the young children who speak their own language a
re beaten every day. Particularly here in Voden, the henchman and fascist Georgi
adis beats the children if they speak their Macedonian tongue.
June 8, 1934
Lerin (Florina). It has been some time now that the whole bourgeois press launch
ed a campaign against the Macedonian people. It represents a part of the fascist
and military measures which the Government of Tsaldaris carries out in its orie
ntation towards an increasingly brutal oppression of the people's masses in Mace
donia. The Chief of the Security Forces here, Karamaunas, whenever he meets us o
n the streets threatens us with the words: "You are Bulgarians and if by any cha
nce I discover any sort of organized movement, I will beat you without mercy and
than I will deport you." We Macedonians should rise with greater courage and by

means of increased activities should reject this campaign because it brings us

an even more brutal oppression, starvation, misery, and war.
MACEDONIA AND GREECE AFTER WORLD WAR II
The end of World War II brought both joy and sadness to the Macedonian people. J
oy because the Macedonians were finally recognized as a distinct people with the
ir own nationality, language, and culture in Yugoslavia. The Republic of Macedon
ia was not anymore "Southern Serbia" but another integral part of new federal Yu
goslavia.
The Yugoslav - Greek Relations
Yugoslavia urged Greece many times to recognize the Macedonian minority in Aegea
n Macedonia. The Greek paper "Elefteros Tipos" wrote that in September of 1986 t
he Prime-Minister Papandreu in the talks with Yugoslav presidency member Stane D
olanc has agreed to recognize the Macedonian language as one of the official lan
guages in Yugoslavia. As a result of those talks, on March 16, 1988, the Greek P
rime-Minister Papandreu and the Foreign Affairs' Karolos Papulias, even agreed t
o recognize the Macedonian language in Greece. However, the famous bankers affai
r "Koskotas" emerged, the PASOK government fell down, and the documents were not
signed. Greece continued to refer to the Macedonians as "Slavophones" who speak
an "idiom".
THE MACEDONIAN - GREEK RELATIONS
In September of 1991, the Republic of Macedonia succeeded from Yugoslavia. Greec
e urged the world not to recognize Macedonia under that name because Macedonia's
Constitution "threatens the security and integrity of Greece". What Greece is r
eferring to is the Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia w
hich states:
"The Republic of Macedonia cares for the statue and rights of those persons belo
nging to the Macedonian people in neighboring countries, as well as Macedonian e
x-parties, assists their cultural development and promotes links with them."
Athens sees Article 49 to be a direct threat for the security of Greece because
Macedonia cares for the people in Greece who consider themselves Macedonians? On
the other hand, Greece has similar article in her Constitution, as any other co
untry in the world, to care for her minorities in the neighboring countries. Gre
ece demands that Macedonia change its Constitution because there are "no Macedon
ian people" in Greece. This will be proven to be a lie once again, after the ind
ependent and well respected Human Rights Watch / Helsinki, visited Aegean Macedo
nia in 1994.
VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE MACEDONIANS IN GREECE
The 80-page human rights violation report on Greece entitled "Denying Ethnic Ide
ntity - Macedonians of Greece" was published in May 1994. After visiting Aegean
Macedonia, The Human Rights Watch/Helsinki concluded:
"ALTHOUGH ETHNIC MACEDONIANS IN NORTHERN GREECE MAKE UP LARGE MINORITY WITH THEI
R OWN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE, THEIR INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HUMAN RIGHTS AND EV
EN THEIR EXISTENCE ARE VIGOROUSLY DENIED BY THE GREEK GOVERNMENT. FREE EXPRESSI
ON IS RESTRICTED; SEVERAL MACEDONIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED AND CONVICTED FOR THE
IR PEACEFUL EXPRESSION OF THEIR VIEWS. MOREOVER, ETHNIC MACEDONIANS ARE DISCRIMI
NATED AGAINST BY THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO PERMIT THE TEACHING OF THE MACEDONI
AN LANGUAGE. AN D ETHNIC MACEDONIANS, PARTICULARLY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, ARE HARASSE
D BY THE GOVERNMENT - FOLLOWED AND THREATENED BY THE SECURITY FORCES - AND SUBJE
CTED TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PRESSURE RESULTING FROM THIS HARASSMENT. ALL OF THES

E ACTIONS HAVE LED TO A MARKED CLIMATE OF FEAR IN WHICH A LARGE NUMBER OF ETHNIC
MACEDONIANS ARE RELUCTANT TO ASSERT THEIR MACEDONIAN IDENTITY OR TO EXPRESS THE
IR VIEWS OPENLY. ULTIMATELY, THE GOVERNMENT IS PURSUING EVERY AVENUE TO DENY THE
MACEDONIANS OF GREECE THEIR ETHNIC IDENTITY. "
The Helsinki Watch has, therefore, just recently proven that there is nothing wr
ong with the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia since the Macedonians ind
eed exist in Greece as a large minority. Helsinki Watch found the Greek governme
nt guilty for oppressing the Macedonian minority and demanded they be given thei
r basic human rights to which they are entitled to. Another human rights organiz
ation, Amnesty International, also urged the Greek government to respect the hum
an rights of the ethnic Macedonians. The European Union has also recognized the
Macedonian language as one of the languages spoken within the EU borders. The Re
public of Macedonia is not a member of the European Union, but Greece including
Aegean Macedonia, is within those borders.
CONCLUSION
As the historical facts clearly point out, the existence of the Macedonian natio
n, including the Macedonian minority in Greece, can not be questioned. It is a h
istorical truth. The Greek Prime-Minister Papagos in the statement to the press
released on 4th of February 1954 in Hague, has used the term "slav minority" for
the Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia. He also added that this "slav minority" ha
s "always been unfriendly towards Greece". But why is that minority so "unfriend
ly towards Greece" - that was something that Papagos did not try to explain. Bec
ause his explanation would have to contain yet another recognition, that the min
ority is so "unfriendly" because it lives in a country where its most basic nati
onal and human rights are not recognized at all.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Karl Hron. Das Volksthum der Slaven Makedoniens. Wien, 1890.
P. Draganov. Makedonski Slavjanski Sbornik. St. Petersburg, 1894.
Spiridon Gopchevich. Makedonien und Altserbien. Wien, 1899
Dr. Cleonthes Nikolaides. Macedonien, die gesschichtliche Entwickelung der maked
onischen Frage in Alterthum und in die neuren Zeit. Berlin, 1899.
K. Gersin. Macedonian und das Turkische Problem. Wien, 1903.
Dr. K. Ostreich. Die Bevolkerung von Makedonien. Leipzig, 1905.
Dr. Karl Peucher. Statistische Angaben. Die Volker Macedoniens und Altserbiens.
1905.
Volker und Sprachenkarte der Balkan - Halbinsel vor den Krigen 1912-18. Bibliogr
aphisches Institut, Leipzig.
Newspaper Message d' Aten. Athens, February 15, 1913.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Report of the International Commision
to Inquire the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars. Washington, 1914.
R.G.D. Laffan. The Serbs. New York, 1917.
League of the Nations. Ethnic Map of Greek Macedonia Showing the Ratio Between V
arious Ethnic Elements in 1912 and 1926. Lausanne, 1926.
Andrew Roussos. The British Foreign Office and Macedonian National Identity 1918
- 1941.
Newspaper Rizospastis, ar.195 (7132), 4/12/34, p.3 and ar.89 (7026), 6/10/34, p.
3 and ar.87, (7024), 6/8/34, p.1.
Dr. Vladimir Rumenov. Makedonski pregled. Sofia, 1941
Elisabeth Barker. Macedonia - Its Place in Balkan Power Politics. London, 1950.
Lazar Moysov. Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia. Skopje, 1953.
Hammond Incorporated. The Times Atlas of World History. Maplewood NJ, 1989. Copy
right Times Books Limited, London.
Stoyan Prebicevich. Macedonia, Its People and History. The Pennsylvania State Un
iversity Press, 1982.
Jacques Bacid, Ph.D. Macedonia Through the Ages. Columbia University, 1983.

Human Rights Watch / Helsinki. Denying Ethnic Identity - Macedonians of Greece,

New York, 1994.
MACEDONIAN - GREEK CONFLICT
The Macedonian-Greek conflict is a very complex issue. Lots of books have been w
ritten about Macedonia, but many of them simply serve to justify the aspirations
, propaganda, and the partition of Macedonia of 1913, by the neighboring countri
es such as Greece. These sources are, therefore, biased. The Greek pages about M
acedonia, rely strictly on their very own Greek propaganda sources, which natura
lly makes them biased. In order to find the real truth about Macedonia, one has
to rely on the independent and neutral sources when looking into history. This p
age is such case, which browses historical independent and neutral facts, to sho
w the truth about Macedonia against the century-old Greek propaganda.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
ANCIENT MACEDONIA AND GREECE
The Ancient Macedonian Language
The Roman Occupation
SLAV SETTLEMENTS IN MACEDONIA AND GREECE
MACEDONIA IN THE XIX CENTURY
Greek, Serbian, and Bulgarian Independence
San Stefano and Berlin Conferences
The Macedonian and Greek Ortodox Churches
Balkan and Neutral Statistics on the Population of Macedonia
Macedonian Uprisings
THE PARTITION OF MACEDONIA AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
The Greek Atrocities in Aegean Macedonia
Forced Change of the Ethnic Structure of Aegean Macedonia
Recognition of the Macedonian Language by Greece
Macedonian Language Forbidden in Greece
Macedonians Oppressed in Greece
MACEDONIA AND GREECE AFTER WORLD WAR II
The Greek Civil War
The Yugoslav - Greek Relations
THE MACEDONIAN - GREEK RELATIONS
Violation of Human Rights of the Macedonians in Greece
The Greek Embargo
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
Macedonia seceded from Yugoslavia and became a sovereign state by a popular refe
rendum held in September 1991 when the majority of voters chose independence. Gr

eece immediately demanded from the international community not to recognize Mace
donia.
Greece alleges that:
The Macedonians should not be recognized as Macedonians because the Macedonians
have been of Greek nationality since 2000 BC.
Those Macedonians whose language belongs to the Slavic family of languages, must
not call themselves Macedonians because 4000 years ago, the Macedonians spoke G
reek and still speak nothing but Greek.
Macedonia has no right to call itself by this name because Macedonia has always
been and still is a region of Greece.
The people of Macedonia affirm that:
The ancient Macedonians were a distinct European people, conscious and proud of
their nationality, their customs, their language, and their name. The same appli
es to the modern Macedonians today.
The ancient Macedonians regarded the ancient Greeks as neighbors, not as kinsmen
. The Greeks treated the Macedonians as foreigners ("barbarians") whose native l
anguage was Macedonian, not Greek.
Macedonia was never a region of Greece. On the contrary, ancient Greece was subj
ected to Macedonia. In 1913, modern Greece and her Balkan allies partitioned Mac
edonia. If today a portion of Macedonia belongs to Greece, it is by virtue of an
illegal partition of the whole and occupation of a part of Macedonia.
These assertions will be shown to be true in the eyes of history proving the abs
urdity of Greek allegations against the people of Macedonia.
ANCIENT MACEDONIA AND GREECE
In the course of the second pre-Christian millennium, the ancient Greeks descend
ed in several migratory waves as goatherds and shepherds from the interior of th
e Balkans to Greece. Some passed through the Morava-Vardar Valley and across the
plain of Thessaly on their way south, while others went south through Epirus. M
ore recent scholars point to Asia Minor as the original Greek homeland. There is
no evidence that prehistoric Macedonia was ever occupied by ancient Greeks. Arc
heological finds from Macedonia are meager and sporadic. The scholars believe th
at ancient Macedonia lay beyond the cultural and ethnic borders of the Bronze Ag
e Mycenaean Greek Civilization (1400 - 1100 BC).
Ancient Macedonia was home to many tribes and nations. The ancient Macedonians c
laimed kinship with the Illirians, Tracians, and Phrygians, but not with the Gre
eks. In fact, the Brygians of Macedonia are believed to be the European branch o
f people, who in Asia Minor were known as Phrygians.
Greek migrants came to Macedonia, Trace, and Illiria after they exhausted the po
ssibilities of settlement in Asia Minor, Italy, France, Spain and Scythia (Ukrai
ne and Russia). However, they did not consider Macedonia especially attractive f
or permanent settlement. Neither did the Macedonians welcome them as openhearted
ly as did the Italians and Scythians. By the middle of the fourth century BC, th
e Greek settlers were expelled from Macedonia and their cities, including Aristo
tle's native Stragira, razed to the ground by the Macedonian king Philip II (360
-336). Aristotle died in exile in Greece.
The ancient Macedonians regarded the Greeks as potentially dangerous neighbors,
never as kinsmen. The Greeks stereotyped the Macedonians as "barbarians" and tre
ated them in the same bigoted manner in which they treated all non-Greeks. Herod
otus, the Father of History, relates how the Macedonian king Alexander I (498-45
4 BC), a Philhellene (that is "a friend of the Greeks" and logically a non-Greek

), wanted to take a part in the Olympic games. The Greek athletes protested, say
ing they would not run with a barbarian. Historian Thucydidis also considered th
e Macedonians as barbarians. Demosthenes, the great Athenian statesman and orato
r, spoke of Philip II:
"... 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."
Third Philippic, 31
The Macedonian "barbarian" defeated Greece at the battle of Chaeronea in August
338 BC and appointed himself "Commander of the Greeks". This battle had establis
hed Macedonian hegemony over Greece and this date is commonly taken as the end o
f Greek history and the beginning of the Macedonian era. Greece did not regain i
ts independence until 1827 AD.
In 335 BC, Philip's son Alexander campaigned toward the Danube, to secure Macedo
nia's northern frontier. On rumors of his death, a revolt broke out in Greece wi
th the support of leading Athenians. Alexander marched south covering 240 miles
in two weeks. When the revolt continued he sacked Thebes, killing 6,000 people a
nd enslaving the survivors. Only the temples and the house of the poet Pindar we
re spared.
The Ancient Macedonian Language
During the reign of Alexander the Great, Philip's son, the Macedonians spoke the
ir own native language. Though Alexander spoke also Greek, loved Homer, and resp
ected his tutor Aristotle, there is much evidence that he hated the Greeks of hi
s day. He thoroughly destroyed Thebes. His Asian empire is correctly called Mace
donian, not Greek for he won it with an army of 35,000 Macedonians and only 7,60
0 Greeks. The Greeks have even distinguished themselves on the side of the Persi
ans. For instance, at the battle of Issus, there were 30,000 Greeks on the side
of the Persians to fight Alexander. The question of the use of the ancient Maced
onian language was raised by Alexander himself during the trial of Philotas, one
of his generals accused of treason. This is what Alexander has said to Philotas
:
"The Macedonians are about to pass judgement upon you; I wish to know weather yo
u will use their native tongue in addressing them." Philotas replied: "Besides t
he Macedonians there are many present who, I think, will more easily understand
what I shell say if I use the same language which you have employed." Than said
the king: "Do you not see how Philotas loathes even the language of his fatherla
nd? For he alone disdains to learn it. But let him by all means speak in whateve
r way he desires, provided that you remember that he holds out customs in as muc
h abhorrence as our language."
The trial of Philotas took place in Asia before a multiethnic public, which has
accepted Greek as their common language. Alexander spoke Macedonian with his con
ationals, but used Greek in addressing West Asians.
Like Illirian and Tracian, ancient Macedonian was not recorded in writing. Howev
er, on the bases of about a hundred glosses, Macedonian words noted and explaine
d by Greek writers, some place names from Macedonia, and a few names of individu
als, most scholars believe that ancient Macedonian was a separate Indo-European
language. Evidence from phonology indicates that the ancient Macedonian language
was distinct from ancient Greek and closer to the Tracian and Illirian language
s.
The Roman Occupation

Both Macedonia and Greece were annexed by the Romans to their empire after the b
attle of Pydna in 168 BC. Under the Romans, the Greeks continued to prosper in t
he Levant, Asia Minor, and Egypt, less so in Greece, and not at all in Macedonia
. Latin was the official language in Roman Macedonia from 168 BC until the demis
e of Roman rule at the end of the sixth century AD.
SLAV SETTLEMENTS IN MACEDONIA AND GREECE
In the sixth century, the Slavs overpopulated Macedonia and mixed with its origi
nal inhabitants. The Slavs also penetrated into Greece and settled in Thessaly,
Peloponnesus, and the Aegean islands. Since the coming of the Slavs, the native
Macedonian language has been the dominant speech of the land. It was first syste
mized in the middle of the ninth century by SS Cyril and Methodius, the apostles
of the Slavs from Salonika. The Macedonian language has functioned as the princ
ipal literary, liturgical, and colloquial language of Macedonia ever since. This
period of the Macedonian history set the foundations for the development of the
modern Macedonian nation. Macedonia resisted the settlement attacks by the Arme
nian and Syrian dynasties, who held power in New Rome (Byzantium), and by the no
madic Bulgarians. From 1014 to 1204, Macedonia was part of the multi-cultural By
zantine Empire. In the next two centuries, the Macedonians fought foreign invade
rs, adventurers, and bandits who failed to dominate their land. In the fifteenth
century, the Ottoman Turks succeeded in conquering all of Macedonia, Greece, an
d the rest of the Balkans, and enforced their 500-year old rule.
MACEDONIA IN THE XIX CENTURY
Greek, Serbian, and Bulgarian Independence
In 1827, the European powers intervened on behalf of Greek rebels and forced the
Turks to grant them independence. The same powers, established the first modern
Greek state, chose Prince Otto of Bavaria to be the "King of the Hellenes", and
sent him to Athens. Serbia freed herself also from the Turkish rule, while Russ
ia declared war on Turkey to help Bulgaria gain its independence.
San Stefano and Berlin Conferences
The war between Russia and Turkey ended on March 3, 1878, with the peace settlem
ent of San Stefano. The Turks had to agree to the formation of the new Bulgarian
state, to also include all of Macedonia but the city of Salonika. Russia was ho
ping that greater Bulgaria with Macedonia would give her the strategic exit on t
he Aegean Sea, but she encountered fierce resistance from Austria-Hungary and En
gland that saw their interests on the Balkans endangered. On July 13, 1878 with
the Berlin Conference, they forced Russia to give up her dream and the San Stefa
no agreement was revised. Macedonia was returned to the Ottoman Empire. From thi
s moment, Macedonia became a battleground where the interests not only of the Ba
lkan states, but also of the Great Powers, collide.
The Macedonian and Greek Orthodox Churches
The Ohrid Archiepiscopy was founded as a separate church in 995 to care for the
religious needs of the Orthodox Macedonians. However, under the influence of the
Greek Orthodox church, the sultan abolished the Macedonian church in 1767. The
Greek Orthodox church was now able to enforce its religious teachings in Greek a
s the only Orthodox church to exist in the Balkans. Greece hoped to spread her i
nfluence and propaganda through the newly opened Greek schools, with a goal to H
ellenize the population of Macedonia. But as their influence grew bigger, so did
the resistance of the Macedonians. On March 7, 1851, the residents of Enidje-Va
rdar (today in Greece) signed a petition, for replacement of the teachings in Gr
eek with Macedonian. In 1859, in Kukush was formed the resistance movement again
st the Hellenization that quickly spread to Voden, Kostur, Lerin, and the rest o

f southern Macedonia.
Balkan and Neutral Statistics on the Population of Macedonia
Adding to the Greek influence, the Bulgarians opened their schools in Macedonia
in 1871, and the Serbs followed shortly after. This is the beginning of the so-c
alled "Macedonian Question". The new independent Balkan states used those school
s to propagate how the Macedonians do not exist, and how Macedonia was populated
only by Greeks, Bulgarians, and Serbs. Ethnographers, historians, and writers b
egun writing books in favor of this or that propaganda. Many of them did not eve
n visit Macedonia, while those who did already had a written scenario. Their pre
sence there was only a simple formality. Table 1 gives an excellent proof of tho
se Balkan speculations surrounding Macedonia:
balkan views Greek C. Nikolaides 1899 Bulgarian Kenchov 1900 Serbian Gopchevich
1886
Macedonian Slavs
454,000
Serbs
400
1,540,000
Bulgarians
1,037,000
Greeks
656,300
214,000
201,000
Turks and others
576,600
610,365
397,020
Table 1. Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian Statistics of Macedonia's population
It is more than obvious that all the views coming from the Macedonia's neighbors
are biased. They all claim their people in Macedonia to justify their well-plan
ned aspirations. It is important to note that both the Bulgarian and Serbian vie
ws agree that the Greeks in Macedonia represent only a small minority of 10%. Th
e Greek ethnographer Nikolaides, on the other hand, claims three times bigger nu
mber than his colleagues in Belgrade and Sofia. However, the most important abou
t Nikolaides is that he recognizes the Macedonian Slavs as a separate nation, an
d not the Bulgarians nor the Serbs, to be part of population of Macedonia at all
. And although he tries hard to lower the numbers of those Macedonian Slavs, he
still comes up with a convincing proof of their existence.

This is the time when many European slavists, ethnographers, and historians, are
also attracted to visit Macedonia and conduct their own investigations. Therefo
re, to find the real unbiased population numbers in Macedonia, we have to rely o
n neutral and independent statistics:
neutral views German Dr. K. Ostreich 1905 Austrian K. Gersin 1903 English Andrew
Rousos
Macedonian Slavs
1,500,000
1,182,036
1,150,000
Serbs
Bulgarians
Greeks
200,000
228,702
300,000
Turks and others
550,000
627,915
400,000
Table 2. Independent and Neutral European Statistics of Macedonia's Population
To summarize, the number of Greeks in Macedonia according to the neutral authors
, aligns with the numbers given by the Serb and Bulgarian authors. This is a pro
of that the Greeks before the partition of Macedonia, were indeed only a small m
inority of about 10% from the total population. This fact certainly does not giv
e them the copyright of the name Macedonia. Dr. Ostreich, Gersin, and Roussos, a
re only a few of the many neutral authors to prove the groundless speculations o
f the Balkan counties. They proved that Macedonia belongs to a separate nation,
the Macedonian Slavs. This proves that the Bulgarians and the Serbs have than si
mply substituted the numbers of the Macedonians for theirs. Another Austrian, Ka
rl Hron proved why that is unjustified:
"According to my own studies on the Serb-Bulgarian conflict I came to the conclu
sion that the Macedonians looking at their history and language are a separate n
ation, which means they are not Serbs nor Bulgarians, but the descendants of tho
se Slavs who populated the Balkan peninsula long before the Serb and Bulgarian i
nvasions, and who later did not mix with any of those other two nations..." and:
"... the Macedonian language according to its own laws in the development of th
e voices, and its own grammatical rules, forms one separate language".
There were even Greek and Bulgarian writers to support what Karl Hron has writte

n. One such example is the Bulgarian slavist and ethnographer P. Draganov, who i
n his studies of 1887-1894 and 1903, proved the existence of the Macedonians and
the Macedonian language as a distinct language. Here is what Henry Brailsford h
ad said about the Macedonians in "Macedonia: its Races and their Future".
"Are the Macedonians Serbs or Bulgars? The question is constantly asked and dogm
atically answered in Belgrade and Sofia. But the lesson of history is obviously
that there is no answer at all. They are not Serbs, for their blood can hardly b
e purely Slavonic... On the other hand, they can hardly be Bulgarians... They ar
e very probably very much what they were before either a Bulgarian or a Serbian
Empire existed - a Slav people derived from various stocks, who invaded the peni
nsula at different periods."
Macedonian Uprisings
The Macedonians will first start an organized resistance in the XIX century, to
free their land from the 500 year old Turkish yoke. The uprisings in Kresna and
Razlog (1878 - 1879), although unsuccessful, gained sympathies of many intellect
uals in Europe. Among them was W. E. Gladstone who wrote:
"... Next to the Ottoman government nothing can be more deplorable and blamewort
hy than jealousies between Greek and Slav and plans by the states already existi
ng for appropriating other territory. Why not Macedonia for the Macedonians as w
ell as Bulgaria for the Bulgarians and Serbia for the Serbians."
Gladstone was three times elected Prime Minister of England (1868 -1874; 1880 1885 and 1893 - 1894) which shows his credibility. He supported the Macedonian n
ation in its quest for freedom. Perhaps Macedonia would have gained its independ
ence had this man been once again elected Prime Minister during the big Ilinden
Uprising on August 2, 1903. Left without any support, the uprising was crushed b
y the Turks, followed by the massacre on the innocent Macedonian population.
THE PARTITION OF MACEDONIA AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
On October 8, 1912, the First Balkan War begun. Montenegro, Serbia, Bulgaria, an
d Greece attacked the European positions of the Ottoman Empire. More than 100,00
0 Macedonians also took active part and contributed in driving the Turks out of
Macedonia. Turkey capitulated soon, but Macedonia did not free itself. The victo
rious Balkan kingdoms convened in Bucharest in August 1913 to divide the spoils.
The partition of Macedonia is best illustrated with the following maps:
Greece was awarded Aegean Macedonia and renamed it to "Northern Greece"; Bulgari
a annexed Pirin Macedonia and abolished the Macedonian name, and Serbia took ove
r Vardar Macedonia and renamed it to "Southern Serbia". The same year, N. Pasich
of Serbia and E. Venizelos of Greece agreed on the newly formed Greek-Serbian (
later Yugoslavian) border, so that there would be "only Serbs to the North and o
nly Greeks to the South", and no "Macedonians" on either side. Thus, the politic
s to assimilate the Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia had already begun.
The Greek Atrocities in Aegean Macedonia
On June 21, 22, and 23, 1913, the Greek army completely burned to the ground the
city of Kukush (today Kilkis), known for its resistance against Hellenism in th
e XIX century.
Between June 29 and 25, 39 villages in the Kukush area were also burned down.
On June 23 and 24, the city of Serres (today Serrai) was set on fire where 4000
houses perished. In the Serres gymnasium the Greeks murdered about 200 people.
During these days the larger portion of Strumica was also destroyed by the Greek
army.
Between June 23 and 30, many villages in the Drama and Serres districts were bur

ned down.
From June 27 to July 6 all Macedonian quarts of Salonika were set on fire.
The Carnegie Commission composed of members from USA, Germany, Russia, France, A
ustria, and England, witnessed the Greek atrocities when visited Aegean Macedoni
a. Their final conclusion was that the Greek army has burned to the ground 170 M
acedonian and Turkish villages, with over 17,000 houses.
Since 1913, official Greece has been trying to banish native Macedonian names of
villages, towns, cities, rivers, and lakes in Aegean Macedonia. For example, th
e little stream which issues from Mount Olympus and flows into the Aegean Sea is
labeled Mavroneri ("black water") on the maps made by Greek cartographers after
1913. However, the same river appears as Crna Reka, a native Macedonian name me
aning "black river" on the maps made before 1913. Kukush has been dropped for Ki
lkis and Serres for Serai, together with at least 300 other places all over Mace
donia.
Forced Change of the Ethnic Structure of Aegean Macedonia
The presence of the Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia could not allow Greece to cl
aim that land to be Greek and only Greek. Since it was proven that they resisted
the Hellenization, Greece decided to drive them out of Macedonia. Greece made a
greements with Bulgaria (signed 10/27/19), and Turkey (1/30/23 in Lausanne), for
exchange of population. This provided for the Macedonians of Aegean to leave fo
r Bulgaria, while the Greeks in Bulgaria and Turkey settled in the Aegean part o
f Macedonia. These measures changed the ethnic character of the Aegean. Accordin
g to the "Great Greek Encyclopedia", there were 1,221,849 newcomers against 80,0
00 "slavophones". The "Ethnic Map of Greek Macedonia Showing the Ratio Between V
arious Ethnic Elements in 1912 and 1926," claims there were 119,000 "bulgarisant
s" in 1912, and 77,000 in 1926. The Greek ethnic map of Aegean Macedonia was sub
mitted to the League of the nations by the Greek government. The League of the N
ations had not visited Aegean Macedonia and did not participate at all in conduc
ting this statistics. Greece here refers to the Macedonians as "bulgarisants", w
hich means "those who pretend to be Bulgarians" and obviously non-Bulgarians. Ho
wever, Greece uses many other names in falsificating the identity of the Macedon
ians. Slavophones, Slav Macedonians, Makedoslavs, Slav Greeks, and Bulgarisants,
are only some of the names that prove Greece's unpreparess in this mean falsifi
cation of the Macedonian people and language. There are also other Greek sources
that contradict the previous numbers of the Macedonians in Greece. The Athenian
newspaper, "Message d' Aten" wrote on February 15, 1913, that the number of "Bu
lgar-echarhists" was 199,590 contradicting with those 119,000 of the "Ethnic Map
of Greek Macedonia".
When the Bulgarian and Serbian views are added, the confusion gets only bigger.
According to the Bulgarian Rumenov, in 1928 there were total of 206,435 "Bulgari
ans", while the Serb Bora Milojevich claimed 250,000 "Slavs" in Aegean Macedonia
. The speculations with the real number of Macedonians is obvious again. Their t
rue number remains disputable in the Balkan documents, same as it was the case b
efore the partition of 1912. Unfortunately, the Greek government would not allow
anybody, including neutral observers to conduct statistical studies. Forced to
leave, the Macedonians emigrated in large numbers to Australia, Canada, and the
USA. As a result, there are about 300,000 Macedonians that presently live in Aus
tralia. In the city of Toronto, Canada, there are about 100,000. The present Mac
edonian colonies in these counties are represented mostly by the descendants of
those Aegean Macedonians who settled there in the 1920's.
Recognition of the Macedonian Language by Greece
After World War I and under the international law, Greece signed the agreement t
o provide education in the languages of the minorities that remained in its bord

ers. As a result, Sakerlarou Press in Athens printed a primer in the Macedonian

language called "Abecedar" in 1924. It was intended for the Macedonian children
in the soon to be opened new schools and it was a clear recognition of the exist
ence of the Macedonians in Greece. The Greek government, however, later changed
its position and the primer never reached the schools.
The Macedonian Language Forbidden in Greece
The Englishmen B. Hild who traveled through Aegean Macedonia in 1928 has recorde
d that the Greeks are chasing not only the alive Macedonians, to whom they somet
imes refer to as "bulgarophones" and sometimes as "slavophones", but also the gr
aves of dead Macedonians, by destroying all non-Greek signs on the crosses. The
use of the Macedonian language was forbidden and punishable when dictator Metaxi
s gained power in Greece. It is believed that between 1936 and 1940, some 5,250
Macedonians were persecuted for only speaking their native language. Here is an
official order of the National Garde in Nered (Polipotamos):
"All residents from two to fifty years of age are forbidden to use any other lan
guage but Greek. I direct special attention to the youth. Anyone to break this l
aw will be punished."
But as the facts point out, the Macedonians were not wiped out from Aegean Maced
onia in spite of the many assimilation attempts of the Greek government. One suc
h fact is the ethnic map of Europe in The Times Atlas of World History, where th
e Macedonians presented as separate nationality cover the territory of complete
Macedonia, including Aegean Macedonia in Greece.
Here is another map, part of a larger Balkan map and made by German scientists,
slavists, and ethnographers, first published after World War I, which proves tha
t the ethnic Macedonians are the majority in Aegean Macedonia while the Greeks c
onsist only a small minority.
To see a large image of this map, click here.
The Macedonians on this map (Mazedonier in German, and presented in green with s
tripes), populate the largest area of Aegean Macedonia, including the cities of
Kostur (Kastoria), Lerin (Florina), Voden (Edessa), Ber (Veroia), and Salonika (
Thessaloniki), the largest Macedonian city. This map is yet another clear proof
that the Macedonians do exist as large minority in Greece. It is also very impor
tant to note, that southernmost river in Macedonia which many ethnographers cons
ider to be Macedonia's border with Greece, is labeled on this map with the nativ
e Macedonian name Wistritza (Bistrica). However, Greek maps that date after the
partition of Macedonia, have changed this centuries-old Macedonian name with the
Greek Aliakmon. Another examples on wiping off the native Macedonian names from
this map, would also be the second largest city in Aegean Macedonia, Serres whi
ch Greece changed to Serrai later, the river Mesta which was changed to Nestos,
or the lake Beschik which today appears as Volvi.
Today, the CIA Ethnic Map of Balkans and Macedonia is yet another proof that the
ethnic Macedonians today represent a big national minority in northern Greece o
r Aegean Macedonia. According to this CIA source, the Macedonians live in all pa
rts of Macedonia: Vardar (today Republic of Macedonia), Pirin Macedonia in Bulga
ria, and Aegean Macedonia in Greece.
Belgrade's "Politika" in its 6164 issue of June 24, 1925 gave three times greate
r numbers for the Macedonians in Greece than official Athens:
"The Greek government must not complain that we are pointing to the fact that th
e Macedonian population of West Macedonia - 250,000 - 300,000 - is the most unfo

rtunate national and linguistic minority in the world, not only because their pe
rsonal safety in endangered, but also because they have no church nor school in
their own language, and they had them during the Turkish rule."
Macedonians Oppressed in Greece
Following are several documents regarding the oppression of the Macedonians in A
egean Macedonia before the World War II. They appeared in "Rizospastis", a newsp
aper published by the Greek Communist Party (KKE).
April 15, 1934
Serres (Serrai). The town square was covered with leaflets with revolutionary pr
oclamations calling upon the soldiers to straggle for a solution to their proble
ms and against the beastly reign of terror. Officers imprisoned the soldiers who
read the leaflets... The most barbarous methods were used against us Macedonian
s, soldiers of the 6th Heavy Artillery Regiment. The majority of us are illitera
te, we do not know Greek and therefore we frequently do not understand their ord
ers. The officers tried to teach us to read and write, but their efforts were ab
andoned too soon and were performed so improperly than none of us learned anythi
ng.
June 6, 1934
Voden (Edessa). Here, in Voden, and in our whole district, in the heart of Maced
onia, here where we Macedonians do not know any other language but our own Maced
onian, various agents of the Greek capitalism fore us to speak Greek. Consequent
ly, they threaten us constantly with expulsion to Bulgaria, they call us Komitaj
is, expropriate our fields which we have drenched with our sweet just to produce
a piece of bread. In addition, they deprive us of the freedom which our fathers
won after many years of struggle in which they gave their lives for the liberat
ion of Macedonia. We live under the yoke of Greek capitalism, literally as slave
s. In the elementary schools, the young children who speak their own language ar
e beaten every day. Particularly here in Voden, the henchman and fascist Georgia
dis beats the children if they speak their Macedonian tongue.
June 8, 1934
Lerin (Florina). It has been some time now that the whole bourgeois press launch
ed a campaign against the Macedonian people. It represents a part of the fascist
and military measures which the Government of Tsaldaris carries out in its orie
ntation towards an increasingly brutal oppression of the people's masses in Mace
donia. The Chief of the Security Forces here, Karamaunas, whenever he meets us o
n the streets threatens us with the words: "You are Bulgarians and if by any cha
nce I discover any sort of organized movement, I will beat you without mercy and
than I will deport you." We Macedonians should rise with greater courage and by
means of increased activities should reject this campaign because it brings us
an even more brutal oppression, starvation, misery, and war.
MACEDONIA AND GREECE AFTER WORLD WAR II
The end of World War II brought both joy and sadness to the Macedonian people. J
oy because the Macedonians were finally recognized as a distinct people with the
ir own nationality, language, and culture in Yugoslavia. The Republic of Macedon
ia was not anymore "Southern Serbia" but another integral part of federal Yugosl
avia. The possible unification of all three parts of Macedonia have failed, howe
ver. Great Britain intervened and blocked that idea, afraid that the Macedonian
unification will endanger her interests on the Balkan peninsula.
The Greek Civil War

During the Greek Civil War that followed World War II, the Macedonians of Aegean
Macedonia fought on the side of the Greek Communist Party (KKE) who promised th
em their rights after the war. After two years of KKE's success in the civil war
, the United States decided to side up against them, afraid that Greece would be
come another communist country. With the military support that came from the Uni
ted States and Great Britain, the communists lost the war, and the Macedonians o
nce again did not get their human rights.
The Yugoslav - Greek Relations
Yugoslavia urged Greece many times to recognize the Macedonian minority in Aegea
n Macedonia. The Greek paper "Elefteros Tipos" wrote that in September of 1986 t
he Prime-Minister Papandreu in the talks with Yugoslav presidency member Stane D
olanc has agreed to recognize the Macedonian language as one of the official lan
guages in Yugoslavia. As a result of those talks, on March 16, 1988, the Greek P
rime-Minister Papandreu and the Foreign Affairs' Karolos Papulias, even agreed t
o recognize the Macedonian language in Greece. However, the famous bankers affai
r "Koskotas" emerged, the PASOK government fell down, and the documents were not
signed. Greece continued to refer to the Macedonians as "Slavophones" who speak
an idiom.
THE MACEDONIAN - GREEK RELATIONS
Greece urged the world not to recognize Macedonia under that name because Macedo
nia's Constitution "threatens the security and integrity of Greece". What Greece
is referring to is the Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedo
nia which states:
"The Republic of Macedonia cares for the statue and rights of those persons belo
nging to the Macedonian people in neighboring countries, as well as Macedonian e
x-parties, assists their cultural development and promotes links with them."
Athens sees Article 49 to be a direct threat for the security of Greece because
Macedonia cares for the people in Greece who consider themselves Macedonians? Ho
w can a country of two million be a danger to Greece's ten million? Furthermore,
Greece has also similar article in her Constitution, as any other country in th
e world, to care for her minorities in the neighboring countries. Should Albania
, Bulgaria, and Turkey, urge the world not to recognize Greece because of her Co
nstitution to care for her minorities in these neighboring countries? What Greec
e is doing is simply against the international law. Greece demands that Macedoni
a change its Constitution because there are "no Macedonian people" in Greece. Th
is will be proven to be a lie once again, after the independent and well respect
ed Human Rights Watch / Helsinki, visited Aegean Macedonia in 1994.
Violation of the Human Rights of the Macedonians in Greece
The 80-page human rights violation report on Greece entitled "Denying Ethnic Ide
ntity - Macedonians of Greece" was published in May 1994. After visiting Aegean
Macedonia, The Human Rights Watch/Helsinki concluded:
"Although ethnic Macedonians in northern Greece make up large minority with thei
r own language and culture, their internationally recognized human rights and ev
en their existence are vigorously denied by the Greek government. Free expressio
n is restricted; several Macedonians have been persecuted and convicted for thei
r peaceful expression of their views. Moreover, ethnic Macedonians are discrimin
ated against by the government's failure to permit the teaching of the Macedonia
n language. And ethnic Macedonians, particularly rights activists, are harassed
by the government - followed and threatened by the security forces - and subject
ed to economic and social pressure resulting from this harassment. All of these

actions have led to a marked climate of fear in which a large number of ethnic M
acedonians are reluctant to assert their Macedonian identity or to express their
views openly. Ultimately, the government is pursuing every avenue to deny the M
acedonians of Greece their ethnic identity."
The Helsinki Watch has, therefore, proven that there is nothing wrong with the C
onstitution of the Republic of Macedonia. The Macedonians indeed exist in Greece
as a large minority and, therefore, Macedonia has the full right to care for th
em. Helsinki Watch found the Greek government guilty for oppressing the Macedoni
an minority and demanded they be given their basic human rights to which they ar
e entitled to. Another human rights organization, Amnesty International, also ur
ged the Greek government to respect the human rights of the ethnic Macedonians.
The European Union has also recognized the Macedonian language as one of the lan
guages spoken within the EU borders. The Republic of Macedonia is not a member o
f the European Union, but Aegean Macedonia in Greece, is within those borders.
The Greek Embargo
Greece slapped a trade embargo on Macedonia because of the refusal of the Macedo
nian President Gligorov to rename the country, nation, and language, and change
the constitution. The embargo had devastating impact on Macedonia's economy. Mac
edonia was cut-off from the port of Salonika and became landlocked because of th
e UN embargo on Yugoslavia to the north, and the Greek embargo to the south. Gre
ece said it will remove the embargo only if Macedonia satisfies her demands. Thi
s blackmail was not acceptable to the Republic of Macedonia which considered the
embargo illegal. At the same time, Greece withdrew from the Greek - Macedonian
talks, monitored by the UN as a mediator, and blocked any acceptance of Macedoni
a in the international institutions by using its power to veto new members.
CONCLUSION
The claims put forward by Greece that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, that
their native language was Greek, and that Macedonia was region of Greece, are al
l false. The historical truth is that Greece was inhabited by ancient Greeks, Ma
cedonia by ancient Macedonians. Today, it is the modern Greeks and the modern Ma
cedonians to occupy those lands. The presence of Greek settlements along the coa
st of Macedonia which Philip II destroyed anyway did not change Macedonia's ethn
ic character. Likewise, a very much stronger and longer Greek presence in Egypt
did not transform that African land into a region of Greece. It is a total absur
dity to hear the Greeks of today to claim they are the Macedonians, the Greek Ma
cedonians, the only and true Macedonians. How can they be "the only and true Mac
edonians", when today's Greek population of Aegean Macedonia immigrated there ju
st 80 years ago joining that small Greek minority of 10%? How can they overlook
the atrocities they committed on the people who than, as centuries before, proud
ly called themselves Macedonians? What about the statistics and maps made by neu
tral and independent ethnographers, slavists, and writers, to prove the existenc
e of the Macedonian nation? And finally, what about the ethnic Macedonians whose
discrimination by the official Greek government was witnessed by the independen
t Human Rights Watch / Helsinki and Amnesty International in 1994? The existence
of the Macedonian nation and the ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece can not b
e questioned. There is, however, a great deal of irony surrounding the issue. In
spite of the truth about Macedonia and the Macedonians, many Western countries
have not yet recognized the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name
but under the reference "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". This includes e
ven the United States which after the recognition, has frizzed the sending of an
ambassador to Skopje for more than a year. This "freeze" coincides with the vis
it of the most powerful representatives of the Greek-American lobby to President
Clinton in the White House, behind closed doors, in the presence of Clinton's a
dviser George Stefanopoulos, who himself, is a Greek-American.

How it is possible that the Western countries have chosen to follow "democratic"
Greece where lies prevail over the truth? The European Court found the Greek em
bargo illegal and put Greece on trial, but did nothing to stop it while it was s
o harmful to the Macedonian economy. They never cared about the rights of the Ma
cedonians in Greece while the Macedonians of the Aegean are still facing daily o
ppression and persecution. Finally, they still play that game for the Macedonia'
s name, the way Greece wants them to. Yes, this is yet another proof that intere
sts and money are stronger than the truth. Greece is a member of the European Un
ion, NATO, an important ally that occupies a very strategic position. On the oth
er hand, all other countries that do not belong to those organizations have reco
gnized Macedonia under its constitutional name. Russia and China are among those
countries. The question now is if the West is willing to risk losing Greece for
the small landlocked Macedonia? It is clear at least that by standing silent on
the issue, they are actually taking an active role in Greece's mean politics, h
owever...
On every atlas (like National Geographic), encyclopedia (like Britanika), newspa
per (like New York Times), and TV media (like CNN), Macedonia is referred simply
as Macedonia. Even the US Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and Defense Se
cretary William Perry, speak of Macedonians and refer to Macedonia as Macedonia.
Matthew Nimitz, the US mediator in the Greek - Macedonian talks has said that "
the country has an Constitutional name - Republic of Macedonia" and that besides
the opposing of Greece, Macedonia was admitted at UN under the reference "forme
r Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", but that is "only a reference and not name".
The truth about Macedonia slowly but surely is coming to the top, working toward
s a final end to the century-old shadow of Greek lies and propaganda.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Karl Hron. Das Volksthum der Slaven Makedoniens. Wien, 1890.
P. Draganov. Makedonski Slavjanski Sbornik. St. Petersburg, 1894.
Spiridon Gopchevich. Makedonien und Altserbien. Wien, 1899
Dr. Cleonthes Nikolaides. Macedonien, die gesschichtliche Entwickelung der maked
onischen Frage in Alterthum und in die neuren Zeit. Berlin, 1899.
Newspaper The Times, London. Saturaday, February 6, 1897 edition.
K. Gersin. Macedonian und das Turkische Problem. Wien, 1903.
Dr. K. Ostreich. Die Bevolkerung von Makedonien. Leipzig, 1905.
Dr. Karl Peucher. Statistische Angaben. Die Volker Macedoniens und Altserbiens.
1905.
Henry N. Brailsford. Macedonia, its Races and their Future. London, Metheuen and
Co, first published in 1906.
Volker und Sprachenkarte der Balkan - Halbinsel vor den Krigen 1912-18. Bibliogr
aphisches Institut, Leipzig.
Newspaper Message d' Aten. Athens, February 15, 1913.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Report of the International Commision
to Inquire the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars. Washington, 1914.
R.G.D. Laffan. The Serbs. New York, 1917.
League of the Nations. Ethnic Map of Greek Macedonia Showing the Ratio Between V
arious Ethnic Elements in 1912 and 1926. Lausanne, 1926.
Newspaper Politika. Edition 6369. Belgrade, January 5, 1926.
Andrew Roussos. The British Foreign Office and Macedonian National Identity 1918
- 1941.
Newspaper Rizospastis, ar.195 (7132), 4/12/34, p.3 and ar.89 (7026), 6/10/34, p.
3 and ar.87, (7024), 6/8/34, p.1.
Dr. Vladimir Rumenov. Makedonski pregled. Sofia, 1941
Elisabeth Barker. Macedonia - Its Place in Balkan Power Politics. London, 1950.
Spoljnopoliticka Dokumentacija No 36. Belgrade, 1951.
Lazar Moysov. Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia. Skopje, 1953.
Hammond Incorporated. The Times Atlas of World History. Maplewood NJ, 1989. Copy
right Times Books Limited, London.

Stoyan Prebicevich. Macedonia, Its People and History. The Pennsylvania State Un
iversity Press, 1982.
Jacques Bacid, Ph.D. Macedonia Through the Ages. Columbia University, 1983.
Quantis Curtius Rufus. History of Alexander the Great of Macedon, VI. Harmondswo
rth, 1984.
Rand McNally and Co. Inc. The Random House Encyclopedia Random House, New York,
1990.
Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western CivilizationThe Pennsylvania State University, We
st Publishing Company, 1991.
Human Rights Watch / Helsinki. Denying Ethnic Identity - Macedonians of Greece,
New York, 1994.
Newspaper Elefteros Tipos. Athens, September 20, 1994.
The Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia.
AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Ancient Macedonians vs the ancient Greeks Differences cited by modern historians
Taken from articles on Ancient History published by A.P.A.
Contributors are: 1. D.Brenden Nagle " Macedonian Appropriation of Greek Kulturg
echichte" 2. Eugene Borza "Who were (and are) the Macedonians" 3. Edmund F. Bloe
dow "Diplomatic Negotiations between Darius and Alexander: Historical Implicatio
ns of the First Phase at Marathus in Phoenicia 333/332 BC"
[1] ".....the appropriation of Greek Kulturgescichte, and the use by non-Greeks
for political purposes against Greeks, is less common, and even less well docume
nted. Here I offer an example of highly effective Macedonian use of Greek cultur
al history to advance propaganda aims of Philip II which had the double aim of b
lunting Greek criticism of his state-building while at the same time cloaking hi
s work in the legitimizing terminology devised by Greeks for their own, often vi
olent, colonizing and city founding activities."
"camouflage the fact that he was creating a wholly new type of state, a consolid
ation of ethne under a personal monarchy."
"That it has continued to confuse interpreters is testament to the hegomonic pow
er of Greek cultural history and the adroitness of the Macedonians in using this
powerful tool of self-identification against its devisers."
[2] "On the matter of language, and despite attempts to make Macedonian a dialec
t of Greek, one must accept the conclusion of linguist R.A.Crossland in the rece
nt CAH, that an insufficient amount of Macedonian has survived to know what lang
uage it was."
"Macedonian and Greek were mutually unintelligible in the court of Alexander the
Great"
"no more proof that Macedonians were Greeks than, e.g., the existence of Greek i
nscriptions on Thracian vessels and coins proofs that the Thracians were Greeks.
[The Greek inscriptions found in Macedonia are not a proof that the Macedonians
were Greeks, just like the Greek inscriptions in found in Thrace do not prove th
at the Thracians were Greek as well. We know for certain that the Thracians were
non-Greek nation, therefore, the using of Greek on the territories of Macedonia
and Thrace does not prove that the Thracians nor the Macedonians were Greeks]
"What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of in
formation", writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus
17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-de

rived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two
languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positio
ns the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate a
nd distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if
not outright hostility."
Yet there is much that is different, e.g., their political institutions, burial
practices, and religious monuments:
[3] "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 wen
t so far as to suggest that, however brief, it encapsulates a whole and bold str
ategy: to counter the Great King's strategy of attempting to exploit the age-old
distinction between Macedonians and Hellenes. The reason for including Macedoni
a as part of larger Hellas was designed to justify Macedonian participation in t
he so-called war of revenge. Whatever the truth on this point, on the basis of w
hat we know happened in Macedonia in 480, Alexander had no more grounds for carr
ying 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 par
t of Greece, and certainly the Greek poleis did not regard Macedonia as being an
other Greek polis. The reason why Alexander here includes Macedonia as being par
t of Greece may be an attempt to paper over the glaring anomaly between what Phi
lip and he had just done to 'the rest of Greece' and what he is in the process o
f doing to the Persian empire. The Persians had never done anything significant
against the Macedonians. It is noteworthy that Herodotus, although he provides c
onsiderable information on Xerxes' activities when he passed through Macedonia i
n 480, does not record any acts of destruction--- scarcely surprising if Xerxes
was instrumental in Macedonia gaining control of Upper Macedonia."
[4] "What is more important is the that Chaeronea, Thebes, and Agis make a compl
ete mockery of attempting in this context to suggest that the Greeks in Hellas r
egarded themselves as willing subjects under legitimate Macedonian kings (Philip
and Alexander) or- that the inhabitants of the regions he had just conquered di
d so entirely of their own will".
[We need to refresh our memories about Isocrates' letter to Philip where he, Iso
crates, makes clear that: (a) "Philips's ancestors understood that Greeks cannot
submit to the rule of a monarch, while non-Greeks actually cannot live without
such a regime", and (b) "people of non-kindred race" - was the term used by Isoc
rates to describe the Macedonians. Obviously, highlighting the distinction betwe
en Macedonians and Greeks.]
The epitaph composed by Demosthenes for the common grave of the fallen Hellenes
at Chaeronea reads as follows:
"Time whose o'erseeng eye records all human actions, Bear word to mankind what f
ate was suffered,how Striving to safeguard the holly soil of Hellas Upon Boeotia
's plain we died."
"If all the peoples in the regions which Alexander had conquered were willing su
bjects under the new king, he presumably should not have left any military troop
s with the satraps he everywhere instated."
[What an arrogant bluff by Alexander, to refer to the conquered people as "willi
ng subjects". What Alexander failed to disclose is the fact that he left "no les
s than one quarter of his forces behind under one of Philip's most tried general
s when he set out for Asia!".]
DAVID G. HOGARTH

Philip and Alexander of Macedon

[1] Hogarth on Philip: "Reading the lesson of his times, and making the proved i
nferiority of citizen militia to standing forces, and of the capricious rule of
the many to an imperial system under a single head, he evolved the first Europea
n Power in the modern sense of the word-- an armed nation with a common national
ideal. This, his own conception, he understood clearly and perused consistently
through twenty-three years. Surely such a man may be called great for what he w
as." (p.3)
[2] "The clearest distinction is always drawn between "Macedonians" and all othe
r components of the national phalanx in the Asiatic army of Alexander." (p.7)
[3] "So far as we can tell, the belief that the "Macedonians" of the coast-plane
s and the men of the hills were distinct people with distinct traditions and cla
ims was held not only in Greece but in Macedonia as well." (p.7)
[4] "His clansmen spirits rose, and their faith centered in him. Here was the nu
cleus of the army, but as yet too small and too little professional. Philip must
train and arm this Clan like Greeks, and swell their number by the only method
open to him as yet -- the hiring of mercenaries." (p.45)
[5] "Philip thought his Macedonians the Greek drill and tactics, constantly exer
cised them under arms, and made them cover as much as five and thirty miles a da
y in heavy marching order, each man with flour for a month and full baggage." (p
.45)
[6] "Philip demanded that the Lyncestian towns be surrendered at discretion and
the Illyrian allies be sent away. The armies met, and Philip experimented for th
e first time in the new tactics, which were to crush Greece and conquer Asia." (
p.47)
[7] "Twelve years later again his son, rising to a conception of world-wide empi
re on the stepping-stone of his father's panhellenic kingdom, dreamed of effacin
g the distinction of Macedonian, Hellene, and Asiatic, by making all march shoul
der to shoulder to the conquest of Africa and Europe." ["A national standing arm
y was a new thing in those days"] (p.50) "A professional army with a national sp
irit--that was the new idea; and Philip, equally great in practice and theory, i
ntended to add later a new organization, a new weapon, and new tactics." (p.51)
[8] "Neither an army nor a nation is made in a day. The six years which succeede
d the capture of Amphipolis and preceded the first serious attempt on Greece, pr
obably saw in Macedonia the birth of both one and the other; but Philipwas engag
ed all his life in completing his work." (p.52)
[9] Philip began enrolling his subjects according to their local and tibal divis
ions and assigned them to standing territorial regiments. These standing regimen
ts were known each by its colonel's name and quoted thus by Arrian. "All were ca
lled 'Macedonians'; the only general distinction, made thereafter, is between Ma
cedonians and Greeks, Thracians and Illyrians." (p.54)
[10] "Philip promoted whom he pleased to this sevice, Macedonian or Greek, and t
hus in time swelled the six hundred who accompanied him on his first campaign, t
o the two thousand who followed his son to Asia." (p.55)
[11] "As Philip had extended the honourable title of 'King's Followers' to all h
is native cavalry, so he took the corresponding term 'pezshatairoi', and applied
it to all the Macedonian infantry, whether of his clan or no: thus distinguishi
ng the new nation from the Greeks, as the clan had once distinguished itself fro
m the feudatories." (p.56)

[12] "Though in conception this phalanx was not different from the existing Gree
k fighting array, Philip so far developed and systematized it that he came to be
regarded as its inventor." (p.60)
[13] "Let a foot or two more be allowed to the phalangite of Philip and Alexande
r, and we save the indubitable fact that a longer weapon than the Greek was intr
oduced, and do not render the attack at Issus a practicable impossibility. This
phalanx, however, be it observed, did not prove instantly superior to the Greek
infantry formations that it encountered; and it is a frequent error, derived fro
m the Romans, to attach to it a supreme importance in the Macedonian fighting li
ne." (p.63)
[14] "During the winter he pressed the Thessalians to supply better support, and
when he came south again in the spring of 352 he was able to take the field wit
h with more than twenty thousand foot and three thousand horse. A host of knight
s and mercenaries, superior to his own, was awaiting him, and in the plain of Vo
lo Philip fought his first great battle on Greek soil." (p.70)
[15] "Flushed with success, Philip conceived the idea of pushing his pious champ
ionship of Apollo even to Delphi. Perhaps already he craved for Hellenic recogni
tion;..." (p.70)
[16] Philip in front of Olynthus. "He razed the city to the ground, sold its cit
izens for slaves, after the brutal
Macedonian manner, which even his hellenized son used, executed his two half bro
thers, and went off to Dium to give thanks at the great festival of Macedonian Z
eus for the crowning mercy of a united Macedonia. (p.78)
[17] "Never did Philip hold better cards than at Pella in May, 346, and never be
tter did he play his game. Encamped about him in the plain of the Vardar was suc
h an army as united Greece could not excel;" (p.92) [Philip's Macedonian army is
being compared to that of united Greece.]
[18] "His whole soul was set on one great end---unconditional supremacy over the
Hellenes---and he had the most definite plan of action." (p.92)
[19] "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 ye
ars in which his men at arms marched, the first foreigners since history has beg
un, into the Peloponnese, and he himself besieged and took cities on the Adriati
c, 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 designa
ted Captain- General of Hellas, and to wage the War against the Persians'." (p.9
7)
[Please visit "Green" and "Isocrates' Letter to Philip" (345), for further enlig
htenment] Notice also the usage of quotes by David Hogarth, regarding Philip's d
esire to be Captain-General of Hellas.]
[20] While Philip was conquering (342) the western shores of the Black Sea, and
the northern coast of the sea of Marmora, and all inland up to the Danube, the G
reek states conspire against him forming a kind of anti-Macedonian League. "They
sent envoys up to the Great King in Susa, to warn him of Philip's panhellenic p
roject, and induce him to assist Philip's enemies." (p.108)
Note: Please be reminded to read quote #19 above and compare it with this passag
e. Notice, also, what the Greeks were preparing for Philip. While Philip's desir
e to "lead them in panhellenic crusade", offered by Isocrates, played into his h

ands, for his Macedonian eggrandizement, the assumed "crusade of vengeance" agai
nst the Persians by the Hellenes, here, is effectively dispelled and removed as
invalid piece of modern Greek propaganda.
Common logic dictates that ancient Greeks had no intention to assist Philip and
Macedonia in their quest of Persia's land and money. The so-called "Panhellenic
crusade" was, in fact, an euphemistic expression for the inevitable Greek fiasco
under this brutal Macedonian conqueror. As a matter of fact, their "panhellenic
crusade" was organized with Persia against Philip, and not with him.
Referring to Athens, Hogarth writes: "Her adhesion to his panhellenic League aga
inst Persia was only compelled, as not he, but his son lived to know." (p.132)
[21] "Not only were the Thracian lands compelled henceforward to pay him tithe,
but he founded military colonies here and there in all the region, continuing a
policy inaugurated by himself at Philippi, and destined to be developed signally
by his son and his successors in Asia, Egypt, and Greece." (p.110)
[23] At Chaeronea "On the one side stood the miscellaneous array, half mercenary
, half civic, of the last imperial Greek city-states; on the other was ranged th
e first great army of a national power." (p.127) [Greek city-states against the
Macedonian national army. No further elucidation is required]
[24] "To Philip it mattered little if the panhellenic movement was factitious no
w; a successful campaign in Asia would go far to give it reality, and common dan
ger and common triumph would unite his Macedonians and their Greek allies." (p.1
36)
[25] "Alexander, however, began his venture two years later with no more than fo
rty thousand men; and at no higher figure is it probable that Philip's national
Macedonian force should be estimated. But there remains to be added the auxiliar
y host of Greeks, who would have been used rather to garrison towns and keep ope
n communications than to accompany the seasoned troops into the heart of the Per
sian Empire." (p.137)
[Rationale: This was a Macedonian conquest, not Greek. Greek troops were used fo
r secondary duties. Alexander did not trust their loyalty; as a matter of fact,
the Greeks were more loyal to Darius than to Alexander, and rightfully, they wer
e all dismissed]
[26]
The
d as
y of

"For all that, it may be said of Philip that perhaps he died none too soon.
great work of his life was accomplished. Macedonia was already a nation, an
Phocion warned the exulting Athenians, by the death of its creator, the arm
Chaeronea lost no more than one man." (p.143)

[27] "Europe had borne no such man, take him for all in all, as the son of Amynt
as" (Theopompus) (p.145)
[28] "The interest of the modern world in Philip, and his place in universal his
tory, depend after all most on his relation to Greek civilization. Therefore, we
must examine, in conclusion, the indictment so often repeated, that the Macedon
ian destroyed Hellenic liberty, and the measure of the wrong he did to civilizat
ion, if that indictment be true." (p.145)
[Points of interest: Philip and his Macedonians were already tried, found guilty
, and convicted. The western (romantically involved with Greek culture) press co
uld not possibly ascribe any greatness to this uncouth Macedonian and merit his
achievements. Unable, or unwilling to grapple with the problem, and accept the M
acedonians for what they were, the western scholars had to invent the Greekness
for the Macedonians. Yes, they did, indeed. This is why, the Macedonian conquest

of Asia is colored as Greek conquest, never mind the fact that there were no Gr
eeks fighting on Alexander's side. This is why Alexander's Macedonian army is re
ferred to by some as Greek army, and the Macedonian kingdoms, as Greek kingdoms,
or Macedonian empire as Greek empire, even though, these same Greeks were the c
onquered people themselves, and were promptly enslaved by the Macedonians]
[29] "Whose disposed of the forces of Macedon could dispose also of the earth" (
p.164)
[30] "Alexander came, then, in this April of 334, to the shore of Dardanelles, w
ith an ambition to possess all Persia as already he possessed all Greece." (p.17
7)
[31] In a few passages here, Hogarth writes that both Philip and Alexander were
Hellene by birth and training, and both believed that the second element -- to c
onquer and hold a vast empire-- must be incorporated with the Macedonian-- can b
e understood more fully with the following passage:
"But to say that he had learned from his father's and his own experience that a
base on which Hellene and Macedonian would fuse firmly together must be outside
the traditional home of the either; that the Hellene would prove of even greater
service in the holding of Empire than in the conquering thereof;..." (p.177)
[Taken in the context of conquering and holding of an empire, the Hellene and th
e Macedonian will fuse together. Alexander Homeric notion as "captain general of
the Hellenes" will allow him to play the role of Achilles, his hero. Subsequent
passages will reveal his abrupt change of heart, and the inevtable, turn around
. Alexander was a Hellene as long as he could play the role of Achilles]
[32] "It is a small matter, but a straw on the stream of events. What had happen
ed since the 'Cavalry Battle', to ease the conscience of the Captain--General? I
n effect enough to make Miletus a point clearly marked in the passing of the ent
husiastic boy into the calculating man of affairs. For those two months had prov
ed to demonstration nothing less than that the meritime states of Hellas, those
that alone greatly mattered, were in their hearts not for Alexander, but for his
enemies. The larger islands, Rhodes, Chios, and Lesbos, and nearly all the less
er, kept open ports to the Persian admirals, and the city of Athens had been at
no pains to disguise her sympathies. Her continental position and twenty of her
ships, held as hostages by the Macedonian, made her warn Pharnabazus off the Pir
aeus; but openly she sat within her walls watching for the first Macedonian reve
rse, and indeed had sent already, or was about to send soon, an envoy direct to
Darius." (p.179)
[Hellenic cities side with Darius. Athens had sent embassies to Persia while Ale
xander is avenging Hellas for the wrongs done to her by Xerxes. Are these the sa
me Hellenes whom Alexander took in the war against their eternal enemy? Is this
the Hellenic crusade? Is this the base for Alexander's empire? Is this how Helle
nes support their 'Hellenic Captain--General'? [Alexander's boyhood infetuation
with 'Captain of the Hellenes' notion assumes more sober groove: He quickly real
izes that they, the meritime Hellenic cities, and Athens in particular, do not c
ount on him as one of them, but openly conspire against him.]
[33] "Therefore, at Miletus, the first sanguine hour of Alexander's life has clo
sed, and on the wreck of his exuberant illusions begins his rise a sterner purpo
se. Greece must be coerced if she will not be courted. Her command of the seas s
hall be broken by the capture of the coasts of the Levant, and her people be ben
t willy nilly to the panhellenic work." (p.180) [This is certainly enough to dis
pell any notion that Alexander was Hellene, or that he believed in panhellenism]
[34] "In the face of present hostility, however, it was no longer worth while to

maintain an offensive fleet; and, accordingly, he issued now his much canvassed
decision to 'burn his boats' and leave himself stranded in Asia." (180)
[35] "The sea was the element of the Greek. No fleet that, as yet, Alexander cou
ld requisition would make head for a moment against the squadrons of Persia and
the Hellenic powers, should these combine." (p.180)
[These are the points for which the answer looms convincingly obvious. Macedonia
ns and the Greeks did not have same agenda nor did they have the same affinity a
s kinsmen.]
[36] "This early disillusionment, though it cooled the boy's spirit all too soon
, and when pressed home by much future trouble with Greeks, embittered him not a
little, and forced him in the end to adapt a policy alien to modern sympathy, w
as in certain ways salutary." (p.180-1) [Contrast this views with those in #31 a
bove]
[37] "Certain consequents of Issus, however, are of more importance to Alexander
's individual history than the battle itself; for through it, in two ways, illum
ination come to him, and a distinct change in his personal attitude ensues. In t
he first place, not only had he been placed by the capture of Darius' baggage in
possession of much correspondence between the Great King and Hellenic states, b
ut also, for the first time, he had seized in flagrant fault the persons of Hell
enic envoys sent up to the Persians." (p.185)
[Points of interest: The Hellenic states conspire against Alexander, while he le
d them on a "vengeance" against the Persians. [Note: These are the reasons that
I had no trouble posting passages where Hogarth speaks of Alexander as being Hel
lene (#31). His referral to Alexander as such is in accordance with, and as a re
sult off, the assumed generalship of the crusade by the League of Corinth, and t
he self-proclaimed Homeric spirit of the Macedonian. The reader is left with uno
bstructed view of Alexander's most inner feelings ("exuberant illusions" and "ea
rly disilusionment"), and his subsequent hatred for the Hellenes]
[38] "These springs of irritation fell to be added to all that had been happenin
g for a year past in Greece, to the crusade preached by Agis of Sparta, to the m
ilitant speeches of the anti-Macedonian orators at Athens, and to the unequal st
ruggle of his friends in the islands with the ubiquitous Persian admirals." (p.1
85)
[Points to reflect about: Do you get the picture of Alexander's feelings towards
these back-stabbing Hellenes? These "indicators" unambiguously solidify the pos
ition that the Greeks (the Hellenes) had very little to do with Alexander's conq
uest, nor did they share in his enthusiasm for an Empire. A few things are emerg
ing to the forefront: (a) It was their (Greeks) fervent hope to see him (Alexand
er) perish in the mountains of Asia. (b) Alexander is nearing the point of dispo
sing with his Hellenic mask. Can anyone with a clear conscious blame the man? Fu
nny, though, the modern Greeks have the audacity to claim Alexander and his Mace
donian Empire as being Greek.]
39] "If the Greeks and the Macedonians were to coalesce into a Hellenic nation,
there was no land on the eastern Mediterranean left so open to mixed colonizatio
n as the Egyptian." (p.189)
[40] "Arrian is probably right in saying that the Macedonian system, with its la
ck of an all-powerful supreme official, its three nationalities set one against
the other, and its counteracting civil and military powers, anticipated in some
ways the Romans." (p.192-3)
[41] "The king, say they, about to proceed to the East, and already desirous of

exaltation above his Macedonians and Greeks, deliberately assumed divine charact
er as son of Amen." (p.196)
[42] "He was officially both King of Macedon, and Federal Captain-General of the
Hellenes; but neither the habitual attitude of his Macedonians towards his Gree
ks, nor of his Greeks towards his Macedonians, was consistent with the relation
in which each stood to the general." (p.207)
[43] "The attitude of the Hellenes in Greece had raised, as we have seen, a firs
t difficulty; the attitude of the older Macedonians was now raising a second. Th
e party which Parmenio led had no panhellenic ideals. They would have had Alexan
der even as Philip and his forefathers had been--feudal king of the Macedonians,
conqueror of the Greeks if he would, and of the Persians if he could." (p.207)
[44] "The Macedonians would be retained, for to follow the king was their simple
feudal duty. The professional part of the Philipian army, even if not Macedonia
n by birth, could be relied on to stay by the standards, for it knew no other tr
ade half so lucrative. But to all the allied political contingents, especially t
he Greeks, which had been sent by their cities to assist a crusade for which nei
ther they themselves nor their Captain-General felt unmixed enthusiasm, there mu
st now be offered a choice between retiring from further service or re-enlisting
simply as soldiers of fortune." (p.212) [If any of the Greeks stayed with Alexa
nder, they did as "soldiers of fortune", In other words, their services were not
different than those with Darius III]
[45] "How far and fast had the world moved since Marathon! Greeks were fraterniz
ing now with Persians, both at their ease; only the Macedonians sat glowering an
d constrained, masterful, stiff-necked Northerners that they were. They might we
ll feel uneasy! Their native speech had become so rare at the court of their Kin
g that a word of command, shouted in it, rang on unwonted ears like a tocsin." (
p.234)
Points of interest: The author list three different nationalities here. He does
not mention "dialect of Greek", "Greek language", but a Macedonian "native speec
h." The truth, like a rushing avalanche down the mountain that could not be stop
ped, echoes the previous hundred of passages with same familiar tone: Macedonian
s were not Greeks. There is, as it has been from the onset, only one conclusion
and Hogarth, even though at times strongly influenced by the romantic trappings
of J. G. Droysen, brings forth the inescapable finale--the ancient Macedonians w
ere different nation from the ancient Greeks.
FRED E REED
Salonica Terminus
[1] "Perhaps more intensely than anywhere else, Truth and History, in the Balkan
s, are national considerations. In Greece, they are generated and reproduced by
what a scholar, who asked that I not reveal his name, termed the "archeological
Mafia," and by an academic establishment which maintains an incestuous relations
hip with the State." [p.xiii]
[2] 'The effacement of the square [Liberty Square] that was once the its heart,
its window to the world during the turbulent years when Salonica was the metropo
lis of Ottoman-ruled Macedonia, is a function of an unavowed modern Greek select
ive memory syndrom-a condition which dictates that all that does not mesh with t
he founding myth must be obscured, buried, eliminated, caused to vanish from pub
lic historical consciousness." [p.6] [Eradication of anything from the past that
suggests connection with the ethnic Macedonians was the order of the day for th
e Greek government. Not even churches and cemeteries are spared. To erase the Ma
cedonian element from the newly obtained lands [thanks western powers, for your

'just' hand has helped the fanatical Greeks to exercise their cultural genocide
against the local ethnic Macedonians] was the most urgent task of the Greek stat
e. Newly arrived christians from Asia, were now occupying the farms and the buil
dings of the expelled Macedonians.]
[3] "Liberty Square is not a place to linger. Often I circumnavigate it, and alw
ays hastily, on my way to or from the west end of the town. Today, lined with ba
nk headquarters, on one side, fast-food restaurants and travel agencies on the o
ther, the square which lies hard by the elegant, despairingly silent maritime pa
ssenger terminal, owes its name not to some putative liberation of Greek Macedon
ia. The embarrassment, for Salonica's masters, is that the Greeks had very littl
e to do with it, except as onlookers." [p.9]
[4] "In Athens, Sofia and Belgrade the carving knives were being sharpened. Lond
on, Paris, Moscow and Vienna watched with ill-concealed glee as their general st
affs drew up mobilization plans. If Macedonia was to be the meal, Salonica would
be the plat de resistance". [p.18]
[5] "The Greeks claim they liberated Salonica," snorts Petropoulos. "But whom di
d they liberate?" [p.22]
[6] "The 'natives' possess no written language - some say they have no language
at all, only a debased patios - their traditions are oral, their history passed
on furtively from the mouths of the elders, their songs and dances proscribed. F
or even well-intentioned, broad-minded men like Mr. Stalidis, they escape examin
ation, cannot be understood, are not easily inserted into the complex analytical
schemata which the Greek mind is capable of devising. They are people of the sh
adows, these Macedonians; phantoms. Their speech, fleeting whispers spirited awa
y by the wind; their land, clods of anonymous earth wrapped in newly-printed tit
le deeds; their existence, a pang of abstract conscience. And though invisible,
yet they do not disappear." [p.181]
[7] "Here, in the building which housed the Greek Consulate during the tumultuou
s years preceding the capture of Ottoman Salonica in 1912, the Museum is dedicat
ed to the proposition that the sole legitimate Macedonian identity is Greek." St
range phenomenon; A Greek consulate in Salonica? Since when do Greeks place cons
ulates in 'their own country'? [p.181]
MICHAEL GRANT
From Alexander to Cleopatra and The Hellenistic world
[1] "Philip II of Macedonia (359-336), who made his country into a major power,
virtually controlling the mainland Greek city-states, intended to lead his and t
heir forces against the two-centuries-old Persian (Achaemenid) empire, which rul
ed over huge territories extending from the Aegean to Egypt and central Asia. Ph
ilip's motives were mixed: revenge for the Persian invasion of Macedonia and Gre
ece in the previous century, annoyance because the contemporary Persians had at
times aided the king's own Greek opponents, a desire to wipe out the only largescale potential enemy to the Macedonians that was still in existence - and pure
lust for expansion." [p.1]
[2] "In 334 BC, at the head of 40,000 Macedonian and Greek troops, he (Alexander
) crossed the Hellespont (Dardanelles) and confronted the Persian advanced force
s on the river Granicus (Can Cayi), winning a victory which enabled him to conqu
er western and southern Asia Minor." [p.1]
[3] "His motives for undertaking these vast enterprises seem to have been mixed.
As a Macedonian, he wanted to show that he could do better than any of the Gree
ks, who considered his people barbarians." [p.4]

[4] "The loyalest of all the successors was Eumenes of Cardia, not a Macedonian
but a Greek, which meant that even his first-rate generalship could not gain him
the continued support of Macedonian soldiery." [p.101]
[5] "Alexander's various successors, to whom Greece was still the most coveted p
rize, held two conflicting opinions of the city-states (with many nuances in bet
ween): that they were still free allies (a view upheld ostensibly, and perhaps g
enuinely, by the philhellenic Antigonus I Monophtholmos), and, conversely, that
they were little better than subjects (the attitude of Antipater and Cassander).
[p.105]
[6] "The Hellenistic kings talked a lot about 'liberating' cities, which (as the
realistic Polybius remarked) generally meant seizing them from their rivals - a
nd only rarely signified their exemption from tax. However, the monarchs, for th
e most part, soon stopped proclaiming that all Greeks must be free, and instead
offered 'freedom' as a reward or prize for loyalty to themselves, though this wa
s often a matter of prestige rather than substance, since such freedom, in effec
t, did not make much difference to the cities one way or the other." [p.106]
ULRICH WILCKEN
German Writer
Alexander the Great
[1] "The beginnings of Macedonian history are shrouded in complete darkness. The
re is keen controversy on the ethnological problem, whether Macedonians were Gre
ek or not." [p.22]
[Point of Interest] Key elements in these few sentences are: "ethnology" and "ke
en controversy". Based on ethnology, one cannot conclude that the ancient Macedo
nians were Greek. One cannot, because there is keen controversy whether Macedoni
ans were Greeks or not. That is what Wilken states.
[2] "Linguistic science has at its disposal a very limited quantity of Macedonia
n words, and the archeological exploration of Macedonia has hardly begun."
[Point of Interest] Key elements are: "limited quantity of Macedonian words." Ar
cheologically, Macedonia is unexplored. Result? There are Macedonian words, albe
it, in a "limited quantity", but nevertheless, the words are Macedonian. (Note,
it did not say Greek words. Consequently, one cannot equate the term "Macedonian
" to mean the same as "Athenian", "Theban", "Spartan" and such. For to claim tha
t Macedonians were Greeks, one must expect that these Greeks used same language
- same words. But the author, here, clearly states the existence of "Macedonian
words".)
[3] Describing the all familiar episode with Cleitus: "He shouted in Macedonian
for his hypaspists, and ordered the trumpeter to sound the alarm". [p167]
[Point of Interest] (The most revealing point in Alexander's psyche; the time wh
en he felt that conspiracy against his life is in the making, when he felt his l
ife is in danger, forgetting his "Hellenic" mask, he shouts in his native Macedo
nian language. Yes, indeed, a very revealing point. Stripped from any artificial
ity, and pretentiousness, he reverts to the most instinctive/primitive response
and shouts to his guards in Macedonian language.)
[4] "And yet when we take into account the political conditions, religion and mo
rals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were Greek rac
e and akin to the Dorians."

[Point of Interest] Based on political conditions "religion and morals" "our con
victions are strengthened" "They were Greek race and akin to the Dorians". A fix
ed or strong belief being strengthened. These beliefs are formed based on such i
dentifiers/classifiers as religion, political conditions and morals. Let us take
a closer look:
(a) Religion is not limited or restricted to one people only. Religion transcend
s borders and ethnic make-ups of communities with the greatest of ease. One shou
ld not go any further than today's Greece, for example. There you have Orthodox,
Jewish, Muslum, Catholic, Jehovah, Protestant and other religious denominations
. (Weak link) Nevertheless, Alexander is shown to have sacrificed to his father
Ammon, to Indian gods, and to local gods in the country he happened to fight. Be
sides, on p.142 we see that at Susa, Alexander sacrificed to "Macedonian gods ac
cording to ancestral rituals, and ordered a torch-race and gymnastic contest to
follow." p. 187, line 15, we read the following passage referring to his advance
s to the Hyphasis:
"Alexander built twelve great tower-like altars on the nearer side of the river.
We have been informed by those who refer everything to Babylonia, that this was
for the twelve signs of the zodiac. In reality it was the twelve gods of Macedo
nia to whom these altars were raised." Key words are: Twelve Macedonian gods, no
t Greek.
(b) "political conditions"? Not much to draw from here. Common land brings commo
n wars, common enemies and common destiny. Political condition can bring people
close together and/or drive them apart. The war against Persia brought these two
peoples together. (Weak point) However, let us consider the following statement
s by Wilcken: On p.170, line 31 we find: (Referring to the conspiracy involving
the royal pages, the sons of Macedonian nobles. These royal pages who "waited on
the king's person", were brought, and tried, in front of the Macedonian army, a
nd consequently executed by stoning. By the way, these royal pages were tutored
by Callisthenes).
"As Callisthenes was a Greek, there was no question of trying him by the Macedon
ian army." Key point: Since Callisthenes was a Greek and not a Macedonian, like
the royal pages, he, Callisthenes, a Greek, cannot be tried by the Macedonian ar
my This is a political differentiation based on ethnic classification or nationa
l separation, for on p.171, line 33, we see the following reference: "On the mar
ch and in battle he was just the same as ever, he (Alexander) was the king of th
e Macedonian nation, who shared with them the unspeakable fatigues, and the hung
er and thirst of this guerrilla warfare." Macedonians clearly distanced as a nat
ion.
(c) "Morals"? This must be the weakest link of the three. As it was indicated ab
ove, people who inhabit same geographical area, share common borders and fight c
ommon enemies, and most of all, trade with each other, sooner or later, they are
not only going to borrow from one another, imitate each other's styles (to a ce
rtain extent), but even steal ideas from each other. That is, surely, inevitable
. Nevertheless, the morals of the ancient Macedonians were quite different from
those of the ancient Greeks. They were not branded "barbarians" for nothing. (Ve
ry weak point)
On Line 20, p. 22. Referring to the episode of Alexander I who desired to take p
art in the Olympic Games, to which only Hellenes had access to: "He was at first
refused as a barbarian, and it was only when by a bold fiction he traced back t
he pedigree of his house, the Agreed, to the Herald Tameness of Argues, that he
was admitted as a competitor." Key words: "Bold fiction". This is self-explanato
ry.

[5] [p.22?23] "Even in Philip's day the Greeks saw in the Macedonians a non-Gree
k foreign people, and we must remember this if we are to understand the history
of Philip and Alexander, and especially the resistance and obstacles which met t
hem from the Greeks. The point is much more important than our modern conviction
that Greeks and Macedonians were brethren, this was equally unknown to both, an
d therefore could have no political effect."
Key words: (a) "non-Greek foreign people", (b) "we must remember", (c) "the poin
t is much more important than our modern conviction", (d) "equally unknown to bo
th" and (e)"no political effect".
Conclusion: This is same Wilcken who previously stated that: "When we take into
account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians our con
victions are strengthened..."
Now, after giving thorough description of the existing conditions in the fifth a
nd fourth cent. BC, he, Wilken states: The point is much more important than our
modern conviction. And that means: Ancient Macedonians and ancient Greeks did n
ot regard themselves as brethren; "this was equally unknown to both". Much more
important than what we think them today.
[6] [p.23] "A strong Illyrian and Thracian can thus be recognized in Macedonian
speech and manners. These however are only trifles compared with the Greek chara
cter of the Macedonian nationality; for example, the names of the true full-bloo
ded Macedonians, especially of the princes and nobles, are purely Greek in their
formation and sounds".
Key notes: "Macedonian speech and manners" "Macedonian nationality" "names are p
urely Greek in their formation and sounds".
Conclusion: So far we have witnessed the usage of "Macedonian words", "Macedonia
n speech", and "Macedonian nationality".
Line 4 on p. 26 we find the following statement: "The Macedonians were thoroughl
y healthy people, trained not by Greek athletics, but, like the Romans, by milit
ary service."
[7] [p. 26] "The dislike was reciprocal, for the Macedonians have grown into a p
roud masterful nation, which with highly developed national consciousness looked
down upon the Hellenes with contempt. This fact too is of prime importance for
the understanding of later history."
Key points: (a) "The dislike was reciprocal", (b) "Macedonians had grown into a
proud masterful nation", (c) "Highly developed national consciousness", and (d)
"looked down upon the Helleness with contempt".
Conclusion: The fact that Macedonians looked down upon the Hellenes with contemp
t, is not the point I would elevate for "storage" (as J.P. suggests), what I wou
ld gladly elevate, though, is the following statement: "proud masterful nation".
Note: (1) If in fact the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, and the Greeks are the
Hellenes, then, how can a "Greek- Hellene", like the ancient Macedonians, look
down upon themselves? Note: (2) If in fact the ancient Macedonians were regarded
as Greeks, like the Thebans, Athenians, Spartans and the other city-states of G
reece, how come, we do not find any Greek city-state elevated as a nation? For e
xample, the Athenian nation, the Spartan nation and so forth? This usage of "Mac
edonian nation" by Wilcken is not an accidental at all. He uses the terms "Maced
onians and Greeks" repeatedly throughout the book. Obviously, he finds a strong
need to differentiate between these two peoples.

[8] [p.44] "Philip was the Hegemon, the federal general, selected for life by th
e congress. His kingdom of Macedon naturally did not belong to the Hellenic Leag
ue..."
Note: Macedonians were not Hellene, and Macedonia was never a member of the Hell
enic League, a league that encompassed and "united" all the Greek city-states. I
socrates expanded the term Hellene to include, no racial descent, but mode of th
ought, and those who partook of Attic culture, rather than those who had a commo
n descent were called Hellene. He saw the true Hellene only in the Greek educate
d in the Attic model. He did not regard the barbarians of Attic education as Hel
lenes. Here are the rest of the Wilken quotes:
Wilcken's Quotes
[1] "Even in Philip's day the Greeks saw in the Macedonians a non-Greek foreign
people, and we must remember this if we are to understand the history of Philip
and Alexander, and especially the resistance and obstacles which met them from t
he Greeks. The point is much more important than our modern conviction that Gree
ks and Macedonians were brethren, this was equally unknown to both, and therefor
e could have no political effect." [p. 22-23]
[2] "The dislike was reciprocal, for the Macedonians have grown into a proud mas
terful nation, which with highly developed national consciousness looked down up
on the Hellenes with contempt. This fact too is of prime importance for the unde
rstanding of later history. [p.26]
[3] "Philip was the Hegemon, the federal general, selected for life by the congr
ess. His kingdom of Macedon naturally did not belong to the Hellenic League..."
[p.44]
[4] "On the other hand, we look in vain for the 7000 league infantry in the batt
le front. One gets the impression that, apart from the Tessalians, Alexander too
k the Greek contingents rather as hostages, who would help to keep Hellas quiet.
" [p.75]
[5] "The naval superiority of the enemy had a determining effect on Alexander's
plan of campaign. As the Persian fleet controlled the sea, the greatest danger w
as the possibility that the Great King might transfer the war to Greece and by h
is immense treasures coerce the Greeks into fighting against him." [p.77] [fight
ing against Alexander]
[6] Thebans responding to Alexander's demands: "anyone who wished, in company wi
th them and the Great King, to free Greece from the tyranny of Alexander, should
forthwith join them." [P.72]
[7] "It appears that while Alexander stayed in Macedonia, the Greeks kept quiet,
though the parties hostile to him in the cities felt his hegemony as a grevious
burden. But when he went northwards and remained a long time in unknown and rem
ote lands, from which no news come, the Greek world was filled with unrest and e
xcitement." [P70]
[8] "To the latter [Philip II] the designed campaign of vengeance was merely a p
retext and an instrument of policy for making Macedonia a great power. But Alexa
nder, into whom Aristotle had instilled a love of Greek culture, was bound to ta
ke up the Panhellenic idea with the greatest enthusiasm as affording him an oppo
rtunity to carry Greek culture into Asia; there was also the personal motive, th
e example of his heroic ancestors and especially of Achilles. Accordingly he cro
ssed over to Asia, full of the romantic conceptions that he as a second Achilles
was leading the Greaks against the barbarians; but at the same time he went for
th as King of Macedonia, to conquer new territory." [p.66]

[9] "The Greeks regarded the hegemony of Philip as, after all, a foreign dominat
ion; they did not look upon the Macedonians as Greeks." [p.45]
[10] "His Kingdom of Macedonia naturally did not belong to the Hellenic League."
[Philip's kingdom] [p.44]
[11] "Isocrates never for an instant thought of a politically unified state unde
r Philip's leadership. It is simply the internal unification of Hellas which he
calls on Philip to bring about." [p.37]
[12] "it is equally an error to believe that the Panhellenic idea started with t
he object of the union of the nation into one state." [p.37]
[13] "When Philip read the book, the insistence of his descent from Heracles mus
t have been welcome to him; for in his policy he had to stress this mythical der
ivation, as the types of Heracles on his coins show. But on the other hand he mu
st have smiled at the naivete shown by Isocrates." [p.36]
[14] "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]
[15] "He [Philip] needed but to modify these plans cleverly, in order to conceil
his Macedonian aims with Panhellenic catch-words." [p.37]
[16] Jacob Burckhardt: "the myth was the ideal basis of their whole existence."
[p.34]
[17] "When Isocrates in this treatise makes so much of Heracles as Philip's ance
stor, this was meant not merely for Philip, but for the Greek public as well." [
p.35]
[18] "The strong emphasis on Philip as a Heraclid and therefore a true Hellene,
was to make easier for Greeks the idea of subordination to foreign leadership."
[p.35-6]
PIERRE JOUGUET
Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World 1928
[1] "The mythical imagination was always fertile in Greece, and it would have fo
und Greek ancestors for the Macedonian people as easily as it had done for the r
oyal line" [p.70] [This is self-explanatory].
[2] "Except the Macedonian kingdom, the Hellenistic monarchies were not national
" [p.173]
[3] Speaking of Eumenes: "He knew from experience that in the eyes of the Macedo
nians he was still a Greek, a foreigner. Plutarch praised his charming and refin
ed manners, which were very unlike the haughty airs of the noble Macedonian offi
cer." [p.142]
[4] More on Eumenes: "But he was not a Macedonian, and the Macedonians did not l
ook upon him as an equal. This may have been one reason for his tenacious loyalt
y to the cause of the Kings; his fortune was bound up with the Empire, and in th
e case of a partition he would not have received the support of the Macedonian t
roops in securing a portion for himself." [p.129]
[5] On Isocrates: "At the end of his speech, Isocrates, summarizing the programm

e 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]
[6] On stationing garrison in Greek cities "To endure and maintain a royal garri
son must have been, for a city, one of the most certain signs of servitude. As a
rule, except in the cases of strategical necessity, Alexander seems to have abs
tained as much as possible from inflicting the presence of his soldiers and the
duty of maintaining them on Greek cities." [p.87]
[7] "Between Macedonia, Greece, and Asia, the three worlds which made up the Emp
ire, union was maintained by the power of the King." [p.74]
[8] [On Greece's role with Antalcidas Treaty, versus that of the King of Macedon
] "So Greece was in a peculiar situation. It was not properly incorporated in th
e Empire. It was attached to it by a treaty of alliance which consecrated the he
gemony of one ally, without injuring the autonomy of the states. It was directed
rather than ruled. But it did not resign itself readily to this secondary role,
or to the menace which was always suspended over its liberties. And, indeed, wh
ile it was to be feared that Alexander could not be content with this hazardous
limited authority, it might also be foreseen that the most serious obstacles to
the accomplishments of his designs would come from Greece." [p.71]
[9] "Athens accepted the terms of the Confederation of Corinth, because Alexande
r had required only a moderate effort of the allies, and had demanded only a few
ships from herself. The Empire to which he aspired was to be made chiefly by Ma
cedonians, and for the King of Macedon." [p.70]
[10] [After Chaeronea] "But there were more serious difficulties- the resentment
of those defeated at Chaeronea, the political selfishness of each city, the his
torical past, binding the great states to their traditions, and an invincible re
pugnance for accepting national unity imposed by a foreign sovereign." [p.70]
[11] [On Macedonian ethnicity] So little do the Macedonians seem to have belonge
d 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 the
m 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, th
erefore, did not regard the Macedonians as Greeks." [p.68]
[12] [On the membership in the Delphic Amphictiony] "So, too, when, after the Sa
cred War, Philip obtained a voice in the Delphic Amphictiony, it was given to th
e King, not to the people of Macedonia." [p.68]
[13] [On Macedonians and Greeks] "It is sufficient for our purposes to note that
the Hellenes and the Macedonians regarded themselves as different nations, and
this feeling did not ceased to be the source of great difficulties for the union
of Greece under Macedonian rule. When the union was achieved, it was only by po
licy of force." [p.68]
[14] [On Macedonian Empire and Alexander] "The architect was a King of Macedon,
and he never forgot his origin, even when, after he had accumulated many crowns,
his suspicious comrades accused him of denying it. Alexander always wore the in
signis of his national kingship- the purple cloak, the kausia, or great hat ador
ned with purple, and the Macedonian boots. With the insignia, he retained to the
end of his life the simple, free manners of his forbears." [p.62]
[15] [On the Macedonian conquest] "It was quite certain that Alexander would not
be content. He had called himself the avenger of Greece, and had begun the war

in the capacity of Strategos of all the Hellenes, but he meant the war chiefly t
o serve the greatness of Macedonia. That is why there were so few Greeks in the
army, which was mainly Macedonian; the Macedonians alone were sufficiently attac
hed to the royal house of their country to follow Alexander in a undertaking for
which Asia Minor was already too small a prize." [p.20]
[16] [On Macedonia and its neighbors] "Alexander had left Antipatros 12,000 foot
and 1,500 horse, to protect Macedonia and to watch Greece." [p.9]
WERNER JAEGER
Demosthenes
Here, in these excerpts from Jeager's book, you will find Demosthenes' hatred fo
r Macedon not only readily displayed and exercised, but its Hellenic descent cat
egorically excluded and implicitly denied. The fact that some modern authors asc
ribe Hellenic affinity to the ancient Macedonians should come to no great surpri
se because of the impact left by Johan Gustav Droysen on early nineteenth-centur
y historian where Macedon is depicted as a natural "unifier" of the Greek city-s
tates, the same role played by Prussia and Savoy in German and Italian unificati
on in the nineteenth century. "On this false analogy the whole of Greek history
was now boldly reconstructed as a necessary process of development leading quite
naturally to a single goal: unification of the Greek nation under Macedonian le
adership".
Demosthenes and most of his contemporaries did not see it that way; to them the
leadership of Macedon was seen as the 'death of Greek political liberty' Some pe
ople dismiss Demosthenes' outbursts as a political rhetoric, others hold his pol
itical abuse of Philip from Macedon as historical facts, undeniably blunt and tr
uthful. His sentiments are, in this case, fundamental historical documents, whic
h testify to the simmering hate and the undamped contempt for the Macedonian con
queror. The hands of the sculptor are being replaced by his sharply cutting tong
ue. At the end the features emerge to the surface unpretentiously clear and aggr
essive. Demosthenes unlike Isocrates does not mask his national ideals with "Pan
hellenistic union" against the Persians, but boldly and aggressively calls his H
ellenic nation to an uprising against the barbarian from the north -the Kingdom
of Macedon and its king Philip.
Demosthenes' cries and pleas are not intended for his beloved Athens only, but t
o every liberty loving Hellene, and even the Persians themselves. He calls on th
e Persians to join the Hellenes in the war against Macedon, and at the same time
he warns them that if they leave the Greeks in the lurch, they would be next Ph
ilip's victim. As destiny would have it, Demosthenes was right. Here we go:
[1] "On the Symmories, namely, that Demosthenes originally stood close to a grou
p of politicians who were vigorously combating the radical democratic influence;
indeed, it is only to this degree that he can be said to have come from any one
party at all. It is true that in later years, when he is coming to grips with t
he danger of Macedonia's foreign yoke, he naturally appeals to the lofty ideal o
f Greek liberty." [p.93]
[2] "It is not until Demosthenes is fighting the "tyranny" of the Macedonian con
queror that the idea of liberty takes on its true color for him and becomes sign
ificant as a great national good." [p.93]
[3] "Even then this watchword of "liberty" serves solely to promote his (Demosth
enes' foreign policy; but by that time it has really become an essential factor
in his envisagement of the world about him, in which Greece and Macedonia are po
lar opposites, irreconcilable morally, spiritually, intellectually." [p.93-4]

[4] "Thereupon all Thessaly submitted to him of its own accord. He was acclaimed
as a deliverer and named commander-in-chief of the Thessalian confederacy. He w
ould have marched at once into central Greece as a conquering hero and would pro
bably have brought the war to an end there with a single blow, had not the Athen
ians and Spartans bestirred themselves to send auxilary troops to Thermopylae, t
hus shutting against him this gateway to Hellas." [p.114]
[5] "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 P
ersian 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." [p.152
]
[6] "If Philip was not to remain a permanent menace to the Greek world from outs
ide, it was necessary to get him positively involved in the fate of Hellas; for
he could not be eluded. Of course in the view of any of the Greek states of the
period, this problem was comparable to that of squaring the circle." [p.152]
[7] "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 le
ast humiliating way to express the unavoidable submission of all the Greeks to t
he will of Philip. Here again he found the solution in a scheme for Macedonian h
egemony over Greece. For it seems as if Philip's appearance in this role would b
e most effective way to mitigate his becoming so dominant a factor in Greek hist
ory; moreover, it ought to silence all Greek prejudices against the culturally a
nd ethnically alien character of the Macedonians." [p.153]
[8] "With the help of the role that Isocrates had assigned to him, he had the as
tuteness to let his cold-blooded policy for the extension of Macedonian power ta
ke 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 nobo
dy lent himself to this purpose so effectively as the old Isocrates, venerable a
nd disinterested, who offered his services of his own free will." [p.155]
[9] "Philip now had the problem of compelling the Athenians to recognize the Del
phic resolutions aimed against Phocis; and he sent ambassadors to Athens, where
strong opposition prevailed. However, with the Macedonian army only a few day's
march from the Attic border and in good fighting trim, Athens was quite defensel
ess, and even Demosthenes advised submission." [p.157]
[10] "When Demosthenes draws up his list of Philip's transgressions, it includes
his offense against the whole of Greece, not merely those against Athens; and D
emosthenes' charge of unbecoming remissness is aimed at all the Greeks equallytheir irresolution, and their failure to perceive their common cause." [p.171]
[11] "Therefore he (Demosthenes) urges them to send embassies everywhere to call
the Greeks together--to assemble them, teach them, and exhort them; but the par
amount need is to take the necessary steps themselves and thus perform their dut
y." [p.171]
[12] "In this appeal to the whole Greek world Demosthenes reached a decisive tur
ning point in his political thought................He was still thoroughly roote
d in Athens's governmental traditions, never overstepping the bounds of her clas
sical balance-of-power policy for the interior of Greece. But the appearance of
the mighty new enemy from beyond the Greek frontier now forced him to take a dif
ferent track." [p.171-2]
[13] "Looking far beyond the actualities of the Greek world, hopelessly split as

under as it was, he (Isocrates) had envisaged a united nation led by the Macedon
ian king." [p.172]
[14] "Quite apart, however, from any theoretical doubts whether the nationalisti
c movement of modern times, which seeks to combine in a single state all the ind
ividuals of a single folk, can properly be compared with the Greek idea of Panhe
llenism, scholars have failed to notice that after the unfortunate Peace of Phil
ocrates Demosthenes' whole policy was an unparalleled fight for national unifica
tion. In this period he deliberately threw off the constrains of the politician
concerned exclusively with Athenian interests, and devoted himself to a task mor
e lofty than any Greek statesman before him had ever projected or indeed could h
ave projected. In this respect he is quite comparable to Isocrates; but an impor
tant 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 th
e will of the conqueror; on the contrary, he demanded a unanimous uprising of al
l the Greeks against the Macedonian foe." [p.172]
[15] "His Panhellenism was the outgrowth of a resolute will for national self-as
sertiveness, deliberately opposed to the national self-surrender called for by I
socrates - for that was what Isocrates' program had really meant, despite its be
ing expressed romantically as a plan for a Persian war under Macedonian leadersh
ip." [p.172-3]
[16] "As the success of his appeal was to show, he was correct in his estimate o
f the actual political prospects of a really national uprising now that direct h
ostile pressure was felt. Since the days of the Persian wars Hellas had at no ti
me been seriously endangered from without." [p.173]
[17] "The foe and the emergency [Macedon and
and if the Greeks still had a spark of their
fate that was now overtaking them could not
Philippic is one mighty avowal of this brand
ly Demosthenes' achievement." [p.173]

its king Philip] had now appeared;

fathers' sense of independence, the
but bring them together. The Third
of Panhellenism; and this is entire

[18] "The task that confronted Demosthenes demanded utterly gigantic powers of i
mprovisation; for the Greek people had not been making preparedness an end in it
self for years as the enemy had done, and they also found it hard to adjust them
selves spiritually to their new situation. In the Third Philippic Demosthenes' p
rime effort was to break down this spiritual resistance, and everything hinged o
n his success." [p.174]
[Greek
Greeks
n kin?
Greeks

people on one side, and the enemy on the other. Were Macedonians seen as
by the ancient Greeks? Did the Greeks have the enemy from within their ow
Were there some Greeks who were making preparations for a war, and other
who were not? It is a clear no, since the Macedonians were not Greek]

[19] "Demosthenes speaks of embassies to be sent to the Peloponnesus, to Rhodes

and Chios, and even to the king of Persia, to call for resistance against the co
nqueror." [p.177]
[Point of Interest] Greeks were sending embassies to the king of Persia to ally
with them against the conqueror from the north - Macedonia and its king Philip.
One needs not be a scholar to see through the lies propagated by today's Greeks
when they claim that Macedonia was a part of Greece and Philip was their king. "
It is an illusion to think that ancient Macedonians were Greeks". [Karagatsis a Greek writer]
[20] Demosthenes' call for a national uprising was slowly gaining strength; Cori
nth and Achaea went over to the Athenian side, Messenia, Arcadia and Argos were
won over and lined themselves behind the program. In March of the year 340 the t

reaty was formerly concluded at Athens. Even Athens and Thebes reconciled and jo
ined his national program. "The true greatness of these achievements -- achievem
ents for which the citizens of Athens honored Demosthenes with a golden crown at
the Dionysia of 340 - was rightly appreciated by the ancient historians." [p.17
8]
[21] "If the Persian leaves us in the lurch and anything should happen to us, no
thing will hinder Philip from attacking the Persian king." [Fourth Philippic] [p
.181]
[22] "For historians of the old school, Greek history ended when the Greek state
s lost their political liberty; they looked upon it as a closed story, mounting
to a heroic finish at Chaeronea." [p.188]
[23] "For if any non-Greek power, whether Persian or Macedonian, were to achieve
world dominion, the typical form of the Greek state would suffer death and dest
ruction." [p.188]
[24] "Anyone who had assured himself that Macedonian hegemony would lead to the
inner unification of the Greeks, was bound to be disappointed. Philip surrounded
Athens with four Macedonian garrisons placed at respectful distances, and left
everything else to his supporters and agents in the cities." [p.191]
[25] 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 pas
sionately described as a war of vengeance, was not looked upon as a means of uni
ting the Greeks, as Isocrates would have had it, but was merely an instrument of
Macedonian imperialism." [p.192]
[26] "But although the Greek people thus came to
e as pioneers of culture and, to that degree, as
pire, politically they had simply dropped out of
if Philip abstained from formally making Hellas
ks were themselves aware of this." [p.192]

play a uniquely influential rol

inheritors of the Macedonian em
the ranks of free peoples, even
a Macedonian province. The Gree

[27] "Outwardly, the "autonomous" city-states kept their relations with Macedoni
a on a fairly strict level of rectitude. Inwardly, the time was one of dull pres
sure and smoldering distrust, flaring up to a bright flame at the least sign of
any tremor or weakness in Macedonia's alien rule - for that is how her surveilla
nce was generally regarded. This excruciating state of affairs continued as long
as any hope remained. Only when the last ray of hope was exctinguished and the
last uprising had met disaster, did quiet finally settle down upon Greece -- the
quiet of the graveyard." [p.192]
[28] (Aeschines attempt to triumph over Demosthenes for the last and final round
backfires with Demosthenes' heroics in "The Crown". Demosthenes at the end rece
ived the crown.) "But though Athens was powerless against the might of her Maced
onian conqueror, she retained her independence of judgment and declared that no
history could confute Demosthenes." [p.196]
[29] "Then when Alexander suddenly died in the flower of his age, and Greece ros
e again for the last time, Demosthenes offered his services and returned to Athe
ns. But after winning a few brilliant successes, the Greeks lost their admirable
commander Leosthenes on the field of battle; and his successors was slain at Cr
annon on the anniversary of Chaeronea; the Athenians then capitulated, and, unde
r pressure of threats from Macedonia, suffered themselves to condemn to death th
e leader of the "revolt"." [p.196]
Demosthenes died from a dose of poison on the island of Calauria, in the altar o
f Poseidon. Forty years later Athens honored him for eternity. Such was the dest

iny of a man whose ideals were his people, his country and their liberty. When m
odern Greeks dismiss him (in order to divert the stinging truth of his oratory)
as a mere politician and his arousing oratory against Macedonia and the Macedoni
an conqueror as a political rhetoric, they, the modern Greeks, denounce the true
Greek spirit, devoid of which, they, themselves, are.
[30] "The dispute of modern scholars over the racial stock of the Macedonians ha
ve led to many interesting suggestions. This is especially true of the philologi
cal analysis of the remains of the Macedonian language by O. Hoffmann in his Mak
edonen 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- a
s well as Illyrian- in their veins, whether originally or by later admixture, th
is 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 penins
ula so far ahead of them in culture. It is likewise incorrect to assert that thi
s 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 i
nterest lies in discovering what the Greeks themselves felt and thought. And her
e we need not cite Demosthenes' well-known statements; for Isocrates himself, th
e very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates t
he people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil.108. He purposely avo
ids the word barbaroi but this word is one that inevitably finds a place for its
elf in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of e
very 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 n
ew leader; and the orator tries to give ethnological proof of Philip's qualifica
tions 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 bloo
d." [p.249]
[Point of Interest]
(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 cultu
re.
(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 Greec
e. He isolates their king Philip as not of the same race as the people over whic
h he governs.
Note: The speech On the Chersonese was, to be sure, delivered in a specifically
Athenian emergency; but the interest of the Greeks as a whole is never left out
of sight. The Third Philippic is entirely dedicated to the danger that threatens
all Greece. Similarly, when the past and future are compared, it is the whole o
f Hellas that is considered, not Athens alone.
Once again, it is not surprising that Jeager places the ancient Macedonians outs
ide the Greek ethnic world. Fact is that when an author follows the writings of
the ancient biographers it is almost impossible for anybody to come to a differe
nt conclusion.
N.G.L.HAMMOND
Professor of Greek University of Cambridge, 1993

Hammond is one of the modern writers representing the ?Greek? position. It?s int
eresting to note that Hammond had changed his position. His earlier position was
that the Macedonians spoke a "patois which was not recognizable as a normal Dor
ic Greek but may have been a north-west-Greek dialect of a primitive kind" (in o
ther words he couldn?t say for sure). Later however, he changed this position an
d launched his "firm conclusion" that the Macedonians now spoke a dialect of Aeo
lic Greek, i.e. the ancient Macedonians were Greek, despite of the overwhelming
and extensive research done by Badian and Borza which proved the opposite. Inter
estingly, he had done this ?transformation? towards firm Greek origin of the anc
ient Macedonians, during the period when the modern Greek propaganda intensified
in spreading their "Macedonians are Greek" position, a position which was later
used against the part of the modern Macedonian nation that was in a process of
getting independence (today?s Republic of Macedonia). It may look like Hammond i
s a ?Greek agent? whose writings reflect the wishes of modern Greece and it?s pr
opaganda, however, in that process he proved that he was obviously ignorant to m
any of the ancient sources that do not conclude what he concludes. He is also ig
norant to many modern sources as well, particularly the ones of Borza, Green, an
d Badian which have proven in-depth that the Macedonians could not have been Gre
ek. It should be pointed out that Hammond had been proven incorrect in many matt
ers (not just the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians) regarding the history of
Macedonia, specifically by the Macedonian specialist Borza. His views are nowad
ays corrected and regarded as outdated.
Although Hammond believes that the Ancient Macedonians had a Greek origin, he ho
wever, contradicts himself in few passages where he clearly separates the ancien
t Macedonians from the ancient Greeks:
"We have already inferred from the incident at the Olympic Games c.500 that the
Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not to be Gre
eks. Herodotus said this clearly in four words, introducing Amyntas, who was kin
g c.500, as 'a Greek ruling over Macedonians' (5.20. 4), and Thucydides describe
d the Macedonians and other northern tribes as 'barbarians' in the sense of 'non
-Greeks', despite the fact that they were Greek-speaking. (Thuc. 2. 80. 5-7; 2.
81. 6; 4. 124.1) When it comes to political controversy, it was naturally good i
nvective to call the king a barbarian too. Thus a Greek speesh-writer called the
Thessalians 'Greeks' and Archelaus, the contemporary Macedonian king, 'a barbar
ian'. Demosthenes spoke of Philip II as 'the barbarian from Pella'."
Point of Interest: I will stop Hammond here and analyze his last words. He begin
s by saying that the Macedonians were considered non-Greek. At the end he says t
hat the Macedonians, including their kings were called barbarians i.e. non-Greek
s, but he implies that they were really Greek, and were called non-Greek only du
e to "political controversy". This is not convincing at all. If the ancient Gree
ks referred to the Macedonians as barbarians only because of political conflict,
then why other Greek tribes are not called barbarian or non-Greek by the ancien
t Greeks. That never happened, during any of the so many political conflicts, "c
ontroversies", and wars among the Greek city-states, not involving the Macedonia
ns. Furthermore, the ancient Greeks referred to the Persians as barbarians too.
According to Hammond?s logic the Persians are therefore Greek too, but were call
ed non-Greek only because ancient Greece was in "political controversy" with Per
sia. Hammond?s words obviously make no sense. The ancient Greeks called very cle
arly all non-Greeks barbarians (Macedonians and Persians included), and any try
to change the meaning of that word only in the case of the Macedonians, is ridic
ulous and can be ascribed as siding with the modern Greek propaganda. Now let?s
examine the rest of Hammond?s words:
"Writing in 346 and eager to win Philip's approval, Isocrates paid tribute to Ph
ilip as a blue-blooded Greek and made it clear at the same time that Macedonians
were not Greeks. (Isoc. 5. 108 and 154) Aristotle, born at Stageira on the Mace

donian border and the son of a Greek doctor at the Macedonian court, classed the
Macedonians and their institution of Monarchy as not Greek, as we shall see sho
rtly. It is thus not surprising that the Macedonians considered themselves to be
, and were treated by Alexander the Great as being, separate from the Greeks. Th
ey were proud to be so."
Interesting (inadvertent) reversals in Hammond narrative: "Philip and Alexander
attracted many able foreigners, especially Greeks, to their service, and many of
these were made Companions (e.g. Nearchus a Cretan, Eumenes a citizen of Cardia
, and Sitalces a member of the Odrysian royal family). Some of them, if they ser
ved in the King's Army, were given Macedonian citizenship, which apparently was
in the gift of the king." The Macedonian State p.141
Points of interest: These phrase alone claims that:
(a) Macedonia was a not a Greek land, and
(b) that Macedonians were not Greeks
One does not attract foreigners from his own country, and second, one cannot be
called a foreigner in his own country.
"These instances show us that even Philip II and Alexander III introduced very f
ew Greeks into the Assembly of Macedones. They wanted the 'Macedones' to have th
eir own esprit the corps; and those of them who came from Lower Macedonia contin
ued to speak the Macedonian dialect among themselves and to address the king or
a commander in that dialect as a sign of affection."
[53-an ordinary soldier is represented as speaking in the Macedonian dialect to
the dying Alexander in Ps-Callisthenes B 32. 14 (ed. Kroll), and the Macedonian
soldiers greeted Eumenes in the Macedonian dialect when he came to command them
(Plu. Eum. 14. 11). [p.64]
"The name of the ancient Macedonians is derived from Macedon, who was the grandc
hild of Deukalion, the father of all Greeks. This we may infer from Hesiod's gen
ealogy. It may be proven that Macedonians spoke Greek since Macedon, the ancesto
r of Macedonians, was a brother of Magnes, the ancestor of Thessalians, who spok
e Greek."
Response to Hammond's conclusion that the Macedonians were Greek:
[1] There were many tribes in Macedonia. If we accept Macedon to be the progenit
or of his tribe, where is the connection for the rest of the Macedonian tribes?
What about the Lynchestians, Elimiotes, Eordians, Orestians etc., etc.. Besides;
In the 'Catalogue of Women', the eponymous founder of Makedonia, Makedon, was t
he son of Zeus and Deukalion's daughter Thuia. This line of descent excludes him
from the Hellenic geneology - and hence, by implication, the Makedonians from t
he ranks of Hellenism." (Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, by J.Hall, p.64)
[2] Professor Borza who is credited as Macedonian specialist and who had complet
ed an extensive research on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, had proven
that Hammond's conclusions that the Macedonians were Greek are inaccurate:
"Hammond's firm conclusion that the Macedonians spoke a distinctive dialect of A
eolic Greek is unconvincing to me, resting as it does on an interpretation of a
bit of myth quoted by Hellanicus, who made Aeolus the father of the legendary pr
ogenitor Macedon". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.92.)
"The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from a Greek
- do not show the changes expected from a Greek dialect. And even had they chan
ged at some point it is unlikely that they would have reverted to their original
form". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.93.)

"As a question of method: why would [Macedonia] an area three hundred miles nort
h of Athens - not colonized by Athens - used an Attic dialect, unless it were im
ported? That is, the Attic dialect could hardly be native, and its use is likely
part of the process of Hellenization. To put the question differently: if the n
ative language of the Macedonians is Greek, what is its Macedonian dialect?"
The above passage showed us clearly that Hammond, no mater how firm he stands on
his ?Greek? position, still contradicts himself by saying that the Macedonians
and the Greeks are two separate ethnic groups. The lines of Professor Eugene Bor
za, had put an end to the Hammond?s speculations of the supposed Greek origin of
the ancient Macedonians, and proven on many instances (not just on the ethnicit
y issue) in In the Shadow of Olympus and Makedonika, that Hammond?s work on the
Macedonian history is inaccurate and as such should be rejected.
A.B. BOSWORTH
Professor of Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia
On the Macedonian language and ethnicity of the Macedonian Army
[1] Bosworth responds to Hammond regarding the usage of the Macedonian language
by Alexander: "I deliberately refrain from adopting any position on the linguist
ic status of ancient Macedonian. It has little significance outside the national
istic propaganda of the contemporary Balkan states, in which prejudice and dogma
do duty for rational thought. What matters for the present argument is the fact
, explicit in Curtius, that Macedonian was largely unintelligible to non-Macedon
ians. Macedonians might understand Greek, and some Greek (like Eumenes) with exp
erience of Macedon might speak Macedonian. However, even Eumenes took care that
a vital message was conveyed to the phalangites of Neoptolemus by a man fluent i
n Macedonian (MAKEDONI/ZONTA TH]=FWNH]=:PSI 12. 1284,col. ii. 19-20).] "Alexande
r shouted out in Macedonian, and called the hypaspists in Macedonian." In my vie
w there is nothing at all surprising in the use of Macedonian. Alexander was cal
ling his hypaspists, who were Macedonians, and he addressed them in their native
language/dialect."
[2] In Hammond's view the soldiers from Lower Macedonia (old kingdom) spoke Mace
donian while the soldiers from the Upper Macedonia spoke a dialect of West Greek
.
Bosworth's response: "The evidence for this hypothesis is decidedly tenuous. Nea
rly two centuries before Alexander Hecataeus may have described the Orestians as
a Molossian tribe, but, as far as I can ascertain, there is no evidence for the
language of any or all of the Upper Macedonian people before the time of Alexan
der, and nothing to suggest that the hypaspists were anything other than linguis
tically homogeneous." "Alexander's invitation to speak (Curt. 6. 9. 34) presuppo
ses that the entire army spoke Macedonian." "Alexander's challenge presupposes t
hat all the army would understand an address in Macedonian." "He used Macedonian
because the troops would instantly understand and (he expected) would react imm
ediately. There is no need for more complicated explanation."
It is evident from the text of Arrian, Plutarch, and Curtius Rufus that Alexande
r's army spoke Macedonian and not Greek. Any other interpretation would be intol
erably difficult, if not impossible, to accept.
[3] About the Macedonian army: "The turning point in the evolution of Alexander'
s army appears to have been the year 330. Until then the Macedonian component wa
s progressively reinforced, reaching peaks before Issus and after the arrival of
Amyntas' great contingent late in 331. Alexander then thought it safe to divest
himself of non Macedonian troops. The forces from the Corinthean League, [the G
reek] infantry and cavalry, were demobilized from Ecbetana in the spring of 330;

[Arr. III.19.6-7; Plut. Al. 42.5; Diod. XVII.74.3-4; Curt. VI.2.17] even the
reek] Thessalian cavalry who re-enlisted were dismissed at the Oxus last than
year later (Arr. III.29.5) Alexander now relied on the Macedonian nucleus for
ont-line work and the mercenaries for support function." [p.271] Conquest and
pire.

[G
a
fr
Em

"Alexander had deliberately retained the offsprings of his Macedonian veterans w

hen he demobilized them, promising to train them in Macedonian style.(Arr. VII.1
2.2; Justin XII.4.2-10.) His ultimate purpose was to weld them into a military f
orce without attachment of race or domicile, loyal to himself alone. The transfo
rmation of the Macedonian national army with its regionally based units could no
t have been more complete." [p.273] Conquest and Empire
[4] Bosworth on the allied (including Greek) troops: "The structure of command s
eems to have been parallel to that of the Macedonian cavalry, with regionally ba
sed ilai, but at the head was a Macedonian commander. The rest of the [Greek] al
lied cavalry, predominantly from central Greece and the Peloponnese, was much le
ss important and effective, fewer in number and less prominent in action. Like t
he [Greek] Thessalian they were divided into ilai (Tod. GHI no 197.3) under the
command of a Macedonian officer." [p.264] Conquest and Empire
"The infantry from the allied Greek states is more problematic. They formed a co
ntingent numerically strong, 7,000 of them crossing the Hellespont in 334, and t
hey were predominantly heavy-armed hoplites. But once in Asia they are mainly no
table for their absence. There is no explicit record of them in any of the major
battles. At Guagamela we may infer that they provided most of the men for the r
eserve phalanx (Arr. III.12.1), but in the other engagements there is no room fo
r them. They are only mentioned as participants in subsidiary campaigns, usually
under Parmenio's command (in the Troad, at the Amanid Gates, in Phrygia, and in
the march on Persis), and they never appear in the entourage of Alexander." [p.
264] Conquest and Empire
[Point of Interest] Are these the Greek troops with Alexander? Are these the sam
e Greek troops with Alexander that went on the Asian conquest? Can Alexander's c
onquest be called a Greek conquest? Can Alexander's army be called Greek army? T
here is absolutely nothing in the literature to even remotely suggest that my qu
est to find and bring forward documented evidence for the ethnic affinity of the
ancient Macedonians is losing steam. On the contrary, the conclusion is solidif
ied with avery passing sentence: There was no Greek conquest with Alexander. The
re was nothing Greek with Alexander or his Macedonians.
[5] "There was also the question of loyalty. Alexander might well have been relu
ctant to rely on men recently vanquished at Chaeronea to face the Hellenic merce
naries in Persian service. It was too much kin against kin, and his Greek allies
naturally had less stomach for the task than his native Macedonians." [p.264] C
onquest and Empire
[6] Alexander's views on the Greeks in Asia. We should never deviate too far fro
m our main focal point to find and present demonstrable evidence where Alexander
's actions and policies strongly and convincingly illustrate his innermost feeli
ngs and aspirations. Here, you will see that Alexander treated the Greeks in Asi
a as any other conquered people, and that is a testament, by itself, that, he, A
lexander did not view the Greeks as his own people. Judging by his actions, one
will be hard press to find any difference between his treatment of the Greeks an
d that of the barbarians.
"It is most unlikely that the Greeks of Asia were incorporated in the Corinthian
League. This is an issue which has been endlessly debated with surprising inten
sity, but arguments inevitably founders on the lack of evidence. That silence do
es have some weight. If the Greek cities had been involved in the League with it

s symmachical obligations, it is remarkable that there is never any reference to

alliance or even to a formal treaty. As we have seen repeatedly, Alexander deal
t with them as a victorious despot not as the executive head of an expanding Lea
gue."[p.255], "As he continued east, the Greeks receded into obscurity and there
is virtually no record of them." [p.256] [Conquest and Empire]
[7] Ancient authors testify that Alexander heavily depended on his Macedonians,
whom he called 'his kinsmen', to carry the brunt of his campaign. "Alexander him
self seems to have made little distinction in his last years between Greeks of E
urope or Asia, or even between Greeks and barbarians." [p.257]
[Point of Interest] And this fact alone, must be constantly born in mind when on
e ascribes any "greekness" to Alexander. For, Alexander would not put his own pe
ople in an equal balance with the barbarians of the East. Was Alexander the Grea
t a Greek King? Does this action suggest anything of a sort? It is morally corru
pt, and historically incorrect to even suggest that Alexander the Great belonged
to any other nation but Macedonia. He remained loyal to his royal Macedonian he
ritage to the last day of his life.

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, esp
ecially to army recruits: the Greeks of the fourth century B.C., to whom Alexand
er was a half-Macedonian, half-Epirote barbarian conqueror, would have found thi
s metamorphosis as ironic as I did." [The Greek island on which Peter Green stay
ed 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 royali
st officers and "thinkers with mind of their own".]
[2] "Macedonia was the first large territorial state with an effective centraliz
ed political, military and administrative structure to come into being on the co
ntinent 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 con
necting the Argeads with the ancient Argive kings". [p.7] [On p.9 Green refers t
o this Argive link as ?fictitious?.]
[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 Addre
ss 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 onc
e saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage ( a notion which h
is 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 Phi
lip 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 freedo
m". [p.80] [This is how Philip "united" the Greek states.]
[8] "The dedication of the Philipeum was a salutary reminder that from now on, w
hatever democratic forms might be employed as a salve to the Greeks? self-respec
t, 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 l
eague was to form a separate alliance with Macedonia, though Macedonia itself wo
uld not be a league member." [p.86]
[10] "Philip?s Panhellenism was no more than a convenient placebo to keep his al
lies quiet, a cloak for further Macedonian aggrandizement." [p.87]
[11] "Most Greek statesmen recognized this only too well. To them, their self-st
yled 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 lit
tle to dispel." [p.87]
[12] "The military contingent they supplied were, in reality, so many hostages f
or 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, technician
s and professional diplomats, were already on the Persian pay-roll; twice as man
y men, in fact, as the league ultimately contributed for the supposedly Panhelle
nic crusade against Darius." [p.95]
[14] "In the early spring of 336, an advance force of 10,000 men, including a th
ousand cavalry, crossed over to Asia Minor. Its task was to secure the Hellespon
t, to stockpile supplies, and in Philip?s pleasantly cynical phrase, to ?liberat
e the Greek cities?." [p.98] [The operative word is "cynical phrase" to ?liberat
e the Greek cities?.]
[15] "Only the Spartans held aloof. The traditions of their country, they inform
ed the king, did not allow them to serve under a foreign leader. (So much for Ma
cedonia?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 patriot
ic Greek had hoped and prayed might happen." [p.136]
[17] "Darius reversed his earlier policy of non-intervention, and began to chann
el gold into Greece wherever he thought it would do most good. He did not, as ye
t, commit himself to anything more definite: clearly he hoped that the Greek rev
olt would solve his problem for him. But the mere thought of a Greek-Persian coa
lition must have turned Alexander?s blood cold." [p.138]
[18] "This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the ki
ng?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 (anot
her 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. Ale
xander 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 accompa
nied 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 whol
e 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-tr
ained (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 mig
ht well trigger off a general revolt of the Greek states. So much for the Panhel
lenic crusade. Alexander?s main fear, we need scarcely doubt, was that the leagu
e?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 G
reek 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 preten
ce of a Panhellenic crusade could be kept up. But any resistance, the least oppo
sition to his will, met with instant and savage reprisals." [p.208]
[26] "The burning of Persepolis had written finish to the Hellenic crusade as su
ch, and he used this excuse to pay off all his league?s troops, Parmenio?s Thess
alians included. The crisis in Greece was over: he no longer needed these potent
ial trouble makers as hostages." [p. 322]
[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 q
uestionable or underhand actions, the destruction of Thebes being merely the mos
t 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. "Al
ex. to Actium"]
[29] "But then, Eumenes was a Greek, and Macedonian troops, especially the old s
weats 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"]
One can clearly see the distinction between ancient Macedonians and the Greeks.
Modern Greek's assertion that ancient Macedonians were Greeks simply does not ho
ld any water.

ERNST BADIAN
Department of History at Harvard University
Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times
[1] "There is no evidence of any Macedonian claim to a Greek connection before t
he Persian war."
[2] On Alexander's I attempt to enter the Olympic games: "There were outraged pr
otests from the other competitors, who rejected Alexander I as a barbarian -- wh
ich proves at the least, that the Teminid [Greek] descent and the royal genealog
y had hitherto been an esoteric knowledge." The Olympic games in Greece were res
erved for Greeks only.
[3] "With the exception of the single item, no Macedonian king between Alexander
I and Philip II is in anyway connected with the Olympic or any other games.
[4] The Macedonian king Archelaus founded Macedonian Olympic games which Badian
calls it "counter Olympics".
[5] "No Macedonian appears on the list of Olympic victors that have survived (a
fair proportion of the whole) until well into the reign of Alexander the Great."
[6] "Nor do we find the Macedonian people ever regarded as a political entity tr
ansacting business with the Greek states."
[7] "For political purposes no difference was seen between Macedonians and (say)
Thracian and Persian, i.e. other nations under monarchical rule. This may have
been a contributing factor in unwillingness to recognize Macedonians as Greek."
[8] On Alexander the Great: "Characteristically for Alexander despite his thorou
gh Greek education and obviously genuine interest in Greek literature, was never
theless a Macedonian king."
[9] On Philip, "Greeks never commanded his armies".
[10] Alexander's integration of troops: "...interesting to notice that he never
- either before or at the time - tried to integrate Greeks into the Macedonian u
nits that were his best military assets, either in the tactical or in the emotio
nal sphere, while at the very end, both for tactical and for political reasons i
ntegration of Macedonians and Iranians was important, while integration of Greek
s with either was not."
[11] On Macedonian language: "The suggestion is surely that Macedonian was the l
anguage of the infantry and that the Greek was a difficult indeed a foreign tong
ue to them".
[12] Alexander never tried to impose Greek on his Macedonian infantry, or to int
egrate it with Greek 'foreign' individuals".
[13] On Demosthenes' tirades about Macedonians: "... we are concerned only with
sentiment, which is itself historical fact and must be taken seriously as such.
In these tirades we find not only the Hellenic descent of Macedonian people (whi
ch few seriously accepted) totally denied, but even that of the king."
[14] "As regards the Macedonian nation as a whole, (there was as we can see) no
division. They were regarded as clearly barbarian, despite the various myths.

[15] "Philip had not tried to pass of his Macedonians as Greeks"

[16] "He, Philip, never tried to make his Macedonians members of the Hellenic le
ague."
[17] "The feeling of being peoples of nonkindred race existed on both side" refe
rring to Isocrates' statement.
[18] On Python and the 17,000 Greek soldiers cut down by Macedonian soldiers: "
the patent needs of the empire and the oath of their commander were swallowed up
in the explosion of what we can only regard as the men's irrational hatred for
their Greek enemies."
[19] "What ever the ethnic origins and identity of the Macedonians, they were ge
nerally perceived in their own time by Greeks and themselves not to be Greek".

EUGENE BORZA
Professor of Ancient History at the Pennsylvania State University
Makedonika and In the Shadow of Olympus
The American Philological Association refers to E. Borza as the "Macedonian spec
ialist". In the introductory chapter of "Makedonika" by Carol G. Thomas, Eugene
Borza is also called "the Macedonian specialist", and his colleague Peter Green
describes Eugene's work on Macedonia as "seminal". Do Ancient Historians hold Eu
gene Borza in high esteem? Please read what P. Green thinks of Borza's approach
to the studies of ancient history, and of his method of abstraction of truth: "N
ever was a man less given to the kind of mean-spirited odium philologicum that s
o often marks classical debate. Gene could slice an argument to pieces while sti
ll charming its exponents out of the trees."
Ernst Badian from Harward University writes: "It is chiefly Gene's merit that re
cognizably historical interpretation of the history of classical Macedonia has n
ot only become possible, but it is now accepted by all ancient historians who ha
ve no vested interest in the mythology superseded by Gene's work. Needless to sa
y, I welcome and agree with that approach and have never disagreed with him exce
pt on relatively trivial details of interpretation." Here are some excerpts from
Borza's writings regarding the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks. I wi
ll offer no interpretations, for none is needed, indeed. On the matter of distin
ction between Greeks and Macedonians:
[1] "Neither Greeks nor Macedonians considered the Macedonians to be Greeks."
[2] On the composition of Alexander's army: "Thus we look in vain for the eviden
ce that Alexander was heavily dependent upon Greeks either in quantity or qualit
y."
[3] "The pattern is clear: the trend toward the end of the king's life was to in
stall Macedonians in key positions at the expense of Asians, and to retain very
few Greeks."
[4] "The conclusion is inescapable: there was a largely ethnic Macedonian imperi
al administration from beginning to end. Alexander used Greeks in court for cult
ural reasons, Greek troops (often under Macedonian commanders) for limited tasks
and with some discomfort, and Greek commanders and officals for limited duties.
Typically, a Greek will enter Alexander's service from an Aegean or Asian city
through the practice of some special activity: he could read and write, keep fig

ures or sail, all of which skills the Macedonians required. Some Greeks may have
moved on to military service as well. In other words, the role of Greeks in Ale
xander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the ser
vices of Xerxes and the third Darius."
[5] On the policy of hellenization with Alexander conquest of Asia and the Greek
assertion that he spread Hellenism: "If one wishes to believe that Alexander ha
d a policy of hellenization - as opposed to the incidental and informal spread o
f Greek culture - the evidence must come from sources other than those presented
here. One wonders - archeology aside - where this evidence would be." On the et
hnic tension between Macedonians and Greeks, referring to the episode of Eumenes
of Cardia and his bid to reach the throne: "And if there were any doubt about t
he status of Greeks among the Macedonians the tragic career of Eumenes in the im
mediate Wars of succession should put it to rest. The ancient sources are replet
e with information about the ethnic prejudice Eumenes suffered from Macedonians.
"
[6] On the issue of whether Alexander and Philip "united" the Greek city-states
or conquered them: "In European Greece Alexander continued and reinforced Philip
II's policy of rule over the city-states, a rule resulting from conquest."
[7] "The tension at court between Greeks and Macedonians, tension that the ancie
nt authors clearly recognized as ethnic division."
[8] On Alexander's dimissal of his Greek allies: "A few days later at Ecbatana,
Alexander dismissed his Greek allies, and charade with Greece was over."
[9] On the so called Dorian invasion: The theory of the Dorian invasion (based o
n Hdt. 9.26, followed by Thuc. I.12) is largely an invention of nineteenth-centu
ry historography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archeological or lingui
stic evidence."
[10] "The Dorians are invisible archeologically."
[11] "There is no archeological record of the Dorian movements, and the mythic a
rguments are largely conjectural, based on folk traditions about the Dorian home
originally having been in northwest Greece.
[12] "The explanation for the connection between the Dorians and the Macedonians
may be more ingenious than convincing, resting uncomfortably on myth and conjec
ture."
[13] On the Macedonian own tradition and origin: "As the Macedonians settled the
region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced th
eir own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adopted any exis
ting language, even though they were now in contact with neighboring populations
who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues."
[14] On the Macedonian language: "The main evidence for Macedonian existing as s
eparate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the t
rain of Alexander the Great, where the Macedonian tongue is mentioned specifical
ly."
[15] "The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from ordinary Attic Gre
ek used as a language of the court and of diplomacy."
[16] "The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from Gr
eek - do not show the changes expected from Greek dialect."
[17] On the Macedonian material culture being different from the Greek: "The mos

t visible expression of material culture thus far recovered are the fourth - and
third-century tombs. The architectural form, decoration, and burial goods of th
ese tombs, which now number between sixty and seventy, are unlike what is found
in the Greek south, or even in the neighboring independent Greek cities of the n
orth Aegean littoral (exception Amphipolis). Macedonian burial habits suggest di
fferent view of the afterlife from the Greeks', even while many of the same gods
were worshipped."
[18] "Many of the public expressions of worship may have been different."
[19] "There is an absence of major public religious monuments from Macedonian si
tes before the end of the fourth century (another difference from the Greeks)."
[20] "Must be cautious both in attributing Greek forms of worship to the Macedon
ians and in using these forms of worship as a means of confirming Hellenic ident
ity."
[21] "In brief, one must conclude that the similarities between some Macedonian
and Greek customs and objects are not of themselves proof that Macedonians were
a Greek tribe, even though it is undeniable that on certain levels Greek cultura
l influences eventually became pervasive."
[22] "Greeks and Macedonians remained steadfastly antipathetic toward one anothe
r (with dislike of a different quality than the mutual long-term hostility share
d by some Greek city-states) until well into the Hellenic period, when both the
culmination of hellenic acculturation in the north and the rise of Rome made it
clear that what these peoples shared took precedence over their historical enmit
ies."
[23] "They made their mark not as a tribe of Greek or other Balkan peoples, but
as 'Macedonians'. This was understood by foreign protagonists from the time of D
arius and Xerxes to the age of Roman generals."
[24] "It is time to put the matter of the Macedonians' ethnic identity to rest."
[25] "There is other aspect of Alexander's Greek policy, and that is his formal
relationship with the Greek cities of Europe and Asia. In European Greece Alexan
der continued and reinforced Philip II's policy rule over the city-states, a rul
e resulting from conquest. As for the island Greeks and the cities of Asia Minor
, their status under the reigns of Philip and Alexander has been much debated. F
ortunately, for my purposes, the status of these cities, whether as members of P
hilip's panhellenic league or as independent towns, is not crucial, as they were
in fact all treated by Alexander as subjects. Much of the debate on this issue,
while interesting and occasionally enlightening, has sometimes obscured a simpl
e reality: Greeks on both sides of the Aegean were subjects to the authority of
the king of Macedon." Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander's Court. Makedo
nika
[26] "I have not cited several pieces of anecdotal evidence from the sources on
Alexander that establish the continuing tension at court between Greeks and Mace
donians, tension that the ancient authors clearly recognized as ethnic division.
A fuller version of this study will consider these incidents to support my view
that Greeks and Macedonians did not get along very well with one another and th
at this ethnic tension was exploited by the king himself." Makedonika p.158
[27] "What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance
of information", writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diod
orus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Gre
ek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing i
n two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical po

sitions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separ
ate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy
, if not outright hostility."

THUCYDIDES
Greek Commander and Historian
[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 o
f Perdiccas, and his forefathers, who were originally Temenidae from Argos" (Thu
cydides 2.99,3)
That this myth does not prove that the Macedonians were Greek I offer the extens
ive study conducted by the Macedonian specialist, Professor Eugene Borza. Analyz
ing the Temenidae myth transmitted by Herodotus and Thucydides, in details in tw
o Chapters, 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 Phryg
ian connections), that among the Makedones a family of Vermion background emerge
d as pre-eminent, but that the Argive context is mythic, perhaps a bit of fifthcentury B.C. propaganda (as I argue in the next chapter). To deny such fables an
d attribute them to contemporary Macedonian propaganda may appear minimalistic.
But given the historical milieu in which such stories were spawned and then ador
ned, the denial of myth seems prudent.
b) The Temenidae in Macedon are an invention of the Macedonians themselves, inte
nded in part to give credence to Alexander I's claims of Hellenic ancestry, atta
ched to and modifying some half-buried progenitor stories that had for a long ti
me existed among the Macedonians concerning their own origins. The revised versi
on 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-in
fluenced sources, and transmitted it. His is not an independent version. [There
is no hard evidence (pace Hammond, HM i: 4) that Thucydides ever visited Macedon
ia, 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 Arg
ive 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 disappea
r 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 t
he 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 o
f the Macedonian creation-myth. Euripides' play honoring his patron, Archelaus,
probably adorned the basic story, replacing Perdiccas with an Archelaus as the d
escendant 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 Cara
nus (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 fol
lowing the death of King Archelaus in 399, another example of the Macedonian pre
dilection 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 Euripide
s' revision of the Herodotean tradition. The notion that Alexander I or one of h
is predecessors obtained a Delphic oracle to confirm the Macedonian tie with Arg
os 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 Ha
mmond, 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 hav
e seen above that both of them were corrected with the extensive evidence that B
orza carefully reviewed. We have already seen that both Daskalakis and Hammond w
ere incorrect on many matters on the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians, there
fore 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. C
lick here for Daskalakis and Hammond.
[2] Thucydides however, did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek, despite th
e above myth which wasn?t his original work but it as we saw was only transmitte
d by him. Here Thucydides clearly separates the Macedonians from the Greeks (Hel
lenes):
"In all there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by
all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besid
es an immense crowd of barbarians." (Thucydides 4.124)
Borza comments: "The use of barbaros [barbarians] is problematic, although it wo
uld appear that he normally includes at least some of the Macedonians in this ca
tegory. See 4.125.3 and Gomme, Comm. Thuc.,3:613,615 and 616 on Thuc. 4.124.1, 1
26.3 and 126.5 respectively. In the Shadow of Olympus p 152.
Conclusion
"Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a distinc
t people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states" ? Eugene Borz
a, In the Shadow of Olympus p. 96

HERODOTUS
"The Father of History" Greek Writer
The Histories
The modern Greek position relies on Herodotus' support for their quest to make t
he 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, pro
fited from this excursion, wrote several short passages about the Macedonians. W
hat did he say, and to what extent can these passages be taken as evidence for t
he alleged 'greekness' of the ancient Macedonians, will be briefly presented for
your adjudication.
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 succ
eeded in 'taking care of the Persians' by murdering all of them and removing the
ir luggage and carriages. When the Persians attempted to trace the lost envoys,

Alexander I cleverly succeeded in manipulating the Persians by giving his own si

ster 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 histor
y, that these descendants of Perdiccas are, as they themselves claim, of Greek n
ationality. This was, moreover, recognized by the managers of the Olympic games,
on the occasion when Alexander wished to compete and his Greek competitors trie
d to exclude him on the ground that foreigners were not allowed to take part. Al
exander, 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, le
t us peruse the modern literature and see if we can shed some light on this part
icular passage from Herodotus which is so 'dear' to all Greek presenters, and on
e that occupies the central position of their otherwise feeble defense.
[1] Eugene Borza In The Shadow of Olympus p. 112 writes:
"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, althoug
h Herodotus does not tell us this; or (3) it remained a dead heat, which is impo
ssible 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 presen
ce; 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 co
mmentaries on these passages Macan and How and Wells long ago recognized that th
e 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 de
scent. Moreover, the Olympic Games tale is twice removed: Herodotus heard from t
he Argeadea (perhaps from Alexander himself) that the king had told something to
the judges, but we do not know what those proofs were."
"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 Alexande
r at Tempe and at Athens do not pursue this theme; they state Alexander's activi
ties without embellishment or appeal to prohellenism. Moreover, the insistence t
hat 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 unde
r 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 nowher
e mentions."
"In sum, it would appear that Olympia and Plataea incidents---when taken togethe
r with the tale of the ill--fated Persian embassy to Amyntas' court in which Ale
xander proclaims the Greek descent of the royal house--are part of Alexander's o
wn attempts to integrate himself into the Greek community during the postwar per
iod. 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 a
sks:
"Why is it that no Spartan or Athenian or Argive felt constrained to prove to th
e 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 th
at circumstance is telling. Even if one were to accept that all the Herodotian s
tories about Alexander were true, why did the Greeks, who normally were knowledg
eable about matters of ethnic kinship, not already know that the Macedonian mona

rchy was Greek? But--following Herodotus--the stade- race competitors at Olympia

thought the Macedonian was a foreigner (Hdt. 5.22: barbaros) Second, for his ef
fort on behalf of the Greek cause against the Persians Alexander is known as "Ph
ilhellene". Now this is kind of odd to call a Greek a "friend of the Greeks". "T
his title", writes Borza, "is normally reserved for non-Greeks".
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 partic
ipation in the Olympic Games as tales derived from Alexander himself (or from so
me official court version of things)."
[2] Peter Green - Classical Bearings p.157
"All Herodotus in fact says is that Alexander himself demonstrated his Argive an
cestry (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 Ev
en if, with professor N.G.L. Hammond, we accept this ethnic certification at fac
e value, it tells us, as he makes plain, nothing whatsoever about Macedonians ge
nerally. 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 mo
ther, 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. T
here 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 Hellanod
ikai decided to accept it--whether moved by the evidence or by political conside
rations, we again cannot tell. In view of the time and circumstances in which th
e claim first appears and the objections it encountered, modern scholars have of
ten 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) c
ould not be less than royal, i.e., Temenid."
Badian, like Borza, believes that Alexander I "invented the story (in its detail
s a common type of myth) of how he had fought against his father's Persian conne
ction 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 siste
r 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 de
cision as political rather than factual--as a reward for services to the Helleni
c 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 sou
rces, as "Philhellene",--surely not an appellation that could be given to an act
ual Greek."
I would like to offer another episode, reported by Herodotus, which clearly indi
cates that ancient Greeks did not regard the ancient Macedonians as brethren. Ep
isodes 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 comma
nder, sends Alexander I to Athens with a message. On his arrival to Athens as Ma
rdonius' ambassador Alexander spoke to the Athenians urging them to accept the t
erms offered by Mardonius. In Sparta, the news that Alexander brought message fr

om the Great King, caused great consternation. Sparta feared that an alliance be
tween 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 aud
ience at the same time.When Alexander I was done the Spartan envoy s spoke in th
eir turn: "Do not let Alexander's smooth-sounding version of Mardonius' proposal
s seduce you; he does only what one might expect of him--a despot himself, of co
urse 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 tru
th nor trust." (Hdt. 8.142) [Please note the reference to Alexander I as a forei
gner who is neither truthful nor trustworthy.]
Then, the Athenians gave answer to Alexander I. Among the other things, they tol
d 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 y
ou 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 Greec
e 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 desecrat
ion with all our might - not to clasp the hand that wrought it. Again there is t
he 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 sin
gle 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, t
emples and rituals and common customs. This expressed kinship between the Greek
allies is evident and it stands in stark contrast against the references used to
wards the Macedonians who were addressed as foreigners. We have seen that Herodo
tus (7.130) speaks of the Thessalians as the first Greeks to come under Persian
submission (although the Persians entered Macedonia first), and here using his o
wn words, he clearly exclude the Macedonians from the Greeks. We are therefore,
left with the conclusion that Herodotus did not consider the Macedonians as Gree
ks. "Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a dis
tinct people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states" ? Eugene
Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p. 96

ISOCRATES
Greek Writer
To Philip
[1] "The feeling of being peoples of nonkindred race existed on both side" refer
ring 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 Addre
ss 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 onc
e saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage (a notion which hi
s son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied h
im with the propaganda-line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his M
acedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress." [p.50] Peter Green
[4] "This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the kin
g?s propaganda section continued - for the time being - to present it. No one, s
o 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 c
alls on Philip to bring about." [p.37] [Macedonia specifically excluded from Gre
ece] Wilken
Note: Macedonians were not Hellene, and Macedonia was never a member of the Hell
enic League, a league that encompassed and "united" all the Greek city-states. I
socrates expanded the term Hellene to include, no racial descent, but mode of th
ought, and those who partook of Attic culture, rather than those who had a commo
n descent were called Hellene. He saw the true Hellene only in the Greek educate
d in the Attic model. He did not regard the barbarians of Attic education as Hel
lenes.
[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 deri
vation, as the types of Heracles on his coins show. But on the other hand he mus
t 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 wa
s 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 ances
tor, 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 th
e 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 belonge
d 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 the
m 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, th
erefore, did not regard the Macedonians as Greeks." [p.68] PIERRE JOUGUET Alexan
der the Great and the Hellenistic World
[11] "In the Panegyricus he [Isocrates] had urged an understanding between Spart
a 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 (Macedo
nia)." [p.152] WERNER JAEGER Demosthenes
[12] "But for Isocrates that was no obstacle. He had long since come to recogniz
e the impossibility of resisting Macedonia, and he was only trying to find the l
east 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 his
tory; 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 a
stuteness to let his cold-blooded policy for the extension of Macedonian power t
ake 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 nob
ody 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] WERNE
R JAEGER
[14] "Looking far beyond the actualities of the Greek world, hopelessly split as
under as it was, he (Isocrates) had envisaged a united nation led by the Macedon
ian king." [p.172] WERNER JAEGER
[15] "Quite apart, however, from any theoretical doubts whether the nationalisti
c movement of modern times, which seeks to combine in a single state all the ind
ividuals of a single folk, can properly be compared with the Greek idea of Panhe
llenism, scholars have failed to notice that after the unfortunate Peace of Phil
ocrates Demosthenes' whole policy was an unparalleled fight for national unifica
tion. In this period he deliberately threw off the constrains of the politician
concerned exclusively with Athenian interests, and devoted himself to a task mor
e lofty than any Greek statesman before him had ever projected or indeed could h
ave projected. In this respect he is quite comparable to Isocrates; but an impor
tant 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 th
e will of the conqueror; on the contrary, he demanded a unanimous uprising of al
l the Greeks against the Macedonian foe." [p.172] WERNER JAEGER
[16] "His Panhellenism was the outgrowth of a resolute will for national self-as
sertiveness, deliberately opposed to the national self-surrender called for by I
socrates - for that was what Isocrates' program had really meant, despite its be
ing expressed romantically as a plan for a Persian war under Macedonian leadersh
ip." [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 pas
sionately described as a war of vengeance, was not looked upon as a means of uni
ting 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 ye
ars in which his men at arms marched, the first foreigners since history has beg
un, into the Peloponnese, and he himself besieged and took cities on the Adriati
c, 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 designa
ted Captain- General of Hellas, and to wage the War against the Persians'." (p.9
7) David Hogarth

[Please visit "Green" and "Isocrates' Letter to Philip" (345), for further enlig
htenment] Notice also the usage of quotes by David Hogarth, regarding Philip's d
esire to be Captain-General of Hellas.]
[19] "The dispute of modern scholars over the racial stock of the Macedonians ha
ve led to many interesting suggestions. This is especially true of the philologi
cal analysis of the remains of the Macedonian language by O. Hoffmann in his Mak
edonen 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- a
s well as Illyrian- in their veins, whether originally or by later admixture, th
is 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 penins
ula so far ahead of them in culture. It is likewise incorrect to assert that thi
s 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 i
nterest lies in discovering what the Greeks themselves felt and thought. And her
e we need not cite Demosthenes' well-known statements; for Isocrates himself, th
e very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates t
he people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil.108. He purposely avo
ids the word barbaroi but this word is one that inevitably finds a place for its
elf in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of e
very 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 n
ew leader; and the orator tries to give ethnological proof of Philip's qualifica
tions 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 bloo
d." [p.249] WERNER JAEGER
[Point of Interest]
(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 cultu
re.
(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 Greec
e. He isolates their king Philip as not of the same race as the people over whic
h he governs.
Note: The speech On the Chersonese was, to be sure, delivered in a specifically
Athenian emergency; but the interest of the Greeks as a whole is never left out
of sight. The Third Philippic is entirely dedicated to the danger that threatens
all Greece. Similarly, when the past and future are compared, it is the whole o
f Hellas that is considered, not Athens alone.

THRASYMACHUS
On Behalf of the Lariasaeans
"Shell we being Greeks, be slaves to Archelaus, a barbarian?"
This line the Greek Thrasymachus attributed to the Macedonian king Archelaus who

occupied Greek land with his Macedonian army. Since the ancient Greeks stereoty
ped and called all non-Greeks barbarian, it is clear that Thrasymachus does not
consider neither the Macedonian king nor his nation to be Greek, but foreigners
to the ancient Greek world. The modern Greeks, however, would like to claim the
ancient Macedonians as Greek. Here is what Professor Borza (a Macedonian special
ist and expert on the ethnicity of the Macedonians) had written on that matter:
Daskalakis (Hellenism, 234) contended that Thrasymachus was not referring to bar
barians in a usual sense. The passage, he argued, should be taken "in its rhetor
ical slant of a difference between advanced and backwards Greeks in an intellect
ual sense." This is strained and unconvincing. [Eugene Borza. In the Shadow of O
lympus. p.165]
Borza can not be more right. The Greeks clearly called all non-Greeks barbarians
. Based on the Daskalakis's logic, are we now supposed to think that the Persian
s (which the Greeks also called barbarians) are some kind of backward Greeks in
an intellectual sense? The Thracians too? However, we do not see the modern Gree
k authors claim that. The lesson is clear: Daskalakis's argument can not be true
and it only proves to what extend the modern Greek writers would go to make the
Macedonians Greek and even rewrite the feelings of the ancient Greeks during th
at process.
DEMOSTHENES
Greek Orator
"... 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 Phi
lippic, 31. 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 Phil
ip?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. The modern Greeks however, claim that Philip was Greek, and that Demosthen
es called him "not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks" and "barbarian", on
ly in "rhetorical context", which was aroused by the political anger that existe
d between Macedonia and the Greeks states on the south, although it is very clea
r from Demosthenes?s words that he regards the Macedonians and their king Philip
II as non-Greeks. This modern Greek position is easily debunked, however, when
we consider the following two points:
If the Macedonians were Greeks but still called barbarians and nor related to th
e Greeks, why is then no other Greek tribe called barbarians and nor related to
the Greeks in "rhetorical context"? There were many examples when that could hav
e happened, it?s enough to point to the long Peloponesian War, or any of the man
y constant wars between the Greek states. Yet no Spartan, Athenian, Theban, Epir
ote, was ever called non-Greek or barbarian during any of these political and wa
r conflicts! Not ONCE!
We know for a fact that the ancient Greeks also called the Persians barbarians.
Are we suppose to say now, based on the modern Greek "logic", that the Persians
were too a Greek tribe, but they were called non-Greeks only in "rhetorical cont
ext"?
The lesson is clear. The ancient Greeks called all non-Greeks barbarians, and th
e modern Greek argument can simply not be true, and is quite frankly ridiculous.
It does however, prove to what extend the modern Greek writers would go to make
the Macedonians forcefully Greek, steel the Macedonian history, and even rewrit
e the feelings of the ancient Greeks during that process.

Now lets see some credible evidence:

[1] Alexander returns from the campaigns at the Danube, north of Macedon. When t
he news reached him that the Thebans had revolted and were being supported by th
e Athenians, he immediately marched south through the pass of Thermopylae. 'Demo
sthenes', 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] Plutarch The Age of Alexander
[2] [Modern day Greeks would like to dispatch off Demosthenes castigations of Ph
ilip II as political rhetoric, and yet Demosthenes was twice appointed to lead t
he 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 per
son could not even buy a decent slave. 'Soon after his death the people of Athen
s paid him fitting honours by errecting his statue in bronze, and by decreeing t
hat 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: 'I
f only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom Never would Gre
ece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares' [p.216] Plutarch
[3] "While Demosthenes was still in exile, Alexander died in Babylon, and the Gr
eek states combined yet again to form a league against Macedon. Demosthenes atta
ched himself to the Athenian convoys, and threw all his energies into helping th
em incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Gre
ece." [p.212] Plutarch
[4] The news of Philip's death reached Athens. Demosthenes appeared in public dr
essed in magnificent attire and wearing a garland on his head, although his daug
hter 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 contempt
ible 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 thems
elves with joy, tremple on his body, and sing paeans of victory, as though they
themselves have accomplished some great feat of arms." [p.207] Plutarch
[5] "Next when Macedonia was at war with the citizens of Byzantium and Perinthus
, Demosthenes persuaded the Athenians to lay aside their grievances and forget t
he wrongs they had suffered from these peolples in the Social War and to dispatc
h a force which succeeded in relieving both cities. After this he set off on a d
iplomatic mission, which was designed to kindle the spirit of resistance to Phil
ip and which took him all over Greece. Finally he succeeded in uniting almost al
l the states into a confederation against Philip." [p.202] Plutarch
[6] On Demosthenes' tirades about Macedonians: "... we are concerned only with s
entiment, which is itself historical fact and must be taken seriously as such. I
n these tirades we find not only the Hellenic descent of Macedonian people (whic
h few seriously accepted) totally denied, but even that of the king." Ernst Badi
an
All quotes below taken from WERNER JAEGER?s Demosthenes
Here, in these excerpts from Jeager's book, you will find Demosthenes' hatred fo
r Macedon not only readily displayed and exercised, but its Hellenic descent cat
egorically excluded and implicitly denied. The fact that some modern authors asc
ribe Hellenic affinity to the ancient Macedonians should come to no great surpri

se because of the impact left by Johan Gustav Droysen on early nineteenth-centur

y historian where Macedon is depicted as a natural "unifier" of the Greek city-s
tates, the same role played by Prussia and Savoy in German and Italian unificati
on in the nineteenth century. "On this false analogy the whole of Greek history
was now boldly reconstructed as a necessary process of development leading quite
naturally to a single goal: unification of the Greek nation under Macedonian le
adership".
Demosthenes and most of his contemporaries did not see it that way; to them the
leadership of Macedon was seen as the 'death of Greek political liberty' Some pe
ople dismiss Demosthenes' outbursts as a political rhetoric, others hold his pol
itical abuse of Philip from Macedon as historical facts, undeniably blunt and tr
uthful. His sentiments are, in this case, fundamental historical documents, whic
h testify to the simmering hate and contempt for the Macedonian conqueror. The h
ands of the sculptor are being replaced by his sharply cutting tongue. At the en
d the features emerge to the surface unpretentiously clear and aggressive. Demos
thenes unlike Isocrates does not mask his national ideals with "Panhellenistic u
nion" against the Persians, but boldly and aggressively calls his Hellenic natio
n to an uprising against the barbarian from the north -the Kingdom of Macedon an
d its king Philip.
Demosthenes' cries and pleas are not intended for his beloved Athens only, but t
o every liberty loving Hellene, and even the Persians, Greece?s centuries-old en
emy. He calls on the Persians to join the Hellenes in the war against Macedon, a
nd at the same time he warns them that if they leave the Greeks in the lurch, th
ey would be next Philip's victim. As destiny would have it, Demosthenes was righ
t. Here is the proof:
[7] "On the Symmories, namely, that Demosthenes originally stood close to a grou
p of politicians who were vigorously combating the radical democratic influence;
indeed, it is only to this degree that he can be said to have come from any one
party at all. It is true that in later years, when he is coming to grips with t
he danger of Macedonia's foreign yoke, he naturally appeals to the lofty ideal o
f Greek liberty." [p.93]
[8] "It is not until Demosthenes is fighting the "tyranny" of the Macedonian con
queror that the idea of liberty takes on its true color for him and becomes sign
ificant as a great national good." [p.93]
[9] "Even then this watchword of "liberty" serves solely to promote his (Demosth
enes' foreign policy; but by that time it has really become an essential factor
in his envisagement of the world about him, in which Greece and Macedonia are po
lar opposites, irreconcilable morally, spiritually, intellectually." [p.93-4]
[10] "Thereupon all Thessaly submitted to him of its own accord. He was acclaime
d as a deliverer and named commander-in-chief of the Thessalian confederacy. He
would have marched at once into central Greece as a conquering hero and would pr
obably have brought the war to an end there with a single blow, had not the Athe
nians and Spartans bestirred themselves to send auxiliary troops to Thermopylae,
thus shutting against him this gateway to Hellas." [p.114]
[11] "In the Panegyricus he [Isocrates] had urged an understanding between Spart
a 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." [p.15
2]
[12] "If Philip was not to remain a permanent menace to the Greek world from out

side, it was necessary to get him positively involved in the fate of Hellas; for
he could not be eluded. Of course in the view of any of the Greek states of the
period, this problem was comparable to that of squaring the circle." [p.152]
[13] "But for Isocrates that was no obstacle. He had long since come to recogniz
e the impossibility of resisting Macedonia, and he was only trying to find the l
east 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 his
tory; moreover, it ought to silence all Greek prejudices against the culturally
and ethnically alien character of the Macedonians." [p.153]
[14] "With the help of the role that Isocrates had assigned to him, he had the a
stuteness to let his cold-blooded policy for the extension of Macedonian power t
ake 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 nob
ody 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]
[15] "Philip now had the problem of compelling the Athenians to recognize the De
lphic resolutions aimed against Phocis; and he sent ambassadors to Athens, where
strong opposition prevailed. However, with the Macedonian army only a few day's
march from the Attic border and in good fighting trim, Athens was quite defense
less, and even Demosthenes advised submission." [p.157]
[16] "When Demosthenes draws up his list of Philip's transgressions, it includes
his offense against the whole of Greece, not merely those against Athens; and D
emosthenes' charge of unbecoming remissness is aimed at all the Greeks equallytheir irresolution, and their failure to perceive their common cause." [p.171]
[17] "Therefore he (Demosthenes) urges them to send embassies everywhere to call
the Greeks together--to assemble them, teach them, and exhort them; but the par
amount need is to take the necessary steps themselves and thus perform their dut
y." [p.171]
[18] "In this appeal to the whole Greek world Demosthenes reached a decisive tur
ning point in his political thought................He was still thoroughly roote
d in Athens's governmental traditions, never overstepping the bounds of her clas
sical balance-of-power policy for the interior of Greece. But the appearance of
the mighty new enemy from beyond the Greek frontier now forced him to take a dif
ferent track." [p.171-2]
[19] "Looking far beyond the actualities of the Greek world, hopelessly split as
under as it was, he (Isocrates) had envisaged a united nation led by the Macedon
ian king." [p.172]
[20] "Quite apart, however, from any theoretical doubts whether the nationalisti
c movement of modern times, which seeks to combine in a single state all the ind
ividuals of a single folk, can properly be compared with the Greek idea of Panhe
llenism, scholars have failed to notice that after the unfortunate Peace of Phil
ocrates Demosthenes' whole policy was an unparalleled fight for national unifica
tion. In this period he deliberately threw off the constrains of the politician
concerned exclusively with Athenian interests, and devoted himself to a task mor
e lofty than any Greek statesman before him had ever projected or indeed could h
ave projected. In this respect he is quite comparable to Isocrates; but an impor
tant 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 th
e will of the conqueror; on the contrary, he demanded a unanimous uprising of al
l the Greeks against the Macedonian foe." [p.172]

[21] "His Panhellenism was the outgrowth of a resolute will for national self-as
sertiveness, deliberately opposed to the national self-surrender called for by I
socrates - for that was what Isocrates' program had really meant, despite its be
ing expressed romantically as a plan for a Persian war under Macedonian leadersh
ip." [p.172-3]
[22] "As the success of his appeal was to show, he was correct in his estimate o
f the actual political prospects of a really national uprising now that direct h
ostile pressure was felt. Since the days of the Persian wars Hellas had at no ti
me been seriously endangered from without." [p.173]
[23] "The foe and the emergency [Macedon and
and if the Greeks still had a spark of their
fate that was now overtaking them could not
Philippic is one mighty avowal of this brand
ly Demosthenes' achievement." [p.173]

its king Philip] had now appeared;

fathers' sense of independence, the
but bring them together. The Third
of Panhellenism; and this is entire

[24] "The task that confronted Demosthenes demanded utterly gigantic powers of i
mprovisation; for the Greek people had not been making preparedness an end in it
self for years as the enemy had done, and they also found it hard to adjust them
selves spiritually to their new situation. In the Third Philippic Demosthenes' p
rime effort was to break down this spiritual resistance, and everything hinged o
n his success." [p.174]
[Greek
Greeks
n kin?
Greeks

people on one side, and the enemy on the other. Were Macedonians seen as
by the ancient Greeks? Did the Greeks have the enemy from within their ow
Were there some Greeks who were making preparations for a war, and other
who were not? It is a clear no, since the Macedonians were not Greek]

[25] "Demosthenes speaks of embassies to be sent to the Peloponnesus, to Rhodes

and Chios, and even to the king of Persia, to call for resistance against the co
nqueror." [p.177]
[Point of Interest] Greeks were sending embassies to the king of Persia to ally
with them against the conqueror from the north - Macedonia and its king Philip.
One needs not be a scholar to see through the lies propagated by today's Greeks
when they claim that Macedonia was a part of Greece and Philip was their king. "
It is an illusion to think that ancient Macedonians were Greeks". [Karagatsis a Greek writer]
[26] Demosthenes' call for a national uprising was slowly gaining strength; Cori
nth and Achaea went over to the Athenian side, Messenia, Arcadia and Argos were
won over and lined themselves behind the program. In March of the year 340 the t
reaty was formerly concluded at Athens. Even Athens and Thebes reconciled and jo
ined his national program. "The true greatness of these achievements -- achievem
ents for which the citizens of Athens honored Demosthenes with a golden crown at
the Dionysia of 340 - was rightly appreciated by the ancient historians." [p.17
8]
[27] "If the Persian leaves us in the lurch and anything should happen to us, no
thing will hinder Philip from attacking the Persian king." [Fourth Philippic] [p
.181]
[28] "For historians of the old school, Greek history ended when the Greek state
s lost their political liberty; they looked upon it as a closed story, mounting
to a heroic finish at Chaeronea." [p.188]
[29] "For if any non-Greek power, whether Persian or Macedonian, were to achieve
world dominion, the typical form of the Greek state would suffer death and dest

ruction." [p.188]
[30] "Anyone who had assured himself that Macedonian hegemony would lead to the
inner unification of the Greeks, was bound to be disappointed. Philip surrounded
Athens with four Macedonian garrisons placed at respectful distances, and left
everything else to his supporters and agents in the cities." [p.191]
[31] 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 pas
sionately described as a war of vengeance, was not looked upon as a means of uni
ting the Greeks, as Isocrates would have had it, but was merely an instrument of
Macedonian imperialism." [p.192]
[32] "But although the Greek people thus came to
e as pioneers of culture and, to that degree, as
pire, politically they had simply dropped out of
if Philip abstained from formally making Hellas
ks were themselves aware of this." [p.192]

play a uniquely influential rol

inheritors of the Macedonian em
the ranks of free peoples, even
a Macedonian province. The Gree

[35] "Outwardly, the "autonomous" city-states kept their relations with Macedoni
a on a fairly strict level of rectitude. Inwardly, the time was one of dull pres
sure and smoldering distrust, flaring up to a bright flame at the least sign of
any tremor or weakness in Macedonia's alien rule - for that is how her surveilla
nce was generally regarded. This excruciating state of affairs continued as long
as any hope remained. Only when the last ray of hope was exctinguished and the
last uprising had met disaster, did quiet finally settle down upon Greece -- the
quiet of the graveyard." [p.192]
[36] (Aeschines attempt to triumph over Demosthenes for the last and final round
backfires with Demosthenes' heroics in "The Crown". Demosthenes at the end rece
ived the crown.) "But though Athens was powerless against the might of her Maced
onian conqueror, she retained her independence of judgment and declared that no
history could confute Demosthenes." [p.196]
[37] "Then when Alexander suddenly died in the flower of his age, and Greece ros
e again for the last time, Demosthenes offered his services and returned to Athe
ns. But after winning a few brilliant successes, the Greeks lost their admirable
commander Leosthenes on the field of battle; and his successors was slain at Cr
annon on the anniversary of Chaeronea; the Athenians then capitulated, and, unde
r pressure of threats from Macedonia, suffered themselves to condemn to death th
e leader of the "revolt"." [p.196]
Demosthenes died from a dose of poison on the island of Calauria, in the altar o
f Poseidon. Forty years later Athens honored him for eternity. Such was the dest
iny of a man whose ideals were his people, his country and their liberty. When m
odern Greeks dismiss him (in order to divert the stinging truth of his oratory)
as a mere politician and his arousing oratory against Macedonia and the Macedoni
an conqueror as a political rhetoric, they, the modern Greeks, denounce the true
Greek spirit, devoid of which, they, themselves, are.
[38] "The dispute of modern scholars over the racial stock of the Macedonians ha
ve led to many interesting suggestions. This is especially true of the philologi
cal analysis of the remains of the Macedonian language by O. Hoffmann in his Mak
edonen 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- a
s well as Illyrian- in their veins, whether originally or by later admixture, th
is 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 penins
ula so far ahead of them in culture. It is likewise incorrect to assert that thi

s 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 i
nterest lies in discovering what the Greeks themselves felt and thought. And her
e we need not cite Demosthenes' well-known statements; for Isocrates himself, th
e very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates t
he people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil.108. He purposely avo
ids the word barbaroi but this word is one that inevitably finds a place for its
elf in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of e
very 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 n
ew leader; and the orator tries to give ethnological proof of Philip's qualifica
tions 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 bloo
d." [p.249]
[Point of Interest]
(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 cultu
re.
(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 Greec
e. He isolates their king Philip as not of the same race as the people over whic
h he governs.
Note: The speech On the Chersonese was, to be sure, delivered in a specifically
Athenian emergency; but the interest of the Greeks as a whole is never left out
of sight. 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 whol
e of Hellas that is considered, not Athens alone.
Once again, it is not surprising that Jeager places the ancient Macedonians outs
ide the Greek ethnic world. Fact is that when an author follows the writings of
the ancient biographers it is almost impossible for anybody to come to a differe
nt conclusion.
LIVY
Roman Historian
"Such were the activities of the Romans and of Philip on land during that summer
. At the beginning of the same summer, the fleet, commanded by the legate Lucius
Apustius, left Corcyra, rounded Cape Malea, and joined King Attalus of Scyllaeu
m, in the region of Hermoine. Hitherto the resentment of the Athenian community
against Philip had been kept in check by fear; but now, with the hope of assista
nce ready at hand, they gave free rein to their anger. There is never any lack a
t Athenian tongues ready and willing to stir up the passion of the common people
; this kind of oratory is nurtured by the applause of the mob in all free commun
ities; but this is especially true of Athens, where eloquence has the greatest i
nfluence. The popular assembly immediately carried a proposal that all statues o
f Philip and all portraits of him, with their inscriptions, and also those of hi
s ancestors of either sex, should be removed and destroyed; that all feast-days,
rites, and priesthoods instituted in honour of Philip or his ancestors should b
e deprived of sanctity; that even the sites of any memorials or inscriptions in
his honour should be held accursed, and that it should not be lawful thereafter

to decide to set up or dedicate on those sites any of those things which might l
awfully be set up or dedicated on an undefiled site; that whenever the priests o
f the people offered prayer on behalf of the Athenian people and their allies, t
heir armies and navies, they should on every occasion HEAP CURSES and execration
s on Philip, his family and his realm, his forces on land and sea, AND THE WHOLE
RACE AND NAME OF THE MACEDONIANS."
There was appended to this decree a provision that if anyone afterwards should b
ring forward a proposal tending to bring on Philip disgrace or dishonour then th
e Athenian people would pass it in its entirety; whereas if anyone should by wor
d or deed seek to counter his disgrace, or to enhance his honour, the killing of
such a person would be lawful homicide. A final clause provided that all the de
crees formerly passed against the Pisistratidae should be observed in regard to
Philip. This was the Athenians' war against Philip, a war of words, written or s
poken, for that is where their only strength lies." [Livy's book XXXI.44]
The most pressing point, the one that screams for recognition, is the call for t
he Athenian people to (a) "heap curses and execrations on Philip, his family and
his realm, his forces on land and sea, and the whole race and name of the Maced
onians, and (b) whereas if anyone should by word or deed seek to counter his dis
grace, or to enhance his honour, the killing of such a person would be lawful ho
micide.
In conclusion one must remember the following:
(a) The ancient Greeks regarded the ancient Macedonians as foreigners.
(b) They regarded the ancient Macedonians as people of different race.
(c) They regarded the ancient Macedonians as barbarians, as people who enslaved
the Greeks.
(d) This episode describes the situation in Athens around 200 B.C.
(e) It should constantly be born in mind the intensity of the hate expressed tow
ards the conqueror from the north - the Macedonians. If anyone in as much as utt
er a one positive word for Philip, then this person should be killed, and the ki
lling of that person would be taken as lawful homicide. These feelings were mutu
al by the way.
(f) The suggestion by some authors (marginal lot, anyway) that these two dissimi
lar people "blended together" in some aspects of their culture becomes much hard
er to accept, and therefore, is rejected based such credible evidence.
It is apparent that ancient Greeks did not consider the ancient Macedonians as G
reeks. Modern Greeks' assertion that ancient Macedonians were Greeks is constant
ly undermined by the view of the ancients. The fact remains that ancient Macedon
ians were just that - Macedonians.
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 par
t, 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 anoth

er and noting their resemblances and their differences that we shall arrive at a
comprehensive view, and thus encompass both the practical benefits and the plea
sure that the reading of history affords." [p 45]
[How true, indeed. By combining and comparing various statements from the ancien
t authors can we arrive to the truest picture of the ancients themselves. Let th
em speak of themselves, and let their true sentiments flood the pages uncorrupte
d and free of any biased and preconceived prejudices. Only then, can we assess t
he magnitude of their purity of soul, and the passion for their national aspirat
ions.]
[1] Polibius reports on the speech made by Agelaus of Naupactus at the first con
ference 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 e
specially 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 pro
vince of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions. If you fol
low this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in cas
e of attack, and foreigners will be the less inclined to plot against your thron
e, 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 t
imes of Philip V.
[2] [Book XVIII, 1] Philip V from Macedon invites Flamininus (Roman commander) t
o explain what he, Philip, should do to have peace:
"The Roman general replied that his duty dictated an answer which was both simpl
e and clear. He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece, r
estore to each of the states the prisoners and deserters he was holding, hand ov
er 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," Flamininu
s, 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 bei
ng 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 wa
s also a member of the Aetolian League, when he himself was on friendly terms wi
th the Aetolians?'
[Philip sells the people of Cius into slavery. Cuis' population was not a Macedo
nian population. Philip's action underlines one fundamental fact: Greece was a c
onquered territory, and Greek cities were dispensable.]
[4] (Book XVIII. 5) Philip V from Macedon responds to the Greek and Roman demand
s:
"But what is most outrageous of all is that they should attempt to put themselve
s on the same footing as the Romans and demand that the Macedonians should withd
raw from the whole of Greece. To use such language is arrogant enough in the fir
st 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 whic
h you demand that I should evacuate, and how do you define Greece? Certainly mos
t of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! The countries of the Agraae, the A
podotea, 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, Kin
g Philip V from Macedon, leave Greece and go to his own kingdom in Macedonia, an
d 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 th
ey raised Macedonia from the status of a petty kingdom to that of the greatest a
nd most glorious monarchy in the world. And apart what was accomplished during P
hilip'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 recogni
zed by posterity.".... [Polybius: The Rise of the Roman Empire, published by Pen
guin 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 dif
ference between these two people was not a matter for discussion - it was an acc
omplished fact.
QUINTUS CURTIUS RUFUS
Roman Historian
The History of Alexander
[1] "Alexander meanwhile dealt swiftly with the unrest in Greece - not only did
the Athenians rejoice at Philip?s death, but the Aetolians, the Thebans, as well
as Spartans and the Peloponnesians, were ready to throw off the Macedonian yoke
. (Diod. 17.3.3-5) - and he marched south into Thessaly, demanding the loyalty o
f its people in the name of their common ancestors, Achilles (Justin 11.3.1-2; c
f. Diod. 17.4.1). And with speed and diplomacy Alexander brought the Thebans and
Athenians into submission (Diod. 17.4.4-6) [p.20]
[The "unrest in Greece" encompasses all the city-states in Greece. These city-st
ates were ready to throw off the Macedonian yoke. Here we have a clear delineati
on between Greek city-states, who were the conquered party, and Macedonia, the c
onqueror. This quote in a very unambiguous way illustrates how pitiful and ridic
ulous is the modern Greeks? position when they claim, or equate, Macedonia as be
ing one of, or the same as, the Greek city states. "Thebans and Athenians into s
ubmission" means one thing: Greece was won by the spear; it was a war of conques
t. Therefore, modern Greeks? position that Alexander "united" the Greek city-sta
tes, rests on euphemistic foundation, and as such, has no validity with historic
al justice. Bottom line is, that there was no "unification" of the Greek states
by Alexander or his father Philip II. When one "unifies" one does not force subm
ission of the subjects. When one unifies, there is no "yoke" to be thrown off.]

[2] "It was decided to raze the city to the ground as a lesson to all Greek stat
es which contemplated rebellion." [p.21] [Point of interest: "as a lesson to all
Greek states". This statement indicates that Macedonia was not, and could not b
e included in Greece, for Macedonia was the one "giving" the lesson.]
[3] "Alexander also referred to his father, Philip, conqueror of Athenians, and
recalled to their minds the recent conquest of Boeotia and the annihilation of i
ts best known city." [p.41]
[4] Alexander, in a letter, responds to Darius: "His Majesty Alexander to Darius
: Greetings. The Darius whose name you have assumed wrought utter destruction up
on 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 Maced
onia and Greece." [p.50-1] [Alexander here himself clearly separates Greece from
Macedonia]
[5] "From here the Macedonians crossed to Mitylene which had been recently seize
d by the Athenian Chares, and was now held by him with a garrison of Persians, 2
,000 strong. Unable to withstand the siege, Chares surrendered the city on condi
tion that he be allowed to leave in safety, after which he made for Imbros. The
Macedonians spared those who surrender." [p.63]
["Athenian" Chares with 2,000 of Persian soldiers fighting against Alexander?s M
acedonians. Another example of Greeks fighting against Macedonia. If this was a
war to revenge Greece from Persia, Greeks would have not have fighting on the si
de of the Persians against the Macedonians. The truth is that they hated the Mac
edonians more for conquering Greece, then they did the Persians.]
[6] "There is a report that, after the king had completed the Macedonian custom
of marking out the circular boundary for the future city-walls with barley-meal,
flocks of birds flew down and fed on the barley. Many regarded this as unfavora
ble omen, but the verdict of the seers was that the city would have a large immi
grant population and would provide the means of livelihood to many countries." [
p.69] [The Macedonians had their own distinct customs]
[7] "As it happened, Alexander had been sent from Macedonia a present of Macedon
ian clothes and a large quantity of purple material." [p.97] [Macedonian clothes
, and purple material. (Macedonian customs 2) Macedonians dressed differently th
an the Greeks. One very peculiar feature being the kautsia, the well known Maced
onian hat.]
[8] "...but the king?s conscience would not permit him to leave his men unburied
, for by Macedonian convention there is hardly any duty in military life as bind
ing as burial of one?s dead." [p.100]
[9] Inflamed with greed for kingship, Bessus and Nabarzanes now decided to carry
out the plan they had long been hatching. [The plot to kill Darius the III.] "I
f, as they feared, Alexander rejected their treacherous overtures, they would mu
rder Darius and head for Bactria with the troops of their own people. However, o
pen arrest of Darius was impossible because the Persians, many thousands strong
would come to the aid of their king, and the loyalty of the Greeks also caused a
pprehension." [p.111] [The Greeks remained loyal to Persia and against Alexander
and his Macedonians to the end]
[9] Patron, the Greek commander, speaks with Darius: "Your Majesty", said Patron
, "we few are all that remain of 50,000 Greeks. We were all with you in your mor
e fortunate days, and in your present situation we remain as we were when you we
re prospering, ready to make for and to accept as our country and our home any l
ands you choose. We and you have been drawn together both by your prosperity and
your adversity. By this inviolable loyalty of ours I beg and beseech you: pitch

your tent in our area of the camp and let us be your bodyguards. We have left G
reece behind; for us there is no Bactria; our hopes rest entirely in you - I wis
h that were true of the others also! Further talk serves no purpose. As a foreig
ner born of another race I should not be asking for the responsibility of guardi
ng your person if I thought anyone else could do it." [p.112-13]
[50,000 strong Greeks were with Darius fighting the Macedonians, while Alexander
took only 7,000 Greeks next to his Macedonians which served as "hostages" and "
were potential trouble makers", (Green) which he got rid of only when he learned
that the rebellion in Greece against the Macedonian occupation forces there was
suppressed (Badian, Borza). The fact that 50,000 Greeks were fighting Alexander
?s Macedonians shows clearly that their loyalty and their numerical superiority
lies with Darius and his Persians, not with Alexander and his Macedonians. As Pe
ter Green puts it: "if this was a Greek conquest where were the Greek troops?" A
lexander?s conquest can not therefore be at all a Greek conquest, but simply a M
acedonian conquest.]
[10] "Men! If you consider the scale of our achievements, your longing for peace
and your weariness of brilliant campaigns are not at all surprising. Let me pas
s over the Illyrians, the Triballians, Boeotia, Thrace, Sparta, the Aecheans, th
e Peloponnese - all of them subdued under my direct leadership or by campaigns c
onducted under my orders of instructions." [p.121-22]
[The Greeks of Boeotia, Sparta, Aechea, Peloponnese - "all of them subdued"; Ale
xander himself cleraly considers Greece subdued, not united]
[11] "In capital cases it was a long-established Macedonian practice for the kin
g to conduct the trial while the army (or the commons in peace-time) acted as ju
ry, and the position of the king counted for nothing unless his influence had be
en substantial prior to the trial." [p.135] [Another Macedonian custom]
[12] Alexander speaks: "The Macedonians are going to judge your case," he said.
"Please state whether you will use your native language before them."
Philotas: "Besides the Macedonians, there are many present who, I think, will fi
nd what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yoursel
f have been using, your purpose, I believe, being only to enable more people to
understand you."
Then the king said: "Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native lang
uage? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases
- only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language.
" [p.138]
[This is again Alexander himself clearly separates the Macedonian as an independ
ent language and the Macedonian way of life, from the Greek language and the Gre
ek way of life which Philotas had referred to be the diplomatic language in the
Macedonian court]
[13] "The general feeling was that Philotas should be stoned to death according
to Macedonian customs, but Hephaestion, Craterus, and Coenus declared that tortu
re should be employed to force the truth out of him, and those who had advocated
other punishment went over to their view." [p.142] [Another Macedonian custom]
[14] "What they feared was the Macedonian law which provided the death penalty a
lso for relatives of people who had plotted against the king." [p.143]
[15] "While Alexander was in stationary camp here, reports arrived from Greece o
f the insurrection of the Peloponnesians and the Laconians." [Alexander learns a
bout the revolt of the Greeks against the Macedonians]

[16] "Roxane?s father was transported with unexpected delight when he heard Alex
ander?s words, and the king, in the heat of passion, ordered bread to be brought
, in accordance with their traditions, for this was the most sacred symbol of be
trothal among the Macedonians." [p.187] [Another Macedonian custom]
[17] [Alexander attempts to appropriate divine honours to himself] "He wished to
be believed, not just called, the son of Jupiter, as if it were possible for hi
m to have as much control over men?s minds as their tongues, and to give orders
for the Macedonians to follow the Persian customs in doing homage to him by pros
trating themselves on the ground. To feed this desire of his there was no lack o
f pernicious flattery - over the course of royalty, whose power is often subvert
ed by adulation than by an enemy. Nor were the Macedonians to blame for this, fo
r none of them could bear the slightest deviation from tradition; rather it was
the Greeks, whose corrupt ways had also debased the profession of the liberal ar
ts." [p.187-8] [Macedonian traditions, this passage above, without any ambiguity
, strongly implies that the ancient Macedonians were distinct ethnic group of pe
ople markedly differed from the Greeks.]
[18] "Accordingly, one festive day, Alexander had a sumptuous banquet organized
so that he could invite not only his principle friends among the Macedonians and
Greeks but also the enemy nobility." [p.188] [Greeks and Macedonians clearly se
parated]
[19] [The trial of Hermolaus] "As for you Callisthenes, the only person to think
you a man (because you are an assassin), I know why you want him brought forwar
d. It is so that the insult which sometimes uttered against me and sometimes hea
rd from him can be repeated by his lips before this gathering. Were he a Macedon
ian I would have introduced him here along with you - a teacher truly worth of h
is pupil. As it is, he is an Olynthian and does not enjoy the same rights." [p.1
95]
[Calisthenes could not be brought in front of the army (the jury), because he wa
s a Greek and not a Macedonian. Callisthenes? ethnicity is of primary significan
ce here. Similarly, Eumenes? ethnicity was the primary determining factor in the
final outcome. It is also suggested in Plutarch Eum. 3.1, where Eumenes express
es his belief that, being a foreigner, he had no right to take sides in the disp
ute which broke out among the Macedonians over the succession to Alexander after
the latter?s death. Furthermore, in Diodoros? narrative 19.13.1 Seleucos urges
Eumenes? officers and men to desert him because he is a foreigner, who, furtherm
ore, has killed many Macedonians. The wealth of evidence supporting the fact tha
t ancient Macedonians were a separate ethnos from the Greeks is overwhelming. Eu
menes and Callisthenes, being foreigners, foreign born individuals - Greeks, did
not stand a chance among the Macedonians. At the end, their Greek ethnicity cos
t them their lives.]
[20] [Alexander speaks to his Macedonians] "Where is that shout of yours that sh
ows your enthusiasm? Where that characteristic look of my Macedonians?" [p.217]
[21] "Starting with Macedonia, I now have power over Greece; I have brought Thra
ce and the Illyrians under my control; rule the Triballi and the Maedi. I have A
sia in my possession from the Hellespont to the Red Sea." [p.227]
[22] At a banquet prepared by Alexander for the ambassadors of certain tribes fr
om India, among the invited guest present was the Macedonian Horratas and the Gr
eek boxer named Dioxippus. Now at the feast the Macedonian Horratas who was alre
ady drunk, began to make insulting comments to Dioxippus and to challenge him, i
f he were a man, to fight a duel. Dioxippus agreed and the two men fought rather
short fight with Dioxippus emerging a victor. A huge crowd of soldiers, includi
ng the Greeks, supported Dioxippus. "The outcome of the show dismayed Alexander,

as well as the Macedonian soldiers, especially since the barbarians had been pr
esent, for he feared that a mockery had been made of the celebrated Macedonian v
alour." [p.229]
[23] "But destiny was already bringing civil war upon the Macedonian nation." [p
.254]
[24] "The customary purification of the soldiers by the Macedonian kings involve
d cutting a bitch in two and throwing down her entrails on the left and right at
the far end of the plain into which the army was to be led. Then all the soldie
rs would stand within that area, cavalry in one spot, phalanx in another." [p.25
5] [Another Macedonian custom]
The difference between ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks is obvious. It
is not a matter for debate. Language, customs, traditions and the every-day sol
dier?s behavior, all point to two distinct and separate ethnic groups. In short,
the ancient Macedonians were simply that ? Macedonians, and the Greeks were for
eign people next to them.
PLUTARCH
The Age of Alexander
[1] "Alexander was born on the sixth day of the month Hecatombaeon, which the Ma
cedonians call Lous, the same day on which the temple of Artemis at Ephesus was
burned down." [p.254] [Macedonians had a their own distinct calendar]
[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 Macedo
nian 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 the
m or accustomed them to his authority. Alexander's Macedonian advisers feared th
at a crisis was at hand and urged the young king to leave the Greek states to th
eir own devices and refrain from using any force against them. [p.263] [Alexande
r 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 t
he news reached him that the Thebans had revolted and were being supported by th
e Athenians, he immediately marched south through the pass of Thermopylae. 'Demo
sthenes', 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] [The
ones who want to liberate Greece against the Macedonian troops]
[5] Alexander asks a women, who was being taken captive, who she was, she replie
d: 'I am the sister of Theogenes who commanded our army against your father, Phi
lip, 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 han
dled so eloquently that the guests rose to applaud and threw their garlands at h
im. 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 eloque

ncy by criticizing the Macedonians so that they can recognize their shortcomings
and improve themselves.' Callisthenes then turned to the other side of the pict
ure 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 th
e rest of the Greeks, and quoting the verse Once civil strife has begun, even sc
oundrels may find themselves honoured. The speech earned him the implacable hatr
ed of the Macedonians, and Alexander that it was not his eloquence that Callisth
enes had demonstrated, but his ill will towards them. [p.311]
[7] Alexander's letter to Antipater in which he includes Callisthenes in the gen
eral 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 tho
se who sent him to me, or the others who give shelter in their cities to those w
ho plot against my life.' In those words, at least, he plainly reveals his hosti
lity 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 implan
ted 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 abou
t one day looking at the sculpture at Delphi, the mere sight of a statue of Alex
ander struck him with horror, so that he sguddered and trembled in every limb, h
is 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 Al
exander'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 co
rpse would have filled the whole world long before.' [p.237] [This is how much t
he ancient Greeks hated Alexander]
[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 Lam
ia.
[11] [Modern day Greeks would like to dispatch off Demosthenes castigations of P
hilip 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 pe
rson could not even buy a decent slave. 'Soon after his death the people of Athe
ns paid him fitting honours by erecting his statue in bronze, and by decreeing t
hat 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: 'I
f only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom Never would Gre
ece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares' [p.216]
[12] "While Demosthenes was still in exile, Alexander died in Babylon, and the G
reek states combined yet again to form a league against Macedon. Demosthenes att
ached himself to the Athenian convoys, and threw all his energies into helping t
hem incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Gr
eece." [p.212]
[13] The news of Philip's death reached Athens. Demosthenes appeared in public d
ressed in magnificent attire and wearing a garland on his head, although his dau
ghter had died only six days before. Aeshines states: "For my part I cannot say
that the Athenians did themselves any credit in putting on garlands and offering
sacrifices 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 Phili
p 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 o

n his body, and sing paeans of victory, as though they themselves have accomplis
hed some great feat of arms." [p.207]
[14] "Next when Macedonia was at war with the citizens of Byzantium and Perinthu
s, Demosthenes persuaded the Athenians to lay aside their grievances and forget
the wrongs they had suffered from these peoples in the Social War and to dispatc
h a force which succeeded in relieving both cities. After this he set off on a d
iplomatic mission, which was designed to kindle the spirit of resistance to Phil
ip and which took him all over Greece. Finally he succeeded in uniting almost al
l 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 overriding merit is summed up in the word 'free
dom.' With allowance made for the infinite variety promoted by so many independe
nt governments, Greece was still broadly speaking a free country. This freedom w
as 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 jealousies, and that league and conspiracy of
the Greeks for their own mischief, which arrested fortune in full career, and t
urned back arms that were already uplifted against the barbarians to be used aga
inst themselves, and recall into Greece the war which had been banished out of h
er? I by no means assent to Demaratus of Corinth, who said that those Greeks los
t a great satisfaction that did not live to see Alexander sit on the throne of D
arius. 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 spe
nt all their own great commanders in playing them against each other in the fiel
ds of Leuctra, Coronea, Corinth, and Arcadia." [Plutarch "Lives" vol.2 The Dryde
n Translation. Edited and Revised by Arthur Hugh Clough p.50]
ARRIAN
Greek Historian
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, fr
om the Assyrians." [p. 111]
[2] "Our enemies are Medes and Persians, men who for centuries have lived soft a
nd 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, h
e sent some 30,000 mounted troops and 20,000 light infantry across the river Pin
arus, to give himself a chance of getting the main body of his army into positio
n without molestation. His dispositions were as follows:
in the van of his heavy infantry were his 30,000 Greek mercenaries, facing the M
acedonian 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, w
hile 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 i
nvincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embitt
ered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." [p.119]

[5] "The cavalry action which ensued was desperate enough, and the Persians brok
e 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 matt
ers. Appointments of governors are duly mentioned, and throughout his book Arria
n 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 wi
th 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 C
ompanions', 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 lon
g, 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 grea
ves and a helmet, but it is possible that the Macedonians did not wear a breastp
late. The phalanx (a heavy infantry), like all the Macedonian troops had been br
ought 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 f
ull suits of Persian armor, with the following inscription:
"Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks (except the Lacedaemonians) dedicate t
hese spoils, taken from the Persians who dwell in Asia." [p.76]
J.R. Hamilton, Associate professor of Classics and Ancient History from the Univ
ersity of Auckland, New Zealand, writes: 'In view of the small part that the Gre
eks had played in the battle the inscription (with its omission of any mention o
f 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 fle
et in a battle:
"In the first place, it was to rush blindly into a naval engagement against grea
tly 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 sk
ill and courage of his men; as to defeat, it would be very serious indeed and wo
uld 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 s
uccess 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, Phoenici
a 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 hes
itate to extend the power of Macedon - your power - to the Hyphasis and the trib
es on the other side? [p.293] Arrian, book 5.

[13] Alexander continues to address his troops: "Gentlemen of Macedon, and you m
y friends and allies, this must not be. Stand firm; for well you know that hards
hip 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; ad
d the rest of Asia to what you already possess - a small addition to the great s
um 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 bor
ders, or the Illyrians and Triballians, or perhaps such Greeks as might prove a
menace to our comfort." [p.294] Arrian, Book 5.
DEMOSTHENES
Greek Orator
"... 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 Phi
lippic, 31. 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 Phil
ip?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. The modern Greeks however, claim that Philip was Greek, and that Demosthen
es called him "not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks" and "barbarian", on
ly in "rhetorical context", which was aroused by the political anger that existe
d between Macedonia and the Greeks states on the south, although it is very clea
r from Demosthenes?s words that he regards the Macedonians and their king Philip
II as non-Greeks. This modern Greek position is easily debunked, however, when
we consider the following two points:
If the Macedonians were Greeks but still called barbarians and nor related to th
e Greeks, why is then no other Greek tribe called barbarians and nor related to
the Greeks in "rhetorical context"? There were many examples when that could hav
e happened, it?s enough to point to the long Peloponesian War, or any of the man
y constant wars between the Greek states. Yet no Spartan, Athenian, Theban, Epir
ote, was ever called non-Greek or barbarian during any of these political and wa
r conflicts! Not ONCE!
We know for a fact that the ancient Greeks also called the Persians barbarians.
Are we suppose to say now, based on the modern Greek "logic", that the Persians
were too a Greek tribe, but they were called non-Greeks only in "rhetorical cont
ext"?
The lesson is clear. The ancient Greeks called all non-Greeks barbarians, and th
e modern Greek argument can simply not be true, and is quite frankly ridiculous.
It does however, prove to what extend the modern Greek writers would go to make
the Macedonians forcefully Greek, steel the Macedonian history, and even rewrit
e the feelings of the ancient Greeks during that process.
Now lets see some credible evidence:
[1] Alexander returns from the campaigns at the Danube, north of Macedon. When t
he news reached him that the Thebans had revolted and were being supported by th
e Athenians, he immediately marched south through the pass of Thermopylae. 'Demo
sthenes', 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] Plutarch The Age of Alexander

[2] [Modern day Greeks would like to dispatch off Demosthenes castigations of Ph
ilip II as political rhetoric, and yet Demosthenes was twice appointed to lead t
he 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 per
son could not even buy a decent slave. 'Soon after his death the people of Athen
s paid him fitting honours by errecting his statue in bronze, and by decreeing t
hat 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: 'I
f only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom Never would Gre
ece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares' [p.216] Plutarch
[3] "While Demosthenes was still in exile, Alexander died in Babylon, and the Gr
eek states combined yet again to form a league against Macedon. Demosthenes atta
ched himself to the Athenian convoys, and threw all his energies into helping th
em incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Gre
ece." [p.212] Plutarch
[4] The news of Philip's death reached Athens. Demosthenes appeared in public dr
essed in magnificent attire and wearing a garland on his head, although his daug
hter 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 contempt
ible 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 thems
elves with joy, tremple on his body, and sing paeans of victory, as though they
themselves have accomplished some great feat of arms." [p.207] Plutarch
[5] "Next when Macedonia was at war with the citizens of Byzantium and Perinthus
, Demosthenes persuaded the Athenians to lay aside their grievances and forget t
he wrongs they had suffered from these peolples in the Social War and to dispatc
h a force which succeeded in relieving both cities. After this he set off on a d
iplomatic mission, which was designed to kindle the spirit of resistance to Phil
ip and which took him all over Greece. Finally he succeeded in uniting almost al
l the states into a confederation against Philip." [p.202] Plutarch
[6] On Demosthenes' tirades about Macedonians: "... we are concerned only with s
entiment, which is itself historical fact and must be taken seriously as such. I
n these tirades we find not only the Hellenic descent of Macedonian people (whic
h few seriously accepted) totally denied, but even that of the king." Ernst Badi
an
All quotes below taken from WERNER JAEGER?s Demosthenes
Here, in these excerpts from Jeager's book, you will find Demosthenes' hatred fo
r Macedon not only readily displayed and exercised, but its Hellenic descent cat
egorically excluded and implicitly denied. The fact that some modern authors asc
ribe Hellenic affinity to the ancient Macedonians should come to no great surpri
se because of the impact left by Johan Gustav Droysen on early nineteenth-centur
y historian where Macedon is depicted as a natural "unifier" of the Greek city-s
tates, the same role played by Prussia and Savoy in German and Italian unificati
on in the nineteenth century. "On this false analogy the whole of Greek history
was now boldly reconstructed as a necessary process of development leading quite
naturally to a single goal: unification of the Greek nation under Macedonian le
adership".
Demosthenes and most of his contemporaries did not see it that way; to them the

leadership of Macedon was seen as the 'death of Greek political liberty' Some pe
ople dismiss Demosthenes' outbursts as a political rhetoric, others hold his pol
itical abuse of Philip from Macedon as historical facts, undeniably blunt and tr
uthful. His sentiments are, in this case, fundamental historical documents, whic
h testify to the simmering hate and contempt for the Macedonian conqueror. The h
ands of the sculptor are being replaced by his sharply cutting tongue. At the en
d the features emerge to the surface unpretentiously clear and aggressive. Demos
thenes unlike Isocrates does not mask his national ideals with "Panhellenistic u
nion" against the Persians, but boldly and aggressively calls his Hellenic natio
n to an uprising against the barbarian from the north -the Kingdom of Macedon an
d its king Philip.
Demosthenes' cries and pleas are not intended for his beloved Athens only, but t
o every liberty loving Hellene, and even the Persians, Greece?s centuries-old en
emy. He calls on the Persians to join the Hellenes in the war against Macedon, a
nd at the same time he warns them that if they leave the Greeks in the lurch, th
ey would be next Philip's victim. As destiny would have it, Demosthenes was righ
t. Here is the proof:
[7] "On the Symmories, namely, that Demosthenes originally stood close to a grou
p of politicians who were vigorously combating the radical democratic influence;
indeed, it is only to this degree that he can be said to have come from any one
party at all. It is true that in later years, when he is coming to grips with t
he danger of Macedonia's foreign yoke, he naturally appeals to the lofty ideal o
f Greek liberty." [p.93]
[8] "It is not until Demosthenes is fighting the "tyranny" of the Macedonian con
queror that the idea of liberty takes on its true color for him and becomes sign
ificant as a great national good." [p.93]
[9] "Even then this watchword of "liberty" serves solely to promote his (Demosth
enes' foreign policy; but by that time it has really become an essential factor
in his envisagement of the world about him, in which Greece and Macedonia are po
lar opposites, irreconcilable morally, spiritually, intellectually." [p.93-4]
[10] "Thereupon all Thessaly submitted to him of its own accord. He was acclaime
d as a deliverer and named commander-in-chief of the Thessalian confederacy. He
would have marched at once into central Greece as a conquering hero and would pr
obably have brought the war to an end there with a single blow, had not the Athe
nians and Spartans bestirred themselves to send auxiliary troops to Thermopylae,
thus shutting against him this gateway to Hellas." [p.114]
[11] "In the Panegyricus he [Isocrates] had urged an understanding between Spart
a 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." [p.15
2]
[12] "If Philip was not to remain a permanent menace to the Greek world from out
side, it was necessary to get him positively involved in the fate of Hellas; for
he could not be eluded. Of course in the view of any of the Greek states of the
period, this problem was comparable to that of squaring the circle." [p.152]
[13] "But for Isocrates that was no obstacle. He had long since come to recogniz
e the impossibility of resisting Macedonia, and he was only trying to find the l
east 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 his
tory; moreover, it ought to silence all Greek prejudices against the culturally
and ethnically alien character of the Macedonians." [p.153]
[14] "With the help of the role that Isocrates had assigned to him, he had the a
stuteness to let his cold-blooded policy for the extension of Macedonian power t
ake 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 nob
ody 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]
[15] "Philip now had the problem of compelling the Athenians to recognize the De
lphic resolutions aimed against Phocis; and he sent ambassadors to Athens, where
strong opposition prevailed. However, with the Macedonian army only a few day's
march from the Attic border and in good fighting trim, Athens was quite defense
less, and even Demosthenes advised submission." [p.157]
[16] "When Demosthenes draws up his list of Philip's transgressions, it includes
his offense against the whole of Greece, not merely those against Athens; and D
emosthenes' charge of unbecoming remissness is aimed at all the Greeks equallytheir irresolution, and their failure to perceive their common cause." [p.171]
[17] "Therefore he (Demosthenes) urges them to send embassies everywhere to call
the Greeks together--to assemble them, teach them, and exhort them; but the par
amount need is to take the necessary steps themselves and thus perform their dut
y." [p.171]
[18] "In this appeal to the whole Greek world Demosthenes reached a decisive tur
ning point in his political thought................He was still thoroughly roote
d in Athens's governmental traditions, never overstepping the bounds of her clas
sical balance-of-power policy for the interior of Greece. But the appearance of
the mighty new enemy from beyond the Greek frontier now forced him to take a dif
ferent track." [p.171-2]
[19] "Looking far beyond the actualities of the Greek world, hopelessly split as
under as it was, he (Isocrates) had envisaged a united nation led by the Macedon
ian king." [p.172]
[20] "Quite apart, however, from any theoretical doubts whether the nationalisti
c movement of modern times, which seeks to combine in a single state all the ind
ividuals of a single folk, can properly be compared with the Greek idea of Panhe
llenism, scholars have failed to notice that after the unfortunate Peace of Phil
ocrates Demosthenes' whole policy was an unparalleled fight for national unifica
tion. In this period he deliberately threw off the constrains of the politician
concerned exclusively with Athenian interests, and devoted himself to a task mor
e lofty than any Greek statesman before him had ever projected or indeed could h
ave projected. In this respect he is quite comparable to Isocrates; but an impor
tant 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 th
e will of the conqueror; on the contrary, he demanded a unanimous uprising of al
l the Greeks against the Macedonian foe." [p.172]
[21] "His Panhellenism was the outgrowth of a resolute will for national self-as
sertiveness, deliberately opposed to the national self-surrender called for by I
socrates - for that was what Isocrates' program had really meant, despite its be
ing expressed romantically as a plan for a Persian war under Macedonian leadersh
ip." [p.172-3]
[22] "As the success of his appeal was to show, he was correct in his estimate o
f the actual political prospects of a really national uprising now that direct h

ostile pressure was felt. Since the days of the Persian wars Hellas had at no ti
me been seriously endangered from without." [p.173]
[23] "The foe and the emergency [Macedon and
and if the Greeks still had a spark of their
fate that was now overtaking them could not
Philippic is one mighty avowal of this brand
ly Demosthenes' achievement." [p.173]

its king Philip] had now appeared;

fathers' sense of independence, the
but bring them together. The Third
of Panhellenism; and this is entire

[24] "The task that confronted Demosthenes demanded utterly gigantic powers of i
mprovisation; for the Greek people had not been making preparedness an end in it
self for years as the enemy had done, and they also found it hard to adjust them
selves spiritually to their new situation. In the Third Philippic Demosthenes' p
rime effort was to break down this spiritual resistance, and everything hinged o
n his success." [p.174]
[Greek
Greeks
n kin?
Greeks

people on one side, and the enemy on the other. Were Macedonians seen as
by the ancient Greeks? Did the Greeks have the enemy from within their ow
Were there some Greeks who were making preparations for a war, and other
who were not? It is a clear no, since the Macedonians were not Greek]

[25] "Demosthenes speaks of embassies to be sent to the Peloponnesus, to Rhodes

and Chios, and even to the king of Persia, to call for resistance against the co
nqueror." [p.177]
[Point of Interest] Greeks were sending embassies to the king of Persia to ally
with them against the conqueror from the north - Macedonia and its king Philip.
One needs not be a scholar to see through the lies propagated by today's Greeks
when they claim that Macedonia was a part of Greece and Philip was their king. "
It is an illusion to think that ancient Macedonians were Greeks". [Karagatsis a Greek writer]
[26] Demosthenes' call for a national uprising was slowly gaining strength; Cori
nth and Achaea went over to the Athenian side, Messenia, Arcadia and Argos were
won over and lined themselves behind the program. In March of the year 340 the t
reaty was formerly concluded at Athens. Even Athens and Thebes reconciled and jo
ined his national program. "The true greatness of these achievements -- achievem
ents for which the citizens of Athens honored Demosthenes with a golden crown at
the Dionysia of 340 - was rightly appreciated by the ancient historians." [p.17
8]
[27] "If the Persian leaves us in the lurch and anything should happen to us, no
thing will hinder Philip from attacking the Persian king." [Fourth Philippic] [p
.181]
[28] "For historians of the old school, Greek history ended when the Greek state
s lost their political liberty; they looked upon it as a closed story, mounting
to a heroic finish at Chaeronea." [p.188]
[29] "For if any non-Greek power, whether Persian or Macedonian, were to achieve
world dominion, the typical form of the Greek state would suffer death and dest
ruction." [p.188]
[30] "Anyone who had assured himself that Macedonian hegemony would lead to the
inner unification of the Greeks, was bound to be disappointed. Philip surrounded
Athens with four Macedonian garrisons placed at respectful distances, and left
everything else to his supporters and agents in the cities." [p.191]
[31] 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 pas

sionately described as a war of vengeance, was not looked upon as a means of uni
ting the Greeks, as Isocrates would have had it, but was merely an instrument of
Macedonian imperialism." [p.192]
[32] "But although the Greek people thus came to
e as pioneers of culture and, to that degree, as
pire, politically they had simply dropped out of
if Philip abstained from formally making Hellas
ks were themselves aware of this." [p.192]

play a uniquely influential rol

inheritors of the Macedonian em
the ranks of free peoples, even
a Macedonian province. The Gree

[35] "Outwardly, the "autonomous" city-states kept their relations with Macedoni
a on a fairly strict level of rectitude. Inwardly, the time was one of dull pres
sure and smoldering distrust, flaring up to a bright flame at the least sign of
any tremor or weakness in Macedonia's alien rule - for that is how her surveilla
nce was generally regarded. This excruciating state of affairs continued as long
as any hope remained. Only when the last ray of hope was exctinguished and the
last uprising had met disaster, did quiet finally settle down upon Greece -- the
quiet of the graveyard." [p.192]
[36] (Aeschines attempt to triumph over Demosthenes for the last and final round
backfires with Demosthenes' heroics in "The Crown". Demosthenes at the end rece
ived the crown.) "But though Athens was powerless against the might of her Maced
onian conqueror, she retained her independence of judgment and declared that no
history could confute Demosthenes." [p.196]
[37] "Then when Alexander suddenly died in the flower of his age, and Greece ros
e again for the last time, Demosthenes offered his services and returned to Athe
ns. But after winning a few brilliant successes, the Greeks lost their admirable
commander Leosthenes on the field of battle; and his successors was slain at Cr
annon on the anniversary of Chaeronea; the Athenians then capitulated, and, unde
r pressure of threats from Macedonia, suffered themselves to condemn to death th
e leader of the "revolt"." [p.196]
Demosthenes died from a dose of poison on the island of Calauria, in the altar o
f Poseidon. Forty years later Athens honored him for eternity. Such was the dest
iny of a man whose ideals were his people, his country and their liberty. When m
odern Greeks dismiss him (in order to divert the stinging truth of his oratory)
as a mere politician and his arousing oratory against Macedonia and the Macedoni
an conqueror as a political rhetoric, they, the modern Greeks, denounce the true
Greek spirit, devoid of which, they, themselves, are.
[38] "The dispute of modern scholars over the racial stock of the Macedonians ha
ve led to many interesting suggestions. This is especially true of the philologi
cal analysis of the remains of the Macedonian language by O. Hoffmann in his Mak
edonen 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- a
s well as Illyrian- in their veins, whether originally or by later admixture, th
is 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 penins
ula so far ahead of them in culture. It is likewise incorrect to assert that thi
s 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 i
nterest lies in discovering what the Greeks themselves felt and thought. And her
e we need not cite Demosthenes' well-known statements; for Isocrates himself, th
e very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates t
he people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil.108. He purposely avo
ids the word barbaroi but this word is one that inevitably finds a place for its
elf in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of e
very 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 n

ew leader; and the orator tries to give ethnological proof of Philip's qualifica
tions 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 bloo
d." [p.249]
[Point of Interest]
(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 cultu
re.
(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 Greec
e. He isolates their king Philip as not of the same race as the people over whic
h he governs.
Note: The speech On the Chersonese was, to be sure, delivered in a specifically
Athenian emergency; but the interest of the Greeks as a whole is never left out
of sight. 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 whol
e of Hellas that is considered, not Athens alone.
Once again, it is not surprising that Jeager places the ancient Macedonians outs
ide the Greek ethnic world. Fact is that when an author follows the writings of
the ancient biographers it is almost impossible for anybody to come to a differe
nt conclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------Macedonians of today are DIRECT descendants of the Ancient Macedonians
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/AncientGenes.html
Ancient Quotes on the Macedonians as Distinct Nation
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AncientEvidence.html
MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/shea2.htm
l
Ancient and Modern Macedonian Language is One Same Timeless Distinct Indo-Europe
an Language, Macedonia and Greece Two Ancient and Separate Nations John Shea 199
7 Pp.23-35
https://www.scribd.com/doc/177604103/Ancient-and-Modern-Macedonian-Language-is-O
ne-Same-Timeless-Distinct-Indo-European-Language-Macedonia-and-Greece-Two-Ancien
t-and-Separate-Nations-Joh
BORDERS OF FREE UNITED INDEPENDENT MACEDONIA ONLY FOR THE MACEDONIANS, FROM ALWA
YS FOREVER, BORDERS DURING THE TIME OF FILIP SECOND OF MACEDON
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/PhilipofMacedon.html
MACEDONIA http://www.makedonijaese.com/storia_EN.htm