Objective: The following pages aim at critically disproving the official modern Greek claim that the ancient Macedonians were ancient Greeks, as presented at http://truth.macedonia.gr/ (part of http://www.real.macedonia.gr) as of April 15, 2000. In adition to that, other sources that follow a similar line of thought will be critically evaluated for their scholarly value.

The argument follows the following structure:

Introduction

Answers to Greek propaganda stating that:

1. "The Macedonian sun symbol is Greek"
2. "Macedonians spoke a dialect of the Greek language"
3. "Macedonians had Greek names"
4. "The regions of ancient Macedonia had Greek names"
5. "Macedonians fought together with the rest of the Greeks"
6. "Macedonians took part in the Olympic games"
7. "Macedonians celebrated the same festivals as the rest of the Greeks."
8. "Macedonians worshiped the same Gods as the rest of the Greeks"
9. "Macedonian architecture was similar to the Greek architecture"
10. "The famous ancient Greek play writer Euripidis wrote and originally presented most of his plays in Pella, the capital of Macedonia. How was that possible if the audience spoke a different language?"
11. "Macedonia was a member of the Delphic Amfictiony, an institution which was open only to Greeks."
12. "When Alexander arrived in Asia he visited the ancient Greek town of Troy (Troia), where he sacrificed to the Greek Gods to help him in his quest."
13. "A part from the "Treaty of Alliance" between king Philip V of Macedonia and Hannibal."
14. "Alexander's speech to his solders one year before his death"
15. "The speech of Alexander I when he was admitted to the Olympic games"
16. "What was the origin of ancient Macedonians?"

MODERN SOURCES	ANCIENT SOURCES
1. John Pentland Mahaffy	1. Polybios	5. Plutarchos
2. Peter Green	2. Herodotus	6. Isokratis
3. Malcom Errington	3. Thoukididis	7. Pausanias
4. Mortimer Chambers	4. Arrian

Conclusion

Introduction

GREEK CLAIM:

"The propaganda against Greece is often based on quotes from ancient historians (mainly Greek) who seem to consider Macedonia as a different nation. These quotes usually consist of one or two isolated lines which is misleading. If the reader reads the whole document the meaning is completely different. Furthermore there are cases where the translation is not accurate or even cases where some words have been carefully altered to change the meaning."

REPLY:

Here, we see an obvious attack on the Macedonian pages, attack which we will examine now in greater detail, and prove logically that it can not be taken seriously. Notice that the Greek page http://truth.macedonia.gr/ nowhere shows where the Macedonian pages had presented "misleading"," translation is not accurate", or "cases where some words have been carefully altered to change the meaning."

The obvious question therefore appears: If in fact some Macedonian internet pages show "misleading" quotes, where "the translation is not accurate", or most importantly where"some words have been carefully altered to change the meaning" (as the Greek here states), then why is he not showing these specific examples for the world to see? Sure that would be of his great advantage to prove in details and examples how the Macedonian pages are "carefully altering" the words of the ancient Greek and Roman historians, but he is silent!?! Instead, he gives only 2 indeed questionable pages of quotes (which is really the maximum of the questionable quotes they can ever "squeeze" from the ancient authors), and avoids purposely to quote the overwhelming 100 pages of ancient and modern authentic quotes, (taken simply from the original books), that clearly show that the Macedonians were not Greeks! The answer is simple – the Greek propaganda is poor, resting on outdated, purposely twisted, and misleading evidence of ancient authors (Arrian, Herodotus, Thucydides just to name a few example where they have done that below), and they can not counter the overwhelming evidence and facts that shows that the Macedonians were not Greek. There is simply no Macedonian page that have presented, as they claim, any "misleading", "translation inaccurate" or " cases where some words have been carefully altered to change the meaning." That is precisely the reason why they do not show where these alleged Macedonian pages have "twisted" the alleged ancient sources.

We will however, expose how the Greeks are twisting the ancient quotes in details below, and we will use both ancient (including Greek), as well as modern scholastic evidence for that purpose. GREEK CLAIM:

"History is harsh to those who try to manipulate it. Here is a small collection of quotes that proves what was the ancient Greek's opinion about the Macedonians."

REPLY:

Lets just see now who is in fact manipulating history, and what in fact the ancient and modern quotes indeed prove.

ANSWERS TO THE GREEK PROPAGANDA

1) GREEK CLAIM: "There is no doupt that ancient Macedonians were Greek. It is thoroughly proved by historic documents and archaeological discoveries which can be found in history books and museums in Greece and around the world. The most important archeological discovery in Macedonia is the tomb of King Philippos II. It was excavated in Vergina, Greece in 1978 and it proves beyond any doubt the Greekness of ancient Macedonia. All the findings are characteristic of the Greek culture and all the inscriptions are written using the Greek language. Among the discoveries of this tomb is the "Vergina sun" the symbol that FYROM attempted to use on its flag initially".

REPLY:

The Macedonians were not Greek, but simply Macedonians , and Macedonia was never a Greek land. Actually, the very first time that the modern Greeks have seen the Macedonian sun symbol (Vergina sun) was only in 1978. However, the modern Macedonians had known about this symbol ever since Alexander the Great and his father Philip II had used it. The Macedonian sun can be found engraved on the centuries-old Macedonian churches and monasteries, and it is also common in the hand made centuries-old folklore designs. Therefore, if anybody is steeling this Macedonian symbol today, that is the modern Greeks, since they knew nothing about it until 1978, while the Macedonians had cherished it ever since its existence. We should point out that the original name of Vergina where the discovery was made in 1978, was Kutlesh. This original Macedonian name was replaced by the Greek name Vergina, after Greece swallowed 51% of the territory of Macedonia, including Kutlesh, with the partition of 1913.

2) GREEK CLAIM: "Macedonians spoke a dialect of the Greek language All the monuments and inscriptions found in the Macedonia region are written in the Greek language. It is also crearly stated by the Latin historian Titus Livius:
"Aetolians, Acarnanians, Macedonians, men of the same language..." (T. Livius XXXI,29, 15) and the Greek historian Herodotos :
"Since they speak the same language, they should end their disputes by means of heralds or messengers..." (Herodotos, The histories 7.9.2)"

REPLY:

The Macedonians did not speak a "dialect of Greek" but they had their own language. The above quote by Herodotus is misleading since Herodotus himself did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek.

"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 Greeks. Herodotus said this clearly in four words, introducing Amyntas, who was king c.500, as 'a Greek ruling over Macedonians' (5.20. 4)…" N.G.L. Hammond The Macedonian State p.141. Herodotus (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 own words, he clearly excludes the Macedonians from the Greeks. "Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a distinct people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states" – Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p. 96 For more on Herodotus please click here.

Titus Livius (Livy) also didn’t consider the Macedonians to be Greek and the quote above is again misleading. Livy even wrote in details on the hatred that the Greeks had for the Macedonians, their name and race:

"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 Scyllaeum, 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 assistance ready at hand, they gave free rein to their anger. There is never any lack at 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 communities; but this is especially true of Athens, where eloquence has the greatest influence. The popular assembly immediately carried a proposal that all statues of Philip and all portraits of him, with their inscriptions, and also those of his 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 be 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 lawfully be set up or dedicated on an undefiled site; that whenever the priests of the people offered prayer on behalf of the Athenian people and their allies, their armies and navies, they should on every occasion 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 MACEDONIANS. There was appended to this decree a provision that if anyone afterwards should bring forward a proposal tending to bring on Philip disgrace or dishonour then the Athenian people would pass it in its entirety; whereas if anyone should by word 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 decrees 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 spoken, for that is where their only strength lies." [Livy's book XXXI.44]

Now that we established that neither Herodotus nor Livy considered the Macedonians to be Greeks, we can reveal the facts that the Macedonians did not speak a "dialect of Greek", but they had their own distinctive language:

Alexander the Great speaks in front of the Macedones of his army: "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 [Greeks and Persians] who, I think, will find what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the [Greek] language you yourself 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 language? 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". Quintus Curtius Rufus "The History of Alexander" [p.138]

This is Alexander himself talking about "our way of life" and "our language" "Macedonians are going to judge your case", not about some "dialect of Greek". There is no need for any explanation, but if you wish please click here to see more proofs of the distinctiveness of the ancient Macedonian language from ancient Greek.

3) GREEK CLAIM: "Macedonians had Greek names All the ancient Macedonian names mentioned in history or found on tombs are Greek. All the kings of Ancient Macedonia had Greek names. Alexander's name is Greek. Philip's name is also Greek". REPLY:

The Macedonians did not have Greek names. It is acutely judging by the distinctiveness of the surviving Macedonian names and glosses, that many scholars proved that the Macedonians were not Greek. Today, people of different ethnic backgrounds carry same names like Peter, David, Daniel, etc. These names are universal just like the names of Alexander and Philip were, and therefore, these names are not a proof that the Macedonians were Greek, since these names are found in other non-Greek nations.

GREEK CLAIM: "Some more ancient Macedonian names can be found Aristotelis - Famous phiosopher, born in Stageira, Hermias - Philosopher, Anaksarxos - Philosopher, Marsias - Writer, Zoilos - Writer, Leocharis - Sculptor, Lysippos - Sculptor, Deinokratis - He helped Alexander to create Alexandria in Egypt, Calisthenis - Historian, Aristoboulos - Historian, Aristokritos - Actor, Thessalos - Actor, friend of Alexander's, Nearchos - Navy commander, Callisthenis, Eumenis, Leonatos, Memmon"

REPLY:

Here we find a clear distortion of history by the modern Greek propaganda. All these names that the Greek propaganda here would like to portray as "Macedonian names" are in fact names of the ethnic Greeks (not of Macedonians), which served in the train of Alexander the Great. Memnon was a Greek who even fought against Alexander, yet the Greek propaganda calls his name Macedonian? This is indeed absurd. Interesting (inadvertent) reversals in Hammond narrative:

"Aristotle, born at Stageira on the Macedonian 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 shortly. 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. They were proud to be so." "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 served in the King's Army, were given Macedonian citizenship, which apparently was in the gift of the king." Hammond The Macedonian State p.141

Even Hammond states that the above names (that the Greek propaganda is presenting) were names of Greeks, who were foreigners in the Macedonian train. Therefore, the above statement coming from the Greek propaganda can not serve as a "proof" that the "Macedonians were Greek", since the above names were not Macedonian, but Greek.

Eugene Borza"Makedonika" on the number of Greeks serving the Macedonian king 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 half-- are court figures not associated with administration. They include sophists, physicians, actors, athletes, musicians, jugglers, and other entertainers, and a variety of hangers-on. 89 names remain. Of these three are of uncertain ethnic 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 from 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 have duties that did not take them beyond Egypt. In summary, of the 149 known Greeks with official connections to the king, only 35 to 40 held positions of rank- some as officers, some as administrators, but only a handful in top positions.""Thus we look in vain for the evidence that Alexander was heavily dependent upon Greeks either in quantity or quality."

4) GREEK CLAIM: "The regions of ancient Macedonia had Greek names

REPLY:

Again not correct. This is explained with the explanation of the above point, regarding the Macedonian names.

5) GREEK CLAIM: "Macedonians fought together with the rest of the Greeks. Macedonians always fought along with the other Greek city-states against enemies from Asia".

REPLY:

This is an extremely week try to portray the Macedonians as Greeks. Actually it would be correct to call Darius' army - Greek army, since 50,000 Greeks were fighting on Darius' side against Alexander and his Macedonians, while only 7,000 Greeks served as ‘hostages’ the ambitions of the Macedonian king From 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 were all with you in your more fortunate days, and in your present situation we remain 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 rest entirely in you - I wish that were true of the others also! Further talk serves no purpose. As a foreigner born of another race I should not be asking for the 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 against Alexander's Macedonians. A legitimate and a very obvious question: If Alexander’s army was in fact a ‘Greek 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 7,000 Greeks next to his Macedonians which served him 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 (Green, 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 Peter Green puts it: "if this was a Greek conquest where were the Greek troops?" Alexander’s conquest can not therefore be at all a Greek conquest, but simply a Macedonian conquest. Please click here to see the overwhelming proofs that the Alexander’s army was not a Greek army, and that Alexander did not care about the Greeks, but his Macedonians.

6) GREEK CLAIM: "Macedonians took part in the Olympic games It is well known then ONLY Greeks were allowed to take part in the ancient Olympic games. The first Macedonian who took part in the Olympic games was Alexander I, King of Macedonia between 498-454 bc".

REPLY:

Alexander I was neither Greek, nor he took part in the Greek Olympic Games. Let’s examine the source, which claims that he did:

"I happen to know, and I will demonstrate in a subsequent chapter of this history, that these descendants of Perdiccas are, as they themselves claim, of Greek nationality. This was, moreover, recognized by the managers of the Olympic games, on the occasion when Alexander wished to compete and his Greek competitors tried to exclude him on the ground that foreigners were not allowed to take part. Alexander, however, proved his Argive descent, and so was accepted as a Greek and allowed to enter for the foot-race. He came in equal first." Herodotus book 5. 22.

Lets us now examine this claim regarding Alexander I alleged participation in the Greek games. We start with the fact that the preserved list of the victors of the race in which Alexander supposedly took part, does not include his name. This by itself creates suspicion if he indeed took part in that race. 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 does not appear in the victor lists; or (2) he won the run-off, although Herodotus does not tell us this; or (3) it remained a dead heat, which is impossible in light Olympic practice; or (4) it was a special race, in which case it is unlikely that his fellow competitors would have protested Alexander's presence; or (5) Alexander never competed at Olympia. It is best to abandon this story, which belongs in the category of the tale of Alexander at Plataea. In their commentaries on these passages Macan and How and Wells long ago recognized that the Olympic Games story was based on family legend (Hdt. 5.22: "as the descendants of Perdiccas themselves say [autoi legousi]"), weak proofs of their Hellenic descent. Moreover, the Olympic Games tale is twice removed: Herodotus heard from the Argeadea (perhaps from Alexander himself) that the king had told something to the judges, but we do not know what those proofs were."

"The theme of the Olympic and Plataea incidents are the same: "I am Alexander, a Greek" which seems to be the main point. The more credible accounts of Alexander at Tempe and at Athens do not pursue this theme; they state Alexander's activities without embellishment or appeal to prohellenism. Moreover, the insistence that Alexander is a Greek, and descendant from Greeks, rubs against the spirit of Herodotus 7.130, who speaks of the Thessalians as the first Greeks to come under Persian submission--a perfect opportunity for Herodotus to point out that the Macedonians were a non Greek race ruled over by Greek kings, something he nowhere mentions."

"In sum, it would appear that Olympia and Plataea incidents---when taken together with the tale of the ill--fated Persian embassy to Amyntas' court in which Alexander proclaims the Greek descent of the royal house--are part of Alexander's own attempts to integrate himself into the Greek community during the postwar period. They should be discarded both because they are propaganda and because they invite suspicion on the general grounds outlined above."

Borza concludes: "It is prudent to reject the stories of the ill--fated Persian embassy to Amyntas's court, Alexander's midnight ride at Plataea, and his participation in the Olympic Games as tales derived from Alexander himself (or from some official court version of things)."

The Macedonians as foreigners did not participate at the Greek Olympic games, until they "earned" their part with force, after conquering Greece. Nobody could then forbid Philip II his choices. Furthermore, the Macedonian king Archelaus founded the Macedonian Olympic Games in the Macedonian city Dion, some 70 years earlier, which Badian calls it "counter Olympics". Archelaus did that, since he was not allowed to participate at the Greek Olympics, on the bases of being a foreigner. Please see Thracymachus on this matter. "No one had forgotten that Alexander I, known ironically as ‘the philhellene’, had been debarred from the Olympic Games until he manufactured a pedigree connecting the Argeads with the ancient Argive kings". [p.7] On p.9 Green refers to this Argive link as ‘fictitious’, which proves that Alexander was not a Greek. To find more on the Macedonian ethnicity of Alexander I please visit Herodotus.

7) GREEK CLAIM: "Macedonians celebrated the same festivals as the rest of the Greeks. Examples of festivals which were celebrated in Macedonia as well as in other Greek states are the "Hetaireidia", the "Apellaia" and many more."

REPLY:

This is not a proof that the Macedonians were Greek. How many festivals (Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, etc) are today being shared by many ethnically different nations? Are we supposed to say that since the Portuguese and the French Catholics observe same traditions and religious festivals, they are of a single Portuguese or French or whatever ethnic origin? Of course not, the modern Greek argument is fruitless. This is a proof that even if the Macedonians and Greek have shared certain customs (like many other nations can do today as in the past, especially bordering nations), that in itself is not a proof that those Macedonians were Greek, just like the Portuguese are not French, and vise versa.

8) GREEK CLAIM: "Macedonians worshiped the same Gods as the rest of the Greeks Several temples dedicated to the Greek Gods have beem discovered in Macedonia and especially in Dion the religious center of ancient Macedonians. It is obvious that the Macedonians worshiped the 12 Olympian Gods as the rest of the Greeks The Gods were "living" on Mount Olympos which happens to be located in Macedonia. Would that be possible if there was hostility between Macedonians and Greeks? This is another proof that Macedonia was considered a part of Greece".

REPLY:

This statement is a complete lie. Not only that the Macedonians did not worshiped the Greek gods, but also there is not a single temple discovered on the territory of Macedonia which resembles the temples in Greece. Alexander sacrificed to "Macedonian gods according to ancestral rituals, and ordered a torch-race and gymnastic contest to follow." Urlich Wilken’s Alexander the Great: p. 187, line 15, we read the following passage referring to his advances 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 Macedonia to whom these altars were raised."

Key words are: Twelve Macedonian gods, not Greek. The fact that the Macedonians had their own gods, does prove that they had different religion from the Greeks who worshiped different gods. To this we can add the writings of the ancient author Plutarch:

'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 should be maintained in the prytaneum at the public expense. On the base of his statue was carved his famous inscription: 'If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares' [p.216]

Macedonians had their own Gods and religion, separate from the Greeks. Macedonian Ares is a Macedonian god, which the ancient Greeks here compare to their own Ares. The fact that they call it "Macedonian Ares" clearly states that it is not the Greek God Ares, but a Macedonian god equivalent to the Greek Ares, whose name they had substituted with Ares. This phenomena when the ancient Greeks substitute the names of the foreign gods with names of their own gods, is called interpretatio graeca. In the ancient Greek texts we also find the Greeks referring to one Egyptian God as Egyptian Athena. Of course, the real name of this Egyptian god can not be Athena (just like the name of the Macedonian god above was not Ares), since the Egyptians didn't worship Greek gods The ancient Greek writers here use interpretatio graeca in order to better relate to their audience the magnitude of the Macedonian and Egyptian gods, both foreign to them. The above quote, furthermore, clearly shows that not only Macedonians had their own gods and religion distinct from the Greeks, but they also subdued Greece.

9) GREEK CLAIM: "Macedonian architecture was similar to the Greek architecture All the buildings found in the Macedonia region have many common characteristics with the ones found in the rest of Greece. Palaces, temples, theaters markets are characteristic samples of ancient Greek architecture".

REPLY:

Notice how the Greek propaganda uses the word "similar", not the same. In fact, the Macedonians can easily be distinguished from the Greeks with the striking differences in the architecture. First, there is not one religious temple discovered at the territory of Macedonia that resembles the religious temples in Greece, a proof by itself that the Macedonians had a different religion from the Greeks. Second, the Macedonians had a distinct burial customs than the Greeks. The architecture of the so-called "Macedonian Tomb" which is found throughout Macedonia, was uncommon in Greece, until Greece was subdued by the Macedonians. This shows that the Macedonians had imported their distinctive burial architecture in Greece. Third, the Greek artifacts of Mycenean Greece, are found on the whole territory of Greece up to the border that separates northern Greece (Thessaly) from Macedonia. This again shows that the Macedonians were different from the Greeks and did not share Greek material culture, just like the Greeks did not share the "Macedonian tombs" until the Macedonians occupied Greece. Professor Eugene Borza had done a detailed research on the difference between the Greek and Macedonian material culture and dedicated few chapters on the matter in his In the Shadow of Olympus.

10) GREEK CLAIM: "The famous ancient Greek play writer Euripidis wrote and originally presented most of his plays in Pella, the capital of Macedonia. How was that possible if the audience spoke a different language?"

REPLY:

There is nothing strange that the Macedonian kings and the Macedonian nobility in Pella attended Euripides’s Greek play. After all, they admired the Greek culture, spoke the Greek language (next to Macedonian), and commissioned Euripides to write the play. From Curtius Rufus and the trial of Philotas, we know that next to Macedonian, the Greek language was also spoken as a second language at the Macedonian court, and used in diplomacy. Nothing strange in that, since Greek was an international language in antiquity, just like English is today. There are other such examples in the world. The Russian czars and the Russian nobility admired the French plays and spoke French at their court, and today many plays in English are performed in many non-English speaking countries, since the audience would understand it. Some operas are in Italian, and yet are performed everyday in many different countries and in front of audiences that do not speak Italian at all. In the heart of the German-speaking world, in Vienna, the Italian Sallieri wrote his plays in Italian. Therefore, the above Greek claim does not prove that the Macedonians were Greek, just like the Russian czars were not French, and the Austrians were not Italian. We should also add that the Macedonian king Archelaus, which commissioned Euripides to write the play for him, was not considered to be Greek. The Greeks called him a barbarian, a label that they reserved to all non-Greeks. Please see Thrasymachus on that matter.

11) GREEK CLAIM: "Macedonia was a member of the Delphic Amfictiony, an institution which was open only to Greeks."

REPLY:

Macedonia was not a member of the Delphic Amfictiony. The Macedonian king Phillip did not represent Macedonia as a nation in the Delphic Amphictyony. Phillip's membership of the Delphic Amphictyony was a personal gift to him, and not to the nation of Macedonia. It’s true that the Amphictyonyc League was only open to Greeks, but the membership to this league was also open to other foreigners as well (next to the Macedonian kings) - Persian envoys and /or commanders! Therefore, the fact that some Macedonians participated in the Greek Amphictyonic League, does not prove that they were Greeks, since foreigners like certain Persians could participate as well, next to the Greeks. When we add to that the fact that Macedonia did not belong to the Greek Hellenic League as well (in which every Greek city-state participated), the conclusion is complete – Macedonia was not part of the ancient Greece, but it’s northern neighbor.

"The Greek states were to make a common peace and alliance with one another, and constitute themselves into a federal Hellenic League. Simultaneously, the league was to form a separate alliance with Macedonia, though Macedonia itself would not be a league member." Peter Green – Alexander of Macedon [p.86]

12) GREEK CLAIM: "When Alexander arrived in Asia he visited the ancient Greek town of Troy (Troia), where he sacrificed to the Greek Gods to help him in his quest". REPLY:

This quote does not prove at all that Alexander or the Macedonians were Greek. We also know for a fact that Alexander also sacrificed to Persian, Egyptian, and Indian gods, next to the Greek gods. Does that fact also make him Persian, or Egyptian? Of course not, what was most important to him was his Macedonian nationality and the Macedonian gods. The quote below is taken from Urlich Wilken’s Alexander the Great: Alexander sacrificed to "Macedonian gods according 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 advances 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 Macedonia to whom these altars were raised."

Key words are: Twelve Macedonian gods, not Greek. Based on the religion, we can not conclude that the Macedonians were Greek, since they had their own Macedonian gods. The fact that the Macedonians had their own gods, does prove that they had different religion from the Greeks who worshiped different gods. To this we can add the writings of the ancient author Plutarch:

'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 should be maintained in the prytaneum at the public expense. On the base of his statue was carved his famous inscription: 'If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares' [p.216]

Macedonians had their own Gods and religion, separate from the Greeks. Macedonian Ares is a Macedonian god, which the ancient Greeks here compare to their own Ares. The fact that they call it "Macedonian Ares" clearly states that it is not the Greek God Ares, but a Macedonian god equivalent to the Greek Ares, whose name they had substituted with Ares. This phenomena when the ancient Greeks substitute the names of the foreign gods with names of their own gods, is called interpretatio graeca. In the ancient Greek texts we also find the Greeks referring to one Egyptian God as Egyptian Athena. Of course, the real name of this Egyptian god can not be Athena (just like the name of the Macedonian god above was not Ares), since the Egyptians didn't worship Greek gods The ancient Greek writers here use interpretatio graeca in order to better relate to their audience the magnitude of the Macedonian and Egyptian gods, both foreign to them. The above statement furthermore, clearly shows us that Greece was subdued by the Macedonians.

13) GREEK CLAIM: A part from the "Treaty of Alliance" between king Philip V of Macedonia and Hannibal. "This is a sworn treaty made between us, Hannibal the general, Mago, Myrkan, Barmokar and all other Carthaginian senators present with him, and all Carthaginians serving under him, on the one side, and Xenophanes the Athenian, son of Kleomachos, the envoy whom King Philip, son of Demetrios, sent to us on behalf of himself, and the Macedonians and allies, on the other side. `In the presence of Zeus, Hera and Apollon; in the presence of the Genius of Carthage;...and in the presence of all the gods who possess Carthage; and in the presence of all the Gods who possess Macedonia and the rest of Hellas; and in the presence of all the gods of the army who preside over this oath. Thus said Hannibal the general and all the Carthaginian senators along with him and the Carthaginian soldiers:...That King Philip and the Macedonians and the rest of the Hellenes... (Polybios 7.9.1-7)

REPLY:

It is a fact that Polybius being a Greek, did not regard the Macedonians as Greek. It’s enough to bring few passages of his books. Polibius reports on the speech made by Agelaus of Naupactus at the first conference in the presence of the King and the allies. He spoke as follows:

"I therefore beg you all to be on your guard against this danger, and I appeal especially to King Philip. [Macedonian king Philip V] For you the safest policy, instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them an easy prey for the invader, is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions. If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in case of attack, and foreigners will be the less inclined to plot against your throne, because they will be discouraged by the loyalty of the Greeks towards you." [p.300] book 5.104

A clear distinction between Greece (to protect every province of Greece) and Macedonia (as you would if it were a part of your own dominions). Furthermore, the Macedonians were still wearing down the Greeks even into the times of Philip V.

In Book XVIII, 1, Philip V from Macedon invites Flamininus (Roman commander) to explain what he, Philip, should do to have peace:

"The Roman general replied that his duty dictated an answer which was both simple and clear. He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece, restore to each of the states the prisoners and deserters he was holding, hand over to the Romans the region of Illyria which he had seized after the treaty that had been made in Epirus, and so on...."

"Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece," Flamininus, the Roman general, clearly separates Macedonia from Greece, and demands from the Macedonian king to withdraw from Greece into his own Macedonia, a fact we again find in Polybius. Such evidence does not allow us to consider Macedonia as part of Greece. For more of Polybius click here.

14) GREEK CLAIM: Alexander's speech to his solders one year before his death I wish all of you, now that the wars are coming to an end, to live happily in peace. All mortals from now on shall live like one people, united, and peacefully working towards a common prosperity. You should regard the whole world as your country, a country where the best govern, with common laws, and no racial distinctions. I do not separate people, as many narrow-minded others do, into Hellenes and barbarians. I am not interested in the origin or race of citizens, I only distinguish them on the basis of their virtue. For me, each foreigner is a Hellene, and each bad Hellene is a barbarian. If ever there appear differences among you, you must not resolve them by taking to arms; you should resolve them in peace. If need be, I shall act as your negotiator.

REPLY:

The words of Alexander do not show anywhere that he and the Macedonians were Greek. Notice that Alexander himself states that for him the Greeks (Hellenes) are foreigners. He degrades even further the "bad Hellenes" into barbarians! In other words, Alexander clearly distinguishes between his Macedonians and the Greeks (whom he calls foreigners and barbarians). This quote is not a ‘proof’ that the Macedonians were Greek, when in fact it proves just the opposite.

15) GREEK CLAIM: The speech of Alexander I when he was admitted to the Olympic games"Men of Athens... Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Hellas I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself Hellene by descent, and I would not willingly see Hellas exchange freedom for slavery.... If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Hellenic cause, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am Alexander of Macedon." (Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45)

REPLY:

Let us present the circumstances under which this apparent quote was made, and then, we will sift through the argument about the alleged "Greekness" of this Macedonian king. We will prove with facts below, that Alexander I was not a Greek, and as a foreigner was not allowed to participated in the Olympic Games, which were reserved for the Greeks alone.

1. The year is obviously 480-479 B.C., when the Persian armies were poised to attack Greece. 2. The Greek armies had taken defensive positions at Tempe Pass. 3. The Kingdom of Macedon with Amyntas I, had established a very convenient relationship with Darius I, the King of Persia. Amyntas I, had long before this recognized the suzerainty of Darius I. His daughter Gygea, the sister of Alexander I, had married an Iranian nobleman, and his son Alexander I loyally served his suzerain, continuing to profit by Persian favours and protection. 4. The Kingdom of Macedon enjoyed prosperity and enlarged its own territory. 5. Being a shrewd politician, Alexander plays both cards in this conflict; took care to build bridges towards the Greeks - giving them good advice that would not harm his overlords. And when it became clear that Greek victory could no longer be delayed, he came out in full support of the victors, rendering them services for which he receives the "honor" of "Philhellen" (This appellation appears to swing the pendulum against the Greeks for its apparent and obvious contradiction). 6. With the Persian overlord gone for good, cooperation with his southern neighbors became an essential aim of policy. 7. He, Alexander I, invents this mythical descent from Argos in order to be accepted at the Olympic Games in Athens. 8. Let it be known that there is no evidence whatsoever of any Macedonian claim to a Greek connection before the Persian war.

Now, let's examine the gravity of the statement, and see if it can withstand the scrutiny of a historical analysis. Let us go point by point, and weigh each statement separately against the political thinking of that time, and place its contents in a comparatively measurable scale.

a) If Alexander I was Greek, why wasn't he defending the Greek homeland with the rest of the Greeks who at this time were greatly outnumbered? b) What business does he have to serve as Darius' suzerain when the land of the Greeks was under such a treat? And if one finds solace in the fact that many Greek cities in Asia were under such an arrangement with Darius, I must caution you that we are talking about mainland Greece. Here, the Asian barbarian was seldom invited or welcomed, for obvious reasons, of course. c) If Alexander I of Macedon was in fact Greek, we ought to ask ourselves the following question: Would it be prudent, militarily sound and calculated, for the Persian commander Mardonius to chose him, Alexander I, a "Greek" to negotiate for him with the Greeks? One must also bear in mind that Mardonius was not a man of deliberate miscalculations. He was in a position to know who was and who was not Macedonian. Does it make any sense to entrust your negotiations into the hands of a Greek when negotiating with Greeks? I surely do not think so, and most likely, neither did Mardonius. d) If Alexander of Macedon was indeed "Greek", why was he dubbed "proxenos", a public friend of the Greeks? Isn't it kind of odd to call a "Greek" a friend of Greeks? This appellation speaks much louder than what the Greeks like to reveal. e) If he was Greek, why does he feel compelled to prove his Greekness? Why is this compulsion reserved for the Macedonians only? When was the last time that any of the Athenian commanders have proclaimed their Greekness? When did Memnon, Harpalus, Charidemes, Agis, or anyone else for that matter, asserted their Greekness? It is evident that this apparent statement of Alexander I, given to a biographer (Herodotus) carried different ticket, the door to the Olympic games where he was promptly rejected and turned away exactly for that reason and that reason alone: He was not a Greek, and those games were reserved for Greeks (Hellene) only. f) Herodotus speaks of the Thessallians as being the first Greeks to fall under Persian rule in 480 B.C.. Evidence shows that the Persian armies entered Macedonian soil in 492 B.C.. This puts the Persian armies in Macedonia for 12 long years before they entered Greece. Therefore, shall we assume then, that the Greeks did not regard Macedonia as their own land? Should we, further, suppose that the Persian armies flew over Macedonia to reach Thessaly? Or, should we conclude that Herodotus was wrong in his calculations? Neither of the above choices is plausible; Greeks knew quite well where Greece's boundaries were, and where the land of the Kingdom of Macedon begins. There is nothing ambiguous about their stand. Olympus was the dividing line, and there was nothing to suggest the opposite. One is hard pressed to arrive at any other conclusion when one bears in mind that Herodotus would not make such a glaring omission. The truth is that Herodotus knew where Greece's line end, and where Macedonian land began. Here is what the "Macedonian Specialist" - Professor Borza, had written regarding this matter:

"It is clear that the analysis of our earliest-and sole-source cannot produce a consistent and satisfactory sequence of events. My own view is that there is some underlying veracity to the Mt. Vermion reference (as evidenced by the Phrygian connections), that among the Makedones a family of Vermion background emerged as pre-eminent, but that the Argive context is mythic, perhaps a bit of fifth-century B.C. propaganda (as I argue in the next chapter). To deny such fables and attribute them to contemporary Macedonian propaganda may appear minimalistic. But given the historical milieu in which such stories were spawned and then adorned, the denial of myth seems prudent."

"The Temenidae [the Greek origin] in Macedon are an invention of the Macedonians themselves, intended in part to give credence to Alexander I's claims of Hellenic ancestry, attached to and modifying some half-buried progenitor stories that had for a long time existed among the Macedonians concerning their own origins. The revised version was transmitted without criticism or comment by Herodotus. Thucydides (2-99.3; 5.80.2) acquired the Argive lineage tale from Herodotus, or from Macedonian-influenced sources, and transmitted it. His is not an independent version. [There is no hard evidence (pace Hammond, HM i: 4) that Thucydides ever visited Macedonia, but it makes no difference; Thucydides is reflecting the official version of things.] What emerged in the fifth century is a Macedonian-inspired tale of Argive origins for the Argead house, an account that can probably be traced to its source, Alexander I (for which see Chapter 5 below). The Temenidae must disappear from history, making superfluous all discussion of them as historical figures." (Borza - In the Shadow of Olympus)

"Why is it that no Spartan or Athenian or Argive felt constrained to prove to the others that he and his family were Helenes? But Macedonian kings seem hard put to argue in behalf of their Hellenic ancestry in the fifth century B.C., and that circumstance is telling. Even if one were to accept that all the Herodotian stories about Alexander were true, why did the Greeks, who normally were knowledgeable about matters of ethnic kinship, not already know that the Macedonian monarchy was Greek? But--following Herodotus--the stade- race competitors at Olympia thought the Macedonian was a foreigner (Hdt. 5.22: barbaros) Second, for his effort on behalf of the Greek cause against the Persians Alexander is known as "Philhellene". Now this is kind of odd to call a Greek a"friend of the Greeks". "This title", writes Borza, "is normally reserved for non-Greeks".

Borza concludes: "It is prudent to reject the stories of the ill--fated Persian embassy to Amyntas's court, Alexander's midnight ride at Plataea, and his participation in the Olympic Games as tales derived from Alexander himself (or from some official court version of things)." [This is self-explanatory. Alexander I was a Macedonian, not a Greek]

16) GREEK CLAIM: What was the origin of ancient Macedonians?"The name of the ancient Macedonians is derived from Macedon, who was the grandchild of Deukalion, the father of all Greeks. This we may infer from Hesiod's genealogy. It may be proven that Macedonians spoke Greek since Macedon, the ancestor of Macedonians, was a brother of Magnes, the ancestor of Thessalians, who spoke Greek." (Professor N G L Hammond, University of Cambridge, UK, 1993)

"This was Macedonia in the strict sense, the land where settled immigrands of Greek stock later to be called Macedonians" (Professor W J Woodhouse, University of Sydney, Australia, 1917)

REPLY:

This view of the supposed Greek origin of the Macedonians, which originated in Droysen in the 19^th century and later advertized by others including Hammond and Woodhouse, had been proven incorrect many times in the extensive studies on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians by Professor Eugene Borza and Harvard’s Department of History chair person Ernst Badian, and rejected on such basis. Hammond had been proven to be incorrect not only in the case of the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, but also on other matters regarding the history of Macedonia in Makedonika and In the Shadow of Olympus by Borza. Here is what Borza had written on Hammond’s conclusion:

"Hammond's firm conclusion that the Macedonians spoke a distinctive dialect of Aeolic 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 progenitor Macedon". "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 changed at some point it is unlikely that they would have reverted to their original form". (In the Shadow of Olympus p.92-93)

"As a question of method: why would [Macedonia] 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 language of the Macedonians is Greek, what is its Macedonian dialect?"

The Temenidae [the Greek origin] in Macedon are an invention of the Macedonians themselves, intended in part to give credence to Alexander I's claims of Hellenic ancestry, attached to and modifying some half-buried progenitor stories that had for a long time existed among the Macedonians concerning their own origins. The revised version was transmitted without criticism or comment by Herodotus. Thucydides (2-99.3; 5.80.2) acquired the Argive lineage tale from Herodotus, or from Macedonian-influenced sources, and transmitted it. His is not an independent version. [There is no hard evidence (pace Hammond, HM i: 4) that Thucydides ever visited Macedonia, but it makes no difference; Thucydides is reflecting the official version of things.] What emerged in the fifth century is a Macedonian-inspired tale of Argive origins for the Argead house, an account that can probably be traced to its source, Alexander I (for which see Chapter 5 below). The Temenidae must disappear from history, making superfluous all discussion of them as historical figures. (In the Shadow of Olympus)

MODERN SOURCES

1) Greek Claim: "Alexander's Empire" by John Pentland Mahaffy (University of Dublin) P 8 "... for with Alexander the stage of Greek influence spread across the world. " (John Pentland Mahaffy, Alexander's empire, G Putnam's sons, London, 1881)

REPLY:

This quote does not show anywhere that the Macedonians were Greek. We know that Alexander accepted and spread the standard koine Greek as a spoken language for his multi-ethnic empire, the only international language on which the whole Mediterranean world had already communicated even prior to the conquest of the Macedonians (just like English is international language today). Alexander was smart enough to keep this international Greek language for the Persians, Egyptians, Jews and all the nations of his empire to communicate. Forcing all those people to learn now a new foreign Macedonian language would have only provoked an additional hatred and multi-ethnic resistance for the Macedonian occupation of Asia, Egypt, and Greece, which the Macedonians obviously wanted to avoid. Unlike the Roman Empire, there was no single powerful centralized Macedonian Empire, but three main Macedonian kingdoms (Macedonia, Asia, Egypt) which were fragile and in conflict occasionally among each other, and the Macedonians needed such language standardization to help them maintain their power. That of course, does not mean that although the Macedonians, Persians, Egyptians, Jews, now communicated in Greek, that they all turned into Greeks, just like the African nations did not turn into French and English, just because of their usage of those two languages to communicate among themselves.

What is for certain however, is that Alexander spoke Macedonian with his own Macedonian troops and used Greek in addressing the Asians and Greeks. After all, the Macedonians were his kinsmen (precisely the way he calls them), not the Greeks. The ancient sources specifically refer to Macedonian as a language and not as a dialect of Greek, and Alexander himself specifically calls the Macedonian language - "our native language". During the trial of Philotas, Alexander himself clearly distinguishes his native Macedonian language from the Greek language which was used at the Macedonian court as well as a second language in diplomacy, a fact we find in the Philotas trial (Q. Curtius Rufus).

The conclusion is clear - that the Macedonian kings admired a foreign culture (Greek in this case) does not prove they were Greek. Similarly, the Russian czars admired the French culture and French was even spoken on the Russian court. The African nations also use international English language to communicate among themselves. That of course does not prove that the Russian czars were French, nor that the Africans were English. Therefore, the above quote from the Greek internet page can not be used as a ‘proof’ that the Macedonians were Greek. To see the complete evidence on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians please click here.

2) GREEK CLAIM: PETER GREEN’S "ALEXANDER THE GREAT"

"Macedonia as a whole was tended to remain in isolation from the rest of Greece." P20

"For the first time he (Philip II) started to understand how Macedonia's outdated institutions of feudalism and autocratic monarchy, so despised by the rest of Greece, might prove a source of strength when dealing with such opponents." Page 29

"In less than four years he (Philip II) had transformed Macedonia from a backward and primitive kingdom to one of the most powerful states in Greece." Page 37

REPLY:

Here we find more examples of misleading quotes that the Greeks want to pass as a "proof" that Macedonia was a "Greek land". Peter Green is quoted only on quotes that suit their purpose, and they avoid (again purposely), the overwhelming majority of Green’s quotes, i.e. the ones that clearly separate the Macedonians from the Greeks. In fact, Green does not consider the Macedonians to be Greek at all and we will present that below.

GREEK CLAIM:

"Like most intellectuals with a racialst axe to grind, Aristotle, drew facts from geopolitics or 'natural law' in support of his thesis. In a celebrated frangment he counselled Alexander 'to be a hegemon [leader] to the Greeks and a depot to the barbarians to look after the former as after frinds and relatives and to deal to the latter as with beasts and plants'." (Peter Green, "Alexander the Great", Weidenfield and Nicholson, 1971)

"It was now that the veteran Athenian pamphleteer Isokratis published his Address to Philip calling for a Panhelleinc crusade against Persia under Philip's leadership." Page 40. REPLY:

Here, the Greek propaganda gives us a fragment from page 40, however, it purposely avoids commenting on what else had Peter Green written on page 49, 50, and 157, after Isocrates published his Address to Philip calling for a Panhelleinc crusade. Here is the full picture:

a) Isocrates’ letter to Philip II where he, Isocrates refers to Philip "as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom to consider Hellas your fatherland" Green calls this a "rhetorical hyperbole"."Indeed, taken as a whole the Address to Philip must have caused its recipient considerable sardonic amusement". [p. 49] "Its ethnic conceit was only equaled by its naivety" [p.49]

b) "And though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage (a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda-line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his Macedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress." [p.50]

c)"This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the king’s propaganda section continued - for the time being - to present it. No one, so far as we know, was tactless enough to ask the obvious question: if this was a Panhellenic crusade, where were the Greek troops? [p. 157]

An obvious question, since Alexander relied on his Macedonians, not Greeks to conquer Persia. Let us now see the all of Green’s quotes, the ones that the Greek propaganda did not show, and which showed us that Professor Green does not consider the Macedonians to be Greek:

PETER GREEN Professor of Classics at the University of Texas Alexander of Macedon and Alexander to Actium

[1] "The Colonels, as it happened, promoted Alexander as a great Greek hero, especially to army recruits: the Greeks of the fourth century B.C., to whom Alexander was a half-Macedonian, half-Epirote barbarian conqueror, would have found this metamorphosis as ironic as I did." [The Greek island on which Peter Green stayed while working on his book, happened to be the same island on which the Greek Colonels, after assuming power in Greece, used it as a dumping-ground for royalist officers and "thinkers with mind of their own".]

[2] "Macedonia was the first large territorial state with an effective centralized political, military and administrative structure to come into being on the continent of Europe". [p.1]

[3] "No one had forgotten that Alexander I, known ironically as ‘the philhellene’, had been debarred from the Olympic Games until he manufactured a pedigree connecting the Argeads with the ancient Argive kings". [p.7] [On p.9 Green refers to this Argive link as ‘fictitious’. That means that the Macedonians did not have a Greek origin]

[4] Isocrates’ letter to Philip II where he, Isocrates refers to Philip "as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom to consider Hellas your fatherland" Green calls this a "rhetorical hyperbole"."Indeed, taken as a whole the Address to Philip must have caused its recipient considerable sardonic amusement". [p. 49] "Its ethnic conceit was only equaled by its naivety" [p.49]

[5] "And though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage ( a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda-line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his Macedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress." [p.50]

[6] "The Greeks had done a deal with Artaxerxes, [Persian commander], and if Philip did not move fast it would be they who invaded his territory, not he theirs. In the event, he moved faster than anyone could have predicted." [p.69]

[7] "The Greek states retained no more than a pale shadow of their former freedom". [p.80] [This is how Philip "united" the Greek states.]

[8] "The dedication of the Philipeum was a salutary reminder that from now on, whatever democratic forms might be employed as a salve to the Greeks’ self-respect, it was Philip who led and they who followed." [p.86]

[9] "The Greek states were to make a common peace and alliance with one another, and constitute themselves into a federal Hellenic League. Simultaneously, the league was to form a separate alliance with Macedonia, though Macedonia itself would not be a league member." [p.86]

[10] "Philip’s Panhellenism was no more than a convenient placebo to keep his allies quiet, a cloak for further Macedonian aggrandizement." [p.87]

[11] "Most Greek statesmen recognized this only too well. To them, their self-styled hegemon was still a semi-barbarian autocrat, whose wishes had been imposed on them by right of conquest; and when Alexander succeeded Philip, he inherited the same bitter legacy of hatred and resentment - which his own policies did little to dispel." [p.87]

[12] "The military contingent they supplied were, in reality, so many hostages for their good behavior. As we shall see, whenever they saw the slightest chance of throwing off the Macedonian yoke, they took it." [p. 87]

[13] "Some 15,000 Greek mercenaries, not to mention numerous doctors, technicians and professional diplomats, were already on the Persian pay-roll; twice as many men, in fact, as the league ultimately contributed for the supposedly Panhellenic crusade against Darius." [p.95]

[14] "In the early spring of 336, an advance force of 10,000 men, including a thousand cavalry, crossed over to Asia Minor. Its task was to secure the Hellespont, to stockpile supplies, and in Philip’s pleasantly cynical phrase, to ‘liberate the Greek cities’." [p.98] [The operative word is "cynical phrase" to ‘liberate the Greek cities’.]

[15] "Only the Spartans held aloof. The traditions of their country, they informed the king, did not allow them to serve under a foreign leader. (So much for Macedonia’s pretensions to Hellenism.) Alexander did not press the point....." [p.121] [The operative word is "a foreign leader" referring to Alexander.]

[16] [Regarding the news of Alexander’s death.] "If anyone had doubts about the report, he quickly suppressed them: this, after all, was just what every patriotic Greek had hoped and prayed might happen." [p.136]

[17] "Darius reversed his earlier policy of non-intervention, and began to channel gold into Greece wherever he thought it would do most good. He did not, as yet, commit himself to anything more definite: clearly he hoped that the Greek revolt would solve his problem for him. But the mere thought of a Greek-Persian coalition must have turned Alexander’s blood cold." [p.138]

[18] "This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the king’s propaganda section continued - for the time being - to present it. No one, so far as we know, was tactless enough to ask the obvious question: if this was a Panhellenic crusade, where were the Greek troops? [p. 157]

[19] "Indeed, despite the league’s official veto, far more Greeks fought for the Great King - and remained loyal to the bitter end - than were ever conscripted by Alexander." [p.157]

[20] "What is more, the league’s troops were never used in crucial battles (another significant pointer) but kept on garrison and line-of-communication duties. The sole reason for their presence, apart from propaganda purposes, was to serve as hostages for the good behavior of their friends and relatives in Greece. Alexander found them more of an embarrassment than an asset, and the moment he was in a position to do so, he got rid of them." [p.158]

[21] "Alexander lost no time in getting rid of the league’s forces which accompanied him - another ironic gloss on his role as a leader of a Panhellenic crusade." [p.183]

[22] On the subject of "liberating the Greek cities in Asia: "But the euphemism of a ‘contribution’ did not carry the same unpleasant associations; and the whole scheme, with its implication of a united Greek front, must have made splendid propaganda for home consumption." [p. 188]

[23] On the league’s crews: "Their own crews, he pointed out, were still half-trained (the cities of the league must have been scraping the bottom of the barrel when they chose them); and - a revealing admission - a defeat at this point might well trigger off a general revolt of the Greek states. So much for the Panhellenic crusade. Alexander’s main fear, we need scarcely doubt, was that the league’s fleet might actually desert him if the chance presented itself." [p.190]

[24] "The truth of the matter seems to have been that Alexander distrusted his Greek allies so profoundly - and with good reason - that he preferred to risk the collapse of his campaign in a spate of rebellion rather than entrust its safety to a Greek fleet." [p.192]

[25] "The case of Aspendus exposes, with harsh clarity, Alexander’s fundamental objectives in Asia Minor. So long as he received willing cooperation, the pretence of a Panhellenic crusade could be kept up. But any resistance, the least opposition to his will, met with instant and savage reprisals." [p.208]

[26] "The burning of Persepolis had written finish to the Hellenic crusade as such, and he used this excuse to pay off all his league’s troops, Parmenio’s Thessalians included. The crisis in Greece was over: he no longer needed these potential trouble makers as hostages." [p. 322] [This is what Alexander thought of his Greek allies]

[27] "But Greek public opinion was something of which Alexander took notice only when it suited him; and the league served him as a blanket excuse for various questionable or underhand actions, the destruction of Thebes being merely the most notorious." [p.506-7]

[28] "It is significant that two native rising occurred on the news of Alexander’s death, and both of these, as we shall see in a moment, involved Greeks; there were otherwise no ingenuous revolts against the colonial government." [p.6. "Alex. to Actium"]

[29] "But then, Eumenes was a Greek, and Macedonian troops, especially the old sweats who had served under Philip II, were never really comfortable being led by non-Macedonians." [p.7. "Alex. to Actium".]

[30] "Nearcus never came to much among the Successors: but then he, like Eumenes, was a Greek; worse still, he was a Cretan, and thus a proverbial liar." [p.7. "Alex. to Actium"]

We can see a clear ethnic separation between Macedonians and the Greeks by Green. Thus, we have proven that the modern Greek's assertion and propaganda had been selective and indeed misleading. To see the complete evidence on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians please click here.

3) GREEK CLAIM: FROM "A HISTORY OF MACEDONIA" BY MALCOM ERRINGTON (Philipps-Universitat in Marburg, Germany) Page 3
"That the Macedonians and their kings did in fact speak a dialect of Greek and bore Greek names may be regarded nowadays as certain." (Malcom Errington "A History of Macedonia", University of California Press, 1993)

REPLY:

Malcolm Errington is a typical western writer which concludes that the "Macedonians are Greek", despite the overwhelming ancient evidence that clearly shows the opposite. His conclusion however, is extremely unconvincing. We have already explained above that it is incorrect to claim that the "Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek" and "had Greek names". Alexander himself called the Macedonian language "our native language", as opposes to the Greek language, not a dialect of Greek! (the trial of Philotas - Curtius Rufus). Errington uses the following words on page 4 to back up his claim that "the Macedonians were Greek":

"Ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greek all had their origin in Athens at the time of the struggle with Philip II."

Simply put - this is wrong. First of all, the supposed "ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greek" do not have "their origin in Athens" in the time of Philip II. Errington avoids mentioning here that the Macedonians were called non-Greeks (barbarians) since the reigns of the Macedonian kings Alexander I and Archelaus - full 100 years before Philip II conquered the Greeks. Please visit Thrasymachus and Herodotus on the matter. Furthermore, we explained above with facts that Alexander I did not participate in the Olympic Games (his name is not on the list of the victors among the other things), and his Greek claim was only an invention, a propaganda, directed towards the Greeks with a clear political goal ( Borza , Badian , Green ). Errington fails to notify the reader of that fact, and he is furthermore ignorant on the facts that all ancient Greek writers, historians, and scholars (Herodotus, Thrasymachus, Thucydides, Isocrates, Demosthenes, to name a few) did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek. Yet, he "concludes" based on not a single credible evidences whatsoever that the "Macedonians were Greek". Let us further examine his conclusion. We will bring the words of Demosthenes for that purpose:

"... not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave" - Demosthenes, Third Philippic, 31. These are the famous words that this Greek orator from Athens, used to describe the Macedonian king Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great, prior to Philip’s conquest of Greece.

We know for a fact that the ancient Greeks stereotyped and called all non-Greeks barbarians. These included the Persians, the Thracians, Illyrians, Macedonians, etc. Errington on page 4 suggests that Demosthenes called Philip "not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks" and "barbarian", only because of "a political struggle" which "created the prejudice". This is completely unconvincing since it is very clear from Demosthenes’s words that he regards the Macedonians and their king Philip II as non-Greeks. Errington's position is easily debunked, however, when we consider the following two points:

1. If the Macedonians were Greeks but nevertheless called barbarians and nor related to the Greeks, why is then no other Greek tribe called barbarians and nor related to the Greeks because of "a political struggle" which "created the prejudice"? There were many examples when that could have happened, it’s enough to point to the long Peloponesian War, or any of the many constant wars between the Greek states, not involving Macedonia. Yet, no Spartan, Athenian, Theban, Epirote, was ever called non-Greek or barbarian during any of these "political struggles" which "created the prejudice"! Not even ONCE!
2. We know for a fact that the ancient Greeks also called the Persians barbarians. Are we suppose to say now, based on Errington's "logic", that the Persians were also a Greek tribe, but they were called non-Greeks only in "a political struggle" which "created the prejudice" ?

The lesson is clear. The ancient Greeks called all non-Greeks barbarians, and Errington's argument simply does not make any sense. The Third Philippic is entirely dedicated to the danger that threatens all of Greece. Similarly, when the past and future are compared, it is the whole of Hellas that is considered, not Athens alone. It is indeed unfortunate to see people such as Michael Errington, write books about the history of Macedonia, based on false assumptions and incomplete (or biased) research, and still call themselves "historians." To see the complete evidence on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians please click here.

4) Greek Claim: From "The Western Experience" By Mortimer Chambers (University of California), Raymond Grew (University of Michigan), David Herlihy (Harvard University), Theodore Rabb (Princeton University) and Isser Woloch (Columbia University), Page 79
"THE MONARCHS OF MACEDONIA:
Macedonia (or Macedon) was an ancient, somewhat backward kingdom in northern Greece. Its emergence as a hellenic power was due to a resourceful king, Philip II (359-336), whose career has been unjustly overshadowed by the deeds of his son, Alexander the Great". ("The Western Experience" (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2nd edition , 1997)

REPLY:

This is another example of a typical western source, (just like Erringon above) which is ignorant to the ancient testimony, and makes Macedonia part of Greece, despite the overwhelming ancient evidence that clearly shows that the Macedonians were not ancient Greeks. Notice that this book does not specializes in Macedonian studies alone. Fact is that they were also ignorant to all of the modern sources as well, that specialize in the ethnicity of the Macedonians that clearly proved that the Macedonians were not Greek. It is good however, that the numbers of such inaccurate books is low. To see the complete evidence on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians please click here.

ANCIENT SOURCES

1) GREEK CLAIM: POLYBIOS (POLIBIUS)

"In the past you rivaled the Achaians and the kinsmen Macedonians and their ruler, Philip, about the hegemony and glory, but now that the freedom of the Hellenes is at stake at a war against an alien people (Romans),...but now if you invite them do not you see that you invite them against your ownself and the whole of Hellas....And does it worth to ally with the barbarians against the Epeirotans, the Achaians, the Akarnanians, the Boiotians, the Thessalians, almost all the Hellenes with the exception of the Aitolians who are a wicked nation... So Lakedaimonians it is good to remember your ancestors,... be afraid of the Romans... and do ally yourselves with the Achaians and Macedonians. And if the most influential amongst yourselves oppose that then stay neutral and do not side with the unjust. (Polybios 9.37.7-39.7; Speech of Lykiskos, the representative of Akarnania)

"How highly should we honour the Macedonians, who for the greater part of their lives never cease from fighting with the barbarians for the sake of the security of Hellas? For who is not aware that Hellas would have constantly stood in the greater danger, had we not been fenced by the Macedonians and the honorable ambition of their kings?" (The Histories of Polybios, IX, 35, 2)

REPLY:

This quote by Polybius does not say at all or even less "prove" that the Macedonians were Greek. It simply says that the Macedonians should be praised for protecting Greece from the barbarian attacks. There is nothing strange in that. Since Greece was conquered by Macedonia (where the Macedonian garrisons were established to ensure that conquest), it is clear that the Macedonians would protect every inch not only of their own Macedonia, but also of every land that they had conquered (Egypt, Asia, and Greece included). To anybody who admired ancient Greek culture, that was a thanks to the Macedonians that have preserved it from the barbarians.

But the Greek propaganda however, had purposely avoided (once again) telling us what else had Polybius said. The overwhelming majority of his quotes in fact show quite clearly that Polibius did not regard the Macedonians as Greek and he distinguishes between the two nations. Here is that overwhelming proof:

POLYBIUS Greek Statesman and Historian. [c 200-118 B.C.]

The Rise of the Roman Empire

"The fact is that we can obtain no more than an impression of a whole from a part, but certainly neither a thorough knowledge nor an accurate understanding. We must conclude then that specialized studies or monographs contribute very little to our grasp of the whole and our conviction of its truth. On the contrary, it is only by combining and comparing the various parts of the whole with one another and noting their resemblances and their differences that we shall arrive at a comprehensive view, and thus encompass both the practical benefits and the pleasure that the reading of history affords." [p 45]

[How true, indeed. By combining and comparing various statements from the ancient authors can we arrive to the truest picture of the ancients themselves. Let them speak of themselves, and let their true sentiments flood the pages uncorrupted and free of any biased and preconceived prejudices. Only then, can we assess the magnitude of their purity of soul, and the passion for their national aspirations.]

[1] Polibius reports on the speech made by Agelaus of Naupactus at the first conference in the presence of the King and the allies. He spoke as follows:

"I therefore beg you all to be on your guard against this danger, and I appeal especially to King Philip. [Macedonian king Philip V] For you the safest policy, instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them an easy prey for the invader, is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions. If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in case of attack, and foreigners will be the less inclined to plot against your throne, because they will be discouraged by the loyalty of the Greeks towards you." [p.300] book 5.104

Points of Interest: Clear distinction between Greece (to protect every province of Greece) and Macedonia (as you would if it were a part of your own dominions). Furthermore, the Macedonians were still wearing down the Greeks even into the times of Philip V.

[2] [Book XVIII, 1] Philip V from Macedon invites Flamininus (Roman commander) to explain what he, Philip, should do to have peace:

"The Roman general replied that his duty dictated an answer which was both simple and clear. He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece, restore to each of the states the prisoners and deserters he was holding, hand over to the Romans the region of Illyria which he had seized after the treaty that had been made in Epirus, and so on...."

[Point of interest: "Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece," Flamininus, the Roman general, clearly separates Macedonia from Greece, and demands from the Macedonin king to withdraw from Greece into his own Macedonia.]

[3] (Book XVIII. 3) A man named Alexander of Isus, who had the reputation of being both an experienced statesman and an able orator, rose to speak:

'Why,' he asked Philip V, 'had he sold into slavery the people of Cius, which was also a member of the Aetolian League, when he himself was on friendly terms with the Aetolians?'

[Philip sells the people of Cius into slavery. Cuis' population was not a Macedonian population. Philip's action underlines one fundamental fact: Greece was a conquered territory, and Greek cities were dispensable.]

[4] (Book XVIII. 5) Philip V from Macedon responds to the Greek and Roman demands:

"But what is most outrageous of all is that they should attempt to put themselves on the same footing as the Romans and demand that the Macedonians should withdraw from the whole of Greece. To use such language is arrogant enough in the first place, but while we may endure this from the Romans, it is quite intolerable coming from the Aetolians. In any case,' he continued, 'what is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and how do you define Greece? Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Aphilochians cannot be regarded as Greek. So do you allow me to remain in those territories."

From the above encounters we infer: They, the Greeks, would like to see him, King Philip V from Macedon, leave Greece and go to his own kingdom in Macedonia, and by the strongest implication, we concur that:

(a) Ancient Greeks did not regard the ancient Macedonians as their kinsmen. (b) Ancient Macedonians did not regard the Greeks as their own people. (c) Ancient Macedonians had conquered the Greek states. (d) Ancient Macedonians had enslaved the Greeks and sold them as slaves. (e) Macedonia was not a Greek land.

[5] …"For there can be no doubt that by their indefatigable energy and daring they raised Macedonia from the status of a petty kingdom to that of the greatest and most glorious monarchy in the world. And apart what was accomplished during Philip's lifetime, the successes that were achieved by Alexander after his father's death won for them a reputation for valour which has been universally recognized by posterity.".... [Polybius: The Rise of the Roman Empire, published by Penguin Classics, Book VIII.9 page 371.]

As with his predecessors, other ancient authors, Polybius clearly separates the ancient Macedonians from the ancient Greeks. As a matter of fact, the ethnic difference between these two people was not a matter for discussion - it was an accomplished fact.

We have thus, proven that the Greek propaganda had again been passing misleading quotes. To see the complete evidence on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians please click here.

2) GREEK CLAIM: HERODOTUS

"Now that the men of this family are Hellenes, sprung from Perdiccas, as they themselves affirm, is a thing which I can declare on my own knowledge, and which I will hereafter make plainly evident. That they are so has been already adjudged by those who manage the Pan-Hellenic contest at Olympia" (Herodotus, The Histories 8.43)

"Tell your king who sent you how his Hellenic viceroy of Macedonia has received you hospitably... " (Herodotus V, 20, 4)

"Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Hellenes, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know" (Herodotus V, 22, 1) REPLY:

Herodotus’s stories above regarding the legend of the supposed Greek (Temenidae) origin of the Macedonian kings (not of the Macedonian nation), have been analyzed in great detail by Professors Borza, Green, and Badian, and rejected as propaganda designed by the Macedonian kings for the Greeks on the south with a specific purpose. In fact, Herodotus did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek, but a distinct nation. Here is that proof about Herodotus the "father of history" in his Histories:

The modern Greek position relies on Herodotus' support for their quest to make the ancient Macedonians Greek. Herodotus, being one of the foremost biographer in antiquity who lived in Greece at the time when the Macedonian king Alexander I was in power, is said to have visited the Macedonian Kingdom and supposedly, profited from this excursion, wrote several short passages about the Macedonians. What did he say, and to what extent can these passages be taken as evidence for the alleged 'greekness' of the ancient Macedonians, will be briefly presented for your adjudication.

[1] Eugene Borza - In the Shadow of Olympus p.82-83 gives the following conclusion:

a) "It is clear that the analysis of our earliest-and sole-source cannot produce a consistent and satisfactory sequence of events. My own view is that there is some underlying veracity to the Mt. Vermion reference (as evidenced by the Phrygian connections), that among the Makedones a family of Vermion background emerged as pre-eminent, but that the Argive context is mythic, perhaps a bit of fifth-century B.C. propaganda (as I argue in the next chapter). To deny such fables and attribute them to contemporary Macedonian propaganda may appear minimalistic. But given the historical milieu in which such stories were spawned and then adorned, the denial of myth seems prudent".

b) "The Temenidae in Macedon are an invention of the Macedonians themselves, intended in part to give credence to Alexander I's claims of Hellenic ancestry, attached to and modifying some half-buried progenitor stories that had for a long time existed among the Macedonians concerning their own origins. The revised version was transmitted without criticism or comment by Herodotus. Thucydides (2-99.3; 5.80.2) acquired the Argive lineage tale from Herodotus, or from Macedonian-influenced sources, and transmitted it. His is not an independent version. [There is no hard evidence (pace Hammond, HM i: 4) that Thucydides ever visited Macedonia, but it makes no difference; Thucydides is reflecting the official version of things.] What emerged in the fifth century is a Macedonian-inspired tale of Argive origins for the Argead house, an account that can probably be traced to its source, Alexander I (for which see Chapter 5 below). The Temenidae must disappear from history, making superfluous all discussion of them as historical figures".

c) "There were further embellishments to the myth of the early royal family. In the last decade of the fifth century B.C. Euripides came to reside in Macedon at the court of King Archelaus, thereby contributing a new stage to the evolution of the Macedonian creation-myth. Euripides' play honoring his patron, Archelaus, probably adorned the basic story, replacing Perdiccas with an Archelaus as the descendant of Temenus-no doubt to the delight of his royal host. Delphic oracles were introduced, and the founder's tale was extended by the introduction of Caranus (Doric for "head" or "ruler"). In the early fourth century, new early kings were added during the political rivalry among three branches of the Argeadae following the death of King Archelaus in 399, another example of the Macedonian predilection to rewrite history to support a contemporary political necessity. The story continued to be passed through the hands of local Macedonian historians in the fourth century B. C., and by Roman times it was widely known in a number of versions. Nothing in this later period can be traced back earlier than Euripides' revision of the Herodotean tradition. The notion that Alexander I or one of his predecessors obtained a Delphic oracle to confirm the Macedonian tie with Argos has no evidence to support it. Had such an oracle existed we can be confident that Alexander, eager to confirm his Hellenic heritage, would have exploited it, and that Herodotus, who delighted in oracles, would have mentioned it. In the end what is important is not whether Argive Greeks founded the Macedonian royal house but that at least some Macedonian kings wanted it so".

d) Borza also mentiones that the "two advocates of the Argos-Macedon link are Hammond, HM, vol. 2, ch. I, and Daskalakis, Hellenism, Pt. 3, both of whom support the notion of a Temenid origin for the Macedonian royal house", however, we have seen above that both of them were corrected with the extensive evidence that Borza carefully reviewed. We have already seen that both Daskalakis and Hammond were incorrect on many matters on the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians, therefore it should come to no surprise that their now outdated and poor in evidence material can not be used to claim a Greek identity to the ancient Macedonians. Click here for Daskalakis and Hammond. Moving along…

Herodotus describes the episode with the Persian envoys, who apparently visited Macedon when Alexander I's father Amyntas was in power, and how Alexander I succeeded in 'taking care of the Persians' by murdering all of them and removing their luggage and carriages. When the Persians attempted to trace the lost envoys, Alexander I cleverly succeeded in manipulating the Persians by giving his own sister Gygaea as a wife to the Persian commander Bubares. Here Herodotus writes:

"I happen to know, and I will demonstrate in a subsequent chapter of this history, that these descendants of Perdiccas are, as they themselves claim, of Greek nationality. This was, moreover, recognized by the managers of the Olympic games, on the occasion when Alexander wished to compete and his Greek competitors tried to exclude him on the ground that foreigners were not allowed to take part. Alexander, however, proved his Argive descent, and so was accepted as a Greek and allowed to enter for the foot-race. He came in equal first." book 5. 22.

First, notice that it is not Herodotus that says that the Macedonian kings were of Greek nationality, but the Macedonian kings as they themselves claim. Now, let us peruse the modern literature and see if we can shed some light on this particular passage from Herodotus which is so 'dear' to all Greek presenters, and one that occupies the central position of their otherwise feeble defense. Eugene Borza [In The Shadow of Olympus p. 112] writes:

a) "Herodotus' story is fraught with too many difficulties to make sense of it. For example, either (1) Alexander lost the run-off for his dead heat, which is why his name doez not appear in the victor lists; or (2) he won the run-off, although Herodotus does not tell us this; or (3) it remained a dead heat, which is impossible in light Olympic practice; or (4) it was a special race, in which case it is unlikely that his fellow competitors would have protested Alexander's presence; or (5) Alexander never competed at Olympia. It is best to abandon this story, which belongs in the category of the tale of Alexander at Plataea. In their commentaries on these passages Macan and How and Wells long ago recognized that the Olympic Games story was based on family legend (Hdt. 5.22: "as the descendants of Perdiccas themselves say [autoi legousi]"), weak proofs of their Hellenic descent. Moreover, the Olympic Games tale is twice removed: Herodotus heard from the Argeadea (perhaps from Alexander himself) that the king had told something to the judges, but we do not know what those proofs were".

b) "The theme of the Olympic and Plataea incidents are the same: "I am Alexander, a Greek" which seems to be the main point. The more credible accounts of Alexander at Tempe and at Athens do not pursue this theme; they state Alexander's activities without embellishment or appeal to prohellenism. Moreover, the insistence that Alexander is a Greek, and descendant from Greeks, rubs against the spirit of Herodotus 7.130, who speaks of the Thessalians as the first Greeks to come under Persian submission--a perfect opportunity for Herodotus to point out that the Macedonians were a non Greek race ruled over by Greek kings, something he nowhere mentions".

c) "In sum, it would appear that Olympia and Plataea incidents---when taken together with the tale of the ill--fated Persian embassy to Amyntas' court in which Alexander proclaims the Greek descent of the royal house--are part of Alexander's own attempts to integrate himself into the Greek community during the postwar period. They should be discarded both because they are propaganda and because they invite suspicion on the general grounds outlined above".

In support of his position Borza brings forward many interesting questions. He asks:

d) "Why is it that no "Spartan or Athenian or Argive felt constrained to prove to the others that he and his family were Helenes? But Macedonian kings seem hard put to argue in behalf of their Hellenic ancestry in the fifth century B.C., and that circumstance is telling. Even if one were to accept that all the Herodotian stories about Alexander were true, why did the Greeks, who normally were knowledgeable about matters of ethnic kinship, not already know that the Macedonian monarchy was Greek? But--following Herodotus--the stade- race competitors at Olympia thought the Macedonian was a foreigner (Hdt. 5.22: barbaros) Second, for his effort on behalf of the Greek cause against the Persians Alexander is known as "Philhellene". Now this is kind of odd to call a Greek a"friend of the Greeks". "This title", writes Borza, "is normally reserved for non--Greeks".

e) Borza concludes: "It is prudent to reject the stories of the ill--fated Persian embassy to Amyntas's court, Alexander's midnight ride at Plataea, and his participation in the Olympic Games as tales derived from Alexander himself (or from some official court version of things)."

[2] Peter Green - [Classical Bearings p.157]

"All Herodotus in fact says is that Alexander himself demonstrated his Argive ancestry (in itself a highly dubious genealogical claim), and was thus adjudged a Greek---against angry opposition, be it noted, from the stewards of the Games Even if, with professor N.G.L. Hammond, we accept this ethnic certification at face value, it tells us, as he makes plain, nothing whatsoever about Macedonians generally. Alexander's dynasty, if Greek, he writes, regarded itself as Macedonian only by right of rule, as a branch of the Hanoverian house has come to 'regard itself as English'. On top of which, Philip II's son Alexander had an Epirote mother, which compounds the problem from yet another ethnic angle."

[3] Ernst Badian - "Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical Early Hellenistic Times"

"We have no way of judging the authenticity of either the claim or the evidence that went with it, but it is clear that at the time the decision was not easy. There were outraged protests from the other competitors, who rejected Alexander I as a barbarian--which proves, at least, that the Temenid descent and the royal genealogy had hitherto been an isoteric item of knowledge. However, the Hellanodikai decided to accept it--whether moved by the evidence or by political considerations, we again cannot tell. In view of the time and circumstances in which the claim first appears and the objections it encountered, modern scholars have often suspected that it was largely spun out of fortuitous resemblance of the name of the Argead clan to city of Argos; with this given, the descent (of course) could not be less than royal, i.e., Temenid."

Badian, like Borza, believes that Alexander I "invented the story (in its details a common type of myth) of how he had fought against his father's Persian connection by having the Persian ambassadors murdered, and that it was only in order to hush this up and save the royal family's lives that the marriage of his sister to a Persian had been arranged."

Badian sums it up:

"As a matter of fact, there is reason to think that at least some even among Alexander I's friends and supporters had regarded the Olympic decision as political rather than factual--as a reward for services to the Hellenic cause rather than as prompted by genuine belief in the evidence he had adduced. We find him described in the lexicographers, who go back to fourth-century sources, as "Philhellene",--surely not an appellation that could be given to an actual Greek."

[4] Here, I would like to offer another episode, reported by Herodotus, which clearly indicates that ancient Greeks did not regard the ancient Macedonians as brethren. Episodes like this stand in sharp contrast to today's claims propagated by modern Greeks. The Persian armies were ready and poised to strike Greece. Greek allies were assembled and prepared to defend their nation. Mardonius, the Persian commander, sends Alexander I to Athens with a message. On his arrival to Athens as Mardonius' ambassador Alexander spoke to the Athenians urging them to accept the terms offered by Mardonius.

In Sparta, the news that Alexander brought message from the Great King, caused great consternation. Sparta feared that an alliance between Athens and Persia was in the making. She, then, quickly rushed an envoy to Athens herself. As it happened, Alexander I and the Spartan envoy had their audience at the same time.

When Alexander I was done the Spartan envoy s spoke in their turn: "Do not let Alexander's smooth-sounding version of Mardonius' proposals seduce you; he does only what one might expect of him--a despot himself, of course he collaborates with a despot. But such conduct is not for you - at least, not if you are wise; for surely you know that in foreigners there is neither truth nor trust." (Hdt. 8.142)

[Please note the reference to Alexander I as a foreigner who is neither truthful nor trustworthy]

Then, the Athenians gave answer to Alexander I. Among the other things, they told Alexander that they, the Athenians, will never make peace with Mardonius, and will oppose him 'unremittingly'. As to Alexander I' advice and urgings that they accept the terms offered by Mardonius they said:

"Never come to us again with a proposal like this, and never think you are doing us good service when you urge us to a course which is outrageous - for it would be a pity if you were to suffer some hurt at the hands of the Athenians, when you are our friend and benefector." (Hdt. 8.143)

To the Spartan envoys they said the following: "No doubt it was natural that the Lacedaemonians should dread the of our making terms with Persia; none the less it shows a poor estimate of the spirit of Athens. There is not so much gold nor land so fair that we would take for pay to join the common enemy and bring Greece into subjection. There are many compelling reasons against our doing so, even if we wished: the first and greatest is the burning of the temples and images of our gods - now ashes and rubble. It is our bounded duty to avenge this desecration with all our might - not to clasp the hand that wrought it. Again there is the Greek nation - the community of blood and language, temples and rituals, and our common customs; if Athens were to betray all this, it would not be well done. We, would have you know, if you did not know it already, that so long as a single Athenians remains alive we will make no peace with Xerxes." (Hdt. 8.144)

CONCLUSION

Among the Greeks there exist a common bond, a community of blood and language, temples and rituals and common customs. This expressed kinship between the Greek allies is evident and it stands in stark contrast against the references used towards the Macedonians who were addressed as foreigners. We have seen that Herodotus (7.130) speaks of the Thessalians as the first Greeks to come under Persian submission (although the Persians entered Macedonia first), and here he, using his own words clearly excludes the Macedonians from the ancient Greeks. We are therefore, left with the conclusion that Herodotus did not consider the Macedonians to be Greeks. As Borza had written, "Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a distinct people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states" – Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p. 96. To see the complete evidence on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians please To see the complete evidence on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians please click here.

"In all there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians." (Thukididis 4.124) REPLY:

Thoucydides also didn’t consider the Macedonians to be Greek as well, and the legend of Temenidae from Argos was not his original work but was only copied and transmitted by him. Here is the proof of that:

[1] The modern Greeks claim that the ancient Macedonians were Greek based on the below passage of Thucydides:

"The country by the sea which is now called Macedonia... Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his forefathers, who were originally Temenidae from Argos" (Thucydides 2.99,3)

That this myth does not prove that the Macedonians were Greek I offer the extensive study conducted by the Macedonian specialist, Professor Eugene Borza. Analyzing the Temenidae myth transmitted by Herodotus and Thucydides, in details in two Chapters, Eugene Borza - In the Shadow of Olympus p.82-83 gives the following conclusion:

"The Temenidae in Macedon are an invention of the Macedonians themselves, intended in part to give credence to Alexander I's claims of Hellenic ancestry, attached to and modifying some half-buried progenitor stories that had for a long time existed among the Macedonians concerning their own origins. The revised version was transmitted without criticism or comment by Herodotus. Thucydides (2-99.3; 5.80.2) acquired the Argive lineage tale from Herodotus, or from Macedonian-influenced sources, and transmitted it. His is not an independent version. [There is no hard evidence (pace Hammond, HM i: 4) that Thucydides ever visited Macedonia, but it makes no difference; Thucydides is reflecting the official version of things.] What emerged in the fifth century is a Macedonian-inspired tale of Argive origins for the Argead house, an account that can probably be traced to its source, Alexander I (for which see Chapter 5 below). The Temenidae must disappear from history, making superfluous all discussion of them as historical figures".

More on the Temenidae myth you can find above under Heroditus.

[2] Thucydides however, did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek, despite the above myth which wasn’t his original work but it as we saw was only transmitted by him. Here Thucydides clearly separates the Macedonians from the Greeks (Hellenes):

"In all there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians." (Thucydides 4.124)

Borza comments: "The use of barbaros [barbarians] is problematic, although it would appear that he normally includes at least some of the Macedonians in this category. See 4.125.3 and Gomme, Comm. Thuc.,3:613,615 and 616 on Thuc. 4.124.1, 126.3 and 126.5 respectively. In the Shadow of Olympus p 152".

CONCLUSION

"Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a distinct people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states" – Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p. To see the complete evidence on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians please click here.

4) GREEK CLAIM: ARRIAN After the battle of Granicus,

"He (Alexander) sent to Athens three hundred Persian panoplies to be set up to Athena in the acropolis; he ordered this inscription to be attached: Alexander son of Philip and the Hellenes, except the Lacedaemonians, set up these spoils from the barbarians dwelling in Asia", (Arrian I, 16, 7)

REPLY:

J.R. Hamilton, Associate professor of Classics and Ancient History from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, writes: "In view of the small part that the Greeks had played in the battle the inscription (with its omission of any mention of the Macedonians) must be regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not fail to stress the absence of the Spartans."

a) Alexander sent these suits of armor to Athens for dedication in the Parthenon simply to tell the Greeks to stay put, to show them "what will happen to any Greeks - Athenians included - who were rush enough to oppose him." (Green)

b) The spoils of victory, the bulk of the luxury articles were sent home to his mother in Pella, and not to Athens.

c) At Granicus Alexander captured 2,000 Greek mercenaries (commanded by Memnon) who were sent to Macedonia (notice, not to Athens), chained like felons to force labor. "Alexander's action smacks of pure vindictiveness" (Green); same kind of vindictiveness as the one at Thebes.

d) Most importantly, Alexander erected 25 statues of the fallen Macedonian Companions at Dium in Macedonia, not Greece? Why did he not erect bronze statues of his soldiers in Athens, the most venerated cities of ancient Greece? Surely, Athens was the leading city in Greece. And if anyone is going to "impress" the Greeks, the tribute should have been designated for Athenian arrival, and not Dium, a city of markedly lesser political significance.

e) Please notice that Alexander sent 300 panoplies to Athens (by the way aren't panoplies the armor of the Greek soldiers?) and statues to Dium where characteristically he included his own likeness in the group? The truth is, that Alexander had saved his political emotions for Athens, but his heart for Macedonia.

The logical conclusion therefore, is that the above quote does not ‘prove’ that the Alexander was Greek.

GREEK CLAIM:

Alexander’s letter to Darius: "Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Hellas and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury;... I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks..." (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander II, 14, 4) REPLY:

It’s interesting to point out in Arrian, that we find Alexander including Macedonia in Greece and himself as son of the Hellenes, only, and only when he responds to his enemies – the Athenians in Greece, and the Persian king Darius. It is clear that this is Alexander’s propaganda directed towards the Greeks and the Persians with a political purpose.

Professor Edmund F. Bloedow (University of Ottawa) had completed an in-depth analysis on this matter, in his Diplomatic Negotiations between Darius and Alexander: Historical Implications of the First Phase at Marathus in Phoenicia in 333/332 BC. The article focuses on the correspondence between Darius and Alexander shortly after the battle of Issus, in late 333 BC, while he (Alexander) was still at Marathus in Phoenicia. Whether Alexander wrote this letter himself, or was written by his biographers, is not the concern of this post. It is also, not my concern, whether the letter received from Darius was authentic or not, nor whether Alexander has doctored the content of same to promote his own interests. The fact that this article was written about the correspondence between Alexander and Darius did not cause any substantial reverberations in my mind. What, indeed, caused reverberations was the fact that Alexander asks of Darius, in the written response, to include Macedonia in Greece. Easily discernible is the clarity with which this author separates the ancient Macedonians from the ancient Greeks. The question is: Why would Alexander want, from Darius, the king of Persia, an inclusion of Macedonia in Greece? What were the ulterior, hidden motives for such an inclusion? Did Alexander know something that has escaped our attention? The author of this article brings up various possible alternatives by presenting the views of other writers and historians. Various accounts are being discussed and analyzed. Darius' letter, as well as Alexander's response, are weighed out, balanced and counterbalanced. Out of eighteen points that Alexander demanded of Darius, several will be highlighted for our discussion; especially point #2, 'the Inclusion of Macedonia in Greece'. In lieu of the preponderance of slogans used by the Greek netters and the Greek government itself, specifically the one where "Macedonia is Greece" is used extensively to portray Macedonia as Greek land, it would be quite interesting to pit the modern Greek thinking wis-a-vis that of the ancient's, and more importantly, against that of the modern historians' thinking and modern revisionists'/scholars' interpretations of the twentieth century. Point "2" text and subsequent elaboration follows:

Bloedow: "The designation of Macedonia as part of Greece has intrigued modern critics. This, according to Schachermeyr, is enough to 'take one's breath away'. He went so far as to suggest that, however brief, it encapsulates a whole and bold strategy: to counter the Great King's strategy of attempting to exploit the age-old distinction between Macedonians and Hellenes. The reason for including Macedonia as part of larger Hellas was designed to justify Macedonian participation in the so-called war of revenge. Whatever the truth on this point, on the basis of what we know happened in Macedonia in 480, Alexander had no more grounds for carrying out a war of revenge on behalf of Macedonia than he had on behalf of Athens or Sparta. Of course, Macedonians never regarded their territory as forming part of Greece, and certainly the Greek poleis did not regard Macedonia as being another Greek polis. The reason why Alexander here includes Macedonia as being part of Greece may be an attempt to paper over the glaring anomaly between what Philip and he had just done to 'the rest of Greece' and what he is in the process of doing to the Persian empire. The Persians had never done anything significant against the Macedonians. It is noteworthy that Herodotus, although he provides considerable information on Xerxes' activities when he passed through Macedonia in 480, does not record any acts of destruction--- scarcely surprising if Xerxes was instrumental in Macedonia gaining control of Upper Macedonia."

What are the glaring and the noteworthy points to be taken out and re-emphasized? a) The great King (Darius) knew quite well that Macedonians were not Greeks. "The age-old distinction" between Macedonians and Greeks was well known to all ancients. b) Alexander wanted to take that particular "card" (motive) out of the hands of Darius, and preclude the Great King from using it against Alexander's attack on Persia. By including Macedonia in Greece Alexander could, as hegemon of the allied troops, justify his attack on Persia as a revenge for Persian attack on Greece. c) "Macedonians never regarded their territory as forming part of Greece". How clear and unobtrusive this statement is; again, this statement is made by people, scholars whose profession is ancient history. They don't kill the afternoons sipping coffee or playing cards, either. d) "The Greek poleis did not regard Macedonia as being another Greek polis". (These are the ancient Greeks speaking) and e) "The reason why Alexander here includes Macedonia as being part of Greece may be an attempt to paper over the glaring anomaly between what Philip and he had just done to 'the rest of Greece' and what he is in the process of doing to the Persian empire."

And since Alexander is conquering Persia, then Philip had already conquered Greece ‘not united it’ like the modern Greek propaganda claims. Certainly, it is not to "unite" Persia like he had "united' the Greek city-states. The assertion that "Philip and Alexander united the Greek city-states" can be equated with "Alexander united the Persian states". This, indeed, is extremely hard to comprehend.

In Curtius Rufus however we see a different picture of Alexander, who in a letter, responds to Darius: "His Majesty Alexander to Darius: Greetings. The Darius whose name you have assumed wrought utter destruction upon the Greek inhabitants of the Hellespontine coast and upon the Greek colonies of Ionia, and then crossed the sea with a mighty army, bringing the war to Macedonia and Greece." The History of Alexander [p.50-1] A clear separation of Macedonia from Greece! ARRIAN – THE FULL PICTURE

Now that we have proven that the above quotes can not serve to portray Alexander and his Macedonians as Greek, we can move along. We will prove that Arrian did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek at all. We will also prove, that the Greek propaganda page http://truth.macedonia.gr/ is misleading once again, twisting the quotes of the ancient authors, and purposely avoiding to comment on the overwhelming Arrrian’s quotes that separate the Macedonians from the Greeks as two nations. Arrian simply knew the difference between Macedonians and Greeks, he was a Greek after all. The whole book "The Campaigns of Alexander" written by none other then Arrian himself, bristles with clear demarcations between Macedonians and Greeks, which is exactly what the modern Greek propaganda does not want anybody to see. Here is the proof:

ARRIAN The Campaigns of Alexander:

[1] "Destiny had decreed that Macedon should wrest the sovereignty of Asia from Persia, as Persia once had wrested it from the Medes, and the Medes, in turn, from the Assyrians." [p. 111]

[2] "Our enemies are Medes and Persians, men who for centuries have lived soft and luxurious lives; we of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and war. Above all, we are free men, and they are slaves." [p.112]

[3] "When received the report that Alexander was moving forward to the attack, he sent some 30,000 mounted troops and 20,000 light infantry across the river Pinarus, to give himself a chance of getting the main body of his army into position without molestation. His dispositions were as follows: in the van of his heavy infantry were his 30,000 Greek mercenaries, facing the Macedonian infantry, with some 60,000 Persian heavy infantry- known as Kardakes." [p.114]

[4] [Book II - Battle of Issus] "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." [p.119]

[5] "The cavalry action which ensued was desperate enough, and the Persians broke only when they knew that the Greek mercenaries were being cut and destroyed by the Macedonian infantry." [p.119-20]

[6] "The same painstaking attention to details is evident in administrative matters. Appointments of governors are duly mentioned, and throughout his book Arrian is careful to give the father's name in the case of Macedonians, e.g. Ptolemy son of Lagus, and in the case of Greeks their city of origin." [p.25]

[7] "In the spring of 334 Alexander set out from Macedonia, leaving Antipater with 12,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry to defend the homeland and to keep watch on the Greek states." [p.34]

[8] "The backbone of the infantry was the Macedonian heavy infantry, the 'Foot Companions', organized on territorial basis in six battalions (taxeis) of about 1,500 men each. In place of the nine-foot spear carried by the Greek hoplite, the Macedonian infantryman was armed with a pike or sarissa about 13 or 14 feet long, which required both hands to wield it. The light circular shield was slung on the left shoulder, and was smaller than that carried by the Greek hoplite which demanded the use of the left arm. Both, Greek and Macedonian infantry wore greaves and a helmet, but it is possible that the Macedonians did not wear a breastplate. The phalanx (a heavy infantry), like all the Macedonian troops had been brought by Philip to a remarkable standard of training and discipline." [p.35]

[9] Modern Greeks, have used this particular passage as evidence of Alexander's greekness. Alexander sent to Athens, as an offering to the goddess Athena, 300 full suits of Persian armor, with the following inscription:

"Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks (except the Lacedaemonians) dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persians who dwell in Asia." [p.76]

J.R. Hamilton, Associate professor of Classics and Ancient History from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, writes: 'In view of the small part that the Greeks had played in the battle the inscription (with its omission of any mention of the Macedonians) must be regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not fail to stress the absence of the Spartans.'

[10] Alexander's rationale as to why he would not like to engage the Persian fleet in a battle:

"In the first place, it was to rush blindly into a naval engagement against greatly superior forces, and with an untrained fleet against highly trained Cyprian and Phoenician crews; the sea, morever, was a tricky thing - one could not trust it, and he was not going to risk making a present to the Persians of all the skill and courage of his men; as to defeat, it would be very serious indeed and would affect profoundly the general attitude to the war in its early stages, above all by encouraging the Greeks to revolt the moment they got news of a Persian success at sea." [p.80]

[11] Alexander speaking to his officers: ".......But let me remind you: Through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now yours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia;........." [p.292]

[12] Alexander addressing his troops: With all that accomplished, why do you hesitate to extend the power of Macedon - your power - to the Hyphasis and the tribes on the other side? [p.293] Arrian, book 5.

[13] Alexander continues to address his troops: "Gentlemen of Macedon, and you my friends and allies, this must not be. Stand firm; for well you know that hardship and danger are the price of glory, and that sweet is the savour of a life of courage and of deathless renown beyond the grave." [p.294]

[14] Alexander continues to speak to his Macedonians and allies: "Come, then; add the rest of Asia to what you already possess - a small addition to the great sum of your conquests. What great or noble work could we ourselves have achieved had we thought it enough, living at ease in Macedon, merely to guard our homes, excepting no burden beyond checking the encroachment of the Thracians on our borders, or the Illyrians and Triballians, or perhaps such Greeks as might prove a menace to our comfort." [p.294] Arrian, Book 5.

As we can clearly see, Arrian separates the Macedonians from the Greeks. He, as a Greek author was in position to know the truth, and therefore his testimony is conclusive. Consequently, this is the same testimony on which the Greek propaganda does not even dare to comment. It is obvious why. To see the complete evidence on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians please click here.

5) GREEK CLAIM: PLUTARCHOS (PLUTARCH)

"But he said, `If I were not Alexandros, I should be Diogenes'; that is to say: `If it were not my purpose to combine barbarian things with things Hellenic, to traverse and civilize every every continent, to search out the uttermost parts of land and sea, to push the boiunds of Macedonia to the farthest Ocean, and to diseminate and shower the blessings of the Hellenic justice and peace over every nation, I should not be content to sit quietly in the luxury of idle power, but I should emulate the frugality of Diogenes. But as things are, forgive me Diogenes, that I imitate Herakles, and emulate Perseus, and follow in the footsteps of Dionysos, the divine author and progenitor of my family, and desire that victorius Hellenes should dance again in India and revive the memory of the Bacchic revels among the savage mountain tribes beyond the Kaukasos...' " (Plutarchos, On the Fortune of Alexander, 332 a-b)

"Yet through Alexander, Bactria and the Caucasus learned to revere the gods of the Hellenes... Alexander established more than seventy cities among savage tribes, and sowed all Asia with Hellenic magistracies... Egypt would not have its Alexandria, nor Mesopotamia its Seleucia, nor Sogdiana its Prophthasia, nor India its Bucephalia, nor the Caucasus a Hellenic city, for by the founding of cities in these places savagery was extinguished and the worse element, gaining familiarity with the better, changed under its influence.'
(Plutarchos Moralia. On the Fortune of Alexander, I, 328D, 329A)

"When he (Alexander the Great) arrived at Ilion he sacrificed to Athena and offered libations to the Heroes." (Plutarchos, Alexander 15)

REPLY:

Here we come across more selective and misleading quotes, which the Greek propaganda had taken out of the ancient author Plutarch, and wants to pass it as a "proof" that the Macedonians were Greek. Notice that nowhere does Plutarch say that the Macedonians are Greek. Let’s not forget that Alexander also sacrificed to Macedonian, Egyptian, and Persian customs and gods, not only Greek. Does that make him Greek, Egyptian, and Persian too? Of course not. He was a smart ruler who did sacrifices to foreign gods and traditions in order to establish trust to his subjects. He was nevertheless Macedonian, and proud of his nationality as Pierre Jouguet says. The cities that Alexander established were not just Greek. It is true the Greek colonists were imported from Greece, but it is also true that many Macedonians from Macedonia also settled the cities that Alexander and his successor founded. It is not accidental that Pierre Jouguet refers to Syria as "New Macedonia" due to the magnitude of the Macedonian ethnic element.

But let us get back to Plutarch. The reality is however, that Plutarch also did not consider the Macedonians to Greek, and that the misleading Greek propaganda had once again purposely avoided to comment on all those overwhelming Plutarch’s quotes that clearly show that the Macedonians were different nation from the ancient Greeks. Here is the proof of that too in Plutarch’s The Age of Alexander:

[1] "Alexander was born on the sixth day of the month Hecatombaeon, which the Macedonians call Lous, the same day on which the temple of Artemis at Ephesus was burned down." [p.254]

[2] Alexander was only twenty years old when he inherited his kingdom, which at the moment was beset by formidable jealousies and feuds, and external dangers on every side. The neighboring barbarian tribes were eager to throw off the Macedonian yoke and longed for the rule of their native kings: As for the Greek states, although Philip had defeated them in battle, he had not had time to subdue them or accustomed them to his authority.

Alexander's Macedonian advisers feared that a crisis was at hand and urged the young king to leave the Greek states to their own devices and refrain from using any force against them. [p.263] [Alexander chose the opposite course] Plutarch never said that Philip "united" the Greeks, but he states that Philip "defeated" them in battle.

[3] Alexander returns from the campaigns at the Danube, north of Macedon. When the news reached him that the Thebans had revolted and were being supported by the Athenians, he immediately marched south through the pass of Thermopylae. 'Demosthenes', he said, 'call me a boy while I was in Illyria and among the Triballi, and a youth when I was marching through Thessaly; I will show him I am a man by the time I reach the walls of Athens.' [p.264]

[4] "Thebans countered by demanding the surrender of Philotas and Antipater and appealing to all who wished to liberate Greece to range themselves on their side, and at this Alexander ordered his troops to prepare for battle." [p.264]

[5] Alexander asks a women, who was being taken captive, who she was, she replied: 'I am the sister of Theogenes who commanded our army against your father, Philip, and fell at Chaeronea fighting for the liberty of Greece.' [p.265]

[6] There is a story that on one occasion when a large company had been invited to dine with the king, Callisthenes (Alexander's biographer) was called upon, as the cup passed to him, to speak in praise of the Macedonians. This theme he handled so eloquently that the guests rose to applaud and threw theig garlands at him. At this Alexander quoted Euripides' line from the Bacchae On noble subjects all men can speak well. 'But now', he went on, 'show us the power of your eloquency by criticizing the Macedonians so that they can recognize their shortcomings and improve themselves.' Callisthenes then turned to the other side of the picture and delivered a long list of home truths about the Macedonians, pointing out that the rise of Philip's power had been brought about by the division among the