BIG Greek Lie 18

BIG Greek Lie 18 - Philip II United the Greeks

(Some modern Greeks believe that King Philip II of Ancient Macedonia united the so called "Greek" City States)

By Risto Stefov

[NOTE: Our apologies to the Greek people if they find these articles offensive. Our objective here is NOT to create tension between the Macedonian and Greek people but rather to highlight the problem that exists within the Greek State and its institutions. As long as the Greek State denies our existence as Macedonians with rights and privileges, we will continue to publish these types of articles.]

In spite of what we know today about the ancient Macedonians and the ancient City States, some Greeks still argue that King Philip II of ancient Macedonia did not subjugate the ancient City States but unified them instead. Some have even written to me declaring that Macedonia was another "Greek City State".

It has become painfully obvious that some Greeks will cling onto what they believe and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Some have admitted that arguments can even be developed to prove night is day and day is night. I say good for them, if that is what it takes to keep Greece Greek so be it, but for all those who need evidence to prove the obvious here it is;

During one of their campaigns south of Olympus, Macedonians took prisoners and Alexander asked one of the women who she was to which 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."

If Philip and later Alexander were "unifying" the Greek City States then why were the so called "Greeks" fighting for the liberty of Greece? Were not Thebans and Athenians and their allies fighting together for the holy soil of Hellas on August 2nd, 338BC at the sleepy village of Chaeronea? Fellow Hellenes, the Athenians and Thebans, fought against the Macedonians, the barbarians from the north.

If the Macedonians were "Greeks" then this would have been a civil war. If Macedonians were "Greeks" why did they not fight to safeguard "the holy soil of Hellas"?

When another Macedonian king, Archelaus (413 to 399 BC) attacked Larissa in Thessaly, Thrasymachus wrote what was to later become a "model oration" on behalf of the Larissans. Only one sentence has survived which reads as follows: "Shall we be slaves to Archelaus, we, being Greeks, to a barbarian?" If the ancient Macedonians were "Greek" then why did Thasymachus refer to them not only as barbarians but very much distinguished them from "the rest of the Greeks"?

What about Demosthenes and what he had to say about the Macedonians, particularly about Philip II? Modern day Greeks would like to dispatch off Demosthenes castigations of Philip II as political rhetoric, and yet Demosthenes was twice appointed to lead the war effort of Athens against Macedonia. He, Demosthenes, said of Philip that Philip was not Greek, nor related to Greeks but comes from Macedonia where a person could not even buy a decent slave.

Soon after his death the people of Athens paid him fitting honours by erecting his statue made of bronze. On the base of his statue the following famous inscription was carved: "If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom, never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares". The actions of his contemporaries, the ancient "Greeks" speak much louder about Demosthenes' character than the words of any modern Greek. Demosthenes, in modern terms, was a patriot, not a crackpot politician as some modern Greeks would have us believe!

When news of Philip's death reached Athens, Demosthenes appeared in public dressed in magnificent attire and wore a garland on his head. The following is what was subsequently written about that moment in history: "For my part I cannot say that the Athenians did themselves any credit in putting on garlands and offering sacrifices to celebrate the death of a king who, when he was the conqueror and they the conquered had treated them with such tolerance and humanity. Far apart from provoking the anger of the gods, it was a contemptible action to make Philip a citizen of Athens and pay him honours while he was alive, and then, as soon as he has fallen by another's hand, to be besides themselves with joy, trample on his body, and sing paeans of victory, as though they themselves have accomplished some great feat of arms." [p.207] (Plutarch "The Age of Alexander").

If the Macedonians were "Greek" why did so many "Greeks" join the ranks of the Persians to fight against them? Weren't the Persians the worst enemies of the "Greeks"? If Alexander indeed fought the Persians to avenge the "Greeks" shouldn't the "Greeks" have willingly and voluntarily joined him?

"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] (Arrian Book II - Battle of Issus, "The Campaigns of Alexander").

For those who think Philip II "unified" the Ancient City States or the "Greeks" as some modern Greeks would like to call it, please read carefully the next quote. "Alexander meanwhile dealt swiftly with the unrest in Greece - not only did the Athenians rejoice at Philip's death, but the Aetolians, the Thebans, as well as the Spartans and the Peloponnesians, were ready to throw off the Macedonian yoke. (Diod. 17.3.3-5) (Quintus Rufus "The History of Alexander"). If you read the quote carefully you would have noticed the word "yoke". The Aetolians, Thebans, Spartans, and Peloponnesians were ready to throw off the Macedonian yoke. Allow me to emphasize that when one "unifies" there is no "yoke" to be thrown off!

"Alexander also referred to his father Philip as conqueror of Athenians, and recalled to their minds the recent conquest of Boeotia and the annihilation of its best known city." [p.41] (Quintus Rufus "The History of Alexander"). Allow me to also emphasize that when one "unifies" there is no "conquest"!

Need I say more?

Apparently with some there is "need" so here are some more quotes (By Quintus Rufus "The History of Alexander"): "Men! If you consider the scale of our achievements, your longing for peace and your weariness of brilliant campaigns are not at all surprising. Let me pass over the Illyrians, the Triballians, Boeotia, Thrace, Sparta, the Aecheans, the Peloponnesians - all of them subdued under my direct leadership or by campaigns conducted under my orders of instructions". When one "unites", one does not "subdue" or "force submission" or "conquer" people.

"Starting with Macedonia, I now have power over Greece; I have brought Thrace and the Illyrians under my control; rule the Triballi and the Maedi. I have Asia in my possession from the Hellespont to the Red Sea." [p.277]

According to Arrian in "The Campaigns of Alexander", 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].

After reading the above, an unbiased reader or a reader who has no political agenda, would come to the conclusion that there is some doubt in the modern Greek belief that the ancient Macedonians were "Greek" and that King Philip II of Macedonia "unified" the "Greeks". It should become obvious that Philip II fought the "Greeks" in battle and with his victory conquered and subjugated them and added them and their territories to his own growing empire. If indeed Philip and Alexander unified the so called "Greeks" in that manner and by those tactics according to modern Greek logic, then they must also have unified the Illyrians with the Thracians, the Triballians, Maedians and every other tribe in Asia as far east as India.

It is time these modern Greek unbelievers either put their biased beliefs aside and face reality or admit that the only reason they insist the ancient Macedonians were "Greek" is to justify their occupation of 51% of Macedonian territories. Ancient Macedonians were as akin to the so called ancient "Greeks" as modern Macedonians are akin to modern Greeks. The rest is "Greek logic" which should be classified as "Greek lies" and filed under the "ancient mythology" section called "Big Greek Lies".

You can believe what you like and you can argue about it until you turn blue. Your interpretation of history does not reflect the evidence left behind by the ancient authors. Your interpretation is clearly designed by your modern Greek and Philhellene historians and by the Greek State for the sole purpose of laying claim to Macedonian territories and the Macedonian heritage which rightfully belongs to the Macedonian people.


Gandeto, Josef S. G. Ancient Macedonians, Differences Between The Ancient Macedonians and The Ancient Greeks. New York: Writer's Showcase, 2002.

Some of the ancient quotes and ideas for this article were provided by Dedo Kire.

You can contact the author at

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Well Eddie, you are a confused and sad character.

I know a lot of you so-called 'Macedonians' and I don't think Megalo Alexandros would even understand you today, yet centuries later, I'm sure Alexander would understand the Greek Language.

I suppose you now want to use some pure "Macedonian" word to describe Alexander - oh let me see... ah yes