See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/368636795

Alexander the Greek

Article · February 2023

CITATIONS READS
0 16

1 author:

Gabriel Verveniotis
University of Toronto
4 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Literary View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gabriel Verveniotis on 18 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Alexander the Greek

“How dreadful the knowledge of the truth can be

When there’s no help in truth.”

― Sophocles, Oedipus Rex

Introduction

I can not for the life of me comprehend the desperate, fervid, and concerted effort
by modern academics and pseudo-Hollywood historian types to deny Alexander
the Great his true and rightful Greek heritage. It is truly an enigma if there ever
was one, that Professors in my university days would gleefully remind their
students that Alexander the Great’s Macedonian roots had in some way
disqualified him from being honored with the epithet of Hellenic.

Worst still, these professors would squander our time with inane banter and tedious
examinations of archaic early Helladic period (2500-2300 BC) proto-Greek
architectural rumble, such as the House of Tiles in Bronze Age Lerna, Greece, for
three excruciating lectures while glossing over the chapters of our textbooks
concerning Alexander.

Then they would deliberate whether to afford the remainder of the lectures to last
no more than an hour in contrast to the tile houses’ three-day discourse. Why
celebrate the glory and spread of art, philosophy, science, and innovation as the
gift of western civilizations' founders when you can concern yourself with far more
important matters like broken tiles? And lastly, as if the offense could not get any
more egregious these professors would refer to Alexander, of Macedon (and not
Great) or Alexander III.

The question of Macedonian cultural, geographical, ethnic, and affinities to the

ancient Greek world are complex, nuanced, and conflicting. Although, it should be
pointed out that these matters of Greek identity never seemed to be questioned or
as an issue, it rarely arose academically and was not turned into an attack and
aspersions toward Alexanders' Hellenic heritage. Now it seems only to be
artificially brought forth to forsake any legitimate reference toward Alexander the
Great being Greek.

Many theories abound as to why there is this obsession to assert that Macedonia
was never Greek, but none of these have yet to quelch my bewilderment and satiate
this confusion. It defies logic, or rather, I surmise the motive may have something
to do with the systematic revisionism and assault by modern Marxist
post-modernist academics who in the words of their patriarch of communism Marx
himself, believe that, “the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare
on the brains of the living.”

All I know is that the archetype, forefather, and quintessential figure of western
civilization is under assault by those who wish to divorce our now culturally
beleaguered society from Alexander, and yet, which shamefully still calls itself
western. But by accepting these iconoclastic attempts to disconnect us from the
truth of our civilization’s founder and the important contribution Greece (of which
Macedonia was a part) has made to our western world, we do a great injustice.

Warning. I am of Greek ancestry and therefore somewhat protective over

Alexanders’ legacy, who since childhood has inspired me and remained one of my
most revered prime movers of history. He represents the grandeur of Greek
civilization at its apex which we still see today on the Doric, Ionian, or Corinthian
columns in our homes to keep the roof attached, and can be found ornately
displayed on our supreme courts and city halls.

Moreover, we participate in it and observe this legacy daily in our democracy. We

also use it when writing in the alphabet, or in the Olympics. The philosophy, the
alphabet, our law, botany, music, drama, geometry, architecture, poetry, and
theatre (modern movies) all bequeathed to us, seriously aided by the reach and age
of Hellenism that was forcefully spread by the spear-tip of Alexander in his quest
to civilize the world.

Or, as Austrian poetic critic Kevin Hart once observed, “Western culture takes its
lexicon of intelligibility from Greek philosophy, and all our talk of life and death,
of form and design, is marked by relations with that tradition.”
There is a reason Greece is called the cradle of western civilization. From it, we get
the foundation of Rome which adopted every facet of Greek culture, math,
engineering, architecture, science, and art by expanding it and instituting it even
more successfully than Alexander, whose mission was cut short by an early death,
after a drinking contest with his best mates (although there might be something
else afoot).

After enslaving Greece (yes Greeks were slaves too, many times over) the Romans
would use them as philosophers, guides, advisors, rhetoricians, administrators, and
teachers to educate the most prominent members of society. They were cited,
translated, quoted, and embraced by the likes of Cicero, Seneca, Livy, Suetonius,
Tacitus, Pliny, and even emperor Marcus Aurelius.

Following Rome’s final collapse (476 AD), the gift of the Greek language, writing,
architecture, theatres, sports, education, alphabet, and philosophy was passed on
from the Romans which became the template for future nations like England,
France, and Germany where they drafted their governments and academic
institutions based on the foundation gifted to them by Rome and bequeathed to
lands like England who thereafter gave us Canada, America, Australia, and others.

Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and John Adams all used the wise words of these
Greek and later Roman sages to construct a modern constitution reflective of
Cleisthenes' (the founder of democracy being Greek but no one ever teaches him)
vision of a democratic society.

From this constitution, we have before us today the worshipped and oft-cited “our
democracy” which is used by elite politicians and media, who could not care less
about enfranchisement and act as though it were this flicking flame from
Prometheus’ torch yet to be taken away by their “right-wing” political opponents.
In short, it’s their whole justification in depriving you of freedom, lest that very
freedom be lost by those who criticize the ones that pull the strings in “our
democracy”.

There is a reason every university across western civilization since the days of
Plato’s Academy in 387 BC, to Rome and then the successor states of Christendom
have enforced and preserved the Classics and the study of the Greek language. Our
very alphabet itself is derived from it, as are a vast majority of root words, the
etymology of which often expresses the most substantial of human ideas, such as
Kronos (Chronological or time) or philosophy (logos - logic) so is it any wonder
that in our day in age, these postmodernist jackals see fit to deny us our rightful
heritage by lying about who its progenitor or chief advocate was?

Nevertheless, I digress, back to the matter at hand; the concept of Greekness, and
what constitutes it or who belongs to it is again, a complex and nuanced issue.
With evolving successions of migrations taking place over centuries, assimilation
of other local influences or changes in dialects over time is to be expected within
all human groupings over vast swaths of time.

Greece being an expansive, colonizing, and seafaring civilization it would only be

logical to conclude that divergences in culture and identity would develop over
time. However, the fundamental roots, ancestry, language, religion, culture,
identity, architecture, philosophy and dare I say blood of a people despite the
ravages of time and geography, remained consistent within the Greek world. This
Greek was broad but remained the same and included all Polis (city-states) in
Greece, including the northern boundaries of Greece, namely; Macedonia and
beyond.

Macedonia like all other Greek Polis such as Athens, Thebes, Sparta, and Corinth
was regarded by its citizens as its own independent community and state.
Athenians, Thebans, and Spartans as they would call themselves expressed and
practiced their rituals and traditions in a way complimentary and consistent with
the interests of their Polis, which was connected to a larger Hellenic ethos, but
nevertheless flavored differently.

These city-states could in some way be distinguished from one another by their
favored associations with the patron deities they worshipped, the battles they
fought, and finally the mythical founders of their city-states. Nonetheless, they still
retained the fundamentals that made them Hellenic. We see this, especially in the
areas of Greek settlement outside Greece proper.

However, despite these subtle variations the underlying heritage, foundation, and
identity of these city-states be it in Syracuse, Sicily, Miletus, Asia Minor, and
mainland Greece still retained and shared one Hellenic cultural and national
identity. Most importantly, within this patchwork of shared Hellenic heritage
belonged Macedonia, the land from which Alexander the Great was born and
would go on to conquer the world bringing forth the fruits of Greek civilization we
still reap today.

In this investigation, I intend to set forth upon a conquest like Alexander to dispel,
disprove and demolish the false notion that Macedonia was not seen as, or
regarded as a barbarian and or non-Greek state. As a result, I set out to prove that
Alexander the Great, although being a Macedonian was Greek in every sense, nor
did his being Macedonian detract from his Greekness. Or finally, neither did it
make him a foreign conqueror of the Greeks forced to suffer subjugation under the
cultural and ethnic yoke of a distinct Macedonian people.

Following the words and wisdom of the father of history himself, Herodotus sets
up the parameters of what constitutes Greekness/Hellenism. And from this primary
source historical confession of beliefs, we can navigate the turbulent straits of
Hellenism ensnared by Scylla’s teeth of jagged lies and the Charybidus-like
whirlpools of ignorance threatening to swallow up this intellectual quest to obtain
the Golden Fleece of truth! (Jason and the Argonaut references, well worth the
read).

I feel like the best place to launch this perilous expedition in search of truth should
begin by defining what it means to be an ancient Greek, or rather how the primary
sources from Greece perceived and defined themselves. As mentioned just a
moment ago there is no better man to start with than Herodotus, who was a Greek
historian and geographer from the Greek city of Halicarnassus (located in Asia
Minor no less) born in or around 480 BC.

He is known for having written the Histories – a primary source detailed account
of the Greco-Persian Wars and the ancient world which will be referenced
frequently. Moving forward, in an exchange that will be expanded later on
amongst the Greeks facing Persian invasion the Athenian representative of the
Greek assembly states (including invited members from Macedonia), he writes,
“Again, there is the Greek nation, the community of blood, and language, temples
and ritual and our common customs.”

Alexander the Great will be shown to possess all of these characteristics that the
Greeks espoused regarding their own identity. By using this Greek attestation of
identity as our template for what constitutes being Greek we will now proceed to
summarize some salient and irrefutable points that will be explored systematically
throughout this exposition.

We will examine the following seven points and then reach our verdict. 1) The
history of Greece, the origins of the Macedonians, and the Dorian migration where
all Greeks came from. 2) Greek geography, islands, borders, territory,
Macedonian/Greek land. 3) The overlap and shared Greek and Macedonian
heritage. 4) Ancestry of Alexander, Argos, Argead Dynasty. 5) Greek and
Macedonian alliances, confederations, and councils. 6) Greek and Macedonian
shared Religion. 7) The Olympics.

Historical Sources

Unlike modern “academics” who rely on interpretive retellings and reinventions of

history based on tertiary-sourced historical evidence, we will dutifully provide as
many primary and secondary sources as possible. In doing so concerns regarding
contemporary biases or personal nationalist motives to persuade the reader will not
contaminate this investigation.

The following classical and contemporary historians will be relied upon in this
investigation. Those are Herodotus (the father of history), Thucydides, Plutarch,
Pausanias, Didiorus Sicilius, Arrian, Titus Livy, as well as modern 19th-21st
century historians. However, the vast majority of evidence put forth will be from
those who either were ancient Greeks that knew of or participated in the events or
Roman scholars who relied extensively on original works from those periods lost
to us due to unjust ravages of time.

However, before we begin, a digression and defense must be offered to protect the
legacy of some of the classical sources being used. Historians like Herodotus suffer
from libel, misquotation, or outright lies from some modern historians. And yet, it
would be irresponsible to deny that these historians were plagued, influenced, and
prejudiced by certain biases, corruption, and the politics of their day.

With that said… a few words are necessary before the automatic and
pre-programmed cynicism overtakes the reader's unguarded mind and turns them
against my primary sources. To begin our apology let’s start with Herodotus. The
author of this examination (yours truly) will make frequent references to Herodotus
because he is one of the first figures in history to chronologically transcribe events
in a similar format we use today; hence the title father of history. And is one of the
first historians of western civilization with few surviving contemporaries to
compare with.

Further, he is one of the innovators of standard historical methods, through his

linear and systematic scope, and familiar format which historians recognize today,
albeit somewhat less modern than most we hope for. Most importantly, his text the
Histories covers the ancient world as well as the Persian Wars and nearly all facets
of ancient Greece. That goes without saying, some of his accounts have turned out
to be incorrect, not necessarily intentionally, but sometimes they are incomplete or
based on unsubstantiated facts due to the limit of data that existed for him to use.

In a time before toilet paper, it’s hard to fault our ancestors who had to hunt for
their food and build their own homes. These intellectuals of their age didn’t have
the luxury of telescopes, microwaves, and other technological aids that are a staple
in our useless age. Nevertheless, the issue of the infamous Cynocephali or
“dog-headed people” arises whenever people wish to discredit Herodotus as being
fantastical and believing in mythical beings that did not exist.

Many argue that Herodotus believed in fantasy creatures. The charge that he
believed in dog-headed men is categorically false. Anyone who knows of
Herodotus' historical process would know that unlike his more refined and cited
disciple Thucydides, Herodotus compiled and compared ALL accounts of local
stories and events. Herodotus would not exclude or discount the more implausible
things he heard when he had nothing else to go on or if there were two conflicting
views on the nature of the event.

This method is useful in many senses because it preserves the opponent's side of
the argument and in some ways is more objective because it leaves the data before
the reader and allows them to make their judgments. This is the context of the
Libyan Cynocephali or “dog-headed men” Herodotus writes about. He doesn’t say
creatures like this exist or are real, he says that the Libyans who he interviewed tell
this about themselves and that he merely recorded it.

For example, he writes, “Above this coast, near to the region of the west wind,
there are certain men who are said to have the heads of dogs instead of men; and
this form of them is not like the common form of the rest of mankind, but it is as I
have said, dog-headed. They are said to bark like dogs and hunt in packs. This tribe
is called the tribe of Cynocephali." Key phrase, is “certain men who have said.”
Many a time an entire culture or era Herodotus presents in his work is disregarded
as a result of this disingenuous way of disarming the historian of his credibility.

(Oddly these dog-headed men reappear in mid-14th-century English author Sir

Mandevilles' Travels. As well as many other classical travel and historical texts.
Furthermore, the Egyptians even made the Cynocephali into a god named Anubis.
But that’s enough of that..)

The rest of the sources except for a few modern historians and Thucydides are
mainly Roman and from the 1st-2nd century. Especially as it pertains to the
conquests, life, and campaigns of Alexander the Great. Alexander was prudent
enough (or cunning and manipulative, according to modern viewpoints) to bring
along many chroniclers. One of which was even Aristotle's nephew Callithenes,
who was later executed after a failed assassination plot against Alexander, hence
the falling out between him and Aristotle.

Nonetheless, most of these writings were contained in the library of Alexandria,

right beside blueprints of revolutionary technological inventions, maps, and other
unrivaled marvels of human antiquity, consisting of art, and extraordinary
innovation that has been lost to us due to the fire of 48 BC. With that said the
Roman historians that will be used often had access to these primary source
documents which is evident in the similarities observed across the ancient world in
various other accounts of the life of Alexander by several historians.

Also, before the invention of writing stories and knowledge was transmitted orally,
through story-telling, song, and the rhapsody of wandering bards (what a beautiful
time to live). Anthropologists have attempted to test the reliability of oral traditions
by comparing an isolated, pre-literate African tribe’s telling of their myths
contrasted with tribesmen who had left centuries before and who had become
assimilated into western society and thereafter wrote down their myths.

When the anthropologists requested that the tribe recite their history and myths
orally to see if it lined up with the written record of these same diasporic tribesman
descendants the text did so word for word. Believe it or not, but without the tool
and aid of the written word man had the potential and capacity to recall in great
detail information without the aid of the written word. Before the time of Homer,
poets could recall verse by verse the long and complex story, precisely and without
trouble. We also see this capacity in modern savants, one of which was depicted in
the 1980s movie the Rain Man, played by Dustin Hoffman.

What this proves is that these ancient texts which derived from oral traditions are
not necessarily devoid of merit, unreliable, or untrustworthy. Rather, it shows that
in addition to having primary sources no longer extant to us, such as Alexanders'
dairies, the historians of antiquity also complimented their research with testimony
from others whose memory was more vivid and encapsulating than ours is today.

Most of all, it should be recalled that before Columbus sailed the Atlantic to (re-)
discover North America he relied on early maps, and in his own words more
ancient ones. Meaning that those ancient sources were trusted enough to inspire
Columbus to cross the Atlantic ocean for the first time (that is recorded, lest we
forget Leif Erikson).

With that said, historians like Didorius Sicilus, and even Plutarch have been
lambasted for their own political or ideological shortcomings. This, however,
cannot be avoided. The political, social, or scholastic influences that inspired
historians like Arrian, Plutarch, Livy or Sicilus affected their content and I am sure
any number of their works are replete with certain emphasis’ placed on subjects of
interest for them in their day.

Now, let’s begin.

Who were the Greeks?

First and foremost, who are the Greeks? Are they confined to the ancient Minion
civilization from the island of Crete? Or perchance they are more associated with
their overlapping Myceneans from the Peloponessus? At what point does a group
of people become recognized as a unit, ethnicity, or community? When over the
tumultuous oceans of time do the waves calm down into something static and
consistent?

From as far as archeology and linguists have been able to determine, the earliest
indications of a “Greek” or more accurately a proto-Greek civilization emerged
from the kingdom of Knossos on the island of Crete a part of the Minoan
civilization. The name Minoian derives from the semi-mythical king Minos.
Further, the Minion civilization was discovered by the archeologist Sir Arthur
Evans, and it is said to be dating from 1900 BC.

Contemporaneous to this discovery in the late 19th century a pioneer and amateur
archeologist (formerly a German banker) went on an extraordinary expedition to
prove that Troy existed. Not only did he achieve this Herculean task, whilst
fending off the “experts” of his day who denied it, but he also discovered the home
of Agamemnon, Mycenae, later to be termed the Mycenean civilization circa 1600
BC.

The history of Greece is divided into four primary categories, the Age of Heroes or
Homeric age, defined by legends, myths, and great deeds from 1900-1100 BC (or
in our modern lame terms the Bronze Age). Then there was the Archaic period or
Greek Dark Ages, following the collapse of the Homeric era and then ending when
Homer and Hesiod pick up writing starting in the 8th-5th Century BC.

Following this was the Classical period, or the Greek Golden Age beginning from
the founding of democracy to Alexander which took place from 510-323 BC.
Finally, the Hellenic period following the conquests of Alexander 323-32 BC
which was from the death of Alexander to the death of Pharoah Cleopatra, whose
fame can be found in the pages of Shakespeare no less.
Our primary sources from the Age of Heroes are scant, limited, and confined to
three major works, those being Homer’s the Illiad and Odyssey and Hesoid’s work
Theogony. Both of these works were composed in literary form in or around the
8th century BC and so our access to history from these periods relies mainly on
archeology and linguistics. However, in terms of the aim of this investigation,
since we are focusing on culture, identity, and the beliefs of the Greeks, sources
like these also satisfy those ends, albeit even if they are intermingled with a little
bit of myth.

And so when trying to discern where Macedonia fits into the larger Hellenic
civilization that stretched over these broad times and regions it can be hard to place
what role they played, or how they fit into the overall picture of being Greek. It is
popular today for modern scholars to contend that Macedonia was not a member
state or part of Greece in the Archaic and Homeric eras because of the few sources
we have from that period, whereas in Homer, Macedonia is absent. Another reason
is that there is no mention of the Macedonians cataloged in the Iliad when all the
Greek kingdoms assaulted Troy.

That goes without saying, Homer is one of our most celebrated, and venerated
titans of Greek literary history, having composed his epic around the 8th century
should, of course, be respected. Not to take away from the invaluable contribution
he has made to our understanding of the earliest historical periods known to us of
Greece. But for our purposes, his silence on the matter of Macedonia indicates only
that in those primordial times the role Alexanders’ kingdom would later play was
still in its infancy.

German historian, Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren conveys the profound meaning
of this colossus of a poet, "It was Homer who formed the character of the Greek
nation. No poet has ever, as a poet, exercised a similar influence over his
countrymen. Prophets, lawgivers, and sages have formed the character of other
nations; it was reserved for a poet to form that of the Greeks.”

Moreover, a lot of the later Greek city-states did not exist or were also not
mentioned in that poetic account of the bronze Bronze Age Trojan War period.
And so to use Homer’s list from the second book of the Iliad depicting the famous
catalog of ships as the definitive testimony of the Greek world who’s-who would
be premature and incomplete given that this was an early period and did not
include all the major players.

Moreover, there were a series of tribal migrations which took place following the
Bronze Age collapse, around 1200-1150 BC which is when nearly all the great
Bronze Age ancients mysteriously collapsed except Egypt. However, it was
significantly damaged and altered as a result. And so the question of what
constitutes Greek civilization becomes all the more confusing given that the
earliest forms in which it sprang (Minoa and Mycene) vanished by 1150 BC.

Therefore, to begin, we must analyze the early migratory and tribal settlements of
these original inhabitants and of those who came after the Bronze Age such as the
Dorians. We need to do this to better grasp who the founding Greeks were, where
they came from, what survived of them, and what foundation they left which
would amalgamate and evolve into what we consider ancient Greece. By
investigating these roots and migrations we can then show how the Macedonians
were just as much a part of this Hellenic story as well.

History of Greece, The Origins of the Macedonians, and the Dorian Invasion

One of the main reasons Macedonia has recently been shortlisted for being
“Greek” is because it did not belong to the peoples of Mycenea, Achea, and Minoa.
Yet, some of the most well-known classical Greek city-states, such as Athens,
Thebes, and Corinth, did not emerge as distinct political entities until several
centuries after the end of the Mycenean period and therefore Macedonia would not
be any different in this regard.

It follows that although the Macedonians may not have existed in the static way
they later became, that does not mean they were not Greek. At this early period, it
is very hard to diagnose a static culture when it was still in its embryonic stage of
development. As such, this applies to Macedonia as it does other Greek city-states,
which like the other major Greek regions were undergoing similar gestation
following the Bronze Age collapse and the end of the Age of Heroes.

Nevertheless, the semi-consolidated tribes, borders, and founders of what would

thereafter be considered Greek were initiated by the incursion and invasion of a
migratory people called the Dorians whose migration took place following the
Bronze Age collapse, in or around 1100 BC. This event has great significance for
our understanding of where Alexanders’ ancestors claim heritage from as well as
for the rest of the Greeks who claim heritage from the Dorians.

The Dorians are regarded by historians both classical and modern as the
forefathers, foundation, and template of what became Greece. Most importantly,
the Dorians were said to be the fathers of the royal lineage of the Macedonians and
Alexander the Great by distant extension. But this was not without displacing, and
or replacing the earlier Achean and Myceneans from the Age of Heroes depicted in
the works of Homer.

The primary four ancestral tribes that founded themselves as the settlers of the
lands we refer to as Greece were the Aeolians, Ionians, Achaeans, and then finally
the Dorians. After the Dorian invasions, these four categories made up what
constitutes Greece ethnically. Subsequently, following the invasion, these three
other tribes were pushed southward due to the Dorian incursion which came from
Macedonia and settled in the Peloponessus. The Dorians moved southward through
Thessaly, partially settling there which explains the ancestral affinity between
Thessaly and Macedon.

As a result of these invasions, we get the early Greek colonial period which
accounts for why and how the Greeks acquired major city centers throughout the
Mediterranean world. The Ionians were some of the first and most successful
colonizers who migrated east towards Attica and Eboea and would thereafter settle
in the cities of Erteria and Chalcis around the time of the 8th Century in the
Archaic period.

Chalcis it should be noted also settled in the Macedonian lands near Mt Athos, and
so even geographically, traditionally accepted Greeks were present there, even if
they were not a part of the kingdom of Macedon. Later on, in the 4th century BC
king Philip II of Macedonia (Alexander’s father) would annex this territory from
Athens, thus integrating it fully within the government of the Macedonian
kingdom.
The territories formerly occupied by the Myceneans were abandoned and gave way
to colonization from the movements and shuffling of the four tribes occupying
Greece which spread outward. The Ionians dominated the surrounding islands of
Attica including the Cyclades, Samos, and Chios. The Dorians then expanded to
the southern Islands of Crete and the Dodecanese Islands next to the southern coast
of Asia Minor. Finally, the Aeolians settled the islands of Sporadess, Lesbos, and
Samothrace. While the Acheans remained in the Peloponnesian peninsula.

The Eobeans (Ionian migrants which later became Thebes) mainly came from
Erteria and Chalcis and became a Martine colonial power and expanded toward
Macedonia where the Eobeans established the Chalcidiki as a territory that
included cities like Mende, Toroni, and Scione. Later on, in the sixth century, the
city of Stageria was founded which is also the birthplace of Aristotle.

This is mentioned because it shows that the region of Macedon was settled not just
with Dorians but by also Ionians, thereby making it Greek in that sense too. It is
also ironic that the philosopher, natural scientist, and overall founder of western
schools of thought, Aristotle was himself an inhabitant of territory orbiting in the
regional realm of the Macedonians. Any wonder that king Philip II requested that
he hop over and teach his son who lived in the same lands?

It is also important to note the Sicilian settlements such as Cumae, Syracuse, and
Naxos which were established from the 8th century onward, and after. These were
colonies again founded by mostly (later Sparta too) Ionians and are considered
“Greek” in every sense, or more specifically as belonging to what we term,
“Magna Grecia”. This evidence shows that even though the land is foreign and
distant from mainland Greek soil historians have no issues referring to those from
Naxos, or Messena as Greek. And so if Nexos et. al is referred to as “Greek” why
not Macedonia?

We now turn to historian Nicholas Hammond, who was one of the foremost
scholars on the subject of Macedonia where he wrote exhaustively and in copious
volumes documents the history of our focus, in his work the History of Macedonia.
Just a little background, Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, CBE, DSO,
FBA was a British historian, geographer, classicist, and operative for the British
Special Operations Executive in occupied Greece during the Second World War.
Hammond is seen as the leading expert on the history of ancient Macedonia

Subscribed

In Nicholas Hammond's History of Macedonia Vol.1, he elucidates the complexity

of these early migrations, their spread of language, and the origins of Macedonia.
First, he begins, “Even our earliest use of the term 'The Greeks' must be taken to
have a connotation of language and not of race. If this definition is accepted, no
one will disagree with the view that the invaders who came from the north in the
M.H. period were in a general sense 'The first Greeks; for they introduced into the
southern peninsula the Greek language which has persisted ever since that time.”

Concerning the question of this early period of Greek/Macedonian origins and

settlement Hammond explains, “the earliest Greek tradition about the origins of the
Greeks is presented by Hesiod in the form of a genealogy. It is located in the first
part of Greece proper into which the Kurgan peoples penetrated, that is in Thessaly
near the end of the late Neolithic period.”

The Kurgan people were known as the branch of Indo-European groups that
migrated from the Caucus and settled in waves throughout Europe. They came
from the Ponitc Steepes around the Black Sea. They came down to Greece as early
as the 5-4th Millenium and over time scattered and evolved, planting their
Proto-Greek seeds. We know this linguistically and in this area Nicholas
Hammond focuses to demonstrate the common ancestral links between the
Dorians, Macedonians, and the rest of Greece.

Hammond expands his explanation of the origins according to the ancient sources
of these first Greek/Macedonian people, “the war-loving king Hellen [son of
Deucalion] begat Dorus, Xouthus (father of Ion), and Aeolus who fought from the
chariot. These names indicate the common origin in Thessay of three tribally and
dialectically distinct groups of Greek-speaking people, the so-called Dories, Iones,
and Aeoleis. To these groups, we may add a fourth called by dialectologists the
‘northwest Greeks’ who were most akin to the Dories than to the Iones, and
Aeoleis.”

Herodotus also confirms the same genesis tracing back to Deucalion where he
states in the Histories, "Whence the Hellenes come and what was the reason for
their migration, hearing it stated by themselves, I shall set forth. They say that in
the time of King Deucalion, there was a great drought in all of Hellas so that the
people were in want of necessities and left their cities, and some of them went
abroad to foreign parts."

The previously mentioned tribes of early Greece correspond to these linguistic

categories that Hammond also confirms. Most importantly, the northwest Greeks
belong to what would become the kingdom of Macedonia which Hammond
illustrates to have been connected and related to the other root linguistic groups,
especially the Dorians. As to intermixtures between other indigenous groups
(Paeoians, Illyrians, Thracians), there may be no doubt, and so acknowledging this
to be a factor for the Macedonians does not detract from my thesis at all.

Expanding further, Hammond describes the periods of these developments, “the

dialects developed between 2600 BC and 1900 BC not only among the Kurgan
people themselves but also among the people who adopted Greek speech. Thus we
may be able to suggest the particular regions in which the particular dialects
developed within the general area under the control of Kurgan peoples, this is
within the area extending from Haliacmon valley to Albania.”

The Haliacomon valley is located precisely where Macedonia is, and expands to
more central Greece and thus proves through linguistics and migration that the
tongue of Macedonia was a part of the evolving Greek dialect that culminated into
the language of Greek of Alexanders' later kingdom. Nevertheless, Hammond
continues, “thus a group of Greek-speaking peoples with a distinctive culture and
no doubt with a distinctive dialect came into existence as early as the M.H. period.
It straddled the Pindus range, from north-west Macedonia to the upper basin river
of Kalamas at least and it continued in existence.”

Finally, through the geography, archeology, migratory patterns, and linguistic

sources Hammond stresses the satisfactory nature of archeological evidence to
render a verdict on where these languages came from and how Macedonia was
linguistically Greek, albeit a somewhat different branch. He writes, “Yet enough
emerges [archeological evidence] to justify the ancient divisions into Ionians,
Aeoleis, Dorieis… We are left with another part of the earliest genealogy we have
of the Greek race.”

He goes on by connecting these language bases with references from primary

sources such as Hesiod and Herodotus who proves our earliest written accounts.
Hammond writes, “now the name Hesiod gives to the mountain north of Olympus
is the ‘Makedonikon oros’, which is in Pieria; and this name is related by
Herodotus to the ‘Makednan’ name adopted by the Dorian group when it moved
from Olympus to Pindus at some time after 1350 BC.”

Hammond concludes, “if our interpretation of the earliest genealogy is correct, the
Macedones are like the Molossian group, a collateral branch of the Greek-speaking
peoples wherein in the northern mountainous part of Pieria in the centuries
1900-1600 BC which we know as the M.H. period… Herodotus preserves the
ancient tradition that this group was the ‘Dorian-Macednan group.’ It was held at
first in the region of Thessaly called Phthiotis and then country under Mt. Ossa and
Mt. Olympus.”

We can verify this Dorian mention by Herodotus by finding more evidence of it in

his seminal work the Histories where the father of history clarifies the Greek and
Dorian links. For example, “The common Greek tradition is that the Dorian kings
as far back as Perseus, the son of Danae (thus not including the god), are as they
stand in the accepted Greek lists, and are rightly considered as of Greek nationality
because even at this early date they ranked as such.”

Share

What this proves through both Herodotus and Hammond is the undeniable fact that
the ancient Greeks from their mouths believed the Dorians to be Greek which as
Hammond has linguistically shown did migrate into that region, influencing and
branching off as linguistic subgroups taking place in Macedonia and distributed
throughout the rest of Greece.
With that said, Macedonians developed their language too. Classical Roman
1st-century historian Plutarch adds to some of the confusion surrounding the
language of the Macedonians when he recounts in his famous work The Life of
Alexander (which will be mentioned frequently) that the Macedonians had their
language not understood by other soldiers present.

In a dramatic scene after Alexander had finished defeating the dreaded King
Darius III, who descended from Darius I and Xerxes, he in a drunken rage
murdered one of his main generals and personal companion. To back up a bit,
being victorious over Persia around 330 BC, Alexander began to bask in the luxury
and pomp of Persian hedonism and comforts which transformed his formerly
austere and stoic military temperament. This change insulted and frightened his
long-time Macedonian generals including and especially Cleitus the Black.

To clarify, Cleitus was a beloved companion and capable military commander

assigned to protect and guide Alexander the Great from his earliest years after
Alexanders' father Philip II assigned Celitus as a guardian and mentor. In the battle
of Granicus of 334 BC, for example, Alexander was nearly killed until Cleitus the
black chopped off the arm of the Persian warrior Spithridates who was about to
murder Alexander with his sword. From beyond the grave, the shadow of his father
Philip II protected him in battle in the form of Cleitus.

Nonetheless, Cleitus and his closest generals were deeply concerned over this
cultural shift in their king. Even worse was that Alexander was beginning to recruit
and train conquered Persian divisions of Greek-trained soldiers and placed them
within his army which threatened the Macedonian military and cultural hegemony
over the top regiments and command positions within the army.

In the intoxicated feud, Clietus insinuated that Alexander was worthless without
the Greeks/Macedonians, and he was accused of being a Persian-loving sell-out.
As a result, Alexander the Great rammed a spear through Cleitus’ heart, killing him
instantly. The incident tortured Alexander so much that he had to be stopped from
killing himself after the deed was accomplished and then thereafter he retreated
into his tent and mourned his beloved mentor.
Now that I have set up the context, back to Plutarch, the historian writes of the
incident in his work Life of Alexander where he describes Alexander's demand to
be given a spear to kill Cleitus the Black with, for example, “he called out aloud to
his guards in the Macedonian language.”

To some, this example seems pretty conclusive concerning what language the
Macedonians spoke when Plutarch writes that the Macedonians had their tongue. It
appears to confound and contradicts what we just went over. Especially in terms of
what Herodotus and Hammond just proved linguistically about the roots of the
Greek/Macedonian language and which now needs to be accounted for.

The Macedonians like any other ethnic group residing on the distant borders and
boundaries of a country are bound to receive influence from the integration of
surrounding cultures and ethnicities adjacent to them. Moreover, it is not
uncommon to find pockets of language differences from the native tongue within
countries that all speak the same language, especially when there are still
indigenous influences present.

A good example of this would be Jamaican Patiois which combines French with
English and had evolved to pronounce words entirely distinct from their original
meanings. There is also the example of cockney spoken in certain boroughs of
England, which believe me sounds incomprehensible to any English speaker. But
this matter will also be fleshed out in more depth shortly as it pertains to the
cultural relatedness of Greeks and Macedonians.

What later became the fully stratified languages spoken throughout the Greek
world Herodotus proves was shared by the Macedonians even with their dialects,
which Hammond explains as well. Herodotus puts the matter of language to bed
finally when he explains, “Since they speak the same language [Macedonians],
they should end their disputes using heralds or messengers…”

This is also confirmed by Roman by 1st-century historian Titus Livy who relates
this in his work the History of Rome where he states, “Aetolians, Acarnanians,
Macedonians, men of the same language…” Altogether what we get is a relatively
clear picture of the correlation between migration, language, and early Greek
settlement which included Macedonia within its trajectory.

Greek and Macedonian Geography

Some argue however that according to classical sources or accounts by Homer

(who we have already addressed), Isocates, Pausanias, and some others who
misquote Herodotus, who lay claims as to why the land of Macedonia is left out of
the Greek pantheon. They claim Homer, Strabo, and Thucydides did not include it
when they described where Greek soil begins and ends. Isocrates and Pausanias
believed this was the reason they could not be counted as Greek.

This position is absurd if it is predicated on specific physical borders and

boundaries cited by these authors. The reason is that these borders would have
changed over time due to the expansion of the Hellenic and Macedonian empire,
colonial settlements, as well as changes in boundaries due to conquest and war.
Most of all the Greeks were mariners and had a vast amount of islands and
colonies distributed throughout the Mediterranean.

Herodotus can be relied on to clear up the confusion of who is or is not Greek in

contrast to all others based on what borders of a country they belong to. Herodotus
defines the boundaries and reaches of Greece as such, "The Greeks call all the
non-Greek people 'barbarians', and the land that the barbarians occupy is known as
'barbarian country'. The Greek area is called 'Hellas', and its people are known as
the Hellenes."

Strabo (no friend of Alexander was Greek position) was a 1st-century Greek
geographer, philosopher, and historian who lived in Asia Minor during the
transitional period of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Hopefully, he
can help elucidate the opaque definition of what would constitute the borders of
Greece. For example, he makes mention of the Ionian Islands off the coast of Asia
Minor, also known as Miletus as constituting themselves Greek as follows, "The
Greeks inhabit not only the country now called Greece, but also Ionia, the islands
of the Aegean, and a part of Thrace."

It is important to address the issue of island colonies or those Greek communities

living on different continents. By speaking to this we can prove that a community
can remain and be defined as Greek even if it exists outside the borders of
mainland Greece. As well, it illustrates how indigenous cultures in that region
influence and change some elements of the Greek character residing in these
distant territories.

One example to evince this point can be found in a story that Herodotus relates.
The passage begins with an exchange between an Ionian tyrant named Aristagoras
who pleads with Sparta and its king to rescue and liberate the Greek Ionian islands
from Persian rule. He shows that the “Greek world” was spread out and not
confined to the physical property of Greece proper. Aristogoras's appeal to the
Spartan king Cleomenes comes from a place of cultural affinity and shared
ancestry, hence his appeal to Sparta.

The exchange is as follows, “That the Ionians should have become slaves in place
of free men is a bitter shame and grief, not only to us, but to the rest of Greece, and
especially to you who are the leaders of the Greek world. We beg you therefore, in
the name of the gods of Greece, to save from slavery your Ionian kinsmen.”

In another example, the Persian king Darius intended to conquer all of Greece as
revenge for the Athenian-backed Ionian uprising around 490 BC. Darius I
(ancestor of Alexander the Greats Darius III) thereafter crossed the Hellsplenot
targeting Greek cities where Aristogoras came from. What is of note is that
Herodotus recounts how amongst those targeted city-states, Macedonia was
included and was one of Darius’s targets, because they too were seen as a part of
Greece.

Herodotus states, “the Persians intended to subjugate as many Greek towns as they
could. Their fleet subdued Thasos without resistance, and the troops on land added
the Macedonians to the list of Darius’ subjects.” This passage proves that the
Persians viewed the land of Macedonia as being a part of Greece which they
sought to conquer due to a broader conflict between Persia and Greece which
included Macedon.

In Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon. Historian M. B. Hatzopoulos in his

paper, Macedonians and Other Greeks tackles the ambiguity of where ancient
Macedonia finds itself placed within the context of Greece. He explains, “The
geographical term Macedonia means nothing else but the land inhabited and/or
ruled by the Macedonians. Its extent has followed the expansion of the
Macedonian kingdom from its foundation around 700 BC to its suppression by the
Romans in 168 BC.

Hatzopoulos goes on, “That is why it is impossible to give a single geographical

definition of its limits. In the five centuries of its existence Macedonia proper
(excluding the external fluctuating dependencies never integrated into the state)
came to comprise the lands from the Pindus mountain range in the west to the plain
of Philippi in the east, and from Mt. Olympus in the south to the Axios gorge
between Mt. Barnous (Kaimaktsalan) and Mt. Orbelos (Beles) to the north.”

Most consequentially, Hatzopoulos points out that the Macedonian kingdom and
the people it ruled were different from its initial inhabitants, yet still being settled
by Creteans and Athenians as well, “the Macedonians were not the first inhabitants
of the country to which they eventually gave their name. Ancient literary sources
mention the Pieres in Pieria, the Brygoi, remnants of a people who migrated to
Asia Minor, where they are known under the name of the Phrygians, the
mysterious Bottiaians, who allegedly hailed from Crete and Athens.”

Later on, when we examine the ancestry of Alexander the Great and his royal
lineage the relevance of this point will resonate because what it proves is that the
Dorian-rooted Argead dynasty of which Alexander is a member came from the
Peloponnesian peninsula, more specifically from Argos. Why this is necessary to
point out is that some scholars refute Alexanders' family background by dismissing
it as a mythical invention, but Hatzopoulos confirms that Macedonia emerged as a
result of the Argead migration and the subsequent creation of the Macedonians as a
distinctly ethnically Greek people.

For example, he concludes, “By the beginning of the classical period, the
archaeological evidence leaves no doubt about the integration of Macedonia in the
contemporary Hellenic world. If one turns to what the fifth-century authors have to
say about the Macedonians, they note that their statements correspond to the
picture emerging from the archaeological and epigraphic evidence.”

Greek and Macedonian Shared Culture and Identity

Several classical historians conjectured the origins of the Macedonians, and some
even claimed them to be barbarians and not of Greek stock. Modern Slavic
nationalists and nearly all the cultural-immolating eunuchs of modern academia
and their celebrity TV history channel counterparts pounce at the opportunity to
affirm this. Again, the motive remains unclear but it does indeed exist and it has
plagued my soul since my earliest years.

These “scholarly” cretins mainly cling to the following opinions from some
classical historians that are as such, Thucydides, the ancient Greek historian,
wrote: "the Macedonians are not a Greek people, nor are their customs Greek."
Strabo, the Greek geographer, and historian wrote, "the Macedonians are not of
Greek stock, but are, in my opinion, of Illyrian origin." And finally, Pausanias, the
Greek traveler, and geographer wrote, "the Macedonians are not Greeks, but a
people separate from the Greeks."

From this, we get the basis and ammunition to assault Alexander the Great. Even
though Herodotus proves time and time again this is not the case, while still
acknowledges that the Macedonians were different. This was also shown in
Hammonds's analysis confirming the branching dialects of the early Greek
language and tribes. Again to reiterate, Herodotus states in his Histories, “the
Macedonians are Greeks, in my opinion, but they have taken some barbarian
customs into their way of life."

Herodotus is right in pointing this out, as well as the other classical historians who
presumed or prematurely concluded the Macedonians were not at all Greek
(Pausanias being chief among them). Yet, they have some basis to justify their
claims of there being a mixture though. The reality is that any border state will
assimilate most closely with its surrounding neighbors. If you examine the borders
of America with Mexico you see a strong Spanish “Tex-Mex” influence. But given
this intermingling, you would not then say Texas is not American.

Furthermore, Macedonia and Alexander the Great proudly affirmed their heritage
and asserted that they were Greek and Macedonian at any opportunity they could.
In Arrian, Plutarch, and Didorius Sicilus's account of Alexander they constantly
refer to and distinguish between the “Greeks” and Macedonians, while also
quoting Alexander and his generals identifying themselves as Greek; this is not a
contradiction because they were both.

Subscribed

There is nothing wrong with these dual identities nor does it detract from the
central thesis which is that Macedonia was part and a member that constituted
itself as its Greek kingdom or city-state (Polis) within the broader patchwork of
Hellensim. Athens, Thebes, Sparta, and Corinth also identified first as Athenians,
Thebans, Spartans, and Corinthians, just as Macedonia had done. Greece as a
nation did not exist, nor was the idea of a nation-state as a governmental model
even existent at that point in history.

But to claim that Macedonia was not Greek simply because they identified with
their city-state or kingdom would require one to do the same for all other ancient
Greek historical figures and periods of note. You would not say, “Athenian
philosophy” when referencing the subject of Greek philosophy because it came
from Socrates who was proudly Athenian. Nor would you call the major Greek
tragedic plays Theban tragedies because Sophacles was from Thebes.

These were independent states and the closest comparison would be akin to early
colonial America, or the Middle Ages of Europe. In the case of America, adjacent
and concurrent with the formation of Virginia and Masscutuses you had frontier
territories that were wild and unruly and formerly not a part of any specific colony.
Then you had Lousiana that spoke primarily French in the early 1600s onward.
Later Lousiana would be sold by none other than Napolean Bonapart to President
Thomas Jefferson in 1803. In terms of the frontier backwoods, they too were
subjected to Indigenous influences.

Nevertheless, one will observe in these examples layouts of cultural and social
pockets within regions that sometimes spoke completely different languages or
dialects. Some of them changed over time and were culturally assimilated or
replaced, as was the case with Louisiana, which still retained its original languages
or accents even after forming into their completely stratified states.

Back to the issue of language again which Plutarch wrote about in terms of
Alexander speaking Macedonian, it can best be compared to a case like Ireland. In
Ireland, you have Gaelic which was and is spoken by some, old Irish by others, and
English due to successive waves of invasion and changes throughout history due to
Saxons, Angels, Celts, Britons, Romans, etc.

That doesn’t mean Gaelic-speaking Irishmen are suddenly not Irish because they
retained their early influences or speak a more native version of the tongue from
pre-migratory ages. Cultures and communities take time to coagulate and
formulate into distinct socio-political entities.

You cannot just choose to focus on one time period of a growing culture and claim
it has no continuity with its later permutations. Take England for example, initially,
they were Celts, Britons, and Romans, then Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and finally
Normans. Only after these successive waves of invasions, migration, and
assimilation do you get a static province, county, or country.

There were many reasons why Macedonia was seen as an outsider, or barbaric
especially given the fact that they were surrounded by child-sacrificing cannibals
in Thrace in those early dark days of European history (don’t believe me read what
Herodotus and others have said of them). Additionally, Macedonia was an arid,
mountainous, infertile region that consisted of local “rests” which meant related
hill tribes that were in constant battle with each other over limited land and
resources.

This is precisely why Macedonia played a less active role in major Greek conflicts
and it also explains the genius of Philip II because he united the feuding enclaves
and produced the strongest of all the Greek city-states. Macedonia went through
periods of prosperity and at other times cultural declines and it was through Philip
and Alexander that we here today have the benefits of modern western (Greek)
civilization.

Nevertheless, the Macedonians were heavily involved in the affairs of Greece and
they were deeply integrated into the Hellenic culture which they both testify to
themselves or are confirmed by others to have been a part of.

With that said, we will now proceed to point out the plethora of proof and constant
examples of Macedonians being seen as Greeks by themselves and by others. We
will begin with Alexander I from 454 BC who will be mentioned often as he was
one of the more important and active Argead kings, and is not to be confused with
Alexander the Great, who in reality would be Alexander III.

Returning to the historian Hatzopoulos from Brill’s Companion to Ancient

Macedon, he cites Herodotus to help show the mutual compatibility of Macedonia
and Greece at large where he explains, “Herodotus presents Alexander I claiming
both a Macedonian and a Greek identity as perfectly compatible. E. Badian
asserted that Greek culture in Macedonia regressed during the first half of the
fourth century… Herodotus presents Alexander I claiming both a Macedonian and
a Greek identity as perfectly compatible.”

He goes on, “the picture of Macedonia in the second half of the fourth century
would be incomplete without even a passing mention of its intellectual life. One
might say that the distinction-indeed the opposition between ‘Macedonians’ and
‘Greeks’, went unheeded as long as the identity of the former was a matter of
ethnological interest, but surfaced as soon as the Macedonians aspired to become
major players in Greek politics.”

To speak to this, and more will be said later, ancient Greece was at each other
throats constantly embroiled in savage wars. Within this cesspool of conflict were
outside influencers, specifically the Persians who would pay off central Greek
political figures to sway and influence them into conflict with one another. If not
for the Persians then it was other Greek city-states bribing and playing one against
the other.

A lot of the charges that Macedonia was not Greek came from the struggle for
hegemony over all of Greece taking place between Sparta, Athens, Corinth, and
Thebes. Philip II was a threat to their control (rightfully so as history attests) and
so you had orators and politicians like Demosthenes of Athens specifically
besmirching Macedonia to prevent other Greek city-states from allying with him;
Persia being a large contributor toward this end and a benefactor of Demosthenes
specifically.
Diodorus Siculus, who was an ancient Greek historian and is known for writing the
monumental Universal History Bibliotheca historica, between 60 and 30 BC
provides a good example of this. He points out the political bias and self-serving
interest of those who were enemies of Philip and Macedonia and therefore even if
they are primary sources this also needs to be taken into account.

Diodorus Siculus says of Demosthenes and Aeschines that amongst their peers
they had been described as "a couple of liars, neither of whom can be trusted to
have told the truth in any matter in which it was remotely in his interest to lie."
There is no wonder why Macedonia and Philip were portrayed as backward or
barbaric because the bought and paid-for political enemies of Philip profited from
this characterization.

The best comparison to this would be to President Abraham Lincoln who was from
the border frontier State of Kentucky which was seen as backward and uncivilized
by his political opponents like Stephen Douglas. Often Lincoln would be dismissed
as an American or civilized individual because of his distinct accent or backwood
frontier ways. One can apply this example quite aptly to Philip II and Demosthenes
as they relate to the example of Lincoln and Douglas.

Hatzopoulos writes, “By the beginning of the classical period, the archaeological
evidence leaves no doubt about the integration of Macedonia in the contemporary
Hellenic world. If one turns to what the fifth-century authors have to say about the
Macedonians, they note that their statements correspond to the picture emerging
from the archaeological and epigraphic evidence.

One might say that the distinction-indeed the opposition between ‘Macedonians’
and ‘Greeks’, went unheeded as long as the identity of the former was a matter of
ethnological interest, but surfaced as soon as the Macedonians aspired to become
major players in Greek politics.”

Finally, Hatzopoulos concludes, “all ancient accusations that the Macedonians

were not Greeks originate from Athens, from the time of the conflict with Philip
II...Only because of the political conflict with Macedonia was the question at all
raised.” He also stressed that “today it must be considered as certain that the
Macedonians and their kings spoke a Greek dialect and bore names of Greek type.”

Next, we turn to Arrian of Nicomedia a 1st-century Greek historian, public servant,

military commander, and philosopher of the Roman period. The Anabasis of
Alexander is considered one of the best sources on the campaigns of Alexander the
Great that we have to work with. In his work, the overlapping interrelatedness
between Macedonians and Greeks is shown. Now let us move on to The Anabasis
of Alexander

In 334 BC Alexander was elected to lead the Greeks which has serious
implications that will be enumerated shortly, nevertheless, his first campaign
before crossing into Asia to conquer Persia was in Thrace. Residing in this area
just north of Macedon were the Illyrians and Triballi, also known more broadly as
Thracians. Today these would be the Celtic people who make up mainland Alpine
continental Europe; France, Germany, and Austria.

Herodotus alludes to some of their barbaric practices, for example, “Thracians

carry on an export trade of their children.” He also relates how the Thracians
murder one of their wives over their graves after or if their husbands die, for
example, “the one whom the honor of the verdict falls, is first praised by both men
and women, and then slaughtered over the grave of her next of kin.” Given these
practices on Macedonia’s borders, it is not difficult to conclude that they lived with
or in the land of barbarians.

In 335 BC Arrian recounts the beginning of the campaign against Thrace, “setting
out then from Amphipolis, he invaded the land of the people who were called
independent Thracians, keeping the city of Philippi and mount Orbelus on the left.”
Here it is relevant to acknowledge how Arrian establishes that Alexander and the
Macedonian/Greeks were distinct from the “independent” Thracians. They were
not described as Macedonian kin of their “fellow barbarians” but were depicted as
quite the opposite of them.

Shortly after successfully conquering the Thracians reports of Alexander’s demise

are made by the likes of Demosthenes and his Theban allies who previously fought
the Macedonian/Greeks in a carnage-filled blood bath called the Battle of
Chaeronea 338 BC led by Philip II before his assassination and Alexander the
Greats’ ascension to lead the GREEKS in reprisal against Persia; Greece’s long
time nemesis.

In collaboration, Demosthenes and the Thebans revolted by accosting a garrison

Alexander had left in Thebes and an uprising was in the making. Not being able to
gather an accurate report certain Greek city-states joined the revolution and allied
with Athens and Thebes. Alexander swiftly returned, and offered several pardons
for surrender but was ultimately forced to fight the Thebans again. This time
eternally desecrating and demolishing the formerly most powerful Greek city-state
of Thebes.

Arrian related the tragic downfall of Thebes and the act “of Greek to Greek”
slaughter, For example, “but the Thebans having effected their revolt suddenly and
without any previous consideration, the capture of the city being brought about in
so short a time and without difficulty on the part of the captors, the slaughter, being
great, as was natural, from its being made by men of the same race who were
glutting their revenge in them for ancient injuries.” Men of the same race, meaning
the Macedonians are the same race as the Thebans; Arrian could not be more clear.

Later on, in the first major battle against Persia called the battle of Granicus 334
BC, outnumbered Alexander outsmarts and outmatches his adversary with his
cavalry lead Phalanx charge but then comes across fellow Greek mercenaries hired
by king Darius III of Persia. This insult and betrayal were so egregious that
Alexander again showed no mercy and slaughtered them indiscriminately.

As for the remaining survivor Greek mercenaries Arrian says, “those who had been
taken prisoner he sent in chains to hard labor in Macedonia, as they were Greeks
who had fought for the barbarian against Greece and in defiance of the concordat
agreed by all Greeks.”

If the Macedonians were not Greek how do we explain the distinction Arrian
makes between barbarians (in this case referring to Persia and not Thrace) and
Greeks? It is evident from this passage that “against Greece” included Macedonia
which was being betrayed, even though these mercenaries were a mix of Athenian,
Spartan, and Theban. No distinction was made between the Greeks regardless of
their native city-states.

Within the same passage, Arrian continues, “where it was Greek against Greek,
there was no comparison of motive: the Greeks with Darius were risking their lives
for pay, and poor pay at that, but those fighting on their side had volunteered to
serve the cause of Greece.” Greek against Greek and cause of Greece, meaning
Theban against Macedonian, whereas with the mercenaries working for the
Persians that was far worse. Moreover, the mercenaries are betraying their
kinsmen, which happen to be Macedonian.

In another situation that Arrian writes about Alexander sends a humiliating letter
back to the cowardly king of Persia who outnumbered Alexander five to one but
was defeated and fled the field after nearly being killed by Alexanders’ spear. All
the while leaving his mother and wife behind in the mayhem of bloodlust. Arrian
transcribes the letter, “Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece
without provocation and did us harm. I have been appointed leader of the Greeks
and crossed into Asia on a mission to punish Persia for what you had started.”

The whole mission statement, rallying cause, and impetus to invade and conquer
Persia was retribution for what the Persians did under Darius I and Xerxes when
they enslaved the Ionian colonies and then proceeded to invade mainland Greece.
The Persians looted, pillaged, burned, and destroyed Greece’s capital of Athens,
crushing the crumbling Parthenon, and other sacred temples in 490-80 BC.
Alexander sought revenge as the representative for Greece over this injustice.

Fortunately for western civilization, the outmatched Greeks through their zeal,
military discipline, and finally because of their ardent desire for liberty and
freedom repulsed the Persian invasion in the battle of Marathon, Thermopylae,
Salamis, and Pleatea. Nonetheless, the Persians caused major calamities and
destruction and nearly wiped ancient Greece out of existence (including
Macedonia which will be shown later).

As a result of these atrocities, Philip II strategized, planned, and plotted with his
fellow Greeks to form a league and coalition known as the League of Corinth
(more will be discussed later) to get revenge and exact retribution for all the harm
done by Persia in the previous century. Again, as the letter shows, Alexander was
elected by Greece specifically to achieve this end. It was the whole foundation and
meaning of why Alexander the Great began his conquest.

For our purposes, Arrian, who had access to this letter transcribed and it showed in
Alexanders’ own words that Alexander equated Macedonia with Greece, regarded
as a former victim and target of Persian conquests. There is no separation or
distinction made between the two, both Macedonia and Greece are one to
Alexander proven by the fact that he is upset and reacting as the leader of the
Greeks over this past event. Also, this letter refers to a date before the current
confederation or as it was called, the League of Corinth meaning that Greeks and
“Macedonians” had been allied and Greek comrades before Alexander the Great
came along.

Alexander and the Macedonians saw themselves locally too as noted before, much
the same as a Torontonian might identify more with the city than say Saskatoon or
Canada as a whole. The Greeks distinguished themselves from the rest of Greece
while simultaneously upholding a shared and cherished notion of belonging to one
Hellenic country. For example, Arrian recounts Alexander declaring, to his men,
“When we have subdued Egypt, we shall have no further worries for Greece or our
own country.”

One example often cited against Alexander being Greek is that Macedonia was a
kingdom and not a democracy. It is argued that they had a very different mode of
government from the rest of Greece and therefore must be different. But upon
closer examination, every city-state differed in its forms of government. Some
were tyrannies, others oligarchs, while the city of Delphi was theocratic.

Thank you for reading The Muckraker Tribune. This post is public so feel free to
share it.
Share

Adversaries of Alexanders’ Greekness frequently bark that Macedonia saw itself

more separately than all the rest, therefore they must not be Greek. To counter this
claim we need only look toward Sparta, which like Macedonia was also a
monarchy (albeit dual), not a democracy, which was an exception for the Greeks.
Also, the Spartans saw themselves as a separate people, and Herodotus as well as
other scholars concur with this.

For example, regarding Sparta being removed and separated from the rest of
Greece Herodotus states, “Spartans have a constitution and way of life which is
peculiarly their own, and differs from that of any other people.”

As well, Herodotus writes about the Persian King Xerxes' invasion of Greece and
how the Spartans refused to submit to Persian rule. He writes, "the
Lacedaemonians [Spartans] are the only people who refused to submit to the
Persians.” This demonstrates the idea that the Spartans saw themselves as a
separate kingdom or country that was distinct from the Persians and the rest of
Greece.

Finally, on this point, the historian and Greek scholar Paul Cartledge states,
“Sparta was a state unto itself, a country within a country." As an ancient Greek
historian and professor at Cambridge University, he highlights the idea that Sparta
was a self-contained entity, with its own unique culture, traditions, and political
system. According to Cartledge, the Spartans saw themselves as a separate
kingdom or country, distinct from the other city-states in Greece and the rest of the
world.

It follows that as it applies to Sparta, Macedonia is Greek too because one could
make the same claims regarding Sparta, and yet they don’t. Where’s the History
channel when you need them? Now, onto Plutarch…

Plutarch provides an account of the Life of Alexander which will help prove the
homogeneity of Macedonia and Greece as one culture and people. In The Life of
Alexander Plutarch records the gifts and victory proceeds following the battle of
Granicus that Alexander gives out, what's important is who he assigns them to and
how he inscribes them.
Plutarch quotes Alexander as such, “and that the Grecian might participate in the
honor of his victory he sent a portion of the spoils home to them, particularly to the
Athenians three hundred bucklers, and upon all the rest he ordered this inscription
to be set: ‘Alexander the son of Philip, and the Grecians, except the
Lacedaemonians, won these from the barbarians who inhabit Asia.’”

Alexander indisputably identifies himself both with his father, the former leader of
the Greeks, and with the Greeks themselves except for Sparta (also known then as
the Lacedaemonions) who refused to join Alexander in his conquest of Persia. Yet
again earmarking the Spartans as being even less like the rest of the Greeks more
so than the supposed difference between Macedonians.

Shortly after this Alexander finds an enigmatic cooper plate with engravings of a
prophetic nature which nevertheless refer to a Greek victory and not a Macedonian
one. For example, Plutarch writes, “while deliberating what to do, it happened that
a spring of water near the city of Xanthus in Lycia, of its own accord, swelled over
the bank, and threw up a cooper plate, upon the margin of which was engraved in
ancient characters, that the time would come when the Persian empire should be
destroyed by the Grecians.”

Upon arriving in Egypt Alexander the Great was made into a Pharoh. He was
praised and worshiped like a god, more specifically he was deified and said to be
the incarnation of the god Amun Ra (there are some ways to confirm this). With
his new position of authority, Alexander then founded the most intellectually
advanced metropolis the world had ever seen. It became the house of the library of
Alexandria where the Bible was written in Greek and was a central commercial,
scientific, and technological hub of advancement.

But before establishing and settling what was to become the city of Alexandria
Plutarch writes of Alexanders' reflection on colonization as such, “for when he was
master of Egpyt, designing to settle a colony of Grecians there, he resolved to build
a large populous city, and give it his name.” Not a colony of Macedonians, but a
colony of Grecians. If Macedonia had commandeered the leadership of Greece
through conquest he would not install city-states for the Greeks he just conquered.

Plutarch continues, “The battle being thus over, seemed to put a period to the
Persian empire; and Alexander, who was now proclaimed king of Asia, returned
thanks to the gods with magnificent sacrifices and rewarded his friends and
followers with great sums of money, and places and governments of provinces.”

He continues, “eager to gain honor with the Grecians, he wrote to them that he
would have all tyrannies abolished, that they might live free according to their
laws, and especially to the Plataeans, that their city should be rebuilt because their
ancestors had permitted their countrymen of old to make their territory the seat of
war when they fought the barbarians for their common liberty.”

When finally entering Babylon after the battle of Gaulgamela 331 BC Alexander
enters Darius’s palace where he observes the fallen statue of Xerxes.
Contemplating whether to restore the statue to its former place Alexander muses
referring to the fallen statue, “Shall we, neglectfully pass thee by, now thou art
prostrate on the ground because thou once invaded Greece, or shall we erect thee
again in consideration of the greatness of thy mind and thy virtues?”

Plutarch also documents an exchange between Alexander and one of his men,
(defined as a Corinthian, does that mean he is not Greek?) he writes, “Demaratus
the Corinthian, who was much attached to him and had been one of his father’s
friends, wept in an old man’s manner and deplored the misfortune of those Greeks
whom death had deprived of the satisfaction of seeing Alexander seated on the
throne of Darius.”

If Macedonia was not Greek why would Alexander care or respond to Persia with
retribution? He identified with the whole of Greece which included Macedonia in
490-80 BC. And so ask yourself, does the last passage exclude the Macedonian
Greeks who died in the preceding battles or are they the same since only the
“Greeks” were mentioned and not Macedonians?

One of Alexanders' mistresses Thaïs accompanied him on this occasion into the
palace and the capital city of the Persian empire Persopolis. Thaïs feeling inspired
by the desire to burn down the capital just as the Persians had done to the Greeks.
Plutarch relates how his mistress brought down the same fate that had befallen
Athens and thereby satisfied Alexander’s mission to rectify the past injustice
afflicted upon the Greeks.

For example, “but she added, it would please her much better if, while the king
looked on, she might in sport with her own hands, set fire to the court of Xerxes
who reduced the city of Athens to ashes, that it might be recorded to posterity that
the woman who followed Alexander had taken a severer revenge on the Persians
for the sufferings, and affronts of Greece, than all the fame commanders had been
able to do by land and sea.”

Finally, we will finish off this segment of our analysis concerning the
inseparability, interrelatedness, and cultural homogeneity of the Greeks with the
Macedonians by returning to our old faithful friend Herodotus. In his Histoires, he
tells the tale of the Persian war back in 490 BC where he speaks of king Darius I
sending seven Persian envoys to partake in a dinner banquet to create an alliance
between the invaders and Macedonians.

This point could not be more conclusive and signifying of the Greekness of
Macedonia as it relates to Alexanders' familial heritage. In this dinner the
Macedonian king and his son seeing the invading forces come across from the
Hellesponent devise a ruse for the Persians that results in the king of Macedonia
Amynatas and his son, future king Alexander I murdering the seven envoys after
being caught grasping at the breasts of their Macedonian/Greek daughters, just to
make it that much worse.

Subscribed

Most importantly, Herodotus irrefutably shows the Macedonians exclaimed their

Greekness loud and brazenly. Prince Alexander after getting the Persians drunk
deceives them further, “gentlemen, you have had I think, a perfect dinner.
Everything we had, and everything we could get, has been yours; and now to put a
finishing touch to your entertainment, we make you a free and generous offer of
our mothers and sisters, that may know without any doubt, and that you may tell
your king, who sent you, that a Greek, the lord of Macedonia, entertained you
royally both with bed and board.”

There is no other way to go around it. All the sophists may critique and denounce
Herodotus all they like but when it concerns primary source material regarding
how Greeks saw themselves and the things they did and said there is little room for
refutation. The credibility of these ancient sources is and should be challenged
when archeological data or other evidence emerges that either contradicts or
clarifies the history better. As it stands we have no reason to doubt Herodotus
when he writes about Alexander I and his boastful announcement of Greekness to
the Persians.

Even if Herodotus was a baby when this incident occured, the Macedonians as
quoted from the people in these battles and events expressed their identity as such,
and so did Herodotus on his account which speaks to how a 5th-century Greek
understood his own culture. Most ironically, Herodotus was not even born in
mainland Greece but was writing in its language from Asia Minor or more
specifically Hallicarnasus. And so is Herodotus Greek or should we call him
something else too?

Herodotus the Hallicarnasion maybe?

Ancestry of Alexander, Argos, and the Argead Dynasty

Now that we have painstakingly proceeded to list, include, and document several
instances in which we can verify the cultural homogeneity between the
Macedonians and Greeks through primary and secondary sources we can move
forward. It is essential to reiterate that Macedonians saw themselves, and despite
some opposition (bought and paid for) from their adversaries, as Greeks.

What is so egregious is that independent from the above explanations of proof

regarding this examination we have even more damning accounts of Alexander the
Great affirming that his family, and by extension royal dynasty is from the
Peloponesis, more specifically that of Argos.

The family Alexander is a descendant of is called the Argead and they derived this
name from Argos or the Argives who subsequently were also influenced by the
early Dorian migration, coming from Macedonia no less and then centuries later
migrating back north and settling a kingdom where they once started.

This could not be more obvious based on the fact that their Argead lineage had
been recounted and written about in the famous contemporary Greek tragic
playwright Euripides who was born 480-406 BC, which was the same time as
Alexanders' grandparents. Euripides wrote a play (now lost) entitled the Archelous
which was the name of one of Alexanders' relatives from the 5th century, and then
king of Macedonia.

In this play, Euripides describes the Hellenic origin story of the Argeads from
Argos but is rebuked and accused of dishonesty for his play by the likes of
Wikipedia and their ilk. He speaks of The Argead's claim to be the descendants of
Temenus, a great-great-grandson of Heracles, and King of Argos.

Herodotus provides an account of how the Argeads came to rule over Macedon.
According to Herodotus, three Temenid brothers, Gauanes, Aeropus, and
Perdiccas, were exiled from Argos to Illyria. In any event, Perdiccas and his
brothers arrived in another part of Macedon and settled close to a site called the
“Garden of Midas.” Perdiccas is recognized as the founder of the Argead dynasty
and the Kingdom of Macedon.

As such the origin story and play involved a mythological reference to figures like
Heraclues who may or may not have existed. However, this is not unique to the
case of Alexander the Great's ancestors in that nearly all the major figures from
those days based their lineage off of legendary founders like Hercules, Cadmus,
Theseus, Perseus, and many more. To disregard the tale of Alexanders' ancestry on
this basis would require us to dismiss all ancient history regarding origin stories
including Herodotus who starts his history off with the results from the Trojan
War.

In this author's humble opinion, this antagonism to these accounts is a result of the
rabid cynicism, skepticism, and secularism of our day. Wherein, these vapid and
empty historian contemporaries of ours can only view history and humanity in the
paradigm that bedevils their poor lost souls.

Through modern analysis, they contend that Euripides who attended the
Macedonian court and died there was patronized by the king to compose his play
but was driven to do so for propaganda purposes to satiate a tyrant's need to
legitimize his oppression and rule over his kingdom.

This outlook is so expressive of the vacuous and hollow values (or lack thereof)
that take possession of the “experts” of our times. They who actually… prove
otherwise. Always prefaced with actually… then insert modern revision that
destroys everything we once believed. To the modern “experts” every motive or
gesture is suspect, selfish, and deceitful. And this is the approach they employ to
cast doubt on the most famous poet of Greece’s motives.

Believe it or not but human beings used to have beliefs, high culture, and a
knowledge of where they came from. Ancestor worship and ancestry preservation
are one of the first features that evolved in the early stages of humanity which lead
to communities and civilizations taking root from these seeds. Attacking Euripides
with baseless assumptions regarding his motives is both unsubstantiated and
reflective of those who read themselves into history.

Furthermore, in terms of our encounter with mythology or legend blending into the
beginning of history, it is quite easy to mock and deride our ancestors for believing
in the things they did but the fact of the matter is that the entire basis of human
civilization, nay, humanity itself was predicated on the worship, visions,
prophecies, and experiences from these mythological beliefs and beings.

Moreover, who is more reliable, all the people of the world in every country and
age that ever existed (until now) who universally attested to the same mythological
events or us sny descendants far removed from the fantastic happenings of
thousands of years past? The basis on which these ancient civilizations traced their
heritage is expressed as it pertains to certain mythological founders like Aeneas,
Theseus, Hercules, or Perseus, and we need to come to terms with that.
We know nothing of the creation of the world, the origin of man, or this very
universe itself. To pretend we do is an act of great hubris, and if we learned
anything from tragic Greek playwrights like Euripides, hubris is the downfall of
man. But still, I find the matter is best summed up by my favorite line in the Bible
when Job challenges the machinations of God and God replies:

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so
much. Who determined its dimensions and stretched out the surveying line? What
supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone as the morning stars sang
together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38: 4)

Moreover, these mythological beliefs were so important and central to the ancient
world that kings would invade or not go to war with entire continents based on
omens, prophecies, or visions espoused from the smokey cave of some mystical
priestess. Entire cities like Delphi were adorned with breathtaking marble statues
and temple wonders of human artistry and engineering. No less with primitive
tools all to show dedication towards a belief in these notions of prophecy and their
mythological deities.

The fact that Alexander the Great was a pragmatic, military general whose daily
concerns involved mathematical-based engineering for siege equipment or the
zoning and surveying districts for the largest cities in the world at that time like
Alexandria, seems to indicate a contradiction in the perception of these historical
figures as being deluded or primitive in their understanding of the world
surrounding them. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me.

What it forces us to confront is the fact that if a practical and intelligent military
general and king of the world's largest empire based his wars, invasion plans, or
defense strategies, on myth, which subsequently affected the welfare and survival
of his subjects as his purpose then there is something there. If a man like
Alexander (a student of Aristotle too) is willing to indulge in prophecy and myth,
there must have been something to it. We may not believe in the winged Pegasus
of ancient lore or the mighty deeds of Hercules, but they certainly did.
Back to the main task at hand, the lineage of Alexander’s heritage as espoused by
Euripides is also spoken of in Herodotus’s Histories which shows that if this was
just a PR scam, other respected (of their day) and independent scholars believed it
too. Most of all, Alexander’s ancestors did not require playwrights or historians
because they affirmed and showcased their heritage often as was shown in the case
of Alexander I in his ruse with the Persians previously mentioned.

And yet, it would be helpful to provide more examples so that we can finally
disembody these fraudulent slanderers of Alexander the Great and his
semi-mythical ancestor Temenus. The lineage of Alexander and the history of his
dynastic Greek family according to Herodotus are as follows,

“Now of this Alexander, the seventh ancestor was that Perdiccas who first became
the despot of the Macedonians, and that in the manner which here follows: From
Argos fled to the Illyrians three brothers of the descendants of Temenus, Gauanes,
Aeropus, and Perdiccas; and passing over from the Illyrians into the upper parts of
Macedonia they came to the city of Lebaia.”

Herodotus explains more precisely in terms of Macedonia, “this Alexander [I] was
descended, in the seventh generation from Perdiccas, who won lordship of the
Macedonians in the following way.” Before getting back to Herodotus it is
important to acknowledge that from this passage the historian establishes that the
Macedonian people themselves, whether they too trace their lineage back to
Greece does not take away from the fact that the family of Alexander the Great
was according to the genealogy listed by Herodotus, entirely Greek.

Herodotus reaffirms that Alexander’s ancestors were from Argos who thereafter
founded Macedonia which is in keeping with the evidence presented already. For
example, he writes, “Now there is a river in this land to which the descendants of
these men from Argo's sacrifice as a savior.”

Those men were Alexanders Argead ancestors who as we established before were
a part of the initial Dorian migration which settled in Argos in southern Greece and
then returned closer to the 7th century BC exactly when Herodotus says the
dynasty begins. And again he indicates this period of arrival to Macedonia,
“having taken possession of that region, they made this their starting point, and
proceeded to subdue the rest of Macedonia.”

Ironically, and just to make our case all the more objectively based, Thucydides
himself, the man who denies Macedonians their Greek heritage is forced to
confirm Herodotus and Euripides when he says, “the country by the sea which is
now called Macedonia… Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his forefathers,
who were originally Temenidae from Argos.”

Moving on we can fast forward to one of the last scenes of Alexanders' quest to
conquer the world. After 13 years of grueling, arduous, and violent conquest, the
king's army was ready to call it quits following the blood-soak elephant battle of
Hydaspes in 326 BC. The army having barely won, due in part to Alexander
singlehandedly turning back a wall of war elephants had nearly revolted before
India’s river Ganges because they could not take anymore. Alexander then gave
one of his most well-known speeches.

Often referred to as the Mutiny at Opis speech from the horse's mouth, Alexander
confirms the historians about his ancestry, and expresses this to his men by asking
them, “Are you not aware that if Heracles, my ancestor, had gone no further than
Tiryns or Argos, or even than the Peloponnese or Thebes, he could never have won
the glory which changed him from a man into a god, actual or apparent?”

Also, another thorn in the side of these “Greek deniers” (to coin a popular phrase
going around these days) is Alexanders' mother's heritage. She was not
Macedonian at all, but was instead from the neighboring kingdom Epirus and
belonged to the line of Hercules too. Olympias the sorceress, a cultic snake
worshipping Menande of Dionysus. She also claimed ancestry from the line of
Achilles who was from Phitha located in more central Greece and not Macedonia.

For example, Arrian proves this in his Anabasis of Alexander, “A report prevails
that he offered [Alexander] sacrifice to Priam upon the alter of Zeus the household
god, deprecating the wrath of Priam against the progeny of Neoptolemus, from
whom Alexander himself derived his origin.” For those who forget their Homer (a
sin all too common now) Neoptolemus was the avenging son of Achilles.

To remind the reader of that for which I speak, recall the song sung by Homer of
these events foretold in the ages from that mythical past...

“Achilles' wrath, to Greece the direful spring

Of woes, unnumbered, heavenly goddess, sing!

That wrath which hurled to Hade's gloomy reign

The souls of mighty chiefs untimely slain;

Whose limbs unburied on the naked shore,

Devouring dogs and hungry vultures tore.

Since great Achilles and Atrides strove,

Such was the sovereign doom, and such the will of Zeus!”

Again, it is incumbent on us to recognize that these Homeric mythological figures

that Olympias and the ancient Greeks traced their ancestors to cannot be proven.
And yet, this is the only information we have to work with and regardless of
whether Hercules or Achilles existed. There is still a geographical allusion to a
long-standing ancestral lineage dating back into antiquity associated with actual
places within Greece where these figures were said to have come from.

Arrian goes on to affirm the Argos genesis as he provides an example of this when
referring to Alexander stopping Persian tribute upon the conquered Mallians. For
example, “He found the Mallians in a state of civil strife, and brought that to an
end, also remitting the tribute which they had been paying to Darius because
Mallus was a colony of Argos and he claimed descent from the Heracleidae of
Argos.”

Additionally, modern historians also agree with these ancestral links. For example
historian, Norman F. Cantor, author of Alexander the Great states, “Philip, who
traced his ancestry to Heracles, ruled as an autocrat, subject to few political
restraints.” And referring to Olympias, “on her father's side, Olympias traced her
ancestry back to Achilles, and on her mother's, she traced her family to Helen of
Troy.” Finally, he concludes, “It is agreed on by all hands, that on the father’s side,
Alexander descended from Hercules by Caranus, and from Aeacus by
Neoptolemus on his mother's side.”

(Oh, and just in case you were not aware, Achilles was not black as BBC and
Netflix have now decided to deprive Greeks of their heritage one step further by
taking cultural icons and then converting them to conform to modern Leftist
religious obsessions with “diversity”. I don’t subscribe to the notion of “cultural
appropriation” but if I did this egregious example would certainly meet that
criterion.)

Returning to Didorius Sicilius in his work The Library of History he describes an

event where Alexander the Great is nominated amongst an assembly of Greek
city-states and more specifically this highlights how he dealt with the Thessalians
as relatives, for example, “first he dealt with the Thessalians, reminding them of
his ancient relationship to them through Heracles and raising their hopes by kindly
words and by rich promises as well, and prevailed upon them by a formal vote of
the Thessalian League to recognize as his the leadership of Greece which he had
inherited from his father.”

This is relevant because it shows how Alexander’s friendliness with the

Thessalians is one founded on common ancestry and kinship. In the following,
more will be said regarding the League of Corinth which solidified, consolidated,
and infused the kingdom of Macedonia politically with the rest of Greece before
the invasion of Persia.

And so now with Alexanders' Greek ancestry explained we can proceed by

examining the leagues, confederations, and formal alliances that many historians
cover, thereby proving that Alexander united all the kingdoms into one Hellenic
superpower that is one cultural and national unit.

Greek and Macedonian Alliances, Confederations, Councils

Before the League of Corinth 337 BC was formalized preceding the launch of the
Alexanders' conquests, we discover that the Greeks were also an allied unit of
Macedonia and Greece. This was also before and during the Persian wars of
490-480 BC, thereby proving that the Macedonians were regarded as fellow
Greeks for some time. These leagues and alliances demonstrate a sense of unity
and cohesion in the Greek world that is undeniable and enduring.

Herodotus recounts an example of Greek/Macedonian homogeneity even before

the first indications of Persian aggression and subsequent wars around 490-80 BC.
This alliance and mutual cooperation between Greeks and their Macedonian
fellows took place long before the invasion of the Persian empire in 334 BC. This
example provides a window into the politics and alliances frequently taking place
which firmly establishes Hellenism as a binding cultural and political reality in
Macedonia.

Herodotus tells the story of the Spartans who had become embroiled in a conflict
involving the governance of Athens. The Spartan king Cleomenes was tricked into
expelling the former tyrant the Athens whose family belonged to the house of
Pisistratus, whose son Hippias the Spartans wanted to return to Athens to install
him as a despot. Before proceeding with their decision the Spartans summoned a
council of allied Greek city-states to get their verdict on what to do.

Summoned were the ambassadors of several Greek city-states who embodied and
represented the Greek world. Boetians, Chalcidians, and Corinthians were in
attendance just to name a few. For example, “the Spartans sent for representatives
from their other allied states, and the assembly was addressed in the following
words: we acknowledge to you comrades in arms, that we have made a mistake.
The representatives of the other allied states did not comment.”

One of those members of the allied Greek city-states speaks up, and it's none other
than the Macedonian king. For example, Herodotus continues the story, “before he
went, [king Cleomenes] Amyntas of Macedon offered him Anthemus, and the
Thessalian Lolcus, but he returned to Sigeum without accepting either offer.”
In this passage, we see that the king of Macedon was a representative of the allied
Greek world working with Sparta and is therefore considered Greek otherwise the
Macedonians and king would not be invited. To clarify king Amyntas offered the
city of Anthemus to the Spartan king Cleomenes. This Polis was a renowned city
in Macedonia that king Amyntas was offering as a substitute location to situate the
exiled tyrant Hippias rather than have him rule over Athens.

In another example of an incident concerning the Persian invasion of Greece in 480

BC by king Xerxes, Herodotus draws our attention to the Macedonian prince
Alexander I (not to be confused with his descendent’s namesake) when he writes,
Alexander I when pleading to the Athenians to accept Xerxes' peace terms,

“I tremble for your future when I think how of all the confederate states you lie
most directly in the path of danger,” Herodotus affirms that the Greeks exist in a
confederacy, including Macedonia, which had already been subdued previously by
the Persians because they were

Athens then says to Alexander I of Macedon, “get your army in the field with the
least possible delay, for unless we are mistaken, it will not be long before our
enemy invades Attica.” Athens entreats Macedonia to partake in opposing Persia
as fellow Greeks, hence his urging to get ready. “Our enemy”, meaning that the
Persians pose an equal threat to Macedonia because it is considered Greek and that
Athens and the other Greeks accept Macedonia as one of their confederated states
fighting against Persia.

Herodotus relates how king Darius’ commander and main general recruited the
prince of Macedon to send a peace agreement and potential alliance negotiation to
Athens for Alexander I to broker between Athens and Macedon. Herodotus
emphasizes that Athens and Macedonia had a special and close relationship. For
example, “He chose Alexander, who was a Macedonian, for two reasons: first,
because he was connected to the Persians by marriage… secondly, because he was
well aware of Alexanders' friendship with Athens was an official relationship and
was backed by deeds.”

Athens and Macedonia had a special relationship because they were both Greek.
They were all members of the same confederated states of Greece and Macedonia
played a prominent role in this affair because their kingdom was closest to the
Persian army and therefore had time to warn or entreat Athens to help save them.

In this instance, Macedonia plays it safe and chooses to submit, after some earlier
defiance, to Persia while advising Athens to do the same. This does not mean that
the Macedonians are not Greek for wanting to surrender either, it just means they
recognized where the tides were turning, but thankfully, Athens did not share this
view which is why we are not speaking some offshoot of Persian today.

In another example fast forwarding to Philip II just before Alexanders' conquests in

334 BC, before his assassination, R. Lane Fox writes of him in Brill’s Companion
to Ancient Macedon, for example, “Philip is the greatest royal founder in Greek
history. His new model army, his royal style, and his vision justify the claim that
he is a founder of the Hellenistic age.” Meaning that Macedonia and Greece are
one entity solidified in the pages of history as the founders of the Hellenic Age.

Subscribed

Both Philip II and Alexander are rightfully recognized as the catalysts for the
expansion of Hellenic values and ideas throughout the ancient world and Fox
specifically mentions how central Philip II was in making this possible. Alexander
was one of the first to civilize savage, barbaric, violent, and illiterate lands by
introducing writing, mathematics, civil planning, engineering, education, and art.
Their actions ushered in what we now call the Hellenic Age.

Hellenism was responsible for spreading democratic (but not in all cases) political
institutions, and many other staples of our society today. If Hellenism was
Macedonian and not Greek why would we call this Hellenism, or term its fruits as
“Greek” philosophy and not “Macedonian” philosophy?

Before Alexanders' invasion, it was Philip II who put together the plan to get
revenge against Persia by uniting the Greeks. In the years leading up to 337 BC,
king Philip was engaged in a series of wars within the Greek mainland, called the
Sacred Wars. As Philip amassed power through cunning, diplomacy, war, and
persuasion he coveted the position of “hegemon” or leadership of the rest of the
Greeks.
This hegemonic pursuit was common among all of Greece then and was not unique
to Philip II, or Macedonia. Each Greek city-state vied for the throne of Greece so
to speak. Following the Persian Wars it was Athens that became the gem it is
recognized as even today for its architecture, art, philosophy, and natural science
under the leadership of Pericles circa 495-429 BC.

Pericles, like Philip II, was one of Greece's main hegemons and was the most
renowned General and Archon of Athens (Archon refers to Athenian leader or
minister). However, Sparta feeling encircled by Athens's growing imperial
ambitions sought to seize that Greek hegemony and won a war against Athens in
the Peloponnesian wars of 431 BC. Finally, it was Thebes who displaced Sparta in
the 370s BC. Philip II differed in no way from his predecessors and followed the
same Greek traditions by subduing his Greek neighbors.

This is important because it shows that Philip was not some usurpatious tyrant who
seized all of Greece by the throat and strangled his way into power. Firstly, he was
elected to lead and backed up by Greek other alliances even before the Sacred
Wars, especially with Thessaly. Secondly, he was chosen to lead Greece against
Persia. And thirdly, there was nothing irregular about this jostling of power as was
just shown regarding Athens, Sparta, and Thebes doing the same thing and yet not
depicted as “invaders”.

Arrian points this out in his Anabasis of Alexander when he writes, “there
assembled all the Greeks who were within the limits of Peloponnesus and asked
from them the supreme command of the expedition against the Persians, an office
which they had already conferred upon Philip.”

This is followed by historian Norman F. Cantor in his work Alexander the Great
where he repeats Arrian’s assertions regarding the political situation of Greece at
the time of Philip. For example, “the consortium of allies brought about by Philip
met at Corinth in 337 BC to declare war on Perisa.” Cantor explains, “Philip was
satisfied not to try to conquer Athens, Sparta, and Corinth. He formed them into a
league with himself as hegemon (similar to today’s chairman of the board or
CEO).”

Not long after Philip II’s ascension as hegemon of the Greeks, he was assassinated.
Some speculate by his wife, Alexanders' sorceress mother Olympias who
celebrated over her husband's grave and complimented his assassin for the deed.
Alexander and the Greeks then believed, (and it was most likely the case) that
Philip was killed by those hired by the Persians. Ultimately though, it was a
boy-lover who put the knife itself into Philip II after having been sodomized by a
drunken king months before. Pausianas stabbed his king in the Agora in front of
the world to see, much to the delight of Olympias I might add.

This event caused chaos and a stir among the Greeks who were preparing to launch
their expedition against Persia. With rapid adaptation to the situation by Alexander
(and following a few rival assassinations by Olympias) Alexander took the throne
and like his father was elected to lead the Greeks voluntarily. It should also be
noted that this alliance and what became known as the League of Corinth was not
compulsory. For example, Sparta simply refused to participate and so it was not
through coercion that Alexander was given leadership

Plutarch describes the moment of Alexanders' ascendence in his Life of Alexander,

“Soon after, the Grecians, being assembled at the Isthmus, declared their resolution
of joining Alexander in the war against the Persians and proclaimed him their
general. While he stayed here many public ministers and philosophers came from
all parts to visit and congratulated him on his election.”

Diodorus Sicilus also provides some further details on this election and the council
on which Alexander the Great was chosen to lead. Sicilus writes in his work The
Library of History, “And it was by his valor that he took over the supremacy of all
Hellas with the consent of the states, which voluntarily subordinated themselves to
his authority.

Having subdued in war the men who had been plundering the shrine at Delphi and
having brought aid to the oracle, he won a seat in the Amphictyonic Council, and
because of his reverence for the gods received as his prize in the contest, after the
defeat of the Phocians, the votes which had been theirs.”

The Amphictyonic League was an ancient and historic religious council and
another league that united all the ancient tribes of Greece. In ancient times, an
amphictyony would function as a kind of religious organization to support specific
temples and sacred places; traditional amphictyonies coordinated Olympic and
Pythian Games. Twelve members would be elected and would convene at certain
times in the same sanctuary to keep religious festivals and conduct other matters as
well.

The Amphictyonic Council was the Greek who’s-who of its day. Thucydides
mentions this institution going back to the 7th century and so it had a long history
of acting as a unifier, and broader political/religious structure to guide fellow
Greek city-states. The fact that both Philip II and thereafter, Alexander were
included in this means that they were seen as Greek given that this was a religious
association, and the Greeks would accept death over defying their gods.

Whatever one thinks of Alexanders' Argead lineage tracing back to Argos these
leagues supersede that. Despite what one believes regarding his ancestors going
back to Hercules the fact that Alexander forged an empire abolishes the former
city-state independence of Greece from that day forward.

Even if we were to ignore and forget the Persian war alliances with Macedonia
through Amnytus and Alexander. Or if we decided to dismiss Alexander I’st
proclamation of Greekness, none of this detracts from the League of Corinth. Once
Alexander was elected after the formation of the League of Corinth and
Macedonia's acceptance into the Amphictyonic Council, these events ushered in a
new empire that was all Greek.

Like the Declaration of Independence that brought together formerly separate

colonial states forging a new nation, so too did the League of Corinth do this for
the Greeks. Regardless of all else, from 337 BC onwards Macedonia officially
joined the ranks of the Greeks as a new unified Hellenic body. They shared ethos,
militarism, religion, and imperial aims to conquer the world as one people against
the barbarians.
More evidence you ask? Sure!

Plutarch writes, “Next he won over the neighboring tribes similarly, and so
marched down to Pylae, where he convened the assembly of the Amphictyons and
had them pass a resolution granting him the leadership of the Greeks.” Plutarch
also writes, “the Athenians, accordingly, voted to bring into the city their property
scattered throughout Attica and to look to the repair of their walls, but they also
sent envoys to Alexander, asking forgiveness for tardy recognition of his leader-
ship.”

And finally, he states, “then he called a meeting at Corinth of envoys and

delegates, and when the usual representatives came, he spoke to them in moderate
terms and had them pass a resolution appointing him general plenipotentiary of the
Greeks and undertaking themselves to join in an expedition against Persia seeking
satisfaction for the offenses which the Persians had committed against Greece.”
Again if Alexander was not Greek why would he care about the Persian offenses
toward Greece?

Finally, even Pausinias the historian/geographer who denies the Macedonians their
Greek heritage nonetheless admits that the inclusion of Macedonia was made in the
Amphictyonic Council, thereby recognizing that they became a voting, legal, and
accepted Greek member of a sacred institution going back to the Archaic Age of
Greece.

For example, in his work a Description of Greece, Pausanius confirms, “the

Phocians were deprived of their share in the Delphic sanctuary and the Greek
assembly, and their votes were given by the Amphictyons to the Macedonians.”

Enough said on that point. Now, onto the religious similarities.

Greek and Macedonian Shared Religion

Macedonia and Greece possessed the same shared religion thus making Macedonia
Greek. Without question, Alexander and his ancesters worshipped the same
Pantheon of twelve deities that the rest of Greece shared. Especially given that the
Macedonians had sent a golden statue to the most sacred Temple in Delphi which
they would not do unless they worshipped the same gods.

Herodotus describes how a golden statue of Alexander I king of Macedon was sent
to Delphi. This took place after the Greek naval victory in the battle of Salamis
against the Persians in 480 BC, for example, “They then turn to the division of the
plunder, and sent to the Delphi the first fruits set apart for the purposes; from these
was made the statue eighteen feet high, which has the beak of the ship in its hand,
and stands beside the gold statue of Alexander of Macedon.”

To argue that the Macedonians placed more emphasis on some gods over others
would not be inconsistent with all of Greece given that each city-state had its cult
or deity they patronized who represented the community and its unique connection
to the gods, such as Athens with Athena. Herodotus and other classical historians
such as Pausanias and Plutarch wrote extensively about the Delphic League and
the sanctuary of Delphi in Greece.

In Herodotus' Histories, he mentions the Delphic League as an association of

city-states in Greece, formed for mutual protection and support, "for all the Greeks,
both islanders, and continentals, have three divisions of their territories, and three
names, Ionian, Dorian, and Aeolian; and of these, the Ionians were the first to
adopt a distinct dialect and the first to become civilized in their manners." Also
what is interesting is that he shows that Greek dialects differed, and not just those
in Macedonia.

Pausanias, in his work Description of Greece, provides a detailed account of the

sanctuary of Delphi and the famous temple of Apollo, where the Pythian Oracle
was located. He writes, "Delphi is a city of Phocis, but the whole district is called
Delphi. It was once a city of great wealth and power, having gained both by the
renown of the oracle and by the sacrifices offered there. The temple of Apollo is in
the center of the city, and around it are many votive offerings, including images,
tripods, and other gifts from the cities of Greece."

Plutarch, in his Life of Themistocles, also mentions the sanctuary of Delphi and the
influence of the Pythian Oracle on Greek politics and warfare, "the Pythian
priestess, at the time when Themistocles was high in power and fame, gave him
this answer, when he asked what sort of man he was and what was to become of
him: 'Themistocles, son of Neocles, with the sons of Athens you will raise a great
city, and you will cause the Hellenes to be remembered forever.'"

These passages and others from classical historians provide a broad and
encompassing picture of the significance of Delphi and the Delphic League in
ancient Greece, both as a religious center and as a political alliance. In this sense,
the Macedonians were adherents and members of this same Delphic religious
tradition, as shown by the Macedonian golden statue residing in the temple, as well
as having worshiped the same twelve Olympian gods.

Also, Alexander was an obsessively dedicated Greek who sacrificed every morning
in a lavish ceremony before deciding any political or military decision. His mother
Olympias even posited that his rightful and true father was Zeus who visited her as
a bolt of lightning on the night of her consummation with Philip II, and many
believed this including the Egyptians, oddly before Alexander the Great’s arrival to
their lands.

This event was recounted by Plutarch, "Alexander was a son of Zeus. This is not a
strange thing to say, for the son of a god is often called a god, and this is what the
king was, a son of Zeus, who according to the Macedonians, was the ancestor of
their royal house."

And again, Plutarch describes the night of divine consummation more specifically,
“Olympias, the mother of Alexander, declared that she was visited by the god in a
dream and that he had lain with her. This story is not without parallel; in fact,
many women have made similar claims in the past. But whether it is true or not, it
is certain that Alexander was held to be the son of Zeus, and that he was regarded
as a demigod both by his countrymen and by others."

What this signifies is the religious dedication and belief in the Greek Olympian
gods shared by Macedonians and Alexander alike. Not only that, but this passage
also proves the extent of that belief, so much as to inspire and shape the myth
surrounding Alexander and his self-perception of being born a demi-god. The
Macedonians like their fellow Greek’s firmly believed in the same gods, made the
same oblations, rituals, and sacrifices, and even traced their heritage back to these
shared celestial figures like Zeus.

Another most ironic thing is that Philip II was assassinated in 336 BC in an open
stadium where the twelve Olympian gods were showcased as statues one by one.
In addition to the twelve, Philip in his hubris (always a factor in Greek tragedy and
many occasions within Herodotus' Histories) adds a statue of himself as the
thirteenth god to the immense displeasure of all the Greeks. Some even say this
sacrilege may have been an added factor in whoever ultimately had him killed.

And finally, the last point on the religious question concerning Alexander and
Macedonia, historian M. Mari in an article in Brill Companion to ancient Macedon.
Traditional Cults and Beliefs article elucidates this shared sense of faith by
explaining,

“Luckily, archaeological and epigraphic discoveries have enormously enriched our

knowledge of the region’s cults, sanctuaries, and religious traditions, although
most of the data currently available to us is not any earlier than the Hellenistic
period. Thanks to this new material and epigraphic evidence, we can today safely
maintain that sanctuaries of the Olympic gods did already exist in Macedonia in
the late Archaic Age and that in the same period, some Macedonians were already
active Pan-Hellenic sanctuaries outside Macedon.”

And further, “Macedonian religion and culture were not, therefore, progressively
‘Hellenized’ only by the kings from the late fifth or the fourth-century BC
onwards. Even the most seemingly ‘exotic’ characteristic of the religious landscape
of ancient Macedonia (the far from ‘monumental’ appearance of most sanctuaries
revealed by the archaeological research) is not unparalleled in the Greek world.”

Contrary to contemporary opinion, Philip II, and Alexander did not just simply
adopt Greek deities and their religion, instead, the archeological evidence shows
that as early as the Dark Ages and Archaic period 1100-500 BC indicates the same
forms of religious worship, albeit differing in some local sense. Furthermore, Mari
proves that these religious traditions date back before the 7th-century arrival of
Alexanders’ Argive royal line, and were therefore religiously Greek not as a result
of later impositions.
And yet, even if Alexander did simply pick up Greek religion, he nevertheless
converted to it and then Hellenized or better yet, “evangelized” the world with it so
to speak. One need only look toward the Apostle Saint Paul, who started his career
as a Pharisaic Jew but then became one of the most important Christians. However,
the evidence shows that Philip II and Alexander were not converted but rather
extended those preexistent beliefs going back to the Archaic period discussed
earlier in Hammond’s article.

Olympics

Hopefully, there must be one dear reader who has made it this far across the
painstaking pages of history in pursuit of the vindication of Alexander’s
Greekness. This author (yours truly) has been plagued by this Alexander issue
since boyhood so it is quite personal. Alas, some of this material may appear
overkill but this is a thorough and reasonable response to the perpetual
sermonizing falsehood that Alexander was not Greek by every “expert” who
should no better.

If an author with not more than a Bachelor’s degree in history can find and present
this evidence why can't they? Anyway…Arriving at our final stage in this lengthy
marathon-like historical exegesis we come to the last point that will be made on
this matter, and that is the Olympics.

The Olympic games completely seal the deal on any question concerning
Alexander’s and Macedonia's right to be called Greek. The games were a
religious-inspired, athletic competition we still participate in today (another gift
from Alexander). With that said, given its religious nature the Greeks were very
serious about their rules and who was allowed to participate.

“Barbarians” were excluded, which has serious implications because if the

Macedonians were barbarians and not Greeks as some posit, how and why were
they allowed to participate in the Olympics? Again, the Greeks took this event very
seriously, and it was one of the ways to avoid war and settle disputes amongst the
city-states and so it was central to their culture and beliefs.

As noted previously Pausanias the geographer and ancient historian regarded the
Macedonians as non-Greeks and even in the context of the Olympics he has some
things to say. But we will get to this shortly. Before doing so we should define the
rules and regulations of the Olympics as set forth by other primary and secondary
sources.

Didirous Sicilius in The Library of History confirms that the games were only for
the Greeks. For example, he writes, “the Olympic Games were open to all Greeks,
regardless of their city-state or social status.” This includes Macedonia, which
some Greeks viewed as backward and “un-Hellenic” but who were nevertheless
permitted to compete not just once but on several occasions long before the days of
Alexander the Great.

Author of Alexander the Great historian Norman F. Cantor writes, “the only
regular occasion on which the city-states were united was during the period of the
Olympic games. At the games, they discussed important political issues, celebrated
common military victories, and even formed political and military alliances.” This
confirms the above-stated rules, principles, and outlines for entrance into the
Olympics.

In terms of Pausanias, he also agrees with this consensus and affirms the
exclusively Greek event that it was, but no longer is. For example, Pausanias
writes in his work Description of Greece, "the Olympic Games are held every four
years, and all the Greeks, both free and slave, are allowed to compete.”

But Pausanias adds his opinion on the matter of Macedonia, for example, "the
Macedonians were not originally considered to be Greeks, and therefore were not
allowed to participate in the Olympic Games. However, after the conquests of
Alexander the Great, the Macedonians became so dominant in the Greek world that
their exclusion from the games was no longer practical. Eventually, they were
allowed to compete, and even to serve as judges and officials at the games."

This is verifiably false and incorrect for several reasons. One, even if the
Macedonians were only permitted to join the Olympics after Alexander that would
still mean that they were finally initiated as newly christened Greeks, formally
accepted into the fold. Secondly, as we established repeatedly throughout this
investigation, the historians and Macedonians themselves have proven that they
were Greek be it religiously, through leagues, linguistically, ancestrally, and all of
the above.

Third and finally, Pausanias is just wrong on the facts given that before Alexander
several Macedonian champions competed in the Olympics before Alexander was
even born, those include kings Alexander I, and king Archelous (who Euripides
wrote his lost play about). This is verified by surviving papyrus victory lists of
those who won the Olympics mentioned by both Eusebius and others (accessible
on Wikipedia no less). Archelous won a chariot race in 408 BC and then it was
won by Philip II in 356 BC, according to these same documents.

Proof of this can also be found in another account from Herodotus where he
alludes back to Alexander I of Macedonia, both acknowledging his Argive-Greek
heritage but also his inclusion in the Olympics. For example,

“Once when Alexander I of Macedon decided to compete in the games and came
down into the arena for that purpose, the Greeks who were drawn against him in
the foot race tried to bar him from taking part, because barbarians [i.e. non-Greeks]
were not allowed to compete in the games, which were exclusively for Greeks.
However, Alexander demonstrated that he was actually an Argive and was
therefore judged to be Greek; so he competed in the sprint and came equal first.”

Even this account is somewhat misleading because whatever the animosity towards
Macedonia may have been concerning its backwardness, other Macedonians such
as Archelous had also competed and won in the Olympics in 408 BC and they had
gained entrance, therefore proving that they were accepted and perceived as Greek
to their peers.

As a reminder, Archelaus was a king of Macedonia from B.C. 413-399. Archelaus

is important because he improved the internal arrangements of his kingdom and
patronized art and literature. He patronized tragic poets, such as Euripides and
Agathon, as well as the epic poet Choerilus, who visited him. He also invited
Socrates, who declined the invitation unfortunately for Macedonia, they would
have to suffer with Aristotle instead.
Historian Winthrop L. Adams writing for the University of Illinois Press in an
academic paper entitled Other people’s Games: The Olympics of Macedonia and
Greek Athletics, reluctantly is forced to admit the participation and victory of
Archelous as it was documented in primary sources and attested to by classical
historians. For example, Adams wrote, “one has to acknowledge at least the
possibility of Archela Olympic and Pythian victories, if not the probability.”

We now return to the foremost renowned scholar of ancient and modern

Macedonian history, Nicholas Hammond who composed volumes in his History of
Macedonia exceeding in length even this gargantuan undertaking I have forced
upon the reader, my apologies all the same…

Hammond writes, “all of that changes with Philip II. In the first three years of his
reign, Philip in turn defeated the Illyrians, the Paeonians, the Thracians, and even
an Athenian invasion. By B.C., he has fully restored the kingdom. In that same
year (356), the controversy concerning Argead participation in the Olympics is
settled, regardless of how one views Soliņus passage.”

The definitive reference is from Plutarch's Life of Alexander. Hammond also

references this as well, for example, "to Philip, having just taken Potidaea, there
came three messages at the same time: the first that Parmenio [Philip's favorite
general] had beaten the Illyrians in a great battle; the second that his horses he won
at the Olympics, and the third announced the birth of Alexander... Philip took care
to engrave the victories of his chariot at Olympia on his coins."

Meaning that Philip was accepted into the Olympics for his horses at the time of
Alexanders' birth and was therefore seen as a Greek. Now returning to Hammond
he writes, “clearly, the Argeads had achieved recognition of their right to compete
at the Olympics (and hence validated their Greek heritage). It is a point
unchallenged by modern scholarship and without remarks concerning our previous
debate also Alexander I or reference to Archelaus.”

Hammond concludes, in tune with the scholastic agreement (surprisingly), he

writes, “after Perdikkas' death (around 412 B.C.), he is succeeded by his son
Archelaus, who reigned from 412 to 399. It is entirely possible that Archelaus
participated in the games. Indeed, there is a late reference to his winning in the
prestigious four-horse chariot race at both the Olympic games and the Pythian
Games to Apollo.”

In the case of Arrian, we find further confirmation of Archelaus instituting certain

Olympic sacrifices to Zeus as a result of his prior participation in the games. This
passage includes reference to shared religious zeal toward Zeus as well, which as
we already pointed it was said to have been the celestial father of Alexander the
Great. Move over Philip II, Zeus is here.

Also in Arrian’s work The Anabasis of Alexander, he describes a sacrifice

Alexander made concerning the Olympics, “Having settled these affairs, he
returned to Macedonia. He then offered to the Olympian Zeus the sacrifice which
had been instituted by Achelaus and had been customary up to that time, and he
celebrated the public contest of the Olympic games in Aegae.”

Finally, most of all, and lastly, to end where we began I will leave the reader with a
quote from Herodotus from his Histories regarding these Olympic matters taken
from a speech Alexander gave at the controversial Olympic assembly just cited.

“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 a 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.”

Conclusion

Contrary to Pausania's assertions about Macedonians not being Greek he was

wrong in every sense regarding these points, specifically about the Olympics too.
Both from the facts brought forth and all the proceeding reasons set out in this epic
vindication I have composed in defense of Alexander the Great.

Nevertheless, the Olympics is of grave importance because whatever your opinion

is on the reliability of Herodotus et al. the fact remains that the Greeks were very
specific and rigid about these sacred rules and either due to Alexander the Great or
his proceeding ancestors the Macedonians were permitted to participate and were
therefore Greek!

These Olympics examples and passages also corroborate the fact that Alexander
was of Argive origins too, and that even if it was a myth spun by Herodotus or
propaganda engineered by Euripides in the court of Achelous of Macedonia,
everyone accepted and believed it. Including the Hellenic, religious, and
ceremonial judges who presided over these games and the historians who wrote of
those times contemporaneously and for centuries after.

In summation, we have established the origins of the Greek people throughout all
the ages from the Heroic to the Hellenic. We have proven that linguistically
Macedonians shared the same roots in language, albeit with accents and an
originally more local tongue. We have shown the cultural, social, political,
military, and religious overlaps and similarities. We have demonstrated the firm
and unbreakable formations of alliances and councils. Finally, we have traced back
the ancestry and lineage too.

With all that said, ask yourself, what is more likely, that the Greek-speaking,
religiously devoted people who were identical in politics, architecture, clothes,
names, blood, and wars were a separate Macedonian people? Or, were they more
likely to be Greek? You decide.

Take that and shove it up your ass!

Sources

Herodotus. Histories.

Arrian. The Anabasis of Alexander.

Thucydides. The Pelopnessian Wars.

Strabo. The Geography of Strabo.

Pausanias. Descriptions of Greece.

Livy. The Early History of Rome.

 Paul Cartledge. The Histoires.

Norman F. Cantor. Alexander the Great

Marx, Karl. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleone.

Hammond, Nicholas. History of Macedonia Vol. 1.

Plutarch. Life of Alexander.

Diodorus Sicilus. Bibliotheca historica.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/argead-dynasty-0015158

Winthrop L. Adams. Journal of Sport HistoryVol. 30, No. 2, Summer 2003 the
University of Illinois Press: The Olympics of Macedonia and Greek Athletics.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40144310

M. Mari. Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon Studies in the Archaeology and

History of Macedon, 650 BC - 300 AD Series: Brill's Companions to Classical
Studies: Traditional Cults and Beliefs:
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004209237_023

M. B. Hatzopoulos. Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon Studies in the

Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC - 300 AD Series: Macedonians and
The Other Greeks. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004209237_005

R. Lane Fox. Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon Studies in the Archaeology

and History of Macedon, 650 BC - 300 AD Series: Brill's Companions to Classical
Studies: Introduction. Dating the Royal Tombs of Vergina
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004209237_002

View publication stats