ETHNICITY OF THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS

PART I. ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORIANS, ORATORS, WRITERS

Contrary to modern Greek claims, Macedonia was never part of Greece, and the ancient
Macedonians were not regarded as ancient Greeks. Quite the opposite – the Macedonians
conquered Greece and enslaved the Greeks for centuries until Rome conquered Macedonia
in 168 BC. The purpose of these pages therefore is:

• To provide the reader with documented evidence for all these assertions above.
• To show the reader that ancient Macedonians could not have been Greeks based on
all documented evidence.
• That ancient Macedonians conquered Greece and did not unite the Greek city-
states.
• That ancient Macedonians did not regard the Greeks as their kindred.
• Alexander the Great was not a Greek king, did not regard the Greeks as kinsmen.
• Alexander's Macedonian Army was not a Greek army.
• Alexander's Macedonian conquest was not a Greek conquest.
• Ancient Macedonians were just that - Macedonians, and looked down upon the
Hellenes with contempt.

It will provide scholarly evidence that the ancient Macedonians:

• hired mercenaries from Greece, and used the Greeks as foreign allies.
• razed Greek cities to the ground.
• sold the Greek inhabitants as slaves.
• pillaged and burnt Greek cities and countryside.
• garrisoned Greek cities (a sure sign of servitude).
• were asked to evacuate from the whole of Greece back to their own Macedonia by
the Romans.
• were hated and cursed by the Greeks.
• destroyed Greek religious temples and monuments.
• enslaved the Greeks.
• were not regarded as Greeks (Hellenes) by the Greeks, nor they regarded
themselves to be Greek, but were proud of their Macedonian nationality and way of
life.
• the Macedonians were called barbarians, a label that the ancient Greeks attributed
only to all non-Greeks.

Here you will find evidence, both ancient and modern, that proves that the ancient
Macedonians were not Greeks, evidence that is indeed overwhelming. To the ancient peoples
and to the ancient authors that was not a matter for debate; it was simply an accomplished
fact.

ANCIENT SOURCES MODERN SOURCES

1) Arrian 7) Demosthenes 1) Eugene Borza 7) Pierre Jouguet
2) Plutarch 8) Thracymachus 2) E.Badian 8) Ulrich Wilcken
3) Quintus Curtius Rufus 9) Isocrates 3) Peter Green 9) M.Grant
4) Polybius 10) Herodotus 4) A.B.Bosworth 10) F.Reed
5) Livy 11) Thucydides 5) N.G.L.Hammond 11) David G Hogarth
6) Justin 12) Diodorus 6) Werner Jaeger 12) APA American Philol

PART II. THE MODERN GREEK PROPAGANDA

Below are the main points of the Greek propaganda which claims that the ancient
Macedonians were Greek. All of these claims are absurd in the eyes of the history and are
completely unsupported by credible evidence. The goal of this page is to provide the
audience with all evidence (ancient and modern), and to prove the absurdity of the modern
Greek claims that the ancient Macedonians "were Greek".

THE "GREEK" POSITION

Professor Eugene Borza who is rightfully credited as a "Macedonian specialist" by the

American Philological Association, and who have done extensive studies regarding the
ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, had also presented in-depth analysis on the modern
Greek position in his In the Shadow of Olympus p.91-92:

"Thus, long before there was a sufficient ancient evidence to argue about the ethnic
identity--as revealed by language--of the ancient Macedonians, there emerged a "Greek"
position claiming that the Macedonian language was Greek, and that thus the inhabitants
were Greek."

The modern Greeks have therefore, developed a position that the Macedonians were Greek,
even though there was not enough evidence long before. The "Greek" position although
prematurely established, had not however changed yet, despite the overwhelming evidence
available today, which will be presented below.

Borza continues: "For example, recent work describes the funerary stelae found in the
tumulus covering the royal tombs at Vergina. These stelae date from the fourth and early third
centuries, and the preponderance of names are Greek". "The excavator of Vergina, Manolis
Andronikos, in a useful summary of the epigraphic evidence, writes: "In the most
unambivalent way this evidence confirms the opinion of those historians who maintain that
the Macedonians were a Greek tribe, like all the others who lived on Greek territory, and
shows that the theory that they were of Illyrian or Thracian descent and were hellenized by
Philip and Alexander rests on no objective criteria." Manolis Andronikos Vergina:The Royal
Tombs, 83-85."

Here is Borza’s answer to Andronikos: "This argument is true enough only as far as it goes. It
neglects that the hellenization of the Macedonians might have occurred earlier then the age
of Philip and Alexander, and can not therefore serve as a means of proving the
Macedonians were a Greek tribe."

Indeed. Not only Andronakis was obviously wrong to conclude that the Macedonians were
Greek, but also notice how the Greek archeologist does not point that the Macedonians
might have been a separate nation, but prefers instead to call it if not Greek, either Illyrian or
Thracian, two ancient nations that can not be associated with the Balkans politics surrounding
Greece since 1913 in the matter of Macedonia (see below). Also notice how Andronikos used
the term "like all the others who lived on Greek territory". It’s like he wants to convince us that
Macedonia is a Greek territory, which is exactly what he uses as a base for his inaccurate
conclusion.

BORZA’S CONCLUSION ON THE GREEK POSITION

"The fullest statement of the "Greek" position, and also the most detailed study of the
Macedonian language, is by Kallaris, Les anciens Macidoniens, esp. 2: 488-531, in which
alleged Greek elements in the Macedonian language are examined exhaustively. A more
chauvinistic (and less persuasive) point of view can be found in Daskalakis, Hellenism,
esp. pts. 2. and 3. The most blatant account is that of Martis (The Falsification of
Macedonian History). This book, written by a former Minister for Northern Greece, is an
polemical anti-Yugoslav tract so full of historical errors and distortions that the prize
awarded it by the Academy of Athens serves only to reduce confidence in the scientific
judgment of that venerable society of scholars. The most sensible and scholarly Greek
position is that laid out by Sakellariou, in Macedonia, 44-63. Lest it seem, however, that the
"Greek" position is held only by modem Greeks, see Cawkwell, Philip of Macedon, 22:
"The Macedonians were Greeks." - Borza, his In the Shadow of Olympus p.91"

Sakellariou, in his Macedonia 4000 years of Greek History, 44-63 (quite questionable of
accuracy title to begin with), "proves" that the "Macedonians were Greek" although he
purposely avoided the overwhelming evidence that does not suit his conclusion. Borza has a
line for him as well: "It is indicative of the strength of Badian’s case that his critics have
succeeded only in nit-picking: e.g., Sakellariou, Macedonia, 534-35 nn. 52.53" (In the
Shadow of Olympus p.96). Of course, Badian from Harvard’s Department of History in his
extensive research Greeks and Macedonians, had presented all evidence and soundly
concluded that the Macedonians were distinct nation from the Greeks. That is precisely
what Sakellariou had avoided, and choused instead to nit-pick.

WHY IS GREECE STEALING MACEDONIAN HISTORY?

We can indeed see a trend among the Greek scholars. Sakellariou’s Macedonia 4000 years
of Greek History was even donated for free to the libraries throughout the United States,
which smells like there is a well-developed Greek propaganda strategy, to influence all those
who are unaware that "Macedonians were Greek." But the Greeks are showing the world that
the "Macedonians were Greek", regardless of the fact that they avoid all evidence that does
not suit their purpose, and in that process they try to pass books so full of historical errors
and distortions that can only be awarded by their Greek Academy. It is really ironical to
see now the former Greek politician Nicolas Martis write a book called The Falsification of
Macedonian History, when in fact he is the one who is falsificating and lying about the
history of Macedonia. We can only imagine what harm he had done in Macedonia while he
was a minister of the Northern Greece province.

It is pathetic, but also sad and worrisome at the same time, that the students of the countries
who have nothing to do with the modern Greek politics, must be exposed on historical
inaccuracies, fabrications, and propaganda, all directed against one of the most dynamic
powers of the ancient times - the Macedonians.

But why is Greece doing this, what is behind it, why do they steal the history of the ancient
Macedonians? Well it’s rather quite simple. Macedonia was partitioned in 1913 after the
Balkan wars and Greece swallowed the biggest part - 51%. There was nothing in Macedonia
then that connected that land with Greece, since the Greek minority there was not more then
10% comparing to the overwhelming majority ethnic Macedonians who lived throughout
Macedonia. For complete statistical evidence, please see the "Macedonian-Greek Conflict" on
this matter. Now, in 1913, since Greece acquired obviously a foreign land, they had to provide
a link that would justify their claim on that ½ of Macedonia, and that is exactly why they claim
that the ancient Macedonians are Greek, so if in the ancient times there was a Greek tribe
(Macedonians) living in Macedonia, then that land therefore is Greek (just like Andronikos
points above). Indeed absurd. What is not disputable however, is that since 1913 till today,
that modern Greek state still discriminates against the ethnic Macedonians who now find
themselves living in Greece (see Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International) which is
evidenced in the "Macedonians in Greece" page. The other northern part of Macedonia,
today’s Republic of Macedonia, broke out of Yugoslavia and became independent in 1991.
That brought addition fuel to the Greek nationalists who are afraid now that one part of the
ethnic Macedonian nation is independent, the partition of 1913 can be seen as illegal, and
that could lead to loss of their Greek Macedonian part and a reunification of one Macedonia.
That is exactly why they claim that there is no modern Macedonian nation, not in Greece nor
anywhere, and continue to violate the basic human rights of their Macedonian minority. It is
indeed mean politics, filled with paranoia, which without the revision of the ancient history
could not breathe.

THE GREEK LIES

But let us now go through the Greek Propaganda, a propaganda which extensively bombards
the internet, the libraries, the bookstores, and try to examine it in greater details:

Greek Propaganda on the Internet

Lie 1: "Macedonia is a Greek land"

Lie 2: "Ancient Macedonians were Greeks"

Lie 3: "Philip II from Macedon united the Greek states"

Lie 4: "Alexander's conquest was a Greek conquest"

Lie 5: "Alexander's army was a Greek army"

Lie 6: "There is no ancient Macedonian Language but a Greek dialect"

THE GERMAN 19TH CENTURY VIEW AND ITS NEGATIVE INFLUENCE

Late nineteenth and early twentieth century historians who were inamorata with anything
Greek, who saw ancient Greece as the cradle of the Western civilization, could not possibly
imagine that uncouth, and brute people like the ancient Macedonians could topple the Greek
states, specifically Athens, and build an empire of the likes that Europe has not seen yet.
They regarded Philip of Macedon and his Macedonians as destroyer of "Greek spirit and
culture", as people who extinguished the flame from the Athenian glory. Philip was seen as
"great not for what he was, but for what it was given him to do". (Thirwall)

Athens in particular, and the rest of the Greek city-states in general, were culturally and
physically exhausted. Hogarth says that they suffered from "premature senility", incapable of
growth and re-organization of its citizenry. The enthusiasm for Hellas in a cultivated modern
age, and the romanticism with Greek art and culture, created an atmosphere of hatred for the
person and the people (Philip and his Macedonians) who destroyed Greek autonomy. In the
backdrop of such a poisonous milieu, the ancient Macedonians "could not possibly be
perceived as masters of the world", for if anybody should achieve such a supreme act, then
they must be Greek. Thus, subsequent reference to ancient Macedonians as Greeks should
not come to a great surprise. These people could not accept the fact that a) the organism in
the Greek city-state, as they have come to know and appreciate, no longer breathed any
signs of life, and b) that the Macedonians as a non-Greek nation possessed power, discipline,
and inner strength to conquer not only the Greeks but the Persians too.

Some historians from the West, specifically German historians led by Droysen, saw
parallelism between events which occurred in Greece and Macedonia with those in Prussia
and Germany. The 19th century is the birth of nationalism in Europe, Italy was unifying, and
Prussia was the advocate of the German unification. Therefore:

a. When Philip and his Macedonians conquered the Greeks after Chaeronea it was not
a conquest but a "unification" (contrary to all ancient sources).
b. When Alexander undertook the conquest of Asia, it was the "Greek vengeance", not
the Macedonian plan for action (again contrary for all sources that point that
Alexander fought for the glory of Macedonia).
c. When the Macedonian Army conquered territories from Greece to India, it was the
"Greek Empire" that received the recognition, not the Macedonian Empire (although
Alexander's empire had been correctly called Macedonian and not Greek in the
ancient sources).
d. And instead of Alexander spreading Macedonism in Asia, it was the "Greeks
spreading Hellenism".
 e. The Macedonian kingdoms after Alexander, which were ruled till their end by
Macedonians and not Greeks, became "Hellenistic kingdoms", and so on, and so
on...

Those western historians from the modern age (like the German ones followed by Droysen),
by denying Philip and his Macedonians the merit that they so rightfully deserve, have to a
certain degree ignored the writings of the ancient biographers and chroniclers, and were
ignorant to the truth. However, even with this occasional omission on their part, the inevitable
recognition of Macedonians as a separate people from the Greeks does occur nevertheless.
In the end, it was the whole revisionist movement launched against the false historical
interpretations and led by Badian from Harvard University, to finally put an end to the
historical inaccuracies and prove that the Macedonians were not Greeks once for all, but a
proud distinct nation who enslaved them for three centuries.

CONCLUSION

It should be no surprise that Alexander introduced the standard koine Greek language for his
multi-ethnic empire. For that Greek language was already the only international language
on which the people in antiquity communicated prior to the Macedonian conquest (just like
English is international language today). The Macedonians were smart enough to keep this
international Greek language for the Persians, Egyptians, Jews, and all the nations of his
empire to communicate. Forcing all those people to learn now a new foreign Macedonian
language (or any other one) would have only provoked an additional hatred and multi-ethnic
resistance for the Macedonian occupation of Asia, Egypt, and Greece, which the
Macedonians did not wanted to face. Unlike the Roman Empire, there was no single powerful
centralized Macedonian Empire, but three fragile Macedonian kingdoms (Macedonia, Asia,
Egypt) which were occasionally in conflict with each other, and the Macedonians needed such
language standardization to help them maintain their power. That of course, does not mean
that although the Macedonians, Persians, Egyptians, Jews, now communicated in Greek, that
they all turned into Greeks, just like the African nations did not turn into English because of
their usage of that language to communicate among themselves.

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

"What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information",
writes Borza, "from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius
Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is
clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of
historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks
and the Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was
marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility."

The conclusion is thus complete – ancient Macedonian was a separate Indo-European

language, different from ancient Greek, just like the Macedonians were a separate
nation different from the ancient Greek nation, and the claim that Macedonian was a
"dialect of Greek" and that "Macedonians were Greeks", a claim that today is
supported only by the modern Greeks and only out of political reasons, is absurd and
ridiculous.
Quotes and comments provided by Josef Grezlovski www.macedon.org/anmacs/index.htm
Proofread, introduction, modern Greek propaganda, conclusion, additional authors and
comments, and format by Monak.