Quotes Proving that Macedonia was not a mere greek city-state!


Peter Green (born 1924) is a British classical scholar noted for his Alexander to Actium (1990) and Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.; A Historical Biography (1974)

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

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


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

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

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

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

[This happened before the so-called unification of the Greek states under Philip and the planned invasion of Persia.]

"The Greek states retained no more than a pale shadow of their former freedom".

[This is how Philip "united" the Greek states.]

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

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

[Macedonians were not Hellenes, nor were they uniting the Greek states.]

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

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

[how ironic for modern Greeks to contradict "their" elders]

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

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

[Modern Greeks claim that Alexander's conquest of Persia was a "Greek conquest." They would be well advised to consider the magnitude of Greeks in service with the Persian king Darius against Macedon.]

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

['cynical phrase' to "liberate the Greek cities".]

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

[Modern Greeks claim that ancient Macedonians were "Hellenes.". Apparently they know more than the ancient Greeks themselves.]

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

[A bit strange, given today's revisionism. Ancient Greeks celebrating the death of their alleged unifier?]

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

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


 Polybius -Greek statesman and historian.(born c. 200 bc, Megalopolis, Arcadia, Greece died c. 118)His famous work is The Histories  or The Rise of the Roman Empire.

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

As with other ancient authors, Polybius clearly separates the ancient Macedonians from the ancient Greeks. As a matter of fact, the ethnic difference between these two people was not a matter of debate -- it was obviously a commonly known fact.

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

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


Plutarch in Titus Quinctius Flamininus:
"...that the Romans came not to fight against the Greeks, but for
the Greeks against the Macedonians."


(1) There was no unification of the Greek states by Philip II. It was a military conquest; a land won by the spear.

(2) There was no Greek empire with Alexander. It was a Macedonian empire from start to finish.

(3) Alexander's army cannot be called a Greek army. There numerical strength was not bigger than that of the Illyrian, or the Thracian component. The number of Greeks fighting on the Persian side and against Macedon, was over 50,000 troops, a figure eight times greater than what the Greeks had with Alexander.

(4) Alexander's conquest cannot be called a Greek conquest. While Alexander was conquering Asia, Greeks in the mainland, and the Greek mercenaries in Asia, rebelled (several times) against Alexander and Macedon.

(5) Ancient Macedon cannot be called a Greek land. Statements from the ancient Greeks themselves speak much louder and much clearer than what today's Greek revisionists would like to admit. Alexander, king of Macedon, speaks of Hellas as a conquered land. Demosthenes, Aeschines, Phocion and others, explicitly state the obvious; Greece was conquered by Macedon.

(6) It is not appropriate to regard Macedon as a Greek city-state.

The conclusion here is inescapable...


 Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (ca. 86- after 146), known in English as Arrian, and Arrian of Nicomedia , was a Greek historian, a public servant, a military commander and a philosopher of the Roman period.

Alexander continues to speak to his Macedonians and allies:

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


Alexander speaking to his officers:

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

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


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



"Alexander meanwhile dealt swiftly with the unrest in Greece - not only did the Athenians rejoice at Philip's death, but the Aetolians, the Thebans, as well as Spartans and the Peloponnesians, were ready to throw off the Macedonian yoke. (Diod. 17.3.3-5) - and he marched south into Thessaly, demanding the loyalty of its people in the name of their common ancestors, Achilles (Justin 11.3.1-2; cf. Diod. 17.4.1). And with speed and diplomacy Alexander brought the Thebans and Athenians into submission (Diod. 17.4.4-6) [p.20]

There are two important points of interest:
(1) "unrest in Greece" and
(2) "Thebans and Athenians into submission"

The "unrest in Greece" encompasses all the city-states in Greece. These city-states were ready to throw off the Macedonian yoke. Here we have a clear delineation between Greek city-states, who were the conquered party, and Macedonia, the conqueror. This passage/quote in a very unambiguous way illustrates how pitiful and ridiculous is the Greeks' position when they claim, or equate, Macedonia as being one of, or the same as, the Greek city states. If Macedonia is regarded as part of Greece, then Greece, in this case, is being conquered by Greece itself. (In the Greeks' schemes of web-threading this contradiction, is not only overlooked, but readily promoted.)

"Thebans and Athenians into submission" means one thing: There was no peaceful dialogue between the warring parties. There was no negotiation, no debate and no embassy deputation's. It was a battle with spears. It was a land won by the spear; it was a war of conquest. Therefore, Greeks' position that Alexander united the Greek city-states, rests on euphemistic foundation, and as such, has no validity with historical justice. Bottom line is, that there was no "unification" of the Greek states by Alexander or his father Philip II. When one "unifies" one does not force submission of the subjects, there is no "yoke" to be thrown off.


"It was decided to raze the city to the ground as a lesson to all Greek states which contemplated rebellion." [p.21]

Notes of interest:
"As a lesson to all Greek states". This statement indicates that Macedonia was not, and could not be included in Greece, for Macedonia was the one "giving" the lesson. Another example where the modern Greek position is untenable. Macedonia was never a part of Greece, and "Macedonia" cannot be used in a same breath with the Greek city states.


"Alexander also referred to his father, Philip, conqueror of Athenians, and recalled to their minds the recent conquest of Boeotia and the annihilation of its best known city." [p.41]

Points of interest:
(1) "Philip, a conqueror of Athenians"

It would be redundant if I re-emphasize the fact that there was a "conquest" and not a "unification" of the Greek city-states by Philip from Macedon.


"From here the Macedonians crossed to Mitylene which had been recently seized by the Athenian Chares, and was now held by him with a garrison of Persians, 2,000 strong. Unable to withstand the siege, Chares surrendered the city on condition that he be allowed to leave in safety, after which he made for Imbros. The Macedonians spared those who surrender." [p.63]

Points of interest:
"Athenian" Chares with 2,000 of Persian soldiers fighting against Alexander's Macedonians. Another example of Greeks fighting against Macedonia. If this was a war of revenge on Persia, Greeks have no business fighting with Persians against the Macedonians. The conclusion still remains the same: There was no Greek army with Alexander, and there was no Greek conquest.


Inflamed with greed for kingship, Bessus and Nabarzanes now decided to carry out the plan they had long been hatching. (The plot to kill Darius the III.)

"If, as they feared, Alexander rejected their treacherous overtures, they would murder Darius and head for Bactria with the troops of their own people. However, open arrest of Darius was impossible because the Persians, many thousands strong would come to the aid of their king, and the loyalty of the Greeks also caused apprehension." [p.111]

Points of interest:
"Loyalty of the Greeks" serving and guarding Darius. Strangely enough, this is supposedly at a time when Alexander and his Macedonians were "avenging" Greece for the past wrongs done to her by the Persians.  And “uniting” the greeks.

The uncomfortable question still remains: What were these [over 50,000 strong] Greeks doing with Darius fighting the Macedonians when "Greece" was fighting Persia?


Patron, the Greek commander, speaks with Darius:
"Your Majesty", said Patron, 'we few are all that remain of 50,000 Greeks. We were all with you in your more fortunate days, and in your present situation we remain as we were when you were prospering, ready to make for and to accept as our country and our home any lands you choose. We and you have been drawn together both by your prosperity and your adversity. By this inviolable loyalty of ours I beg and beseech you: pitch your tent in our area of the camp and let us be your bodyguards. We have left Greece behind; for us there is no Bactria; our hopes rest entirely in you - I wish that were true of the others also! Further talk serves no purpose. As a foreigner born of another race I should not be asking for the responsibility of guarding your person if I thought anyone else could do it."[p.112-13]

Points of interest:
50,000 Greeks serving with Darius's army. Let us sift through this, rather obvious, knot: Alexander of Macedon is fighting Darius from Persia. Alexander crossed Hellespont into Asia with a force of 43,000 troops. (7,000 of these 43,000 were Greek allies, supplied by the league as per their arrangement. Most of these Greeks were dismissed and returned to the mainland.

Over 50,000 Greeks and over 100,000 Persians are fighting Alexander's Macedonians. The Greek loyalty and numerical superiority lies with Darius and his Persians, not with Alexander and his Macedonians.

Modern Greeks claim that Alexander's conquest was a Greek conquest to avenge Greece's wrongs done by Xerxes, a Persian commander. Do these numbers indicate a Greek conquest? Perhaps they indicate a Macedonian conquest and a Greco-Persian defeat.

As Peter Green puts it: "if this was a Greek conquest where were the Greek troops?"

"But destiny was already bringing civil war upon the Macedonian nation." [p.254]

Point of interest:
How can you have a nation (Macedonian) within another nation (Greece)?