FYROM lie #3 “Philip of Macedon didnt unite the Greek city-states”

Taken from the propagandistic site : faq.macedonia org/history/ancient.macedonia/greeklie3.html

Παράθεση:

[1]”[If Philip and Alexander were “uniting” the Greek states, then, why were the Greeks fighting for the liberty of Greece?]”

Because obviously the slogan “fighting for the Liberty of Greece” was too catchy for those greeks who used it since none into the greek world wanted anyone in the top of their heads. The same slogan was used by Spartans to attract as many allies they could among the Greeks.

The Propagandists of FYROM also tend to ignore how the ‘unification’ of Macedonia took place, forgetting there were noumerous attempts prior to Philip’s reign to “unify” lower Macedonia with the upper Macedonian kingdoms through subduction. Hence why we had examples like the one of Lyncestians who prefered to ally with their old enemies Illyrians in order to save their kingdom from the “unification” with the Argead kingdom.

Παράθεση:

[2][If these Macedonians, were “Hellenes”, (as the modern Greeks claim today), then why were they not fighting to safeguard the holy soil of Hellas? Weren’t they of the same Hellenic stock? It is clear they were not, and they fought against Greece]

On the contrary it is clear propagandists of FYROM have no clue about history and they never miss a chance to demonstrate it.

Following the same foolish argument anyone who would read the speech of the Spartan general Brasidas to Acanthians (Thuc. 4.85.1 - 88.1) stating :

“Acanthians, the Lacedaemonians have sent out me and my army to make good the reason that we gave for the war when we began it, viz. that we were going to war with the Athenians in order to FREE HELLAS. ”

or from the same speech

“And for myself, I have come here not to hurt but to FREE the Hellenes, witness the solemn oaths by which I have bound my government that the allies that I may bring over shall be independent; and besides my object in coming is not by force or fraud to obtain your alliance, but to offer you mine to help you against your Athenian MASTERS.”

he should conclude that…Atheneans were not Greeks.

To top off the ignorance and misinformation spread by the slavs of FYROM, ancient Macedonians indeed fought to safeguard the security of Greece as we learn from the speech of Lykiskos, the representative of Akarnania to the Lakedaimonians (Spartans):

“How highly should we honour the Macedonians, who for the greater
part of their lives NEVER cease from fighting with the barbarians for the sake of the security of Greece? For who is not aware that Greece would have constantly stood in the greater danger, had we not been fenced by the Macedonians and the honourable ambition of their kings? ”

[The Histories of Polybius, IX, 35, 2 (Loeb, W.R. Paton). ]

Παράθεση:

[3][Ancient Greeks stereotyped and called barbarian all people who were non-Greek, therefore, the Macedonian king Archelaus is not a Greek, but a foreigner who enslaved the Greeks]

The slavs of FYROM are sterotyped as the ultimate clueless persons with anything related to history.

The term “Barbarian” wasnt used solely for non-greeks as the propagandists would love to believe. It was also used as an insult among Greeks and to point out a culturally inferior Greek tribe.

Otherwise we would hve to conclude Boeotians, Thessalians and Eleans were non-Greeks when we read in Athenaios Deipnosophists VIII 350a:

“which were the greatest barbarians, the Boeotians or the Thessalians he said, ” The Eleans.””

or Atheneans were…non-Greeks when Socrates called the Athenean Strepsiades a ‘Barbarian’ in Aristophanes “Nephelai” or when Aeschines calls Demosthenes a ‘Barbarian’ while addressing to him “On the Embassy 2 183”

Παράθεση:

[4] and [5][Modern day Greeks would like to dispatch off Demosthenes castigations of Philip II as political rhetoric, and yet Demosthenes was twice appointed to lead the war effort of Athens against Macedonia]. He, Demosthenes, said of Philip that Philip was not Greek, nor related to Greeks but comes from Macedonia where a person could not even buy a decent slave.

Unfortunately for the slavs of FYROM, obviously a political orator, the leader of Anti-Macedonian Athenean party doesnt constitute anything near an unbiased source but on the contrary an extremely biased thus non-credible source if we keep in mind Demosthenes was even tried for taking “Persian gold” to oppose as much he could Macedonian Hegemony. It was already demonstrated the slanders between political orators as the example of Aeschines, who called Demosthenes himself a Barbarian.

Παράθεση:

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

There is nowhere in the original greek text the words “racial rivalry” but instead the word “philotimia” who has a completely different meaning. Stick to the original sources.

Παράθεση:

[7] and [8][When one unifies, there is no “yoke” to be thrown off.]

I have already demonstrated more than enough evidence about the slogans like “unification” used to oppose those Greeks who wished to lead Greece. Interestingly the word “yoke” was used to refer to an attempt of a Greek tribe as its clear from the following quote of Isocrates (to Philip, 129)

129] Well, if I were trying to present this matter to any others before having broached it to my own country, which has thrice freed Hellas-twice from the barbarians and once from the Lacedaemonian yoke

Παράθεση:

[9] [When one “unites”, one does not force submission of the conquered people. Boeotia, Thrace, Sparta, the Aecheans, the Peloponnese are all Greeks and all are said to be SUBDUED]

The persistence of FYROM’s propagandists to prove their.. divorce with history is really amusing.

If these comical slavic characters had a clue, they would even know the upper Macedonian kingdoms were “united” with Argead Macedonia but as Herodotus writes in (Herod. 2.99.2)

“These are of the Macedones also Lyncestae and Elimiotae and other tribes further inland who are indeed allied and subjected to them but have their own monarchies”

In reality the greek original text contains the words “ξύμμαχα” and “υπήκοα”. Alliance of course can exist only between independent states and the term “υπήκοα” points out a relation based on subjection.

Παράθεση:

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

So????

In order not to repeat myself over and over stating the obvious (or not so obvious for some), Unification in classical times was considered at certain cases as Forceful, such the one of the Upper Macedonian kingdoms and the greek city-states. Even before Macedonians, successively Atheneans, Spartans, Thebans, Thessalians partly (Jason of Pherai) tried one way or other to “unite” Greece using forceful techniques for the sole reason as stated before none in the greek world wanted someone else in the top of his head. Nonetheless it proved to be a successful way to the broader plans of Argead monarchs. The PanHellenic conquest of Persia and the spread of Hellenic language and culture!!