Long story short, I see alot of people posting alot of "facts" (which are no more then rather bullish and uninformed opinions, theories, and speculations) about the 'Non-Greekness" of Alexander the great, and the Macedonians in general, and their relation to the famous Greek states of the south, Such as Athens, Sparta, Corinth, Thebes and so on.
I've posted these points in many a thread, and they are solid, reliable points, mainly because they encompass what is actually known about the ancient Macedonians, and are not some form of modern political discourse in disguise, or a thinly veiled racism masquerading as fact. The following is what, according to modern knowledge of ancient Macedonians, is the best way to interpret them.
Yes, they were Greeks: Alot of confusion arises over the existence of a modern country called 'Macedonia", or rather "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and a general ignorance in what that actually means.
The modern Macedonia has roots in the middle ages, its culture being based on the influx of Slavs migrating to the areas in the 6th century; but the modern republic of Macedonia is not the Macedonia of Alexander the Great!
-Now, the questions that are natural to ask, would be 1) "How do you know", and 2)"if that is the case, why do ancient authors mark the two entities as so distinct as to call them separate peoples?"
1) The answer to the first is very simple: The Macedonians of ancient yore spoke the Greek language (which is the most deciding factor, generally, in questions of cultural ethnicity) specifically from its Doric branch (butting them into a closer affinity with the Spartans, rather then the Athenians, in terms of internal Greek cultural relationships)
Its also clear that the Macedonians worshiped the same Gods as the Greek states to the south, which is one of the other big indicators of cultural ethnicity (Genetic ethnicity isnt much of a question, as genetically, everything from Southern Italy to Central Anatolia is, broadly speaking, a rather homogeneous zone of Genetics).
In terms of general culture, its quite clear that the two units - the 'Classic Greeks' to the South, and the Macedonians to the north are interrelated to one another, and that the certainly branch off the same base, even if they end up at somewhat different conclusions.
2) Even so, why are ancient authors so adamant that they are different? Well, its because even though the Macedonians and Greeks share a very close kinship in language, religion, and other aspects of culture, they are not totally the same - if they were, there would be no need for this thread
In a nutshell, after the collapse of Mycenaean civilization in about 1100 BCE, and the ensuing 'dark ages' in Greece lasting until about 700 BCE, the Mycenaeans of the south devlop a civilization based on the city state, the local unit of civic life, of community, and focus all attention on it - and this has a trend of leading towards complex political systems where, in various ways, the people of a city state have a say in matter. Athens is famous for its Democracy, Sparta had its council of elders and the dual kings, and various other Greek states had either Aristocratic councils, or 'Tyrants' - which while carrying a negative light in modern times, was usually a ruler who had come to power from the good will and support of the people he was ruling over, and it was often viewed as a 'people based' form of government in contrast with noble councils. But pure, unrestrained monarchy grew ,very, very rare in Southern Greece, as this societal trend continued to develop.
Macedonia, by contrast, kept pure, unrestrained privileged Monarchy - as well as many of the other more 'barbaric' traditions the southern Greeks eventually developed away from, the most intimidate to my mind being polygamous marriage, as an example. In general, while the Greek states of the south began to experiment and innovate, the Macedonians did not. They remained in past traditions with a strict monarchy and aristocracy, continued older more quaint traditions, and it was this primitiveness that, despite the cultural affinities the Macedonians and Greeks share, seperated the two in each others minds. Certainly, we can detect the bias of Southern Greek authors against their backwards hinterland cousins at every opportunity, and its an animosity the Macedonians often reciprocated - because 'Greek' was not a nationality, but a cultural identity, the southern Greek states had little problem excluding any one and everyone at the drop of the hat - notably, even the Athenians themselves drew distinction about their 'Pre-Greek' origins, as something to distinguish themselves from the rest of the Greeks - so, ironically, the Greeks themselves offer us very conflicting, very biased accounts on who or what 'Is Greek' and those accounts, unsurprisingly, are often more political in nature then they are a reliable testament to who is or is not culturally Greek.
But make no mistake - under the lens of modern scrutiny, if we are willing to lump Milanese and Sicilians together as Italians, Castillians and Aragonese as Spanish, Norman and Saxon as English, or any other a variety of examples, then the Macedonians are certainly Greek - or rather, both the Greeks and Macedonians, are Hellenes.
(As an aside, many authors who do not consider the Macedonians Greek also cosnider the Cretans of the classical period as a distinct entity as well, and even drawn distinctions amound mainland Greeks, and the Greeks of the Anatolian coastline - in otherwords, these are authors looking to take as a miniscule view of the term "Greek" as possible, even when the subject matter does not lead one to make the conclusions they draw.)
I've posted these points in many a thread, and they are solid, reliable points, mainly because they encompass what is actually known about the ancient Macedonians, and are not some form of modern political discourse in disguise, or a thinly veiled racism masquerading as fact. The following is what, according to modern knowledge of ancient Macedonians, is the best way to interpret them.
Yes, they were Greeks: Alot of confusion arises over the existence of a modern country called 'Macedonia", or rather "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and a general ignorance in what that actually means.
The modern Macedonia has roots in the middle ages, its culture being based on the influx of Slavs migrating to the areas in the 6th century; but the modern republic of Macedonia is not the Macedonia of Alexander the Great!
-Now, the questions that are natural to ask, would be 1) "How do you know", and 2)"if that is the case, why do ancient authors mark the two entities as so distinct as to call them separate peoples?"
1) The answer to the first is very simple: The Macedonians of ancient yore spoke the Greek language (which is the most deciding factor, generally, in questions of cultural ethnicity) specifically from its Doric branch (butting them into a closer affinity with the Spartans, rather then the Athenians, in terms of internal Greek cultural relationships)
Its also clear that the Macedonians worshiped the same Gods as the Greek states to the south, which is one of the other big indicators of cultural ethnicity (Genetic ethnicity isnt much of a question, as genetically, everything from Southern Italy to Central Anatolia is, broadly speaking, a rather homogeneous zone of Genetics).
In terms of general culture, its quite clear that the two units - the 'Classic Greeks' to the South, and the Macedonians to the north are interrelated to one another, and that the certainly branch off the same base, even if they end up at somewhat different conclusions.
2) Even so, why are ancient authors so adamant that they are different? Well, its because even though the Macedonians and Greeks share a very close kinship in language, religion, and other aspects of culture, they are not totally the same - if they were, there would be no need for this thread
In a nutshell, after the collapse of Mycenaean civilization in about 1100 BCE, and the ensuing 'dark ages' in Greece lasting until about 700 BCE, the Mycenaeans of the south devlop a civilization based on the city state, the local unit of civic life, of community, and focus all attention on it - and this has a trend of leading towards complex political systems where, in various ways, the people of a city state have a say in matter. Athens is famous for its Democracy, Sparta had its council of elders and the dual kings, and various other Greek states had either Aristocratic councils, or 'Tyrants' - which while carrying a negative light in modern times, was usually a ruler who had come to power from the good will and support of the people he was ruling over, and it was often viewed as a 'people based' form of government in contrast with noble councils. But pure, unrestrained monarchy grew ,very, very rare in Southern Greece, as this societal trend continued to develop.
Macedonia, by contrast, kept pure, unrestrained privileged Monarchy - as well as many of the other more 'barbaric' traditions the southern Greeks eventually developed away from, the most intimidate to my mind being polygamous marriage, as an example. In general, while the Greek states of the south began to experiment and innovate, the Macedonians did not. They remained in past traditions with a strict monarchy and aristocracy, continued older more quaint traditions, and it was this primitiveness that, despite the cultural affinities the Macedonians and Greeks share, seperated the two in each others minds. Certainly, we can detect the bias of Southern Greek authors against their backwards hinterland cousins at every opportunity, and its an animosity the Macedonians often reciprocated - because 'Greek' was not a nationality, but a cultural identity, the southern Greek states had little problem excluding any one and everyone at the drop of the hat - notably, even the Athenians themselves drew distinction about their 'Pre-Greek' origins, as something to distinguish themselves from the rest of the Greeks - so, ironically, the Greeks themselves offer us very conflicting, very biased accounts on who or what 'Is Greek' and those accounts, unsurprisingly, are often more political in nature then they are a reliable testament to who is or is not culturally Greek.
But make no mistake - under the lens of modern scrutiny, if we are willing to lump Milanese and Sicilians together as Italians, Castillians and Aragonese as Spanish, Norman and Saxon as English, or any other a variety of examples, then the Macedonians are certainly Greek - or rather, both the Greeks and Macedonians, are Hellenes.
(As an aside, many authors who do not consider the Macedonians Greek also cosnider the Cretans of the classical period as a distinct entity as well, and even drawn distinctions amound mainland Greeks, and the Greeks of the Anatolian coastline - in otherwords, these are authors looking to take as a miniscule view of the term "Greek" as possible, even when the subject matter does not lead one to make the conclusions they draw.)
)
... in the past you were tied more closely together, today you are not, and if they eventually join EU, you can again attempt to Hellenize them 
but all this rethoric about "FYROM" and other BS is really a complex of a small nation finding someone smaller than them, beating them rethorically again and again...
? No, seriously, how far I understand, he was a Macedonian king that conquered Greek city states, Persia and part of India, Palestine, Egypt, Syria and that's about that. But, he was spreading Greek culture and their traditions and we call that period Hellenization. So, he was a Macedonian, but he was spreading Greek traditions and culture. I can understand well why are Greeks and Macedonians arguing about which nationality was he, which countries wouldn't do it, but I think that with Alexandar it was the same as with Rome. You know this sentence that historians say: "Rome conquered Greece, but Greek's culture conquered Rome." We could say:"Alexander conquered Greece, but Greek's culture conquered Alexander" or something like that
.
