Ancient Macedon & Modern Political Map Overlay

Ancient Macedon & Modern Political Map Overlay

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

In antiquity, most of the territory that is now North Macedonia was included in the kingdom of Paeonia, which was populated by the Paeonians, a people of Thracian origins, [1] but also parts of ancient Illyria, [2] [3] Ancient Macedonians populated the area in the south, living among many other tribes and Dardania, [4] inhabited by various Illyrian peoples, [5] [6] and Lyncestis and Pelagonia populated by the ancient Greek Molossian [7] tribes. None of these had fixed boundaries they were sometimes subject to the Kings of Macedon, and sometimes broke away.

In the late 6th century BC, the Achaemenid Persians under Darius the Great conquered the Paeonians, incorporating what is today North Macedonia within their vast territories. [8] [9] [10] Following the loss in the Second Persian invasion of Greece in 479 BC, the Persians eventually withdrew from their European territories, including from what is today North Macedonia.

In 336 BC Philip II of Macedon fully annexed Upper Macedonia, including its northern part and southern Paeonia, which both now lie within North Macedonia. [11] Philip's son Alexander the Great conquered most of the remainder of the region, incorporating it in his empire, with exclusion of Dardania. The Romans included most of the Republic in their province of Macedonia, but the northernmost parts (Dardania) lay in Moesia by the time of Diocletian, they had been subdivided, and the Republic was split between Macedonia Salutaris and Moesia prima. [12] Little is known about the Slavs before the 5th century.

At this period the area divided from the Jireček Line was populated from people of Thraco-Roman or Illyro-Roman origins, as well from Hellenized citizens of the Byzantine Empire and Byzantine Greeks. The ancient languages of the local Thraco-Illyrian people had already gone extinct before the arrival of the Slavs, and their cultural influence was highly reduced due to the repeated barbaric invasions on the Balkans during the early Middle Ages, accompanied by persistent hellenization, romanisation and later slavicisation. South Slavic tribes settled in the territory of present-day North Macedonia in the 6th century. The Slavic settlements were referred to by Byzantine Greek historians as "Sklavinies". The Sklavinies participated in several assaults against the Byzantine Empire - alone or aided by Bulgars or Avars. Around 680 AD the Bulgar group, led by khan Kuber (who belonged to the same Dulo clan as the Danubian Bulgarian khan Asparukh), settled in the Pelagonian plain, and launched campaigns to the region of Thessaloniki.

In the late 7th century Justinian II organized massive expeditions against the Sklaviniai of the Greek peninsula, in which he reportedly captured over 110,000 Slavs and transferred them to Cappadocia. By the time of Constans II (who also organized campaigns against the Slavs), the significant number of the Slavs of Macedonia were captured and transferred to central Asia Minor where they were forced to recognize the authority of the Byzantine emperor and serve in its ranks.

Use of the name "Sklavines" as a nation on its own was discontinued in Byzantine records after circa 836 as those Slavs in the Macedonia region became a population in the First Bulgarian Empire. Originally two distinct peoples, Sklavines and Bulgars, the Bulgars assimilated the Slavic language/identity whilst maintaining the Bulgarian demonym and name of the empire. Slavic influence in the region strengthened along with the rise of this state, which incorporated the entire region to its domain in AD 837. Saints Cyril and Methodius, Byzantine Greeks born in Thessaloniki, were the creators of the first Slavic Glagolitic alphabet and Old Church Slavonic language. They were also apostles-Christianizators of the Slavic world. Their cultural heritage was acquired and developed in medieval Bulgaria, where after 885 the region of Ohrid became a significant ecclesiastical center with the nomination of the Saint Clement of Ohrid for "first archbishop in Bulgarian language" with residence in this region. In conjunction with another disciple of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Saint Naum, he created a flourishing Bulgarian cultural center around Ohrid, where over 3,000 pupils were taught in the Glagolitic and Cyrillic script in what is now called Ohrid Literary School.

At the end of the 10th century, much of what is now North Macedonia became the political and cultural center of the First Bulgarian Empire under Tsar Samuel while the Byzantine emperor Basil II came to rule the eastern part of the empire (what is now Bulgaria), including the then capital Preslav, in 972. A new capital was established at Ohrid, which also became the seat of the Bulgarian Patriarchate. From then on, the Bulgarian model became an integral part of wider Slavic culture as a whole. After several decades of almost incessant fighting, Bulgaria came under Byzantine rule in 1018. The whole of North Macedonia was incorporated into the Byzantine Empire as Theme of Bulgaria [2] and the Bulgarian Patriarchate was reduced in rank to an archbishopric, the Archbishopric of Ohrid. [3]

Dobromir Chrysos rebelled against the emperor and after an unsuccessful imperial campaign in autumn 1197, the emperor sued for peace and recognized Dobromir-Chrysus’ rights to lands between the Strymon and Vardar, including Strumica and the fortress of Prosek. [13]

In the 13th and 14th centuries, Byzantine control was punctuated by periods of Bulgarian and Serbian rule. For example, Konstantin Asen - a former nobleman from Skopje - ruled as tsar of Bulgaria from 1257 to 1277. Later, Skopje became a capital of the Serbian Empire under Stefan Dušan. After the dissolution of the empire, the area became a domain of independent local Serbian rulers from the Mrnjavčević and Dragaš houses. The domain of the Mrnjavčević house included western parts of present-day North Macedonia and domains of the Dragaš house included eastern parts. The capital of the state of Mrnjavčević house was Prilep. There are only two known rulers from the Mrnjavčević house - king Vukašin Mrnjavčević and his son, king Marko. King Marko became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire and later died in the Battle of Rovine.

During the period in the 12th, 13th and early 14th century, parts of modern western North Macedonia were under the rule of the Albanian Noble Gropa family, which ruled territories between Ohrid and Debar. The city of Debar and some other territories after the ending rule of Gropa Noble family, were ruled by the Albanian Royal House of Kastrioti which ruled the Principality of Kastrioti during the end of the 14th century and the first half of the 15th century. After the death of the Albanian Prince Gjon Kastrioti in 1437, many parts of his domains were conquered by the Ottoman Empire and shortly after this, during the 15th century were again restored into the Albanian rule of League of Lezhë led by Gjergj Kastrioti Skanderbeg. During this period, western territories of modern North Macedonia became battleground between the Albanian and Ottoman armies. Some of the battles that took place in the territory of Macedonia were the Battle of Polog, Battle of Mokra, Battle of Ohrid, Battle of Otonetë, Battle of Oranik and many others. Skanderbeg's Campaign into Macedonia also took place. With the death of Skanderbeg on the 17th of January 1468 the Albanian Resistance began to fall. After the death of Skanderbeg the Albanian League was led by Lekë Dukagjini, but it didn't have the same success as before and the last Albanian strongholds were conquered in 1479 in the Siege of Shkodër.

Conquered by the Ottoman army at the end of the 14th century, [14] the region remained a part of the Ottoman Empire for over 500 years, as part of the province or Eyalet of Rumelia. [15] During this in the second half of the 15th century the Albanian Leader of the League of Lezhë, Skanderbeg was able to occupy places in modern western North Macedonia that were under Ottoman rule like the then well known city of Ohrid (Albanian Ohër) in the Battle of Ohrid. [16] [17] Tetovo (Battle of Polog) and many other places. The Albanian forces under Skanderbeg penetrated deep into modern North Macedonia in the Battle of Mokra. But this did not last long and the places were again occupied by the Ottomans. Rumelia (Turkish: Rumeli) means "Land of the Romans" in Turkish, referring to the lands conquered by the Ottoman Turks from the Byzantine Empire. [18] ). Over the centuries Rumelia Eyalet was reduced in size through administrative reforms, until by the nineteenth century it consisted of a region of central Albania and north-western part of the current state of North Macedonia with its capital at Manastir or present day Bitola. [19] Rumelia Eyalet was abolished in 1867 and the territory of North Macedonia subsequently became part of the provinces of Manastir Vilayet, Kosovo Vilayet and Salonica Vilayet until the end of Ottoman rule in 1912.

During the period of Ottoman rule the region gained a substantial Turkish minority, especially in the religious sense of Muslim some of those Muslims became so through conversions. During the Ottoman rule, Skopje and Monastir (Bitola) were capitals of separate Ottoman provinces (eyalets). The valley of the river Vardar, which was later to become the central area of North Macedonia, was ruled by the Ottoman Empire prior to the First Balkan War of 1912, with the exception of the brief period in 1878 when it was liberated from Ottoman rule after the Russo-Turkish War (1877–78), becoming part of Bulgaria. In 1903, a short-lived Kruševo Republic was proclaimed in the south-western part of present-day North Macedonia by the rebels of the Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising. Most of the ethnographers and travellers during Ottoman rule classified Slavic speaking people in Macedonia as Bulgarians. Examples include the 17th century traveller Evliya Çelebi in his Seyahatname: Book of Travels to the Ottoman census of Hilmi Pasha in 1904 and later. However, they also remarked that the language spoken in Macedonia had somewhat of a distinctive character — often described as a "Western Bulgarian dialect" as other Bulgarian dialects in modern western Bulgaria. Evidence also exists that certain Macedonian Slavs, particularly those in the northern regions, considered themselves as Serbs, on the other hand the intention to join Greece predominated in southern Macedonia where it was supported by substantial part of the Slavic-speaking population too. Although references are made referring to Slavs in Macedonia being identified as Bulgarians, some scholars suggest that ethnicity in medieval times was more fluid than what we see it to be today, an understanding derived from nineteenth century nationalistic ideals of a homogeneous nation-state. [20] [21]

During the period of Bulgarian National Revival, many Bulgarians from Vardar Macedonia supported the struggle for creation of Bulgarian cultural educational and religious institutions, including Bulgarian Exarchate.

The region was captured by the Kingdom of Serbia during First Balkan War of 1912 and was subsequently annexed to Serbia in the post-war peace treaties except Strumica region was part of Bulgaria between 1912 and 1919. It had no administrative autonomy and was called South Serbia (Južna Srbija) or "Old Serbia" (Stara Srbija). It was occupied by the Kingdom of Bulgaria between 1915 and 1918. After the First World War, the Kingdom of Serbia joined the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. In 1929, the kingdom was officially renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and was divided into provinces called banovinas. The territory of Vardar Banovina had Skopje as its capital and it included what eventually became modern North Macedonia.

After World War I (1914–1918) the Slavs in Serbian Macedonia ("Vardar Macedonia") were regarded as southern Serbs and the language they spoke a southern Serbian dialect. The Bulgarian, Greek and Romanian schools were closed, the Bulgarian priests and all non-Serbian teachers were expelled. The policy of Serbianization in the 1920s and 1930s clashed with pro-Bulgarian sentiment stirred by Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) detachments infiltrating from Bulgaria, whereas local communists favoured the path of self-determination.

In 1925, D. J. Footman, the British vice consul at Skopje, addressed a lengthy report for the Foreign Office. He wrote that "the majority of the inhabitants of Southern Serbia are Orthodox Christian Macedonians, ethnologically more akin to the Bulgarians than to the Serbs. He also pointed to the existence of the tendency to seek an independent Macedonia with Salonica as its capital." [22] During World War II, the Vardar Banovina was occupied between 1941 and 1944 by Italian-ruled Albania, which annexed the Albanian-populated western regions, and pro-German Bulgaria, which occupied the remainder. The occupying powers persecuted those inhabitants of the province who opposed the regime this prompted some of them to join the Communist resistance movement of Josip Broz Tito. However, the Bulgarian army was well received by most of the population when it entered Macedonia [23] and it was able to recruit from the local population, which formed as much as 40% to 60% of the soldiers in certain battalions.

Following World War II, Yugoslavia was reconstituted as a federal state under the leadership of Tito's Yugoslav Communist Party. When the former Vardar province was established in 1944, most of its territory was transferred into a separate republic while the northernmost parts of the province remained with Serbia. In 1946, the new republic was granted federal status as an autonomous "People's Republic of Macedonia" within the new Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In the 1963 Constitution of Yugoslavia it was slightly renamed, to bring it in line with the other Yugoslav republics, as the Socialist Republic of Macedonia.

Greece was concerned by the initiatives of the Yugoslav government, as they were seen as a pretext for future territorial claims against the Greek region of Macedonia, which formed the bulk of historical Macedonia. The Yugoslav authorities also promoted the development of the Macedonians' ethnic identity and Macedonian language. The Macedonian language was codified in 1944 (Keith 2003), from the Slavic dialect spoken around Veles. This further angered both Greece and Bulgaria, because of the possible territorial claims of the new states to the Greek and Bulgarian parts of the historic region of Macedonia received after the Balkan Wars.

During the Greek Civil War (1944–1949), many Macedonians (regardless of ethnicity) participated in the ELAS resistance movement organized by the Communist Party of Greece. ELAS and Yugoslavia were on good terms until 1949, when they split due to Tito's lack of allegiance to Joseph Stalin (cf. Cominform). After the end of the war, the ELAS fighters who took refuge in southern Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were not all permitted by Greece to return: only those who considered themselves Greeks were allowed, whereas who considered themselves Bulgarian or Macedonian Slavs were barred. These events also contributed to the bad state of Yugoslav-Greek relations in the Macedonia region.

In 1990, the form of government peacefully changed from socialist state to parliamentary democracy. The first multi-party elections were held on 11 and 25 November and 9 December 1990. [24] After the collective presidency led by Vladimir Mitkov [bg mk sr uk] [25] was dissolved, Kiro Gligorov became the first democratically-elected president of the Republic of Macedonia on 31 January 1991. [26] On 16 April 1991, the parliament adopted a constitutional amendment removing "Socialist" from the official name of the country, and on 7 June of the same year, the new name, "Republic of Macedonia", was officially established.

On 8 September 1991, the country held an independence referendum where 95.26% voted for independence from Yugoslavia, under the name of the Republic of Macedonia. The question of the referendum was formulated as "Would you support independent Macedonia with the right to enter future union of sovereign states of Yugoslavia?" (Macedonian: Дали сте за самостојна Македонија со право да стапи во иден сојуз на суверени држави на Југославија?). On 25 September 1991 the Declaration of Independence was formally adopted by the Macedonian Parliament making the Republic of Macedonia an independent country - although in Macedonia independence day is still celebrated as the day of the referendum 8 September. A new Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia was adopted on 17 November 1991.

Following the breakup of Yugoslavia, the position of ethnic Albanians was uncertain in the early years of the new Macedonian republic. Various Albanian political parties emerged, of which the Party for Democratic Prosperity (PDP) was the largest and most prominent. The PDP called for the improvement of the status of Albanians in North Macedonia, such as extended education rights and Albanian language usage, constitutional changes, release of political prisoners, proportional voting system and an end to discrimination. Discontent with the lack of constitutional recognition of collective rights for Albanians resulted in PDP leader Nevzat Halili declaring his party would regard the constitution as invalid and move toward seeking autonomy, declaring a Republic of Ilirida in 1992 and again in 2014. The proposal has been declared unconstitutional by the Macedonian government.

Bulgaria was the first country to recognize the new Macedonian state under its constitutional name. However, international recognition of the new country was delayed by Greece's objection to the use of what it considered a Hellenic name and national symbols, as well as controversial clauses in the Republic's constitution, a controversy known as the Macedonia naming dispute. To compromise, the country was admitted to the United Nations under the provisional name of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" on 8 April 1993. [27]

Greece was still dissatisfied and it imposed a trade blockade in February 1994. The sanctions were lifted in September 1995 after Macedonia changed its flag and aspects of its constitution that were perceived as granting it the right to intervene in the affairs of other countries. The two neighbours immediately went ahead with normalizing their relations, but the state's name remains a source of local and international controversy. The usage of each name remains controversial to supporters of the other.

After the state was admitted to the United Nations under the temporary reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", other international organisations adopted the same convention. More than half of the UN's member states have recognized the country as the Republic of Macedonia, including the United States of America while the rest use the temporary reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or have not established any diplomatic relations with the country.

In 1999, the Kosovo War led to 340,000 Albanian refugees from Kosovo fleeing into the Republic of Macedonia, greatly disrupting normal life in the region and threatening to upset the balance between Macedonians and Albanians. Refugee camps were set up in the country. Athens did not interfere with the Republic's affairs when NATO forces moved to and from the region ahead a possible invasion of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Thessaloniki was the main depot for humanitarian aid to the region. The Republic of Macedonia did not become involved in the conflict.

In end the war, Yugoslav president Slobodan Milošević reached an agreement with NATO which allowed refugees to return under UN protection. However, the war increased tensions and relations between ethnic Macedonians and Albanian Macedonians became strained. On the positive side, Athens and Ankara presented a united front of 'non-involvement'. In Greece, there was a strong reaction against NATO and the United States.

In the spring of 2001, ethnic Albanian insurgents calling themselves the National Liberation Army (some of whom were former members of the Kosovo Liberation Army) took up arms in the west of the Republic of Macedonia. They demanded that the constitution be rewritten to enshrine certain Albanian minority interests such as language rights. The guerillas received support from Albanians in NATO-controlled Kosovo and Albanian guerrillas in the demilitarized zone between Kosovo and the rest of Serbia. The fighting was concentrated in and around Tetovo, the fifth largest city in the country.

After a joint NATO-Serb crackdown on Albanian guerrillas in Kosovo, European Union (EU) officials were able to negotiate a cease-fire in June. The government would give Macedonian Albanians greater civil rights, and the guerrilla groups would voluntarily relinquish their weapons to NATO monitors. This agreement was a success, and in August 2001 3,500 NATO soldiers conducted "Operations Essential Harvest" to retrieve the arms. Directly after the operation finished in September the NLA officially dissolved itself. Ethnic relations have since improved significantly, although hardliners on both sides have been a continued cause for concern and some low level violence continues particularly directed against police.

On 26 February 2004, President Boris Trajkovski died in a plane crash near Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The results of the official investigation revealed that the cause of the plane accident was procedural mistakes by the crew, committed during the approach to land at Mostar Airport.

In March 2004, the country submitted an application for membership of the European Union, and on 17 December 2005 was listed by the EU Presidency conclusions as an accession candidate (as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). However, accession proceedings were delayed due to opposition by Greece until the 2018 resolution of the Macedonia naming dispute, and later by Bulgaria due to unresolved differences between the two countries on the history of the region and what is perceived as "anti-Bulgarian ideology". [28] [29]

In June 2018, the Prespa agreement was reached between the governments of Greece and the then-Republic of Macedonia to rename the latter the Republic of North Macedonia, or North Macedonia for short. This agreement, after it had been accepted by the respective legislatures of both countries, came into effect on 12 February 2019, thus ending the disputes.

Scotland Historical Map Overlays

Locate, view and download free Ordnance Survey maps, large-scale town plans, county atlases, military maps and other historical maps from the National Library of Scotland, geo-referenced and overlaid on Google maps, satellite and terrain layers. Maps date between 1560 and 1964 and relate primarily to Scotland. They also have maps of a few areas beyond Scotland, including England and Great Britain, Ireland, Belgium and Jamaica.


The Greek historians Herodotus and Thucydides reported the legend that the Macedonian kings of the Argead dynasty were descendants of Temenus of Argos, Peloponnese, who was believed to have had the mythical Heracles as one of his ancestors. [4] The legend states that three brothers and descendants of Temenus wandered from Illyria to Upper Macedonia, where a local king nearly had them killed and forced into exile due to an omen that the youngest, Perdiccas, would become king. The latter eventually obtained the title after settling near the alleged gardens of Midas next to Mount Bermius in Lower Macedonia. [4] Other legends, mentioned by the Roman historians Livy, Velleius and Justin and by the Greek biographer Plutarch and the Greek geographer Pausanias stated that Caranus of Macedon was the first Macedonian king and that he was succeeded by Perdiccas I. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Greeks of the Classical period generally accepted the origin story provided by Herodotus, or another involving lineage from Zeus, chief god of the Greek pantheon, lending credence to the idea that the Macedonian ruling house possessed the divine right of kings. [11] Herodotus wrote that Alexander I of Macedon ( r . 498 – 454 BC ) convinced the Hellanodikai authorities of the Ancient Olympic Games that his Argive lineage could be traced back to Temenus, and thus his perceived Greek identity permitted him to enter the Olympic competitions. [12]

Very little is known about the first five kings of Macedonia (or the first eight kings depending on which royal chronology is accepted). [13] There is much greater evidence for the reigns of Amyntas I of Macedon ( r . 547 – 498 BC ) and his successor Alexander I, especially due to the aid given by the latter to the Persian commander Mardonius at the Battle of Platea in 479 BC, during the Greco-Persian Wars. [14] Although stating that the first several kings listed by Herodotus were most likely legendary figures, historian Robert Malcolm Errington uses the rough estimate of twenty-five years for the reign of each of these kings to assume that the capital Aigai (modern Vergina) could have been under their rule since roughly the mid-7th century BC, during the Archaic period. [15]

The kingdom was situated in the fertile alluvial plain, watered by the rivers Haliacmon and Axius, called Lower Macedonia, north of Mount Olympus. Around the time of Alexander I, the Argead Macedonians started to expand into Upper Macedonia, lands inhabited by independent Greek tribes like the Lyncestae and the Elimiotae, and to the west, beyond the Axius river, into the Emathia, Eordaia, Bottiaea, Mygdonia, Crestonia and Almopia regions settled by, among others, many Thracian tribes. [16] To the north of Macedonia lay various non-Greek peoples such as the Paeonians due north, the Thracians to the northeast, and the Illyrians, with whom the Macedonians were frequently in conflict, to the northwest. [17] To the south lay Thessaly, with whose inhabitants the Macedonians had much in common, both culturally and politically, while to the west lay Epirus, with whom the Macedonians had a peaceful relationship and in the 4th century BC formed an alliance against Illyrian raids. [18] Prior to the 4th century BC, the kingdom covered a region approximately corresponding to the western and central parts of the region of Macedonia in modern Greece. [19]

After Darius I of Persia ( r . 522 – 486 BC ) launched a military campaign against the Scythians in Europe in 513 BC, he left behind his general Megabazus to quell the Paeonians, Thracians, and coastal Greek city-states of the southern Balkans. [20] In 512/511 BC Megabazus sent envoys demanding Macedonian submission as a vassal state to the Achaemenid Empire of ancient Persia, to which Amyntas I responded by formally accepting the hegemony of the Persian king of kings. [21] This began the period of Achaemenid Macedonia, which lasted for roughly three decades. The Macedonian kingdom was largely autonomous and outside of Persian control, but was expected to provide troops and provisions for the Achaemenid army. [22] Amyntas II, son of Amyntas I's daughter Gygaea of Macedon and her husband Bubares, son of Megabazus, was given the Phrygian city of Alabanda as an appanage by Xerxes I ( r . 486 – 465 BC ), to secure the Persian-Macedonian marriage alliance. [23] Persian authority over Macedonia was interrupted by the Ionian Revolt (499–493 BC), yet the Persian general Mardonius was able to subjugate Macedonia, bringing it under Persian rule. [24] It is doubtful, though, that Macedonia was ever officially included within a Persian satrapy (i.e. province). [25] The Macedonian king Alexander I must have viewed his subordination as an opportunity to aggrandize his own position, since he used Persian military support to extend his own borders. [26] The Macedonians provided military aid to Xerxes I during the Second Persian invasion of Greece in 480–479 BC, which saw Macedonians and Persians fighting against a Greek coalition led by Athens and Sparta. [27] Following the Greek victory at Salamis, the Persians sent Alexander I as an envoy to Athens, hoping to strike an alliance with their erstwhile foe, yet his diplomatic mission was rebuffed. [28] Achaemenid control over Macedonia ceased when the Persians were ultimately defeated by the Greeks and fled the Greek mainland in Europe. [29]

Alexander I, who Herodotus claimed was entitled proxenos and euergetes ('benefactor') by the Athenians, cultivated a close relationship with the Greeks following the Persian defeat and withdrawal, sponsoring the erection of statues at both major panhellenic sanctuaries at Delphi and Olympia. [30] After his death in 454 BC, he was granted the posthumous title Alexander I 'the Philhellene' ('friend of the Greeks'), perhaps designated by later Hellenistic Alexandrian scholars, most certainly preserved by the Greco-Roman historian Dio Chrysostom, and most likely influenced by Macedonian propaganda of the 4th century BC that emphasized the positive role the ancestors of Philip II ( r . 359 – 336 BC ) had in Greek affairs. [31] Alexander I's successor Perdicas II ( r . 454 – 413 BC ) was not only saddled with internal revolt by the petty kings of Upper Macedonia, but also faced serious challenges to Macedonian territorial integrity by Sitalces, a ruler in Thrace, and the Athenians, who fought four separate wars against Macedonia under Perdiccas II. [32] During his reign, Athenian settlers began to encroach upon his coastal territories in Lower Macedonia to gather resources such as timber and pitch in support of their navy, a practice that was actively encouraged by the Athenian leader Pericles when he had colonists settle among the Bisaltae along the Strymon River. [33] From 476 BC onward, the Athenians coerced some of the coastal towns of Macedonia along the Aegean Sea to join the Athenian-led Delian League as tributary states and in 437/436 BC founded the city of Amphipolis at the mouth of the Strymon River for access to timber as well as gold and silver from the Pangaion Hills. [34]

War broke out in 433 BC when Athens, perhaps seeking additional cavalry and resources in anticipation of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), allied with a brother and cousin of Perdiccas II who were in open rebellion against him. [35] This led Perdiccas to seek alliances with Athens' rivals Sparta and Corinth, yet when his efforts were rejected he instead promoted the rebellion of nearby nominal Athenian allies in Chalcidice, winning over the important city of Potidaea. [36] Athens responded by sending a naval invasion force that captured Therma and laid siege to Pydna. [37] However, they were unsuccessful in retaking Chalcidice and Potidaea due to stretching their forces thin by fighting the Macedonians and their allies on multiple fronts, and therefore sued for peace with Macedonia. [37] War resumed shortly after with the Athenian capture of Beroea and Macedonian aid given to the Potidaeans during an Athenian siege, yet by 431 BC, the Athenians and Macedonians concluded a peace treaty and alliance orchestrated by the Thracian ruler Sitalces of the Odrysian kingdom. [38] The Athenians had hoped to use Sitalces against the Macedonians, but due to Sitalces' desire to focus on acquiring more Thracian allies, he convinced Athens to make peace with Macedonia on the condition that he provide cavalry and peltasts for the Athenian army in Chalcidice. [39] Under this arrangement, Perdiccas II was given back Therma and no longer had to contend with his rebellious brother, Athens, and Sitacles all at once in exchange he aided the Athenians in their subjugation of settlements in Chalcidice. [40]

In 429 BC, Perdiccas II sent aid to the Spartan commander Cnemus in Acarnania, but the Macedonian forces arrived too late to enter the Battle of Naupactus, which ended in an Athenian victory. [41] In that same year, Sitalces, according to Thucydides, invaded Macedonia at the behest of Athens to aid them in subduing Chalcidice and to punish Perdiccas II for violating the terms of their peace treaty. [42] However, given Sitalces' huge Thracian invading force (allegedly 150,000 soldiers) and a nephew of Perdiccas II that he intended to place on the Macedonian throne after toppling the latter's regime, Athens must have become wary of acting on their supposed alliance since they failed to provide him with promised naval support. [43] Sitalces eventually retreated from Macedonia, perhaps due to logistical concerns: a shortage of provisions and harsh winter conditions. [44]

In 424 BC, Perdiccas began to play a prominent role in the Peloponnesian War by aiding the Spartan general Brasidas in convincing Athenian allies in Thrace to defect and ally with Sparta. [45] After failing to convince Perdiccas II to make peace with Arrhabaeus of Lynkestis (a small region of Upper Macedonia), Brasidas agreed to aid the Macedonian fight against Arrhabaeus, although he expressed his concerns about leaving his Chalcidian allies to their own devices against Athens, as well as the fearsome Illyrian reinforcements arriving on the side of Arrhabaeus. [46] The massive combined force commanded by Arrhabaeus apparently caused the army of Perdiccas II to flee in haste before the battle began, which enraged the Spartans under Brasidas, who proceeded to snatch pieces of the Macedonian baggage train left unprotected. [47] Subsequently, Perdiccas II not only made peace with Athens but switched sides, blocking Peloponnesian reinforcements from reaching Brasidas via Thessaly. [48] The treaty offered Athens economic concessions, but it also guaranteed internal stability in Macedonia since Arrhabaeus and other domestic detractors were convinced to lay down their arms and accept Perdiccas II as their suzerain lord. [49]

Perdiccas II was obliged to send aid to the Athenian general Cleon, but he and Brasidas died in 422 BC, and the Peace of Nicias struck in the following year between Athens and Sparta nullified the Macedonian king's responsibilities as an erstwhile Athenian ally. [50] After the Battle of Mantinea in 418 BC, Sparta and Argos formed a new alliance, which, alongside the threat of neighboring poleis in Chalcidice who were aligned with Sparta, induced Perdiccas II to abandon his Athenian alliance in favor of Sparta once again. [51] This proved to be a strategic error, since Argos quickly switched sides as a pro-Athenian democracy, allowing Athens to punish Macedonia with a naval blockade in 417 BC along with the resumption of military activity in Chalcidice. [52] Perdiccas II agreed to a peace settlement and alliance with Athens once more in 414 BC and, on his death a year later, was succeeded by his son Archelaus I ( r . 413 – 399 BC ). [53]

Archelaus I maintained good relations with Athens throughout his reign, relying on Athens to provide naval support in his 410 BC siege of Pydna, and in exchange providing Athens with timber and naval equipment. [54] With improvements to military organization and building of new infrastructure such as fortresses, Archelaus was able to strengthen Macedonia and project his power into Thessaly, where he aided his allies yet he faced some internal revolt as well as problems fending off Illyrian incursions led by Sirras. [55] Although he retained Aigai as a ceremonial and religious center, Archelaus I moved the capital of the kingdom north to Pella, which was then positioned by a lake with a river connecting it to the Aegean Sea. [56] He improved Macedonia's currency by minting coins with a higher silver content as well as issuing separate copper coinage. [57] His royal court attracted the presence of well-known intellectuals such as the Athenian playwright Euripides. [58]

Historical sources offer wildly different and confused accounts as to who assassinated Archelaus I, although it likely involved a homosexual love affair with royal pages at his court. [59] What ensued was a power struggle lasting from 399 to 393 BC of four different monarchs claiming the throne: Orestes, son of Archelaus I Aeropus II, uncle, regent, and murderer of Orestes Pausanias, son of Aeropus II and Amyntas II, who was married to the youngest daughter of Archelaus I. [60] Very little is known about this period, although each of these monarchs aside from Orestes managed to mint debased currency imitating that of Archelaus I. [61] Finally, Amyntas III ( r . 393 – 370 BC ), son of Arrhidaeus and grandson of Amyntas I, succeeded to the throne by killing Pausanias. [60]

The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus provided a seemingly conflicting account about Illyrian invasions occurring in 393 BC and 383 BC, which may have been representative of a single invasion led by Bardylis of the Dardani. [62] In this event, Amyntas III is said to have fled his own kingdom and returned with the support of Thessalian allies, while a possible pretender to the throne named Argaeus had ruled temporarily in Amyntas III's absence. [63] When the powerful Chalcidian city of Olynthos was allegedly poised to overthrow Amyntas III and conquer the Macedonian kingdom, Teleutias, brother of the Spartan king Agesilaus II, sailed to Macedonia with a large Spartan force to provide critical aid to Amyntas III. [64] The result of this campaign in 379 BC was the surrender of Olynthos and the abolition of the Chalcidian League. [65]

Amyntas III had children with two wives, but it was his eldest son by his marriage with Eurydice I who succeeded him as Alexander II ( r . 370 – 368 BC ). [66] When Alexander II invaded Thessaly and occupied Larissa and Crannon as a challenge to the suzerainty of the tagus (supreme Thessalian military leader) Alexander of Pherae, the Thessalians appealed to Pelopidas of Thebes for help to expel both of these rival overlords. [67] After Pelopidas captured Larissa, Alexander II made peace and allied with Thebes, handing over noble hostages including his brother and future king, Philip II. [68] Afterwards, Ptolemy of Aloros assassinated his brother-in-law Alexander II and acted as regent for the latter's younger brother Perdiccas III ( r . 368 – 359 BC ). [69] Ptolemy's intervention in Thessaly in 367 BC provoked another Theban invasion by Pelopidas, who was undermined when Ptolemy bribed his mercenaries not to fight, thus leading to a newly proposed alliance between Macedonia and Thebes, but only on the condition that more hostages, including one of his Ptolemy's sons, were to be handed over to Thebes. [70] By 365 BC, Perdiccas III had reached the age of majority and took the opportunity to kill his regent Ptolemy, initiating a sole reign marked by internal stability, financial recovery, fostering of Greek intellectualism at his court, and the return of his brother Philip from Thebes. [70] However, Perdiccas III also dealt with an Athenian invasion by Timotheus, son of Conon, that led to the loss of Methone and Pydna, while an invasion of Illyrians led by Bardylis succeeded in killing Perdiccas III and 4,000 Macedonian troops in battle. [71]

Philip II of Macedon ( r . 359 – 336 BC ), who spent much of his adolescence as a political hostage in Thebes, was twenty-four years old when he acceded to the throne and immediately faced crises that threatened to topple his leadership. [72] However, with the use of deft diplomacy, he was able to convince the Thracians under Berisades to cease their support of Pausanias, a pretender to the throne, and the Athenians to halt their backing of another pretender named Arg(a)eus (perhaps the same who had caused trouble for Amyntas III). [73] He achieved these by bribing the Thracians and their Paeonian allies and removing a garrison of Macedonian troops from Amphipolis, establishing a treaty with Athens that relinquished his claims to that city. [74] He was also able to make peace with the Illyrians who had threatened his borders. [75]

The exact date in which Philip II initiated reforms to radically transform the Macedonian army's organization, equipment, and training is unknown, including the formation of the Macedonian phalanx armed with long pikes (i.e. the sarissa). The reforms took place over a period of several years and proved immediately successful against his Illyrian and Paeonian enemies. [76] Confusing accounts in ancient sources have led modern scholars to debate how much Philip II's royal predecessors may have contributed to these military reforms. It is perhaps more likely that his years of captivity in Thebes during the Theban hegemony influenced his ideas, especially after meeting with the renowned general Epaminondas. [77]

Although Macedonia and the rest of Greece traditionally practiced monogamy in marriage, Philip II divulged in the 'barbarian' practice of polygamy, marrying seven different wives with perhaps only one that didn't involve the loyalty of his aristocratic subjects or the affirmation of a new alliance. [78] For instance, his first marriages were to Phila of Elimeia of the Upper Macedonian aristocracy as well as the Illyrian princess Audata, granddaughter(?) of Bardylis, to ensure a marriage alliance with their people. [79] To establish an alliance with Larissa in Thessaly, he married the Thessalian noblewoman Philinna in 358 BC, who bore him a son who would later rule as Philip III Arrhidaeus ( r . 323 – 317 BC ). [80] In 357 BC, he married Olympias in order to secure an alliance with Arybbas, the King of Epirus and the Molossians. This marriage would bear a son who would later rule as Alexander III (better known as Alexander the Great) and claim descent from the legendary Achilles by way of his dynastic heritage from Epirus. [81] It has been argued whether or not the Achaemenid Persian kings influenced Philip's practice of polygamy, although it seems to have been practiced by Amyntas III who had three sons with a possible second wife Gygaea: Archelaus, Arrhidaeus, and Menelaus. [82] Philip II had Archelaus put to death in 359 BC, while Philip's other two half brothers fled to Olynthos, serving as a casus belli for the Olynthian War (349–348 BC) against the Chalcidian League. [83]

While Athens was preoccupied with the Social War (357–355 BC), Philip took this opportunity to retake Amphipolis in 357 BC, for which the Athenians later declared war on him, and by 356 BC, recaptured Pydna and Potidaea, the latter of which he handed over to the Chalcidian League as promised in a treaty of 357/356 BC. [84] In this year, he was also able to take Crenides, later refounded as Philippi and providing much wealth in gold, while his general Parmenion was victorious against the Illyrian king Grabos of the Grabaei. [85] During the siege of Methone from 355 to 354 BC, Philip lost his right eye to an arrow wound, but was able to capture the city and was even cordial to the defeated inhabitants (unlike the Potidaeans, who had been sold into slavery). [86]

It was at this stage when Philip II involved Macedonia in the Third Sacred War (356–346 BC). The conflict began when Phocis captured and plundered the temple of Apollo at Delphi as a response to Thebes' demand that they submit unpaid fines, causing the Amphictyonic League to declare war on Phocis and a civil war among the members of the Thessalian League aligned with either Phocis or Thebes. [87] Philip II's initial campaign against Pherae in Thessaly in 353 BC at the behest of Larissa ended in two disastrous defeats by the Phocian general Onomarchus. [88] However, he returned the following year and defeated Onomarchus at the Battle of Crocus Field, which led to his election as leader (archon) of the Thessalian League, ability to recruit Thessalian cavalry, provided him a seat on the Amphictyonic Council and a marriage alliance with Pherae by wedding Nicesipolis, niece of the tyrant Jason of Pherae. [89]

After campaigning against the Thracian ruler Cersobleptes, Philip II began his war against the Chalcidian League in 349 BC, which had been reestablished in 375 BC following a temporary disbandment. [90] Despite an Athenian intervention by Charidemus, [91] Olynthos was captured by Philip II in 348 BC, whereupon he sold its inhabitants into slavery, bringing back some Athenian citizens to Macedonia as slaves as well. [92] The Athenians, especially in a series of speeches by Demosthenes known as the Olynthiacs, were unsuccessful in persuading their allies to counterattack, so in 346 BC, they concluded a treaty with Macedonia known as the Peace of Philocrates. [93] The treaty stipulated that Athens would relinquish claims to Macedonian coastal territories, the Chalcidice, and Amphipolis in return for the release of the enslaved Athenians as well as guarantees that Philip would not attack Athenian settlements in the Thracian Chersonese. [94] Meanwhile, Phocis and Thermopylae were captured, the Delphic temple robbers executed, and Philip II was awarded the two Phocian seats on the Amphictyonic Council as well as the position of master of ceremonies over the Pythian Games. [95] Athens initially opposed his membership on the council and refused to attend the games in protest, but they were eventually swayed to accept these conditions, partially due to the oration On the Peace by Demosthenes. [96]

For the next few years Philip II was occupied with reorganizing the administrative system of Thessaly, campaigning against the Illyrian ruler Pleuratus I, deposing Arybbas in Epirus in favor of his brother-in-law Alexander I (through Philip II's marriage with Olympias), and defeating Cersebleptes in Thrace. This allowed him to extend Macedonian control over the Hellespont in anticipation of an invasion into Achaemenid Asia. [97] In what is now Bulgaria, Philip II conquered the Thracian city of Panegyreis in 342 BC and reestablished it as Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv, Roman-era Trimontium). [98] War broke out with Athens in 340 BC while Philip II was engaged in two ultimately unsuccessful sieges of Perinthus and Byzantion, followed by a successful campaign against the Scythians along the Danube and Macedonia's involvement in the Fourth Sacred War against Amphissa in 339 BC. [99] Hostilities between Thebes and Macedonia began when Thebes ousted a Macedonian garrison from Nicaea (near Thermopylae), leading Thebes to join Athens, Megara, Corinth, Achaea, and Euboea in a final confrontation against Macedonia at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC. [100] The Athenian oligarch Philippides of Paiania was instrumental in the Macedonian victory at Chaeronea by assisting Philip II's cause, but was later prosecuted in Athens as a traitor by the orator and statesman Hypereides. [101]

After the Macedonian victory at Chaeronea, Philip II imposed harsh conditions on Thebes, installing an oligarchy there, yet was lenient to Athens due to his desire to utilize their navy in a planned invasion of the Achaemenid Empire. [102] He was then chiefly responsible for the formation of the League of Corinth that included the major Greek city-states minus Sparta, being elected as the leader (hegemon) of its council (synedrion) by the spring of 337 BC despite the Kingdom of Macedonia being excluded as an official member of the league. [103] The Panhellenic fear of another Persian invasion of Greece perhaps contributed to Philip II's decision to invade the Achaemenid Empire. [104] The Persian aid offered to Perinthus and Byzantion in 341–340 BC highlighted Macedonia's strategic need to secure Thrace and the Aegean Sea against increasing Achaemenid encroachment, as Artaxerxes III further consolidated his control over satrapies in western Anatolia. [105] The latter region, yielding far more wealth and valuable resources than the Balkans, was also coveted by the Macedonian king for its sheer economic potential. [106]

After his election by the League of Corinth as their commander-in-chief (strategos autokrator) of a forthcoming campaign to invade the Achaemenid Empire, Philip II sought to shore up further Macedonian support by marrying Cleopatra Eurydice, niece of general Attalus. [108] Yet talk of providing new potential heirs infuriated Philip II's son Alexander (already a veteran of the Battle of Chaeronea) and his mother Olympias, who fled together to Epirus before Alexander was recalled to Pella. [108] Further tensions arose when Philip II offered his son Arrhidaeus's hand in marriage to Ada of Caria, daughter of Pixodarus, the Persian satrap of Caria. When Alexander intervened and proposed to marry Ada instead, Philip cancelled the wedding arrangements altogether and exiled Alexander's advisors Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Harpalus. [109] To reconcile with Olympias, Philip II had their daughter Cleopatra marry Olympias' brother (and Cleopatra's uncle) Alexander I of Epirus, yet Philip II was assassinated by his bodyguard Pausanias of Orestis during their wedding feast and succeeded by Alexander. [110]

Ancient Macedon & Modern Political Map Overlay - History


is a country of
8,359 sq miles.
is 444 sq miles
is 100 sq miles.
is 3,794,083
sq. miles
is 71,498
sq miless

Until the end of WW1 most of the Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire. Palestine was then placed under Great Britain by the League of Nations. Their mandate lasted from 1920-1948. Part of the area became Transjordan (now Jordan) with the remainder remaining under British control. After WW2 the UN split the area into two parts, a Jewish state (becoming Israel) and an Arab state. Accepted by Israel it was not accepted by the Arabs who invaded Israel the day after the British left to eliminate it.. Since then Israel has faced wars and terrorist attacks to eliminate it. For security it has created the Israel Defence Force with compulsory military service..

The population of Israel has grown with worldwide immigration which includes refugees from concentration camps and Jews expelled by Arab countries. The refusal to resettle the Arab refugees by the Arab League left them in UNRWA camps.. Israel saw this movement as a population transfer as happened when India was split into India and Pakistan. The Arab League decided that leaving refugees in camps would be a future political counter against Israel.

Maps and events of subsequent wars aimed at destroying Israel are shown below.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
NYS of mind 2017 (5.14)

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is one informed and proud American.

He spoke in the US House of Representatives on Jan 11, 2017.

The French and British
Mandates for Syria, Palestine
and Mesopotamia after WW1

The British
Peel Commission Report (1937)
Boundaries for the
Division of Palestine
into Arab and Jewish States

The Red Line shows
Israel’s borders,
Gaza and the Golan Heights

In 1923 London recognized the existence in Transjordan of a government under Abdullah as emir. In 1928 it was, recognised as an ’emirate’, or principality. Its formal independence from the UK was in 1946.
His title upgraded to ‘King’ and name
to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Ancient Greece. A Political, Social, and Cultural History

This text gives a general view of Greek history from the earliest civilizations in Greece up to Hellenistic times with a short view of Greece in the Roman period (Epilogue, pp. 471-475). Unlike older books, the description follows a more modern concept of writing history with the aim to present not only the main historical events, but also the cultural history, and to illuminate structures and developments beyond material evidence. So “four scholars with different backgrounds and varying interests” (xiii) came together in order to compose a book which is worth reading for many reasons, because it offers an abundance of information, questions, and insights without abandoning the guiding concept of writing a history of Greece. The book is intended to serve both readers with a general interest and students of ancient history rather than scholars. Its length is supposed to be “suitable for a course lasting for a semester or a quarter devoted to the history and civilization of Greece long enough to provide depth and detail, short enough to enable the instructor to assign primary sources that will expand the student’s understanding of a world that is both familiar and alien” (xiii). There are several illustrations, maps, figures, and source material throughout the text, which serve to illustrate what is said. Remarkable is the time line (xix-xxvii), which has the rubrics of military events, political/social events, and cultural development and serves to give a schematic view of Greek history from the neolithic to the battle of Actium. The authors explain the most important Greek terms in a glossary (pp. 476-489), and a comprehensive index helps the reader to work with the book. There is no general bibliography, but some important titles are listed at the end of every chapter. The criteria for selecting a certain book are not always clear. In chapter ii, for example, which also deals with early Greek writings (pp. 73-74), one misses Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, and in chapter x concerning the rise of Macedon Hammond’s History of Macedonia is lacking. 1 In general some reference to the volumes of the Cambridge Ancient History regarding Greek history would have been useful.

It is hardly possible in a short review to treat in detail a book which contains so many topics and covers a period of some thousand years. So I want to emphasize that the few points criticized in the following lines are taken from a text of nearly 500 pages. The book as a whole is a very successful description of Greek history.

Chapter i: Early Greece and the Bronze Age (pp. 1-40). The authors rightly emphasize the influence of Near Eastern cultures on early Greek civilizations (especially the Minoan culture), which has been much discussed in recent times. They have doubts about older theories concerning the existence of a united kingdom of Greece ruled by the king of Mycenae and demonstrate that we have to abandon the idea of great empires of Homeric kings. Regarding the decline of the Mycenaean culture, the authors think that there was a sudden downfall (pp. 40-41). But not all Mycenaean sites have been “suddenly swept away” (41), as, for example, the settlement of Athens demonstrates. The end of the Mycenaean civilization was more a gradual decline than an abrupt crash. It is possible that the “Sea people” caused the fall of many Mycenaean sites (37), and also a “system collapse”, as the authors assume (39), should be taken into consideration, but there is no certain evidence, so that the authors conclude that “the picture is hopelessly confused” (38). Concerning the coming of the Dorians the authors rightly emphasize that this was not really an invasion but an intrusion of small groups of Doric-speakers, which lasted a long period (39).

Chapter ii: The “Dark Age” of Greece and the Eighth-Century Renaissance (c. 1150-700 BC) (pp. 41-81). The authors explain the “darkness” of this period not as much a cultural decline (as often is read) as the lack of archaeological evidence, but they also point out that there is some important progress in Dark-Age archaeology since the 1960s (42). Nevertheless, they describe the submycenaean settlements as societies “in a deep depression, both economic and cultural” (43). Much space is devoted to the Homeric basileis. The authors rightly want to describe them rather with the anthropological term “chief” than the common word “king” (47). Concerning the abandonment of Nichoria in Messenia (c. 750 BC) the authors think that this was caused by Spartan aggression (48), but this is only possible if this aggression preceded the First Messenian War, which is hard to believe. In general, the dates of the Messenian wars given in this book (730-700, 650 BC) are too early. 2 I think we have to look for another cause to explain the abandonment of Nichoria in the 8th century. Some informative remarks are given about the results of oral-poetry research (pp. 51-53). The main reason for the Greek colonization was — according to the authors — scarcity of land, which resulted from the growth of population in the 8th century (72, see also 90-95). There are also other reasons of similar importance we have to take into consideration, especially conflicts within the ruling aristocracies. The authors also use the term “renaissance” to communicate the importance of the 8th century for the development of Greek culture. 3 In general they call the Dark Age “the cradle of the city-state society and culture that was to follow” (80). However, to demonstrate this, some aspects should have been treated more extensively, such as the Homeric society, which did not consist solely of the basileis. One misses discussion of the role of the masses in Homeric epic poetry and on the structure of what we call the “Homeric” polis. 4

Chapter iii: Archaic Greece (c. 700-500 BC) (pp. 82-130). In chapter ii the authors describe council, assembly, and law court as the government in Homer (59), but they state that the most important step to the polis is the “formal political unification of the demos and the creation of a central government” (84). At this point it is necessary to draw a clear line between Homeric society and the world of the archaic city-state. Outlining the development of the polis, the authors join important stages in a problematic manner: They write, for example, on p. 87 treating the development of city-states: “The importance of the council of aristocratic ‘elders’ increased, while that of the assembly of the people decreased”, but on p. 89 we read that “the total sovereignty of the aristocratic council […] was short-lived […]. Before the end of the sixth century, even in oligarchic city-states, the assembly had gained the ultimate decision-making power”. Some questions arise: What do we know about the role of aristocratic councils in Homeric society? What does “total sovereignty of the aristocratic council” mean? In which way is the decrease of the importance of the assembly compatible with its “ultimate decision-making power” towards the end of the 6th century? And, finally, there is the problem that we have to make distinctions between the individual city-states. Furthermore, something should have been said about the development of the ethne, which constitute an alternative to the principle of city-states. Rightly the authors reject the familiar description of Hesiod as a “champion of the oppressed” and call him “the voice of middle-class indignation” (103). I cannot accept the thesis that the phalanx was fully developed by 650 at the latest (103). In Sparta, for example, even in the time of Tyrtaeus, who wrote his poems after 650, the phalanx system was not in place. When the authors state that in many poleis the phalanx caused a development from more oligarchic to more democratic systems (see p. 106), this is not correct: the terms “oligarchy” and “democracy” do not appear before the late 5th century in our sources, and so in archaic times we cannot describe any change of government as a change from oligarchy to democracy. No one in 7th century Greece knew about oligarchic or democratic systems. Worth reading is the passage concerning the rise of the Greek tyrants. The authors clearly demonstrate how rivalries of aristocrats lead to the power-gaining of one single person (pp. 106-109). A good treatment of the most important archaic poets, of their works, and of their social background is also given in this comprehensive chapter (pp. 116-121). Art and architecture (pp. 109-116) and philosophy and science (pp. 121-124) are treated in a similar way. What is lacking, however, is a clear description of Greek aristocracy in archaic times including the important social element of the hetaireia. Likewise one misses treatment of the development of early legislation and the coming and role of archaic lawgivers.

Chapter iv: Sparta (pp. 131-158). The main problem in Spartan history, the lack of reliable sources, is described in great detail (pp. 131-134). The attempt to date the end of the First Messenian War around 720 BC by using the Olympic victor list, in which victors from Messenia disappear about that time (136), is highly questionable. It seems hardly possible to take athletic contests, where we find individual aristocrats rather than representatives of city-states in archaic times, as an indicator of interstate relations. Rightly, the authors refer to the emigration of a lot of Messenians to southern Italy and Sicily after the Spartan victory in the Second Messenian War (137), but it was not before the reign of the tyrant Anaxilaus of Rhegium in the early 5th century that Zankle was renamed as Messene. The ‘Great Rhetra’, which is the oldest and most discussed document of the history of constitutions of Greek city-states, deserved more comprehensive remarks than the authors have given. They only cite the text of the rhetra (138), which is hard to understand without any comment, especially for students. Describing the Spartan system of education (agoge) the authors give an illustrative picture (pp. 139-141), but they neglect to point out that the sources for the agoge are highly problematic, because the earliest text, Xenophon’s Lakedaimonion politeia, was written in the 4th century BC by an author who was not a Spartan himself, and the other sources, especially the chapters of Plutarch’s life of Lycurgus dealing with the agoge (chs. 16-17), are even much later still. So it is difficult to give a coherent description of the Spartan education system, as recently stressed by N. Kennell. 5 Concerning the Spartan dual kingship the authors state that the two kings “were both cooperative and competitive with one another” (150), an important point to emphasize because there was not always friction between the two kings, as is still said.

Chapter v: The Growth of Athens and the Persian Wars (pp. 159-200). Describing the aristocratic families of archaic Athens (e.g. the Alcmaeonids) the authors seem to work with a concept of aristocracy which is far too rigid (pp. 162-163). So they wrongly describe these families with the term “genos” (“clan”), though “genos” is not found in the sources until the 4th century with this connotation. 6 Worth reading is the passage dealing with Solon (pp. 164-169). Rightly the authors emphasize that “Solon was not a democrat” (169). When they point out that after the expulsion of Hippias from Athens “the way lay open for the development of the democratic institutions” (171), they imply that Cleisthenes’ aim was the establishment of democracy in Athens, but what Cleisthenes practised was rather a ‘popular’ form of aristocratic factional-policy than the attempt to introduce a democratic system. The statement of Herodotus, who says that Cleisthenes tried to join the people to his hetairia, is significant at this point (Hdt. 5,66,2). That in 510 BC the Spartans forced the Athenians to join the Peloponnesian League is not as sure as the authors suggest (174). Cleomenes I’s support of Isagoras is not a good example to show that Athenian oligarchs were always backed by the Spartans (176), because in 510 there were no oligarchs, either in Sparta or in Athens. Treating the Persian Wars, the authors rightly point out that the purpose of the Persian expedition in 490 could have been the punishment of Athens and Eretria for their support of the Ionian Revolt some years earlier (185). In my opinion this was the only purpose. What the authors do not mention is the fact that the Athenians surrendered to the Persians in 507/06 BC (Hdt. 5,73). 7 So the Persian attack on Athens 490 was an attack on a subjugated city that had revolted. This fact is very important for the interpretation of the Persian Wars because the Persians’ primary aim was not to subdue every Greek polis.

Chapter vi and vii: The Rivalries of the Greek City-States and the Growth of Athenian Democracy (pp. 201-245) Greece on the Eve of the Peloponnesian War (pp. 246-286). In these two chapters the history of Athens during the Pentecontaetia is treated. The authors have successfully arranged the few scattered and very controversial sources in a clear description and have also considered the cultural developments in detail (tragedy, historiography, the sophists, the archaeological monuments of the acropolis and the agora). These chapters are among the best two in the book. The authors stress repeatedly the imperialistic aspects of Athenian foreign policy after the Persian Wars (“naked imperialism”, 215). The Athenian assembly, however, should have been treated more extensively to emphasize its role in Athenian policy and within the democratic system. It would have been desirable to deal with the sophists before treating the Athenian authors of the late 5th century, because in this way the sophists’ influence on these writers would have been much clearer.

Chapter viii: The Peloponnesian War (pp. 287-329). There are some short remarks on Aristophanes as a political author which are very informative (pp. 300-303). Regarding the destruction of the herms before the Sicilian Expedition in 415 BC (306) it would have been useful to treat the role of drinking-groups in late 5th century politics more extensively. The authors assume that the disastrous end of the Sicilian Expedition was the turning-point of the Peloponnesian War. Down to the peace of Nicias (“essentially a victory for Athens”, 301) the Athenians still had the advantage (pp. 305-311). There is a comprehensive passage regarding the trial of Socrates (pp. 323-326). The authors state that “the execution of Socrates is the most serious charge that has been brought by critics of Athenian democracy” (pp. 325-326). Worth considering are some remarks on the role of the Peloponnesian War in Greek history. The authors assume that this war undermined the so called polis-citizen-axis transforming the Greek world: battles were not only fought in summer, but also in winter now. The concept of the citizen-soldier eroded, while mercenaries, helots, and slaves were used in the war, and so the concept of polis itself eroded, too, because “the lines that had traditionally divided citizens from noncitizens” disappeared (328).

Chapter ix: The Crisis of the Polis and the Age of Shifting Hegemonies (pp. 330-370). The changes that were the results of the great war between Athens and Sparta are reflected in 4th century Greek history down to the rise of Philip II of Macedon. But it is highly questionable to describe this period with the term “crisis”, as some new studies have demonstrated. 8 The chapter provides a clear description of the Athenian democracy in the 4th century. The authors point out the new role of the law courts, but they rightly refuse to overestimate them (pp. 343-347). There are also some remarks on the 4th century rhetors, but the authors emphasize that “there was no official ‘board of rhetores’ to which such men belonged” (348). Very important are their general remarks on Athenian democracy. They emphasize that Athens was the “stablest state” in 4th century Greece (349).

The first Macedonian contacts with the Greek world and the rise of Philip II are treated in chapter x (Philip II and the Rise of Macedon, pp. 371-394). Chapter xi (Alexander the Great, pp. 395-426) deals with the campaigns of the Macedonians and Greeks in Asia, with the fall of the Persian empire, and with the problems arising in Greece down to the death of Alexander. The authors estimate the achievements of Alexander in a very negative way (“Alexander’s greatest achievement was negative”, 425): The new ‘Hellenistic’ world was not the work of Alexander himself, but that of his successors, who are treated in the last chapter (xii: Alexander’s Successors and the Cosmopolis, pp. 427-470), which also introduces the reader to the Hellenistic period.

Despite these few criticisms, the authors have written an exciting book, which contains a lot of information, sometimes even in great detail. But the text deals nearly exclusively with the history of mainland Greece. We are not supplied with any information about the Western Greeks and the Greek city-states of Asia Minor. This is regrettable in a book like this, in a history of ancient Greece, as is the lack of a chapter on Greek

1. L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, Oxford 2 1990 N. G. L. Hammond, G. T. Griffith, F. W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia, 3 vols., 1972-1988.

2. See V. Parker, “The Dates of the Messenian Wars,” Chiron 21, 1991, 25-47.

3. Cf. R. Hägg (Ed.), The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century BC. Tradition and Innovation, Stockholm 1983.

4. On this see K.-J. Hoelkeskamp, “Agorai bei Homer,” in: W. Eder, K.-J. Hoelkeskamp (Eds.), Volk und Verfassung im vorhellenistischen Griechenland, Stuttgart 1997, 1-19.

5. N. M. Kennell, The Gymnasium of Virtue, Chapel Hill – London 1995.

6. See F. Bourriot, Récherches sur la nature du gènos, 2 vols., Lille – Paris 1976.

7. F. Schachermeyr, “Athen als Stadt des Grosslkönigs,” GB 1, 1973, 211-220 M. Zahrnt, “Der Mardonioszug des Jahres 492 v. Chr. und seine historische Einordnung,” Chiron 22, 1992, 236-279.

8. See W. Eder (Ed.), Die athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform?, Stuttgart 1995 H. Beck, Polis und Koinon, Stuttgart 1997 M. Jehne, Koine Eirene, Stuttgart 1997.

9 Extremely Ancient Maps That Should Not Exist

As a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, this site may earn from qualifying purchases. We may also earn commissions on purchases from other retail websites.

Among numerous findings throughout the years, researchers around the globe have stumbled upon certain discoveries that should have never been made. Some of these discoveries directly contradict the beliefs and ‘tales’ set forth by mainstream scholars about mankind, its origins and ancient civilizations that inhabited our planet in the distant past.

It has become a popular belief that ancient civilizations across the globe were in fact much more advanced than what mainstream researchers are crediting them for.

Numerous maps discovered in the past are clear indications that the story told today by scholars is incomplete, and there are numerous missing links in our history. These ‘missing links’ are being put together by these incredible ancient maps that prove mankind inhabited our planet much longer than what mainstream scholars believe.

However, the existence of these incredible maps proves that in the distant past, ancient explorers had an extremely well-developed cartography system comparable in precision with the one we have today. The maps are also evidence that ancient mankind knew the exact shape and size of the Earth, contrary to popular beliefs, and used spherical trigonometry, and precise and elaborate mathematical calculations, as if thousands of years ago, an unknown civilization undertook a global-scale project of mapping the entire planet like no one has ever done before.

A reproduction of the Zeno map from a 1793 book. Source: Wikimedia Commons

One of the most intriguing maps is the Zeno Map. Published around 1380, the enigmatic maps accurately depicts the coasts of modern-day countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Scotland. Mysteriously, this ancient map also depicts the EXACT latitude and longitude of a number of islands on our planet. This is a huge enigma since the device necessary to measure the longitude, the chronometer, was not invented until 1765. If this isn’t mysterious enough, the Zeno map also depicts Greenland free of glaciers, meaning that somehow, someone charted it prior to the Ice Age.

The Camerio map. Created in 1502, this map does not depict unusual features as other maps do but it has one very strange detail. The Camerio map uses a spherical grid, even though people in the middle ages still believed our planet was in fact… flat.

Map of Ibn Ben Zara (1487) Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Another mind-boggling map is without a doubt the Iehudi Ibn ben Zara map. Created in 1487, the map displays remnants of glaciers in Britain, but also extremely detailed depictions of islands in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas. Today, these islands still exist, but due to rising water levels, these are now underwater.

Hacı Ahmet’s Map of the World: A complete and perfect map describing the whole world Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Hadji Ahmed map, published in 1559, shows incredibly accurate delineations of the western coast of Northern America and Antarctica. What is even more incredible is the fact that this ancient map shows a land bridge connection Siberia and Alaska, indicating it originated from a time when the bridge was still present.

Published in 1737 by Philippe Buache, the Buache mapis believed to have been created with the use of much more ancient maps. This chart displays Antarctica well before the ‘icy’ continent was in fact discovered. Interestingly, like many other ancient maps, this too accurately depicts Antarctica with no ice. The Bouche Map also accurately positioned the Canary Island. The map issued in 1737 also displays the correct outline of the underwater plateau on which the islands are located. This means that the source of the map used to create it is based on a survey of the shape before glaciers melted and ocean levels rose. Even more interesting is the fact that the Buache Map depicts the waterway which divides the continent of Antarctica into two landmasses.

Created in 1502, the Harry King Chart displays northern Siberian rivers emptying into the Arctic ocean which is now under ice. Interestingly, it also depicts glacial remains in the Baltic countries and accurately depicts the ancient Suez Canal. This incredible map also depicts what today are huge islands in Southeastern parts of Asia, but joined together by land, indicating that geologically speaking, the maps were created when the Earth looked much differently.

The Map of the North by Ptolemy depicts glacial sheets moving across south-central Greenland. It also depicts glaciers retreating from modern-day Germany (north) and parts of southern Sweden. Another map indicating a different time on Earth.

Another interesting map is the King Jaime World Chart. It was created in 1502, and accurately depicts parts of the Sahara Desert displaying it much different than it is today: with fertile land, huge lakes rivers and what appear to be ancient cities. In fact, Sahara was, in the distant past, a fertile land filled with animal life and forests.

The Oronce Finé World Map created in 1534, is an early cordiform chart which displays features of Antarctica when the continent was not covered by Ice. While it is yet another map which shows the continent before it was officially ‘found’, the chart also shows continent rivers, valleys, and coastlines while also depicting the approximate location of what is the South Pole today.


(măs`ədŏn) , ancient country, roughly equivalent to the modern region of Macedonia Macedonia
, region, SE Europe, on the Balkan Peninsula, divided among the countries of Greece, Bulgaria, and North Macedonia. Land and People

Corresponding roughly with ancient Macedon, it extends from the Aegean Sea northward between Epirus in the west and Thrace
. Click the link for more information. . In the history of Greek culture Macedon had its single significance in producing the conquerors and armies who created the Hellenistic empires and civilizations.

Macedon proper constituted the coast plain NW, N, and NE of the Chalcidice (now Khalkidhikí Khalkidhikí
or Chalcidice
, peninsula (1991 pop. 92,117), NE Greece, projecting into the Aegean Sea from SE Macedonia. Its southern extremity terminates in three peninsulas: Kassandra (anc. Gr.
. Click the link for more information. ) peninsula Upper Macedon was the highland to the west and the north of the plain. The plain was fertile and productive, and there were important silver mines in the eastern part. The population of the region was complex when first known and included Anatolian peoples as well as several Hellenic groups. The capital of Macedon from c.400 to 167 B.C. was Pella Pella
, ancient city of Macedon, about 24 mi (39 km) NW of Thessalonica (now Thessaloníki). It became the capital of the Macedonian kingdom in the 4th cent. B.C. It prospered under Macedonian rule but declined after the Roman conquest of Macedon (168 B.C.).
. Click the link for more information. .

Rise of Macedon

The first influence of Greek culture in Macedon came from the colonies along the shore founded in the 8th cent. B.C. and after they had ties to their mother cities that tended to isolate them politically from Macedon. By the 7th cent. B.C. there was developing in W Macedon a political unit led by a Greek-speaking family, which assumed the title of king and aggrandized itself. Macedon was a Persian tributary in 500 B.C. but took no real part in the Persian Wars.

Alexander I (d. 450 B.C.) was the first Macedonian king to enter into Greek politics he began a policy of imitating features of Greek civilization. For the next century the Hellenic influences grew and the state became stronger. With Philip II (reigned 359� B.C.) these processes reached their culmination, for by annexing Upper Macedon, Chalcidice, and Thrace he made himself the strongest power in Greece then he became its ruler. He created an excellent army with which his son, Alexander the Great, forged his empire. That empire, although it was a Macedonian conquest, was a personal creation.

Successors of Alexander the Great

The Macedonian generals carved the empire up after Alexander's death (323 B.C.) these were the successors (the Diadochi), founders of states and dynasties&mdashnotably Antipater, Perdiccas, Ptolemy I, Seleucus I, Antigonus I, and Lysimachus. They had armies largely Macedonian and Greek in personnel, and most of them founded cities with colonies of their soldiers. Thus began the remarkable spread of the Hellenistic (Greek, rather than Macedonian) civilization. All these armies constituted a fatal drain on the population of Macedon. Macedon, with Greece as a dependency, was one of the states carved out of the Alexandrian empire. Almost immediately, however, there was struggle for the hold over Greece and even over Macedon itself. Cassander took (319� B.C.) Macedon and held it until his death (297) he refounded Salonica (now Thessaloníki). After a period of short-lived attempts by Demetrius I, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Lysimachus, and others to hold Macedon, Antigonus II established himself as king. He fought off the Galatian invaders and used his long reign (277� B.C.) to restore Macedon economically. There was constant trouble with the Greek city-states many of them regained independence, but Antigonus III (reigned 229� B.C.), another strong king, reestablished Macedonian hegemony.

Wars with Rome

Under Antigonus III's successor, Philip V (reigned 221� B.C.), Macedon engaged in war against Rome. Although the First Macedonian War (215� B.C.) ended favorably for Philip, he was decisively defeated in the Second Macedonian War (200� B.C.), was forced to give up most of his fleet and pay a large indemnity, and was confined to Macedonia proper. By collaborating with the Romans, however, he was able to reduce the indemnity. His successor, Perseus (reigned 179� B.C.), foolishly aroused Roman fears and lost his kingdom in the Third Macedonian War (171� B.C.). Now Rome divided Macedon into four republics. Later (150� B.C.) a pretender, Andriscus, tried to revive a Macedonian kingdom. This time Macedonia was annexed to Roman territory and became (146 B.C.) the first Roman province. It never again had political importance in ancient times.


See S. Casson, Macedonia, Thrace, and Illyria (1926) W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilization (3d ed. 1952) F. E. Adcock, The Greek and Macedonian Art of War (1957) N. G. C. Hammond, A History of Macedonia (2 vol., 1972󈞺) S. Pribichevich, Macedonia: Its People and History (1982).


In regards to the lowest part of the map, often doubtlessly identified with Antarctica coastline, there are two inscriptions which say:

And in this country it seems that there are white-haired monsters in this shape, and also six-horned oxen. The Portuguese infidels have written it in their maps.

This country is a waste. Everything is in ruin and it is said that large snakes are found here. For this reason the Portuguese infidels did not land on these shores and these are also said to be very hot.

We will leave to reader to decide how likely it is that these lands refer to Antarctica. In any case, Pîrî clearly credits these parts of the map to Portuguese, not to some lost ancient maps as it’s often claimed.

The idea that map actually depicts Antarctica coastline seems to originate with captain Arlington Humphrey Mallery in c. 1956. In addition to being a captain, he was an amateur archaeologist who believed that North America had been extensively colonised by Celts, Vikings and other Old World peoples, who possessed accurate maps lost to later ages.

Mallery’s accounts apparently inspired Charles Hapgood, famous mainly for his now discredited Polar shift theory, who argued that Pîrî’s map and others are a proof of a lost ancient civilization. Hapgood’s book show his correspondence with USAF Lt. Colonel Harold Z. Ohlmeyer, who agreed with Hapgood that “this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map” and “lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the seismic profile made across the top of the ice-cap by the Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949” and “we have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513.” 3

Hapgood's interpretation

However, there are several problems with Hapgood’s hypotheses. The map does not show Drake’s Passage or the Pacific Ocean. Also, what Hapgood identifies as the Andes mountains are not located along a coast line.

This theory was later revived by Erich von Däniken in his Chariots of the Gods?, where he basically just reiterated Hapgood’s claims within his own context of Ancient Aliens hypothesis. He says that “the only explanation is that it must have been made by extraterrestrials, either at an early date when Antarctica was indeed free from ice or because their technology revealed the underlying surface.” 4

Another proponent of this view is above mentioned Graham Hancock, who also adds that one the islands depicts the “Bimini Road”, which Hapgood identified as Cuba.

An island which according to Hancock depicts Bimini Road

Nevertheless, serious scholarship holds that there is no reason to believe that the map is the product of genuine knowledge of the Antarctic coast. General belief is that it actually depicts the South American coastline, just heavily distorted. This distortion could be caused by an error, motivated by the weird shape of the parchment, or even for political reasons. This well constructed argument is proposed by Diego Cuoghi on his website, where he doesn’t rely only on correlation of geography, but also on historical arguments and comparison with other historical maps. 5

Correlation with SA coastline according to Diago Cuoghi

Speculation alert: Could this identification with Tierra del Fuego explain the “shores that are said to be very hot”? Yes, Magellan officially coined the name in 1525, but maybe some relation with fire was already present before? He apparently knew about the strait before he set out, as “he saw it, in the Treasury of the King of Portugal, on a map drawn by Martin de Bohemia” (Pigafetta).

Also, let’s not toss out the possibility that although the map does state the year of it’s creation, some portions could be drawn later. As Cuoghi notes, we know that the chart of Pedro Reinel, kept in the same Library of Topkapı, was probably retouched after the discovery of the Strait of Magellan, so it wouldn’t be unprecedented. 5

History Of Macedonia

Philip II (Greek: Φιλιππος) was a Greek king of Macedon from 359 BC until his death in 336 BC. The famous king (Βασιλεύς) and father of Alexander the Great, was born in 383/82 BC. He was son of the king Amyntas III and queen Eurydice. His brothers were Alexander II, Perdiccas III and Eurynoe, while he had also 3 half brothers, the sons of Gygaea, namely Menelaus, Arrhidaeus and Archelaus. [1]

In 368 BC when his elder brother Alexander II allied himself with Thebans, Philip was taken as a hostage in Thebes where he stayed for about 3 years. In Thebes as Justin attests, “Philip was given fine opportunities of improving his extraordinary abilities for being kept as a hostage at Thebes three years, he received the first rudiments of education in a city distinguished for strictness of discipline in the house of Epaminondas, an eminent philosopher, as well as commander.” [2]

After his brother Perdiccas, the King of Macedon, was killed in the battle against Illyrians along with 4,000 Macedonians, Philip returned to Macedon either as a king or as a regent to his young nephew Amyntas. Based on his experiences gained close to Epaminondas in Thebes, Philip made many innovations in Macedonian army by bringing discipline, better training and new equipment like the introduction of Sarissa[3]. This way he created the famous “Macedonian Phalanx“. At the beginning of his reign he dealt with many difficult situations. On one hand he managed to get rid of the internal threats to his kingdom, namely his 3 half brothers and the pretender Argaeus, supported by Atheneans. Argaeus was finally defeated by Philip’s general Mantias. Afterwards in 358 BC he defeated in battle the Illyrians of Bardyllis while he sealed the peace-treaty with Illyrians by marrying Audate, daughter of Bardyllis. From this marriage Philip had his first daughter, Cynane. In 358 BC Philip was involved in Thessaly where he had another political marriage. This time with Philine of Larrisa who bore Philip, his son Arrhidaeus.

His alliance with Epirus resulted to marry with Olympias, a Molossian princess who would be destined to be the mother of one of the most famous persons of history, Alexander the Great. She also bore Philip his daugher Cleopatra. Philip took with him in Macedonia, Alexander, brother of Olympias. Later he installed Alexander as king of Epirus and he remained known as Alexander of Molossis. In a string of successful campaigns, he managed to reach as far as Thrace and took under his own control both the gold mines of Mt Pangaion, as well as the silver mines in Thrace. He gained the control of Amphipolis, Pydna, Potidaea and Methoni. During the siege of Methoni he lost his eye from an arrow. Next he turned on the South and intervened in the third Sacred war, against the Phocians. Unexpectedly Philip met his two first loses in the background from the Phocian leader Onormachus who introduced the use of catapults in the battlefield. However he succeeded in defeating them and Onormachus met a tragic end in his life. Now Philip took under his own control Thessaly. He took another wife from Thessaly, this time Nikesipolis from Pherae. She bore him a daughter named Thessalonike and the greatest city of Macedonia nowadays is named after her.

The Athenean orator and leader of Anti-Macedonian party of Athens, Demosthenes tried to cause a stir of Atheneans and other Southern Greeks against Philip firstly with his “Olynthiacs”. It was at the time Philip turned against Olynthians, Athens’ allies in the area, and in 348 BC he attacked his former ally Olynthus and destroyed it on the grounds they have given refuge to two of his half-brothers, the pretenders of the thone of Macedon. At the time Isocrates urged him on his letters to Philip , to unite Greeks against Persians.

His last years

In 338 BC Philip and his allies defeated in the battle of Chaeronea the alliance of Athens and Thebes. With this battle he asserted his authority in Greece and created the League of Corinth, where he was elected as “Hegemon” by the rest of Greeks. The Greeks, except Spartans, were finally united against an old common enemy, the Persian empire. However Philip was not destined to be the one who will lead the Pan-Hellenic campaign against Achaemenids since in 336 BC, Philip was assasinated by Pausanias of Orestis, during the marriage of his daughter Cleopatra to Alexander of Epirus. He had reigned for about 25 years and according to the account of the historian TheopompusEurope had never seen a man like Philip of Macedon“.

Watch the video: History of Macedonia, the rise of Macedonia (December 2022).

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos