There is some serious misinformation here.
1/ All countries carry some military exercises near their border. Skopje certainly does! Even joint exercises with their Greek colleagues.

2/ It is a lie to say that 'the Greek government and army promote the slogan Macedonia is one and Greek'. They government says loudly that 'Macedonia' is a geographic region shared between Greece and FY Republika Makedonija.

3/ Regarding 'invading': that is just provocation. Such statements show that the Vinozito party has some members who are as 'crazy' and provocative as some members of the far right Greek party.

4/ The Greek Member of Parliament, Periklis Korovesis fought against the brief dictatorship in Greece (1967-74) with thousands of other Greeks, suffered and won. He has officially protested against the minority of the 'Ethnofilaki' who took this initiative. Athens supports his protest.

5/ It is obvious that some people in Vinozito prefer to destroy the truth, rather than build bridges between our peoples. They know their 'press releases' will go round other (Slav) Makedonce websites. Shame on them. The Slavomacedonian minority of Greece derserves much better representatives!

Reply to Michaelos:
1. You just admited that Macedonia was NEVER part og Greece before 1913, and with that you automatically admited that Macedonia was NEVER Greek. THANK YOU!!!! FINALLY!!!!
2. I'm not surprised that you dont know what was happening with Macedonia prior to 1913. It is not your country :). But is MY country. If you want to know, you can read the timeline on

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/timeline.html

3. I can see you don't deny that THERE IS OTHER THAN GREEK PEOPLE LIVING IN GREECE. This means that your country is not treating its cityzens equally. The Greeks are the only who maters.That was all i wanted to know. So let me inform you that there is one international document, called The Universal Declaration of Human Rights! As far as I can thell, you never even hird about it before. Go ahead and read it!!

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


Now, if you read it, I would like to ask you: HOW WILL YOU FEEL IF YOUR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS ARE DENIED, IF YOU ARE NOT ALOUD TO SAY WHO YOU ARE, HOW DO YOU FEEL, WHAT KIND OF LANGUAGE YOU SPEAK.....?I bet it wouldn't be a pleasant feeling.

4.As for the French, im not impresed. THEY WERE ALLWAYS "ON YOUR SIDE". Here some other statistics

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/OttomanMacedonia/statistics.html

and some other explanations about this " issue"

http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov5.html

http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov6.html

http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov7.html

http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov8.html

http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov9.html


http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov10.html

http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov11.html


http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov12.html

http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov13.html

http://www.florina.org/news/2008/june25_e.asp


Open it alphavitas to see the real prosklitirio - invitation for the exercise, and than tell us that it is a "misinformation".


And i'm sorry to dissapoint you but your Greek army, believed or not, didn't even want to plant some trees together with the Macedonian army!
Also there should be an information from your country to Macedonia that on ONLY 20 km from the border will be held a military exercise.

And by the way, I didn't see ANY protest from Athenst against this "happening". So stop amusing your self. THIS IS JET ANOTHER PATHETIC PROVOCATION FROM OFFICIAL ATHENS TORWARDS REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA!!!!!

1. I just admitted? You just forgot your English. So, with your point of view, Macedonia did not exist for more than 2 thousands of years. So, what are you? A ghost? Ah, yes. For you, and only you, the occupied scenario works. The others don’t have right to this scenario! Nice!

2. I already mentioned facts prior to 1913. And since I LIVE in this area, I am also interest. I presented numerous of documents to support that.

3. The existence of non-Greeks proves that the country does not treating them equally? Nice! Your logic makes so much sense! For the moment, the people that have major problems with a government are the Albanians with your government. So, now tell me, how you feel having second and third class citizens?
So, can you tell me which human rights we deny? And please speak for the present. Not for the times of a civil war.

4. I am wondering what you want to prove with these statistics. It’s obvious that everybody used an amount of 1,100,000 people for it’s own purpose. So what? We never declined the existence of Slavs before (and after) 1913. It’ very funny that you prefer a statistic research that categorized you as Slav but you reject the Slav attribute!
And what about Bulgarians and Servs? Never existed? How convenient for you! So, among all, you selected the one that fits you better and you present it as evidence (of what?).
Views of the Bulgarian Exarchate about the population of Macedonia

You can also see how the British describe our land here:
Four of the best Historians, describe Balkans in 1915

ARCFYM calls on the international community to demand that FYR Macedonia finally end its discrimination of its large Greek minority, and specifically, Greek political refugees and allow their 4th World Reunion on July 20, 2008 to proceed unimpeded. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the evacuation by the International Red Cross of 28,000 Greek children , aged 2-14, during the II World War. They were subsequently stripped of their Greek citizenship and have been consistently denied entry into FYR Macedonia simply because they assert their Greek ethnic identity. They were excluded from the 1982 law that allowed the free return of political refugees who were “Greek by genus”.


"This will be the last chance for many of these clidren, who are now in their 60's and 70's, to visit their birthplaces. FYR Macedonians officials had promised to allow us entry for our last reunion in 2003 only to ultimately turn us back. This cannot happen again," said Giorgos Papadopoulos, President of ARCFYM (Association of Refugee children from Former Yugoslavic Macedonia).


"FYROM openly blacklists Canadian, American and Australian citizens of Greek descent. The governments of these countries, among others, must protect the rights of their citizens and demand from FYROM that this practice be ceased immediately or face repercussions," said ARCFYM President Ioannis Ellinas.


ARCFYM calls on international government officials, media, human rights organizations and other interested parties to attend the border crossing between the FYR Macedonia and Greece at Niki / Medjitlia on July 20, 2008 to monitor FYROM's compliance with its obligations under international human rights law.
As estimated more than 100.000 ethnic Greeks from Vardarskan Macedonia, will pass borders to their birthplaces (i.e. Monastirion/Bitola, Stromnitsa, Meleniko, Krousovo e.t.c.). More of them will have maps of the United Macedonia, means Macedonia as it was, before Slavs occupation.

No Michaelos, I don say that Macedonia didn’t existed for more than 2 thousand years ago. I say that I DON’T AGREE WITH YOUR POINT OF VIEW! A say The kingdom of Macedonia WAS NOT GREEK. And I also presented numerous documents to support that. Here some other views to support our theory:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IxcbFC-0cPwC&oi=fnd&pg=PP8&dq=Macedonia+and+Greece:+The+Struggle+to+Define+a+New+Balkan+Nation+By+John+Shea&ots=1IaTugpnra&sig=RbHNM5uteu1zWFPb1xnku9u7T2w#PPP1,M1


http://www.ancientmacedonia.com/badian.html


http://www.ancientmacedonia.com/MacedoniansStyledGreeks.html


http://www.ancientmacedonia.com/GreeceandMacedon.htm


Also a lot of MODERN HISTORIANS:
-Eugene Borza
-E. Badian
-Peter Green
-A.B. Bosworth
-N.G.L.Hammond
-Werner Jaeger
-Pierre Jouguet
-George Rawlinson M.A
-Ulrich Wilcken
-M.Grant
-F.Reed
-David G Hogarth
-P.A. Brunt
-American Philological Association…..

As well as a lot of ANCIENT historians, geographers, orators….:
-Diodorus
-Justin
-Arrian
-Curtius Rufus
-Thucydides
-Isocrates
-Ephoros
-Ptolemy
-Pausanias
-Medius of Larisa
-Pseudo-Herodotus
-Plutarch
-Livy
-Polybius
-Thracymachus
-Herodotus
-Demosthenes
-Josephus
-Strabo
-Dionysius Periegetes
-Pseudo-Scylax
-Dionysius son of Kalliphon….



Your “best” historians are not convincing at all. 1. Because they “automatically “ decide that there is no “Macedonian nation”, because there is Serbs and Bulgarians, AND WITHOUT any questioning that if both the Serbs and Bulgarians are Slavs, they are maybe SAME nation as well. So maybe the Serbs are Bulgarians? Or maybe the Bulgarians are Serbs? 2. I agree about the “mixed salad”. We never DENIED being mixed. But YOU DID and still ARE DENYING. So another question: How can our country be a “mixed salad”, and you country “MONOETHNICAL”? NOT POSSIBLE!!!!!!!! Silly if you ask me.
If this are your BEST historians, Lucky you .

Also, you are wrong about “our Government’s problem with the Albanians”. ACTUALLY the Albanian party’s ARE feuding between EACH OTHER!!!
Also, the Albanian minority in Macedonia (and the others as well) HAVE THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS in Republic of MACEDONIA! They have primary schools at Albanian language, High schools, Universities, their language is second OFFICIAL language in the areas where they are more than 30 %, they are involved in every segment of the society, they have right to DECLARE them selves as Albanians, or, Serbs, or Bulgarians, or Roma… And none of them are “second or third class” as you say. All of them ARE equal.
According to the last census 400 citizens of Republic of Macedonia declared them selves as Greeks. No one have ANY problem with that. No one DENIED that to them. No one is declaring them as NON EXISTENT!!!!! And Alfavitas, no one STOP them to came back to their native villages or cities!!! Tell me what HUMAN RIGHTS the minorities in Greece have??? Oooo, I forgot. There are NO minorities in Greece. Pathetic! Selfish! And YES, the non existence means that the country is not treating them right! Something who don’t exist, have no need of rights. That is your “philosophy”?

And Alphavitas : “More of them will have maps of the United Macedonia, means Macedonia as it was, before Slavs occupation.” Thell me, IS THAT MAP ALSO IRREDENTIST, OR THAT IS ONLY WHEN WE SHOW OR USE IT??????? Be careful , we can ALSO “understand” that as “TERRITORIAL PROVOCATION”

I like the fact that you trust these ancient historians like Herodotus and Isocrates:

Ancient writers about Macedonia - Herodotus
Some quotes:
(Herodotus, The Histories 8.43)
* “Tell your king who sent you how his Hellenic viceroy of Macedonia has received you hospitably… “

(Herodotus V, 20, 4)
* “Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Hellenes, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know”


Ancient writers about Macedonia - Isocrates
Some quotes:
[7]”and was convinced that they would be beneficial, not only to us, but also to YOU AND ALL THE OTHER Hellenes”

[140]”when AMONG all the Hellenes you shall stand forth as a statesman who has worked for the good of Hellas, and as a general who has overthrown the barbarians?”

So, at my point of view, you picked up some names and presented them as sources? Please provide some links or quotes.

More sources you can find here:
Ancient sources about ancient Macedonia

You said that Macedonia was not Greek because it was occupied on 1913. So, if a state – kingdom defines the land then your Macedonia started to exist only less than 2 decades.


Ancient Greeks considered Macedonians as Greeks and specifically of Dorian stock. In fact ancient Greek accounts attributed some of the most patriotic Greek sentiments ever expressed to Macedonian rulers (Herodotos), described memories of the Greekness of the Makedones (Hesiodos, Hellanikos, Herodotos), mentioned their participations among Greek troops and folk, membership of Macedonia in the associations of the Greeks, namely the Delphic Amphictyony which had long been an important Panhellenic (Herodotos, Thucydides, Aichines). Hence they all verify the same conclusion. Greeks viewed Macedonians as Greeks.

And what about their language? According to the eminent linquist, Olivier Masson, writing in 1996 for the “Oxford Classical Dictionary: ‘Macedonian Language”. “For a long while Macedonian onomastics, which we know relatively well thanks to history, literary authors, and epigraphy, has played a considerable role in the discussion. In our view the Greek character of most names is obvious and it is difficult to think of a Hellenization due to wholesale borrowing. ‘Ptolemaios’ is attested as early as Homer, ‘Ale3avdros’ occurs next to Mycenaean feminine a-re-ka-sa-da-ra- (’Alexandra’), ‘Laagos’, then ‘Lagos’, matches the Cyprian ‘Lawagos’, etc. The small minority of names which do not look Greek, like ‘Arridaios’ or ‘Sabattaras’, may be due to a substratum or adstatum influences (as elsewhere in Greece). Macedonian may then be seen as a Greek dialect, characterised by its marginal position and by local pronunciations (like ‘Berenika’ for ‘Ferenika’, etc.). Yet in contrast with earlier views which made of it an Aeolic dialect (O.Hoffmann compared Thessalian) we must by now think of a link with North-West Greek (Locrian, Aetolian, Phocidian, Epirote). This view is supported by the recent discovery at Pella of a curse tablet (4th cent. BC) which may well be the first ‘Macedonian’ text attested (provisional publication by E.Voutyras; cf. the Bulletin Epigraphique in Rev.Et.Grec.1994, no.413); the text includes an adverb ‘opoka’ which is not Thessalian. We must wait for new discoveries, but we may tentatively conclude that Macedonian is a dialect related to North-West Greek.”


And by the way, you like to focus on some stupid (at my point of view) Greeks that believe in pure blood. I already told that similar stupid people are also on your side, believing in the superiority of their race. We both agreed there is no pure race. Can we stop talking about it?

And about the Albanians...
What you say exactly my point of view! You say something like.. “it’s their problem”. What you mean? That it is accepted to allow minorities killing each other?

And can you tell me why these people are killing each other? Because they enjoy the full human rights? Or because it’s in their nature to kill each other? I don’t think so..

But you don’t mind looking beyond what your government is telling you. Sleep well!

Our minorities? We talked about it thousands of times. Let’s repeat ourselves. Of course we don’t recognize a Macedonian minority because North, Central and East part of our Macedonia are living about 2.000.000 Macedonians, which speak, write and think Greek. They are also Macedonians! Why to create a minority from nothing? But no.. according to you, we should rename the +2.000.000 Greeks to something else and give the Macedonian identity to 10 – 100 people? Sure, it has some logic for you…

There is a Muslim minority and they enjoy rights that even the Turks don’t have. So, let’s stop this minority game. You will get nothing.

The modern Greek position relies on Herodotus' support for their quest to make the ancient Macedonians Greek. Herodotus, being one of the foremost biographer in antiquity who lived in Greece at the time when the Macedonian king Alexander I was in power, is said to have visited the Macedonian Kingdom and supposedly, profited from this excursion, wrote several short passages about the Macedonians. What did he say, and to what extent can these passages be taken as evidence for the alleged 'greekness' of the ancient Macedonians, will be briefly presented for your adjudication.

Herodotus describes the episode with the Persian envoys, who apparently visited Macedon when Alexander I's father Amyntas was in power, and how Alexander I succeeded in 'taking care of the Persians' by murdering all of them and removing their luggage and carriages. When the Persians attempted to trace the lost envoys, Alexander I cleverly succeeded in manipulating the Persians by giving his own sister Gygaea as a wife to the Persian commander Bubares. Here Herodotus writes:

"I happen to know, and I will demonstrate in a subsequent chapter of this history, that these descendants of Perdiccas are, as they themselves claim, of Greek nationality. This was, moreover, recognized by the managers of the Olympic games, on the occasion when Alexander wished to compete and his Greek competitors tried to exclude him on the ground that foreigners were not allowed to take part. Alexander, however, proved his Argive descent, and so was accepted as a Greek and allowed to enter for the foot-race. He came in equal first." book 5. 22.

First, notice that it is not Herodotus that says that the Macedonian kings were of Greek nationality, but the Macedonian kings as they themselves claim. Now, let us peruse the modern literature and see if we can shed some light on this particular passage from Herodotus which is so 'dear' to all Greek presenters, and one that occupies the central position of their otherwise feeble defense.

[1] Eugene Borza In The Shadow of Olympus p. 112 writes:

"Herodotus' story is fraught with too many difficulties to make sense of it. For example, either (1) Alexander lost the run-off for his dead heat, which is why his name doez not appear in the victor lists; or (2) he won the run-off, although Herodotus does not tell us this; or (3) it remained a dead heat, which is impossible in light Olympic practice; or (4) it was a special race, in which case it is unlikely that his fellow competitors would have protested Alexander's presence; or (5) Alexander never competed at Olympia. It is best to abandon this story, which belongs in the category of the tale of Alexander at Plataea. In their commentaries on these passages Macan and How and Wells long ago recognized that the Olympic Games story was based on family legend (Hdt. 5.22: "as the descendants of Perdiccas themselves say [autoi legousi]"), weak proofs of their Hellenic descent. Moreover, the Olympic Games tale is twice removed: Herodotus heard from the Argeadea (perhaps from Alexander himself) that the king had told something to the judges, but we do not know what those proofs were."

"The theme of the Olympic and Plataea incidents are the same: "I am Alexander, a Greek" which seems to be the main point. The more credible accounts of Alexander at Tempe and at Athens do not pursue this theme; they state Alexander's activities without embellishment or appeal to prohellenism. Moreover, the insistence that Alexander is a Greek, and descendant from Greeks, rubs against the spirit of Herodotus 7.130, who speaks of the Thessalians as the first Greeks to come under Persian submission--a perfect opportunity for Herodotus to point out that the Macedonians were a non Greek race ruled over by Greek kings, something he nowhere mentions."

"In sum, it would appear that Olympia and Plataea incidents---when taken together with the tale of the ill--fated Persian embassy to Amyntas' court in which Alexander proclaims the Greek descent of the royal house--are part of Alexander's own attempts to integrate himself into the Greek community during the postwar period. They should be discarded both because they are propaganda and because they invite suspicion on the general grounds outlined above."

In support of his position Borza brings forward many interesting questions. He asks:

"Why is it that no Spartan or Athenian or Argive felt constrained to prove to the others that he and his family were Helenes? But Macedonian kings seem hard put to argue in behalf of their Hellenic ancestry in the fifth century B.C., and that circumstance is telling. Even if one were to accept that all the Herodotian stories about Alexander were true, why did the Greeks, who normally were knowledgeable about matters of ethnic kinship, not already know that the Macedonian monarchy was Greek? But--following Herodotus--the stade- race competitors at Olympia thought the Macedonian was a foreigner (Hdt. 5.22: barbaros) Second, for his effort on behalf of the Greek cause against the Persians Alexander is known as "Philhellene". Now this is kind of odd to call a Greek a "friend of the Greeks". "This title", writes Borza, "is normally reserved for non-Greeks".

Borza concludes: "It is prudent to reject the stories of the ill--fated Persian embassy to Amyntas's court, Alexander's midnight ride at Plataea, and his participation in the Olympic Games as tales derived from Alexander himself (or from some official court version of things)."

[2] Peter Green - Classical Bearings p.157

"All Herodotus in fact says is that Alexander himself demonstrated his Argive ancestry (in itself a highly dubious genealogical claim), and was thus adjudged a Greek---against angry opposition, be it noted, from the stewards of the Games Even if, with professor N.G.L. Hammond, we accept this ethnic certification at face value, it tells us, as he makes plain, nothing whatsoever about Macedonians generally. Alexander's dynasty, if Greek, he writes, regarded itself as Macedonian only by right of rule, as a branch of the Hanoverian house has come to 'regard itself as English'. On top of which, Philip II's son Alexander had an Epirote mother, which compounds the problem from yet another ethnic angle."

[3] Ernst Badian - Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical Early Hellenistic Times:

"We have no way of judging the authenticity of either the claim or the evidence that went with it, but it is clear that at the time the decision was not easy. There were outraged protests from the other competitors, who rejected Alexander I as a barbarian--which proves, at least, that the Temenid descent and the royal genealogy had hitherto been an isoteric item of knowledge. However, the Hellanodikai decided to accept it--whether moved by the evidence or by political considerations, we again cannot tell. In view of the time and circumstances in which the claim first appears and the objections it encountered, modern scholars have often suspected that it was largely spun out of fortuitous resemblance of the name of the Argead clan to city of Argos; with this given, the descent (of course) could not be less than royal, i.e., Temenid."

Badian, like Borza, believes that Alexander I "invented the story (in its details a common type of myth) of how he had fought against his father's Persian connection by having the Persian ambassadors murdered, and that it was only in order to hush this up and save the royal family's lives that the marriage of his sister to a Persian had been arranged."

Badian sums it up:"As a matter of fact, there is reason to think that at least some even among Alexander I's friends and supporters had regarded the Olympic decision as political rather than factual--as a reward for services to the Hellenic cause rather than as prompted by genuine belief in the evidence he had adduced. We find him described in the lexicographers, who go back to fourth-century sources, as "Philhellene",--surely not an appellation that could be given to an actual Greek."

I would like to offer another episode, reported by Herodotus, which clearly indicates that ancient Greeks did not regard the ancient Macedonians as brethren. Episodes like this stand in sharp contrast to today's claims propagated by modern Greeks. The Persian armies were ready and poised to strike Greece. Greek allies were assembled and prepared to defend their nation. Mardonius, the Persian commander, sends Alexander I to Athens with a message. On his arrival to Athens as Mardonius' ambassador Alexander spoke to the Athenians urging them to accept the terms offered by Mardonius. In Sparta, the news that Alexander brought message from the Great King, caused great consternation. Sparta feared that an alliance between Athens and Persia was in the making. She, then, quickly rushed an envoy to Athens herself. As it happened, Alexander I and the Spartan envoy had their audience at the same time.When Alexander I was done the Spartan envoy s spoke in their turn: "Do not let Alexander's smooth-sounding version of Mardonius' proposals seduce you; he does only what one might expect of him--a despot himself, of course he collaborates with a despot. But such conduct is not for you - at least, not if you are wise; for surely you know that in foreigners there is neither truth nor trust." (Hdt. 8.142) [Please note the reference to Alexander I as a foreigner who is neither truthful nor trustworthy.]

Then, the Athenians gave answer to Alexander I. Among the other things, they told Alexander that they, the Athenians, will never make peace with Mardonius, and will oppose him 'unremittingly'. As to Alexander I' advice and urgings that they accept the terms offered by Mardonius they said:

"Never come to us again with a proposal like this, and never think you are doing us good service when you urge us to a course which is outrageous - for it would be a pity if you were to suffer some hurt at the hands of the Athenians, when you are our friend and benefector." (Hdt. 8.143)

To the Spartan envoys they said the following: "No doubt it was natural that the Lacedaemonians should dread the of our making terms with Persia; none the less it shows a poor estimate of the spirit of Athens. There is not so much gold nor land so fair that we would take for pay to join the common enemy and bring Greece into subjection. There are many compelling reasons against our doing so, even if we wished: the first and greatest is the burning of the temples and images of our gods - now ashes and rubble. It is our bounded duty to avenge this desecration with all our might - not to clasp the hand that wrought it. Again there is the Greek nation - the community of blood and language, temples and rituals, and our common customs; if Athens were to betray all this, it would not be well done. We, would have you know, if you did not know it already, that so long as a single Athenians remains alive we will make no peace with Xerxes." (Hdt. 8.144)

Conclusion

Among the Greeks there exist a common bond, a community of blood and language, temples and rituals and common customs. This expressed kinship between the Greek allies is evident and it stands in stark contrast against the references used towards the Macedonians who were addressed as foreigners. We have seen that Herodotus (7.130) speaks of the Thessalians as the first Greeks to come under Persian submission (although the Persians entered Macedonia first), and here using his own words, he clearly exclude the Macedonians from the Greeks. We are therefore, left with the conclusion that Herodotus did not consider the Macedonians as Greeks. "Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a distinct people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states" – Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p. 96.

[1] "The feeling of being peoples of nonkindred race existed on both side" referring to Isocrates' statement. Earnst Badian

[2] Isocrates’ letter to Philip II where he, Isocrates refers to Philip "as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom to consider Hellas your fatherland" Green calls this a "rhetorical hyperbole". "Indeed, taken as a whole the Address to Philip must have caused its recipient considerable sardonic amusement". [p. 49] "Its ethnic conceit was only equaled by its naivety" [p.49] Peter Green

[3] "And though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage (a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda-line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his Macedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress." [p.50] Peter Green

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

[5] "Isocrates never for an instant thought of a politically unified state under Philip's leadership. It is simply the internal unification of Hellas which he calls on Philip to bring about." [p.37] [Macedonia specifically excluded from Greece] Wilken

Note: Macedonians were not Hellene, and Macedonia was never a member of the Hellenic League, a league that encompassed and "united" all the Greek city-states. Isocrates expanded the term Hellene to include, no racial descent, but mode of thought, and those who partook of Attic culture, rather than those who had a common descent were called Hellene. He saw the true Hellene only in the Greek educated in the Attic model. He did not regard the barbarians of Attic education as Hellenes.

[6] "When Philip read the book, the insistence of his descent from Heracles must have been welcome to him; for in his policy he had to stress this mythical derivation, as the types of Heracles on his coins show. But on the other hand he must have smiled at the naivete shown by Isocrates." [p.36] Wilken

[7] Isocrates must have taken this strong realist for an idealist, such as he was himself, if he believed that Philip would draw his sword for the beaux yeux of the Greeks." [p.36] Wilken

[8] "When Isocrates in this treatise makes so much of Heracles as Philip's ancestor, this was meant not merely for Philip, but for the Greek public as well." [p.35] Wilken

[9] "At the end of his speech, Isocrates, summarizing the programme which he was proposing to Philip, advised him to be a benefector to the Greeks, a king to the Macedonians, and to the barbarians not a master, but a chief." [p.106] PIERRE JOUGUET Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World

[10] [On Macedonian ethnicity] So little do the Macedonians seem to have belonged to the Hellenic community at the beginning, that they did not take part in the great Games of Greece, and when the Kings of Macedon were admitted to them, it was not as Macedonians, but as Heraclids. Isocrates, in the 'Philip' praises them for not having imposed their kingship on the Hellenes, to whom the kingship is always oppressive, and for having gone among foreigners to establish it. He, therefore, did not regard the Macedonians as Greeks." [p.68] PIERRE JOUGUET Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World

[11] "In the Panegyricus he [Isocrates] had urged an understanding between Sparta and Athens, so that the Greeks might unite in a common expedition against the Persian empire. Nothing of that sort was any longer thinkable. But the policy of which he now had such high hopes offered a surprisingly simple solution for the distressing problem that lay heavily on all minds the problem of what was to be the ultimate relationship between Greece and the new power in the north (Macedonia)." [p.152] WERNER JAEGER Demosthenes

[12] "But for Isocrates that was no obstacle. He had long since come to recognize the impossibility of resisting Macedonia, and he was only trying to find the least humiliating way to express the unavoidable submission of all the Greeks to the will of Philip. Here again he found the solution in a scheme for Macedonian hegemony over Greece. For it seems as if Philip's appearance in this role would be most effective way to mitigate his becoming so dominant a factor in Greek history; moreover, it ought to silence all Greek prejudices against the culturally and ethnically alien character of the Macedonians." [p.153] WERNER JAEGER

[13] "With the help of the role that Isocrates had assigned to him, he had the astuteness to let his cold-blooded policy for the extension of Macedonian power take on the eyes of the Greeks the appearance of a work of liberation for Hellas. What he most needed at this moment was not force but shrewd propaganda; and nobody lent himself to this purpose so effectively as the old Isocrates, venerable and disinterested, who offered his services of his own free will." [p.155] WERNER JAEGER

[14] "Looking far beyond the actualities of the Greek world, hopelessly split asunder as it was, he (Isocrates) had envisaged a united nation led by the Macedonian king." [p.172] WERNER JAEGER

[15] "Quite apart, however, from any theoretical doubts whether the nationalistic movement of modern times, which seeks to combine in a single state all the individuals of a single folk, can properly be compared with the Greek idea of Panhellenism, scholars have failed to notice that after the unfortunate Peace of Philocrates Demosthenes' whole policy was an unparalleled fight for national unification. In this period he deliberately threw off the constrains of the politician concerned exclusively with Athenian interests, and devoted himself to a task more lofty than any Greek statesman before him had ever projected or indeed could have projected. In this respect he is quite comparable to Isocrates; but an important point of contrast still remains. The difference is simply that Demosthenes did not think of this "unification" as a more or less voluntary submission to the will of the conqueror; on the contrary, he demanded a unanimous uprising of all the Greeks against the Macedonian foe." [p.172] WERNER JAEGER

[16] "His Panhellenism was the outgrowth of a resolute will for national self-assertiveness, deliberately opposed to the national self-surrender called for by Isocrates - for that was what Isocrates' program had really meant, despite its being expressed romantically as a plan for a Persian war under Macedonian leadership." [p.172-3] WERNER JAEGER

[17] The first resolution passed by Synedrion at Corinth was the declaration of war against Persia. "The difference was that this war of conquest, which was passionately described as a war of vengeance, was not looked upon as a means of uniting the Greeks, as Isocrates would have had it, but was merely an instrument of Macedonian imperialism." [p.192] WERNER JAEGER

[18] "For the six years or more that follow, Philip's life, alas! is withdrawn, except at rare intervals, from our knowledge. Alas, indeed! for these are the years in which his men at arms marched, the first foreigners since history has begun, into the Peloponnese, and he himself besieged and took cities on the Adriatic, and led his spearmen up to, or even beyond, the Danube; years, too, in which his final ambition took shape, 'for it was coming to be his desire to be designated Captain- General of Hellas, and to wage the War against the Persians'." (p.97) David Hogarth

[Please visit "Green" and "Isocrates' Letter to Philip" (345), for further enlightenment] Notice also the usage of quotes by David Hogarth, regarding Philip's desire to be Captain-General of Hellas.]

[19] "The dispute of modern scholars over the racial stock of the Macedonians have led to many interesting suggestions. This is especially true of the philological analysis of the remains of the Macedonian language by O. Hoffmann in his Makedonen etc. Cf. the latest general survey of the controversy in F. Geyer and his chapter on prehistory. But even if the Macedonians did have some Greek blood- as well as Illyrian- in their veins, whether originally or by later admixture, this would not justify us in considering them on a par with the Greeks in point of race or in using this as historical excuse for legitimizing the claims of this bellicose peasant folk to lord it over cousins in the south of the Balkan peninsula so far ahead of them in culture. It is likewise incorrect to assertthat this is the only way in which we can understand the role of the Macedonian conquest in Hellenizing the Orient. But we can neglect this problem here, as our chief interest lies in discovering what the Greeks themselves felt and thought. And here we need not cite Demosthenes' well-known statements; for Isocrates himself, the very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates the people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil.108. He purposely avoids the word barbaroibut this word is one that inevitably finds a place for itself in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of every true Hellene. Even Isocrates would not care to have the Greeks ruled by the Macedonian people: it is only the king of Macedonia, Philip, who is to be the new leader; and the orator tries to give ethnological proof of Philip's qualifications for this task by the device of showing that he is no son of his people but, like the rest of his dynasty, a scion of Heracles, and therefore of Greek blood." [p.249] WERNER JAEGER

[Point of Interest]

(a) Macedonians cannot be considered as Greeks even if they had some Greek blood in their veins.

(b) Macedonia's conquest of the Orient should not be contingent upon Greek culture.

(c) Isocrates places the Macedonians with alien races and hitherto, outside the Hellenic world.

(d) Isocrates takes care of this "alien race" not to be seen as leaders of Greece. He isolates their king Philip as not of the same race as the people over which he governs.

Note: The speech On the Chersonese was, to be sure, delivered in a specifically Athenian emergency; but the interest of the Greeks as a whole is never left out of sight. The Third Philippic is entirely dedicated to the danger that threatens all Greece. Similarly, when the past and future are compared, it is the whole of Hellas that is considered, not Athens alone.

Yes we repeated our selves million times and you still dont understand.
1. The so called "small muslim minority" are calling them selves Turks and Albanians. And is ofending to call them "small muslim minority". In Greece live 11 million people. I dont know exactely how many "members of the nonexisting minorities" you have, but I can tell you IT'S NOT SMALL! Hm... MaYbe that is exactely what are you "worried" about? If your politicians put a row for minorities on the census papers, maybe you will find out. But, never mind, is more secure to "not know" and to call them "small". I know that there are about 2000 Greeks living in Turkey, and they are recognised ( and not called "small ortodox minority"), and considering the number of more than 100 millions, that is very very small.
As for the Macedonian minority, I have an idea! You cann call your 2 million Greek "Macedonians" - Geographic Macedonians, and the other people - Ethnic Macedonians! And that is it. Problem solved!!!

“Why is it that no Spartan or Athenian or Argive felt constrained to prove to the others that he and his family were Helenes”

In fact, they did! In ancient Olympics, athletes could employ dirty tricks in order to exclude athletes participation in the games. There are some examples to support that! Also, Macedonia at the time being was isolated from the rest of the Greece because the Greeks generally regarded it as primitive, backwater, inhabited except from Macedonians, also by semi-savage barbarians, mostly of Thracian stock.

Alexander is known as "Philhellene". Now this is kind of odd to call a Greek a "friend of the Greeks". "This title", writes Borza, "is normally reserved for non-Greeks".

The king of Macedonia, Alexander I, was named Philhellene by the Theban poet Pindaros for the same reason Jason of Pherrai and Euagoras of Cyprus were called Philhellenes (Isocrates 107A, 199A).
The title Philhellene in ancient times meant Philopatris (lover of the homeland) or simply put “a patriot” (Plato, Politics, 470E; Xenophon, Agesilaus, 7, 4), which is why Alexander the Great did not touch the traditional house of Pindaros when he ordered his soldiers to burn Thebes.


Ancient Greeks were calling Macedonians as Barbarians which means non-Greek
A usual wordwide misconception is the association of the word ‘Barbarian’ with non-Greeks.

We all know for starters Epirotes being classed as ‘barbarians’ from Thucydides, although they were greek-speakers.

However the ultimate proof of Greek tribes being called ‘barbarians is coming from Athenaios Deipnosophistes where Stratonicus the harp-player was asked “πότερα Βοιωτοί βαρβαρώτεροι…ή θετταλοί, Ηλείους έφησεν” meaning “who were the greatest Barbarians, the Boeotians or the Thessalians” and he replied “the Eleans“.

You can see some more quotes regarding to this issue here:
Greek tribes being labeled “Barbarians”

It’s clear that you love Isocrates, although you prefer only some parts of him. So, I present some more references : Ancient Greeks references to Macedonians as Greeks