Philip II not so slowly and very steadily built Macedonia into a superpower, in the process expanding its borders to the Hellespont and his own influence deep into Greece. The Greeks may not have anticipated that he would conquer them, though his actions by the later 340s BC ought to have alerted them to that. Certainly, Demosthenes had been warning his fellow Athenians of the threat from Philip for some time – his On the Chersonese and the third and fourth Philippics live up to Philip’s apparent remark that Demosthenes’s speeches ‘were like soldiers because of their warlike power’ (Plutarch Moralia 845d). Yet, the Athenians largely ignored Demosthenes until, as Chaeronea in 338 showed, it was too late. Their attitude contrasts with their fifth-century ancestors, who accepted, for example, Pericles’s warnings about the threat from Sparta (Thucydides 1.140-4, 2.13) and waged war against that state. The Athenians were not averse to mobilising troops in the fourth century either – think of the military aid to Thebes in 379/8 to expel the Spartan garrison or the expedition of Nausicles in 352 to block Philip at Thermopylae. Why then did they not try to defeat the king until it was too late? Various explanations have been advanced: no state could combat Philip’s inexorable advance; he moved fast and his intentions were opaque; citizens did not want to fight but rely on mercenaries; fourth-century democracy was a military failure so Philip’s success was unsurprising, which, of course, was Mossé’s view; or, perhaps, the people had tired of what Joseph Roisman aptly describes as Demosthenes’s ‘rhetoric of war’. I think more can be said on this matter and that the Athenians’s reaction to the ‘foreign’ threat from Macedonia needs to be compared and contrasted more with their fifth-century counterparts as they faced off against the Spartans and previous Macedonian kings. I highlight these connections to show that the people’s perception of threats and a ‘when the situation demands it’ attitude explain their approach to Philip II.

Historical events in order to be attested and examined by scholars have to derive from some kind of evidence. Such evidence is provided by primordial sources of any kind. It might be a papyrus, an inscription, a votive relief or an archaeological find that may attest to a historical event. Thus, it is like watching an event through the eyes of those who really experienced it. Objectivity is such a subjective issue that it is formed not only by the author who composes a historical document but also by the reader who pores over the document. So, there is no an existing frame of truth but only a common perception of it. Therefore, in order to provide an academic paper on history, one has to consider what was commonly accepted during the specific period examined. Certainly, it is not always easy to come down with such evidence deriving from different sources, but in many cases, such paradigms do exist. Typically, historians, orators or even the tragic poets may provide us with such evidence and today's scholars are challenged to accumulate, compare them and come to a safe conclusion (when examining a historical event or even history itself). The main subject of this dissertation paper shall cover the following subject: What was the image of the Macedonian Kingdom by the southern Greeks during the Classical period. How this image is depicted to us nowadays when studying the primordial sources. How did the Macedonians perceived themselves, living on the fringe of the Helladic space? Furthermore, it shall cover all the later and the updated historical data through the primordial sources available. I am most thankful to Mr. Xydopoulos for all his support, perfect communication and feedback that he very willingly provided to me from the very beginning. This work was established in his previous work “Civil and Social Relations amongst the Macedonians and the Rest of the Greeks”, published in 1998. Furthermore, I included the updated historical and archaeological data available, offering at the same time another perspective. Having the continuous assistance and supervision of the Professor, I am certain that the result will excel my expectations. Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Miroslav Vasilev, Dr. Maria Girtzi, Dr. Paschalis Paschidis, my friends and family. The first two for providing me with their valuable articles and suggestions and the last ones, for having to put up and support me while I was working on the project. Vasileios Chrimatopoulos 10.01.2018 Direct Link of the Thesis: https://repository.ihu.edu.gr/xmlui/handle/11544/29119