I agree, this should be based on facts and what is known from history and not ‘refighting’.
Philip II and his Royal Family considered themselves descendants of the famous Greek hero Hercules, who was Dorian. An inscription of this is found in the Royal House of the Macedonians, written in Doric. They spoke the Greek dialect of Doric. Yes he was known as Philip of Macedonia but people back then were known in those terms, for instance King Alexander of Epirus was known as Alexander of Epirus. A Spartan in Athens would be considered just as much as a foreigner as a Macedonian in Athens. The same would apply for an Athenian in Epirus or Thessaly. That did not mean they were not all Hellenic.
They all shared a common culture in the sense that they were descendants of the various different Greek tribes that existed back then. They all shared the same culture, spoke Greek dialects, and worshiped the same Gods.
Philip didn't 'conquer Greece' since there was no “Greece” to conquer back then, at least not in the modern geographical political terms one associates it with now. What he did was unite the different city states that were at war with each other since their existence. That was not something new originating with Philip. This was an idea that the Athenians as well as the Spartans and other Greek states were dreaming about for thousands of years...hence all the internal fighting between them. Each one wanted to emerge as the dominating state. Also there were Athenians who supported Philip in uniting the Hellenic States in a war against the Persians. One of these was Athenian Isokratis who died before seeing his dream become a reality. The majority of his troops might have been made up of Macedonians but there was also a great amount of Greeks with his court.
As for the artifacts, those were just a few examples with pictures on the internet. All Macedonian names and toponyms, and archaeological evidence is in Greek., gives prudence that they were a Greek culture more than not.
Welcome to FR. I checked your other threads and see that you're a Greek apologist, and as I said, I am not really interested in the debate in the terms you're proposing. My point is simply that "Macedonian" was a distinct description from "Greek"--and your comments* confirm what I said. Ergo, we agree.
*E.g., "The majority of his troops might have been made up of Macedonians but there was also a great amount (sic) of Greeks with his court."