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."
Then your not reading my comments right for if you were you would see we do not 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."
By "Greeks" I meant other Greeks and all this is a mute point since Macedonians were Greeks to begin with.
As for being "a Greek apologist" wrong again. Just stating historic facts that have been proven so far, unlike the other side which bases most of its claims on theories and assumptions. For instance, we hear about this ancient Macedonian language that existed during Philips and Alexanders time; well if it existed and spoken in the 4th century BC by Philip, Alexander and the rest of Macedonia then were is it? I quite doubt that Alexander would wipe his "native tongue" off the face of the earth just so he can spread the language/culture of the people he conquered, the Greeks.
Thanks for the welcome.