Talk:Philip II of Macedon

Phillip was not Greek!

would anyone of the moderators please stop the edit-orgy of the greek users? phillip was king of macedonia. even the ancient greek spokesman demosthenes called phillip a non-greek barbarian. his nationality(if im allowed to use this word in the ancient period) was definitly not greek.

greetings georg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.194.30 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

He was Greek and the Macedonians as well Greek.Stop harassing pages.Megistias (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

stupid answer from a stubborn greek kid who misuses wikipedia for healing his own complexes.

2 questions for you:

- what was the meaning of the word "barbarian" (βάρβαρος) in the ancient pediod?

- did demosthenes call phillip(and the macedonians) barbarians?

i just need short simple answer, without big philosophies

xairetismoi georg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.194.30 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They were Greek and so was he. "A History of Greece to 322 B.C.by N. G. L. Hammond .ISBN-10: 0198730950,page 56,1986"these conclusions to the evidence of archaeology, the following picture emerges. The first Greek-speaking peoples settled in Macedonia, Thessaly, and Epirus after c. 2500, and in these areas they developed different dialects"."

• Demosthenes insulted them as barbarian and Spartans,Epirotes,Acarnanians,Thessalians and most Greeks were called barbarians by Athenians or others one time or another as an insult or due to the fact that Athenian culture was considered superior.Megistias (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonians

Just a word of caution. According to the oficial position of the former yugoslav Republic of Macedonia the identity of ancient Macedonians was never questioned. FYROM oficials never argued on the history of ancient ,hellenistic, roman or byzantine Macedonia which of course is greek. Ancient Macedonian language was always treated correctly as another greek dialect along with ionic doric aeolian dialects and more precisely as a from of north doric greek. The macedonians are referred in the cosmogony of isiodus as one of the seven greek tribes of the greek nation. As such the FYROM oficials were always prudent never to humilate themselves by demonstrating some hilarious claims without any historical justification. FYROM is in fact an off spring of Tito s irridentitism against the greek lands of Macedon which constitutes the District of Macedonia in northern Greece. Modern Slavomacedonians ( the inhabitants of FYROM who confusingly came to be temporary known as Macedonians ) are in fact a group of people of Bulgarian and not of slavic origin who started developing a form of national identity within the 1940s -only 60 years ago . The slavomacedonian language ( which not very wisely came to be called simply macedonian language creating a confusion with the ancient greek dialect of the historical greek Macedonia) belongs in the same sub family of bulgarian languages. In fact shares 85 pct common words and 100 pct common structure with the Bulgarian language and only for reasons of international politics their language is accepted as a distict language belonging only to the same sub group as the Bulgarian language. Nonetheless the slavomacedonian shares nothing in common with any form of Greek making them completely allien to the ancient greek macedonian dialect. As for the following speculations presented in the site of BBC are simply some opinions from some people who are not exactly Rhodes scholars in Classics. It is neither an oficial BBC article or an Oxford publication. It is simply a free domain opinion not even signed by the author! What I would suggest is prudence when it comes to a such rigorous topic as Ancient and Medieval History. We shouldn t forget that a substantial number of the so called slavomacedonians are currently seeking dual nationality to Bulgaria in order to be enabled to work and travel in EU. And Bulgaria grant them their papers and passports with the inscription: " Bulgarian in origin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The people of the former turkish republic of greece al also not descendant from the antient Macedonians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.djinevski (talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not clever to insult. It is always better to use arguments. Try to find some arguments. Seleukosa (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Year 1871 Dimitar Makedonski (1847-1898) with his article in the newspaper "Macedonia" explained about the ethnogenesis of the modern Macedonians with the antient ancestors saying: "The earth did not opened in half and swallow the Antient Macedonian, they just merged in the core of this people.

BC/BCE

This article was written using "BC". It was changed a few months ago by Neutrality to BCE. This is clearly in violation of policy, and I can think of no reason why it should continue to be reverted to BCE. john k 19:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Pederastic relationship with Pelopidas?

Any citations for this statement? Haiduc 23:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Prior to Kingship

Do we have any comment on what he's done prior to being king? I mean LOL!("read: I'm a doofus and use netspeak")

Skeletal remains

The article appears at odds with Science vol288 p511 "", 21 April 2000, which implies that the 1977 tomb did contain a skeleton, but it probably was not Philip II but Philip III. The abstract says "The Eye Injury of King Philip II and the Skeletal Evidence from the Royal Tomb II at Vergina Antonis Bartsiokas The Royal Tomb II was discovered in Vergina, Greece, in 1977. It contained a male skeleton and a rich array of grave goods. Evidence of trauma supposedly in the orbital bones of the skull has been thought to correspond to an eye injury that King Philip II is historically known to have suffered. However, reexamination of the orbital morphology showed no evidence of such pathology. Therefore, the skeleton does not belong to Philip II. New skeletal evidence shows that the skeleton belongs to King Philip III Arrhidaeus. In this case, the tomb may well contain some of the paraphernalia of Alexander the Great."

RockDoctor

There are about three scientific articles about the remains of his body. One in Archeologike Ephemeris 1981, a later one in the Journal of Hellenic Studies by Musgrave et ali. and in the American Journal of Archaeology later on. I'll look for the exact years later on. All are concerned with the remaining bone material from all parts of the skeleton. At least in the last article there was a reconstruction of his face presented. But this reconstruction uses portraits of Philipp. Overall a public relation gimmick imo. -Anon

__________________

I removed the following about skeletal remains as it appears at odds with journals and articles at present... "However, interestingly, no body or skeleton were ever found. All that remains of Philip II is ash, contained in a magnificent golden larnax, decorated with the Vergina sun, within his stone sarcophagus.[1]"

If you truly feel it ought to go back in, give a reason here on the talk page and reinsert it.

Furius

by the way: did you know funny jesters such as David Icke allege phillip to have been a reptilian humanoid? Foreigner 09:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to add in the military reforms that Philip enacted in Macedonia?

is anybody talking i got a report to do and its hard can some1 help me out

Edit

Someone put the Greek back in the Basileus and protect the page from numbered users.[2]Megistias (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the IP user's edit. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

REvert

Someone undo this guys changes.[3]Megistias (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert him he removed the ref and the comment

Revert him he removed the ref and the comment[4]Megistias (talk) 10:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)