MacedoniaM. B. HATZOPOULOS

Macedonia (in Greek Makedonia) is the

country inhabited by the Macedonians

(Macedones), who not only gave their name

to the country, but also formed it by bringing

together regions, in which physical geography

did not promote unity. At the end of a process,

which lasted from the foundation of the

kingdom at the beginning of the seventh

century BCE until its abolition by the Romans

in 167 BCE, the term Macedonia, in a

geographical sense, designated all the lands

between the Pindus chain to the west and the

plain of Philippi to the east, and between

Mount Olympos to the south and a line close

to the border of present-day Greece to the

north. The cradle of Macedonian power was

the Old Kingdom, around the great alluvial

plain of Emathia, formed by the rivers

Haliakmon, Loudias, and Axios, and the

smaller plain of Pieria, with its surrounding

mountains: Olympos, the Pierian mountains,

Bermion, and Barnous. To the west, Upper

Macedonia was composed of high plateaux:

from the south to the north, Elimeia, Orestis,

Lynkos and, even further west, Tymphaia and

Parauaia, which had originally constituted

small independent kingdoms. For about two

centuries, the Axios River formed the eastern

border of the kingdom. The conquest and

absorption into Macedonia of the New Terri-

tories to the east of this river, which were

shared between colonies from the Greek

city-states along the coasts and the “indige-

nous” tribes of the interior, including the

Crestonians, Mygdonians, Bottiaeans, Odo-

mantes, Bisaltes, and Edonians, was a long

process that started at the beginning of the

fifth century BCE and had barely finished on

the eve of the Roman conquest.

For a Greek from the south, Macedonia was

an exotic land, alien in scale if not in its nature.

Eternal snows, vast plains watered by perennial

rivers, lakes, forests of oaks, beech, and even

birch, which were haunted by deer, wolves,

bears, and even lions and aurochs, combined

to create a landscape both fascinating and

disturbing, and which EURIPIDES evoked so

effectively in the Bacchae. Transhumance in

themountains and high plateaux were favorable

for rearing goats and sheep, the watered grass-

lands pastured cows and horses, while the rich

alluvial lands lent themselves to the cultivation

of cereals, vegetables, and all kinds of fruit trees.

The Macedonian lands also harbored mineral

treasures: copper, iron, and, in its eastern part,

gold and silver, which with the high quality

wood of its forests, suitable for naval construc-

tion, constituted the products that were most

sought after by the Greeks of the south.

While we had only contradictory accounts

from the ancient authors (sometimes distin-

guishing between Greeks and Macedonians,

sometimes affirming their common origin),

collections of rare words (glosses) of marginal

interest, and late epigraphic texts written at

a time when the adoption of the Attic KOINE

had replaced the older form of language, the

question of the Macedonian people’s origins

rested less on scientific debate than on passion-

ate arguments related to modern national

conflicts. Today, the collection and publication

of a large number of inscriptions make possible

the study of proper names and technical

terms that preserve the phonetic and morpho-

logical features of Macedonian speech. The

first dialectal texts have recently come to

hand, so for the first time it is possible

to gain a precise idea of Macedonian speech:

it is an intermediate Greek dialect between

Thessalian and the northwestern dialects. The

study of the Macedonian calendar, cults,

usages, and customs has also confirmed the

double origin of the Macedonians, from

THESSALY and from the primitive nucleus

to the northwest. Although the expanding

Macedonians annexed numerous non-native

populations, onomastics show that it was the

descendants of the Greek conquerors who

formed the warrior elite and, as a result, the

ruling social classes.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine,

and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 4200–4205.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18074

1

The Old Kingdom of Lower Macedonia was

from its origin a land of city-states. Since the

country’s appearance on the historical scene,

the method of land settlement and territorial

organization was based on urban centers

surrounded by their territory. On the other

hand, until the Roman era, the political base

unit in Upper Macedonia remained the ethnos,

a word mistranslated as “tribe,” but which des-

ignated a community established on a territory

divided into villages.

Although modern historians often speak of

“barons,” feudalism was as foreign as tribalism

to the Macedonian social organization. The

mainspring was the king, the State’s religious,

military, and political head, chosen from the

family of the Temenids, who were reputedly

descended from HERAKLES (HERCULES). The

king’s companions (hetairoi) did not consti-

tute a hereditary feudal nobility, but an

aristocracy based on merit, and they were

rewarded by the king, not with fiefdoms, but

with freehold ownership of lands, for the

services that they rendered to him.

Macedonian history began when shepherds

under the direction of leaders from the terri-

tory of Orestis, moved from the high pastures

of Olympos to the Pierian coast and took pos-

session of the former Phrygian citadel of

Edessa, renaming it AIGAI (modern Vergina),

where they settled. The first two centuries

in the history of the Temenid kingdom are

practically reduced to the list of its first five

kings and to the legends associated with them.

It was the Persian expansion into Europe,

beginning with Darius’ expedition against the

Scythians in 512 BCE, which threw Macedonia

into the wider currents of history. The young

ALEXANDER I OF MACEDON, initially as crown

prince of Amyntas I and after 495 as king,

profited from the Persian presence to extend

his kingdom as far as the Axios and to have his

suzerainty recognized by the kingdoms of

Upper Macedonia. At the same time, he was

able to gain admission to the Hellenic commu-

nity, create a privileged relationship with

Athens, and maintain secret contacts with the

allied Greeks, while also participating, under

duress, in Xerxes’ expedition. After the Greek

victories at Salamis and Plataia, he participated

in the scramble against the retreating Persians

and profited from their withdrawal from

Europe to annex the lands between the Axios

and the STRYMON. Thus, he succeeded in dou-

bling the area of the Macedonian states, in

modernizing them by attracting settlers from

Southern Greece, and in endowing himself

with an abundance of quality currency.

Alexander died around 442. The quarrels

between his sons weakened the kingdom.

It was only after 435 that one of them,

PERDIKKAS II, was able to consolidate his position

as head of state. Meanwhile, the kings of Upper

Macedonia had profited from this weakness

to shake off Temenid suzerainty, and the

Athenians extended their empire to the

northern coasts of the Aegean Sea, as far as

the borders of Macedonia. The jewel was the

colony of AMPHIPOLIS, founded at the mouth of

the Strymon in 437/6. Perdikkas’ reaction to

this ended in the revolt of the cities of Chalcidice

against Athens, one of the causes that led to

the Peleponnesian War. Throughout this war,

Perdikkas, steering a delicate course between

Athenians and Spartans, was able to preserve

his kingdom’s independence and integrity.

Perdikkas, who died in 413, was succeeded

by his eldest son ARCHELAOS. The Athenian

disaster in Sicily offered him the necessary

respite on the sea front to quell the separatist

tendencies of the coastal city-states and to

re-establish his influence in Upper Macedonia,

and even extend it to Thessaly. But the post-

humous glory of Archelaos was above all due

to his reforming work. He undertook con-

struction work on fortresses and military

routes, improved the organization and equip-

ment of the army, and again endowed the

kingdom with abundant, high-quality cur-

rency. Archelaos was also a patron of the arts

and literature, and his court attracted the most

famous artists and writers of the Greek world,

including Zeuxis, Euripides, and Thucydides.

Archelaos’ death in 399 was followed by a

period of dynastic troubles, which saw no

less than four kings or regents in five years:

2

Aeropos, Amyntas II, Pausanias, and

Amyntas III. The last of these, after his acces-

sion in 394/3, had to face the ambitions of

other pretenders, as well as the aggressiveness

of the Illyrians, the territorial and commercial

claims of his supposed allies in the Chalcidian

League (see CHALCIDICE, CHALCIDIAN LEAGUE), and

the separatist movement of the kingdom’s

city-states, fomented by PELLA, its new capital.

It was the Spartans’ intervention against the

Chalcidian League in 382 that finally saved

Amyntas, enabling him to re-establish his

influence in Upper Macedonia and to obtain

recognition of his place in the concert of

Greek states.

Amyntas III, who died at a very old age in

370, was succeeded by the eldest son of his

second marriage with Eurydike of Lynkos,

Alexander II. The latter’s ill-advised involve-

ment in Thessalian affairs attracted the hostil-

ity of the Thebans, who favored the ambitions

of his brother-in-law, Ptolemy of Aloros.

Ptolemy had the young king assassinated and

seized power as the regent and tutor of his

younger brother PERDIKKAS III, who was still

a minor. Breaking with the politics of Ptolemy,

Perdikkas successively drew closer to the

Athenians and the Amphipolitans, then at

war with one another, until an invasion by

the Illyrians in 360 BCE brutally ended his pen-

dulum politics. Four thousand Macedonians,

including the king himself, lay dead on the

battlefield, leaving the country at the mercy

of the invaders.

Perdikkas left a very young son, Amyntas,

and a younger brother, Philip, just twenty-two

years old, who took the reins of power

(see PHILIP II OF MACEDON). The latter, with for-

midable speed and efficiency, was able to face

up to the attacks, not only of the Illyrians, but

also of the Paeonians, the Odrysian Thracians,

and the Athenians, as well as the claimants to

power that the last two supported. In 359, he

permanently annexed Upper Macedonia.

In 357, he seized Amphipolis, which was

coveted by Athens, and Pydna, which it already

possessed. Besides this, he was master of

the Krenides gold and silver mines, which

were re-founded under the name of PHILIPPI,

and brought in one thousand talents a year.

The elimination of the Athenians from the

Macedonian coasts ended with the capture of

Methone in 354. Other successes followed,

notably in Thrace and Thessaly, where in 352,

as champion of the Amphictyonic League

in the Third Sacred War (see AMPHICTYONY,

DELPHI; PHOKIS), he was elected leader for life

of the Thessalian Confederation. Only two

independent powers remained in northern

Greece, Macedonia and the Chalcidian League.

Their inevitable confrontation ended in 348,

with the destruction of Olynthos and

Stagiros and the reduction of the civic terri-

tories of the league’s members into royal lands.

Meanwhile, the pursuit of the Third Sacred

War opened the gates of southern Greece

to Philip. The very generous peace terms

that he negotiated with the Athenians in

346, and which allowed him to subdue the

people of Phokis and to take their place in

the Amphictyonic Council, were especially

designed to prepare the ground for an accord

between the principal Greek powers, bearing in

mind the conquest of Asia Minor, which Philip

was already planning. But his plans were

incompatible with the uncooperative individ-

uality of the Greek cities and in particular

Athens, then under the influence of Demos-

thenes. A new sacred war in 340 triggered

widespread conflict. The decisive battle

between the Macedonians and the Athenians,

and the Thebans and their allies took place

in Chaeronea in 338 (see CHAERONEA,

BATTLE OF). The Macedonian victory was total.

Philip convened a congress of all the Greek

States, which resulted in a general peace, as

well as an alliance, the Hellenic Alliance, and

laid the foundations of a federal organization,

led by himself, intended for war against the

Persians, in order to avenge Xerxes’ destruction

of the Greek sanctuaries and to liberate the

Greeks of Asia Minor (see LEAGUE OF CORINTH).

In the spring of 336, a vanguard landed on the

Asian coasts, while the bulk of the expedition-

ary force prepared to join them there the

following year, but in October of that same

3

year, Philip was assassinated in the theater

at Aigai.

Philip’s problem, from the moment he rose

to power, was that of unifying several disparate

kingdoms: the Old Kingdom of Lower

Macedonia with its often rebellious city-states,

the small rural kingdoms of Upper Macedonia,

the New Territories conquered by his ancestors

to the east of the Axios, and the region of

Chalcidice and the Valley of the Strymon,

which he himself had annexed with the Greek

colonies on the coasts and their indigenous

populations in the hinterland. Until the reign

of Philip II, the city-states, where they had

developed, co-existed with the central power

as administrative, if not political units, but

were entirely in the king’s shadow. Philip’s

great reforms radically transformed the insti-

tutional landscape of Macedonia. From now

on, the national territory was comprehensively

subdivided into civic territories. The ethne of

Upper Macedonia or the federations of towns

and villages to the east of the Axios acted as

substitutes where civic traditions were lacking.

These civic units were endowed with all the

organs of the polis (assembly, council,

magistrates), voted on decrees and laws, sent

out missions, and were represented at the great

festival gatherings of the ethnos. Furthermore,

they were grouped into four administrative

and military regions, each with a deliber-

ative assembly, under strategoi representing

the king. Philip also embellished the old capital

of Aigai, situated at the modern village of

VERGINA, by building one of the oldest Greek

stone theaters, which has recently come to

light, and a magnificent palace, which is only

now being properly excavated. It was also at

Vergina that the cemetery of the Temenid kings

was discovered in the late 1970s, containing the

sumptuously built and decorated tombs of

Philip II and of Alexander IV, the young son

of Alexander the Great.

The assassination of Philip, which was never

explained, gave the signal for widespread revolt

in southern Greece, as well as among the

Balkan peoples. The Macedonians raised

Alexander, the son of Philip and OLYMPIAS,

then barely twenty years old, to power. Within

two years, Alexander re-established his author-

ity in the Balkans and in southern Greece, at

the price of the destruction of THEBES, and

crossed the Hellespont in the spring of 334

at the head of the united Greek armies.

A series of victories over the Persians

(GRANIKOS, ISSOS, GAUGAMELA) made him master

of the entire Near East. PERSEPOLIS was pillaged

and destroyed by fire. The fleeing Darius was

assassinated by his lieutenants. The Greek gods

were avenged and everyone expected a rapid

return to Europe. But the continuation of

war by Darius’ lieutenants decided otherwise.

Alexander pursued them to the far limits of the

empire and invaded India, at the price of dissent

that became increasingly acute and was pro-

voked by his policy of inclusivity towards the

Asians and the adoption of Persian customs.

He died in 323 in BABYLON, while preparing

a campaign against Arabia, without having

the time to consolidate his empire (see

ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT).

Alexander had been simultaneously king of

the Macedonians, commander-in-chief of the

Hellenic Alliance and, increasingly, king of

Asia. Neither PHILIP III ARRHIDAIOS, his mentally

handicapped half-brother, nor his posthu-

mous son ALEXANDER IV, who were jointly

designated as his theoretical successors, was

in a position to ensure the unity of such an

empire. It is true that during the LAMIAN WAR

(323–322) his seasoned lieutenants repressed

the revolt by most members of the Hellenic

Alliance, but at the same time they destroyed

it. Worse still, their excessive and incompatible

ambitions did not allow them to maintain

a minimum of harmony between themselves,

or with Olympias, protector of the young

Alexander IV, and Eurydike, wife and cham-

pion of Philip Arrhidaios (see EURYDIKE, WIFE

OF PHILIP ARRHIDAIOS). The result was the exter-

mination of the Temenid Dynasty and the

break-up of the empire. Macedonia fell to

CASSANDER, who was officially proclaimed king

of the Macedonians in 305. He died in 297,

having founded THESSALONIKE, named after

Alexander’s sister, whom he had married,

4

and Kassandreia, the successor of POTEIDAIA and

OLYNTHOS, without being able to consolidate his

dynasty. The bloody rivalries between his sons

gave the opportunity to DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES,

the son of Antigonos Monopthalmos, who

had been a king without a kingdom since

301, to have himself proclaimed king by the

Macedonians in 294.

Demetrios, handsome, generous, superficial,

and despotic, founded the new capital of

Demetrias in Thessaly, but was less attached to

Macedonia and its people than to the dream of

restoring Alexander’s empire for his own bene-

fit. Disaffection among the Macedonians

hastened his expulsion in 287 and the sharing

of the country between the Epirote king Pyrrhos

and LYSIMACHOS, who was already master of

Thrace and Asia Minor (see PYRRHOS, KING).

This arrangement did not last. In 285,

Lysimachos seized all Macedonia, which he

kept until his death at Kouropedion in 281.

His conqueror, SELEUKOS I NIKATOR, had no

chance to occupy the country. He was assassi-

nated by Ptolemy Keraunos, who became the

country’s new master until the great

Gallic invasion, which cost him his life in

279 and plunged the country into chaos (see

CELTIC WARS).

ANTIGONOS II GONATAS, the son and heir of

Demetrios Poliorketes, but endowedwith a char-

acter forged by Stoic philosophy, re-established

order after 277 (see STOICISM). During a reign of

almost forty years, his recovery work enabled

Macedonia, despite some setbacks, to regain

Corinth and slowly rebuild its strength. His

son Demetrios, who reigned for the next ten

years (see DEMETRIOS II (MACEDONIAN KING)), was

somehow able to maintain the Macedonian

positions in the south of Greece in the face of

the Achaians and Aitolians, but it was an unex-

pected attack by the Dardanians that led to the

defeat and shortly afterwards the death of

the king, plunging the country into a new crisis.

Since Philip, the young son of the dead king

(see PHILIP V OF MACEDON), was a minor, power

was given to his cousin ANTIGONOS III DOSON,

who was not slow to rectify the situation. The

lengthy conflict between Sparta and the

ACHAIAN LEAGUE gave the Macedonians, who

were called upon by the latter, the opportunity

to recover Corinth and re-establish the Hel-

lenic League under their hegemony. Celebrated

as savior and benefactor after his victory over

the Spartans at Sellasia, Doson died exhausted

in 221 after a fresh victory over the Illyrians

(see SELLASIA, BATTLE OF).

Philip V was not yet of age, but quickly

showed he was capable of acting alone.

He fought successfully against the Aitolians,

allied himself with the Carthaginians,

and entered into war against Rome. The

so-called First Macedonian War (215–205)

(see MACEDONIAN WARS), which also involved

the Aitolians and Pergamon siding with the

Romans, ended with a marginal victory for

Philip, which the Romans would neither forget

nor pardon. The Second Macedonian War,

declared in 200 by the Romans, ended in 197

with the crushing defeat of the Macedonian

phalanx at Kynoskephalai (see KYNOSKEPHALAI,

BATTLE OF). Peace was concluded on Roman

terms, the main requirement of which was that

Macedonia should abandon all its external pos-

sessions. The rapprochement that Philip

attempted with Rome in the war against

Anthiochos and the Aitolians, which broke out

shortly afterwards in 192, did not bring the

results expected. Macedonia, with only itself to

rely on, engaged in extensive reforms, which

restored the demographic balance and

increased, vis-a-vis the king, the autonomy of

the city-states, the regions and the koinon

(the community of Macedonians), which

from now on struck their own coinage.

Philip V, who had wanted to emulate his

great namesake and predecessor, died in 179,

distressed by the conflict between his heir

Perseus and his younger son, Demetrios, the

favorite of the Romans, a fact which cost

the latter his life (see PERSEUS, MACEDONIAN

KING). But this was the price paid for the policy

of restoring Macedonian power and achieving

rapprochement with the other Greek states,

which was crowned by Macedon’s return to

the Delphic Amphictyony. This was something

the Romans could not tolerate. In 171, on false

5

pretexts, they launched the Third Macedonian

War which, in spite of Perseus’ conciliatory

overtures, ended with the defeat and massacre

of the Macedonian army at Pydna in 168

(see PYDNA, BATTLE OF). Under the guise of free-

dom, the monarchy was abolished, economic

and social barriers were erected between the

four administrative regions, the army was

practically dissolved, the country was pillaged,

and its political and social elite exiled to Italy.

Twenty years later, a Macedonian revolt

resulted in the formal reduction of Macedonia

to a Roman province.

Macedonia lost its freedom but did not

achieve peace and security. The country was

again shaken by revolts, ruined by incompetent

or corrupt governors, and several times ravaged

by barbarian raids and the civil wars of the

Romans. The situation only improved with the

final victory of Octavian (soon to be AUGUSTUS)

in 31 BCE. However, the Macedonians still suf-

fered as a result of the confiscation of their lands

for the foundation or consolidation of Roman

colonies at Pella, DION, Kassandreia, and

Philippi (see COLONIES, ROMAN EMPIRE (EAST)).

The region, unified with southern Illyria (apart

from a short period from 15–44 CE), constituted

a senatorial province with Thessalonike as its

capital. But the capital of the Macedonian

koinon, which incorporated only the strictly

Macedonian part of the province, was trans-

ferred from Pella, which had become a Roman

colony, to BEROIA. The country retained its Greek

language, its civic institutions, its cults, and

traditional ways and customs. Veneration of

the great kings of the past kept alive the aware-

ness of belonging to a glorious people. But the

demise of civic institutions, as a result of the

barbarian invasions of later second century CE

onwards, the reforms of Diocletian and Con-

stantine, and the propagation of Christianity,

radically transformed the character, not only of

Macedonian society but also of the Roman

State.

SEE ALSO: Antigonids; Assiros, Macedonia;

Delphi; Greek language and dialects (Classical

times); Gymnasiarchal Law (Beroia); Kastanas

in Macedonia; Macedonian wars; Methone,

Macedonia; Phalanx (Macedonian).

REFERENCE AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Errington, R. M. (1990) A history of Macedonia.

Berkeley.

Ginouves, R., ed. (1994) Macedonia from Philip II

to the Roman conquest. Princeton.

Hammond, N. G. L., Griffith., G. T., and

Walbank, F. W. (1996) A history of Macedonia,

vols. I–III. Oxford.

Hatzopoulos, M. B. (1996) Macedonian

institutions under the kings, vols. I–II. Athens.

Hatzoupoulos, M. B. (2006) Macedonia:

historical geography, language, cults and beliefs,

institutions. Paris.

Papazoglou, F. (1988) The towns of Macedonia in

the Roman era. Athens.

Roisman, J. and Worthington, I., eds. (2010)

A companion to ancient Macedonia. Chichester.

6