Philip II of Macedon: A New Age Begins

By Mark Luttenberger

The topic of inquiry is a political, military, and economic history of ancient Macedon during the reign of Philip II (359–336) in the fourth century BC. The first two chapters analyze the early history of Macedon and the development of the political, military, social, and economic institutions of the Macedonian kingdom. The balance of the book discusses the rise of Macedon from a small kingdom on the periphery of the Greek world to become the master of ancient Hellas and the Balkan world south of the Danube River. The central figure of the book is Philip II who ascended the throne as a young man in his early twenties after the defeat and death of his brother and six thousand Macedonians by the hostile Illyrians. The book follows his twenty-three-year reign as he guides the Macedonian people to the pinnacle of power and dominance over their neighbors in the Balkan world. You will witness the political, military, and economic growth of the kingdom that Philip created through his numerous reforms and conquests. His energetic, cunning, and inspired leadership will be revealed in these accomplishments. At Philip's death in 336, the foundation of power was established that his son Alexander the Great would use to conquer the Persian Empire. As Philip's power grew, you will encounter his seven wives that formed the basis of his diplomatic arrangements to protect the kingdom. You will be introduced to the leading characters whether family, friend, or foe. These include his wife and son Olympias and Alexander; friends Antipater and Parmenio; and foes Bardylis, Onomarchus, Demosthenes, and Artaxerxes III. The book concludes with an analysis of the assassination of Philip and Alexander's consolidation of power in the Balkan world in 335 BC before he embarks on his legendary journey.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Oct 17, 2019
• ISBN: 9781645842354

Book preview

cover.jpg

Philip II of Macedon

A New Age Begins

Mark Luttenberger

Copyright © 2019 Mark Luttenberger

All rights reserved

First Edition

PAGE PUBLISHING, INC.

New York, NY

First originally published by Page Publishing, Inc. 2019

ISBN 978-1-64584-234-7 (Paperback)

ISBN 978-1-64584-236-1 (Hardcover)

ISBN 978-1-64584-235-4 (Digital)

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Chapter One

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Chapter Four

Chapter Five

Chapter Six

Chapter Seven

Chapter Eight

Chapter Nine

To Dan Sommerfeldt for fifty years of friendship

Preface and Acknowledgments

Preface

The purpose of this book is to tell the story of the rise of Macedon to preeminence in the Greek world in the fourth century BC under Philip II. Although the emphasis is on the achievements of Philip II, it is not a biography of Philip. Unfortunately, there is little information about the personal life of Philip. Much that we will say about his personal relations is speculative or inferential at best. This story is about his public actions that brought Macedonian hegemony to the Hellenic world. Written in a narrative format, the emphasis is on the political, military, and economic development of the kingdom of Macedon. This book is written for those students of history who are fascinated by the Classical Age of Hellas (479–323 BC) in Western civilization. Philip II (360/359–336) ended the political independence of the major Greek mainland poleis of the classical period. Overshadowed by the conquest of the Persian Empire by his son Alexander III (the Great), we must remember that Philip II laid the foundation for Alexander’s success.

Utilizing the literary sources from antiquity, the discoveries of archaeology, and modern scholarship, we will critique the Macedonian kingdom of Philip II. There is no dispute that there is a basic understanding of Philip II’s reign. We know the fundamental events and actions of his rule. The difficulty arises in providing explanations of these events. We can usually determine what and when occurred, but the how and why questions are more difficult to answer. This narrative is not intended to offer a revolutionary viewpoint based on new evidence or a historical thesis. However, it is designed to show that we still have more questions than answers for many aspects of Philip’s reign. We will provide answers to many questions but must acknowledge that the answers are certainly not definitive. Unless new evidence is unearthed from archaeology, our knowledge of this period will likely always remain incomplete. With this understanding, let us proceed to tell the story of the reign of Philip II and the Macedonian people

Acknowledgments

While writing this book, I would like to thank those who either provided encouragement or read either parts or the entire draft and provided a critique of the contents, prose, and structural layout. Dan Sommerfeldt has taken the time to provide valuable input on the economic aspects of the book. He has also provided feedback to improve the stylistic aspects of the book. My thanks to Chris and Heidi Klebs as well as Sean and Amanda Riesenberg, who read parts to improve the literary style. I must acknowledge my five grandchildren—Joseph, Brooke, Stephen, Autumn, and Joshua—who lovingly tease their Pop for his love of reading, writing, and research. They inform me that they have a life and are too busy to learn about ancient history.

A special thanks belongs to my wife, Gail. She has supported my passion for antiquity for forty-plus years. Her companionship, enthusiasm, and encouragement as we explored many ancient sites throughout Greece and Italy made these visits most memorable and filled with laughter. She is the photographer whose pictures are illustrated in the book.

A final thanks to the staff of Page Publishing for their contribution to the book’s editorial improvements, page design, and cover design. Their contributions greatly improved the aesthetic design of the book. I would like to especially acknowledge Olivia Marr, my publication coordinator, for her generous guidance through the book’s publication process.

Introduction

It has been almost twenty-five hundred years since Philip II viewed the plains, river valleys, mountains, cities, and inhabitants of his beloved Macedonia. What interest does a citizen of the twenty-first century AD have in an ancient Macedonian king? For most people, the answer is none. Knowledge of Philip II and ancient Macedonia will neither put food on the table, a roof over one’s head, nor clothes on one’s back. However, for many people the pursuit of knowledge, whatever the topic, provides a measure of happiness and self-satisfaction. The pursuit of truth is satisfaction enough. The study of history is no exception. The lives of the great men, women, and their civilizations provide a fascination and wonderment with their accomplishments. Each period of human existence is contingent on the actions of our ancestors. These ancestors created the world we are born into. An understanding of the past, in all its various facets, aids our understanding of the present. The study of history will not allow us to predict the future. However, knowledge of the past may guide the human species to avoid many mistakes of the past. History is not a dead subject of inquiry. It is a living testimony that can help explain to new generations the world they inhabit. The geographical, political, cultural, ideological, socioeconomic, and military structure of the present world is the product of the ideas and actions of our forefathers and foremothers.

Consequently, each generation of historians continues to explore the past to reveal the world as the inhabitants of the time, culture, and region understood it. Like a science fiction writer describing a world in the cosmos, the world of the past often seems strange and remote to us. Yet like science fiction, people like to explore history because of the strangeness and fascination it presents to modern readers. The legend of Alexander the Great has made the historical man a mythical figure. Books too numerous to count have explored the life of Alexander. In contrast, the life of his father is usually mentioned as an afterthought. Alexander’s conquests altered the map of the ancient world forever. The Hellenistic and Roman civilizations that followed the demise of the classical period of Hellas were the end product of the accomplishments of Philip II and his son Alexander III. Philip put the Classical Age of Hellas on life support before Alexander pulled the plug. Philip laid the foundation for the son’s success. The world at Alexander’s death was very different from the world that he was born into.

The legend and deification of Alexander the Great has certainly overshadowed the phoenix that was the human Philip II. However, the son was a product of his father Philip and mother Olympias. In an order of priority of responsibilities, Philip II was king first, father second, and probably husband third. Olympias was mother first and wife second. Although her status and role as royal wife is uncertain, she had a close bond with her son. The strong-willed and fiery personalities of his parents were imparted to Alexander. Philip transformed Macedon into a political, economic, and military superpower. That superpower provided the resources Alexander used to accomplish deeds viewed as superhuman by his conquered subjects. His destruction of the Persian Empire altered the course of history and engraved his name in history as one of the great conquerors. Consequently, an exploration of Philip II and the rise of Macedon in the mid-fourth century BC is important for those who wish to understand the later Greco-Roman world and its influence on Western civilization.

Scope and Premise

The scope of this book concentrates on the political, military, and economic development of Macedon/Macedonia during the reign of Philip II in the mid-fourth century BC. Although the terms are often used interchangeably, for purposes of clarity, the term Macedon is defined as the political state of the kingdom while Macedonia refers to the central geographical territory occupied by Lower and Upper Macedonia. Ancient Macedonia is not identical with the region called the Republic of Macedonia in the twenty-first century. This state was created in 1991 from the remnants of the former Yugoslavia. In antiquity, much of this area was identified as Upper Macedonia. Much of Philip’s Macedonia, the area primarily identified as Lower Macedonia in antiquity, is incorporated within the borders of modern Greece. However, during the archaic and classical periods of ancient Greece, the kingdom of Macedonia was a separate entity from the Hellenic poleis (city-states) that bordered Macedonia to the south and east. By definition in this book, ancient Macedonia is the territory north of Mt. Olympus while Hellas is the region to the south.

Geographical Macedonia was larger than any single Greek city-state in terms of territory and population. The citizens of Macedonia were called Macedones. They belonged to the kingdom of Macedon, also commonly referred to as Macedonia. They were ruled by a king who represented the state. Once accepted as king by the Macedonian citizens in their assembly, the king’s power was virtually absolute. In contrast, the Greeks were citizens of their individual polis (city-state). A Greek was an Athenian, Spartan, Corinthian, Milesian, Samian, etc. Greeks had a common cultural heritage but were politically divided. Their political constitution could be democratic, oligarchic, aristocratic, monarchic, or tyrannical. Many poleis often changed their constitutions as result of stasis (civil discord) among the citizens. However, regardless of the internal or external conditions of Macedonia, the kingship remained. The strength or weakness of the state often went hand in glove with the strength or weakness of the king.

Although the time frame of this book will concentrate on the growth of Macedon under Philip II (360/359–336 BC), a historical background of Macedon prior to Philip’s reign will be provided. A critique of the Macedonian state will follow. The premise of the balance of the book will describe the political, military, economic, and territorial growth of Macedonia during the twenty-three years of Philip’s reign. Using a narrative format, it will be demonstrated that while we can report what actions Philip undertook as king, we often cannot adequately explain why or how he achieved them. However, when finished, it is hoped that the reader will appreciate the strength of the Macedonian kingdom that supported Alexander the Great’s conquest of Asia.

Brief Historical Review

In the year 360/359, a young man recently suffered the loss of his last brother by his mother Eurydice and father Amyntas. As he wandered through the royal palace at Pella in the small kingdom of Macedon on the northern periphery of the Greek world, he pondered his future as the recently approved king of a kingdom nearing collapse. What destiny did the sacred gods of Olympus have in mind? An inexperienced figure who, until six years earlier, was a hostage at the Greek city of Thebes, this man was uncertain of his survival. His kingdom had witnessed three kings within the last decade. Hostile neighbors were prepared to feast on the carcass of this rump state. His subjects were uneasy about their fate. Who was this young man facing this perilous situation? His name was Philip. Now known to history as Philip II and father to Alexander the Great, he became the builder of a powerful kingdom that provided his son with the means to become one of the great conquerors in history.

Philip’s older brother, the king known as Perdiccas III, and much of the Macedonian army were recently killed when the Illyrians, traditional enemies who lived along the Adriatic coast of modern Albania, invaded the western border of Upper Macedonia and inflicted a severe defeat on the army. Philip’s immediate task was the survival of the kingdom. If an ancient Las Vegas had existed, odds makers probably would have rated the survival of the state and Philip II as remote. A professional gambler would think twice about betting on Philip’s ability to survive, much less prosper. Why?

Philip II was twenty-three years old when appointed to rule. Upon his accession, he faced many obstacles. The kingdom was threatened by many external enemies. These included the Illyrians in the west, the Paeonians in the north, the Thracians to the east, and the Greeks in the south. Internally, there were multiple pretenders to the throne. The morale of the army was shattered. The loss of life against the Illyrians was severe. The revenue of the kingdom was poor. The political and military skill of Philip was unknown. His leadership abilities suspect. Would Philip have time to prove his mettle? Could an independent Macedon survive? The inhabitants must have had great apprehension about their future.

The small kingdom of Macedon had existed since the seventh century. According to the fifth-century BC Greek historians Herodotus and Thucydides, Perdiccas I was the first king of Macedonia, but they unfortunately did not date his reign. He may have ruled in the second half of the seventh century. Herodotus claims that the ancestors of Perdiccas I were Greeks. Thucydides claims that the Macedonian kings derived from the Temenidae clan of Argos in the Peloponnese. Therefore, the royal house was Greek, which ruled over Macedonians. Macedonia remained an independent kingdom until the conquests of the Persian Great King Darius I in the late sixth century. After Darius I’s invasion of Scythia (modern Romania) north of the Danube River, Macedonia, under the king Amyntas I, submitted to Persian domination by 510. This subordination continued under his son Alexander I. Not until the Persian withdrawal from the Balkans after the defeat of Xerxes by the Greeks in 479 did Macedonia regain its political independence.

Throughout the fifth century, the kings Alexander I, Perdiccas II, and Archelaus struggled to maintain the independence of Macedonia against the Balkan tribes to the west, north, and east and the Greek powers of Athens and Sparta in the south. Under Alexander I and Archelaus, Macedonia made strides toward becoming a major power. Unfortunately for the Macedonians, these strong kings were succeeded by men of lesser ability. Consequently, Macedonia remained a minor power on the periphery of the Hellenic world.

In the early fourth century, the Macedonian kingdom reached a low tide under Amyntas III. In 393, the kingdom was invaded by the Illyrians under King Bardylis. Amyntas was forced to flee his kingdom. Two years later, he regained his throne. In 383, the Illyrians returned and defeated the Macedonians a second time. Attempting to preserve his kingdom, Amyntas surrendered part of his kingdom to the Chalcidian League, led by the polis of Olynthus, located on the eastern border in the Chalcidic peninsula. After the Macedonians forced the Illyrians to withdraw, Amyntas requested the return of his territory. Olynthus refused. Only after the defeat of Olynthus by Sparta in 379 did Amyntas regain this territory. At the time of his death in 370, Amyntas left a kingdom much reduced in size and power from the position that he inherited.

During the decade of the 360s, Macedonian recovery was checked by the power of Thebes. Ten years and three rulers later, the kingdom reached the nadir of its existence with the destruction of the Macedonian army and the death of Perdiccas III in battle against the Illyrians. The only consolation for the Macedonians was that neither the Illyrians nor the Greeks immediately exploited the vulnerability of their homeland.

At Philip II’s accession, the classical Greek powers of Athens, Sparta, and Thebes were past their prime. Spartan dominance was ended by Thebes at the battle of Leuctra in 371. After the battle of Mantinea in 362, Theban hegemony was ended and Spartan power was further weakened. Although the Athenians recovered in the first half of the fourth century from their defeat in the Peloponnesian War (431–404), they never had the resources to reestablish their fifth-century empire. This Athenian recovery was checked in the 350s when the Athenians were defeated by their rebellious allies in the Social War. Victorious in the rebellion, many allies abandoned their alliance with Athens. Although Athena’s city remained a major Greek power, the Athenians alone never had the resources to check the rise of Philip II. Although the Greek powers were weakened by their internecine wars, if they had combined their resources, it is reasonable to suggest that a coalition had the ability to check Philip. Unfortunately for the Hellenes, Philip’s political and diplomatic skill prevented a unified Greek coalition until he was militarily superior to that coalition.

Meanwhile, the Achaemenid king of Persia was not interested in Macedonian affairs. Revolts within the empire throughout the decades of the 360s and 350s forced the Persians to focus their attention on Asia. Ascending to the throne in 359 like Philip, King Artaxerxes III’s (Ochus) first priority was the restoration of the empire. Upon the completion of this objective by 342, the Persians now became alarmed by the Macedonian expansion in the late 340s. Persian hostility was revealed when Philip II besieged the cities of Perinthus and Byzantium (modern Istanbul) near the Bosporus in 340. Fearful of their subjection and the placement of the Macedonian army across the straits from Asia Minor, the Persians provided military aid to the successful defenders. However, in 338 when Artaxerxes III was assassinated, the Persians were again forced to concentrate on the turmoil within the royal house. Persia remained an outside observer in the final showdown between Athens, Thebes, and Macedon in 338. After the Greek defeat, Persia was left to its own resources to oppose Philip. Unfortunately for Philip, he did not survive to challenge the might of Persia. This mission was left to his son Alexander III, now known as Alexander the Great.

Sources

For a history of Macedonia, we are dependent primarily on the writings of Greek authors and their Greek perspective. By the Greek perspective, we primarily mean an Athenocentric point of view. Many Greek writers were Athenian. No historical texts exist from authors who wrote from the Persian, Macedonian, or Balkan perspective. Major contemporary writers of the fifth century were Herodotus of Halicarnassus and Thucydides of Athens. They provide information about the early history of Macedonia through the fifth century. For the fourth century, we rely on the Athenian historian Xenophon; Theopompus of Chios, who lived at the court of Philip and wrote a history of his reign; the philosopher Aristotle, who lived, studied, and taught in Athens; the rhetorician Isocrates, and the Athenian orators Demosthenes and Aeschines.

The speeches of Demosthenes and Aeschines provide our best contemporary information about the conflict between Athens and Philip. Demosthenes was a bitter political opponent of Philip while Aeschines represented those Athenians who wanted peace with Philip. These orators did not write for posterity. Their speeches were designed for the political arena of the Athenian Assembly. Since these speeches were concerned with the issues and emotions of the day and the fate of their fellow citizens, they often played fast and loose with the facts to persuade their fellow citizens to support their policies. Consequently, their writings are used with great scrutiny.

Throughout the fourth century, the Athenian Isocrates advocated a Greek crusade against Persia. His hope was that a Panhellenic crusade against Persia would end the internecine wars among the city-states. Failing in this mission, he finally encouraged Philip to carry the banner. Philip did. However, he acted in his own interest, not that of the Greeks.

Aristotle provides valuable information in his Politics and Constitution of the Athenians about the political structure of the Greek polis and Athens in particular. Aristotle was familiar with Macedonia. He was born in Stagira, a town in the Chalcidice east of Lower Macedonia. His father was a court physician to Amyntas III. Aristotle tutored the young Alexander in the late 340s.

Later Greek and Roman writers from the Roman period such as Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Pausanias, Quintus Curtius Rufus, and Arrian are also analyzed with a critical eye. Diodorus, a native of Sicily who lived in the first century BC, wrote a universal history that provides a continuous narrative about the reign of Philip II. Since his universal history is a cut-and-paste form of historical writing, his information must be reviewed with care. Its accuracy is dependent on the sources he consulted. Consequently, his information must be accepted with caution. Fortunately, his narrative of the reign of Philip II is considered generally accurate by scholars.

Although the other writers provide valuable information, their primary focus was on the accomplishments of Alexander the Great. For example, our understanding of the Macedonian army is primarily based on its structure in the time of Alexander. It is therefore difficult to ascertain with certainty whether the military structure resulted from the reforms of Alexander or Philip. Plutarch was a native of Boeotia. He wrote in the second century AD. His parallel lives were primarily written with a moral purpose to demonstrate how the famous men of Greece and Rome succeeded and failed based on their character. His lives of Alexander, Demosthenes, Pelopidas, and Phocion provide valuable information about this period.

Polybius, a second-century BC Arcadian Greek from the city of Megalopolis, was highly critical of previous historians. Second in historical reliability and reputation among Greek historians only to Thucydides, he wrote from the perspective of a defeated patriot of the Achaean League. His goal was to explain how the Romans conquered all the major powers within the Mediterranean basin between 264 and 146 BC. His analysis of Antigonid Macedon reveals insights about their Temenid/Argead predecessors.

Curtius, a Roman senator, wrote his The History of Alexander in the first century AD. A narrative of Alexander’s conquests, he provides some valuable information about Philip II’s reign. Arrian, a native of Bithynia in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and later its Roman governor, wrote in the late first and early second centuries AD. His Anabasis describes Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire. He also provides valuable information about Philip since he relies on authors who either served under or were contemporaries of Alexander. Justin, a Latin author dated between the second to fourth century AD, in his Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, provides information not mentioned elsewhere. However, due to his late date and strong suspicions about his accuracy of information, his evidence is used with great reluctance and skepticism.

The minor ancient writer Athenaeus, who dates from the late second century AD, describes various dinner parties in which the participants discuss various topics. This lighthearted multivolume work, The Learned Banqueters, preserves fragments from numerous earlier authors whose works have not survived. Fortunately, from these authors, such as Theopompus, Satyrus, etc., we gleam a few valuable points of information from their historical works relevant to our period of inquiry.

To supplement and verify the information from these ancient authors, we have consulted documents of the time that usually appear in inscriptions on buildings, stelae, and monuments. Many inscriptions are now published and translated. These inscriptions allow us to evaluate the political, diplomatic, economic, social, and religious activities of the period. Excellent sources for original documents are found in A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. by Meiggs and Lewis, and Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC by Rhodes and Osborne.

Archaeology continues to unearth evidence throughout Macedonia. However, there have been no discoveries that have revolutionized current studies of Macedonia. The discovery of Philip II’s possible tomb in the 1970s, along with the historical debate of the evidence since the 1980s, provides valuable information about the burial practices of Macedonian kings and their royal consorts. From the physical remains of one corpse, scholars continue to debate whether or not it belongs to Philip II. Intriguing!

Once perceived as the silent sister of Hellas, Macedonia is now studied for its own interest. It no longer resides on the periphery of Hellenic studies. Modern scholarship will be consulted to illustrate the various problems and approaches to writing a truthful history of the period. Since the life of Alexander continues to generate a cottage industry of writers, we can only cite a few in the bibliography. Previously regarded as a sidebar to Alexander studies, Philip has now attracted major attention. Within the last four decades, excellent studies of Philip II have been made by J. R. Ellis, N. G. L. Hammond, Ian Worthington, E. N. Borza, and others. Philip II no longer resides in the shadow of his son.

For general studies, the Cambridge Ancient History (volumes IV, V, and VI in the second edition) and the Oxford Classical Dictionary (third and fourth editions) are excellent resources for a general understanding of the classical period and its inhabitants. The chronological system adopted in the second edition of the Cambridge Ancient History is followed to avoid arguments about the dating of controversial events. When appropriate, alternative dates will be mentioned. A revolutionary valuable resource is An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis developed by the Copenhagen Polis Center. It describes the various poleis throughout the Hellenic world and Macedonia. For an updated review of the economic structure of the Greek world, The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World is an excellent reference book discussing the economic problems of antiquity. However, it emphasizes the Hellenes and Romans. Much of the Macedonian economy is inferred from Greek examples.

For the ancient writers, we will use their writings primarily published in the Loeb Classical Library and the Penguin Library. The internet is a new resource for modern scholarship. Much information is now provided by websites rather than in books and journals. Valuable information is published every day that can aid our understanding of the classical world. Unfortunately, for purposes of documentation, these websites sometimes disappear for various reasons. Nevertheless, the internet now is a major medium for the exchange of information and ideas.

Map 1—The Greek and Macedonian World

gk_wrld.gif

Map 1—The Ancient Greek and Macedonian World

(Bernard 2001)

http://plato-dialogues.org/tools/gk_wrld.htm

Map 2—Modern Greece and Macedonia

Map 2—Modern Greece and Macedonia

Map 3—The Aegean Basin

Map 3—The Aegean Basin in Philip II’s era

>

Chapter One

Who Were the Macedonians?

Geography

Before we can tell the story of Philip II and Macedonia, we must answer one question. Who is a Macedonian? Geography, climate, language, religion, political, and social behaviors are the basic criteria to define a Macedonian.

The geography and climate of Macedonia determined the settlement pattern of the early inhabitants. Unfortunately, the borders of ancient Macedonia varied through the centuries. The ancient geographers had difficulty in determining these borders.¹ However, they all agreed that Macedonia and Hellas (Greece) were separate entities. The familiar kingdom of Philip II and Alexander the Great did not appear until the 350s BC.

Map 4—Northern Greece and Macedonia

Map 4—Northern Hellas and Macedonia

(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_the_Macedonian Empire)

Author: MaryroseB54

The political kingdom known as Macedon was comprised of two regions known as Upper and Lower Macedonia.² It was located north of Mt. Olympus, which separated Macedonia from Hellas. Lower Macedonia occupied the fertile plain along the northern coastline of the Thermaic Gulf. In the classical period, its inhabitants primarily lived on the land or in cities identified as poleis by Greek writers. However, unlike the Greek polis (city-state), these cities were not independent. Although self-governing in local affairs, they were subject to the rule of the king at Aegae. He conducted foreign policy and could interfere in local affairs when he deemed it necessary. Whether the kingdom was strong or weak, Lower Macedonia remained subordinate to the king. Although a few inhabitants engaged in trade and industry, the great majority were occupied in agriculture and pastoralism. Lower Macedonia was bordered to the east by the Chalcidic peninsula and the Thermaic Gulf. Its southern border ends at the Pierian Mountains, which separates Macedonia from the Greeks in Perrhaebia and Thessaly.

To the north and west, separated by hills, lies Upper Macedonia. Except for its eastern border on the Strymon River, Upper Macedonia is ringed by mountain