Did Macedonians confront in Chaeronea a "United" greek army???

One of the main lies used by skopjan propagandists is that Macedonians confronted a "united" Greek army in Chaeronia.

The truth is Macedonians defeated a Theban-Athenian army in Chaeronea.

Now since when the joint of two city-states makes up a "united" greek army thats a thing that only skopjan propagandists understand.

Could we say following the same logic that taking the example of the battle of Mantinea, some 20 years earler, where Thebans confronted the alliance of the Athenian and Spartan army, this was a war between Thebans and the "united" Greek army???

Absolutely No!!! Its is just another distortion that we had to clear it out.

There is no question that at Chaeronea Philip faced an army composed mostly of Athenians and Thebans. What the skops use as evidence as a united Greek army is the fact that Phocians, Achaens and Corinthians (maybe Euboeans and Magarians too) also participated in the battle but in very small numbers. This gives an illusion that the Greeks were united. However, the Spartans stayed neutral as did the Lacedaemonians, Messenians, Arcadians, Eleans and Argives. In fact, they considered Philip a "protector" NOT a conqueror. It is also recorded that Demosthenes was to hire mercenaries which he did but not in the numbers he was supposed to.

Philip has his own "Greek" allies. The Thessalians as well as other northern Greeks joined his army. Admittedly he had no allies on the battlefield from the Peloponnesus but one can hardly say he did not have Greek allies. Chaeronea was a battle between the alliance of Athens and Thebes (and a few Greek allies) and Macedonia (and a few Greek allies).

I hope the Skops take the time to read the texts CAREFULLY.

All the above is taken from the Historians History of the World by Henry Smith Williams.

Battle of Mantinea (418 BC)

Combatants
Sparta, Arcadian allies of Sparta, Tegea Vs Argos, Athens,
Mantineia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...a_%28418_BC%29

Battle of Mantinea 362 BC
Combatants
Thebes, Arcadia and Boeotia League Vs Sparta, Elis, and Mantinea league

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...a_%28362_BC%29

Battle of Coronea (394 BC)
Combatants
Sparta Vs Thebes, Argos, and allies


Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC)

Combatants
Macedon, Thessalians Vs Athens, Thebes.

Seems like a civil war. Lets see what Bury says:

If the chances of another issue to the battle of Chaeronea have been
exaggerated, the significance of that event has been often misrepresented. The battle of Chaeronea belongs to the same historical series as the battles of Aegospotami (405 B.C.) and Leuctra (371B.C.).
As the hegemony or first place among Greek states had passed successively from Athens to Sparta, and to Thebes, so now it passed to Macedon. The statement that Greek liberty perished on the plain of Chaeronea is as true or as false as that it perished on the field of Leuctra or the strand of the Goat's River. Whenever a Greek state became supreme, that supremacy entailed the depression of some states and the dependency or subjection of others. Athens was reduced to a secondary place by Macedon, and Thebes fared still worse; but we must not forget what Sparta, in the day of her triumph, did to Athens, or the more evil things which Thebes proposed."

Ptolemy, you say it best. This was a CIVIL WAR, one of many in Greek history.

Chaeronea

Combatants

Side A'

Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, Aetolia, Northern Phocis, Epicnemidian Locrians*

Side B'

Athens, Beotian League (Thebes, etc), Euboean League, Achaean League, Corinth, Megara, Corcyra, Acarnania, Ambracia, Southern Phocis.

Neutral sides

Sparta, Argos, Arcadia, Messene. The three last had alliances both with Athens and Philip but their pro-macedonian activity of 344/3 BC showed they were leaning towards Philip. However they didnt sent aid to Chaeronea in Philip's side because of the blocking in Isthmus by Corinth and Megara. Sparta had withdrawn almost entirely from Greek affairs in 344 BC.

[*] Elis had an alliance with Philip though they didnt take part in Chaeronea but showed their pro-macedonian feelings by joining their forces with Philip in the invasion of Laconia in the autumn of 338 BC.

Somehow I can't stop see the ANALOGY between the battle of Chaeronea in the Greek civil war of the "koine eirene" ("common peace") and the battle of Gettysburg in the american Civil war.

There are many similarities to induce a link ... but also notable differences that need to be mentioned.

SIMILARITIES

1) Political scene : "Union or Secession"

Chaeronea was the attempt of the philo-philippic greek party (Macedonians , Thessalians , Epeirotans , anti-Demosthenean Athenean party etc) to create a "common peace" situation (κοινή ειρήνη) among the Greek city States and Kingdoms (the Isocratic "Panhellenic Cause") against the "secessionist" philo-Demosthenean party (Atheneans , Thebans ,Eubeans etc) that prefered "autonomy" and "liberty of war" among Greek city states.

In the American Civil War you have a part that tries to save the "unity" of the newly formed USA against the secessionist states of the South.

2) "North vs South"

Both battles can be seen as Southerns that want to conserve the "old habbits" against "innovative" Northerns

3) Ideology and Propaganda

Many people debate if the "Unification of Greece" was Philip's real intention or his real goal was the Hegemony of the Greek World. Well in a manner of speaking the whole question is "childish" because no matter what Philip's goals were the fact is that after Chaeronea the "common peace" was a reality and until Alexander's death-with some exceptions- the Greeks stopped their "old bad habbit" of civil wars.

So Philip's position in the "Common Peace" theme is exactly the one of Abraham Lincoln's in the "liberation of the Afroamericans" theme. Let me remind you an "Ab" Lincoln quote:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

So it's only fair to say that what ever their real intentions were , Lincoln is credited with the liberation of the colored and Philip with the achievement of the Common Peace among Greeks.

4) Philip and Lincoln

These two great men shared many similarities.

i) Unifiers and nation savers in their nations' difficult times
ii) Able politicians and great "speechmakers"
iii) Both wrongfully accused by their opposite site : Philip a "barbarian" (aka "non Greek") and Lincoln a "Tyrant" (when John Wilkes Booth shooted him clamored "sic semper tyrannis !! , Latin: "Thus always to tyrants").
iv) Both men unfortunately were assassinated , but fortunately had computed the biggest part of their missions.

5) The Battles : Chaeronea and Gettysburg

i) Both battles are considered the turning points of their contestual political conflicts and the begining of the "unification" procedures.
ii) The result in both battles was based in tactical advantages of one side against irrational movements of the other side. Philip made a strategic retreat backwards in order to mislead the Atheneans to advance and break their lines , meanwhile in Gettysburg John Buford's selection of the battlefield and the preservation of the hills on the Union's side misleaded Robert E. Lee in his irrational ordering of the " Pickett's Charge".
iii) Both battles had a "left flank heroism" . In Cheronea , Young Alexander's cavalry charge totaly destroyed the Thebans and gave a taste of "things yet to come" , meanwhile in Gettysburg , Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain's aristotechnic defence of Little Round Top and his bayonet charge are one of the battle's most important moments.
iv) Cavalry innovations. Philip was the first Greek that used the Cavalry as a frontal unit with direct attack role . Before him , most Greeks had no cavalry and the few that had it (Thessalians) used it as a lateral protection of the phalanx that prevented outflanking. In Gettysburg , much of Buford's success was a result of the newly suggested skirmish frontguard cavalry (Buford was a student of the works of General John Watts de Peyster, who was a strong advocate of making the skirmish line the new line of battle).

DIFFERENCES

Gettysburg was a three day battle that is considered the turning point of the conflict , but the conflict itself continued further long. After the conflict's end the Unification was permanent.

Chaeronea from the other part was an one day battle , that caused immediately the end of hostilities , but -unfortunately- it's resulting unification was transitional , since Greeks proved to be much more "secessionists and stubborns" and their later refragmentation and civil wars were the main reasons of their easy annexation by the Romans.

This quote by Curtius Rufus shows that the Makedonian were Hellenes:

"Holy shadows of the dead, I’m not to blame for your cruel and bitter fate, but the accursed rivalry which brought sister nations and brother people, to fight one another. I do not feel happy for this victory of mine. On the contrary, I would be glad, brothers, if I had all of you standing here next to me, since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions."

Alexander the Great addressing the dead Greeks of the battle of Chaeronia. Curtius Rufus

^^

Pou to brikes afro? To psaxno alla den to brisko se kanena biblio tou Rufus.