Was he a barbarian comparable to Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan?

>we never got the planned exploration of the whole coast of africa from egypt to the pillars of hercules and likely founding of greek colonies all along the way

then how comes Greeks viewed Macedonians as barbarians?

they didn't
>On the contrary the vast majority of literary sources make a lucid distinction between Macedonians and Barbarians. Usually the sole “evidence” used by its supporters are the politically-motivated orations of Demosthenes and Thrasymachus.

Read more history-of-macedonia.com/2010/03/27/ancient-macedonians-greeks-or-barbarians/

>As far as I am aware

Then read a fucking book you retard. You ever heard of Pericles?

Because they didn't, this is a myth.

Big empire doesn't equal superior culture.I never heard of the mongol culture overshadowing everyone else's.Yes the Persians had a big empire and a culture of their own but the Greeks were not inferior.Not at all.City states can still produce culture even when they are fighting each other.

They didn't.

Mongols were backwards nomads who counqured a big piece of the planet under a charismatic ruler, and their Empire only lasted for about a century.
You can't really compare it to Persian Empire, that lasted for many centuries and build upon pre-existing Empires.
And the real golden age of Greek culture kicked in only after the age of Alexander

They did.

The Greeks viewed any society which lived under a King as not free, and therefore barbaric.

you don't know what barbarian means

educate yourselves

> Attila the Hun

Mindless savage only in for the loot and plunder.

He was a fucking parasite.

> Genghis Khan

Now we're fuckin talking.

Proper conqueror.

However;

1) Most of his battles were won by his generals, in a lot he was not even present.

2) He killed far more people, Alexander murdering/enslaving 30k in Tyre is seen as horrifying, for the Mongols, that is an average weekend.

Alexander still takes the cake, he was present and led his troops in all his battles, was never defeated and killed/enslaved far less civilians.

>and their Empire only lasted for about a century

Nice meme. It was just split into different Khanates. If you say this, you also have to admit the Roman Empire ended in 395 AD.

I dont think anybody would deny that Roman Empire lost much of its power by splitting in two

>Nice meme. It was just split into different Khanates. If you say this, you also have to admit the Roman Empire ended in 395 AD.
That's actually not a hard thing admitting unless you're a byzaboo.

After Constantine it was split into two separate administrative jurisdictions: the far more prosperous and cosmopolitan east, and the West whose cosmopolitan centers were gradually crumbling, reducing vast swathes of the population to rural squalor. 476 AD was never considered the death of the proper Roman Empire but rather the crippled, bankrupt, and ineffectual court of the Western Roman Emperor, and the Eastern portion went along as normal. Justinian's dream of reuniting the empire died with the arrival of the Justinian plague, which permanently altered the course of world history, and by the early 7th century cultural drift had produced a distinctly new culture which was wholly Greek in character and possessed only a nominal historical link to the ancient regime.

>Ancient Greeks didn't think so
Only elitish snubs who had an incentive to shit on them because they wanted to go to war with them called them barbarian, and it was mostly due to the fact they were once a vassal to Persian Empire and their political system was still an absolute monarchy like of the Basileus' in Homer, instead of an oligarchy or democracy that most poleis had (Sparta was often excluded from such condemned thoughts because their monarchy was viewed as more of a wise balanced of power). They viewed such systems that manage to last generations to one ruler as a characteristic of servile people; a State having a Tyrant is one thing because they mostly only last a single generation before getting removed.

Let me ask you, if Macedon was barbarian, how come:
1. The Pella Curse tablets, which were pre-Phillip 2, written in Greek
2. Treaties between Amyntas III and the Chalcidians, found in Olynthus, written in Greek (393 and 383 BC), and doesn't mention or imply Amyntas and Macedons as being a separate people as the Greeks, but has both parties not agree to ally themselves with other local Greek regions. There were treatise-inscriptions with between Greeks and non-Greek people in Anatolia that were bilingual, how come this one isn't? There's also other European people that adopted the Greek script to write in their own language by the 5th century, how come the Macedonians didn't use it to write in their own language if it was seperate?
3. Other Greek orators of time addressed the Phillip and Macedonians as Greek
4. Thucydides, who comes off more snubbish against the Macedonians, says that Macedonians' ancestors came to the country from Argos and expelled the original inhabitants of Pella from their land, then set up a kingdom that incorporated the non-Hellenic tribes but also gave them their own autonomy from Macedon it-self.

Lies! He was butt bros with Hephaestion.

Name one thing the Macedonians ever contributed to Greek culture.

Sacking Thebes and teaching those treacherous paedophiles the meaning of fire and steel.

The Macedonian phalanx.

Macedonians were to ancient Greece what Prussia was to pre-unification Germany.

Unlike the Spartans, which were a carefully balanced oligarchy with twin monarchy in a primarily religious and military role, the Macedonians were a straight up military autocracy

Most of the Greek language evidence can be summed up with Greek being lingua franca in diplomacy so of course they would have diplomatic writings in Greek.

>Other Greek orators of time addressed the Phillip and Macedonians as Greek

Saving face? Doesn't serve Greek pride well to have their superior enlightened culture get ass-ravaged by mountain-dwelling sheep-fuckers.

1. Koine Greek
2. siege craft
3. Alexander that made their name relevant
4. made them more unified for a period of time than any other point in then-history
5. Thessaloniki
>Greek being lingua franca in diplomacy
Except it wasn't yet. They would've just used pages to translate shit. If they evidently had the knowledge of syllabic writing, why not just write in their own language for shit like the Pella curse tablets, instead of their own language, like the Iberians, Gauls, and Phygrians did with the Greek-script? Even though the Achaemenids used Babylonian-Akkadian and Aramaic for adminstrative and diplomatic purposes, they still wrote down Old Persian in cuneiform for monuments and inscriptions.

Another point to consider, is that in one of Darius' Old Persian inscriptions, he sets listing off the names of his subjugated lands. One of people he names is the ' Skudra' (believed to be the Thracians and other European tribes), Yaunians (Ionians), and Yaunians Takabarâ (Ionians with the shield-like hats), and other Persian inscriptions that list their subjects, they mention 'Yaunians' and 'Yaunians across the sea'. The Macedonians were notable for wearing special hats called 'Kausia's that look like shields. Pic related, it's a painting of a Macedonian soldier from the Vergina tombs.