Which is better? All things considered

Ancient Greece Obviously.

Although they were far more successful in empire building, the Romans to me seem like Wal-Mart brand imitation Greeks.

Greece was the educated language of the ancient world. Greek scholors were hired all across the Med. (including in Rome). Greek scholors also jump started science/mathematics. Need I say more?

I like Rome better; their culture included the best of the Greeks', plus many others, including Etruscan, something you won't find anywhere else.

Ahh, I can't vote! I like the best of both worlds. You know, the one that was around for a thousand years after the First Rome fell.

Rome (and I consider the late Eastern Roman Empire a mixture of both, not fully included in either).

I consider the late Eastern Roman Empire a mixture of both, not fully included in either
Exactly. There should be an 'other Rome; the guys who had the Romania name first and then sort of transferred it to the guys who have it now' option. That'd make me happy.

I guess since I'm a Diadochi and Hellenistic era nut, I'd have to go with the Greeks.

Rome (and I consider the late Eastern Roman Empire a mixture of both, not fully included in either).

I consider the "original" Rome also a mixture of both. In truth it was never separated when those two elements met.

I consider the "original" Rome also a mixture of both. In truth it was never separated when those two elements met.

Granted that the Byzantine Empire was more Greek than the Roman Empire.

Granted that the Byzantine Empire was more Greek than the Roman Empire.
But it was the Roman Empire. :p

But it was the Roman Empire. :p

Depends on how you slice the cake. I don't call the Byzantine Empire "the Roman Empire" - I call it either the Eastern Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire. I suppose you could call it the Roman Empire.

Its like having two cousins named John - you call one John, the other Jack, just to avoid potential confusion.

the Eastern Roman Empire, and weren't they Greek Orthodox?

Depends on how you slice the cake. I don't call the Byzantine Empire "the Roman Empire" - I call it either the Eastern Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire. I suppose you could call it the Roman Empire.

Its like having two cousins named John - you call one John, the other Jack, just to avoid potential confusion.

I see it as calling John after adulthood as John. Certainly John has changed but he is still John. Calling him Jack because he has changed over time is redundant IMO.

I see it as calling John after adulthood as John. Certainly John has changed but he is still John. Calling him Jack because he has changed over time is redundant IMO.

I see empires in terms of their culture and people, as well as their name. Several medieval kingdoms considered themselves "The Roman Empire" (the Holy Roman Empire, the Ostrogoth kingdom and the Franks under Charlemagne (sp?), for three), yet they were not Latin. They had their own distinct people and culture, and though they encompassed much of the land the former Roman Empire had, they were not Latin.

Now the Eastern Roman Empire was Latin, for the first several centuries after the Western Roman Empire fell. I do not try to deny that. But you cannot argue that the later Byzantine Empire was Latin - it was distictly Greek. As such, two distinct entities were formed - much like two different branches of the same species. They were closely related; but I still do not count the Byzantine Empire as the Roman Empire.

I see empires in terms of their culture and people, as well as their name. Several medieval kingdoms considered themselves "The Roman Empire" (the Holy Roman Empire, the Ostrogoth kingdom and the Franks under Charlemagne (sp?), for three), yet they were not Latin. They had their own distinct people and culture, and though they encompassed much of the land the former Roman Empire had, they were not Latin.

Now the Eastern Roman Empire was Latin, for the first several centuries after the Western Roman Empire fell. I do not try to deny that. But you cannot argue that the later Byzantine Empire was Latin - it was distictly Greek. As such, two distinct entities were formed - much like two different branches of the same species. They were closely related; but I still do not count the Byzantine Empire as the Roman Empire.

I see empires in terms of which there goverment is , which their culture is and which their name is. The eastern Roman empire did not call it self Roman .It was always the Roman empire from 40 BC until 1453 AC . It was not magically formed when Costantine moved the capital.

You may wish to call it differently but it was still the Roman empire.

Now whether it culturally changed. I have to say it did but that part of the Roman empire was still more Greek than Latin.

But it was still Roman. Even before the division of the Roman empire in two , Roman did not mean Latin. So i don't know where you are coming from if Latin and Greek even before the even idea of an eastern Roman empire existed co existed , that they where mutually exclusive.

And actually the Roman empire was greatly influenced by the Greek element.
So instead of trying to divide between Roman and Greek why can't we do what the Romaioi did on themselfs ? They accepted both elements as not mutually exclusive. And the added Christian orthodox one as a new part of their Roman identity.

So if we want to make a distinction we either give a different meaning to the name Romaios after a certain time frame or we don't make such distinction. Inventing the word Byzantium for telling us things we can tell on ourselfs is redundant.

Because we basically have the Romans gradually accepting some new elements into their Roman culture. I refuse to invent a name for that situation when it is not needed.


All above in a friendly tone.

the Eastern Roman Empire, and weren't they Greek Orthodox?
Not until 1054. :p But yes. Not that they would have called themselves that for a long time - they just thought of themselves, even after the Great Schism, as "Christians".
Several medieval kingdoms considered themselves "The Roman Empire" (the Holy Roman Empire, the Ostrogoth kingdom and the Franks under Charlemagne (sp?), for three)
That's one. Theodoric's Ostrogoths never claimed the title of Roman Empire, but remained servants of the True Roman Emperor in Constantinople (hmmm!), who was actually the one who had sent them into Italia in the first place. And Charlemagne's Franks were the Holy Roman Empire. :p
Now the Eastern Roman Empire was Latin, for the first several centuries after the Western Roman Empire fell. I do not try to deny that. But you cannot argue that the later Byzantine Empire was Latin - it was distictly Greek. As such, two distinct entities were formed - much like two different branches of the same species. They were closely related; but I still do not count the Byzantine Empire as the Roman Empire.
Is the United States of today the same as the United States of 1789? Are the Germans of today the same as the Germani of 9? There's an awfully good reason Greco-Roman is often conflated, after all. As for the "culture" difference, half of the Roman Empire never was 'Roman'. Official business was often done in Greek, although Latin was used as well. (Of course, only one city-state was ever technically 'Roman', i.e. Roma itself, and extending its culture to the rest of Italia is folly, as any student of the Social War can see; the extension of a 'Roman Imperial' culture into the western half of the Empire does not mean that it was by any stretch the same thing as the original Romans did, thought, wrote, or said.) That half still decided to call itself Roman and had a capital named 'Roma' (well, technically 'New Roma'). 'Byzantine', being entirely an invention of Enlightenment French thinkers and Westerners who had this inflated image of themselves such that they were the only descendants of Roma and that nobody else ought claim the title, is frankly an abomination of a term. I personally am going to go with what they called themselves, i.e. Romans. Unless you know better than they themselves what they were.

Though ancient Rome in the poll would indicate that medieval Rome is out of the question.

Though ancient Rome in the poll would indicate that medieval Rome is out of the question.
Quite. Which is why I voted for ancient Greece. The fifth century in Hellas was nothing short of astounding, and the wars of the Diadochi would make a smashing film if they weren't so confusing (so many people...oyyy...it's hard to keep them all straight sometimes). Intrigue...conflict...disaster...epic adventure stories...globetrotting...great battles...I'd go watch it, if only to boo Kassandros. Who was a jerk. :lol:

Would you cheer Seleukos ?

Would you cheer Seleukos ?
Nah, I liked Antigonos Monophthalamos and Demetrios Poliorketes better. :D They were the only ones who had a shot at keeping the empire together under a single ruler. Too bad Demetrios went the wrong way at Ipsos...:mad: bloody fool shouldn't have chased after Antiokhos like he did...moron...

That's one. Theodoric's Ostrogoths never claimed the title of Roman Empire, but remained servants of the True Roman Emperor in Constantinople (hmmm!), who was actually the one who had sent them into Italia in the first place. And Charlemagne's Franks were the Holy Roman Empire. :p

For the Ostrogoths, I double checked. Odoacer was claiming to be viceroy of Italy, not emperor of Rome. My bad.

As for the second part, yes, Charlemagne was ruler of the Frankish Holy Roman Empire. I was refering to also the German Holy Roman Empire. You can consider both one-in-the-same; just in my mind, Charlemagne's empire was a Frankish kingdom, while the Holy Roman Empire later was a German one. Again, my bad.

Is the United States of today the same as the United States of 1789? Are the Germans of today the same as the Germani of 9? There's an awfully good reason Greco-Roman is often conflated, after all. As for the "culture" difference, half of the Roman Empire never was 'Roman'. Official business was often done in Greek, although Latin was used as well. (Of course, only one city-state was ever technically 'Roman', i.e. Roma itself, and extending its culture to the rest of Italia is folly, as any student of the Social War can see; the extension of a 'Roman Imperial' culture into the western half of the Empire does not mean that it was by any stretch the same thing as the original Romans did, thought, wrote, or said.) That half still decided to call itself Roman and had a capital named 'Roma' (well, technically 'New Roma'). 'Byzantine', being entirely an invention of Enlightenment French thinkers and Westerners who had this inflated image of themselves such that they were the only descendants of Roma and that nobody else ought claim the title, is frankly an abomination of a term. I personally am going to go with what they called themselves, i.e. Romans. Unless you know better than they themselves what they were.

Firstly, calling yourself something does not mean you are something. I understand what you are saying, but because the Byzantines called themselves "Roman" was merely a grip on the great memories of the past, and to try and dangle on that name in the hopes that it brought themselves the honor and prestige of Rome.

I use Latin and Roman interchangebly. Whether that is correct or not, I am not sure; but to cause no discreptencies, I will use "Roman".

And you said the only Latin state was Rome itself. This is true; but you cannot deny that Gaul, Britain, etc. all became Romanized. Rome's conquest brought the Roman way of life into Europe. I could definitely be wrong, but I do know that many areas kept their culture and way of life even after being incorporated into the Roman Empire; and I also know that many other areas did become Romanized.

Now, the Byzantine Empire did remain "Romanized" well after the fall of Rome. Before 1000 AD (and I am not trying to put a definite date down; I am just giving a generalized one) the Byzantine Empire was Roman in practice and culture. After 1000 AD, though, the emprie did become more and more Greek. After the Byzantines reverted away from their Latin roots, the only thing keeping them as the Roman Empire was that they called themselves the Roman Empire.

And yes, I would argue that the US of 1789 and the US today are the same, negating the technological differences. Our lifestyle changes as the world's changed; as such, it would have been impossible to remain an America of 1789 in this age. But, it would not have been impossible for the Byzantines to remain Roman in custom and language. Granted, the military, economy, etc. would have changed as the times/enemies did, but unlike the comparision between the US of 1789 and today, I do not see why Byzantium couldn't remain Roman.

Its like a comparision of Brazil and Portugal. One is the child of the other; but when you compare the two, there is a difference between Portugal, and Brazil. A slight one, but there is a difference. That is all I am claiming - there was only a small difference between the Byzantine Empire and the Roman Empire, but there was a difference nonetheless. A difference that should make the Byzantine Empire a seperate entity of the Roman Empire.

Like two related species in a family. Related, but not the same.

EDIT: A couple posts ago, I saw an interresting term. "Ancient Rome" and "Medieval Rome". I like that a lot - it shows that the two were related, but that they were two seperate entities.

Roma!!!

Legionary > Hoplite

Nah, I liked Antigonos Monophthalamos and Demetrios Poliorketes better. They were the only ones who had a shot at keeping the empire together under a single ruler. Too bad Demetrios went the wrong way at Ipsos... bloody fool shouldn't have chased after Antiokhos like he did...moron...

I had to wikipedia them to check who they where. And they where impressive. But didn't Seleukos after beating Antigonos have an even bigger chance of reuniting the empire ?


@Dreadnought. This is not Brazil and Portugal. If Portugal conquered Brazil and named it a part of the Portugal empire. It was subsequently influenced by Brazilian culture to the point that Portugal culture and Brazilian where one and the same although Brazilian culture had elements that where taken From Porugal culture. And after centuries they Portugal empire was divided in two. And "Brazil" was the only one remained , called Portugal. It would be anachronistic to not accept it as the Portugal empire. Because that what it was.

Claiming otherwise would be to claim that after centuries of them being part of the Portugal empire one day they awoke and they where not. When they themselfs say that they where still Portugals you can't draw that conclusion.

@Dreadnought. This is not Brazil and Portugal. If Portugal conquered Brazil and named it a part of the Portugal empire. It was subsequently influenced by Brazilian culture to the point that Portugal culture and Brazilian where one and the same although Brazilian culture had elements that where taken From Porugal culture. And after centuries they Portugal empire was divided in two. And "Brazil" was the only one remained , called Portugal. It would be anachronistic to not accept it as the Portugal empire. Because that what it was.

Claiming otherwise would be to claim that after centuries of them being part of the Portugal empire one day they awoke and they where not. When they themselfs say that they where still Portugals you can't draw that conclusion.

Brazil was part of Portugal's empire, Portugal's empire did split, and Brazil was the result of that split. Granted there was no feud over the name, but still Portugal's and Brazil's cultures are very similar, but not the same.

And neither Portugal nor Brazil would give their independence up to join the other. But that was the same as the Eastern and Western Empires - neither nation's emperor would bow to the other.

Brazil was part of Portugal's empire, Portugal's empire did split, and Brazil was the result of that split. Granted there was no feud over the name, but still Portugal's and Brazil's cultures are very similar, but not the same.

And neither Portugal nor Brazil would give their independence up to join the other. But that was the same as the Eastern and Western Empires - neither emperor would bow to the other.

I made a what if scenario that was the same with the one you compared it to. because you compared one scenario with another different one to form a conclusion. I could say Birds fly , Humans also fly therefor Humans are birds. But the reality is Birds fly due to a system that they naturally possess and are designed genetically to do so. Humans fly by creating machinery that can perform aviation.
Therefor Humans flight =/ Birds flight and Humans are not birds.


Brazil was part of Portugal's empire, Portugal's empire did split, and Brazil was the result of that split. Granted there was no feud over the name, but still Portugal's and Brazil's cultures are very similar, but not the same.

And neither Portugal nor Brazil would give their independence up to join the other. But that was the same as the Eastern and Western Empires - neither nation's emperor would bow to the other.

Brazil did not consider it self Portugal after it Split. And Portugal had a superior culture when those civilizations met. Rome on the other hand flourished with Greek culture. There where emperors that considered Greek culture superior and more Roman than Latin culture in the empire. (Hadrian) . It was a marriage of elements from the begining that concluded Roman as a combination of Greek culture and other cultures of the Roman world (Etruscan). Now if Brazil was a culturally superior civilization that lent much into POrtugal's empire. At a state that Portugal came to meet Brazilian + existing elements of Portugal. Then there would be no problem at it being called POrtugese.
empire .

You can't compare apple with oranges and reach a conclusion. That conclusion would be flowed even before it was formed.

In a few words. Roman = Existing Roman + Greek. Therefor Eastern Roman empire = Roman.

I made a what if scenario that was the same with the one you compared it to. because you compared one scenario with another different one to form a conclusion. I could say Birds fly , Humans also fly therefor Humans are birds. But the reality is Birds fly due to a system that they naturally possess and are designed genetically to do so. Humans fly by creating machinery that can perform aviation.
Therefor Humans flight =/ Birds flight and Humans are not birds.

I agree with what you are saying, but really: would there be any scenario in modern times that can illustrate the Roman debate?

And, honestly, I think my comparision between Brazil and Portugal is related enough to the discussion. Your comparision of birds and man is, no offense, pretty alien.

Brazil did not consider it self Portugal after it Split. And Portugal had a superior culture when those civilizations met. Rome on the other hand flourished with Greek culture. There where emperors that considered Greek culture superior and more Roman than Latin culture in the empire. (Hadrian) . It was a marriage of elements from the begining that concluded Roman as a combination of Greek culture and other cultures of the Roman world (Etruscan). Now if Brazil was a culturally superior civilization that lent much into POrtugal's empire. At a state that Portugal came to meet Brazilian + existing elements of Portugal. Then there would be no problem at it being called POrtugese empire.

Roman culture was the mix between Greek and Latin. I am not denying that. Byzantium, for a few centuries, was also that mix of Latin and Greek, but later the Latin component grew smaller and smaller until it disappeared.

I agree with what you are saying, but really: would there be any scenario in modern times that can illustrate the Roman debate?

And, honestly, I think my comparision between Brazil and Portugal is related enough to the discussion. Your comparision of birds and man is, no offense, pretty alien.

Exactly. That is why you don't need to compare it to anything to reach a conclusion. You just need to see it for what it was and throw arguments at that way.

My comparison with birds and humans seemed just as Alien as your example in my eyes.

Roman =/ just Latin to Roman people before the Eastern Roman empire.

Exactly. That is why you don't need to compare it to anything to reach a conclusion. You just need to see it for what it was and throw arguments at that way.

My comparison with birds and humans seemed just as Alien as your example in my eyes.

Roman =/ just Latin to Roman people before the Eastern Roman empire.

I am not denying that Rome was a mix of Greek and Latin. What I am saying is that there is a balance in the Roman empire that was not found in the Eastern Empire.

By the way, I am enjoying this debate. It has given me a perspective for this that I didn't see before.

I am not denying that Rome was a mix of Greek and Latin. What I am saying is that there is a balance in the Roman empire that was not found in the Eastern Empire.

By the way, I am enjoying this debate. It has given me a perspective for this that I didn't see before.

Was such balance in the Roman empire in the geographical region of Greece previously and was subsequently lost ? I think The Roman empire always had a more prevalent Greek part of those elements in the Greek region than in The Italian one. Would you call it not Roman ? When it is already part of the Roman empire and there is a Roman balance i don't think you have the right.

That creates many problems. How would you describe Hadrian who felt the Greek part of the empire as more important ?

I just think that when the inhabitants of those regions believed they had the right mixture of balance in elements to call themselves Romans and they where Romans (But if one starts changing his name eventually he changes his identity) , that all related to the Roman empire believed they had the right mixture of Romanity.

And they had been Romans for centurees so if you came there and called them anything as not Romans they will laugh at it. So i don't think you have the right to call them anything other what they where. Romans with maybe a changed mixture of Greek and other Elements over time.

They were Romans in nothing but name. Their cultures was Greek at the later stages of the empire. As such, their geography close to Greece made them Greek, but the Latin aspect of the empire was exterminated by the Greek aspect. Geography explains why they were more Greek, but does not validate why they were still Roman. And I will repeat this again, just because Bill says his name is Bob doesn't mean Bill's name is Bob.

I had to wikipedia them to check who they where. And they where impressive. But didn't Seleukos after beating Antigonos have an even bigger chance of reuniting the empire ?
Not really. Seleukos couldn't beat Antigonos on his own; he had to ally with Lysimakhos and Kassandros to even come close (Ptolemaios Soter didn't help them of course, because like all Ptolemaioi he was a sneaky, lazy prick. :p) But it is true that Seleukos was able to get almost all of the empire together immediately before his death, after defeating Lysimakhos at Korupedion, but was assassinated by Ptolemaios Keraunos before he could march against Egypt. But by that time the Ptolemaioi were securely entrenched in Egypt, so I think that had Antigonos won in 301 BC he would have had a better chance of dislodging the Ptolemaioi than Seleukos would have had in 281 BC.
I am not denying that Rome was a mix of Greek and Latin. What I am saying is that there is a balance in the Roman empire that was not found in the Eastern Empire.
The balance was never really the 'same' in the Western Empire either throughout its history.

What my whole point is is that the Roman Empire after the creation of Odovacar's viceroyalty/Scirian kingdom/whatever it was (an eminently debatable subject) never relinquished the institutions of the Roman Empire. The government stayed the same, with alterations as time went on much as the 'full' Empire had; the linguistic situation was largely the same as it had been for the inhabitants of those districts of the Empire that continued to refer to themselves as part of the Roman Empire in the days of the original Empire; the religious situation was largely the same (for another half-millennium anyway); and the military was organized in the same way until it too was forced to undergo reforms to keep up with the times. For me, referring to the Eastern Roman Empire as 'Byzantine' would be like refusing to call modern-day Greece Greece, despite the fact that it is missing Constantinople, the Ionian coastline on the eastern side of the Aigion, and for most of its history was sans Rhodos, Kriti, and the other islands off the coast, along with Thessaloniki and Ioannina. It also begs the question of what you will refer to as 'the United States of America' when the WASPs are finally outpopulated by the Hispanic immigrants...:p

They were Romans in nothing but name. Their cultures was Greek at the later stages of the empire. As such, their geography close to Greece made them Greek, but the Latin aspect of the empire was exterminated by the Greek aspect. Geography explains why they were more Greek, but does not validate why they were still Roman. And I will repeat this again, just because Bill says his name is Bob doesn't mean Bill's name is Bob.

They where not Romans in Name. They where the Roman empire. You could say they where Romans only in government. Which would be more correct but still not quite as correct.

And please stop with those analogies. I could make an analogy about any Nation not being what they are because they do not have the right mixture of something. But why should i make an outrageous analogy to prove something that does not require an analogy to do so.


Not really. Seleukos couldn't beat Antigonos on his own; he had to ally with Lysimakhos and Kassandros to even come close (Ptolemaios Soter didn't help them of course, because like all Ptolemaioi he was a sneaky, lazy prick. ) But it is true that Seleukos was able to get almost all of the empire together immediately before his death, after defeating Lysimakhos at Korupedion, but was assassinated by Ptolemaios Keraunos before he could march against Egypt. But by that time the Ptolemaioi were securely entrenched in Egypt, so I think that had Antigonos won in 301 BC he would have had a better chance of dislodging the Ptolemaioi than Seleukos would have had in 281 BC.

Well i just consider military defeats more inevitable than assasination attempts. Although both are equally inevitable because they happened ,the one makes for better what if scenarios. So what if Seleukos was not assassinated ?

Saying the government is Roman is one thing. But by saying that, since the government was Roman, that the Empire was Roman, is a whole different matter.

And with your Greece thing: Yes, Greece would still be Greece, mainly because the Greek culture as a whole as evolved in such a way that all Greeks in Greece are Greek.

Now, if you said modern Ionia called itself Greece, I would debate that, simply on the grounds that Ionia is not Greece at all geographically, and the cultures have been subsequently different.

EDIT: First of all, I still hold by my original point - Rome was Latin (or Latin/Greek, pick your poison). But, the Byzantine culture by 1000 had changed to Greek. That is not an opinion - that is fact. Second of all, I like analogies. I see nothing wrong with my "outrageous" analogy that just because someone says they are someone, doesn't mean they are.

It was the Roman empire because the people understood all cultural changes as cultural changes happened to Roman people. It was the Roman empire with a Roman government and with Roman people because they did not understand changes in culture as an abandonment of their existing Roman identity.

Such change would happen in the Enlightment after 400 years of Ottoman Occupation where they could not recreate the Roman empire Due to also political reasons , because the way they realized identities had changed. Thus we have the birth of the modern Greek state although in vilages their were people who even in the 20th century called themselfs Romioi. So at one point in History i agree that Roman ceased to exist and started to mean only Greek. But the eastern Roman empire was still Roman. That period happened many years later and was deeply related to the enlightment , to the independance war which was far easier to motivate people to fight for national freedom not for an empire AND to the situation in Europe at the time which was again related to the enlightment.

Now you may ignore what i say or you may think it over as i may have a perspective on the history of that region you don't.

Yes, it was a cultural change. But Rome, from its founding to its fall, did not go through a major cultural change. Eastern Rome did go through a cultural change, and the outcome was Byzantium.

Yes, it was a cultural change. But Rome, from its founding to its fall, did not go through a major cultural change. Eastern Rome did go through a cultural change, and the outcome was Byzantium.

That's because the times were changing.

Yes, it was a cultural change. But Rome, from its founding to its fall, did not go through a major cultural change. Eastern Rome did go through a cultural change, and the outcome was Byzantium.

What in the world are you talking about. There was never Byzantium. Even if there was a cultural change there was never an entity named Byzantium. Where did you find Byzantium in history other than from thin air ?

And Rome did went to a cultural change , after , during and before it's fall. So did the Eastern Roman Empire. Most notably after it's fall. The people living in those areas do not miraculously disappear.

Anyway if you wish to discuss this , i wish you increase the level of discussion. I am willing to discuss about the level of cultural change but not if Rome suddenly become Byzantium. That is just pseudohistory.

That's because the times were changing.

Times were changing. As such, I agree in changes to the military, economy, etc. But I do not see why a major cultural change was necessary.

What in the world are you talking about. There was never Byzantium. Even if there was a cultural change there was never an entity named Byzantium. Where did you find Byzantium in history other than from thin air ?

And Rome did went to a cultural change , after , during and before it's fall. So did the Eastern Roman Empire. Most notably after it's fall.

Anyway if you wish to discuss this , i wish you enhase the level of discussion. I am willing to discuss about the level of cultural change but not if Rome suddenly become Byzantium. That is just pseudohistory.

Byzantium is 'short' per say for Byzantine Empire. You have never heard the Byzantine Empire called Byzantium? Its like calling the United States of America "America" for short.

Could you please enlighten me to the cultural change that the Western Roman Empire went through prior to its fall? I understand it became barbarian after the fall, but...

Times were changing. As such, I agree in changes to the military, economy, etc. But I do not see why a major cultural change was necessary.

So long as Romans themselves inflicted the changes on themselves there is no reason to not call them Romans because you think they have changed . And there was not a major cultural change when the Greek element from the time it met with the Roman element has always been a part of the Roman identity.

Now If the Ottoman empire conquers the Roman empire and calls it self the Roman empire you would be justified at disputing it's claim.

But this isn't like a game of Civilizations. the Eastern Roman Empire didn't chose to become Greek. It happened naturally over time; little by little, until the results added up.

Well i just consider military defeats more inevitable than assasination attempts. Although both are equally inevitable because they happened ,the one makes for better what if scenarios. So what if Seleukos was not assassinated ?
He'd have got Makedonia in addition to his extant empire. But I doubt that, even if he had marched on Egypt, that he would have been able to maintain control there. The Ptolemaioi had done an excellent job of insinuating themselves into the Egyptian government by then (for having had such little time) and were very well entrenched. I suppose he did have a chance but Antigonos would have had a much easier time of it, seeing as Ptolemaios wasn't fully in control of Egypt yet.
Now, if you said modern Ionia called itself Greece, I would debate that, simply on the grounds that Ionia is not Greece at all geographically, and the cultures have been subsequently different.
The Treaty of Sevres, as well as a whole lot of descendants of the Greeks that were either genocided by the Turks or who fled Ionia to escape the aforementioned genocide would disagree with your claim that Ionia isn't Greece geographically. :p
EDIT: First of all, I still hold by my original point - Rome was Latin (or Latin/Greek, pick your poison). But, the Byzantine culture by 1000 had changed to Greek. That is not an opinion - that is fact.
But it wasn't "Greek" at all. An Athenian from 440 BC would not have even come close to recognizing the language (Koine as compared to the myriad of dialects of classical Greek), religion, governmental institutions, clothing, or even a lot of the idioms that a resident of the Aigion littoral in 1000 would have. The Roman Empire by 1000 was as different, culturally, from the classical Greeks as it was from the Romans of the Principate.
Yes, it was a cultural change. But Rome, from its founding to its fall, did not go through a major cultural change.
I would strongly disagree with that. The Romani of the Kingdom had a different pantheon, a different language (because 'ancient' Latin was nearly indecipherable to many Romani in the time of the Republic and the Empire), dress, style of government, and world outlook than did the Romani of the Dominate a thousand years later. Roma changed just as much between the urbe condita and the ascension of Constantinus as between Constantinus I and Konstantinos IX.

@Dreadnought
I think you have things way too defined in your head. I agree they didn't chose to become Greek. They where Romans with heavily influenced Greek culture and also Christian orthodox culture.

I wonder if you consider Christian Romans as Romans as there culture did change from their ancestors substantially in that factor and due to that factor. And i am referring to the Christians of the Western Roman empire before it fell. Where they Romans ? Or Christians ?

In this subject of identity i usually call them Romaioi Ellines Christianoi Orthodoxoi. Because that is what they where. If you choose to exclude any of the above elements you are being pseudohistorical. If you decide to describe them with the term Byzantium you again are pseudohistorical because you invent a term to explain the characteristics of people when you don't have to.

Adding another identity when such are found rather than removing them is another solution to the identity problem.

There is also anothe solution , It is so because one is constantly repeating it and they have changed because one says so. In that case i say that i have already "Discussed" this with you as much as i should because you completely ignore what i have to say. I mean the discussion makes little progress.

He'd have got Makedonia in addition to his extant empire. But I doubt that, even if he had marched on Egypt, that he would have been able to maintain control there. The Ptolemaioi had done an excellent job of insinuating themselves into the Egyptian government by then (for having had such little time) and were very well entrenched. I suppose he did have a chance but Antigonos would have had a much easier time of it, seeing as Ptolemaios wasn't fully in control of Egypt yet.

Oh well. I just consider assassinations more "Unfair" than military defeats so in my eyes Seleukos had a bigger chance.

Since when has Greek only been compared to itself in 440BCE? What would you call Greece culture in the time of the Byzantine Empire?

@scy12: Dude, this is a debate. This isn't a duel to the death. I am defending my side, and listening to yours.

And I haven't made any comments against you, just your idea. I haven't labeled you as pseudohistorical or ignorant or whatever.

Meanwhile, religion, though a major part of it, doesn't define culture. I could remain American by switching faiths; it doesn't make too much of a difference to be called a "change of culture".

And I did not invent the term Byzantium! Byzantium refers to the name of the city Constantinople before it was renamed by Constantine.

Finally, I am American, and I am Christian. Am I not American because I am christian?

What I am argueing is that Eastern Rome was more Greek than Roman. I am not arguing that they called themselves Roman. I am not arguing that Byzantine was a term made in the 18th century.

I am listening to what you have to say, and commenting on it. I would be ignoring what you have to say if I just kept repeating my idea without countering yours.

Since when has Greek only been compared to itself in 440BCE? What would you call Greece culture in the time of the Byzantine Empire?
I would call it Roman, or Greco-Roman. :p

Since when has Greek only been compared to itself in 440BCE? What would you call Greece culture in the time of the Byzantine Empire?

Greek culture + Christian culture + other cultures of the Roman identity of that particular empire and people.

I just don't consider any element of the sum of the parts to be mutually exclusive of the other.

And funnily enough there is a group calling the Eastern Romans not Greek enough because they where Romans. I have a more convenient outlook on it. They where both Romans , Greek and Christians. And i do consider the last one just as important as the other two as a characterization. So you can either call it Roman and mean all three. Call it Christian-Greek-Roman or invent a word to call it but that word would come out of not history but thin air.

I edited the above post.

You don't seem to understand.

I am willing to call them Eastern Romans.

I am not willing, however, to call them Romans in their own right.

They where both Romans , Greek and Christians. And i do consider the last one just as important as the other two as a characterization.
This is basically what I think. I call them 'Roman' because they called themselves Romaioi; the fact that they used a Greek word to do it means that they are something not quite Roman and not quite Greek, but something between. Since 'Byzantine' is wholly made up and really ought only refer to that Greek city-state that charged an awfully high toll on the Bosphorus (and which was allied to the Ptolemaioi more often than not), I default to 'Roman'.

EDIT: Usually I say 'Eastern Roman Empire' to differentiate and not confuse people, but sometimes I shorthand it to 'Roman' when I'm too lazy to type out the entire thing. :p

I have to go. So, until tomorrow, I will leave my closing remarks.

I am willing to call the Eastern Roman Empire: Eastern Roman, Byzantine, Greek-Roman, what have you. But I don't think Eastern Rome should be labeled as Rome.

And I'd like to repeat that this debate was very enjoyable. Thanks again for your opinions on the matter.

This is basically what I think. I call them 'Roman' because they called themselves Romaioi; the fact that they used a Greek word to do it means that they are something not quite Roman and not quite Greek, but something between. Since 'Byzantine' is wholly made up and really ought only refer to that Greek city-state that charged an awfully high toll on the Bosphorus (and which was allied to the Ptolemaioi more often than not), I default to 'Roman'.

Hey , Well we could call them Romaioi. But then we have to adapt the word in English then. Which puts me in thinking how would future historians judge us ?

The thing is , didn't they call themselves Romaioi even long before the eastern Roman empire ?

Anyway i agree that we should not use the Byzantine term and use the Roman one while keeping in mind their distinctive characteristics over that time frame . Which we must do about Romans of other time frames as well.


EDIT: Usually I say 'Eastern Roman Empire' to differentiate and not confuse people, but sometimes I shorthand it to 'Roman' when I'm too lazy to type out the entire thing.

Well i usually use only the Eastern Roman empire so people can understand at which time frame i am talking about but i am also using just the Roman empire when one claims that the Roman empire ended at the fifth century. I think at the point the empire was divided they should be called as western and eastern to avoid confusion.

Hey , Well we could call them Romaioi. But then we have to adapt the word in English then. Which puts me in thinking how would future historians judge us ?
So long as we're not Greek...:p...I fully support this and would use it, if I ever encountered somebody not on an English-language forum (or, gasp, in RL) with whom I would have occasion to reference the Eastern Roman Empire. Which is, sadly, seldom.
The thing is , didn't they call themselves Romaioi even long before the eastern Roman empire ?
They did. A real 'sea change' in cultural outlook there. ;)

So long as we're not Greek...:p...I fully support this and would use it, if I ever encountered somebody not on an English-language forum (or, gasp, in RL) with whom I would have occasion to reference the Eastern Roman Empire. Which is, sadly, seldom.

They did. A real 'sea change' in cultural outlook there. ;)

So long as we're not Greek...:p...I fully support this and would use it, if I ever encountered somebody not on an English-language forum (or, gasp, in RL) with whom I would have occasion to reference the Eastern Roman Empire. Which is, sadly, seldom.

If i ever discussed this in RL it would probably be with a Greek speaking person.
The argument there changes to Side A "They where not Greek enough" against side B "They where Greek enough". My answer would be "They where Jack of all trades."

They did. A real 'sea change' in cultural outlook there.

I mean how would the most likely Greek speaking Romans call themselves. How did Hadrian call himself when he was speaking in Greek ?

Ancient Greece. The birthplace of western culture.

I mean how would the most likely Greek speaking Romans call themselves. How did Hadrian call himself when he was speaking in Greek ?
There's an Antinous joke here, but I'm not going to make it. :lol:

The residents of the eastern half of the Roman Empire generally referred to themselves as 'Romaioi', same as they did after Odovacar made the little boy Romulus Augustulus run away to Campania.

People always say that the later Roman empire (that is, the Byzantine empire) was culturally Greek, but no-one ever seems to explain what that means. In what ways, exactly, had the empire's culture changed (say by AD 1000) to make it more Greek than Roman? As far as I can tell, its culture had certainly changed, but not in a notably "Greek" fashion; Byzantium in AD 1000 was a lot less like Athens in 400 BC than it was like Rome in AD 200. The only difference is the language.

Anyway, the answer to the poll is clearly Greece. The Roman empire was built upon violence both abroad and at home. It was a brutal and appallingly sexist society in which women and children were routinely murdered for the purposes of social engineering and violent death was presented as jolly entertainment for the masses.

Anyway, the answer to the poll is clearly Greece. The Roman empire was built upon violence both abroad and at home.
Huh, what empire wasn't?? EVERYTHING was built on violence!! From Ancient Egypt to the Soviet Union!!! The European Union is the only thing I can think of that was not built on violence. And plus, I'm pretty sure people had way better living conditions in the empire than outside it.

It was a brutal
While Greece was not brutal at all... and the Ancient world was not brutal at all either. :p

and appallingly sexist society
Sexist maybe, I'll give you that. But don't forget that again, much of the world was still sexist until much more recently than the Roman Empire.

in which women and children were routinely murdered for the purposes of social engineering
Can you elaborate? And apart from that, weren't others the ones famous for doing it more often? Like... Sparta? :p

and violent death was presented as jolly entertainment for the masses.
Is the problem with the fact that the gladiators got killed in the process? Or that it was presented as "jolly entertainment for the masses"? Because if the latter is the case... well.... we have much more awful and terrifying stuff today in horror movies. Much more gross, too. Should I point out how in modern entertainment people who kill hundreds of others are presented in a fabulous light?

I find it amazing how everyone in the UK seems to be completely anti-Roman... I really wonder why that is.

Huh, what empire wasn't?? EVERYTHING was built on violence!! From Ancient Egypt to the Soviet Union!!! The European Union is the only thing I can think of that was not built on violence.

Maybe all empires are indeed built on violence; but why does that affect the issue at hand? The question was whether Rome was preferable to Greece, not whether it was preferable to the Soviet Union. Of course it's a pretty vague question because we're not told which period of history we're talking about or which elements of those cultures. Classical Athens is the period of Greece I know most about so I suppose I'm thinking primarily of that. The Athenian empire was a lot smaller than the Roman one, so to that extent, it was less wicked.

And plus, I'm pretty sure people had way better living conditions in the empire than outside it.

I don't know about that. No doubt some people did, but in what ways was the average non-elite inhabitant of the Roman empire better off than anyone outside the empire? I ask that as a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

Sexist maybe, I'll give you that. But don't forget that again, much of the world was still sexist until much more recently than the Roman Empire.

That's an over-simplification. The Middle Ages, for example, were considerably less sexist than both antiquity and early modern times. It was quite common for women to own their own businesses in the Middle Ages whereas it was extremely unusual in the Roman empire.

Don't forget, too, how young women generally were when they were married. In theory a girl could not be married before the age of 12, but there were no legal penalties for marrying someone even younger, and there's good evidence that such marriages were quite common. It was perfectly common for a girl to be having her first child at the age of 12 or 13, and about half of all Roman girls could expect to be married before the age of 15. All of this was inspired not only by an apparent desire to rape children on the part of many Roman men but also by the fact that a husband would take all of his wife's property when he married her; a married woman couldn't own anything. This is why widows were always expected to remarry as quickly as possible: a single adult woman owning stuff was a social anomaly.

Of course this sort of thing was quite common in antiquity, although I don't know if other societies were as extreme as Rome. But it certainly wasn't universal. Christians didn't share these attitudes towards child brides, brutalising of women, or widows.

Can you elaborate? And apart from that, weren't others the ones famous for doing it more often? Like... Sparta? :p

Most people in the Roman empire wanted sons and not daughters, rather like Chinese in modern times. I'm sure you know how common the practices of exposition or simple child murder were when people had unwanted children, above all girls. Abortion was also a common practice in the Roman empire, and was performed by a variety of very nasty methods, such as the husband simply kicking his wife in the stomach until she miscarried. Procedures such as this very often resulted in the death of the woman, and don't forget that the woman would generally have had no choice in the matter too.

These practices led to a serious gender imbalance in the empire, which some estimates have put at as much as 4-3 in favour of men. In other words, a quarter of all the women who should have been living in the Roman empire weren't there. This is one of the major reasons why the empire suffered from a low birth rate, to the extent that emperor after emperor tried to encourage people to have more children.

Is the problem with the fact that the gladiators got killed in the process? Or that it was presented as "jolly entertainment for the masses"? Because if the latter is the case... well.... we have much more awful and terrifying stuff today in horror movies. Much more gross, too. Should I point out how in modern entertainment people who kill hundreds of others are presented in a fabulous light?

Come on, you know perfectly well that there's a big difference between a film which glorifies violence and an entertainment which involves the actual killing of people. However gory a horror film may be, no-one actually dies in the process of making it. We may think such films are bad because of the effects they have on people, but surely we can agree that whether they are bad or not, showing real deaths for entertainment is worse. And I'm not just talking about gladiators. Don't forget that a day at the circus always featured public executions as well, after the animal hunts in the morning but before the gladiator fights in the afternoon. The gladiators were presented as strong and brave, representing the "manly" virtues that Romans liked to think their empire embodied. The criminals, by contrast, were presented as weak and pathetic, wretches who had transgressed society's norms, and who were justly crushed. They executed in incredibly sadistic ways; think of all the martyrologies which depict naked Christians being tied up in nets and trampled by bulls, or roasted on griddles in front of baying crowds. Even public executions in medieval and early modern times generally dispensed with the torture and simply killed the victims, except in exceptional cases; in the Roman empire, watching someone get tortured to death was part of the normal day's entertainment. It wasn't just gladiators getting killed in the course of doing a dangerous and exciting job. It was the public humiliation and torture of the weakest people in society, displayed for the glorification of the state.

I find it amazing how everyone in the UK seems to be completely anti-Roman... I really wonder why that is.

No idea. Who else are you thinking of there?

The Roman empire was built upon violence both abroad and at home.

While the Greek cities spent their time fraternizing, and peacefully colonizing uninhabited strips of land.

It was a brutal and appallingly sexist society

I always heard Greek women were far less free...

Agreed on pastimes: theatre is better than ludii.

While we're on the subject of violence and all, IMHO I think despite the violence of conquest and certain "sport" of questionable moral value, the Romans are the more tolerant of the two. When considering Roman history, keep in mind that it doesn't only include what we commonly thought as Roman culture. The Empire is essentially multicultural, with Roman culture interacting with many of the conquered but older cultures around the Empire. Greeks, for most of the time, tend to impose their culture on other people rather than interacting with them. This is perhaps a reflection of the political structure - Greece consists of city-states, not an empire like Rome.

Talking about citizenship, the Roman Empire would give foreigners citizenship after serving in the army, (I believe 20 years) after which he and his family would be citizens.

What was the Greek policy on becoming a citizen? As far as I can remember, many Greek city states were very up-tight about that.

I'm now a convert to the 'Rome and Greece were inseparable in the Middle Ages' cult i.e. the Eastern Roman Empire was not Roman nor Greek but a solid mix of Rome, Greece, Christianity, and developments over time and space. Of course in Civ terms it was just Rome with loads of Greek culture/Greek citizens in their cities... :mischief:

As for the poll, Greece for the win because Greek history in general is so romantic (oh God, I just found that so funny with this edit).

As for the poll, Greece for the win because Greek history in general is so romantic (oh God, I just found that so funny with this edit).
I'd like to forestall the inevitable "Sertorius" response to this post by saying that most of what you will read about Sertorius is recent revisionist BS and that according to, say, Plutarch, he was a vicious and kinda brutal dude. In addition to being an excellent general, of course. He was still not a nice guy. And definitely not romantic.

Rome used the Greekness and made it better.

ITALIANS DO IT BETTER.

Infraction for spam and threadjacking point irrelevant to discussion. - KD

Rome used the Greekness and made it better.

ITALIANS DO IT BETTER.

That what they thought at the start of WW2 until their theory was put to test.

Infraction for baiting post. - KD

That what they thought at the start of WW2 until their theory was put to test.

OMGZ LOL HAHAHAHAHAHA. Dats so original lol :lol:



Note the present tense in "Italians do it better". World War II was from 1939-1945, don't you know? That's in something called the past, spelt P-A-S-T. Therefore, the phrase "Italians do it better" and the past are two mutually exclusive things. You show your ignorance in your post.

OMGZ LOL HAHAHAHAHAHA. Dats so original lol :lol:



Note the present tense in "Italians do it better". World War II was from 1939-1945, don't you know? That's in something called the past, spelt P-A-S-T. Therefore, the phrase "Italians do it better" and the past are two mutually exclusive things. You show your ignorance in your post.

But then, with your wording in the present tense, how does your statement contribute, seeing as the Romans were in the past...?

Rome used the Greekness and made it better.

ITALIANS DO IT BETTER.

OMGZ LOL HAHAHAHAHAHA. Dats so original lol :lol:



Note the present tense in "Italians do it better". World War II was from 1939-1945, don't you know? That's in something called the past, spelt P-A-S-T. Therefore, the phrase "Italians do it better" and the past are two mutually exclusive things. You show your ignorance in your post.

Troll ? Rome = present or past ? You decide. What in earth does the comment Italians do it better have to do with the thread then if it does not have something to do with your other sentence.

Anyway i think Trolls are more related with other civilizations than the Greek and the Roman one.

Though they come in many sizes. Maybe in the present Italy is better at producing Trolls than other regions. Are you an Italian Troll ? (although you are a multinational group)

Troll ? Rome = present or past ? You decide. What in earth does the comment Italians do it better have to do with the thread then if it does not have something to do with your other sentence.

Anyway i think Trolls are more related with other civilizations than the Greek and the Roman one.

Though they come in many sizes. Maybe in the present Italy is better at producing Trolls than other regions. Are you an Italian Troll ? (although you are a multinational group)

You know what happens when you fight fire with fire? The fire gets bigger.

Trolling to a troll does nothing.

But then, with your wording in the present tense, how does your statement contribute, seeing as the Romans were in the past...?

Ask scy why he is talking about WWII if this thread is about Ancient Rome.

I could feed you and say that the reason i did so was that Italians which where formed later as a nation have nothing to do with Rome in the first place and so i replied on the subject of Italians and not Romans. It is obvious you are a troll. Your subsequent comment about past and present was also amusing.

Trolling to a troll does nothing. Indeed but atleast it gives the impression to the troll that people are aware of his nature. To the other participants it provides few to no results though. Maybe it is masochistic to do so .

I could feed you and say that the reason i did so was that Italians which where formed later as a nation have nothing to do with Rome in the first place and so i replied on the subject of Italians and not Romans. It is obvious you are a troll. Your subsequent comment about past and present was also amusing.

Please feed me, I am a hungry troll.

Anyway , what always amazed me on regard of Rome was not the culture , not the legion not the history but the Roads , Bridges and generally their building techniques. They certainly improved and possibly as Etruscans where originally better in this subject than the ancient Greeks. And to be frank later on when the Etruscan element and the Greek element merged they created a great civilization but what certainly surpused what a Greek empire had at those points was certainly the Roman roads,bridges and generally the great techniques they used at building them.

Medieval Europe certainly lacked on that respect. The Cement like material needed time to be reinvented also.I see Rome as a combination of elements but i see the road infrastructure as something distinctly more Etruscan-Roman than Greek. And i do think it is certainly a big accomplishment.

Yes, I do agree with you.

(By the way, you don't have any troll food about, do you? Im real hungry! Thanks!)

Infraction for continual baiting. Pls use the report function if you have an issue. Thx. - KD

I like Rome better; their culture included the best of the Greeks', plus many others, including Etruscan, something you won't find anywhere else.

So, from whence came the desire to see hundreds of people fighting and dying every holiday? What about the penchant for genocide and mass enslavement? The excessive militarism? Paranoia? technological stasis?

Those all uniquely Roman thing, huh?



I'm pretty sure people had way better living conditions in the empire than outside it.


Why?


I find it amazing how everyone in the UK seems to be completely anti-Roman... I really wonder why that is.


They're not. The majority of people (pretty much everywhere) would be easily classified as pro-Roman. Partly because nobody bothers to cast a critical eye over history-as-written-by-the-victors. It doesn't help that our main source of classical texts, the Catholic Church (and monk copyists), had been selectively deciding which texts to copy and pass down for significant number number of centuries. They've found it suits their interest to copy out Roman texts saying nice things about Rome whilst leaving out other texts giving a slightly more nuanced view.

Not that I disagree or anything, lovett, but do you happen to have arcane objective knowledge on Rome?

Why?
Because with the exception of Parthia, the Roman Empire expanded to every spot on or near its borders that encompassed lands with a non-subsistence economy, i.e. the people were 'better off'. Then they made it even better with infrastructure improvements and had a relatively lax system of local government. What evidence exists to imply that the Romans weren't better off than their neighboring barbarian brethren?

EDIT: The above has been confirmed by archaeology, which is actually a better source of knowledge for the Later Roman Empire than the chroniclers are. :rolleyes:

Not that I disagree or anything, lovett, but do you happen to have arcane objective knowledge on Rome?

Nothing arcane, Im afraid. But it's not like anybody has gone out of their way to expunge any conflicting testimony regarding the fruits of Roman civilization. There's plenty of archaelogical evidence that throws doubt on the practice of splitting the ancient world up into two fractions: Rome and Barbarians. The barbarians being the less advanced, civilized and generally decent of the two.

There's also a few sources coming from protestant copyists, who were generally less concerned about propagandising for Rome. Indeed, several texts and accounts quite simply change when one read them in a less forgiving manner. Take Caesers conquest of Gaul for example. He killed about a million people, 1 in 4 Gauls. He enslaved another million. He massacred cities full of civilians and completely destroyed a booming and vibrant culture. By our standards, he's a killer on the order of Pol Pot or Idi Amin. But that stuff is convieniently ignored, after all, he was bringing the 'light of civilization' to those dirty barbarians. Right?

The main problem with properly assessing Rome is that the myth of Roman civilization is so strong and enticing. The story of a little city that became a world-spanning empire, an empire that spread civilization and the rule of law to the furthest corners of the world. That kept the torch of civilization burning until the slavering barbarian hordes broke down the gates, and plunged Europe into a thousand years of barbarism. You got yourself the makings of some good narrative tension right here.


Because with the exception of Parthia, the Roman Empire expanded to every spot on or near its borders that encompassed lands with a non-subsistence economy, i.e. the people were 'better off'. Then they made it even better with infrastructure improvements and had a relatively lax system of local government. What evidence exists to imply that the Romans weren't better off than their neighboring barbarian brethren? -Dachspmg

That seems like a rather perverse way of being better of to me. That the Roman empire produced a higher standard of living then everyone else, by the simple expedient of destroying everyone else. Perhaps it would be more useful to compare the living standards of provinces before and after Roman conquests. Although this isn't that easy, as the Romans wern't exactly the gentlest of people in victory.

Let's take the Celts as a case study. By 'Celts' im roughly refering to the people who inhabited modern France and the Atlantic seaboard (including Britain). It's very hard to claim that the Romans ruled these people better then they ruled themselves. Before being conquered, the Celtic world was a place of trade. The Atlantic allowed a system of interlinked societies to develop, each one dependent on trading with far-flung neighbours. Gold ornaments mined in Ireland have turned up in Cornwall, Normandy and Brittany, Necklaces from southern Iberia are found in the Orkneys, Northern Ireland and the Low countries. Celtic Society really wasn't primitively tribal. On a technological level they probably surpassed the Romans in many way. Iron working, certainly The forged ploughhares, steel blades and proper armour. The Romans thought that celtic smiths were magicians. Hell, they had even invented a harvesting machine. Pliny writes 'On the vast estates of Gaul very large frames fitted with teeth at the edge, and carried on two wheels, are driven through the corn by a team of oxen pushing from behind'. Bas-relief sculptures confirm his words, and a replica was built and tested in the 80's. It was basically a wheeled comb that beat off the ears of corn and deposited them into a container. It disappeared sometime between the second and third century AD, and harvesting became back-breaking manual labour with a sythe for another 1500 years.

Another area of superiority appears to be maths. Consider the Coligny Calendar. It was discovered at the end of the 19th, and appears to be an early celtic calendar. Frankly, it blows Roman time-keeping out of the water. Calendars are difficult thing, see. Mathematically one needs to the 12 lunar months with the solar year, which is not helped by the fact that neither last an exact number of days. The 'barbarians' could do it. The Coligny calendar is basically as good as our modern calendar, more or less. Each month starts at a new moon without festivals loosing their exact place in the seasons. The Roman, well. The seige of Alesia began on the 25th of June, according to the Roman calendar it was happening in December. That what happends when you can't do the math.

Celtic cities were also pretty impressive. They built long wooden road to link them together by land, and they were impressively large. Take Manching in Southern Germany. It was the capital of the Vindelici and sported walls five miles in circumference. There was a cluster of cities that size. One of the largest lies between modern-day Stuggart and Ulm. The walls enclosed a huge connurbation over 6 miles in area. Just for comparison, the Aventine walls enclosed barely a quarter of that. Obviously, you only get cities that size with a strong financially-fit trade based economy.

It helped that the Celts were so much richer then the Romans. In terms of gold, it's estimated they mined about seventy tons of the stuff. Gaulish Gold mines a hundred feet deep have been excavated in Dordogne. They have fully lines galleries that used Archimedes screw pumps to prevent flooding. Socially, of course, I think it hard to say that Roman culture came as an improvement. To mention just a few thing, in Celtic society women tended to have full-rights, could own property and divorce their husbands. Roman society, not so much. Freedom of religion was also an interesting Celtic affectation, as well as spending money on things apart from your military.

That was the Celtic world before Roman invasion. Afterwards, the Romans had a habit of culturally assimilating people. It's hard to make a direct comparison on whether Roman Governance was any better of course, partly because the invasions tended to devastate the land. Obviously Gaul was worse of after being conquered, but how much of that was due to the million dead, the million enslaved, the cites raped for loot as opposed to opportunistic governance.

The fact that technology declined and cities fell in size suggests that Roman rule didn't bring great benefits to the people in question. As for a 'relatively lax systems of local goverments', it does make me wonder if we're thinking of the same Roman empire. Unless im completely wrong, it's my recollection that it was the Roman empire which inevented serfdom. Diocletian (or perhaps Constantine) initiated a series of economic edicts which effectively tied abourers to their land. They wern't allowed to travel without permission. They also tied tradesmen to their professions. If the son of a taylor wanted to own a farm he was given the middle finger, in no uncertain terms. If you were a taylor, you and all your descendents in pepetuam would be taylors. I don't think this is particularily lax.

Nothing arcane, Im afraid. But it's not like anybody has gone out of their way to expunge any conflicting testimony regarding the fruits of Roman civilization. There's plenty of archaelogical evidence that throws doubt on the practice of splitting the ancient world up into two fractions: Rome and Barbarians. The barbarians being the less advanced, civilized and generally decent of the two.
Sure, there were obviously levels of 'civilization' amongst the 'barbarians'; the La Tene Celtic culture, for example, was a good deal more advanced than the Jastorf (higher quality pottery, higher standard of living, generally better metallurgy, somewhat cleaner) and the nomads of the Russian steppe were nothing near as civilized as, say, the Sweboz or the Casse of Europe. But there is even more archaeological evidence showing that by the time the Roman Empire reached its full extent, outside of Parthia, none of its neighbors had even close to the standard of living, technological development, and infrastructure that could be found within the Empire. There is significant evidence for a gradual diffusion of Roman agricultural technology and practice outside of Roman borders starting in the first centuries BC and AD, but even four hundred years after the process began the development was insufficient to allow most of the advances the Romans had, but plenty sufficient to allow Germania and the lands beyond the Danube to become overpopulated, leading to an awful huge knock-on domino effect when the Huns started making their way westward in the 360s and 370s. Even in the fifth century, when one would think that those barbarians would have caught up to the stagnant Romans, one finds along the Danube in the Hungarian Plain, in the heartland of the Hunnic Empire, gravesites with many artifacts of Roman origin; virtually nothing original of value, save perhaps their composite bows, was of Hunnic or Germanic manufacture in the Hunnic tombs. Finally, there is the 'evidence' (if one would call it that), of the many thousands of barbarians who came across the Rhine and Danube frontiers seeking asylum and a new life in the Roman Empire, from Augustus on down to the Greuthungi and Tervingi. Yet no Romans were fleeing the Empire to live with the barbarians.

Life inside the Roman Empire, even for a peasant (who in fact would be doing extremely well in the Later Empire given the agricultural boom everywhere in the Empire except Italy and northern Gallia), was far superior to that on the other side of the Rhine and Danube. Claims that the barbarians were less 'decent' are of course bollocks, but there's also no need to go around idealizing them as the noble savages either.
There's also a few sources coming from protestant copyists, who were generally less concerned about propagandising for Rome. Indeed, several texts and accounts quite simply change when one read them in a less forgiving manner. Take Caesers conquest of Gaul for example. He killed about a million people, 1 in 4 Gauls. He enslaved another million. He massacred cities full of civilians and completely destroyed a booming and vibrant culture. By our standards, he's a killer on the order of Pol Pot or Idi Amin. But that stuff is convieniently ignored, after all, he was bringing the 'light of civilization' to those dirty barbarians. Right?
:rolleyes: Yes, he was a mass murderer; no one would dispute that. (Although those numbers seem off - a little high; I'll see what I can dig up. The ancient Romans have always had an odd penchant for inflating casualty counts just as the American army in Vietnam did, and Caesar always had his eye towards making his conquests look more impressive.) Romans were uniquely good at killing people. But the fact that Romans killed lots of people does not mean that the 'barbarians' automatically became superior to them, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of life in either place. Life in Germania and non-Roman Europe was a singularly undocumented existence, but when one sees that the barbarians, when sacking Roman cities, often did things just as terrible as Roman actions against the barbarians - witness the many destructions and sackings of Aquileia (Italy's doormat), or the behavior of the Cimbri after the Battle of Arausio, or (for something even earlier) the Gallic actions towards the Roman colonists in northern Italy after the north Italian colonies were abandoned during the Second Punic War.

Life in Germania and non-Roman Europe was a singularly undocumented existence, but when one sees that the barbarians, when sacking Roman cities, often did things just as terrible as Roman actions against the barbarians - witness the many destructions and sackings of Aquileia (Italy's doormat), or the behavior of the Cimbri after the Battle of Arausio, or (for something even earlier) the Gallic actions towards the Roman colonists in northern Italy after the north Italian colonies were abandoned during the Second Punic War.

I made an edit to my previous post, which hopefully addresses some of your thoughts.

To the above, I'd just add that what's irking is the difference in perception. Roman conquests are find and dandy, the bringing of civilization to barbaric areas. When the Romans enter a city, they caputure it. When barbarians enter a city, apparently they 'sack' it. Take Alarics 'Sack of Rome' for example. After quite a bit of provocation, he finally enters Rome and sacks it. This sack consists of virtually no rape, as little bloodshed as possible (by Alaric's orders) and very little looting. A few fires were started, but the city was hardly damaged at all. Yet for a thousand years or so, this event was depicted as the razing of Rome by the barbaric Barbarian hordes.

In contrast, when Rome does something like raze a city to it's foundations and salt the ground it was built on (Im looking at you, Cathage), and in all enact a destruction so complete that not a single sentence of Punic survives, it's seen as an interesting historical event. A deserved Roman victory after a century of war.

I can't help but see a double standard here.

I made an edit to my previous post, which hopefully addresses some of your thoughts.
It does; I wouldn't pretend to be anything close to an authority on Celtic history (or even pre-imperial period Roma). I guess the issue that the Gauls had was more of an organizational and centralization one than a technological. One in which they were so far behind as to put them at a horrifying disadvantage.

There is an often cited passage from Priscus' diplomatic history in which a Roman and a Roman merchant who lived with the Huns (and had done so for many years) had a conversation about which system was better. They were able to agree that the Romans had one great advantage over the non-Roman barbarians: their system of law, which guaranteed the rights of property. 'Amongst the Romans there are many ways of giving freedom. Not only the living but also the dead bestow it lavishly, arranging their estates as they wish; and whatever a man has willed for his possessions at his death is legally binding.'

As to city size, IIRC it only declined immediately after the Roman invasion, and by the period of the Later Empire Gallia had easily recouped any population losses from Caesar's invasion and more. Southern Gallia was one of the more prosperous places in the Western Empire.

My point about the Roman relatively lax local government was that it was nothing compared to modern interference by the national government at the local level. All the Later Empire did was collect taxes from the lower levels, and all other policies were largely up to the curials on the town councils who implemented them. The locals paid taxes, if they needed to be protected the imperial army would be deployed, and outside of that tit-for-tat the state did very little to meddle in local affairs. Diocletianus' economic reforms, outside of streamlining the budget and tax system, were sheer idiocy, and the exception to the above rule. The oft-cited Maximum Prices Edict was ignored within the time of his reign. He did essentially create serfdom, the economic implications of which seem to have not been negative (though the social implications would be beyond me as a political/military historical student); the mechanics for enforcing it seem not to have existed, so I'm not sure what effect Diocletianus' edict could actually have had. He was kinda 'ahead of his time' in what he thought the central government could make the locals do, and certainly by the end of Constantinus' reign little remained of all but the budgetary and tax reforms that Diocletianus had put through.
To the above, I'd just add that what's irking is the difference in perception. Roman conquests are find and dandy, the bringing of civilization to barbaric areas. When the Romans enter a city, they caputure it. When barbarians enter a city, apparently they 'sack' it. Take Alarics 'Sack of Rome' for example. After quite a bit of provocation, he finally enters Rome and sacks it. This sack consists of virtually no rape, as little bloodshed as possible (by Alaric's orders) and very little looting. A few fires were started, but the city was hardly damaged at all. Yet for a thousand years or so, this event was depicted as the razing of Rome by the barbaric Barbarian hordes.
Yes, Alaric's sack was relatively controlled. Was Geiseric's? :p (That, at least, has been discussed at least once on these boards.) The double standard that you refer to - when it does appear, and frankly the Americans with whom I have occasion to discuss history (very few of them exist sadly :() are either too uneducated to know the difference or don't have this aforementioned double standard - is retarded. Romans were awfully nasty and didn't really have the polish that the Greeks did - what they were was organized and brutal, and that won them an empire. Which is part of the reason I voted for the Greeks. :p

There's also a few sources coming from protestant copyists, who were generally less concerned about propagandising for Rome.

I don't wish to dispute your basic point, but I was puzzled by this. What sources are you thinking of? Given that there weren't any Protestant copyists (Protestantism began after the invention of printing) I'm not sure what you mean. I'm also not sure why you think that Catholic copyists tried to whitewash the Roman empire - after all, the most vitriolic attacks upon the Roman empire are found in Roman Christian authors such as Tertullian, Cyprian, etc - indeed, the book of Revelation consists in large part of a sustained attack upon the wickedness of Rome.

Yes, Alaric's sack was relatively controlled. Was Geiseric's? :p (That, at least, has been discussed at least once on these boards.) The double standard that you refer to - when it does appear, and frankly the Americans with whom I have occasion to discuss history (very few of them exist sadly :() are either too uneducated to know the difference or don't have this aforementioned double standard - is retarded. Romans were awfully nasty and didn't really have the polish that the Greeks did - what they were was organized and brutal, and that won them an empire. Which is part of the reason I voted for the Greeks. :p

Well, that's a tricky one. I'm inclined to belive that Geiseric's sack of Rome was of the medium-violence-mainly-looting character. I.e, certainly far more brutal then Alarics sack of Rome, but not a traditional barbarian led bloodbath. As per the Vandals in general, I think they're on the recieving end of some very bad press. During their migration they never usually went in for loot and plunder. They left Iberia and Gaul relatively untouched.The invasion of Africa was pretty gentle too. It helped that nobody was really able to oppose them, but they were also seen as liberators. The fact that they chopped the enormous taxes the empire levelled (to pay for the army) won them popular support. When Geiseric started to capture cities, it was always most defininitely a capture. The Vandals didn't loot or burn, because they intended to rule. Indeed, after capturing Cathage the Vandals could be said to have improved it's moral fibre somewhat (;)). Regardless of a partial freedom of religion thing (the Catholics really wern't into that) they banned bloodsports and reduced alcohol consumption. Huh.

Mainly they're so associated with destruction because of there 'vandalism' of the catholic church. Geiseric was an Arian, who exiled over 5000 catholic churchmen and stopped the persectution of Donatists and Pelgians. He basically replaced the Catholic orthodoxy with a leaner, far less wealthy one.


What sources are you thinking of? Given that there weren't any Protestant copyists (Protestantism began after the invention of printing) I'm not sure what you mean. I'm also not sure why you think that Catholic copyists tried to whitewash the Roman empire - after all, the most vitriolic attacks upon the Roman empire are found in Roman Christian authors such as Tertullian, Cyprian, etc - indeed, the book of Revelation consists in large part of a sustained attack upon the wickedness of Rome.

Apologies. I mispoke by saying 'Protestant'. Replace it with 'Non-Catholic Christianity' and you get the general idea. Mainly, the Irish wing of christianity have given us several interesting non-classical texts. Take the Brehon Laws, for example. It's a collection of texts passed on by Irish copyists, which describes the system of law celtic society tended to work with.

Cathol monastries seem to have been uninterested in any sources that cast 'Barbarians' in a light that lent itself to any interpretation other then 'barbaric'. It's always been in the Churchs interest to selectively preserve some texts, destroy others and create new ones. That's why one has the relative paucity in sources from 'Barbarian' areas. Nobody preserved them. The point of this was to discourage paganism, a cause the Church was rather devoted to. For example, the one remaining Bronze statue of a pre-christian emperor, Marcus Aurelius, survives only beecause the image was thought to be that of a christian. Pop Gregory the great tried to surpress the works of Cicero and burn all the manuscripts of Livy that he could get his hands on. The general idea being to destroy any sources or texts that didn't jive with what the monks approved.

Right, although of course everyone did that to at least some degree, not just Catholics. But that doesn't seem to me a glorification of Rome at the expense of "barbarians" or of Greece - it's a glorification of Christianity at the expense of paganism. So pre-fourth-century Rome wouldn't be glorified at all under that mentality.

Don't forget that it was quite common among early Christians to refer to Christianity as "the barbarian philosophy", originally a term of abuse from pagan philosophers, but one which they made their own. So even within the Catholic tradition there was an element of glorification of the "barbarians" as well as one of trenchant criticism of the Roman empire.

Neither of them.I prefer Byzantine empire.

That's just a continuation of the Roman Empire, in the Greek territories.

Romans were awfully nasty and didn't really have the polish that the Greeks did - what they were was organized and brutal, and that won them an empire.

Greeks did that well before, but it didn't grant them any Empire: must have been something else. Besides, the reasons why Gaul impoverished can't be only Rome: after all, Greece and her culture developed well under Roman rule...

A consideration: slavery was worse in Greece than in Rome where the law grew more and more liberal towards them (heh, Nero, who was previously debated here, gave them the right to take masters to court if mistreated).

An item for discussion: the Melian dialogue (http://www.wellesley.edu/ClassicalStudies/CLCV102/Thucydides--MelianDialogue.html), which should be studied in every school to gain understanding of politics.

Well, that's a tricky one. I'm inclined to belive that Geiseric's sack of Rome was of the medium-violence-mainly-looting character. I.e, certainly far more brutal then Alarics sack of Rome, but not a traditional barbarian led bloodbath.
Well, I usually go by Victor of Vita in this, who said that the returning Vandal fleet after the sack had enough human cargo in it to have the bottom drop out of the slave trade. And I'm not sure what you mean by 'traditional barbarian led bloodbath' either.
As per the Vandals in general, I think they're on the recieving end of some very bad press. During their migration they never usually went in for loot and plunder. They left Iberia and Gaul relatively untouched.
By 'leaving Iberia and Gaul relatively untouched' do you mean 'almost completely wiping out the imperial infrastructure there'? There's a famous quote from a Roman living in Gallia who was an eyewitness (Orientus): "All Gaul was filled with the smoke of a single funeral pyre." Moguntiacum was sacked, Augusta Treverorum was nearly leveled, Durocortorum was torched, and then from there they fanned out all over the Gallic countryside. They took two years to get across Gallia alone and by the time they were done, Gallia had been ruined so badly that after forty years of rebuilding and reconstruction it still wasn't entirely finished when the Huns rolled through. And then Hispania was hit badly too. Hydatius mentions 'disasters' that left many of the Hispanic inhabitants dead, allowing the Sweboz, Hasdingi, Alani, and Silingi to carve up Hispania into little mini-kingdoms. Prosper of Aquitaine says 'He who once turned the soil with a hundred plows, now labors to have just a pair of oxen; the man who often rode through splendid cities in his carriages now is sick and travels to the deserted countryside wearily and on foot. The merchant who used to cleave the seas with ten lofty ships now embarks on a tiny skiff, and is his own helmsman. Neither country nor city is as it was; everything rushes headlong to its end [...] with sword, plague, starvation, chains, cold and heat - in a thousand ways - a single death snatches off wretched humankind.'
The invasion of Africa was pretty gentle too. It helped that nobody was really able to oppose them, but they were also seen as liberators.
First off, the religious tensions meant that nearly everybody in Africa hated the Vandali and Alani - they were Arian, while the inhabitants of Africa were largely Chalcedonian. Augustine's letters from the period are full of carping about the vile heretics besieging Africa; when the Vandali finally did manage to seize control, their domestic relations were singularly bad (as compared to the Ostrogothi, who did an excellent job of keeping the peace in Italy, or the Franki, whose conversion did wonders for the relations with the Chalcedonian Gallo-Romani), persecuting Chalcedonian clergy and expelling a few bishops from their sees. Here's a take on the Vandal invasion of Africa: 'Finding a province which was at peace and enjoying quiet, the whole land beautiful and flowering on all sides, they set to work on it with their wicked forces, laying it waste by devastation and bringing everything to ruin with fire and murders. They did not even spare the fruit-bearing orchards, in case people who had hidden in the caves of the mountains [...] would be able to eat the foods produced by them after they had passed. So it was that no place remained safe from being contaminated by them, as they raged with great cruelty, unchanging and relentless.' When the Vandali continued their assault in 439 (breaking, by the way, the peace that the Romani had granted them allowing a portion of Africa), this was the result: 'Where is Africa, which was for the whole world like a garden of delights?...Has our city not been punished cruelly because she did not want to draw a lesson from the correction handed out to the other provinces?...There is no one to bury the bodies of the dead, but horrible death has soiled all the streets and all the buildings, the whole city indeed. And think on the evils we are talking about! Mothers of families dragged off into captivity; pregnant women slaughtered...babies taken from the arms of their nurse and thrown to die on the street...The impious power of the barbarians has even demanded that those women who were once mistresses of many servants, have suddenly become the vile servants of barbarians...Every day there comes to our ears the cries of those who have lost in this assault a husband or a father.' As to being seen as 'liberators', we're talking about the same Vandali who forced so many of the people that they were theoretically 'liberating' to leave Africa that Valentinian had to enact legislation exempting these thousands and thousands of refugees from taxation and other obligations until they could get back on their feet, right?
The fact that they chopped the enormous taxes the empire levelled (to pay for the army) won them popular support.
No. Cutting taxes would have been suicidal for the Vandali, who were with one brief exception at war with the rest of the Mediterranean world for the remainder of their existence. Without trade between Africa and the rest of the Roman Empire, they had to maintain themselves by keeping production and taxation as high as they had been during the days of the Empire. Maintaining their pirate navy also cost a helluva lot of money, and even that didn't pay for itself; a lot of the funds they needed came from the land.
When Geiseric started to capture cities, it was always most defininitely a capture. The Vandals didn't loot or burn, because they intended to rule. Indeed, after capturing Cathage the Vandals could be said to have improved it's moral fibre somewhat (;)). Regardless of a partial freedom of religion thing (the Catholics really wern't into that) they banned bloodsports and reduced alcohol consumption. Huh.
Uh...source? Freedom of religion was definitely not the Vandal bag. Arian relations with the Trinitarians were as bad as Protestant-Catholic ones during the sixteenth century. The fact that Geiseric and his successors deliberately meddled with the Church leadership in Africa and either imprisoned, exiled, or killed anyone in their way, leads me to believe that he wasn't particularly interested in 'freedom of religion'.
Mainly they're so associated with destruction because of there 'vandalism' of the catholic church. Geiseric was an Arian, who exiled over 5000 catholic churchmen and stopped the persectution of Donatists and Pelgians. He basically replaced the Catholic orthodoxy with a leaner, far less wealthy one.
Actually, he wasn't all that nice to Donatists either. They didn't mesh too well with Arianism (or so I believe; Plotinus would be a much better person to ask about all this).

Interestingly enough in Greek Vandalos is synonymous with Hooligan with destroys property specifically monuments or with a person that has a predisposition at general destruction and usually for destroying such buildings. The act is named vandalism.

http://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%B4%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82

Actually it was introduced by others first it seems.

Yes, that's in English too. The name of the tribe is the genesis of the term.

The Romans were better engineers, but the Greeks were better architects, so my vote is for them.

Romans lasted 2 milennias, whilst Greece 2 centuries: need to say anymore?

The Romans were better engineers, but the Greeks were better architects, so my vote is for them.

Ehh? What a pile of crap...

Infraction for flaming. Pls back up your one-liner with arguments and do it politely, or don't say anything. Thanks. - KD

Actually, he wasn't all that nice to Donatists either. They didn't mesh too well with Arianism (or so I believe; Plotinus would be a much better person to ask about all this).

The Donatists didn't mesh at all with anyone. They were about as exclusivist as you can get. But you're right - they weren't Arian.

The Romans were better engineers, but the Greeks were better architects, so my vote is for them.

That's a joke, or what? :p I think the Romans were by far the best architects that existed in Europe until many centuries after they fell. :)

That's a joke, or what? :p I think the Romans were by far the best architects that existed in Europe until many centuries after they fell. :)
Not really. The Romans tended toward self-important, often somewhat tasteless facades. The Greeks were the true masters of expertly proportioned object buildings.
There are some excellent Roman buildings, I'll grant you, but many of these are feats of engineering, like the Pantheon. The Greeks produced things like the Parthenon, which were much more important in terms of architecture as an art. Don't get me wrong, the Romans were decent architects, but most everything they did they owe to the Greeks.

Not really. The Romans tended toward self-important, often somewhat tasteless facades. The Greeks were the true masters of expertly proportioned object buildings.
There are some excellent Roman buildings, I'll grant you, but many of these are feats of engineering, like the Pantheon. The Greeks produced things like the Parthenon, which were much more important in terms of architecture as an art. Don't get me wrong, the Romans were decent architects, but most everything they did they owe to the Greeks.

This is not correct. It's also true Greeks have extensively by Egyptians, Minoans and several middleastern civilizations. Does it makes they less importants? No IMHO.

Romans saw architecture more for a practical use, so they didn't care about beautiful as greeks.

Neither of them.I prefer Byzantine empire.

Then why did you dudes destroy it? :)

It's interesting to note that Mehmed II at least saw himself as the successor of the Byzantines.

Then why did you dudes destroy it? :)

Strictly speaking, Quildavyr did not destroy the Byzantine Empire.

Strictly speaking, Quildavyr did not destroy the Byzantine Empire.

Indeed i used the plural term "dudes" meaning "turks in general" not strictly Quildavyr.

Indeed i used the plural term "dudes" meaning "turks in general" not strictly Quildavyr.

Strictly speaking, the Turks in general did not destroy the Byzantine Empire. A few many, many years ago did.

Strictly speaking, the Turks in general did not destroy the Byzantine Empire. A few many, many years ago did.

Is this discussion important for this thread?

Is this discussion important for this thread?

no .

Indeed i used the plural term "dudes" meaning "turks in general" not strictly Quildavyr.

Whatever you meant, it was trolling. Please don't.

Then why did you dudes destroy it? :)

We have got many reasons;
-Out of curiousity
-Money
-Spreading Islam
-Need to take Constantinople for further advancement in Europa.
-For being more greater.

Strictly speaking, Quildavyr did not destroy the Byzantine Empire.

I would do it just for the reasons I listed above.

It's interesting to note that Mehmed II at least saw himself as the successor of the Byzantines.

Yeah.Actually the only difference between this two states is;Ottoman rulers were muslim and byzantine rulers were christians.And different ethnicity for that times.Today too little.

I would do it just for the reasons I listed above. And i would be the one to kill you if you attempted it.

But anyway that is off topic.

Yeah.Actually the only difference between this two states is;Ottoman rulers were muslim and byzantine rulers were christians.And different ethnicity for that times.Today too little.

No,there where one thousand and one differences between the two empires.

Anyway as we discussed the topic extensively how about the issue of which period of history of the Roman empire one prefers. The one after the western Roman empire fall and the Eastern Roman empire remained or the classical Rome.

I would do it just for the reasons I listed above.

I don't think the United Nations would like that. Look at what happened in 1974.

I don't think the United Nations would like that. Look at what happened in 1974.

Yes but UN only condemns it after it happens. The only ones who can stop it other the defending force are Powers or Superpowers.

And the USA and Soviet Union at the time did not dislike it so much as to attempt to avert it. A human catastrophe it was but they say , if there is a strong military pressence in the island and we still keep our bases (The Turks stopped at the point where there where the Brittish bases. Cyprus is the biggest aircraft carrier in the world) and we can still use Turkey for the middle east , that means we avert a war with two NATO powers because Turkey is s strong in the region it will not attempt to do anything else and Greece does not have the military to take it back , we keep our bases , and we remain pleased.


And the 200 000 people who lost their hopes the thousands of dead and raped was a non issue. It is really disgusting from you Quildavyr if you really meant that you would repeat another humanrights catastrophe for things you would not personally enjoy , which are territorial expansion of your country which respects human rights far less than any modern democracy should.

I really have no respect for a human being who does not give a damn for other humans.

Unless we lived at an age that War was the only way to survive , then i would have done the same i guess.

Iron working, certainly The forged ploughhares, steel blades and proper armour. The Romans thought that celtic smiths were magicians. Hell, they had even invented a harvesting machine. Pliny writes 'On the vast estates of Gaul very large frames fitted with teeth at the edge, and carried on two wheels, are driven through the corn by a team of oxen pushing from behind'. Bas-relief sculptures confirm his words, and a replica was built and tested in the 80's. It was basically a wheeled comb that beat off the ears of corn and deposited them into a container. It disappeared sometime between the second and third century AD, and harvesting became back-breaking manual labour with a sythe for another 1500 years.

I have some doubts about the steel blades. And I'm pretty sure that corn came from America, after 1500.

There has been, for the last 200 years or so, a tendency among some circles to glorify the Celts, with little proof to back it.


By 'leaving Iberia and Gaul relatively untouched' do you mean 'almost completely wiping out the imperial infrastructure there'? There's a famous quote from a Roman living in Gallia who was an eyewitness (Orientus): "All Gaul was filled with the smoke of a single funeral pyre." Moguntiacum was sacked, Augusta Treverorum was nearly leveled, Durocortorum was torched, and then from there they fanned out all over the Gallic countryside. They took two years to get across Gallia alone and by the time they were done, Gallia had been ruined so badly that after forty years of rebuilding and reconstruction it still wasn't entirely finished when the Huns rolled through. And then Hispania was hit badly too. Hydatius mentions 'disasters' that left many of the Hispanic inhabitants dead, allowing the Sweboz, Hasdingi, Alani, and Silingi to carve up Hispania into little mini-kingdoms. Prosper of Aquitaine says 'He who once turned the soil with a hundred plows, now labors to have just a pair of oxen; the man who often rode through splendid cities in his carriages now is sick and travels to the deserted countryside wearily and on foot. The merchant who used to cleave the seas with ten lofty ships now embarks on a tiny skiff, and is his own helmsman. Neither country nor city is as it was; everything rushes headlong to its end [...] with sword, plague, starvation, chains, cold and heat - in a thousand ways - a single death snatches off wretched humankind.'


There's also something strange with this: Why did the whole western empire collapse in the space of a century, when it was so much richer that the invaders? City walls were hastily erected to defend against the barbarians, apparently to no effect. Then during the 5th century most urban centers were abandoned (not simply burned: abandoned).
Several wealthy and well populated regions of the empire were periodically raided: Iberia occasionally from north Africa, Africa itself, Gallia and the whole Danube line regularly.

The Roman Empire's collapse is not unique. But is still seems strange that provinces such as those in Iberia and Africa (and Italy itself), with a few years to react to the 4th century invasions coming through Gallia, were unable or unwilling to put up a good fight, even on their own. Especially if the barbarians were indeed so damaging to the existing society. Could it it just be the effect of bad leadership and civil wars?

Greece = better.

No more threadjacking in this thread pls, or else I will close it and request you guys to start a new thread...

Yeah.Actually the only difference between this two states is;Ottoman rulers were muslim and byzantine rulers were christians.And different ethnicity for that times.Today too little.

I bet the Jews and Christians in the Empire think differently...

Infraction for continual threadjacking, and ignoring mod warning just above. - KD

Rome conquered Greece, so i guess romans were better in army and fleet.

But Greece was much, much more influential in philosophy, science, literature, music, architecture, and even religion.

In terms of benefits for civilization, Ancient Greece is no. 1. In terms of imperial splendor & military might, Ancient Rome is the king. The Ancient Romans are just following the Greeks.

Rome had a representative semi-democracy, but Athens had the real thing.

Rome had a representative semi-democracy, but Athens had the real thing.

It did in its arse. almost no one could vote.

But it's still better than no one voting at all. Besides, Athens was more democratic than the US until 1870.

But it's still better than no one voting at all. Besides, Athens was more democratic than the US until 1870.

IMO theres nothign denmocratic at all about only letting the rich vote, I dont consider it a lesser form of democracy, I dont see it as democracy at all. whats the difference bwteen letting only the rich make the decisions and letting only the party or the Royal family make all the decisions?

For ancient times, Athens was amazingly democratic. Also, they did let the poor vote.

But Greece was much, much more influential in philosophy, science, literature, music, architecture, and even religion.

You have to consider Greek golden age came 2 centuries before Rome's one. Greek made it before but not better. Roman empire was the main cause now we can read greek operas.

The Greek camp should address the point: Athens =/= Greece.

Athens =/= Greece.

:eek::eek::eek::confused:

The Greek camp should address the point: Athens =/= Greece.

This is in favor of the greece camp actually.

Can we not make broad generalisations that all Greek people are homosexual?

Infraction for trolling. Pls watch it. - KD

Can we not make broad generalisations that all Greek people are homosexual?

http://www.titoloonline.it/wp-content/uploads/800px-300.png

They agree ;)

Can we not make broad generalisations that all Greek people are homosexual?

Well , who made such generalizations in this topic ?

Well , who made such generalizations in this topic ?

Ahem, I believe you did with your references towards "Greek camp".

Ancient Greece PWNS Ancient Rome, besides, the Romans copied the Greek Gods....and then slightly changed them slightly and gave them different names....

Ancient Greece PWNS Ancient Rome, besides, the Romans copied the Greek Gods....and then slightly changed them slightly and gave them different names....

I've forgotten who conquered who. Was it the Greeks that conquered the Romans?

As if polytheistic systems differed greatly. So everyone copied the Greeks? Or maybe, just maybe, everyone from Egypt to Caledonia had, just to use an example, a sun god which they named as they pleased?

Militarially speaking, the Romans won, culturally speaking, the Greeks won.

The Romans were always going to be dominated by Greek culture, with their own being rather dull and entirely militaristic. Greek culture was remarkably adaptable, with such creations as Amon-Zeus (combination of Amon-re and Zeus).

As if polytheistic systems differed greatly. So everyone copied the Greeks? Or maybe, just maybe, everyone from Egypt to Caledonia had, just to use an example, a sun god which they named as they pleased?

Not everyone just the Romans. Or maybe, just maybe, everyone from Egypt to Caledonia had, just to use an example, a sun god which they named as they pleased? That is everyone , except the Romans which they just used Greek mythology/religion. The Roman pantheon is indeed the Greek pantheon only with some Gods having changed names. That does not happen with any other civilization of the time. In a way ancient Greece continue to exist even after it was conquered by the Romans. So as the Roman civilization is a large amalgam/mixture of Greek culture + past Roman culture , i can't see the votes to be mutually exclusive. For example a vote for the Roman empire could also be a vote for ancient Greece as well.

Ancient Greece PWNS Ancient Rome, besides, the Romans copied the Greek Gods....and then slightly changed them slightly and gave them different names....

I think you severely misunderstand the Roman belief system.

While it is true that the Romans had many gods in "their" pantheon that were more or less synonymous with many Greek gods, that's not how they saw it. Back then, there wasn't the attitude that "my god and my beliefs are correct, and everyone else's are wrong," rather, it was very syncretic; that is, if you worshipped a God of the Sun, and so did someone else, it was as if you called your father "pa," and your brother called him "dad" - neither is correct or incorrect. So long as you paid the sacrifice to Jupiter, the patron God of Rome, the Romans really cared less who you paid homage to. It is from this belief that the animosity between the pagan Romans and Christianity arose; the Christians would only pay homage to THEIR God, and no one else's, including the mandatory respects for Jupiter. Similar problems were had with the Jews.

So the Romans weren't really "stealing" Greek gods, they simply had their own names for similar gods. One could have just as easily acused the Greeks of stealing Egyptian gods, for the name of the supreme God was often said as being Amon-Re, or Amon-Zeus.

It is worth it to mention for the contrary argument, however, that the Romans were heavily influenced by the Etruscans, who were in turn by the Greeks, so the ultimate truth may be that their dieties were influenced by the Greeks, albeit indirectly. It is also true that the Romans greatly admired the Greeks, their culture, their language, and probably their gods and religion as well.

I think you severely misunderstand the Roman belief system.

While it is true that the Romans had many gods in "their" pantheon that were more or less synonymous with many Greek gods, that's not how they saw it. Back then, there wasn't the attitude that "my god and my beliefs are correct, and everyone else's are wrong," rather, it was very syncretic; that is, if you worshipped a God of the Sun, and so did someone else, it was as if you called your father "pa," and your brother called him "dad" - neither is correct or incorrect. So long as you paid the sacrifice to Jupiter, the patron God of Rome, the Romans really cared less who you paid homage to. It is from this belief that the animosity between the pagan Romans and Christianity arose; the Christians would only pay homage to THEIR God, and no one else's, including the mandatory respects for Jupiter. Similar problems were had with the Jews.

So the Romans weren't really "stealing" Greek gods, they simply had their own names for similar gods. One could have just as easily acused the Greeks of stealing Egyptian gods, for the name of the supreme God was often said as being Amon-Re, or Amon-Zeus.

It is worth it to mention for the contrary argument, however, that the Romans were heavily influenced by the Etruscans, who were in turn by the Greeks, so the ultimate truth may be that their dieties were influenced by the Greeks, albeit indirectly. It is also true that the Romans greatly admired the Greeks, their culture, their language, and probably their gods and religion as well.

So the Romans weren't really "stealing" Greek gods, they simply had their own names for similar gods. One could have just as easily acused the Greeks of stealing Egyptian gods, for the name of the supreme God was often said as being Amon-Re, or Amon-Zeus.This is an issue that we should not be politically correct about. The Greeks had names for similiar Gods than the Egyptians but their mythology was distinctive and different than the Egyptian one.Everyone bassically had similliar mythology. Exhept the Romans and the ancient Greeks.

Using similiar God is something but using the exact same Gods as Greece , giving them the same abilities and just calling her venus instead of aphrodite (And what does venus mean actually ?) does not costitute having a similliar pantheon. But i won't say they stole it as The Romans have a part in Greek legacy and are a part of it.


However Romans did have a distictive mythology about the creation of their city before they meet the Greeks. I don't know if they had a pantheon however.


The correct name would be greco-roman polytheism for the adopted Greek polytheism in Rome. However you are correct that they where also other Gods of other descent (Egyptian) that where allowed and took part in Roman ceremonies. And they created some other deites as well. So in conclusion they did use the Greek pantheon , and not similar Gods that just happened to be similar but also expanded it with more deites that their origin may have or may have not been from only the ancient Greece. So their Religion consisted of more than it , however it was quite dominant.

Some examples : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(mythology)
Mercury did not appear among the numinous di indigetes of early Roman religion. Rather, he subsumed the earlier Dei Lucrii as Roman religion was syncretized with Greek religion during the time of the Roman Republic, starting around the 4th century BC. From the beginning, Mercury had essentially the same aspects as Hermes, wearing winged shoes talaria and a winged petasos, and carrying the caduceus, a herald's staff with two entwined snakes that was Apollo's gift to Hermes. He was often accompanied by a cockerel, herald of the new day, a ram or goat, symbolizing fertility, and a tortoise, referring to Mercury's legendary invention of the lyre from a tortoise shell.
(Exactly the origins in the greek mythology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo

In Greek and Roman mythology, Apollo (in Greek, Ἀπόλλων—Apóllōn or Ἀπέλλων—Apellōn), is one of the most important and many-sided of the Olympian deities. The ideal of the kouros (a beardless youth), Apollo has been variously recognized as a god of light and the sun; truth and prophecy; archery; medicine and healing; music, poetry, and the arts; and more. Apollo is the son of Zeus and Leto, and has a twin sister, the chaste huntress Artemis. Apollo is known in Greek-influenced Etruscan mythology as Apulu. In Roman mythology he is known as Apollo. nitially the Roman god of fertility and vegetation and a protector of cattle, fields and boundaries, Mars later became associated with battle as the growing Roman Empire began to expand, and he was identified with the Greek god Ares.

And others ,etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome#Absorption_of_foreign_cul ts


I do consider a part of the Roman tradition in regard of the greek pantheon to be a continuation of the greek mythology . (Well the right name would be greco-roman mythology) And i do agree they where not stealing the others Gods. Just using them. I don't think that You can steal a neighbors idea anyway.

There's also something strange with this: Why did the whole western empire collapse in the space of a century, when it was so much richer that the invaders?
Thing 1: Yes, it was richer. But it had to deal with major issues in the form of the threat of the Sassanid Persian empire. That forced a major restructuring in the economic and budgetary systems of the Empire, such that the Eastern half of the Empire, which (along with North Africa) had hitherto borne the burden of most of the taxation for the imperial coffers (most of which went to the army) now was almost completely oriented towards the Persian threat; outside of an expedition every so often, the West was largely on its own. And it worked for over a century.
Thing 2: The problem was that by the time of the fifth century, the barbarians that had had much tinier populations than that of the Empire had, to an extent, boomed (which also had a side effect on political systems, allowing for the easier creation of overkings than previously; where once there were few, such as Ariovistus, one could now see the development of supergroups with kings like Alaric, Geiseric, Chnodomar, Attila, and Theodoric, to name only a very few). And the attempts to move on into the Empire with much larger populations than just a few raiders were huge. Generally a given barbarian tribe would invade the Empire, and if it had enough people to maintain a sufficient army it would be able to survive long enough to take control of a region and deprive the Empire of the tax money from the area it took. Domino effect: the more tribes take land, the less money there is for the Roman military, so the more tribes can invade the Empire and take more land. As for the military of the Western Empire, it seems to have done a highly respectable job during the fifth century, dealing with the numerous barbarian threats; when one considers that a force of roughly 100,000 quality soldiers and double that number of lower-quality frontier levies like limitanei were faced with at least triple their number in Migration Period Germanic tribesmen.
Thing 3: It is perhaps worth noting that the very few other times that one notes such a very huge number of Germanics invading Roman territory - the only one I can get offhand is the Cimbrian War - it caused a massive political, social, and military shakeup in the Roman Republic, which was barely able to deal with the threat, doubtless an ability aided by the apparent lack of interest by the Cimbri in invading Italia itself. And the Republic, having a largely levy-based army, was much more able to raise large numbers of troops quickly than the Empire was.
The Roman Empire's collapse is not unique. But is still seems strange that provinces such as those in Iberia and Africa (and Italy itself), with a few years to react to the 4th century invasions coming through Gallia, were unable or unwilling to put up a good fight, even on their own. Especially if the barbarians were indeed so damaging to the existing society. Could it it just be the effect of bad leadership and civil wars?
Following a period of civil war and exogenous shock that the Empire only narrowly recovered from (and that with help from one of the most fortuitously genial lines of military leaders the world has yet seen in the Illyrian Emperors), I'd say that taking sixty years to die when its army was outnumbered as badly as it was was a fairly respectable achievement. Especially when half of that period saw the Empire deprived of its core source of revenue, North Africa. I mean, sure bad leadership in some cases did have major effects, and sure civil wars did occur at inconvenient times (one notes the civil war of 'Constantinus III' as a particularly inconvenient one, as well as the constant strife between Ricimer and his various Emperors, none of whom wanted to stay puppets); I just think the overall effect of losing North Africa was the hugest disaster to befall the Empire and was the most important cause of its downfall.
Militarially speaking, the Romans won, culturally speaking, the Greeks won.
I myself am not entirely convinced that the Roman system of war was any better than that of the Hellenistic monarchs. The events seem to hang on three key engagements, and after that the Makedonians, Seleukids, and Ptolemaioi really had no chance: Kynoskephalai, Magnesia, and Pydna. (The third one is debatable; Perseus had already scored a tremendous series of victories and was arguably running low on luck...but if he's stuck to the real Diadochi military system he ought to have been fine.)

Compare the Hellenistic and Roman systems of war. The Hellenistic monarchs relied on a backbone of phalangitai to provide a phalanx, which was basically invulnerable from the front but extremely rigid and thus could be 'infiltrated' if on rough ground or if disordered. Backing up the phalanx were light troops, a panoply ranging from the various psiloi (sphendonetai, akontistai, and toxotai - slingers, javelinmen, and archers) to the peltastai and thureophoroi, both of whom were heavily armored enough to go toe-to-toe with Roman troops (the peltastai wouldn't have lasted a whole long time, but they wouldn't collapse instantly either) and yet whose primary function was as missile troops as well. Then there are 'linking' troops like the hypaspistai, which provide a combination of medium to heavy armor and heavy weaponry, and which are more flexible. Assault troops like thorakitai round out the group. Thorakitai, thureophoroi, and hypaspistai, not to mention the heavier variants of the peltastai, as well as assault infantry like the Makedonian Agrianikoi Pelukuphoroi, were all able to contest Roman troops on uneven ground and either hold or win; the Romans had no particular advantage over those elements of the basic Hellenistic army. And of course, all of the Diadochi states had far better cavalry than could be found in Italia. To fight this, the Romans had a reasonably well-armed missile force (velites), the triplex acies system and their various maniples of legionaries (none of whom could do jack to the phalangial units unless they were able to get inside the reach of the Makedonian sarissa...unlikely at best and virtually impossible on flat ground), and terrible Italian cavalry. On balance, I'd say that if the Hellenistic system was used in its entirety by the Diadochi monarchs - who had money enough to pay for all of this, seeing how ridiculously wealthy the East was - and handled by soldiers who weren't complete fools, then it ought to have been victorious.

Instead of the overall tactical instrument of the respective sides deciding the issue, though, the Hellenistic monarchs - chiefly Makedonia - were beaten by alternative considerations. Kynoskephalai was won largely because of two reasons: the Romans brought elephants, something that they almost never did; and the Makedonian left flank failed to deploy properly in time, allowing the Romans to roll up first that one and then the other flank. At Magnesia, the Seleukids made an operational error in even fighting a battle at all, and the reason for the defeat is not clear but seems to have relied primarily on Antiokhos' failure to keep his cavalry on the field, like Prince Rupert and Demetrios I before him (and after him, I guess :p). And finally, at Pydna, one can see the Makedonian line almost annihilate the Romans and force them back, but on rough ground and in the midst of pursuit the phalanx became disordered - no mention of Makedonian cavalry here, so apparently the combined-arms approach that was key to Hellenistic armies' success was abandoned - which allowed the Romans to turn on it and close to such a range that they were able to tear the phalanx apart in hand-to-hand combat.

After that (and even before Pydna; the Third Makedonian War was dominated by constantly superior Roman manpower being beaten by a single Makedonian army repeatedly until Paullus took the field), the Romans just had too much money and manpower and had all the strategic advantages; a Hellenistic army became too expensive for the rump state of Egypt to maintain, while the Seleukids were excluded from Aigion and Anatolian affairs, and turned their energies against Pahlava, which they nearly defeated several times but which eventually turned them into the Syrian rump state that Pompeius would just run over on his mad march through the East.

So yeah, Roman success against the Diadochi system...probably wouldn't have happened. Shouldn't have happened. From a purely tactical military point of view, anyway. Utilizing the full panoply of a proper Hellenistic army, Makedonia should have been able to wipe the floor with the Romans. Instead, we got the series of mistakes that made the second century BC so intolerably one-sided. Sigh. Oh well.

But I wasn't really disagreeing with the above post, of course; the Romans did win their wars and conquer most of the Hellenistic world. I'm just qualifying it.

The Greek camp should address the point: Athens =/= Greece.
What? But Paris = France, London = England, Berlin = Germany! :confused:

What? But Paris = France, London = England, Berlin = Germany! :confused:

Actually Marseilles = France , Munich = Germany and Liverpool = England.

Not everyone just the Romans. That is everyone , except the Romans which they just used Greek mythology/religion. The Roman pantheon is indeed the Greek pantheon only with some Gods having changed names. That does not happen with any other civilization of the time. In a way ancient Greece continue to exist even after it was conquered by the Romans. ...

Oh, Greek culture definitely lived on under Rome. Even thrived: my teachers mentioned that Latin was the lingua franca of the West, Greek of the East.

As for the theological point:

The Roman model involved a very different way of defining and thinking about gods than that of Greek gods. For example, if one were to ask a Greek about Demeter, he might reply with the well-known story of her grief at the abduction of Persephone by Hades.

An archaic Italian, by contrast, would tell you that Ceres had an official priest called a flamen, who was junior to the flamens of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus, but senior to the flamens of Flora and Pomona. He might tell you that she was grouped in a triad with two other agricultural gods, Liber and Libera. And he might even be able to rattle off all of the minor gods with specialized functions who attended her: Sarritor (weeding), Messor (harvesting), Convector (carting), Conditor (storing), Insitor (sowing), and dozens more.

Thus the archaic Roman "mythology", at least concerning the gods, was made up not of narratives, but rather of interlocking and complex interrelations between and among gods and humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_mythology#Early_mythology_about_the_gods

It seems that Greeks created the fanciest stories of antiquity, while the Romans, organized people if nothing else, were more concerned with optimal and streamlined definition of Godly function. :lol:

And anyway... what would the Greek counterpart to Janus be? :p

Oh, Greek culture definitely lived on under Rome. Even thrived: my teachers mentioned that Latin was the lingua franca of the West, Greek of the East.

As for the theological point:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_mythology#Early_mythology_about_the_gods

It seems that Greeks created the fanciest stories of antiquity, while the Romans, organized people if nothing else, were more concerned with optimal and streamlined definition of Godly function. :lol:

And anyway... what would the Greek counterpart to Janus be? :p

Ahm i see those smilees as pointless. Your answers can be found in my post to Cheeze the wiz. I don't disagree with you here. The Greco-Roman civilization has differences from ancient Greece. But that differences should not put in the same context of Egyptian pantheon in compared to the Greek pantheon or in regard to the differences between Egypt and Greece.

Oh and here are some smilees for no reason at all(learning from the master) ::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

In other words, yes, Roman religion borrowed largely from Greek religion, although yes, Janus, just to name one, they didn't.

But I'll let you win this one Mr Ornery, 'kay? Unsubscribing.

In other words, yes, Roman religion borrowed largely from Greek religion, although yes, Janus, just to name one, they didn't.

But I'll let you win this one Mr Ornery, 'kay? Unsubscribing.

I didn't win anything. Why can't you discuss on the basis of not winning but just expanding our knowledge over this. They borrowed heavily the Greek religion and they did add some elements of their own mythologies and other religions . It was not named Greco-Roman civilization just because some thought it would sound good , and there is no point to claim " A difference Romans where not influenced by Greeks at all !!!. Or that they stole the Greek religion. Ahm you can't steal a religion.

This is not correct. It's also true Greeks have extensively by Egyptians, Minoans and several middleastern civilizations. Does it makes they less importants? No IMHO.
I'm guessing "have extensively by" was supposed to include something along the lines of "were influenced by" or "drew upon" at some point, so...
True, but that's not the point. The Greeks, while initially influenced by foreign sources, created not just a style but a method of architecture that was completely homegrown. The Romans, in contrast, more or less copied what the Greeks had done before them and twisted it to suit their own ends. There were exceptions of course, with some Roman architectures genuinely trying to develop the classical principals, but, for the most part, Roman architecture was closer to self-important Victorian Neoclasscism than sophisticated Renaissance architecture.

Romans saw architecture more for a practical use, so they didn't care about beautiful as greeks.
Firstly, that's exactly my point. As engineers, as practical builders, the Romans were unsurpassed in their time, and for more than a thousand years afterwards. However, for the most, part, they never quite grasped the artistic side of construction- architecture- as the Greeks had before them, or the architects of the Renaissance would after them.
Secondly, I'm talking about more than mere "beauty" here, at least in the sense that you seem to be using it. Architecture is not merely a visual art, it's about the movement of humans through space. It's more than just "pretty buildings", it's about form defining space with relevance to human action. That's why so much Roman architecture falls down, because that is precisely what they didn't understand. They designed grandiose, elaborate facades and thought that was "beautiful" architecture, which it was not. True, the Greeks loved decorative flourishes as much as all their imitators, but their principals, as exhibited in modernism, are about so much more.

Also, on the issue of the Roman pantheon, I was always under the impression that most of the Roman gods were original- at least as much as any Indo-European pantheon is- but later adopted many of the characteristics of the Greek pantheon, while maintaining many distinctly Roman elements. For example, Ares was generally seen as a bit of a bloodthirsty psychopath who couldn't be trusted, while the Romans honoured Mars second only to Jupiter, seeing him as the patron of their city and empire.

I like how people actually took my post seriously.....:lol::lol:

Although they were far more successful in empire building, the Romans to me seem like Wal-Mart brand imitation Greeks.

Haha. Sam's Club Brand Greek. Awesome.

rofl a wall mart brand, damnit ppl keep using american imitations

Isnt that most balanced poll ever? :)

The people of Greece they were called Hellenistic. Roman give him name Greece. Ancient Rome it is similar to ancient Greece for Example gods and style of structure. So for me is hard choose. Army however, army differed. In Rome was Legionary and praetorians , they were changed later by reforms. In Ancient Greece Army was other than Rome. There was Phalanx Hypaspists and other units for Alexander The Great.

"Greeks (Γραικοί)
Soleto is one of the nine Greek-speaking towns in the province of Apulia, Italy. Their inhabitants are descendants of the first wave of Greek settlers in Italy and Sicily in the 8th century BC. The dialect they speak is derived from the Doric Greek[citation needed] of the original settlers, and evolved separately from Hellenistic Greek. The people of these towns call themselves Grekos, from the Latin Graecus, and consider themselves Hellenes.
Soleto is one of the nine Greek-speaking towns in the province of Apulia, Italy. Their inhabitants are descendants of the first wave of Greek settlers in Italy and Sicily in the 8th century BC. The dialect they speak is derived from the Doric Greek[citation needed] of the original settlers, and evolved separately from Hellenistic Greek. The people of these towns call themselves Grekos, from the Latin Graecus, and consider themselves Hellenes.

The modern English adaptation of Greek is derived from the Latin Graecus, which in turn originates from Greek Γραικός (Graikos) the eponymous of the Γραικοί (Graikoi), a Boeotian tribe that migrated to Italy in the 8th century BC, and it is by that name the Hellenes were known in the West. Homer, while reciting the Boeotian forces in the Iliad's Catalogue of Ships, provides the first known reference to a Boeotian city named Graea,[30] and Pausanias mentions that Graea was the name of the ancient city of Tanagra.[31] Cumae, a city lying to the west of Neapolis (now Naples) and south of Rome, was founded by Cymaeans and Chalkideans as well as Graeans who by coming into contact with Romans may very well be responsible for naming all Hellenic speaking tribes Graeci. The modern Italian city of Grai was also founded in antiquity by Graeans.

Aristotle, our oldest source mentioning the word, states that a natural cataclysm swept across central Epirus, a land where its inhabitants used to be called γραικοί (Graecoi) and were later named Hellenes (Έλληνες).[32] In Hesiod, Graecus is a Deucalionid, and the word seems to be related with γηραιός (geraius, anile), which was the title given to the priests of Dodona. They were also named Σελλοί (Selloi)—which shows the relation between the two basic names of the Greeks. The dominant theory on the colonization of Italy has it that part of the people living in Epirus crossed Dodona and migrated to Phthia, becoming infamous as Hellenes the tribe Achilles led to Troy. The remaining part merged with other tribes that arrived later, without losing its name. From there they traveled westwards to Italy, before the first wave of colonists in the 8th century BC arrived at Sicily and southern Italy.

As the Romans strove to dominate all spheres of public life - in their own right, the term 'Greek' took on a derogatory connotation. Horace used it admiringly, Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio (Greece, defeated, conquered its wild conqueror, and civilised the peasant Latins). But Virgil coined the expression, Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, which became known as 'beware of Greeks bearing gifts". Cicero delivered the coup de grace by coining the truly derogatory term, Graeculi, "contemptuous little Greeks"." (Wiki)

The name Grekos was not discovered by the Romans but the word of choice for self-characterization is Hellas and Hellene (for the person). Though the word Graikos was and is also used.

Pythagoras was Greek so Greece.

Rome conquered Greece....

I vote Rome

Yes, and various barbarian tribes conquered Rome. Does that mean their civilisation was greater than the Roman one, in the scope of things?

Yes, and various barbarian tribes conquered Rome. Does that mean their civilisation was greater than the Roman one, in the scope of things?

No, because both modern day Italy and Greece are weak nations.

No, because both modern day Italy and Greece are weak nations.

What does this have to do with ancient Greece and Rome ? And neither of the two are weak nations. They are not among the Top powerful nations. (Well Italy is) but they are not weak either.

Yes, and various barbarian tribes conquered Rome. Does that mean their civilisation was greater than the Roman one, in the scope of things?
Take a look at how different the Ostrogoths, for example, and the Romans were. ;)

No, because both modern day Italy and Greece are weak nations.

Heh, Italy is the world's 7th largest economy... Yes, today. In any case, that has absolutely nothing to do with the situation in the ancient world.

Yes, and various barbarian tribes conquered Rome. Does that mean their civilisation was greater than the Roman one, in the scope of things?

yeah, but that would happen to anyone. that's like saying, USA is the most powerful nation, but of the entire world were to declare war on the US, they'd lose. therefore, they aren't the most powerful nation

Rome was in control of a HUGE amount of the known world at that time, and when in a one on one fight with Greece, conquered them quite easily.

But the same thing happened to Napoleon. Napoleon conquered alot of Europe, but in the end, he lost it because practically ALL of Europe was at war with him. So was Napoleons nation not the most powerful at that time?

The point I'm trying to make is, if attacked by an all front attack, it would be near impossible to win that war. Had Rome been able to fight each force one at a time, I believe Rome would've beaten them all

Dont forget that the greek empires were fragmented. Were they all allied it would have been possible to fight Rome.

Well quoting Dachspmg from the previous page.



I myself am not entirely convinced that the Roman system of war was any better than that of the Hellenistic monarchs. The events seem to hang on three key engagements, and after that the Makedonians, Seleukids, and Ptolemaioi really had no chance: Kynoskephalai, Magnesia, and Pydna. (The third one is debatable; Perseus had already scored a tremendous series of victories and was arguably running low on luck...but if he's stuck to the real Diadochi military system he ought to have been fine.)

Compare the Hellenistic and Roman systems of war. The Hellenistic monarchs relied on a backbone of phalangitai to provide a phalanx, which was basically invulnerable from the front but extremely rigid and thus could be 'infiltrated' if on rough ground or if disordered. Backing up the phalanx were light troops, a panoply ranging from the various psiloi (sphendonetai, akontistai, and toxotai - slingers, javelinmen, and archers) to the peltastai and thureophoroi, both of whom were heavily armored enough to go toe-to-toe with Roman troops (the peltastai wouldn't have lasted a whole long time, but they wouldn't collapse instantly either) and yet whose primary function was as missile troops as well. Then there are 'linking' troops like the hypaspistai, which provide a combination of medium to heavy armor and heavy weaponry, and which are more flexible. Assault troops like thorakitai round out the group. Thorakitai, thureophoroi, and hypaspistai, not to mention the heavier variants of the peltastai, as well as assault infantry like the Makedonian Agrianikoi Pelukuphoroi, were all able to contest Roman troops on uneven ground and either hold or win; the Romans had no particular advantage over those elements of the basic Hellenistic army. And of course, all of the Diadochi states had far better cavalry than could be found in Italia. To fight this, the Romans had a reasonably well-armed missile force (velites), the triplex acies system and their various maniples of legionaries (none of whom could do jack to the phalangial units unless they were able to get inside the reach of the Makedonian sarissa...unlikely at best and virtually impossible on flat ground), and terrible Italian cavalry. On balance, I'd say that if the Hellenistic system was used in its entirety by the Diadochi monarchs - who had money enough to pay for all of this, seeing how ridiculously wealthy the East was - and handled by soldiers who weren't complete fools, then it ought to have been victorious.

Instead of the overall tactical instrument of the respective sides deciding the issue, though, the Hellenistic monarchs - chiefly Makedonia - were beaten by alternative considerations. Kynoskephalai was won largely because of two reasons: the Romans brought elephants, something that they almost never did; and the Makedonian left flank failed to deploy properly in time, allowing the Romans to roll up first that one and then the other flank. At Magnesia, the Seleukids made an operational error in even fighting a battle at all, and the reason for the defeat is not clear but seems to have relied primarily on Antiokhos' failure to keep his cavalry on the field, like Prince Rupert and Demetrios I before him (and after him, I guess ). And finally, at Pydna, one can see the Makedonian line almost annihilate the Romans and force them back, but on rough ground and in the midst of pursuit the phalanx became disordered - no mention of Makedonian cavalry here, so apparently the combined-arms approach that was key to Hellenistic armies' success was abandoned - which allowed the Romans to turn on it and close to such a range that they were able to tear the phalanx apart in hand-to-hand combat.

After that (and even before Pydna; the Third Makedonian War was dominated by constantly superior Roman manpower being beaten by a single Makedonian army repeatedly until Paullus took the field), the Romans just had too much money and manpower and had all the strategic advantages; a Hellenistic army became too expensive for the rump state of Egypt to maintain, while the Seleukids were excluded from Aigion and Anatolian affairs, and turned their energies against Pahlava, which they nearly defeated several times but which eventually turned them into the Syrian rump state that Pompeius would just run over on his mad march through the East.

So yeah, Roman success against the Diadochi system...probably wouldn't have happened. Shouldn't have happened. From a purely tactical military point of view, anyway. Utilizing the full panoply of a proper Hellenistic army, Makedonia should have been able to wipe the floor with the Romans. Instead, we got the series of mistakes that made the second century BC so intolerably one-sided. Sigh. Oh well.

But I wasn't really disagreeing with the above post, of course; the Romans did win their wars and conquer most of the Hellenistic world. I'm just qualifying it.

Dont forget that the greek empires were fragmented. Were they all allied it would have been possible to fight Rome.
Probably, but they would most definitely had to have adapted their tactics. The phalanx was far to rigid for fighting maniples or cohorts (depending on the time the conflict would have broken out).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's funny. I leveled out the poll 47 to 47. Roma Victor!

Probably, but they would most definitely had to have adapted their tactics. The phalanx was far to rigid for fighting maniples or cohorts (depending on the time the conflict would have broken out).
Yawn. I see your 'maniples' and 'cohorts' with my thureophoroi and raise you with Iphikratid hoplitai and thorakitai; the so-called 'rigid' phalanx was fixed by the introduction of hysteroi pezhetairoi. The Hellenic military system had developed the necessary counters to Roman arms.

Yawn. I see your 'maniples' and 'cohorts' with my thureophoroi and raise you with Iphikratid hoplitai and thorakitai; the so-called 'rigid' phalanx was fixed by the introduction of hysteroi pezhetairoi. The Hellenic military system had developed the necessary counters to Roman arms.

well... history tells you how useful they were

well... history tells you how useful they were
History tells me how useful they could have been if actually used by the Diadochi states in the requisite key events. Does nobody read threads before posting in them these days?

History tells me how useful they could have been if actually used by the Diadochi states in the requisite key events. Does nobody read threads before posting in them these days?

I guess you're living proof... as to the fact that Rome DID beat those formations you say would've proven effective.... because you're ignoring the facts

that's like saying "well, even though they didn't win, they could've won"

I guess you're living proof... as to the fact that Rome DID beat those formations you say would've proven effective.... because you're ignoring the facts

that's like saying "well, even though they didn't win, they could've won"
Look, in an earlier post (recently quoted by scy12 as a matter of fact) I, in a fit of prolixity, narrowed down the causes of the Roman occupation and supersession of the Hellenistic world to three - more likely two - key battles, after which there was in essence no real way for the Hellenistic kingdoms to defeat Roman manpower and resources. I very painstakingly indicated how the losses of those battles was in no way due to the tactical systems used by either side but due to other considerations. I am well aware of the fact that the Roman military defeated the states of Makedonia and the Arche Seleukeia, thank you very much. It was merely my object to indicate that this was not as a result of an inherently superior tactical instrument, but instead a result of occurrences peculiar to the particular engagements upon which Hellenistic history hung.

In response to tankguy's post I indicated that adjustments to the Hellenistic tactical instruments had already been made even prior to the Roman wars with Makedonia and the Arche Seleukeia. Of course it is my contention that these adjustments would have been sufficient to neutralize the Roman offensive upon the states of the Eastern Mediterranean if not for events and causes that had nothing to do with the tactical systems that either side employed. It is my belief that the Hellenistic militaries are poorly understood by students who have been either a) badly educated in classical military history or b) simply focused on the Roman side of things after about Megas Alexandros. Hence my attempt to show that the coin had another side.

I mean, honestly. Would the Romans have been able to develop an inherently superior tactical instrument fighting against the enemies that they did when the Hellenes had to fight all of those enemies as well as the great diversity of Eastern states? There are plenty of mountains in Greece too (it's one of the major reasons for the development of the phalanx); not being able to come up with a form of flexible infantry would have been suicidal for the Greek states in their many incessant wars. The Romans were not alone in their development of a tactical arm that had the ability to fight well in both open and closed formation.

The wars between the Romans and the Hellenistic states mostly go to show, I think, that sometimes history hangs in the balance of a daylong battle, not wholly a result of long-term, impersonal trends. (Just watch Blackadder: Back and Forth if you need more proof of that. :p)

you seem to be forgetting that Rome didn't just war with Greece. Rome had defeated MANY nations before that, and had conquered to become a powerful nation before defeating Greece, which was supposedly the world power at the time.

you're statement right there didn't do much more than convince me Rome is once again, superior to Greece.

Rome fought many wars, and until massive invasions of Barbaric tribes on an overextended empire, won pretty much every war they fought. Greece, however, couldn't' manage its wars.

Greece couldn't win strategic battles that were necessary for its survival, or strategic battles at all (at least not with Rome)

Greece had less man power, and fewer resources... therefore, weaker, and worse.

History books give a more detailed an exalted version of the military history and conquests of Rome than Greece for a reason.... they were more successful, prominent, and superior. The only real success that Greece had was through a Macedonian (not even Greek) ruler Alexander. The defeat of a once again, overextended Empire run by a foolish leader who was militarily inept.

you seem to be forgetting that Rome didn't just war with Greece. Rome had defeated MANY nations before that, and had conquered to become a powerful nation before defeating Greece, which was supposedly the world power at the time.
I am not forgetting anything of the sort. The Hellenistic states also fought a lot of wars, both against each other and against outside enemies. Rome fought Celts; so did the Greeks (ever heard of the Galatians?). Rome fought Qarthadastim; so did the Greeks (ever heard of Syrakousai?). Rome fought the southern Italian states; so did the Greeks (ever heard of the Megala Hellenes?). It's almost...almost as if...the coin has another side to it!

By the way, labeling 'Greece' as a single power is fallacious and does nothing to indicate that you have any measure of competence in this area of history whatsoever. There were a multitude of Hellenic states, many of them (Makedonia, Arche Seleukeia, for example) extremely powerful in their own right.
you're statement right there didn't do much more than convince me Rome is once again, superior to Greece.
...because you can't read? I am not attempting to argue about whether "Rome" is superior to "Greece"; I am saying that the Roman military was not inherently superior to the Greek one.
Rome fought many wars, and until massive invasions of Barbaric tribes on an overextended empire, won pretty much every war they fought.
Rome did nothing of the sort.
The only real success that Greece had was through a Macedonian (not even Greek) ruler Alexander.
1. You apparently have never heard of the Greco-Persian Wars of the fifth century. Damned successful right there.
2. Your education seems to have missed the amazingly successful colonization spree the Greeks went on in the early classical age. Seems successful to me.
3. You have also apparently never heard of how Greek Megas Alexandros was. His family - the Argeades - were clearly Greek, allowed to participate in the bloody Olympics; his Makedonian subjects and soldiers spoke a dialect of Greek; his world-conquering army was comprised largely of non-Makedonian Greek allied soldiers from the League of Korinthos. There is little about him that wasn't bloody 'Greek'. Hell he even screwed men like loads of Athenian and Spartan dudes did too.
4. You conveniently neglect the Baktrian conquest of India - oooh, Greeks conquering India, nobody ever mentions that before! Sounds militarily successful to me!
5. You ignore the persistence of Hellenistic culture in the eastern segment of the Roman Empire, which virtually ignored Latin and stuck with Greek for its entire existence. Successful of the Romans indeed, couldn't even get a conquered region to adopt their language. ;)
6. You forgot how much success the Romans had in Persia as opposed to the Greeks. How far was the farthest Roman penetration into Persia? Esfahan, you say? And what, it was accomplished by an Eastern Roman Imperial general, Herakleios, who is widely considered to have begun the 'Greek' phase of the Eastern Roman Empire? Sounds successful for the Romans indeed!
The defeat of a once again, overextended Empire run by a foolish leader who was militarily inept.
Darius Codomannus was decidedly not inept; he had a degree of military skill and actually outmaneuvered Alexandros prior to the Battle of Issos. I would say that he was competent. Competence, however, is not enough when one is faced with a . .. .. .. .ing Great Captain of History. It was like Daun against Friedrich II. Not inept, and certainly performing reasonably well, but still inadequate.

Look, I don't think you realize what I'm trying to argue for. My point has always been that saying the Roman legion is not inherently superior to the Hellenistic military panoply. My argument has focused on the tactical instrument for most of the time. I have no quarrel with the fact that Rome ended up the winner in their ultimate struggle. I am simply saying that a few afternoons is not something to judge the entirety of a tactical instrument by, especially when there are extenuating circumstances!

I thinks it's fundamentally inaccurate to describe "Greece" as a single nation, though it seems that's what most posters on this thread are doing. Rome hardly "conquered" a nation called "Greece," after the Battle of Pydna, Macedon came under Roman hegemony and afterwards the more independent city states slowly and mostly peacefully succumbed to the Roman Empire.

There was no organized Greece (and Greece isn't even a very Greek name for Greece anyway ;)). When most say Ancient Greece they mean Athens or Sparta or Thebes or sometimes the Macedonians, but to lump them all into one big category as a nation that struggled and was defeated by Rome is an infantile simplification.

I, however, voted for Greece in the poll. The main reason I did is because Romans gave allot of lip-service and respect to the Hellenic culture that they had "conquered." They learned Greek, studied Hellenistic Philosophy and religion and held the region at higher regard than all other territories. In that sense, the Romans "knew their place" and tried to live up to the Greeks.

I don't think Roman culture is merely an extension of Greek, however. Yes, Roman gods had allot in common with their Greek counterparts, but so did all their neighbors'; that means nothing. To think that the Romans were barbarians before they read Sophocles or Herodotus is a little silly.

The one big thing I won't give to the Greeks or Romans, that everyone else loves to say, is that one of them is responsible for modern "democracies" or "republics." I think to think that the Classical Western Civilizations were the only ones competent enough to think up government by rule of people is ridiculous. Democracy is a naturally occurring phenomenon; it exists in one for or another in every tribe or nation. Saying Greece "invented" democracy is like saying (as some Americans tickle me by saying) that America "invented" freedom... oh, Jesus. The only thing we inherit from the Greeks or Romans concerning democracy or republic are their respective words.

Sorry if I diverged from the topic a little. :D

The Greeks invented democracy. Why ? Because they named that system of government as democracy and they where the first to do it. It is a Greek word. Δημος + κρατος. (Kratos = state= power and Demos = "the people" . The modern democracy , well , it was used by modern people.

Where they the first to have a democratic goverment ? I dunno. They where the first to have a democratic like goverment and to name it democracy though.

Greece is a greek like name but it is inferrior to Hellas . IMO.

I am not forgetting anything of the sort. The Hellenistic states also fought a lot of wars, both against each other and against outside enemies. Rome fought Celts; so did the Greeks (ever heard of the Galatians?). Rome fought Qarthadastim; so did the Greeks (ever heard of Syrakousai?). Rome fought the southern Italian states; so did the Greeks (ever heard of the Megala Hellenes?). It's almost...almost as if...the coin has another side to it!
By the way, labeling 'Greece' as a single power is fallacious and does nothing to indicate that you have any measure of competence in this area of history whatsoever. There were a multitude of Hellenic states, many of them (Makedonia, Arche Seleukeia, for example) extremely powerful in their own right.

the fact that I label 'Greece' as a single power proves my ability to read the title and whole point of this thread. Greeks themselves thought of anyone who wasn't Greek to be barbaric, and frankly, Greece was heavily divided, which is another reason why it was weaker then Rome...

...because you can't read? I am not attempting to argue about whether "Rome" is superior to "Greece"; I am saying that the Roman military was not inherently superior to the Greek one.

if you're not arguing that "Rome" is superior to "Greece" why are you telling ME that I can't read? that is what this thread it is about!

Rome did nothing of the sort.

obviously you've never heard of the Punic Wars, Rome conquering Illyria, Moesia, Pannonia, conquering Germanic tribes to the north, the conquering of the Iberian, and the only successful invasion of Britannia in history

1. You apparently have never heard of the Greco-Persian Wars of the fifth century. Damned successful right there.

not really... after ending in a stalemate...

Greeks held the Persian army off long enough to get them to get into boats where they did sink most of their army. But as Greece tried a counter offensive against Cyprus and Egypt, they failed.

the west coast of Asia Minor was the only real gain of any Greek power

Macedonia and Thrace then became independent, thusly, more division in Greek society.... not to mention that Macedonia (where Alexander is from) was fighting along side with Persia as their ally

2. Your education seems to have missed the amazingly successful colonization spree the Greeks went on in the early classical age. Seems successful to me.

you may be forgetting the part in history where Greece loses control of its colonies, and is attacked by Carthage, and comes to Rome for help, the start of the Punic wars

3. You have also apparently never heard of how Greek Megas Alexandros was. His family - the Argeades - were clearly Greek, allowed to participate in the bloody Olympics; his Makedonian subjects and soldiers spoke a dialect of Greek; his world-conquering army was comprised largely of non-Makedonian Greek allied soldiers from the League of Korinthos. There is little about him that wasn't bloody 'Greek'. Hell he even screwed men like loads of Athenian and Spartan dudes did too.

Alexander the Great was clearly Macedonian, born in Macedonia, born to a Macedonian King whom was also born in Macedonia.

was that last line supposed to support him being Great, because that's just nasty

4. You conveniently neglect the Baktrian conquest of India - oooh, Greeks conquering India, nobody ever mentions that before! Sounds militarily successful to me!

ok, I'll admit defeat there

after defeating Persia, there were conquests upon India, but frankly, how long did that occupation last anyway?

5. You ignore the persistence of Hellenistic culture in the eastern segment of the Roman Empire, which virtually ignored Latin and stuck with Greek for its entire existence. Successful of the Romans indeed, couldn't even get a conquered region to adopt their language. ;)

as to Greek culture, sure it was successful... but think about it.... Rome took Greek culture, and took it to a ' 'hole nuvva' level '

Rome took what Greece did, and made it so that it influenced the world after. Look at Latin... the basis of MANY languages today (the Renaissance says it takes Greek and Roman culture, but face it, Rome pretty much adopted all Greek culture used by Italy, the founder of the Renaissance)

as for not forcing upon the Greeks a mandate of language, that isn't necessarily a dumb move. not forcing culture or submission of people is a smart way to keep peace and order in your Empire without leading to unhappiness and easy revolt, even though you aren't giving them much freedom.

6. You forgot how much success the Romans had in Persia as opposed to the Greeks. How far was the farthest Roman penetration into Persia? Esfahan, you say? And what, it was accomplished by an Eastern Roman Imperial general, Herakleios, who is widely considered to have begun the 'Greek' phase of the Eastern Roman Empire? Sounds successful for the Romans indeed!

yeah... but how far west did Greece go.... Epidamnos? not even

Not to mention your picking the time not long before there isn't much left of the Roman Empire.... that's like saying "Napoleon wasn't great, look, at what happened in 1812.... Napoleon is humiliated in a draw with Russia, eventually leading to his downfall...

you're deliberately picking a time when Rome falls to try to prove they weren't militarily powerful

Darius Codomannus was decidedly not inept; he had a degree of military skill and actually outmaneuvered Alexandros prior to the Battle of Issos. I would say that he was competent. Competence, however, is not enough when one is faced with a . .. .. .. .ing Great Captain of History. It was like Daun against Friedrich II. Not inept, and certainly performing reasonably well, but still inadequate.

well you can say that about a lot of people in military history. That's like saying Wladyslaw Anders was a great General.... always worth remembering.... just Hitler had superior weapons, superior tactics, superior numbers, and a superior military strategy.... but he's still good

if you are worse at everything than your main opponent, and you cannot change enough to at least do SOMETHING to make your reign or defeat memorable, then you are inept (IMO, and I think others would agree)
Look, I don't think you realize what I'm trying to argue for. My point has always been that saying the Roman legion is not inherently superior to the Hellenistic military panoply. My argument has focused on the tactical instrument for most of the time. I have no quarrel with the fact that Rome ended up the winner in their ultimate struggle. I am simply saying that a few afternoons is not something to judge the entirety of a tactical instrument by, especially when there are extenuating circumstances!

I guess after all this typing, I can accept that we are trying to prove to different things, and we're just making each other frustrated....

I can accept that the forces of Rome weren't naturally better than the Greeks, but did prove to be superior..... not to pull a "I get the last word" kinda' concept... but I think we've done enough arguing for this thread

not really... after ending in a stalemate...

Greeks held the Persian army off long enough to get them to get into boats where they did sink most of their army. But as Greece tried a counter offensive against Cyprus and Egypt, they failed.

the west coast of Asia Minor was the only real gain of any Greek power

Macedonia and Thrace then became independent, thusly, more division in Greek society.... not to mention that Macedonia (where Alexander is from) was fighting along side with Persia as their ally



You must not be aware how powerful was Persia at the time , actually.

Macedonia and Thrace then became independent, thusly, more division in Greek society.... not to mention that Macedonia (where Alexander is from) was fighting along side with Persia as their ally


No. The Macedonia Alexander is from was not an ally of the Persians when he was born. You must also be aware that the Spartans did also ally with the Persians , at a time. What does this mean really ?

Alexander the Great was clearly Macedonian, born in Macedonia, born to a Macedonian King whom was also born in Macedonia.

was that last line supposed to support him being Great, because that's just nasty


Alexander the Great was both a Macedonian and a Hellene. End of story.


as to Greek culture, sure it was successful... but think about it.... Rome took Greek culture, and took it to a ' 'hole nuvva' level '

Rome took what Greece did, and made it so that it influenced the world after. Look at Latin... the basis of MANY languages today (the Renaissance says it takes Greek and Roman culture, but face it, Rome pretty much adopted all Greek culture used by Italy, the founder of the Renaissance)

as for not forcing upon the Greeks a mandate of language, that isn't necessarily a dumb move. not forcing culture or submission of people is a smart way to keep peace and order in your Empire without leading to unhappiness and easy revolt, even though you aren't giving them much freedom.


Rome both took it and used it and left it to blossom as it where. Hence GrecoRoman civilization.

Now in this poll it seems to me that we are speaking about two different regions at two different time periods. Ancient Greece before being conquered , and Rome (Well it is not defined at when).

At one point those two elements unite. If we come to measure them before uniting, then the ancient Hellenic world by a big shot.


yeah... but how far west did Greece go.... Epidamnos? not even

Not to mention your picking the time not long before there isn't much left of the Roman Empire.... that's like saying "Napoleon wasn't great, look, at what happened in 1812.... Napoleon is humiliated in a draw with Russia, eventually leading to his downfall...

you're deliberately picking a time when Rome falls to try to prove they weren't militarily powerful

Greece ? There was not Greece. There where Hellenic/Greek factions. And both Rome and they did what they had to do in their different timeline and ages.



Even today, there is Greece and Cyprus two autonomous Greek states. Though that is another story and the truth is we did want to unite but we couldn't due to the geopolitical interests of some powers.

The Greeks invented democracy. Why ? Because they named that system of government as democracy and they where the first to do it. It is a Greek word. Δημος + κρατος. (Kratos = state= power and Demos = "the people" . The modern democracy , well , it was used by modern people.
That's what I said...
The only thing we inherit from the Greeks or Romans concerning democracy or republic are their respective words.
But still, to say democracy was a Hellenically (is that a word?) engineered concept is like saying because we get the word "honor" from the Romans, they must have invented honor; it doesn't work like that, imo. Many societies had quasi-democratic bureaucracies from the tribes of Europe to the Gana-sanghas in India and far beyond.

Still none of these, including Athens, could hardly qualify as a modern democracy, what with the exclusive citizenship and nearly unlimited power of the electorate, lacking any proper constitution. One of the reasons we remember the Athenian proto-democracy is that its workings are very well documented in comparison to other nations and even other Greek city states, and as you said, because with stole the nomenclature. Still we didn't idealize as we do now Greek democracy until Europe started implementing democratic ideas for herself. Certainly allot of inspiration for the modern world has come from the classic civilizations, but to say democracy would not have come to be without Greece is a little stretch, but I don't think that's what you're saying.

But still, to say democracy was a Hellenically (is that a word?) engineered concept is like saying because we get the word "honor" from the Romans, they must have invented honor; it doesn't work like that, imo. Many societies had quasi-democratic bureaucracies from the tribes of Europe to the Gana-sanghas in India and far beyond.


Ofcourse. I am not saying they invented it. I am saying because of our Neoclassicism , their other achievements and generally their civilization which we "worship" that we feel the need to say we adapted it from them. And in a way that is the truth. We adapted how we wanted to think "the way they understood it" and then improved on it.Or we wanted to pay homage to them.

And i am not speaking just for modern age. But for the medieval age as well.

I do feel we owe more to the creators of the modern democracy than the Ancient Greeks. But i do think they took part in the "evolution tree".

Still none of these, including Athens, could hardly qualify as a modern democracy, what with the exclusive citizenship and nearly unlimited power of the electorate, lacking any proper constitution. One of the reasons we remember the Athenian proto-democracy is that its workings are very well documented in comparison to other nations and even other Greek city states, and as you said, because with stole the nomenclature. Still we didn't idealize as we do now Greek democracy until Europe started implementing democratic ideas for herself. Certainly allot of inspiration for the modern world has come from the classic civilizations, but to say democracy would not have come to be without Greece is a little stretch, but I don't think that's what you're saying.

All true. In fact i said several times how much worse was the Athenian Democracy in comparison with our democracy. And the Athenians of the times agreed.


but to say democracy would not have come to be without Greece is a little stretch, but I don't think that's what you're saying

Actually that is a thing i would disagree. That is True , a kind of democracy would come without Greece. The modern Democracy and the way we understand it , i don't think so. Atleast not at the time it came.

I think the Athenian democracy is a part of the Evolution of modern Democracy. It is ancestor. (Please don't misinterpret this) It must Neither to be overrated nor to be underrated on it's role. And the way we attempt to pay worthy homage to it , says as much about them as it says about us and the medieval world and the modern world.

I just see the classical world as the foundation on which our civilization was build . And in addition as a Greek i see the ancient Greek literature and writings as something more than just that. (I consider them a part of our "modern" literature because they are written in the same language. As a result they are accessible to a lot of people as other literature more modern is . So the 2000 years are not a barrier in that case.)

You must not be aware how powerful was Persia at the time , actually.

yeah, but a HUGE blow was dealt to Persia when they lost their fleet... it was basically the death of the entire Persian army in Greece, which would only be a matter of time

No. The Macedonia Alexander is from was not an ally of the Persians when he was born. You must also be aware that the Spartans did also ally with the Persians , at a time. What does this mean really ?

I'm not saying Alexander was an ally of the Persians, I'm saying that Macedonia was an ally with Persia during the Greco-Persian wars, trying to prove the point that Greece wasn't all as powerful as people think, because you cannot consider regions like Macedonia part of Greece because they weren't really a part of Greece

Greece ? There was not Greece. There where Hellenic/Greek factions. And both Rome and they did what they had to do in their different timeline and ages.

part of my argument why Greece was a less prominent empire, and why I voted for Rome. I consider Greeks city-states that would ally themselves together to fight against an outside nation wishing to destroy them all.... another reason why I don't consider Macedon part of Greece, because they sided against Greece

TOGA!
TOGA!
TOGA!
http://pix.myphotoalbum.com/c/ch/chr/chrl/chrls/chrls67/albums/album01/untitled4b.sized.jpg
Rome!

Infraction for spam. - KD

yeah, but a HUGE blow was dealt to Persia when they lost their fleet... it was basically the death of the entire Persian army in Greece, which would only be a matter of time

Hence victory for the Hellenes.

I'm not saying Alexander was an ally of the Persians, I'm saying that Macedonia was an ally with Persia during the Greco-Persian wars, trying to prove the point that Greece wasn't all as powerful as people think, because you cannot consider regions like Macedonia part of Greece because they weren't really a part of Greece

Everyone in this thread and every historian agrees that there where several Hellenic cities and factions but not one state named Greece. At times they united aganst "Barbarians" Foreigners or other Hellenic cities.

Not being united did it make them weaker than if they where united ? Or in comparison with the Roman empire which it was one united empire. Maybe. But none challenged that point really.

They may had been weaker than one united megaempire , but let's say due to the diversity of the Hellenistic kingdoms i prefer them to one megaempire that they could have been or the Roman empire. Under my criteria i am perfectly justified to do so.


part of my argument why Greece was a less prominent empire, and why I voted for Rome. I consider Greeks city-states that would ally themselves together to fight against an outside nation wishing to destroy them all.... another reason why I don't consider Macedon part of Greece, because they sided against Greece

part of my argument why Greece was a less prominent empire, and why I voted for Rome.

So you did not vote for "Greece" because it was not united while Rome was.

consider Greeks city-states that would ally themselves together to fight against an outside nation wishing to destroy them all.... another reason why I don't consider Macedon part of Greece, because they sided against Greece

I don't get what are you talking about. So under your "I love them united " , you would vote for Philipe-Alexander ( let's consider them one person ) of Macedon , Uniting all Greece under their banner and conquering their enemies by doing so.

As for the "They where not part of Greece " They where a very much of a Hellenic city under Philipe. Previously there where only found , Greek like dialects but let's ignore previously. I have no problem to admit that they where Aliens ,Egyptians,Romans , anything before a certain point. After that certain point they where Hellenized. I am seeing many people getting confused by it and telling me "They weren't Greek 3000 years ago ! I wonder why people make the time jump.

<Assorted Things>
That's all entirely agreeable.

That's all entirely agreeable.

Small posts are not the way of this thread.

Small posts are not the way of this thread.
That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable.
That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable.
That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable. That's all entirely agreeable.

Infraction for spam. - KD

Hence victory for the Hellenes.

just because its a victory doesn't mean that it was a strong victory

its like firing into the dark, hitting something, and saying "I am the best shot in the world!"


Everyone in this thread and every historian agrees that there where several Hellenic cities and factions but not one state named Greece. At times they united aganst "Barbarians" Foreigners or other Hellenic cities.

Not being united did it make them weaker than if they where united ? Or in comparison with the Roman empire which it was one united empire. Maybe. But none challenged that point really.

They may had been weaker than one united megaempire , but let's say due to the diversity of the Hellenistic kingdoms i prefer them to one megaempire that they could have been or the Roman empire. Under my criteria i am perfectly justified to do so.

United we stand, divided we fall... history has shown that together, you are strong, but as one, you can fall quite easily....

just like what happened to Rome.... it eventually spread to its limits, and then every other nation joined up in arms (not deliberately) but at the same time and beat Rome... had Rome been able to face each opponent as an individual, I believe Rome would've beaten them.


or why the Italian states or German states were less powerful separate than they were after they united

So you did not vote for "Greece" because it was not united while Rome was.

I voted Rome for several reasons over Greece:
-Rome had conquered Greece
-Rome took Greeces culture and expanded upon it, improving it (while other people think that Greek culture was superior, when they don't realize Rome just took what was good, and made it better)
-Rome had what I believe to be a greater effect on the modern world... Latin is pretty much the basis of all modern languages... lead the Italians into a Renaissance with their influences (which later expanded into Greek, but I believe that Roman had more influence over the Italians)
-Rome kept itself in a better manner.... unified, it stood as a more formidable opponent then divided.
-Rome was better able to manage their Empire (it didn't split after the death of Caesar, Augustus, etc...) (Alexanders Empire was split up after his death)
-the Macedonian Empire Alexander started lasted what, 29 years? It was then broken up into several other smaller Empires
-The Roman Empire lasted 500+ years
-Through the Byzantine Empire, it had the longest lasting Empire the world has ever seen

I don't get what are you talking about. So under your "I love them united " , you would vote for Philipe-Alexander ( let's consider them one person ) of Macedon , Uniting all Greece under their banner and conquering their enemies by doing so.

As for the "They where not part of Greece " They where a very much of a Hellenic city under Philipe. Previously there where only found , Greek like dialects but let's ignore previously. I have no problem to admit that they where Aliens ,Egyptians,Romans , anything before a certain point. After that certain point they where Hellenized. I am seeing many people getting confused by it and telling me "They weren't Greek 3000 years ago ! I wonder why people make the time jump.

Well, I'm not saying I don't enjoy learning about Greek culture or whatever, I'm just saying that the Roman Empire is better than the Greek Empire was.... and you talk to any Macedonian today, and they'll tell you that Alexander was no Greek

Small posts are not the way of this thread.Small posts are better:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=71232

Okay, maybe I'll elaborate a little more, but only because I feel guilty. I understand your saying that Greek democratic ideas are the foundation for modern democracies; that's totally legitimate, but I don't choose to look at the evolution of ideas chronologically (even though that is the most typical and sensible approach). Greek government was a reflection of their individual cultures as ours is of ours. Certainly history is an important part of culture, but my point is that and conglomeration of people could invent a "democracy," even if we credit a certain people with that, that's not much special; the Greeks and their admirers make rule by the masses sexy, even with its some failures, that why they are remembered. I don't really think we should celebrate Greek government because we borrowed from it; I don't think that very true. Greek government should be celebrated in modernized countries because our similar governments prove we have cultural common denominators. Public rule is not a universal value, and western civilization has been through the valley of the shadow of death, the dark ages and theocracies. Having come through, we still find similarities with a people who had relatively primative ideas about the earth and science. So, wouldn't think that we directly derive our ideas from Old Greeks, but our similarities mean we have similar values.

I used allot of time in high school learning Latin and a little Greek too, by my own accord. And although many learners have great enthusiasm for the classics, <blasphemy> I don't think they are much more than obsolete scientific works and early philosophy (and most would side with me), which is nice for a look into the ancient mind, but I don't think a classical education is necessary as other Latin nerds would say. </blasphemy> I would probably feel perhaps more personally connected to them if I were Greek or Romantic, but my ancestors were barbarians ;). So while you employ the idea that we live on a foundation of the past, I like to have the perspective that modernity is only related to the past by lineage and some culture. At any moment, a new ideology or religion could come and sweep the old away, (and that has happened often since Classical Greece) and someday we will create new values and if someone in the past shared them, they are our new heroes.

Okay, maybe I'll elaborate a little more, but only because I feel guilty. I understand your saying that Greek democratic ideas are the foundation for modern democracies; that's totally legitimate, but I don't choose to look at the evolution of ideas chronologically (even though that is the most typical and sensible approach). Greek government was a reflection of their individual cultures as ours is of ours. Certainly history is an important part of culture, but my point is that and conglomeration of people could invent a "democracy," even if we credit a certain people with that, that's not much special; the Greeks and their admirers make rule by the masses sexy, even with its some failures, that why they are remembered. I don't really think we should celebrate Greek government because we borrowed from it; I don't think that very true. Greek government should be celebrated in modernized countries because our similar governments prove we have cultural common denominators. Public rule is not a universal value, and western civilization has been through the valley of the shadow of death, the dark ages and theocracies. Having come through, we still find similarities with a people who had relatively primative ideas about the earth and science. So, wouldn't think that we directly derive our ideas from Old Greeks, but our similarities mean we have similar values.


But i don't think we directly derive our ideas from the Old Greeks. I just think that we derive some of our ideas from persons who derived their ideas , from someother persons who derived their ideas from the old Greeks. Simply put i consider the modern "Ideas world" get's its ideas with unlimited sources. The Ancient Hellenic world is a very important source of it. The most important ? I say not . Among the most important is my answer.


I used allot of time in high school learning Latin and a little Greek too, by my own accord. And although many learners have great enthusiasm for the classics, <blasphemy> I don't think they are much more than obsolete scientific works and early philosophy (and most would side with me), which is nice for a look into the ancient mind, but I don't think a classical education is necessary as other Latin nerds would say. </blasphemy> I would probably feel perhaps more personally connected to them if I were Greek or Romantic, but my ancestors were barbarians . So while you employ the idea that we live on a foundation of the past, I like to have the perspective that modernity is only related to the past by lineage and some culture. At any moment, a new ideology or religion could come and sweep the old away, (and that has happened often since Classical Greece) and someday we will create new values and if someone in the past shared them, they are our new heroes.




One of the reasons people are in Awe of them is this. Our current modern technology (although more impressive in ALL aspects) is build worldwide , we admire it much already and it's boring but more precisely it is build on already existing advanced technology. Being a pioneer in a field is seen with much admiration even if today such science is basic.

Now Ancient Greek literature is a different category all together. It remains relevant always.


. So while you employ the idea that we live on a foundation of the past, I like to have the perspective that modernity is only related to the past by lineage and some culture. At any moment, a new ideology or religion could come and sweep the old away, (and that has happened often since Classical Greece) and someday we will create new values and if someone in the past shared them, they are our new heroes.

My friend i care not about ideologies and Religions. More humans care more for others things and that is why both the Romans and the ancient Greeks (and the Arabs and ... and .. to infinite) will remain in history. The modern Human has surpassed them though. But i.e Pythagoras problem will still be used.

Yes i am a bit biased , i admit it. I am not saying much different only that i believe the "fanboyism" people feel in relevance of the classical world will continue. But i do feel that some other eras need a bit more credit.

I feel like you're trying to argue with me but I honestly don't think we have enough diversion. :p That's all entirely agreeable to me...

Romans stole from the Greeks, but they were greater in terms of managing an empire for years until barbarians wanted to be a part of the empire.
The Greeks believed to have had actual connections with their gods, including heredity (how strange) before plunging into the Dark Age.
Both civilizations had good military tactics:
Greeks:
phalanx: good against cavalry and holding infantry back.
Spartans: toughest ancient warriors ever known
Romans:
Testudo: legionaries form a nice shield protecting them from arrows.
Wedge: during the battle against the British queen Boudicca's army, the Romans crushed an army far greater in number than their own by using this tactic.
Rectangular shields and well-made armour: good against charges. Copied off the Trojans
Good army discipline: This helped them win most of their battles.

Well, looks like I prefer Romans. :D

and you talk to any Macedonian today, and they'll tell you that Alexander was no Greek

no, this is way incorrect. Macedon the country is in no way shape or form related to Macedon of Alexandros.

no, this is way incorrect. Macedon the country is in no way shape or form related to Macedon of Alexandros.

so you're saying that if you went to Macedonia today, they'd say Alexander was a Greek? I HIGHLY doubt that.... in fact... I've talked to people who COMPLAIN about people who say that

and that's like saying Ancient Rome is in no way shape or form related to modern Italy.... yeah its been diminished, but they're still the same people...

just because its a victory doesn't mean that it was a strong victory

its like firing into the dark, hitting something, and saying "I am the best shot in the world!"
This argument, if taken as valid, would undermine your entire Rome thesis. I advise you not to attempt to do that in future, for I can just as easily denigrate any Roman victory in a similar fashion.
I voted Rome for several reasons over Greece:
-Rome had conquered Greece
Voila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire).
-Rome took Greeces culture and expanded upon it, improving it (while other people think that Greek culture was superior, when they don't realize Rome just took what was good, and made it better)
So one culture is inherently superior to another? Seneca was better than Socrates simply because he was a Roman, regardless of philosophical impact or ideas?
-Rome kept itself in a better manner.... unified, it stood as a more formidable opponent then divided.
Not really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91%E2%80%9388_BC)). Rome was divided in many ways. The first century BC was often referred to by the non-Roman residents of the Mediterranean as the 'gang-rape of Italy by her sons' in the interminable Roman civil wars.
-Rome was better able to manage their Empire (it didn't split after the death of Caesar, Augustus, etc...) (Alexanders Empire was split up after his death)
Rome after the death of Caesar is so similar to the Hellenistic world after the death of Alexandros that it is remarkable. And the failure to reunite the Hellenistic world was one that relied on both of two things happening: a successful assassination on the one hand, and a headstrong young man following orders on the other. (The death of Seleukos and the failure of Demetrios at Ipsos respectively.) Rome's unity counted on the Battle of Actium. Chance and the actions of individuals played a greater part than any inherent superiority that either side had.
-Through the Byzantine Empire, it had the longest lasting Empire the world has ever seen
Was that empire Greek, Roman, both, or neither?
and you talk to any Macedonian today, and they'll tell you that Alexander was no Greek
I have no interest in what some illiterate Balkan Slavic peasant has to say about classical history, especially when petty nationalism plays a part. I instead rely on the histories of Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, and Diodorus.
so you're saying that if you went to Macedonia today, they'd say Alexander was a Greek? I HIGHLY doubt that.... in fact... I've talked to people who COMPLAIN about people who say that
Okay, let me get this straight. Despite the fact that Megas Alexandros spoke Greek, ruled Greeks, competed in a competition that was only for Greeks, had an army comprised of Greeks, spread Greek culture across the Middle East, believed that he was the son of a major Greek deity, was taught by Greeks, and, hell, is one of the leaderheads for the Greeks in the Civilization games, you choose to claim that he belongs to a nationality that did not exist until well over a millennium after Alexandros died when a bunch of Slavs moved into Makedonia.

Is that right?
Greeks:
phalanx: good against cavalry and holding infantry back.
Spartans: toughest ancient warriors ever known
Romans:
Testudo: legionaries form a nice shield protecting them from arrows.
Wedge: during the battle against the British queen Boudicca's army, the Romans crushed an army far greater in number than their own by using this tactic.
Rectangular shields and well-made armour: good against charges. Copied off the Trojans
Good army discipline: This helped them win most of their battles.
That is an awfully simplistic way of describing the Roman and the Hellenistic ways of war. Horrendously so, even.

This argument, if taken as valid, would undermine your entire Rome thesis. I advise you not to attempt to do that in future, for I can just as easily denigrate any Roman victory in a similar fashion.

I'd like you to prove how Rome's destruction of Carthage was hardly a victory for Rome... Carthage was wiped out.... destroyed, devistated... Rome desicated the land, and made it a horrible place... they plowed salt in their fields... etc...

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire)Voila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire).

that's the Byzantine Empire, not Roman Empire***see later quote

So one culture is inherently superior to another? Seneca was better than Socrates simply because he was a Roman, regardless of philosophical impact or ideas?

specific philosophers are very difficult to compare, because they are entirely different then actual culture of a nation... they can influence it, sometimes heavily, but philosophers aren't culture

and YES... Rome was superior culturally, because they built upon the foundations and the important parts of the Greek culture... its what people do... they take what was good about previous things, and make it BETTER
its how technology advances, its how evolution works.... you deny this, you deny pretty much all of evolution, which is, at this point in time, hardly arguable

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_%2891%E2%80%9388_BC%29)Not really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_%2891%E2%80%9388_BC%29). Rome was divided in many ways. The first century BC was often referred to by the non-Roman residents of the Mediterranean as the 'gang-rape of Italy by her sons' in the interminable Roman civil wars.

so you're saying the idea that "Your (insert city state-name here) before you're Greek" idea didn't divide Greece more, then when Rome had its civil war

Greece had a civil war too you know

Rome after the death of Caesar is so similar to the Hellenistic world after the death of Alexandros that it is remarkable. And the failure to reunite the Hellenistic world was one that relied on both of two things happening: a successful assassination on the one hand, and a headstrong young man following orders on the other. (The death of Seleukos and the failure of Demetrios at Ipsos respectively.) Rome's unity counted on the Battle of Actium. Chance and the actions of individuals played a greater part than any inherent superiority that either side had.



Was that empire Greek, Roman, both, or neither?

***ok, this is where I'll admit, I wasn't explicit enough...

I don't think you should count the Byzantine Empire as part of it, I just think you should look at the Roman years (around 500) because this subject deals with Rome, not the Byzantine Empire.... which was different, because that strayed from traditional Roman beliefs

so neither

I have no interest in what some illiterate Balkan Slavic peasant has to say about classical history, especially when petty nationalism plays a part. I instead rely on the histories of Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, and Diodorus.

ok... so nationalism doesn't play a role there??!?!?!

"lets make a history of our nation! CRAP... our greatest leader wasn't really from Greece... oh well... stretch the truth..."

you'll trust that?

frankly... I trust the facts.... he was born in Macedonia... born to a Macedonian... he is Macedonian.... not Greek

Okay, let me get this straight. Despite the fact that Megas Alexandros spoke Greek,

because just because he was conquering Greece politically.... he wouldn't be very successful if he didn't speak Greek.... in fact... he probably would've failed miserably...

ruled Greeks,

he CONQUERED the Greeks, therefore he RULED Greeks... that's a no-brainer.

competed in a competition that was only for Greeks

the Greek Only title put on alot of games (i.e.-the Olympics) eventually lost its touch, and became a sport where you could buy your way in

Greeks proved this, when Kynisca became the first female to be an Olympian (so much for the men only rule)


not to mention, he's your pretty much new-found ruler, and you're gunna' turn your back on him like that?! not let him compete... I wonder what would've happened if they did that to Nero.... hmm....

had an army comprised of Greeks

Another easy one... if he wanted to make an army... which would he use... the weak one from his home nation, or the strong one of the nation(s) he just conquered, and now rules. Its a tough decision... I might have to think that one through.

spread Greek culture across the Middle East

If he decided to rule this army, and then NOT spread THEIR culture, how long do you think before he had a revolt, and those people realized they aren't fighting for 'Greece'?
Not to mention, I will admit, that Macedonian culture and Greek culture was very similar at that time (that doens't make him Greek) so its not like it was that hard of a comprimise...

believed that he was the son of a major Greek deity

BUT he was born in Pella, Macedon to Philip II

Philip II, was also born in Pella, Macedon

Philip also wanted to expand his empire and conquer Greece... but couldn't.... funny, that's what his son did....

was taught by Greeks

I know plenty of people in America who aren't American... but are being taught by American teachers.... since they're being taught by them, I guess (by your logic) they're all Americans now... screw where they came from

and, hell, is one of the leaderheads for the Greeks in the Civilization games

so? he ruled over Greece during its greatest time, why WOULDN'T he be the leader to choose?!?

you choose to claim that he belongs to a nationality that did not exist until well over a millennium after Alexandros died when a bunch of Slavs moved into Makedonia.

Is that right?

yes... that is right

I'd like you to prove how Rome's destruction of Carthage was hardly a victory for Rome... Carthage was wiped out.... destroyed, devistated... Rome desicated the land, and made it a horrible place... they plowed salt in their fields... etc...
I'd like you to prove how the Hellenic alliance's destruction of the Persian fleet was hardly a victory for them. The Peloponnese was saved...the Persian threat of subjugation of the Greek states was wiped out...the abortion of Western civilization was prevented...etc...
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire"]

that's the Byzantine Empire, not Roman Empire***see later quote
***ok, this is where I'll admit, I wasn't explicit enough...

I don't think you should count the Byzantine Empire as part of it, I just think you should look at the Roman years (around 500) because this subject deals with Rome, not the Byzantine Empire.... which was different, because that strayed from traditional Roman beliefs

so neither
Okay, so we'll ignore your assertion that the Byzantines can be considered Roman. Hell, we'll ignore them altogether because their mere existence makes this thread even sillier than it already was.
specific philosophers are very difficult to compare, because they are entirely different then actual culture of a nation... they can influence it, sometimes heavily, but philosophers aren't culture

and YES... Rome was superior culturally, because they built upon the foundations and the important parts of the Greek culture... its what people do... they take what was good about previous things, and make it BETTER
its how technology advances, its how evolution works.... you deny this, you deny pretty much all of evolution, which is, at this point in time, hardly arguable
Equatism with that evolution and technology business? :p

Rome didn't "build on Greek culture and make it 'better'". There really is no benchmark for how "good" a culture is or not (despite the attempts of the Civilization games to make one), so already your claim is subjective. Kinda moot in an argument. Too, if anything the Romans made a syncretic mix of various Mediterranean theologies, ideologies, and cultures; someone who doesn't like Roman "stuff" in general could assert that Rome didn't make Greek culture any "better" by adding Roman, Egyptian, Punic, Celtic, or any of that stuff to it. So to all intents and purposes this is a pointless thing to argue about and a horrendous way to support your assertion.

Second, technological advances and evolution aren't really comparable to "culture". Culture is already so ill defined that we can't "improve" on it at all, it can only be made different. More isn't always better. There are loads of people who don't want to introduce Western cultural mores and concepts into their society. Does that make their culture worse than ours?
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_%2891%E2%80%9388_BC%29"]

so you're saying the idea that "Your (insert city state-name here) before you're Greek" idea didn't divide Greece more, then when Rome had its civil war
No, I'm challenging your assertion that Rome was some monolithic united entity that never warred amongst itself and was hence able to easily exploit the fighting Hellenic city-states.
Greece had a civil war too you know
Are you referring to the fourth century BC Social War? Which wasn't a "Greek Civil War"? ("Greece" wouldn't technically have a civil war until the communist insurrection of the 1940s. :))

Look, I know that the Greeks weren't all united. I wish merely to point out that Rome was divided as well.
ok... so nationalism doesn't play a role there??!?!?!
It does. Petty Balkan nationalism has led governments to claim that Megas Alexandros, who led a Greek army to the far Indos, was not Greek, attempting to retroactively make their nation look good. It's nothing new. Do you think that the government of the FYROM is incapable of lying? What makes the men and women in Skopje more believable than a bunch of historians from back in the day?
"lets make a history of our nation! CRAP... our greatest leader wasn't really from Greece... oh well... stretch the truth..."

you'll trust that?
I believe that that is more or less the situation.
frankly... I trust the facts.... he was born in Macedonia... born to a Macedonian... he is Macedonian.... not Greek
By your logic, Perikles was Athenian, not Greek. Leonidas was Lakedaimonian, not Greek. Epaminondas was Theban, not Greek. Agathokles was Syrakousan, not Greek. Which is idiocy.

I understand and acknowledge that Makedonia was a separate state, but there was no one "Greek empire" at any point in time until the 1820s, excepting possibly the Alexandrine and Eastern Roman Empires. The Greek culture extended across many polities, from Sicily in the west to Kypros and Trebizond in the east during the classical, pre-Hellenistic era. Alexandros and the Makedonians were a subset of those Greeks, with some regional identity separate from the greater national culture. The fact that they did not belong to a single political entity does not make them a separate cultural group as well.
because just because he was conquering Greece politically.... he wouldn't be very successful if he didn't speak Greek.... in fact... he probably would've failed miserably...
:rolleyes: George I didn't speak English and he managed to get pretty far. Greek was his primary language, he was a native speaker.
he CONQUERED the Greeks, therefore he RULED Greeks... that's a no-brainer.
He didn't have to conquer the Makedonians, who were Greek and spoke a dialect of Greek.
I know plenty of people in America who aren't American... but are being taught by American teachers.... since they're being taught by them, I guess (by your logic) they're all Americans now... screw where they came from
If they are American citizens, they are American.
so? he ruled over Greece during its greatest time, why WOULDN'T he be the leader to choose?!?
That remark was mostly forum-specific hyperbole, actually. ;)
yes... that is right
So...wait...what?

I give up. I seriously give up. Your e-penis is longer than mine is, I guess. I can't hammer factual information into your brain.

I'd like you to prove how the Hellenic alliance's destruction of the Persian fleet was hardly a victory for them. The Peloponnese was saved...the Persian threat of subjugation of the Greek states was wiped out...the abortion of Western civilization was prevented...etc...

the way I see it... Greece just saved itself from destruction by gaining control of the seas... this just caused Persia to lose its offensive capability for long enough, that peace was declared. Persia (in my eyes) still could've beaten them, had they have not lost their navy at the battle of Salamis

Equatism with that evolution and technology business? :p

Rome didn't "build on Greek culture and make it 'better'". There really is no benchmark for how "good" a culture is or not (despite the attempts of the Civilization games to make one), so already your claim is subjective. Kinda moot in an argument. Too, if anything the Romans made a syncretic mix of various Mediterranean theologies, ideologies, and cultures; someone who doesn't like Roman "stuff" in general could assert that Rome didn't make Greek culture any "better" by adding Roman, Egyptian, Punic, Celtic, or any of that stuff to it. So to all intents and purposes this is a pointless thing to argue about and a horrendous way to support your assertion.

Second, technological advances and evolution aren't really comparable to "culture". Culture is already so ill defined that we can't "improve" on it at all, it can only be made different. More isn't always better. There are loads of people who don't want to introduce Western cultural mores and concepts into their society. Does that make their culture worse than ours?

I think you can improve culture. otherwise, culture would never begin to grow, or really last that long through history.... it would be lost a lot of the time, as civilizations died out.

No, I'm challenging your assertion that Rome was some monolithic united entity that never warred amongst itself and was hence able to easily exploit the fighting Hellenic city-states.

true, but I take that as a reason to like Rome better... (not really an argument, or fact.... just an opinion of mine)

Are you referring to the fourth century BC Social War? Which wasn't a "Greek Civil War"? ("Greece" wouldn't technically have a civil war until the communist insurrection of the 1940s. :))

actually, I was referring to the Peloponnese War

by my education (and by what my history teacher taught me two years ago) was that the Peloponnese War was basically a Greek civil war

Look, I know that the Greeks weren't all united. I wish merely to point out that Rome was divided as well.

ok... I'm cool with that, I was just trying to prove back, that Greece was less united

It does. Petty Balkan nationalism has led governments to claim that Megas Alexandros, who led a Greek army to the far Indos, was not Greek, attempting to retroactively make their nation look good. It's nothing new. Do you think that the government of the FYROM is incapable of lying? What makes the men and women in Skopje more believable than a bunch of historians from back in the day?

it doesn't mean the Government of the FYRoM, now just the Republic of Macedonia, is lying. And yes, it is nationalism. But the way I look at it, is I take the facts. If you're born in Macedonia, you're a Macedonian (and at this time in Greece, you're (insert city-state here) before you're Greek)

By your logic, Perikles was Athenian, not Greek. Leonidas was Lakedaimonian, not Greek. Epaminondas was Theban, not Greek. Agathokles was Syrakousan, not Greek. Which is idiocy.

they were Greek... but yes, they were loyal to their city-state first, as I also stated before

I understand and acknowledge that Makedonia was a separate state, but there was no one "Greek empire" at any point in time until the 1820s, excepting possibly the Alexandrine and Eastern Roman Empires. The Greek culture extended across many polities, from Sicily in the west to Kypros and Trebizond in the east during the classical, pre-Hellenistic era. Alexandros and the Makedonians were a subset of those Greeks, with some regional identity separate from the greater national culture. The fact that they did not belong to a single political entity does not make them a separate cultural group as well.

but if cultural ties made people come from the same nation, there'd be alot less nations... just because culture is virtually the same, they still belong to two different nations

:rolleyes: George I didn't speak English and he managed to get pretty far. Greek was his primary language, he was a native speaker.

this is true, but I think you'll find 17th century British people to be a bit more accepting to other cultures than 4th century BC Greeks were (seeing as Greeks thought all others were 'barbaroi')

He didn't have to conquer the Makedonians, who were Greek and spoke a dialect of Greek.

true, but I speak English... I'm not from England

If they are American citizens, they are American.

there are plenty of people from other nations whom they're nationalities are not American, whom go to our school

That remark was mostly forum-specific hyperbole, actually. ;)

then you name a time when Greece was at a more epic, or powerful time then it was under Alexander the Great!

So...wait...what?

I claim that he is Macedonian, even though its culture is much smaller than that of Greece

I give up. I seriously give up.

don't give up, things were just gettin' good :)

Your e-penis is longer than mine is, I guess.

that's gross.... if I was a girl, I'd've been offended

I can't hammer factual information into your brain.

nor can I hammer logic into yours

I think i am Egyptian and Ramses the second is Greek because i am also Greek and ... Fyrom is right and .... My Iq dropped 20 points (From 89 it went to 69)

I think i am Egyptian and Ramses the second is Greek because i am also Greek and ... Fyrom is right and .... My Iq dropped 20 points (From 89 it went to 69)

now you can do whatever you want, you're legally retarded now!

:yeah:

Infraction for flaming. - KD

now you can do whatever you want, you're legally retarded now!

:yeah:

Great we can now communicate !

Yay for Civ logic!

true, but I speak English... I'm not from England

Really ? From where you are ?

Whoa. easy with the huge posts and arguments, fellas!
I'll say again: Rome managed an empire for years. The western empire lasted about 500 years and the Eastern empire lasted, from 40B.C, 1500 years. If Alexander is excluded as a Greek hero, then I fully think that Rome is better. Greece invented democracy, but the Romans upgraded the idea such as including the senate and dictators for emergencies, like Einstein improving Bohr's model. Sure, Rome stole their gods and culture, but they made new stuff too and improved it.
I tend to be interested in the military of things: Rome had better weapons, armour, generals and tactics. They conquered a lot of places, and this helped countries like France, Britain, Spain and Italy be founded, due to barbarian invasion and diminishing latin at the time. Therefore, Romans are better; if it weren't for them, the countries I've just said would be speaking in a completely different language, like, say, French people speaking Celtic.
Speaking of languages, Latin was made popular by the Romans. It is well alive, NOT DEAD! For example: contra means against in Latin. Now name some words that have that phrase, etc. contradict. Latin is alive in Italian, French, Spanish and english. Therefore, Romans had a better influence on the world than the Greeks. The Greeks involved drama, music and arts. Not as great as Romans making our history today, such as our current languages.

Anyway, look at the polls: 50/50. Why is Greece considered significant over Rome?
P.S. there are already 10 pages of this topic, if the answer is there, I'll look for it, but now I can't be bothered reading all that, especially arguments coming from dach and Taras.

Sendos you are looking at things in a very simplistic way.

it doesn't mean the Government of the FYRoM, now just the Republic of Macedonia, is lying. And yes, it is nationalism. But the way I look at it, is I take the facts. If you're born in Macedonia, you're a Macedonian (and at this time in Greece, you're (insert city-state here) before you're Greek)
So Macedonians where first Macedonians and secondly Greek ? Like Spartans where first Lakedaimonioi and then Hellenes. Ok ? But i don't see the reason to state that actually.


it doesn't mean the Government of the FYRoM, now just the Republic of Macedonia, is lying

FYROM which is the correct name (soon to be renamed most likely Northern Macedonia . Why ? Because their is a Macedonia that belongs to the Greek state today) is Lying. Actually they know they are lying and their prime minister actually admited they have nothing to do with Great Alexander and all. And they added " Greece is bad against us so we are justified to do it , they lead us". Nationalism sells i guess. I am ashamed that i live in a world where many (insert censored words here) people believe this BS.

but if cultural ties made people come from the same nation, there'd be alot less nations... just because culture is virtually the same, they still belong to two different nations

WTF are you talking about here ? Why are they two nations. Why aren't they 9 Nations or more ? Cypriot (Instead of Greek) Athenian (instead of Greek) From South Assia , etc ,etc ... Anyway Cultural ties often make ONE Nation sometimes for some other reasons they do not. Macedonians made no mention of being not Greek , they bassically created the Hellenistic age and where as culturally Greek as everyone else. Self identification is the most important requirement for deciding if one is a different National group or not. Today States tend to make States and Nations as something one and the same.

Though the Greeks assimiliated many Non Greek groups and Hellenized them , there was much Propaganda about whether one was descended from the Dorians or the Ionians. Sub-Nations in a Nation. (Both where Greek but the Athenians would often speak against Spartians for being from "Dorians" or Ionians i don't exactly remember what each one was.

Stop being ignorant.

And I do remember an interesting topic where another "expert" debated whether Spartans where Greek or whether Athenians where Greek...

Since Sendos asked so nicely.... my argument is in the spoiler
Really ? From where you are ?
US
Whoa. easy with the huge posts and arguments, fellas!
just to play devil's advocate, its not like your post was that short either (especially not responding to anyone elses, but I'll try to cut down)
So Macedonians where first Macedonians and secondly Greek ? Like Spartans where first Lakedaimonioi and then Hellenes. Ok ? But i don't see the reason to state that actually.
No, frankly, I don't believe Macedonians were Greek, I was stating that so that all the people who SAY or THINK Macedonians were Greek realize what is what they thought. Reason being that he would've had stronger ties with Macedonia than just Greek
FYROM which is the correct name (soon to be renamed most likely Northern Macedonia . Why ? Because their is a Macedonia that belongs to the Greek state today) is Lying. Actually they know they are lying and their prime minister actually admited they have nothing to do with Great Alexander and all. And they added " Greece is bad against us so we are justified to do it , they lead us". Nationalism sells i guess. I am ashamed that i live in a world where many (insert censored words here) people believe this BS.
Its currently the Republic of Macedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FYROM), with naming disputes with Greece... even if you type in FYROM, you still come up with the article entitled "Republic of Macedonia"
and I am ashamed to live in a world where people are too afraid to stand up to arrogant a-holes who think they know things, when LOGICALLY, the answer is right in front of their face, they just refuse to see it
If you're BORN in Macedonia, YOU ARE MACEDONIAN!
I'd like you to tell me otherwise, and pretty much defy the one idea that ALL nations agree on.
WTF are you talking about here ? Why are they two nations. Why aren't they 9 Nations or more ? Cypriot (Instead of Greek) Athenian (instead of Greek) From South Assia , etc ,etc ... Anyway Cultural ties often make ONE Nation sometimes for some other reasons they do not. Macedonians made no mention of being not Greek , they basically created the Hellenistic age and where as culturally Greek as everyone else. Self identification is the most important requirement for deciding if one is a different National group or not. Today States tend to make States and Nations as something one and the same.
By your logic, why aren't a lot of other national boundries different, if culture determines national boundaries? Switzerland wouldn't even exist, almost definitely, and would've been split b/w France, Germany, Italy.... etc.... look at Scandinavian countries with very similar cultures.... wouldn't they be morphed? Look at Scotland? It was quite culturally different than England, but now its a part of Great Britain. LOOK AT THE USA, for cryin' out loud!?!?!? Its a mix of ALL KINDS of cultures!!!
Though the Greeks assimiliated many Non Greek groups and Hellenized them , there was much Propaganda about whether one was descended from the Dorians or the Ionians. Sub-Nations in a Nation. (Both where Greek but the Athenians would often speak against Spartians for being from "Dorians" or Ionians i don't exactly remember what each one was.
so now cultural boundaries shouldn't make national boundaries?!?
Stop being ignorant
stop being arrogant

Rome was superior culturally, because they built upon the foundations and the important parts of the Greek culture... its what people do... they take what was good about previous things, and make it BETTER
its how technology advances, its how evolution works.... you deny this, you deny pretty much all of evolution, which is, at this point in time, hardly arguable

Heh, I think we have a new contender for worst argument ever made on this forum, and that's really saying something. That logic's so crooked it's completely backwards.

Speaking of languages, Latin was made popular by the Romans. It is well alive, NOT DEAD! For example: contra means against in Latin. Now name some words that have that phrase, etc. contradict. Latin is alive in Italian, French, Spanish and english. Therefore, Romans had a better influence on the world than the Greeks.

More influence isn't the same thing as better influence. More to the point, all the languages you mention have articles, which Greek does but Latin doesn't. The structure of a language is more fundamental than its vocubulary. Does it therefore follow that Greek has had more influence on modern languages than Latin has, and that the Greeks are therefore better than the Romans?

Heh, I think we have a new contender for worst argument ever made on this forum, and that's really saying something. That logic's so crooked it's completely backwards.

so you're saying that if you take what others learned, and develop it more, that's a BAD thing?

That using the fundamental principles that separate man from ape, that we can use information learned from others, and advance from that, instead of starting all over, is WORSE than trying to completely make up something new?!?!?

THAT seems like backwards logic to me!

More influence isn't the same thing as better influence. More to the point, all the languages you mention have articles, which Greek does but Latin doesn't. The structure of a language is more fundamental than its vocubulary. Does it therefore follow that Greek has had more influence on modern languages than Latin has, and that the Greeks are therefore better than the Romans?

how is more not better? If you took out all Latin roots, then you would destroy more of those languages than if you were to take out Greek roots.

Yes, Greek has its ties to modern nations too, but the amount of Latin used in modern language I think constitutes it as the dominant basis of the language.

so you're saying that if you take what others learned, and develop it more, that's a BAD thing?

No, I'm not disputing your claim that it's good to improve things. I'm commenting that the argument you presented to support the claim that culture generally gets better does not work. This is not the same thing. Your argument seemed to take this form:

(1) Anyone who claims that culture does not progress is committed to denying that evolution occurs at all.
(2) But evolution clearly does occur.
(3) Therefore the claim that culture does not progress is false.

(1) is so obviously false it's not even worth disputing it, which means that (3) remains unproven. In fact (3) seems obviously false too, since there are many aspects of culture where there doesn't seem to be progress, at least as far as value goes. Novels published today may be rather different from those published a century ago, or two centuries ago, but I doubt you'll find many people prepared to argue that they are, on average, better. Also, no-one ever watched reality TV shows until a decade or two ago, which means there's a pretty good case for saying that culture has moved irretrievably backwards over that period.

how is more not better?

Often! Big Macs are more widely available than poularde truffée aux perles noires du Périgord, but it doesn't follow that American fast food is better than French haute cuisine.

If you took out all Latin roots, then you would destroy more of those languages than if you were to take out Greek roots.

Yes, Greek has its ties to modern nations too, but the amount of Latin used in modern language I think constitutes it as the dominant basis of the language.

Latin may be the "dominant basis" of Romance languages, but neither Greek nor Latin is the basis for other languages such as English, which is Germanic. Obviously there is a lot more vocabulary from Latin than from Greek in English, but vocabulary is not the basis of a language. In fact I think that, grammatically speaking, Greek is rather closer to English than Latin is, but I'm no linguist.

I prefer the ancient Greeks, myself.

ts currently the Republic of Macedonia, with naming disputes with Greece... even if you type in FYROM, you still come up with the article entitled "Republic of Macedonia"
and I am ashamed to live in a world where people are too afraid to stand up to arrogant a-holes who think they know things, when LOGICALLY, the answer is right in front of their face, they just refuse to see it
If you're BORN in Macedonia, YOU ARE MACEDONIAN!
I'd like you to tell me otherwise, and pretty much defy the one idea that ALL nations agree on.

No International organisation recognizes it as Macedonia. The naming dispute does not have to do only with Greece. The name that will come from the negotiations will be final. FYROM was decided to be used by international organisations previously but both sides want to reach a new compromise. International status of FYROM = Fyrom and the one that will come out of the negotiations. Else FYROM will not enter NATO and EU. United states supports the negotiations and pressures FYROM so that it agrees with the Greek suggestion. And what is the Greek suggestion ? Northern Macedonia. Reffering to the geographical area the country is situated. But i guess even when that happens ignorant morons such as your self will still continue to say the same ignorant things on the same subject.


and I am ashamed to live in a world where people are too afraid to stand up to arrogant a-holes who think they know things, when LOGICALLY, the answer is right in front of their face, they just refuse to see it
If you're BORN in Macedonia, YOU ARE MACEDONIAN!
I'd like you to tell me otherwise, and pretty much defy the one idea that ALL nations agree on.

What in earth are you talking about ? Are you talking about the past or present ? Anyway i think that you should also be aware that their is a region in northern Greece that is named Macedonia. Today ? So in that case the Macedonains of Greece what are they ? This is off topic though.

I am also wondering what is your argument actually other than the lowest form of Stupidity ?

I am born in Nicosia ? Am i a Cypriot ? I am born in Cyprus am i a Greek ? Pericles is born in Athens is he a Greek ? ( I actually consider my self both a Cypriot , a Greek , a Nicosian , and as member of my neighborhood.


By your logic, why aren't a lot of other national boundries different, if culture determines national boundaries? Switzerland wouldn't even exist, almost definitely, and would've been split b/w France, Germany, Italy.... etc.... look at Scandinavian countries with very similar cultures.... wouldn't they be morphed? Look at Scotland? It was quite culturally different than England, but now its a part of Great Britain. LOOK AT THE USA, for cryin' out loud!?!?!? Its a mix of ALL KINDS of cultures!!!

By my logic national borders today are decided by a billion different things you . .. .. .. .ing moron.

The way we decide National borders today is not used to decide National borders at the time of Classical Greece. In fact there where no national borders. Their where borders between City states. So we either call them all to be from 12 different Nations although everyone identified each other as a Greek or we don't be Idiots and speak about 21 centuree situation when speaking about the situation 2000 years ago.

so now cultural boundaries shouldn't make national boundaries?!?

Their are no National boundaries. They are Macedonians. They are also Greeks. Or if you would like to give them two Nations . They are Macedonians (in nationality) and also Greek.

I don't see why one should choose only one of the two actually. (The same is applied in the case of Rome and Byzantium and other areas) . What does Fyrom has to do with anything i guess makes sense only in the most ignorant of minds.

stop being arrogant I have been too kind actually.

Infraction for flaming. - KD

Heh, 50 votes for one, 50 votes for the other, 50% votes for one, 50% votes for the other, this is amazingly well balanced. :D

with the only way I could to shorten this post, in respect of people who don't like these crazy long ones... its spoilered again

No, I'm not disputing your claim that it's good to improve things. I'm commenting that the argument you presented to support the claim that culture generally gets better does not work. This is not the same thing. Your argument seemed to take this form:

(1) Anyone who claims that culture does not progress is committed to denying that evolution occurs at all.
(2) But evolution clearly does occur.
(3) Therefore the claim that culture does not progress is false.

I wouldn't say committed to denying it, but it is would be the same AS denying evolution

(1) is so obviously false it's not even worth disputing it

exactly

which means that (3) remains unproven.

that doesn't mean (3) is unproven.... some people ignore key elements that prove culture is evolving and advancing....

take any aspect of ancient life (prior to great civilizations) and look at how they expressed themselves, and their outlook on life today.... saying that culture doesn't evolve is pretty much saying that we have the same ideals we did when permanent homes had just been established.

In fact (3) seems obviously false too, since there are many aspects of culture where there doesn't seem to be progress, at least as far as value goes.

yes, certain aspects to remain the same.... as I stated when I said "Rome took what was good from the Greeks" (or something to that effect)

Novels published today may be rather different from those published a century ago, or two centuries ago, but I doubt you'll find many people prepared to argue that they are, on average, better.

I'll admit that novels (and literature in general) are harder to look at, because they're a rather "time-period" type of thing. I doubt there are many people who could read the epic of Gilgamesh and say "oh wow, I'm going to go look for how to reach eternal life"
back then, it seemed more fitting....
and now, if you read, to say To Kill a Mocking-Bird, people can relate to that more (not so much now, as they could've in prior decades) but if you sent that book back to Ancient Sumeria, I doubt they'd care to much about slavery and oppression, and equality of ALL races

so, in that aspect, it is harder to look at, but other aspects, culture has evolved, and as evolution goes, when you evolve, you get better

Also, no-one ever watched reality TV shows until a decade or two ago, which means there's a pretty good case for saying that culture has moved irretrievably backwards over that period.

one, that is a modern case study... not an Ancient Roman example (don't get me wrong, it was a good idea, and there's nothing I can do to deny that w/o just flat out lying)

but, you can't deny that culture does evolve and get BETTER at least most of the time, or else we'd be in a VERY backward society today

I'm not really that knowledgeable in any specific topic of ancient Roman history, but just the power that Rome emanated struck fear into the hearts of other nations (look at how the Barca family felt about Romes rising power)

Often! Big Macs are more widely available than poularde truffée aux perles noires du Périgord, but it doesn't follow that American fast food is better than French haute cuisine.

that's entirely subjective (you can say that about my argument too, but its much less subjective in the fact that there is logic to back it, not just opinion)

frankly, out of all that "fancy" food I've had, I would've much rather had just a hamburger (not from McDonalds.... at least pick a better American fast food place)

Latin may be the "dominant basis" of Romance languages, but neither Greek nor Latin is the basis for other languages such as English, which is Germanic. Obviously there is a lot more vocabulary from Latin than from Greek in English, but vocabulary is not the basis of a language. In fact I think that, grammatically speaking, Greek is rather closer to English than Latin is, but I'm no linguist.

this week, I had summer courses for AP Biology, and we're learning about ecology.

We were learning about how a dominant species in a community is the most abundant and usually has the most biomass of all the organisms (basically saying, it has the biggest effect on all the other organisms)
Lets say you were to take out, or harm, or do something really drastic to the dominant species, it will effect the ENTIRE community drastically.

It is the same concept for Latin and modern languages. I'm no linguist either, but if you were to destroy all Latin roots, you would pretty much cut out most words (just like killing off most organisms)

yeah, you can say those organisms might not have been necessary for the survival of the ecosystem.... but those organisms are VERY important overall


PS-now that its probably too late, and I've probably made it on the ignore list of at least 15 different people, I'm not trying to be mean, and I probably could've handled situations better.... sorry if I came across being very rude (I know I have, I do it all the time)

PS-now that its probably too late, and I've probably made it on the ignore list of at least 15 different people, I'm not trying to be mean, and I probably could've handled situations better.... sorry if I came across being very rude (I know I have, I do it all the time)

And in case you start complaining about my insults remember that you are the one who has used words such as "Ass*ole to refer to me. Though your ignorance and persistence to it was an insult by it self.

No International organisation recognizes it as Macedonia. The naming dispute does not have to do only with Greece. The name that will come from the negotiations will be final. FYROM was decided to be used by international organisations previously but both sides want to reach a new compromise. International status of FYROM = Fyrom and the one that will come out of the negotiations. Else FYROM will not enter NATO and EU. United states supports the negotiations and pressures FYROM so that it agrees with the Greek suggestion. And what is the Greek suggestion ? Northern Macedonia. Reffering to the geographical area the country is situated. But i guess even when that happens ignorant morons such as your self will still continue to say the same ignorant things on the same subject.

Yes, I know there is a part of Macedonia in Greece, but what I don't get is why people can't accept what Macedonia is proposing its name as (which I accept it as)

What in earth are you talking about ? Are you talking about the past or present ? Anyway i think that you should also be aware that their is a region in northern Greece that is named Macedonia. Today ? So in that case the Macedonains of Greece what are they ? This is off topic though.

I am also wondering what is your argument actually other than the lowest form of Stupidity ? so you're denying that if you're born in Macedonia, you're not a Macedonian?!?

I am born in Nicosia ? Am i a Cypriot ? I am born in Cyprus am i a Greek ? Pericles is born in Athens is he a Greek ? ( I actually consider my self both a Cypriot , a Greek , a Nicosian , and as member of my neighborhood.by you're logic, you could be none of those, idk what you are. If you aren't classified as the nation you come from, then idk what you are, frankly

By my logic national borders today are decided by a billion different things you . .. .. .. .ing moron.then why say that their often made by culture, if there are soo many other factors? if there were so many other factors, culture (unless you're arguing is a large percentage) is a very SMALL factor

The way we decide National borders today is not used to decide National borders at the time of Classical Greece. In fact there where no national borders. Their where borders between City states. So we either call them all to be from 12 different Nations although everyone identified each other as a Greek or we don't be Idiots and speak about 21 centuree situation when speaking about the situation 2000 years ago. I never said borders were established the same way now as they were then.

I was refuting you're idea that culture makes national boundaries....

Their are no National boundaries. They are Macedonians. They are also Greeks. Or if you would like to give them two Nations . They are Macedonians (in nationality) and also Greek. if they're born in Macedonia, they're Macedonian, if they're born in Greece (that includes the Macedonia IN Greece) they're Greek

this doesn't mean that is their heritage, that tells you where they're from.... what I've been trying to say for the past 50,000 posts I've made

I don't see why one should choose only one of the two actually. (The same is applied in the case of Rome and Byzantium and other areas) . What does Fyrom has to do with anything i guess makes sense only in the most ignorant of minds.umm.... so you have a national identity?

by you're logic, if you were asked "where are you from" you could respond with something as random as "Russia, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, and Hungary.... I couldn't pick which one, so I chose all of them"

I have been too kind actually.I'll take your word on this one

And in case you start complaining about my insults remember that you are the one who has used words such as "Ass*ole to refer to me. Though your ignorance and persistence to it was an insult by it self.

yes, I know, I deserved all those derogatory things you said to me... I was being an a-hole..... I'm sorry

if they're born in Macedonia, they're Macedonian, if they're born in Greece (that includes the Macedonia IN Greece) they're Greek

this doesn't mean that is their heritage, that tells you where they're from.... what I've been trying to say for the past 50,000 posts I've made


Greece is just a geographical region. Hellenism is not bounded by geographical boundaries. Though i wonder that are the geographical boundaries of Greece. Are Greek in South Asia (Modern Turkey) Cyprus , Sicily ,etc. Today Greece is considered to be only the area where the Greek state exists. We have two choices. We either say that Greece is whatever places Greeks exist. or is just the small geographical region of today and the Greeks that live in other Places live in "sicily" , of South Italy for example (Because we use modern geographic terms.

Is an Athenian Greek , Taras ?

Greece is just a geographical region. Hellenism is not bounded by geographical boundaries. Though i wonder that are the geographical boundaries of Greece. Are Greek in South Asia (Modern Turkey) Cyprus , Sicily ,etc. Today Greece is considered to be only the area where the Greek state exists. We have two choices. We either say that Greece is whatever places Greeks exist. or is just the small geographical region of today and the Greeks that live in other Places live in "sicily" , of South Italy for example (Because we use modern geographic terms.

Is an Athenian Greek , Taras ?

I get what you're saying, but IMO, you're "Greek" if you are born anywhere in Greece.

If you were born in Turkey, or Cyprus, or Sicily, you're Turkish, Cypriot (idk about that one, I forget it off the top of my head) or Sicilian, respectively

So yes I consider being Athenian Greek

As to what I was saying before, about the "I'm (insert city state name here) first, and Greek second" was just trying to explain division in Ancient Greece, and how Alexander (if you do want to consider that part of Macedonia part of Greece) by the way their oaths fell, would've been more loyal to Pella (or Macedon) before Greece.

I get what you're saying, but IMO, you're "Greek" if you are born anywhere in Greece.

If you were born in Turkey, or Cyprus, or Sicily, you're Turkish, Cypriot (idk about that one, I forget it off the top of my head) or Sicilian, respectively

So yes I consider being Athenian Greek

As to what I was saying before, about the "I'm (insert city state name here) first, and Greek second" was just trying to explain division in Ancient Greece, and how Alexander (if you do want to consider that part of Macedonia part of Greece) by the way their oaths fell, would've been more loyal to Pella (or Macedon) before Greece.

Other than the fact that what is understood as Greece now is not understood as Greece then. I consider your opinion absolutely retarded and i would like to fine one historian who agrees with it.

So Archimedes of Syracouse (An Italian Island now) is not a Greek , eh ? Neither am I because that is what YOU think. You are aware what Magna Gracea is ? It was the "Big idea" Greece extends to where Greek speaking population exist. Today Greece borders are so because Greek speaking populations did not achieve to unite under one Country or where killed . We Cypriots fought for Enosis and beated the British empire.

(I wonder what do you think where the Greeks who lived in today Turkey in the times of the Eastern Roman empire)

So If Greece back then was considered to be a much bigger geographical region than you think it is or Hellenism extends beyong Greece then do you realize how stupid what you are saying is ? (And this is not an insult it is among the most stupid things one said in this thread).


I am happy to learn that Archimedes (of Syracuse or Sicily) Was Not a Greek. Thank you. What about The Stoicism from Zinon of Kition of Cyprus. (The area did not change it's name you can visit if you like ?He created a whole different philosophical system all together.

Here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Citium So you may educate yourself because i have not met anyone with the rate of your ignorance on the subject.


I again have to ask. In the Eastern Roman empire Athens was nothing. The more important cities where Eastern. Far from what is today "Greece". Where they not Greek or more likely you use a stupid definition based on wrong geographic understanding of which area is Greece because you are extremely ignorant on the subject ?

Yes Delete all posts other than one of the above. This Forum is extremely buggy.

Edit : Actually it is more buggy than what i thought .It appeared that it was posted 10 times then i refreshed and it appears it has only be just double posted.

When Greece won Euro 2004 a big percentage of the population was out in the streets celebrating with the Greek flag singing in Greek (Our language) . Little did we know that we should have not done that because we are not Greek because we are from an Island. Enjoy logic. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Other than the fact that what is understood as Greece now is not understood as Greece then. I consider your opinion absolutely retarded and i would like to fine one historian who agrees with it.

you don't need a historian... reading what else you wrote, I think you misunderstood me. With modern boundaries NOW is what that last post of mine was referring to

So Archimedes of Syracouse (An Italian Island now) is not a Greek , eh ? Neither am I because that is what YOU think. You are aware what Magna Gracea is ? It was the "Big idea" Greece extends to where Greek speaking population exist. Today Greece borders are so because Greek speaking populations did not achieve to unite under one Country or where killed . We Cypriots fought for Enosis and beated the British empire.

you OBVIOUSLY mis-understood me, because I am not at all implying that today's boundaries is my basis of determining who is or wasn't Greek back then....

using what you THINK I thought, then Alexander the Great WOULD be Greek

Greeks held colonies on those islands, and if you were a part of that colony, you are Greek (because you were born in Greece, or a colony at least)

(I wonder what do you think where the Greeks who lived in today Turkey in the times of the Eastern Roman empire)

depending on where they were born, and what that nation was where they were born at that time, that is their nationality.... that doesn't mean they can't denounce that

So If Greece back then was considered to be a much bigger geographical region than you think it is or Hellenism extends beyong Greece then do you realize how stupid what you are saying is ? (And this is not an insult it is among the most stupid things one said in this thread).

you asked me what I thought Greece was, I answered.... if you actually specified Ancient or Modern, I could've given you a more definitive answer, instead of you making up radical ideas based off of things I said about completely different things.

I am happy to learn that Archimedes (of Syracuse or Sicily) Was Not a Greek. Thank you. What about The Stoicism from Zinon of Kition of Cyprus. (The area did not change it's name you can visit if you like ?He created a whole different philosophical system all together.

Here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Citium So you may educate yourself because i have not met anyone with the rate of your ignorance on the subject.

this is just a continued argument from before.... where you were born, and in what national boundaries determine your nationality. That is what I have been saying, you just don't seem to think its right.

you're level of arrogance is blinding you to the fact that I'm stating my opinion, you're just pulling words in and out to make me state a lie.

I again have to ask. In the Eastern Roman empire Athens was nothing. The more important cities where Eastern. Far from what is today "Greece". Where they not Greek or more likely you use a stupid definition based on wrong geographic understanding of which area is Greece because you are extremely ignorant on the subject ?

I'm not even sure what you're asking here, that sentence doesn't make any sense at all.

If the Eastern Roman Empire had control of Greece when a person was born in Athens, they are Roman. If they took control of it AFTER that person was born, they are Greek, under Roman control. You can claim your heritage to be Greek (which is clearly true) but IF you were born under Roman control, so you're Roman.

When Greece won Euro 2004 a big percentage of the population was out in the streets celebrating with the Greek flag singing in Greek (Our language) . Little did we know that we should have not done that because we are not Greek because we are from an Island. Enjoy logic. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol:

As I've stated at least twice before, your heritage can be from Greece. You can be proud about your heritage. You can celebrate your heritage, that is just another way of celebrating it.

Nationality and heritage are two COMPLETELY different things



by MY logic, that makes total sense... idiot

What makes Macedon different from a random Cypriot City ? (Which you previously said that Cypriots are not Greek because you are an idiot and you contradict yourself.)

As I've stated at least twice before, your heritage can be from Greece. You can be proud about your heritage. You can celebrate your heritage, that is just another way of celebrating it.

Nationality and heritage are two COMPLETELY different things



by MY logic, that makes total sense... idiot

Find me one historian who uses the same definition ? I am not calling you Idiot to flame you. I am calling you an idiot because this is the best way to describe your positions.

What makes Macedon different from a random Cypriot City ? (Which you previously said that Cypriots are not Greek because you are an idiot and you contradict yourself.)

DID YOU READ MY POST AT ALL!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


I just said, when you asked the question, because you weren't explicit, I assumed you meant the modern nation! SO, if you are born in Cyprus TODAY, you are a CYPRIOT! If you were born in Cyprus when Greece had control of it, you are GREEK!

And when Alexander was born, Pella was under control by MACEDON... that makes him MACEDONIAN!

and like I said, you keep taking logic, and just distorting it into something that makes no sense, and saying that is what I said!

When did Greece control Athens or Sparta or any city state ? What is this mythical BS you are talking about ? Cyprus also was not one state. There was many City states in Cyprus as well. (what are they ? Aliens of course) Go here www.wikipedia.com , search on other sources and books , educate yourself and then come here to annoy me with your collosal ignorance.

Find me one historian who uses the same definition ? I am not calling you Idiot to flame you. I am calling you an idiot because this is the best way to describe your positions.

I'm sure PLENTY of historians agree with me, that Heritage is different from Nationality, and a lot of the time Heritage can play a more important role than Nationality.

I highly doubt there were any times when historians would state something like that, seeing as that isn't really a common question.

in fact, I don't know of ANYONE who would say that is a false statement.

Nationality = citizenship.
the ONLY case where I could accept that Alexander was a Greek is if you could prove to me WHEN Alexander renounced his Macedonian homeland or at least OFFICIALLY became a Greek citizen....

then I'll admit he was Greek....

OFFICIALLY became a Greek citizen....
None was officialy a Greek citizen you . .. .. .. .ing Moron.

Infraction for name-calling. - KD

When did Greece control Athens or Sparta or any city state ? What is this mythical BS you are talking about ? Cyprus also was not one state. There was many City states in Cyprus as well. (what are they ? Aliens of course) Go here www.wikipedia.com (http://www.wikipedia.com) , search on other sources and books , educate yourself and then come here to annoy me with your collosal ignorance.

you're telling me that Athenians at that time didn't consider themselves Greek?

Spartans didn't consider themselves Greek?


Their first duty was to their city-state, but if required, they would defend against an outside enemy as a Greek (i.e.-the war with Persia)

you're telling me that Athenians at that time didn't consider themselves Greek?

Spartans didn't consider themselves Greek?


Their first duty was to their city-state, but if required, they would defend against an outside enemy as a Greek (i.e.-the war with Persia)

So now your criteria is self identification ?

None was officialy a Greek citizen you . .. .. .. .ing Moron.

if you believe THAT, then how do you call ANYONE of those people Greeks?!?!?!?!?

So now your criteria is self identification ?

no, my criteria is which side they would take if there was a war that threatened that entire area (at least for Ancient Greece ALONE, because there was no one specific nation)

Anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_great
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians

if you believe THAT, then how do you call ANYONE of those people Greeks?!?!?!?!?

Because they where Hellenes not by law but by culture (Religion,Language, Philosophy,self identification , identification of others , etc) , heredity , and adoption of Greek way of life. None was officially a Greek. They all where part of City states.

Look at the allies of Greece, and the Allies of Persia... I think you'll find Macedon took sides with Persia.

along with what I said.... Macedon fought against Greece, not with them.... Macedon isn't Greek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Wars

no, my criteria is which side they would take if there was a war that threatened that entire area (at least for Ancient Greece ALONE, because there was no one specific nation)

I see. So Sparta , are not Greek. (For siding with the Persians at the extend of other Greek cities) . Or maybe Other Greek cities other than Macedon are not Greek. Why of course they did not want to be conquered by Macedon , so that under their rule they would own the Persians.

Maybe pursuing their city state's interest , even when it conflicts with other Greeks , does not make them not Greek by miracle ? (Just maybe).

Because they where Hellenes not by law but by culture (Religion,Language, Philosophy,self identification , identification of others , etc) , heredity , and adoption of Greek way of life. None was officially a Greek. They all where part of City states.

so they just liked the 'Greek' culture better?

they called themselves that, and THAT is your way of determining nationality?

Look at the allies of Greece, and the Allies of Persia... I think you'll find Macedon took sides with Persia.

along with what I said.... Macedon fought against Greece, not with them.... Macedon isn't Greek

Sparta is also not Greek then.

And there is the whole problem of time. Macedon of the Persian wars is not the same Macedon of Alexander the Great.

so they just liked the 'Greek' culture better?

they called themselves that, and THAT is your way of determining nationality?

The are several distinctive characteristics that make a culture. Self identification is extremely important as well.

By your moronic definition because you are an idiot None of them where Greek. (But then you gave me the different definition of fighting against the Persians. That makes me wonder. Where they Greek previously ? )

Infraction for flaming. - KD

I see. So Sparta , are not Greek. (For siding with the Persians at the extend of other Greek cities) . Or maybe Other Greek cities other than Macedon are not Greek. Why of course they did not want to be conquered by Macedon , so that under their rule they would own the Persians.

Maybe pursuing their city state's interest , even when it conflicts with other Greeks , does not make them not Greek by miracle ? (Just maybe).

seeing as defending their survival was a big part of Greece culture, if Sparta did side with Persia (which in the Greco-Persian Wars, they were on the side of Greece) then no, they aren't Greeks. Because true Greeks at that time wouldn't have fought against their homeland

The are several distinctive characteristics that make a culture. Self identification is extremely important as well.

By your moronic definition because you are an idiot None of them where Greek. (But then you gave me the different definition of fighting against the Persians. That makes me wonder. Where they Greek previously ? )

National boundaries is my rule, my only rule.

Seeing as Greece didn't have a national boundary, and you choose to pick out words you like to make me sound less intelligent, Greece had to be defined differently.... as I said before

those who would've sided with Greece during an "extermination" of those areas I consider Greek.... during ANY time.

seeing as defending their survival was a big part of Greece culture, if Sparta did side with Persia (which in the Greco-Persian Wars, they were on the side of Greece) then no, they aren't Greeks. Because true Greeks at that time wouldn't have fought against their homeland

So when the Spartan sided with the Persians so they would beat the Athenians in the Pelloponesian war , they instantly magically where made as Not Greeks ? (I think the Athenians may also had done that but i must check it.)

I wonder what is your position of the Hellenistic kingdom. Rarely can one find such an ignorant mind , and ask him such question after all. So i am curious about what you think for a various subjects.

Infraction for flaming. - KD

National boundaries is my rule, my only rule.

Seeing as Greece didn't have a national boundary, and you choose to pick out words you like to make me sound less intelligent, Greece had to be defined differently.... as I said before

those who would've sided with Greece during an "extermination" of those areas I consider Greek.... during ANY time.

But what if an amazing thing happens ! What if an area that once sided against "Greeks" is Hellenized and Beats (The great enemy) Persia for Greece. If "Greek national interest" is so important then that would not make Macedon more Greek than anyone else ?


(Actually i laugh at your definitions)

Anyway i will copy past from wiki now.

So when the Spartan sided with the Persians so they would beat the Athenians in the Pelloponesian war , they instantly magically where made as Not Greeks ? (I think the Athenians may also had done that but i must check it.)

I wonder what is your position of the Hellenistic kingdom. Rarely can one find such an ignorant mind , and ask him such question after all. So i am curious about what you think for a various subjects.

seeing as the Peloponnesian War was pretty much a larger civil war, that doesn't fall under that circumstance.

Not to mention there was no Persian invasion, Sparta just received support from Persia.

Just the same as in the beginning of WWII when the US continued to export raw materials to Japan... the US wasn't AT WAR with the allies

Nice ignoring what i said about Time. But really i don't expect any better.

READ THIS. My quest here is not to convince you because convincing someone of things so basic is an insult of my intelligence but to educate you.

Alexander the Great
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Alexander the great)
Jump to: navigation, search
Semi-protected
For other uses, see Alexander the Great (disambiguation).
Alexander the Great
Basileus of Macedon, Hegemon of the Hellenic League, Pharaoh of Egypt, Shahanshah of Persia

Alexander fighting Persian king Darius III. From Alexander Mosaic, from Pompeii, Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.
Reign 336-323 BC
Born July 20, 356 BC
Birthplace Pella, Macedon
Died June 11, 323 BC (aged 32)
Place of death Babylon
Predecessor Philip II
Successor Alexander IV
Consort Roxana of Bactria
Stateira of Persia
Offspring Alexander IV
Father Philip II of Macedon
Mother Olympias of Epirus
[show]
v • d • e
Wars of

Alexander the Great
Chaeronea (338 BC) – Thebes (338 BC) – Granicus (334 BC) – Miletus (334 BC) – Halicarnassus (334 BC) – Issus (333 BC) – Gordium (333 BC) – Tyre (332 BC) – Gaza (332 BC) – Gaugamela (331 BC) – Persian Gate (330 BC) – Sogdian Rock (327 BC) – Aornos (327 BC) – Hydaspes (326 BC) – Malli (325 BC)

Alexander the Great (Greek: Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας or Μέγας Aλέξανδρος,[1] Megas Alexandros; July 20, 356 BC[2] – June 11, 323 BC),[3] also known as Alexander III of Macedon (Greek: Αλέξανδρος Γ' ο Μακεδών) was an ancient Greek[4][5] king (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders in history, and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks.

Alexander assumed the kingship of Macedon following the death of his father Philip II of Macedon. Philip had unified[6] most of the city-states of mainland Greece under Macedonian hegemony in a federation called the League of Corinth.[7] After reconfirming Macedonian rule by quashing a rebellion of southern Greek city-states, and staging a short but bloody excursion against Macedon's northern neighbors, Alexander set out east against the Achaemenid Persian Empire, which he defeated and overthrew. His conquests including Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, Gaza, Egypt, Bactria, and Mesopotamia, and extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as Punjab, India.

Prior to his death, Alexander had already made plans for military and mercantile expansions into the Arabian peninsula, after which he was to turn his armies to the west (Carthage, Rome, and the Iberian Peninsula). His original vision had been to the east, though, to the ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea, as described by his boyhood tutor Aristotle.

Alexander integrated many foreigners into his army, leading some scholars to credit him with a "policy of fusion." He also encouraged marriages between his soldiers and foreigners; he himself went on to marry two foreign princesses.

Alexander died after twelve years of constant military campaigning, possibly as a result of malaria, poisoning, typhoid fever, viral encephalitis or the consequences of alcoholism.[8][9] His legacy and conquests lived on long after him, and ushered in centuries of Greek settlement and cultural influence over distant areas. This period is known as the Hellenistic Age, and featured a combination of Greek, Middle Eastern and Indian culture. Alexander himself was featured prominently in the history and myth of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. His exploits inspired a literary tradition in which he appeared as a legendary hero in the tradition of Achilles.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Early life
o 1.1 Ascent of Macedon
* 2 Period of conquests
o 2.1 Fall of the Achaemenid Persian Empire
+ 2.1.1 Hostility
o 2.2 Invasion of India
o 2.3 After India
* 3 Death
o 3.1 Cause
o 3.2 Successor
o 3.3 Body
o 3.4 Testament
* 4 Personal life
* 5 Legacy and division of the empire
o 5.1 Influence on Ancient Rome
* 6 Character
* 7 Greek and Latin sources
* 8 Legend
o 8.1 In the Bible
o 8.2 In the Qur'an
o 8.3 In the Shahnameh
o 8.4 Names
o 8.5 In ancient and modern culture
* 9 Notes
* 10 References
* 11 Further reading
o 11.1 Non-Greek/Latin perspectives
* 12 External links

Early life
Alexander fighting an Asiatic lion with his friend Craterus (detail). He wears a chlamys cape, and a petasus hat. 3rd century B.C. mosaic, Pella museum.
Alexander fighting an Asiatic lion with his friend Craterus (detail). He wears a chlamys cape, and a petasus hat. 3rd century B.C. mosaic, Pella museum.

Born in Pella, capital of Macedon, Alexander was the son of King Philip II of Macedon and of his fourth wife Olympias, an Epirote princess. On his mother's side, he was a second cousin of Pyrrhus of Epirus, who himself would go on to become a celebrated general; thus, there are notable examples of military genius on both sides of his family. According to Plutarch, his father was descended from Heracles through Karanus of Macedon and his mother descended from Aeacus through Neoptolemus and Achilles.[10] Plutarch relates that both Philip and Olympias dreamt of their son's future birth. In Philip's dream, he sealed her womb with the seal of the lion. Alarmed by this, he consulted the seer Aristander of Telmessos, who determined that his wife was pregnant and that the child would have the character of a lion.[11] Another odd coincidence is that the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus was set afire on the night of his birth. Plutarch's explanation is that the Gods were too busy watching over Alexander to care for the temple.

According to five historians of antiquity (Arrian, Curtius, Diodorus, Justin, and Plutarch), after his visit to the Oracle of Ammon at Siwa, rumors spread that the Oracle had revealed Alexander's father to be Zeus, rather than Philip. In support of this, Plutarch (Alexander 3.1,3) claims that Philip avoided Olympias' bed because of her affinity for sleeping in the company of snakes.

In his early years, Alexander was raised by his nurse Lanike, who was Cleitus' older sister. Later, Alexander was educated by a strict teacher: Leonidas, himself a relative of Olympias. Leonidas' frugal ways are known to us through the extant record: reportedly, when Alexander threw a large amount of sacrificial incense into a fire, Leonidas reprimanded him, telling him that he could waste as much incense as he wished once he had conquered the spice bearing regions. Years later, following Alexander's conquest of Gaza, a city directly on the Persian spice trade route, the young king sent back over 15 tons of myrrh to Leonidas as a retort. It was Aristotle, though, who was Alexander's most famous and important tutor. The famous philosopher trained Alexander in rhetoric and literature, and stimulated his interest in science, medicine, and philosophy. Aristotle's gift to Alexander, a copy of the Iliad, was purportedly among the young king's most prized possessions—and was kept under his pillow, along with a dagger.

When Alexander was ten years old, a Thessalian brought a horse of such quality to sell to Philip that it was labeled a prodigy. As it turned out, though, the horse was so wild that no man could mount him. Young Alexander, recognizing that the horse's own shadow was the source of its fear, went to the steed and turned him towards the sun. Upon doing so, the horse calmed down, and the young king easily mounted and rode him. His father and other people who saw this were very impressed; Philip kissed him with tears of joy and said "My son, seek thee out a kingdom equal to thyself; Macedon has not room for thee." This horse was named Bucephalus, meaning "ox-headed"—though there is the possibility that the name refers to the brand that denoted the horse's origin. Bucephalus would be Alexander's companion throughout his journeys, and was truly loved: when the horse died (due to old age, according to Plutarch, for he was already 30; other sources claim that Bucephalus died of wounds sustained in a battle in India), Alexander named a city after him called Bocephia or Bucephala.

Ascent of Macedon
Sardonyx cameo representing Alexander the Great. Thought to be by Pyrgoteles, engraver of Alexander, around 325 BC. Cabinet des Médailles, Paris.
Sardonyx cameo representing Alexander the Great. Thought to be by Pyrgoteles, engraver of Alexander, around 325 BC. Cabinet des Médailles, Paris.
Bust of Alexander (Roman copy of a 330 BCE statue by Lysippus, Louvre Museum). According to Diodorus, the Alexander sculptures by Lysippus were the most faithful.
Bust of Alexander (Roman copy of a 330 BCE statue by Lysippus, Louvre Museum). According to Diodorus, the Alexander sculptures by Lysippus were the most faithful.

In 340 BC, Philip led an attack on Byzantium, leaving Alexander, now aged 16, to act as regent of Macedon. Shortly after, in 339 BC, Philip took a fifth wife, Cleopatra Eurydice. While Alexander's mother Olympias was from Epirus, Cleopatra Eurydice was a true Macedonian; this led to political machinations over whether Alexander should be the rightful heir to the Argead throne. During the wedding feast, Attalus, the uncle of the bride, supposedly gave a toast for the marriage to result in a legitimate heir to the throne of Macedon. Alexander responded by hurling his goblet at Attalus, shouting "What am I, a bastard then?" In response, Phillip drew his sword and moved towards Alexander, but fell in a drunken stupor over the drinking couches. Alexander then famously remarked: "Here is the man planning on conquering from Greece to Asia, and he cannot even move from one table to another." Following this episode, Alexander and his mother left Macedon; his sister (also named Cleopatra) remained.

Eventually Philip and Alexander would reconcile; the son returned home, but Olympias remained in Epirus. In 338 BC Alexander fought under his father at the decisive Battle of Chaeronea against the city-states of Athens and Thebes. Phillip entrusted Alexander with the left wing of his army, which entailed facing the Sacred Band of Thebes, an elite hoplite corps hitherto regarded as invincible. Though few details of the battle survive to us, what is known is that Alexander annihilated this corps. After the battle, Philip led a wild celebration; Alexander is notably absent from the accounts describing it. It is speculated that Alexander personally treated Demades, a notable orator of Athens, who had opposed Athenian alignment against Philip. He went on to draw up and present a peace plan, which the assembled Athenian army voted on and approved. Philip was content to deprive Thebes of its dominion over Boeotia and leave a Macedonian garrison in the citadel. A few months later, the League of Corinth was formed, and Phillip was acclaimed Hegemon of the Hellenes.

In 336 BC Philip was assassinated at the wedding of his daughter Cleopatra to her uncle King Alexander of Epirus. Theories abound regarding the motives behind the killing, but a common story presented the assassin as a disgraced former lover of the king—the young nobleman Pausanias of Orestis. He held a grudge against Philip because the king had ignored his grievances regarding an outrage on his person. Some believed that Philip's murder was planned with the knowledge and involvement of Alexander, Olympias, or both. Still other theories pointed to Darius III, the recently crowned King of Persia. Regardless, after Philip's death, the army proclaimed Alexander, then aged 20, as the new king of Macedon.

Greek cities like Athens and Thebes, which had been forced to pledge allegiance to Philip, saw in the relatively untested new king an opportunity to regain full independence. Alexander moved swiftly and Thebes, which had been most active against him, submitted when he appeared at its gates. The assembled Greeks at the Isthmus of Corinth, with the exception of the Spartans, elected him to the command against Persia, which had previously been bestowed upon his father. The next year (335 BC), Alexander felt free to engage the Thracians and the Illyrians in order to secure the Danube as the northern boundary of the Macedonian kingdom. While he was triumphantly campaigning north, the Thebans and Athenians rebelled once again. Alexander reacted immediately and while the other cities once again hesitated, Thebes decided this time to resist with the utmost vigor. The resistance was useless; in the end, the city was conquered with great bloodshed. Thebes was razed to the ground and its territory divided between the other Boeotian cities. Moreover, the Thebans themselves were sold into slavery; Alexander spared only the priests, the leaders of the pro-Macedonian party, and the descendants of Pindar, whose house was the only one left standing.

The end of Thebes cowed Athens into submission. According to Plutarch, a special Athenian embassy led by Phocion, an opponent of the anti-Macedonian faction, was able to persuade Alexander to give up his demand for the exile of leaders of the anti-Macedonian party, most particularly Demosthenes.[12]



Macedon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the ancient Greek kingdom. For the Greek mythological character, see Makednos. For other uses, see Macedonia.
"Macedonian Empire" redirects here. For other uses, see Macedonian Empire (disambiguation).
Μακεδονία
Makedonía
Macedon
←
800s BC – 146 BC →

→

→

→
Location of Macedon
Capital Aigai until about 400 BC when moved by Archelaus to Pella
Language(s) Macedonian, later Attic/Koine Greek
Religion Ancient Greek religion
Government Monarchy
King
- 808 - 778 BC Karanus
- 359 - 336 BC Philip II of Macedon
- 336 - 323 BC Alexander the Great
- 221 - 168 BC Philip V of Macedon
Historical era Classical Antiquity
- Karanus establishes the Argead dynasty 800s BC
- Amyntas III unifies Macedon 382 BC
- Conquered by the Roman Republic in the Fourth Macedonian War 146 BC
Currency Greek drachma

Macedon or Macedonia (Greek Μακεδονία Makedonía) was the name of a kingdom centered in the northern-most part of ancient Greece, the homeland of the ancient Macedonians, bordered by the kingdom of Epirus to the west and the region of Thrace to the east.[1] For a brief period it became the most powerful state in the ancient Near East after Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world, inaugurating the Hellenistic period of world history.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
o 1.1 Early history
o 1.2 Atticisation and expansion
o 1.3 Empire
o 1.4 Hellenistic Macedonia
o 1.5 Conflict with Rome
* 2 Institutions
o 2.1 The King
+ 2.1.1 Succession
+ 2.1.2 Finances
o 2.2 The Assembly
o 2.3 Council (Synedrion)
o 2.4 Regional districts (Merides)
* 3 See also
* 4 References
* 5 Further reading
* 6 External links

[edit] History

[edit] Early history

The first Macedonian state emerged in the 8th or early 7th century BC under the Argead Dynasty, who according to legend, migrated to the region from the Greek city of Argos in Peloponnesus (thus the name Argead).[2] It should be mentioned that the Macedonian tribe ruled by the Argeads, the tribe whose lands the Greeks called Macedonia, was itself called Argead (which translates as "descended from Argos"). Its first king is recorded as Perdiccas I. The kingdom was situated in the fertile alluvial plain, watered by the rivers Haliacmon and Axius, called Lower Macedonia, north of the mountain Olympus. Around the time of Alexander I of Macedon, the Argead Macedonians started to expand into Upper Macedonia, that is Eordaia, Bottiaea, Mygdonia, and Almopia- which were mountainous regions settled by independent Macedonian tribes. Near the modern city of Veria, Perdiccas I (or, more likely, his son, Argaeus I) built his capital, Aigai (modern Vergina). After a brief period under Persian rule under Darius Hystaspes, the state regained its independence under King Alexander I (495–450 BC).
Macedon during Peloponnesian War around 431 BC.
Macedon during Peloponnesian War around 431 BC.

[edit] Atticisation and expansion

Prior to the 4th century BC, the kingdom covered a region approximately corresponding to the province of Macedonia of modern Greece. It became increasingly Atticised during this period, though prominent Athenians appear to have regarded the Macedonians as uncouth[3].

A unified Macedonian state was eventually established by King Amyntas III (c. 393–370 BC), though it still retained strong contrasts between the cattle-rich coastal plain and the fierce isolated tribal hinterland, allied to the king by marriage ties. They controlled the passes through which barbarian invasions came from Illyria to the north and northwest. Amyntas had three sons; the first two, Alexander II and Perdiccas III reigned only briefly. Perdiccas III's infant heir was deposed by Amyntas' third son, Philip II of Macedon, who made himself king and ushered in a period of Macedonian dominance of Greece.
Philip II, king of Macedon
Philip II, king of Macedon

Under Philip II, (359–336 BC), Macedon expanded into the territory of the Paionians, Thracians, and Illyrians. Among other conquests, he annexed the regions of Pelagonia and Southern Paionia.[4]

Macedon became more politically involved with the south-central city-states of Ancient Greece, but it also retained more archaic features like the palace-culture, first at Aegae (modern Vergina) then at Pella, resembling Mycenaean culture more than classic Hellenic city-states, and other archaic customs, like Philip's multiple wives in addition to his Epirote queen Olympias, mother of Alexander.
Kingdom of Macedon after Philip's II death.
Kingdom of Macedon after Philip's II death.

Another archaic remnant was the very persistence of a hereditary monarchy which wielded formidable – sometimes absolute – power, although this was at times checked by the landed aristocracy, and often disturbed by power struggles within the royal family itself. This contrasted sharply with the Greek cultures further south, where the ubiquitous city-states mostly possessed aristocratic or democratic institutions; the de facto monarchy of tyrants, in which heredity was usually more of an ambition rather than the accepted rule; and the limited, predominantly military and sacerdotal, power of the twin hereditary Spartan kings. The same might have held true of feudal institutions like serfdom, which may have persisted in Macedon well into historical times. Such institutions were abolished by city-states well before Macedon's rise (most notably by the Athenian legislator Solon's famous σεισάχθεια seisachtheia laws).



Ancient Macedonians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the people of ancient Greece; for the unrelated modern Slavic ethnic group see Macedonians (ethnic group).
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (July 2008)
The expansion of the ancient Macedonians in 4th century BC.
The expansion of the ancient Macedonians in 4th century BC.

The Ancient Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were an ancient tribe which inhabited the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axius, north of the Mount Olympus in Greece.[1] Historians generally agree that the ancient Macedonians, whether they originally spoke a Greek dialect or a distinct language, came to belong to the Koine Greek speaking population in Hellenistic times. Whether they were of ultimately Greek origin themselves or were later Hellenised continues to be debated by scholars. However, the Macedonian Royal family known as the Argead dynasty claimed Greek descent from Argos [2][3][4][5] and Macedonians since Alexander I, were admitted in the Ancient Olympic Games, an athletic event in which only people of Greek origin participated.[6][7]

It should, however, be noted that no matter their ultimate origin, Macedonian acceptance into the Greek world was a gradual but eventual process (the concept of "ethnicity" itself being quite fluid).[citation needed]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Origins
o 1.1 Atticisation in the 5th to 4th centuries
* 2 Participation in panhellenic events
* 3 Language
* 4 References
* 5 See also

[edit] Origins

While the Catalogue of Women mentions the mythical progenitor and eponymous ancestor of the Macedonians called Makednos as a descendant of Deucalion's daughter Thyia and Zeus, which would exclude him from direct descent via Hellen, the later Hellanicus of Lesbos' genealogy, on the other hand, makes Makednos a son of Aeolus -a grandson of Hellene in other words- thus including him in the ranks of the Greeks.[8]

Herodotus provides the chief traditions on the origins of the Macedonians, from whom he claims originate the Dorians, when he describes the history of the Lacedaemonians. He writes in the first book of his Histories that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe left behind during the great Dorian invasion (1.56.1):
“ ...for during the reign of Deucalion, Phthia was the country in which the Hellenes dwelt, but under Dorus, the son of Hellen, they moved to the tract at the base of Ossa and Olympus, which is called Histiaeotis; forced to retire from that region by the Cadmeians, they settled, under the name of Macedonians, in the chain of Pindus. Hence they once more removed and came to Dryopis; and from Dryopia having entered the Peloponnese in this way, they became known as Dorians. (Histories, 1.53.1) ”

On the origins of the Macedonian Royalty, Herodotus holds a record (8.137) about the youngest of three brothers from Argos, and how he, through his skill in accepting omens, tricked an oppressive monarch out of his kingdom. The story apparently describes the genealogical connection between the Macedonian royal house (or Macedonians in general) and legendary Greek heroes. This theory was fully accepted among the scholars of antiquity.

Herodotus mentions in other points of his work the Greek origin of the Macedonians, paralleling them with the Dorians (8.43.1):
“ ...from the Peloponnese, the Lacedaemonians... the Corinthians... the Sicyonians... the Epidaurians... the Troezenians... the Hermioneans. All these, except the people of Hermione, were of Dorian and Macedonian stock and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region. ”

Polybius, in his work The Histories, describes the treaty made between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedon, implying that Macedonians shared the same religion with the rest of Greeks (7.9.4):
“ This is a sworn treaty made between Hannibal... on the one part; and Xenophanes, son of Cleomachus of Athens, sent to us by King Philip... The oath is taken in the presence... of all the gods who rule Macedonia and the rest of Greece ”

Polybius relates the racial kinship between Aetolians, Achaeans and Macedonians in the speech of Lyciscus the Acarnanian addressing Cleonicus and Chlaeneas, the Aetolian envoys, at the assembly of Sparta (9.37.2):
“ Then you were contending for glory and supremacy with Achaeans and Macedonians, men of kindred blood with yourselves, and with Philip their leader. ”

During antiquity, the Greekness of the Macedonians was famously disputed by Demosthenes, the leader of the anti-Macedonian party in Athens and sworn enemy of Philip II. His words, often perceived as an effort to slander Philip, seem to be in disagreement with Herodotus' theories regarding the kinship between the Dorians and the Makednoi.

Titus Livius in his work The History of Rome says that Macedonians spoke the same language as that of Aetolians and Acarnanians, undoubtedly Greek tribes (Book XXXI 29):
“ Trifling causes occasionally unite and disunite the Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Macedonians, men speaking the same language. With foreigners, with barbarians, all Greeks have, and ever will have, eternal war: because they are enemies by nature, which is always the same, and not from causes which change with the times. ”

Following the archaeological discoveries of the 20th century, most of the modern scholars now agree that the ancient Macedonians were of Greek origin[9].

Other writers, such as Eugene N. Borza, argue that the ancient Macedonians underwent ethnogenesis synthesizing Greek as well as Thraco-Illyrian cultural elements, though considering a possible proto-Greek origin.[10]

Yet others argue that the ancient Macedonians had an Illyrian or Thracian rather than a Greek origin. Professor William Mitchell Ramsay considered the Macedonians as a tribe of Thrace, the land north-east of Greece, akin to the Thracians.George Rawlinson, stated that the Macedonians were a mixed race, not Paionians, Illyrians or Thracians, but of the three, closest with the Illyrians. Various "mixed" scenarios (eg Greco-Illyrian) have also been proposed.

Systematic excavations at Aiani since 1983 have brought to light finds that attest the existence of an organised city from the 2nd millennium BC to 100 BC. The excavations have unearthed the oldest pieces of black and white pottery, characteristic of the tribes of northwest Greece, discovered so far. Found with Μycenaean shells, they can be dated with certainty to the 14th century BC. The findings also include some of the oldest samples of writing in Macedonia, among them inscriptions bearing Greek names like Θέμιδα (Themida). The inscriptions demonstrate that the society of Upper Macedonia spoke and wrote Greek before the 5th century BC.[11][12]

[edit] Atticisation in the 5th to 4th centuries

Macedon was heavily Atticised from the time of Alexander the Great. Moreover, there are indications that there were pan-Hellenic influences in the Macedonian kingdom as early as the 5th century BC. King Archelaus established the new capital at Pella, a festival in honor of Zeus at Dion, a city right next to Mt. Olympus, and welcomed southern Greek intellectuals into the kingdom. Athenian playwriters such as Euripides and Agathon and the famous painter Zeuxis all were influential in the early kingdom. Euripides wrote his last two tragedies at Archelaus' court. [13]

[edit] Participation in panhellenic events

A passage in book five of Herodotus' Histories (5.22) concerns the exclusion of Macedonians from panhellenic events such as the Ancient Olympic Games. In 504 or 500 BC, the Macedonian king Alexander I attempted to participate in the Olympic Games, and met with resistance by competitors, who regarded him as a non-Hellene. According to Herodotus, Alexander argued that his family was of ultimately Greek (Argive) descent, and Elean Hellanodikai determined that it is so. Other kings of Macedon like Archelaus I and Philip II also took part in the Games. A list of Macedonians competed in the Olympics:[14]
Year (BC) Name Home town Event
504 or 500 Alexander I - Stadion
408 Archelaus I - Tethrippon
356 Philip II - Kelis
352 Philip II - Synoris
348 Philip II - Tethrippon
328 Kliton - Stadion
320 Damasias Amphipolis Stadion
304 Lampos Philippi Tethrippon
292 Antigonus - Stadion
288 Antigonus - Stadion
268 Seleucus - Stadion
268 Belistiche - Tethrippon
264 Belistiche - Synoris

Other Macedonian competitors recorded are Ptolemy I, Ptolemy II, Arsinoe, Berenike I, Berenike II, Etearchus, Molykos, Trygaius, Plaggon[14].

Additionally a 5th century BC inscription found in royal tomb at Vergina shows evidence that Macedonian kings competed in Argive Heraean games[15]. Amyntas III in 371 BC took also part in a Panhellenic congress, concerning Amphipolis. From the age of Perdiccas III 365 BC onwards, who served as Theorodokos, participation of Macedonian athletes in Panhellenic Games and festivals became common.

[edit] Language

Main article: Ancient Macedonian language

Due to the fragmentary attestation various interpretations are possible. The tongue of the area's inhabitants prior to the 5th century BC is attested in some hundred words from various glosses, mainly those of Hesychius of Alexandria, 5th century, as well as placenames (toponyms), personal names (anthroponyms) and local inscriptions. The Koine Greek dialect was standardised as the language of formal discourse and official communication by the 4th century BC.[16]

However, all inscriptions found within the boundaries of the kingdom of Macedon or the Empires of the Diadochi that can be ascribed to Macedonians prior to Roman conquest, are written in Attic, the Koine Greek and much more rarely in the Doric Greek dialect (see also Pella curse tablet).

But what if an amazing thing happens ! What if an area that once sided against "Greeks" is Hellenized and Beats (The great enemy) Persia for Greece. If "Greek national interest" is so important then that would not make Macedon more Greek than anyone else ?


(Actually i laugh at your definitions)

Ok... I've made it this far through the entire thing, with a general idea of what you were saying..... that first paragraph just LOST me.... I couldn't make ANY sense out of it... you're gunna' have to reword it

Anyway i will copy past from wiki now.[/quote]

are you that low and pathetic that in order to prove my opinions wrong, you're going to plagiarize?

Nice ignoring what i said about Time. But really i don't expect any better.

WTH?!??! when did you say anything about time?

are you that low and pathetic that in order to prove my opinions wrong, you're going to plagiarize?

Plagiarize ? The source is wikipedia of course. Are you an even bigger Moron than i thought? (= I never met other than Hitler fans such an idiot in my life but it seems you are worse).

WTH?!??! when did you say anything about time?

But what if an amazing thing happens ! What if an area that once sided against "Greeks" is Hellenized and Beats (The great enemy) Persia for Greece. If "Greek national interest" is so important then that would not make Macedon more Greek than anyone else ?

(Actually i laugh at your definitions)

Infraction for flaming. - KD

And there is the whole problem of time. Macedon of the Persian wars is not the same Macedon of Alexander the Great.

I wonder what is your position of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Rarely can one find such an ignorant mind , and ask him such question after all. So i am curious about what you think for a various subjects.

Infraction for flaming. - KD

READ THIS. My quest here is not to convince you because convincing someone of things so basic is an insult of my intelligence but to educate you.

I can read wikipedia, thank you.

but I don't think you're going to educate me on the fact that Alexanders nationality was Greek... it says he was born in Macedon.... to me, he is Macedonian.

if it says in there that he denounced it, you find it and show me.

I wonder what is your position of the Hellenistic kingdom. Rarely can one find such an ignorant mind , and ask him such question after all. So i am curious about what you think for a various subjects.

Plagiarize ? The source is wikipedia of course. Are you an even bigger Moron than i thought? (= I never met other than Hitler fans such an idiot in my life but it seems you are worse).

oh, so because its wikipedia, you can use it to fight you're battles for you?

But what if an amazing thing happens ! What if an area that once sided against "Greeks" is Hellenized and Beats (The great enemy) Persia for Greece. If "Greek national interest" is so important then that would not make Macedon more Greek than anyone else ?

(Actually i laugh at your definitions)
I wonder what is your position of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Rarely can one find such an ignorant mind , and ask him such question after all. So i am curious about what you think for a various subjects.

these things seem slightly familiar... oh wait, you already said these things before



not to mention, I already told you, But what if an amazing thing happens ! What if an area that once sided against "Greeks" is Hellenized and Beats (The great enemy) Persia for Greece. If "Greek national interest" is so important then that would not make Macedon more Greek than anyone else ? makes no sense.... you're gunna' have to reword it to make sense if you want me to argue it

I have not seen any Cypriot to deny that "I am not a Cypriot but actually Greek." Or Athenian or an American.("I am not a Mexican i am an American) If one does not deny something does not mean he is what he did not deny. That is extremely stupid.

The problem here appears to be not education but stupidity. Read this again so i see if your situation has improved.

Alexander the Great
Chaeronea (338 BC) – Thebes (338 BC) – Granicus (334 BC) – Miletus (334 BC) – Halicarnassus (334 BC) – Issus (333 BC) – Gordium (333 BC) – Tyre (332 BC) – Gaza (332 BC) – Gaugamela (331 BC) – Persian Gate (330 BC) – Sogdian Rock (327 BC) – Aornos (327 BC) – Hydaspes (326 BC) – Malli (325 BC)

Alexander the Great (Greek: Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας or Μέγας Aλέξανδρος,[1] Megas Alexandros; July 20, 356 BC[2] – June 11, 323 BC),[3] also known as Alexander III of Macedon (Greek: Αλέξανδρος Γ' ο Μακεδών) was an ancient Greek[4][5] king (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders in history, and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks.

oh, so because its wikipedia, you can use it to fight you're battles for you?

What battles ? This is not a battle. It is one relatively ignorant dude (me) and one totally retarded idiot (you) , offering their opinion on what are some historical facts. Reading wikipedia will only improve your situation.

these things seem slightly familiar... oh wait, you already said these things before

Well Yes but you did ask WTH?!??! when did you say anything about time?


Anyway i must conclude that you are either the bigger idiot of this forum or a Troll that wants to "appear as an idiot". If that is the case then you must be a double login as well and also have a second account on this site.

Though the fact that you offered the same opinion while discussing with many members not only than I leads me to conclude the first.

Infraction for flaming. - KD

I have not seen any Cypriot to deny that "I am not a Cypriot but actually Greek." Or Athenian or an American.("I am not a Mexican i am an American) If one does not deny something does not mean he is what he did not deny. That is extremely stupid.

The problem here appears to be not education but stupidity. Read this again so i see if your situation has improved.

Alexander the Great
Chaeronea (338 BC) – Thebes (338 BC) – Granicus (334 BC) – Miletus (334 BC) – Halicarnassus (334 BC) – Issus (333 BC) – Gordium (333 BC) – Tyre (332 BC) – Gaza (332 BC) – Gaugamela (331 BC) – Persian Gate (330 BC) – Sogdian Rock (327 BC) – Aornos (327 BC) – Hydaspes (326 BC) – Malli (325 BC)

Alexander the Great (Greek: Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας or Μέγας Aλέξανδρος,[1] Megas Alexandros; July 20, 356 BC[2] – June 11, 323 BC),[3] also known as Alexander III of Macedon (Greek: Αλέξανδρος Γ' ο Μακεδών) was an ancient Greek[4][5] king (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders in history, and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks.

He conquered Greece.... I know.... he ruled over Greece.... I know..... you have yet to prove to me he was Greek.


If you're referring to the line that says "Alexander III of Macedon was an ancient Greek king of Macedon."

that is probably your best concrete evidence that you could call him Greek.

I still don't see what you're trying to do. You want me to say Alexander was a Greek? Alexander was a Greek... there.... will you shut up now?!? because you're bein' really freakin' annoying

I still think you need to at least admit he was Macedonian too... seeing as your proof to prove he was Greek SAID he was from Macedon, king of Macedon, etc......