Greek leader?

[Pangur Bán]

Once had a good fight with Exsanguination about whether Philip II or Alexander the Great should be the leader of the Macedonians. I said Philip (I'M RIGHT ) But there were loads of great Greeks, only some of the best and most famous are there. Cleopatra is there because she is so famous and as the token female.

I voted Philip! He transformed Macedonia from being an impoverished and half-unified kingdom to become the greatest power in the Mediterranean. He was a politician of the highest calibre, he transformed his army into the greatest fighting machine in the world, utilized for the first time Macedonia's natural resources, introduced the gold stater, and conquered most of mainland Greece. It was only assassination that prevented him from attacking Persia. His son, Alexander (possibly the man who ordered his assassination) merely exploited Philip's legacy. (I'm not denying that he was a great warrior-king).

 

[Shaitan]

I've been a fan of Phillip since my high school history days. He was the catalyst of Greece's rise to domination. Alexander was arguably a better tactician but Phillip was the master of strategy. I don't think Alexander would have achieved anything close to what he did if Phillip's groundwork wasn't already laid. They were both amazingly successful leaders but Phillip gets my vote.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Totally agree! History hasn't been as fair to Philip as it should have been. The film Alexander the Great portrayed Philip as a drunk who owed his success at Chaironea to Alexander (total guff). The ancients did not have the insight to appreciate Philip's achievement, so all we have is Diodorus. It's like Epaminondas. Plutarchs life of him has survived, probably because of the the influence of Xenophon who tends not to mention by name men who damaged his beloved Sparta. Yet his generalship and statesmanship are a revelation. But we know much more about lesser men like Agesilaus and Alcibiades, because their stories are more appealing. The nature of Alexander's achievement is more appealing as a story, so people end to remeber him rather than his much greater father.

 

[elfstorm]

I know Cleopatra and Justinian were Greek, but are they really approprite here?

I mean Cleopatra WAS Queen of Egypt and Justinian was a roman Emperor. Why does a ruler have to be the same nationality as the country he or she rules?

 

[Pangur Bán]

I put Justinian on the poll because I wanted a couple of Byzantine emperors on the poll, since the Byzantine Empire lasted over 1000 years. Justinian's empire was Roman in name only, as 'Greece' and the hellenized east formed the core of his empire.

There was a large number of Greeks in Cleopatra's Egypt and Greeks controlled the way Egypt was governed. Alexandria was also a Greek city, which makes Cleopatra, in a sense, a ruler of 'Greece'. There was never an ancient united
Greek state before the Roman period, so all of the potential civ leaders have to be chosen from individual Greek states, which would include Ptolemaic Egypt.

Cleopatra was chosen because of her gender and fame. Perhaps Zenobia or a Byzantine empress would have been a better choice as the token female though.

 

[elfstorm]

I get what your saying Calgacus. I suppose who should be in and out depends on your interpretation of what "Greece" is.
Nation state?
Cultural Grouping?
etc.

My point with Cleopatra wasn't really addressed at what your saying (for one thing you actually appear to have a brain), more a dig at those idiots who continually pop up in leader polls whining about "so-and-so isn't even that nationality" (Cleopatra is Greek, Chatherine German, Napoleon Corsican etc.)

My point with Cleopatra was Greek or not, she was Pharoah and therefore a valid potential leader of Egypt. But she was absolutely a Hellenistic monarch, your right. I just feel there are others more suited to be leader of Greece - leave Cleo with Egypt.

As for Justinian (and definately Constantine) I feel they are Romans. I know his Empire had very strong Greek influences, but it also had strong Roman ones. I mean the definative collection of Roman Laws, which many national law codes of today are based upon, were drawn up in his Empire.

If you'd asked him if he'd rather be considered leader of Greece or Rome, he'd pick Rome.

Byzantium (ooh! dirty word!) was very different to Ancient Greece and I feel is just an extension of the Roman Empire. (Most modern historian agree with this, more and more scholarship is rejecting the term Byzantine.)

Anyway, why even consider Justinian or Cleo when you've missed out Ptolemy, Antigonus "One Eye" and my personnel favourite Demetrius "The Besieger", to name just a few.

(Antipater? Pyrrhus??? -how could you miss out Pyrrhus?? - Agamemnon? etc...)

 

[Pangur Bán]

In response to Elfstorm's last post

Ancient Greece and Byzantium were different. The two Byzantine options are for those who consider the two civs to be one. Whether you do or don't, the Byzantines were still Greeks and it would be a misuse of the word 'Greek' to say they weren't.

You're correct in saying that the Byzantine Empire (East Roman Empire) had strong Roman influences, but the Byzantine Empire grew further and further apart from the old Latin half of the Roman Empire. I don't think anyone would say that the Byzantine Empire was Roman in the same way that the western Empire was.

The 'a Constantine' in the poll doesn't refer to Constantine the Great but to any of 8 or so emperors by that name who ruled solely the eastern Empire.

I admit that there are many great names missing from the poll. I also admit that there is a huge space for debate over my choices. However, I didn't want to cram the poll with too many names, and I especially didn't want to pack in too many of the diadochi.

It wouldn't have been fair to have included Antigonus and Demetrius but to have left out Seleucus when Seleucus was the victor. Ptolemy was considered, but Seleucus Nicator's kingdom was much larger. Pyrrhus was beaten three times, by Lysimachus, the Romans and Antigonus Gonatas. That's really too many to get into the top 9 all time Greek leaders. I didn't include Agamemnon because it is highly likely that he never existed, and even if he did we can't know if he was a great man. It's only a small step from picking Agamemnon to picking Heracles or Zeus.

PS, thanks for the compliment

 

[elfstorm]

oooh! goody! someone I can argue with!

Well "Byzantine" certainly grew apart from the old latin Roman Empire, but this process occurred over a very long period of time.
A recent book I was reading on the Eastern Empire suggests that it wasn't until the 8 or 9th centuries before a distinct Byzantine culture emerged.

You say that the Eastern Empire wasn't Roman in the same way the west was... hmmm... I'd say the exact opposite. Rome was part of the mediterranean, a vast trading world with similar cultures and heavy emphasis on civic life. Western Europe (not Italy and other regions along the Med's coast) was backwards and poor. The Romans built many cities there, but these were pale shadows of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch etc.

The idea of the west and the east is really a modern invention. The Eastern Empire wasn't just Greek - Syriac was an equally important lanuage in the region.

Indeed until the East shouldn't be seen as 'greek' at least until the Arabs conquered all the non-greek parts in the 7th century.

Anyway...
What I said about Constantine came from me mis-reading something you said. There was indeed many of the idiots.

Fair enough you don't want to include to many of the Diadochi, but Demetrius (in my opinion) dosn't count as one. Also his record is pretty remarkable - though I admit I'm bias, I think the Besieger is one of the most colourful and entertaining characters in the ancient world... what better recommendation?

I'm not sure I'd call Seleucus the victor... It was the combined armies of Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus and Cassander who defeated Antigonus at Ipsus. But I agree that Seleucus was a great leader and should be on your poll.

But Ptolemy seems the most clued up of all Alexanders generals. Besides his military expertise (he expanded far beyond Egypt's borders) he was also politically smart (Seleucus owed him alot) and did much to make Alexandria a great city. He founded the Great Library, The Museum and the Great Tomb of Alexander.

And Antigonus... well he did come closer than anyone to recreating Alexanders empire and he still lead his army into battle at 80 years of age!

As for Prryhus, aren't you being a little hard on the guy? I'd say his successus out weigh his failings...

I'll grant you Agamemnon though.

Hmmm, nice to see someone else on these boards who knows the word 'diadochi'

 

[Exsanguination]

its me!!! (i was honored to be mentioned)

anyways, IMHO Pericles deserves to be the leader. Why? Philip and Alex were NOT Greeks in any way, shape, or form. MACEDONIANS - they were Macedonians. Pericles took Athens to its height, and Athens was and is arguably the heart of Greece.

Kinda tired now but I'm always up for a good debate !

 

[elfstorm]

I've just been thinking about the "Greek Leader" thing. It's a tough one, as Greece then was not a unified nation state like today. Even under Philip and Alexander the entire country wasn't united, Sparta wasn't subject to them.

Pericles is a perfectly adequate Greek leader, I'd be fine with him. In many ways he'd fit in better with the Greeks being "Scientific and Commercial".

Maybe the ideal solution is to remove Greece and replace them with Athens, Sparta or Macedon (I'd say the Macedonian's were Greeks).

The Scientific and Commercial badge suits Athens more than "Greece" and it would be a slightly easier job picking a representative Athenian leader than a Greek one.

 

[Exsanguination]

Originally posted by elfstorm
Macedon (I'd say the Macedonian's were Greeks).

The Macedonians have no direct relation or heritage from, in or to Greece or the Greeks. They only came in contact with and are commonly confused with the Greeks.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Scholars weren't sure whether or not Macedonian was a form of Greek, but now they tend to think that it was. A curse tablet from Pella shows that the Macedonian form of Greek was similar to North-West Greek.
Guys like Demosthenes might not have considered Macedonians proper Greeks. If you take the view that Classical Athenians are the realist example of a Greek, then Macedonians appear very ungreek. But over large period of time, from Mycenaean times until the fall of Byzantium, they do, at least after the accession of Philip II, qualify as proper Greeks.

 

[Mr Spice]

My vote goes to Alexander.

 

[elfstorm]

Originally posted by Exsanguination


The Macedonians have no direct relation or heritage from, in or to Greece or the Greeks. They only came in contact with and are commonly confused with the Greeks.

huh? what on earth makes you think that?

Every creditable historian of ancient greek accepts that they were greeks.

what evidence do you have to support your assertions?

remember modern macedonia is very different to ancient macedonia.

 

[FrosTi]

Pericles

 

[Palcho]

Every creditable historian of ancient greek accepts that they were greeks.

Really??? Except the people these historians usually quote.

quote:"There are number of testimonials from the ancient historians in support of this fact. For instance, the Greek historian Plutarch (I AD), describing a quarrel between Alexander The Great and one of his friends wrote that Alexander "jumped on his feet and in Macedonian called on his shield-bearers"11). In his biography of Marc Anthony, Plutarch mentioned that Macedonian was the mother tongue of the Egyptian queen Cleopatra VII and of her ancestors from the Macedonian dynasty Ptolemais12).

The Latin historian Quintus Curtius Rufus (I AD) also testified that the ancient Macedonians spoke a separate, Macedonian language. He described the trial of the Macedonian Philotas for contriving a plot to murder Alexander The Great. The plot was discovered and Philotas was publicly interrogated by Alexander. Describing this event, Quintus Curtius Rufus clearly stated that the Macedonians spoke separate language13).

An evidence about the distinction of the Macedonian language was found on fragment of a papyrus which was thought to be a part of the lost work "History of the successors" by the ancient Greek historian Arrian. In this papyrus (PSI XII.1284) an episode from the history of ancient Macedonia has been described where the distinction of Macedonian language has been clearly emphasized. It has been described in this text how the secretary of Philip and Alexander of Macedon, Eumenes was: "…sending forth a man called Xennias who was Macedonian in speech…" to negotiate with the Macedonian army of Neoptolemeus. This event took place around 321 BC.14) That the Macedonian was a distinct vernacular characteristic to the Macedonians confirm the anti-Macedonian speeches given by the great orator from Athens, Demosthenes. In his work "Philippic" Demosthenes gave the following insulting remark about the Macedonian King Philip II of Macedon: "That man Philip, not only he is not a Greek, but also he does not have anything in common with the Greeks. If only he would have been a barbarian from a decent country - but he is not even that. He is a scabby creature from Macedonia - a land that one can not even bring a slave that is worth something from".15)

The question why Demosthenes named Philip a barbarian becomes imminent. Majority of the scientists believe that the term "barbarians" in the ancient period was used to refer mainly to people that spoke language that Greeks could not understand, usually accompanied by a dose of disregard towards the culture of the people speaking that language. It is well known that all the people that did not speak Greek were named "barbarians", whereas the Greeks from the city-states used the word "xenoi" when referring to one-another.16) Demosthenes was not alone in naming the Macedonians "barbarians". Ancient Greek historian Isocrates also called the Macedonians "barbarians".17) The Greek Trasymachus, in his speech before the Larisians in V BC named the Macedonian king Archelaos "barbarian" in relation to the Greeks Larisians.18)

Aw stuff this..... I'll just give u a link and you can read it.... http://www.emacedonia.com.au/history/Ancient/language_similarities.htm

 

[dtziouf]

I have voted other and I sugest "Eleftherios Venizelos" (he is more than an airport).

He is the leader who has made Greece what it is today.During his era we liberated Epirus,Macedonia,Thrace,Smirni and Constantinople.

 

[Apollo]

I voted Other. I think the leader should be Solon, and that is what I change it to in the game. Pericles is another good one, but his arrogance led to the destruction of Athens' power which eventually allowed the conquest by the Macedonians, so I don't think he is very good in the long run.

 

[Higher Game]

Pericles should be the leader, although Macedonians are very similar to Greeks. Alexander the Great should be in the game because of his accomplishments, but having both Macedonia and Greece would be kind of awkward.

 

[Hikeeba]

Pericles.