Rome or Greece?

[Dachs]

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.

 

[Taras Bulba]

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

 

[Dachs]

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?

 

[Taras Bulba]

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"

 

[Dachs]

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. )

 

[Taras Bulba]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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!

 

[kulade]

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.

 

[scy12]

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.

 

[Taras Bulba]

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

 

[scy12]

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.

 

[kulade]

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.

 

[scy12]

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.)

 

[Taras Bulba]

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

 

[Perfection]

TOGA!
TOGA!
TOGA!

Rome!​

Moderator Action: Infraction for spam. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[scy12]

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.

 

[kulade]

<Assorted Things>

That's all entirely agreeable.

 

[scy12]

That's all entirely agreeable.

Small posts are not the way of this thread.

 

[kulade]

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.

Moderator Action: Infraction for spam. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Taras Bulba]

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