The fall of Greece *rant*

[caketastydelish]

Well, I've been pretty unsatisfied about how the fall of Greece has been described. Before that, let me tell you about Greece.

The Greek civilization was one of the most advanced civilizations for its time. They made MANY contributions. And they fought bravely. Seen 300? Ok, that movie is LARGLY fictionalized. 300 Spartans never killed a million Persians. It is true however, that the Spartans were really outnumbered (but not near by that much) and they fought bravely for and held out for a long time before they were finally defeated.

The Persian Empire was the largest empire of the world at one point. It was the superpower of the time! And Greece managed to defeat it. Wow! So Greece must have been really tough, no?

So, to sum it all up:

1. The Greeks fight hard to defend there lands no matter what the odds.
2. They are good enough to defeat a superpower in there own country!

Now, with that being said... Rome comes along, and Greece becomes part of the Roman Empire. Now the way it keeps being taught, Greece was "absorbed" into the Roman Empire. ABSORBED?!? WTH?

So Rome just came along and said: Hey Greece? Wanna be "absorbed" into our empire? It'll be great fun! And Greece was like, sure! Be our ruler and have our lands!

Since when did the Greeks become pussies? They fought to the bitter end agaisnt the Persians, but for the Romans they don't even attempt to put up a fight?

And don't use the "Alexander the great wasn't there to unify Greece" argument on me, because he was there during the Persian invasion of Greece either.

The point I'm trying to make: Rome fought a long, hard, bloody war to have Greece. It was not just "absorbed".

 

[Sharwood]

You can't really say 'conquered,' as many Greeks actually invited the Romans over. So people say absorbed. It's as good a single word answer as any. Which is to say, not nearly complex enough, but whattayagonnado?

 

[caketastydelish]

You can't really say 'conquered,' as many Greeks actually invited the Romans over. So people say absorbed. It's as good a single word answer as any. Which is to say, not nearly complex enough, but whattayagonnado?

"invited to Romans over"

I'd like to see some proof, before I believe something as stupid as that...

 

[RavenKing]

Well, just because a nation is strong and powerful enough at time X to defeat a major power, does not guarantee that several generations later at time Y it will still be the same major power.

Napoleonic France was powerful enough to take on all of Europe at one point. Six decades later it was defeated by the Prussians, fairly handily, in 1870. What happened? History. Changing circumstances. New weaponry and armour. A new and improved powerful Prussia; different leadership capabilities; a relatively weaker France and voilà, a quick defeat.

The Greeks were certainly formidable at certain times, and the Greek defeat of the Persians was no small matter; but that doesn't guarantee that centuries later the same people with be able to put up an insurmountable resistance to the Romans. What I understand is that the Romans had to fight some protracted wars to defeat the Macedonians, and then defeated the Corinthians at the Battle of Corinth in 146 BC. After that, I think the Greek city states were pretty much absorbed into the empire, although obviously a certain level of cultural distinctiveness endured and flourished to the point where the eastern 'Greek' empire outlasted the western 'Roman' empire. And there were some revolts against the Romans, so the Greeks didn't go completely quiet.

 

[caketastydelish]

Well, just because a nation is strong and powerful enough at time X to defeat a major power, does not guarantee that several generations later at time Y it will still be the same major power.

Napoleonic France was powerful enough to take on all of Europe at one point. Six decades later it was defeated by the Prussians, fairly handily, in 1870. What happened? History. Changing circumstances. New weaponry and armour. A new and improved powerful Prussia; different leadership capabilities; a relatively weaker France and voilà, a quick defeat.

The Greeks were certainly formidable at certain times, and the Greek defeat of the Persians was no small matter; but that doesn't guarantee that centuries later the same people with be able to put up an insurmountable resistance to the Romans. What I understand is that the Romans had to fight some protracted wars to defeat the Macedonians, and then defeated the Corinthians at the Battle of Corinth in 146 BC. After that, I think the Greek city states were pretty much absorbed into the empire, although obviously a certain level of cultural distinctiveness endured and flourished to the point where the eastern 'Greek' empire outlasted the western 'Roman' empire. And there were some revolts against the Romans, so the Greeks didn't go completely quiet.

You don't even seem to understand me. I'm not denying the fact that Greece became a part of the Roman empire. I'm saying Rome conquered it, not "absorbed it". They fought long and hard, and finally achieved victory.

 

[TheLastOne36]

IIRC greece was many different states and some allied themselves with rome, and some were conquered one by one, untill the rest gave up. Besides i read that the greeks had many uprisings during roman occupation.

 

[Sharwood]

"invited to Romans over"

I'd like to see some proof, before I believe something as stupid as that...

I'll clarify; the Romans came over to fight Macedon, which had allied with Carthage. Many Greeks, who were more afraid of Macedon than Rome, allied with the Romans. Not exactly invited, but they didn't exactly give them the old fork in the eye either. Not until they realised the Romans had no intentions of leaving anyway.

Here's a very brief description of Rome's conflicts in Greece.

And history is full of examples of people being that stupid. As Machiavelli himself used as an example, in exchange for two Lombard cities Venice invited the French to invade Italy. The French then proceeded to shatter the power of Venice. Brilliant move on Venice's part, that.

 

[Dachs]

"invited to Romans over"

I'd like to see some proof, before I believe something as stupid as that...

Many of the Greeks were more worried about Makedonia than about Rome. They used the Roman Republic and its legions as a shield against Makedonia during the late third and early second centuries BC. After the Fourth Makedonian War in the 140s and the inheritance of Pergamon in the 130s, Roman influence extended over the Greeks until they were client states, even the big federal states like the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues. (The historian Polybius, as a leader of the Achaian League, advocated a close relationship with Rome, to tie the Achaians' star to the state that was clearly ascendant, since nothing would be gained by warring against the Romans. He saw the consequences of opposition firsthand, as a hostage in Rome taken to ensure Achaian 'solidarity' during the early second century BC; due to that hostageship, actually, he was able to tag along with Scipio Aemilianus to the siege of Qarthadast to see its destruction in 146, an element he made sure to include in his famed history.) A few of them revolted (famously, Athenai during Sulla's expedition, as well as Korinthos, which was crushed by Mummius), but were put down. The Greek cities lost any semblance of independence following the establishment of the Empire.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'll clarify; the Romans came over to fight Macedon, which had allied with Carthage. Many Greeks, who were more afraid of Macedon than Rome, allied with the Romans. Not exactly invited, but they didn't exactly give them the old fork in the eye either. Not until they realised the Romans had no intentions of leaving anyway.

Here's a very brief description of Rome's conflicts in Greece.

And history is full of examples of people being that stupid. As Machiavelli himself used as an example, in exchange for two Lombard cities Venice invited the French to invade Italy. The French then proceeded to shatter the power of Venice. Brilliant move on Venice's part, that.

Afraid of Macedonia? Lets not forget the facts...

1. Macedonia ALLIED with Greece.

2. Rome was FAR mightier than Macedonia.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Afraid of Macedonia? Lets not forget the facts...

1. Macedonia ALLIED with Greece.

2. Rome was FAR mightier than Macedonia.

Macedonia didn't ally themselves with the greece, Alexander did. When he died, everything went down the drain. The Macedonians started raiding greek villages again and everything. Rome didn't do that, and they were much farther away.

I have a question for you, let's say in the 1600's your a Korean. Would you be more afraid the Chinese who are minding their own buisness or the constantly sea raiding Japanese? Obviously the Japanese, but when China invading Korea later, who were they more afraid of? The only difference is that China in this case didn't invade Japan.

 

[Sharwood]

Afraid of Macedonia? Lets not forget the facts...

1. Macedonia ALLIED with Greece.

2. Rome was FAR mightier than Macedonia.

Yes, let's.

1. No.

2. Well duh.

Did you even look at the link?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Afraid of Macedonia? Lets not forget the facts...

1. Macedonia ALLIED with Greece.

2. Rome was FAR mightier than Macedonia.

Remember, it was the Greeks who so wounded the legions at Heraclea and Asculum.

Macedonia didn't ally themselves with the greece, Alexander did. When he died, everything went down the drain. The Macedonians started raiding greek villages again and everything. Rome didn't do that, and they were much farther away.

The permanent fracturing after Ipsus in 301 BC cemented the Antigonid control over most of Greece

I have a question for you, let's say in the 1600's your a Korean. Would you be more afraid the Chinese who are minding their own buisness or the constantly sea raiding Japanese? Obviously the Japanese, but when China invading Korea later, who were they more afraid of? The only difference is that China in this case didn't invade Japan.

Well the Koreans have beaten the invading Chinese before
so they've got that covered.

And you must also remember that the Antigonids and Seleucids had supposedly signed a non-agression pact. That was why Pergamon was freaking out to the Republic at the time of the Intervention.

Yes, let's.

1. No.

2. Well duh.

Did you even look at the link?

Oldschooler doesn't read links.

 

[Sharwood]

Oldschooler doesn't read links.

The things you miss when you're gone.

EDIT: Hang on. Then how exactly did he expect me to prove it to him? Go to his house and show him a chart?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

He doesn't need you to prove anything to him, he already knows what's right. It's you who's being intolerant of the Truth. You should yield to him posthaste.

 

[Dachs]

Just to add my voice to the whole thing...

1. Macedonia ALLIED with Greece.

'Greece' being a monolithic entity is kind of anachronistic. At various times, Makedonia allied with some of the Greek polities, but never on terms of mutual trust and respect, and usually with the arrangement of an "allied" tyrant or leader in cities that relies on Makedonian force to maintain his rule. For example, during the Kleomenean War, the price of Makedonian support in the Peloponnesos for Aratos of Sikyon and the Achaian League was control of the Akrokorinth as a garrison from which to impose rule. Some 'allies'.

2. Rome was FAR mightier than Macedonia.

Yeah, but Rome didn't show as much interest in crushing the Greek liberties as the Makedonian kings did. The Roman legions were not about to invade the Greek states on a hair trigger around the time of the Second Punic War, but Philippos V was, so the Greeks figured they'd call in the Romans, who would pop in with their legions, hit the Makedonians a few good ones, then leave. Which is what they did after the Second Makedonian War, after all: Flamininus made a big show of giving back control of Greece to the Greek states after he won big at Kynoskephalai. It just didn't hold later on, after Makedonia ceased to become a threat and when Rome began to acquire more interests in the East.

 

[Sharwood]

He doesn't need you to prove anything to him, he already knows what's right. It's you who's being intolerant of the Truth. You should yield to him posthaste.

Oh, I see. Republican?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm not sure, but he buys into Nazi racial theory and 19th Century Social Darwinism pretty well.

 

[Sharwood]

I'm not sure, but he buys into Nazi racial theory and 19th Century Social Darwinism pretty well.

Ah, definitely Republican.

Ha, quick look at the date on that and it's the day after I stopped coming here. Nice coincidence.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There's not necessarily a connection between racism and an American political party.

 

[Sharwood]

There's not necessarily a connection between racism and an American political party.

Of course not. But it's funny to say so.