Except that the League of Korinthos collapsed after the death of Alexandros, when the Lamian war started. The situation in most of Greece after the dust from the initial Diadochi conflicts finally settled in the 270s BC was one where Makedonian symmacheia (rule through puppet tyrants and "alliances") dominated in parts of Greece, like Athenai, but Sparte itself, as well as the great federal Leagues, were wholly independent and fought periodic wars against the Makedonians, frequently supported by the Ptolemaioi via their Aigion holdings. There wasn't really a political unity in Greece after the end of the League of Korinthos, though there were obviously great cultural ties. Makedonia came close several times to imposing rule on the rest of mainland Greece like it had after Chaironeia, but never managed to fully subjugate the Peloponnesos or Aitolia, much less Epeiros, and so was unable to prevent the Romans from gaining inroads in the late third century BC.
Absolutely, especially in Megale Hellas. Tarentum/Taras was one of the few Spartan colonies, for example. Such 'colonial' ties (perceived or real), were also used by some of the Hellespontine cities in attempted alliances with Rome, because Rome had been founded by Trojan refugees according to legend. But I think that a more important motivator would be that following the weakness of the Ptolemaioi under Ptolemaios IV and their defeat in the Fifth Syrian War at the hands of Antiochos, which kind of excluded them from taking their traditional role as the 'protector of the Greek liberties' (which was obviously just a way for them to keep the Antigonids weak). So the Greeks had to call on the Romans, who had already intervened in Illyria twice by that time and thus had a good relationship with some of the Greek poleis for fighting off the Illyrian piracy.Indiansmoke said:
The idea of a single Hellenic ethnicity pre-date the Macedonian conquest by centuries. It's simply that the Greeks, lacking modern concepts of the nation-state, saw no contradiction between a shared Greek ethnicity and loyalty to their individual city state. After all, the Scottish Gaels or Anglo-Saxons saw themselves as defined ethnicities, but that didn't stop the clans and kingdoms, respectively, from warring constantly.
Yeah, but political unity or lack thereof probably wasn't the main asset against the Persians, but instead Greek tactical advantages, naval power (which Salamis solidified), and major Persian logistical issues were the key factors. It was a ridiculously small group of states that actually did participate in the conflict, not even the entire Peloponnesos (Argos failed to join the coalition and actually toyed with allying with Persia for awhile), much less the Boiotians, Thessalians, or Makedonians. Admittedly, though, it was a larger coalition of Greek polities that opposed Xerxes than ever opposed Rome at any one time.
I didnt say conquered, certeirnly some areas were conquered, but the greeks that the romans made alliances with, you could say, got "absorbed".
Or Russia and the Crimea? It's called vassalage.
especially not today. Fail. Find better example.
If you looked up, i meant Vassalized. USA hasn't Vassalized Canada, and their's no friggen chance for USA to absorb a bigger country.
