Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

irishtimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 146 posts

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#51

Post by sorokod »

staunch wrote: post #22

It's likely that Alexander would have taken over Italy had he lived a couple more decades. He definitely could have done it. Rome was not yet the powerhouse it became and he knew how to lead an army better than literally anyone in history. There were many Greek colonies in Italy but the whole peninsular might have become dominated by Greeks. By the time Rome got around to taking over Greece it wasn't even a contest.…

It's likely that Alexander would have taken over Italy had he lived a couple more decades. He definitely could have done it.

Italy was a back water in 300 bc. with the great political and cultural centres to the east of Greece. What would attract Alexander to Italy?

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#52

Post by pdonis »

lou1306 wrote: post #10

Irony was a double-edged sword in this case. Sure, the Greek city-states were now subject to Rome. On the other hand, Roman civilization was deeply affected by Greek culture, which was arguably far superior. Horace said it best: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit (once defeated, Greece conquered its savage captor)

> Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit (once defeated, Greece conquered its savage captor)

A better translation would be "captured Greece has conquered its savage captor", since that better captures (pun intended) the intended parallel between capta and cepit--both are forms of the same verb. (Also cepit is perfect tense, hence "has conquered".)

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#53

Post by ssewell »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #13

>After a few weeks of marching and countermarching by Philip and Flamininus in central Thessaly, battle was joined (almost by accident) at Cynoscephalae, hills known as The Dogs’ Heads. Invincible on flat ground as long as its flanks were protected, the phalanx was dangerously exposed on hillsides. Highly manoeuvrable, veterans of the Hannibalic war, the legionaries wreaked a terrible slaughter. One of the big factor…

Here's a video overview of the battle at Cynoscephalae, for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icdm7-df64k

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#54

Post by Balero »

beat wrote: post #35
Balero wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea of a single "centre of civilisation" is less than helpful. There were certainly a number of centre's of different civilisations, but if you try to plot the centre of these, there's a good chance you would end up in the middle of nowhere, or open ocean. I think it's much more useful to think of a net with connections, with different levels of "zoom out". For example, you could look at 0CE Rome, and ge…

The course of the book is to focus on whatever team was winning at any given time, and how the actions of that winning team set up the game for the next winning team. As such, though... before the New World, northern/western Europe didn't have any winning teams, except for the Vikings (whose slave trade with Persia and the Arab world led to the formation of Russia as a nation and a power), and the brief victory of th…

Sounds like a great read! I'll add it to the to-read list!

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#55

Post by oblio »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #50
beat wrote: post #18

For an interesting coarse overview of this stuff, I've been reading The Silk Roads: A New History of the World , by Peter Frankopan. It's a sprawling world history, from earliest recorded history to the present (I'm currently between WWI and WWII), based on the idea that the Orient (particularly the Eastern Mediterranean basin over to present-day India), not Europe, is the historic center of civilization. Northern/We…

>> Northern/Western Europe was an impoverished, uninteresting backwater until the discovery of the New World (...) Ah, yes, an unintersting backwater ...that created objects like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism Also: Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Thales of Melitus, Archimedes, Democritus, Ptolemy, Aristotle of course, etc etc. It's true that the Orient and also Mesoamerica were also civlisatio…

When did Greece move into Northern/Western Europe? :)

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#56

Post by oblio »

vondur wrote: post #38

What's also interesting is how the Romans initially resisted incorporating Greece and the other Hellenistic kingdoms until they felt that they had to by the 140's BCE. Also, note that the Romans had no such compunctions on adding Spain to their holdings after the 2nd Punic War. (the massive amounts of silver in Iberia probably had a bit to do with it)

The Greeks were divided and unruly, a fact known for at least 2 centuries. I don’t fault the Romans :)

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#57

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

oblio wrote: post #55
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Northern/Western Europe was an impoverished, uninteresting backwater until the discovery of the New World (...) Ah, yes, an unintersting backwater ...that created objects like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism Also: Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Thales of Melitus, Archimedes, Democritus, Ptolemy, Aristotle of course, etc etc. It's true that the Orient and also Mesoamerica were also civlisatio…

When did Greece move into Northern/Western Europe? :)

Greek history, like Roman history, is (part of) the history of the West. Is the OP talking specifically about the history of, say, the Germanic or Gaulish tribes before they were conquered by Cesar?

It's difficult to know. The OP mentions the "Eeastern Mediterranean basin" as part of the Orient:

>> the Orient (particularly the Eastern Mediterranean basin over to present-day India), not Europe, is the historic center of civilization.

I can't see how that doesn't include Greece, especially Ionia. On the other hand, I can't see how "Europe" excludes Greece, either. The same goes for the Roman Empire, that covered much of both Europe and the Eastern Mediterrannean for a long period.

I think the OP, or perhaps their source, is just confused about what is what, the Orient, Europe, the West etc.

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#58

Post by kuraudo »

jandrese wrote: post #25
afarrell wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an immigrant from the US to the UK, this isn't unique to the US. The reality is that there is so much history out there that it is very hard to get a solid overview of it which weaves together into a coherent narrative. There's just not enough time. Its why independent resources like youtube and video games which actually care about history are so important. (Its still reasonable to be annoyed by the way. My perso…

IMHO the biggest problem with the way history is taught in school is the need to test on it. This means making kids memorize names and dates and individual events so that they tend to lose the forest for the trees. It's hard to get a holistic view of the situation when you're focused on the smallest details.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The fact that you're also tested on useless tidbits like the kind of pottery some tribe used is soul crushing as a child.

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#59

Post by kuraudo »

cellis wrote: post #14

How is this little known? If anything, this is too known . What I wish, but is impossible, is that there were more documented stories of the conflicts of e.g. Native Americans or Native South Americans, before European Settlers; early wars in Africa; or wars in the extremes of the Artic between early tribes. I have listened to all of Dan Carlin's "Hardcore History" ( which any student of history will fall in love wit…

The problem there is that pre-european American wars aren't as interesting as, say, any era of China's blood-soaked history.

Not all conflicts are created equal I guess.

Post reply on HN