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

121–130 of 146 posts

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#121

Post by posterboy »

eksemplar wrote: post #33
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 Europe wasn’t the impoverished, uninteresting backwater though. It had a rich culture that interacted with the Orient through Russian rivers. Central Africa did as well, and is another forgotten story, but at the time the Greeks invented democracy, the largest city of the time was thriving in central Africa, a city that wouldn’t be out done population until after Augustus was long dead. History is full of st…

> written records

> While it’s not incorrect to theorize that there is nothing because there was nothing, ...

There likely was something. Linguistic evidence from proto-indo-european homeland theories aside, could mean ongoing exchange and exploitation from far away, so no permanent civilization but excursions and outposts.

And if there was something, it is still possible that was removed by conquering religions.

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#122

Post by Gupie »

paganel wrote: post #43
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 a hard pill to swallow that "cowardly" surrender can often be objectively better than "stubborn" bravery One old saying around these parts of the world (Romania) can be translated roughly like this: "The bowed head doesn't get cut by the sword", which explains like at least half of our history, seeing as we've never been a major regional power while being surrounded by 3 empires for at least a couple of centur…

There is the counter quote by Churchill: "Nations that went down fighting rose again, but those who surrendered tamely were finished."

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#123

Post by beat »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #72
beat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> And China was never very ambitious beyond its own borders. True, but very informative, as China's borders have grown and shrunk and grown again quite a bit over the centuries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=zdHkY3XYHKA

Yes, but it's not exactly the same as the Western habit of maintaining colonies and puppet governments for a far-flung empire. China has done nothing analogous to, say, Britain's occupation of India.

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#124

Post by beat »

m_mueller wrote: post #104
beat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What about Mediterranean bronze age though? There you have a trade based civilisation that AFAIK was far ahead of its Asian counterparts, possibly with the exception of the Indus Valley civilization. Also, I think that Rome was about on the same level as Han dynasty China, whether you look at trade, military, administration, technology etc. - it doesn't seem right to call one the center of civilization and the other…

I'm actually wanting to do a bit more investigation into the Bronze Age stuff. Long, long ago, I read Buckminster Fuller arguing that the Bronze Age could not have been centered in the Middle East (as we usually assume), because there's simply no significant tin deposits there. The only place in the world where copper and tin occur naturally together is in Thailand. And bronze is important because bronze fittings are essential for any seafaring ships larger/more complex than Polynesian pontoons. The only major tin deposits near Babylon are in the British Isles... and how do you get there?

I need to fact-check that, though. If Fuller is right, it really is a huge twist on the story of early global trade.

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#125

Post by daemin »

MLR wrote: post #106
sorokod wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before his death, Alexander had the Indian subcontinent in his sights. This is in entirely different league than the future city of Marseille.

He had given up on India after his army revolted, they were going to return to Greece and he had plans written up to conquer the West/North Africa after that.

Some say that's why he marched them through the desert on the way back home, killing many through attrition.

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#126

Post by Zardoz84 »

paidleaf wrote: post #119
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. At the height of the greek empire, it's pretty much a given that alexander would have easily conquered italy. But there was no real reason to as italy/rome back then wasn't really worth conquering compared to egypt, persia, india... I suspect had alexander lived long enough, he would have move further into india and maybe eve…

> At the height of the greek empire, it's pretty much a given that alexander would have easily conquered italy. But there was no real reason to as italy/rome back then wasn't really worth conquering compared to egypt, persia, india... I suspect had alexander lived long enough, he would have move further into india and maybe even into china. Not sure how successful he really would have been, but it's an interesting "what if".

Just before he died, he was preparing a campaign to the WEST.

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#127

Post by paidleaf »

Zardoz84 wrote: post #126
paidleaf wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's likely that Alexander would have taken over Italy had he lived a couple more decades. At the height of the greek empire, it's pretty much a given that alexander would have easily conquered italy. But there was no real reason to as italy/rome back then wasn't really worth conquering compared to egypt, persia, india... I suspect had alexander lived long enough, he would have move further into india and maybe eve…

> At the height of the greek empire, it's pretty much a given that alexander would have easily conquered italy. But there was no real reason to as italy/rome back then wasn't really worth conquering compared to egypt, persia, india... I suspect had alexander lived long enough, he would have move further into india and maybe even into china. Not sure how successful he really would have been, but it's an interesting "w…

> Just before he died, he was preparing a campaign to the WEST.

Why did you capitalize west? And I'm fairly certain this is not true. The best we know of his immediate plans prior to death was that he wanted to centralize his empire around babylon and then conquer arabia. Not quite "west".

But if you have sources backing your claim, I'd love to see it.

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#128

Post by beat »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #57
oblio wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I thought I was quite clear. Greece and Italy are, effectively, part of the Orient, due to their contiguous connection to the Mediterranean and easy shipping access. Greece is closer to Persia than it is to the British Isles!

The straight-line cultural connection from northern Europe to classical Greece is mostly a myth, established to sell a sense of importance to the Johnny-come-lately imperialists of Britain, Holland, and Germany. "Europe" is a more modern concept.

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#129

Post by ng12 »

ckarmann wrote: post #88
selestify wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does an educated slave happen? Does someone somehow throw money at educating a slave child? Or does an educated person get enslaved?

Both situations happened. Rich families had slave and non-slave educators who would teach to the family children and to the slave children. A lot of slaves in Antiquity were given the occupation of shopkeepers, clerks or even lawyers, so they needed to be educated. Also the situation of slaves was quite fluid: you could be a slave by birth, but you could have been captured in war and conquest or you could have simply…

Also I'd add that educated Greek slaves were much more expensive than uneducated non-Greek slaves so there was economic value in continuing to educate them.

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#130

Post by agumonkey »

GuardianCaveman wrote: post #111
agumonkey wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just watched a documentary about the franco-prussian war, and they said that 'lower rank initiative' was a factor in the outcome. French weren't really wanting to fight, Prussian were. They would try everything to make a difference, even if it meant disobeying orders somehow.

Which documentary?

this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DhbgJJ_M1s

seems for the UK

Post reply on HN