In sci.archaeology message news:1166945465.610411.300300@
79g2000cws.googlegroups.com by "john" <jsuebersax@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :
> prd wrote:
>> Syracruz, Alexander the Great (persian conquest), Seige of Athens, Fall
>> Troy if you believe myths.
> Maybe you're right. I thought about Troy, but, at least according to
> the Illiad, that wasn't
> exactly an imperialistic war.
> Alexander and after I guess would count as a militarily achieved
> empire. Again, I can't put my finger on it, but somehow I see a
> distinct contrast between the Greek empire and the Roman one. The
> Greek seemed to rely more on cultural cohesion and the benefits they
> brought to the conquered lands, and not on an occupying military force
> to maintain things.
I don't hold the expansion of Alexander the Great _against_ the greeks,
I would simply point out it was great because it was well extended
beyond greek means to maintain it, and basically it could not be maintained
while maintaining greece. Noone has yet to mention the empire created by
Adolf Hitler because the consequences are still fresh in our minds, if
Hitler had not gone against the Caucasus, he might have succeeded in
toppling Moscow and the fate of the War could have been completely
different. This is an analogous campaign, 20th century, information flows
quickly and such campaigns are generally shorter lived, IMO. So I think
that the greeks at their peak showed a distinct inability to maintain
If their campaign had stopped at Iran and alexander had remained alive
and taken his campaign westward, say, consolidate greek holdings in the
italian peninsula how might history have been different.