I was trying to figure this out but I cant quite find out the answer.
Why was Greeks unable to unify Greece?
Why was Makedonians able to unify Greece?:help:
Printable View
I was trying to figure this out but I cant quite find out the answer.
Why was Greeks unable to unify Greece?
Why was Makedonians able to unify Greece?:help:
To make a long story short: Greek city-states lacked the muscle to make their peers to take orders from them, Macedonians at least sporadically could make them do so, and the city-states were generally about more willing to bend knee to the Romans than other Greeks or the barbaroi Macedonian monarchs.
1. Pride
2. Ambition
Unlike Romans who treated the cities of Latium like equals, no Greek City could see a union unless it was the leader.
The fact that after the battle of Salamis during the vote for the "man of the match", every general voted for himself and Themistocles second, shows exactly the sentiments. Macedonians united Greece, only cause Macedonia was organised like Homeric tribe-kingdoms which allowed it to have more man power. Plus the Macedonian phalanx was superior to the hoplites.
Btw, if there is anyone that speaks Greek he/she should read this. I found it recently and it's very interesting
http://library.techlink.gr/4t/articl...0&article=2363
Well... technically didn't the Greeks rout a section of the macedonian phalanx only to be road killed by Alexander's charge from the rear?
It was a feigned retreat.
"On to Makedonia" cried the Athenians as they saw the Mak line collapse and began to surge forward. The more disciplined Thebans who made up the right flank maintained their position.
As the Athenians surged forward, and the Thebans held their ground (as the Athenians should have done), a gap opened up between the two.
Alexander saw this gap, and immediately ordered the companions to strike hard and fast, engulfing the Athenians.
It was at this time that the Makedonians stopped retreating, and began moving forward again. The athenians were crushed, hammer and anvil style. :smash:
Alexander was but a young man at this time, but his uncanny ability to detect weaknesses in the enemy battle line was already obvious.
Wasn't that a tactic he and his father Phillip II had decided to do before the battle? That the idea of the feigned retreat was just that, to let the Athenians surge forward and thus open a gap. Or maybe I'm remembering wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
And yes, no Greek city state managed to unify all of Greece, because they in most cases lacked the military muscle to do so. One reason for Sparta's loss of hegemony was because they could hardly spare Spartans for garrison duty elsewhere (and thus have a military presence should anyone defy them) as they needed soldiers in Sparta itself should the helots get crazy ideas like fighting for freedom. And if a city state ever got a good position it didn't take long until it's allies became fearful of their own interests and switched sides.
In a Greek city state the military was made up of the middle-class and citizens, so while it did produce reliable troops it meant there would be never be enough of them and mercenaries were a drain on the treasury, a treasury the citizens of a polis would rather see spent on their own city like festivities, temples and public works, even though most of that was financed by the elite. Makedonia did not have the same problem, as the the well-to do Makedonians served in the cavalry and the peasants and hillmen were drafted into the pikemen, although you had exceptions like the hypaspistai.
That is at least my interpretation.
From what I gather, the Greek poleis tended to be fiercely independent and determined to keep their own autonomy. Various leagues formed with an elected strategos with the intent of keeping the member states free from outside influence. Strategoi who failed to please the member states could be exiled and replaced (IIRC this happened with one of the strategoi of the Achaean League who wanted to adopt a more peaceful resolution against king Nabis of Sparta who was implementing some rather strange "leftist" policies in Sparta and towns under its control).
They also tended to ally themselves with powerful outsiders in order to keep other powerful outsiders from invading or controlling Greece, such as the Achaeans and Aetolians allying with Rome against Philip V during the Macedonian Wars, then the Aetolians becoming jittery with continued Roman presence and calling in Antiochus III to expel them.
So it seemed that no single Greek polis was willing, let alone able, to try and control all of Greece. Should any state appear to be too ambitious, it would surely bring down the wrath of one of the major Leagues.
I don't know much about the pre-Hellenistic period, but from my understanding Philip II was able to "unite" most of Greece by effectively dismantling the Leagues that were in control and then snapping them up into his own empire - but more as "allies" for political reasons. Someone with more knowledge can flesh this out and/or correct me, though.
Didn't already Alexander end up sacking Thebes for being incorrigibly intractable and rebellious...? And IIRC the poleis greeted the news of his demise with a revolt against their Macedonian governor...
Not the easiest lot to govern, those cities.
Thebes was a constant thorn in Philip's and Alexander's sides. When they finally revolted openly against Alexander, he marched southwards and collected number of other Greek allies (notably the Plataeans and Phocians - long-time enemies of the Thebans and victims of perceived war crimes in previous wars) and defeated the Thebans. On advice from his Greek allies (though note who he had with him... ~;)), Alexander razed the city and sold the citizens into slavery. Would have been a pretty strong message to any potentially rebellious states, really...
Ah, neighbourly/brotherly love. Wonder how many wars they fought over the city-state equivalent of a fence with an ugly paint job or a tree planted in the wrong place ?
Yes, IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
I forget exactly what book I read it in....it might have been a Concise History of the World (it's been ten years since I read it, and I've forgotten the author, forgive me).
He couldn't be sure that the Athenians would surge forward, but he figured as much. They weren't soldiers. They were scholars, philosophers, sculptors, etc., etc., and he knew that excited amatuers would often break rank.
Thebes was more militarily-oriented. It had always been this way. Thus, the Thebans knew better. They probably should have moved forward IMO. At least a gap wouldn't have opened up and they could have covered the flanks against the companions.
It was a military blunder, and I don't think Phillip was certain it would work. A certain amount of luck was definitely involved.
But weren't the macedonian greeks? Because from what I've read in Herodotus, the historian (I can't Recall his name at the moment) that didn't consider the macedonians greeks was a staunch opponent of Phillip II of Macedon.
To answer that question would initiate a clusterf--k of nationalistic problems. As far as our time frame is considered, the Makedonians did not consider themselves of the same stock - hence the differentiation in practically every historical document.
Ancient Greece = Civil War^12 :smash:
Macedonians might or might not have been Greeks. Apparently there was a strong Macedonian dialect (some say language). Whether they were or not, there seems to be distinct mention of Macedonians & Greeks separately in texts.
Just remember that Eumenes was not of Macedonian lineage and this put him at odds with the other generals and his own troops. Also Alexander himself was at first not thought worthy of the Macedonian throne because he had an Epeirote mother, whom the Macedonians seemed to have had a very low opinion off.
Are there any reasons other then military/war ?
Also do you know any good books on this issue?
Thanks for all the replies soo far.
Write it down to the sadly typical human insistence on feeling group superiority over someone. Plus far as I understand it the southern Greeks, not entirely unjustifiably, basically regarded their northern Macedonian cousins as a bunch of rustic country bumpkins. The usual "returning the favour" in such circumstances tends to involve regarding your more urbane neighbours as soft and spineless, nevermind now if you just beat them up in a war...
And of course the Macedonians in turn then were all snobbish regarding all those "barbarians" north of them...
Ecce homo. Everyone likes being able to look down on someone.