My KH dilema

[KozaK13]

Coalitions have lead to Kingdoms before...i think...

You could conquer Macedonia with the reasoning that you are reconquering land that once belonged to Greek states, and i think the Macedonians were dorian greeks but i am probably wrong...bringing greek reason to the world perhaps? Maybe make true greek settlements type 1/2/3 govs and all non greek lands client, then technically you only rule greek settlements then and have merely inforced dominace on your neighbours...

[Maion Maroneios]

You could conquer Macedonia with the reasoning that you are reconquering land that once belonged to Greek states, and i think the Macedonians were dorian greeks but i am probably wrong...

Well, Macedonia never belonged to any southern Greek cities. The southern Greeks, as I stated before, where more interested in trading ports. In any maps of ancient Greece you find, you will see that only the coastal areas of Macedonia where controlled by southern Greek city-states.

As for Macedonians being Dorian Greeks, it is true. They where Greeks just like the rest (Athenians, Spartans, Thessalians, Epirotes), with the main reason of them regarded as 'barbaric' being the fact that they had too much contact with barbaric nations like the Thracians and Illyrians (resulting in the adoption of certain aspects of their culture and society), as well as their governmental system (monarchy, as opposed to the democracy or oligarchy of the city-states of the southern Greeks).

Maion

[Watchman]

The quasi-feudal society probably didn't help much either, given how free peasantry has always tended to regard the arrangement. Anyway, since when did anyone ever really need much more than an opportunity and a really thin excuse to go put the boot in somebody else those days? IIRC the southern poleis had a rather lenghty history meddling in the Mac domestic politics, and good ole payback for getting conquered by Alex (didn't the southern Greeks revolt about the second they heard he was dead...?) and then repeatedly by the Antigonids should be quite enough of a grievance for a casus belli...

[Maion Maroneios]

The quasi-feudal society probably didn't help much either, given how free peasantry has always tended to regard the arrangement.

Not necessarily. A feudal society fives peasants a sense of protection, plus let's not forget Macedonian societies where very xenophobic. At least a lot, preferring to work their own lands instead of having slaves do the work, not that they didn't have slaves of course. Now a 'free' democratic polis had more problems with it's inhabitants than an agricultural society, believe me. The expectations are always too high, you see. Plus, more clever people (ie intellectuals) always means a greater possibility of rebellion.

IIRC the southern poleis had a rather lenghty history meddling in the Mac domestic politics, and good ole payback for getting conquered by Alex (didn't the southern Greeks revolt about the second they heard he was dead...?)

Certainly the Hellenic poleis did interfere with Macedonian politics, mainly because of the timber that the region produced that interested the southern Hellenes. As you see, it's economic reasons again

As for them rebelling, it's true. A free Hellenic polis had three main goals, with the most important of them all being Autonomy. No Autonomy equals no city-state. So whoever would conquer them, even their closest relatives ethnical-wise, they would revolt.

Maion

[icydawgfish]

And what about Cyrene, Rhodes, Taras, Sparta, Athens, and Byzantium?

[Cambyses]

Well, various Hellenic poleis did attempt to run leagues or hegemonies all throughout Greek history, they just usually broke up at the first sign of trouble as there was little attempt to form an inclusive governmental structure by the dominant power. (ie Athens in the Delian League, Thebes in the Boetian etc). And yes Im aware that's a massive generalisation.

To form a successful empire it is essential that subject or allied peoples have some kind of involvement in the government process (eventually). For me this is the main reason for the success of Rome as opposed to the Greeks. Former enemy peoples became allies and in time were given the franchise and full voting rights. ie the Etruscans, Picentes, even - in the end - the Samnites. Whereas all too often with the Greek states former enemies remained enemies forever. The unfortunate history of Platea being a prime example.

However, I believe in an alternate history it is perfectly possible that a more inclusive approach might have evolved in one of these Greek leagues, and that it may even have extended beyond the boundaries of the classic Greek territories. Alexander was certainly showing glimmers of such wisdom before his death, for example, in adopting Persian customs and the infamous forced marriages of his troops to the local ladies. As his influences and teachers were largely Greek you can definitely make a case that a future Empire might adopt the same principles.

Even if the Greek character tended to define itself by creating differences between one place and the next and consequently adopted a little island mentality even in large cities, the dream of a united Greece remained sufficiently alive that you could role play a KH expansionist empire IMO. It just needs someone with the vision of Pericles to take control.

Incidentally, Thessally had a long history of independence and close involvement with the southern poleis. Taking Demetrias and setting up a class 4 government would be entirely historical - again IMO.

[Watchman]

Not necessarily. A feudal society fives peasants a sense of protection, plus let's not forget Macedonian societies where very xenophobic. At least a lot, preferring to work their own lands instead of having slaves do the work, not that they didn't have slaves of course.

Erm, yeah. AFAIK while they generally put up with it well enough (as long as the barons weren't total assholes), feudal peasantry rarely if ever actually much liked the arrangement. It did after all rather directly put them under the thumb of the aristocracy, nevermind now if outright serfdom was involved (dunno if it was in the Macs' case).
However, the point is more how the "agrarian middle class" that more or less dominated the society and culture of the southern poleis viewed the matter; and AFAIK free, nevermind landowning, peasantry (which the old "hoplite class" was) has always tended to seriously abhor feudalism.

Now a 'free' democratic polis had more problems with it's inhabitants than an agricultural society, believe me. The expectations are always too high, you see.

The last I heard the southern poleis were pretty agrarian too (the old hoplites were basically upper peasantry), but anyway. Please extrapolate.

Plus, more clever people (ie intellectuals) always means a greater possibility of rebellion.

Wut ? Ever heard of peasant revolts ? More educati just means more in the way of weird new ideas potentially troublesome for rulers, not that the populace is actually interested in overthrowing the current regime (doubly so, obviously, if the polis in question happens to be under sufficiently democratic management that said populace - or the parts of it of any real consequence anyway - are that regime...). The latter requires sufficient dissatisfication with the current situation, and relatively prosperous independent peasantry and burghers tend to on the whole be a more content bunch than the normally baseline grumbling feudal tenants. (The hoi polloi of the underclass, being of little martial, economical and hence political weight, naturally don't count for much here...)

Certainly the Hellenic poleis did interfere with Macedonian politics, mainly because of the timber that the region produced that interested the southern Hellenes. As you see, it's economic reasons again

My point exactly. The motivation is there already, all that is required is the ability to actually act on it. Suitable handwave excuses to legitimise the matter should not be too hard to come by, doubly so given the unfriendly relations between the Macs and the southern cities since Philip's days...

As for them rebelling, it's true. A free Hellenic polis had three main goals, with the most important of them all being Autonomy. No Autonomy equals no city-state. So whoever would conquer them, even their closest relatives ethnical-wise, they would revolt.

Right. And since the Antigonids had for a while been more or less the major threat to that autonomy as a whole, in the case of the poleis managing to stick together for fun & profit (the assumption made in EB) and actually mustering enough power to have a genuine shot at removing that threat more or less for good (a necessary precondition for the OP's concern to matter)...

Stick the place under type 3 or 4 gov't to represent installing reasonably sympathetic puppet regimes and client-kings or something. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch of credibility, that - didn't the more powerful poleis commonly do something similar all over the place during their heydays, anyway ?

[Skullheadhq]

It would be great fun to do a migration to Rhegion! As far is i know it was an greek colonial settlement. It wouldn't be to hard to conquer Syracuse from there and you have an great trading empire in which you can trade with Qart-Hadast and Roma

[Subotan]

Has anyone tried a similar thing with the Arverni/Aedui with Galatia?