Archaeologist: "Jesus" predated Jesus

[Suraknar]

'Yes, Ancient Greeks evaluated other peoples based on cultural achievement. Which even if, a certan degree of cultural superiority existed, that same culture made it so that Ancient Greeks were not destroyers of worlds, their goal not to subjigate but rather to educate.'

The Greeks didn't invade places to improve living standards there. Their goal was to subjugate. The Greeks didn't evaluate other peoples on cultural achievement particularly. They evaluated them on Hellenic thinking and actions. I sincerely doubt that many Greeks believed the Persians were superior to themselves, although you could argue that the Persians were culturally superior to the Greeks. It's a matter of perspective really. Most Greek authors, I suspect, saw HellenicIdeas=CulturalAchievement.

It is a matter of Historical perspective based upon the understanding of Historical Events. To me not having read about Greek massacres of the peoples they invaded is a strong indication of their motives and intentions. Reading about their efforts on cultural devellopment of the regions they invaded points out to a deeper motive than a simply subjigate and rule over.

'Furthermore, the behavior of the Ancient Greeks and the Byzantine Greeks was different, while in both instances of history the same hellenic fervor existed, the Bysantine Greeks were by then holding on to Roman values, following the Roman Paradigm, and of cource a Christian Perspective.'

The Byzantines also considered themselves the heirs of the Roman empire.

It goes without saying, Constantinopole was the new capital of the Empire when founded, and later the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, if the West was beaten militarilly and fell, that does not mean that the East did not continue. Now, if religious interests of Rome wanted to emphasis their lineage to the Roman Empire, the fact that the Eastern part was still there, did represent some political issues. That does not mean however that the view of the Byzantines, seeing themselves as the true heirs of the roman empire was wrong. It was only wrong from the eyes of the west as it went against its own interests and own claim. Political problem.

'As such, I think it is important to make that distinction when contrasting the Hellenic world with Islam, we have to put Hellenic ways of doing things under the Byzantine context, and comparing Ancient Hellenism directly with Islam or vice versa, is not a fair comparison, as there is difference of context.'

Is that different to comparing Christian motivations and methods of expansion with Islamic ones?

Yes it is different, this reply as in relation to Adrian II questions, in comparing Ancient Greeks with islam, I am pointing out that doing so is not fair, and that it would be more fair to compare Greeks of the Christian Period rather than Greeks of the Ancient period against Islam. I am doing this by bringing up points to substantiate my view, points that are shared between Christian Greeks and islam and not share between Ancient Greeks and Islam. Points that you take out of that context in some of your replies friend.

Cheers!

EDIT: For the finer points between the contention of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, I suggest this thread :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=80681

I posted this to discuss Game mechanics, but it does contain Historical Information, and if you wish to comment on it bring it in this thread please.

[Orb]

Well, I've got a few comments. I'm going to try to keep to an overview, rather than getting us bogged down in word issues.

The disputed points:

1 - Religion was the driving force behind Islamic and Christian expansion
(subpoint, and the former got it from the latter)

2 - The Classical and Hellenistic Greeks expanded, intending to educate, not to subjugate.

'To me not having read about Greek massacres of the peoples they invaded is a strong indication of their motives and intentions.'

So what about the Maccabean revolt, which occurred when Antiochus refused to accept coexistence with the current Jewish religion (and committed several atrocities, and desecrated the high temple)?

Similarly, a Ptolemaic king (IIRC) massacred an entire force of Galatian soldiers (loyal, dedicated elites) who had formerly been working for him solely to increase his prestige.

Another example is (and I had the text here somewhere, but I've lost it) the Greeks planning to take Sousa and its riches (similarly Athens planning to take Syrakousai). They saw the enemy (Greek or not) as a plundering opportunity, not a civilisation needing education.

Other examples include the large number of occasions when Greek empires or alliances refused to allow city states to secede from them, and launched attacks on them. Alexander destroyed Thebes completely for rebellion, rather than accepting that it was their choice whether or not to avoid his rule. Similarly, Areus and his allies unsuccessfully rebelled against Makedonia. Each 'empire' forced other states to comply with its ideals, to benefit itself.

'Reading about their efforts on cultural devellopment of the regions they invaded points out to a deeper motive than a simply subjugate and rule over.'

The deeper motive being to allow the ruling Hellenes there a greater quality of life. They *still* wanted to rule over the people.

3 - Europeans were not able to study classical texts, and wilfully destroyed them. Islamic scholars had far more freedom.

Anything to add or correct here?

I'm answering the really off-topic one first, so we can get that out of the way.

[Watchman]

So what about the Maccabean revolt, which occurred when Antiochus refused to accept coexistence with the current Jewish religion (and committed several atrocities, and desecrated the high temple)?

To be fair that was rather late to the Seleukid times when the empire was already starting to come apart, and the Hellenic elite was probably starting to get infected by that virus of boneheaded reactionariness that seeks solutions to unresolvable problems in the present by turning to a more or less imaginary past and starts to emphasize "proper traditional values" over the liberal convivencia that has thus far allowed the lord and the subject to coexist without excessive friction.
In this case, Greek ones. When your remaining subject populaces are to a soul proud and ancient peoples with long histories, strong self-identities, and long-established local practices. Shooting yourself in the leg is apparently great fun.

Similarly, a Ptolemaic king (IIRC) massacred an entire force of Galatian soldiers (loyal, dedicated elites) who had formerly been working for him solely to increase his prestige.

This has the stench of complicated politics about it you know, and sounds like some background info would be necessary to form an opinion of the actual motivations. AFAIK the Ptolemies were much too dependent on Galatians and other foreign mercenaries and soldier-settlers to keep the restless native Egyptians in check for such a step to be taken lightly.

3 - Europeans were not able to study classical texts, and wilfully destroyed them. Islamic scholars had far more freedom.

Incidentally, I've read this was partly because the highly poetic and symbolic language of the Koran makes far fewer axiomatic statements about most relevant issues than for example the Bible does (probably because the early Christians had had to dispute philosophy against those selfsame Classical texts, which were also at least partially associated with the pagan religions that persecuted them in the early days, and I think we can all imagine what sort of attitude that bled into the canonical writings...), and thus as such imposed fewer constraints.

[Suraknar]

Watchman has given you very good replies here.

The only thing I would like to add is that, the exemples you brought up, are shrouded in political circomstances and revolutions that can affect the socio-economical stability.

Lets not forget these are still ancient times, it is one thing to hold a referendum today for a country to properly suceed and become independent and it is very different back then, and even today we have trouble with it, Former USSR countries, former Yougoslavia etc etc.

So if Thebes was under Philip's Hegemony and revolted after his death, Alexander had to make an exemple.

But Alexander did not massacre all the jewish polulation when he passed from the region, nor did he do this against the egyptians nor did he do this in babylon. Persepolis was an exception too, sort of making an exemple, but Greeks did not destroy and persecute the people they conquered this is the underlying principle here, while keeping in mind that battles had to be fought and regions be conquered, casualties were inevitable.

Converselly, during Christian Times, when the Crusaders touk back Jerusalem they did massacre many muslims. Byzantine Greeks had their share of eastern behavior, justified by faith. The Turks pillaged Constantinopole for three days after its fall. Etc etc...

I hope between the two of us, myself and watchman's replies these points are now more or less answered here.

And I would like to make an additional remark, the Historical facts of pre-christian and christian times are there, they are part of our history, wither the people back then commited "crimes" by todays standards in the name of religion is not under dispute, the Historical record states this clearly. On the other hand, that does not mean that any given religion is bad. So defense of the act in the name of religeous faith is not required, religion is not under attack.

We are where we are today, because these things happened in our history. And the world could have been a very different place if Christianity and Islam and all the other religions were not there. Wither this alternate world could have been good or bad, is unknown and resides in the realm of speculation, I think we shant go there.

What we can do is learn from opur past mistakes and strive not to repeat them, if we trully want a better future.