Alexanders choice of conquest.

[cmacq]

Very off topic but just helping.

you might have glossed over the Pelasgian-Etruscan/Tusci-Roman connection and thera/Santorini?

[Cyclops]

1. it wasn't Alexander's choice, he completed Phillip's planned invasion of Asia Minor, and it went better than expected at Granicus, so he kept going.

I feel the notion of revenge for the Persian invasion was a nice motivator and pretext to keep Greek allies onside. It was a fairly unrealistic goal, but if it gave Macedon and her allies enough steam to take Asia minor, well and good. Phillip was a very pragmatic and realistic leader, for all his ability and ambition I don't think he was setting out to replace teh great King, just push him back.

Alexander was a nutjob though, possibly believed all the hype and certainly acted like it was true.

2. After Issus it became apparent that the western half of the Persian Empire (basically the Mediterranean littoral) was Alexander'ss for the taking, so he took it. That secured, the rest of Persia's dominions were available, at the price of a battle: Gaugemela.

3. After Gaugemela he sacked Persepolis which was Operation Persian Revenge's "mission accomplished" moment. Alexander's new mission became "re-found the Persian Empire".

Persia's Empire falls into two halves in my mind: the wealthy provinces of the west (Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, Lydia) with alien locals ruled by Persian satraps and the Arian or Iranian east, peoples with more in common with persia and less apt to conquest by non-Iranians. I think the Western Provinces had bene fought over and pacified multiple times and knew how to bend the knee, but less subjegated (or civilised?) folk made a better fist of resistance (eg Hellas, Iran).

Alexander fought three major battles and some sieges in the Western Persian Empire, but in the East he had to skirmish and fight and siege his way from Parthia to India.

So half the empire fell in 3 years, and the other half took seven years, and fratured and revolted to Iranian rule many times under the Macedonians.

I feel italy Spain and the rest of Euriope were of the same type of cultures, unpacified, hard to unite (even for a local), hard to hold onto once conquered. Thrace fell from macedonian hands faster than Egypt or any of theuir Eastern conquests.

Likewise the Romans sprinkled Italy with their blood for 300 or more years to bring it to heel (perhaps the Social War being the true pacification), Spain took 200 years of plodding slaughter. Gaul resisted conquest for a long time although perhaps they softened themselves to rule ("The Time of Soldiers"): certanly the Germans did not, despite being poorer and less united.

[dominique]

By 330, Rome had 10 legions, Camilian style and was allied to Carthage. The Samnites were still packing a fight, the Padana Gauls were in their golden years. And there's the Marsi and the dozen other hill tribes that haunted the Italian peninsula.

I will tell something big, here.

Alexander, if he had gone in Italia, would have been beaten. Utterly.

Think about it.

Look at Alexander's roster at the Granicus;
20,000 peltasts
22,000 hoplites
5,000 cavalry

Do you really think the Makedonians could have won over 10 legions + allies + good commanders that the romans could field, in a campaign over VERY hostile territory, with no supplies and reinforcement coming? (I think the Rhodians would have chocked before fighting the first sea power of the Western Mediterranean, so Carthage would have been able to blockade every port between Massalia and Taras)

It would have been a hell of a war. And woe to the victors, because the Gauls would have moved south afterward.

Whoah!

That's a Harry Turtledove story for sure.

[Vorian]

you might have glossed over the Pelasgian-Etruscan/Tusci-Roman connection and thera/Santorini?

I am no historian and I guess he was asking only about Greek prehistoric migrations....

About Santorini I am under the impression that it was a Minoan colony.

[cmacq]

thera a Minoan colony.

Thera and the big-bang was why the Achaeans came to dominate the north west Mediterranean. Pelasgian-Etruscan/Tusci-Roman connection, Rome sees Greeks, Rome takes out Greeks, Rome becomes Greek? BTW, Mycenaean is the archaeological construct and Achaean referrers to the late bronze age proto-Greek ethnos as a catchall.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Do you really think the Makedonians could have won over 10 legions + allies + good commanders that the romans could field, in a campaign over VERY hostile territory, with no supplies and reinforcement coming? (I think the Rhodians would have chocked before fighting the first sea power of the Western Mediterranean, so Carthage would have been able to blockade every port between Massalia and Taras)

It would have been a hell of a war. And woe to the victors, because the Gauls would have moved south afterward.

Alexander was victorious in Thrace, why not in nicer territory like Italy? And so he was at every single place from Illyria to the Hindu Kush. I don't think the Romans would have been insurmountable for him. Actually the Samnites would have been very eager to help Alexandros. And why should the Gauls be more dangerous to Alexander than to Rome?

In my opinion the reason Alexander moved east was that the Persian Empire was already set by his father as military target. They were the dominant empire of the time, but already too weak. They have tried to subdue Greece numerous times but often failed. And they have become weaker in the course of time, not stronger. They were a ripe fruit. Needless to say the East was by far the richest territory.

[Emperor Burakuku]

By 330, Rome had 10 legions, Camilian style and was allied to Carthage. The Samnites were still packing a fight, the Padana Gauls were in their golden years. And there's the Marsi and the dozen other hill tribes that haunted the Italian peninsula.

I will tell something big, here.

Alexander, if he had gone in Italia, would have been beaten. Utterly.

Think about it.

Look at Alexander's roster at the Granicus;
20,000 peltasts
22,000 hoplites
5,000 cavalry

Do you really think the Makedonians could have won over 10 legions + allies + good commanders that the romans could field, in a campaign over VERY hostile territory, with no supplies and reinforcement coming? (I think the Rhodians would have chocked before fighting the first sea power of the Western Mediterranean, so Carthage would have been able to blockade every port between Massalia and Taras)

It would have been a hell of a war. And woe to the victors, because the Gauls would have moved south afterward.

Whoah!

That's a Harry Turtledove story for sure.

During the 2nd Punic War romans raised 20 legions from 218 B.C to 216 B.C (216 B.C - Battle of Cannae). What does that tell you? Not to mention that the first encounters of romans with the phalanx tactics did not end so well for the romans. All I am saying is that if Alexander went west... But this is not the right thread for this matter.

P.S Romans are still my favourites is just that I have the impression that the quality of their legions was higher than the quality of their generals (with a few exceptions).

[Mouzafphaerre]

The strange thing is... if i remember right, greek as a language is considered closely related to Indo-Iranian types.

Closet language to Greek is Armenian. These two languages were the last to seperate from eachother in the indo-european language family roughly about 6,000 years ago. The missing link between Greeks and Armenians are the Phrygians a people who do not exist anymore

.
Still both, especially the ancient regarding Greek, are pretty close to Iranic languages, Latin notwithstanding.
.

[cmacq]

.
Still both, especially the ancient regarding Greek, are pretty close to Iranic languages, Latin notwithstanding.
.

Latin falls more with the Italic, Kelt, and Balt languages. The Nordic languages are even farther away. Not sure where the slavic ones come down?

[Tellos Athenaios]

.
Still both, especially the ancient regarding Greek, are pretty close to Iranic languages, Latin notwithstanding.
.

Ancient Greek, which is supposedly of the Indo-Euorpean stock, is still very well preserved in modern Greek. So it's not surprising if we find a lot of similarities between the many old components of Greek and other modern languages.

What's more is the fact that throughout its entire history Greece has been very much East-orientated. This undoubtly has led to closer ties with the Eastern languages and so we shouldn't be really surprised to find that Iranic languages and the modern Greek have something in common.