Posted on 04/07/2011 5:34:56 AM PDT by Cronos
True, it’s just a blog site, but I liked the topic as a discussion and what better place to get a rounded, intellectual discussion on the net than on FR?
Perhaps the writer is not a native English speaker. “Julius Caesar Augustus” isn’t found in common usage here.
We went to the Victoria and Albert instead.
By Alexander's day the Greeks had 30 million people in their own little empire, and the Persians were still down around 10 million people.
So, let's say that the Greeks totally mesed up and got conquered by Persia. With nearly 1/4 of the Persian population "Greek Speaking" already, if not entirely Greek, the addition of the far more numerous Greek Speaking Greeks and their numerous colonies, would have done little to stop ultimate Roman hegemony. Rome would have arisen anyway because of technological and agricultural advances peculiar to the Italian peninsula and adjacent areas such as Greek speaking Southern France and, of course, Scota (now known as Ireland). How quickly we forget their little tricks eh!
I can see the "industrial revolution" occuring a good 1800 years sooner under this scenario since the Latin speakers would have had better lines of communication with the Persian speaking "East" and it's trade connections to China!
Alas, this scenario also results in a the diminishment and destruction of Classical Israel even earlier ~ no Messiah, no Christianity, no West!
I’m thinking about the loss to literature. There probably would never have been the Athenian tragedians, since Persia had a particular beef with Athens. No Xenophon, because those events likely wouldn’t have happened in a less-troubled Persian empire. Could we have even lost Homer’s epics?
Probably not. Greek culture was profoundly influential in Rome, and might have been equally so if the Greeks had been defeated by Persia. Maybe we’d see many differences in the details of what we know as Mediterranean history, but not in the larger sweep.
It’s written by absolutely first-rate historians. Very good stuff.
If the Persia took over Greece, then Rome would have taken over Persia.
They would have eventually overhwlmed the Persians and could have extended their Empire to the indus
Who knows, perhaps if a Roman Empire extended to Transoxiana it could have heard of the Xiongnu migrations causing the domino effect leading to the Great Migrations
I believe Princep (actually Princeps Senatus) was not an office but rather a title. It was of ancient republican heritage and was often given to the leading senator. It meant “first among the Senate” and carried no additional powers or authority beyond other offices the Princeps might hold. It was not dissimilar to our own President pro tem of the Senate, which is also largely honorific.
In the later imperial times it became one of the emperor’s titles (like emperor/imperator for that matter) despite its republican heritage. As such it eventually turned into the title Prince or its equivalent in all other European languages.
Augustus was also a title or honor, not an office.
For most of the time he was emperor Augustus held no particular office in the rather rickety Roman system of government. Rather he held a number of powers delegated to him by the Senate, as had previously been often done for other senators.
The sum total of these powers, in particular his absolute control of the army, gave him autocratic authority but this was concealed by their diffuse nature, so that during the first century or so of the Empire (called by historians the Principate) it was still in theory a Republic, not an Empire.
But you're right that the Persians did not convert folks to Zoroastrianism.
A powerful Perso-Roman Empire would have swatted Islam.
Ah, the Vickie :-P
The key to getting past that is that what you are watching is the story being told to motivate the Spartan soldiers right before the Battle of Palatea a year later (which they won). So you're seeing it through the eyes, imagination and embellishments of the speaker, such as Leonidas defending against a giant Xerxes, not just a man. It's also a film adaptation of a graphic novel, and those tend to be a bit over-the-top.
The author doesn’t seem aware of the fact that empires, particularly pre-industrial ones, have increasing difficulty exerting power as they reach farther away from their core areas.
If Greece had been located where Babylon was, they would almost certainly have been conquered. Had Greece fallen, advancing beyond it would have been even more difficult.
I’m also unclear what her sky-god versus the Persian belief system is referring to. Zoroastrianism, at least in its later form, is just as much a monotheistic belief system as the Abrahamic religions.
I got a kick out of her deriving deep historical insights from the movie 300. Interesting movie, mostly for the images, but it has only a passing acquaintance with historical accuracy.
a yahoo answer (ok, not the best source, probably close to the middling!) says the PErsian empire was 35- 70 million. even this concurs with the 70 million number.
Because Persia was the entire stretch of ancient civilisational lands from the indus right to Ionia, it had to have been more than 10 million.
Let's assume a 13 mill Greek added to 70 mill Persian, so the Greeks would have been about 13% of the Empire -- the rest of your statement about Rome seems accurate to my mind, especially the "industrial revolution" occuring a good 1800 years sooner
Not so sure about the no Messiah bit.
you bring up a very good point. There would have been no democracy in the way we know it and probably no drama plays etc. in the way we know it. Though it would have had far more repercussions across the world, not just Mediterranean history imho
good points — I think the disguise of the Principate continued until 3rd century when an Emperor divided the Empire 4 ways (what was his name, starting with D)
On the other hand, those analyses usually discount the cleverness of the Greeks in turning from wheat to olive trees. The Athenians weren't the only folks to figure out that olives, credit unions, and trained militia were great ideas!
Greece's quite successful colonial era began way before the creation of a single polity under Philip and Alexander's crowd.
Another "plus" is the cause of so much conflict between the Greeks and Persians ~ that was the emigration of vast numbers of Greeks into Western Anatolia! In the end the Persians could do nothing about that.
And what happens to Israel and The Messiah when Greece fails to spread its culture into the Middle East proper on the current time table? Well, that gives the Italians the "edge" over the Western Greek interests around the Mediterranean ~ (France/Gaul/Sicily) ~ thereby preventing the acretion of Iberia to the Carthaginian interests (and with that, the elimination of a component of the Messianic prophecies that call for The Messiah to tend first to the lost tribes ~ they'd simply not been there in Spain where He could sail to them. The whole place would be speaking Latin with no protective Greek colonies on the Mediterranean coast.
That'd necessitated a recalibration of the Messianic schedule.
Would this have given the Druids the edge? Maybe, but most likely disruption of Greek advances to the Western Mediterranean would have also stymied Gaelic speakers from getting to the Northwest coast of Iberia, and using that place as a springboard into Scota!
There may well have not arisen the Ireland we've all known to revere ~ instead, there'd be a more impoverished place with no cultural tradition beyond chasing cows and looking for all the world like Southern Chad!
Yes, I understand there’s a reason behind the style of presentation. I just don’t like it. I don’t care for “graphic novels,” either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.