History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

Lord Sovereign said:
Having gotten into Ancient Greek history more of late, I find it fascinating how it almost wound up taking Rome’s place. Cultural connections aside, and perhaps the Geography, Italia and Hellas were remarkably similar; a patchwork of city states, kingdoms and republics, with hairy barbarians in the north.

Something like the major conflicts of Rome happen in Greek history, with the titanic struggle against Persia being akin to the Punic Wars, and the Peloponnesian Wars having some surface similarities to the Samnite Wars.

There’s even a point where Hellenic civilisation dominates the known world after Alexander’s death.

But ultimately the Greeks never achieved the unity and dominion of Rome, at least not before Macedonia brought it to heel, and thereafter failed to consolidate its conquest before Alexander thunders East and he, and his Diadochi, ultimately squander Greece’s strength.

By contrast the Romans are a damn sight more methodical, pragmatic and bloody minded. And perhaps patient.

They took their time with Italia. That I think is ultimately what won them the world.
Click to expand...

Orderly unity, practical approaches and a martial but sufficiently flexible culture. A recipe for success.

Alexander was born into a dying age, and his campaigns pushed that house of cards right over. Cf. Napoleon dismantling the HRE, and Chandragupta shoving the Nanda empire off the board.

The latter shows that a man under those conditions can triumph; but I'm aware of no other macro-historical 'counterpart' in that position who managed it. Glorious failure is the more likely option. Forever to be a meteor streaking across the heavens-- bright and brief.

There's a reason that the subsequent age can be defined as "Alexander to Actium", though. Such men leave a distinct legacy. Rome triumphed, essentially by competing in Alexander's three-hundred-year funeral games. They won by being better than the rest, which is in part because they were relative outsiders, free from certain old hang-ups. Not to mention the vitality of youth: Rome but a fledgling entity in Alexander's day, and only flourished into its full maturity (and might) later.

Much the same can be said of America in relation to Napoleon, of course. Right down to the status as a quasi-outsider to the affairs of Old Europe.
 
Skallagrim said:
Orderly unity, practical approaches and a martial but sufficiently flexible culture. A recipe for success.
Click to expand...
It’s weird how very close some Greek Poleis came to that. Athenian democracy was a sophisticated thing after all. And Sparta? A senate made up of three hundred men with two Kings? I feel as if, with a few more tweaks hither and thither, some of them could have “got there” so to speak. It’s like Hellas’s finger tips scraped universal empire but didn’t go any further and then the real deal came along.

Skallagrim said:
Alexander was born into a dying age, and his campaigns pushed that house of cards right over. Cf. Napoleon dismantling the HRE, and Chandragupta shoving the Nanda empire off the board.

The latter shows that a man under those conditions can triumph; but I'm aware of no other macro-historical 'counterpart' in that position who managed it. Glorious failure is the more likely option. Forever to be a meteor streaking across the heavens-- bright and brief.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t quite compare Achaemenid Persia to the Holy Roman Empire of 1805, but I think I see your point. Once the Great King (a far cry from mighty Cyrus) was toppled, his satraps bowed to Alexander quite quickly.

Very different story with Carthage. A different beast entirely I suppose.

Skallagrim said:
There's a reason that the subsequent age can be defined as "Alexander to Actium", though. Such men leave a distinct legacy. Rome triumphed, essentially by competing in Alexander's three-hundred-year funeral games. They won by being better than the rest, which is in part because they were relative outsiders, free from certain old hang-ups. Not to mention the vitality of youth: Rome but a fledgling entity in Alexander's day, and only flourished into its full maturity (and might) later.

Much the same can be said of America in relation to Napoleon, of course. Right down to the status as a quasi-outsider to the affairs of Old Europe.
Click to expand...
To my mind Rome, fresh out of the “Punic Wars Gym” essentially comes waltzing in half way through whilst everyone else is exhausted. There’s more to it than simply youth though I think. The Romans had a profoundly different mindset to the Greeks which, ironically for the future masters of the world, was less arrogant. As much as they tried to tie themselves into the Iliad, I think their lack of connection to the distant Bronze Age was a boon. Much like the earlier Persians to some extent, they’ve got that no-nonsense vitality, no aching for a lost past (as much as they venerate it!). Thus more of an openness to “what works and what doesn’t.”
 
Skallagrim said:
Orderly unity, practical approaches and a martial but sufficiently flexible culture. A recipe for success.

Alexander was born into a dying age, and his campaigns pushed that house of cards right over. Cf. Napoleon dismantling the HRE, and Chandragupta shoving the Nanda empire off the board.

The latter shows that a man under those conditions can triumph; but I'm aware of no other macro-historical 'counterpart' in that position who managed it. Glorious failure is the more likely option. Forever to be a meteor streaking across the heavens-- bright and brief.

There's a reason that the subsequent age can be defined as "Alexander to Actium", though. Such men leave a distinct legacy. Rome triumphed, essentially by competing in Alexander's three-hundred-year funeral games. They won by being better than the rest, which is in part because they were relative outsiders, free from certain old hang-ups. Not to mention the vitality of youth: Rome but a fledgling entity in Alexander's day, and only flourished into its full maturity (and might) later.

Much the same can be said of America in relation to Napoleon, of course. Right down to the status as a quasi-outsider to the affairs of Old Europe.
Click to expand...
I would take issue with the idea Alexander failed at all or was born into a "dying age." He could have very easily designated a single successor but didn't for a reason. As a student of Aristotle he had a Platonic view of politics, the best system is an aristocracy of intellectual warriors ruled over absolutely by a philosopher king. He wanted to make the world a place where the "barbaric" god kings of old disappeared and by conquering the ancient great powers (Egypt, Persia and Assyria) and giving them one each to his trusted generals and the armies serving under them he did just that. If he chose a single successor they likely would have regressed into just another Persian empire. The competition between philosopher kings that lasted until Rome (another very Hellenic civilization) conquered most of them ensured that the world, to this day, is a product entirely of Hellenic culture.
 
Poe said:
I would take issue with the idea Alexander failed at all or was born into a "dying age." He could have very easily designated a single successor but didn't for a reason. As a student of Aristotle he had a Platonic view of politics, the best system is an aristocracy of intellectual warriors ruled over absolutely by a philosopher king. He wanted to make the world a place where the "barbaric" god kings of old disappeared and by conquering the ancient great powers (Egypt, Persia and Assyria) and giving them one each to his trusted generals and the armies serving under them he did just that. If he chose a single successor they likely would have regressed into just another Persian empire. The competition between philosopher kings that lasted until Rome (another very Hellenic civilization) conquered most of them ensured that the world, to this day, is a product entirely of Hellenic culture.
Click to expand...

this is still a failure to create a universal empire.

To be fair to Alexander, Nappy and others unversal empires are hard things to create, and I don't blame them for the failure to create them.
 
To clarify when I compare the EU to the HRE it's because like the HRE the EU is highly dysfunctional and doesn't exactly even know what it wants to be. On somedays it wants to be a highly centralized empire, and on other days it wants to be a loose economic and defense confederation. Also like the HRE the EU is made up of a bunch of groups who kind of hate each other.
 
Carrot of Truth said:
To clarify when I compare the EU to the HRE it's because like the HRE the EU is highly dysfunctional and doesn't exactly even know what it wants to be. On somedays it wants to be a highly centralized empire, and on other days it wants to be a loose economic and defense confederation. Also like the HRE the EU is made up of a bunch of groups who kind of hate each other.
Click to expand...
Except the EU has no excuses and no feathers in its hat either. Even at its worst, the HRE was a fading light because everyone banded together to kill it, and they only managed after a thousand years. The EU is barely 20 years old and already a plague on humanity.
 
Lord Sovereign said:
The Holy Roman Empire, the first and true Reich, was the greatest nation in Christendom and arguably a significant chunk of Germany’s golden age.

To compare the legacy of Charlemagne to the car crash that is the EU is an insult to the two headed eagle. Indeed, something like the Empire would function far better for Europe.
Click to expand...

Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire%2C_1789_en.png

That abomination was a dysfunctional failed state. Otto was the true founder of this too not Charlemagne.
 
Cherico said:
this is still a failure to create a universal empire.

To be fair to Alexander, Nappy and others unversal empires are hard things to create, and I don't blame them for the failure to create them.
Click to expand...
My entire point was that Alexander was not trying to create a universal empire. He successfully created a group of competing empires all of which were based around his ideal governmental structure, which was his goal.
 
Cherico said:


so what do you guys think of this is russia end coming?
Click to expand...

Long ass video so don't have time to watch, but I've seen this guys "alternate history" videos where he talks about the USSR existing after a POD during the middle ages or early modern era. So I don't think logically following societal and macro-civilizational trends are anywhere near his strong suit. As for Russia "ending" I seriously doubt it, it may enter a time of turmoil though.
 
hyperspacewizard said:
What’s the Specifics of that theory?
Click to expand...
It's my personal last resort hypothesis to explain why so many people, especially high profile ones, are behaving increasingly erratically on the way to sucking globohomo dick. They've had scopolamine for ages, and that's already enough to remove your free will. No way they haven't been working on more stuff. It doesn't even need to be permanent, enough humiliation during a recorded entrapment scheme will break the will of pretty much anyone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top