From: L
Subject: Roman vs. Greek Empire
I would like to hear any thoughts anyone has on why the Romans were so successful at creating an Empire versus why the Greeks weren't.....I'm just not clear on why the Greeks couldn't.....I see many strengths of the Romans and understand (I think anyway!!) how and why they achieved their empire, but why didn't the Greeks get that far?? What are the deciding differences??
Thanks...:) *L*
From: f
Subject: Roman vs. Greek Empire
L asks: Why was Rome able to create an Empire and the Greeks couldn't? The Greeks fought each other so much that they weakened themselves beyond help. The Peloponnesian War was devastating to them, especially Athens. I'll take Dr. Knox's first argument (lecture, Pelop War p.17) that Athens was the only way Greece could hold together and its defeat didn't allow that to happen. With no cohesive front or unity, Greece could not withstand first Alexander and then Rome.
Rome had its Republic for many years. It had a history of military strengtth because it was also worried about outsiders, the Etruscans and then the Gauls. They did maintain a strong military with most of their leaders being generals in the military. There were many civil wars over the years with the civilians being paranoid and suspicious of the military leaders and I think when Octavian returned to Rome after defeating Antony, the people were just ready to stop fighting each other and let some strong leader take over. They certainly gave him free rein to do anything he wanted, ie to be an Emperor.
F
From: H
Subject: Re: Roman vs. Greek Empire
I suppose I can't quite get over my *first love* of the Greek society and, although not offically an Empire, it certainly was influencial! From that dynamic people came Alexander and his empire appears to me to be as great as Romes, but just didn't last very long. Rome thrived on it's military machine. Their entire focus was military might. They radiated out from Rome and either destroyed their enemies or made them a part of Rome. I see the Greeks as "getting that far" but just not able to hold on to it for any length of time. Alexander had the strength, intelligence and charisma to conquer and hold his empire, but after he was gone there was no one with enough of all of the above to hold it together. Rome at least had the Senate (thank you Dr. Knox for the clarification on where the Senate came from!) as a unifying force - although it didn't prove strong enough in the end, did it?
...H
From: L
Subject: Re: Roman vs. Greek Empire
F....thank you for the insight.....:) *L*
From: L
Subject: Re: Roman vs. Greek Empire
H....
I appreciate your insight, and I, too, am pretty attached to the Greek ideals and culture and their wonderful systems, but I am not sure I agree with you here....I'm just not convinced that their political system was all that Rome's was. Rome had several challengers, too.....yet, they remained for five centuries....and as a world power.
I think I'm leaning toward Fred's idea that the internal conflict was a major source of their troubles.....I also think that the fact that they never totally "came together" as one Empire caused a great deal of tension. I think that perhaps if they HAD ever worked out their poleis-differences and joined into one power, they might have had a better chance against Alexander. As ONE united political system, and one in which they trusted each other, they could have used each area's "best" to fortify the entire nation. This would have been wiser than the limited measures they took and the senseless repetitions of services and militias, etc., etc.
These are just my opinions, nothing that is really *said* in anything I've read...so forgive me for jumping to conclusions...:) *L*
From: H
Subject: Re: Roman vs. Greek Empire
To: Multiple recipients of list HY101 <HY101@idbsu.idbsu.edu>
L and F,
I wholeheartedly agree with both of you. I think the *Greek* solution WAS Alexander. He was the product of all that incredible Greek thinking and philosophy. He had the ability to bring it all together in the end. His empire ended up spreading all that was great about the Greeks to the rest of the known world. Without him the Greeks were lost in their mire of conflict and inner fightings.
...H
From: L
Subject: Re: Roman vs. Greek Empire
H....
Excellent points!! And Alexander was the catalyst between Greek culture (if you will) and it's reception into the new world.....in my opinion, too...:)
Good insight...... *L* :)
From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MICRON.NET>
Subject: Re: Roman vs. Greek Empire
H, L and F all made good observations. I wish only to add that Rome played a part here, too. Rome conquered Macedonia in the 2nd century BC and the rest of the East in the 1st century, and in the process the Romans rather fell in love with Greek culture. Because Rome valued Greek culture, the Empire preserved it, and both Greek and Roman culture cooked together for several centuries. Alexander spread the Greek culture, and Rome preserved it.
Good discussion!