Why Greece?

[Kosmo]

After the death of Alexander the most important hellenistic states were deeply involved in bloody struggles to control Greece. After the second punic war Rome joined the fun and send her armies in Greece despite the terrible losses she suffered and the problems in Spain and Cisalpine Gaul.

 

Why?

 

Greece was never wealthy or fertile. Her cultural glory did not meant that people needed to fight for it until it's turned in a ruin.

Why would want the kings of Egipt or Asia to control a small, poor city in Pelopones? They had better targets closer to them and so did Macedon and Rome. For the safety of Macedon the "barbar" regions in the North, West and East were more important then to besiege Athens. After all from there came the celts that made it a ruin.

After Lysimah and Ptolomeus Keraunos the macedonians abandoned the Balkans, but kept on making useless attempts to expand South. A Macedonia with borders on Danube and Adriatica it's better then one that controls Athens and Sparta.

To see Antioh the Great risking his life for an adventure in Thessaly while his empire extandes from Bosphorus to Hindu Kush it's puzzling.

[Greco-Roman]

the Culture aspect of it was very great and appealing to others espesially in Athens.

[Furius Venator]

Well the Greek states were often troublesome to Macedon (half the Macedonian army had to be left behind to guard against their threat during Alexander's campaigns).

 

They'd be a good source of manpower if brought to heel.

 

Some of them at least were quite wealthy through trade.

 

Controlling S Greece would allow easier acces to trade from the western med.

 

There is the cultural thing as well.

 

An analogy: Richard Coeur de Lion was killed by a crossbow bolt whilst beseiging a small French castle. Why? Because it was strategically important despite its small size and tiny garrison. Important enough to warrant his personal attention.

 

Thessaly was good horse country, well worth controlling for that reason alone. There may well have been others.

[Kosmo]

Of course any conquest may bring some advantages, but they look small for me compared with the costs.

Macedon was a neighbour but Egipt and the Seleucids were quite far, but tried to control at least some areas in Greece.

[Ursus]

Symbolic importance? I suppose the very idea of having ancient and cultured Hellas as a jewel in someone's crown justified the expenditures for some. Not all actors assess everything on a strictly geopolitical cost/benefit rational analysis -- the power of images and sentiment factors in quite often.

[Segestan]

The Throne of Macedon , after Alexander's death was in confusion. All of the real power was in the hands of the generals. These men only knew war as a means to an end. The Hellenic city-states were very much influential in Asia Minor. The Macedonian conquest of the East was in part, for the re-establishment of that Hellenic rule in Asia Minor. The new Kings of Macedonian Rule were Not all Macedonian but rather in power in Macedon with Athenian and Spartan Aid. Antipater and Gonatas being some of those who seeked outside influence in their struggle for the Royal Throne. But the Real reasons for All Kings of Hellenism to have an interest in the political doings of the City-States was Taxation over an superior economic region. Gold and Taxation was always the prime motive of all Kings. Remember these Kings conquered with their Trains following. They had huge amounts of employed persons , family and wives in their trains at all times. Battles were often fought over another Kings wealthy train. The ancient world was really Big business as war machines. War was State Policy. Taxation and war were the tools of all Kings. Greece was Not the center of political desire as much as it was a necessary source of manpower and taxation. Also Greece was an historic foe of Macedon whose political elite of Athen , often would aid the Galatian and Persian barbarians against the Royal House. Remember that the Hellenic City States had many wealthy pirates who worked very effectively against the Organized Government to the north. Macedonia was really a geo-political power held together by the few family members who comprised the Royal House.

I would tend to disagree that what is modern Greece was sought after by all of alexanders Generals just over an cultural foundation. They already held power in their regions as the Diadochi , and the only real concerns where each other and the ability of taxation and plunder.Plunder and conquest were a natural part of the ancient world. It was savage were ever government and culturtal learning were absent.

An example of the true nature of Kingdoms was the Amazons. Amazon meaning One breasted. The amazonian females would cut of one breast so that they might use a sword in one hand effectively and fed their young with the other. A very tough world it was.

 

regards,

[Pantagathus]

Of course any conquest may bring some advantages, but they look small for me compared with the costs.

 

I imagine it had a lot to do with Alexander's legacy. And Xerxes' legacy, and Darius' legacy, etc, etc....

 

"The heart has its reasons which reason knows not of" - Blaise Pascal

[Kosmo]

Why would Rome be interested in the legacy of Xerxes? And the hellenistic kings hated to be considered barbarians and never claimed to continue the rule of persian kings.

 

So, they all fought to control or to keep others from controlling Greece for emotional reasons and heart problems?

Seeking prestige I understand as prestige keeps one in power.

 

In terms of wealth I don't think that kings of Egipt and Syria needed money from Pelopones.

[Pantagathus]

Well then Kosmo, you seem to have made up your mind.

 

Maybe legacy in regards to the Persian leaders isn't the right word as they 'failed' to take Greece; but what I mean is look at their motivations and you might find some clues.

Edited May 16, 2006 by Pantagathus

[Kosmo]

^_^ Sorry, I did not made up my mind.

I agreed to prestige because it seems possible, but it's not an explanation.

Why would some egiptians (even of greek descent) be happy when their kings spend lots of their money to send a fleet and soldiers in a distant area with little benefit?

 

I must add the kingdom of Pont to the ones that tried their luck in Greece.

 

This area was a batllefield until Actium.

[AEGYPTUS]

Perhaps Kosmos it was all to do with self promotion. By conquering sophisticated subjects they could claim that they were better than those they conquered. So therefore promoting themselves. Greece is a very cultured region with plenty of sophisticated people. So my question to you would be why would the Egyptians not want to conquer parts of Greece the ruling class at the time being the Ptolemy's. There simply trying to regain there homeland perhaps get in touch with their roots (Macedonia/Greece)!! Or try to rebuild Alexanders Empire. :D

Edited May 24, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[Rameses the Great]

Greece was never wealthy or fertile. Her cultural glory did not meant that people needed to fight for it until it's turned in a ruin.

Why would want the kings of Egipt or Asia to control a small, poor city in Pelopones? They had better targets closer to them and so did Macedon and Rome. For the safety of Macedon the "barbar" regions in the North, West and East were more important then to besiege Athens. After all from there came the celts that made it a ruin.

After Lysimah and Ptolomeus Keraunos the macedonians abandoned the Balkans, but kept on making useless attempts to expand South. A Macedonia with borders on Danube and Adriatica it's better then one that controls Athens and Sparta.

To see Antioh the Great risking his life for an adventure in Thessaly while his empire extandes from Bosphorus to Hindu Kush it's puzzling.

 

Remember, Greece was a spectacle in its time. It was a super power and very culturally assimilated. Athens and Sparta was where the bulk of where the Hellenizm was.

 

Kosmo, I think the question here would be, why not Greece?

 

This is random, and I know people come and go, but if only Gaius Octavius were here...I miss that guy.

Edited May 26, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[Uros]

Think about Palestine in Middle ages.

A land of sand inhabitated by beduins; but where Jesus had lived and died and resurrected.

Hellas, if not in religiuse way8But remeber the Oracolo of Delphi and Eleusi), was similar in cultural and political matter.

Don't Forget that Alexander conquered Persian in name of Hellenic culture.