Uros

But Because no one berfore him try to conquer the world. I, for example, consider Alexander no better than Hitler. His politics of unin between "Barbarians" and greeks are in many ways similar to forced germanization inb XIX century, He destroyed many great tresures as the Avesta(impeding Zoroastrism to become a rival of Christianity and Islam, and destroyn century of speritual achivements by persians and iranians). BUT, he dream to make the world a simgle state, a single Koin

I don't know who he is but, many historians don't like Archeology

Pyrrhus had not the power, nor the prestige to beat Rome. He should try invading grece or defeating Syracuse(also attacking Chartage will be suicidal for him). He was surely an able general but was lacking of the Hannibal gensius and Alexander's Charisma

They Know about Assyria, Erodotus(?) tell the story of Semiramis queen of Assirya and Persians and greeks surely remember the necessary because Assyrian civilization was not forgot. Then, how much "Really" romans knew is a great truble try to know

But in Epiros lies the famous Dodoma oracle, how is possoble that an orcale lies in semibarbarous land? Perhapes the Molossi and Thesproti were consideretae much moch more than other Epirotes people ?

If you want know about Atlantis reand(but is in Italian) the books of Frau "Inchiesta sulle colonne d'Ercole" and the photobook called "Il popolo di Bronzo" They are very good and tell a new, amnd rigthfull place for Atlantis, the Island of Sardinia

I belive Alexander march to east, from a side because Persia(as you have just say) is the political enemy, on the other side because he dream of India and India may be reach only trougth Persia...

Macedonians to the eyes of southern greeks are like semi-barcabaric...also Epirotes are considerate barbarian?

And the very rich and powerfull etruscan league? and the richest Samnites nations in south italy?(of them Alexander may recruit good soldier) I think Italy was mnot suitable for distances by the centres of Empire(Babylon and Persia) but was surely a good point

If you take your argument to its ultimate conclusion, then Rome would have had to conquer the entire world. I doubt if that could have been a possibility. Perhaps a different form of government and internal reorganization might have helped. Maybe Rome just got old and decayed and died like all organisms. Well lack of Expansion is not necesarry military one; modern day nation expand themselfes in economy or politics. Rome has nothing of this. The Roman ruling class is a militray one, and don't merged in economy so when military expansion become difficult the empire found itself blocked a vice-circle, not expansion possible, so no expansion. The lacking of military expansion should be changed in a economical expansion, but middle sea never become a commercial way in modrrn term and the money never a value; instead money went fixed in land that transform flux capital in immoble and static capital, so when Barbarians invade the empireb land was lost and money too.

Many noble italian families claim Roman ascendency but i'm not sure of them

I have not read the book...and i'm sorry but i don't know this professor, also if i'm studing in Florence. I have read "Medio evo: caretteri di un et

For what i remeber the German Frankish Aristocracy enter in Church Bisiness only at the time of >First carolingian before the Churc was Roman people only. S martin of Tours for Example. If you are able to know if they have three name this should be interesting

The fall of roman empire is caused by the abuse of land by rich and the lack of a stable middle class that give to Rome the money to continue its expansion. lack of expansion is also e cause for...well...lack of Expansion. More Rome expande itself more is able to expand(as many other ancient societies). The west fall also becuase it was not able to assimilate germanic components and was incapable to expell it as east did.