Delian League/athenian Empire

[Neos Dionysos]

Athens could have become a great power if only the Aetolian League had not for selfish means brought Roman power into Greece. Had the Athenian allied themselves with the Diadochi and not the upstart Roman senate than Athens would have joined in a new revival of Greece power. I think the Hellens having had long standing colonist in southern Italy lead them to believe Rome would be a good counter to the Diadochi? They were wrong!

 

 

regards,

 

 

Athens did, they were secured and part of the Antiogoid Dynasty. In fact out of free will they had established and payed for magnificant statues of Antigonos I and his son Demetrios. I think they simply feared being nothing more than a lower partner or looked as a resource and not a powerful member. Athens did what all Greek Cities did, they brought in outside influences to further thier own power and prestige for the immidieate future, never really thinking of the long-term consequences or possibilites. When the Greeks finally realized it was a mistake to bring Rome into the picture, (which they did against agreesive Macedonia in the very late 3rd Century BC and very early 2nd Century BC), they tried to reassert thier independance, the difference was Rome was not like other powers they had faced before and when Greece rose up, Rome made an example out Corinth in 146BC.

[Segestan]

"Athens did, they were secured and part of the Antiogoid Dynasty. In fact out of free will they had established and payed for magnificant statues of Antigonos I and his son Demetrios"

 

No , Antigonus and his son Demetrius fought the Diadochi. Antigonus wanted to replace his own soverignity over the Royal House of Macedon. He was in league with Athens in this end. Demetrius , like all the children of the diadochi became independent princes. This was the cause , in the main, of the Battle of Ipsus.

Then came in great Celt invasion. The enemies of the Royal House often paid barbarian warriors to attack the Northern frontiers of the Macedonian Kingdom. Athens was a prime player in this ages old game.

they simply could not see the greater danger of Rome over Macedonian power.

 

regards,

[Neos Dionysos]

No , Antigonus and his son Demetrius fought the Diadochi. Antigonus wanted to replace his own soverignity over the Royal House of Macedon. He was in league with Athens in this end. Demetrius , like all the children of the diadochi became independent princes. This was the cause , in the main, of the Battle of Ipsus.

 

Antigonos is considered one of the Diadochi. Diadochi = Successors. Antigonos was one of the successors to Alexander, he held the land of Syria and a good portion of Asia Minor if not all of Asia Minor. He was a key player in the 2nd-4th Diadochi Wars which finally climaxed with the Battle of Ipsos. After 301, the Diadochi wars were over, since the entire essence of the Diadochi wars was to see who would succed to Alexander's throne and his dominion over ALL of the conqueored lands.

[Segestan]

After the extinction of the Royal House, that is the end of Alexanders rule; Antigonus and Ptolomy were the first to assume that role, then came Casander , Lysimachus , by and by, ...'Demetrius the Besieger'.

Seleucas and the other members of the Diadochi wagged war against Antigonus and his son , defeated them.

 

You have to remember these people were all directly related , it was a family quarrel that upset the world.

 

 

regards,

[Neos Dionysos]

After the extinction of the Royal House, that is the end of Alexanders rule; Antigonus and Ptolomy were the first to assume that role, then came Casander , Lysimachus , by and by, ...'Demetrius the Besieger'.

Seleucas and the other members of the Diadochi wagged war against Antigonus and his son , defeated them.

 

You have to remember these people were all directly related , it was a family quarrel that upset the world.

 

regards,

 

No one was related by blood... each of these men were, (except Antigonos), Alexander boyhood friends and bodyguards/companions or another better word, somatophylakes. Antigonos was one of Philip's, and was one of 3 who had served Philip, and he would serve under Alexander and then be the last alive during the Diadochi struggle.

 

Roxane and Alexander IV were killed in 310 by Cassander. His sister Kleopatra was kept under house arrest for most of her life by Antigonos since if she married one of the Diadochi and bore a son, that person would then be proclaimed king by the army.

 

Kleopatra first tried to marry Leonnatus, however he was also offered marriage by one of Antipater's daughters, showing the rivarly of the two houses. Either case, Leonnatus died in 322. Then she tried to marry Perdiccas who was the overal regent and ruler of all the satrapies, but when he tried to exert his rule over Ptolemy whom had broken off, Ptolemy defeated him twice and he was killed, thus Ptolemy was the first to rule independant and to proclaim Egypt his by, 'The right of the spear'. Finally she would attempt, (with Eumenes help) to reach Ptolemy and marry him who showed interest... she wasn't able to escape Antigonos hold however and she was instead killed.

 

The Argead house was then only Olympius, Alexander's half brother Philip III, (who was older than Alexander but never ruled because he was mentally retarded we are told), and his half sisters, Cynnane and Adea Eurydike, (who was one hell of a woman and I think would make a great regent, she out shown Olympius let me just say LoL), and also Thessalonice who would later be married to Cassander and help him establish a tie to the old Argead House but his dynasty would die out soon after, (the Antipaid), because sadly, he and two of his sons were afflicated with a diease of the lungs. All of them in time were killed off and the Argead house was gone, thus the Diadochi destroyed the royal house. Antigonos, after Antipater and Perdiccas' deaths slowly asserted more and more control, (and if you remember even took Seleukos' satrap which is why for a few years he was with his longtime friend Ptolemy). This was the nature of the Diadochi, Antigonos was not some hero trying to hold onto the house, he was never even part of it, he was just like the others, they had, had thier share of power, (meaning being a satrap), for too long and thus wanted to hold onto it and not wish to hand it all over when Alexander IV came of age, hence when Cassander killed him no one seemed to care. The same for Heracles, Alexander's first born son by Barsine.

 

Antigonos was actually the one who killed the royal house in the sense of it ruling again, when in 306 he declared himself king. Which thereafter, all other satraps did likewise, and thus the royal house, (what was left of it), would never had a legitmate claim to kingship again.

 

Oh and a little side note, Polyperchon was a retard...

 

 

Also perhaps we should get back on topic...

Edited January 28, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Segestan]

[Neos Dionysos]

It was these close Family Trees that lead to the battle of Power in the Diadochi. The Diadochi was philosophically , at least wanting to build a world along the ideas of Aristotle. The Athenians however; were more inclined to Platonic Philosophy.

 

Yes and these all came as a result of the Diadochi struggle, none of them had ANY ties to the royal house, (except Cassander who married Alexander's half-sister), all of thier intermarrying happened so they could secure a sense of security with one another. Each monarch though still fought one another regardless once the situation and oppertunity presented itself. My intial point, (and perhaps I should have been more precise), was that none of the Diadochi were related by blood or marriage when Alexander died, only because of the struggle for supremacy or survival did they start to form these marriage alliances, with the second generation of each house having some blood relations to another house. Each of the actual men who started their own house was never blood related with each other.

 

Family in the ancient world is different than our own modern conception. When a woman was sent off to marry someone else, she passed from the family of her father, into the family of her husband and from henceforth was considered a member of her husband, not her father's, family. While marriage were used to settle disputes or ensure the good behavior of two families, that bond only went so far, as in some cases we have sons killing thier mothers, (an example being one of Cassander's sons killing his mother Thessolnike), or other wonderous situations all for the goal of attaining power, or some other coveted item or position, etc. You argue that through the marriages they were all related, by our modern standard that is correct. But I look at it from a different view, that unless they were blood related, they were not true family and those bonds of "in-laws" were weak and easily broken as we can see how long each marriage brought stablity in few cases.

 

And as a Note: I don’t think it your place to define an historic personality as a retard.

 

Do you know what he did? Look him up, evalute what he did, and tell me he was at the very least not a complete fool. Regardless, it is my personal opinion to evaluate an individual based on what they have done, the same way as a standardized test evalutes someone on thier intelligence by how they perform, so do I evaluate this person on the circumstances and thier actions, and my opinion is he was a retard. Am I writing it in stone somewhere? No... I am merely stating MY opinion... not what should be given to people as the ever-perfect truth.

 

 

And, again... we are off topic...

Edited January 29, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Segestan]

I will agree to much of your response. But Your --opinion -is Not a measurement of an persons worth. It's merely Your ideas of good or bad morality seen through the annals of time.

 

On with the topic;

 

 

regards

[Neos Dionysos]

I will agree to much of your response. But Your --opinion -is Not a measurement of an persons worth. It's merely Your ideas of good or bad morality seen through the annals of time.

 

On with the topic;

 

 

regards

 

I'll agree perhaps I am overdoing it a bit... and given the full understanding maybe being too hard on the person... but I think I remembered him at a bad time and so my judgement was a bit clouded.

 

And as you stated... on with the topic...

[Neos Dionysos]

Topic resumes...

 

 

I think a true defining moment and turing point in the Delian League/Athenian Empire's actions has to be that of the incident on Melos/Milos. I would argue that this one act, shows the complete 180 that the Delian League took when it was established... to that moment when the island was destroyed and enslaved simply for not joining in a war it wished to remain neutral.

[sullafelix]

In my opinion, the attempt of Athens to become an imperial power was both an inevitable result of its direct democracy and the cause of its failure to accomplish this end.

 

I am not entirely sure whether I agree with this. The Athenian Empire was extensive and controlled the Ionian coast some sections of the Greek mainland and a lot of the Western Med. The glory days of the Periclean Empire were short lived, however.

 

Athens as usual made the mistake of annoying the Spartans who were the military backbone of the Delian league. The Athenians throughtout their history were ungrateful backstabbing swines that owed their security and existence to the Spartans. Whenever their security was threatened they ran like dogs to the Spartans begging for help, only to betray them once they were saved. I think Sparta should have stepped away and let the Persians teach those wothless currupt Athenians a lesson.

 

I can't even begin to start with where this is wrong! Firstly the Athenians were an enormous military power. They had a huge naval fleet and most of the decisive battles of the Persian wars were naval. The Spartans needed them as much if not more than they needed the Spartans. Secondly Persia wanted Sparta as much as she wanted Athens, because she had realised that if she divided Greece by conquest the Greeks would unite against here so it was here intention to have a go at Sparta too. Thirdly the brave Spartans who stood heroically at Thermopylae lost a battle that they should have easily won due to their incompetence...true.

 

Sparta only broke with Athens in the end because she was worried that Athenian democracy might rub off on her people and stop her being able to keep her Helots down.

 

Finally what precipitated the Second and most important of the Peloponnesian wars was the fact that the terms of the 30 year truce were ill-conceived on both sides and had led to neither Sparta nor Athens being able to expand their empires because they had left themselves with nowhere to go. The whole treay and the two opposing leagues were balanced precariously on a diplomatic knife edge. In the end Sparta probably bore the least of the blame for the Second Peloponnesian war. Athens did agitate but she was also helped in this by the fact that Corinth (Spartan) was also desperate to have an empire and wanted to precipitate a war.

:fish:

I think a true defining moment and turing point in the Delian League/Athenian Empire's actions has to be that of the incident on Melos/Milos. I would argue that this one act, shows the complete 180 that the Delian League took when it was established... to that moment when the island was destroyed and enslaved simply for not joining in a war it wished to remain neutral.

 

This is very good point and Athens was undoubtedly very heavy handed with those of her empire who wanted to get out. However, we tend these days to be too quick to judge imperialism by modern standards. The smaller states in the empire mainly wanted the protection. Small states cannot stand alone, today we have economic imperialism and small states still need it, witness at the moment the influnce the West is trying to exert over Palestine...Palestine is almost entiely reliant on Western aid...that's hegemony! In the ancient world small states needed the protection of a large empire to exist. Better heavy taxes to the Athenians than domination by the Persians.

 

Cheers

 

Sulla Felix

 

Its quite refreshing to tak about the Greeks for once

Edited February 20, 2006 by sullafelix

[M. Porcius Cato]

In my opinion, the attempt of Athens to become an imperial power was both an inevitable result of its direct democracy and the cause of its failure to accomplish this end.

I am not entirely sure whether I agree with this. The Athenian Empire was extensive and controlled the Ionian coast some sections of the Greek mainland and a lot of the Western Med. The glory days of the Periclean Empire were short lived, however.

And why do you think the glory days were short-lived? Don't you think it had something to do with some of the disastrous decisions made by the Assembly?

 

Also, just for the record, most of what's quoted in your post above came from tflex, not me. I vastly favor the Athenians to the Spartans for the reasons to be found in Perikles' funeral oration, which is one of the most wonderful speeches in the entire history of mankind (imho).

[Neos Dionysos]

I think a true defining moment and turing point in the Delian League/Athenian Empire's actions has to be that of the incident on Melos/Milos. I would argue that this one act, shows the complete 180 that the Delian League took when it was established... to that moment when the island was destroyed and enslaved simply for not joining in a war it wished to remain neutral.

 

This is very good point and Athens was undoubtedly very heavy handed with those of her empire who wanted to get out. However, we tend these days to be too quick to judge imperialism by modern standards. The smaller states in the empire mainly wanted the protection. Small states cannot stand alone, today we have economic imperialism and small states still need it, witness at the moment the influnce the West is trying to exert over Palestine...Palestine is almost entiely reliant on Western aid...that's hegemony! In the ancient world small states needed the protection of a large empire to exist. Better heavy taxes to the Athenians than domination by the Persians.

 

Well that's just it, the Melians were not part of the Delian League or the 'Athenian Empire'. Melos/Milos was netural and tied culturally to Spartan and the Lacomadian League, Athens came to them and like they had done with cities they 'liberated' from Persia, tried to force them to join against Sparta. So yes it was a small state but it wanted no part in anything thing and not even the protection of the Athenians, thier action toward them was a clear sign on how tyrannical the Athenians had gotten in controlling thier empire...

 

 

Its quite refreshing to tak about the Greeks for once...

 

Indeed it is...

 

 

Also, just for the record, most of what's quoted in your post above came from tflex, not me. I vastly favor the Athenians to the Spartans for the reasons to be found in Perikles' funeral oration, which is one of the most wonderful speeches in the entire history of mankind (imho).

 

And a speech I highly beleive was inspired by and partially written by Aspasia.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Also, just for the record, most of what's quoted in your post above came from tflex, not me. I vastly favor the Athenians to the Spartans for the reasons to be found in Perikles' funeral oration, which is one of the most wonderful speeches in the entire history of mankind (imho).

And a speech I highly beleive was inspired by and partially written by Aspasia.

 

Why?

[sullafelix]

Cato , my apologies I had not meant to associate your comments with those of tflex I wouldn't do that to you!

 

Neos Dionysus mea culpa my bad didn't read closely enough kinda just assumed you were talking abut one of the naughty island states that revolted from time to time and had to pull down their walls etc.

 

That said come on out and fight tflex! defend you position..ahem gosh too much caffeine methinks!

 

Sulla

 

Edited February 20, 2006 by sullafelix