Hypocrisy

Discuss the culture of Alexander's world and his image in art

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

I was going to quote pieces from that response Stathi but there is little point: I'd need to quote the lot.

What utter rot.

Such Hellenocentric rubbish is what has blinded decent discussion of this topic. If you are to believe Greek historians Memnon was the general with all the nouse prior to the Granicus. Memnon was the bloke whose council should have been followed. As it was Persian Grandees decided to fight the unwinable fight against unbeatable Macedonians.

What puerile rubbsih. If - and I mean if - Memnon's opinion was actually sought, it will have been one of many lower class opinions. Memnon was no more than a leader of a Greek mercenary force raised from the area in which he held his estates. He was no Persian general or satrap.

Much the same interpolation and construct underlies the vast bulk of Greek and Macedonian histories. The Greeks are the core of any Persian army. Diodorus even has Greeks leading the armies of Artaxerxes II and III against Egypt. In a pig's eye. That's about the same as the US hiring Uzbekistani mercenaries and making them commanders of the invasion of Iraq. Get real.

The Persians conquered a world that was long into warfare and empire whilst the Greeks were sucking dummies and re-learning how to write: the Assyrians; the Babylonians and the Egyptians. It was the near east and Egypt that saw history made as Greece dreamed of heroes that likely never were. You write it all off as some effeminate, degenerate and untrained trash awaiting real men. The utter cultural bigotry is astounding.

I am not about to go over the numbers routine again because, it seems, logic is of no consequence. Alexander defeated real armies. Any examination of Issus and Gaugamela - and we rely almost wholly on Macedonian and Greek accounts - shows just what a fine edge those results were balanced upon.

The question that really needs to be addressed here is why is it that the Greek historians were never satisfied with having bettered a Persian army in the field? Why was it that they saw the need to regularly have to defeat 500,000 or 1,700,000? Just why is that?

I've said it before but it's worth saying again: if there were 600,000 Perians at Issus; if there were 1,000,000 Persians at Gaugamela or even 500,000 then we would all be speaking Farsi.

You need to read a little more widely. You need to see just what armies the Diadochoi could field - with all the money under the sun - and feed (more importantly). You will then have some pause to consider the flagrantly incontinent figures accorded to Persian levies.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Michael hail

Numbers etc we al egagerate how many guys in fights tell there mates well it was 20r 3 instead of the one. We however must accept Alexander was outnumbered.

I have a reall wonderment with the so called Archers. I for one dont think they were at least there or were hardly used.

As with persians using Archers at Thermopalai. I dont understand why darius wouldnt have had a more prevelent roll for them at Gaugamela. Which Is why I believe they were not there or maybe not used. Am I alone inthinking Archers would have been the only realistis tool to use against Primariyl Alexanders Charge and the Phalanx with small shields.

as you say with the greek macedonain exageration with nubers. Personally I think the Archer force was also exagerated. More meat on the bones i guess.

Would any cavarly charge head long into a force of archers. the french did at Agincourt. and look at the result

Kenny


On another vein if they were therein numbers as said. It would add strength to the argument darius was inept.
User avatar
smittysmitty
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 490
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:08 pm
Location: Australia

Post by smittysmitty »

Kenny, don't confuse the Greco-Persian wars with that of the period in which Alexander fought against the Persians. There is over 150 years of military evolution that had since transpired.

Alexander's army consisted of numerous differing troop types which provided flexibility and ability to cater for a host of different military scenarios. The use of light cavalry (prodromoi, sarrisaphoroi, Thracian and Paeonian rangers), heavy cavalry (companions), as well as heavy infantry (pike and perhaps hoplite), medium infantry in the form of numerous peltasts as well as a host of light troops such as Illyrian javelin men, Agrianians, Cretan and Macedonian archers - not to exclude the availability of various forms of artillery, combined to create a unique force that was perhaps unrivaled at the time.

This army is very different to that of the Greek hoplite army during the Greco-Persian wars. In very simplistic terms, as Tarn suggests: 'military strategy was very rare in Greece during the fifth century BCE. Greek experience of war had, up until the time of the battle of Marathon, been entirely confined to inter-state warfare, in which manoeuvre played little part. The normal tactics of the state militia consisted in the direct frontal attack, followed by hand-to-hand combat.' Whilst Tarn may have underestimated the hoplite ability for tactical manoeuvre, I think in general, he's depiction of the Greek hoplite and its method of warfare is correct. The overall effectiveness of Hoplite warfare is rather defensive and limited by nature.

In contrast, the Persian army of the fifth century had experienced marching great distances, solved problems of transport, supply and administration as well as having learnt to combine operations with mounted and light troops with that of the slower moving infantry. Experience had made them familiar with military strategy and their military organization was far more advanced than the Greek States. The notion that the Persian army had faced inferior troop types up until the Greeks in a nonsensical belief as they had fought and subdued the Greeks of Ionia prior to any venture to the mainland.

Unfortunately, as Paralus has already spelled out, our sources on such matters are, Hellenocentric, and one needs to read between the lines in order to grasp what may have occurred at this particular period in time. Even then, I’m not sure we will ever get the whole picture right. The Greco-Persian Wars remain, for me, a rather unclear period of history tainted by some dubious episode and events. However this may be, I still find Herodotus one of my favourites and a great read. I encourage anyone who is not aquainted with his work to do so.


Cheers!
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Smitty indeedyou are spot on. And as i said in another thread The Macedonian Army was something not seen in ancient war before.

I still doubt thousands or archers though.

kenny
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

Where should i start? This is getting interesting.

I specificly didnt mention any numbers in my post so as to not start this discussion. But you had to start it, because i said a "much larger army than Alexander's". Will you be satisfied if we said that the Persians were fewer than the Macedonian army?
There might have been indeed 500-600.000 Persian troops in Gaugamela. To reject something because you dont believe it could be possible, doesnt mean that it didnt happen. There are parameters that you may have not thought off. Anyway, numbers again.
The Persians conquered a world that was long into warfare and empire whilst the Greeks were sucking dummies and re-learning how to write: the Assyrians; the Babylonians and the Egyptians. It was the near east and Egypt that saw history made as Greece dreamed of heroes that likely never were. You write it all off as some effeminate, degenerate and untrained trash awaiting real men. The utter cultural bigotry is astounding.
And it was the Greek mercenaries that as you said were the core of the Persian army in some occassions. If that doesnt say it all then what? Why did the Persians need Greek soldiers fighting for them? Just to add to their numbers? Or because they were a scale higher than any other soldier from the Persian empire?

The only thing that could match the Greek mercenaries was the Persian cavalry, which was a problem to Alexander, but due to his superior tactics in gaugamela he avoided this.

You read to much Badian, we have said that. Read a little bit Mclean Rogers. He is more objective and says things with their name.

Wasnt it some thousands Spartans that were roaming in the Persian Empire some years before Alexander? If the Greeks were united in a campaign against the Persian Empire, they could have taken it long before Alexander did. They just had their city-states battles, and that was what the Persian King took advantage off.

And because you said about the Babylonians and Assyrians and Egyptians, name me one Egyptian hero, or soldier that is known for his doings in battles. And again because you mentioned it, when Cyrus formed the Persian Empire the Greeks already knew how to write for at least a thousand recorded years, and probably many more before. And it wasnt long after Cyrus that the Persian armies withdrew from their attempt to take Greece.

And if we even accept that the Troyan war did happen, which is widely believed that it did, where was the Persian empire back then, or even the Medes? Had the Greek armies marched into Asia minor back then there wouldnt even be a Persian empire in history.
User avatar
smittysmitty
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 490
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:08 pm
Location: Australia

Post by smittysmitty »

Whilst I realise, your questions are directed to Paralus, and I know he is enjoying his sleep at this ungodly hour, I shall take the opportunity to put some things into perspective for you on his behalf. Having said that, Paralus may not entirely agree with what I have to say anyhow LoL. I also realize that my explanation will never satisfy you, but at least the points I present may linger in your subconscious and from time to time haunt you LoL (only kidding).

The presence of Greek mercenaries in the Persian army is not something unique. The Persians drew upon numerous subjected people to reinforce their armies and it would seem highly unlikely or probable such troops of varying ethnicity were not also mercenaries. That the Greek hoplite should be presented as some type of elite troop is purely a Greek point of view. I’' quite sure, whatever troops served with the Persians as mercenaries also had the same self aggrandizing sentiments spread by their own peoples. Unfortunately, they did not end up in print!

Xenephon's Anabasis, in typical style for the period attempts to present the Greek hoplite as some sort of magnificent breed of soldier - but essentially the story is about a retreating group of mercenaries that got up to very little in the Persian world. The emphasis is on trying to get back home.

Regarding Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian heroes that won battles, you are confused. There heroes did not win battles, they won empires. Once again I stress the point, you need to do some more reading.

If, and I mean a huge if, the Trojan war existed, it supposedly took place some time between 1300 and 1100 BCE. The Persian’ s don’t really come on the scene till the middle of the sixth century BCE. So I guess theres no real issue there.

Whilst the Mycenaean's did employ text, it would appear the use of writing disappeared for a few hundred years and re-invented itself some time in the eighth century BCE. I won't hurt your feelings by saying - we don't know if the Greeks and the Mycenaean's were one in the same people. I guess that's another subject.

You are right about being fed certain stories and if it happens over a long period of time, such stories become the staple we grow upon. Fortunately, history is undergoing a diet of sorts, and new better improved foods are on offer. The choice is yours.

I can get a bit cheeky can't I, it'’s that time in the morning. Anyway, I’'m about to knock off work and go home to get some sleep.

A very good morning to you all!
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Smitty has dealt with much of your response. There are a few things I’ll take up though.

Greeks in Persian service were, as Smitty says, subject peoples for a good period – particularly the Persian wars. They were no more mercenaries that were the Phoenicians. A salutatory example of Greek mercenaries “hired” for Persian campaigns would be Pammenes’ 5,000 Thebans to whom Diodorus accords much praise for valour and generalship. What is almost always glossed over is that Thebes sent these troops along with the Persian effort to regain Egypt so as to earn money for a Thebes rendered near bankrupt by the never-ending Sacred War.

Ditto the Athenian general Chares and his troops, who operated with Artabazus to earn money for Athens, so as to prosecute the Social War. When the Great King demanded that Athens recall him and cease all activity in the Eastern Aegean the vaunted "men of Marathon" humiliatingly complied.

The Athenian force, the “men of Marathon”, who took themselves to Egypt in the wake of the Persian wars to aid Inaros in 462, were handled rather severely by the “untrained” polyglot Persian force. In the end, that which was left of them, were allowed to rather ingloriously crawl home via Cyrenaica. Ditto their forces in Cyprus in 450 where, if hadn’t been obvious the first time (in the 460’s), the need for a détente was now blindingly so. Hence the “peace” of Kallias.

Xenophon’s Anabasis is a triumph of panhellenism over cold hard reality. These were troops that had rather a difficult time of it getting back to the “Greek Sea”. Again we are confronted with the flagrantly incontinent figures given for Artaxerxes’ army. Even to the point that 300,000 missed the engagement because they were late in arriving. Hogwash.

Why, if Greeks are so important to victory, are they always depicted as 10,000 or 20,000 out of 250,000? Bit like a nip of vodka and a gallon of soda.

The nature of warfare in the near east was one of mounted engagement. Yes, there was infantry, but it played second fiddle to the mounted troops. Prior to Assyria and the Medes there were the great empires of the Hittites and Egyptians where great emphasis was laid on both war chariots and mounted troops. Asia is suited to this; for the great part, Greece is not. There is good reason why the Greeks coddled themselves in the hills near to Plataea and sweated for over a week: the Persian cavalry.

Finally, for untrained troops lead by Grandees, the Persians of the Granicus had been doing rather well prior to that battle. Having organized themselves, they responded to the advance assault by the Macedonians, lead by Attalos and Parmenion, by retaking almost all of their gains and forcing them back to their original bridgeheads.

Not bad going for untrained effeminates lead by soft Grandees.
Last edited by Paralus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

So Michael.

You comming round to saying Alexander fought against good persian forces?


kenny
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

I never left so as to have to come back around.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Post by Semiramis »

Guys,

Efstathios is making a simple but airtight argument. You are never going to knock it down, because it is circular.

Greeks are awesome because they beat the Persians. Greek beat the Persians because the Persians suck. Persians may have beat other armies - Ionian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Sogdianan, Bactrian, Scythian, Indian etc... but that doesn't count. Because those armies too must've sucked. Because they were beaten by the Persians, who themselves suck. Which is why the Greeks beat the Persians. Conclusion - Greeks are plain awesome!!!!

Sorry Efstathios, I couldn't help myself. :P
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Efstathios wrote: Read a little bit Mclean Rogers. He is more objective and says things with their name.
Well, although you addressed this to Paralus, I have read Alexander the Great: The Ambiguity of Greatness. Didn't recall anything that led me to believe Rogers supported your view of the Persians so figured I take another look to see what things he says "with their name". Here are a few quotes, not just on the numbers.
(The Granicus.) Serving under them <the Persian commanders> were about 20,000 cavalry levied from Asia Minor, around 20,000 Greek mercenary infantrymen, and also native levies. The Persian infantry thus would be outnumbered substantially by the battle-tested Macedonians. They did, however, have a substantial cavalry force …

… Considerations of shame apart, Alexander probably could see that his overall numbers were superior.
(The prelude to Issus and the battle.) Ever since, historians have debated whether Darius was right to risk his army and his life in one great battle. The outcome went against him, but his decision to wager all cannot be judged by the result. So why did Darius do it? It undoubtedly was important to the prestige, and even to the legitimacy, of his kingship (which had come into being only after a messy dynastic struggle) for Darius to be seen as willing to lead the Persians into battle and to fight for his empire. The Great kings of Persia, favored by Ahuramazda, simply did not hide from upstart twenty-three-year-olds, leaders of former slaves, who once had paid earth and water to Darius I …

… Arrian reports that Darius' whole force numbered 600,000 fighting men. Plutarch concurs, while Diodorus and Justin give the number as 400,000. Curtius Rufus gives the number of Greek mercenaries alone as 30,000. These numbers probably were enlarged to enhance Alexander’s subsequent glory, but there are indications that Darius did indeed assemble a very large army … Whatever the exact numbers, Alexander’s army clearly was outnumbered, perhaps by a very wide margin, and this time the Persians would be led by the Great King himself.

… Arrian tells us that the Greek mercenaries of the Persians fought to save the day for their left wing, which was already in retreat at the shock of Alexander's charge, while the Macedonian phalanx was determined to equal Alexander's success, which they could see on the narrow battlefield. The fierce clash of the infantries was further fueled by the old ethnic rivalry between Greeks and Macedonians. During this phase of the battle about 120 Macedonians of distinction lost their lives …

… Arrian reports that Darius fled in a panic the moment the Persian left went to pieces under Alexander's attack. But both Diodorus and Curtius tell a very different story. In Diodorus' account, Alexander, after shattering the Persian left, rode hard with his cavalry directly at the Persian king himself. By now the rest of the cavalry on both sides was engaged, and many were killed as the battle raged indecisively. Some of the fiercest fighting took place around Darius' royal chariot. Many of his most famous generals fell fighting before the very eyes of their king; all of their mortal wounds were in front of their bodies. The violent deaths of these men in combat once again confirm the bravery of Darius' governors and officers and also indirectly support the thesis that Darius did not flee at the beginning of the battle. These Persian commanders died in a desperate fight focused on Darius himself; indeed, we are told that Darius' horses were covered with wounds, and Alexander himself received a dagger wound in the thigh. It was only when Darius' horses, pierced by lances and distracted with pain, began to toss their yokes and were about to hurl the king from his chariot that Darius, frightened that he might fall into his enemies' hands, jumped down and mounted a horse to escape. Most of the literary evidence thus does not support Arrian’s claim that Darius fled as soon as the Persian left collapsed …

… Despite the intelligence failure that had put the Macedonians in a vulnerable position south and east of the Persian army, Alexander's careful logistical preparations, movement and positioning of forces, and heroic leadership on the battlefield at Issus had made the difference between victory and defeat. Nor should the contribution of the Thessalian cavalry be overlooked. If the Persian cavalry had broken through their lines it might well have been Alexander who was depicted fleeing from the battle on a "Darius Mosaic." As it was, however, Parmenio's indomitable Thessalians had held, and Alexander now had an opportunity to taste the fruits of victory.
(The prelude to Gaugamela and the battle.) Altogether Darius' force consisted of no fewer than 40,000 cavalry and a million infantry according to Arrian. These totals are perhaps somewhat exaggerated, but there is no doubt that Darius assembled a very large army, one clearly numerically superior to Alexander’s forces …

… Darius understood that his infantry was relatively weak compared with the Macedonian phalanx, but that his cavalry was strong. The cavalry on the right side of his line at Issos, after all, might have achieved a local, tactical victory had it not been forced to retreat to help the shattered left wing (and hard pressed center) of his line.

… Darius was most concerned, however, that confusion might arise in the battle, owing to the different languages spoken by his soldiers. Given the list of combatants he had called up from around the Persian empire, Darius' concern was not unwarranted. Unfortunately, we do not know what measures he adopted to deal with this not insignificant problem. But his other actions show that Darius was a careful commander and would leave nothing to chance …

… the story of Alexander breaking off his pursuit of Darius to a help a beleaguered Parmenio should be seen as propaganda, generated later to justify Alexander's failure to achieve what for him was the primary objective of the battle itself: the capture of Darius. The story of Alexander saving Parmenio was a fig leaf created to cover or explain Alexander's failure to capture or kill Darius at Gaugamela and thus to bring the pan-Hellenic campaign to an end.
(The death of Darius.) Arrian judged Darius to have been the feeblest and most incompetent of men, although in other spheres of conduct moderate and decent. This is too harsh: Darius clearly was not a complete military incompetent. When his empire was invaded, he led a determined and flexible, if somewhat tardy, defense of his realm. Unfortunately for Darius, the fates had brought him onto the stage of history at a time when a fierce new light was blazing across the sky, scorching everything and everybody in its path who did not warm to it, and sometimes those who did as well. Thus, although Darius deserved his final resting place among the tombs of the great kings of Persia’s proud imperial history, as Alexander understood, he did not merit his exact fate. Whatever Alexander believed, as Darius himself concluded about the outcome of the battle of Issos, it was perhaps as some god willed it.
Hmm, I see nothing here that supports a view of the Persian army as weak and vastly inferior. What I do see is an author who doesn’t accept the numbers for the Persians out of hand; disagrees with Arrian on occasion; gives Parmenio and the Thessalian cavalry more credit than most for their achievements; notes the rivalry between Greeks and Macedonians; doesn't portray Darius as a coward (or the Persians) and is somewhat admiring of Darius. What was it about this book that made you think it supports your viewpoint? :wink: :?

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

Amyntoros: Rogers is to my point of view more objective, and that's what i am saying. Because he writes
These numbers probably were enlarged to enhance Alexander’s subsequent glory, but there are indications that Darius did indeed assemble a very large army … Whatever the exact numbers, Alexander’s army clearly was outnumbered, perhaps by a very wide margin, and this time the Persians would be led by the Great King himself.
So he leaves the probability the the Persian army was indeed a much bigger army than Alexander's. Maybe not 600.000 as he says, but a big army. I have no disagreement with that. As we have discussed some time ago this subject, a big army could also be 300.000 people compairing to Alexander's 45.000. But figures that are given by some writters such as 100.000 Persian army, are way too low. This is the Persian Empire that we are talking about. The Greeks managed to assemble a big force in Plataies, like 100.000, or maybe less, but still a big force, and Darius couldnt gather thrice that much?
And Rogers in most occassions avoids to write numbers. He only says that Darius' army clearly outnumbered Alexander's army by a large margin.

Anyway, about the old Greek Macedonian rival: This is again the famous paragraph that Rogers simply dictates. I dont know if he can read ancient Greek good, or if he even read the original in order to write the book, or just the English translation. But it is an example as to how much these kind of mistranslations are widespread among scholars without them knowing that the translation isnt actually accurate. I wouldnt expect from every foreign scholar to sit and read the texts in the original ancient Greek. Because they just trust the English translations, and that's normal. But the translations are not accurate.

Michael and smitty: I agree with some things you have said. But, the Greeks had writing in the years also from 1200 to 800 bc. And the alphabet as i have pointed out with links in another post is not phoinician. Herodotus, who is the main source from which this claim about the phoinician alphabet was made says:

"ama tin foni metevallon kai ton rhithmon ton grammaton" = they (the phoinicians and gefyraioi) changed their language and writing. This extract refers to the time when some Phoinicians and Gefyraioi settled in Voiotia. And thus changed their language and writing to Greek, in order to live there. And not that they brought the alphabet to the Greeks as it was suggested. Again, someone must see the ancient greek text here because the translation is not keeping step with the original.

You also mentioned about the Egyptians e.t.c. Someone can say that the Persians were defeated in Greece also because of the Greek landscape, that the Greek armies took advantage of. But again, the Greeks fought the Persians in open fields too. In Plataies, in Gaugamela, and on other places. And they won. And again, the Greek ships destroyed the Persian ships which many of them were larger and slow. But isnt that an example of strategical intelligence? Isnt that what also makes a soldier, a general, better? Isnt the fact that the Greeks knew much more combat moves and were constantly training in gymnasiums since they were kids, an example of why they were better soldiers?
User avatar
smittysmitty
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 490
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:08 pm
Location: Australia

Post by smittysmitty »

As I said, I never expect you to change with your way of thinking, and that is a credit to you and your people. All I can say is you perhaps need (?)to read the sources a little more critically and see beyond the romance.

Regarding Greek writing throughout the so called 'Dark-Ages' of Greece, I'm yet to hear or see anything that indicates this to be the case. I believe the earliest known text of Greek is to be found on the so called 'cup of Hercules' found in Italy dating from the 8th century BCE. I remember hearing (I think) of something slightly earlier being found last year some time, and this also was found in the west if I recall correctly.

The site that you so kindly provided us with regarding Greek Texts from I can't remember when, had if I recall, been something flouted by the 'Hellenic Front'.

I realise you have a deep regard for your country and its past - and that is a fabulous thing. But it may be time to consider moving into the 21st century (?) perhaps. Time to package the past a little differently, and this in no way belittles the Greeks or makes them any less important to study.

Plataea is not Guagamela. Two totally different things - we may as well include the liberation of Greeks from the Turks if thats your way of thinking. Furthermore - and I know this is going to rub you the wrong way - so sorry in advance, but Macedon and its army, has no connection as far as I'm concerned with the hoplite Armies of southern Greece in the 5th century.

As much as I may sound critical of the Greeks, I absolutely love alll things to do with them - otherwise I guess I wouldn't be involved in such discussions. But as you may notice from my posts, I think, apart from the Greeks, there were also numerous other peoples who are equally as interesting and important to our understanding of the past - at least to me.



cheers!
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

smitty, you are leading the discussion to the suggestion that whatever i say has to do with national pride. That's not true. And dont refer to us Greeks as all having the same oppinions because it also isnt true and you would be unjust to people that have their own oppinions that differ. You probably judge by the Greeks in Australia. Greeks living abroad generally have a high national pride. But in Greece that's not always the rule. You also can find people that could say things more like you or Michael do. And of course there are the extremes too. People that think everything ancient Greek was perfection (i am not thinking like this), and people that burn the flag, anarchists. Surely though most people think highly of the ancient Greeks, but there are also these that know of their faults too.
The site that you so kindly provided us with regarding Greek Texts from I can't remember when, had if I recall, been something flouted by the 'Hellenic Front'.
No i dint think it was that. Those sites had an analysis on the phoinician alphabet and comparisons between the lettters, and findings. I'll find them and post them again later.

One question here is if you consider the people living in Greece at the 8th or 12th century bc as Greeks or not. Because we have the mycenean writting, and even the "grammiki A and B" from Crete. Which goes way before 1200 bc. And the fact here is that these people were worshipping the same gods, had similar culture, and language. And that is why after the troyan war, all these people begun to call themselves hellenes. A word that was initially used by the Thessalian myrmidones. But still the fact that they all lived in the same peninsula and the islands, and talked the same or similar language and had similar culture and the same religion makes them part of the same nationality, which back then initially started to form as with the term hellenes. So you can consider all the writting that was found in the Greek peninsula as Greek.


we may as well include the liberation of Greeks from the Turks if thats your way of thinking
No, the liberation from the turks was a totally different kind of war. Not in open fields in most cases, but in mountains and sieges at towns.
apart from the Greeks, there were also numerous other peoples who are equally as interesting and important to our understanding of the past - at least to me.
I agree.
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Post by Semiramis »

Efstathios wrote:Those sites had an analysis on the phoinician alphabet and comparisons between the lettters, and findings. I'll find them and post them again later.
Efstathios,

I think I know the site you're talking about from another thread. Is it this one?

http://originofphoenicianalphabet.pbwiki.com/

Unfortunately, it's a bit light on reasoning. Normally, I like it when people suggest something that challenges established convention. In this case, we can safely say without much debate that almost everybody in the field agrees that the Greek alphabet is Phoenician in origin. So, if you want to challenge such a firmly established notion, the burden of proof is on you. IMHO, that website doesn't prove/disprove anything. Perhaps you could summarise their arguments more coherently for us?

According to this site - there is no similarity between the Greek and Phoenician writing systems. Just plain... horse droppings.. A simple picture of them side by side proves that utterly wrong.

It claims that Greek is written left to right, while Phoenician is written right to left. True enough. It neglects to mention that Greek used to be written right to left before a change was made. Which is why the letters are mirror images to the Phoenician ones.

It claims that Phoenicia is an Island near Greece and Italy in Europe and not Asia. Why? Just in case the Greeks did borrow something, it better be from "Europe" and not "Asia"? *slaps self for bothering to read on*

It also claims that Harmodius and Aristogeiton were... wait for it... brothers. I laughed out loud here. If these guys were brothers, then the Greeks must've been doing some very naughty things to their brothers. :P

Sentences like these don't exactly make them appear credible to the first-time reader-
Efstathios' link wrote: 4. The false of difficult Greek script a. Greek script is the most perfect of world. (It writes not only like magnetograph, but more! The Greek script is the only system in the world in which you can write exactly what you enunciate (utter) phonetically (in phthongs = sounds of words) and what at the same time you mean etymologically (in part of speech, gender, number, case or person and in derivation and compound of the words), using the alphabet letters:
:roll:

Take care

Semiramis :)
Post Reply