Greece; Backstabbers, surely?
Moderator: pothos moderators
Greece; Backstabbers, surely?
HelloPhillip II of Macedonia united the Greeks in his Pan-Hellenic league some two thousand years ago. At Corinth the Greek states promised to uphold the Pan-Hellic league. However as soon as he was murdered they turned their back on Macedonia and revolted. With support from their ENEMIES, the Persians, the rebelled aginst their ALLIES! The Macedonians, namely Alexander. The main leaders of this rebellion were the Thebans and the Athenians, namely Demosthens. However when Alexander defeated the Thebans the first people to cry for the destruction of the cityThen when ALexander was away in Asia fighting for the GREEKS'enemy, as soon as a rumour of the smallest proportions spread through Greece Athens lead revolts, surely as an ALLY Alexander should feel that his back was covered. But no he is constantly referred as worried about Greece. All in all the Greeks were backstabbers. However it was the rulers of he cities who had, for centuries, fought an enemy then ally with their enemies enemy just to spite them.
-
iskander_32
Re: Greece; Backstabbers, surely?
MaximusI agree with everything you say, It gets on my bloody nerves when the Greeks try to call Alexander The Great,,, A Greek.Cheers MaximusIm with you.kenny
-
xxx
Persian-Greek relations
In his Hellenica, Xenophon mentions at least three panhellenic peace treaties in the fourth century, all dictated by the great king. If things were getting messy in Greece, diplomats went to Susa, and Artaxerxes (II or III) suggested a compromise. I guess this means that the Greeks simply did not regard Persia as an enemy.From a Persian point of view, it behaved like a normal superpower: it tried to have good relations with any neighbor and used its allies to counterbalance any serious disturbance. So, when Sparta became too powerful, Persia allied itself to Athens and Thebes; later, it used Thebes and Sparta against Sparta; et cetera. Without using military force, Persia was able to control the nations surrounding the Aegean Sea.Things started to change after the Social War and in the Third Sacred War. Due to Persian interference, Athens lost control of part of its empire; immediately, Philip intervened in Thessaly. So far, it seemed as if nothing had really changed. But Philip was able to invade Phocis too, and by the end of the Third Sacred War in 346, the Persian king had to admit that he had created a monster. There was only one strong European power left.The only way to resume the old diplomatic game of "divide et impera" was direct intervention. Indeed, in 340, the Persians invaded Europe again (mentioned by Diodorus) to help Perinthus remain outside Philip's rising empire. Immediately, Athens and Thebes declared war. When Artaxerxes III died, Persia had restored order -or rather, disorder- in Greece.In my view, the Persian invasion of Europe in 340 marks the true beginning of the Macedonian-Persian war, and Philip's invasion of Boeotia in 338, culminating in the battle of Chaeronea, was a mere sideshow.The Corinthian league and the battle cry of Panhellenic Revenge were, as Polybius already noted, mere pretexts.Jona
-
Gemmini
Re: Persian-Greek relations
Jona has brought a lot of light in the whole stuff...thank youbest regards, Jakob