pothos.org

No, of course I agree.
It was also the matter Greeks Vs Barbarians where the later were considered inferior, the Democracy Vs Autocracy factor (slaves cannot defeat free citizens). Of course all these notions that Persia is a "soft" target sprung up after the Persian was. Up till then the Persians were considered invinsible.Oh, a nice anecdote from Agesilaos campaign:
he embarked his army at Aulis (the same port where the Greeks departed for the Trojan war), and offered as sacrifice to the Gods a pigeon (instead of Ifigeneia).
As you see, the Trojan war had a great emmotional impact on the minds of the Greeks setting to conquer Asia

First, let me say that I have no intentions of getting into a Greek nationalist argument. But I believe my main point has been swept aside.The same human being (whatever nationality) is capable of doing great evil and great good -- and sometimes the definition of which is which depends on where you're standing. Without taking away from ATG's accomplishments, he still committed atrocities. And from the *Persian* pov (as well as the India-Indian) those attrocities rather outweighed the good. Furthermore, for them, some of the 'good' was pretty bad, ennit?Let me give another example, borrowing again from modern Indian experience.Mount Rushmore. BIG friggin' monument to great US presidents (plus Teddy who agreed to it). It was considered quite the achievement of both art and engineering. Major tourist attraction of the north plains, along with Yellowstone. I don't know how many visitors the place gets a year, or how many bumper stickers I've seen on vans and trailers: "This car climbed Mount Rushmore."But no Indian you talk to (or not many) considers that monstrosity anything but an eyesore. Why?It was carved into a mountain of the Paha Sapa. The Black Hills -- the most sacred land of the Sioux. It wasn't just a monument to US presidents, it was ALSO a slap in the face of the tribe who descimated the 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn. It was proof that "We beat you finally, you wild bunch of savages." They wounded holy land to make it.So is it a testament to American engineering and history, and a great tourist trap? Or is it a diss of native people? Well, it depends on who you ask. And I seriously doubt most tourists who visit it have ANY idea of its significance to Indian people -- and a good half of those wouldn't give a flip if they did know. ;>The thing is, the white man (and black man) who fought the Indians thought they were justified. God had given THEM the land, to their minds, and the Indians they took it from, by force or by broached treaty, didn't 'deserve' it because they were 1) 'primitive,' 2) 'heathen,' and 3) weren't "doing" anything with the land (i.e., not using it like a white man). To the Indian, of course, the Europeans and later Americans were a bunch of untrustworthy, bloody butchers invading their homes and taking the land that the Creator had given to THEM. And yet, of course, it was never that simple because some of the white man liked the Indians and worked well with them, and some of

Yiannis, if you'll forgive my interuption here - you said to Marcus:"I don't believe that when old-Isocrates was calling for a pan-Hellenic campaign agaist the Persians, he had in mind the utter destruction of the Persian empire. Not even Philip himself. Most likelly, they would venture in Asia Minor, take the Ionian cities, maybe even try something in Egypt, where the Greeks had interests and knew the situation since long ago."

Isocrates is quite fascinating - I always wonder why authors don't refer in more detail to his letter to Philip. He does mention conquering the whole of the Persian empire, though he qualifies this statement further on, just in case Philip should fail."Now since Jason by use of words alone advanced himself so far, what opinion must we expect the world will have of you if you actually do this thing; above all, if you undertake to conquer the whole empire of the King, or, at any rate, to wrest from it a vast extent of territory and sever from it - to use a curent phrase - Asia from Cilicia to Sinope;.... If, however, you do not succeed in these objects, this much you will at any rate easily accomplish, - the liberation of the cities which are on the coast of Asia....."I can just imagine Alexander's thoughts - settling for the liberation of the cities on the coast of Asia would never have been an option for him, as it would have meant failng in the other objectives proposed by Isocrates. Who knows what Philip's thoughts might have been? :-)Best regards,
Linda Ann

One must always consider whose perspective such opinions come from. The losing side rarely has anything good to say about the side that won, and justifiably so, since they incurred the most losses. I donGÇÖt know if one should say that the Thebans deserved what they got GÇô the ones who suffered as well were the women and children he sold into slavery GÇô and how much do we think they were involved in the betrayal of Macedon? But again, does one leave family around to seek revenge for the death and or imprisonment/slavery of the males of the household? ThereGÇÖs always a reason for what Alexander did, pretty though it might not be for us moderns. Alexander did GÇÿdestroyGÇÖ the Persian Empire, even though that may not have been his intention GÇô he died too young for us to know what his ultimate plans for the empire were. Alexander grew up in a warrior-culture, where the amount of land you ruled represented just how important and powerful a King you were. Was Alexander wrong to pursue the goal of conquest? No. Whether he went too far in some instances is certainly worthy of debate, i.e. one must make note that after the mass crucifixions of the Tyrians, we donGÇÖt read about him doing it again. That suggests Alexander knew he went too far. I question whether any of us could have done this conquering game better or GÇÿnicerGÇÖ overall. ItGÇÖs easy to look back and say GÇÿhe shouldnGÇÖt have done thatGÇÖ but I am certain at the time, and in the rage of the moment, it seemed the right thing to do and no one stopped him or dared too. That is the danger of being the King. Most of the times he was quite successful at this, but sometimes, well, I suppose only the King could answerRegards,Tre

WoW!
Being of white and Indian heritage, I prefer to acknowledge history, not modern politically correct dogma. I never cease to get irritated when someone starts on a rant about how the poor Indians were abused by the evil "white man". A carefully read and less politically correct viewpoint would reveal quite the opposite.
The lost colony of the Roanoke...we, unfortunately, can only guess at what happened to them. One source states that the Indian tribes in the area got together and made a decision to kill everyone in the colony, but to spare some of the children. I guess that was pretty decent of them?
Chief Powhattan of the Chicahomany tribe, father of Pocahantas threatened to have John Smith's brains dashed out on a rock with a club. These primitives were given the name savages for good reason. It was by pure luck and cunning that the "white man" was able to survive at all in those early years. The most numerous artifacts in the recently discovered confines of the triangular fort at Jamestown were Indian arrowheads...lots of them. The Indians were picking them off from the trees, and waited for them to come out for forage and picked them off there too. The population of Jamestown went from over 500 to less than 70 in 4 months. It was known as the "starving time" (the winter of 1609-1610). Food was scarce all over, and the Indians made the settlers pay dearly for their mistakes.
Then, 13 years later, there were the 3 Indian uprisings. The first in 1623...The Indians got together and made a decision to befriend the "white man" and thereby gain his trust. This being done, and the gullible "white man" and his kin allowing the Indians into their homes and sharing food with them, the trap was set. It was again by luck that the "white man" managed to survive. The Indians managed to steal many rifles (carefully over several months) and made a lightning hit and run campaign into the settlers homes...many were killed, if I recall correctly, before it was brought under control.
The "white man" was in a fight for his very existence for most of his first 200 years in North America. The politically correct line just doesn't cut it, and not only that, after reading what really happened...it pisses me off!
There's always some hidden agenda in America...land of the politically misled, abused, corrected, and misrepresented.
I know this wasn't your point, but maybe a different analogy would work better...later N

I understand what you mean Linda, but I think that Isocrates was just presenting the ideal situation. A pragmatist (like Philip) might have seen it just as a vision and would have settled for less (perhaps he would have even be afraid of the vacuum that the collapse of the Persian empire would bring).It needed a visionary, such as Alexander, to take the vision and transform it to reality. Isocrates simply planted the seed.Anyway, these are just my thoughts and who knows what would have happened if Philip was alive or if Agesilaos was left alone to continue or ...Cheers,
Yiannis