The last king and the last war of independent Macedonia

118
The last king and the last war of independent Macedonia
Roman legionnaires in a drawing by Sean O'Brien

In the spring of 336 BC. e. an event occurred that fatally knocked down Macedonia, which was gaining strength. In the capital of the country, the city of Egi, during the wedding celebrations, Tsar Philip II, an outstanding statesman who created an army that had no equal in the world, and subjugated the whole of Hellas to Macedonia, was killed. This happened on the eve of the main campaign of his life - against Persia, which would have ended in the complete triumph of this king and the conclusion of an extremely beneficial agreement with Darius.


Philip II of Macedon

To his successor, the murdered king left a treasury full of gold, and a whole galaxy of experienced commanders, who had few equals in the surrounding countries. Unfortunately for Macedonia, Philip's heir, Alexander, was himself a great commander, but the king turned out to be useless. As soon as he came to power, he immediately began to implement an insane program of war for the sake of war and conquest for the sake of conquest. He won great victories and reached the banks of the Indus, from where his army, completely drained of blood, with huge losses, barely managed to somehow reach the capital of Gedrosia - Pura. According to ancient authors, only about a quarter of the soldiers who went with Alexander on the Indian campaign returned. Plutarch reports:



"Severe illnesses, bad food, unbearable heat and especially hunger have killed many in this barren country inhabited by poor people."

The return of Alexander's army from India can be safely compared with the retreat of Napoleon from Moscow - with the difference that the Macedonian king did not leave his troops. And, according to Quintus Curtius, he walked with his soldiers through the waterless desert,

"tormented by grief and shame, since he was the cause of so much suffering."


Tom Lovell. Alexander the Great refuses water in the desert

Lovell's painting illustrates an episode of this transition: when a helmet with water was brought to Alexander, he poured it into the sand, saying:

“There is too little for everyone and too much for one!”

This phrase was then shamelessly "plagiarized" in the novel "The Three Musketeers" by A. Dumas:

"For Athos, this is too much, and for the Comte de la Fere, too little."

Remember?

Let's go back to Alexander the Great.

In June 323 B.C. e., having reigned for only 13 years, the great conqueror died unexpectedly. The most likely cause of death of the 33-year-old king, modern researchers believe West Nile fever.


Dying Alexander, work of an unknown sculptor

So the empire of Alexander, which did not have time to form, collapsed. Quite easily conquered territories were now divided with great difficulty and for 20 years. Few of Alexander's closest associates managed to die in their bed.

The fate of the descendants of the great king was terrible. His legitimate heir from Roxana, along with his mother, was poisoned by the order of Cassander, who ruled in Macedonia, and the illegitimate son Hercules (from the Persian Barsina) was killed by order of Polyperchon, the commander of Alexander's invincible phalanx. And the fate of Macedonia was sad, which was “shot down on takeoff” and could not become a great state and the center of the empire, which was quite possible under a more reasonable king.

A huge number of young and strong passionate Macedonians died in the campaigns of Alexander, or remained in foreign lands - in the armies of the Diadochi commanders. Men of the next generations also left Macedonia en masse, which again found itself in the margins of the world stories. They went to the rich states of the Ptolemies or the Seleucids, where they were willingly accepted into the service of the ruling monarchs - the descendants of the commanders of Alexander the Great. The most fortunate made a successful career, holding high positions in the army or at court. The rest simply received a good salary, which they could not hope for in their homeland.

Meanwhile, a new predatory state, the Roman Republic, was gaining strength in the west. The great commander Pyrrhus, so similar in appearance and habits to his relative, the great Alexander, did not have the strength to stop the Romans in southern Italy. Now Rome itself has come to the Balkans. But at first the Romans were busy with the war against their main rival in the Mediterranean - Carthage. Sailing from Sicily, which he had not conquered, Pyrrhus said to his companions:

“What a field for battles we leave to Carthage and Rome!”

He was right: it was Sicily that became the main "prize" of Rome following the results of the first war between these states, which lasted from 264 to 241. BC e.

First and Second Roman Macedonian Wars


Before the confrontation with Macedonia, Rome had already won the First Punic War. But the contradictions between these states were not eliminated, and in 218 a new war began, the most famous, during which Hannibal became famous. And in 215, the Macedonian king Philip V, who was still dreaming of the former greatness of his country, began hostilities against Rome.


Silver drachma with a portrait of Philip V

Taking advantage of the predicament of the Romans, who could not get rid of Hannibal, who was walking around Italy, he tried to capture Illyria. This, which became the first, the Roman-Macedonian war lasted 10 years and ended in vain. Meanwhile, Philip made an alliance with the Seleucid state, signing an agreement on the division of the overseas possessions of Egypt. And in 202 BC. e. Macedonia attacked the Kingdom of Pergamon.

In 200 BC. e. the new (Second) Macedonian War was already started by Rome, which was supported by the Greek cities of the Aetolian and Achaean unions.


Macedonia, Epirus, Aetolian and Achaean unions of Greek cities

The denouement came in the spring of 197 BC. e., when the Roman general Titus Quinctius Flamininus came to Thessaly with an army of about 33 thousand people. The Romans also managed to bring 20 war elephants here. At a ridge of rocky hills, similar to dog heads (and therefore called Cynoscephali), the Roman army met with the 26th Macedonian army. A battle took place here, ending in a crushing defeat for the Macedonians.

As a result of this war, Philip V lost all territories outside Macedonia, transferred his ships to Rome, paid an indemnity of 1 talents, promised to reduce the army to five thousand people and pledged not to declare war without the permission of the Roman Senate. In 200 BC. e. During the Isthmian Games, the Roman general Titus Flamininus solemnly declared Greece free. As a result of this "liberation", already in 196 BC. e. the cities of the Aetolian League were forced to submit to Rome.

Meanwhile, Philip V found a way out. As we remember, the number of his army was not to exceed five thousand people. About a thousand of these treaty-allowed soldiers were actually instructors who trained a constantly changing contingent: each year four thousand people were recruited and trained, who then went home, replaced by new recruits.

Philip V died in 179 BC. e. The Romans tried to put his son Demetrius, who had lived in Rome for a long time, at the head of Macedonia. However, the Macedonians chose another son of Philip V - Perseus. He continued his father's policy and soon gained great popularity both at home and in Greece.


Perseus on a Macedonian tetradrachm

Third Roman Macedonian War


Perseus brought the size of his army to forty thousand people, led anti-Roman agitation in the Greek policies, entered into an alliance with Illyria and Epirus. The Roman Senate quite expectedly accused him of violating treaties, and in the spring of 171 BC. e. a new war began.

One of the reasons for its announcement was the assassination attempt in Delphi on the allied Rome of the Pergamon king Eumenes, who had previously complained about Perseus, urging the Romans to pay attention to his activities. The Macedonians were accused of organizing the assassination, but it was not possible to prove their involvement, but war was declared. The Roman fleet, led by Praetor Gaius Lucretius, blockaded the Macedonian coast. And the ground troops of the consul Publius Licinius at that time landed in the Epirus region of Apollonia. The Greek policies after the appearance of the Roman legions in the Balkans, at best, declared their neutrality, but mostly went over to the side of the Romans.

Nevertheless, the beginning of the war was generally successful for the Macedonians. Initially, they won a battle at the Kallinikos hill near Larissa. Then there were several minor battles, held with varying degrees of success. In 170 BC. e. the Epirus tribes of Molossians and Chaons crossed over to the side of Perseus. The attempt of the Romans to break into Macedonia through the Cambunian mountains was unsuccessful. After that, the Macedonians even ousted the enemy army from Thessaly - and the Romans withdrew to the not yet famous Pharsalus, where many years later the decisive battle between Caesar and Pompey would take place.

The Macedonian army defeated the Dardanians allied to Rome. Praetor Appius Claudius, under whose command were 4 Roman soldiers and 8 soldiers of the allies, was defeated near the city of Uscan. Perseus suggested that Rome conclude a new treaty, but the Romans, on principle, did not enter into peace negotiations after the defeats.

In 168 BC. e. The Roman army was led by the consul Lucius Aemilius Paulus, whose father died in the battle with Hannibal at Cannae. The son-in-law of the new commander of the Romans was the famous Scipio Africanus. His relative Titus Quinctius Flamininus led the Roman troops in the battle with the Macedonians at Cynoscephalae. And the son of Emilius Paul - Publius Cornelius Scipio Emilianus, during the third Punic War, will occupy Carthage and will also receive the agnomen (personal nickname) African.

But back to 168 BC. e.

Allied Macedonia Epirus Aemilius Paul defeated in 20 days. And now the Roman and Macedonian armies were preparing for the decisive battle.

Battle of Pydna



Andrea del Verrocchio. Battle of Pydna

The decisive battle of that campaign and the whole war took place on June 22, 168 BC. e. near the city of Pydna, famous for the fact that in 317 BC. e. the army of Cassander (the son of the famous commander and diadochus Antipater) captured in him the mother of Alexander the Great Olympias, his widow Roxana and his only legitimate son (in honor of his father he was named Alexander).

The most complete description of the battle at Pydna is given in Plutarch's Comparative Lives. Some information can also be found in Livius and Frontinus.

Modern researchers believe that 168 BC. e. 30 thousand Romans met at Pydna (with allied and vassal troops - up to 42 thousand) and 44 thousand Macedonians.


D. Aleksinsky. Roman soldiers at Pydna

And the Romans also had 22 elephants, which were received either from the ruler of the Seleucid state of Antiochus, or from the Numidians allied with Rome.


Giuseppe Rava. Romans lead elephants through mountain passes

The day before the battle (June 21) there was a lunar eclipse, which makes it possible to accurately determine its date. In those days, such "signs of heaven" were taken more than seriously, and the eclipse frightened the soldiers of both armies. However, the degree of demoralization of the Macedonians turned out to be higher, since there were “wise men” who interpreted this astronomical phenomenon as a harbinger of the imminent death of the king. Perhaps this circumstance also affected Perseus, who the next day acted indecisively and, having received a minor wound, hurried to leave the battlefield.

The enemy armies were separated by the Levkoe River, through which no one dared to cross for a long time. Finally, the Macedonians crossed the river - and immediately lined up a phalanx.


To her left stood the elite XNUMX-strong Agema corps. Light peltasts, mercenaries and Thracians settled on the right flank.


Angus McBride. Battle of Pydna

Before the Macedonians was a plain, bounded on one side by hills, on the other - by the sea.

Schemes of the battle of Pydna:



At about 15 p.m., the phalanx moved forward, and its blow turned out to be truly terrible: the advanced lines of the Roman hastati were simply demolished, and then the second line of principles. The offensive of the agema guards also developed successfully. The Romans slowly retreated to the hill of Alcor, and Aemilius Paul even tore his tunic. Plutarch reports:

“To him (Emilius Pavel) all the strength of this closed, menacingly bristling system became clear; he had never seen anything more terrible in his life, and therefore he felt fright and confusion, and often later recalled this spectacle and the impression it left.

However, the further movement of the phalanx over rough terrain led to breaks in its formation. Noticing this, the Roman commander ordered to attack the phalanx in the places of these gaps. In the conditions of close combat, the sarissas of the phalanx warriors became useless, and the short daggers with which they were armed were inferior to Roman swords. And the right-flank detachments of the light infantry of the Macedonians and Thracians were put to flight by the attack of war elephants, which gave the Romans the opportunity to hit the flank of the phalanx.

The Macedonian infantrymen retreating to the sea were attacked by the sailors of the approaching Roman fleet. Perseus tried to turn the tide by leading an attack by mounted units. It turned out to be unsuccessful, the king was wounded and left the battlefield along with his hetairoi. Other cavalry units followed them. The infantry left without support was doomed.

It is believed that the Macedonians lost up to 20 thousand people killed and about 11 thousand wounded. Modern historians estimate the losses of the Romans at a thousand people. Perseus fled to the island of Samothrace, later he surrendered.


Jean-Franco-Pierre Peyron. Lucius Aemilius Paul and Perseus of Macedon

The former king was brought to Rome, during the triumph of Paul Aemilius, he followed his wagon.


K. Vernet. Triumph of Aemilius Paulus (detail)

The Macedonian army ceased to exist, the cities opened the gates to the Romans.

It must be said that part of the wealth inherited by Alexander's army during its Asian campaign ended up in Macedonia. Later kings were, as a rule, very zealous people. They did not squander this wealth, but even increased it, Macedonia was then a rather rich country. There were so many treasures looted by Aemilius Paul that they had to be transported around Rome during the triumph for 3 days, and for some time the poll tax from Roman citizens was canceled. Aemilius Paul received the honorary title of Macedonian, and a monument was erected in his honor at Delphi.


Fragment of the frieze "Monument of Aemilius Paul" in Delphi depicting the Battle of Pydna

And Macedonia was divided into four "unions of cities", which were supposed to pay tribute to Rome. It is curious that the Romans forbade marriages between residents of different Macedonian "unions", as well as buying houses and other real estate in neighboring districts. The officials of King Perseus were resettled in Italy, an attempt to return to their homeland was punishable by death. Allied Macedonia Illyria was also divided into three parts. But Epirus was subjected to the most terrible repressions. Up to 150 thousand Epirotes were sold into slavery, and the Molossian tribe, to which the famous opponent of Rome Pyrrhus belonged, was literally slaughtered and ceased to exist.

Repressions against the allies of Perseus were also carried out in the policies of Greece, albeit on a smaller scale. More than a thousand Hellenes from different cities were sent to Rome as hostages. Among them was the famous historian Polybius, who, by the way, believed that it was after the battle of Pydna that the world domination of the Romans began.

Macedonia (together with Illyria and Epirus) lost even the pitiful remnants of independence after the anti-Roman uprising - in 148 BC. e. And in 146 BC. e. fell and was destroyed by the main rival of the Roman Republic - Carthage. In the same year, the cities of the Achaean Union, including Sparta, lost their independence.
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    28 October 2022 04: 31
    One of the reasons for its announcement was the assassination attempt in Delphi on the allied Rome of the Pergamon king Eumenes, who had previously complained about Perseus, urging the Romans to pay attention to his activities. The Macedonians were accused of organizing the assassination, but it was not possible to prove their involvement, but war was declared.

    Highley likes as a casus belli. Even in that era. what
    1. +5
      28 October 2022 08: 46
      The fable "The Wolf and the Lamb" was written by Aesop long before these events.
  2. +2
    28 October 2022 04: 38
    came to the banks of the Indus,

    Well, after all, Alexander moved a little further - to Bias (Hyphasis)
  3. +2
    28 October 2022 05: 01
    Who knows, if Macedonia had not started saving, but was spending money on the army, then the Romans would have retreated, and perhaps, in principle, Rome as such would not have existed wink
  4. +7
    28 October 2022 05: 03
    Thank you very much Valery with a ponytail, well, or with a trunk in continuation of Vyacheslav's theme about elephants!
    ..., the short daggers with which they were armed were inferior to Roman swords.

    The melee weapons of the phalanx of the Greeks were not much shorter than the gladiuses of the legionnaires of Rome.
    Good and fleeting Friday everyone!
    1. VLR
      +6
      28 October 2022 06: 24
      We will talk a little about elephants in the next article. smile
      1. +3
        28 October 2022 09: 20
        We will talk a little about elephants in the next article.

        Just yesterday they were talking about elephants near Shpakovsky! Hi all! Valery - thanks for the article, I will ask for clarifications below. drinks
        He won great victories and reached the banks of the Indus, from where his army, completely drained of blood, with huge losses, barely managed to somehow reach the capital of Gedrosia - Pura.

        World History, Bank Imperial. Yes Verzhbitsky is handsome! good Although about the Parthian kingdom - to put it mildly, it is not true ...



        Valery, two questions.
        1. There are two battle cards in the article. Which one is more accurate? As far as I understand, the first. By the way, for some reason, none of the actions of the fleet are shown ...
        2. What happened to Perseus next? Wikipedia says he died two years later. How was he kept, how did he end up?

        With respect, Nicholai drinks
        1. VLR
          +5
          28 October 2022 10: 18
          I presented the cards to choose from - whoever likes what.
          As for the fate of Perseus, he, like all defeated noble and prominent enemies, was of interest to the Romans only in the sense that they were taken care of in Rome during the triumph, until that moment they were protected. And then - they were of no interest to anyone. It was impossible to let them go, to protect and save life - there was nothing. Either they were executed immediately, or they were thrown to die slowly in dungeons. Here are the hostages - the sons or close relatives of the ruling monarchs - this is another matter, they were kept with honor and honor, courted in every possible way, demonstrating the charms and benefits of the Roman way of life - they tried to make them "agents of their influence." And, if it worked out, then they supported the contenders for the throne in the struggle.
          1. +3
            28 October 2022 10: 31
            I presented the cards to choose from - whoever likes what.

            The actions of the fleet are not disclosed.
            Here are the hostages - the sons or close relatives of the ruling monarchs - this is another matter, they were kept with honor and honor, courted in every possible way, demonstrating the charms and benefits of the Roman way of life - they tried to make them "agents of their influence."

            Institute of the so-called. amanats.
            It was impossible to let them go, to protect and save life - there was nothing. Either they were executed immediately, or they were thrown to die slowly in dungeons.

            In general, he then lived a short and uncomfortable life. Alas.
            Thank you, Valery! drinks
    2. +3
      28 October 2022 09: 11
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      The melee weapons of the phalanx of the Greeks were not much shorter than the gladiuses of the legionnaires of Rome.


      It's not about the length of the blade, but the ability to wield it. For the legionnaires, the gladius is a regular weapon, they owned it to perfection. And the Macedonian warriors rarely used their daggers, so to speak, a weapon of last resort.
      Again, Roman armor was more suitable for such a battle. The Romans and shields used not only for protection, but also struck them very effectively.
    3. +1
      2 November 2022 17: 30
      This is true, but something else was more likely to take place here, many warring parties in the Macedonian way began to abandon swords, since the wars of the Diadochi are such a military cabal of armies of the same type.
      1. 0
        2 November 2022 20: 26
        The manipulative system of the Roman legions "progressed" to counter the phalanxes. The Macedonian phalanx was and perhaps today a quasi-station of the phalanges. She showed her advantage at the initial stage of the battle. The terrain factor intervened in the second phase of the battle and Rome implemented it to the fullest.
  5. +9
    28 October 2022 05: 12
    Good morning everyone and have a nice day! smile

    Unfortunately for Macedonia, Philip's heir, Alexander, was himself a great general,




    Hmmm, I would never have thought that great people bring misfortune to their land, however.

    Thank you, Valery! good
    1. +4
      28 October 2022 07: 40
      Good morning, Constantine!

      The idea of ​​the fragility of the conquests, in particular of Alexander the Great, is not new.

      As in one comic song it is sung: “After all, the outcome of the war is decided by the village council and the agronomist” (c).
      1. +4
        28 October 2022 08: 26
        Good morning, Sergey! smile

        “After all, the outcome of the war is decided by the village council and the agronomist”


        Or the forester, who came and dispersed everyone to the motherfucking mother, as was the old joke about the battles for the forester's lodge.

        In general, everything is so fragile that sometimes I wonder how humanity still exists and due to some misunderstanding it has not yet self-destructed. request

        1. +3
          28 October 2022 08: 36
          Living beings have a margin of safety.

          But people have made good progress on the path of self-destruction.
          At least in the direction of exhaustion of resources.
          1. +4
            28 October 2022 09: 01
            At least in the direction of exhaustion of resources.


            But resources ... resources must be stocked up.Yes

            1. +3
              28 October 2022 11: 55
              Yes. Come on. Conduct inventory and tasting.
              1. +2
                28 October 2022 23: 20
                Yes. Come on.


                I'd love to, but it's unlikely to work. smile



                There will be a chance to talk when they bring them to Moscow for an operation, but they won’t be able to taste it for sure. drinks
                1. +1
                  29 October 2022 06: 00
                  By the way, I'm ready to drive to Moscow. Of course it depends on the day. No tastings, no tastings.
                  1. +2
                    29 October 2022 06: 08
                    Yes, I would like to talk, and arrange a rendezvous like spies in famous films, either I am with the Ogonyok magazine in my hands, or simply - "every Friday at seven o'clock in the evening at the Ars cinema" wink


                    PS Something very sad today on the site. sad
                    1. +2
                      29 October 2022 06: 26
                      It is not difficult to find a branch as a reason for communication.
                      Does the Ogonyok magazine still continue its “revelations”?

                      We will not take an umbrella in hand, so as not to upset Anton.

                      At the monument to Pushkin - romantic dates.

                      The monument to Griboedov suggests itself. Near the Boulevard Ring, though.
                      1. +1
                        29 October 2022 06: 42
                        For fun, you can have Fantomas on Oktyabrskaya. We won’t tell Tatra so as not to upset. laughing

                      2. +2
                        29 October 2022 07: 16
                        Far way. I love according to the testament of Tsvetaeva

                        Go on foot, with a young step
                        All free semicolon
                      3. +1
                        29 October 2022 08: 15
                        Streets of Moscow Spassky, Petrovsky.
                        I love you, streets, streets-caskets.
                        Moscow streets, Veshnya-Veshnyakovsky.
                        I love you, streets, my streets.

                        Streets of Moscow Spassky, Petrovsky.
                        Voiced Kuzminsky, lively Lublinsky,
                        Spanish, Tagansky, dear Meshchansky,
                        Box streets, my girls!
                      4. +1
                        29 October 2022 08: 24
                        Flickers in the crowd
                        Familiar face,
                        funny eyes,
                        And they shine
                        Garden Ring road,
                        And they run
                        Garden Ring road
                        And a summer storm.
                      5. +1
                        29 October 2022 08: 46
                        When I can't overcome the trouble,
                        when despair sets in
                        I sit in the blue trolley bus on the go,
                        in the last, in random.
                      6. +1
                        29 October 2022 10: 28
                        Lilac fog floats above us,
                        A midnight star is burning above the vestibule.
                      7. +1
                        29 October 2022 12: 14
                        | There behind the eternal mists, drunk,
                        | There, behind the fogs, they love us and wait
    2. +7
      28 October 2022 08: 28
      I am very critical of Alexander, but the Greek gymnasiums and theaters in Afghanistan are incredible. From a cultural and historical point of view, Hellenism is one of the pillars of antiquity.
      1. +4
        28 October 2022 08: 32
        Greek gymnasiums and theaters in Afghanistan are incredible.


        Yes, until the fighters for the true faith liquidated them to the root.

        Good morning Denis. smile
        1. +5
          28 October 2022 08: 39
          Good
          They were eliminated by fighters for the true faith 700-800 years before Muhammad.)
      2. +4
        28 October 2022 09: 15
        Quote: Engineer
        I am very critical of Alexander, but the Greek gymnasiums and theaters in Afghanistan are incredible. From a cultural and historical point of view, Hellenism is one of the pillars of antiquity.


        And Hellenism is the merit of only Alexander?
        Persepolis (such a city in the Persian state) was built with the participation of Greek architects before Alexander began to perform his exploits.
        Carthage was strongly influenced by Greek culture, Hannibal was a Grecophile, although Alexander did not visit Carthage.
        To spread culture (if it is worthwhile and attractive), swords are not particularly needed.
        1. +3
          28 October 2022 09: 19
          Let's just say that Hellenism is primarily a merit of Alexander. The colossal potency of Greek culture was given a clear vector.
          You can't build a theater in Afghanistan without swords and saris
          1. +3
            28 October 2022 09: 37
            And why does culture need a clear vector? Culture - like a liquid will find its own way.
            Building a theater is not enough. It needs to be visited by the local public. Preferably of your own free will. Don't drive them to premieres with sarissas.
            In the Greek cities, which were subordinate to the Achaemenid dynasty, Greek playwrights, poets, philosophers, and mathematicians were quite freely engaged in creative work. It is strange that the cruel Persian satraps did not interfere with them.
            Persian culture was heavily influenced by Greek long before the rise of Macedonia.
            1. +4
              28 October 2022 09: 49
              And why does culture need a clear vector? Culture - like a liquid will find its own way.
              Building a theater is not enough. It needs to be visited by the local public. Preferably of your own free will. Don't drive them to premieres with sarissas.

              Culture is a mass phenomenon. Thanks to Alexander, a huge number of Greeks settled from Egypt to Bactria. First, the elite plus migrants go to the theater, then the descendants of mixed marriages, then it becomes a cultural code. And then there are syncretic cultures and civilizations. But for this to happen, a primary impulse is needed in the form of a Macedonian army from the Nile to the Indus. Otherwise, no one will build a theater in Bactria.
              In the Greek cities, which were subordinate to the Achaemenid dynasty, Greek playwrights, poets, philosophers, and mathematicians were quite freely engaged in creative work. It is strange that the cruel Persian satraps did not interfere with them.

              Everything was limited Greek cities of Asia Minor. under and after Alexander, Greek influence became global
              Persian culture was heavily influenced by Greek long before the rise of Macedonia.

              This influence should not be exaggerated. Persian culture is primarily a legacy of the cultures of Mesopotamia. The influence of the Greeks was peripheral.
        2. 0
          2 November 2022 17: 38
          Well, actually, the culture of the East was much more powerful at that time, so what could the Greeks teach? We just have a Eurocentric perception, because we have a lot of Greek heritage. Therefore, Alexander began to wear Persian clothes and bring the Persians closer to him, which caused conflicts among his fighting comrades-in-arms with the king.
          Of course, the Greeks then were also not from the times of the Greco-Persian wars, when the acropolis in Athens was wooden, but there were no such cities as Sidon, Tyre, in Greece.
      3. +1
        28 October 2022 10: 55
        Quote: Engineer
        I am very critical of Alexander

        What is the essence of the claims against Alexander?
        1. +5
          28 October 2022 11: 05
          I rode on my father's luggage. Destroyed Thebes, executed the inhabitants of Alexandria-on-Oxus for leaving the policy without permission.
          As a commander, he began very stupidly - see Granik, but he studied very quickly, we must pay tribute.
          Threat were still executions of associates on a far-fetched pretext. stories with Cleitus and Callisthenes
          I did not find anything better than to reproduce the Persian system of satrapies, which has become obsolete. In fact, he laid the foundation for the collapse of the state. The Seleucids acted smarter and finished it off, but they did not succeed in anything lasting.
          But thanks for Hellenism, of course)
          1. +4
            28 October 2022 11: 17
            Quote: Engineer
            I rode on my father's luggage.

            Yes, but there are an order of magnitude more examples of the opposite use of "daddy's baggage"
            Destroyed Thebes
            Extremely cruel, but immediately "brought to life" all of Greece.
            see Granik
            military success, too, has not been canceled, and Philip also suffered periodic defeats.
            I did not find anything better than to reproduce the Persian system of satrapies, which has become obsolete. In fact, he laid the foundation for the collapse of the state.

            Was it even possible at that time and under those economic conditions to build an empire similar to the later Roman one? Nevertheless, it seems to me that he went a little further and stepped onto the next step, although not the last one: he tried to create an "alloy" of cultures, which led to Hellenism, which you wrote about above.
            I’m afraid they didn’t really know how to create empires then. hi
            1. +2
              28 October 2022 11: 25
              Yes, but there are an order of magnitude more examples of the opposite use of "daddy's baggage"

              Are you talking about Philip?
              Well, he built on his mistakes.
              Extremely cruel, but immediately "brought to life" all of Greece.

              I have a different opinion - the rebellion in the rear under Antipater shows that for many it was a signal to try to free themselves at the first opportunity.
              Was it even possible at that time and under those economic conditions to build an empire similar to the later Roman one?

              And he did not even think in terms of administrative management. Often the most select scoundrels and flatterers were appointed as satraps.
              What did the Seleucids do remember?
              Nevertheless, it seems to me that he went a little further and stepped onto the next step, although not the last one: he tried to create an "alloy" of cultures, which led to Hellenism, which you wrote about above.

              Culture is not enough. This was clear even in the time of Alexander. And I have already thanked him twice for the alloy.)
              1. +1
                28 October 2022 11: 44
                Quote: Engineer
                Are you talking about Philip?

                No, I'm in general: there are many more examples in history when, having received an excellent inheritance, they quickly bring the state "to the handle."
                And he did not even think in terms of administrative management

                I do not think that I did not think, but the relative brevity of his life and being constantly on military campaigns, so to speak, in "wartime conditions" hardly allowed him to seriously engage in administration.
                Most likely, his actions would not fundamentally differ from the actions of the Seleucids, more precisely, the Seleucids already put into practice the ideas laid down in the time of Alexander. However, this is already from the fortune-telling section.
                And I do not think that the "Empire of Alexander" could have survived and existed, there were no prerequisites for this, except for a temporary brute military force. The Seleucid states are the limit that was possible at that time.
                But the direction was clearly indicated.
                1. +2
                  28 October 2022 11: 47
                  The direction is determined by the logic of events. And to appoint, in addition to the satrap, an eparch, and then also a hipparch, is the notion of the Seleucids, and not Alexander. Dibvoyz, by the way, writes that the Parthians adopted this system.
                  It's easier to say that Alexander is not an administrator. All
    3. +4
      28 October 2022 08: 54
      Unfortunately for Macedonia, Philip's heir, Alexander, was himself a great general,

      laughing
      Yes, for Macedonia, it would certainly be a great happiness to receive as a ruler instead of Alexander "an effective manager and business executive." laughing
      Only it is unlikely that Philip himself would agree with this thesis, who created such an army, certainly not for the defense of his goat herds. smile
      1. +4
        28 October 2022 09: 02
        Philip, who created such an army, certainly not to defend his goat herds. smile

        He left a good inheritance to his son, but apparently not in use. request
        1. +2
          28 October 2022 09: 34
          Why "not for the future"?
          Personally, in my opinion, Alexander disposed of the inheritance in the highest degree competently. It is unlikely that his father could reproach him for something, no matter what Valery thinks about this. smile
          Macedonia has been significantly enriched, both materially and culturally. The standard of living in Macedonia itself has certainly risen. The country has not become depopulated, has not been subjected to military ruin, has acquired significant wealth, international prestige and authority. Even the fact that the power of Alexander fell apart after his death did not significantly affect the well-being of the inhabitants of Macedonia itself.
          And let's not forget that everything that Alexander did, he did in a little over a dozen years. He simply did not have time to do more in terms of establishing management, economic relations, administrative reforms and other things that they like to blame him for.
          1. +2
            28 October 2022 09: 38
            So in the end, how did it all end, did the country become a province of Rome? So was it worth breaking spears and sacrificing so many soldiers?
            1. +4
              28 October 2022 10: 23
              And then Rome became the prey of the Germans. Was it worth it to show off and break pilums and lances with plumbats?)
            2. +1
              28 October 2022 10: 28
              So a hundred and fifty years have passed since then, Uncle Kostya. Reproaches against Alexander are hardly appropriate here. smile
              I do not like alternative constructions, such as "what would happen if", but as far as I understand, in the time of Alexander the main threat to European (Greek) civilization came from the east, and he brilliantly eliminated this threat. And the fact that in a hundred years the threat to the Hellenistic world would arise in the west in the face of the Latins, wild for those times, who enthusiastically slaughtered their own kind in their Italy and did not think about anything else, hardly anyone could have foreseen.
              1. +3
                28 October 2022 10: 32
                but as far as I understand, in the time of Alexander the main threat to European (Greek) civilization came from the east, and he brilliantly eliminated this threat.

                There was no threat from the east for a long time. On the contrary, there was a threat to Persia from the Greeks. The Athenian campaign in Egypt and the adventures of Agesilaus in Asia Minor are examples of this.
                1. +1
                  28 October 2022 13: 29
                  Threat - it is such a thing - that is, it is not. Before that, the Persians actively fought with the Greeks, after the end of the wars, they actively intervened in the Greek showdowns, and who could vouch for them that one day they would not gather and try to cross the straits again? Tradition, you know. Ancestors largely lived in the past. If the Greeks saw danger from someone, it was from the Persians, but not from Rome.
                  I did not say that the threat from the east was immediate. But potentially it was definitely the main one, if not the only one.
                  1. +1
                    28 October 2022 13: 36
                    actively intervened in the Greek showdown

                    Almost exclusively in money.
                    I already wrote below that Persia was perceived by a fair number of thinking people not as a threat, but as prey.
                    Greek cultural society saw threats only within itself. The dichotomy of democracy-tyranny, the triangle of Athens-Sparta-Thebes, etc.
                    Therefore, the Macedonian threat was the only one that was felt by almost everyone.
                    1. +2
                      28 October 2022 14: 17
                      I propose to agree that Persia was perceived by the Greeks as something traditionally hostile, and "threat" or "prey" is the view of the current moment, which can very quickly change to a diametrically opposite one.
                      1. +2
                        28 October 2022 14: 20
                        I propose to agree that Persia was perceived by the Greeks as something traditionally hostile

                        It's undeniable, but it's such a common truth that it's embarrassing for both of us. laughing
              2. +1
                28 October 2022 23: 22
                Reproaches against Alexander are hardly appropriate here. smile

                Yes, I do not reproach, God forbid, it's just all in vain, in the end.
                1. +1
                  29 October 2022 08: 20
                  Something very pessimistic, Uncle Kostya. smile

                  smile
                  1. +2
                    29 October 2022 08: 45
                    Something very pessimistic, Uncle Kostya.


                    Yes, somehow according to the mood, Misha, then one thing, then another, or all together ... But Kuzmich's formula no longer saves. request Anyway, "let's live until Monday", and then we'll see. drinks
                    1. +1
                      29 October 2022 10: 32
                      And Monday is already a couple of hours closer.

                      My officers are such music lovers!
                      They are so, mmm, balletomanes.
                      Having visited this modest abode, they will surely immediately stop drinking and dragging after actresses.
                      1. +1
                        29 October 2022 12: 16
                        Lord officers, blue princes,
                        I am certainly not the first, and the last is not me.
                        Gentlemen officers, I ask you to consider:
                        He who saved his nerves did not save his honor.
                    2. +2
                      29 October 2022 12: 24
                      To set the mood.
                      MOSCOW, October 27 - RIA Novosti. The Forestry Committee of the Moscow Region proposed to replace obscene language not with foreign analogues, but with the names of forest pests.
                      "How to address the offender without using obscene words? If you want to send a person for Mozhai, don't be lazy, don't use slang or obscenities, don't shorten it to "hey, you", but use beautiful appeals. Remember how in childhood: "Ah you, a dung beetle!" And it was a shame, "RIA Novosti was told in the committee.
                      They noticed that many pests live in the forest. Some of their names, pronounced with the correct intonation, "can discourage the enemy even before the start of the battle."
                      Among the amusing curses that the committee proposes are: persistent bark beetle, four-striped leptura, dead woodcutter, barn weevil, red-breasted weevil, cabbage flea, pine bug, willow booger, acorn fruit, star sawfly-weaver.
                      Use cases:
                      - Oh, you stubborn bark beetle!
                      “There is nowhere to hide from you, four-lane leptura!”
                      “Which way are you going, you dead woodcutter!”
                      “Look at me, barn weevil!”
                      “I’ll repeat it to you for the hundredth time, red-breasted drunkard!”
                      - Who are you, cabbage flea?!
                      - What to do with you, pine bug ?!
                      - How is it possible, willow goat?!
                      - You have no conscience, the acorn fruit!
                      - Yes, you're just a star sawfly-weaver!
                      1. +2
                        29 October 2022 13: 02
                        Thanks Misha! smile
                        And the truth smiled, I especially liked these "guys" - the barn weevil and the acorn weevil bore fruit. good
                      2. +2
                        29 October 2022 13: 17
                        Not at all, Uncle Kostya. My wife sent it in the morning, otherwise it was also somehow sickening. But nothing, by lunch time it was over. smile
                      3. +1
                        29 October 2022 16: 10
                        I can nominate a person from COFO who can offer this. I'll be sure to ask when we meet.
                      4. +1
                        29 October 2022 16: 48
                        The man is clearly with humor, creativity and courage. If you are interested in history - invite us. smile
                      5. +1
                        29 October 2022 18: 34
                        The man is more than curious. Biography and present. And the narrator.

                        RIA Novosti forwarded the information to him, but so far is silent. Usually on Sunday - in the forest. Or maybe not him. And in vain we slander a person.
                      6. +1
                        29 October 2022 18: 42
                        The source blames the press service of the Committee.
                      7. +1
                        29 October 2022 18: 57
                        Probably, they have been arguing just like that in their Committee for many years. smile
                        You can also adapt the name of the weeds or some parasites.
                        For example, "creeping wheatgrass" or "Broomrape single-flowered" laughing
                      8. +1
                        29 October 2022 19: 48
                        And from time to time in the newspapers they are surprised by the names of professions, such as, for example, a scavenger.

                        And when the ear is used to it, it is normal and perceived.
          2. +1
            28 October 2022 14: 44
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            Personally, in my opinion, Alexander disposed of the inheritance in the highest degree competently. It is unlikely that his father could reproach him for something, no matter what Valery thinks about this.

            Reminds me of a famous dialogue Yes
            Darius sent his confidants to Alexander with a letter in which he offered him ten thousand talents of ransom for the captives, all the lands on the other side of the Euphrates, one of his daughters in marriage and a treaty of friendship and alliance. When Alexander shared this news with his friends, Parmenion said: "If I were Alexander, I would accept these conditions." - "By Zeus, I would accept if I were Parmenion," exclaimed Alexander.
  6. +3
    28 October 2022 05: 42
    Having surprised (pleasantly!) everyone in the role of a theater critic and reviewer (an article about the premiere of Alexei Rybnikov's opera based on "War and Peace" in the Opinions section), the author returned to "History". I just "swallowed" this article, it's a pity that it ended quickly.
  7. +1
    28 October 2022 06: 23
    This phrase was then shamelessly "plagiarized" in the novel "The Three Musketeers" by A. Dumas
    How is plagiarism expressed? Those who are interested in history know that the phrase was said by Lyaksandr Filippovich. What does Athos have to do with it, Dumas, did he claim copyright on it? laughing
    1. VLR
      +4
      28 October 2022 06: 28
      Agree that the novel "Three Musketeers" has more readers than the works of ancient authors. Therefore, many are sure that it was Dumas who invented this elegant phrase (and did not alter it).
      1. +2
        28 October 2022 07: 02
        Yeah, Dumas, thief laughing "stole, salt shaker and did not disdain" (c) Robbed, Filippych laughing taking advantage of the fact that the works of the ancients began to read less. In the novel, along the way, Athos had to pronounce these words as follows: "As A. Macedonian said," There is too little for everyone and too much for one! and add, naming the author and the page of the work. And so on throughout the work of art. If it were so, then "The Three Musketeers" were not popular. They would read ancient authors. laughing
    2. +3
      28 October 2022 07: 42
      Moreover, there are shades of expression. So Dumas and his heirs can sleep peacefully. The circulation of the book will not be taken away and a slander will not be written to the Discussion Council.
      1. +6
        28 October 2022 08: 26
        Quote from Korsar4
        shades of expression.

        * Alexander of Macedon is certainly a hero, but why break the chairs? * And immediately Furmanov with Vasily Ivanovich in front of his eyes. If you don’t know, of course, where she came from. Phrase. bully

        Good morning Sergey!
        And have a good day! Calm!
        1. +3
          28 October 2022 08: 40
          Good morning, Seryozha! Gogol still belongs to the knowledge base in our country.

          The tranquility of the day can only be guessed at. Everyone has their own level of deviation from stability.
          And there can always be surprises.
        2. +2
          28 October 2022 09: 13
          And immediately Furmanov with Vasily Ivanovich before his eyes.
          Three Musketeers, Vasily Ivanovich read, apparently ..
          - Alexander the Great? Who is why, I don’t know? (C) laughing
      2. +2
        28 October 2022 09: 21
        Yes, but he didn’t claim copyright on Filippych’s phrase. smile He put it into the mouth of Athos, in a slightly modified form. Thus, showing the rich spiritual world of Count De Lafer. That he was familiar with the works of ancient authors. smile
  8. +3
    28 October 2022 09: 20
    Quote: Trilobite Master
    Only it is unlikely that Philip himself would agree with this thesis, who created such an army, certainly not for the defense of his goat herds.


    Phillip's opinion goes through the woods. The subsequent course of events showed that Macedonia should not have stepped on the slippery slope of imperial ambitions. Too small, too few resources... even if Alexander got everything he wanted, Macedon would have become a backwater backwater in the newly formed great empire. Alexander wanted to move the capital to Babylon, because compared to Babylon, the capital of Macedonia, Pella, is just an urban-type settlement, nothing more.
    1. VLR
      +4
      28 October 2022 09: 50
      Of course, it would be ideal to build an empire based on the policies of Hellas, which were culturally and mentally close, and only the ambitions of small-town politicians who wanted to be the first guys in their village, but not the second, third or fourth in a single state, prevented uniting. Actually Hellas, Magna Graecia (policies of Southern Italy and Sicily), Greek policies of Asia Minor. Inflict a heavy defeat on Persia and take a large indemnity for the arrangement of the same Macedonia in the imperial way. Completely crush, maybe even destroy Rome (what the Romans did to Carthage), forever destroying the possibility of its rise. Such a program would have a chance of success. In this case, by the way, Alexander might not have contracted the dengue fever, lived for another couple of decades and transferred power to the rightful heir.
      1. +2
        28 October 2022 10: 38
        How to build an empire based on the policies of Hellalda, if the war between these policies has been the norm for centuries.
        1. VLR
          +2
          28 October 2022 10: 43
          With the presence of Macedonian garrisons, a peaceful life to which the Greeks would have become accustomed within a generation would become the norm. Macedonians in the same Athens could be diluted with Spartans, and vice versa.
          Here, the same Romans - wherever they came, the internecine strife between the tribes immediately ceased. True, sometimes they united on the basis of hatred for Rome. But after the exponentially brutal suppression of the next uprising, they calmed down - until the new "unwhacked" generation grows up. .
          1. +2
            28 October 2022 11: 02
            This is not a union of policies, but an occupation, garrisons must be maintained, these are taxes, taxes are officials, and so on.
            1. VLR
              +4
              28 October 2022 11: 07
              Of course. As Tyutchev wrote, referring to Bismarck:
              “Unity,” declared the oracle of our day, “
              It may be soldered with iron and blood only ... "

              Added by:
              "But we will try to solder it with love, -
              And there we will see that it is stronger"

              As soon as the "iron" disappeared, "love" suddenly evaporated.
              1. +2
                28 October 2022 11: 22
                What you are proposing is a centralized empire, a state formation that is completely unacceptable to the Hellenes, I'm afraid that in your version, Alexander would not have destroyed Rome, but Syraccus, which would have rebelled at the first suitable opportunity, and a bunch of other Hellenic cities.
                1. VLR
                  +2
                  28 October 2022 11: 34
                  So Alexander was only half Greek. Well, strictly speaking, a "voluntary union" is a utopia. The state in which Hellas was, these endless wars and unrest, cost the Greeks for centuries much more than the centralized power of an enlightened semi-barbarian would have cost.
                  1. +1
                    28 October 2022 11: 42
                    In short, to drive into paradise with bayonets, only now paradise would be only for Basileus and his court a dubious prospect.
                    The Asian campaign took place because the conditions of the Corinthian Union were quite mild, and the Macedonian army quietly went east, in your version, all forces would have gone to the occupation of Ellalda.
                    1. VLR
                      +2
                      28 October 2022 11: 57
                      Was this Asian campaign necessary? And the conquest of foreign peoples? It was necessary to accept the offer of Darius, but categorically refuse the lands in which non-Greeks lived. "Take money." Alexandria, as centers of imperial power, had to be built in Hellas, Asia Minor, Italy, and the main, the most majestic and amazing - in Macedonia. Then all of them would have survived to this day. Violence against bawlers and demagogues serving the interests of the local elite of Athens or Corinth, who are prevented by the new government from receiving geshefts? Why not? Where there was no state violence? In which country? England, France, Spain - these states would not exist without violence against provincial grandees, dukes, counts and other haters of central power. But the ethnically and culturally homogeneous population of the regions inhabited by Greeks would get used to living together and laws common to all rather quickly.
                      1. +2
                        28 October 2022 12: 08
                        Was this Asian campaign necessary?

                        The Greeks and Macedonians clearly believed that they needed it. Philip thought so too. And there was a whole party that promoted the idea that Persia is a ripe fruit that needs to be plucked.
                        Asians are worthless soldiers, but excellent slaves (c)
                        One Spartan king
                      2. VLR
                        +3
                        28 October 2022 12: 15
                        So I write: first defeat Darius, scare him to death, take everything you need from him, and then build a great state - not in Syria or, God forbid, in Afghanistan - but in areas inhabited by Greeks. At least at first - until they understand that Athens and Corinth cannot now fight among themselves. And the laws in Epirus and the Peloponnese are now, for some reason, the same. And then, after a generation, you can look towards Syria or Egypt.
                      3. +2
                        28 October 2022 12: 26
                        Appetite comes with eating. If the same Egypt surrenders without a fight, who will stop?
                      4. VLR
                        +2
                        28 October 2022 12: 30
                        It's true. But, the main thing, of course, is the character of Alexander, who wanted to fight. His father might have been able to stay somewhere closer to home. He certainly would not have gone to Bactria and India.
                      5. +1
                        28 October 2022 12: 46
                        It was impossible not to go to Bactria - Bactria and Sogdiana were the supporting provinces of the usurper Bess. If you delay, then his position will be strengthened.
                        Olbricht writes that in these provinces the concept of cataphracts, combined with horse archers, was rapidly developing, which caused a lot of trouble for the Macedonians.
                        That is, with the exception of India, that's what it comes out to
                      6. 0
                        28 October 2022 19: 23
                        "should have taken"
                        Valery, this is true, but we now know this. And then? Probably Alexander and his advisers weighed various options.
                        After all, there is no evidence that Alexander acted: “how does my left leg want?” ..
                        His empire was about to fall apart: EVERYTHING was tied to Alexander.
                        This is the strength and at the same time the weakness of such empires.
                        Bonopvrt was more prudent: he had: the mechanization of administration was postponed, there was an heir, there was authority in the army, his empire could have been held if it were not for the position in which France was in 1814 ..
                        Now I thought:
                        Let's say my fantasies, Putin is gone, what will happen? Immediately, shock and confusion, but the state will not fall apart.
                        There is a well-functioning control mechanism. But there are a whole bunch of different factors at play: how quickly will the vacuum be filled? How authoritative is the receiver? This SVO led to a reassessment of everything, including authority. For some, it will be inflated, while for others it will be real.
                        All this affects the stability of the state.
                        These are all my fantasies.
                  2. 0
                    29 October 2022 17: 09
                    [quote] [/ quote] So Alexander was only half a Hellene.

                    According to his father, Alexander believed that his ancestry comes from Hercules, from the kings of Argos (the city of Argos in the Peloponnese), and from his mother, from Achilles, the hero of the Trojan War. Here is what Herodotus writes in his History, book 5 of Terpsichore, paragraph 22: “And the fact that these Macedonian kings, descendants of Perdiccas, are real Hellenes, not only they themselves say, but I am convinced of this. In addition, the judges of the Olympic competitions admitted this. When Alexander wished to take part in the competitions and for this he came to Olympia, the Hellenes, the participants in the competitions, demanded his exclusion. These competitions, they said, were for the Hellenes, and not for the barbarians. Alexander proved that he was an Argos, and the judges recognized his Hellenic origin." Here we are talking about Alexander Ι, cat. lived in the 5th century d.c.e. The name of the last Macedonian king is Perseus. According to mythology, Perseus is the son of Danae and Zeus, the grandson of Acrisius, king of Argos. Giving these names, they emphasized their origin. As well as Alexander, naming one of his sons Hercules.
          2. 0
            2 November 2022 17: 50
            But you must admit that the Samnites were cursed separatists for a very long time, so everything was not going smoothly for Rome either, it just went slowly, and the Romans had time to digest the regions.
  9. +2
    28 October 2022 12: 38
    The Romans subjugated the Macedonians (and the Greeks too), but ran into the Persians to the fullest.
    Therefore, since then Europe has been considered "civilized", while Asia, respectively, has been considered "uncivilized".
    Although, in my opinion, if Carthage had not been busy up to the neck with "business schemes", as well as a permanent struggle with the Greek colonies, but in time would have paid attention not to a young predator - a tribe of Latins, then the concepts of civilization could be different as geographically as well as conceptually. By the time of the Punic Wars, in many respects, he greatly surpassed the development of both the Greeks and the Romans, and even ancient Egypt and Persia. And it was close to its own Age of Discovery.
    1. +1
      28 October 2022 12: 48
      The Romans clashed with other Persians. We can say, not Persians at all. Iranians, more precisely, Iranian-speaking tribes, they are different.
      about the superiority of Carthage is very strong.
      1. 0
        28 October 2022 14: 02
        Quote: Engineer
        The Romans clashed with other Persians. We can say, not Persians at all. Iranians, more precisely, Iranian-speaking tribes, they are different.


        The Parthians were only the ruling elite. Basically, the Persians were the descendants of those same Persians. And cataphracts (or their predecessors) appeared a long time ago.
        1. 0
          28 October 2022 14: 06
          Not only the ruling elite, but also the main military stratum. And the settled population, yes, has remained so since the time of the Achaemenids. But in wars, it was not decided.
          I know a thing or two about cataphracts. This is a separate issue.
    2. 0
      2 November 2022 17: 55
      I don’t agree, Carthage had everything, excuse me, on the ointment in terms of trade, and geographical discoveries came as the Turks cut the silk road. Why was Columbus looking for a way to India, and no one bothered before him?
      The same Greeks entered the Baltic Sea, for example, but they didn’t need it, the same Phoenicians sailed around Africa, and again there was no need to develop open lands.
      For me, the mystery is the developed connections of the Bronze Age, which were subsequently lost, not special from the word at all. But under those conditions, the Carthaginians could not have colonized.
      And Carthage suffered a misfortune not in the fact that they did not see the opponent, but in the fact that there was no single party line there, in fact Hannibal's war was personal, there was a strong lobby for moving deep into Africa.
  10. 0
    28 October 2022 13: 07
    Dying Alexander, work of an unknown sculptor

    Well, why is it unknown?
    Most likely the work of Michelangelo.
    And not that Michelangelo specifically sculpted Alexander. Most likely this is one of the options that could be in the sculptural group Laocoön and sons.

    1. VLR
      +2
      28 October 2022 13: 14
      Most likely, this sculpture served as an inspiration for Michelangelo: look at the tablet below it:
  11. 0
    28 October 2022 13: 38
    Valery, colleagues, good afternoon.
    “Remember * Valery, out of spite, do you not like Athos or is Dumas the father?
    The next question is: which of this novel do you like?
  12. 0
    28 October 2022 14: 00
    Quote: VlR
    Of course, it would be ideal to build an empire on the basis of the policies of Hellas, which were culturally and mentally close, and only the ambitions of small-town politicians who wanted to be the first guys in their village, but not the second, third or fourth in a single state, prevented uniting.


    He built his empire on the basis of Hellas. Macedonia itself had little to offer.
    After all, it is no coincidence that after Alexander the ancient Oikoumene entered the period of Hellenism, and not "Macedonism." The Macedonians were originally wild shepherds, nothing more.
    Macedonians are excellent warriors, but the state needs more than just warriors. The Greeks were more suitable as managerial personnel.
    It would hardly have been possible to create a long-lasting vast empire. It would still fall apart into separate parts, one way or another. The Hellenes are not Romans, well, they did not have a real imperial spirit. And alone, without like-minded people, even Alexander would not have been able to implement a successful project.

    Breaking is not building. And to build - not to break!
  13. +1
    28 October 2022 14: 06
    Quote: VlR
    Here, the same Romans - wherever they came, the internecine strife between the tribes immediately ceased. True, sometimes they united on the basis of hatred for Rome. But after the exponentially brutal suppression of the next uprising, they calmed down - until the new "unwhacked" generation grows up. .


    Rome lost the "allied war" and made concessions to the "junior partners". But it was precisely this loss that allowed Rome to turn from a polis-state into a powerful power that united first Italy, and then the entire ancient Oecumene.
  14. +1
    28 October 2022 14: 09
    Quote: faterdom
    Although, in my opinion, if Carthage had not been busy up to the neck with "business schemes", as well as a permanent struggle with the Greek colonies, but in time would have paid attention not to a young predator - a tribe of Latins, then the concepts of civilization could be different as geographically , and conceptually.


    If Hannibal had been a sovereign king and more politically far-sighted, Carthage would have had a chance to win.
    Conceptually, the concepts of civilization would change little. Not so much these two powers differed.
  15. +1
    28 October 2022 14: 37
    Quote: Illanatol
    Conceptually, the concepts of civilization would change little. Not so much these two powers differed.

    Why is it "not really". Carthage - for centuries the "mistress of the seas" of that time, including those where the medieval Spaniards and Portuguese got after them. But not the Romans or the Byzantines.
    The Romans had complete control and subjugation of adjacent provinces, the standardization of management and trade, while the Carthaginians had only control of key ports and monopoly trade in strategic resources through local kings / leaders, without interfering in their public and political affairs. But without competition, competitors were crushed mercilessly.
    Having destroyed Carthage, the Romans seized on the agriculture developed over the centuries, reprinting it in Latin under Roman authorship, plumbing, a bath, and some other things that already characterize the Roman civilization. Navigation and geographical knowledge were not even repeated.
    Despite the fact that Carthage itself is only a little older than Rome, it is true that for centuries it was a branch of the powerful and wealthy Phenicia, until Alexander destroyed Tire, but Rome, albeit according to legend, is Aeneid. That is, the type of heir to Troy, but firstly, Troy is still the Bronze Age, and secondly, how much the refugees from Troy really influenced the emergence and development of Rome - history is silent, rather the Etruscans allied with Carthage influenced the Latins more than Aeneas and his descendants .
    1. +1
      29 October 2022 08: 43
      Quote: faterdom
      Why is it "not really". Carthage - for centuries the "mistress of the seas" of that time, including those where the medieval Spaniards and Portuguese got after them. But not the Romans or the Byzantines. The Romans have complete control and subjugation of the surrounding provinces, the standardization of management and trade, the Carthaginians have only control of key ports and monopoly trade in strategic resources through local kings / leaders, without interfering in their public and political affairs. But without competition, competitors were crushed mercilessly.
      Having destroyed Carthage, the Romans seized on the agriculture developed over the centuries, reprinting it in Latin under Roman authorship, plumbing, a bath, and some other things that already characterize the Roman civilization. Navigation and geographical knowledge were not even repeated.


      So what? Is this the main difference?
      Both Rome and Carthage were oligarchic republics. Both Rome and Carthage largely borrowed the achievements of the Hellenic civilization and culture. The Romans were largely influenced by the Etruscan civilization, but it is possible that the Etruscans also influenced the Carthaginians.
      What would change if Carthage won? Yes, perhaps before late antiquity, the changes would have been significant. The Mediterranean region would be less standardized, with many countries retaining their own identity to a greater extent. Carthage certainly would not have created such a vast empire as Rome, the ancient Oecumene would have been "multipolar" (and not "unipolar" as under Rome). But the further - the less the divergence of these two branches of history would be. After all, the legacy of Rome was largely erased by the swords of the barbarians, "unipolarity" still came to an end. And the peoples that were once part of the Roman Empire retained only that part of the Roman heritage that they themselves wanted to preserve. An illustrative example is the works of ancient (Greek, Roman) scientists, philosophers, etc. best preserved by those who fought with the Greeks and Persians - the Persians (later from them - the Arabs).
      It is possible to civilize by force, it is possible to impose the fruits of culture by military means. But all this will be unreliable and short-lived. Only that which will be accepted of one's own free will will remain and develop.
      Finally. If Carthage had won, it is quite possible that the Carthaginians, too, would have borrowed from the Romans what they would have found useful for themselves.

      The refugees from Troy, of course, had little effect, they simply founded the dynasty of kings of Rome. They quickly assimilated with the locals, probably with the Etruscans, as the most advanced on the peninsula. Any Samnites there would have seemed uncouth savages to the refined Trojans.
  16. 0
    28 October 2022 15: 50
    Quote: VlR
    look at the label below it:
    So what ? Or do you want to say that this tablet is also more than 2 thousand years old? hi
    Any board can be drawn. Look, how many times the signs have changed, for example, under this group portrait. But he is much younger than the bust. Although ... everything is possible. Maybe not younger. Moreover, it is believed that the author of the group portrait is known. But who is pictured???
  17. +1
    28 October 2022 16: 01
    Quote: Sertorius
    Well, after all, Alexander moved a little further - to Bias (Hyphasis)
  18. 0
    28 October 2022 17: 42
    “It was not possible to prove the involvement of Macedonia,” colleagues, it reminds me, before WWI: the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Is Serbia to blame or not?
  19. +1
    28 October 2022 18: 17
    Good evening everyone.
    Valery, this topic is practically unfamiliar to me. I wanted to remain silent, but I couldn't.
    "was divided," and above them Rome. "divide and conquer" (c)
  20. +1
    28 October 2022 21: 02
    "... and the Molossian tribe, to which the famous opponent of Rome Pyrrhus belonged, was literally slaughtered and ceased to exist."
    Is it "real" to file a lawsuit against the Italian Republic in the HAAGU?
    For the MOLOSS GENOCIDE!!!
    After all, someone lives on their lands.
    Let them declare themselves their descendants and get money!!!
  21. 0
    29 October 2022 18: 51
    Quote: Illanatol
    So what? Is this the main difference?

    And where is the main thing? Perhaps, Soviet socialism with Swedish capitalism differ much less, or the same ancient Greeks from the ancient Persians.
    With the Carthaginian oligarchy at the present level, it is perhaps possible to put the United States - control of sea routes, military bases at all key points, wet competitors on takeoff. But at the same time, there are no proconsuls in the "occupied" territories - there are US ambassadors that are more sparing with pride, there are no direct tax collections, and no one is required to recognize the US president as God - they pray at least a stump, but the top promotes American interests and does not hobnob with competitors. And in exactly the same way, the internal discord of the selfish oligarchs leads to defeat.
    But whether Moscow, or who else will be the "third Rome", this has been decided since the era of Ivan the Terrible, and now too, and by our soldiers as well.
    1. +1
      30 October 2022 09: 26
      Quote: faterdom
      But at the same time, there are no proconsuls in the "occupied" territories - there are US ambassadors that are more sparing with pride, there are no direct tax collections, and no one is required to recognize the US president as God - they pray at least a stump, but the top promotes American interests and does not hobnob with competitors.


      So why is the top of the controlled countries promoting the interests of the United States, even at the risk of their careers at times? Lizka Strass is the most recent example.
      Is it because this "top" of the United States was nurtured and educated? So how are such elites different from Roman proconsuls? Western European politicians have long considered the United States their homeland, and not the countries they supposedly represent.
      And is it not a Roman tradition to stir your legs ... ugh, military bases in controlled territories? And is it not a Roman tradition to fight using the forces of the "federal" allies? And there are direct taxes - fees from allies for "joint defense needs" within NATO and other alliances (which in fact go to support the American economy).

      You obviously didn’t notice that you began to contradict yourself. What if Rome won if the "exceptional nation" also copies the Carthaginian experience? And if Carthage had won - what else would it have been?
      About that and speech - it would be the same. The great powers of the present, or rather the elites in them, use the historical experience of their predecessors, choosing the most useful and in demand.
      The United States initially copied precisely the Roman experience. They even have the Tiber River, not far from the Senate building. But Rome, after the Punic Wars, also took something from Carthage. Property stratification in Rome increased, the patricians rose even more both materially and politically, and Rome itself became more like Carthage. And in the imperial period ... well, you understand.
  22. 0
    2 November 2022 18: 58
    Quote: Alexander Salenko
    the Phoenicians sailed around Africa, and again the need arose for the development of open lands.

    And that's just what they were. Carthaginians. And this expedition had 30 thousand people on board the ships, just for the purpose of colonization, and somewhere in the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbnow Benin a colony was founded, another question is that later, having no connection with the mother country, it withered and disappeared. All this was described in the temple of Carthage, before it was destroyed by the Romans, and has come down to us in a Roman translation. Blonds of the Canary Islands discovered after one and a half thousand years - whose descendants, where did they come from? There is a version - also descendants of a colony of Puns.
    Well, why did the Carthaginians categorically forbid navigation west of the Apennines and adjacent islands to everyone else? So a monopoly trade channel was kept with Albion, from where tin, a strategic commodity of the Bronze Age, was supplied to the entire ancient Mediterranean, and then iron of Iberia.
  23. +1
    3 November 2022 09: 16

    Culture is a mass phenomenon. Thanks to Alexander, a huge number of Greeks settled from Egypt to Bactria. First, the elite plus migrants go to the theater, then the descendants of mixed marriages, then it becomes a cultural code. And then there are syncretic cultures and civilizations. But for this to happen, a primary impulse is needed in the form of a Macedonian army from the Nile to the Indus. Otherwise, no one will build a theater in Bactria.


    Again. The penetration of Hellenic culture began even before the campaigns of Alexander, due to the inclusion of the Greek policies of Asia Minor into the Persian Empire.
    And this theater in Bactria was given to you ... did it function for a long time at all?


    Everything was limited Greek cities of Asia Minor. under and after Alexander, Greek influence became global


    So why was the Persian city of Persepolis named that way, in Greek?
    About global influence - this is already a clear bust. Cut the sturgeon, please.
    Greek influence has never been global. In China and India, it was practically not felt. About the Western Hemisphere - they had no idea about Greece.

    This influence should not be exaggerated. Persian culture is primarily a legacy of the cultures of Mesopotamia. The influence of the Greeks was peripheral.


    The influence of the Greeks was peripheral even after Alexander. Otherwise, the Persians ceased to be Persians.
    Not much time will pass and they will throw off the Hellenic husk. They will become completely sovereign Imperials again. But the Greeks and Macedonians - alas, will turn from subjects into objects of politics.

    Persian culture was originally quite distinctive, although it was strongly influenced by its neighbors. Well, real Aryans, after all.