AHC : Global Hellenism

Skallagrim

Banned
If they survive long enough, Hellenistic states can colonize the New World and Australia, making those extensions of the Hellenic world, and then industrialize and try to conquer everything else. Romance and Germanic countries were able to do much of that.

But in this case it's not just Europe going on the Scramble for Africa and colonization of Asia, but also the entire Middle East is colonizing, and India is colonizing, and both of them are Hellenistic.

True! There is certainly a lot of potential for that kind of thing, but I do think you'd start to see serious "dilution" of the Hellenic cultural influence. My point is that if cultural hybridisation is the key factor from the outset, that will likely remain the natural method of co-opting new cultures. Very dynamic, very interesting, and potentially a very stable way of maintaining continuity... but it does mean that the original culture that started the process (in this case Hellenic culture) becomes ever less dominant. Up to which point can we still say that we're creating a Hellenic world, rather than a world shaped by various post-Hellenic hybrid cultures (which at some point will hardly be Hellenic at all, anymore)? Does something still count as 'Hellenic' if it's only very inderectly influenced by a Hellenic progenitor culture?
 
True! There is certainly a lot of potential for that kind of thing, but I do think you'd start to see serious "dilution" of the Hellenic cultural influence. My point is that if cultural hybridisation is the key factor from the outset, that will likely remain the natural method of co-opting new cultures. Very dynamic, very interesting, and potentially a very stable way of maintaining continuity... but it does mean that the original culture that started the process (in this case Hellenic culture) becomes ever less dominant. Up to which point can we still say that we're creating a Hellenic world, rather than a world shaped by various post-Hellenic hybrid cultures (which at some point will hardly be Hellenic at all, anymore)? Does something still count as 'Hellenic' if it's only very inderectly influenced by a Hellenic progenitor culture?

The cultural hybridisation does create differences that is true, but it creates a common culture that eventually becomes what it means to be "Hellenic". I can see the point that being "Hellenic" might become different to being Greek. It is an interesting possibility, certainly different from the idea of the fetishism of Greek thought.

This is always a problem with expanding what would be best called 'cultural worlds' on top of each other. Just as Persian and Roman thought wasn't merged, it would be fair to say neither was English and French.

I think you're probably right, and whilst Greece may be seen as a cultural first among equals - the influences from a Hellenic Persia and Hellenic Gaul would change Hellenic Greece.

Which isn't a bad thing - in fact, I think something being introduced into Hellenic Greece might be the cultural equivalent of a fashion show or a highlight.

I also think that Greece, and other highly settled areas, might effectively become deeply militarist areas. New Hellenic states will want Greece/Hellenic settlers, the more Hellenic the better, soldiers fit this bill better, and as such it benefits Greeks to be soldier-settlers. After all, whilst Greek culture will absorb new ideas from the Hellenic Sphere, it will still develop its own ideas.
 
If Arnold Toynbee is to be believed, Alexander living a few decades longer would eventually result in a Hellenic world-empire under the Argeadic dynasty. (Spoiler alert: Toynbee, for all the respect he is due, is NOT to be believed on this. His excercise in alternate history is a truly ludicrous Alexander-wank that makes the Draka look very realistic and modest.)

Of course, I do in fact agree that Alexander living a few decades longer and leaving his empire to a succesful heir is the best way to really wank Hellenism as much as you realistically can. It would never be world-wide, but you could easily imagine one of Alexander's heirs eventually conquering India after all (with Alexander himself having already taken Arabia and the western Med)-- thus creating an empire that stretches from Gibraltar to Bangladesh (to use the OTL names), and potentially from the Crimea to Yemen, or even including "Azania" (the Greek name for east Africa, where Greeks actually traded during the Hellenistic age). But I don't really see it expanding beyond such borders. One culture imposed on the whole world just seems pretty hard to do...

I think that's pretty much the best case scenario for spreading Hellenic culture. Of course, if we look at Alexander's intentions, it would be a hybrid culture everywhere. Greece itself would be changed by the other cultures just as much as those cultures would be affected by Hellenism. (Of course, one might say that this is exactly what makes the idea so captivating; I certainly would say so!)

What about a subordinate of Alexander who rebels against him alongside a Persian conspiracy, and then double-crosses said Persian conspiracy and follows through with a similar plan to Alexander? While Alexander himself goes on through China to Korea, where he builds a Helleno-Tocharian kingdom which later dominates China? :p
 
If you think about it... we already have a global Hellenism of sorts. :p

Most of the western world's important governmental buildings, architecture, monuments, and languages are based off of a Greco-Roman heritage.

Now if you want a true Hellenism...

Hadrian is more influential. Not my favorite Emperor by any means, but he was very Hellenophilic. If he promotes the Greek heritage of the Romans even more, it is possible that a Hellenistic Rome could still exist today- and would have had plenty of time to spread Greek ideas everywhere.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The cultural hybridisation does create differences that is true, but it creates a common culture that eventually becomes what it means to be "Hellenic". I can see the point that being "Hellenic" might become different to being Greek.

Ah, indeed-- very much the "ship of Theseus" idea (which is apt, considering the culture we're talking about). While those ATL cultures wouldn't be what we think of as Hellenic.... they would consider themselves Hellenic! The whole meaning of the concept has changed for them, and probably so gradually that they aren't even fully aware of how much it has changed/evolved.


I think you're probably right, and whilst Greece may be seen as a cultural first among equals - the influences from a Hellenic Persia and Hellenic Gaul would change Hellenic Greece.

Which isn't a bad thing - in fact, I think something being introduced into Hellenic Greece might be the cultural equivalent of a fashion show or a highlight.

Of course, the whole idea of cultural assimilation would be the hallmark of post-Alexander Hellenism. It wasn't traditionally a part of Hellenic culture at all (quite the opposite, in fact). Even by imagining this particular POD, we have already changed Hellenism. Still, I agree that this would very much not be a bad thing. The whole notion of cultural hybridisation becoming a thing was a big part of what made Sersor's Massalia timeline so very captivating (to me, at least).


I also think that Greece, and other highly settled areas, might effectively become deeply militarist areas. New Hellenic states will want Greece/Hellenic settlers, the more Hellenic the better, soldiers fit this bill better, and as such it benefits Greeks to be soldier-settlers. After all, whilst Greek culture will absorb new ideas from the Hellenic Sphere, it will still develop its own ideas.

Well, yes and no. Typically, Greek culture had the whole idea of the citizen-soldier, and their conception of what "militarism" might be was very different from ours. I fully agree that if Hellenic colonialism gets going, we'll see a lot of it being done by soldiers. (We saw that in OTL, both in classical Greek culture and in the many Alexandrias founded during Alexander's campaign.) But I don't think it would be right to then view those colonies as highly militaristic affairs, essentially run as army camps writ large. Greek soldiers typically saw themselves as citizens first and foremost, and after a campaign, resumed civilian life. (Needless to say, the skillset will still be there, and we'd see the logical effects of that.)
 

Deleted member 97083

Well, yes and no. Typically, Greek culture had the whole idea of the citizen-soldier, and their conception of what "militarism" might be was very different from ours. I fully agree that if Hellenic colonialism gets going, we'll see a lot of it being done by soldiers. (We saw that in OTL, both in classical Greek culture and in the many Alexandrias founded during Alexander's campaign.) But I don't think it would be right to then view those colonies as highly militaristic affairs, essentially run as army camps writ large. Greek soldiers typically saw themselves as citizens first and foremost, and after a campaign, resumed civilian life. (Needless to say, the skillset will still be there, and we'd see the logical effects of that.)
That's about as militaristic as you can get without being an empire with a permanent standing army. The soldier-settler mentality reinforces itself as the growing population wants to conquer more land. The OTL Hellenistic kingdoms were self defeating in this regard because they fought each other more than they fought anyone else. But the fact stands that the whole system, you would think, tends toward expansion.

And after all, Hellenistic kingdoms were technically warlord states established after a civil war.
 

Yay, I got plugged!

But yeah, post-Indian Hellenization, if the Helleno-Indian states expand their culture across Southeast Asia as OTL, you could get visibly Greek cultural elements as far as the Philippines. And if an Indian emperor sponsors some sort of Greek philosophical cult as the imperial religion as Ashoka did IOTL with Buddhism, you could then get Greek philosophy spread into China just as Indian philosophy (like the concept of Dharma) spread into China IOTL. But that's not quite what I'd call full-scale Hellenization of China.
 
Buddhist state religion. Buddhist texts translated into Greek. State sponsored missionaries.
Yay, I got plugged!

But yeah, post-Indian Hellenization, if the Helleno-Indian states expand their culture across Southeast Asia as OTL, you could get visibly Greek cultural elements as far as the Philippines. And if an Indian emperor sponsors some sort of Greek philosophical cult as the imperial religion as Ashoka did IOTL with Buddhism, you could then get Greek philosophy spread into China just as Indian philosophy (like the concept of Dharma) spread into China IOTL. But that's not quite what I'd call full-scale Hellenization of China.

Is it cheating to just have a Buddhist state religion, translation of Buddhist texts into Greek, and state sponsored Buddhist missionaries?
 
Is it cheating to just have a Buddhist state religion, translation of Buddhist texts into Greek, and state sponsored Buddhist missionaries?

Most Buddhist texts being in Sanskrit or Pali doesn't seem to have made China speak Sanskrit or Pali (or all that deeply influenced by them), so I don't think it would work.
 
I meant for South-East Asia/Philippines.

Just having Buddhist texts in Greek would make Greek a religious language like how Sanskrit and Pali were religious languages in China. I think you'd need more than that to keep the Indian element from overcrowding the Greek element.

And why would Buddhist texts be translated into Greek to spread Buddhism into Southeast Asia?
 

Deleted member 97083

Just having Buddhist texts in Greek would make Greek a religious language like how Sanskrit and Pali were religious languages in China. I think you'd need more than that to keep the Indian element from overcrowding the Greek element.
Well if Greek rule survives long enough, then by the time the prakrits and Sanskrit are no longer mutually intelligible, Greek becomes a natural option for a lingua franca.
 
Well if Greek rule survives long enough, then by the time the prakrits and Sanskrit are no longer mutually intelligible, Greek becomes a natural option for a lingua franca.

I think in such a scenario of extended Indo-Greek rule, Greek may have its own prakrits, with Greek vocabulary and Indian grammar....

In any case, the Indians that influenced Southeast Asia were from the south, where Greek influence never existed. So, maybe King Menander invades North India, and his successors invade the Deccan, for a non-Alexander POD?
 
Top