Fate of the Hellenistic states in the absence of Rome

Typo

Banned
Reality loves states with voting, freedoms, and checks and balances. That's why the Roman Republic and later UK and US grew so big and successful; both were wanks incarnate; it's why Rome turned from wank to suck by two centuries after going unchecked monarchic. The Achaeans weren't military specialists like Rome was, but they were still expanding fast and had most of the Peloponnese when Rome conquered them.

Monarchies stand up about as well to free and voting and balanced neighbors as Spanish Florida and Mexico did to us. Consider: who started with more turf?
This statement and it's conclusion is so ideologically inflamed and historically wrong I don't even know where to start

Believe it or not for all I think how screwed the Seleucids were, I still think they had the best shot at some sort of hegemony over the near east.
 
Last edited:
Reality loves states with voting, freedoms, and checks and balances. That's why the Roman Republic and later UK and US grew so big and successful; both were wanks incarnate; it's why Rome turned from wank to suck by two centuries after going unchecked monarchic. The Achaeans weren't military specialists like Rome was, but they were still expanding fast and had most of the Peloponnese when Rome conquered them.
Just for your information, the Roman republic became so large not because of its political system (which makes modern Russia look like an uber-democratic human rights abuse free wonderland) but because of its better military organisation (and technology, commanders, ect). Britain was successful because of its near-monopoly on naval power for most of the 19th century. And America is so powerful because of its economic strength and size compared to European powers. (please feel free to correct me if im wrong)
 
I doubt it, the Macedonians showed no success against the Greeks after Alexander to warrant that they could. The era seem to be one where Macedonian power was on retreat in Greece.

What do you base this off?
Even after 277 the Macedonian state was far from bankrupt.
New cult temples of city founders were dedicated at Philippoi, Thessalonike and Demetrias.
The Serapis temple at Thessalonike had existed for some time in 187.

The difficulties of controlling the south had more to do with the fragmented political landscape
and the traditions of local independence than with any inherent weakness in the north.
It took Philip II twenty years to aquier hegemony over the south after all.

The Antigonids held strateic garrisons at greath cost in the south, and seemd to be more concerd with
indirect controlle rather than conquest. But that does not mean that they were weak.
 

Typo

Banned
What do you base this off?
Even after 277 the Macedonian state was far from bankrupt.
New cult temples of city founders were dedicated at Philippoi, Thessalonike and Demetrias.
The Serapis temple at Thessalonike had existed for some time in 187.
Ok, but does this indicate that the Macedon state could easily pay for wars?
The difficulties of controlling the south had more to do with the fragmented political landscape
and the traditions of local independence than with any inherent weakness in the north.
It took Philip II twenty years to aquier hegemony over the south after all.
The Antigonids held strateic garrisons at greath cost in the south, and seemd to be more concerd with
indirect controlle rather than conquest. But that does not mean that they were weak.
Well look at it this way, after Alexander died the Macedonians never managed to achieve the same level of control they had over the, correctly me if I'm wrong, the most prosperous part of Greece in the south such as Peloponnese after 220s Athens.

Also with the rise of the Achaean and Aetolian leagues I don't think the Macedonians ever had the chance to get back the same arrangement with the Greek cities as they had with Philip, or for that matter the kind they had after the Chremonidean War.
 
Well no, not the same agreement that Phillip II had. But then it does not look like they wanted it either.

Now Macedonian was weaker after Alex, but not weak. It took antipater about a year to supress the revolt of 323.

They also face a more difficult eviroment than Phillip did.
The military superiorety was weakend as the south evolved to become more efficient against the sarrissa.

They alos face more orginazied opposition that Phillip II did, Epirus (under Alexander II and Phyrrus especially), Pergamun, the Galatian attack, the Egyptians(who were rather active in greec until they lost theire outsiden egypt terrertori), the Rodhians.

Still i know that the view that Macedonian was very weak after Alex was common until the 90`s.

But the amount of econmical activety, the force they did keep in garrisons in the south, the fact that they keept more or less controll of the south and that Phillip V was able to reform his army in a small amount of time after the first Macedonian war does not look like a weak stat.
 

Typo

Banned
But the amount of econmical activety, the force they did keep in garrisons in the south, the fact that they keept more or less controll of the south and that Phillip V was able to reform his army in a small amount of time after the first Macedonian war does not look like a weak stat.
True, but it wasn't strong enough of a state to take and hold Greece and eastern Anatolia either
 
Well it did, or it held the south inderectly, for most of the period after 323. Sure the were periods where the controll was less than complet, but still.

And this was OTL whit Rome, we remove them and the Potolys are too weak too meddel Macedon whil dominate Greec.
 

Typo

Banned
But look at the situation in say 221 BC, the Romans were not involved in Macedonian or Greek affairs outside of Italy before the Punic Wars at all.
 
Well i cant see a weak Macedon in 221 bc.

We are talking about the kingdom that just got a new king, who fought the first Macedon war into a stalemate, the was so weak that it a few year later reorganize its army, founded some new cults and city's, took on its two most powerful eastern neighbors who need Rome to help?

The same Kingdom who had control of the south minus Athens, Sparta and the Achean league?
 
This statement and it's conclusion is so ideologically inflamed and historically wrong I don't even know where to start
You can start by giving me three counterexamples. You might find it a little harder than you expect. Athens doesn't count because it didn't have checks and balances, BTW.

Just for your information, the Roman republic became so large not because of its political system (which makes modern Russia look like an uber-democratic human rights abuse free wonderland) but because of its better military organisation (and technology, commanders, ect). Britain was successful because of its near-monopoly on naval power for most of the 19th century. And America is so powerful because of its economic strength and size compared to European powers. (please feel free to correct me if im wrong)
You need to step back a bit and ask why all those happened. How did Roman Republican institutions become better and have higher miltech? How did the US come to be able to ethnically cleanse a pretty sadly amazingly vast number of Indians and easily displace control from Florida and Texas?

For a start, voting is the least bad way of choosing leaders. And then, freedom - even if only elite freedom like Rome's early days - gives freedom to innovate and build lots of business and have a strong economy. Checks and balances let a state survive better.

I got the idea about Rome, BTW, from a Greek Roman contemporary whom wrote a history of Rome, BTW - Polybius.

And I think you aren't giving Russia enough credit. Poor Russia! ;-)


EDIT: ...and, the Hellenistic states were all particularly governmentally weak because they had no checks and balances. Kings of Macedon had a way of being mentally outsmarted by Achaean leaders, and working more to Achaean advantage than their own. The Battle of Salamis was won by a democratically elected leader lying to get Xerxes to send his fleet into a trap.
 
Last edited:
Top