Yes I read that ;) They also said (and what I was referring to) was that there are many theories, new ones all the time, and that no-one knows.
Thatnks for picking that up though. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I don't know how much you could say Philip contributed to culture. He razed a number of cities in Chalcidice for one. And although he did unify Macedonia, he may have done so at the expense of local customs and traditions, all in the name of conquest of Greece (and eventually Asia). We also don't know what he was planning to do in Asia - perhaps Alexander was merely carrying out his father's plans.

Although I do agree that Philip may have been better at the infrastructure of an empire than Alexander. he certainly displayed considerable skills in reorganising Macedonia. But Alexander died prematurely. When he died, he had finished campaigning (at least temporarily) - he may have been going to start organising then. He wasn't all bad either - some people he left behind to govern were extremely capable - Ptolemy for one.

I also disagree with the notion that Alexander completely Hellenised Asia. He actually was a big fan of Eastern culture, and it was a major sticking point with his inner circle of Macedonians that he adopted as much Eastern culture as he did, and that he used Easterners in positions of power.

[ 05-08-2002, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Aelia Jusa ]

The sun never sets on the British Empire. Need I say more?

<font color = lightgreen>Well, I have human pride. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] I'm not sure why more people don't.

I have nothing against national/regional pride, but I do wish more people would look at the larger picture.</font>

I vote for the Assyrians:) funky chariots :D

Aelia I agree with your view point might I add that in many cases he required many of his follows to marry women who were of mid eastern nobility.

<font color="red">But isnt assimilating serveral cultures into one by definition destroying most of them ??
Assimilation means people are forced to give up their old traditions, lifestyles, beliefs, etc; and pick up that of a new culture. They arent aloud to bring anything from theyre previous life with them, but become completely and without question a member of the new culture. By this process, the original culture is lost, or destroyed, and the new culture is all that exists.
Thus, if Alexander tried to assimilate all these cultures into his, he destroyed all those other cultures. </font>

He married a Persian too.

However Aelia, loving a culture and being influenced by it - ie taking from it, is very different to CONTRIBUTING to it.

Just what exactly did he contribute to the Persian culture he took from?

[ 05-09-2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

He married a Persian too.

However Aelia, loving a culture and being influenced by it - ie taking from it, is very different to CONTRIBUTING to it.

Just what exactly did he contribute to the Persian culture he took from?</font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say he did contribute to it, I said he didn't completely destroy it and make it Hellenistic, as was suggested.

However I would say that, although it was not his intention, Alexander's campaigns did contribute to Eastern culture. Whenever you have new ideas and new people in a culture, there will be influences - the new people will take something from the culture they are in, as Alexander did, and those people in the culture will be affected by the new people and ideas. It appears you're suggesting that the Persian culture was somehow static for hundreds of years, that they didn't evolve in any way from exposure to other eastern cultures, to Greece, to Egypt, then Alexander arrived and threw everything into disarray. If you change something in a culture, or influence it, you don't destroy it, it just changes. For example, Romans adopted Greek literature, considering it far superior to their own efforts. This didn't mean that the Romans had no culture, that they were psuedo-Greeks, but that their Roman culture had been influenced by Greeks. Similarly with Persians, Hellenistic ideas that Alexander and his men brought in didn't destroy anything in Persian culture, they influenced it and made it evolve.

Also the new Alexandrias he made were mostly for his own troops, who were too old, and he wanted stable cities that could come to arms and down insurgents if there were any. He left most eastern cities intact - Babylon, Pergamum, Tyre, etc.

alexanders conquest of persia was just the continuation of the struggle between greece and the persian empire.and the persians were doomed to lose in the end because the greeks(this includes macedonia)were better militarily.and that's where it counts.
the egyptians might have been great farmers but they are best remembered for their empire.just look on history as a business.the historians are just giving the people what they want.artists and farmers do not make for interesting reading.great wars do.and farmers don't shape history unless it is in a role that is secondary to their military or political one.