https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Alexander_the_GreatRome was absolutely nothing before the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC. Everyone in Rome wanted to be the next Alexander. In fact, the broad Hellenistic culture worshipped Alexander, often as Apollo or Adonis.Within 50 years, Rome had conquered the entire Italian peninsula and started war with Carthage.What got into them, bros? Did Macedonian elite transfer to Rome? Did Persian elite (whom Alexander defeated but probably intermarried with) transfer to Rome? What's with the sudden emergence of Rome?
>>17273185Consdering they weren't Greek or Hellenic in any way no. They didn't share the same society or culture.>Rome was absolutely nothing before the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCBesides going to war aggressively with their neighbours. Rome by that point had finally emerged as a major power in the region after their wars with other Central Italian peoples.>What's with the sudden emergence of Rome?Central Italians at this point started attacking outside of the region like the Samnites with Southern Italy, which they stopped beause the Romans and Latins started attacking them. The Romans united all the people of Central Italy and with nobody else left to fight where else are they supposed to go? An entire region where elite culture revolves around warfare and winning glory in it and an entire society where mass conscription is not only normal but expected. The process was already well on its way for aggressive outside expansion and internal consolidation well before Alexander.
>>17273246>Consdering they weren't Greek or Hellenic in any way no. They didn't share the same society or culture.Wasn't Macedon barely Hellenic? They were considered the barbaric step cousins of Greeks, no? Not to throw too much shade, but it seems like they adopted high Hellenic culture rather than created it.
>>17273185Besides being geographic neighbors and stealing Greek culture they have very little in common
>>17273252true but they were closer than latins
>>17273252Macedon might have been pretty different from the Greek city states but it still shared a high culture and made use of Greek cities like those around Thessaly. Greek culture wouldn't really come into Central Italy until the Romans started invading Southern Italy and really started picking up when they invaded Greece
>>17273330>>Macedon might have been pretty different from the Greek city states but it still shared a high cultureDidn't Rome share a high culture with Greece as well? Tons of their philosophers and such came to dominate the Roman world.Who were the Sibyllines, the most important mystics of Rome? Cybelenes, from the worship of Attis/Cybele in Ionia.Who was Apollonius of Tyana? Paul, the gnostic philosopher who rebuked the Mithraists (in Rome) by sharing the secrets of the higher degrees. It would be like a modern day high level Mason coming out and explaining the whole program. And he did other things, of course, but that's probably what he's most remembered for.And Rome absolutely borrowed from Greece's military tactics before they made some innovations of their own.I don't see how Macedon is connected to Athens, Corinth, and Sparta, but Rome isn't.
>>17273470>Didn't Rome share a high culture with Greece as well?Not until well into the Middle Republic, which is after its rise. >And Rome absolutely borrowed from Greece's military tactics before they made some innovations of their own.The Early Roman military is basically a black box until the third Samnite war and the Pyrrhic wars. At best we can tell that they used clan warfare then moved onto widespread civil conscription later on. When we first actually have any real picture of the Roman army it is very different from that of the Greeks both in city states and the Hellenistic kingdoms.>I don't see how Macedon is connected to Athens, Corinth, and Sparta, but Rome isn't.Because they had next to no interaction with the Greeks until the Middle Republic. Trying to pin down some rise of Rome based off of the Greeks doesn't make any sense because there simply isn't any Greek infulence there and the many things which did attribute to their rise didn't have any Greek equivelent. There were no Greek Republics, there was no mass conscription in the Greek world.
>>17273482>Because they had next to no interaction with the Greeks until the Middle Republic.Ok, but that's my point. Rome was nothing until the Middle Republic.
>>17273496Your original point is the rise of Rome having to do with the Macedonians, which isn't true. Greek culture found its way into Rome because the Romans conquered them and went to war with them.>Rome was nothing until the Middle Republic.They were the masters of all of Central Italy before the Middle Republic. They already constituted one of the largest states in the Mediterranean at that point. That's like saying Philip II's Macedon was nothing because Alexander made an Empire out of it while his father only controlled all of Greece
>>17273482>Not until well into the Middle Republic, which is after its rise.NTA but why is Greek religion so similar to Roman religion if they weren't influential in Roman culture until later? Or is it that Roman religion was actually quite different in the foggier periods of Roman history and only seems synonymous now because we have more sources from after the cultural intermingling was well under way?
>>17273542>NTA but why is Greek religion so similar to Roman religion if they weren't influential in Roman culture until later?Besides sharing a common root they weren't greatly similar in practices. The Early Romans didn't even share multiple major Gods with the Greeks such as Janus and Quirinus (who may or may not have been incorporated in the cult of Janus since by the time of the Middle Republic he isn't really seen anymore). The Romans controlled faith centrally through the priestly college which had no Greek equivelent and there isn't much proof they personified Gods until syncretism with the Greeks, which is when we have most of our evidence for Roman religion.There are general qualities of Gods which are universal in Indo-European cultures, like Zeus, Jupiter and Thor being lightining Gods and the idea of a Sky Father, which exists in almost all of the faiths descended from them.
>>17273185I think the better question is, was Rome even real?John Dee helped shadow bankers invent an extra century into the history books, and they shoved Rome into the hole that tore open in the story.
>>17273553I don't think that's a better question unless you can provide evidence.
>>17273185All Diadochi kingdoms (and Maccabean Judea which split off from the Seleucids) were conquered by the Romans
>>17273185You need to stop huffing galaxy gas, mate.
>>17274815I wonder why the Roman Empire never attempted to conquer Mesopotamia or Persia.
>>17274896So, if we were to presume that somehow the Persian/Babylonian elite moved to Rome and started Roman expansion after the invasion of Alexander the Great, we could explain the lack of Roman expansion into those former territories of Persia as being due to the Parthians that may have represented a separate faction. In other words, Rome vs Parthia was two factions of the former Persian Empire.
>>17273185Alexander wouldn't be so great if he marched west instead of east.
