User talk:84.97.245.70

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi. Can we talk about the Alexander the Great edit? I'm very surprised to find my edit being called biased. I can't stand the usual bias that creeps into the article, most of it based on modern ethnic politics, and don't think this qualifies. The question is: is it accurate to say that Philip "unified" Greece, or is it better to say he brought it under Macedonian hegemony.

I think "unified" gives rather the wrong impression. First, there was no "unified" government of any sort. When Germany or Italy "unified"--and much of the unification language about Philip looks to these great 19th c. unifications--they became unitary states, with common laws, political structures, etc. Nothing of the sort happened under Philip. That sort of political unification had no precedent in Greek history and was not attempted at this time. The closest precedent for Philip's situation is the Athenian empire after it became clear that states could not voluntarily leave it. In Philip's case, most states also entered it involuntarily, which I think it another critical difference between "unification" and "hegemony." Philip's hegemony over Greece was an explicitly military one, won on the battlefield of Chaeronea, maintained through garrisons within the walls of the major Greek states, and which collapsed at his death only to be reforged (again on the battlefield) by his son.

Ultimately, a perfect description would include all these details. It might also touch upon the benefits that Macedonian hegemony brought, the great "fatigue" of the Greek states of the 4th century, sentiments of a common "Greekness," at least in so far some thought Greek states should give off fighting each other and fight the Persians instead, etc. etc. But in the short space we have, I think some sort of neutral term like "hegemony" is best. I've toyed with and rejected "forced unification," "Macedonian control," "overlorship," etc.

Oh, I think we also need to retain the sense that Philip brought *most* of the Greek states under his suzerainty. First, there's Sparta, which though a broken reed in the 4th century, still maintained an implacable independence. Even without them, you're leaving out the Greek states of Asia Minor, Sicily, etc.

Comments? If none, I'm going to revert or rewrite. User:Lectiodifficilior