Let's just say I'm taking this EdX course taught by Guy McLean Rogers. Very cool. With all the information I have posted regarding the Roman Empire, I have decided to take this post on a comparison of how Greek warfare translated into Roman warfare. The similarities are amazing and since the Romans wanted to emulate the Greeks... there you go! Of coarse, there will be some history mixed in to bring the reader (or not readers) up to speed as Philip and Alexander were military geniuses. Alexander did defeat the Persians!!!
Alexander is now in Egypt. He is undoubtedly a great leader. He takes the best of what he finds in a conquered people and incorporates it into the Pan-Hellenic tradition, just as the Romans did several centuries later. This concept hit me as it is very much attuned to the Diversity principles which corporate America is supposed to follow. Incorporating the best into the culture*.
In Egypt, Alexander was never officially promoted to Pharaoh, although he was welcomed by the Persian governor of Egypt with open arms after the Siege of Tyre and Gaza. The Persian governor also commanded no troops. That might have had something to do with it too. Alexander seemed taken with Egypt. Why not? An area with such wealth and abundance.
At this point in the campaign what strikes me is the vast amount of area that the Pan-Hellenic forces had conquered and they still kept going... All the way to the Indus River in Western India. But that is yet to come.
Furthermore, Alexander's devotion to the Gods or making sacrifices. Roger's calls it piety, but I wonder if it was more superstition? Alexander thought himself the son of Zeus. He also called himself the Ruler of Asia, although he hadn't killed or captured Darius the Persian king at this point. He made sacrifices everywhere he went to various gods he felt he was related to. And he pathed after Homer's Illiad. Could it be he was living out the adventure in the book? I don't know enough about the subject to say for sure, but it is something to talk about. Or you can just say he was a pious man.
*Culture - Is the sum total of the learned behavior of any given society.
Stay tuned =)
Alexander is now in Egypt. He is undoubtedly a great leader. He takes the best of what he finds in a conquered people and incorporates it into the Pan-Hellenic tradition, just as the Romans did several centuries later. This concept hit me as it is very much attuned to the Diversity principles which corporate America is supposed to follow. Incorporating the best into the culture*.
In Egypt, Alexander was never officially promoted to Pharaoh, although he was welcomed by the Persian governor of Egypt with open arms after the Siege of Tyre and Gaza. The Persian governor also commanded no troops. That might have had something to do with it too. Alexander seemed taken with Egypt. Why not? An area with such wealth and abundance.
At this point in the campaign what strikes me is the vast amount of area that the Pan-Hellenic forces had conquered and they still kept going... All the way to the Indus River in Western India. But that is yet to come.
Furthermore, Alexander's devotion to the Gods or making sacrifices. Roger's calls it piety, but I wonder if it was more superstition? Alexander thought himself the son of Zeus. He also called himself the Ruler of Asia, although he hadn't killed or captured Darius the Persian king at this point. He made sacrifices everywhere he went to various gods he felt he was related to. And he pathed after Homer's Illiad. Could it be he was living out the adventure in the book? I don't know enough about the subject to say for sure, but it is something to talk about. Or you can just say he was a pious man.
*Culture - Is the sum total of the learned behavior of any given society.
Stay tuned =)
