StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Pretty straightforward. After Greek city states traded in Macedon for Rome as a new imperial master how were their military capabilities like up to the fall of the Western Roman Empire? I am particularly interested in the time shortly after the defeat of Phillip

For example, were they still allowed their own militia which use phalanxes in battle? Or were they made to fight in Roman Legions? In either event, how strong militarily were Greek units? How did they fare when the Goths poured into parts of the Empire?

The Roman Empire demilitarised many of the conquered provinces, prohibiting them from carrying arms until the end of the western Empire. Greeks were integrated into the Roman Army after they became Roman subjects.

The above statement is not applicable to Greece. I will elaborate later on why. Currently very busy.

I believe that a Spartan phalanx(s) defended Greece against Hunnic invasions. So it seems they had traditional units for quite some time after conquest.

Thanas wrote:The above statement is not applicable to Greece. I will elaborate later on why. Currently very busy.

Are you talking about the Gothic invasion during the 3rd Century CE?

mr friendly guy wrote:Pretty straightforward. After Greek city states traded in Macedon for Rome as a new imperial master how were their military capabilities like up to the fall of the Western Roman Empire? I am particularly interested in the time shortly after the defeat of Phillip

K. So first off, you have to understand that Rome was somewhat reluctant to engage in the eastern world at all. Fighting Philipp (one l, two p, see Φίλιππος) was a necessity as he had been allied to Carthage and Rome already had to deal with one eastern potentate trying to invade Italy (Pyrrhus, he of the aptly named victories).

So before I go on, I am asking you whether you mean the defeat of Philipp V of Macedon at Cynoscephalae (197 BC) after which Rome freed the states or did you get your dates crossed and you mean after the defeat of Perseus at Pydna, which meant the end of the Macedonian kingdom and the establishment of Rome as an Imperial power in Greece?

Thanas wrote:

mr friendly guy wrote:Pretty straightforward. After Greek city states traded in Macedon for Rome as a new imperial master how were their military capabilities like up to the fall of the Western Roman Empire? I am particularly interested in the time shortly after the defeat of Phillip

K. So first off, you have to understand that Rome was somewhat reluctant to engage in the eastern world at all. Fighting Philipp (one l, two p, see Φίλιππος) was a necessity as he had been allied to Carthage and Rome already had to deal with one eastern potentate trying to invade Italy (Pyrrhus, he of the aptly named victories).

So before I go on, I am asking you whether you mean the defeat of Philipp V of Macedon at Cynoscephalae (197 BC) after which Rome freed the states or did you get your dates crossed and you mean after the defeat of Perseus at Pydna, which meant the end of the Macedonian kingdom and the establishment of Rome as an Imperial power in Greece?

I think I had my dates mixed up. I was under the impression that the beginning of the end of Macedonian dominance over the Hellenic world occurred with the defeat of Phillip, although now that I think of it, that doesn't necessarily mean Rome moved in right away. So I guess it would be when the Macedonian kingdom officially ended and Rome became the imperial power in Greece.

I am pretty much interested in how the Greek military was kept from this period all the way to the end of the Western Roman empire.

K, answered in PM (wikpedia plagiarists are on the hunt).

Thanks for answering via PM Thanas. Its sad that wiki plagiarists have prevented you from answering in an open forum where the knowledge could be shared among our denizens and also members of the public who are interested.

Could anyone explain to me what this "wiki plagiarist" thing is about? I am honestly confused.

Someone is copying Thanas's writing and posting it as an Wikipedia article without his permission or citing him I guess?

If that is the case than it actually leaves me even more confused. I mean it's Wikipedia...

Purple wrote:If that is the case than it actually leaves me even more confused. I mean it's Wikipedia...

We had a debate about the grand strategy of the Roman Empire on here. Said debate involved me writing a 12 page essay on what I think it was. A few weeks later the relevant wikipedia article suddenly includes a lot of the examples I wrote about, with the same literature I cited and no credit given. Nobody even sent me a PM asking me if it would be okay to use my stuff, they just copied it.

Which is why I answered in PM, at least if it leaks there I know who did it.

You can report that kind of thing, the page edit history would show who added it, should to this day. The only reason that site functions at all is because they have so many bots now that can be set to auto delete stolen and unwanted content.

Sure, and I would have to regularly monitor all the other sites as well on different topics. No thanks.

All I meant was you could still get the stolen content removed or credited. Declining to post more is a good idea, but I wouldn't just let that stand myself. I don't post stuff I'm actively researching either if I expect to actually use it. Do nothing and you legally lost your copyright.

Yeah.

Thanas wrote:

Purple wrote:If that is the case than it actually leaves me even more confused. I mean it's Wikipedia...

We had a debate about the grand strategy of the Roman Empire on here. Said debate involved me writing a 12 page essay on what I think it was. A few weeks later the relevant wikipedia article suddenly includes a lot of the examples I wrote about, with the same literature I cited and no credit given. Nobody even sent me a PM asking me if it would be okay to use my stuff, they just copied it.

Which is why I answered in PM, at least if it leaks there I know who did it.

This is the one you are talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence-in ... _military)

Yes. To be honest, the article has been rewritten several times (this was in 2009) so that it would be very hard to prove active plagiarism and the instances are not big enough for me to press forward with any claims. I certainly would not want to be associated with the article as it is currently written.

What I say now is not meant to insult you. I apologize in advance if it does. I am merely stating my confusion. This said:

But... It's Wikipedia. It's not like it was Britannica or something else that actually matters. It's kind of like being upset about someone ripping you off and posting it on 4Chan. Also, a 12 page essay being stolen is a serious WTF. But a simple answer to a question... not so much. Unless this was going to be a very long essay indeed in which case I humbly ask that you share it with me at least in a shortened version.

Purple, the catch is that if your material is put up on Wikipedia then, unless you resist, it enters public domain. In which case any hope you had of benefiting from that hard work you just did is gone.

I mean, if you try to tell someone else later "look at this hard work I did..." they might even accuse you of copying from Wikipedia! How unfair would that be?

So you're losing something significant. Unless you contest the action of the person who put it on Wikipedia, and say "no, this content reflects hours of researching and paper-writing on my part. I deserve either credit for the work or removal of the content from your site."

It might actually be less upsetting to have your essay ripped off and posted on 4Chan, simply because 4Chan is not a widely used reference source. If a bunch of 4Channers want to learn more about late Roman military strategy that might be as far as it goes, in which case you have lost nothing. But if it goes on Wikipedia it will certainly become part of the public reference pool, and will forevermore be seen as "public domain" information.

Purple wrote:But... It's Wikipedia. It's not like it was Britannica or something else that actually matters.

Wikipedia matters a lot because a lot of historians (me in the past included) do edit wikipedia and read wikipedia. The first thing I do when I see an essay is compare it to wikipedia to search for plagiarism. That is why Wikipedia does matter. Even more, more and more people search wikipedia. Because it is free and easy-to-use.

It's kind of like being upset about someone ripping you off and posting it on 4Chan.

Nobody would believe it if a 4channer would claim to be the original author.
A lot of people would believe it to originally be a wikipedia article, especially if the other source is an obscure webboard (even moreso because I might not want some highly respected old farts to know that I am posting on some stupid-sounding webboard).


@Simon:
It is even more troubling if you are copied incorrectly or some words are changed which give the quote an entirely different nuance. Then you are doubly screwed if contesting - first it is very hard to prove it is ripped of your work and then you also have to deal with the interpretation being wrong.

Simon_Jester wrote:Purple, the catch is that if your material is put up on Wikipedia then, unless you resist, it enters public domain. In which case any hope you had of benefiting from that hard work you just did is gone.

AH!!! That's the catch than.

In that case I withdraw everything I said and concede you were right.