The first stage encounter took place 550-490BCE between one civilization consisting of a multicultural colossus ruled by a God-King and another consisting of tiny individualistic, independent city states, mostly Republics, none with God-Kings. I do not think that fits your template.
A Greek war of revenge had been advocated for generations by figures such as the philosopher Isocrates. The mantle eventually fell to Alexander who certainly did considered himself to be representing a civilization. You are correct that he was in the process of adopting some of the trappings of the opposing conquered civilization (including its women!) when he died. I have read he was aiming for a fusion of the best elements of each civilization. How that might have turned out if he had had 20 more years is a great what-if.
Islam might not be the enemy, but “Islamic countries” ideals make it pretty clear they are not really our friends. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a pretty non-controversial document you would think. However the OIC has put forward its own version called “The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam” which has been signed by 45 countries.
The CDHRI pretty much can be summarised as “you can have human rights except where they conflict with sharia”. Amongst other things it enshrines
• that woman are inferior to men
• that it should be a crime to convert muslims to other religions or for them to become atheists
•justifies draconian capital punishment for crimes as long as they are in accordance with sharia.
• justifies banning marriages based on religion
• ends by saying that sharia is the only source of clarification of this declaration
As far as I’m concerned that puts forward a set of values that is fundamentally incompatible with the secular religious freedom we have in western countries. The 45 countries that have signed this declaration includes “Secular” Turkey. The full list is in the post above. Full text of the CDHRI is here: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html
That contradicts nothing I said. The Persians were an empire, they simply conquered, or tried to conquer, every neighboring nation they could reach regardless of its native culture or government. Was the Persian conquest of Media or Babylon or Cappadocia or Bactria or Egypt a “Clash of Civilizations”? No, it was common imperial politics, indistinguishable from Rome’s – or from the much later Islamic Caliphate’s.
Yes, yes they have, the only interlude being the era of the Diadochi, when Europeans were hereditary rulers of the entire Middle East.
After that Rome and Byzantium warred chronically with the native successors to the Diadochi.
After that the West warred chronically with the numerous Islamic states, right up to modern times, to our times. There was an end in sight only during the colonial era, when the West may fairly be said to have won. If the West had been united there would have been no overthrowing it.
Alas for the West its own internal strife was its undoing, and its hegemony is gone.
You would have done better to pick WWI. Turkey and Japan were mere bit players allied with the opposing Western factions upon which the decision rested.
During WWII the Japanese with their Greater East Asia Co prosperity Sphere certainly though of it as East v West, and so did their European and American adversaries.
:rolleyes: That was no “interlude.” The Diadochi were constantly fighting each other, none able to reconquer the whole Alexandrian Empire and none willing to content himself with less. But that is the politics of kings, not of civilizations.
Where do you get “god-king” from? Are you sure you’re not thinking of Egypt? Darius and Xerxes were both strict Zoroastrians. Neither of them considered themselves gods. That sort of thing would have been pretty much blasphemy.
Lydia attacked Persia, not the other way around. That was what brought the Persians into Ionia. And it was Athenian assistance to the rebel Ionian client states of Persia that caused them to attack Athens. If you look at what the Persians were doing in the Persian Wars, those were punitive expeditions. Persia didn’t set out to conquer.
No, not in the argument. That would be silly. I’m just giving you a point for knowing about the Diadochi. Heck, at least I always claim a point when I get use that word in a sentence. I stick it into conversations whenever I can. It’s almost as cool as “deuteragonist” or “antepenultimate”.
Using Rome as an example of constant war between East and West on the other hand, is… how can I put this as non-offensively as possible… OK, since you actually seem to know your history, I suppose “misinformed” or “ignorant” are out. I think I’ll go with “stupid”. So zero points for that.
East, west, makes no difference: The Romans beat up on everyone who would stand still long enough. The only reason why there was constant warfare between Rome (and then Byzantium) and whatever Empire happened to rule the Persian territories, was that the Romans were never able to actually successfully conquer the area (well, at least not more than once, in 1960, for 20 minutes).
But you know that. So I don’t know what you’re getting at.
Of course, you also know perfectly well that when the Muslim conquests got started, the Sassanids were the first on the dinner menu. An *Eastern *empire.
The Persians were when they began their era of greatness a relatively uncivilized people.
I expect Bactria was in an outright wild state and not a major player.
Cappadocia was an obscure bit player.
The Persians amalgamated with the Medes and then embarked against the others, I think. Babylon and Egypt were 1000s of year old, although the Babylonians had in most recent centuries IIRC been subject to other states. I believe the Babylonians and Egyptians may safely be counted as separate civilizations and so their clash with the Persians would have counted as civilizational.
So were the Romans and the Huns and the Mongols and the Mughals and the Turks and the Spaniards and the Portuguese and the British and the Russians – what’s that got to do with anything?!
What difference did that make?! None to the Persians – conquering Egypt or Babylon was no different from conquering Bactria or Syria.
Look, it doesn’t even matter. Maybe the Persians were fluffy and cuddly as kittens, maybe they were nasty poopy-heads who never called their grandmothers on their birthdays. Whatever. You don’t have to dig them. Personally, I think they’re pretty cool, but there’s no accounting for taste.
Point is (and let’s all sing kumbaya together now): Bloody and violent world [or the parts we can grab] conquest can be your plan wherever you come from. As plans go, that one seems pretty culture-independent. See: Alexander “I’ll conquer until I run out of land to conquer, or my troops mutinee, or I die, whichever comes first” the Great. The Romans. The freaking Mongols.
Actually, I’m not even sure why I need to explain that. Why do we keep telling you obvious things that you already know? This whole conversation is getting, frankly, surreal.
What I meant was that the previously distinct eastern civilizations during the diadochi interlude had western ruling classes, and were partially westernized. That came to an end with the overthrow of the Seleucids and others.
That’s still no “interlude” by any reasonable definition of the term; it is simply a continuation of great-power politics, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing meaningful to any “Clash of Civilizations” paradigm.