# What war was most important to history? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 13, 2003, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965 "2003-11-13T04:01:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965/41 "2003-11-15T19:42:31Z")
Just because I’ll capitulate once, doesn’t mean ;)… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jimmmy \* > > How Alexander’s conquest impacted and rippled on the ROMAN Empire : > · The empire in the East was formed largely by simple a supercsion of governance by Rome of all three Alexandrian successor empires: > o the Antigonid in Greece > o the Ptolemaic in Egypt > o the Seleucid in Asia. > Rome who conquered but did not convert these inhabitants who lived in largely a Hellenistic culture even after now being part of “Rome Empire” Not that simple. Only Ptolemaic Egypt fell as a chunk. By the time Macedon fell to Rome it included almost nothing of Greece proper, most of those territories having been lost in Wars of the Diadochi, to form seperate states and state-lets grouped into such formations as the Achaean League and the Aetolian League, or floating independent like Athens or Rhodes. In fact as early as the time of Antigonus Gonatas’ death ( the real founder of the Macedonian Antigonids ), only Thessaly was in Macedonian hands. The only Seleucid territory that came to Rome from the Seleucids was Syria. Everything else either had thrown off Seleucid loyalties more or less on their own ( Bactria, Judaea, Armenia ), been sucked up by the Parthians, or had gone permanently independent after Antiochus III’s loss to Rome ( Pergamum and the other states of Asia Minor, most of which had started to break off almost as soon as the Seleucid state had constituted, really - it’s just after Antiochus III that the Seleucids were forced up trying to hold them ). Only Syria ( partially ) and Pergamum and a few neighboring territories ( like Lycia and Caria, held by another Roman ally, Rhodes ) were really strongly Hellenized. States like Bithnyia, Pontus and Cappadocia were still largely “Asiatic” in character and population ( really same with Egypt outside of Alexandria ). > [@](#): > > Another good demonstration of Alexander’s impact is that Rome fought three Macedonian Wars from 214 to 168 BC (as the Republic is solidifying) for 50 years (the length of our Cold War) her foreign policy is almost entirely occupied with Alexander’s legacy in his native land and in Greece. Yes, to something of an extent ( I wouldn’t go quite so far as “almost entirely” ). But Rome would have been involved in the region regardless. The gravity of civilization at that time was the eastern Mediterranean, Carthage notwithstanding. The Diadochid states were what Rome dealt with, but no Alexander and they would have still been dealing with whomever was there. > [@](#): > > Directly, the Greek states of Italy had sent ambassadors to Alexander asking for aid against the growing Roman City state. Yeah, but he never got there. Alexander did have an impact in that theatre insomuch as the cash to buy off Pyrrhus of Epirus and send him kiting off to Magna Grecia probably mostly came from the immense pludered treasuries of Persia, which the Diadochi lived off of for a generation. But in the end all that did is give us the phrase “pyrrhic victory” :). Anyway I grant all of the above indicates an impact, however indirect on Rome. However none of that proves it “changed how Ceasar was raised” ( see my earlier comments on absorption of Greek culture being not dependent on Alexander ) or that you can draw a lineal cultural/political progression from Alexander that terminates in 1453. Or in other words, I contend that Alexander was not a necessary precursor for the Roman state in _approximately_ the way that we know it. > [@](#): > > As far as the Eastern Empire = Alexander’s Empire this is the idea above that the Roman East is Alexander’s Conquest with a veneer of Romans administering it. See, I don’t regard it that way. Not even remotely. Roman administration was considerably different, far more effective and centralized, and even rather more culturally homogenous ( not saying a lot, granted ) than what the Diadochid states produced. Rome did not step in and assume the Diadochid role - they almost completely tore it down and replaced it with their own system. > [@](#): > > Certainly by the end this Greek-speaking empire it was much more a “Hellenistic” rather than a Roman one. (with an implication - or even a partial cause? - for Christianity). Accident of geography. At its heyday the Roman state was indisputably more “Latin” than “Greek”. > [@](#): > > How Alexander’s conquest “impacted and rippled’ on the Science: > Alexander increasing movement of philosophers and of sophists with their stress on personal freedom and humanitarianism. The very idea sometimes of historians, rhetoricians, and biographers and moving them into societies and trading ideas that had never been heard before. Again, disagree, though only in part. As I noted in my discusion on the Persians, movement of Greek scholars was through the Asian world was not unknown and not excessively restricted. I’ll go half-way and agree that cultural dissemination eastwards was greatly facilitated in some respects. But I wouldn’t want to overstate it. > [@](#): > > Mainly though his impact on Science can be summed up like this: No Alexander = no Aristotle and **that** is a huge impact. No? Yes :). But Aristotle’s fame was in no more than a very minor way tied to Alexander. No Alexander, you still have Aristotle ( okay, maybe not the Gordian Knot story, but most everything else - the storioes about Philip and Alexander supplying him with thousands of slaves to collect specimens being widely regarded as apocryphal ). - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![constantine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3bc359/32.png) [@constantine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constantine)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2003, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965/42 "2003-11-16T01:15:04Z")
Well… I have learned a lot from this thread, but nothing that has convinced me that any of these previous wars (some of which I knew next to nothing about–and which I still no nothing about beyond what I have read in this thread) are as important as World War II. As John Keegan put it: > [@](#): > > The Second World War is the largest single event in human history, fought across six of the world’s seven continents and all its oceans. It killed fifty million human beings, left hundreds of millions of others wounded in mind or body and materially devastated much of the heartland of civilisation. It also introduced the most devastating (by many many orders of magnitude) weapons in world history. ---
**Author:** ![jimmmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@jimmmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmmy)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2003, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965/43 "2003-11-16T15:15:49Z")
Alright Tamerlane, I am not so much conceding, as saying you make reasonable, well thought out arguments against the idea instead of simply ignoring it. About the only place I feel you really overstate is minimizing the Aristotle/Alexander connection. Whether or not Alexander sent bio samples back (agreed thousands of slaves is ridiculous), Alexander was certainly the patron of the Lyceum. Indeed it has been suggested Philip himself sent Aristotle to found it to counter the weight of the strongly anti-Philippian Academy. I know you know: Philip had pushed Aristotle to be the Academy head, but was rejected as the Athenian scholars who didn’t see Aristotle as Academy head material (odd that 🙂 ). Certainly the Athenians saw the connection, when they went on an Iconoclastic tear at news of Alexander’s death, and they march straight to the Lyceum and burned it down and put Aristotle to flight. I think the argument against Aristotle-Alexander is to say that it truly was _Philip_ who pushed his school and thoughts to prominence … not that Aristotle’s views would have come to prominence without the Macedonian kings… it is difficult to see how that would have happened unless by not associating with them he could have somehow been acceptable to head the Academy… the Lyceum would almost certainly never have been founded without them … or perhaps you are saying something different & I missed the point … ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2003, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965/44 "2003-11-16T21:25:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jimmmy \* > I think the argument against Aristotle-Alexander is to say that it truly was _Philip_ who pushed his school and thoughts to prominence … not that Aristotle’s views would have come to prominence without the Macedonian kings… Yeah, that’s pretty much my argument :). The question is whether Alexander’s _conquests_, i.e. the Persian War, was necessary to the founding of the Lyceum in Athens. I’d say no. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965/45 "2003-11-16T21:51:32Z")
That’s what I meant in my earlier post, which re-reading I now see was unclear. It is less that Alexander _himself_ was unimportant, but rather that his broad conquests were unimportant in this context. Aristotle was quite likely _not_ Alexander’s tutor ( or at least so some modern scholars have argued ) and it was Philip that was his main patron at the Macedonian court for most of his stay. Now it is is possible we are beholden to Alexander for the founding, or at least the support of the Lyceum in Athens. But that preceded Alexander’s war and Aristotle’s major thoughts were not dependant on them ( indeed, his ideas about biology were probably largely formulated at Assos before he ever even came to the Macedonian court ). Any additional endowments and specimens gained were likely not central to the development and preservation of Aristotle’s work and one would imagine that a stay at home Macedonian monarch, dominant in Greece and not exceptionally poor ( Macedon had silver mines ), would have continued financial support at some level regardless. So if the argument is importance of Alexander’s _war_, Aristotle’s Lyceum is probably not a great argument in favor of impact. Now the founding of _Alexandria_, which became the new center for scientific thought, _is_ a good argument, as I acknowledged earlier :). - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2003, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965/46 "2003-11-16T22:31:56Z")
Speaking of wars: did I miss something? I was having the impression that historians are beginning to consider WWI and WWII the same conflict. It would not be the first time historians decide to group wars: consider the 100-year war of England and France, that war also had periods of peace. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2003, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965/47 "2003-11-16T22:42:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Soup\_du\_jour \* > \*\*The Third Punic War. > > What? \*\* Bwahahaha. That has made me laugh harder than anything else today. It seems to me that **Tamerlane** ’s arguments rest a lot (and please correct me if I’m wrong) on assuming that history would have followed the same course even if certain outcomes had been different. Even though I’m not entirely sure I agree with that, he does make a lot of good points. In any case, a Persian conquest of Athens wouldn’t have lasted long, I think. On the other hand, I think that the Athenians would have uniquely not flourished, even culturally, under tyranny. Those wacky Athenians. Nevertheless, I agree on discounting the Persian wars. They realy weren’t terribly big deals to the Persians, anyway. The 2nd Punic war is, I think, harder to discount. The Athenians in the 5th and 4th and 3rd centuries BCE were not the only contributors to the significant Greek and Mediterranean culture that we, today, seem to associate with them. Roman military conquests, on the other hand, **did** have the far-reaching consequences ascribed to them. So, would the Romans have ruled even if they lost the Punic wars? Maybe. But here’s my nomination: the Samnite wars. I think the Romans could have actually been crushed in those, with no hope of recvery to military greatness. Um… of course, I realise that this is beginning to sound silly as the Samnite wars didn’t exactly shake the world they were in at the time. ---
**Author:** ![substatique](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@substatique](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/substatique)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2003, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965/48 "2003-11-16T22:50:40Z")
WWII, because it’s still on. It will continue without open conflict between great powers as long as atomic weapons are still a going concern. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2003, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965/49 "2003-11-16T23:16:12Z")
WW1 ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. But I think this thread shows that there are a large number of historically significant battles and wars. I’ll cite the Falklands War as the most significant war post WW2 in that it reversed the post WW2 decline (Suez, Vietnam) of the West. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2003, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965/50 "2003-11-16T23:21:02Z")
> [@](#): > > WW1 ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. Either you mean the rise of the Soviet Union, the fall of Czarist Russia, or I’m less of a history student than I thought. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2003, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965/51 "2003-11-16T23:38:35Z")
I think his point was that World War I was not completed until the USSR fell. I don’t think that makes any sense at all from a historical perspective, but that was the point. Sort of like substatique’s claim that WWII is “still on” or some people who say the Korean War never ended. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-war-was-most-important-to-history/212965.md?page=2)