Why didn't the three hellinistic kingdoms unite?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Alexander the Great Q&A Forum : One Thread

why didn't the three Hellenistic kingdoms unite

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2004

Answers

It's even simpler: the three kingdoms DID try to "unite", "unite" being defined as trying to conquer each other. They simply exhausted their economies and martial resources and several fell prey to foreign enemies. In a sense, Ptolemaic Egypt may be thought-of as the more "intelligently"governed (where "intelligent" is defined as "byzantine") survivor state of the three. "Aimless" of 06-16-04 IS, therefore, essentially correct (though his assertion that the unifying process for kingdoms is ONLY via conquest is not ... there are numerous Dark Age & Medieval examples of unification through marriage, and there were even short-lived periods in Classical Antiquity [viz. Antony's 1/3 Roman Patrimony w/Cleopatra's Egypt], and political settlements in the much later "Age of Reason" [viz. the "William & Mary solution" to long-term post-Tudor Stuartian "problems" with the governed]). Even the modern-day United States "unites" two formerly "royal" (defined as "presidential") rivals as consolidated "running mates" ... ha, ha! Perhaps it is that "marriages of convenience", being exceedingly difficult to construct in the exercise of statecraft (One need only look at the logic of federating the U.S.A. & Russia as a unification of the planet.), more often prove unobtainable rather than inherently untenable, and that rival powers easily resort to the "fallout" choice, inter-state warfare and attempted conquest.

... Marco.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2004


It's really simple.

The only way to unite two kingdoms is for one kingdom to conquer the other, and to kill or depose the other king and destroy their power forever. No other way exists. This method was tried over and over again by the Hellenistic kings and they never succeeded in doing more than temporarily annexing a small part of their neightbors for a few decades.

This included many attempts to make temporary alliances between two of the dynasties against a third - a promising strategy you'd think would work better than it did. The root trouble was that defense was easier than offense - and the allies playing offense trusted each other about as much as two criminals trust each other with the loot.

All non-violent methods for accomplishing the same sort of merger have the same weakness - namely that one king has to step aside and relinquish control. That's a no-no. If you are a king and you give up control, then you are completely at the mercy of the new king - who can kill you at a whim and probably would be wise to do so at the earliest convenience, in case you change your mind and become a danger to him.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2004


Moderation questions? read the FAQ