Christian Forums

So I have a question............  Which one was the good guy (like us) & was the bad guy (like them-anyone opposed to good=usa )

I'm not sure that either was "good" (and I certainly don't believe that the USA is good half the time). Both the Greeks and the Persians had various forms of tyranny as well as admirable cultural qualities. I probably like the Greeks more though because they were the underdog and have a bigger cultural legacy.

The Greeks were the good guys because they won and got to write the history.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Jan 04, 2010 - 17:52:38
The Greeks were the good guys because they won and got to write the history.

So then one day we will lose one time to many & then we will be the bad guys.....lol

Quote from: Logismos on Sun Jan 03, 2010 - 16:56:09
I'm not sure that either was "good" (and I certainly don't believe that the USA is good half the time). Both the Greeks and the Persians had various forms of tyranny as well as admirable cultural qualities. I probably like the Greeks more though because they were the underdog and have a bigger cultural legacy.

I use to kinda think the Greeks were the good guys.......  I can't really recall how or why...  Perhaps in school that is how they played it.....

Also I think we kinda see Greece as the motherland of democracy & western culture.....

But I think from a biblical standpoint wouldn't the Persians be the good guys??

Afterall they helped the Hebrews & allowed them to return to Jerusalem??

What do you think?

Well Frank, at that point in time, the Hebrews that had returned were independent, so they would have been enemies with both of the other empires, which sought to annex them.

When Alexander came along he did annex them, and they allowed it peacefully, having understood that they did not stand a chance in the fight.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Jan 05, 2010 - 19:02:08
Well Frank, at that point in time, the Hebrews that had returned were independent, so they would have been enemies with both of the other empires, which sought to annex them.

When Alexander came along he did annex them, and they allowed it peacefully, having understood that they did not stand a chance in the fight.

I think they were on very good terms w/ the Persians & perhaps beholding to them...

Of course this is totally subjective but as the Persians were carrying out "Gods plan" I would think they would seem more of the good guy in this instance??

Both Athens and Persia were using the event to gain political power. Greece was defending itself against almost impossible odds (twice) which makes them the usual protagonists of the story. But beyond that what is the point in morally judging the "good guys" from a war thousands of years ago?

Greek scholars believe, Alexander's empire was used by God to pave the way of the Gospel through the Greek language starting with Septuagint. Greeks were the first to believe in Christ among the gentiles. Compared to the task for the restoration of the temple, to which Persians assisted, as part of God's plan too, seems the Greeks held a more prominent role. But both weren't "good" enough in the eyes of the Lord. The end of both empires/dominations shows that. Interesting, by contrast, God's promise to Israelites whose "empire" also fell, that one day will be restored (millenium), but no word about Persians or Greeks. Both nations have and are still suffering in many ways cause they distant from the Living God....

Israel never had an empire btw.

Quote from: Logismos on Mon Jan 11, 2010 - 10:39:42
Israel never had an empire btw.

True mr L. This is why I put it in quotes.

Quote from: Logismos on Mon Jan 11, 2010 - 10:39:42
Israel never had an empire btw.

Solomon had an empire.  300 wives = 300 political alliances, and with a few exceptions (Egyptians, Hittites, Mittani, Babylonians) they would have been vassals of his.  That's an empire.

Those few exceptions you listed represented almost all of Israel's relevant neighbors.

Here is the only real argument for the possibility of Israel having an mini-Empire:



So there was a tiny region north of Israel and south of Mesopotamia where local village leaders and regional strongmen yielded to Israeli economic hegemony. I'd venture to say that none of the surrounding noteworthy kingdoms payed tribute to Israel as subordinates. Its perhaps a smaller version of a mini-Empire that Athens had for a while in the Aegean Sea after the Persian wars.

An empire

You seem to have failed to grasp the idea of an empire in pre-Roman times.

Neither the Assyrian empire, nor the Babylonian (or neo-Babylonian) empire, nor the Persian empire, nor the Greek empire exercised much direct control over the areas that are ascribed to them on the convenient historical maps, such as the one you've posted.

The form of government common to the era was the city-state, and the occasional league of city states (a loose confederation really).

Empires were not managed as empires (with roads and common armies, etc) until the Romans.  Before that, empiricism consisted mainly of receiving tribute of natural resources (gold, salt, lumber, cattle, cut stone, slaves) from the various city-states, which each had a king (malak), and the various nomad tribes, which each had a chieftain (sar).

Each king or chieftain retained responsibility for the governance and common defense of his own demesne.

The "Great Kings" simply collected the tribute, and mediated disputes between their vassals.  Or, often, didn't bother to mediate disputes between their vassals until it affected the bottom line.

The Great Kings also made marital and trade alliances with each other and occasionally fought wars over territory.

My source for all of the above information is "The Amarna Letters."

Anyway, Solomon was clearly a "Great King," based on his number of wives, and his ability to cut political alliances of a non-vassal nature with other "Great Kings."

Jarrod

PS. your map is of David's kingdom, not Solomon's

Quote from: Logismos on Mon Jan 11, 2010 - 00:32:12
Both Athens and Persia were using the event to gain political power. Greece was defending itself against almost impossible odds (twice) which makes them the usual protagonists of the story. But beyond that what is the point in morally judging the "good guys" from a war thousands of years ago?

Well although I am sure you know the answer I will go head & reply as obviously the topic is not going to  be that popular...........

It seems w/ most modern wars there is a good guy & a bad guy.......  Not that it has anything what so ever to do w/ fact but that is how our government & press portray these conflicts........

Those on our side are of course good- by their very nature.  Those opposing us- that is the USA & our clients, are evil, bad etc...  These conclusions are "A" moral for the most part but are sold to us in moral terms..

Often times to almost comical conclusions, if they were not so sad..........

We have "friends" that are essentially brutal butchers, imperialist & every vile monster we could think of,  but nontheless they are the good guy, if it suites our "national interest"................

So the government of south Vietnam was good (murders & dictators)......... 

pol pot was a murder by anyone's standard & yet the usa supported it over the "evil" Vietnamese that liberated that country......

The shah, sadaam, south africa etc............  All good guys............>>>  The face of evil............>>> Whom we had to support the apartheid government to prevent from taking over..........  SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID GOOD VS MANDELA BAD....

Frank,

If I can play devil's advocate for a minute...What exactly has improved in South Africa since the regime change?

My job requires me to work with people in South Africa on a daily basis, and I can tell you that the country is not improving (though it's still probably the best country in Africa).

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Jan 20, 2010 - 19:45:55
Frank,

If I can play devil's advocate for a minute...What exactly has improved in South Africa since the regime change?

My job requires me to work with people in South Africa on a daily basis, and I can tell you that the country is not improving (though it's still probably the best country in Africa).

LOL..............  I guess improving depends a lot on who you ask...

Those now able to walk anywhere they want in their country will likely give a different response from those that were privileged under the old system............

Certainly not everyone is going to agree nor be content as the carrots are always dangling out of reach.......

Quote from: Frank_N_Sense on Thu Jan 21, 2010 - 18:59:15

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Jan 20, 2010 - 19:45:55
Frank,

If I can play devil's advocate for a minute...What exactly has improved in South Africa since the regime change?

My job requires me to work with people in South Africa on a daily basis, and I can tell you that the country is not improving (though it's still probably the best country in Africa).

LOL..............  I guess improving depends a lot on who you ask...

Those now able to walk anywhere they want in their country will likely give a different response from those that were privileged under the old system............

Certainly not everyone is going to agree nor be content as the carrots are always dangling out of reach.......

"Those that were privileged under the old system" are, by and large, leaving the building, except for some few that own business interests that are for-the-moment insulated from the deterioration.  Some are staying on, but it's mostly in consulting-type positions, and for big money.  And they aren't the people that I deal with.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jan 22, 2010 - 17:05:26

Quote from: Frank_N_Sense on Thu Jan 21, 2010 - 18:59:15

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Jan 20, 2010 - 19:45:55
Frank,

If I can play devil's advocate for a minute...What exactly has improved in South Africa since the regime change?

My job requires me to work with people in South Africa on a daily basis, and I can tell you that the country is not improving (though it's still probably the best country in Africa).

LOL..............  I guess improving depends a lot on who you ask...

Those now able to walk anywhere they want in their country will likely give a different response from those that were privileged under the old system............

Certainly not everyone is going to agree nor be content as the carrots are always dangling out of reach.......

"Those that were privileged under the old system" are, by and large, leaving the building, except for some few that own business interests that are for-the-moment insulated from the deterioration.  Some are staying on, but it's mostly in consulting-type positions, and for big money.  And they aren't the people that I deal with.

That seems true over most of Africa to one extent or another........

& thus in come the Chinese...........  While the west has ignored the market potential there, mostly just exploiting the resources, the Chinese are focusing on both, & are doing quite well @ it..

The west has ignored Africa as a market because it hasn't been cost-effective to market to it.  From what I see, the cost of transportation in places without an established infrastructure just kills most ideas.

Perhaps that is- kills most western "ideas"-----  The Chinese don't seem to have that problem..

Quote from: Frank_N_Sense on Tue Feb 16, 2010 - 22:47:57
Perhaps that is- kills most western "ideas"-----  The Chinese don't seem to have that problem..

Because their cost to manufacture is ridiculously lower than ours.

Sure, but that is not an idea............

They were ignoring the place long before the Chinese started going capitalist..

Seems that the west never had much interest in Africa other than to exploit it for resources.......

We were talking about marketing to ZA.  Are you selling them ideas?  What have the Chinese done there?  Do you have a point here, cuz I'm not seeing it.

Exporting stuff to ZA doesn't make sense for most countries, because the cost to manufacture it in ZA is lower, and the cost of transport to send stuff there is high. 

Manufacturing it there is fine, but the country isn't nearly as consumer-driven as any of the western countries.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Feb 17, 2010 - 17:11:46
We were talking about marketing to ZA.  Are you selling them ideas?  What have the Chinese done there?  Do you have a point here, cuz I'm not seeing it.

Exporting stuff to ZA doesn't make sense for most countries, because the cost to manufacture it in ZA is lower, and the cost of transport to send stuff there is high. 

Manufacturing it there is fine, but the country isn't nearly as consumer-driven as any of the western countries.

I already made my point................  The west abandon Africa & just exploited the resources...

As far as manufacturing or whatever?? Consumer driven..........  

Often times markets are created, a need is made (real or imagined...)

Example that: Guinness in Nigeria.......   They have been there a long time & very successful.. Was there a need for good beer prior to the early 60's??

The good ppl of Nigeria & west Africa never knew they needed a good beer till they made it...........lol

Modern markets, just like ancient ones are created......  They never bothered to create much of one there..........  The reasons you decide.........

The Chinese will make the most of it & I hope & pray that the good folks in Africa can also benefit from it.......

The west abandoned Africa, because Africa told it to leave, and they were, for the most part, good enough to honor that wish.

That is true to an extent...........  Given their experience, like most post colonial societies they wanted those influences out of their lives........  They didn't want coke out of their lives.......  Or many other western things...........

The western corporations don't care what they wanted.............  I think you know that........... SO I don't think that is the central or biggest reason...........  But no matter the topic is way way off now.......... lol

Well, from my understanding the greeks were the ones being attacked, so I'd go with them.

On a side note, this was the time period when the Jews were in Babylon, shortly after it was conquered by Persia.