To the student of politics the history of Greece is chiefly interesting
as offering examples of numerous small states enjoying complete local
autonomy, yet retaining a feeling of a larger nationality founded in a
community of blood, language, and religion; a community, that is, in
the sense that, fundamentally united in these three particulars, they
yet acknowledged variations even in them, which distinguished without
entirely separating them. From some points of view the experiment may
be regarded as having been successful. From others it was a signal
failure. Local jealousies and mutual provocations not only continually
set city against city, clan against clan, but perpetually suggested
invitations sent by one city, or even one party in a city, to foreign
potentates or peoples to interfere in their behalf against another city
or party, which they hated or feared, but were too weak to resist. Thus
we find the Persians, Macedonians, Syrians, and Romans successively
induced to interfere in Greek politics with the assurance that there
were always some states, or some party in each state, who would welcome
them. From time to time men of larger views had conceived the idea of
creating a united Empire of Hellas, which might present an unbroken
front to the foreigner. From time to time philosophers had preached the
impossibility of combining complete local independence with the idea of
a strong and vigorous nationality. But the true solution of the problem
had never been successfully hit upon: and after various abortive
attempts at combination, Greece was left, a helpless collection of
disjointed fragments, to fall under the intrigues of Macedonia and Rome.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account