Why couldn't the Romans conquer Ireland? 

😅ah, so that's where the word Hibernation comes from😅thanks for the random factoid

@@funfact8660 wasn't Caledonian, Scotland

​@@barrydoyle8636You mean Pictia, or Pictland.

@@barrydoyle8636 Yes. Another cold, wet, dump. England and Wales were bad enough ( “a climate most foul, with rain and cloud” wrote Tacitus) so Ireland and Scotland out of the question.

@@robinharwood5044 👍🏻😂... Yup, weather permitting, cross the Irish sea... Leave a the wet cold dump only to come across an even more Wet, Cold, and Dump of an island with the highest possibility of experiencing 4 seasons in any given 24hrs.🤔, let's turn back..👌 👍

Good Ole Uncle Claudius

Agricola did a lot

​@@RockSmithStudio👍

“Such was life for Uncle Claudius” -Unbiased History of Rome

My uncle can relate

🇮🇪🤪

🇮🇪🤓

🇮🇪😁

Sure that's nothing. They found the remains of a Barbara ape up in navan fort from 2300 years ago.

romans traded lots, with coin hoards being found far outside the borders of rome. there is numerous roman artefacts in india like at Arikamedu where there was likely small trading communities.

fake speech, never happened

narrator: they didn't need it

And in a few hundred years their language completely changed to a Germanic one because he was wrong.

He got a standing ovation. And then they occupied Britain nevertheless.

Does this apply to you modern Brits who haven't the balls to overthrow your woke leaders or drive your muslim invaders out?

Rome just left, there were no scots or irish. The vikings came before the saxons.

@@NigelHatcherN Technically, the picts and Irish as the Scots originated in Ireland. However, it is true that the Roman army left to participate in the revolts of the early 5th century. This left Roman Britain intact but undefended. See St Patrick for an Irish raid in the early 5th century, the Saxons show up in force in the mid 5th century, and Gildas writing about 625 mentions a ruler in Britain who has fought effectively against the Saxons, but hates the man and does not mention his name; was it Arthur or possibly the inspiration for Arthur? The Vikings do not show up until about 793, the raid on Lindesfarne.

@@jameshorn270 I have always wondered why Rome stopped where it did at Hadrian's Wall. Considering the size of the Empire by then Scotland was tiny. "This far and no further"...WHY?

​@@HollyMoore-wo2mhIt had nothing Rome wanted , good crops to feed it's empire ,or mineral wealth . Purely economic .

​@@NigelHatcherNWrong on both points I'm afraid , try reading a history book .

👍😆 He acquired Neptune's wrath in about a year and a half

Well Neptune is very windy

There's no way he wasn't bat shit crazy

There's no way he wasn't bat shit crazy

There's no way he wasn't bat shitcrazy

If I remember it was a huge despute between Senate and Caesar to even recognise the conquest of Gaul (as he Caesar would really love a triumph for that). But having a Crassus on your side who is filthy rich (and he had some interesting idea for business) and Pompey the Great - made you powerfull allies in the Senate. That's why First Triumvirate was so important and between three - Caesar had to gain his respect and he got a lot after his campaign in Gaul. Unfortunately for him his try to land in Britain got really bad. But fully agree - Caesar took action on his own using defense of allied tribes to Rome as means to conquer Gaul for himself (and it was great political move in many ways).

@@ozyrysozi6186not quite. Caesar hadn’t finished the conquest of Gaul (though he mostly had and had already defeated Vercingetorix at the battle of Alessia) when Crassus decided to invade Parthia because despite his riches, he was the only one of the triumvirate that did not have military glory and he became jealous of Caesar’s success and tried to out do him. Of course Crassus was humiliated and killed at the battle of Carrhae and without the 3 balancing each other, Pompey became extremely jealous and turned on Caesar. Pompey had the support of the senate, not Caesar, and Caesar was essentially branded enemy of Rome and enemy of the people when he refused to surrender his positions and accept arrest and trial by the senate. That’s when Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon - Pompey and the Senate didn’t really leave him any choice.

@@spudeeelad True, I would say that Caesar pretty much wanted to use Crassus and Pompey as he started as the weakest of the three. In the end Caesar with his action pretty much put himself on the crosshair of the Senate, but I think that he always knew it would come with what he was doing, maybe the harsh push from Pompey, Cato and their supporters was more sudden, but if I remember correctly situation could be defused at some point and wouldn't mean starting civil war. And yeah, Crassus was interesting guy and his death was quite a loss for Caesar I think, but like with the second triumvirate I doubt it would last long either way. Maybe it was good for Caesar if the Crassus would also oppose him in future. And also - I believe that Senate from the start seen Caesar as trouble as he had very radical ideas.

@@spudeeelad And of course Senate accused Caesar of things he really done, so I would say they were very legitimate (not talking that they were saints, but it still was valid point).

@@ozyrysozi6186 If I remeber correctly, shortly before civil war Pompey's wife died, who was coincidentally Julius's daughter ;) Which meant, there was nothing keeping them together in Triumvirate after Crassus died and stopped bankrolling them.

Just the land alone was worth Conquering; bigger than both Scotland/Wales and where Ireland geographically is, makes it well worth Conquering aswell.

@@Ulsterbhoy The return on investment (blood and treasure) would have been what exactly? There were products available, but of little value against existing sources.

@@Ulsterbhoy the land itself wasn’t worth much of anything for the Romans More rainy and aboit as cold or colder than brittania, no major cities to work with, and outside any real trade routes for sought after goods all while being disconnected from the rest of the empire including brittania thus making an argument for land based defense moot. The Romans would have more a reason to conquer and develop germania and the baltics of all things than Ireland because at least those would have the amber trade as an excusable reason. When it comes to conquest, it’s not necessarily the size that matters.

They conquered it using religion.

@lervish1966 the Irish voluntary converted to roman Catholicism, weren't forced to

Didn't stop Cromwell , tragically

They drank British beer

The Irish Sea certainly can make one seasick. Oddly enough I had little trouble with a fair number of Larne to Stranraer ferry trips. Salmon fishing trips at the mouth of the Columbia River made me very sick.

Fake news, Because Hibernia has the same climate as Britannia

​@brendankane3546 no it is consistently warmer in Ireland and has less severe winters

The Roman never tried to conquer Ireland

@@matthewrussell8590 that is weather,not climate,Matt

Nice thought, but considering the average IQ of a Greenlanders is about 75 and Ireland about 101, it's obvious why they never tried again.

@@mutteringmale apparently they english have a 102? they have owned it for the past 900 years...

@@Mobutusese These are old statistics before massive immigration of the most undesirables you can imagine. I'm sure the base average is now about 97 and going down, also due to the welfare system/the dole that rewards the lowest to breed more and the middle and upper class gets penalized more so they have fewer children.

thank you for posting ... High King of ireland Tuathal Techtmar. the ancestor of the Uí Néill and Connachta dynasties. wiki dates >>> Túathal's exile as AD 56, his return as AD76 and his death as AD 106. Geoffrey Keating's Foras Feasa ar Érinn broadly agrees, dating his exile to 55, his return to 80 and his death to 100. The Lebor Gabála Érenn places him a little later, synchronising his exile with the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (81-96), his return early in the reign of Hadrian (122-138) and his death in the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161).

Very interesting. Your source?

@@John-nf9ip there's plenty of historical sources. Just look them up. You won't be disappointed.

This is the Irish version. And we know it's true because no Irishman would ever lie about a thing like that. Honestly, sometimes I have to smile. The web is full of BS but it takes an Irishman to take it to the next level.

@@TarlachOakleaf It is very easy to go look it up and educate one's self. All you need to do is google is the current UK royal family related to tuthal techtmar. The English will litterley give you the whole bloodline. This is not the Irish who are claiming this. The joke is on you. Queen Victoria, Mary Queen of scots, the entire house of York. House of hannover. Queen matilda. Malcolm the first of Scotland , Roger mortimer , Brian boru, niall of the nine hostages and tuathal techtmar are all related. It is literally the oldest royal bloodline In history.

A thousand years later, the Normans conquered Ireland instead.

The guy was impersonated Loki

It's still divided, but I've read that Rome Rule is weakening in the Republic, See the Wikipedia account of Rev. Ray Davey, for one of the good Protestants in the North.

Brian Boru did, hell Britain wasn't even worth holding for the Romans, never mind Ireland, though, if they had taken the whole lot they possibly wouldn't have had to leave such a big garrison as a base for future coup's. Britian might have bit worth for the first little while because of the mines, like with Dacia.

Hibernia had no known mineral resources- unlike England, Scotland and Wales that had copper, lead silver gold and tin.

The losers lament- Never fancied her anyway.

@@catinthehat906 So the place name of Silvermines in Tipperary was just a clever ruse?

@@catinthehat906 Fake news

Always after me Lucky Charms 😆

Especially Warwick Davis bouncing around on a pogo stick...

​@funfact8660 Damn, you beat me too it! 😄

Jennifer Aniston made a deal with Jupiter

So was dealing with drunks.

'As an american' is all you needed to say for your lack of intelligence to be forgiven.

European history is by far the most interesting. I have been studying it just for myself since I was very young. I don't want to assume but being American I'd wager that you European blood like most over there you should learn about your ancestors 😊

For you maybe, BCE and CE are the norm these days. Makes more sense.

Commies doing what commies do... Anti Christs!

@@malahammer makes more sense if you're a marxist and want to rewrite history

There, there son. There's no need to get your Jimmies in a wad. It's ancient history and has no bearing on our lives today. If it makes you feel better we can arrange to give Rome a participation trophy and instead of saying that they lost we'll just say that they were simply just the last winner from now on too.

@@lowkeykarnak cry me a river sunshine, no need to bawl ur eyes out

Then why build a wall? I also know it gives Rome: 1 - during down time it gives an army sometimes to do (keeping them busy) 2 - a way to collect taxes from travelers. (more money) If there wasn't travelers that they could collect taxes from then why the gates?

@@HollyMoore-wo2mh because building a wall is cheaper than having to assemble small armies constantly to fight off petty raiders from the north, build a wall, place a few soldiers at gates and its done, no raids, no battles no minor wars.

@@v_cpt-phasma_v689 I do not agree with that. Why the gates then?

So,they were throwing Christians to the lions in back in Rome-and evangelizing Britannia simultaneously ? Hmmm,you sure about that ?

@@brendankane3546 Very sure. The persecutions were in the 1st and 2nd centuries. The Christian missionaries were 4th and 5th centuries.

@@richardthomas5362 Clever answer, the worst years of the persecutions were the 1st and second centuries-they continued until around 313 AD-the fourth century-so your timeline is very much in doubt,but nice try,for sure-(insert SAD face emoji here )

Nowadays Italy is part of Tomato Europe, not Potato Europe anyway 😆

Given potatoes didn’t exist in Ireland (or in fact Europe) until the 16th century. It’d be a very long wait indeed.

@@py8554 A little known fact is that the potato actually originated In Ireland but was so highly revered by the people that they successfully hid it's existence from the rest of Europe for several centuries. The potato is the single most important thing in all of Irish history, a true cultural cornerstone. Even in the present day, 86% of Irish people say they would "fight to the death any fecker that tries to take my potatoes."

@@andrewthomson870 Little known, indeed!

​@@andrewthomson870irish are descendant of potato gods.

couldn't is the proper word.

Now, that’s a post! You know your history Gerard!

🤣

Wrong St Patrick was kidnapped from St Malo in Brittany not Britan

That the first time I've ever seen the contaction of to have. to've.

Better question, why not zero and negative years CE?

Part of the broader programme to marginalise Christianity.

Christian Era and Before Christian Era mate ;)

Not many people care about any fairy tale about a god being born, these days. It is called education.

This is the best statement I've seen in a coon's age. I'm no historian, strictly a layman, but this instinctively and intellectually (as far as my poor intellect can go) is the truth as far as I'm concerned. If only all history were reworked and re-presented to us from this kind of viewpoint I think it would make much more sense. We in fact have plenty of relatively recent demonstrations of this kind of mechanism I think, haven't we? Isn't this how the British occupied India?

It is true, in my opinion, that continental Europe was better off as Roman Empire than in the Dark Ages.

@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 I don't know but haven't I heard that 'the dark ages' is a misnomer and in fact there is much on record from those times? if so the truth could be established perhaps?

what did Britannia provide the Roman Empire,that Hibernia could not ? This is not a rhetorical question,i expect an answer from you ! Please don't be bashful now,or give me some silly answer either.

@@brendankane3546 Tin and gold, plus decent farmland. More importantly, controlling Britannia protected Rome's northern flank, i.e. Gaul, enabling Rome to concentrate on Germania, first offensively and later defensively. Put another way, Rome didn't need Britannia for its own sake but left to themselves England and Wales (as they became) were a threat. Ireland and Scotland weren't.

@@patrickneylan How did the Romans even know the resources of Ireland ? they were not there.Furthermore,gold and "decent farmland " was abundant in Hibernia and how do YOU know about tin in Ireland ? Put another way,the Romans wisely realized their invasion would fail. Also the Scottish Highlander clans put a major,major hurt on two of the best Legions-and one fearsome Roman legion was lost without a trace in Caledonia (courtesy, History Channel ) Now,if i may hear from Damon,please,like i asked in the first place.

"- An excess of corned beef and cabbage due to the aforementioned lack of potatoes." 😂

@@brendankane3546 Why precisely do you "expect an answer" from me? In any case, you can find my answers (serious or otherwise) to your question in the list in my original post above.

Its thought Papal Bull was a convenient forgery.

Good slaves love Catholicism; they're used to being slaves and being Catholic is Slavery Lite.

didn't stop Cromwell,sadly

Lads, did I ever tell ye about the time I fought in the X1V Legion?

The roman armies never made it to Dublin. Also stop stealing our word "craic" , its from Northern Ireland

That was recognised later when 'limes' were constructed and imperial expansion ended.

Someone should have told Trajan that; he went on to conquer Dacia and Mesopotamia which are many times larger than Scotland and Ireland combined.

Alos the Irish sea was alot more dangerous the the Mediterranean and a longer voyage then just crossing the English channel.

Thanks!

England was so shit the Romans decided to stop going west

what books have you read on this subject ? because the Romans knew they would be whupped.i realize this is very difficult for the Irish haters to accept,nevertheless it is an historical fact.

The emperor realised that Scotland was never going to supply the taxes necessary to finance its conquest,hence the decision not to bother. Dacia was a far more appealing prospect!

@@paulmasterson386 So the Emperor let the Dacians have land, and paid them off instead, until Trajan fixed that mess. Sounds like he was jealous of Agricola's achievements to me.

They were still in the iron age

Yes, pretty poor to get this basic historical fact wrong.

But Ireland would be in the western church that recognized the Popes authority even before the official split

You do realize the Catholic Church existed before the schism? The East was in communion with the Catholic (Universal) Church

Fun Fact :Christianity,Catholic faith came into Ireland from Wales

Catholic, or katholikos in Greek, simply means universal. The name "Catholic Church" was first used in 110 AD, and Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica, "De fide Catolica", in 380 AD. I do think it's fair to say that it was "Catholicism" that the Romans left behind.

They weren't looking for scenery

@@derekhough-jm9gc Romans wanted slaves and grain. The Irish population was tiny and there was little farming. Not a lot of point in going there.

what year did you go to Ireland 3500 BC

@@johndelaney459 2023. Passive-aggressive comments will be reported

The Romans would have seen an immense amount of bogland - Ireland's landscape today is the product of centuries of drainage.

what was your source of this fake news ?

No, BCE and CE are the standard for scholarship. BC and AD is a Christian only system and most of the world isn't Christian.

@@Lexivor and yet they still count from the birth of Jesus Christ? CE and BCE is a ridiculous system. Stick to BC and AD, thank you.

It's now politically correct to use CE and crap like that. Yu call tell the author is a youngling educated in a modern school system.

Why was my reply deleted??

@@Lexivor Yup, and I guess now we have to stop saying "Ok" and "Chiao" and "siesta" and all those other words that arn't "Approved" by some self-appointed committee of morals and standards? And uh, most of the world IS christian, largest amount until the world started bringing medicine to the muslims. No one had ever heard of CE etc except the atheists and muslims. Now these "scholars" think they're cool to be different.

Lervish

They killed Kenny?

I would expect him to get there but soldiers just said "fu** it we don't want to go" and he just abandoned the plan. Even Claudius years later had a problem with legion's motivation as they didnt like the idea of being few days in bad weather on the ship (while most of them couldn't even swim) to some barbarian land they didn't even hear of or what they heard was just nightmare they had already lived through in Germania but worse. I would not be that happy if my garrison duty changed to an invasion of "Siberia".

I trust it. Seashells crushed into powder was an important ingredient in some Roman concrete. Now the legions were there and not sailing anywhere anyway it would have been a somewhat valuable resource to bring back with them. Collecting them makes sense. As for the stones they could be used in road construction projects (locally I guess; I doubt they brought them back to Rome). But the "war with Neptune" story sounds like Caligula being childish (or mad).

@@kubium7546 You might be right. The story goes that Caligula had forgotten to arrange ship transport for the legions. But after his death people (probably for good reason) loved to ridicule him, so we should probably take that story with a grain of salt. Perhaps many ships wrecked before the invasion like on Caesar's first attempt? But some level of mutiny could have played it's part. We might never know the truth.

@@larsrons7937 I think they had seashells in Italy tbh.

@@lightdrizzle Yes, naturally. But it would still give them some "booty" to bring home for appearance's sake. It doesn't look rgeat to return home emptyhanded. And even if not worth bringing home it could be of good use more locally. It wasn't unusual for soldiers to collect materials for their own construction projects.

Very good grass for dairy tho we have the best milk in the world. Noting compares to Irish milk and butter ect.

Caligula was indeed a funny guy, I would say that I think that many things about him were fabricated, but who knows. I like an idea of horse being my advisor. And I mean - take it Neptune, Calligula took all his shells from those beaches lol.

He seems to have been crazy by our modern standards.

@@pranc236 Not only by our modern standards haha. If everything is true about what they said about him then Commodus in some way could only hold the candle for Caligula. But as with Nero - I have doubts that Caligula was that mad.

​@@pranc236it was probably propaganda c'mon now any emperor would have been smarter than a down syndrome patient

Caligula (Booties when translated into English) was a piece of work. He ended up marrying a notorious courtesan (apparently well know by most of the men in the Senate if you know what I mean). They had a daughter who was just as ... unusual as him - he praised her when she tried, as a little girl, to put out the eyes of her playmates. Once he was overthrown I think that courtesan met her fate with calmness (she played the game of power and lost), Caligula cried like a little girl, and their hellcat daughter had her head bashed against a wall by a soldier.

that's what i call a lazy assumption of history-Reading Is Fundamental ! Books are fun,try one sometime

Ireland had alot of gold and silver back then most of our ancient relics are made of these materials. They just didn't know I suppose

He brought ROMAN Catholisism, if you get the link there.

No It was Palidus who brought christianity to ireland It was Patrick who beat the snakes into defeat.

Yes they couldn't conquer Ireland or Scotland either.

Free to live in land nobody else wanted

See Cimbrian or Cimbric War (113-101 BC), although I doubt that at that time the Cimbri could already be called "Vikings", despite they came from Scandinavia (modern Jutland).

Nordic men fought for the eastern Roman Empire for hundreds of years, they formed the Varangian Guard who were imperial bodyguards. Nordic runes are inscribed in Haghia Sophia in Constantinople and many Saxons went to serve the empire after the battle of Hastings,fighting the Normans again in southern Italy.

@@slopermarco Thank You!

@@paulmasterson386 Thank You!

No. Monks across europe brought christianity to Ireland, Chalecadonian Christianity during the European Dark Age, hence the nickname of Ireland, the Isle of Saints and Scholars. It was considered a golden age for Ireland. Said monks slowly spread it but St Patrick successly pushed the conversion. Catholicism didnt exist then. It would not appear until the Othordox split. You can forget the Normans, all they did was murder.

The Roman Christian Church was indeed "Catholic". The "Catholic Church" was a normal name for the Catholic Church in Roman times, the name first used in 110 AD. Catholic is Greek, "katholikos", and simply means "universal". In the "Edith of Thessalonica" issued by Emperor Theodosius I in 380 AD (and later published in the "Codex Theodosianus, xvi.1.2"), it says that _"We order the followers of this law to embrace the name of Catholic Christians..."_

Yes

The terms mean "before common era" and "common era" in other historical videos. BC and AD have served us so long, why is it now being changed? Reject "common era" stuff (CE & BCE). It’s nothing less than an insidious attempt to separate 'The West' from its Judeo-Christian heritage, to the detriment of all.

It’s a weird new thing they’re doing to try to take credit away from the men who created our modern calendar (Pope Gregory and his bros).

@@EllieMaes-Grandad We are talking about history. It doesn't matter if the West has a Judeo-Christian heritage. That has nothing to do with studying history. Stop trying to force your religion on everyone else.

@@EllieMaes-Grandad Absolutely.

and dense

THATS BECAUSE OF THE IRISH who controlled the northern part of the Island which later became Britan as they couldnt beat the Irish in the north of the Island so they were'nt going to try crossing to Ireland.The romans lost more men on the island to the Irish than anywhere else in Europe The Irish had a massive navy and the romans had none.

@@johndelaney459 The Romans didn't invade Ireland cause there was nothing there they wanted. when you say Irish do you mean the Irish Scots who invaded and took land in Scotland?

This is inaccurate. Since early times, Greeks considered Macedonians as only partly Helene. During the Diadodichi, they were separate entities. During the entirety of the Roman Republic and Empire, they were different provinces. During the entirety of the Byzantine and Ottoman. empires, they were also separated. Thus, 2400 years they were two different entities, and you get confused because they have been together in the same country for 160 years. Don't use modern concepts for historical.

@@Orbirik Its beacuase i dont use modern concepts as historical that i reply like this. Back then there were no countries but city states (video did a mistake there). Macedonias did participated in the Olympic games (only greek city states participated). They spoke Greek and believed in Greek gods. Their names were Greek (Filipos... filos and Ipos, Alexandros... alex and andros). I understand that modern politicians try to rewrite history to give identity to some nations but this is not history this is politics... So next time... its either greeks or... athenians, spartans, macedonias, thibea etc. P.S. During Diadochi* empire was splited after Alexander death and did not called Macedonia but Seleucid empire, Ptolemaic, Kasandros, Antigonos, Licimachos and they fought with each other like all Greeks back then did.

@@akaros96 let's then use your own arguments and logic against yourself. Follow me: 1. You say that it is improper to say Greek and Macedonia because by saying Greece, Macedonia is included. 2. Your basis for saying they were the same and thus one included the other, is not political or administrative, but cultural. 3. Among the reasons to prove they were culturally the same, you mention participation in the Olympics, as they were restricted to Greeks. Let's focus then to the analysis of Olympic participants while Olympics existed. 4. Among the known participants of the Greeks, we find athletes from, as you subtly mentioned, Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleucid Syria and Asia (particularly from Anriocheia), but also Lysimachian Thrace, Cassandrian and Antigonid Macedon (yeah, such a kingdom existed and had a 180 degrees change in dynasty). But also included were Odressian athletes from today's Bulgarian mountains, Epirus (today southern Albania), Ionian, Mysian, Bithinkan, Lydian, Carian, Lycian, Phrygian, Galatian, Cilician and even Cappadocian athletes, Bosporan athletes from today's Ucraine and Crimea, Magna Graecia athletes from Sicily and southern Italy, Cypriot athletes, Cyrene athletes from today's Lybia, and even there is evidence of participants from Massilia (today France) from Bactria (today Afganistán and Fergana Valley in Central Asia) and one from the Yavana Kingdom (today Pakistan). And there are few records of non-Greeks participating, like an Armenian, but while such was rare, let's not mess it that much as it was an exception (I mean, Nero participated, but he broke the rules). 5. Thus, as a logic conclusion, considering only your own arguments and historical evidence, by saying "GREEECE", then such term includes Macedonia, Thracia, Epirus, Egypt, Syria, most of Anatolia, Cyprus, the Ukrainian coastal cities, eastern Lybia, southern Italy, southern France, and far away places as the Fergana Valley and the Indus. I mean, all of them were considered Greek enough to allow them to participate in the Olympics. In contract, not even Hellenized Romans were allowed to join without prior granting of citizenship to a Greek City State. See? This conclusion is absurd, do you agree? But it is entirely based on your own arguments. If your thesis is granted, this conclusion is logic and natural. Your over simplification of a very complex reality got us here. In my perspective, culture as a classifier is complex. Culture is too fluid and flexible. Most of times is is a cultural geographic continuum, and a cultural chronologic continuum. When and where one culture stops and the other begins? Claiming two things separated by geography or time to be the same culture, is tough and complex. It requires taking one element above and even in disregard of all the others, which can be arbitrary. That's why I prefer using more objective and factual items such as administrative divisions. Greece and Macedonia were politically and administratively separated most of their history. We're they culturally linked? Well, so did Gallia Narbonensis and Aquitania. Others were not originally culturally related but eventually were, such as Italia and Gallia Cisalpina, which became romanized quite fast, faster than Sicily which was closer and conquered before. But even romanization is a harsh concept. Cultural homogeneization makes historians, linguists, archeologists and others really go crazy. Hard to measure, hard to prove. Use of names counts, as you said? Maybe... But it could be aspirational. Go to central America or Venezuela and most kids are called Brian or Britney. That doesn't make them American culture. Even Alexander himself did a LOT to prove he was descendent from the Argives, and was not believed by most back then. My recommendation is to use culture with a lot much more care.

@@Orbirik too much writting for nothing. What was MACEDONIA for us is shown in our language. Alexander the great united all greek dialects and simplified for everyone in the empire to talk the same language. Greek became Lingua franca of the known world. New testament was written in KOINE GREEK by jews... The Gods were the same and even Ptolemai ''marry'' greek gods with egyptians... So because this took long... race can be fluid but CULTURE NO. Greeks were everywhere... from Marseille and Portugal to Bactria and India. They are honoured to this day in statues in cities in coins. As long as you prove you are Greek you participated... Alexander the first... King of macedon participated in the Olympics at 460 BCE, rules to who participate back then were too strict. So to finish this because it seems you have a hidden agenda (and at this case no matter what i writte makes no point) GREEKS WERE SPARTANS, ATHENIANS, MACEDONIAN, THEBES, SICILY And wherever there were Greek city states. EITHER say Greeks or say all the city states. What made you a Greek Hirodotos say, first historian in the world... όμαιμον, ομόγλωσσον, ομότροπον.

@@akaros96 oh boy. "hidden agenda". I'm dealing with a conspiracy paranoid. No, boy. I have no agenda but academic intellectual pursuit. Not everything is modern politics. I only used your own logic and your own arguments against you, and defeated you. If you are Greek (you seem to be due your paranoid comments), remember some Greek philosophers created the methodology I used above. A pity you used no logical structured methodology. Vomiting data without logic makes no arguments. For example, Alexander was no linguist nor interested in linguistic unification. There's no evidence in that. Anyone with basic learning knows Greeks had different variants (you may call them dialects, but any linguist can tell you that the difference between dialect and language is merely political, and NOT linguistic). The Pella Curse Tablet is evidence. Koine Greek, based on Attic and Ionic Greek (while Alexander spoke Doric), was a military coordination language. A military lingua franca. This is not something unique. Germans and Basques unified their language around 150 years ago! Bahasa was also a standardized created lingua franca spoken by million people. And you think Javanese and Bornean or Timorese are culturally the same because they speak the same language? Arabic is another good example. The Qur'an is written in Arabic and has been the basis of all Arabic speakers. And yet, a Moroccan and an Omani can hardly understand each other. They read the same, and speak the same, and can't understand themselves. Spanish is the opposite. Spanish is based on Cervantes Don Quijote work, helped by a centralized linguistic academia. And a Spanish Speaker in Los Angeles and a Spanish Speaker in Argentina or Equatorial Guinee or Philippines, understand each other when they use a standard neutral Spanish. That was Koine: a standard neutral Greek created for military coordination during the Alexandrian and Diadochi Wars. It was not meant for cultural homogeneity (as Spanish) religious homogeneity (Arabic) or mercantile homogeneity (Bahasa). Again, I prove that your hyper nationalism avoids you from learning. You only want to be right by your own decree. Instead of being right by the correct reasons. Reality is extremely complex and over simplifications like yours are for simple minds. Read and study before simply spitting out words. You need a methodology. Either Mayeutics like I used in the Olympics logical argument, or Hegelian Dialectics (used in the linguistic analysis), you need structure and argumentation. And please please please don't mix political paranoid items to academic discussion. They are not proper of intellectuals.

Caligula would have blushed

BEFORE CHRIST!