• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.
Bren at RPG Net

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • Thanks.

    It seems to me the key difference is that Greek colonies (in part due to the nature of poleis as city-states) were linked to the mother city by soft power (i.e. culture, family ties, and business relationships) rather than by hard power (political ties e.g. colonial governors and military force). The rest seems more a matter of scale than of scope. For example, Syracuse eventually controlled most of if not all of the island of Sicily. Presumably some system of displacement and subjagation was involved similar in scope to what we see with European colonization though smaller in scale.
    To be even briefer, it seems the key difference is that Greek colonies (in part due to the nature of poleis as city-states) were linked to the mother city by soft power (i.e. culture, family ties, and business relationships) rather than by hard power (political ties e.g. colonial governors and military force).
    European colonialism has examples of both settler colonialism (USA, Canada, etc.) and exploitation colonialism - but it is the latter that tends to stick out more, and to stir up various political and moral arguments. It involves a much smaller group of "colonists" taking over a large territory and its population for the purpose of extracting profit from it, rather than establishing new settlements. European colonialism was also on a much bigger scale and involved the mother country exercising much stricter control for a longer period of time.

    I won't deny that the two had plenty in common, but the difference between a part of a population in a city-state moving to establish a new independent city-state and mass settlement of an extensive territory under colonial authority/occupation of an extensive territory for the purpose of economic exploitation strikes me as significant.
    Since you asked. :) And since your PM box appears to be full.

    To be brief: Greek colonialism was rooted in the political system where the polis served as the main autonomous political unit. It involved people, often the surfeit population of one polis, setting out to found a new one somewhere else. While such colonies often retained strong links with their parent city, they were effectively politically autonomous, just like all the other Greek poleis. They were also overwhelmingly examples of settler colonialism, i.e. a situation where members of a certain ethnicity simply establish a new colony in the midst of a pre-existing population. They may well trade with that population, or subjugate it, or push it out, or pay it tribute - but interactions with it are secondary.
    Hi, Bren.

    Thanks for the friend request. I hope I pushed the right buttons, etc., to make it happen. If not, let me know.
    Not as far as I'm aware! :) And thanks for accepting, Bren.

    It just comes down to liking a lot of what you have to say, and thereby, liking you I guess, insofar as you can get to know someone via a message board.

    Plus, I got sent a request recently, accepted it, and figured I should probably try to think of a few people I would like to add. In other words, I'm not altogether accustomed to this stuff either.*

    Anyway, catch ya 'round.


    * edit: And just to prove my noobishness, I think I posted this in response to the wrong message. Gah! :p
    I was very impressed at how you handled yourself on the thread concerning racism/racial slurs in "historical" campaigns. I only wish people took the more balanced approach you do.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom