Neither there is any guarantee that Alexander wouldn't or couldn't have done them without his father.
Without Philip, there would be no Alexander.
How could Alexander expand his empire when he started not having one.
You cannot be serious.
Alexander the Great, Alexander III of Macedon, did not inherit Macedonia and the Empire his father created in Greece? I have no time for such nonsense.
He created the empire after he started his expedition into Asia.
So the United States of America didn't form under the continental congress, but only formed after Thomas Jefferson signed the Louisiana Purchase, with that being the first act of expansion on the U.S.'s part. That is a like analogy. Alexander's Empire wasn't created when he defeated Persia, it just changed when he defeated Persia. He wasn't a man without a Kingdom, he was Alexander
III of Macedonia.
It started out as the Eastern Roman empire but soon in its 11 century history it was transformed into the GREEK empire of the Middle Ages.
It spoke Greek, and the people it ruled were Greek, and most of it's administration was run by Greeks, it was even located in Greece, but the Eastern Roman Empire was Roman in every conceivable way. Just because Latin was exchanged for Greek doesn't mean it's no longer Roman. Language and location does not define a nation, it only adds a few words in it's description.
There was plenty of prevailing and that's why the transformation took place. There is a big difference between the ancient times Roman regime and the transformed Greek empire of the Middle Ages.
Name them. There will be less than ten. "Plenty" should be more than ten.
The Greek prevalence was overwhelmingly complete and had taken place long before their dealings with the Chaliphate in the 7th century; actually it was complete when they had dealings with the Persians in the previous century by the time of Maurice, and that's why the were known and called by the Persians and later on by the Arabs as "The Empire of the Greeks".
Not quite, if you are going to say "Long before the Caliphate in the 7th century", then you really shouldn't be referring to events taking place in the 7th century just a few decades before hand. It's quite misleading. Furthermore, The Roman Empire still controlled most of Africa, parts of Iberia, Southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, the Bealaries, Dalmatia, and other lands. Hardly Greek. And they would gain back most of those lands in Egypt, Syria, and so on. Calling the Byzantine Empire Greek because Khosrau II pushed back the Romans is foolish.
It started out as Latin in the 4th century, but by the 6th century even the ruling class including the emperors were speaking Greek as their first language, that is not to say that even before that they didn't.
You are going to try to convince me that the ruling class, in the year 500 A.D., in the Eastern Roman Empire spoke Greek? Provide a source.
The culture was Greek (Hellenistic), the language was Greek, the architecture, art was Greek even the religion did not resemble the Western practices.
No, it wasn't Hellenistic. Hellenistic becomes obsolete in the 150s B.C.
Hellenic, as in, Greek, sure. They spoke Greek. But there is nothing to suggest that they behaved as anything other than Roman and that the cultural changes were anything but normal changes that occur through the progression of time. The Culture was still distinctly Roman. The people inside Greece didn't call themselves "greek" they called themselves "Roman", that should be enough for you to say they were anything but Greek, they just spoke it. In the same way that a man who speaks the English Language isn't automatically from England.
Besides as you may well know the so called Eastern Roman empire was not Eastern any more by the 5th century (476 AD), and certainly not Roman any more by the end of the of the 6th century.
Not worth responding to...
Maybe as a second language, but you may also know that the people of the West spoke Greek because it was the lingua franca of the time; that was true also from the time of the old Roman empire where most of the educated upper clas of the Romans spoke Greek, I guess you might say it was a prerequisite for any distinguished western citizen to have Greek paideia (education), and that was to their credit.
Maybe in the B.C.s, but after that Latin was the Lingua Franca. And it remained as such until the fall of the Clergy and the rise of countries.
I already did, the Hellenistic civilization that lasted for many centuries and into the middle ages.
No.
Hellenistic civilization (Greek civilization beyond classical Greeks) represents the zenith of
Greek influence in the
ancient world from 323 BC to about 146 BC (or arguably as late as 30 BC). Hellenistic civilization was preceded by the
Classical Hellenic period, and followed by Roman rule over the areas Greece had earlier dominated – even though much of Greek culture, religion, art and literature still permeated Rome's rule, whose elite spoke and read Greek as well as Latin.
Romans spoke Greek before Greece was conquered. After that, Romans spoke Latin because Roman education became better and Greek became something of a regional and maritime language that slowly fell into obscurity until Western Rome fell, and the Byzantines adopted the language because all the lands they had spoke it.
And Napoleon had an era named after him too, it was called the Napoleonic Era. His era uses his name, not his people.
He was also very conservative and reactionary that burried the hopes and aspirations of a lot of Europeans.
Um... no. Where did you get that idea?
Are you trying to imply that Napoleon lacks leadership or he is not charismatic?
