Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 1

= June 1 =

"Critical context"?
Hey all. I'm studying for a standardized test's writing portion and in the holistic scoring rubric it says of an essay with a score of 6 (the highest) that "The essay takes a position on the issue and may offer a critical context for discussion." Here, what is meant by "offer a critical context for discussion"? (Note especially the "a" indefinite article) Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A critical context often refers to situating the text/evidence in the context of critical studies and perspectives by academics; and, evaluating different potential approaches to analysing the text in relation to the methods or theories propounded in the scholarly literature. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of this sort of essay, what it means (most likely) is that your essay should indicate what the various stakes are for various positions that one might take on the given topic. So if the question is (as one of my GRE essay topics was, ages ago), "will the ease of access of photographic and video footage of foreign places make travel obsolete?", instead of just answering "no, because of X" or "yes, because of Y," you would indicate that at its heart, the question is, say, one about the authenticity of experience, a topic with much broader stakes than travel. That would be my interpretation of the sort of thing they are looking for in this sort of prompt, anyway. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And one might then discuss the Existentialist and the Post-modernists attitudes to authenticity, and the 19th and 20th century travel novels, in relation to the prompt's evidentiary or textual content—photos and videos of foreign places, and the experience of travel. My problem as an essayist when I was young was I'd want to debate authenticity itself, rather than situate the prompt's evidence and text in relation to authenticity. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't if it was only for the SATs or even GREs, unless you were trying to sound like a pretentious ass. Those kinds of tests aren't looking for engagement with high level scholarly discourse, they're looking for evidence of your ability to write and reason. They are not the same thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your matriculation may vary. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think some of these responses are making this seem harder than it really is. The rubric really just means that, while taking its own position on the issue, the essay criticizes various aspects of the issue, or points out various aspects of the issue that might be open to criticism or question.  Marco polo (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Great Expectations
I know that Charles Dickens revised the ending of Great Expectations to provide a more conventional happy ending in which Pip and Estella end up together. The problem I have with it is that the dialogue seems to contradict this in the very preceding sentence:


 * "We are friends," said I, rising and bending over her, as she rose from the bench.
 * "And will continue friends apart," said Estella.
 * I took her hand in mine, and we went out of the ruined place; and, as the morning mists had risen long ago when I first left the forge, so the evening mists were rising now, and in all the broad expanse of tranquil light they showed to me, I saw no shadow of another parting from her.

Is it just a failure of my imagination that I find it hard to believe that Pip and Estella will never part again when Estella has just said that they "will continue friends apart"? Are there any commentaries that explain this in further detail? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Maybe that was left in from the earlier version.


 * 2) Maybe the characters were supposed to change their minds.


 * 3) Maybe they just meant that when they are kept apart, they will remain loyal. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Explanation number 1 can be ruled out; see Great Expectations for the text of the original ending. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read the whole conversation, she is expressing her desire for a relationship about as directly as a woman possibly could in the Victorian era without being immodest. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the contradiction you note does not appear in the original ending. You are quoting the revised ending.  Some editions of Great Expectations contain a foreword with commentary about the circumstances of the original ending.  Dickens appears to be more concerned with the revelation by Pip that social class is not relevant.  A good paper could be written about Great Expectations and the Great Gatsby where a tragic or good ending is immaterial.  Such a paper could add The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus as well as the Allegory of the Cave found in Plato's Republic to stand for the propositions that fantasy can have substance in reality and a journey with an impossible destination is actually a success.  Camus' philosophy is particularly applicable to Dickens as both were concerned with the plight of the working class during the industrial revolution.  Both Gatsby and Pip are heroes of absurdity.  From this perspective, the ending is not very material as Pip understands the meaning of what he has endured.  He is happy as the hero Sisyphus rolling the boulder to the top of a mountain in Hades for all eternity.  Our need for a happy ending is irrelevant and maybe it didn't matter much to Dickens either.  The Sparknotes seems to indicate that the ending didn't matter so much either, but on less sophisticated terms. Gx872op (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Who said this
"Would you sleep with me for 5 million pounds?"

I have two references. This says it was Churchill, this  says it is Bernard Shaw. Which one is correct? --999Zot (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Most likely none of them did, and it is just an apocryphal story. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikiquote lists the anecdote under GBS, but says "This dialogue is also attributed to Winston Churchill, to Groucho Marx and to Mark Twain". Gandalf61 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would Marx and Twain offer anyone pounds instead of dollars? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Marx? Why wouldn't he use pounds?  He lived for much of his life, died and was buried in London.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  06:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)  Just ignore me, I'm crap some days.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, not Groucho... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's semi-worth pointing out that Richard Armour once described Karl as "the funniest of the Marx Brothers". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably the Groucho Marx and Mark Twain versions of the anecdote use dollars rather than pounds, just as the GBS version has one million pounds rather than five million pounds. Trivial variants. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The specific units and amounts are not important to the point of the joke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I said. It was 216.93.212.245 who thought the currency was important. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Give me 5 million and I will sleep with ANYbody.85.211.169.124 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 4,999,999? 4,999,998? 4,999,997? Just say when. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Helen Keller The_Frost_King
Is The_Frost_King available in print or online anywhere? -- SGBailey (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears in an appendix to her autobiography The Story of My Life. An online version is here (the story text ends at "can you?").--Cam (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- SGBailey (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Shabia (Eritrea)
Hi, Does "Shabia" refers to the People's Front for Democracy and Justice, and/or to the Eritrean government, or something else? Shabia should be a redirect. Apokrif (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a reliable source saying it is the same as PDFJ, have you? WikiDao    &#9775;  17:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this related to Sheba? --NorwegianBluetalk 21:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Shabia" = PFDJ. It is also used, perhaps with different transliteration to Latin script, for the PFLP. --Soman (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Shabia" (or in Palestine more like shaabiye) is short for jabhat ash-shaabiya ('People's Front'). Likewise the DFLP is nicknamed dimoqratiya, etc.. --Soman (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Fruit Jar Company Enters Aerospace Industry. Huh?
From the article on Ball Corp.: "Ball remained a family-owned business for more than 90 years, manufacturing fruit jars, lids, and related products. In the 1950s, Ball entered the aerospace industry." That's a pretty big unexplained leap from the first sentence to the second. Obviously, being a big company with money, they were able to easily overcome barriers to entry by buying equipment and buying lots of smart people, but does anyone have more information how a jar company got interested in the aerospace industry? You don't hear much of Cadbury-Schweppes suddenly jumping into the satellite business, for instance. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They're not the only ones to make such a transition - Thiokol got started making glue and rubber sealants; now they mostly make solid rocket boosters (and for a long time made salt and ski-lifts). Nintendo got started making playing cards. Nokia made rubber boots. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And on the Cadbury-Schweppes theme, running the leading Formula One racing team as well as a second string F1 team and a NASCAR team is pretty cutting edge for an Austrian soft drink firm. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195 90.201.110.164 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks friends for never failing to correct me. I'm going to continue to look for the historical footnote on how the ones at Ball with control over the purse strings in the 50s got interested in aerospace. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And Diamond Match Company made the first launcher for the Pershing missile. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Aperture Science started out making shower curtains before switching to quantum tunneling devices. Avic ennasis  @ 23:09, 28 Iyar 5771 / 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I found the answer myself and will post it for anyone who happens to be interested. I found contact information here and emailed Scott McCarty of Ball Corporation and got an email back within an hour. The contents of that email: "There are slightly different versions of exactly how it came together, but the general story is that in the 1950s, our company sought to increase its technical base. Ed Ball found a Boulder company called Control Cells. It had a vehicle-weighing device that Ed, the son of one of the five founding Ball brothers, thought might work for weighing large amounts of raw materials used for making glass. Turned out it was too complicated for that, but it did – along with the help of some scientists from the U of Colorado – function very well as pointing control technology for rockets. Control Cells and this new staff became part of Ball Brothers Research Corporation in Colorado in 1956, the forerunner to Ball Aerospace." 20.137.18.50 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That would make a valuable addition to the article, if we could get them to publish it in a verifiable way. Perhaps you could prevail on Mr. McCarty to add that info to the "history" section of their website?  The scenario you describe (humdrum thing turns out to have exciting unexpected application) is much the same trajectory as in Thiokol and EG&G. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The obvious route to me would have been if they had gone from making O-rings for mason jars to giant O-rings for rockets. After all, the failure of one of those O-rings caused a Space Shuttle to explode, so perhaps a company with a century of experience in making them might have prevented that. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"upside down" and "right side up"
What are the rules for hyphen use for the words "upside down" and "right side up"? --CGPGrey (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This question really belongs on the Language Reference Desk, but I will offer that these expressions should be hyphenated only when they are used as non-predicative adjectives. (That is, when they directly modify a noun and are not separated from the noun by a form of the verb to be.) So, for example, "The can was upside down." OR "I turned the can upside down." BUT "I saw the upside-down can." Marco polo (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Stalin
Did Stalin do anything good? I know that he was evil and we all hear about the Purges and how he killed millions but did he do anything good that was good for the people (I also know he increased industrial production which was good for the Soviet economy but he made his people slaves in the process). I know Lenin was evil too but at least he did some good things like gave women more rights. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * He did manage to make an atomic bomb pretty quickly, which probably did improve the USSR's security situation with regard to the United States. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "First we got the Bomb, and that was good / 'Cause we love peace and motherhood / Then Russia got the Bomb, but that's OK / 'Cause the Balance of Power's maintained that way / Who's Next?..." -- Tom Lehrer, 1965. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Prior to 1941 the increase in Soviet productivity resulted in a massive increase in the standards of living and workplace freedom experienced by industrial workers. (This needs to be balanced against the fact that Stalin did not personally cause this; and, the massive decline in standards of living, and life, amongst rural proletarians and peasants).  [Andrle, Workers in Stalin's Russia].  Additionally the standards of living growth plateauxed after 1941 under Stalin; and, that workplace freedoms won in 1917, or 1929 (movement between workplaces during growth), dried up in 1941 never to return.  In many ways Stalin's policies were lead (up to the 1940s) by what both the majority of the party and the majority of industrial workers wanted. [Again, Andrle, but see Simon Pirani for how this worked in practice].  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * How about holding down the eastern front during World War II? I don't think letting Hitler win would have been good for the Soviet people or anyone else.


 * Also I'd like to see a cite for the OP's assertion that "Lenin was evil too". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt if the adjective "evil" is helpful at all in these discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the Soviet People and the Soviet General Staff held down the eastern front during World War II. I think it is highly suspect to ascribe this to Stalin, particularly if you've read of Stalin's behaviour in the military sphere.  It is possible to assign to Stalin a unique capacity to bully the West over a second front and supplies; but, debate is out over the centrality of Western supplies to the Soviet war effort (yes, even the Trains, telephony and Trucks, even over those).  Stalin may have provided a unique contribution in terms of being able to enforce industrial discipline in war on the lower levels of the party and the workers.  Regarding Lenin—Lenin was central to the sectarian nature of the Bolshevik Party including the forced subordination of non-Bolshevik pro-Soviet forces, and, in particular, in the massaged emasculation of the factory councils' power over politics.  Whether you find this evil or not depends on your position on the party and workers democracy. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For a description of just how bad Lenin was, see Orlando Figes' A People's Tragedy. Lenin was one mean sonofabitch, although Stalin certainly surpassed him in evil. As far as WWII goes, the USSR would have defeated Germany much more quickly had Stalin not "purged" many of his officers and given Hitler a head start with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't Russian literacy rates increase under Stalin ? StuRat (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Stalin managed to suppress all the small ethnic and national rivalries in nations he conquered, so that there weren't wars between Warsaw Pact nations (or whatever they were called before the pact), and also managed to prevent a war with NATO, so there was a period of relative peace following WW2. StuRat (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the planned invasion of Yugoslavia had reached the field exercise and prepositioning of major structural assets phase before the DPRK went rogue forestalling the capacity of the USSR to discipline Yugoslavia. Many on the revolutionary left condemn the reigning in of the PCF, PCI and Greeks; rather than celebrating this.  In addition, the Stalinist leadership of the USSR were unilaterally opposed to adventurism and war, from hard to softline, from party, to government, to industry bloc, to military—whether Stalin appeased the imperialist powers more successfully than Molotov could have is an issue to ponder; but, the Soviet policy was one of appeasement (to build a defensive space, for the next imperialist war, which they believed was coming, which the imperialists would start). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And either there were faults in the Warsaw Pact structure, or Stalin was central to the peaceful nature of the Warsaw Pact, because Berlin '53, Hungary '56, Poland '56 (adverted by a successful Polish military manoeuvre), Czechoslovakia '68; and of course the planned Yugoslavia '51. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The theory of the Warsaw Pact was as peaceful as NATO. Both sides were simply afraid of each other. But did NATO suppress internal popular rebellions? Did NATO fire against civilians? The armies of the Warsaw Pact certainly did when needed. Flamarande (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the countries involved in NATO were certainly involved in policing Europe. Greece, Turkey, France and the United Kingdom suppressed internal popular rebellions.  Spain. Turkey and Portugal were abhorrent Police states for much of the period, and Portugal suppressed many internal popular rebellions in overseas territories, as did France.  Italy's survival and one party government was linked to direct intervention by the NATO power, including the repression of internal rebellion.  The major NATO power also directly supplied the military equipment and economic support for Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey.  Outside of Greece, Turkey and the non-European France and non-European Portugal wars, these incidents look much more like Berlin '53 or Czechoslovakia '68 than they look like Hungary '56 or the plans for Yugoslavia '51. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Granted that Spain, Turkey and Portugal (and Greece) were dictatorships with secret police, censorship, etc. They used the exact same means as all the countries of the Warsaw Pact. Now count how many countries of the Warsaw Pact had democracy with multiple parties, free elections, free press, right to travel, etc? Most of the NATO countries had these features. And even Spain, Turkey, Portugal and Greece became free democracies in the late 1970's while the Warsaw pact members had to wait for Gorbachow. I'm not arguing that NATO was "good" and that the Warsaw Pact was "bad" but fact is that a member of the Warsaw pact had to be careful or its own allies would invade it with tanks and suppress it with blood. Purely to "maintain order", of course. Flamarande (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not arguing that the Warsaw Pact countries were superior to the NATO countries (A plague on both their bosses is more my line). However, the situation in France in 1968 and in Italy in the 70s ought to be compared broadly with the Czechoslovak and Berlin incidents respectively.  The issues surrounding the quality of democracy and industrial relations in the respective states are worth dealing with, though, it is also worth noting the success of the Czechoslovakian Communist Party in its own terms prior to the 1949 anti-Titoist clamp down; and, of course, to the widespread support for parties supporting socialisation in Hungary, both prior to 1949, and also during the late Autumn in 1956.  In terms of industrial relations the levels of worker freedom were broadly comparable with the exceptions of militant British unions, areas where German industrial democracy worked, and of course, the disproportionately higher percent of GDP return to Eastern workers generally, but the absolutely higher volume of product consumed by North Western workers.  One factor worth noting is that the interventions in the Warsaw Pact were primarily external in nature and seeking to discipline states moving towards heightened party democracy, workers democracy, parliamentary democracy and worker control of production; generally, with the support of the majority of the population and prior to the 1970s in Poland, much of the elite.  In comparison, in the West, interventions tended to be internal and much more explicitly by one class against others.  The only example I can think of a unified internal elite supporting intervention is Poland in the 1970s and 1980s.  In the East Class War happened, overwhelmingly, between the elite of the Soviet Union and entire cross-class populations.  In the West it primarily happened between the elite and mass of a society, though often with elite support from the United States in economic and covert forms.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We're getting way off topic here, but I have to point out that there was not really "widespread support for parties supporting socialization" in Hungary after WWII, at least not the kind of socialization they got under the Communists. In the Hungarian parliamentary election, 1945, the Independent Smallholders Party won an absolute majority of the vote and the Communists 17%. Under Soviet pressure, the ISP allowed the Communists to hold some cabinet seats, including the Interior Ministry, which oversaw the police. The Communists used that power to engage in "salami tactics," harassing or arresting opponents until they gained control of the country. The situation in Czechoslovakia was similar; the Communists won 40% of the seats in the first postwar election and used their control of the Interior Ministry to eliminate their opponents. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly not the form of socialisation experienced under high Stalinism (though even then, it was the elimination of small workshop production and the reversal of the post-War landreforms which irritated people). In 1945 the ISP was behind government ownership and capitalisation in industry and transport, the expansion of the public sector, and quite obviously, massive land reform.  The ISP was even further left in Hungary in 1956, even those sections calling for complete neutralisation in terms of international politics supported maintaining the levels of public (ie: by this time workers rather than state) control of the economy except in Agriculture.  The social democratic party in Hungary contained sections that were by far and away further left wing that the Hungarian Communist party in 1944 (supporting the workers councils on the ground), and the factory level membership of the SDP in 1956 vied only with the communist leadership of the budapest students union in terms of supporting a Hungary actually lead by workers.  Very very different to the situation in Czechoslovakia where the Communist party was genuinely popular, but, at the same time, the Hungarian Communist Party well and truly cocked up what measure of democratic influence they had, and the support of three other parties very willing to expand the government and public sectors. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To occupy other countries and suppress their internal rivalries is not a solution on the long term (and to conquer foreign countries is not usually conspired a good thing). Only they themselves can find a solution (one way or the other). The war against NATO was prevented by efforts of both sides and the main reason for peace was Mutual assured destruction, not Stalin. All of this largely depends upon how your own POV. Flamarande (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, many of the suppressed rivalries boiled back to the surface with the fall of the Soviet Union, although not as badly as they did with the fall of the communist government in Yugoslavia. However, I do feel that a massive military intervention (or threat of one), to prevent such wars, can be useful, if then accompanied by long-term efforts to resolve the rivalries without violence. To allow smaller nations to settle disputes on their own "one way or the other", results in situations like the Rwanda genocide. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In theory I agree with you. The practical problem is that massive military interventions (full-fledged invasions) are terribly expensive. Any country who gets the habit to invade other ones (be it for the best possible reasons or not) will also lose the trust of others and gain the hatred of many. Flamarande (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the mess Chechnya is now, because they've been rather viciously repressed to maintain stability. Now I'm not saying the Chechens have helped themselves in some of this, but there are still tensions burning there from Stalin's World War II policies. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And not forgetting, he opposed the abstract art of Tatlin, Melnikov and others because he knew that people didn't have the slightest idea what it was supposed to be about, and made the Constructivists design some actually sensible and buildable projects for once, before abandoning them too for less idealistic architects. I knew all that revision would prove useful some time. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The effect is not likely to be just to the invading country themselves. If other countries feel they are always at threat of massive military invasion particularly unilateral invasions not widely supported by other countries, they are likely to see the need to better arm themselves, possibly including with nuclear weapons, for defense to discourage such invasions, which leads to their neighbours and rivals seeing the need to do the same leading Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one of the best things Stalin did was terrorizing period Russian composers. In a possibly apochryphal story heard on National Public Radio, Stalin heard the first half of an opera and commented to the composer that there were too many minor key passages, causing instant revisions for the second half. This of course assumes one does not like some 20th century Russian music. Edison (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexander the Great's conquests
Why did Alexander the Great aim all of his conquests towards the East? Was there nothing north and west worth bothering with? Did he have no concerns about the Roman Republic? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Alexander's main target when he began his military career was the Persian Achaemenid Empire, which lay to the east. This was the obvious target because the Persians had threatened the Greek world and Alexander's home country, Macedon, for over a hundred years and were the main rival of the Greek-speaking world for domination of the eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea basins at the time of Alexander.  Also, the Achaemenids controlled a very rich empire, whose spoils were very attractive to Alexander and his army.  To the north were the Thracians, a tribal people without major cities or much wealth. Alexander's father, Philip, had already conquered much of the land of the Thracians. Farther north were equally poor tribes of Getae and Dacians. To the west were small Greek and Italian states that could not rival the Achaemenid Empire in glamor or wealth.  Conceivably, Alexander might have wanted to extend his conquests to the west if he had lived longer, but he had only just finished conquering the Achaemenid Empire at the time of his death. The Roman Republic is unlikely to have been of much interest to Alexander, since during his lifetime it was just a minor state controlling a relatively small area on the west coast of Italy.  Marco polo (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember that the invasion against the Persian empire had been planned and organized by Philip the Great (the father of Alexander). It was meant as a political means to unite most of Greece under Macedonian control by giving them a common ancient enemy (they sold this to the mob as "these evil Persians who in the times of our glorious ancestors invaded and ravaged Greece. Now we will avenge this terrible invasion."). Alexander the Great mentions that he planned new campaigns. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that new campaigns were planned to go westwards and specifically against Rome - which a the time was an expanding but minor power. Flamarande (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I read that the western campaign was supposed to be against Carthage—and if this map is correct, Carthage would have been a much more significant opponent. If Rome was on Alexander's to-do list, I would expect it to come after Carthage and the Greek colonies in Italy. A. Parrot (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Before Carthage, Alexander planned to conquor Arabia. Sleigh (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)