#Early Macedonian History

[jeannereames]

What should we make of Alexander I and Perdiccas II both having long 40+ years long reigns, only for all of their successors having substantially shorter ones? And, if you are in the mood, who do you think was the better ruler between the two?

First, I thought I’d mention one of the cool things to come out of the recent ATG conference is a plan to produce an edited collection: Alexander I and the Making of Macedon. It’ll be a while, but if I can get us a publisher, I’ve got the contributors.

Also of note, Sabine Müller and Johannes Heinrichs are producing a monograph on Alexander I in English. She has a great one on Perdikkas but it’s in German, so I was very happy to hear this.

Finally, I've got a number of racked-up Asks. This answer will answer about three of them. I'll link it to the other questions. :-)

To the questions: it’s really hard to compare Alexander I and Perdikkas II simply because they were dealing with very different circumstances. Alexander I had Persian assistance holding the throne, while Perdikkas was tossed off his throne at least once.

The biggest difficulty is a source problem. ALL our info about these guys (outside archaeology) comes from Greeks, who were chiefly interested in them only when they intersected with the southern Greek world. There’s a fair bit about Alex I’s internal politicking that we just don’t know. What we call “Lower Macedon” probably only goes back a couple generations, despite the mythical king list. We find a MARKED change in burial practices c. 570 BCE, which is before Persians were mucking around up there. This suggests a change—or more likely consolidation—in the lowland Macedonian ruling elite, both west and a bit east of the Axios River.

If Alexander I took over c. 500-495 (coin above), and his father Amyntas (about whom we know nothing but a name) ruled for 20/30-ish years before, then Alexander’ grandfather (Alketas) or great-grandfather (Airopos) would have consolidated the area around Aigai. Yet ALL names before Amyntas I are essentially fictional. Certainly the “founder’s” name changed across time. It’s Perdikkas when we first hear of it in Herodotos, but may have shifted to Archelaos later (see Euripides’s play of that name). Later yet (under Philip), it seems to have become Karanos. If Bill Greenwalt’s theories are right. This is not a real person in any historical sense.

The problem with dating Alexander I is that we neither know for sure when he took the throne nor when he died. It was convenient for Alexander to blame his father for any concessions to the Persians, but he—not Amyntas—married his sister Gygaia to a Persian (Bubares, son of Magabazus and distantly royal).* More likely he was already on the throne in the 490s but may have been quite young. He seems to have used the Persian presence to further consolidate the (new) Macedonian kingdom—against Paionians and others—adding territory as far away as Amphipolis, at least temporarily, and thus, getting hold of both silver and gold mines to mint coins. The Echedoros River also held gold. All the gold in pre-Alexander Macedonia was pacer mining (panning), not from the gold mines of Mt. Pangaion. Yet gold, while present in the rivers, only became important in graves in Macedonia c. 570…it’s part of that startling shift in burials that we see.

We also don’t know exactly when Alexander I died and Perdikkas took over. He was still king at the end of the Persian Wars in 479/78, but dead by 450. His death may have been closer to 460, or even earlier. So his reign was probably more like 30-35 years. Perdikkas perhaps reigned longest of all—one reason he’s exceptional. I wonder if the Peloponnesian War itself may have contributed to his success: for all he had his challengers, if Macedon wanted to survive as an independent political entity, they needed to rally around him.

Yet he faced his share of opposition from other Argeads as well as the very powerful Upper Macedonian kingdoms of Lynkestis (Lynkis) and Elimeia, not to mention predatory Illyrians. That’s why Perdikkas sought an alliance with Brasidas of Sparta, but apparently couldn’t even control his own troops enough to keep them from deserting when facing Illyrians. That earned Brasidas’s wrath. As a result, Perdikkas (coin below) had to make nice with Athens.

That’s just one example of Perdikkas’s deal-making during the war. He had quite a job of diplomatic shuffling—no doubt learned from Daddy Alexander. Neither had a kingdom anywhere near strong enough to fend off Persia, or Athens and Sparta later. The fact Perdikkas didn’t end up a client king to either Sparta or Athens is a testament to his diplomatic skill.

Perdikkas’s eldest son Archelaos wasn’t the “illegitimate” son of a slave but of a lesser wife, which is why the younger (unnamed) son initially inherited. Archelaos quickly did away with him (plus an uncle and cousin), then proceeded to continue the modernizing work of his father and grandfather. Until he got run through in a hunting “accident.” After that, the kingdom dissolved into a mess.

The problem of a fast turn-over of rule owed to their inheritance system: any Argead had a claim on the throne. Kings also practiced royal polygamy, although two wives (at most three) seems to have been typical until Philip II. In some ways, it worked well, as it produced multiple heirs from which a strong king could emerge (by surviving).

That was also its problem: no clear method of succession, even if the sons of higher-status mothers apparently had a leg-up. Perdikkas himself was not Alexander’s eldest son. He had two older brothers and two younger ones. Yet either his mother was the most prominent or he showed the most promise (or both). Despite Archelaos’s age and apparent ability, he was initially passed over, although Plato (who tells the story) means to paint Archelaos poorly. That doesn’t mean he didn’t kill competing Argeads to take the throne. So had his father, and probably grandfather too (we just don’t hear about it).

Yet Archelaos’s unexpected death led to a continuing crisis until Amyntas III, Phil’s dad, took and kept the throne. He came from a collateral Argead line descended from Alexander I’s youngest son. The other lines killed each other off. For all Amyntas wasn’t a terribly prepossessing king, he managed not to die. But he, too, was run off his throne at least once, maybe twice. When he did die, it was in his bed of old age—not a common thing for Macedonian kings. His reign was the first tolerably long one after Archelaos, over 20 years.

By the time Philip came to the throne, there weren’t many Argeads left thanks to the catch-as-catch-can method of succession: Philip’s two older brothers were dead and all three of his half-brothers. It was down to just him and his brother Perdikkas III’s infant son: Amyntas.

This is the inevitable problem when lacking a clear succession. Yet a clear succession can create its own problems with incompetent heirs, who don’t always recognize they’re incompetent. The free-for-all gave a better shot at a strong king—ostensibly why it developed—but it also meant the kingdom ran out of “spares” after a couple generations. They went from more Argeads than you could shake a stick at following Alexander I’s death, down to just three at Philip’s death, and two at Alexander’s death** in a matter of 5-6 generations. Within those 5-6 generations, 12-14 kings reigned! And we have no idea how many brothers/cousins/uncles Alexander I had, and perhaps killed, before he became king. We hear only about the one sister.

Stability was not a hallmark of the Argead dynasty.

——

* The story of Alexander killing Persian emissaries is much later fictional propaganda. Didn’t happen.

* Alexander’s son Herakles by Barsine might count as a third, but the army doesn’t seem to have considered him viable for whatever reason.

[seekingtheosis]

Understanding Formal Creed Statements: Its Need in Early Christianity

Explore the need for formal creed statements in early Christianity, addressing false teachings like Gnosticism, Docetism, and Arianism to preserve the true faith of the Church.

In the name of God the Father, Christ Jesus His Son and the Holy Spirit, One True God. Amen. Dear brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus In the previous blog, where we introduced the topic of the Statement of Faith, we learned how the early Christian statement of faith, encapsulated in the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, played a pivotal role in defining and uniting Christian belief across…

[whencyclopedia]

Antipater (Macedonian General)

Antipater (c. 399-319 BCE) was a Macedonian statesman and loyal lieutenant of both Alexander the Great and his father Philip II of Macedon. As a regent in Alexander's absence, Antipater subdued rebellions and mollified uprisings, proving his unwavering loyalty for more than a decade. Unfortunately, a serious disagreement between the two led to a once trusted commander being implicated in the suspected poisoning of one of history's greatest leaders.

Early Career

Antipater had always been considered a trustworthy commander, representing Philip at Athens in 346 BCE. Following the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE, he was entrusted with the task of accompanying the young Alexander in taking the ashes of fallen Athenians killed in battle to the city. After Philip's assassination by the disgruntled Pausanias, a disagreement arose among the nobility as to who was the rightful heir to the throne of Macedon. At a meeting presided by Antipater, several nobles voiced support for Amyntas, the son of Philip's brother Perdiccas. Some of these men disliked Alexander only because his mother was not a true Macedonian. However, Antipater and fellow commander Parmenio, who was in Asia Minor at the time, remained loyal to Alexander, so with the urging of his doting mother, Olympias, Alexander became king at the age of 20.

The first few years of his reign were not easy for the young king. Following his father's death, Alexander found not only his ability but also the strength of Macedon's control over Greece threatened. While the young king and his army traveled northward to secure Thrace in 335 BCE, Antipater remained in Macedon, serving as his deputy. While in Thrace, word of Alexander's supposed death made its way to the Greek city of Thebes and they revolted. When they heard of the approaching the Macedonian army, they assumed, incorrectly, that it was under the command of Antipater. Wrong! It was Alexander, and the city would suffer. The rest of Greek city-states - except for Sparta - quickly realized the true strength of Alexander and submitted willingly to his leadership.

Continue reading...

[gemsofgreece]

Sike

Initial info snippet: Βεργίνα (or Vergina in English) is pronounced ver - YEE - nah. Just saying, for no particular reason whatsoever.

Perhaps you know that there is a country in the periphery of Greece that has a flag with a sun. This alongside other issues has been a cause of contention between Greece and this country, as it using this sun as a symbol of its non-Greek nationality was condemned by Greece as an act of cultural appropriation.

That sun looked suspiciously like (as in, it was identical down to the last line) to the Vergina Sun, or sometimes called Vergina Star, most famously discovered in the tomb of King Philip || of Macedon, in Ancient Aegae, Vergina, Macedonia, Greece.

The golden larnax with the Vergina Sun found in the tomb that is believed to be King Philip's.

For some time the Vergina Sun was mostly perceived as a symbol of Macedonia or Macedonian royalty, except that meant polar opposite things to Greeks versus to their neighbours. The Vergina Sun became the symbol of the administrative and historical region of Macedonia within the Greek state, which has this local flag:

The flag was first created in the late 80s after archaeologist Michael Andronikos made the huge discovery of the tombs in Vergina. The Vergina Sun was added as a national symbol at the Hellenic Parliament in 1993.

Meanwhile, in 1992 the newly founded neighbour state (risen through the collapse of Yugoslavia) adopted the EXACT same flag as their official national flag, except the background was changed to red. Greece condemned the use of this symbol, accusing the country of appropriation. Due to the rising tensions between the states, the neighbouring country eventually changed its flag.............. which means it's still the same red flag with the sun except now the sun is "designed differently". Of course, the implications behind it as well as the claims have not changed one bit. The neighbour country was mad at Greece for preventing them to express their true ethnicity and for using her immense evil power (which, as we all know, Greece definitely possesses) to steal THEIR history, because Greece is jealous of THEIR history. Anyway even though there was a legal agreement of sorts between the countries in the last years, it is honoured so little you might as well believe it was never done. And it is crap for our side as well, so everybody hates it.

But here's the funny thing. Even if one argues the true issue is what being a Macedonian entails (which shouldn't truly be a discourse but let's pretend it is)... the hilarious truth is that the Vergina Sun..... is actually not a symbol of Macedonia and Macedonians.

You see, the symbol has been discovered all throughout Greece since at least the 6th century BCE, way before the Kingdom of Macedon rose to any prominence.

Vergina Sun originating from… Sparta, 6th century BC, exhibited in the Louvre.

This famous amphora by Exekias, 6th century BC, depicting Achilleus and Ajax playing a board game. The Vergina Sun decorates their cloaks. Exhibit in the Vatican Museum.

Hercules fighting the Amazons. The Amazon bears a shield with the Vergina Sun. Early 5th century, Gela, Italy. (So it was crafted in the Greek colonies in Magna Grecia, South Italy.) Exhibited in the Regional Archaeological Museum "Antonio Salinas", Palermo.

Jar with the Judgement of Paris. Athena's shield is decorated with a Vergina Sun. Athens, c. 360 BC.

So you know, not only it wasn't an exclusively Macedonian symbol but it actually seems to have been an Archaic symbol of Panhellenic (encompassing all the Greeks) warfare.

Dem evil Griekos stealing other pipl's history.

[justforbooks]

Autumn in Thessaloniki

Known as the “Bride of the Thermaic Gulf” to romantics and the “co-capital” to pragmatist Greeks, Thessaloniki bears the name of Alexander the Great’s wife and sister with pride. This city, founded in 315 BC, defies simple categorization.

How can one capture the unique energy of Greece’s second-largest metropolis, now emerging as one of Europe’s most dynamic urban centers? Or convey the rhythm of a cosmopolitan hub that cherishes its millennia-old heritage while embracing global trends? Thessaloniki is a destination that enchants travelers, whether they come for an experience-packed city break or a longer stay that never seems quite long enough.

A journey to ever-relevant Thessaloniki is never just an escape or a change of scenery. It’s a multifaceted experience in a city that stands proudly among Europe’s most captivating capitals.

Thessaloniki’s love for the arts is evident not only in its domestic and international festivals and various artistic expressions but also in its fascinating museums and no fewer than 15 UNESCO World Heritage monuments. The 11 halls of the Museum of Byzantine Culture will transport you to the glorious era of the Byzantine Empire, revealing all aspects of private and public life of the period through rich collections of archaeological objects, relics, and works of art.

The War Museum presents the modern and contemporary history of our country, while the Archaeological Museum unfolds the entire history of Macedonia through masterful works of art and findings. At the Macedonian Museum of Contemporary Art – MOMus, you’ll admire works from the Iolas, Xydis, and Apergis collections among contemporary artistic trends from abroad and Greece. Two related and equally interesting cultural institutions will bring you to the Old Port and Pier A, a wonderful walk in any case. There, at the Museum of Photography, you’ll see unique images of a constantly changing city and get to know older and contemporary trends in the art of photography through a vast collection covering the period 1890-2015, while at the Cinema Museum, the magical world of Greek cinema comes to life.

Thessaloniki’s shopping scene is also a major draw, where you can indulge in retail therapy along the three main parallel streets of Proxenou Koromila, Mitropoleos, and Tsimiski, but don’t miss their perpendicular alleys, which hide shops full of treasures. The famous covered markets are also a unique experience, such as Kapani Market, a true feast of flavors and aromas, where, following the locals’ example, you’ll drink Greek coffee at the corner traditional cafe Modigliani. Nearby, a stroll through the also covered Modiano Market, known to older generations as the “Central Food Market,” is the new must-stop on the list for foodies and non-foodies alike. The 75 stores housed in the fully renovated space, which still retains its historic architectural character, compose a unique kaleidoscope of culinary trends and proposals that has nothing to envy from similar markets abroad. After enjoying the vibrant atmosphere, you’ll stock up on select delicatessen products and indulge in one of the top sweet Thessaloniki temptations, the amazing syrupy sweets from Hatzis pastry shop.

Thessaloniki’s emblematic monuments, scattered throughout the city, will enrich your walks between shopping streets, the waterfront, and up-and-coming entertainment neighborhoods with a historical dimension. Near Saint Demetrios, the city’s most important church worth a visit not only because it celebrates this month but also because it’s a monument of particular importance as the martyrdom site of Thessaloniki’s patron saint, the city’s Roman past comes alive in the ruins of the baths, square, and a gallery of the Roman Agora, dating back to the 2nd century AD. Also impressive is the nearby Kamara or Arch of Galerius, bearing the honorary name of a Roman emperor and detailed decorative reliefs from his victorious campaign against the Persians in the early 4th century AD. A few meters to the north, another recognizable landmark, the massive Rotunda from the same period, is preserved in excellent condition due to its conversion into a Christian church and is famous for its beautiful mosaics.

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

[sleeplesssmoll]

Reference to Alexander the Great, his General, Antigonus, and the Battle of Gabiene.

The "Treasures of the Aegean Sea" tells the saga of a family of Western arcanists whose journey spans thousands of miles and over two millennia. Their ancestors fought alongside a Macedonian God-King (possibly Alexander the Great), shifting their loyalties after his death to the one-eyed general (possibly Antigonus). These war-hardened veterans joined his army after the Battle of Gabiene and formed a powerful but volatile force.

The arcanists within this army were eventually sent east, where they blended into the Sogdian tribes and thrived along the Central Asian trade routes. Over time, they settled near the ancient Hellenistic city of Ai-Khanoum, establishing a small arcanist commune. However, the turbulence of early conflicts eventually scattered them once again, leaving behind only fragments of their story—maps, diaries, epitaphs, and archives that tell the tale of their incredible adventure.

Alexander the Great (356–323 BC), king of Macedon, succeeded his father Philip II at age 20 and embarked on a decade-long military campaign, creating one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Greece to India. Undefeated in battle, he conquered the Achaemenid Persian Empire and expanded Macedonian control across Western and Central Asia, Egypt, and parts of South Asia. After defeating Indian king Porus, Alexander’s army refused to advance further, leading him to turn back. He died in 323 BC in Babylon. His conquests spread Greek culture widely, marking the start of the Hellenistic period. Alexander’s military legacy influenced later leaders and became legendary, inspiring literature across many cultures. source

Antigonus I Monophthalmus aka "Antigonus the One-Eyed"; 382 – 301 BC) was a Macedonian general and a key successor to Alexander the Great. After serving in Alexander's army, he became satrap of Phrygia and later assumed control over large parts of Alexander’s former empire. He declared himself king (basileus) in 306 BC and founded the Antigonid dynasty. Following a series of wars among Alexander’s successors, Antigonus became one of the most powerful Diadochi, ruling over Greece, Asia Minor, and parts of the Near East. However, he was defeated and killed at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC, leading to the division of his kingdom. His son Demetrius later took control of Macedonia. source

Gabiene: After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, his generals immediately began squabbling over his empire. Soon it degenerated into open warfare, with each general attempting to claim a portion of Alexander's vast kingdom. One of the most talented generals among the Diadochi was Antigonus Monophthalmus (Antigonus the One-eyed), so called because of an eye he lost in a siege. During the early years of warfare between the Successors, he faced Eumenes, a capable general who had already crushed Craterus. The two Diadochi fought a series of actions across Asia Minor, and Persia and Media before finally meeting in what was to be a decisive battle at Gabiene (Greek: Γαβιηνή). source

[mybeingthere]

Vangel Naumovski (1924 - 2006, Macedonian) was born in the Macedonian city of Ohrid (formerly part of Yugoslavia). After a short spell in the army, he enrolled in art school in Skopje in 1946 for one year, after which he spent the next thirteen years working as a carpenter. 

During this time, Naumovski's output was initially considered part of the mythic folk tradition, which led to his work being associated with the ‘Naive Art’ movement.In the early 60s he began painting in a biomorphic surrealist style, where he merged figurative elements within undulating floral abstractions. Salvador Dali once remarked that Naumovski's "work is close to my own... he has some items that may be considered scientific. Also interesting is the biological side of his painting."

Although presumably a tongue-in-cheek remark from Dali, he nevertheless touched upon the biotic underpinnings of Naumovski’s forms that could quite easily find themselves aligned with some Futurist thoughts of biology as a software process that identify our bodies as being made up of trillions of cells, each governed by mechanisms which evolved in very different techno-cultural environments. 

Or likewise alongside Archeo-Futurists such as Marshall McLuhan, who described the literary work of James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake as “cave drawings of the entire history of the human mind, in terms of its basic gestures and postures during all phases of human culture and technology.”

Continue reading a long article https://visualmelt.com/Vangel-Naumovski

[blueiscoool]

1,500-year-old Byzantine Artifacts Found Under a Peach Orchard in Turkey

In the world-famous historical city of Iznik, which was the capital of four civilizations, a farmer found coins and historical artifacts in his peach orchard. The artifacts are believed to belong to the 1,500-year-old Byzantine period.

Özkan Yılmaz, a farmer, artifacts found in the orchard that resemble a tablet with a cross and figures of children on them.

“Iznik has been the capital city of four civilizations and such historical pieces are proof that our land is full of historical treasures. I was digging for peaches here and came across a shining object with some small coins next to it. I was surprisingly happy and excited when I realized what these objects are,” said Yılmaz.

Yilmaz said that he will deliver the historical artifacts to the museum as they enhance national history, and believes it is a moral duty to preserve treasures.

İznik is a city on the eastern shore of the same-named lake and is 86 kilometers (km) northeast of Bursa. Iznik was built between olive groves, vineyards, and orchards and is encircled by 2,000-year-old walls that are about 5 km long. The Cicekli, Karadin, and Cakırca mounds, which are close to the city, contain the remains of a civilization that existed 2,500 BC. The established settlements was named as ‘Helikore’ before the migration of Thracian tribes in the 7th century BC Khryseapolis (Gold City) name is read on the printed coins.

The city is renovated by Macedonian emperor Alexander’s general Antigonus in BC 316 years and the city is referred as Antigoneia. After the death of Alexander, the battle between Antigonus and the generals Lysimakhos is resulted with Lysimakhos’victory and he named the city after his wife Nicaea – the daughter of Antipatros.

An important city in early Christian history, İznik (known in ancient times as Nicaea) was the site of the First and Second Councils of Nicaea. These councils established key tenets of Christianity such as the Nicene Creed and sainted how Christians should interact with icons.

By Oguz Kayra.

[monsterkong]

From Conflict to Convergence: The Cultural Relationship Between Rome and Greece 🌟

The relationship between Rome and Greece is a tale of two civilizations that, while distinct, became inextricably linked through centuries of interaction. From early political structures to cultural exchanges, the evolution of this relationship is a fascinating journey through history. Let’s explore how Rome and Greece influenced each other and the lasting impact of their intertwined destinies.

The Birth of Political Parties and Governance 🗺️

When we talk about the origins of political parties, Greece is often recognized as one of the earliest civilizations to experiment with various forms of governance. The Golden Age of Greece, which thrived around the 400s BC, was a time of democratic innovation, particularly in Athens. This period saw the emergence of political factions that debated issues of governance, laying the foundation for modern political systems.

Rome, emerging as a republic in 509 BC, overlapped with the tail end of Greece’s Golden Age. By the time of Julius Caesar, Greece’s political landscape had undergone significant changes. The once-united city-states had splintered into smaller kingdoms following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC. This fragmentation made Greece vulnerable, and Rome, ever the opportunist, began to absorb Greek culture and influence, albeit with some initial reluctance.

Cultural Differences and Initial Resistance ⚔️

In the early days of the Roman Republic, Greek culture was often viewed with suspicion and disdain. The Romans, known for their martial discipline and austerity, saw Greek customs as overly indulgent and effeminate. Greek men, with their long hair and beards, and their love for music, theater, and the arts, were a stark contrast to the Roman ideal of the stoic, battle-hardened warrior.

This cultural clash was evident in Roman society’s view of actors, who were placed at the bottom of the social ladder. Unlike in Greece, where actors enjoyed respect, in Rome, associating with actors was seen as a sign of weakness. This disdain for the arts reflected Rome’s early values, where strength and military prowess were paramount.

Yet, despite this initial resistance, Greek culture began to permeate Roman society. As Rome expanded its empire, it encountered Greek customs that, over time, proved too valuable to ignore. By the mid-Republic, the Roman elite had begun to adopt Greek practices, from fashion to language. Speaking Greek became a mark of sophistication, and even the once-ridiculed beards became a symbol of intellectualism among Rome’s upper classes.

The Influence of Greek Culture on Rome 🎨

The shift in Roman attitudes towards Greek culture was gradual but profound. The Romans, always practical, recognized the benefits of incorporating Greek ideas into their own society. This was particularly true in the realms of philosophy, art, and religion, where Greek influence became deeply embedded.

One of the most significant cultural imports from Greece was the concept of ruler worship, a practice the Greeks had adopted from Eastern civilizations like Babylon. Alexander the Great, the Macedonian conqueror, embraced this practice after encountering it in Babylon, where rulers were often deified. His adoption of proskynesis—a ritual in which subjects would prostrate themselves before him as a sign of reverence—was a stark departure from traditional Greek customs but eventually found its way to Rome.

By the time of Emperor Diocletian in 284 AD, proskynesis had become an established practice in the Roman Empire, highlighting the extent of Greek influence on Roman culture. This evolution in religious and cultural practices underscores the deep connection between these two civilizations, despite their initial differences.

The Enduring Legacy of Cultural Exchange 📖

The relationship between Rome and Greece was not a one-sided affair. While Rome absorbed many aspects of Greek culture, it also left a lasting impact on Greece. Roman advancements in architecture, engineering, and law profoundly influenced Greek cities and governance, shaping the course of Western civilization.

Today, the legacies of Rome and Greece are intertwined, with each civilization having left its mark on the other. Their relationship, marked by both conflict and convergence, serves as a powerful reminder of the transformative power of cultural exchange.

In our increasingly interconnected world, the story of Rome and Greece offers valuable insights into the importance of embracing and adapting to different cultures. As we navigate the complexities of global interactions, we can draw inspiration from these ancient civilizations, learning from their experiences as we shape our own future.

[transgenderer]

pre-alexandrian, in the sense that there hasnt been a guy who was really practical at war who used cheap tricks that dont accord much individual honor to warriors to conquer vast territories

what do you consider alexander’s cheap tricks? anything more i can read to get this specific perspective on history of warfare?

the macedonian phalanx! i mean obviously the macdenonians didnt invent fighting as a team. but i think they were an early epitome of totally inglorious-for-the-individual-soldier war. i think this would be totally baffling to the aztecs, like, its not what war is FOR from the aztec perspective, its for individual glory and taking captives. and my understanding is that this perspective was pretty common (i mean not the captives part, but the glory part) in very early warfare, we know less about really really nold warfare but the king was at least *depicted* as central and glorious, things like chariots were at least as much about glorifying their rider than they were about like, winning battles. but this ideology seems to have been "outcompeted" gradually, and alexander makes a neat clear line for when "unbrave" war became the default. this article has good info on achmaenenid tactics:

These tactics worked well against Asiatic armies, but failed against heavy-armed Greek infantry (hoplites) and Macedonian phalanxes: the arrows were simply stopped by the body armour and the huge shield of the hoplites, and once the hand to hand combat began, no amount of personal bravery could compensate for the Iranians' lack of armour and their inferior offensive weapons. At the battle of Plataea, for instance, a fierce hand-to-hand combat raged between the Iranians and the Greek hoplites: The Iranians "many times seized hold of the Greek spears and broke them; for in boldness and warlike spirit the Iranians were not a whit inferior to the Greeks; but they were without shields, untrained, and far below the enemy in respect of skill in arms. Sometimes singly, sometimes in bodies of ten, now fewer and now more in number, they dashed forward upon the Spartan ranks, and so perished". Another weakness of the Iranians was the attitude towards their commander: with an able and farsighted general, they displayed unsurpassed courage, but the same men took to disorderly flight as soon as the commander was killed or forced to flee. Knowing that the King of Kings was the heart of his army, Cyrus the Younger ordered Clearchus-his Greek mercenary leader-to attack the centre where the King of Kings was stationed: "and if," he said, "we are victorious there, our whole task [of defeating his army] is accomplished,".

to be clear the actual shift away from glory-based tactics predates alexander, but i think is much less well-documented for being so old. but you can see the vibe sticking around i think

anyway "a collection of unmitigated pedantry" is always good for learning about grecoroman military stuff

[etymology-of-the-emblem]

Xander / マークス and Ryoma / リョウマ

Xander is the crown prince of the kingdom of Nohr and wielder of the sword Siegfried in Fire Emblem Fates. The name Xander is a short form of Alexander, a Greek-based name. Considering he is a major character and face of the Conquest route, he is likely named after Alexander the Great, the famous Macedonian king and general; he widely expanded his kingdom to one of history's largest empires. Much like Nohr, Greece under Alexander's rule looked eastward, invading through India until halted by the Persian Empire. Considering that Xander's mother Katerina (or Yekaterina in Japanese) is named after Russian Empress Catherine the Great, there may be an intentional throughline of powerful rulers carrying the "Great" epithet. There could also take influence from Catherine's grandson Alexander I of Russia, emperor during the Napoleonic Wars. Ironic in a sense, this would make the prince of the invading nation named after an emperor who was unsuccessfully invaded.

In Japanese, Xander's name is マークス (rōmaji: mākusu), romanized as Marks. The name is most likely a corruption of マルクス (rōmaji: marukusu). While this can be used for the name Marx like early fan translations addressed the character by, it also can be used for the Latin name Marcus (also rendered as マーカス; rōmaji: mākasu). This choice is most associated with Roman political figure Marcus Antonius, better-known thanks to Shakespeare as Mark Antony (マーク・アントニー; rōmaji: māk antonī). Mark Antony was a general serving under Gaius Julius Caesar in the Gallic Wars and, after the conquest and rising tensions among the First Triumvirate, during the Civil War. Before war erupted, he went to the Roman Senate in an attempt to peacefully settle the conflict, but his pleas were largely resisted. After Caesar became dictator of Rome, Antony served as his second in command and, after the formation of his cult, the high priest. Following the assassination of Julius Caesar, Mark Antony agreed to be a member of the Second Triumvirate alongside Caesar's heir Octavian and Marcus Lepidus, and divided the Roman Republic amongst them. However, tensions between him and Octavian were high, especially as after his marriage to the young Caesar's sister he maintained an affair with Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt. Eventually, this strain birthed the War of Actium between Rome and Egypt, with Antony declared a traitor. When the couple had their backs against the wall as Rome invaded Egypt, they took their own lives, leaving Octavian as the sole ruler of Rome, which he soon converted into the Roman Empire under his new name Caesar Augustus. Xander seems to take influence from Mark Antony more so as they both were respected military leaders with tense relations to the powers they support - Garon and Julius Caesar - but proudly follow them despite such. Additionally, Shakespeare popularized the image of Mark Antony being a tragic figure in Antony and Cleopatra. Especially in Birthright Xander can be interpreted as a tragic figure, like most following the "Camus-archetype" in the Fire Emblem series. It could also be argued based on some of Xander's lines that his death in Birthright was of his own intention, further relating to Mark Antony.

Ryoma (JP: リョウマ; rōmaji: ryouma) is the high prince of the kingdom of Hoshido and wielder of the blade Raijinto. He is named after Sakamoto Ryouma (坂本龍馬), a master swordsman and political activist following the end of Japan's isolationist policy brought about by the forceful arrival of United States Commodore Matthew Perry. Born to a low-ranking samurai family, Sakamoto dropped out of school at an early age to pursue the blade in Edo, becoming a master kenjutsu instructor come his early twenties. Soon after returning to his home domain of Tosa, he was an early member of the Tosa Loyalist Party, one of many organizations that were dissatisfied with the Tokugawa Shogunate (a military dictatorship) and desired power to lie in the hands of the Imperial Court once more. As the Tosa Loyalists, purely focused on their domain, began plotting the assassination of the local governor - a man largely focused on modernization - Sakamoto, whose interests lay more with the army of Satsuma marching on Edo, left Tosa. The act of leaving one's clan was not acceptable and brought about the death penalty and left one denounced as a rōnin. He traveled back to Edo, where he and a colleague planned to assassinate Katsu Kaishu, a member of the Shogunate and a major influence on Japan's westernization. Upon meeting Katsu, however, Sakamoto was convinced of the need for westernization and the development of Japan's naval force. He became an assistant and mentee of Katsu. When Katsu was dismissed by the shogunate and his naval training center done away with, Sakamoto and other students were taken in by the Satsuma domain. Here he established Kameyama Shachū, a trading and shipping company through which he allied the opposing domains of Satsuma and Chōshū. Together, Satsuma and Chōshū were able to best the Tokugawa Shogunate and brought about the Meiji Restoration. Shortly before the start of the Boshin War, however, Sakamoto Ryouma was assassinated by the Mimawarigumi, a police force established by the shogunate. Fire Emblem's Ryoma obviously takes inspiration from the historical figure as a skilled wielder of katanas, but also in his participation in a revolution, seen in his affiliation with the Chevois Rebellion. A comparison can also be made between Ryoma's sudden disappearance from Hoshido to support the western-based revolt and Sakamoto Ryouma's leaving of Tosa to support the movement against the Tokugawa Shogunate, while growing in understanding of the westernization movement from his superior. Additionally, Sakamoto bringing peace between the feuding Satsuma and Chōshū domains to dismantle the shogunate may have some influence upon Corrin being able to bring peace between Nohr and Hoshido to bring war to Valla.

There are notable parallels between the purported namesakes of Xander and Ryoma. Both Mark Antony and Sakamoto Ryouma were major political figures in times of unrest in their countries during the buildup of a shift from militaristic dictatorships to placing power in the hands of an emperor followed by a period of peace. Both instances feature the subject as a major player in the conflicts leading to an imperial system but dies shortly before such a change is adopted. The endings of both of their lives can be reflected in Xander and Ryoma, who in their respective route opposing Corrin die in battle shortly before peace is found between the warring kingdoms.

[jeannereames]

Following up on your answer to that person’s question about Barsine, if Herakles was Alexander’s son, why did he ignore him? Maybe I’m wrong, but I haven’t gotten the impression from what I’ve learned about Alexander that he’s indifferent to family, especially a baby that’s his.

Aaaaand this is precisely why I’m still not 100% sold that Herakles was his.

Herakles of Macedon, Alexander's "Forgotten?" Son

Although as Monica (D’Agostini) reminded me, the baby would have been only about four when ATG died, so at that age, it was quite traditional for children to remain with their mother—and he’d sent Barsine to Pergamon, the Aeolian area where her family had a great deal of power and land. Typically, very young children were left out of historical accounts without a particular reason to mention them. One would think the birth of a healthy prince would count, but we hear about Alexander’s own birth only because notice of it coincided with two other pieces of good news for Philip (and because he became so important later). We don’t hear about Arrhidaios’s birth, much less any of the girls. Even the last is mentioned only because of how she died at Olympias’s hands.

Similarly, we know about Roxane’s pregnancy and stillbirth/miscarriage from the (very late) Metz Epitome. And we know Statiera died in childbirth from a tossed off comment in Plutarch and Justin. Arrian doesn’t mention either of these. That’s caused some to dismiss them both as fabricated, but the problem is we wouldn’t expect the campaign/military-focused Arrian to talk about them. Curtius does at least talk about Statiera, but because she fits into his narrative of an (early) clement ATG, he doesn’t attribute her death to childbirth but exhaustion—in part because a pregnant Statiera would conflict with how he’s presenting Alexander at that point in his narrative, suggesting that maybe he didn’t keep his hands off another man’s wife.

Monica thinks Barsine stayed with Alexander all the way into Baktria and was probably sent to Pergamon either when she became pregnant or after the baby was born. I’d bet on the former, to get her the best medical care. Remember Barsine’s age; she was older than Alexander—possibly approaching 40. Her daughter by Memnon was old enough to be married to Nearchos at Susa—which is why, after Alexander’s death, Nearchos brought Herakles forward as a candidate for king. The daughter may have been as young as 14/15, but that still makes her mother 35+ in 324. Barsine was married to Mentor before Memnon, although perhaps not for very long. Alexander probably didn’t want her trying to have a baby at the back of nowhere at her age, regardless of how many she’d already had. Artabazos “retired” around that same time, so perhaps they traveled back west together. (I’d have to check whether he stayed at the court.)

But the histories don’t reveal any of this. It’s pieced together from the age of Herakles at his death and mention of Barsine being given to Alexander as a mistress after Issos, plus the later prominence of her family—although that could have owed to long-standing guest-friendship between Artabazos and the Macedonian court. IOW, Barsine likely got her position as mistress because of her family’s earlier connection to the Argeads, and in turn, her position as mistress led to Artabazos’s elevated treatment later.

So that’s one likely scenario. But there are a few others. Barsine may have been a cover for Alexander’s affair with Statiera. As we know, Statiera (probably) died in childbirth but the baby couldn’t have been Darius, and therefore almost had to be Alexander’s. After she died (right before Gaugamela), Alexander may have left all the women in Babylon. He certainly didn’t drag Darius’s daughters off to Baktria. If that were the case, timing-wise, Herakles couldn’t be Alexander’s.

Or it's possible Barsine was Alexander’s mistress (not just a cover) even as he also had an affair with Statiera. No expectations existed for Alexander to have only one mistress at a time. I find it unlikely that he took up with Statiera until after he’d received at least the first letter from Darius, making it clear Darius wouldn’t negotiate for his family. So he may have started with Barsine, then took up with Statiera too, but also kept Barsine. Barsine's knowledge of Persia would have been invaluable to him. As for bringing Barsine to Baktria but not Darius’s daughters, they were much younger and perhaps less tough. Certainly they were less experienced politically, compared to the older, bilingual Barsine. So, I can see reasons for bringing her and not them.

The problem is simply that, when it comes to the women traveling with Alexander’s army, we are told so VERY little, from which we are then forced to infer so much. Ergo, disagreement easily ensues over how to interpret the titbits. That’s a large part of why I was open to hearing Monica’s alternative theories. (Well, that and the fact it’s not central to anything I’ve published, so any course-correction isn’t personal—ha.)

The difficulty is just that, after she’s brought to Alexander following Issos, we hear nothing about Barsine again until her daughter is selected for Nearchos’s wife. Then not again till Alexander’s death when Nearchos champions her son (and fails). Then not again until after Arrhidaios and Alexander IV are both dead, and Polyperchon tries to put Herakles forward but is bribed/talked out of it by Kassandros, so instead he kills both the 18-year-old Herakles and Barsine.

The problem is, we wouldn’t necessarily expect to hear about Barsine and Herakles, so that silence isn’t especially significant. That’s why an argument from silence is problematic. Alexander may, in fact, have taken an interest in his son, but wanted to keep him away from court until he was older, especially if he wasn’t legitimate. Alexander was all-too-accustomed to the politics of polygamy and recognized that bringing him to Babylon could make him a target, especially if he wasn’t old enough yet to travel with his father (under his father’s eye and protection). Alexander NOT taking a big interest in him would, ironically, act as protection.

Also, we don’t actually know where Barsine and Herakles were when Alexander died, except apparently not in Babylon. Alexander might have seen the boy earlier, however, once he was back in the west. Barsine could very well have met him to Ekbatana, as the Persian Royal Road goes from Sardis north until east of the Tigris, when it swings south towards Susa. But Persia had a LOT of roads, not just that one, and a road forked off the main trek to the capital of Ekbatana in Media. Easy travel. ATG was to have held a major festival there with athletic contests and all sorts of things, but everything got overshadowed by Hephaistion’s death.

Of more import is why he was passed over at Alexander’s death. I actually find this to be the one REAL sticking point in arguments about his parentage, but it cuts both ways.

Given that nobody knew if Roxane’s baby would be male, and the mental infirmity of Arrhidaios (enough that Perdikkas was appointed regent, as for a child, of a man in his mid-30s!), not choosing Herakles presents a problem. Any Argead male could inherit. Some have pointed out the resistance to Roxane’s son to explain resistance to Herakles too; not only was he part Persian, but the son of a mere mistress, not wife. I find that a weak argument. Barsine was half Greek (her mother was Greek, sister of Mentor and Memnon of Rhodes), making Herakles less than half Persian. If anything, the son of the thoroughly Hellenized Barsine would have been preferable to the unborn child of “barbarian” Roxane, legitimate or not.

If there were doubts about him AS Alexander’s son, however, that could explain why Nearchos’s suggestion was ignored. Except if he’d expected that to be a problem, it seems unlikely Nearchos would've put him forward. Perhaps years later, when Polyperchon tried, a cuckoo could have been slipped in, but in 323, that would've been harder. Also, the fact Kassandros paid off Polyperchon to kill Herakles, the last surviving Argead—didn’t just claim he wasn’t Alexander’s son—suggests Kassandros believed he was Alexander’s son.

Yet it's still a puzzle to me why Herakles was passed over, a healthy male child, in favor of the mentally incapable brother and unborn baby. Perhaps if we had more of Diodoros’s book 18, as well as Arrian’s account of what happened immediately after (the book exists in only in a few tantalizing fragments)—or for that matter Nearchos’s own account!—we’d get a better idea of what transpired in Babylon that July.

[theantonian]

Cleopatra's Heritage

Her name means “father’s glory,” in the sense of “glorious lineage” (from the Greek κλέος, kleos, “glory,” and πατρóς, patros, “of the father”). Cleopatra isn’t actually Egyptian, but Greco-Macedonian.

Although we perceive her name as unique in history and belonging to an equally unique queen, she was not the only one to be called that. We know of six others preceding her, which is why, to avoid any confusion, modern historians refer to her as Cleopatra VII. Why were there so many Cleopatras? The reason is that it was customary among the Ptolemies to use recurring dynastic names (like the French kings did with Louis).

Consequently, the princesses invariably had one of these three names: Arsinoe, Berenice, or Cleopatra.

Cleopatra’s Egypt was very different from what we all imagine. There are respectively 1,200, 1,300, and more than 1,400 years between her and other famous Egyptian women such as Nefertari (Pharaoh Ramesses II’s wife), Nefertiti (Pharaoh Akhenaten’s wife), and Hatshepsut. It’s like comparing a modern woman with one who lived at the time of Charlemagne or the early-medieval Lombards.

Cleopatra lived in a completely different Egypt, a kingdom already invaded and ruled by Persians for quite a few centuries before being conquered by Alexander the Great, who then started the Greco-Macedonian Ptolemaic dynasty that remained on the throne for another three centuries or so.

Source: Cleopatra - The Queen who Challenged Rome and Conquered Eternity by Alberto Angela

[whencyclopedia]

Perdiccas

Perdiccas (d. 321 BCE) was one of Alexander the Great's commanders, and after his death, custodian of the treasury, regent over Philip III and Alexander IV, and commander of the royal army. When Alexander the Great crossed the Hellespont and threw his spear onto the shore of Asia Minor, he and his loyal army began a ten-year journey that would take them to the far reaches of Asia, amassing an empire unlike any that had existed before it. However, the young king's sudden death in 323 BCE left a vast kingdom leaderless and in disarray; there was neither an immediate heir nor appointed successor. Perdiccas stepped to the forefront to offer a solution. With the king's signet ring in his hand, he attempted to keep the empire intact. Unfortunately, others loyal to the king maintained a different opinion. In the end, the various commanders took possession of their small piece of the territorial pie, leaving Perdiccas with only a slim chance of rebuilding what had already been lost.

Early Career

Perdiccas stepped to the forefront to offer a solution. With the king's signet ring in his hand, he attempted to keep the empire intact.

Much of what history knows about Perdiccas is not flattering, clouded by the hostile account in Ptolemy's history of Alexander and his conquest of Persia. Ptolemy I and Perdiccas had been constantly at odds with one another since Babylon, a conflict that would eventually lead to Perdiccas' death. However, other than Ptolemy's history, most dependable versions maintain that he was about the same age as Alexander (possibly a little older) and was the son of Orontes, a Macedonian noble from the House of Orestes, a royal family that had once ruled a small independent kingdom in the Macedonian highlands but whose power had been stripped by Philip II, Alexander's father.

Initially, Perdiccas was a page in the imperial court at Pella, but in 336 BCE he became a member of Philip II's elite infantry, a shield-bearer or hypaspist. Later in the same year, serving as a king's bodyguard, Perdiccas was one of many who pursued Pausanias, Philip's murderer. The reason for the murder: Pausanias believed the king had betrayed him and sought revenge. When the assassin's boot caught on a vine as he hopped onto his horse, he was immediately slain by his pursuers. History still debates whether or not Olympias, Alexander's mother, had anything to do with the death of his husband. Many still believe she encouraged Pausanias to kill Philip to ensure Alexander's ascension to the throne. One of these was Plutarch who wrote in his The Life of Alexander the Great,

… when he found he could get no reparation for his disgrace at Philip's hands, watched his opportunity and murdered him. The guilt of which fact was laid for the most part upon Olympias, who was said to have encouraged and exasperated the enraged youth to revenge… (11)

Continue reading...

[just-1-scorpio]

Mythology nerd reacts/talks about Dislyte part 1.- Djoser

So Djoser is the Esper of Atum. So let's start with introdusing Atum. And sorry for the bad English, it's not my first launvige, and I have troubles with writing even in my own launvige.

So Atum is the primordial God in Egyiptian mythology. In some version he created himself, in other versions he was formed from the primordial waters Nu. In early versions he created the first gods Shu, and Tefnot, buy simply siting them out of his mouth, and in other versions he created them buy his hands. The two of them were corious about the primordial waters that surrounded them, and one time they went to explor it, then they disapeard in the dark ess. Atum unable to acept the loss of his children sent a messenger the Eye of Ro to find them. Luckly they were found, and as Atum reunited with his son, and daughter, he let out tears of joy. And from those tears of joy humans were created. Later on Shu, and Tefnot got married, and started making the other gods. Yes there are other versions but for the sake of simplicity I left them out. But

But a queck history lesten first. Believe me it will be importent for later so bear with me. I try to tell ancient Egypt's history as fast as posible. Ancient Egyiptian history can be sepereted into three parts, with a few transitional ages when it comes to art history, so I will use this. So if the time line is has a few holes in it, it's because of this. The first one is the Old Kingdom that started in approxemetly in 2686 BC and ended in approxemetly in 2181 BC. And is often referd to as the "Age of the Pyramids". It started with rule of Egypt's first pharaoh Djoser, and it's last pharaoh eather being Netjerkare Siptah, or Neferirkare depending on the scholar. The second is the Middle Kingdom, which approxemetly started in 2055 BC, and approxemetly ended in 1650 BC. And it's first pharaoh was Mentuhotep II, and it's last pharaoh was eather Merneferre Ay, or the last pharaoh of the Thirteenth Dynasty. And the last one is the New Kingdom. It started in approxemetly 1550 BC, and ended in approxemetly 1069 BC. It's first pharaoh was Ahmose I, and it's last pharaoh was Ramesses XI. And it was later fallowed by the Late Period of ancient Egyip, which was later fallowed by the Macedonian rule, when Egypt was under the rule of the Macedonian Empire, and this was the time when the Philopator dynasty started with Ptolemy I Soter, and this era ended with the death of Cleopatra. And this is where we usually stop talking about ancient Egyiptian history, because here Egypt become Roman theritory.

So why did I meantiond this? Well for many reason, but for now let's back to Atum. In the Old Kingdom it was believed that Atum lifted the dead pharaoh's youl from the Pyramids to the affter life. And besides all this he was also a solar deity, and was associated by Ra, and was linked with the evening sun. In the Book of the Dead one of the primer,that was writen in around 1550 BC, and most well know sources when it comes to Egyiptian mythology, he was said to ascended from chaos-waters with the appearance of a snake, and the Snake renewing itself every morning. And he had two consorts Iusaaset (who was a genderbend version of Atum), and Nebethetepet (who was probably also a genderbend version of Atu) who are both pretty Obscure.

So this was a lot to take in, but it will all make sense. I promis. But now let's talk about Djoser.

So let's start with his name. He was named after the first pharaoh Djoser, who united lower, and upor Egypt. Which first makes sense, because like I said Atum was the first God in Egyiptian mythology, it's actually a quet nood to it, and second it shows that the devs cared about it, even if people will not really notice it. Which is a thing that I can aprove of.

Now let's talk about his back story. Djoser was an orphan, and was alon his entry life until the day he meet his wife. Then they had a daughter together. Djoser finaly had a family, he félt complite, and vowed to protect his family. But sadly he could't protect them for everything. His wife soon daid after giving birth to they daughter. After this he become an Esper. His daughter become the sunshine in his life. But she fall ill with a dreadfull sickness. Djoser tried everything that he could to save her, which included joining the Shadow Decree. In the end he had to say goodbye to her. After this he directed his whrath, and anger at the Esper Union, and he become one of the most wanted person in Grandis. But old habbits never die, he still makes too many food because he used to cook for his family.

So there are many similarities, and defrences between him, and Atum. They both were alone in the start, and they both are father who lost they child, and both of them are older then the others (Djoser is 40 by the way) . But the similarities end here. Djoser only had one child a daughter, and Atum had two children a son, and a daughter, and in Atum's case he got his children back, and his tears were from joy, whaile Djoser had to say a finel goodby to her, and his tears were from sarow.

In aapearenc the devs took some creativ liberties. Which in my eyes is not a problem. Atum was usually depicted as this:

Or this:

And this is Djoser's character design:

And this character design absolutly works. He is suposed to be big, and sceary looking, and he looks the part. He is wearing multiple ankhs. And it's just a pretty good character design over all.

[whereserpentswalk]

That's an interesting take on humanity in the far future

Especially with a lot of sci-fi media portraying humanity as a cohesive, powerful empire

Thanks! I feel like a lot of scifi puts all of future humanity in a place similar to dominant groups (IE: being the space equivalent of Imperial Romans/Hellenistic age Macedonians/Early modern British/Modern Anglo-Americans/etc.) I think because a lot of people tend to view human history only from the perspective of that type of group.

My goal with that short story was to show a world where humanities future was similar to a different type of cultural group.