#diadochi

[tchai-castor]

One of my friends is a big fan of Lysimachus, so I drew the Diadochi with Alexander The Great. He posted it on reddit already atually, there were some comments on it, especially why Craterus is so short. Well, that's because I completely misjudged the height when I drew him. At a certain point I was done drawing all of them and I even already had base colors etc. and I noticed that Craterus was just floating around, he wasn't even touching the ground. So instead of elongating him with the select tool, I decided to just draw him a sort of stool, so it wouldn't be as obvious. So no he wasn't short in real life, I just miscalculated.

I actually drew this as a "strike a pose" concept, but someone said they look like a boyband and I actually like that better: Alexander and the Diodochs, performing on Queen levels is now by far one of my favorite things to think about.

[jeannereames]

ATG Symposium

Just a reminder to all-and-sundry that I'm still covered up with the Alexander the Great conference, which begins TOMORROW, right here in Omaha. 30-something scholars from all over the world. Super-cool. Link to the full schedule below, if you're curious. Two keynotes, one experimental archaeology session and eleven regular paper sessions across 2.5 days. I may be dead by the time it's over. LOL

9th International Alexander the Great Symposium: Repercussions of Violence under Alexander and the Succesors

[autodidactprofessor]

Battle of Ipsus: The Clash of the Successors and the Fate of Alexander's Empire

Background: The Fragmentation of Alexander’s Empire When Alexander the Great died unexpectedly in 323 BCE in Babylon, he left behind an empire that stretched from Greece and Egypt in the west to the Indus Valley in the east—a vast realm without a clear successor. His only heirs were his half-brother, Philip III Arrhidaeus, who suffered from mental disabilities, and his unborn son, Alexander IV,…

[preacherpollard]

Controversial Prophesy Alert

Dale Pollard Daniel 8  Daniel prophesied of the Persian and Greek eras of Israelite history. The angel interpreted that for us, so there’s no mystery there. That mean man of the Diadochi, Antiochus Epiphanes, is described with his persecution lasting 2300 days. It was concluded by the Rededication of the Temple by Judas Maccabee, and that day became the Jewish Festival of Lights (John…

[infirmux]

second show this year to contain unheralded opera segment perhaps it is indicative of some desire in the hearts of the youth?

[lightdancer1]

Incidentally while most of the Ancient Greeks and Romans were monogamous, the Macedonians were the big exception:

One of the key factors of Macedonian history and culture is that unlike the rest of the Greek world Macedonians happily, or at least the Royal Family happily, indulged in polygamy. This was a very key factor in shaping the destinies of women, and it both accounted for the kind of intrigues that are a dime a dozen in the various Iranian and Islamic states, and for that matter in China having parallels in Macedon that they ultimately do not in the rest of the Graeco-Roman world. This only makes the rise of Olympias, simultaneously mother and aspiring Diadochi and brief autocrat of Macedon, all the more impressive. She parlayed her son Alexander's success into her own claim, and proved that he got no small portion of what shaped him into the world-bestriding juggernaut who forged a new world at Gaugamela much as Khalid Ibn Al-Walid would at the Yarmuk from her.

She also was one of the losers and yet the reality is that a Queen played and was also one of the winners, and for longer than some of the more unfortunate players in the Diadochi Wars.

[whencyclopedia]

Ptolemaic Egypt

Ptolemaic Egypt existed between 323 and 30 BCE when Egypt was ruled by the Macedonian Ptolemaic dynasty. During the Ptolemaic period, Egyptian society changed as Greek immigrants introduced a new language, religious pantheon, and way of life to Egypt. The Ptolemaic capital Alexandria became the premier city of the Hellenistic world, known for its Great Library and the Pharos lighthouse.

From Persian Rule to Alexander

In 525 BCE, Egypt was conquered by the Achaemenid Empire, beginning a period of harsh foreign rule and cultural repression. Egypt briefly regained its independence from 404 BCE until 342 BCE before it was reconquered. Discontent with the Persian government resulted in the Egyptians welcoming Alexander the Great as a liberator when he invaded in 332 BCE. Alexander had already broken the Persian army at the Battle of Issus (333 BCE), and Mazakes, the satrap of Egypt, surrendered without a fight.

Alexander demonstrated a deep respect for Egyptian culture, choosing to be crowned pharaoh according to traditional custom. He offered sacrifices to the Egyptian gods in Heliopolis and Memphis and hosted Greek athletic games to celebrate his reign. Next, he traveled south to the Oracle of Amun, whom the Greeks equated with Zeus, in the Siwa Oasis. Alexander believed himself to be the son of Zeus, which the oracle seemingly confirmed for him. The idea had precedent in Egyptian royal ideology in which kings were considered living gods, the offspring of deities like Ra or Amun. It was an unusually grandiose claim for Greek rulers, but Alexander's reputation was great enough for the Greeks to accept him as a demigod.

Alexander's grand design will slowly have come to encompass the idea that all peoples were to be subjugated for the formation of a new world order; for this purpose, the Egyptian pharaonic system presented a very suitable ideology that was well established and has been accepted for millennia.

(Hölbl, 9)

In 331 BCE, Alexander visited the fishing village of Rhakotis where he planned the foundation of a new city, Alexandria. He intended for Alexandria to be the capital of his empire, a link between Egypt and the Mediterranean. Before leaving to continue his conquests, Alexander appointed two governors, Doloaspis and Peteisis, and named Cleomenes of Naukratis, a Greek Egyptian, as his satrap. He also left a small army to occupy and defend Egypt.

Statue of Alexander the Great as Pharaoh

Carole Raddato (CC BY-SA)

After the death of Alexander the Great in Babylon in 323 BCE, his general Ptolemy I became satrap of Egypt. He was nominally the servant of Alexander's successors Philip Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV of Macedon, but in reality, he ruled on his own initiative. Ptolemy I quickly executed Cleomenes, whose exorbitant taxation was unpopular, and began establishing royal policies to modernize the country. By 310 BCE, the last of Alexander's heirs had died, and during the Wars of the Diadochi, Alexander's generals claimed pieces of his empire. Ptolemy I was crowned king of Egypt in 306 BCE, establishing the Ptolemaic dynasty.

Continue reading...

[kaibutsushidousha]

So does Minase joins Meteo of being a writer that picked a figure from regions that aren’t as used as much in TM with the Trung sisters belonging to him?

This one is just a self-answering yes-no question, so I'll instead use it as a platform for the Minase thoughts I've been having since the wombo-combo of the new mats, the anniversary interview, and the Dubai event. It's probably what the anon wanted out of it anyway.

My inner ramblings start from something Nasu said in last year's interview and made a point to reiterate this year.

Ordeal Calls are meant to be each writer's best and most emblematic piece. Their artistic identity taken to its peak. That's something I believe Sakurai accomplished and Minase didn't. That obviously raises one question: what would a real Minase masterpiece look like?

By the Ordeal Call's premise, it would still need to be something that gave the supplementary information we were missing about the Alterego class, but let's ignore that angle and focus only on the goal of expressing Minase's personality in the best way possible.

What works with Minase and what doesn't? Compare his worst and best pieces. Agartha sucks because it focuses on his opinions about women and those are categorically rancid. Yuga Kshetra succeeds because it focuses on his opinions about ableism, which are far more poignant and agreeable. Minase has enough care about the subject to ensure that the plot is a series of arrangements where the characters triumph not despite their so-called flaws but specifically because of them.

So an ideal Minase Ordeal would focus on a different subject that Minase recurrently displays passionate, empathetic, and agreeable opinions about. So what can we find in his roster of character? Minase made Servant versions:

Zenobia, whose historical significance is entirely about resisting Roman colonization, although she failed. Minase portrays as someone who literally wears her failure and tries to conduct herself with dignity regardless to prove the point that the Roman conquerors couldn't truly defeat her Palmyra spirit. I think this one is a bust execution-wise, but it's significant that the idea is there.

Lakshmi Bai, whose historical significance is entirely about resisting English colonization. Minase portrays her as someone who can't help but disdain the innocent English civilian Holmes and acknowledges the irrationality of it, but the entire surrounding cast including Holmes himself assure her that she is entitled to her feeling because colonization is that gruesome and traumatic of a process.

The Trung sisters, whose historical significance comes not exactly from resisting colonization, but from leading an independence war, which is similar enough in spirit.

Columbus, whose historical significance comes from being a colonizer. I don't need to tell you how Minase chose to portray him.

With Fate/ drawing its action cast from history books, it's inevitable that we get a decent amount of characters whose bulk of their offscreen backstory was spent conquering, slaughtering, and assimilating other cultures. Some certified colonizers, like Richard and Takeru, are very self-critical about it. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Iskandar, who gets flak from Faker and Ptolemy for his stupid decisions toward the Diadochi, but the journey of conquest and domination gets framed as the fun adventure no one is critical of. Either way, none of other characters not written by Minase get irredeemable treatment that Columbus gets.

The franchise's most prominent colonizer is, of course, Arthur(ia) Pendragon. Both versions are defined by the regret that comes with ultimately failing their kingdom, but their failings are never credited to the notion that violently conquering the British tribes and unifying the isles is an inherently bad thing. That's the image of greater good they fought for, and that part remains unchallenged. The closest Nasu got to criticizing Arthuria for being a colonizer is by showing the Round Table's brutal treatment of the Arabs in the Sixth Singularity. I'm mentioned this specially because this is Percival's first reaction to eating a mixed breakfast buffet in the current Minase-written Dubai event:

Minase's Percival is strongly defined by his respectful interest in foreign cultures and, fittingly enough for a knight who opposed the Lion King, he's maybe the first character to directly criticize Arthuria on her disregard for the traditions she trampled in the unification of Britain. That's a thing I'd appreciate more of and can only imagine Minase daring to touch on.

[jeannereames]

Who is your favorite diadochos? Or at least the one you find more interesting. Both for History and when writing or reading fiction

Kleopatra and Kynanne. Hands-down. The maneuvering of both, either trying to stay alive or trying to marry off a daughter to the new king, was EPIC. And yes, I consider them as much Diadochi as any of the men. Out of that, I think Kynanne won, even if Hadea Eurydike was eventually killed by Olympias. Poor Kleopatra wound up a prisoner of Antigonos.

Women aside, it'd be Seleukos and Lysimachos. Ptolemy was full of himself and sucks up all the air in the room because Arrian used him as a source for Alexander. But apparently, his history/memoir wasn't that well-known in the ancient world. Kassandros is just ...ick. Perdikkas apparently wasn't that good as a regent, although how much is later smearing by Ptolemaic and Seleucid sources is unclear.

I'd say Krateros too, but he died so quickly, along with Leonnatos. Both outlived Alexander by only a year or two.

(And this is probably my last "ask" answer for the night. I have a real back-up in my inbox, so trying to clear out some.)

[mapsontheweb]

The Hellenistic world

"Atlante storico tascabile", Istituto Geografico De Agostini, Novara,1999

via cartesdhistoire

In 323 BC, Alexander died without heirs, possibly from the plague. His empire, already facing insurrectionary movements, did not outlive him. His generals, the Diadochi, began a protracted struggle for power: Antipater in Macedonia, Lysimachus in Thrace, Ptolemy in Egypt, Antigonus Monophthalmos in Asia Minor and Syria, and Seleucus in Babylon.

The first phase of the war among the Diadochi concluded at Ipsus in Phrygia in 301 BC, with the "battle of the kings." Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Cassander, son of Antipater, defeated Antigonus, who had been consistently victorious until then. Seleucus and Ptolemy, prudent rulers, founded dynasties destined for long endurance, even though they were not immune to the temptation of rebuilding Alexander's empire. The focal point of the conflict became Macedonia, and long wars ensued for its dominion.

The Epigones, successors of the Diadochi, instead supported the status quo. The kings of Egypt and Syria founded new cities, respecting the rights of existing poleis.

Nearly all Hellenistic kings surrounded themselves with scholars, artists, and scientists. Ptolemy I founded the largest library of antiquity in Alexandria, Egypt.

In 277 BC, the Galatians, of Celtic descent, settled in Asia Minor. Some provinces declared independence, including the kingdom of Pergamon, a city renowned for being built on terraces, distinguished by the splendor of its culture and art, exemplified by a library of 400,000 volumes.

The kingdom of Bactria, situated in the northern region of present-day Afghanistan, was also significant, representing the eastern extent of Hellenistic influence and serving as a crossroads between the cultures of the Mediterranean region and those of China and India.

Antiochus III, the greatest of the Seleucids, expanded the empire's territories. However, the invasion of Greece in 192 BC triggered a war with Rome. Following the war, the king was compelled to accept peace, marking the beginning of the inexorable decline of his empire.

[queen-kassiopeia-the-5th]

With the return of House of the Dragon, there is something that always bothered me about the main idea of the show vs the book.

In the show, there is this dilemma of who has the right to become king – the firstborn daughter, when women were always denied the right to rule, or the eldest son, who is male and thus following tradition. There is the mix-up with Viserys talking to Alicent before on his deathbed in the show, and the plain fact of power hungry relatives pushing their chosen monarch in the intended direction, but fundamentally, the question boils down to – woman vs man, who should rule. Rhaenyra's side doubles down onto proving this female equality side, which is great, and I'm glad we get to see some badass women riding to war on dragons, and plotting, but it was never the main idea of the Dance of Dragons.

The reason for the Dance, in the book, is a pattern we see in throught the entire story. A strong monarch leaves behind a weaker monarch, who is unable to maintain peace, and war breaks out. We see it in Aegon the Conquer, with Aenys being a weak king and Maegor being a tyrant, partially in order to combat the unrest that Aenys created, and partially because he is trying to emanate or even exceed his father, unsuccessfully. Then we have the Jaehaerys, who in my opinion was one of the best, if not the best king of Westeros. He created a long time of peace and was a strong monarch. Then came Viserys, a weaker king – this is not to say completely incapable – who left behind a festering conflict that lasted years. The green and black camps were decided long before his death, and he didn't do much to combat this, or try and resolve the situation. We see a similar pattern in real life history, that we all know GRRM draws inspiration from. The Diadochi generals that inherited Alexander the Great's empire quickly began fighting among themselves in the Wars of the Diadochi, vying for control over the empire he created, ultimately to lose it; the Carolingian empire was divided a few years after the death of Charlemagne; Genghis Khan's children attempted to expand his empire, but it fragmented into several khanates and to China.

Ultimately, you can say that the show is a separate entity from the book, and I agree with that. I do think how the characters are written and developed in the show in some cases is much better than the book – see Viserys – and there are differences between them plot wise. I'm not saying I expect a word for word interpretation of the book. It's just an interesting angle that I got from the book, and that in my opinion the show has not touched on, and took into a completely different direction, which is still interesting. I think it would have been nice to have both, though.

[jstor]

Me consulting the wizard (local jstor employee):

I'm going crazy trying to find anything about the conditions of slavery in the achaemenid empire or the diadochi states afterwards, any idea where to even begin?

Assuming you have full JSTOR access, I was able to find this!

[qsycomplainsalot]

Macedonians: "we're greek" Greeks: "no you're not" - Diadochi states across the Middle East: "we're greek" Greeks: "no you're not" - Byzantines: "we're roman" Greeks: "what the fuck is happening"

[ancient-rome-au]

What do you think the world would be like if Marc Anthony and Cleopatra had beaten Octavian?

The most proximate outcome would be that Antony and Cleopatra's plans to carve out kingdoms for their children would have gone ahead:

Alexander Helios was named king of Armenia, Media and Parthia [Mark Antony had only conquered Armenia; Media and Parthia were not his to give away]

Cleopatra Selene was to receive Cyrenaica and Libya

Ptolemy Philadelphus was awarded Syria, Phoenicia and Cilicia

Caesarion was proclaimed the son of the deified Julius Caesar, King of Kings and King of Egypt (co-ruler with his mother)

Assuming Octavian's defeat results in his death, the legacy of Julius Caesar would have in theory fallen to Caesarion, but I suspect he would have had trouble exploiting it in practice. He was an infant for the brief period he lived in Rome; the rest of his childhood and adolescence was spent in Egypt. I doubt he would have the fluency in Latin and familiarity with the Roman politics to successfully leverage his claim to be the son of Julius Caesar into political power within the Roman context (i.e. convince Roman legions to fight for him or Roman citizens to vote for him). Evidently he really did share appearances with Julius Caesar, so that has to count for something, but I would guess that he would be seen as an "Oriental Monarch," hostile to Roman liberty. A product of a Roman man who was seduced by an Oriental Monarch and acculturated to exotic customs.

So, basically, the Roman Republic's expansion in the Near East would be halted (for a time). The same fundamental political arrangements as prevailed under the Diadochi would continue, albeit with slightly re-arranged borders and a new dynasty. Egypt would have retained primacy over these kingdoms, at least until the familial ties holding them together decayed (e.g. Is Egypt going to send troops to help defend Armenia from Parthian invasion if the rulers are cousins? What about second cousins?)

I'm not sure if I truly grasp Antony's long-term plans. Did he intend for these new states ruled by his children to be allied with Rome? He probably would have accomplished that so long as he lived and remained the uncontested master of Rome. But after his death, Rome probably would have looked to reconquer what he gave away within a generation or two.

[helleniclanguageboy]

Names of the Greeks

Let’s do a deep dive into the different ethnonyms for the Greek people. As a matter of methodology, we will be focusing primarily on Greeks from Greece rather than highlighting individual identities: e.g. Cypriots, Cappadocians, etc. Furthermore, one asterisk equals the term for the language and two for country.

Homeric and Mycenaean

Two main names used: Achaeans and Danaans which are echoed in the Bronze Age accounts of Greeks, but these are not used to represent the whole of Greek people in the modern day. Both terms have possible parallels in two groups of sea peoples recorded by the Egyptians: Danyan and Ekwesh. Achaean also is also potentially paralleled in Hittite sources. 

Danaans - Δαναοί

𓂧𓄿𓇋𓋔𓇋𓅱 (d3iniw) - Medinet Habu

Ἀχαιοί (Ἀχαιϝοί)

𓇋𓀁𓏘𓄿𓍯𓄿𓆷𓄿 (iḳ3w3š3) - Merneptah, Kanak

** 𒄴𒄭𒅀𒉿(Aḫḫiyawa) or 𒄴𒄭𒅀 (Aḫḫiya)

Hellenes

The ancient Greeks would largely refer to themselves as Ἕλλην. Later, under Christianity, this would become synonymous with pagan, so it declined in usage throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods but didn’t disappear. During the revolution from the Ottomans, leaders called for the revival of the term, wanting to emphasize the relationship to Ancient Greeks.

Ἕλλην - Ancient Greek

Έλληνας - Modern Greek

Ελ̣ηνικέ - Tsakonian

Έλλενος - Pontic 

*Ελλενικά - Pontic 

Ελινικάνο - Romani

Greeks 

The term Greek is largely an exonym that stemmed from Latin. The first Greek tribe that the Romans came into contact with was the Γραικοί (Graeci). This would spread into most languages to describe the Greeks. The only modern endonyms coming from this term is from the Southern Italian Greeks. There was an Italian loan present in Smyrniot, but it was one of a few. Kaliarda similarly featured an Italian loan for Greeks. Aromanian features the term as an exonym, but it is spoken in Greece so will be listed. (Sarakatsani does have Γρικιά listed as the word for Greece, but the textbook does not elaborate the usage)

Griko - Salento

Grèko/Grecanico - Calabrian

Γκρέκος - Kaliarda 

Γραικός - Smyrniot

Γκρέκου - Aromanian

Grek - Tsalka Urum

*Grecheski - Tsalka Urum

**Gretsia - Tsalka Urum

Roman

Coming under the Roman empire and gaining citizenship, the Greeks adopted the term Ῥωμαῖος. This maintained the most common ethonym until Greek independence. When Byzantine territory fell, the Turks and Arabs adopted the term Rum for the territory and the Greek Orthodox christians (e.g. Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (Arabic - بطريركية الروم الأرثوذكس في أنطاكية) or The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate (Turkish - Rum Ortodoks Ekümenik Patrikhanesi). The term survives until the modern day in Eastern Greek populations (Anatolian, Ukrainian, Caucasian, etc). These often distinguish Greeks from Greece from these Eastern Greeks. One derivative, Urum, denotes Turkophone Greeks in Ukraine and the Caucasus. 

Ρουμαίος - Sarakatsani

Ρωμανιώτης/רומניוטי - Romaniote Jewish

*Ρωμανιώτικα/רומניוטיקה - Romaniote Jewish

Ρωμιός - Constantinopolitan

Ρουμιός - Lycian

رومیکا - Cappadocian (Rumi)*

Ρωμνός - Axenitic

*Ρωμάικα  - Axenitic

Ρωμνιός -  Aravaniot

Ρωμός - Pharasiot

Ρωμαίος - Pontic

*Ρωμαίικα - Pontic

Румеюс/Ромеюс - Mariupolitan

*Румэку/Румеку - Mariupolitan

Romeyos - Romeyka

**Romeyka - Romeyka

Ρούμ/Οὐρούμ - Karmanlidika

*Ρούμδζε/Οὐρούμδζε  - Karmanlidika

**Ρουμιστάν - Karmanlidika 

Urum - Cypriot Turkish

Урум/Ουρούμ/Urum - Crimean Urum

Urum - Tsalka Urum 

Ουρούμιν - Pomak

Ionian

Similarly to Greek, the term Ionian stems from the Persians first coming into contact with the Ionians or Ἰάϝωνες (𐎹𐎢𐎴 /yauna/). Thus, most Eastern languages will use a derivative of this despite many coming into direct contact with Alexander the Great and later diadochi: Persian/Arabic - یونان (Yunan), Pali - 𑀬𑁄𑀦 (Yona), Sanskrit - यवन (Yavana), and Chinese 大宛 (Dayuan, Great Ionians). While this does not refer to Greeks as a whole, the word Ionian was first attested in the Bronze Age with the Egyptian ‘Great Ionia’ or 𓇌𓅱𓈖𓏭𓉻𓂝𓏛 (ywnj3’) and the Mycenaean word 𐀂𐀊𐀺𐀚(i-ja-wo-ne). As for modern endonyms,  there are two interesting examples: Karamanlidika and Judeo-Greek which use both Roman and Ionian. For Karamanlidika, Γιουνάν refers to Greece rather than its native Greeks (Ρουμιστάν was listed for Greece, but Γιουν��νιστάν is the more standard term). Cappadocian Greek and Smyrniot, in term, adopted the Turkish term for Greece (though Smyrniot also had other loans for the word). Judeo-Greek, however, has taken Yevanic to refer to the register to liken it to Ladino and Yiddish. It takes the Hebrew יון (Yevan) meaning Ionian and re-Hellenizing the term to have the -ιτικά ending. 

Γιουνανλής - Smyrniot 

**Γιουνανιστάν/Γιονανιστάν - Cappadocian Greek

Γιουνάν/Γιουνανλή - Karamanlidika

*Γιουνάνδζα - Karamanlidika

**Γιουνανιστάν - Karamanlidika

*Γεβανιτικά/יווניטיקה - Judeo-Greek

Others

Ραγιάς (slave) - Potamiot Cappadocian 

Σ̈κλα (foreigner) - Arvanitika

*Σ̈κλιερίσ̈τικα/Σ̈κλιερίσ̈τε̱ - Arvanitika

Καλαμαράς (squid, coming from mainland Greek scholars using squid bones as pens) - Cypriot Greek

*Καλαμαρίστικα - Cypriot Greek

**Καλαμαρκά - Cypriot Greek

Kalamara - Cypriot Turkish

Χαουτίκ - Cypriot Arabic

[catilinas]

hey girl. i mean wars of the diadochi