What does the Arche in Arche Seleukeia mean?

What does the Arche in Arche Seleukeia mean?

something like: empire.
but dont get these peopel started. look in the previeuw (sheeps thread). 3 pages debate why it's empire, and not kingdom. so Empire is an oversimplification

Oh no.

Oh no? Clarify please.


Arch means something like first, so maybe arche means something like first among nations maybe?

Ohhh boy.

:hide:

"arche" alpha-rho-chi-eta (feminine noun)

II. first place or power, sovereignty (not in Hom.), cf. Hdt.1.6, etc.; Arist.Pol.1284b2 : metaph., of a stroke of fortune, D.21.196: pl., A.Ch.864 (lyr.); S.Ant.744 , etc.: c. gen. rei, S.OT737 ; power over them, Th.3.90, X.Ath.2.7, etc.: prov., Biasap.Arist.EN1130a1, cf. D.Prooem.48; method of government, Th.6.54 .

2. empire, realm, Hdt.1.91, Th.4.128, etc.

3. magistracy, office, Hdt.3.80, 4.147; Id.3.89 ; Th.8.70; D.59.72, etc.; to obtain an office, Id.57.25; Th.1.96 ; Id.6.54 ; Lex ap.Aeschin.1.21; withsg. Noun, Th.4.53 ; term of office, Antipho6.42 ; POxy.119.16 (iii A.D.).

4. in pl., the authorities, the magistrates, Th.5.47 , cf. Decr. ap. And.1.83; Th.6.54; collectively, 'the board', D.47.22, cf. IG1.229, etc.; Antipho5.48 ; but of a single magistrate, PHal.1.226 (iii B.C.); against authority, A.Supp.485; Id.Ag.124 (anap.).

5. command, i.e. body of troops, LXX 1 Ki.13.17, al.

6. pl., heavenly powers, Ep.Rom.8.38, al., cf. Dam. Pr.96; powers of evil, Ep.Eph.6.12, al.

------------------------------
Seleukeios, -a, -on‚ adjective

A. of Seleucus, IG11(2).203 B 22 (iii B.C.); name of a month at Ilium, OGI212.11 (iv/iii B.C.), Supp.Epigr.4.664.3 (i B.C.): festival of S., IG12(1).6.3 (Ery thrae).

----------------------------
Have posted this elsewhere, but here is the explanation of why using "empire" (for which 'arche' is the closest word and the word attested to used in the Seleukid empire) is the best way to go and hardly "made up":

Contemporary references to the state as both a kingdom 'basileia' and an empire 'arche' exist in loyalty decrees from Ilium - OGIS 219. From Sherwin-White and Kuhrt's "From Samarkhand to Sardis" ('93): (chapter 2: section on 'Defining the Seleucid State') "One factor about the Seleucid kingdom, at least, is indisputable: it was an empire, meeting two of the most basic criteria of imperial rule, i.e. (a) where one state, or central power, encompassing a large territory and incorporating a number of socities, often heterogenous in geography and culture, dominates the others by military conquest and military force, and uses the surpluses of the subordinated 'countries'; (b) there exists some sort of overarching administrative framework, which may be loose or tight. The state is created by conquest (Alexander the Great and Seleucus I) and perpetuated by military constraint (armies, colonies, military expeditions, garrisons), which permits the levy of tribute and service from the subjugated peoples. This broad definition the Seleucid kingdom fits."

^-- That is the reason for the "oh no."

thanx guys

...teleklos demoralises people with really profound stuff. :-P

It's OK- we have averted disaster... Telekos's explanation should be objective and in-depth enough to satisfy everybody.

...Please?

I'm just glad to see you use the anchor symbol instead of CA's silly flag.
But in contrast is it really accurate to use the star of Vergina for Macedonia. The Macedonian kingdom was under the rule of the Antigonids, I didn’t think they used the star.