Printable View
After skimming over an article by Charles Edson, I have come to wonder whether Seleukos Nikator was not the one to continue Alexander's objectives. He was, after all, the one who secured the biggest chunk of the newly conquered Makedonian Empire.
Any other thoughts on this?
After the battle of Ipsus, and the defeat of Antigonos, no one else was strong enough to definitively defeat the other successors. Had Antigonos won at Ipsus, then all of Macedonia, Asia Minor and Seleukos' eastern territories would have instantly became his, thus reforming Alexanders empire.
In terms of "by law" => Phyrrhos (of Epeiros). After all he's family.
Perdiccas. Well....he was supposed to be anyways. I actually just got a pretty informative book on this....the entire situation was quite confusing. All kinds of rulers supporting all kinds of others, with alliances changing on a whim...
Ze great question!
Alexander mumbled something on his deathbed that confused everybody and opened the gate to widespread warfare between anybody who could get a couple thousand guys with pikes.
It sounded vaguely like:
Krateurrr-eurgh
Did he meant :
1-Krateroi (to Krateros)
2-Kratistôi (to the strongest)
3-Give me that Krater full of wine, I'm thirsty by Zeus!
It's everybody's guess.
Krateros missed the boss' death, missed the succession and stupidly falled from his horse on a cavalry charge less than two years later. Three strikes, you're out.
After that, the free for all. It's a worse read than the king plays by Shakespeare. The who' stabbed/poisoned/bitchslapped who of the makedonians kings is quite tedious actually. Bottom line; the romans and the parthians splitted the kingdom in half less than two hundred years after Alexander's death.
To answer you frankly, Alexander had no true heir. And no one showed up.
The diadochus were the worst kind of land pirates until Timur and his piles of skulls.
A quote from Hellenistic Civilization by W.W. Tarn (revised by he and G.T. Griffith)
'The arrangements made by the army after his [alexander's] death vested the kingship jointly in his idiot half-brother Phillip III and his posthumous son by Roxane, Alexander IV: his general Perdiccas had the effective control of Asia, and Antipater in Europe.'
In 321, war broke out between Antipater, Antigonus, and Ptolemy against Perdiccas. Perdiccas was murdered, and Antipater ruled a united empire until his death in 319....after that, all hell broke loose apparently.
I wold say that the most successful successor (from the first generation) was Ptolemaios, but he wanted only Egypt and knew that there is nobody able to rule all the Alexandros empire. He made Egypt the greatest power in the mediterranean but later kings ruined this.
And the true heir - Alexandros IV.
I have seen the movie Alexander by Oliver Stone, so what do you think about it? (if there is such thread, please post a link)
Too confusing....flash-forwards, flash-backwards, I think they're was even a flash-sideways in there somewhere...
I enjoyed it because it was a 'historical' (and I use that term loosely) film with battle scenes....aside from that, the oft-scholarly despised 'Gladiator' was a much better movie IMO.
*awaits the inevitable flame for that one*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Gladiator is still my favorite movie
I found 'Alexander' an awfull movie of which I was happy when it was over. And yes, 'Gladiator' was a fine movie, I think. When I want to see historical acurencay I can watch some of those docus that are around by the hundreds on the Ancient times - with variing quality, of course, or read a book. When I am watching a movie I want to be entertained, and when it is set in a historical periode what I am interessted in, the better. And neither Alexander nor Troy did entertain me.
Cool solution, man. Really good, that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
NB, es heißt "click". Aber wahrscheinlich ein typo.
Yours, Treverer
And now: :focus:
To answer the original question....I'd say Antipater would be the closest thing to Alexander's true heir...
He was the only other one who ruled something even remotely close to what Alexander ruled, and he was only able to rule because the great respect the other Diadochoi afforded him.
Once he died, they all wanted a piece of the pie.
Lysamachus was pretty bad-ass from what I hear, but probably no more so than Seleukos I Nikator or Ptolemy I Soter.
Incidentaley, what does Nikator mean?
Nikator means victor (i think)
About the movie... those indians looked more muslim than they should have imo....
I thought they looked exactly like the the EB hindu archers, I was absolutley amazed by the similarity when I saw the movie at a friends house...
Nikator = victor
Soter = saviour
Someone correct me if I'm wrong...
As, I said, I don't know the Nikator, but soter is definatly saviour.
Well, Nike was the Greek word for victory....so I assume it's correct. I know I've seen it somewhere (maybe in EB even). :yes:
Yes its victor just checked on wiki
I think Nikator means "conqueror" or maybe something between "victor" and "conqueror". As for Lysimach I know that during his getae campaign he was captured by Dromihades, a dacian/gaetian basileus. It is said that the "noble's council" wanted the macedonians dead but the basileus managed to save them by convincing the other nobles with his arguments. At least that is what our teacher told us. I would like to continue but I gtg. Happy birthday to me! Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Happy birthday Burakuku :balloon:
None was. Alexander was a conqueror, yet left his successors with a massive area only loosely under Makedonian control: their goal, namely consolidation, was different from his.
A very good point, although I'd argue that Seleukis led expeditions into India, although I don't really know how successful they were, or if they were even expeditions of conquest, as opposed to the consolidation that you already spoke of. :shrug:
Seleukos was defeated by and lost some land to Chandragupta Maurya iirc. However, their actual war was resolved through diplomacy, with a diplomatic mairrage between the macedonians and the indians and Chandragupta donating some 500 (exaggerated?) elephants to the Seleukid Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Yes, I've heard that in the past, as those were the elephants so instrumental in the Seleukid victory at Raphia.
Ehh, I thought raphia was way later (ie all the elphants would have died) I thought the Elephants seleukos the first got were used to smash the galatians instead...
Honestly....I don't really know. I'm sure Abou would know. :shrug:
In the sense of bringing Hellenistic culture to (relatively) unknown lands I'm tempted to place the Indo-Greeks before the Seleucids, particularly under Menander I for his conquests and embracement of foreign cultural ideas such as Buddhism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Well, I would agree that Menander was definitely much more important than even Alexander himself in that respect with regards to India, as he went further east than any other hellenic ruler IIRC.
EDIT: Well, after dwelling on it further, saying he was more influential than alexander may be pushing it, as the indo-hellenics wouldn't even have existed (at least, not in the form/time period they did) were it not for Alexander going into places like Baktria and India in the first place.
Menander was a bad-arse mofo though, that much is certain. :yes:
Perhaps they were the descendants of said elephants...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharnakes
:wink2: