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:
Indeed he did. Menandros is the great unknown hero, if you ask me, that the world forgot. But that is another story altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
If I had to choose I would reply with 2, as for the life of me I cannot choose...
1. Seleukos, for fully realizing Alexandros ambition of joining peoples, by marrying a Persian woman, and leading his son to do the same. He, like Alexander was more of a uniter than a divider-he started from scratch and ended up with an empire.
2. Menandros, for basically going up until modern day Bangladesh, then detouring back to the coast towards Baryghaza. (or so some scholars claim... another unknown, basically. :wall: He too started from scratch. When he assumed the kingdom IndoGreeks were being defeated at all fronts by the Baktrians, and Taxila had been destroyed. He managed to reverse that and become ... well, Menandros. :yes:
Now, back to the IndoGreeks, here are some parts of their daily lives that would be exactly the same if they lived in Athens,
Here are some Indo-Greeks studying their papyri,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...sticReader.jpg
And another proof of Greeks holding on to their myths legends and Epics that got them there in the first place...
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...rojanHorse.jpg
I wonder how they would explain to their children where exactly Troy lay... or exactly how far.
---
And some others completely alien to the mainland Greeks,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...oteeArcade.jpg
A Buddhist Devotee, in a Stuppa door/arcade
and a drinking party,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...upZarDheri.jpg
Women joining in the fun with men, would be extremely alien to mainland Greece. Indian women too, probably concubines (fewer clothes, and note the rings around their ankes). The other women who are fully clad musn't be Hetairai, as those would be wearing "less" clothes as well.
---
Now, for some Buddhist imagery...
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...GiftOfDirt.jpg
Does this pic ring a bell? Hmm let me try this again...
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/..._fun5423_l.jpg
The Halo around the head is said to have influenced Early Christian depictions of the Saints- We Orthodox still paint them like that
and as for Buddhists retaining some Greek characteristics (other than clothing) well, I don't know the following pic reminds me of something...
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...twithhaite.jpg
...don't really know what... :)
It was that syncretism that allowed IndoGreeks, while a tiny minority to hold sway over such great expanses in India. An Indian epic speaks of their kingdom controlling 40.000 villlages. It wasn't to last of course, but their historical presence (at total years, NOT territory controlled, as that ebbed and flowed) was a little less than that of the British. 200 BCE-10 BCE.
190 years.
Fascinating stuff, Keravnos. :yes:
The Indo-Greeks have always appealed to me, as has Baktria. It just seemed like such an exotic place when compared with mainland Greece.
These kingdoms had to learn first-hand what jungle warfare was all about....what a sharp contrast to the rugged, relatively barren Greek mainland!!
Also, Menander is a fascinating character.
Any good books on the indo hellenics that aren't impossible to find or extraordinarily expensive that you could recommend would be sought with earnest...
Away from home right now, There is a short list that is actually very interesting. Once I am back, I will post them here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Thanks, bro, I look forward to that very much. :2thumbsup:
Thudering Zeus by someone or other holt, is a fairly good I belive. I am trying to get my hands on that myself, but I can never be bothered to get put of bed and go down to the libary :sweatdrop:
And it's expensive, and focuses almost exclusively on early independant Baktria. I was lucky to get it as a gift, a brilliant book.
ups, seems to have it übersehen. Thank youQuote:
Originally Posted by Treverer
Bootsuiv: the battle was Ipsos, the one where Seleucus and Lysimachus together kicked Antigonid arse.
Seleucus in particular earned extra experience points for the logistical wonder in marching all the way from the edge of India to western Asia Minor, with elephants, and for the role his newly-acquired elephants play in the victory over Antigonus. I think he leveled up too.
Some people (including whatshisname who wrote the popular biography of Seleucus) argue that the victory in that battle turns Seleucus' ambition from self-preservation from Antigonid menace to an Imperial one, so to speak.
As for Alexander's successors, it really is a mess, as is to be expected.
His last words were a mystery, although some interpret it to mean Craterus, the general. Others think "the strongest."
The arrangement made by Perdiccas at the partition of Babylon has the throne occupied by Philip III, an imbecile, and Alexander IV, which was unborn at the time.
Both met...gruesome ends. And neither actually ever ruled.
After that the closest "Argead" relative who's in any real position to claim power would be none other than Pyrrhus of Epirus. The Molossian star fell with his death.
Seleucus Nicator came closer than anyone in achieving a practical reunification of Alexander's Empire though. He missed Koile Syria (Ptolemaic), Egypt (also P-man's property), parts of Asia Minor (Ptolemaic and some independents), India (lost to the mighty Mauryans), and "Europe" (Macedon and Greece; a mess). That's it. A stab in the back by a Ptolemy ended his career though.
The Seleucids after that rarely came close to their primogenitor's achievements. Antiochus I's strength was spent fighting the Galatians and his exhausted empire simply couldn't continue conquering. He had a hard time even holding things together :/
After that, the only Hellenistic ruler who was in a position like Seleucus' again in terms of strength and potential to unify the "Alexandrian" empire was Antiochus III. And we all know where his ambition met its end.
As for Antipater's reign as "regent" of the whole Empire -- I always thought of it as meaningless bull. Antipater himself paid as little attention as he could to events east of the Taurus mountains, preoccupied himself with Macedonian holdings in Europe and in sending out generals (more specifically Antigonus) to hunt down Perdiccan supporters. The other satraps acknowledged him exactly for his isolationism and for that alone.
Perdiccas at least was vigorous in his attempt to keep the Empire together. Antipater was a disaster in this aspect. He essentially nullified even the symbolic importance of Alexander's royal court and the central administration it represented. After that the warlords reign free; an "interesting" time, as the cookie factory would put it.
The Greco-Bactrians (or was it Indo-Greeks? Bah, same. lol) did go further East than even Alexander, spreading Greek culture into India in the same direction that Alexander went. Were they continuing his unfinished work? Drama would say yes. History does not attest such causes to the actions of a people.
But in the end, the Hellenistic world in which Alexander created would be an extremely influential part of the history of that region for a long long time. And an ignored one, if my current 100's history class is anything to go by [Hey, I'm a Freshman!].
I think Seleuc realy was weaker before Ipsos comparing to Monoftalm (and that battle was big - almost 1:1 exept the elephants that was 5:1 on the allies...70.000-70.000 infantry, 10.000-10.000 cavalry and 75-500 elephants.).
And even before Lysimachus (and Pontus) against Antigon, Seleuc had help from Alexandria.. - and that would never happend if Antigon succeded in forsing the Nile twice before..
So my opinion is that Antigon was 'the strongest' in one 'real' sence, But the point is beyond that, I think that Alex realy ment his successpr should be Craterus - the general he loved very much - Alex even gave his ring to him, and that was one clear mark.. Because, Alex ring was called or shoul be refered to 'the strongest'.. When Alex died, Craterus was building a fleet near Salamina with veterens (SShields) so they could go back to Makedonia
Anyway, Antigon Monoftalm is realy my favourite, and certanly was the best soldier and general of all successors..to bad he died at 81 (I think) when he fall from his horse after a spear hit (after Demetrias failed to rundown Seleucid cavalry because of the 500 elephants).. After him, Seluc killed Lysimachus and tricked Demetrias (Antigons son) to 'come' to him when he was sent to jail (later killed) - and at the time Seleuc was planing to go to Greece and Macedonia - he was killed in his tent (i think )
I would vote for Monoftalm
Of course, the whole reason Antigonus was facing the allies was because he was the strongest of them all: alone, none of the allies would've been able to stand alone against his full might for long, and he threatened to conquer them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Although credit must be given to Ptolemy for standing up to Antigonus' assaults and to Seleucus for apparently doing the same as well in a much more precarious position.
To be honest, warfare of that time was less about who had the bigger and better run state but who had the most troops and the Persian treasury to pay them -- which he had the most by far. It was a very fluid age, before the successors made their states "permanent" and established a halfway decent administration.
In that matter of "stabilizing" their government credit must be given to Ptolemy Soter and his second son P. Philadelphos for the extraordinary work they'd done. Of course, the Seleucids weren't far behind (Seleucus' urbanization of Northern Syria was a revolutionary change for the importance and history of that region, for one, and evidences are that his son Antiochus was doing the same in Bactria). In this matter the Antigonids -- be it the "first" Antigonid empire of Monophthalmus or the "second" of Gonatas -- lagged behind.
But he wasn't the best ruler in my opinion. He was often very aggressive, even heavy-handed and unjust, and made unnecessary enemies while more subtle politicians like Seleucus and Ptolemy would make friends. He was ambitious and didn't see the need to hide it, which led the various other satraps to turn against him for their self-preservation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
His position, while strongest, was also vulnerable in its own way. He was never capable of bringing the entire might of his massive army against a single opponent, and even when he managed to focus a substantial part of them another front would've just flared up.
Of course, the fact that an old man of a generation before the other famous successors -- Philip's man, not Alexander's -- would be the top contender for as long as he had was altogether an extraordinary fact.
I'm still somewhat confused as to who actually controlled what during these days....I know there are maps here and there, but this is the first I ever remember hearing of the name Monoftalm.
I think I always saw Antigonos, and wasn't smart enough to realize that Gonatas was 50 years after the first one.
Who was 'the one eye'? Monoftalm?
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
That was one and only - the first Antigonid - an 'old' famos general of Filip II and later Alexanders 'best' I would say,
- Antigonos Monoftalmus (the 'on eyed') he was killed at the battle of Ipsos (at age 81 - whean a tracian peltast used the chance to throw a spear at him while on the horse - then Antigon fell and died from the horses weight) - and that happend because his son (Demetrias Poliekretas - the one who constructed the 'heliopolis' when besidging Rhodos) faild to break through Seleucids elephants to run down Seleucid phalanx from the back .. when he learned his father died - he just went behind the battle lines..
And the 'one eye' menans -Mono(one)ftalm(eye)- i think.. but I am not sure where he got that 'one eye' - I belive that it was from the battle 'pf the north' when Antiogn fought for Filip in Illyria and Dacia..not sure
- It is belived to be that Ipsos is the first battle that 'elephants' won (in Eurocentric sence) - because they actually blocked the way of Macedonian cavalry that crushed Selaucid cavalry that was runing away.. Eh.. all successors lived and died the violent way - exept Soter
Antigonus Monophthalmus (The One-Eyed) was the father of Demetrius Poliorcetes (the Besieger...they sure have interesting names), who was on the other hand the father of Antigonus Gonatas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
It's kinda similar to the (early?) Seleucid family really since Seleucus' father was called Antiochus, and he called his son Antiochus...
The "first" Antigonus was a general of Philip, of roughly the "same" generation as the likes of Parmenion, Antipater, etc. He didn't really march with Alexander very far and sat in Phrygia while the youngsters went off conquering the world. It was a very surprising twist indeed in the era of the Diadochi that this apparently insignificant older man would rise to such power during the last part of his life: it began when Antipater sought allies against Perdiccas, and found it in the governor of Phrygia. He would be left "in charge" of Asia by Antipater at one point and with it the single largest army of all the Successors -- he fought Eumenes, Alexander's Greek Secretary, the last remaining champion of the Perdiccan cause and a skilled general in his own right, and upon killing him assumed control (and subsequently dispersed) the original Argyraspides. He held much of Asia Minor and all Syria and, because of his might and ambition, fought for a long time against a coalition of satraps that include such men as Cassander of Macedon, Lysimachus of Thrace, Ptolemy of Egypt, and Seleucus of Babylon.
His son Demetrius would become a legendary "adventurer" in his own time, ala Pyrrhus of Epirus. The charismatic, if erratic, man served as his father's general, then after Ipsos became a "sea-king," holding islands and key port cities (Tyre and Sidon came to mind) and went around pretty much scaring everyone. He became King of Macedon (proper) at one point but was such a bad ruler that he couldn't achieve much. He marched off against Lysimachus in Asia Minor from Macedon but Lysimachus' capable son Agathocles was able to essentially force Demetrius to march into Seleucid Syria. He met his end there as Seleucus' "honored guest," i.e. prisoner.
Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius' son, remained in Greece when his father left Macedon for the final expedition. He was for quite some time left with meagre forces and a few Greek holdings (Corinth, Demetrias, etc.) but managed to recover Macedon very close to the start of the EB timeline after defeating a Galatian raiding army in battle. Of course, Pyrrhus of Epirus also had ambitions in Macedon and we start EB with Pyrrhus nearly defeating Antigonus, but the adventurer-king couldn't resist the lure of Sparta, and Argos...
He'd reign long and successfully, if not spectacularly so, and gave the Antigonids the stability they needed.
The family of the Antigonids, at least during these three's era, was renowned for a familial loyalty in direct contrast to the schemings of the family of Ptolemy and Lysimachus, or even the royal Argeads... Demetrius fought for his father faithfully and long, the elder Antigonus having complete trust in his son. The younger Antigonus offered to become Seleucus' hostage if he set his father free instead, and so on...
Who ordered the killing of Seluc? Macedons? I allways belived that it was Ptolomey with some assasin - just before Seluc would cross to Macedonia and Thrace?
We do not know the exact reason, per se, but the assassin most likely acted on his own will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
The assassin was Ptolemy's first son, Ptolemy Ceraunos, who lost the "power struggle" with his younger brother Ptolemy II Philadelphus and went to Seleucus for asylum. The beggar killed the philanthropist, apparently.
Ptolemy Ceraunos, after killing Seleucus, assumed control of most of the army in Thrace and became the king of Thrace for a short while. He died by Galatian hands.
The man was apparently known to be rather unreliable, so it's not altogether too surprising that he'd commit a crime like that. The army that Seleucus brought with him to Thrace wasn't very loyal either -- they were mostly former Lysimachid forces "pressed" into Seleucid service only shortly before when Seleucus conquered Lysimachus. His veteran army was apparently elsewhere, as attested by the ability of Antiochus I to regain control of such a vast tract of land with relative ease.
Thank you Antiochos III and Maksimus....very interesting stuff. :yes:
Did you get those pictures from the CHF? Anyways, your picture depicts Tibetan Buddhism...which is a younger form of Buddhism and is mostly practiced in Tibet and some parts of Mongolia. Far more likely would be Thervandan Buddhism, or original Buddhism.Quote:
Originally Posted by keravnos
What had happened to the forum since my last visit some time ago? Terrible...
In my opinion the real successor was the last one who had really the idea of a unified empire, this was Antigonos Monophtalmos (a relatively unappealing figure imho).
For me "Gladiator" is crap, I like "Alexander" more, the battle of Gaugamela is one of the better depictions and worth to see (although the battle at the Hydaspes is totally nonsense in the movie).
Raphia was fought in 217 BC and was a victory for the Ptolemaioi, not the AS. The loss of Palestine was the result. Elephants were not very decisive in this battle (although the Indian elephants of the AS performed much better than the African Ptolemaic beasts), it was a bit surprisingly won by the strong phalanx of Ptolemaios. Once I read the opinion that the Romans at Cannae were perhaps a bit influenced by the victory at Raphia through a massive close packed infantry force. A bit odd but interesting.
Elephants seem to have achieved mainly the victory of the AS at Pania in 200 BC, after which they got back control over the territory lost after Raphia.
I don't know guys where you get all this sympathy for these epigonoi brutes, guys, sincerely, I'm amazed.
I feel that somewhere, the successors were the small guys. As the empire was crumbling down, the small people of the near-east where at their greatest.
The Jews under the Macchabees, fighting and beating phalanxes with guts and attitude, the pontic kings, the Armenians, the Carducci, Attalus!
When the kingdoms of Seleukia, Makedonia and Aegypt went reeling under the shock of the Galatian invasion, it's that guy up the hill in Pergamon, who forged an alliance of beleaguered cities and beat up the Celts at Caicus.
:scastle3:
What are you all speaking about?Im the real succesor!
The real succesor was Pyrhus in my opinion
Thanx mate :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharnakes
P.S The real secret succesors of Alexander were the Indian Epephantes. The Ninja ones that you can't see in the night 'cuz of their hide in shadows high skills. And they also murdered Seleukos cuz they were filled with envy. I got that from secret alien sources while I was taking my beauty nap. Couldn't help it. Sorry. I really am.
2nd P.S Malik your propaganda doesn't fool me. We all know you're not an elephant.
Hi Internetusa, sorry about taking long to reply, too many things to do, I am afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
Now,
I got the pics from wikipedia,
So far as Buddhist art is concerned, here is what the Pr. Tarn has to say about it.
Bharut stuppah has been identified as one of the limits of the Menadros expanded IndoGreek Kingdom. He had comissioned other stuppas in Pataliputra, the former Maurya capital.Quote:
Originally Posted by W.W. Tarn/The Greeks in Bactria and India
in here...Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_the_Indo-Greeks
-> There is of course an alternative theory, that Roman sculptors did start this "Gandharan buhddism sculpting boom" but that is a bit incredulous.
-1. Why would a roman sculptor travel 5000 miles from Roma and sculpt in the motifs of the Indo-Greeks in AiKhanoum and other IG cities as in Taxila-Sirkap-Peukalaiotis-Begram etc? :laugh4:
-2. "Drunken sailor theory", meaning you start searching in the area most known or available to you, whether that is factual or not, well, it is debatable.
-3. read the following,
Buddhism prior to IndoGreeks, meaning the Maurya, was ANICONIC, meaning no pics.Quote:
"Let us remind that in Sirkap, stone palettes were found at all excavated levels. On the contrary, neither Bhir-Mound, the Maurya city preceding Sirkap on the Taxila site, nor Sirsukh, the Kushan city succeeding her, did deliver any stone palettes during their excavations", in "Les palettes du Gandhara", p89. "The terminal point after which such palettes are not manufactured anymore is probably located during the Kushan period. In effect, neither Mathura nor Taxila (although the Sirsukh had only been little excavated), nor Begram, nor Surkh Kotal, neither the great Kushan archaeological sites of Soviet Central Asia or Afghanistan have yielded such objects. Only four palettes have been found in Kushan-period archaeological sites. They come from secondary sites, such as Garav Kala and Ajvadz in Soviet Tajikistan and Jhukar, in the Indus Valley, and Dalverzin Tepe. They are rather roughly made." In "Les Palettes du Gandhara", Henri-Paul Francfort, p91. (in French in the original)
also here...Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
For more in here...Quote:
Many of the stylistic elements in the representations of the Buddha point to Greek influence: the Greco-Roman toga-like wavy robe covering both shoulders (more exactly, its lighter version, the Greek himation), the contrapposto stance of the upright figures (see: 1st–2nd century Gandhara standing Buddhas[17]), the stylicized Mediterranean curly hair and topknot (ushnisha) apparently derived from the style of the Belvedere Apollo (330 BCE),[18] and the measured quality of the faces, all rendered with strong artistic realism (See: Greek art). A large quantity of sculptures combining Buddhist and purely Hellenistic styles and iconography were excavated at the Gandharan site of Hadda. The 'curly hair' of Buddha is described in the famous list of 32 external characteristics of a Great Being (mahapurusa) that we find all along the Buddhist sutras. The curly hair, with the curls turning to the right is first described in the Pali canon of the Smaller Vehicle of Buddhism; we find the same description in e.g. the "Dasasahasrika Prajnaparamita".
Greek artists were most probably the authors of these early representations of the Buddha, in particular the standing statues, which display "a realistic treatment of the folds and on some even a hint of modelled volume that characterizes the best Greek work. This is Classical or Hellenistic Greek, not archaizing Greek transmitted by Persia or Bactria, nor distinctively Roman".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco_Buddhism
Theravada that you claim it was, was a movement that happened in
11th century
IndoGreek time the Buddhist movements were the Philosophical greek inspired Nikaya Buddhism, (best known work "Malindapanha") and the more attuned Mahayana Bhuddism
As you see in the following map, Mahayana Bhuddism didn't expand on Tibet
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...smAndTrade.jpg
Theravada Buddhism, reached Tibet a tad ... late for EB,
1391-1474: Gyalwa Gendun Drubpa, first Dalai Lama of Tibet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Buddhism
Is there a possibilyti to make a map all the way to Japan?
It would be so nice.. ?
Right?
Was that an option? ever?
Methuselah - "Perhaps they were the descendants of said elephants...?"Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharnakes
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...
The Indians were reserved when it came to trading or giving elephants. They tended to give a single sex so they couldnt reproduce as to retain their military / political / financial monopoly on the mammal.
Is that story real???Quote:
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!
Shit, I almost soiled myself when I read the third one!!!1
My vote is for alternative three, Alexandros may have been the greatest conqueror ever, but when he had to drink, he really had to drink!!! :barrel: :barrel: :barrel:
He left all asia to a Krater of wine. Probelm solved!
>_>
<_<
Don`t look at me, stranger things have happened, I once heard that an old ladie gave her mansions to his cat! For fuck sake, cat`s aren`t drinkable!
One time my dog was drunk. Silly mutt...
:uneasy:
The real successor... I would say Pyrrhus, the pnly man with a grand desire for conquest and a blood link too!
1)W.W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and IndiaQuote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
2)A.H. Vassiliades, The Greeks in India, a dialogue in philosophical understanding. Published, printed and mostly available in India. (Will edit this for the ISBN)
While the book by W.W. Tarn is Great, I find myself reading more and more the second as this guy is a Hindu scholar, who finished Athens' best Financial and Marketing school and got "India fever". Then he went in to become an awarded hindu scholar and even wrote "Sanskrit lessons" in Greek. He currently resides in Varanasi, India.
He has sifted through ALL mentions of the word "Yavana" (initially Ionian Greek in Sanskrit) or "Yona" (same in Pali dialect) and has some amazing literary data I used both for some descriptions, as well as other stuff.
Then again, I try to go for the sources, not trusting so much the middlemen as even the very best scholar will allow some of his bias and prejudices to creep in, therefore destroying his work. It is impossible to do otherwise, as it is a vital part of being human.
Still, sources are the same for everyone, and being written text, they seem to be pretty straightforward way to acquire information.