EB - Countdown to Open Beta: Arche Seleukeia

[Teleklos Archelaou]

The other one is about the choice of the name “Arche Seleukeia”. I’ve read the post by Teleclos Archelaou several times trying to understand what is meant by the choice between “Basileia” and “Empire” (Autokratoria) and as to why “Arche Seleukeia” was finally chosen, but I must confess I don’t get it..

I am sure you all know that the word APXH- arch, arche, archi- stands for “first”, “original”, “beginning”, also something akin to “the powers that be”(exousia) and it can be used to denote “greatness”; but when the word “arch” is used to signify “first” (as in the “top-one”) or “greatest” like in “archipelagos” or “archangel” and a lot of other Greek words, I believe it implies that it's “first” or “greatest” amongst others, and since there was only one Seleucid Kingdom –Empire, the choice of “Arche Seleukeia” appears quite strange... Pronounced correctly should sound as one word: “Archeseleukeia”, and with all due respect, IMVHO, this is not even “poor Greek” is more like a name just “made up” using these two words.

I believe the linguists in your team will agree that translations from one language to another can result in, some times, almost comical wording and there is no better example than this: “Our Galaxy is called The Milky Way”. To an English speaking Greek this is quite funny, because translated in Greek it means “Our Galaxy is called Galaxy” or “Our Milky Way is called Milky Way”! and who can forget the famous translation from English to Russian made by a computer of: “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”!!

Remaining_In_Awe

O_Stratigos

-----------------------------------------------
"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."

------------
I will see to it that the noun-adjective word order is reversed in the Babylonian description.

[O_Stratigos]

Impressive references indeed to say the least, especially to an amateur enthusiast like me!! but- and there is always a “but” isn’t there, lol- it looks to me like a kind of a circular argument here, so please indulge me..

I thought scholars would need more than one source-reference to accept something, and because “From Samarkand to Sardis” asserts that the Seleucid Kingdom meets the criteria for an Empire, that does not necessarily makes it so. “(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.”.
That “episode” in 1066 meets the criteria but does not an Empire make.. OGIS 219 is constantly referring to the “Kingdom” and “King Antiochus, son of King Seleucus” “the King and his sister the Queen” and then someone comes along and says “no no, you are not a Kingdom you are an Empire because you meet MY criteria”..

But this discussion is not about whether the Seleucids where an Empire or not, is about the use of the word APXH “arche”, and obviously here is used having the meaning of: government, low and order, powers that be, exousia etc.
In this case I find it very hard to believe that a scholar or native Greek speaker with some knowledge of Ancient Greek will accept that APXH = AYTOKPATOPIA. The word APXH, APXAI, TON APXON (both Os Omega) refers to the government or whatever power is in control at the time, and it will be a huge leap to accept it as meaning Empire.

TH 4.128 -on the same day he arrived at Arnissa, which is in the dominion of Perdiccas.

Hdt 1.91 For when the god told him that, if he attacked the Persians, he will destroy a mighty empire.

I am not sure if these are what you are referring to, but if they are, since I have no access to the original Greek texts nor the fluency to read them and translate them correctly, I can only speculate ( shame on me) : If in the original, APXH is for dominion that does not Empire means (sic) and if the text states “he will destroy a mighty APXH” knowing that Persia was a mighty Empire… you can guess the rest
What I am trying to say is that you scholars find mistakes in old translations all the time, but I am far from been qualified to even suggest….

What I meant by, that looks like a “made up” name, was about IF it was one word Archeseleukeia – Arche as in first, greatest etc, then it looked like is “made up”; as the name is obviously made of two words Arche Seleukeia- using Arche as meaning government, exousia or even ()Empire-, then I think that grammatically you are required to have the second word ending with “s” to signify as to whom Arche denotes to, so I believe it should be ARCHE SELEUKEIAS. But then if we accept ARCHE to mean Empire then it should be SELEUKEIAKH ARCHE, SELEUKEIAKH APXH… after all it was the British Empire not the Empire British.. oh boy..

So what we have is this: using “From Samarkand to Sardis” as a source the Seleucid Kingdom is made an Empire > using APXH to an extreme stretch, the word is made to mean Empire > put the two together the Seleucid Kingdom becomes the Seleucid Empire > hence ARCHE SELEUKEIA! Hmmm.. it looks circular to me, but then again what do I know...
Please don’t get me wrong, this is YOUR mod and if you say you want to call that faction North Korea or Supercalifragilistic I am all for it.. (just release the friging Beta already!! lol)

Finally, I must confess I did try to translate Arche Seleukeia to modern Greek or even English, attempting to understand what it means- no luck…- like you guys do with these almost unpronounceable barbarian names and then you go to great lengths to spell the correct pronunciation and translation, especially about what Tsorim is and why the name was chosen.
Now this begs a question: the name Carthage was changed and one of the reasons given is that Tsorim is what they called themselves, so it makes one wonder… what did the Arche Seleukeis (Seleukeides?) called themselves…

Still_Remaining_In_Awe

O_Sratigos

[Idomeneas]

Impressive references indeed to say the least, especially to an amateur enthusiast like me!! but- and there is always a “but” isn’t there, lol- it looks to me like a kind of a circular argument here, so please indulge me..

I thought scholars would need more than one source-reference to accept something, and because “From Samarkand to Sardis” asserts that the Seleucid Kingdom meets the criteria for an Empire, that does not necessarily makes it so. “(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.”.
That “episode” in 1066 meets the criteria but does not an Empire make.. OGIS 219 is constantly referring to the “Kingdom” and “King Antiochus, son of King Seleucus” “the King and his sister the Queen” and then someone comes along and says “no no, you are not a Kingdom you are an Empire because you meet MY criteria”..

But this discussion is not about whether the Seleucids where an Empire or not, is about the use of the word APXH “arche”, and obviously here is used having the meaning of: government, low and order, powers that be, exousia etc.
In this case I find it very hard to believe that a scholar or native Greek speaker with some knowledge of Ancient Greek will accept that APXH = AYTOKPATOPIA. The word APXH, APXAI, TON APXON (both Os Omega) refers to the government or whatever power is in control at the time, and it will be a huge leap to accept it as meaning Empire.

TH 4.128 -on the same day he arrived at Arnissa, which is in the dominion of Perdiccas.

Hdt 1.91 For when the god told him that, if he attacked the Persians, he will destroy a mighty empire.

I am not sure if these are what you are referring to, but if they are, since I have no access to the original Greek texts nor the fluency to read them and translate them correctly, I can only speculate ( shame on me) : If in the original, APXH is for dominion that does not Empire means (sic) and if the text states “he will destroy a mighty APXH” knowing that Persia was a mighty Empire… you can guess the rest
What I am trying to say is that you scholars find mistakes in old translations all the time, but I am far from been qualified to even suggest….

What I meant by, that looks like a “made up” name, was about IF it was one word Archeseleukeia – Arche as in first, greatest etc, then it looked like is “made up”; as the name is obviously made of two words Arche Seleukeia- using Arche as meaning government, exousia or even ()Empire-, then I think that grammatically you are required to have the second word ending with “s” to signify as to whom Arche denotes to, so I believe it should be ARCHE SELEUKEIAS. But then if we accept ARCHE to mean Empire then it should be SELEUKEIAKH ARCHE, SELEUKEIAKH APXH… after all it was the British Empire not the Empire British.. oh boy..

So what we have is this: using “From Samarkand to Sardis” as a source the Seleucid Kingdom is made an Empire > using APXH to an extreme stretch, the word is made to mean Empire > put the two together the Seleucid Kingdom becomes the Seleucid Empire > hence ARCHE SELEUKEIA! Hmmm.. it looks circular to me, but then again what do I know...
Please don’t get me wrong, this is YOUR mod and if you say you want to call that faction North Korea or Supercalifragilistic I am all for it.. (just release the friging Beta already!! lol)

Finally, I must confess I did try to translate Arche Seleukeia to modern Greek or even English, attempting to understand what it means- no luck…- like you guys do with these almost unpronounceable barbarian names and then you go to great lengths to spell the correct pronunciation and translation, especially about what Tsorim is and why the name was chosen.
Now this begs a question: the name Carthage was changed and one of the reasons given is that Tsorim is what they called themselves, so it makes one wonder… what did the Arche Seleukeis (Seleukeides?) called themselves…

Still_Remaining_In_Awe

O_Sratigos

Χαιρετισμοί απο την πατρίδα!
Well mate you do have a point in the general notice that some times translations are tricky.
But in this case EB has a point about the grammar part at least. Now if Seleukeia is kingdom (Βασίλειο) οr empire (Αυτοκρατορία) is debatable.
But grammaticly there is nothing wrong with Σελεύκεια Αρχή or Aρχή Σελευκεια (γενική) though the second one is more poetic usage. In greek as you know we can use επιθετο and αντικείμενο vice versa.

[Sarcasm]

How can it not be an empire? There are plenty of smaller empires than that of the Seleucids

[Sfwartir]

How can it not be an empire? There are plenty of smaller empires than that of the Seleucids

Well, Empires are usually ruled by an _Emperor_, while Kingdoms, as the Seleucid one..
A Kingdom remains a Kingdom until it's ruled by an Emperor, no matter its size.

[Big_John]

the difference between empire/emperor and kingdom/king seems to be mostly semantic. was the british empire ruled by an emperor? teleklos has stated that ancient sources refer to seleukia as both an empire and a kingdom. so, in terms of EB's naming philosophy, either should be appropriate.

[The Wizard]

Well, Empires are usually ruled by an _Emperor_, while Kingdoms, as the Seleucid one..
A Kingdom remains a Kingdom until it's ruled by an Emperor, no matter its size.

Yet the British Empire was ruled by a Queen



~Wiz

[Sarcasm]

Well, Empires are usually ruled by an _Emperor_, while Kingdoms, as the Seleucid one..
A Kingdom remains a Kingdom until it's ruled by an Emperor, no matter its size.

The others pretty much stated my point...

Ehrrr....you really didn't think that answer through did you?

[Epistolary Richard]

Yet the British Empire was ruled by a Queen



~Wiz

Actually, Victoria was Empress of India as well. If we're going to talk semantics, then as we all know the word Empire is derived from Emperor, which comes from the Latin Imperator which was originally used to solely to describe a General and only crossed over to the origins of its current meaning because of Augustus.

Given that Empire from a latin word which didn't even have the same meaning in this period as it does today, I think we should trust that the Ancient Greek phrase used conveys the nature of the Seleucid state just as accurately, if not more so, than any of the alternatives.