Was Bactria a Successor state?

[Marinakis]

My question is simply, was Bactria a Successor state of Megas Alexandros ?

I thought that Bactria was always a nation. (atleast pre-dating Alexanders reign) However, once alexander conqured the area he disbanded most of his southern greek "allies" there.

I only ask cause in your administration post you list the following.

---Macedon/Pontus/Seleucids/Ptolemaic Egypt/Bactria (Successor States)

Same could be said about Pontos, Alexander never conquered them.

Im asking just to clearify my knowlage of this time. This is not an attack on EB in any way, shape or form.

[Steppe Merc]

Well, at the start of the game, the lands of Parthia, Armenia and Baktria are all under Selecuid control. Then, the Parni invade, take the lands of Parthia, Baktria revolts and becomes a seperate nation, then eventually Armenia.
Baktria was the most Hellenic of the Selecuid splinter states, though both Parthia even more so Armenia took Hellenic culture as well as Iranian culture.
But the Baktrians were I believe ruled by Greeks, as opposed to Parthia were the King and the Clans were Iranian.

But Teleklos would be a better man to answer.

[Marinakis]

Yeah i am armenian (atleast a quarter armenian) and they took a huge amount of their culture from the greeks, they basicly spoke greek all the way up to modern times. Eventually they finally got together and created their frist national language.

However, my question put simply is before Alexander came to power, was there a nation known as Bactria (in whatever native linguistic variation of the name)

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Baktria was the most Hellenic of the Selecuid splinter states, though both Parthia even more so Armenia took Hellenic culture as well as Iranian culture.
But the Baktrians were I believe ruled by Greeks, as opposed to Parthia were the King and the Clans were Iranian.

Yes this is all accurate. Adventurous Greek & Macedonian colonists settled in Bactria, starting during the time of Alexander.

Here's a good article if you want to know more....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria

[Krusader]

Yeah i am armenian (atleast a quarter armenian) and they took a huge amount of their culture from the greeks, they basicly spoke greek all the way up to modern times. Eventually they finally got together and created their frist national language.

However, my question put simply is before Alexander came to power, was there a nation known as Bactria (in whatever native linguistic variation of the name)

It was a satrapy under Persia.
Bessus, the one who murdered Darius III was satrap of Baktria too.

Apparently, Baktria had existed as a region for centuries before Alexander came, if not millenia. I think I read that Zoroastra himself preached in Baktria first and it was there he gained followers first.

[Marinakis]

thanx guys, very helpful

[KingOfTheIsles]

I thought that at the time, Armenia had effective independance from the Seleukids, well before the Baktrians/Parthians? Also, it might not be fair to consider Pontos a diadochi state, as the nobility of that kingdom were Persian, and it had never really been subdued by the Macedonians, although it did adopt many Macedonian practices in culture and warfare.

[jerby]

when lookign at teh meaning of teh word: succesor states. it would mean the Factiosn divided under Alexandros's generals. so all i could think of are:
Mcedon, Seleucids, Ptolemoi. and all other 'original successors' are gone by the starting time.
i would say Armenia, Pahlava and Bactria arent successors. mainly because they "weren't around" when the successor dived the lands.They've just broken free years after.

[Krusader]

when lookign at teh meaning of teh word: succesor states. it would mean the Factiosn divided under Alexandros's generals. so all i could think of are:
Mcedon, Seleucids, Ptolemoi. and all other 'original successors' are gone by the starting time.
i would say Armenia, Pahlava and Bactria arent successors. mainly because they "weren't around" when the successor dived the lands.They've just broken free years after.

I think (and this is based on my personal knowledge from reading books and not a single source) is that Armenia, Pontos, Parthia and Baktria are refered to as lesser 'Diadochi' as they broke of the "greater Diadochi".

Baktria was a Seleukid satrapy. Parthians were vassals to Seleukids, as well as the Armenians.
I think Pontos is classified as a lesser Diadochi since Mithridates I swore allegiance to Alexander first and the subsequent Diadochi later. He founded the kingdom of Pontos in 297 I believe when the Successors were quarreling with each other a lot and he saw an oppurtunity to become independent.

Will try to find sources to back this up.

[jerby]

lesser-diadochi is good enough for me.
and in that perspective it sounds logical: were part of Alexanders empire, and later art of seleucids, makes perfect sense.
no need for teh source

[jerby]

might i add:
the starter began this because he saw in the "workgroupsticky: that there Scythians, sarmatians, armenians and Parthians were in 1 group. and the diadochi(+bactria) in another group.

this is probably because of the unit "types" scythians&Co. are HA's and the Diadochi+bactria( )are more helenized/Phalangites-based

[VandalCarthage]

I see no reason why Diodotus' independent Bactrian Kingdom couldn't be classified as a successor state. When a king's great-grandson ascends to the throne, he is still his great-grandfather's successor, so to are the later independent kingdoms formed from the territories of Alexander's empire. There's also no reason to exclude kingdom's that weren't ruled by ethnic Greeks/Macedonians from the group, as according to every technical interpretation of the word successors, they are exactly that.

[jerby]

well Baktria was part of the seleucids when the lands were divided. so the king that ascended after 'breaking free' wasn't a succesor.
but it was part of the land divided under teh successors.

hope that helped.

[VandalCarthage]

Any kingdom formed from component territories of Alexander's original empire, represents a line of succession from Alexander. For Baktria: Alexander, Seleucus/Antiochus, and finally Diodotus. Ptolemy was the successor of Alexander's rule in Egypt, just as Seleucus was the successor of Alexander's rule in Baktria, and Diodotus the immediate successor of the latter and the more distant successor of the former.

If your argument is to be accepted, then none of the Generals we refer to as Successors would technically be successors, as the regent Perdikkas was their immediate forerunner.

[jerby]

well. i was thinking that the fact that Baktria fought for freedom, and it was later ruled by someone who was not apointed by a successor/successor descendent.
i didn;t know that Diodutus ,who ruled Baktria i guess, was a discendant of Seleucus...whoops

[VandalCarthage]

Diodotus isn't really a relative of Seleucus, just a political successor in the Baktrian region. You don't need to be a relative to be a successor. The five good Emperors of Rome were all non-related, and appointed by their predecessors.

well. i was thinking that the fact that Baktria fought for freedom, and it was later ruled by someone who was not apointed by a successor/successor descendent.

After Perdikkas, none of the Successors were appointed. Perdikkas was the regent after Alexander's death, but he was murdered by Seleucus and a few others when his attempt on Ptolemaic Egypt failed miserably. Seleucus was the satrap of Babylon, loyal to Antigonos before he felt threatened, and escaped to Egypt. He fought alongside Ptolemy, before returning to Babylon with a 1,000 soldiers as a gift from Ptolemy, where he reasserted his rule. He would later defeat Antigonos and Lysimachus to extend his rule, but these regions would be reasserted under new successors after Selecus' murder.

As you can see, the legitimate successors all asserted themselves in less then epacable fashions.

[jerby]

very interesting subject..very interesting..
and i have no other choice than to say you're right. becuase you are.