Pankration blog

Post here about Alexander in film, TV, radio, other websites, YouTube etc.

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Second best.

Post by Paralus »

stavros wrote:Any man that can walk over 30km a day with armour, shielding and weaponry is a man that is well trained, very disciplined, determined and very strong. These men were not average.
I'm somewhat confused….
stavros wrote: ATG's men would march 30 to 35 miles every day, loaded with weapons, shields and armour. These were not ordinary men.
Which is it lad? Not sure that I'd like to walk the difference in a day (26km or 16.25 miles).

They were ordinary men. They were, in fact, conscripts – nothing more, nothing less. That they were well drilled is not in question. But conscripted levies they remain. And, by the time of Alexander's death, there precious few more to be had. Macedonia was a well juiced lemon.
stavros wrote:the Greeks crushed the Persians, nobody remembers second best??
Only the ignorant would fail to recall the world's first great empire. One which lasted some two centuries. One which – unlike the Macedonian Empire that, riddled by internal power struggles due to the death of its myopic conqueror king, fell apart – grew with successive Achaemenid kings.

Perhaps I could suggest Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia? In case you can't remember "second best".
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Alexanders Empire was huge and fast but as Paralus says it cant be compared with the much better and succesful Persian Empire. Alexanders empire was for as long as he lived and that was it. How can any Empire maintain when its core is basically split and divided. Even his commanders who were closest were divided. :roll:

Similar Comparison today would be Iraq. Maybe one Day years ago Saddam Rolled over the whole Region and created an empire. As we see without his hard handed control the country has become devided and Sectarian. To the extent where one Muslim band are killing other Muslim denominations. And that situation is slowly turning hellish. :cry:

I have always believed had the Greeks wised up. and became Hellene and stopped been idiots. then with the Money and power got by Alexander. It would have lasted they had the learning and the science etc. But they were void of not seeing the wood for the Trees. :wink:

kenny
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

I have always believed had the Greeks wised up. and became Hellene and stopped been idiots. then with the Money and power got by Alexander. It would have lasted they had the learning and the science etc. But they were void of not seeing the wood for the Trees. Wink
The Greeks were always Hellenes."Greek" is rather a modern word for foreign people when they refer to Hellenes.As the country is named Hellas, and not Greece, it's that Greece was the word that was used since the liberation in 1821 by foreigners.Now in formal documents you will see Hellas, and not Greece.

The Hellenes just didnt care.They were always into fighting eachother, until they had realized that this didnt get anywhere.And they mainly realised it after the Macedonian occupation of southern Greece, when for a long time they couldn't fight eachother anymore.Then came the Romans.There were voices that said that the Hellenes should be united before the Macedonian occupation came, but most people just didnt hear them.They were too occupied with the inteenal everlating conflicts of the city-states.
rjones2818
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:26 am

Re: Gomi!

Post by rjones2818 »

stavros wrote:
rjones2818 wrote:Gomi!
Gomi!!
Gomi!!!

:twisted:
is there anything bothering u twisted evil???? :roll:
I figured that cheering might not be acceptable, hence :twisted: .

Gomi's the closest person, along with Fedor, to being my idea of a fighting God.
Plus he's the best looking of the fighters.

Rex
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Hi Pankration,

I'm aware that by now I must have a reputation on Pothos for being extremely picky when it comes to fiction and historical accuracy. Few people care, I'm sure, especially published authors (why should they?) but that hasn't quieted me yet! :lol: So ... apologies in advance for pointing out the following from your blog - a quote from the mouth of your character Dioxippus:

"My master seeks only to win the youth tournament at Marathon. I have been promised freedom with a victory at the next Olympiad but I feel there has been little progress. Today I failed to press my advantage," replied an obviously dispirited Dioxippus.

All over the internet (and in a couple of books that I own on ancient sports) there is an insistence that slaves were not allowed to compete in the Olympics, the understanding being that only free-born Greeks of good character could participate. There may be other sources for this, but the only evidence I've found to date comes from John Chrysostom (In Epistulam ad Hebraeos 63.133.9-12) who says specifically that slaves, thieves, and those of ill character are excluded from the Olympic games. See this pdf file, Athlete and State: Qualifying for the Olympic Games in Ancient Greece.

You've obviously done research for your novel so I'm curious about your choice. Yes, I know it's not an Alexander-specific question, but it's of interest anyway. Making a very famous Olympic athlete and friend (sycophant?) to Alexander a former slave is somewhat controversial, don't you think?

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

Wouldnt a slave from ancient Sparta pick up the weapons of his dead master and fight in his place at Thermopylae?According to a well known novel, he would.

Well ok, Thermopylae was somewhat different than the Olympic games though.I dont know.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

I'm (not) an individual.

Post by Paralus »

Efstathios wrote:Wouldnt a slave from ancient Sparta pick up the weapons of his dead master and fight in his place at Thermopylae?According to a well known novel, he would.

Well ok, Thermopylae was somewhat different than the Olympic games though.I dont know.
Yes, it was. As was Mantinea, both the one which may have become Leuctra (418) and post Leuctra (362).

I have not the records handy and so can't say for certain, but the Spartans, as I recall, did not feature highly in the Olympic Games. By which I mean that there is a perception that as the "master warrior race" and only professional army in classical Greece, they will have dominated the records of the games.

The clue is the individuality of the contests. The most talented individuals – when they managed to sneak past the Lycurgan system so designed to negate such – all eventually were crushed by their hubris or the system which produced them. It is an eclectic list:

Kleomenes, Pausanias; Brasisdas; Gylippus and Lysander. Agesilaos resides within his own category
Last edited by Paralus on Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Second best.

Post by marcus »

Paralus wrote:Perhaps I could suggest Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia? In case you can't remember "second best".
Hold on a second ... sorry ... who did you say was second best? :lol:
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

It's unclear?

Post by Paralus »

That, my good Marcus, will take some divination. Best ask Aristagoroas methinks.....
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
dean
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 3:31 pm
Location: Las Palmas, Spain

Post by dean »

Hello,
the Greeks crushed the Persians, nobody remembers second best??
I have here to say that this statement here is IMO a little out of context.
The Greeks crushed the Persians- my oh my- I guess you mean by Greeks Alexander and his band of merry men- cos up to that point the Persians had come pretty close to overrunning Greece. Alexander reclaimed many a lost artefact from Persia that was simply taken from Greece.

I think to look at it from another perspective, that Persia was a great empire- and really the Greeks never really were key players in the power struggle over Persia- in the end it was down to a few Macedonian heavy weights, Alexander's next in command- who took over Persia.

When all things are said and done, we can see at the Grannicus that there were loads of Greeks around, but on both sides- so who crushed who? Even the Persian "commander" was from Rhodes. In the beginning it was more of a civil war than anything else.

Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

we can see at the Grannicus that there were loads of Greeks around
Well as far as the Persian side was concerned i think the Greek mercenaries were around 8.000.Comparing to the overal persian force which at granicus werent that big, yes there were a lot of Greeks.

But these people were mercenaries.They had no patriotic identity.They werent fighting for Athens, Thebes, Sparta or Greece overall.They fought for Persian gold.And generally for gold.Alexander was cruel to them because they were fighting against their own country men.

Maybe Alexander was a romantic afterall?I wonder what was the oppinion of the Athenians, Thessalians and rest allies about these men.
User avatar
stavros
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:05 am

Re: Second best.

Post by stavros »

Paralus wrote:
stavros wrote:Any man that can walk over 30km a day with armour, shielding and weaponry is a man that is well trained, very disciplined, determined and very strong. These men were not average.
I'm somewhat confused….
stavros wrote: ATG's men would march 30 to 35 miles every day, loaded with weapons, shields and armour. These were not ordinary men.
Which is it lad? Not sure that I'd like to walk the difference in a day (26km or 16.25 miles).

They were ordinary men. They were, in fact, conscripts – nothing more, nothing less. That they were well drilled is not in question. But conscripted levies they remain. And, by the time of Alexander's death, there precious few more to be had. Macedonia was a well juiced lemon.
stavros wrote:the Greeks crushed the Persians, nobody remembers second best??
Only the ignorant would fail to recall the world's first great empire. One which lasted some two centuries. One which – unlike the Macedonian Empire that, riddled by internal power struggles due to the death of its myopic conqueror king, fell apart – grew with successive Achaemenid kings.

Perhaps I could suggest Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia? In case you can't remember "second best".
thanks for the link, ignorant no, have no time to research, yes.

surely the Persian empire would have had power stuggles, especially when the Macedonians started conquering the Persians?? every empire has power struggles?

Question, Why is the Persian empire so forgotten?? and the greek or roman so talked bout?
User avatar
stavros
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:05 am

Post by stavros »

dean wrote:Hello,
the Greeks crushed the Persians, nobody remembers second best??
I have here to say that this statement here is IMO a little out of context.
The Greeks crushed the Persians- my oh my- I guess you mean by Greeks Alexander and his band of merry men- cos up to that point the Persians had come pretty close to overrunning Greece. Alexander reclaimed many a lost artefact from Persia that was simply taken from Greece.

I think to look at it from another perspective, that Persia was a great empire- and really the Greeks never really were key players in the power struggle over Persia- in the end it was down to a few Macedonian heavy weights, Alexander's next in command- who took over Persia.

When all things are said and done, we can see at the Grannicus that there were loads of Greeks around, but on both sides- so who crushed who? Even the Persian "commander" was from Rhodes. In the beginning it was more of a civil war than anything else.

Best regards,
Dean
sad but true, good point.

what happened to the Persian empire after ATG conquered it? Is there much on the persians after ATG. did they rebuild as a people or race??
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Intermission

Post by Paralus »

stavros wrote:what happened to the Persian empire after ATG conquered it? Is there much on the persians after ATG. did they rebuild as a people or race??
Oh, absolutely. That greedy, overweening, morality free zone Crassus lost an army to the Parthian's - the Persian's successors - in what would now be northern Iraq. The Parni – from the far northern marches of the Iranian/central Asian plateau – took control of Parthia and gradually extended their control westwards. Antiochus III (The Great) re-established Seleucid control over the area, but, in a move redolent of Alexander's acceptance of the fact that he would never directly control India, allowed the Parthians to manage their territory as long as he was acknowledged as the emperor (and the money came to his treasury).The Sassinids (for which read Persians) established what would become the new "Persian Empire" around 220 CE. They essentially – and consciously – erased, as much as possible, the Greek influence within their boundaries. At it's hight, this empire lacked only the Syrian, Anatolian and Egyptian provinces of its Achaemenid predecessor; these, of course, being under Roman rule. It did, though, firmly control those Indian provinces that the Macedonians never could.

Try as it might, Rome was not ever able to establish its writ over these Parthians or Persians and their empires. Roman emperors failed and more than one Roman general tasted utter defeat here. After the fall of the west, the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire struggled with Persia until constant warfare saw both relatively simple targets for the Arab invasions of the seventh century.

The Empire of Alexander, in this context, might be viewed as an advertising break during Stone's film: an annoying diversion; the Macedonian or Hellenistic empires an old fashioned intermission.
Last edited by Paralus on Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Successions and power struggles?

Post by Paralus »

stavros wrote:Question, Why is the Persian empire so forgotten?? and the greek or roman so talked bout?
Who wrote the histories? The answer to that question will go a long way to solving the riddle.
stavros wrote:surely the Persian empire would have had power stuggles, especially when the Macedonians started conquering the Persians?? every empire has power struggles?
Well indeed. Darius the Great came to power after the rather unfortunate demise of the proper King. One is tempted to say he had him murdered, in fact, one will. Xerxes, unfortunately having to follow Darius the Great, was firstly pre-occupied with an uppity satrap in Babylon and an Egyptian revolt. Artaxerxes succeeded Xerxes in 465 to face an Egyptian revolt. Artaxerxes II Mnemon had his accession troubles along with, wait for it – an Egyptian revolt – not to mention a failed coup by his brother, Cyrus.

At his death, he was succeeded by Artaxerxes III (Ochus), a very competent and combative king who having put down the western satrapal rebellion at his accession also brought Phoenicia back under control. As well, he neatly decapitated Athens' imperial dreams by demanding the Athenian general Chares be recalled and operations cease lest he set sail with three hundred ships against her. Having achieved all this, he then set about putting down the, by now, obligatory succession revolt in Egypt. It will have been most interesting to see how this fellow might have dealt with the Macedonian invasion. He had an alliance of friendship with Philip, but, as many a Greek would point out that was often not worth the stone it was chiselled upon. In any case, it didn't matter. He had a new and sinister element which he was unaware he had to deal with: king-making eunuchs.

Alexander, though, learnt the lesson. He kept his Bagoas close, possibly too close for the liking of some.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
Post Reply