Hellenistic Monarchs

down to the Roman Empire

The Hellenistic Age suffers from some of the same disabilities, in the estimation of Classicists, as Late Antiquity, i.e. it doesn't measure up to the brilliance of the Golden Age of Greece and of late Republican and early Imperial Rome. However, the Hellenistic world, although mostly not bothering with characteristic Greek experiments like democracy, is where Greece actually became a cosmopolitan culture, a sort of pre-adaptation for the Roman world. Just saying that the Bible begins with the book of Genesis, Γένεσις , a Greek word, reflects the degree to which the older cultures of the Middle East came to express themselves in Greek. Several of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, mainly in Anatolia (Armenia, Pontus, Cappadocia, etc.), are domains of non-Greek peoples. The Hellenistic Age lasts almost exactly 300 years, from the death of Alexander in 323 BC to that of Cleopatra in 30 BC. In the first fifty years, down to 281 BC, we witness a bewildering scrimmage of the Successors fighting over Alexander's Empire. After this shakes down to the Kingdoms of Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleucid Asia, and Antigonid Macedon we get a period of relative stability until the arrival of Rome. The Roman defeat of Macedon in 196 and of the Seleucids in 188 begins a period of steady decline. In short order Parthia has mostly overrun Iran (185), Judaea is independent (164), and Macedon is gone (146). All that is left is a bevy of small states and the absurd dynastic circuses of the Seleucids (until 63 BC) and the Ptolemies (until 30 BC), all this under the shadow of a hegemonic Rome. Thus, in its last century, with Rome already occupying Macedon and Greece, the Hellenisitic Age had lost both its cultural heartland and its own internal dynamic. Parthia closed in from the East, as Rome inevitably tidied up from the West. The Parthian defeat of the Romans at Carrhae in 53 BC foretells the ultimate frontiers and balance of power in Western Asia, where a rough status quo would persist until the arrival of the Arabs, more than 600 years later. Meanwhile, although the literature does not seem as brilliant as the Golden Age of Greece, mathematics, science, and technology develop rapidly. Archimedes very nearly develops calculus. Eratosthenes estimates the size of the Earth with an accuracy that will not be surpassed until Modern times. Hero of Alexandria builds a kind of steam engine. This remains little more than a toy, but the same cannot be said of the immense engines, often of war, that Hellenstic technology otherwise produces. It is all inherited by the Romans, perhaps symbolically with the killing of Archimedes at Syracuse by a Roman soldier in 212 (during the Second Punic War, 218-201). The tables and narrative are mainly based on E.J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World [Cornell University Press, 1968, 1982], Peter Green, The Hellenistic Age, A Short History [The Modern Library, 2007], Michael Grant, From Alexander to Cleopatra, The Hellenistic World [Collier Books, 1982, 1990], John Boardman, Jasper Griffin, & Oswyn Murray, Greece and the Hellenistic World, The Oxford History of the Classical World [Oxford, 1988], F.E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism, A History of the Near East from Alexander the Great to the Triumph of Christianity [Allen & Unwin, 1970, 1972], C. Bradford Welles, Alexander and the Hellenistic World [A.M. Hakkert Ltd., Toronto, 1970], W.W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilization [Meridian Books, 1961, 1966], E.M. Forster, Alexandria, A History and a Guide [1922, Anchor Books, 1961, Oxford, 1986], James Romm, Ghost on the Throne, The Death of Alexander the Great and the War for Crown and Empire [Knopf, 2011], Robin Waterfield, Dividing the Spoils, the War for Alexander the Great's Empire [Oxford, 2011], and Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies. The genealogies now are supplied or corrected from the Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen Geschichte, Volume III, Europäiche Kaiser-, Königs- und Fürstenhäuser, Ergänzungsband [Andreas Thiele, R. G. Fischer Verlag, Second Edition, 2001], which has a section specifically of Hellenistic monarchs. Of primary sources, it is remarkable that a lot of the information about this period comes from an epitome by Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople (858-867, 877-886). His Βιβλιοθήκη , Bibliotheca, contains a summary of A History of Events After Alexander by the Roman historian Arrian of Nicomedia (an early member of the Second Sophistic). Arrian, who wrote a surviving account of the campaigns of Alexander, the Anabasis Alexandri, continued the story in the book that was lost after the time of Photius. As often happens with ancient authors (whose spirit is continued in Photius), Photius may have written so extensive a summary because he was aware that there were not many manuscripts lying around of the original. By the many misadventures of the history of Constantinople, copies were either never made or were destroyed along with the existing manuscripts (possibilities with the Fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders in 1204, to the Turks in 1453, or in the occasional fire that breaks out even in modern libraries, e.g. the Los Angeles Public Library in 1986). We may be reminded that only a single copy of the Secret History by Procopius survived to make its way to the Vatican Library, while only a single Latin manuscript of the De rerum natura by Lucretius was ever found. The maps are original, though largely based on those in The Penguin Atlas of Ancient History, by Colon McEvedy [Penguin Books, 1967]. A reference is made to the maps of Tony Belmonte, which are used on the Rome and Romania page. Kingdoms listed under the Seleucids are those that broke away from the Asiatic part of Alexander's Empire that largely had been inherited by Seleucus, though a couple of them, like Armenia, were actually only under Seleucid control briefly. Philosophy of History Home Page Index Introduction

Hellenistic Monarchs

Macedonian Great Kings Alexander in India The Diadochi, Successors of Alexander

Kings of Epirus

The Bosporan Kingdom

Antigonid Kings

Kings of Illyris

Kings of Thrace

Kings of Macedonia The Fetters of Greece

The First Punic War, 264-241 BC

Aetolian & Achaean Leagues

Tyrants and Kings of Syracuse

Consuls of the Roman Republic

The Seven Wonders of the World

The Seleucids, Macedonian Kings of Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. Kings of Armenia Kings of Pontus Chiefs & Kings of Galatia The Attalids of Pergamum Kings of Bithynia Kings of Cappadocia Macedonian Kings of Bactria The Parthian Arsacids Leaders & Kings of Judaea Kings of Commagene Kings of Caria Kings of Osrhoene or Edessa Kings of Emesa or Homs

The Second Punic War, 218-201 BC

The Ptolemies, Macedonian Kings of Egypt Note on Alexandria, Habitation Names Note on Male & Female in Greek The Great Library of Alexandria The Voyages of Eudoxus of Cyzicus

The Kingdom of the Nabataeans

Arabia Felix, Yemen ʾat-Tababiʿa Saba/Sheba Dhu-Raydan & Himyar

Kings of Thrace

Note on Ashoka

Hellenistic Philosophy, 322 BC to 235 AD The Great Library of Alexandria The Distorted Story of Will Durant The Cynics The Stoics The Hedonists & Epicureans Modern Epicureanism The Pyrrhonist & Academic Skeptics Egyptian & Babylonian Scholars Judaism & Jewish Philosophy Hellenistic Science Mathematics The Earth Astronomy Physics

History of Philosophy Philosophy of History Home Page Copyright (c) 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved Hellenistic Monarchs

MACEDONIAN GREAT KINGS



Alexander III the Great Macedon,

336-323

King of

Egypt

"XXXII" Dynasty, 332 Great King,

330-323 Victory at Granicus River, 334; Defeat of Darius III at Issus, 333; Siege of Tyre, 332; Occupation of Egypt, 332; Defeat of Darius III at Gaugamela, 331 Death of Darius III, 330

Alexander Claims Succession; Defeat of Porus at Hydaspes, 326; death, Partition of Babylon, 323

Philip III Arrhidaeus 323-317

Perdiccas Regent,

323-320 Alexander IV 323-c.310

-(305) Lamian War, 322;

First War of the Successors, 320-319; Partition of Triparadisus, 320

Antipater Viceroy

& Regent,

320-319

Polyperchon Regent,

319-317,

d.c.303 Second War of the Successors, 318-316; Partition of Persepolis, 315

Cassander Regent,

317-305 King of

Macedon,

305-297 Third War of the Successors, 315-311

But he didn't fail, and Persian power crumbled before him as it did behind him. His long trek through Central Asia might then seem foolish and Quixotic, but it followed the precedent of Cyrus the Great in securing the area for Persia in the first place, and involved the pursuit of Darius III (who was treacherously deposed and then murdered by his retainers). Unlike Cyrus, Alexander avoided dying on the campaign. Instead, he found a wife, Roxane, Ῥωξάνη (played memorably by Rosario Dawson in the otherwise forgettable Alexander [2004], by Oliver Stone) -- , Rušanak in Modern Persian -- daughter of Oxyartes, a King in Sogdiana, both of whom he had captured taking the "Sogdian Rock." And then he invaded India.

India was really terra incognita to the Greeks. They would now gain some familiarity with it, but Alexander's foray would be the first, and last, invasion of India from the West until the Arabs arrived in 644 -- although invasions from Central Asia would continue, as they had in the past (e.g. the Kushans).

Alexander was invited into India by Omphis, the King of Taxila, who wanted help against his enemy Porus, who ruled the land between the Jhelum and the Chenab. After some fighting to secure his rear, Alexander crossed the Indus, arriving at Taxila, and then advanced on the Jhelum, where Porus waited with a large army, contesting passage.

This was the first river of the modern Punjab. To the Greeks it was the Ὑδάσπης , Latinized as Hydaspes. The battle would be named for it. A perilous crossing on the flank, and a hard fought battle, left Porus in Alexander's power, to be granted his own kingdom back, as Alexander headed East. The next river was the Chenab, Ἀκεσίνης , or Acesines. Fighting along the way, next was the Ravi, the Ὑδραώτης , or Hydraotis. And finally Alexander arrived at the Beas, the Ὕφασις , or Hyphasis, a tributary of the Sutlej, Greek Σαράδρος , or Latin Hesidrus.

Alexander's crossing of the Jhelum was no mean feat, and we should reflect that the later failure of Perdiccas to cross the Nile against Ptolemy resulted in his murder, delivering a mortal blow to the continued unity of Alexander's Empire, and ultimately, fatefully precipitating the deaths of all the remaining members of Alexander's own family, including his children. Alexander perhaps cannot have known that Perdiccas would not match him in military ability, but the consequences would be devastating.

Alexander was ready to cross the Beas and go down to the Ganges for further conquests. This was territory that previously the Greeks had hardly even heard of, and Alexander may actually have thought that the Ocean, having circled around from Gibraltar, was nearby. But it was getting a little too far from home for most of the Army. The soldiers were mutinous. So Alexander, after some histrionics, turned back. A nice version of this, however, is told by the Jains. The Greeks were impressed with the "naked philosophers," the homeless ascetics, they encountered in India. The Jains preserve, barely, this tradition of ascetic nudity, and now say that Alexander decided to give up further conquests after being persuaded of their futility by Jain monks. Alexander, however, did not otherwise seem to suddenly turn towards asceticism, so the explanation from the Greek historians of unrest in the ranks seems more likely. The monks don't seem to have particularly encamped on the banks of the Beas.



Returning to the Jhelum, Alexander prepared to leave India by sailing down river. At the confluence of the Ravi, there was a short siege and sharp battle. Alexander went over the wall of a citadel alone, and for a while fought the Indian host by himself. Before long others came over the wall, and then opened a gate to the whole army, but meanwhile Alexander had been gravely wounded, with a lung pierced by an arrow. This was a serious wound -- if it had developed into a pneumothorax, the Greeks would not have known what to do about it -- but, after thought dead, Alexander recovered with some difficulty. Meanwhile, the army returned to Babylon, part by sea, and part over the difficult lands in the south-east of Iran. Everyone was throughly exhausted, and Alexander may have ended up not in the best of health.

The day of Alexander's death, 11 June 323, is preserved in cuneiform on a Babylonian tablet. It is 29 Aiyaru on the Babylonian calender. Although nothing was done to preserve his body for several days, it was in such good condition when the embalmers arrived that at first they thought he was still alive. This has led to some modern medical opinion that Alexander was in fact not dead, but in a coma. On the other hand, an incorruptible corpse is a mark of particular holiness in Christianity, Buddhism, etc. (including The X-Files). We don't really think of Alexander as saint-like or divine today; but his death was curiously at the same age as that believed for Jesus, 33 years, and he still is considered an actual prophet in ʾIslâm.



The Companions,

, Bodyguards

Hephaestion Alexander's friend & lover?; died, 324

Aristonous general of Olympias, put to death by Cassander, 316 ,

The Diadochi, "Successors,"

Companions, Partition of Babylon, 323 Successor Holding Fate

Perdiccas Regent given Alexander's ring, 323; assassinated by officers, including Seleucus & Peithon, 321/320

Craterus Macedon, Cilicia, Guardian revolt against Perdiccas; killed by Eumenes, Battle of Cardia, 320

Eumenes Cappadocia, Lieutenant of Perdiccas & Polyperchon becomes successful general at Cardia, 320, but is betrayed to Antigonus and killed, 316; the Last Faithful Successor

Leonnatus Lesser

Phrygia killed in Thessaly, Lamian War, 322

Antipater Macedon, Regent revolt against Perdiccas; Regent at Partition of Triparadisus, 320; natural death, 319

Asander Lycia & Caria submits to Antigonus, rebels, disappears, 313

Nearchus of Crete Pamphylia Alexander's Admiral; supports Heracles son of Barsine, mistress of Alexander; adheres to Antigonus; crosses over to Demetrius; present at Battle of Gaza, 312; fate unknown

Menander Lydia adheres to Antigonus, general of Antigonus, 321; fate unknown

Philotas Cilicia removed by Perdiccas, 321; captured by Antigonus, 320; recaptured, executed? by Antigonus, 316

Laomedon Syria captured by Ptolemy, escaped, unknown fate c.320

Neoptolemus Armenia personally killed by Eumenes, Battle of Cardia, 321

Peithon Media killed by Antigonus, 316

Arcesilaus Mesopotamia flees after fall of Perdiccas, fate unknown

Archon Babylonia died 321

Antigenes Susiana adheres to Eumenes, commands Argyraspides, betrayed to Antigonus, burned alive, 316

Peucestas Persis betrays Eumenes, removed by Antigonus, 316

Tlepolemos Camania (East of Persis) fate unknown

Stasanor Bactria unknown fate after 316, possibly conquered by Seleucus, 305

Philip Sogdiana, Parthia killed by Peithon, 318

Sibyrtius Arachosia & Gedrosia adheres to Eumenes, but crosses over to Antigonus, 316; receives exiled Argyraspides; hosts Megasthenes, Seleucus's envoy to Chandragupta, c.303

Peithon son of Agenor India, 325-316 moved by Antigonus to Babylon, 316-312; with Demetrius, killed, Battle of Gaza, 312

Polyperchon Lieutenant of Craterus, Regent, Peloponnesus driven from Macedon by Cassander, joins Olympias in Epirus, 317; flees to Peloponnesus, 316; granted Peloponnesus by Cassander after killing Alexander's natural son Heracles, 309; seems to have endured there until death, c.303

The Diadochi, Companion Kings



Antigonus Monophthalmus Phrygia, Lycia, Pamphylia, Asia killed, Battle of Ipsus, 301



Ptolemy I Soter

Egypt natural death, 283/2

Lysimachus Thrace killed by Seleucus, Battle of Corupedium, 281



Seleucus I Nicator Babylon, 320, driven out or escapes from Antigonus, 316; returned, 312/311, start of Seleucid Era assassinated by Ptolemy Ceraunus, 281

Διάδοχοι

Διάδοχος

In 322, Ptolemy stole the body of Alexander being transported in State to Macedon. It would lie in a tomb in Alexandria until disappearing from history, centuries later. In fact, Alexander himself had requested burial in Egypt. At least that is the word put out by Ptolemy. On the other hand, there had long been a prophecy that the Argead dynasty of Macedon would end if there were ever a king (like Alexander) who was not buried in the family cemetery at Aegae.

In the table at right, the final members of Alexander's Bodyguard are identified with a yellow star. The Guard traditionally had seven members, but Alexander added Peucetas as an eighth when he and Leonnatus shielded Alexander's body after the King was struck in the chest by an arrow. Alexander, as we have seen, had (foolishly) vaulted off a wall into the middle of the defenders of a city in India. The arrow punctured a lung, and Alexander almost died. The Bodyguards figure prominently among the Diadochi. The table shows the most significant of the Diadochi. This only includes the actual Companions of Alexander and thus does not extend into the second generation, e.g. figures like Cassander and Demetrius.

While Eumenes, who had previously been no more than a secretary, defeated the alliance at Cardia in 320, killing Craterus and Neoptolemus (the latter by his own hand), Perdiccas himself botched an invasion of Egypt and was assassinated. Eumenes was declared an outlaw but, despite losing the battle of Orcynia to Antigonus and retreating into the fortress of Nora (319), maintained himself until forming an alliance with the subsequent Regent, Polyperchon. As such, he was able to raise new forces and defeated Antigonus at the Coprates River near Susa, battled him to a draw at Paraetacene north of Persepolis (317), and defeated him at Gabiene (or Gabene) in 316. However, at Gabiene Antigonus captured the opposing camp, and Eumenes was betrayed and delivered to Antigonus, and to his death, by his own men -- the veteran Ἀργυράσπιδες , Argyraspides or "Silver Shields" -- in exchange for their possessions, which included their families. Since Eumenes was Greek, his Macedonian troops did not feel much personal loyalty to him. Indeed, his nominal allies were constantly plotting against him and challenging his authority -- his ostensive ally at Gabiene, the Satrap of Persis, Peucestas, held back from the battle from an obvious understanding with Antigonus. Nevertheless, the Argyraspides also betrayed their Macedonian commander, Antigenes, whom Antigonus burned alive out of some twisted animus. This is a sad comment on the spirit of Alexander's Successors, that only a Greek genuinely supported the Kings (i.e. Philip III and Alexander IV) and the loyal Regents. The fall of Eumenes was the end of any control of the Regency over the Empire. Eumenes stands as the Last Faithful Successor, undone by the self-interest of everyone else (especially Ptolemy and Antigonus), including the veterans of Alexander who betrayed him. Since Antigonus then reasonably did not trust the Argyraspides, their reward was to be dispersed among dangerous frontier posts. Verily, they had their reward. Antigonus also did not trust Peucestas with any independent authority, although he spared his life. The successes of Eumenes, and his tragic end, seem to have received little attention in most treatments of Hellenistic history. I took a whole class in Hellenistic history at UCLA in 1968, and over the years acquired a number of books about the Hellenistic Age, and I knew little about Eumenes. I did not find his story treated in full, at least so as I would notice, until the recent Ghost on the Throne and Dividing the Spoils, cited above. These are superior books.

Since Eumenes was the Last Faithful Successor to Alexander, and his conflict with Antigonus, involving several great battles, is a matter of high drama and considerable military interest, this is not a matter of isolated significance. I find its neglect puzzling, both as history and simply as drama. At the same time, the fall of Eumenes is an ominous and portentous moment in the collapse of the unity of Alexander's Kingdom and the protection of his kin. Philip III ended up murdered by Alexander's mother, Olympias, in league with Polyperchon, in 317. This set a very bad precedent for the treatment of the Royal family.

Roxane and Alexander IV with Eumenes, the Last Faithful Successor

Alessandro Varotari (1588-1649), il Padovanino

We should reflect on the tragedy of the faithlessness of the "Friends" and Companions of Alexander. The King Alexander died with three wives and one former mistress. All were eventually murdered. He had two sons. Both were murdered. His brother, mother, and sister were all murdered. Indeed, the entire Argead dynasty of Macedon was exterminated. Unfortunately, some of these murders were done by those (like wife Roxane and mother Olympias) who later would be victims themselves. But the lineage was finished off through the actions or the complacency of those who had sworn oaths to respect the succession of Alexander IV.

Cassander drove Polyperchon from his position. He then murdered Olympias and would soon display his ambition to forget the Empire and simply become sovereign in Macedonia. Alexander IV and his mother Roxane were imprisoned, isolated, and then quietly murdered by Cassander -- so quietly that we don't really know when, but the guess is that it was around 310 or 309. Alexander IV's "official" reign, and the fiction of a unified empire, was maintained for a few more years, until Antigonus and Demetrius (306) and then Lysimachus, Seleucus, Ptolemy, and Cassander (305) had all proclaimed themselves Kings in their own right -- 305 is the point where the Canon of Kings ends the reign of Alexander IV. Alexander would have come of age in 305, so presumably, if he was not then King, or even still living, other arrangements were called for.

All the Successors, of course, had sworn Oaths to surrender their authority to Alexander at his majority; but the Loyalist cause had really died with Eumenes, as it would then be literally exterminated by Olympias and Cassander. Oddly enough, Cassander seems to have buried Philip III, his wife Eurydice (or Adea), Alexander, and Roxane in lavish tombs at Vergina. Philip's tomb was first unearthed in 1977 and was at first thought to be that of Philip II. What Cassander thought he was doing, after the faithlessness and treachery of his behavior, is puzzling. The "Star of Vergina," , is an artifact of the tombs. The modern Republic of Macedonia used it on its flag, but produced a modified version after protests by Greece.

The chronology of this period includes some uncertainties. Thus, the death of Perdiccas may be seen dated to 320 or 321. I have been revising things in line with Robin Waterfield's Dividing the Spoils, the War for Alexander the Great's Empire [Oxford, 2011], which uses 320; but some inconsistencies may be found. I have also been introducing Waterfield's system of dividing the fighting into six "War of the Successors," which go from the disputed Regency of Perdiccas to the death of Lysimachus, the last of the Bodyguards, in 281. I doubt that this is original with him, but I do not have other sources that use it. As Waterfield admits, the fighting covered by these divisions is nearly continuous, so it may be a reach to divide it at all; but there are definitely phases of the fighting, and some division is helpful. In the First War, the focus is on Perdiccas and Eumenes. In the Second War, Eumenes still supports the loyalist Regent Polyperchon. The Second, Third, and Fourth Wars involve Antigonus disposing of Eumenes, emerging as the dominant Successor (nominally as the deputy of Polyperchon), and then being defeated by the combination of all the others, led by Lysimachus. The Fifth War contains and disposes of Demetrius, although the threat of the Antigonids nevertheless continued; and then the Sixth eliminated Lysimachus, who, with Macedon, Thrace, and Asia Minor in hand, was in a position to repeat the career of Antigonus. Seleucus stops that; and then, despite Seleucus' own assassination, the division of the lands is essentially finalized: Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleucid Asia, and then, after another few sharp conflicts, Antigonid Macedon.

The following genealogy shows the marriages of Alexander and his generals to women with Persian, especially Royal Persian, connections. In fact, all the Persian women here are related to the Royal family except Roxane, who was the daughter of a local ruler in Bactria (Oxyartes, which sounds suspiciously like the brother of Darius III, but it is separately attested). Most of this does not fit on the larger genealogy below, even when that only includes Alexander's generals who became Kings. The marriages we see here mostly did not work out well. The marriage of Nearchus to the unknown daughter of Barsine may have endured, for all we know, since we don't know what happened to Nearchus after 312. Craterus was actively hostile to Alexander's plan of intermarrying his men with Persians, but then he was killed in battle in 320. Meanwhile, however, he had married a daughter of Antipater and put away his Persian wife, Amastris -- he actually arranged another marriage for her (to Dionysius of Heraclea Pontica), where she had three children. She later, briefly, married Lysimachus, who avenged her after she was, bizarrely, murdered by her own sons. We don't know how indifferent Ptolemy or Eumenes may have been to their wives, but Ptolemy never had any children with his, of whom we shortly hear nothing, and Eumenes did not live long, killed in 316. Compare with the full genealogy of the Achaemenides, which also contains some of this. Sisygambis is sometimes regarded as the sister, rather than the cousin, of her husband.

The following combined genealogy covers early Macedonia, Epirus, the Macedonian Great Kings and Regents, Magas of Cyrene, and later Macedonia. The genealogy of the Seleucids and Ptolemies is given separately below. The intermarriages here between the Diadochi are bewildering, and hard to link intuitively in just two dimensions. The Antigonids succeed to Macedon, but then only rule for four generations, a century, with the last of the line, Perseus, already a vassal of the Romans.

KINGS OF THE

CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS Spartocus I 438/7-433/2 BC Seleucus & Satyrus I 433/2-393/2 Satyrus I 433/2-389/8 Leucon I & Gorgippos 389/8-349/8 Spartocus II & Parisades I 349/8-344/3 Parisades I 344/3-311/0 Satyrus II & Prytanis 311/10-310/9 Prytanis 310/9 Eumelus 310/9-304/3 Spartocus III 304/3-284/3 Parisades II 284/3-c.245 Spartocus IV c.245-240 Leucon II 240-220 Hygiaenon 220-200 Spartocus V 220-180 Parisades III 180-150 Parisades IV 150-125 Parisades V 125-109 Mithridates VI

of Pontus 107-63 Roman Protection, 63 Pharnaces 63-47 Asander c.47-17 Dynamis 17-16 Scribonius 15? Polemo 14-8 Dynamis 8 BC-7/8 AD [unknown] 7/8-10/11 Aspurgus 10/11-37/8 Gepaepyris 37/8-39 Mithridates 39-44/5 Cotys I 44/5-62?/67 Rescuporis I 68/9-90 Sauromates I 93/4-123/4 Cotys II 123/4-132/3 Rhoemetalcus 131/2-153/4 T. Iulius Eupator 153/4-173? Sauromates II 173/4-210/11 Rescuporis II 210/11-226/7 Cotys III 227/8-233/4 Sauromates III 229/30-231/2 Rescuporis III 233/4 Pharsanzes ? Ininthimaeus 236 Sauromantes IV ? C. Iulius Teiranes 275/6-278/9 Chedosbius c.280 Phophorses 286/7-308/9 Radamsadius 308/9-318? Rescuporis IV 318/9-c.335 Conquest by Goths, c.335

KINGS OF EPIRUS Tharyps d.385 Alcetas I 385-c.370 Neoptolemus I c.370-c.358 Alexander I c.358-331 Aeacides 319/17-c.312 Alcetas II c.312-306 Neoptolemus II 331-296

Pyrrhus I 297-272 King of Macedon, 288-283, 273-272 Drives Demetrius out of Macedonia, 288; War in Italy, 281-278; Defeat of Romans, Heraclea, 280, "Pyrrhic Victory"; War in Sicily, 278-275; killed at Argos by roof tile, 272 Alexander II

( , Alikasudara [note]) 272-242 Olympias 242-240 Pyrrhus II 240-234 Ptolemy 234-230 Monarchy overthrown, contested republic and confederation; Phoenice falls to Illyris, 230; Third Macedonian War, 171-168; mass plundering, murder, and slaving by Roman Army, half of population disappears, 167

Πύῤῥος

Pyrrhus's adventure in Sicily was followed shortly thereafter by the First Punic War, 264-241, by which Rome defeated Carthage, conquered Sicily, and became in consequence the Great Power of the Western Mediterranean.

Rome's First Illyrian War, 229-228, resulted in a Roman protectorate, the first Roman possession in the Balkan's, on the border of Epirus.

The Cimmerian Bosporus, in the Crimea, was a very long lived Greek and Hellenistic colonial kingdom that passed under Roman protection and survived all the way to conquest by the Goths. This span, over very different eras, all by itself makes the kingdom of great interest. Only Armenia and kingdoms in the Caucasus were more durable as Roman client states. The list is given in E.J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World [Cornell Univesity Press, 1968-1982], pp. 132-133. The obscurity of this realm is evident in the circumstance that it is not shown on any of Tony Belmonte's maps. It is, however, followed in The Penguin Atlas of Ancient History, and is shown from that source in the Animated History of Romania. The often dual dates reflect uncertainty over which Julian calendar year matches up with the Greek year, which starts in the Autumn, in question. The greatest obscurities in dates are in the third century, when the sources even for Roman history aren't all that great. The absorption of the kingdom by the Ostrogoths, who dominated the Ukraine at the time in the fourth century, is a portent for the trouble that the Empire proper was going to have with the Goths in the fifth century.



Antigonus Monophthalmos ( Μονόφθαλμος , Monóphthalmos, "One Eyed"), an old general of Philip II, did not rule over Macedonia but would be the first of Alexander the Great's generals to proclaim himself a King in his own right. Having disposed of Eumenes, and after tossing Seleucus out of Babylon, Antigonus holds the lion's share of Alexander's empire, as we see in the map for 315. After a few years, during which Seleucus returns to Babylon, and Alexander IV is apparently killed, Antigonus proclaims himself, and his son Demetrius, Kings (306). Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander, and Lysimachus soon followed suit (305).

In 311, Seleucus, backed by Ptolemy, launches a daring expedition back to Babylon and succeeds in detaching the Eastern lands of the empire from Antigonus. Two attempts were made to unseat Seleucus. Nicanor, the Satrap of Media installed by Antigonus, quickly marches against Babylon, with superior forces, but is then surprised in his camp and defeated. Invading Iran in turn, Seleucus defeats Nicanor and kills him in personal combat. With Seleucus away scooping up the East, in 310 Demetrius himself marches on Babylon, which was in the hands of a Seleucid lieutenant, Patrocles. Having fought his way into the city, Demetrius is called away in 309 to deal with Ptolemy. His lieutenant, Archelaus, is then driven away by the returning Seleucus, whose situation is now apparently secure.



ANTIGONID KINGS



Antigonus

Monophthalmos Satrap of

Phrygia,

334-306 King,

306-301 Second War of the Successors, 318-316; Third War of the Successors, 315-311; Fourth War of the Successors, 307-301



Demetrius I

Poliorcetes 306-285,

d.283 Macedon,

294-288 Fifth War of the Successors, 288-286



Antigonus II

Gonatas ("Bent-Knee"?) 285-239 Macedon,

277-273,

272-239

His enemies (with the perhaps prudent exceptions of Cassander and Ptolemy) converge on Antigonus. Although the toughest old bird in the fight, perhaps feeling all of his eighty years, he is defeated and killed by Lysimachus and Seleucus at the climactic battle of Ipsus in 301 -- perhaps the largest battle of the era (ending the "Fourth War of the Successors"). This puts an end to his ambitions and his Kingdom. His son, Demetrius I Poliorcetes ( Πολιορκητής , Poliorkêtés, "Sieger of Cities," though his greatest siege, of Rhodes, was a failure -- in whose celebration the Rhodians built the Colossus of Rhodes), survived the battle -- it is unclear whether, leaving the field in pursuit of the defeated allied cavalry, he simply never returned or was prevented from rejoining the fight by the elephants of Seleucus.

Nevertheless, Demetrius possessed a considerable fleet, had occupied a good part of Greece, and also continued to hold Cyprus, Sidon, and Tyre. Despite everyone'e impression and best wish, he continued to be a player and is simply cut loose to seek his own fortune. This includes the throne of Macedonia (294-288), where, however, his actions, attitudes, and ambitions failed to win him much in the way of love, loyalty, or support. His project to invade Asia foundered on desertion by the Macedonians and then deposition by Pyrrhus and Lysimachus. Despite other possessions falling away (Cyprus and the Phoenician cities), Demetrius invades Asia anyway, is led deep into the interior, and then, as Seleucus tempts the desertion of his men, is captured in 285 -- the effective end of his Kingship.



After this roller coaster ride of ambition and daring, Demetrius is treated well enough by Seleucus, but his health became the worse for drink, and he died in 283. He had left his son, Antigonus II Gonatas, behind in Greece; and so, just as in the previous generation, the son is left with a kind of starter set to rebuild the kingdom lost by the father. This is what he did. With a great defeat of the invading Celts, and despite being ejected by Pyrrhus (as he had done his father) for a year, Antigonus successfully installed his line in Macedonia (cf. the maps below). It continued until Roman conquest in 168.



KINGS OF ILLYRIS,

Ardiaeans Agron d.231 Pinnes 231-after c.216 Teuta Queen, Regent, 231-228 First Illyrian War with Rome, 229-228 Demetrius of Pharos Regent, 228-219 Second Illyrian War, 219 Labeatans Scerdilaidas Regent, c.216-? King, d.c.207 Pleuratus c.207-c.182 Genthius c.182-168 Third Macedonian War, 171-167; defeat by Romans at Pydna, 168; Illyris divided into republics; Genthius dies in Roman captivity, ?; Third Illyrian War, 156-155

There is a course on the Hellenstic Age issued by The Teaching Company ("The Great Courses"), "Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age" [2000], given by Jeremy McInerney, an Associate Professor of Classics at the University of Pennsylvania. McInerney is an engaging lecturer, but he seems to be impatient with narrative history, which is a serious drawback for the life of Alexander and the early years of the Successors. This results in an astronishing gap in his treatment. After introducing Antigonus Monophthalmos, showing his central kingdom on two maps, and mentioning Demetrius, McInerney never does get around to describing what happened to either of them. This means that the Battle of Ipsus, one of the most dramatic events of the age, goes unmentioned. Nor do we ever hear anything of the conflict of Antigonus with Eumenes, who himself is never mentioned. Even worse, indeed shockingly worse, we are never told how the Antigonids, either Demetrius or Antigonus Gonatas, come to the Throne of Macedon. Since this involves the subsequent history of Macedonia until the Roman Conquest, it is an astonishing oversight. When McInerney moves on to discuss Hellenistic sculpture, he lists the major successor Kingdoms he has considered -- but Macedonia is conspicuous by its absence. I don't know how he could have done this. Similarly, McInerney ignores Lysimachus until mentioning him in passing in relation to the establishment of Pergamum, showing his kingdom only on a map of Pergamum. McInerney's impatience also results in some simple distortions. Thus, he describes Perdiccas as turning on Ptolemy, invading Egypt, and being assassinated as his army was about to cross the Nile. This ignores the provocations and disloyalty of Ptolemy, manifest in the theft of Alexander's body, and the fact that Perdiccas had already tried to cross the Nile and was repulsed. I know that the Wars of the Successors are confusing; but, really, if you are going to teach a course, you should be able to get them straight and not leave out major and formative events. Having skipped over and/or distorted such events, McInerney then devotes two whole lectures to essentially defending the Greeks against possible charges of anti-Semitism, the sort of anachronistic and irrelevant exercise that can easily obsess the modern, politically correct academic. It adds nothing to an account of Hellenistic history. As noted elsewhere, the issue would be more relevant to Manethô's treatment of the Jews. But then Manethô was not a Greek.



KINGS OF THRACE Odrysian Kings Tires I 480-460 Sitalkes 460-424 Sporadokos c.460-c.430 Sadokos 425-424 Seuthes I 424-415 Amadokos I 415-391 Seuthes II 405-384 Maesades 389-384 Kotys I 384-359 Kersouleptes I 359-341 Seuthes III 341-c.306 Macedonian control, 341 Zopyrion Govenor, c.331-

325/324

Lysimachus Satrap

of Thrace,

323-305 King,

305-281 Fourth War of the Successors, 307-301, defeats & kills Antigonus I at Ipsus, 301; King of Macedon, 288; Sixth War of the Successors, 282-281; killed by Seleucus I, battle of Corupedium, 281

Ptolemy Ceraunus 281-279 assassinates Seleucus I, 281; Invasion of Gauls, Ceraunus killed, 279 Thrace continues, c.280 BC-46 AD

Thus, Lysimachus is in on the overthrow of Antigonus Monophthalmos (301), where he demonstrates the military abilities that otherwise were of little lasting value in Thrace; but then Seleucus turns against him. Lysimachus is killed in the victory of Seleucus at Corupedium (281).

Contemporaneous Kings Eurizelmes 389-384 Thirisades in Strimos, 359-356 Amadokos II in Maroneia and Chersonese, 359-351 Ketriporis in Strimos, 356-? Skostodokos 351-? Tires II in Maroneia and Chersonese, 351-342 Kersebleptes c.348-341

Never as strong as under Seuthes III, the new Thrace is, if anything, more obscure than the old and now generally remains outside the control of the Hellenistic Kingdoms. It disappears off many of the historical maps for the period, as we would expect if it was never organized enough to project its sovereignty, diplomatically or militarily, or participate in events. In retrospect, it does not seem to have ever been appropriate as a base for one of the major Successors. Lysimachus got a bad deal. Lapsing back into their marginal place on the boundary of civilization, the Thracians were only finally reduced to vassalage by Rome.



KINGS OF MACEDONIA



Antipater I Viceroy,

327-319 Lamian War, 322; First War of the Successors, 320-319

Polyperchon Regent,

319-317 Second War of the Successors, 318-316

Cassander Regent,

317-305 King,

305-297 Third War of the Successors, 315-311; Fourth War of the Successors, 307-301

Philip IV 297-296 dies, like his father,

of tuberculosis, 296

Alexander V 296-294 killed by Demetrius, 294 Antipater II 296/5-294,

d.287



Demetrius I Poliorcetes 294-288,

d.283 Fifth War of the Successors, 288-286; expelled by Lysimachus, & Pyrrhus, 288; surrendered to Seleucus, 285

Pyrrhus I of Eprius 297-272 288-283,

273-272

Lysimachus 288-281 Sixth War of the Successors, 282-281; killed by Seleucus I, battle of Corupedium, 281

Ptolemy Ceraunus 281-279 assassinates Seleucus I, 281; Invasion of Gauls, Ceraunus killed, 279; Interregnum, 279-277



Antigonus II Gonatas

( , Antikini [note]) Antigonid, 285-239 277-273,

272-239 Defeats Celts, occupies Macedonia, 277; Chremonidean War, 267-262; capture of Athens, 262 Demetrius II Aetolicus

( , "Aetolian") 239-229 Philip 232-229 Antigonus III Doson

( , "(empty) giver") 229-221 Philip V 221-179 First Macedonian War (of Rome), 214-205; Second Macedonian War, 200-196; defeated by Rome at Cynoscephalae, 197

Perseus 179-168, d.165 Third Macedonian War, 171-167; defeated by Romans at Pydna, 168; Roman rule, 167-150; Perseus starves himself to death in Roman captivity, 165 Philip VI Andriscus

( ) 150-148 Fourth Macedonian War, 149-146; Corinth destroyed by Romans, 146; Rome annexes Greece

& Macedonia, 146

Antigonus did an excellent job of founding a durable kingdom. His grandfather would have been proud of him, perhaps not the least because he also lived to be over eighty. And he ruled Macedonia itself close to forty years. He was tough, resourceful, and resilient. His strategy in Greece involved the key strategic locations that his father Demetrius had managed to acquire and preserve, and that for a while then were almost the only possessions of the Antigonids. These places were the Piraeus, the port of Athens (and often including a garrison in Athens itself), Corinth, Chalcis, and Demetrias. Chalchis was situated at the narrowest point in the passage between the island of Euboea and the mainland. Demetrias, founded and named after his father Demetrius, was at the head of the Pagasaean gulf in Thessaly. It became a seat of the monarchy, thanks to its strategic location.

Indeed, Corinth, Chalcis, and Demetrias came to be called the "Fetters of Greece," Πέδαι Ἑλληνικαί , at least by the time of Philip V [Polybius, The Histories, Volume V, Book XVIII, 11:5, W.R. Patton, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard, 1926, 2006, p.106-107]; and their possession was consistent with the policy of Antigonus, not to conquer Greece, but to prevent the formation of powers that might unify the country and challenge Macedonia. He himself lost Corinth, perhaps the most strategic location of all, to the Achaean League in 243, but the city was then returned to Antigonus Doson in 223 to secure his support. It remained in Macedonian hands until after the defeat by the Romans at Cynoscephalae in 197, when the Romans "freed" the city in 193, but then, of course, garrisoned the Acrocorinth -- as they did Chalcis and Demetrias. Rome thus inherited the "Fetters" and their function. The possession of such strategic locations is reminiscent of 19th century Britain holding bases such as Gibraltar, Malta, and Singapore. We also might be reminded of the Arab garrison cities in the early days of ʾIslâm.

Antigonus founded a durable kingdom, but the dynasty was destined to last only three more generations, pretty much through no fault of its own. Macedonia became the first of the Hellenistic successor kingdoms to feel the wrath of Rome. This started with the Second Punic War, 218-201, when Hannibal's invasion and victories in Italy (like Cannae, 216) made it look like Rome might actually be defeated by Carthage. To Philip V, a Macedonian alliance with Carthage then seemed reasonable. When fortune turned against Carthage, a peace was patched up (205), but Roman revenge could be expected after the final and decisive defeat of Carthage (202). Unlike the Hellenistic monarchs, the Roman Republic did not forgive or forget what it regarded as betrayals. When revenge came (197), Macedon permanently lost its position in Greece and any real freedom of action. The final reduction of Macedonia coincided with the Third Punic War, 149-146, when Carthage itself was conquered and destroyed. Both Africa and Macedonia became Roman provinces.



As the Hellensitic Kingdoms are forming, the city of Rome has occupied most of Central Italy. The Second Samnite War (327-304) secured Roman domination. The next real contest would be with the Greek cities in the south. The Greeks derived aid from Pyrrhus of Epirus (281-278), but this was unavailing. Tarentum surrendered in 272, leaving the Romans in complete control of Southern Italy. By 270, the Roman Republic is all but coextensive with Italy. Only the Po Valley, still Celtic (and even called "Cisalpine Gaul"), is unoccupied.



After the fall of Lysimachus, the assassination of Seleucus, and the establishment of Antigonus Gonatas in Macedonia, the successor Kingdoms have shaken down to just three. This gives the form of things for a while, still pretty early in the Hellenstic Period, just fifty years after the death of Alexander. That a generation and more has passed is now conspicuous. Alexander's own Bodyguards and generals are gone. Antiochus' name is even today preserved in the name of the city of Antioch, Ἀντιόχεια , though its modern name, Antakya, is in a language, Turkish, that would have been no more familiar to the Hellenistic Greeks than Navajo.

Fifty years later things don't seem all that different, but big changes are in the offing. The Romans have defeated Carthage in the First Punic War (264-241) and secured Sicily, after a long and difficult campaign. Roman victory, however, was mainly effected by the defeat of the Carthaginian navy. Carthaginian forces on Sicily thus could be isolated. Rome became the dominant naval power in the Western Mediterranean, and Carthage would never be able to seriously challenge this. In a way, this is bewildering. The Phoenicians had lived on the sea for centuries, and the Romans had barely shaken the mud off their sandals. Some of the worse Roman naval defeats in the war were the result of the weather, for which the Romans had no sailor's sense. But the Romans defeated the Thalassocracy of Carthage and kept it defeated. Once the war was won, the Romans continued to press their advantage, occupying Sardinia and Corsica (237) and gaining a toehold in Illyrium and Epirus (228).

The Second Punic War is soon to break out. This will radically alter the balance of power, making Rome dominant in the West and inflicting a defeat on Macedon. Worse will soon follow. Meanwhile, Bactria is the first part of the Kingdom of Seleucus to become alienated and independent, though under its Greek (shortly to become Buddhist) Kings, it is still a fully Hellenistic successor Kingdom. Antiochus III has come to the throne, but he has not yet engaged in the campaigns that will earn him the epithet "the Great." Nor has he encountered the misfortune, the Romans, that will turn his achievements, like those of the Macedonian Antigonids, to nought.

While the Diadochi are the high profile players in Hellenistic history, Greece itself continued to consist of city states. Some, although occasionally subject to foreign, mainly Macedonian, control, largely preserved their independence and long continued as autonomous players. Athens and Sparta are conspicuous in this category. Leagues of cities were already familiar from Greek history, but to the extent that they represented real power, they usually reflected the dominance of one member. The League of Delos thus became the instrument of Athens. The League of Corinth was created by Philip II of Macedon to control Greece, while maintaining the fiction that the Greek cities were independent. As the Hellenistic Age developed, however, we have the new phenomenon of leagues which become politically and military important in their own right without being dominated by a particular member, much less some other power. These were the Aetolian League, mainly in the mountains north of the Gulf of Corinth, and the Achaean League, beginning along the north coast of the Peloponnesus. Neither league began near what had hitherto been centers of Greek power, and the Aetolians were in an area that had barely passed from tribal to urban organization -- though their acquisition of Delphi around 300 (or in 290) gave them one of the symbolic centers of Greek religion and identity. In the course of events, the Aetolians achieved temporary control over Boeotia and Thessaly. The Achaeans eventually annexed Sparta but then displeased Rome with its treatment. They each developed something like a federal structure, with a League Assembly and the annual election of a president or general (strategos) to lead the whole. The Achaean League especially was well led by Aratus, who was president every other year (he could not succeed himself) from 245 to 213, and was followed by Philopoemen of Megalopolis from 208 until his death in 182. The Aetolians made the mistake of allying with Antiochus III against Rome, and the Romans reduced them to a vassal status in 189. The Achaeans also eventually fell afoul of Rome, and in 146 the Romans sacked Corinth and dissolved the League. Among the hostages that Rome demanded from Achaea in 167 was the historian Polybius, who ended up observing a great deal of Roman history, like the Third Punic War (149-146). Both leagues were the only Greek precedent for the kind of federal structure of government that was attempted in the United States Constitution. The name of the Achaean League lived on in subsequent history. The name of the Roman province that included the Peloponnesus, Athens, and Boeotia was "Achaea"; and when the Crusaders divided up Romania after the Fourth Crusade, the Peloponnesus became the Principality of Achaea.

Καὶ κραναᾶς Βαβυλῶνος ἐπίδρομον ἅρμασι τεῖχος

καὶ τὸν ἐπ᾽ Ἀλφειῷ Ζᾶνα κατηυγασάμην,

κάπων τ᾽ αἱώρημα, καὶ Ἠελίοιο κολοσσόν,

καὶ μέγαν αἰπεινᾶν πυραμίδων κάματον,

μνᾶμά τε Μαυσωλοῖο πελώριον· ἀλλ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἐσεῖδον

Ἀρτέμιδος νεφέων ἄχρι θέοντα δόμον,

κεῖνα μὲν ἠμαύρωτο δεκηνιδε νόσφιν Ὀλύμπου

Ἅλιος οὐδέν πω τοῖον ἐπηυγάστο. I have set eyes on the wall of lofty Babylon on which is a road for chariots, and the statue of Zeus by the Alpheus, and the hanging gardens, and the colossus of the Sun, and the huge harbour of the high pyramids, and the vast tomb of Mausolus; but when I saw the house of Artemis that mounted to the clouds, those other marvels lost their brilliancy, and I said, "Lo, apart from Olympus, the Sun never looked on aught so grand." Antipater of Sidon, Ἀντίπατρος ὁ Σιδώνιος , Book IX, "The Declamatory and Descriptive Epigrams," 58, The Greek Anthology, Volume III, Book 9, Translated by W.R. Paton, The Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1917, pp.30-31.

THE SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD 1. The Pyramids Egyptian 2. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon Neo-

Babylonian 3. The Statue of Zeus at Olympia Greek 4. The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus Carian 5. The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus Greek 6. The Colossus of Rhodes Greek 7. The Pharos Lighthouse of Alexandria Hellenistic

THE SELEUCIDS, MACEDONIAN KINGS OF IRAN, IRAQ, SYRIA, ETC.

Seleucus I Nicator (" Conqueror ") Satrap of Babylonia, 320-316, 311-305 King, 305-281 First War of the Successors, 320-319; Second War of the Successors, 318-316; Third War of the Successors, 315-311; Seleucid Era Begins, 312/311; Fourth War of the Successors, 307-301; Seleucus concedes India to Chandragupta Maurya , c.303; Fifth War of the Successors, 288-286; Sixth War of the Successors, 282-281; defeats and kills Lysimachus , killed by Ptolemy Ceraunus, 281

Antiochus I Soter ("Savior") 280-261 First Syrian War, 274-271 Antiochus II Theos ( , "god"), ( , Antiyoka [ note ]) 261-247 Second Syrian War, 260-253; Parthia independent, 248 Arsacid (Parthian) Era Begins, 248/247 Seleucus II Callinicus Pogo

( , "beautiful conquest"; , "bearded") 246-226 Third Syrian War, 246-241; Bactria independent, 239 Seleucus III Ceraunus

( , "Thunderbolt") 226-223 Antiochus III the Great

( ) 223-187 Fourth Syrian War, 219-217; campaign to India, 212-205; Parthia regained, 209; siege of Bactria , 208-206; Fifth Syrian War, Palestine won from Ptolemies, 203-200; peace with Ptolemy V, who marries Cleopatra I, 195; Syrian War with Rome, 192-188; defeat at Thermopylae, 191; naval defeat off Myonessus, 190; defeated by Scipio Africanus at Magnesia, 189; Treaty of Apamea, loss of Asia Minor, 188 Seleucus IV Philopator

( , "Father Loving") 187-175 Parthians expand into eastern Iran, 185 Antiochus IV Epiphanes

( , "Manifest") 175-164 Sixth Syrian War, Egyptian expedition, 170-168; Jewish Revolt, 167; Maccabees occupy Jerusalem, 164 Antiochus V Eupator

( , "good father") 164-162 Demetrius I Soter 162-150 [Alexander Balas] 159-147 Demetrius II Nicator 146-140 Maccabees uncontested in Judaea, 142 Parthians take Media, 141 Antiochus VI Ephiphanes Dionysus ( ) 145-142 Antiochus VII Euergetes

( , "Do-Gooder/Benefactor") 139-129 Parthians take Persia, 139;

Antiochus killed by Parthians, 129 Demetrius II Nicator (restored) 129-126

Cleopatra Thea ("goddess") 126 Parthians take Babylonia, 126,

Seleucids left with nothing but Syria Cleopatra Thea (continued) & Antiochus VIII Philometor

( , "Mother Loving") Grypus ( , "hook-nosed") 125-121 Seleucus V 126-125 Antiochus VIII Philometer Grypus (continued) 121-96 Antiochus IX Philopator Cyzicenus ( , "of Cyzicus") 116-95 Seleucus VI Epiphanes Nicator 96-95 Antiochus X Eusebes

( , "pious") Philopator 95-83 Antiochus XI Epiphanes Philadelphus ( , "Sister Loving") 95

Philip I Epiphanes Philadelphus 95-83 Demetrius III Philopator Soter Eucaerus ( , "timely"; perhaps ironic for "untimely") 95-88 Antiochus XII Dionysus 87-84 [ Tigranes II of Armenia ] 83-69 Antiochus XIII Asiaticus 69-64 Philip II Philoromaeus

( , "loving Rome") 66-63 Pompey annexes Syria to Rome, 63 BC

The last two Wonders were then actual products of the Hellenistic Age, in the 3th century. The Colossus of Rhodes was constructed by a surviving Greek city state, to celebrate its delivery from the siege of Demetrius Poliorcetes in 305; but then the Pharos Lighthouse was one of the supreme symbols of Hellenistic Monarchy, built by Ptolemy I and II in the first and greatest city of Alexander, marking its location, day and light, on the edge of the otherwise flat and undistinguished Delta of Egypt.

The Colossus of Rhodes, ὁ Κολοσσὸς Ῥόδιος , did not survive long as constructed. It fell in an earthquake in 226 BC. It's reconstruction was prevented by an inauspicious oracle. The ruin, however, was a tourist attraction until the island was seized by the future Caliph Muʿâwiya in 654 AD. According to Theophanes Confessor, Muʿâwiya sold the bronze statue, 1370 years after its construction, for scrap to a Jewish merchant.

The weakness of the statue, 108 feet tall, was apparently in the ankles, which supported the whole weight of cast bronze. These snapped in the earthquake. If the statue had straddled the entrance of the harbor, as has been imagined, the structure never would have stood at all. By contast, the Statue of Liberty, where the statue alone is 151 feet tall, the legs are concealed by robes, and within is actually an iron superstruture, designed by no less than Gustave Eiffel (1832-1923), who went on to build his eponymous tower in Paris. The visible statue is thin plates of copper attached to the superstructure. Something about the Statue of Liberty, however, may commemorate the Colossus, namely the seven rays on the crown, which are part of the iconography, not of the goddess Liberty, but of the sun god Helios. As on the Colossus.

The Pharos Lighthouse, ὁ Φάρος τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας , lasted much longer, ultimately collapsing during earthquakes itself, in 1303 & 1323 AD, under the Mamlûks. The durability and visibility of the Lighthouse may explain why it was only added to the list of Wonders during the Middle Ages. We do not see it in the list by Antipater of Sidon above. After the collapse, reconstructed as a still surviving fort (the Fort of Qaitbay, , 1477), the massive masonry blocks of the Lighthouse can even now be inspected. Within the fort a mosque seems to echo the elements of the structure of the Lighthouse, with square, circular, and octogonal shapes.

The Crusaders built a fort out of the Mausoleum also, and it is hard to know how much damage it may already have endured. The Temple of Artemis suffered more than one act of destruction. The pre-Hellenistic temple was set on fire by an aronist in 356. The Goths damaged the rebuilt temple in 268 AD, during their raids of the Third Century. It is unclear whether this completely destroyed the temple or not. As the area of Ephesus silted up, the site was buried. When excavated after its discovery in 1869, the "Englishman's Pit" subsequently filled up with water. It then looked like a small abandoned lake with a few stones and columns visible above water. Much of the stone may have been taken for other projects, including the Church of Sancta Sophia in Constantinople.

The Statue of Zeus from Olympia was relocated to Constantiople at its building, along with masses of other Classical statuary of whose existence we still seem to be learning, and kept at the Lauseion Palace. When the Palace burned in 475, the statue was lost, along with others, such as the famous Aphrodite of Cnidus. But there are other reports that the statue of Zeus had not been moved to Constantinople at all, leaving its fate uncertain.

Most uncertain of all is the fate of the Hanging Gardens. Archaeologists have been entirely unable to identify a possible site for the Gardens in the excavations of Babylon. Because of this, some now doubt whether the Gardens even existed, at least in the form commonly described (on terraces, etc.). It is hard to know what to make of this, since Babylon was a place familiar to many Greeks, already from the Golden Age, but then to thousands of them in the time of Alexander. In any case, Babylon was slowly abandoned under the Seleucids, and the Emperor Trajan only found ruins when he visited the site in 117 AD.

Σέλευκος , Seleucus, although at one point a refugee with Ptolemy I, returned across the desert to Babylon in 311 to ultimately appropriate the lion's share of Alexander's empire. This dramatic event, counted as Seleucus' first regal year, was continued as the Seleucid Era, the first continuous count of time in world chronology, soon to inspire the similar Arsacid Era of Parthia. The beginning of the Seleucid Era is given as 312/311 because the Babylonian New Year was in the Spring but the Seleucid year for the Greeks was reckoned from the previous Fall (September or October). There is also the residual uncertainty about Hellenistic dating. E.J. Bickerman, for instance, positively asserted that Seleucus reconquered Babylon "in August of 312" [Chronology of the Ancient World, Cornell University Press, 1968, 1980, 1982, p.71], while a more recent treatment by Robin Waterfield says, "In the spring of 311 he [i.e. Seleucus] was given a thousand men by Ptolemy and set out from Palestine to Babylonia" [Dividing the Spoils, Oxford, 2011, p.123]. While we may have more confidence in up-to-date scholarship, sometimes older analyses are later vindicated.

As recounted above, Seleucus had to fend off two major efforts against him to recover Babylon for Antigonus Monophthalmos. With Babylon secure, he was able to take control of the vast Iranian hinterland, the geographical bulk of Alexander's Empire. However, Seleucus leaves India to the growing power of the Mauryas, and was compensated with war elephants that he then began to breed himself. Having defeated and killed Antigonus (301) and Lysimachus (281), Seleucus was about to add Thrace to his kingdom when, stepping out of the boat in Europe, he was assassinated by Ptolemy Ceraunus, whom he had taken in as a refugee from his father, Ptolemy I. Ceraunus is also said to have killed Seleucus while they were hunting together near Lysmacheia, which had been Lysimachus' capital on the Gallipoli peninsula. Ceraunus claimed the throne of Thrace and Macedon, while the rest of Seleucus' domain passed to his half-Iranian son Antiochus.

The capital of the kingdom, Seleucia, founded on the Tigris, began to replace Babylon as the metropolitan city of the region, but it did not achieve the historical significance and permanence of Alexandria in Egypt. Instead, it was ultimately replaced by the neighboring new capitals of the Parthians, Ctesiphon, and of the Abbasid Caliphs, Baghdâd. A more permanent city of historical importance and fame would be Antioch in Syria (now in Turkey).

While Seleucid authority was never fully established over several kingdoms in Anatolia, like Armenia and Pontus, more distant areas, like Parthia and Bactria, began to drift away. Antiochus III stopped this process and began to reverse it, marching to India and wresting Palestine from the Ptolemies, but then had the misfortune to become the first Seleucid to clash with Rome. His defeat in 190 began a steep decline for the kingdom. By 125, the Seleucids would be confined to Syria. Their last 60 years would be consumed with pointless dynastic conflict and fragmentation, and 14 years of Armenian occupation. Then Rome would pick up the pieces. Pompey "settles the East" in 63 BC with the annexation of the remaining Seleucid lands and the reduction of other local states, like Judaea, to Roman clients.



With the Seleucids, as with the Ptolemies, we have a genealogy that gets more complicated as time goes on. This happens as brothers and cousins begin to contend for the Throne, but also as intermarriage, particularly with the Ptolemies, becomes increasingly more confusing. A name so famous in Egypt, Cleopatra, actually derives from a Seleucid marriage, Cleopatra a daughter of Antiochus III. Three of her grandchildren marry back into the Seleucids. Cleopatra Thea marries three Seleucids (although there seems to be some question about the parentage of Alexander Balas) and has children by all of them who eventually become Kings. Cleopatra V Selene marries her brother, Ptolemy IX, and then two Seleucids, the son (Antiochus VIII, following her sister) and grandson (Antiochus X) of her own cousin (Cleopatra Thea). The dynasty ends with the five sons of Antiochus VIII and their cousin fighting among themselves as the Kingdom crumbles. Two members of the next generation wrap things up, after Tigranes II of Armenia took over (83-69), until the Romans pick up the pieces in 63. The last King, Philip II, bears the interesting epithet of Φιλοῥώμαιος , "Philorhomaeus," "Roman Lover."



Hamilcar Barca, the Carthaginian commander in Sicily during the First Punic War, prepared for the future by moving to Spain and enlarging Carthaginian possessions there. He even founded a "New Carthage," the Latin version of whose name, Carthago Nova, still exists, as Cartagena (in both the Old World and the New). "Carthage" was Καρχηδών in Greek and Carthago in Latin. Polybius, who had occasion to refer to Cartagena many times, actually just calls it ἡ Καινὴ πόλις , the "New" city, probably not realizing that, in Phoenician, Carthage itself was already the "new city." The Second Punic War (218-201) is then initiated by Hamilcar's son, Hannibal. With Carthaginian control of the sea lost, but a successful new domain in Spain, Hannibal decided to beat the Romans at their own game, not only to defeat them on land but to actually invade Italy and do it there. Crossing the Alps with his war elephants, Hannibal created one of the most dramatic and memorable campaigns in world history. In three years, Hannibal inflicted three crushing defeats on the Romans, at the Trebia River in 218, at Lake Trasimene in 217, and finally at Cannae in 216. Cannae, where Hannibal executed a double envelopment of four Roman Legions, surrounding and annihilating them, established a military ideal, a Holy Grail for tactics, for all subsequent military history. Envelopment of one or both flanks of the enemy would always be a key to victory. The Duke of Marlborough typically could effect a breakthrough leading to envelopment, with Oudenarde the most like Cannae, although only part of the French Army was involved. Robert E. Lee, or the incompetence of subordinates, defeated the attempts of Ulysses S. Grant at envelopments in 1864, until that was achieved at Five Forks in 1865, soon leading to Lee's surrender. The Schliefen Plan in World War I was to "brush the Channel" and envelope the French with the German Right. This failed, as the German Right was not as strong as intended, and the French rushed out troops, in taxicabs, to reinforce their Left. In 1940, however, the Germans punched through the Allied middle with tanks and enveloped the Left from behind, pinning it against the Channel, to surrender or be evacuated -- at Dunkirk. That move was more like Marlborough than like Hannibal. On the map at right we see a subsequent battle at Cannae, in 1018, when Romania, the Mediaeval Roman Empire, defeated an attack and rebellion by the Lombards of Benevento. This was at the height of Roman power in the South of Italy. However, that power would vanish by the end of the century because of the advent of a new and unanticipated enemy, the Normans, who started as Roman mercenaries but then began their own rebellion. After the original Cannae, the Romans tried to avoid battle in Italy. This was the explicit strategy of Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, called Cunctator, "Delayer." Not all were happy with such a strategy, but it had begun to look like a Roman army could not face Hannibal in battle without being destroyed. In this way, Hannibal, with no resources to besiege Rome or other cities, lost the initiative. Meanwhile, a Roman army reduced Spain, defeating Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal. Then, the victor of Spain, Scipio Africanus, invaded Africa in 204. Hannibal finally left Italy to defend Carthage itself, and then was defeated at Zama in 202, as the Numidian cavalry, always essential to Carthaginian armies, foolishly deserted to the Romans. Hannibal fled as far as Bithynia, where he took poison in 183 rather than be surrendered to the Romans. Carthage was reduced to a rump state in Tunisia. Roman historians tried to explain Hannibal, in one sense, with a story that Hamilcar had made the young Hannibal swear an oath of emnity against Rome. We might ask now, when did the Romans swear their oath of emnity against Carthage? Neither Hamilcar nor Hannibal ever needed any such oath. Roman aggression was evident from the outset. Where Hamilcar was fighting in Sicily, Phoenicians had lived for centuries, while Rome had no people or legitimate interests in the island. It was simply a Roman invasion, and all the subsequent actions of the Republic were of the same sort. The Barcas needed no oaths, because Roman intentions were obvious. Conquest. Well, they got their conquest, but it was a near run thing. If Carthage had actually had a tithe of the resources that Rome had at that point, Hannibal would have smashed Rome like a bug. And I think they knew it. In those terms, the nobility and genius of Hannibal Barca shine out even from the pages of hostile Roman historians. He was morally superior to his enemies, and they richly deserved the damage, the shock, and the fright that he inflicted upon them. This was a great man; yet also as a general his courage, his audacity, his strategic and tactical brilliance may even be without equal in world history. The very image of his elephants crossing the Alps is something iconic and incomparable, while this passage was no mean feat in its own right. While Caesar grieved over the murder of Pompey, Aurelian left Zenobia to comfortable retirement in Rome, and the British wined and dined Cetshwayo, the defeated King of the Zulus, in London, the Romans of Hannibal's day, simply out of spite wanted to murder him, and ignobly hounded him to the ends of the earth. The British themselves were not always without spite, as in the treatment of the last Moghul Emperor and the execution of his sons. Much of the shame of that is that the elderly Bahâdur Shâh II was not really an independent agent, was not responsible for the outrages of the Great Mutiny, and was in fact still the nominal sovereign of the British in India! On the other hand, Hannibal, with full responsibility, can be blamed for no atrocities. He was fighting for the very life of Carthage, whose terms the Romans blatantly affirmed by later exterminating the entire population of the city. They obviously hated the Carthaginians with a relentless passion, when Carthage had never done them any harm except in self-defense. Demolishing the city and sowing the land with salt, the Romans wanted Carthage erased from history. Fortunately, it was the Roman historians themselves who prevented that from happening, and the city later was actually rebuilt. As with the Trojans in the Iliad, anyone reading Polybius or Livy is bound to admire the conquered more than conquerors. Yet no Trojan stands out with anything like the sublime patriotism and genius of Hannibal. Achilles chased Hector around Troy, and then dragged his body around the city in the same way; but no Roman enemy got any such satisfaction from Hannibal. Scipio at last could defeat him, but Hannibal got clean away. Macedon made the mistake, when Hannibal looked like a winner, of joining Carthage against Rome. Although bailing out when the tide turned, Philip V nevertheless became the target of Roman vengeance once Carthage had been dealt with. The Second Macedonian War (200-196) has now permanently reduced the Macedonian domain. Carthage for the moment suvives, but only until the Third Punic War (149-146), when it is annihilated. Meanwhile, Antiochus III, the Great, has marched to India and defeated the Ptolemies, driving them out of Asia. These great successes will shortly be undone by the first Seleucid clash with Rome, the Syrian War (192-188). In the aftermath of the Second Punic War, we thus have a unification of the Mediterranean basin, where the power of Rome begins to stretch from one end of the Sea to the other.



KINGS OF PONTUS



Mithridates of Cius 337/6-302/1 Mithridates I 302/1-266/5 Ariobarzanes 266/5-c.255 Mithridates II c.255-c.220 Mithridates III c.220-c.185 Pharnaces I c.185-c.170 Mithridates IV

Philopator Philadelphus c.170-c.150 Mithridates V Euergetes c.150-121/0 Mithridates VI

Eupator

( ) 121/0-63 First Mithridatic War,

defeat by Rome, 88-85;

Second Mithridatic War, 83-82;

Third Mithridatic War, 74-63;

Pompey's Settlement of the East, 63 Pharnaces II of the

Bosporus 63-47 Ariarates 47-39 VIII of Cappadocia, 101-96 BC Darius 39-37 Polemon I 37-8 BC Bosporus, 14-8 BC Pythodoris (or Pythodorida) 8 BC-19/23/38 AD Artaxias (19 AD-27) Polemon II 38-64 Roman Province

Celtic Chiefs in THRACE Bolgios 281-? Brennus c.280 Celtic Thracian Kingdom of TILIS, 279-c.200 Kommotorios c.279-c.250 Ariopharn c.235 Kavaros ?-c.218 GALATIA

Liutarius Chief

278-? Leonnarius 278-? Twelve Tetrarchies,

228-183 To Pergamum, 183-166 Twelve Tetrarchies,

183-89 To Pontus, 89-86 Twelve Tetrarchies,

86-62 Deiotarus King

62-40 Brogitarius. 62-44 Amintas 37-25 Annexed to Rome, 25 BC

Galatians were actually Celts from central Europe. They seem to have arrived south of the Danube by 280, disrupting the Thracian and Macedonian Kingdoms. They founded an ephemeral and poorly attested state in Thrace itself and then invaded Greece in 279, killing Ptolemy Ceraunus. This threw Macedon into chaos, which was not relieved until Antigonus Gonatas defeated the invaders in Greece in 277 and assumed the Macedonian Throne.

Meanwhile a group crossed the Bosporus and established themselves in Anatolia, creating the durable and memorable domain of Galatia. At first led by tribal chiefs, they were long organized in local "tetrarchies," only becoming a kingdom after the arrival of the Roman Pompey in 63 BC. Their capital, Angora (or Ancyra), has given us the modern name of varieties of cat, goat, and rabbit, two of which are used for their hair. The modern city, Ankara, is now the capital of Turkey. The idea of Celts in the middle of modern Turkey now seems so strange that it sounds like a Monty Python skit.

Of the lists given here, only the rulers of Pergamum would actually have been Greeks. We can see non-Greek influences in the names of the multiple "Mithridates" of Pontus and Commagene. This name means the "gift," dates, of the Iranian god Mithra (Sanskrit Mitra). This is a Persian name whose modern form is Mehrdâd, of whose meaning many modern Iranians may be unaware. The cult of Mithra becomes one of the popular Roman mystery religions, Mithraism. The Galatians and the ancient peoples of Anatolia, however, except for the Armenians, gradually disappeared from history. This was at first under Greek influence, as literate people came to write only in Greek. Indeed, when the Emperor Nicephorus I colonized people from Anatolia into Greece itself, it leaves us wondering how many modern Greeks are actually descendants of Cappadocians, Galatians, etc. Eventually, however, the Turkish conquest erased whatever may have remained of all of them in their homeland.



THE ATTALIDS OF PERGAMUM



Philetaerus 283-263 holds Pergamum for Lysimachus, deserts to Seleucus, 282; defense against Celts, 278-276

Eumenes I 263-241 ally of Ptolemy II in defeat of Antiochus I, Sardis, 262



Attalus I Soter 241-197 King,

238-197 Defeat of Celtic Gauls or Galatians, c.238; Ally of Rome, First Macedonian War, 214-205; Second Macedonian War, 200-196 Eumenes II Soter 197-160 Syrian War, 192-188; defeated Antiochus III with Scipio Africanus at Magnesia, 189; Treaty of Apamea, gains much of Asia Minor, 188 Attalus II Philadelphus 160-139 Attalus III Philometor 139-133 kingdom willed to Rome KINGS OF BITHYNIA

Zipoetes 298/7-c.280 Nicomedes I c.280-c.250/42 Ziaelas c.250/42-c.230/27 Prusias I c.230/27-c.182 Hannibal dies in exile, 183 Prusias II c.182-149 Nicomedes II Epiphanes 149-c.127 Nicomedes III Euergetes c.127-c.94 Nicomedes IV Philopator c.94-74 BC Roman Province KINGS OF CAPPADOCIA

Datames d.362 Ariaramnes I (Ariamnes) 362-350 Ariarathes I Satrap

350-331 King

331-322 Eumenes the Diadochus 323-316 Ariarathes II 301-280 Ariaramnes II 280-c.250 Ariarathes III 255/1-220 Ariarathes IV Eusebes 220-c.162 Ariarathes V

Eusebes Philopater c.120-c.111 Ariarathes VI

Epiphanes Philopater c.120-c.111 Ariarathes VII Philometor c.111-c.100 Ariarathes VIII Eusebes Philopater

of Pontus c.100-c.88 Ariobarzanes I Philoromaeus

( , "loving Rome") c.95-c.62 Ariobarzanes II Philopator 62-c.54 Ariobarzanes III

Eusebes Philoromaeus c.54-42 Ariarathes IX 42-36 Archelaus 36 BC-17 AD Cappadocia becomes Roman Province KINGS OF COMMAGENE

Sames I c.290-c.260 Arsames I c.260-c.228 Xerxes c.228-c.201 Ptolemaeus Satrap

c.201-163 King,

c.163/2-c.130 Samus II Theosebes Dicaeus c.130-c.100 Mithridates I Callinicus c.100-c.70 Antiochos I Theos Dicaeus

Epiphanes Philoromaeus

( , "loving Rome")

Philhellen

( ) c.70-c.35 Mithridates II c.31 [Antiochus II] d.29 Mithridates III c.20 BC Antiochus III d.17 AD Roman Province, 17 AD Antiochus IV 38 AD-72

MACEDONIAN KINGS OF BACTRIA



Diodotus I Soter Satrap,

256-248 Diodotus II King,

248-235 Euthydemus I Theos 235-200 Besieged by Antiochus III, independence recognized, 208-206 Demetrius I 200-185 Euthydemus II 200-190 Antimachus I Theos 190-180 Pantaleon 185-175 Demetrius II Antiketos 180-165 Agathocles 180-165 Eucratides I 171-155



Menander Soter Dicaeus ( , Milinda) 155-130 Yüeh-chih occupy Bactria, 130 Plato 155-? Heliocles I 155-140 Eucratides II 140-? Antimachus II 130-125 Strato I Epiphanes

Soter Dikaeus 130-95 Archebius 130-120 Philoxenus 125-115 Zoilus ?-125 Heliocles II 120-115 Lysias 120-110 Antialcidas 115-100 Apollodotus 115-95 Zoilus, Dioysius,

& Apollophanes 95-80 Nicias 95-85 Diomedes 95-85 Telephus 95-80 Hippostratus 85-70 Amyntas 85-75 Theopilus ?-75 Hermaeus Soter,

last Greek king 75-55, or 40-1 AD

Menander Soter Dikaeus ( , Milinda in Pali) is an important figure in the history of Buddhism, as the king in the Milindapanha, "Questions of Milinda," where he asks the sage Nagasena about Buddhism. As Greek Bactria absorbed Buddhist influence, Buddhism reflected Greek artistic influences, and perhaps more.

About the time of Menander's death (130 BC), the Yüeh-chih pushed into Bactria -- subsequently to move into India as the Kushans. Then the Sakas under Maues (97-58 BC) invaded India and broke up the remaining Greek kingdom in the Indus Valley, with one part of it remaining in the Kabul Valley, another on the Left Bank on the Indus. See the map below for 74 BC.

At the beginning of March, 2001, the rulers of Afghanistan, the barbarous zealots of the Ṭâlibân ("students"),

CARIA

Lydamis I Artemisia I

the Valiant c.490s-

mid 5th cent. Psyndalis mid 5th cent.-

late 5th cent. Lydamis II late 5th cent. Tissaphernes

(Tisapharna) Satrap of

Lydia

415-407 415-395 Hyssaldomos

of Mylasa c.395 Hecatomids Hecatompos 395-377

Mausolus 377-353 Artemisia II 353-350 Hydrites 350-343 Idneus. 343-341 Ada 343-341 Pyxodoros 341-335 Orontabatis 335-334 Memnon 335-334 To Macedon, 334-305 Ada (restored) 334-320s Olympichus in Mylasa

320s Asander the

Diadochus 323-c.310s To Antigonus , 305-295

Caria, although very close to the Doric Greek areas near Rhodes, was nevertheless not a Greek kingdom. It's principal claim to fame comes from two rulers, Mausolus and his sister Artemisia II (who, being named after the goddess Artemis, may show Greek influence, or indicate the likelihood that Artemis was not originally a Greek goddess). Although this kind of brother-sister marriage would be typical of the Hellenistic Period, thought to be inspired by Egypt, and Mausolus is usually thought of as a Hellenistic monarch, he was in fact ruling under the Persians and even his sister, who survived him, died before Alexander arrived. Nevertheless, at his capital of Halicarnassus, he began a great tomb, finished by his sister, which became one of the Seven Wonders of the World. The Μαυσωλεῖον , Mausoleum, then gives its name to any great stone burial building. The original survived well into the Middle Ages, before donating its stone to (Crusader) fortresses. An earlier Artemisia, "the Valiant," had her own claim to fame. Commanding Carian ships for the Persians at the Battle of Salamis in 480, she saw the way the battle was going and determined to escape. Geting away involved ramming and sinking another Carian ship. Xerxes, watching the battle, thought that Artemisia had sunk a Greek ship and commented that, "My men have become women, and my women men." I am not aware of Xerxes' reaction when he discovered the truth. It doesn't seem to have affected the tenure of the dynasty. The rulers of Caria were never Kings. They were recognized by the Persians as "Dynasts," and sometimes as Satraps, and by some of their subject Greek cities as "tyrants," i.e. monarchs who were not traditional Kings. Mausolus' relative freedom of action never grew into independence. Caria became subject to Macedon as it had been to Persia.



THE PTOLEMIES,

MACEDONIAN KINGS

OF EGYPT;

"XXXIII" DYNASTY Ptolemy I Soter I ("Savior") Satrap of Egypt,

323-305 King ,

305-

285,

d.283 First War of the Successors, 320-319;

Second War of the Successors, 318-316;

Third War of the Successors, 315-311;

Fourth War of the Successors, 307-301;

Fifth War of the Successors, 288-286 Ptolemy II Philadelphus

( , "Sister

Loving"), ( , Turamaya [note]) 285-247 Sixth War of the Successors, 282-281;

First Syrian War, 274-271;

Chremonidean War, 267-262;

Second Syrian War, 260-253 Ptolemy III Euergetes I

( , "Do-Gooder/Benefactor") 247-222 Third Syrian War, 246-241;

Decree of Canopus, attempts to

institute intercalation, 238 Ptolemy IV Philopator

( ,

"Father Loving") 222-205 Fourth Syrian War, 219-217;

Revolt & Independence of

Upper Egypt, 206-186 Ptolemy V Epiphanes

( , "Manifest") 205-180 Fifth Syrian War, Palestine

lost to Seleucids, 203-200; Decree of

Memphis (2), the Rosetta Stone, 196

Cleopatra I 180-176 Ptolemy VI Philometor

( , "Mother Loving") 176-145 Sixth Syrian War, 170-168 Ptolemy VII Neos ( ,

"New, Young") Philopator 145 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II 170, 145-116 Cleopatra III &

Ptolemy IX Soter II 116-107 Cleopatra III &

Ptolemy X Alexander I

( ) 107-101 Ptolemy X Alexander I

& Cleopatra Berenice

( ) 101-88 Ptolemy IX Soter II

(restored) 88-80 Roman Protection, 80 BC Cleopatra Berenice &

Ptolemy XI Alexander II 80 Ptolemy XII Neos

Dionysus ( )

Auletes ( ,

"Flautist") 80-58 Berenice IV 58-55 Ptolemy XII Neos

Dionysus (restored) 55-51 Cleopatra VII Thea ( , "goddess") Philopator

& Ptolemy XIII Dionysus 51-47 Cleopatra VII Thea Philopator

& Ptolemy XIV Philopator 47-44 Cleopatra VII Thea Philopator

& Ptolemy XV Caesarion 44-30 Roman Conquest, 30 BC

Soon Ptolemy might well make a claim to priority among his peers by virtue of possessing the mummified body of Alexander himself (stolen on its trip back to Macedonia) and ruling from the city of Alexandria, Ἀλεξάνδρεια , the first such city founded by Alexander, which became the greatest Hellenistic city, and the Second City of the Roman Empire (at first, second after Rome; later, second after Constantinople) until the Arab Conquest. In far off in India, where "Greek" was Yavana, , Yavanapura, , seems to have been the name of Alexandria itself [note].

The site of Alexandria had been familiar to Greek sailors for centuries, and it had an Egyptian name, , rendered into Greek as Ῥακῶτις . The island of Pharos, Φάρος , just off the coast, is even mentioned in the Odyssey, the home of immortal Proteus and his daughter Eidothea, where Menelaus is detained for twenty days on his way home from Troy, although the island is described as a day's voyage from the coast, when it is in fact within sight of it [IV:355, Homer, The Odyssey, Volume II, translated by A.T. Murray, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard, 1919, 1995, p.145].

Pharos would be giving its name to the Pharos Lighthouse, built at the East end of the island -- one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Alexandria would also be distinguished by the Museum, Μουσεῖον , i.e. the place of the Muses (more a university than a museum), with its great Library, something later called a βιβλιοθήκη , Latin bibliotheca -- or librarium -- so that, for instance, in French bibliothèque is a library but librairie is a bookshop.

The Great Library was founded with the advice of the philosopher Demetrius of Phaleron, who lately had been the Macedonian governor of Athens (from 317 to 307, until the city was taken by Demetrius Poliorcetes). The Library was intended to have every book in the world in it, but with the provision that this be in Greek translation. Reportedly, ships were searched for books, which, if the Library did not already have them, were seized, copied, and then returned (hopefully before the ship had left).

Although the precise location of the Library is unknown, it is believed to have been in the Bruchion District, adjacent to the Museum and the Royal Palace. Subsequently, under Ptolemy II, another library is believed to have been created at the Serapeum, the temple to the invented Ptolemaic god Serapis.

The Mediaeval Roman scholar John Tzetzes (d.c.1180) reports that the main Library contained "400,000 composite books and 90,000 single books," while the "external" section -- the Serapeum? -- contained 42,800 papyrus rolls [N.G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium, Duckworth, 1983, 1996, p.195]. It is not clear where Tzetzes got his information, but he had access of sources from the Hellenistic Age that are lost to us, including the actual catalogue of the Library made by the poet Callimachus (d.240 BC), the Pinakes.

In Jewish tradition, related by Josephus, a friend of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Aristeas, wrote to Jerusalem, under Ptolemaic rule at the time, to ask the High Priest Elazar for permission to translate the Torah (the Pentateuch) from Hebrew into Greek. Elazar agreed, and selected 72 translators who then produced the Septuagint. While the "Letter of Aristeas" is sometimes said to be a Hasmonean, or later, forgery, Simeon ben Gamaliel, president of the Sanhedrin in the 1st century AD, ruled (according to the Palestinian Talmud) that the Torah could be written in Greek as well as Hebrew [cf. Alfred J. Kolatch, This is the Torah, Jonathan David Publishers, Middle Village, New York, 1988, pp.46-49]. Since the Library would have wanted the Bible in Greek, especially with a large Jewish community in Alexandria, and the Bible certainly was translated thereabouts at the time, this lends some weight to the "Letter of Aristeas," or some equivalent.

While the Library is sometimes said to have been burned by the Arabs in 641 AD, it is likely that the original had already been destroyed. When that would have happened is an obscure and controversial matter. Both Plutarch and Ammianus Marcellinus positively assert that the Library burned in the course of the fighting between Caesar (hold up in the Palace with Cleopatra) and (her brother) Ptolemy XIII, when Caesar set fire to hostile ships, and the fire spread into the city.

However, other writers, like Dio Cassius, provide details that appear to go back to a lost treatment by Livy, that the fire was confined to the harbor area, where it chanced that some scrolls were burned. While it is not clear whether these scrolls were actual books, or simply blank papyrus stock, it does mean that the libraries escaped harm. This seems consistent with a subsequent visit of Strabo (d.c.24 AD) to the apparently undamaged Library. Luciano Canfora argues in this vein [The Vanished Library, A Wonder of the Ancient World, 1987, translated by Martin Ryle, University of California, 1990], also citing Orosius (c.418 AD).

However, Orosius understands that books were burned, and gives a figure of 400,000, which sounds like the magnitude reported for the whole Library [Orosius, Seven Books of History against the Pagans, translated with an introduction and notes by A.T. Fear, Liverpool University Press, 2010, p.296]. A.T. Fear agrees with Canfora that Livy, the source for Dio, Orosius, and others, had only given a figure of 40,000 (& Confora argues that his is also the number in alternative manuscripts of Orosius) and allows that the burned books or scrolls may indeed have been in harbor warehouses [p.297, note 226]. It is a shame that what were really the contemporary sources for these events have been lost.

The testimony of Plutarch and Ammianus, however, is an indication that by their time, the Library was gone. This is puzzling in the case of Plutarch, who died after 120 AD, since the likely occasions for the destruction of the Library are all subsequent to this. The best candidate may be the earliest. The Emperor Aurelian retrieved the East from Zenobia in 272 AD. Egypt was part of Zenobia's acquisitions, but the records place all of the fighting in Syria and Palmyra. On the other hand, Ammianus says that "under the rule of Aurelian, the quarrels of the citizens [of Alexandria] turned to deadly strife; and then her walls were destroyed and she lost the greater part of the district called Bruchion, which had long been the abode of distinguished men" [Ammianus Marcellinus II, translated by J.C. Rolfe, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard, 1940, 1986, pp.303-305, boldface added]. So Aurelian, in reoccupying Egypt from Zenobia, had to deal with some kind of riot or revolt in Alexandria, in the course of which most of the Bruchion was destroyed, perhaps taking the Library with it -- although Ammianus does not actually say so (perhaps because he already thinks that the Library burned in the days of Caesar). Yet this is the most specific information from antiquity about destruction in the appropriate quarter of Alexandria.

Ths next possibility for damage to the Library is when Alexandria was burned and/or looted as the Emperor Diocletian put down the revolt of Achilleus in 298 AD. We don't have very good information about this, but it sounds like the city, under siege for eight months, suffered widespread damage. Politically, this looks like a more serious event, and a more protracted war, than in the reign of Aurelian. Yet its results are more a matter of inference.

Robin Waterfield apparently does not consider the events under Aurelian or Diocletian as decisive. He does not cite any specific evidence, but he thinks that the tsunami of 365 AD, reported (again) by Ammianus, may have "devastated" the Library [Dividing the Spoils, the War for Alexander the Great's Empire, Oxford, 2011, p.137 & p. 239, note 14]. I have not seen such a suggestion elsewhere, but we do know what a wall of water can do to buildings and books; and Alexandria was certainly vulernable and badly hit. This is a tempting possibility, but the theory is entirely speculative.

Meanwhile, we know that the Serapeum was destroyed in 391/392 AD, as the Emperor Theodosius closed pagan temples. There is no specific reference to the destruction of its library, so, for all we know, the library may already have been destoyed (in line with earlier events), or the books may have been dispersed.

If the destruction of the Great Library was ultimately the doing of the Arabs, we do have a story about it. In his Taʾrîkh al-Ḥukamaʾ, ʿAlî ibn al-Qifṭî (c.1172-1248) relates a dialogue between ʿAmr ibn al-ʿÂṣ, the conqueror of Egypt, and John Philoponus. John asked what was to be done with the books of the Library, and ʿAmr wrote an inquiry to the Caliph ʿUmar. The Caliph replied that if the books therein duplicated the Qurʾân, then they were unnecessary, and if they did not, or contradicted it, they were superfluous or pernicious. Either way they should be destroyed. ʿAmr ordered that the books be used to fire the public baths, which were thus fed for six months.

This story, however, is only attested in much later sources. ʾAl-Qifṭî writes in the 13th century, six hundred years after the events. An earlier version of the story, and perhaps its source, is related by Eutychius (877-940), the Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria (933-940). But Eutychius is still three hundred years after the event, and he may also be suspected of some bias and hostility in the matter. Just as significant is the internal incoherence of the story. John Philoponus was well known in Islamic philosophy, as Yaḥyâ an-Naḥwî, , "John the Grammarian." He had, however, died around 570, decades before the Islamic Conquest of Eqypt, with his works subject to comment by the younger Simplicius, who died around 560. So the exchange between John and ʿAmr cannot have happened, which casts doubt on the whole business. Willing to believe worse of Christians (who destroyed the Serapeum) than of Muslims, Gibbon dismissed the account. All things considered, the misadventures of earlier Roman history would seem the more likely explanation for the loss of the Great Library.

All the mystery, confusion, and speculation about the fate of the Library can have curious effects. In a book about irrational numbers, the mathematician Julian Havil refers to "the staged destruction of the academic riches of Alexandria:"

...the Romans (seemingly in 48 B.C.E.) razed the great Library of Alexandria with its estimated 500,000 manuscripts, the Christians (in 392 C.E.) pillaged Alexandria's Temple of Serapis with its possible 300,000 manuscripts, and finally the Muslims burnt thousands more of its book (in about 640 C.E.). [The Irrationals, A Story of the Numbers You Can't Count On, Princeton University Press, 2012, pp.11-12]

So Havil has come away with the impression that the Library was destroyed all over again on more than one occasion. One wonders what he has been reading, especially as the numbers he gives are larger than are featured in the primary sources -- approaching a million books, depending what "thousands more" means for the Arabs. And the accidental fire in the day of Caesar is now converted into a deliberate act, that he "razed the great Library." I don't know why Caesar could possibly have wanted to destroy the Library. Perhaps he has been confused with the Caliph Omar. Well, why not. Perhaps every reference to the loss of books, or damage to the city, was true. That's one way to look at it.

An equal or greater mystery than the fate of the Library is that of the tomb of Alexander the Great, the Sema or Soma, Σῶμα , which contained the mummified body of Alexander, after it had been transported from Babylon and stolen by Ptolemy I. With attested visits from Julius Caesar to Caracalla, references to the tomb continue into the Middle Ages, as with the great traveler Masʿûdî (896-956), with uncertainty increasing about whether the original tomb is being shown, or something else has become misidentified as the tomb. Subsequently, references simply disappear, and we are left with no hint of what happened to it. One thing that was later being shown as the "tomb" of Alexander turned out to be the sarcophagus of Nectanebo II, which now is in the British Museum. How this could have happened is discussed at the link. Various efforts have been made to locate any evidence of its foundations under modern Alexandria, but the results seem negative or inconclusive. There is also now the story, or speculation, that the tomb was actually at the Siwa Oasis, which Alexander had visited in his own lifetime, to consult the Oracle of Amun. However, I am aware of no reference in ancient history to the tomb being there, while references to persons like Julius Caesar visiting the tomb do not involve accounts of the demanding journey that would have been necessary to reach the oasis. So I expect that, if any evidence of the tomb survives, it lies buried under today's Alexandria. Perhaps the strangest claim about the great Library of Alexandria derives from "Afro-Centric" claims about Egypt, specifically that the Library held the ancient wisdom of Egypt and that Greek philosophers, like Aristotle, "stole" Greek philosophy from it. There is so much about such an idea that is preposterous, yet in the 1990's I saw sober academics from Princeton University calmly asserting that Aristotle had "stolen" his philosophy in that way -- not anyone, actually, who knew anything about Aristotle or Egypt -- and, certainly, anyone denying the claim might worry about being accused of racism. While, in response to such things, it was typically noted that Aristotle had died before the Library was even built, the problems with the claim go far deeper than that. Not just the Library, but the entire city of Alexandria did not exist in Aristotle's lifetime. This was because Alexandria was not an Egyptian city at all, but a Greek one, founded by Alexander the Great. Which is why it is named after him. Still -- , ʾAl-ʾIskandarîya. In the era of the Ptolemies it would never be an Egyptian city, even as no Ptolemaic monarch ever learned Egyptian, except, it seems, for the last one, Cleopatra VII. Since Alexandria was a Greek city, its Library was a Greek library. If the Library had held the wisdom of the Egyptians, then one would expect its books to be in Egyptian. Which means that Aristotle would have been unable to read them. Indeed, while one expects that there were many Greeks who would have learned to speak Egyptian, there is no record of any Greek or Roman writer who had learned Egyptian, said so, and wrote knowledgeably about it. The Greeks expected foreigners, βάρβαροι , to learn Greek. And later writers who wrote, for instance, about hieroglyphics, like Plutarch, obviously didn't really know anything about them and said absurd things that confused scholars until the 19th century. At the same time, even Greeks who must have learned some Egyptian did not thereby necessarily learn to read hieroglyphics, which were associated by all with the Egyptian priesthood, whose motivation to teach such things to foreigners was miniscule or non-existent. It is possible that some Greeks might have learned to read or write the cursive script of Demotic; but, again, we have no information from anyone who would have done so, or would have known anything about it. Finally, there were going to be Egyptians who wrote about Egypt in Greek, beginning with Manethô. Someone like Manethô, who clearly had access to Egyptian sources, such as King Lists, was at pains to present Egypt in the best possible light and to promote its greatness and importance. And he liked the idea that some Greek philosophers, like Thales or Pythagoras, had come to Egypt; but somehow it escaped him that Aristotle had taken all of his thought out of a Library that had not yet existed, and didn't have books in the Egyptian language anyway. So this whole business is a modern fantasy of ethnic and, truly, racist mythologizing. Besides the translation of the Bible, another consequence of the presence of the Jewish community at Alexandria may have been the growing use, even by pre-Christian pagans, of the seven day week. This was, to be sure, not directly associated with Judaism, but with a version of the week produced in Alexandria in terms of the seven planets. The "planetary" week is preserved in most of the languages of Francia, even while there is nothing of the sort in modern Greek, Hebrew, or Arabic. Few languages, perhaps only Welsh and English, retain all the planetary names, with Jewish and Christian terms, usually for Saturday and/or Sunday, intruding elsewhere. "Sunday," indeed, retains the strongest pagan association as, even for Constantine, it commemorated the veneration of Sôl Invictus, the state god of the Tetrarchy. Φιλάδελφος , "Philadelphus," "brotherly (or sibling) love," was a name assumed by Ptolemy II because he had married his sister, Arsinoë ( Ἀρσινόη , also Φιλάδελφος -- compounds are declined in the Second Declension [- ος ] even when feminine). This was in immitation of Egyptian mythology and became a Ptolemaic practice. Later, when Κλεοπάτρα , Cleopatra (VII, picture below right, bas relief from Deir el Bahri) met Julius Caesar in 48 BC, she was already married, at 16, to her brother and co-ruler, Ptolemy XIII. She also happened to be at war with him! Caesar helped defeat her brother, who died in the process. Formally marrying a younger brother, Ptolemy XIV, Cleopatra actually lived with Caesar, and went back to Rome with him in 46. After Caesar was assassinated in 44, she returned to Egypt, killed her brother, and formally associated her son by Caesar, Caesarion, with her as Ptolemy XV. The conquest of Egypt by Octavian/Augustus, resulted in Cleopatra and her new Roman protector, Anthony, committing suicide, and Caesarion being killed by Octavian. In the clever HBO series Rome (2005-2007), Caesarion is actually the natural son of a Roman solider, not Caesar, a soldier who is himself charged with killing the boy, but who, of course, saves him instead. The series ends with the two of them walking off together. At the beginning of the table above, and at left, we see the names "Ptolemy" and "Cleopatra" as they were written in hieroglyphics. Since Egyptian didn't write vowels, and didn't have the letter "l," certain glyphs have been adapted to write the vowels and "l" in these Greek names. The Egyptian values of the glyphs are shown in red, and the alternate Greek values in blue. The name "Ptolemy" on the Rosetta Stone, which was identified by the royal cartouche wrapped around it, was the beginning of the decipherment of hieroglyphics -- although the evident use of vowels confused matters for a little while. Even here, however, not all the vowels are well indicated. "Ptolemy" leaves out an "e" and ends by poorly representing the group "aio" in Greek. The name "Cleopatra" (Cleopatra I was a Seleucid princess who married Ptolemy V) ends with the consonant "t," which in Egyptian indicates the feminine gender ending and is only pronounced as the vowel "a." At the very end is the determinative of an egg, which evidently is used to reinforce the feminine gender ending. In the strange political project of turning all Egyptians into Nubians, or even Nigerians, the Ptolemies pose a special challenge, since they weren't Egyptians at all but are nevertheless roped into the business because Cleopatra is too famous an Egyptian not to actually have been an Egyptian. The easiest p