Segestan

I would agree with your analysis in general. However; the city-state was the main reason the Hellenic world survived as long as it did, that is maintain cultural identity. The city- state mentailty was To the conquering enemy, it was by far more difficult to besiege a host of independent peoples rather than remove the head of a single state and it's political tenticles. Easier to conquer the world when the world is under the power of one ideology. The whole underlying ideology was Monarchy vs Democracy. Could on superior man lead with justice or would a collection of persons given the power of representation provide a better more stable way of life? aka.....Platonic vs Aristolean. The fall of Hellenism was in part due to the untimely death of Alexander the Great and his not naming a direct line of power. He had no choice but to let the players play it out. All of his generals had however no desires to become the King until his death , and then they only knew war as the answers to that end. It was the Diadochi who was entrusted but they did not yet have the right players in the rights places. The City-State was under Macedonian garrisons , that is the power of the Royal Monarchy , and this was a none goverable condition. to make matters worse , the easiest way to remain in power was conquest. There were alliances all over and they all rested on self-serving interest within the Alliance whatever that might be. The city-State was also the Home of pirates, Wealthy powerful pirtates. Political fragmentaion was bad in the hellenic world but ouitside that the world was savage and barbaric. Very tough to put those many tribe-cities and cultures interest under one political -idealogical roof! If - a Big if-- but the Hellenic world would have conquered the whole world , if only a single Leader would have arisen to forge a powerful moral minded Monarchy under the direction f the Aristolean ideology? This was the role of Alexander. The successors , the Diadochi, failed to that end. But as I said; In the main your view is a correct historical one. regards,

Rollin 1829: Vol. 5 Aridaeus , the brother of Alexander ;

Alexander went no further than the Ganges because his Army was wanting to return to into Macedonia after years of War , and not have seeing their wives and children , they grew old fighting. He relented to this demand. Even though he had the ability to replace all of them with mercenary and fresh Macedonian troops which were often sent him. He Fought many battles with the indian Tribes and he defeated all of them as well as captured many Indian cities. The Indians had Two main Kings ; Abisares and Porus. The Macedonian Army crushed them both with ease. Alexander met Porus near the banks of the Hydaspes, A.M 3677 - J. C. 327 , Porus had an army of eighty-five large elepants , and behind them 300 charoits, supported by 30000 foot; he had about 7000 horse.Then indians lost on this occasion 20000 foot and 3000 horse, not to mention the complete loss of chariot and elephants. At the Ganges the indians had massed 200000 foot , 2000 chariots 20000 horse and 3000 elephants ; after a fierce battle the Indians were in flight. Alexander killed the son's of porus but latter due to his having respect for that King reimposed him on the Throne in the protection of Macedon. It was Not Alexander who made the error of crossing a desert wasteland but his Army of home sick generals who forced a compromise from him through their pleas. . If alexander would Not have been concerned about the condition of his Empires treatment from some of the regents in certain cities he might not have returned for many years as Alexander was a warrior whose life was to wage war thus building the foundations of what would be the Hellenic Empires under the Diadochi ; his successors. regards,

Presenting the Crusades as a Noble venture into the Holy Land , as the Vatican seemingly does, is a far more accurate representation of History . However: The Crusades were Not entirely for such seemingly noble deeds. The East had taken city after city from the European Kings , tribute was forced on them. The Taxation by the Khalifs on the West was high. Even the slightest hint of a refusal to pay was met with a swift and bloody response. At the time, of the Crusades the East was , at least in the main, was a superior culture in technologies and artchitexture. Religion was the political tool of choice in both the East and west. It was a far bigger struggle than just a movement to regain a territorial right in the name of a sovereign. But I do agree that the Vatican should counter modern day Muslim propaganda and anti-westernism. I often find it strange , if not dangerous, that the elitist of the West should chose to remain silent of the constant bombarments of lies and propaganda waged on the western way of life and system by the third worlds political architects in general. I mean just look at the mass immigration of Islamic followers into the West since the end of WW II. Islam is a known religion that contradicts Christianity in the extreme, but still they, the western governments and thier camps, enforce immigration on the west as globalism and peace building propaganda. UnEmployment is High in Europe the work force aging and instead of adjusting the books through longer term financing which they alone control, they seek foreign workers whom they fail to employ. Workers who are on another historic faith who claim alliance to a God who cannot tolerate another. But Tolerance is the Word of the law from the Western leadership. Go figure! regards,

The Vatican has No business apologizing for that which others had lived. One can only wonder what underlying motive must there be for today in the modern world, for the Vatican to play ignorant of historical facts? The crusades were a direct response to the Muslim aggressions westwards for their claims of territorial rights of forcing by blood Tribute and taxation. The religious bent employed by the Califs to that end was a ploy, plain and simple. These Califs , who empowered the aggression on the Christian World, murdered each other until they lost to the Crusders and the cultural advantages in wealth and technology that yearts of conquesting had gained them.. That's Not to say the Crusades themselves where a righteous expedition wholly for set out in the name of Christ nor his place of Birth. The Crusaders were for the most part mercenary forces , of Kings seeking employment and forcing an end to the Muslim foring of tributes and taxations.Sure there was alot of grass roots support in the 'Name of Righteousness' on both sides , as the commoner has always fought in the name of Good over evil, but these long on going wars , call them Crusade of Conquert , they simply kept the business of war going strong and the owners of the law in power. Law by Men or God. regards,

My vote goes to the phalanx. The Phalanx ;if used with calvary support could crush any foe. Alexander army was so well trained , though small not over 40000 men, but he defeated the Persians and India even though the Indians tribes had gathered an army of 600000 and 5000 elephants. The Romans used elephants to break the phalanx , it was not the legion units that defeated the Phalanx nor was the rough terrain the cause of their final defeat. Perseus was not Alexander nor Antiochus or Seleucas and he could not stop the Charge of the beast that forced a wedge and allowed Roman calvary to force a point. Alexander defeated the Elephant of India by pounding noises , fires and singularly separating them , killing them. The phalanx was over time replaced by the legion because Rome had the organization and size of available man power to conquer the warring Diadochi and Barbarians. regards,

Byzantium looks great. Neos.. Rome Total Realism is a piece of art. A wonderful creation in gaming. I personally liked 5.4 the best. Maybe another mod could be designed that starts with the immigration and assimilation from the races from Ice Age through Imperial Rome? Showing the Barbarian invasions and the conquesting of the developing Cities? Show the real struggles, from farming , animal husbandry , tool building etc, that those who lived those times had to under take in the Progress of Human Adventure? Anyhow ; It would be nice to see improvement made in the existing game without losing it's present time frame. A great piece of art deserves a long live. regards,

The Galatian peoples were the most 'barbarian' of the Northern Tribes.They had no furniture , sleep on straw floors would turn to cannibalism never buried their dead. regards,

Yes; I too think Augustus would Not have tolerated the Christian Ideas. Augustus was an High Preist in the Imperial Cult, and he saw himself as a Savior , the Messiah of mankind, and a direct order of Deity of the Gods of Rome, and ruled as such with Romes destiny placed in his will and hands. Christ in his Messianic role , displayed by him, as the savior of mankind , being sent by his Fathers Will, was therefore by default, a direct threat to the Imperor order of Emperor God's. The crucifixion of Christ on the cross at Calvary Hill was in many respects, a copy of Alexander the Greats act of vengence on the occupants of Tyre after his siege. He had all the peoples crucified on the cross. One of the low points in Alexanders conquest. However, I should add ; Alexander went on to Jerusalem to give great tribute and honor to the Jews as he saw the High preist of the temple as a messehger of the Gods as he. He gave the jews many special threatments in paying tribute to him that others did not recieve. regards,

There was no Slav migration. Most of the peoples living in the Balkans are of the same stock they have always been. What changed was the Geo-political make-up of the region after the Fall of Alexanders Macedonian Kingdom. Rome renamed the whole region as provincial territories after the defeat of Perseus. The modern day version of a slavic migration into Greece is pure fiction. The Greek Empire of pre1912 along with Bulgaria occupied Macedonia from the arrest of the Ottoman Empire. Albania is a what is left of the culture of Ottoman Turks. THe glorious histories of Greece are for the most part rightfully belonging to the House of Macedon not Athens. Macedonia was the hated tyrant-monarchy of the Hellenic City States. If there was a Slav invasion ; Why then was Macedonia taken by force in 1912 by the Greek Empire? Why would the Slavs have used a centuries old name instead of renaming the region? The Slavs never moved in, so to speak, but the rights of heritage and history were certainly moved out and into the political arena of Athens and with the blessings of the Western worlds views of political-pagan histories. That's Not to say the Hellens did Not have glorious histories. They most certainly do. Only that the political rivalries between cultures goverments has over the ages has left it's marks of injustices on the tales of the peoples origins in the Balkans.

Excellent movie. The drama was somewhat to fanciful. The retelling of Homers Illiad was good in that it was attempted, but without clear detail of the interactions between the doings of men and women with the dramatic nature of life with Gods who choose sides.. It would be nice to see Hollywood produce some real quality art in movies again. regards,

I suggest starting here; Story of the Nations--Alexanders Empire. Charles Rollins --Ancient History Seleucus like the rest of Diadochi' histories have been altered to fit the Western Allies Greek Views of Post-1912. Islam has also played a great role in attempting to alter historical facts. regards,

The Segestan's had been allies of the Phoenicians against the Hellenic and Minoans. They fought with the Phoenicians to help remove the tyrant of Selinus Pythagoras. The Segestans were on the side of Carthage in the Punic War against the Tyrant of Syracuse Dionysus. Most likely the colonist who first founder sicily were not of Trojan descent ,but rather Phoenician. It is of course possible that a Trojan colony came to Sicily after the war. The Trojans , like the Phoenician and Hittites, were sea faring traders. They would have known of the Island but I do find it rather difficult to imagine a fleeing people heading for an island that was heavily populated by Achaeans. Sicily , like the southern peninsula of Italy was Greek. It would have been far easier for a Trojan band to head east into friendly territory rather than make the journey to Sicily. Homer and his great epic the Illiad is the reason Rome attempted place a Trojan origin on there ancestry. The Illiad is the Bible of the Hellenic world. regards,

The Roman tale of a Trojan origin is a fabrication. One meant to relay the greatness of the Roman Imperial cult to the then Eastern powers. The Romans had a great respect of all things Hellenic. They in turn wanted to seem to be of Hellenic origin. The whole story was an attempt to make a growing power, Rome, gain what they saw as Hellenic respect favor with the Gods.. Rome was always trying to become as great or greater power than the mythical Hellens. Even the Purple color of the senate's garb was a copy of the Royal Court of Macedon. The island of sicily, was an important corn growing region, an trading post and military station, a very important point of cultural extention for any power who could hold it. The many colonist who settled on the island, they often found themselves as a political extention of the home cities powers. In fact it was a policy to send colonist out in those days by most cities in the ancient world. Conflict was naturally ripe and often. With very sad and bloody results. The punic war was the great struggle that put Sicilian peoples squarely under the Roman yoke. Sicily was a cultural cross roads of the ancient world. Like Rhoades , Sicily had the security and trading position on the seas. A beautiful island , a save place to live , worship the Gods , and conduct business , for all who enjoyed peace and prosperity. Their were also many pirate leagues in those days whose interest it was to not see the island belong to a rival power. A magnet of Drama was Sicily, thus the many Temples to the Gods , the souls of the earth.

Seleucas , Lysimachus, Ptolemy and Casander all joined in an Alliance to defeat Antigonus and Demetrius. These four Kings naturally during this time work or at least , appeared to find a common level of public support. Antigonus had an advantage strategically ; he had built a Capitol in Syria, called after himself Antigoneia, on the Orontes, enabled him to fight them seperately , so that their joint , junction was difficult. He had sent Demetrius to Greece , who was gradually pushing back Casander northwards, and promised soon to subdue him altogether. But the hopes of Antigonus , which were high, shipwrecked upon two unexpected difficulties--- the strategic powers of Lysimachus , and the enormous forces of Seleucas. Also, Seleucas had his eastern frontiers being subdued by Oriental Kings. His top officer Porus, his faithful subject, had been murdered, and other claimants arose against Seleucas. As I said before; The Diadochi had only one original doctrine and a relationship built around that end--the Doctrine of Aristotle and his fellowship the Page Boys.. regards,

In the Real World of Money is power: Rome simply ran out of states to plunder, enslave and tax. The Domination of the Roman Capitalist lead to a decline in civilized states for the Empire to trade with fairly. They simply created in their own success the means to thier own end. Christianity was really Buddism and Judeaism , Mithraism and these ideas were compelling ones in a world dominated by the slavery of the empire. regards,

<<<<It was the first-born son of Ptolemy. He had been dis-inheireted because Ptolemy had taken a liking to his new wife Berekine over that of Keranus' mother Eurydike. >>>> Seleucas was on his way back to Macedonia ; after having givee up all his Asiatic possessions from the Hellispont to the Indus to his son Antiochus , and he meant to spend the rest the last of his years in the home of his fathers, Macedonia; but as he was entering that Kingdom , he was murdered by Keraunos , whom he had brought with him in his train. The blood thirsty murderer was left with a throne. He then married the queen , his step sister . But it was only so that he could murder her children by Lysimachus, the only dangerous claimants to the Thracian throne. The wretched queen then fled to Samothrace, and then to Egypt, where she ended her quilty and chequered career as queen of her full brother Ptolemy II(Philadelphus)and was deified during her life!. <<<One should wonder then, what was Ptolemy's reaction to this since Seleukos was one of Ptolemy's oldest and closest friends.>>>> like Alexander and lysimachus; Seleucas and Ptolemy had a common bond only in being raised with the ideas of their master Aristotle. There was no friendship , only a duty to self and power. The whole affair of the Diadochi was rooted in establishing , for those who were the rich and powerful merchants and ruling class of the ancient world, only a means to an end , of securing Hellenism , thus securing law and order. The players in this NWO , were men such as Ptolemy and Seleucas , they were of course only chess pieces to that end. regards,

<<<<<don't see why ethnic diversity was considered a problem of the Seleucid Kingdom when all Middle East empires had a similar issue.>>>> Pontus and Armenia had Persian Satraps , not Macedonian. It wasn't hard for the Eastern princes to rule with only a flavor of Hellenism. Seleucas built his Capital at Antioch , named after his father, eveb though this site was far west of his territories; he always felt allienated aways from Hellenism in the eastern provinces. The Seleucas' Empire had it's cities named after his father, mother , and himself and his two wife's. His murder , by Keraunos, the son of Lysimachus; allowed Ptolemy to take advantage of chaos and seige his provinces of Cole-syria. It took his son Antiochus Ten years to regain them. The single biggest problem the diadochi had; no agreed plan of rule. And in Macedonia ; Antigonus was attempting to become the New Hellenistic Monarch. In fighting in the most powerful families in the world let the lesser cultures destroy Hellenism. regards,

The facts: Universal History 1887

I will agree to much of your response. But Your --opinion -is Not a measurement of an persons worth. It's merely Your ideas of good or bad morality seen through the annals of time. On with the topic; regards

After the extinction of the Royal House, that is the end of Alexanders rule; Antigonus and Ptolomy were the first to assume that role, then came Casander , Lysimachus , by and by, ...'Demetrius the Besieger'. Seleucas and the other members of the Diadochi wagged war against Antigonus and his son , defeated them. You have to remember these people were all directly related , it was a family quarrel that upset the world. regards,

"Athens did, they were secured and part of the Antiogoid Dynasty. In fact out of free will they had established and payed for magnificant statues of Antigonos I and his son Demetrios" No , Antigonus and his son Demetrius fought the Diadochi. Antigonus wanted to replace his own soverignity over the Royal House of Macedon. He was in league with Athens in this end. Demetrius , like all the children of the diadochi became independent princes. This was the cause , in the main, of the Battle of Ipsus. Then came in great Celt invasion. The enemies of the Royal House often paid barbarian warriors to attack the Northern frontiers of the Macedonian Kingdom. Athens was a prime player in this ages old game. they simply could not see the greater danger of Rome over Macedonian power. regards,

The leagues were the unionization of the cities. Some were for plunder and conquest , while others more philosophical , or economic unions. The center of the World could be placed at Rhodes. Rhodes was the Economic and Philosophical center. The Rhodians had great wealth and most students of business went to their academies. Athens was certainly a great city with a very high degree of civilized thought; but the leagues could not have over-come the struggles between the Monarchial or capitalist needs of ruling the everyday affairs of the ancient world. The power in ancient times really rested with a few families of great wealth and power.They inter-mixed throughout most kingdoms. The commoner was really without the securities needed for self and family, was helpless in a savage world without a membership in one form of rule or another. Slavery was the price of non-membership. Athens could have become a great power if only the Aetolian League had not for selfish means brought Roman power into Greece. Had the Athenian allied themselves with the Diadochi and not the upstart Roman senate than Athens would have joined in a new revival of Greece power. I think the Hellens having had long standing colonist in southern Italy lead them to believe Rome would be a good counter to the Diadochi? They were wrong! regards,

In the year 306 BC the Diadochi was the popular accepted Monarchy in Alexander