Greek/macedonian Influence In The Middle East

[AEGYPTUS]

I was wondering if anyone could tell me what aspects of Greek culture survived in the Middle East (Mesopotamia) after the death of Alexander and later in the decline an fall of the Seleucids to Pompey in 63 BC. As everyone with some basic knowledge of the Middle East knows there were many cultural influences some examples Sumerian,Akkadian,Assyrian,Babylonian,Persian,Phoenician,Hittite,Egyptian an of course the Greeks and later the Romans so the list id endless. In this huge melting pot of different cultural influences which one was dominant? Would it be the Greeks as Alexander did pretty much conquer it all. So maybe Greek culture had time to flourish in the region.

 

Although then again the same could be said for the Persians. Also it looks as though life in the East suited Alexander who loved the luxuries and riches that came hand in hand with ruling the region. He did after all marry Roxanne a native to the region opposed to a member of the Macedonian or Greek aristocracy. Alexander spent little tile in his homeland i know this is because he did not get the chance dieing in Babylon. It does no look as though he had intended to it he had lived as he built Alexandria and planned to make it his capital I know this was for campaign reasons nearer to action therefore easier for him to rule his empire but why not Pella in Macedonia it is his homeland after all. So perhaps because of these reasons above Greek/Macedonian culture was only able to dilute the diverse melting pot which is the East!!!

 

I would like to hear other peoples opinions on the subject as I cannot really make up my mind.

 

Thanks a lot

Aegyptus

[Rameses the Great]

I don't understand what your trying to get to. If you are looking in terms of success by the means of the nations that branched out of it, the Ptolomies would best fit that description. They created many marvelous things and Alexandria proves it. Also it held out against the Romans the longest. Greek influence and Egyptian inginuity would make this area a great spot.

[AEGYPTUS]

Although then again the same could be said for the Persians. Also it looks as though life in the East suited Alexander who loved the luxuries and riches that came hand in hand with ruling the region. He did after all marry Roxanne a native to the region opposed to a member of the Macedonian or Greek aristocracy. Alexander spent little tile in his homeland i know this is because he did not get the chance dieing in Babylon. It does no look as though he had intended to it he had lived as he built Alexandria and planned to make it his capital I know this was for campaign reasons nearer to action therefore easier for him to rule his empire but why not Pella in Macedonia it is his homeland after all. So perhaps because of these reasons above Greek/Macedonian culture was only able to dilute the diverse melting pot which is the East!!!

 

what I mean is for example did the Macedonian language/Dress/religion mange to gain roots in the East (Mesopotamia) or not I thought the Sentence "what aspects of Greek/Macedonian life survived in the East" would have sumed all that up.

 

The paragraph I quoted above I am going to try and explain better maybe it did come out kind of wrong. Alexander loved the east and it culture an luxuries. So therefore I am wondering as to whether Greek/Macedonian culture managed to get roots in the region is that clearer?

Edited June 3, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[Rameses the Great]

I did not say it was a bad question Aegyptus it is actually a marvelous question, I mean that honestly. It's just maybe that there are many parts to the question we do not know where to start. You clarified it though and I know it is a good question.

 

I did not mean to come off as hard as I did. I think that this can spark a good argument as to whether the Greeks did more or the Macedonians.

 

Now it is just fair to point out even though the Macedonians may be different, by racial means, the Greeks made them the nation they are. Macedonians were referred to as 'barbarians' until they were impacted by the ever so countageous Hellenizm.

 

I believe the Greeks had a greater influence, because of the trade routes and how well Egypt and Greece knew each other. Also the Persians knew the Greeks well through war and turmoil and let them know what the west was like. The Macedonians however should be credited by uniting the two worlds.

[AEGYPTUS]

So does anyone know under the Seleucids reign over the largest chunk of Alexander's Empire actually manage to bring Greek religion and language to the Mesopotamian region or did Greek/Macedonian colonist just have to learn the local languages, worship local Gods and wear similar dress?

Edited June 3, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[Ursus]

Michael Grant seems to think the only thing that kept the Seleucids together was a string of Hellenic colonies at strategic points, and a large army. The upper class natives were willing to learn Greek, especially in places like Syria, to communicate with their new masters. But the rest of the natives would have none of it - they had their own culture, language and religion. Hellenization was a function of poor Greeks back home founding new colonies on the aforementioned strategic sites.

 

Grant says that the Hellenes, unlike the Romans, were not interested in spreading their culture among the natives and actually practiced a kind of separatism. Neither Alexander nor his successors in the area were acting as agents of Hellenism - they merely wanted glory, conquest and riches.

[AEGYPTUS]

So I am just wondering how did Greek rulers and nobles communicate with the lower classes of soceity if only the upper were willing to learn Greek? Did the rulers have to learn local languages?

[Pantagathus]

That's interesting Ursus, I've seen other scholars like Lionel Casson argue the opposite of Grants position; i.e. that Hellenism had a great influence on aculturation and city administration in these eastern areas & if not for that, Rome would not have found it so easy (relatively) to administer these areas at a later time.

[historyfanatic]

I did not say it was a bad question Aegyptus it is actually a marvelous question, I mean that honestly. It's just maybe that there are many parts to the question we do not know where to start. You clarified it though and I know it is a good question.

 

I did not mean to come off as hard as I did. I think that this can spark a good argument as to whether the Greeks did more or the Macedonians.

 

Now it is just fair to point out even though the Macedonians may be different, by racial means, the Greeks made them the nation they are. Macedonians were referred to as 'barbarians' until they were impacted by the ever so countageous Hellenizm.

 

I believe the Greeks had a greater influence, because of the trade routes and how well Egypt and Greece knew each other. Also the Persians knew the Greeks well through war and turmoil and let them know what the west was like. The Macedonians however should be credited by uniting the two worlds.

 

Im curious as to why you say Greece and Macedonia as two seperate people? I mean Greek are Macedonians.

[Rameses the Great]

By terms of culture maybe but not by genetics. I could always tell apart a Macedonian from a Greek in terms of appearance. Can any expert on this help us out?

[Kosmo]

All I can say it's this is a hot political debate between today greeks and macedonians. The internet it's full of it and this smalls like arena if we hava contenders here. For me the important thing it's that macedonians (at least the elite) were hellenized.

Macedonian conquest added to the already established greek influence in the east and not created a macedonian distinct culture.

 

I think that hellenism was really important in the Middle East and romans, armenians and parthians kept the greek language, culture and even political organisation that they inherited from hellenistic empires.

 

The scene with Crassus head at a wedding party between top parthians and armenians it's telling enough and so it's the survival for sometime of large hellenized cities in Parthia like Seleucia.

 

The greek influence faded slowly with the increase use of aramaic and coptic in Christianity and with antiroman and zarathustrian Sasanid dinasty in the East. The final blow was, of course, the Islamic conquest and the new lnguage and culture that he brought. A culture that borrowed some few things from hellenism.

 

An important part of hellenistic heritage was in Bactria that influenced India, Central Asia and even China. But this influence was not as strong as in the Middle East where hellenism dominated for almost a 1.000 years.

[historyfanatic]

By terms of culture maybe but not by genetics. I could always tell apart a Macedonian from a Greek in terms of appearance. Can any expert on this help us out?

 

The ones that call themselves Macedonians now are actually Slavs. Everyone knows how the Former Yugoslav Replubic of Macedonia was created and that the people were of FYROM are a product of Titos communis. The Macedonians from ancient times were a Dorian Hellenic tribe. I have seen irrifutable evidence at a couple of sites and have read many books on the subject. Some links to visit if you wish Im not pressing my beliefs on your but just some links you might find very interesting... These are just a couple and the good thing is that they supply historical references names of the historians and authors ect. So its not just some opinion from members check it out.

 

Macedonians

Macedonia on the web

Edited August 18, 2006 by historyfanatic

[Primus Pilus]

Just a word of caution... Discussion of ethnicity and culture in the Balkans tends to go off on tangents fairly quickly. I'll be moderating closely.

 

At any rate, there is much debate on the origins of Macedonians and Greeks. Some say that the Macedonians were actually a Greek tribe that was somehow left isolated when the Dorians invaded. Some say both are of the same Doric stock. Some say that even if there is a connection, it doesn't matter because while Macedonians were Hellenized they were considered barbarians by the Greeks. And so on and so forth.

 

[edit] Additionally, there is mass disagreement over the effects of the Slavic migrations and the relationship between modern Balkans and the ancients. Nationalism can run rampant and many like to feel a connection to the glory of the ancient people that occupied the same lands. I am no expert, but I just wanted to put in a bit of a disclaimer for this topic...

 

[edit 2] Oops, I missed Kosmo's post above where he alludes to the same thing.

[Pertinax]

I just alighted on this thread and have to suggest that Robin Lane Fox's "Classical World" (which I must now hurry to review) is a most useful work on the core issue of this thread.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0141021...ay&v=glance

[WotWotius]

Robin Lane Fox, wasn't the Historical consultant for Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' (yawn)?