Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Greek and roman warfare
Analyze alexander the great
Greek and roman warfare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Greek and roman warfare
Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great's Empire written by Robin Waterfield dissects the conflicts, cultural developments in the fields of art, literature, and philosophy, and the inevitable downfall of the empire which, occurred throughout the Hellenistic period (323– 281 B.C.E), after the death of Alexander the Great. Waterfield main purpose in this book was to revive the memory of the successors and demonstrate that the early Hellenistic period was not a period of decline and disintegration. This historical record begins with the confusion around Alexander’s death. Rumors began about how he died and there was claims of assassination. There was no rightful heir, since both of Alexander’s children, Hercules and Alexander IV, were not full-blooded Macedonians. Perdiccas was …show more content…
given control by Alexander and summoned the senior officers and somatophylakes (bodyguards) to Babylon to make future arrangements. The committee decided that Perdiccas and Leonnatus should act in Asia as regents for Alexander IV, while Antipater and Craterus acted for the kingdom in Europe (39).
A revolt in Greece, the Lamian War, began once news of a decree that forced Athens and the Aetolian League to surrender the cities of Oeniadae and the island of Samos. Athens, Aetolian, and Thessaly began with a few victories against Antipater; however, were outmatched by the fortifications at Lamia and suffered the loss of their commander, Leosthenes, leading to a retreat. Tension was rising, with war looming, as two factions emerged: Perdiccas and his staff; Antipater, Craterus, and their allies. Alexander’s corpse was hijacked by Ptolemy’s soldiers. Ptolemy decided Egypt should be the final resting place of Alexander. Seen as an act of war, it commenced the First War of the Diadochi. Eumenes defeated the rebels in Asia Minor, Craterus was killed. Perdiccas was murdered by his own generals Peithon, Seleucus, and Antigenes during an invasion of Egypt. There was a second gathering at Triparadisus; Ptolemy retained Egypt, Peithon given general oversight of the eastern provinces, Antigenes got Susiana, Seleucus was given Babylonia, Antipater
retained Europe, and Antigonus was given Asia. This was called the Partition of Triparadisus (72/73). Antipater soon passed away, granting power to Polyperchon, which sparked the Second War of the Diadochi. Polyperchon was forced to flee to Epirus with the Alexander IV and Rhoxane to join forces with Olympias to invaded Macedon again. King Philip III and his wife Eurydice were killed in the invasion. Cassander captured and killed Olympias, attaining control of Macedon, while imprisoning Alexander IV, and his mother. In Asia, Eumenes was betrayed by his own troops and was executed, leaving Antigonus in control of the Asian territories. Bibliography: Waterfield, R. (2011). Dividing the spoils. [electronic resource]: the war for Alexander the Great's empire. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Prior to the advent of Greek navies, Thucydides claims that “wars by land there were none, none at least by which power was acquired; we have the usual border contests, but of distant expeditions with conquest the object we hear nothing among the Hellenes” (I.15.2).... ... middle of paper ... ... The privations and suffering war forces people to turn their attention to themselves and lose sight of the good of their city, just as Pericles predicted it would, and without a leader like him willing to direct them away from this mindset rather than pander to it to get votes, the political constitution of the city was doomed to dissolve.
Alexander the Not so Great:history through Persian eyes by Prof Ali Ansari Paragraph 1 Page
Bury, J. B.; Russell Meiggs (2000). A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great
During the Babylon conference following the death of Alexander the army expressed a great loyalty to the Argead dynasty and desire to preserve Alexander 's empire. The Generals Craterus and Meleager were both very popular with the army and used their influence to propose Phillip Arrhidaeus as the new king. Perdiccas was aware of Meleager 's popularity and thus appointed him as Hyparchos to appease the soldiers. At one point Perdiccas incorrectly suspected Ptolemy of aspiring to claim the whole empire, so he marched on Egypt with an army. The expedition failed embarrassingly with many soldiers drowning while trying to cross the nile and they ran out of supplies early. Ptolemy turned these soldiers against Perdiccas by providing them with food and supplies. They then murdered Perdiccas in his tent11. After decades of campaigning with Alexander the macedonian army were tired of fighting and just wanted a reward for their efforts and whichever successor could provide them with the most booty earned their favour12. War was central to the successor 's economies and the resources, allowing them to live in extreme luxury, flaunting their power. It was not mearly the fruits of war that commanded authority but also skill in waging war and military bravery. For Example in 317 at the battle of Paraitakene Antigonus and Eumenes both charged into battle in the front lines of their armies13. In
Long, A.A. & Sedley D.N. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Trans. Long & Sedley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Onians, John. Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age: The Greek World View 350-50 B.C. London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd., 1979.
Long, A.A. & Sedley D.N. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Trans. Long & Sedley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Martin, Thomas R., “An Overview of Classical Greek History from Mycenae to Alexander.” Tufts University. N.d. Web. Feb 16, 2014. Retrieved from < http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0009%3Achapter%3D14>
The Peloponnesian War is the conflict between the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta, and the Delian League, led by Athens. Much of our knowledge on the causes and events of the Peloponnesian War, depends on the Athenian Thucydides 460-400 BC, writer of the History of the Peloponnesian War. He served as an Athenian commander in Northern Greece during the early years of the war until the assembly exiled him as he lost an outpost to the enemy. During this exile, he was able to interview witnesses on both sides of the conflict. Unlike Heredotus, he concentrated on contemporary history and presented his account of the war in an annalistic framework that only occasionally diverts from chronological order.
Alexander is the son of King Philip of Macedonia and Queen Olympias. We see Alexander's daily life and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias and his tutor Aristotle, where he finds interest in love, honor, music, exploration, poetry, and military combat. Young Alexander impresses his father by taming an intractable horse, but both mother and son are banished from the kingdom, Olympias advising her son to seize the throne before Philip has him murdered. As things work out, Philip is murdered, and Alexander rules Macedonia. (BBC)
Alexander began his military campaign and his rule much where his father left off. Whether or not it was his aim, this created a sense of normality for the men that was part of his father’s regime. Alexander’s position as a warrior-king who stood side-by-side among his men also served to create respect among his peers. Gradually, as Alexander conquered more Persian land, he began to adopt the policies of Persian rulers. Alexander’s change in policy extended beyond just political roles, he gave consideration to the local gods in many of the lands that he conquered. Eventually, Alexander brought people in from the conquered nations to serve under him.
Immediately after Pericles’ speech following the plague that devastates Athens, Thucydides conveys that the Athenians, not heeding Pericles’ warning, succumb to their ambition for additional conquest, bringing devastation upon their country in the war (2.65.7). Here, Thucydides expresses that if Athens’ downfall was due to a lack of self-indulgence not instigated by Pericles’ but in spite of him, implying that Pericles’ lack of self-restraint in other areas did not result in such a catastrophe as Socrates would imply. This argument is further strengthened by the vote of Athens to engage in a campaign in Sicily during the seven years of peace after the first half of the war. In their decision to engage in the Sicilian expedition, one of the principal motivations was to subject the country to the will of Athens (6.8.2). Here, the Athenians capitulate in the struggle against their self-indulgence, ignoring Pericles’ warning and entering into an unnecessary conquest that eventually culminates in their defeat. Negotiations of the peace treaty had heavily favored Athens, returning seized Athenian land as well as war prisoners and essentially returning Greece to a similar position to that at the beginning of the war, leaving the Athenian
In addition, Alcibiades fled to Sparta due to impending charges and became an advisor to Sparta on the ways to defeat Athens. The end result is that the majority of all the expeditionary forces from Athens are killed or captured and the Athenian democracy is overthrown in 411 BC. Most of the predictions made by Nicias for not engaging in war come to pass and he is killed in the
The author recounts in great detail how men like Ptolemy, Seleucus, Perdiccas, Lysimachus and a numerous others attempted to become the new Alexander, but were unsuccessful. The narrative moves chronology through the successor wars, their repercussions, the fate of the main characters, to even the last standing successors and their impact on the Hellenistic world. While this approach abandons strict chronology, the narrative nevertheless flows smoothly from Successor to Successor and from one war to the next. Numerous books outside of Waterfield’s focus on the successful successors such as Ptolemy, Seleukid, and Antigonids; where as he provides a character list to show all the people involved. The Wars of the Successors are a perplexing series of “alliances, marriages, battles, treachery and violence, involving a long list of characters, most of whom are little known to the modern reader” (d). He included rulers who control vast resources and have plausible bids to being successful. Robin Waterfield does focus on the characters that are significant in the end of the Hellenistic Era. The conventional style and detailed timeline of Dividing the Spoils creates an emphasis on individual
Honour, Hugh, and John Fleming. "Hellenistic and Roman Art." A World History of Art. London: Laurence King, 1999. 179-213. Print.