Discussion: The Greatest Diadochi Kingdom

[Athenian Alexandros]

There were several successor states to alexanders empire but id like to know which everyone thinks was the best and most successful of them all , i like the seleucids but they were pretty much eaten alive by a combo of enemies

[RedFox]

Pergamon was quite successful compared to the rest of them, but it wouldn't exactly count for a successor state.

The Ptolemies however lasted the longest and were thus the most successful.

[Athenian Alexandros]

Pergamon was quite successful compared to the rest of them, but it wouldn't exactly count for a successor state.

The Ptolemies however lasted the longest and were thus the most successful.

good point, didnt pergamum defeat the galatians?

[Spartan 666]

My favourite are with no doubt the Seleucids. They were the only to carry on Alexander's policy of creating new cities and trying to make Greeks and Easterns to cooperate; the Babylonians in particular were very well considerated. Their fatal mistake was to care too much of the west, thus losing the east at the hand of Parthians and Bactrians.

I hate Ptolemies to death because Ptolemy Soter was in fact the one who started the dissolution of the Macedonian Empire, even if it's very likely that it would have collapsed anyway.

And yes, Pergamonian kings defeated Galatians more then once..

[RedFox]

Pergamum defeated many opponents and conquered back half of asia minor from the Seleucids and other nations. Pergamum and its cavalry also played the key role in helping the Romans defeat the Seleucids at Magnesia. They are often forgotten in history, but they were great in power.

Of course, the battle of Magnesia is one of the worst tactical blunders you can hope to find. The Phalanx, left unsupported from the flanks, was disrupted into a mob of confusion by its own elephants and scythed chariots, then promptly encircled and decimated by Roman infantry and Attalid(Pergamid) cavalry.

It is sad, considering that Antiochus had some of the finest cavalry in Asia; and in the end, it didn't even play a major role in the battle..

[Cal20]

I wouldn't know enough to even answer that tbh. I was going to post a thread about it but it's probably not worth it, but I was going to ask if anyone knows any good texts/books about the Diadochi? Tried searching Amazon for the obvious like 'diadochi' but it didn't yield much. Both ancient historians and newer texts, I'm not bothered either way. I know Arrian wrote about Alexander, but not sure if he continued on about the successor states.

[Spartan 666]

Diodorus Siculus, Plutarchus, Giustinus (not sure about the spelling, I am translating it from my sources in italian) all wrote about the Diadochi. Then I've found these: JOHN D. GRAINGER Seleukos Nikator ECIG, RICHARD A. BILLOWS Antigonos the One-Eyed (University of California Press 1997)..

[Cal20]

Thank you! I study history (not classical though) so I should really be able to find them myself but i'm too lazy and thought i'd ask here first. Doesn't seem to be much on the subject tbh.

[Spartan 666]

You're welcome! I study law but History is magister vitae and I'm an ancient History enthusiast..

It's true that the Diadochi are quite unknown. Here in Italy we are tought that after Alexander's death, 3 kindoms magically emerge: Macedon, Egypt and Syria. And then we begin studying Rome. Diadochi? Totally unknown...but I think it's one of the most interesting periods of the whole History.

[RedFox]

Romans made a habit of writing history from their perspective after defeating their enemies. Thus the fact that most of the information about Diadochi is lost. The fall of the Roman empire caused about ~90% of the records to be lost, so there is tons of stuff we have no idea about in reality.

If only time wasn't a continuous reaction..

[Cal20]

I knew very little on the subject until playing this mod: informative and damn fun . Seems to go Classical Greece, Alexander's conquests then skip to the Roman Empire.
Haha them Roman's messing things up! 90% though? Didn't know it was that much. I know stuff like Aristotle only survived due to Arabic translations that were re-discovered in the 13th century.

[Spartan 666]

Yes, A LOT of things were saved just thanks to Arabs...if it was for christians and the Church, they would be lost forever...

[Cal20]

Yeah couldn't have all those Pagan writers' work about, it is sacrilege !

[Spartan 666]

hehe, well said! Consider only this: the Library at Alexandria is said to have had more than 200.000 (two hundred thousand!!!) books...a small sections was burnt in 48BC when Caesar was besieged in Alexandria, but the rest was burnt in the 4th-5th century by christians fanatics...

[RedFox]

Probably because the contents of the library included 'false' materials that would prove christianity to be outright silly and stupid. Thus it had to be eliminated.

[Cal20]

Didn't they try to blame the burning on a Muslim prince/leader? I am sure I read that some where. Makes you wonder what works were lost forever when the whole place was burnt down 0_o

[Spartan 666]

Oh, usually when you talk about this with a christian, this is the typical dialogue:
C-christian R-rational person

R:your friends burnt a lot of books that they didn't like, and now they are lost forever
C:yes, but the monks copied a lot of books, if they didn't we wouldn't have all the sources we have today
R:all the sources????? They saved only what they liked, they saved 10% and burnt 90% of them!
C:yes, but they saved 10%
R:so it is a good thing to burn 90% and save only the 10% you like?
C:yes, 10% is better than nothing
R:and the 90% that was lost? It was all , wasn't it?
C:no, but the Church always saved 10%, better than nothing
R:ok, see ya...I have better things to do than wasting my words with you

As you can see, I'd prefer talking to a cow rather than with an italian catholic..

[charles the hammer]

hey dont be making fun of the christians i dont think you should blame us for people who called themselves christians i dont think you can call christians of the roman empire late roman empire christians just because they really didnt seem all the interested in the bible or the teaching of christ they seem more interested in being the top "religon" and keeping power so you cant blame christians for what they did and it is sad to think someone claiming to be in my religon could do such things and really scar a religon that otherwise is very creditable Plus my favorite successor is Seleucids.

[CaesarVincens]

Oh, usually when you talk about this with a christian, this is the typical dialogue:
C-christian R-rational person

R:your friends burnt a lot of books that they didn't like, and now they are lost forever
C:yes, but the monks copied a lot of books, if they didn't we wouldn't have all the sources we have today
R:all the sources????? They saved only what they liked, they saved 10% and burnt 90% of them!
C:yes, but they saved 10%
R:so it is a good thing to burn 90% and save only the 10% you like?
C:yes, 10% is better than nothing
R:and the 90% that was lost? It was all , wasn't it?
C:no, but the Church always saved 10%, better than nothing
R:ok, see ya...I have better things to do than wasting my words with you

As you can see, I'd prefer talking to a cow rather than with an italian catholic..

That is really unfair to the majority of Christians. Yes, there are some like that. But there are non-Christians who would rationalize things in the same way. (Liberals point to conservatives and conservatives point to liberals and then nothing ever gets done. )

[RedFox]

Did I trigger a flame-war?

*cackles* Success!

Religion is just a means of controlling people. It always has and it always will be. The most awful example are the Muslim extremists who think they are doing it all for 'the holy cause', but they're really not following the ideals of Muslim beliefs at all with that.

I much rather prefer spiritual people, rather than religious people that belong to certain 'factions'. Being a subject for Christian brainwash many a time, I am really not optimistic about this whole religion thing.
For each one his own. The protestant church of course allows everyone to have a 'personal' relationship with god (spiritual belief) and not be that much tied down to ideals of the specific religion.

Sometimes, people just need something to believe in.