DOCSLIB.ORG

Alexander the Great Macedonia Attacks Greece Main Idea: King Philip II of Macedonia United the Greek City­States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alexander the Great Macedonia Attacks Greece Main Idea: King Philip II of Macedonia United the Greek City­States Alexander the Great Macedonia Attacks Greece Main Idea: King Philip II of Macedonia united the Greek city­states. Macedonia lay north of Greece. The Macedonians were warriors. They raised sheep and horses, and farmed. By 400 B​.C.,​ Macedonia was almost as powerful as the Greek city­states. A Plan to Win Greece In 359 B.C., Philip II became king of Macedonia. He wanted to defeat the Persian Empire. But to do that, he needed to increase Macedonia’s military strength. His plan was to take over Greek lands, so he could gather more soldiers. Philip trained his army to fight like the Greek hoplites. King Philip also started training soldiers to fight on horseback. These soldiers made up his cavalry unit. Philip knew the cavalry would give him a military advantage over most Greek armies. So, one by one, he began to take over the Greek city­states. He took some city­states over by force, bribed other leaders to follow him, and others united with his kingdom after he discussed his plans with them. Some of Athens’ great public speakers warned that King Philip threatened their freedom. Government leaders urged Athens and other city­states to fight the Macedonians. But the Greeks were weak, divided, and exhausted from the Peloponnesian War. The Peloponnesian War was a bad time for Greece as Athens and Sparta fought each other for control of Greece. Greece’s weakness was good news for Philip. The Athenians tried to fight Philip’s army, but they could not stop him. In 338 B.C., the Macedonians crushed the Greeks at the Battle of Chaeronea near Thebes. With this victory, King Philip now controlled all of Greece. Alexander Builds an Empire Main Idea: Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire and spread Greek culture throughout other parts of the world. Alexander was a prince, the son of the king of Macedonia. He was born in Macedonia in July 356 B.C. Between the ages of 12 and 13, Alexander was taught by the great Greek philosopher named A​ ristotle.​ Aristotle was also born in Macedonia, but he lived for a long time in Athens (Greece). It was Aristotle, more than any other teacher, who taught Alexander to greatly respect the Greek way of life. Alexander spoke Greek. He knew Greek history. He believed in the Greek gods. When he was a boy, Alexander dreamed of teaching everyone, everywhere, about the wonderful Greek culture he knew and loved so much. But Alexander was also trained to be a ruler ­ a king, a warrior, and a leader of men. He was taught that his job was to expand the Macedonian empire, and to rule at all times with a firm hand. Alexander's father, King Philip II, had conquered most of the Greece by 337 B.C. But, before Philip could conquer the Persian Empire, he was murdered in 336 B.C. His son Alexander took over. Alexander was only 20, but he had already been in battle many times. When Alexander became king of Macedonia, he also inherited his father’s ambition. Alexander’s goal was to defeat the Persian Empire and help spread Greek culture to new areas. Alexander’s Conquests Alexander invaded Asia Minor in 334 B.C. He had about 37,000 foot soldiers and 5,000 warriors on horseback (his cavalry). At the Battle of Granicus, he destroyed the local Persian army. At that time, the Persians ruled many Greek cities in Asia Minor. During the next nine months, Alexander freed those city­states. He also defeated a large Persian army at Issus. Then Alexander went south. By the winter of 332 B.C., he had captured Egypt and Syria. He built the city of Alexandria in Egypt. It became famous for trade, science, and education. In 331 B.C., Alexander went east. He defeated the Persians at Gaugamela, near Babylon. Then his army took over the rest of the Persian Empire. His father’s dream was fulfilled. But Alexander did not stop. He marched east for the next three years. His army got as far as modern Pakistan. In 326 B.C., Alexander and his army crossed the Indus River and fought many battles in India. His soldiers grew tired of war, so Alexander agreed to go home. Going home, the army crossed a desert in what is modern Iran. There was very little water. Heat and thirst killed thousands of soldiers. When soldiers found some water, they gave it to Alexander in a helmet. Alexander poured the water on the ground. He showed his soldiers that he was willing to suffer the same thirst and pain that they did. Alexander arrived back in Babylon in 323 B.C. He wanted to invade southern Arabia, but he died 10 days later. He was only 32 years old. Alexander’s Legacy Alexander was a great and brave military leader. Sometimes he rode into battle before his army. Some considered this foolish, but his bravery inspired his soldiers. Alexander always tried to copy his hero, Achilles. Achilles was one of the warriors in the epic poem called T​he I​liad, w​ritten by Homer. When he died, Alexander was the most powerful ruler in the ancient world. That is one reason we call him Alexander the Great. A legacy is what a person leaves to other people when he or she dies. Alexander’s legacy was a world that knew about Greek culture. Wherever Alexander and his army went, they spread the Greek language, ideas, and art. There is another reason that Alexander is “Great.” Alexander also learned things in Asia and Africa. He took those ideas with him as he traveled, spreading them to new areas. Alexander began the Hellenistic Era. Hellenistic means “like the Greeks.” The Hellenistic Era is the time when Greek ideas spread to people who were not Greek. The Empire Breaks Apart Alexander wanted the Macedonians, the Greeks, and the Persians to become one cultural group. He used Persians as local officials and encouraged his soldiers to marry Asian women. After Alexander died, his empire fell apart. His generals could not decide on who should become the next king, so they fought amongst themselves. It became four separate Hellenistic kingdoms: Macedonia, Pergamum, Egypt, and the Seleucid empire. Greek was the official language of these kingdoms. And the kings often gave jobs to a Greek or Macedonian. By 100 B.C., Alexandria was the largest city in the Mediterranean world. The Hellenistic kings built many other cities, too. These cities needed many workers. They needed architects and engineers. They also needed philosophers, artists, and artisans. The kings asked Greeks and Macedonians to move to these cities. These colonists helped to spread the Greek culture as far east as modern Afghanistan and India. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Colony and Empire, Colonialism and Imperialism: a Meaningful Distinction?
    Comparative Studies in Society and History 2021;63(2):280–309. 0010-4175/21 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History doi:10.1017/S0010417521000050 Colony and Empire, Colonialism and Imperialism: A Meaningful Distinction? KRISHAN KUMAR University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA It is a mistaken notion that planting of colonies and extending of Empire are necessarily one and the same thing. ———Major John Cartwright, Ten Letters to the Public Advertiser, 20 March–14 April 1774 (in Koebner 1961: 200). There are two ways to conquer a country; the first is to subordinate the inhabitants and govern them directly or indirectly.… The second is to replace the former inhabitants with the conquering race. ———Alexis de Tocqueville (2001[1841]: 61). One can instinctively think of neo-colonialism but there is no such thing as neo-settler colonialism. ———Lorenzo Veracini (2010: 100). WHAT’ S IN A NAME? It is rare in popular usage to distinguish between imperialism and colonialism. They are treated for most intents and purposes as synonyms. The same is true of many scholarly accounts, which move freely between imperialism and colonialism without apparently feeling any discomfort or need to explain themselves. So, for instance, Dane Kennedy defines colonialism as “the imposition by foreign power of direct rule over another people” (2016: 1), which for most people would do very well as a definition of empire, or imperialism. Moreover, he comments that “decolonization did not necessarily Acknowledgments: This paper is a much-revised version of a presentation given many years ago at a seminar on empires organized by Patricia Crone, at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 9 Hellenistic Kingdoms Chronology
    Lecture 9 Hellenistic Kingdoms Chronology: Please see the timeline and browse this website: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/haht/hd_haht.htm Star Terms: Geog. Terms: Ptolemy II Philadelphos Alexandria (Egypt) Apollonius of Rhodes Pergamon (Pergamum) The Museon of Alexandria Antioch The Pharos Lighthouse Red Sea Idylls of Theocritus A. Altar of Zeus (Pergamon, Turkey), c. 175 BCE Attalos I and the Gauls/ gigantomachy/ Pergamon in Asia Minor/high relief/ violent movement Numismatics/ “In the Great Altar of Zeus erected at Pergamon, the Hellenistic taste for emotion, energetic movement, and exaggerated musculature is translated into relief sculpture. The two friezes on the altar celebrated the city and its superiority over the Gauls, who were a constant threat to the Pergamenes. Inside the structure, a small frieze depicted the legendary founding of Pergamon. In 181 BCE Eumenes II had the enormous altar “built on a hill above the city to commemorate the victory of Rome and her allies over Antiochos III the Great of Syria at the Battle of Magnesia (189 BCE) a victory that had given Eumenes much of the Seleucid Empire. A large part of the sculptural decoration has been recovered, and the entire west front of the monument, with the great flight of stairs leading to its entrance, has been reconstructed in Berlin, speaking to the colonial trend of archaeological imperialism of the late 19th century. Lecture 9 Hellenistic Kingdoms B. Dying Gaul, Roman copy of a bronze original from Pergamon, c. 230-220 BCE, marble theatrical moving, and noble representations of an enemy/ pathos/ physical depiction of Celts/Gauls This sculpture is from a monument commemorating the victory in 230 BCE of Attalos I (ruled 241-197 BCE) over the Gauls, a Celtic people who invaded from the north.
    [Show full text]
  • Demosthenes, Chaeronea, and the Rhetoric of Defeat
    CHAPTER 6 Demosthenes, Chaeronea, and the Rhetoric of Defeat Max L. Goldman Introduction For years Demosthenes urged the Athenians to oppose the rising power of Macedon, which had come to prominence in the second half of the fourth century through the diplomatic and military efforts of its king, Philip II.1 Demosthenes finally convinced the Athenians and the Thebans to form an al- liance, which faced Philip at Chaeronea in the late summer of 338 BCE. Philip’s decisive victory in that battle had immediate consequences for the political landscape of the Greek world and modern historical narratives tend to treat Chaeronea as a turning point, as the moment when mainland Greece ceased to engage in independent foreign policy actions.2 Although this turned out to be the case, it was not immediately clear at Athens that the new order established by Philip after the battle was irrevocable. When Demosthenes was selected to deliver the funeral oration (logos epitaphios) for the Athenians who died at the battle of Chaeronea, he faced a particularly challenging task because the soldiers, whose deaths he needed to praise, had died fighting a losing battle, a battle he had vigorously advocated for. In his funeral oration, Demosthenes needed to discuss the defeat and his role in it in a way that created a sense of continuity with the past, that minimized the potential disruption such a defeat can inflict on a community, and that gave the Athenians a way to understand their defeat and his role in it. There can be no doubt that Demosthenes delivered the oration for the dead of Chaeronea.
    [Show full text]
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roles of Solon in Plato's Dialogues
    The Roles of Solon in Plato’s Dialogues Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Samuel Ortencio Flores, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Bruce Heiden, Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Richard Fletcher Greg Anderson Copyrighy by Samuel Ortencio Flores 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a study of Plato’s use and adaptation of an earlier model and tradition of wisdom based on the thought and legacy of the sixth-century archon, legislator, and poet Solon. Solon is cited and/or quoted thirty-four times in Plato’s dialogues, and alluded to many more times. My study shows that these references and allusions have deeper meaning when contextualized within the reception of Solon in the classical period. For Plato, Solon is a rhetorically powerful figure in advancing the relatively new practice of philosophy in Athens. While Solon himself did not adequately establish justice in the city, his legacy provided a model upon which Platonic philosophy could improve. Chapter One surveys the passing references to Solon in the dialogues as an introduction to my chapters on the dialogues in which Solon is a very prominent figure, Timaeus- Critias, Republic, and Laws. Chapter Two examines Critias’ use of his ancestor Solon to establish his own philosophic credentials. Chapter Three suggests that Socrates re- appropriates the aims and themes of Solon’s political poetry for Socratic philosophy. Chapter Four suggests that Solon provides a legislative model which Plato reconstructs in the Laws for the philosopher to supplant the role of legislator in Greek thought.
    [Show full text]
  • The Herodotos Project (OSU-Ugent): Studies in Ancient Ethnography
    Faculty of Literature and Philosophy Julie Boeten The Herodotos Project (OSU-UGent): Studies in Ancient Ethnography Barbarians in Strabo’s ‘Geography’ (Abii-Ionians) With a case-study: the Cappadocians Master thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Linguistics and Literature, Greek and Latin. 2015 Promotor: Prof. Dr. Mark Janse UGent Department of Greek Linguistics Co-Promotores: Prof. Brian Joseph Ohio State University Dr. Christopher Brown Ohio State University ACKNOWLEDGMENT In this acknowledgment I would like to thank everybody who has in some way been a part of this master thesis. First and foremost I want to thank my promotor Prof. Janse for giving me the opportunity to write my thesis in the context of the Herodotos Project, and for giving me suggestions and answering my questions. I am also grateful to Prof. Joseph and Dr. Brown, who have given Anke and me the chance to be a part of the Herodotos Project and who have consented into being our co- promotores. On a whole other level I wish to express my thanks to my parents, without whom I would not have been able to study at all. They have also supported me throughout the writing process and have read parts of the draft. Finally, I would also like to thank Kenneth, for being there for me and for correcting some passages of the thesis. Julie Boeten NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING Deze scriptie is geschreven in het kader van het Herodotos Project, een onderneming van de Ohio State University in samenwerking met UGent. De doelstelling van het project is het aanleggen van een databank met alle volkeren die gekend waren in de oudheid.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient History Sourcebook: 11Th Brittanica: Sparta SPARTA an Ancient City in Greece, the Capital of Laconia and the Most Powerful State of the Peloponnese
    Ancient History Sourcebook: 11th Brittanica: Sparta SPARTA AN ancient city in Greece, the capital of Laconia and the most powerful state of the Peloponnese. The city lay at the northern end of the central Laconian plain, on the right bank of the river Eurotas, a little south of the point where it is joined by its largest tributary, the Oenus (mount Kelefina). The site is admirably fitted by nature to guard the only routes by which an army can penetrate Laconia from the land side, the Oenus and Eurotas valleys leading from Arcadia, its northern neighbour, and the Langada Pass over Mt Taygetus connecting Laconia and Messenia. At the same time its distance from the sea-Sparta is 27 m. from its seaport, Gythium, made it invulnerable to a maritime attack. I.-HISTORY Prehistoric Period.-Tradition relates that Sparta was founded by Lacedaemon, son of Zeus and Taygete, who called the city after the name of his wife, the daughter of Eurotas. But Amyclae and Therapne (Therapnae) seem to have been in early times of greater importance than Sparta, the former a Minyan foundation a few miles to the south of Sparta, the latter probably the Achaean capital of Laconia and the seat of Menelaus, Agamemnon's younger brother. Eighty years after the Trojan War, according to the traditional chronology, the Dorian migration took place. A band of Dorians united with a body of Aetolians to cross the Corinthian Gulf and invade the Peloponnese from the northwest. The Aetolians settled in Elis, the Dorians pushed up to the headwaters of the Alpheus, where they divided into two forces, one of which under Cresphontes invaded and later subdued Messenia, while the other, led by Aristodemus or, according to another version, by his twin sons Eurysthenes and Procles, made its way down the Eurotas were new settlements were formed and gained Sparta, which became the Dorian capital of Laconia.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander's Empire
    4 Alexander’s Empire MAIN IDEA WHY IT MATTERS NOW TERMS & NAMES EMPIRE BUILDING Alexander the Alexander’s empire extended • Philip II •Alexander Great conquered Persia and Egypt across an area that today consists •Macedonia the Great and extended his empire to the of many nations and diverse • Darius III Indus River in northwest India. cultures. SETTING THE STAGE The Peloponnesian War severely weakened several Greek city-states. This caused a rapid decline in their military and economic power. In the nearby kingdom of Macedonia, King Philip II took note. Philip dreamed of taking control of Greece and then moving against Persia to seize its vast wealth. Philip also hoped to avenge the Persian invasion of Greece in 480 B.C. TAKING NOTES Philip Builds Macedonian Power Outlining Use an outline to organize main ideas The kingdom of Macedonia, located just north of Greece, about the growth of had rough terrain and a cold climate. The Macedonians were Alexander's empire. a hardy people who lived in mountain villages rather than city-states. Most Macedonian nobles thought of themselves Alexander's Empire as Greeks. The Greeks, however, looked down on the I. Philip Builds Macedonian Power Macedonians as uncivilized foreigners who had no great A. philosophers, sculptors, or writers. The Macedonians did have one very B. important resource—their shrewd and fearless kings. II. Alexander Conquers Persia Philip’s Army In 359 B.C., Philip II became king of Macedonia. Though only 23 years old, he quickly proved to be a brilliant general and a ruthless politician. Philip transformed the rugged peasants under his command into a well-trained professional army.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Comparison of Non-Sovereign Island Territories: the Search for ‘True Equality’
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 43-66 A global comparison of non-sovereign island territories: the search for ‘true equality’ Malcom Ferdinand CNRS, Paris, France [email protected] Gert Oostindie KITLV, the Netherlands Leiden University, the Netherlands [email protected] (corresponding author) Wouter Veenendaal KITLV, the Netherlands Leiden University, the Netherlands [email protected] Abstract: For a great majority of former colonies, the outcome of decolonization was independence. Yet scattered across the globe, remnants of former colonial empires are still non-sovereign as part of larger metropolitan states. There is little drive for independence in these territories, virtually all of which are small island nations, also known as sub-national island jurisdictions (SNIJs). Why do so many former colonial territories choose to remain non-sovereign? In this paper we attempt to answer this question by conducting a global comparative study of non-sovereign jurisdictions. We start off by analyzing their present economic, social and political conditions, after which we assess local levels of (dis)content with the contemporary political status, and their articulation in postcolonial politics. We find that levels of discontent and frustration covary with the particular demographic, socio- economic and historical-cultural conditions of individual territories. While significant independence movements can be observed in only two or three jurisdictions, in virtually all cases there is profound dissatisfaction and frustration with the contemporary non-sovereign arrangement and its outcomes. Instead of achieving independence, the territories’ real struggle nowadays is for obtaining ‘true equality’ with the metropolis, as well as recognition of their distinct cultural identities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ptolemies: an Unloved and Unknown Dynasty. Contributions to a Different Perspective and Approach
    THE PTOLEMIES: AN UNLOVED AND UNKNOWN DYNASTY. CONTRIBUTIONS TO A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND APPROACH JOSÉ DAS CANDEIAS SALES Universidade Aberta. Centro de História (University of Lisbon). Abstract: The fifteen Ptolemies that sat on the throne of Egypt between 305 B.C. (the date of assumption of basileia by Ptolemy I) and 30 B.C. (death of Cleopatra VII) are in most cases little known and, even in its most recognised bibliography, their work has been somewhat overlooked, unappreciated. Although boisterous and sometimes unloved, with the tumultuous and dissolute lives, their unbridled and unrepressed ambitions, the intrigues, the betrayals, the fratricides and the crimes that the members of this dynasty encouraged and practiced, the Ptolemies changed the Egyptian life in some aspects and were responsible for the last Pharaonic monuments which were left us, some of them still considered true masterpieces of Egyptian greatness. The Ptolemaic Period was indeed a paradoxical moment in the History of ancient Egypt, as it was with a genetically foreign dynasty (traditions, language, religion and culture) that the country, with its capital in Alexandria, met a considerable economic prosperity, a significant political and military power and an intense intellectual activity, and finally became part of the world and Mediterranean culture. The fifteen Ptolemies that succeeded to the throne of Egypt between 305 B.C. (date of assumption of basileia by Ptolemy I) and 30 B.C. (death of Cleopatra VII), after Alexander’s death and the division of his empire, are, in most cases, very poorly understood by the public and even in the literature on the topic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Resurrection of Alexander Push Kin John Oliver Killens
    New Directions Volume 5 | Issue 2 Article 9 1-1-1978 The Resurrection Of Alexander Push kin John Oliver Killens Follow this and additional works at: http://dh.howard.edu/newdirections Recommended Citation Killens, John Oliver (1978) "The Resurrection Of Alexander Push kin," New Directions: Vol. 5: Iss. 2, Article 9. Available at: http://dh.howard.edu/newdirections/vol5/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Howard @ Howard University. It has been accepted for inclusion in New Directions by an authorized administrator of Digital Howard @ Howard University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TH[ ARTS Essay every one of the courts of Europe, then 28 The Resurrection of of the 19th century? Here is how it came to pass. Peter felt that he had to have at least Alexander Pushkin one for his imperial court. Therefore, In the early part of the 18th century, in By [ohn Oliver Killens he sent the word out to all of his that sprawling subcontinent that took Ambassadors in Europe: To the majority of literate Americans, up one-sixth of the earth's surface, the giants of Russian literature are extending from the edge of Europe "Find me a Negro!" Tolstoy, Gogol, Dostoevsky and thousands of miles eastward across Meanwhile, Turkey and Ethiopia had Turgenev. Nevertheless, 97 years ago, grassy steppes (plains), mountain ranges been at war, and in one of the skirmishes at a Pushkin Memorial in Moscow, and vast frozen stretches of forest, lakes a young African prince had been cap- Dostoevsky said: "No Russian writer and unexplored terrain, was a land tured and brought back to Turkey and was so intimately at one with the known as the Holy Russian Empire, fore- placed in a harem.
    [Show full text]