DOCSLIB.ORG

From Cappadocia to Triparadeisus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Cappadocia to Triparadeisus CHAPTER 4 From Cappadocia to Triparadeisus The invasion of Cappadocia took place in the summer of 322. Eumenes, with Perdiccas and the royal army present, then proceeded to organize his satrapy (Plut. Eum. 3. 14). The two victories over Ariarathes (Arr. Succ. 1a. 11) and the reorganization of Cappadocia would have taken time. The difficulty of the pac- ification is emphasized by the need to send Neoptolemus to western Armenia partially in pursuit of remnants of Ariarathes’ army. Moreover, Armenia con- trolled the main lines of communication, including the Royal Road, the great Persian highway connecting Persepolis and Susa in the east to Sardis in Lydia (Cook 1983: 26, 108). Neoptolemus may have been assigned the area of west- ern Armenia as a province in Babylon, an emended Dexippus (Arr. Succ. 1b. 6) would make Neoptolemus satrap of Armenia, but no other source supports the assignment, and it is more likely the commander’s authority was that given him by Perdiccas to deal with the situation. Diodorus (18. 29. 2) in 320 calls Neoptolemus hegemon, not satrap, and Pierre Briant (1973A: 152–3 n. 8) is likely correct that Neoptolemus’ official title in Armenia was that of strategos, gen- eral. Moreover, there is little doubt that the actual satrap of Armenia at this time was Orontes (see Anson 1990: 125–6). Alexander had initially assigned the area to Mithrenes in 331 (Curt. 5. 1. 44; Arr. Anab. 3. 16. 5; Diod. 17. 64. 6), but it is possible that Mithrenes never took possession of the area, since after the notice of his appointment he disappears from the record. He may have died in his attempt to secure his position (Heckel 2006: 168). Indeed, it appears that at some point after Alexander’s victory at Gaugamela, Orontes made his formal submission to Alexander, who later reassigned him to Armenia (Bosworth 1980: 315; Anson 1990: 125–6; Heckel 2006: 185). Western Armenia, however, may have remained outside of both Orontes’ and Macedonian control and Neoptolemus may have been made general of this area (Anson 1990: 127). It would likely have been fall before Perdiccas, accompanied by Eumenes, left Cappadocia for Cilicia (Plut. Eum. 3. 14–4. 1; Diod. 18. 22. 1).1 The Cardian was now, in addition to being satrap of Cappadocia and Paphlagonia, one of Perdiccas’ chief advisers (Plut. Eum. 3. 12). While in Cilicia, Perdiccas secured the allegiance of Alexander’s former infantry guard, the 3000 hypaspists, who became known as the argyraspids after covering their shields with silver while 1 For an explanation of the chronology, see the Appendix at the end of this chapter. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004�97�73_006 From Cappadocia To Triparadeisus 89 campaigning in India under Alexander (Curt. 9. 3. 21; Diod. 17. 95. 4).2 These troops had been separated by Alexander from the main force at Opis and sent west with Craterus in 324.3 When Craterus departed Cilicia to join Antipater in Macedonia (Diod. 18. 16. 4), he had left these troops behind to maintain order and to guard the treasury at Cyinda.4 Eumenes did not long remain with Perdiccas; he was soon ordered by the regent to return to Cappadocia (Plut. Eum. 4. 1). Eumenes’ return to his satrapy was due primarily to troubles arising in Armenia. As seen, Neoptolemus had been sent to western Armenia with a siz- able force by Perdiccas, including many Macedonians, but was having difficul- ties achieving his objectives (Plut. Eum. 4; cf. Diod. 18. 29. 4). While the sources do not make clear the exact reason for the campaign, the most likely explana- tion is that it was to pursue the remnants of Ariarathes’ defeated forces which had fled eastward to Armenia (Diod. 31. 19. 5; cf. Diod. 18. 16. 2–3; Plut. Eum. 3. 12–13; Just. 13. 6. 1–3; Arr. Succ. 1a. 12). Even though Diodorus emphasizes the meager numbers of the survivors, Ariarathes’ descendants were able to main- tain their independence in Armenia well into the next century (Diod. 31. 19. 5). Additionally, it is possible that residual Persian forces loyal to the memory of Darius were resident in the same location. Prior to becoming King of Persia, Darius had been satrap of Armenia (Just. 10. 3. 4), which, given the noted hered- itary control of Greater Armenia by Orontes’ family, the Hydarnids, doubtless 2 For the identification of the hypaspists and the argyraspids, see Spendel 1915: 45; Tarn 1948: 151–2; Anson 1981: 117–20; 1988B: 131–3; Yardley, Wheatley, and Heckel 2011: 177). 3 While it is not definitely stated that the hypaspists were included in the 10000, Antigenes, the commander of Alexander’s hypaspists, left Opis with Craterus (Just. 12. 12. 8; cf. Arr. Anab. 7. 12. 4) and later in Egypt is found in command of the argyraspids. Moreover, since Alexander was discharging older veterans (Arr. Anab. 7. 12. 1) and many of the hypaspists had been with him since the initial invasion, it appears certain that the hypaspists accompanied Antigenes west (On the career of the argyraspids prior to their association with Perdiccas, see Heckel 1982: 60–2; 2006: 30 [#1a]). 4 Heckel (1982: 60–2) argues convincingly that the hypaspists remained in Cilicia and later joined Perdiccas. Craterus, while leaving Opis with 10000 veterans, left Cilicia with only 6000 (Diod. 18. 16. 4). Heckel’s claim, however, that these troops joined the regent just prior to his invasion of Egypt in 320 (1982: 62; 2006: 30) is doubtful. It is more likely that they would have joined Perdiccas on his first entry into Cilicia. They were the royal guards and the kings were with Perdiccas. What is interesting is that Craterus chose not to bring the argyraspids with him to Macedonia. Surely the most experienced and best trained unit in Asia would have been useful in aiding Antipater against the rebellious Greeks. Perhaps, they were already exhibiting the independence that was later to characterize them, and Craterus decided to leave this particular problem behind. It is also very possible that, despite claims to the con- trary, these troops did not wish to leave Asia..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Orontids of Armenia by Cyril Toumanoff
    The Orontids of Armenia by Cyril Toumanoff This study appears as part III of Toumanoff's Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963), pp. 277-354. An earlier version appeared in the journal Le Muséon 72(1959), pp. 1-36 and 73(1960), pp. 73-106. The Orontids of Armenia Bibliography, pp. 501-523 Maps appear as an attachment to the present document. This material is presented solely for non-commercial educational/research purposes. I 1. The genesis of the Armenian nation has been examined in an earlier Study.1 Its nucleus, succeeding to the role of the Yannic nucleus ot Urartu, was the 'proto-Armenian,T Hayasa-Phrygian, people-state,2 which at first oc- cupied only a small section of the former Urartian, or subsequent Armenian, territory. And it was, precisely, of the expansion of this people-state over that territory, and of its blending with the remaining Urartians and other proto- Caucasians that the Armenian nation was born. That expansion proceeded from the earliest proto-Armenian settlement in the basin of the Arsanias (East- ern Euphrates) up the Euphrates, to the valley of the upper Tigris, and espe- cially to that of the Araxes, which is the central Armenian plain.3 This expand- ing proto-Armenian nucleus formed a separate satrapy in the Iranian empire, while the rest of the inhabitants of the Armenian Plateau, both the remaining Urartians and other proto-Caucasians, were included in several other satrapies.* Between Herodotus's day and the year 401, when the Ten Thousand passed through it, the land of the proto-Armenians had become so enlarged as to form, in addition to the Satrapy of Armenia, also the trans-Euphratensian vice-Sa- trapy of West Armenia.5 This division subsisted in the Hellenistic phase, as that between Greater Armenia and Lesser Armenia.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander the Great and Hephaestion
    2019-3337-AJHIS-HIS 1 Alexander the Great and Hephaestion: 2 Censorship and Bisexual Erasure in Post-Macedonian 3 Society 4 5 6 Same-sex relations were common in ancient Greece and having both male and female 7 physical relationships was a cultural norm. However, Alexander the Great is almost 8 always portrayed in modern depictions as heterosexual, and the disappearance of his 9 life-partner Hephaestion is all but complete in ancient literature. Five full primary 10 source biographies of Alexander have survived from antiquity, making it possible to 11 observe the way scholars, popular writers and filmmakers from the Victorian era 12 forward have interpreted this evidence. This research borrows an approach from 13 gender studies, using the phenomenon of bisexual erasure to contribute a new 14 understanding for missing information regarding the relationship between Alexander 15 and his life-partner Hephaestion. In Greek and Macedonian society, pederasty was the 16 norm, and boys and men did not have relations with others of the same age because 17 there was almost always a financial and power difference. Hephaestion was taller and 18 more handsome than Alexander, so it might have appeared that he held the power in 19 their relationship. The hypothesis put forward here suggests that writers have erased 20 the sexual partnership between Alexander and Hephaestion because their relationship 21 did not fit the norm of acceptable pederasty as practiced in Greek and Macedonian 22 culture or was no longer socially acceptable in the Roman contexts of the ancient 23 historians. Ancient biographers may have conducted censorship to conceal any 24 implication of femininity or submissiveness in this relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • Honigmanonigman - 9780520275584.Indd9780520275584.Indd 1 228/06/148/06/14 2:382:38 PMPM 2 General Introduction
    General Introduction SUMMARY Th e fi rst and second books of Maccabees narrate events that occurred in Judea from the 170s through the 150s and eventually led to the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty: the toppling of the last high priest of the Oniad dynasty, the transforma- tion of Jerusalem into a Greek polis, Antiochos IV’s storming of Jerusalem, his desecration of the temple and his so-called persecution of the Jews, the liberation of the city and rededication of the temple altar by Judas Maccabee, the foundation of the commemorative festival of Hanukkah, and the subsequent wars against Seleukid troops. 1 Maccabees covers the deeds of Mattathias, the ancestor of the Maccabean/Hasmonean family, and his three sons, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon, taking its story down to the establishment of the dynastic transmission of power within the Hasmonean family when John, Simon’s son, succeeded his father; whereas 2 Maccabees, which starts from Heliodoros’s visit to Jerusalem under the high priest Onias III, focuses on Judas and the temple rededication, further dis- playing a pointed interest in the role of martyrs alongside that of Judas. Because of this diff erence in chronological scope and emphasis, it is usually considered that 1 Maccabees is a dynastic chronicle written by a court historian, whereas 2 Macca- bees is the work of a pious author whose attitude toward the Hasmoneans has been diversely appreciated—from mild support, through indiff erence, to hostility. Moreover, the place of redaction of 2 Maccabees, either Jerusalem or Alexandria, is debated. Both because of its comparatively fl amboyant style and the author’s alleged primarily religious concerns, 2 Maccabees is held as an unreliable source of evidence about the causes of the Judean revolt.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman
    Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman In his speech On the Crown Demosthenes often lionizes himself by suggesting that his actions and policy required him to overcome insurmountable obstacles. Thus he contrasts Athens’ weakness around 346 B.C.E. with Macedonia’s strength, and Philip’s II unlimited power with the more constrained and cumbersome decision-making process at home, before asserting that in spite of these difficulties he succeeded in forging later a large Greek coalition to confront Philip in the battle of Chaeronea (Dem.18.234–37). [F]irst, he (Philip) ruled in his own person as full sovereign over subservient people, which is the most important factor of all in waging war . he was flush with money, and he did whatever he wished. He did not announce his intentions in official decrees, did not deliberate in public, was not hauled into the courts by sycophants, was not prosecuted for moving illegal proposals, was not accountable to anyone. In short, he was ruler, commander, in control of everything.1 For his depiction of Philip’s authority Demosthenes looks less to Macedonia than to Athens, because what makes the king powerful in his speech is his freedom from democratic checks. Nevertheless, his observations on the Macedonian royal power is more informative and helpful than Aristotle’s references to it in his Politics, though modern historians tend to privilege the philosopher for what he says or even does not say on the subject. Aristotle’s seldom mentions Macedonian kings, and when he does it is for limited, exemplary purposes, lumping them with other kings who came to power through benefaction and public service, or who were assassinated by men they had insulted.2 Moreover, according to Aristotle, the extreme of tyranny is distinguished from ideal kingship (pambasilea) by the fact that tyranny is a government that is not called to account.
    [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]
  • Cappadocia and Cappadocians in the Hellenistic, Roman and Early
    Dokuz Eylül University – DEU The Research Center for the Archaeology of Western Anatolia – EKVAM Colloquia Anatolica et Aegaea Congressus internationales Smyrnenses X Cappadocia and Cappadocians in the Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine periods An international video conference on the southeastern part of central Anatolia in classical antiquity May 14-15, 2020 / Izmir, Turkey Edited by Ergün Laflı Izmir 2020 Last update: 04/05/2020. 1 Cappadocia and Cappadocians in the Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine periods. Papers presented at the international video conference on the southeastern part of central Anatolia in classical antiquity, May 14-15, 2020 / Izmir, Turkey, Colloquia Anatolica et Aegaea – Acta congressus communis omnium gentium Smyrnae. Copyright © 2020 Ergün Laflı (editor) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission from the editor. ISBN: 978-605-031-211-9. Page setting: Ergün Laflı (Izmir). Text corrections and revisions: Hugo Thoen (Deinze / Ghent). Papers, presented at the international video conference, entitled “Cappadocia and Cappadocians in the Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine periods. An international video conference on the southeastern part of central Anatolia in classical antiquity” in May 14–15, 2020 in Izmir, Turkey. 36 papers with 61 pages and numerous colourful figures. All papers and key words are in English. 21 x 29,7 cm; paperback; 40 gr. quality paper. Frontispiece. A Roman stele with two portraits in the Museum of Kırşehir; accession nos. A.5.1.95a-b (photograph by E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Hellenistic Domestic Sculpture in Its Cultural and Spatial Contexts
    THE NATURE OF HELLENISTIC DOMESTIC SCULPTURE IN ITS CULTURAL AND SPATIAL CONTEXTS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Craig I. Hardiman, B.Comm., B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. Mark D. Fullerton, Advisor Dr. Timothy J. McNiven _______________________________ Advisor Dr. Stephen V. Tracy Graduate Program in the History of Art Copyright by Craig I. Hardiman 2005 ABSTRACT This dissertation marks the first synthetic and contextual analysis of domestic sculpture for the whole of the Hellenistic period (323 BCE – 31 BCE). Prior to this study, Hellenistic domestic sculpture had been examined from a broadly literary perspective or had been the focus of smaller regional or site-specific studies. Rather than taking any one approach, this dissertation examines both the literary testimonia and the material record in order to develop as full a picture as possible for the location, function and meaning(s) of these pieces. The study begins with a reconsideration of the literary evidence. The testimonia deal chiefly with the residences of the Hellenistic kings and their conspicuous displays of wealth in the most public rooms in the home, namely courtyards and dining rooms. Following this, the material evidence from the Greek mainland and Asia Minor is considered. The general evidence supports the literary testimonia’s location for these sculptures. In addition, several individual examples offer insights into the sophistication of domestic decorative programs among the Greeks, something usually associated with the Romans.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander's Seventh Phalanx Battalion Milns, R D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1966; 7, 2; Proquest Pg
    Alexander's Seventh Phalanx Battalion Milns, R D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1966; 7, 2; ProQuest pg. 159 Alexander's Seventh Phalanx Battalion R. D. Milns SOME TIME between the battle of Gaugamela and the battle of A the Hydaspes the number of battalions in the Macedonian phalanx was raised from six to seven.1 This much is clear; what is not certain is when the new formation came into being. Berve2 believes that the introduction took place at Susa in 331 B.C. He bases his belief on two facts: (a) the arrival of 6,000 Macedonian infantry and 500 Macedonian cavalry under Amyntas, son of Andromenes, when the King was either near or at Susa;3 (b) the appearance of Philotas (not the son of Parmenion) as a battalion leader shortly afterwards at the Persian Gates.4 Tarn, in his discussion of the phalanx,5 believes that the seventh battalion was not created until 328/7, when Alexander was at Bactra, the new battalion being that of Cleitus "the White".6 Berve is re­ jected on the grounds: (a) that Arrian (3.16.11) says that Amyntas' reinforcements were "inserted into the existing (six) battalions KC1:TCt. e8vr(; (b) that Philotas has in fact taken over the command of Perdiccas' battalion, Perdiccas having been "promoted to the Staff ... doubtless after the battle" (i.e. Gaugamela).7 The seventh battalion was formed, he believes, from reinforcements from Macedonia who reached Alexander at Nautaca.8 Now all of Tarn's arguments are open to objection; and I shall treat them in the order they are presented above.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction and the Kidnapping of Women
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-68943-4 - Herodotus and the Persian Wars John Claughton Excerpt More information Introduction and the 1 kidnapping of women IA H T Y C Aral S Sea COLCHIS Black Sea Caspian SOGDIA Sea THRACE IA RYG ARMENIA R PH LESSE CAPPADOCIA MARGIANA GREATER LYDIA PHRYGIA Athens Argos Sardis I O P AMP LIA N CARIA LYCIA HY Sparta IA CILICIA ASSYRIA HYRCANIA BACTRIA Cyprus MEDIA Ecbatana PARTHIA PHOENICIA Sidon BABYLONIA DRANGIANA Mediterranean Sea Tyre ABARNAHARA Susa ELAM Babylon ARIA Pasargadae Memphis Persepolis N PERSIA ARACHOSIA P e r CARMANIA EGYPT si an Gu GEDROSIA Red Sea lf 0 400 km 0 400 miles The Persian empire and neighbouring territories in the fi fth century BC. Although Herodotus’ work culminates in the great battles of 490 BC and 480–479 BC, his work is remarkable in its range. He begins with the world of myth and travels through many places and over generations in time to explore the relations between the Greeks and the Persians. Introduction and the kidnapping of women 1 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-68943-4 - Herodotus and the Persian Wars John Claughton Excerpt More information Introduction This is the presentation of the enquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus. The purpose of this work is to ensure that the actions of mankind are not rubbed out by time, and that great and wondrous deeds, some performed by the Greeks, some by non-Greeks, are not without due glory. In particular, the purpose is to explain why they waged war against each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Map 1. European Greece and Western Asia Minor
    Map 1. European Greece and Western Asia Minor Western Map 1.European Greeceand DARDANIA BLACK SEA Lissus THRACE Bosporus Epidamnus MACEDONIA Maronea SEA OF Aenus MARMARA Pella Amphipolis Abdera Lysimacheia Cius ORESTIS Thessalonica Apollonia Chersonnese Pydna Lampsacus Oricum Abydus P PERRHAEBIA LEMNOS in Tempe Ilium d Hellespont u s Phoenice M N E Phaloria Larissa Alexandria Troas P ts Atrax I . R CORCYRA U Cynoscephalae S THESSALY Pharsalus Demetrias Ambracia AEGEAN Pergamum DOLOPIA SEA LESBOS Lamia Oreus A A Magnesia-ad-Sipylum C E EU A TO Thermopylae Nicaea BO R L CIS E N IA O A PH Smyrna A LOC Delphi Chalcis N Naupactus RIS Thebes Eretria CHIOS I Te o s A Thespiae ADRIATIC Oropus SEA Leuctra Plataea Marathon Myonnesus Ephesus Aegium Eleusis Carystus Sicyon Athens SAMOS Magnesia Elis Corinth Megara ACHAEA CARIA Argos Miletus Cleitor Lade Stratonicaea Megalopolis Delos Bargylia Messene Sellasia Caunus Sparta Pylos 0 30 60 mi Rhodes 0 50 100 km Map 2. The HellenisticKingdoms Map 2. IA AN RD GAULS OF DA A E I AEON TYLIS Byzantium P E BLACK SEA P I A O N C I D A Chalcedon E Amphipolis R R H R. Sangarius C Pella T Sinope U (Se Tios A Abdera leucid) P S CASPIAN M O Lysimacheia Cius Heraclea l N SEA e PA n Ambracia Cyzicus PHLAGONIA n BIT A T a Delphi HYNI a h Demetrias S aly U C . H Trapezus i R S bo Pergamum G A Uz Athens Sardes L A T I A E ARMENIA IA Apamea IA Sparta LYD P H C RY G I A ADO (to Egypt) Miletus CAPP tes L.
    [Show full text]
  • Ptolemaic Foundations in Asia Minor and the Aegean As the Lagids’ Political Tool
    ELECTRUM * Vol. 20 (2013): 57–76 doi: 10.4467/20800909EL.13.004.1433 PTOLEMAIC FOUNDATIONS IN ASIA MINOR AND THE AEGEAN AS THE LAGIDS’ POLITICAL TOOL Tomasz Grabowski Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Kraków Abstract: The Ptolemaic colonisation in Asia Minor and the Aegean region was a signifi cant tool which served the politics of the dynasty that actively participated in the fi ght for hegemony over the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea basin. In order to specify the role which the settlements founded by the Lagids played in their politics, it is of considerable importance to establish as precise dating of the foundations as possible. It seems legitimate to acknowledge that Ptolemy II possessed a well-thought-out plan, which, apart from the purely strategic aspects of founding new settlements, was also heavily charged with the propaganda issues which were connected with the cult of Arsinoe II. Key words: Ptolemies, foundations, Asia Minor, Aegean. Settlement of new cities was a signifi cant tool used by the Hellenistic kings to achieve various goals: political and economic. The process of colonisation was begun by Alex- ander the Great, who settled several cities which were named Alexandrias after him. The process was successfully continued by the diadochs, and subsequently by the follow- ing rulers of the monarchies which emerged after the demise of Alexander’s state. The new settlements were established not only by the representatives of the most powerful dynasties: the Seleucids, the Ptolemies and the Antigonids, but also by the rulers of the smaller states. The kings of Pergamum of the Attalid dynasty were considerably active in this fi eld, but the rulers of Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia were also successful in this process.1 Very few regions of the time remained beyond the colonisation activity of the Hellenistic kings.
    [Show full text]
  • Living Rules, Aug
    SUCCESSORS—Living Rules, Aug. 2019 1 The Battles for Alexander’s Empire by Mark Simonitch, Richard Berg, and John B. Firer RULES OF PLAY Living Rules, August 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ......................................................... 2 14. Special Combat Units ......................................... 12 2. Game Components .............................................. 2 15. Sieges and Subjugations ..................................... 12 3. Sequence of Play ................................................. 3 16. Independent Armies ............................................ 13 4. How to Win ......................................................... 4 17. Legitimacy & Prestige ........................................ 14 5. Label the Usurper Phase ..................................... 4 18. Royal Family Members ...................................... 15 6. The Reinforcement Phase ................................... 4 19. The Isolation Phase ............................................. 15 7. The Tyche Cards ................................................. 5 20. How to Win ......................................................... 16 8. Generals & Armies ............................................. 6 21. The Turn Record Track ....................................... 16 9. Movement ........................................................... 7 22. Prepare for Play .................................................. 16 10. Interception ......................................................... 8 23. Optional Rules ...................................................
    [Show full text]