DOCSLIB.ORG

The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. Chapter four centers on a particular challenge the Persians faced in western Anatolia. On the one hand, the Persian conquest of Ionia in the middle of the sixth century BC triggered a gradual increase in the willingness of mainland Greeks to intervene in the affairs of Asia Minor, while on the other, Xerxes’ failure to subjugate European Greece resulted in a dramatic shift from a policy of westward expansion to a policy of entrenchment. The focus of chapter five is the limited interest of Artaxerxes I (r. 465-423 BC) in respect to the western satrapies. The asl t chapter deals with the machinations of the satraps Tissaphernes, Pharnabazus and Cyrus the Younger. I show that the alliance between Persia and Sparta was the outcome of satrapal action rather than royal initiative or intent. Accordingly, the satraps sought to exploit the power struggle between Athens and Sparta for their own favor while King Darius played a relatively secondary role in this conflict. Degree Type Dissertation Degree Name Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Graduate Group Classical Studies First Advisor Jeremy J. McInerney Keywords Achemenid Studies, Ancient Greece, Classical Greece, Greco-Persian Relations, The eP rsian Empire Subject Categories Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity This dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 THE SATRAPS OF WESTERN ANATOLIA AND THE GREEKS Eyal Meyer A DISSERTATION in Ancient History Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2017 Supervisor of Dissertation _______________________ Jeremy McInerney Davison Kennedy Professor, Department of Classical Studies Graduate Group Chairperson _______________________ Jeremy McInerney, Davison Kennedy Professor, Department of Classical Studies Dissertation Committee Julia Wilker, Assistant Professor, Department of Classical Studies Lauren Ristvet, Robert Dyson Professor, Department of Anthropology Matt Waters, Professor of Ancient History, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire . THE SATRAPS OF WESTERN ANATOLIA AND THE GREEKS COPYRIGHT © 2017 Eyal Meyer iii To my parents iv ABSTRACT THE SATRAPS OF WESTERN ANATOLIA AND THE GREEKS Eyal Meyer Jeremy McInerney 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 century 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. Chapter four centers on a particular challenge the Persians faced in western Anatolia. On the one hand, the Persian conquest of Ionia in the middle of the sixth century BC triggered a gradual increase in the willingness of mainland Greeks to intervene in the affairs of Asia Minor, while on the other, Xerxes’ failure to subjugate European Greece resulted in a dramatic shift from a policy of westward expansion to a policy of entrenchment. The focus of chapter five is the limited interest of Artaxerxes I (r. 465-423 BC) in respect to the western satrapies. The last chapter deals with the machinations of the satraps Tissaphernes, Pharnabazus and Cyrus the Younger. I show that the alliance between Persia and Sparta was the outcome of satrapal action rather than royal initiative or intent. Accordingly, the satraps sought to exploit the power struggle between Athens and Sparta for their own favor while King Darius played a relatively secondary role in this conflict. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1. THE REFORMS OF DARIUS I ..................................................................................... 8 1.1 The Main Sources...................................................................................................... 8 1.2 The Reformation of the Tributary System .............................................................. 10 1.3 Centralization of Power ........................................................................................... 16 1.4 The Dangers to the Stability of the Empire I: Separatist Factions .......................... 17 1.5 The Dangers to the Stability of the Empire II: Powerful Satraps............................ 20 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. ACHAEMENID ROYAL SUPERVISION .................................................................. 34 2.1 Royal Personnel in the Satrapies ............................................................................. 34 2.2 Yearly Royal Review .............................................................................................. 44 2.3 The Achaemenid Surveillance Service ................................................................... 47 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 55 3. SATRAPAL DUTIES AND RESOURCES ................................................................. 56 3.1 Satrapal Duties ........................................................................................................ 56 3.2 Satrapal Financial Resources .................................................................................. 63 3.3 The Achaemenid Conscription System ................................................................... 71 3.4 Satrapal Military Capacity ...................................................................................... 78 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 89 4. IONIA BETWEEN EAST AND WEST....................................................................... 90 4.1 Ionians and Greeks .................................................................................................. 90 4.2 Ionian Appeals for Help .......................................................................................... 93 4.3 The Greek Counter-Offensive in the 470s .............................................................. 99 4.4 Pausanias, Xerxes and Artabazus .........................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Rome Redeems Athens? Livy, the Peloponnesian War, and the Conquest of Greece David S

    Rome Redeems Athens? Livy, the Peloponnesian War, and the Conquest of Greece David S

    Rome Redeems Athens? Livy, the Peloponnesian War, and the Conquest of Greece David S. Levene To cite this version: David S. Levene. Rome Redeems Athens? Livy, the Peloponnesian War, and the Conquest of Greece. KTÈMA Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome antiques, Université de Strasbourg, 2017, 42, pp.73-84. halshs-01669255 HAL Id: halshs-01669255 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01669255 Submitted on 21 Dec 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Les interprétations de la défaite de 404 Edith Foster Interpretations of Athen’s defeat in the Peloponnesian war ............................................................. 7 Edmond LÉVY Thucydide, le premier interprète d’une défaite anormale ................................................................. 9 Tim Rood Thucydides, Sicily, and the Defeat of Athens ...................................................................................... 19 Cinzia Bearzot La συμφορά de la cité La défaite d’Athènes (405-404 av. J.-C.) chez les orateurs attiques .................................................
  • T C K a P R (E F C Bc): C P R

    T C K a P R (E F C Bc): C P R

    ELECTRUM * Vol. 23 (2016): 25–49 doi: 10.4467/20800909EL.16.002.5821 www.ejournals.eu/electrum T C K A P R (E F C BC): C P R S1 Christian Körner Universität Bern For Andreas Mehl, with deep gratitude Abstract: At the end of the eighth century, Cyprus came under Assyrian control. For the follow- ing four centuries, the Cypriot monarchs were confronted with the power of the Near Eastern empires. This essay focuses on the relations between the Cypriot kings and the Near Eastern Great Kings from the eighth to the fourth century BC. To understand these relations, two theoretical concepts are applied: the centre-periphery model and the concept of suzerainty. From the central perspective of the Assyrian and Persian empires, Cyprus was situated on the western periphery. Therefore, the local governing traditions were respected by the Assyrian and Persian masters, as long as the petty kings fulfi lled their duties by paying tributes and providing military support when requested to do so. The personal relationship between the Cypriot kings and their masters can best be described as one of suzerainty, where the rulers submitted to a superior ruler, but still retained some autonomy. This relationship was far from being stable, which could lead to manifold mis- understandings between centre and periphery. In this essay, the ways in which suzerainty worked are discussed using several examples of the relations between Cypriot kings and their masters. Key words: Assyria, Persia, Cyprus, Cypriot kings. At the end of the fourth century BC, all the Cypriot kingdoms vanished during the wars of Alexander’s successors Ptolemy and Antigonus, who struggled for control of the is- land.
  • CILICIA: the FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCHES in ANATOLIA1 Mark Wilson

    CILICIA: the FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCHES in ANATOLIA1 Mark Wilson

    CILICIA: THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCHES IN ANATOLIA1 Mark Wilson Summary This article explores the origin of the Christian church in Anatolia. While individual believers undoubtedly entered Anatolia during the 30s after the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:9–10), the book of Acts suggests that it was not until the following decade that the first church was organized. For it was at Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria, that the first Christians appeared (Acts 11:20–26). Yet two obscure references in Acts point to the organization of churches in Cilicia at an earlier date. Among the addressees of the letter drafted by the Jerusalem council were the churches in Cilicia (Acts 15:23). Later Paul visited these same churches at the beginning of his second ministry journey (Acts 15:41). Paul’s relationship to these churches points to this apostle as their founder. Since his home was the Cilician city of Tarsus, to which he returned after his conversion (Gal. 1:21; Acts 9:30), Paul was apparently active in church planting during his so-called ‘silent years’. The core of these churches undoubtedly consisted of Diaspora Jews who, like Paul’s family, lived in the region. Jews from Cilicia were members of a Synagogue of the Freedmen in Jerusalem, to which Paul was associated during his time in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9). Antiochus IV (175–164 BC) hellenized and urbanized Cilicia during his reign; the Romans around 39 BC added Cilicia Pedias to the province of Syria. Four cities along with Tarsus, located along or near the Pilgrim Road that transects Anatolia, constitute the most likely sites for the Cilician churches.
  • VU Research Portal

    VU Research Portal

    VU Research Portal The impact of empire on market prices in Babylon Pirngruber, R. 2012 document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in VU Research Portal citation for published version (APA) Pirngruber, R. (2012). The impact of empire on market prices in Babylon: in the Late Achaemenid and Seleucid periods, ca. 400 - 140 B.C. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. E-mail address: [email protected] Download date: 25. Sep. 2021 THE IMPACT OF EMPIRE ON MARKET PRICES IN BABYLON in the Late Achaemenid and Seleucid periods, ca. 400 – 140 B.C. R. Pirngruber VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT THE IMPACT OF EMPIRE ON MARKET PRICES IN BABYLON in the Late Achaemenid and Seleucid periods, ca. 400 – 140 B.C. ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, op gezag van de rector magnificus prof.dr.
  • Female Property Ownership and Status in Classical and Hellenistic Sparta

    Female Property Ownership and Status in Classical and Hellenistic Sparta

    Female Property Ownership and Status in Classical and Hellenistic Sparta Stephen Hodkinson University of Manchester 1. Introduction The image of the liberated Spartiate woman, exempt from (at least some of) the social and behavioral controls which circumscribed the lives of her counterparts in other Greek poleis, has excited or horrified the imagination of commentators both ancient and modern.1 This image of liberation has sometimes carried with it the idea that women in Sparta exercised an unaccustomed influence over both domestic and political affairs.2 The source of that influence is ascribed by certain ancient writers, such as Euripides (Andromache 147-53, 211) and Aristotle (Politics 1269b12-1270a34), to female control over significant amounts of property. The male-centered perspectives of ancient writers, along with the well-known phenomenon of the “Spartan mirage” (the compound of distorted reality and sheer imaginative fiction regarding the character of Spartan society which is reflected in our overwhelmingly non-Spartan sources) mean that we must treat ancient images of women with caution. Nevertheless, ancient perceptions of their position as significant holders of property have been affirmed in recent modern studies.3 The issue at the heart of my paper is to what extent female property-holding really did translate into enhanced status and influence. In Sections 2-4 of this paper I shall approach this question from three main angles. What was the status of female possession of property, and what power did women have directly to manage and make use of their property? What impact did actual or potential ownership of property by Spartiate women have upon their status and influence? And what role did female property-ownership and status, as a collective phenomenon, play within the crisis of Spartiate society? First, however, in view of the inter-disciplinary audience of this volume, it is necessary to a give a brief outline of the historical context of my discussion.
  • Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Hellenic League

    Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Hellenic League

    DEMETRIUSPOLIORCETES AND THE HELLENIC LEAGUE (PLATE 33) 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND D JURING the six years, 307/6-302/1 B.C., issues were raised and settled which shaped the course of western history for a long time to come. The epoch was alike critical for Athens, Hellas, and the Macedonians. The Macedonians faced squarely during this period the decision whether their world was to be one world or an aggregate of separate kingdoms with conflicting interests, and ill-defined boundaries, preserved by a precarious balance of power and incapable of common action against uprisings of Greek and oriental subjects and the plundering appetites of surrounding barbarians. The champion of unity was King Antigonus the One- Eyed, and his chief lieutenant his brilliant but unstatesmanlike son, King Demetrius the Taker of Cities, a master of siege operations and of naval construction and tactics, more skilled in organizing the land-instruments of warfare than in using them on the battle field. The final campaign between the champions of Macedonian unity and disunity opened in 307 with the liberation of Athens by Demetrius and ended in 301 B.C. with the Battle of the Kings, when Antigonus died in a hail of javelins and Demetrius' cavalry failed to penetrate a corps of 500 Indian elephants in a vain effort to rescue hinm. Of his four adversaries King Lysimachus and King Kassander left no successors; the other two, Kings Ptolemy of Egypt and Seleucus of Syria, were more fortunate, and they and Demetrius' able son, Antigonus Gonatas, planted the three dynasties with whom the Romans dealt and whom they successively destroyed in wars spread over 44 years.
  • Alexander's Empire

    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.
  • Archaeology and History of Lydia from the Early Lydian Period to Late Antiquity (8Th Century B.C.-6Th Century A.D.)

    Archaeology and History of Lydia from the Early Lydian Period to Late Antiquity (8Th Century B.C.-6Th Century A.D.)

    Dokuz Eylül University – DEU The Research Center for the Archaeology of Western Anatolia – EKVAM Colloquia Anatolica et Aegaea Congressus internationales Smyrnenses IX Archaeology and history of Lydia from the early Lydian period to late antiquity (8th century B.C.-6th century A.D.). An international symposium May 17-18, 2017 / Izmir, Turkey ABSTRACTS Edited by Ergün Laflı Gülseren Kan Şahin Last Update: 21/04/2017. Izmir, May 2017 Websites: https://independent.academia.edu/TheLydiaSymposium https://www.researchgate.net/profile/The_Lydia_Symposium 1 This symposium has been dedicated to Roberto Gusmani (1935-2009) and Peter Herrmann (1927-2002) due to their pioneering works on the archaeology and history of ancient Lydia. Fig. 1: Map of Lydia and neighbouring areas in western Asia Minor (S. Patacı, 2017). 2 Table of contents Ergün Laflı, An introduction to Lydian studies: Editorial remarks to the abstract booklet of the Lydia Symposium....................................................................................................................................................8-9. Nihal Akıllı, Protohistorical excavations at Hastane Höyük in Akhisar………………………………10. Sedat Akkurnaz, New examples of Archaic architectural terracottas from Lydia………………………..11. Gülseren Alkış Yazıcı, Some remarks on the ancient religions of Lydia……………………………….12. Elif Alten, Revolt of Achaeus against Antiochus III the Great and the siege of Sardis, based on classical textual, epigraphic and numismatic evidence………………………………………………………………....13. Gaetano Arena, Heleis: A chief doctor in Roman Lydia…….……………………………………....14. Ilias N. Arnaoutoglou, Κοινὸν, συμβίωσις: Associations in Hellenistic and Roman Lydia……….……..15. Eirini Artemi, The role of Ephesus in the late antiquity from the period of Diocletian to A.D. 449, the “Robber Synod”.……………………………………………………………………….………...16. Natalia S. Astashova, Anatolian pottery from Panticapaeum…………………………………….17-18. Ayşegül Aykurt, Minoan presence in western Anatolia……………………………………………...19.
  • Aus: Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 83 (1990) 194–214 © Dr

    Aus: Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 83 (1990) 194–214 © Dr

    IAN WORTHINGTON ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE DATE OF THE MYTILENE DECREE aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 83 (1990) 194–214 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 194 ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE DATE OF THE MYTILENE DECREE The Mytilene decree1 is almost as controversial a document as the circumstances in which it was passed. Its contents, centring on the means by which returning exiles to Mytilene on the island of Lesbos could be reconciled with those resident there, point to a dating, presumably, of 324 BC, the year in which Alexander III of Macedon issued the famous Exiles Decree, applicable to the Greek cities.2 The text of the Exiles Decree is given at Diodorus 18.8.4, although it is quite likely that he did not quote it in its entirety since in this passage he states that all exiles except for those under a curse are to be restored to their native cities; elsewhere (17.109.1), he says those charged with sacrilege and murder are also excluded (cf. Curtius 10.2.4 and Justin 13.5.2), whilst Pseudo-Plutarch (Mor. 221a) indicates that the Thebans were also excluded.3 Although the Exiles Decree is inextricably linked to any assessment of the Mytilene decree, it is the latter which is the subject of this paper. 1 IG xii 2, 6, OGIS 2 = Tod, GHI ii no.201, SEG xiii 434. Especially significant is the new redaction (based on autopsy) and photograph (the first made available) of A.J. Heisserer, Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence (Norman: 1980) – hereafter Heisserer, Alexander – pp.
  • Europe: 400 to 301 B.C. 9/13/11 3:16 PM

    Europe: 400 to 301 B.C. 9/13/11 3:16 PM

    Europe: 400 to 301 B.C. 9/13/11 3:16 PM Connexions You are here: Home » Content » Europe: 400 to 301 B.C. Europe: 400 to 301 B.C. Module by: Jack E. Maxfield. Europe Back to Europe: 500 to 401 B.C. (http://cnx.org/content/m17852/latest/) SOUTHERN EUROPE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN ISLANDS In the last third of this century, all these islands were conquered by the men of Alexander the Great, but his control was short-lived. By 323 B.C. Rhodes was independent again and Cyprus belonged to Egypt until Demetrius Poliocertes, aspirant to the throne of Macedon, took Cyprus again. Then in 307 he besieged Rhodes, using 30,000 men to build siege towers and engines, but all of this failed. (Ref. 38 (http://cnx.org/content/m17805/latest/#threeeight) , 222 (http://cnx.org/content/m17805/latest/#twotwotwo) ) GREECE Throughout the peninsula there was endless conflict between the slaves and the ruined proletarian masses who demanded that the state support them. Up until about 378 B.C. the police force of Athens consisted of about 300 state-owned Scythian slaves. At the beginning of the century Sparta, having won the Peloponnesian War with the help of subsidies from Persia, dominated southern Greece; then, by forming an "Arcadian League", Thebes took over control from about 370 to 360 B.C.; then Athens, with growing special- ization of professional soldiers and generals, professional orators and financial experts be- came supreme for awhile. But in the last part of the century the unity which the Greeks could not find among themselves was forced on them by Philip of Macedon.
  • A. the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC)

    A. the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC)

    www.HistoryAtOurHouse.Com Junior High Class Notes III. The Decline and Fall of Greece (431-146 BC) A. The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) 1. The main reasons Sparta and Athens went to war were that they had opposite forms of government and that they were rivals for the leadership of Greece. 2. Even though they had agreed to the “Thirty Years Peace,” the war began in 431 BC when Athens agreed to help its ally Corcyra defend itself against Corinth, an ally of Sparta. Corinth claimed this broke the terms of the peace, and Sparta's allies clamored for war. 3. This war was made especially famous by the writing of one of the first great historians, named Thucydides. His History of the Peloponnesian War became a celebrated example of how to write history and had been studied by historians ever since. 4. In our time, however, the details of the war discussed by Thucydides cannot concern us if we are not professional historians. What matters is its impact on Greece. 5. The first key impact of the war was the defeat of Athens by Sparta, and its effect on Athenian democracy. As Athens started to lose, the aristocrats of Athens temporarily took charge. Worse, at the end, the Spartans chose thirty of them to be the “Thirty Tyrants” to force the city to follow Sparta’s lead. 6. When the democrats of Athens took over again, they sought to punish anyone connected to the tyrants. The philosopher Socrates was among those critical of democracy, and he was persecuted.
  • Central Balkans Cradle of Aegean Culture

    Central Balkans Cradle of Aegean Culture

    ANTONIJE SHKOKLJEV SLAVE NIKOLOVSKI - KATIN PREHISTORY CENTRAL BALKANS CRADLE OF AEGEAN CULTURE Prehistory - Central Balkans Cradle of Aegean culture By Antonije Shkokljev Slave Nikolovski – Katin Translated from Macedonian to English and edited By Risto Stefov Prehistory - Central Balkans Cradle of Aegean culture Published by: Risto Stefov Publications [email protected] Toronto, Canada All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without written consent from the author, except for the inclusion of brief and documented quotations in a review. Copyright 2013 by Antonije Shkokljev, Slave Nikolovski – Katin & Risto Stefov e-book edition 2 Index Index........................................................................................................3 COMMON HISTORY AND FUTURE ..................................................5 I - GEOGRAPHICAL CONFIGURATION OF THE BALKANS.........8 II - ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES .........................................10 III - EPISTEMOLOGY OF THE PANNONIAN ONOMASTICS.......11 IV - DEVELOPMENT OF PALEOGRAPHY IN THE BALKANS....33 V – THRACE ........................................................................................37 VI – PREHISTORIC MACEDONIA....................................................41 VII - THESSALY - PREHISTORIC AEOLIA.....................................62 VIII – EPIRUS – PELASGIAN TESPROTIA......................................69