DOCSLIB.ORG

Cradle of Civilization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

AlexVsDarius.indd 1 11/17/19 12:36 PM Cradle of Civilization Contents Box Contents 1. The Turn 2 1 Game Board 2. Control 4 2 Rule Books 3. Combat 4 9 Counter Sheets 4. Supply 7 4 Double-sided Player Aids 5. Game Tracks 9 10 Dice 6. Initial Setup 10 36 Civilization Cards * 7. Special Rules 12 6 Epoch City Cards * 8. Events 15 6 Epoch Civilization Summary Cards * * Not used in Alexander vs Darius Objectives Each player begins the game with a position on their respective tracks. The Macedonian player must manage a war weariness track which represents the will of Alexander III’s Army to keep fighting. The Persian player must manage a legitimacy track which represents the faith of the Persian people and nobility to continue standing behind Darius III as King of Persia. If one of these tracks ever falls to 0 or below that player loses automatically. These tracks will fluctuate throughout the game but are much more likely to go down than up to represent the somewhat tenuous position of both sides. The Macedonian player must win by reducing Persian legitimacy to 0. The Persian player wins by reducing Macedonian morale to 0 and/or killing Alexander III the Great in battle. If the game ends with neither player achieving their objective then the game is a draw. 1. The Turn 1.3 Actions Each turn the Macedonians spend their treasure on one 1.1 Phases of the Game action, followed by the Persians, and so forth until both sides pass. A player who passes twice in a turn, may not The game is divided into 20 turns. These turns represent take any actions. each season over a 5 year period. Each player will take turns taking certain actions during these turns. The number of actions you can take will depend upon the amount of Actions Costing 1 Treasure treasure you have to spend. • Move a Macedonian Army Phases • Embark an Army on a Fleet of ships • Disembark an Army 1. Generate Treasure • Move a Fleet 2. Take Actions Until Both Players Pass • Initiate a Siege 3. Supply and Recruitment • Perform a Fleet Raid (Persian Player only) 4. Spartan Rebellion (Starting turn 3) 5. Maintain Armies and Navies Actions Costing 2 Treasures • Move a Persian Land Army • Cross the Hellespont 1.2 Generate Treasure Any city in an Area with a Garrison marker belonging to Action Costing Various Treasures: (See 2.1 Garrison Markers) their side gains +1 treasure. • Recruit New Units (See 4.3 Recruitment) Note: Army = Collection of units with a leader Fleet = Collection of ships d6 = A six-sided die 2 © 2020 Compass Games, LLC AlexVsDarius.indd 2 11/17/19 12:36 PM Alexander Versus Darius Terrain Icon Both the Macedonian Treasure Area Border marker and Macedonian War Weariness marker begin in box 10. Sea Area The Spartan shield indicates that a Not shown here, the Persian Spartan Revolt check is made. To its Treasure marker begins in box 15 right is the die result needed for the and the Persian Legitimacy marker revolt to occur. begins in box 25. Region Borders are indicated by a color. Shown here is red for Greece, blue for the Aegean Islands, and yellow for Anatolia. The board shows the Ancient Near East, from Greece to Persia, and from the Caucasus to Arabia. Names for regions and areas are drawn from a variety of historical civilizations. The map is divided into nine land Regions each having a uniquely colored border. Each Region is divided into a number of land Areas. There is an assortment of blue bordered Sea Areas that do not belong to any Region. © 2020 Compass Games, LLC 3 AlexVsDarius.indd 3 11/17/19 12:36 PM Cradle of Civilization 1.4 Movement 2. Control Each Area on the map has an indicated type of terrain: plains, rough, mountainous, desert, and bodies of water 2.1 Garrison Markers Each takes a certain number of movement points to go through with your Armies and Fleets. Whenever an Army enters an Area they may place a Garrison marker in a vacant space or flip an enemy marker for 1 MP. Garrison markers count for ownership of the Army Movement various Areas on the map. They do not fight in combat, nor can they be removed to satisfy a hit from combat. Leaders and cavalry have a movement value of 7. Other land units have a movement value of 4. Land units may not move without a leader. Armies move as fast as their If an Army moves into an Area with a city and an enemy slowest unit. As Armies move through Areas they may Garrison, and there is no Army in the region, the Garrison pick up and freely drop off units into Areas as the player marker does not flip and a siege may occur (See 3.6 sees fit. Units that are dropped off may not move further. Sieges). Armies move only once per turn. Force March: An Army may gain +1 movement point, but only if they roll higher on a d6 than the Army’s commander’s initiative. If successful, roll a d6 for each Infantry unit. Persian units take a hit on a 5-6 and Macedonian units take a hit on a 6. 3. Combat Fleet Movement Players can move all ships in one Sea Area up to two Sea Combat occurs between opposing land units, opposing Areas. Entering or leaving a port in a Sea Area does not fleets, and when a siege occurs. You can never examine an count against this. Anytime a Fleet attempts to move a opponent’s stack of units before combat. d6 roll is made to determine if the move is successful. At the conclusion of every combat and siege, roll 2d6 The Persian Fleet successfully moves on a roll of 1-5, the on the Event Table. Athenians move on a roll of 1-4, and the Macedonians on a roll of 1-3. If the roll fails the Fleet stays in place. Treasure is paid in either case. Fleets may attempt to move only once per turn. 3.1 Leaders Embarking/Disembarking Leaders are rated for Initiative, Combat, and Rank. Armies may be carried by ships (one unit per ship) around the map. An Army may be embarked or disembarked onto a Fleet even if the Army has moved. An Army may not be Leaders operate by rank. When determining which leaders embarked onto a Fleet that has moved. Embarking and may participate in a combat you must use the leaders in disembarking does not change the movement status of the Army with the highest ranks (the lowest rank numbers). the land unit. Leaders fire in combat the same as other land units. A hit is If disembarking in an Area with only an enemy Garrison scored if a d6 roll is equal to or under their Combat Rating. marker, flip it immediately to the landing Army’s side. The No matter how many leaders are present for a side in a Sea Area must be free of enemy Fleets. If a ship carrying combat, only a maximum of four can participate. units is destroyed then any unit on it is lost. If enemy units are present at the disembarkation Area, a land combat is Leaders may be moved independently and have their fought. If the disembarking Army loses, the entire Army own commands. Also, leaders can be absorbed into an is destroyed and the Fleet must flee to an adjacent Sea Army the same as any other combat units. Each Leader Area. If all adjacent Areas have enemy ships, the Fleet is commands up to 6 units. lost as well. Terrain Port: Any land Area that is adjacent to a Sea Area. Plains: 1 point for Armies, Fleets cannot enter unless docking at a port. Desert: 2 points for Armies and each unit rolls a d6. On a 6 they take 1 hit. Rough/Mountainous: 2 points for Armies, Fleets cannot enter unless docking at a port. Cross the Hellespont: Armies may cross from Thrace to Wilusha unless there are enemy ships in the Aegean sea. Armies may cross from Thrace to Chalybes unless there are enemy ships in the Black Sea. Sea Areas: Armies cannot enter unless embarked on ships. 4 © 2020 Compass Games, LLC AlexVsDarius.indd 4 11/17/19 12:36 PM Alexander Versus Darius Available Units Note: Players are limited to the number of counters provided. Combat losses are removed from the game. Macedonian x12 x14 x10 x5 x4 x4 x16 Light Heavy Light Greek Macedonian Leader Phalanx Infantry Cavalry Cavalry Hoplite Ships Athenian Cretan x16 x2 x1 Athenian Cretan Cretan Ships Ships Light Infantry Persian x18 x4 x8 x20 x10 x14 x24 Medium Light Heavy Light Persian Leader Immortal Infantry Infantry Cavalry Cavalry Ships x2 x8 x6 Spartan Hoplite Thracian Phalanx Mercenary Light Infantry A die roll >= to this number indicates the unit scored a hit. A black dot indicates the unit requires two hits to destroy. Flip the unit to its other side when it receives its first hit. The red stripe indicates the unit has taken one hit. If it receives another hit it is destroyed. The icon denotes the type of unit. © 2020 Compass Games, LLC 5 AlexVsDarius.indd 5 11/17/19 12:36 PM Cradle of Civilization Retreat Check 3.2 Units An Army attempting to retreat rolls a d6. If the result is above the Army commander’s initiative rating, the retreat Infantry is represented by a soldier icon.
Recommended publications
  • The Orontids of Armenia by Cyril Toumanoff

    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.
  • Artaxerxes II

    Artaxerxes II

    Artaxerxes II John Shannahan BAncHist (Hons) (Macquarie University) Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University. May, 2015. ii Contents List of Illustrations v Abstract ix Declaration xi Acknowledgements xiii Abbreviations and Conventions xv Introduction 1 CHAPTER 1 THE EARLY REIGN OF ARTAXERXES II The Birth of Artaxerxes to Cyrus’ Challenge 15 The Revolt of Cyrus 41 Observations on the Egyptians at Cunaxa 53 Royal Tactics at Cunaxa 61 The Repercussions of the Revolt 78 CHAPTER 2 399-390: COMBATING THE GREEKS Responses to Thibron, Dercylidas, and Agesilaus 87 The Role of Athens and the Persian Fleet 116 Evagoras the Opportunist and Carian Commanders 135 Artaxerxes’ First Invasion of Egypt: 392/1-390/89? 144 CHAPTER 3 389-380: THE KING’S PEACE AND CYPRUS The King’s Peace (387/6): Purpose and Influence 161 The Chronology of the 380s 172 CHAPTER 4 NUMISMATIC EXPRESSIONS OF SOLIDARITY Coinage in the Reign of Artaxerxes 197 The Baal/Figure in the Winged Disc Staters of Tiribazus 202 Catalogue 203 Date 212 Interpretation 214 Significance 223 Numismatic Iconography and Egyptian Independence 225 Four Comments on Achaemenid Motifs in 227 Philistian Coins iii The Figure in the Winged Disc in Samaria 232 The Pertinence of the Political Situation 241 CHAPTER 5 379-370: EGYPT Planning for the Second Invasion of Egypt 245 Pharnabazus’ Invasion of Egypt and Aftermath 259 CHAPTER 6 THE END OF THE REIGN Destabilisation in the West 267 The Nature of the Evidence 267 Summary of Current Analyses 268 Reconciliation 269 Court Intrigue and the End of Artaxerxes’ Reign 295 Conclusion: Artaxerxes the Diplomat 301 Bibliography 309 Dies 333 Issus 333 Mallus 335 Soli 337 Tarsus 338 Unknown 339 Figures 341 iv List of Illustrations MAP Map 1 Map of the Persian Empire xviii-xix Brosius, The Persians, 54-55 DIES Issus O1 Künker 174 (2010) 403 333 O2 Lanz 125 (2005) 426 333 O3 CNG 200 (2008) 63 333 O4 Künker 143 (2008) 233 333 R1 Babelon, Traité 2, pl.
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks

    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.
  • The Influence of Achaemenid Persia on Fourth-Century and Early Hellenistic Greek Tyranny

    The Influence of Achaemenid Persia on Fourth-Century and Early Hellenistic Greek Tyranny

    THE INFLUENCE OF ACHAEMENID PERSIA ON FOURTH-CENTURY AND EARLY HELLENISTIC GREEK TYRANNY Miles Lester-Pearson A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2015 Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/11826 This item is protected by original copyright The influence of Achaemenid Persia on fourth-century and early Hellenistic Greek tyranny Miles Lester-Pearson This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews Submitted February 2015 1. Candidate’s declarations: I, Miles Lester-Pearson, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 88,000 words in length, has been written by me, and that it is the record of work carried out by me, or principally by myself in collaboration with others as acknowledged, and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. I was admitted as a research student in September 2010 and as a candidate for the degree of PhD in September 2011; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2010 and 2015. Date: Signature of Candidate: 2. Supervisor’s declaration: I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of PhD in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree.
  • Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards

    Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards

    MARATHON 2,500 YEARS EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 124 DIRECTOR & GENERAL EDITOR: JOHN NORTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS: RICHARD SIMPSON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARATHON CONFERENCE 2010 EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2013 The cover image shows Persian warriors at Ishtar Gate, from before the fourth century BC. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Photo Mohammed Shamma (2003). Used under CC‐BY terms. All rights reserved. This PDF edition published in 2019 First published in print in 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN: 978-1-905670-81-9 (2019 PDF edition) DOI: 10.14296/1019.9781905670819 ISBN: 978-1-905670-52-9 (2013 paperback edition) ©2013 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London The right of contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory note 1 P. J. Rhodes The battle of Marathon and modern scholarship 3 Christopher Pelling Herodotus’ Marathon 23 Peter Krentz Marathon and the development of the exclusive hoplite phalanx 35 Andrej Petrovic The battle of Marathon in pre-Herodotean sources: on Marathon verse-inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; Seg Lvi 430) 45 V.
  • MAC II in General, All Greek Troops “Constitutionally

    MAC II in General, All Greek Troops “Constitutionally

    ALEXANDER’S FINAL ARMY An Honors Thesis for the Department of History By Jonathan A. Miller Thesis Advisor: Steven Hirsch Tufts University, 2011 AKNOWLEDGMENTS Alexander the Great is a man with whom many great leaders throughout history have been compared, a model of excellence whose achievements can never quite be matched. 2 My introduction to his legacy occurred in the third grade. Reading a biography of Julius Caesar for a class project, I happened across Plutarch’s famous description of Caesar’s reaction to reading a history of Alexander: “he was lost in thought for a long time, and then burst into tears. His friends were astonished, and asked the reason for his tears. ‘Do you not think,’ said he, ‘that it is a matter of sorrow that while Alexander, at my age, was already king of so many peoples, I have as yet achieved no brilliant success?’”1 This story captivated my imagination and stuck with me throughout my middle and high school years. Once at college, I decided to write a thesis on Alexander to better understand the one man capable of breeding thoughts of inadequacy in Caesar. This work is in many ways a tribute to both Caesar and Alexander. More pointedly, it is an exploration into the designs of a man at the feet of whom lay the whole world. This paper has meant a lot to me. I want to thank all those who made it possible. First and foremost, my undying gratitude goes to Professor Steven Hirsch, who has helped me navigate the difficult process of researching and writing this thesis.
  • Mercenaries, Poleis, and Empires in the Fourth Century Bce

    Mercenaries, Poleis, and Empires in the Fourth Century Bce

    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts ALL THE KING’S GREEKS: MERCENARIES, POLEIS, AND EMPIRES IN THE FOURTH CENTURY BCE A Dissertation in History and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies by Jeffrey Rop © 2013 Jeffrey Rop Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2013 ii The dissertation of Jeffrey Rop was reviewed and approved* by the following: Mark Munn Professor of Ancient Greek History and Greek Archaeology, Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Gary N. Knoppers Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Religious Studies, and Jewish Studies Garrett G. Fagan Professor of Ancient History and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Kenneth Hirth Professor of Anthropology Carol Reardon George Winfree Professor of American History David Atwill Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies Graduate Program Director for the Department of History *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT This dissertation examines Greek mercenary service in the Near East from 401- 330 BCE. Traditionally, the employment of Greek soldiers by the Persian Achaemenid Empire and the Kingdom of Egypt during this period has been understood to indicate the military weakness of these polities and the superiority of Greek hoplites over their Near Eastern counterparts. I demonstrate that the purported superiority of Greek heavy infantry has been exaggerated by Greco-Roman authors. Furthermore, close examination of Greek mercenary service reveals that the recruitment of Greek soldiers was not the purpose of Achaemenid foreign policy in Greece and the Aegean, but was instead an indication of the political subordination of prominent Greek citizens and poleis, conducted through the social institution of xenia, to Persian satraps and kings.
  • The Achaemenid Legacy in the Arsakid Period

    The Achaemenid Legacy in the Arsakid Period

    Studia Litteraria Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 2019, special issue, pp. 175–186 Volume in Honour of Professor Anna Krasnowolska doi:10.4467/20843933ST.19.032.10975 www.ejournals.eu/Studia-Litteraria HTTP://ORCID.ORG/0000-0001-6709-752X MAREK JAN OLBRYCHT University of Rzeszów, Poland e-mail: [email protected] The Memory of the Past: the Achaemenid Legacy in the Arsakid Period Abstract The Achaemenid Empire, established by Cyrus the Great, provided a model looked up to by subsequent empires on the territory of Iran and the Middle East, including the empires ruled by Alexander of Macedonia, the Seleukids, and the Arsakids. Achaemenid patterns were eagerly imitated by minor rulers of Western Asia, including Media Atropatene, Armenia, Pontos, Kappadokia and Kommagene. The Arsakids harked back to Achaemenids, but their claims to the Achaemenid descendance were sporadic. Besides, there were no genealogical links between the Arsakids and Achaemenid satraps contrary to the dynastic patterns com- mon in the Hellenistic Middle East. Keywords: Iran, Cyrus the Great, Achaemenids, Arsakids, Achaemenid legacy In this article I shall try to explain why some rulers of the Arsakid period associa- ted their dynasty with the Achaemenids and what the context was of such declara- tions. The focus of this study is on the kings of Parthia from Arsakes I (248–211 B.C.) to Phraates IV (37–3/2 B.C.). The Achaemenids established the world’s first universal empire, spanning ter- ritories on three continents – Asia, Africa, and (temporary) Europe. The power of the Persians was founded by Cyrus the Great (559–530 B.C.), eulogised by the Iranians, Jews, Babylonian priests, and Greeks as well, who managed to make a not very numerous people inhabiting the lands along the Persian Gulf masters of an empire stretching from Afghanistan to the Aegean Sea, giving rise to the largest state of those times.
  • The Nature of Maussollos's Monarchy

    The Nature of Maussollos's Monarchy

    The Nature of Maussollos’s Monarchy The Three Faces of a Dynastic Karian Satrap by Mischa Piekosz [email protected] Utrecht University RMA-THESIS Research Master Ancient Studies Supervisor: Rolf Strootman Second Reader: Saskia Stevens Student Number 3801128 Abstract This thesis analyses the nature of Maussollos’s monarchy by looking at his (self-)representation in epigraphy, architecture, coinage, and use of titulature vis-a-vis the concept of Hellenistic kingship. It shall be argued that he represented himself and was represented in three different ways – giving him three different ‘’faces’’. He represented himself as an exalted ruler concerning his private dedications and architecture, ever inching closer to deification, but not taking that final step. His deification was to be post mortem. Concerning diplomacy between him and the poleis, he adopted a realpolitik approach, allowing for much self-governance in return for accepting his authority. Maussollos strongly continued the dynastic image set up by his father Hekatomnos concerning the importance of Zeus Labraundos and his Sanctuary at Labraunda, turning the Sanctuary into the major Karian sanctuary. This dynastic parallel can also be seen concerning Hekatomnos’s and Maussollos’s burials, with both being buried as oikistes in terraced tombs, both the inner sanctums depicting Totenmahl-motifs and both being deified after death. Hekatomnos introduced coinage featuring Zeus Labraundos wielding a spear, representing spear- won land. Maussollos adopted this imagery and added Halikarnassian Apollo on the obverse depicting the locations of his two paradeisoi. As for titulature, the Hekatomnids in general eschewed using any which has led to confusion in the ancient sources, but the Hekatomnids were the satraps of Karia, ruling their native land on behalf of the Persian King.
  • Political History of Sophene

    Political History of Sophene

    chapter 3 Political History of Sophene 3.1 The Beginnings: Sophene and Kommagene under the Rule of the Orontids? According to Strabo Geog. 11.14.5., … Armenia, though a small country in earlier times, was enlarged by Artaxias and Zariadres, who formerly were generals of Antiochos the Great, but later, after his defeat, reigned as kings (one as king of Sophene, Amphissene, Odomantis, and certain other countries, and another as king of the country round Artaxata), and jointly enlarged their kingdoms by cutting off for themselves parts of the surrounding nations.…1 In reading Geog. 11.14.5, one can get the impression that for Strabo the politi- cal history of the Hellenistic kingdom of Sophene begins only with Zariadres, one of the two generals of Antiochos III, who became independent from the Seleucid monarch and assumed the title of the king of Sophene.2 It is evident that Strabo does not know of any predecessor of Zariadres in Sophene and apparently assumes that Sophene was under Seleucid control before.3 However, epigraphic evidence from Kommagene and Armenia, as well as numismatic data from the region (combined with a few enigmatic references in literary sources), may suggest that the history of the Hellenistic kingdom of Sophene is older. The most recent interpretation of this data has been put forward by M. Facella in her study of Kommagene.4 Let us briefly summarize the evidence and its interpretation. 1 The translation is that of H.L. Jones 1928, 324–325 with slight modifications of proper names. The main difference is the reading of Amphissene instead of Akisene, following Lasserre 1975, 123 and Radt 2004, 391.
  • “Just Rage”: Causes of the Rise in Violence in the Eastern Campaigns of Alexander the Great

    “Just Rage”: Causes of the Rise in Violence in the Eastern Campaigns of Alexander the Great

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Missouri: MOspace “Just Rage”: Causes of the Rise in Violence in the Eastern Campaigns of Alexander the Great _______________________________________ A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia _____________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts _____________________________________________________ by Jenna Rice MAY 2014 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled “JUST RAGE”: CAUSES OF THE RISE IN VIOLENCE IN THE EASTERN CAMPAIGNS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT presented by Jenna Rice, a candidate for the degree of master of history, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Professor Ian Worthington Professor Lawrence Okamura Professor LeeAnn Whites Professor Michael Barnes τῷ πατρί, ὅς ἐμοί τ'ἐπίστευε καὶ ἐπεκέλευε ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee, Professors Worthington, Okamura, Whites, and Barnes, for the time they spent reading and considering my thesis during such a busy part of the semester. I received a number of thoughtful questions and suggestions of new methodologies which will prompt further research of my topic in the future. I am especially grateful to my advisor, Professor Worthington, for reading through and assessing many drafts of many chapters and for his willingness to discuss and debate the topic at length. I know that the advice I received throughout the editing process will serve me well in future research endeavors. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ iv INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 Chapter 1.
  • Causes of the Rise in Violence in the Eastern Campaigns of Alexander the Great

    Causes of the Rise in Violence in the Eastern Campaigns of Alexander the Great

    “Just Rage”: Causes of the Rise in Violence in the Eastern Campaigns of Alexander the Great _______________________________________ A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia _____________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts _____________________________________________________ by Jenna Rice MAY 2014 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled “JUST RAGE”: CAUSES OF THE RISE IN VIOLENCE IN THE EASTERN CAMPAIGNS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT presented by Jenna Rice, a candidate for the degree of master of history, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Professor Ian Worthington Professor Lawrence Okamura Professor LeeAnn Whites Professor Michael Barnes τῷ πατρί, ὅς ἐμοί τ'ἐπίστευε καὶ ἐπεκέλευε ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee, Professors Worthington, Okamura, Whites, and Barnes, for the time they spent reading and considering my thesis during such a busy part of the semester. I received a number of thoughtful questions and suggestions of new methodologies which will prompt further research of my topic in the future. I am especially grateful to my advisor, Professor Worthington, for reading through and assessing many drafts of many chapters and for his willingness to discuss and debate the topic at length. I know that the advice I received throughout the editing process will serve me well in future research endeavors. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ iv INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 Chapter 1. THE GREEK RULES OF WAR ..............................................................................5 2. ALEXANDER IN PERSIA ...................................................................................22 3.