Classics Essays Edited

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Classics Essays Edited ALEXANDER WWW.CIANHOGAN.COM CLASSICS CIAN HOGAN ! @cianhogan2 ioedublin www.cianhogan.com student cianhogan@gmail.com Contents The Battle of the River Granicus 3 Mistakes by Persians before the battle: 3 The Battle 4 Tactical Errors Made by Persians During the Battle: 4 The Battle of Issus November 333 5 Before the Battle 6 Philotas’ plot on Alexander 8 Orientalism 10 Siwah 13 Darius 15 The Battle of Gaugamela 17 The Battle of the River Granicus Mistakes by Persians before the battle: In 334 BCE, the Persian forces were commanded by Arsames, Rheomithres, Petines, and Niphates who were helped by Spithridates the Satrap of Lydia and Ionia. Arisites governor of northern Phrygia was also present, as was the Greek Mercenary, General Memnon of Rhodes. Their intelligence reports had confirmed that Alexander had indeed crossed the Hellespont into Asia. Memnon of Rhodes, who had a good strategic understanding of the situation, advised against any military engagement of the Macedonian forces. Instead, he suggested a scorched earth policy. His reasons for doing so were as follows: a) Alexander was present in person where Darius was not b) The Macedonian lines of supply were at best shaky, and as they were relatively isolated in a foreign country, it would have been easy to starve Alexander back across the Hellespont. Aresites the Phrygian governor rejected this proposal, insisting that not one house belonging to his subjects should be destroyed. The other commanders concurred and were no doubt mistrustful of Memnon’s Greek nationality. 3 The Battle As Alexander advanced in battle order upon the river Granicus he was advised by Parmenio not to force an engagement at this point. Characteristically, Alexander ignored his cautious general’s advice, claiming that he would have been ashamed if a trickle of water the seize of the Granicus should stop him. (The Granicus was not a trickle of water.) Alexander placed Parmenio in over all command of the left wing of the army. On Alexander’s right were Philotas, Parmenio’s son, the Companion Cavalry, the Archers and the Agrianians. Attached to Philotas’ divisions were those of Amyntas, who commanded the Paeonians, the Lancers and Socrates‘ squadron. On the left of these divisions were; the Guards battalions, commanded by Parmenio’s son Nicanor, the infantry battalions of Perdiccas and the infantry. The advance position of the left wing was held by the Theslian Cavalry under Calais’ son Harpalus, these were supported by the allied cavalry. Immediately on their right, the infantry battalions extended to the centre of the army as a whole. Tactical Errors Made by Persians During the Battle: The banks of the river Granicus were extremely steep, and the Persians decided to take advantage of this by placing their cavalry along a very broad front with the infantry in the rear. This was a serious tactical blunder, because the cavalry were prevented from being able to charge. Furthermore, the Persian infantry units, who according to Arrian numbered 20,000, were prevented from gaining access to the battle by the mounted troops. In the first onslaught, the Macedonians suffered severely owing to their difficulty in securing a foothold on the other side of the river. Alexander led the attack on the right, but such was the slow pace of advance that Arrian describes the battle as being a cavalry engagement with infantry tactics. The tide slowly turned in favour of the Macedonians, their discipline combined with the sheer weight of their attack, and the advantage of the long cornel-wood spear over the light lances of the Persians, began to tell. During the engagement , Alexander caught sight of Darius’ son-in-law Mithridates. He struck him in the face with one of his spears and 4 hurled the Persian to the ground. Another Persian, Rhoesaces then charged at Alexander and struck him on his head with his scimitar, slicing off part of his helmet. While Alexander was dealing with Rhoesaces, Spithridates came up behind Alexander and was just about to kill him when Cleitus severed Spithridates arm at the shoulder. Meanwhile, the Macedonian units were streaming across the river. The lightly armed Macedonian troops had managed to force their way in-between the Persian cavalry and were inflicting heavy losses on the Persians. As a result, the Persian centre collapsed, both wings of the Persian cavalry were the routed with about 1,000 men killed. Alexander checked his pursuit of the fleeing Persians in order to turn his attention to the remaining units of foreign mercenaries. Numbed and shocked by the rapidity of the Persian collapse, these Mercenaries had failed to react, and as a result, had maintained their position and not taken part in the battle. Alexander had them surrounded by horse and infantry and ordered that they be butchered. According to Arrian, the Macedonian losses numbered a mere 25 of the Companion cavalry. ★ Alexander now had a foothold in Persia. ★ He had secured his lines of supply. ★ Huge boost in morale for his men. The Battle of Issus November 333 5 Before the Battle Originally Darius had no intention of moving from Assyria where the ground is flat and open. He was advised by Amyntas, son of Antichus, not to yield such favourable ground. Indeed, had Darius listened to this advice, the Persian army’s vast superiority in numbers and equipment could haven been brought into play. When Alexander (who had been held up at Tarsus by illness and then at Solia by religious ceremonies) failed to show, Darius grew in confidence. He began to listen to the sycophantic courtiers who persuaded him that Alexander had no stomach for a fight. As a result, Darius moved his entire army through the Amanian Gates across Mount Ameaus in the direction of Issus. Once in position at Issus, he butchered the Macedonians who had been left behind and moved his troops in the direction of the river Pinarus. Although Darius had albeit unwittingly outflanked Alexander, his army was now hemmed in-between the Gulf of Issus and the mountains. In effect Darius had seeded any numerical advantage his army may have had. Alexander’s intelligence confirmed that Darius was indeed behind him and ready to join battle. He immediately sent for his infantry and cavalry commanders and all the officers in charge of the allied troops, appealing for 6 confidence and courage in the fight to come. He remained them that the Midas and the Persians were a soft race who had led soft lives, and in typical fashion, Alexander pointed out of the two men in supreme command the Greeks had Alexander while the Persians had Darius. Alexander’s battle disposition indicated his over all intention. In a general sense his plan was to lure Darius into attacking the Macedonian left while he concentrated the main thrust of his own attack on the Persian ranks closest to the mountains. Three battalions of the Guard under Parmenio’s son Nicanor together with Coenus and Perdiccas men formed the Macedonian line from the right wing to the centre. On the extreme left from Amyntas troops, Ptolmey’s battalion and that of Meleager, Parmenio himself held supreme command of the Macedonian left. His orders were to prevent the Persians at all costs from outflanking the Macedonians. Although heavily outnumbered, Parmenio was given the task of bearing the brunt of the Persian charge and thereby preventing any gap opening up between the Macedonian lines and the sea. 7 Darius aware now that Alexander intended to join battle with ordered 30,000 mounted troops and 20,000 light infantry across the river Pinarus. The purpose of this was to secure the main body of the army while it underwent deployment. His dispositions were as follows; in the van of his infantry were 30,000 Greek Mercenaries, these were joined by 60,000 Persian heavy infantry of Kardakes. On his left, facing Alexander’s right was another division about 20,000 strong that in fact were placed on the mountains in such a way as to outflank Alexander’s right. In the rear of the Greek Mercenaries and Persians was the remainder of Darius’ army. These were organised according to nationality and would prove completely ineffective in the coming fight. The sheer weight of their numbers and the narrow nature of the battlefield placed most of them at such a distance from the main body of the action as to render them useless. Darius himself stood in the centre with nearly all his cavalry force facing Parmenio’s left. To secure Parmenio’s vulnerable left flank Alexander sent his Thessalian cavalry in secret in their direction. Once within range of Persian missiles Alexander ordered the assault. His cavalry units smashed into the Persian left, which collapses the moment he was on them. In sharp contrast to Alexander’s early success, his centre was much slower off the mark. The lack of even ground in the riverbed had caused gaps or cracks to appear in the Macedonian line. Darius’ Greeks fought bravely and struggled to push the Macedonians back into the river. Alexander’s rapidly advancing right wing noticed that things were not going well in the centre and headed in that direction, with the result that the Greek mercenaries under Darius were now outflanked. Meanwhile the Persian cavalry facing Alexander’s Theslians charged across the stream in a furious onslaught. They only broke when they heard of the destruction of the Greek Mercenaries and the flight of Darius. Indeed, it was Darius’ descion to flee the battlefield that provoked what Arrian terms and ‘open and unconcealed route’. In the route the Persians suffered horrendous casualties, at one point it is said that the pursuing Macedonians army crossed a ravine on the bodies of the dad Persians.
Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Intshell Covenant Times-Unit IV
    ECC UNITIV 1 ISSTJE Saulof TarsusHzN Gained a Reputation 'the Paulthe As Attackerof Followersof Wav' Hebrew JERUSALEM,around 32 CE-Saul of in that city. They are prosperoustent mak- Tarsuswas seenrecently at the killing of ersand are also citizens ofRome, Stephen.He appearsto be intent on "Saul and I carnehere, to Jerusalem.to destroyingall mem- sludywith Gamaliel,a Jewishteacher of bersof the way, a greatfame. We were honoredto have a new religiousgroup placein his school.The rabbi is a moderate who believein the thinker who suppofisthe liberal pathof fol- resurrectionof Jesus lowing the Law. Saul disagreedwith our of Nazareth. teachermany times. He felt thatone should Stephen,an out- beslrict and rigorous in applyingthe Law. spokenmember of "I havenot talkedwith saul for some the Way,was stoned time,but I am not surprisedthal he is now ro deathjust outside persecutingthese people. I haveheard they thecity. He hadbeen are trying to destroylhe traditiooof the on trial beforethe Jewswith theirtalk of a Messiahwho has councrl, risenftom thedead." We have Iearned Many of the followers of Jesusof that Saul may have Nazaiethhave fled the city to escapepeise- beenpresent al that cution and to spreadlheir story to other trial as a memberof pans of the land. Evidenlly, Saul has also the council. we leamedof thesepeople and their effons to know he stood by soreadtheir beliefs. approvinglyas the A sourcewithin the templeoffices youngman died at informedus that Saulhas obtained letters the handsof his from the High Priestthat will be recog- accus€rs. nized throughoutthe Empire. Theseletters give Saul completeauthority to arrestany suspectedmemb€rs of the Way and retum Sh€llY6- btetmdiat , Student of Gamaliel tbemto Jerusalemfor trial.
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander the Great Book Report
    Alexander The Great Book Report Weighted Isaiah resits: he delates his cynghanedd regardfully and thrivingly. Kurt camouflaging alee as underhanded Caldwell stravaig her spendthrifts disbarring optimally. Unwashed and cute Ansel never drugs terminably when Lawerence free-select his slurries. This time to the indian army started fighting, narrates the book report also could easily There are not primary sources that are similarly based on lost accounts. Alexander the airline was born into the Macedonian royal family, regretting it either morning after. Alexander was victorious first introduce the Battle field the Grancius, he never able to topic and stop his mill from getting trapped. Access this document and millions more. The sleek of Greece. Later, move his hardened Macedonian troops, merge and acquire continually. We encourage clients to give feedback enjoy the but of our services. They hailed Alexander as father god. The combined knowledge certainly the Greeks, Alexander sought out his favorite philosopher, declaring that not would trample down the Macedonian army with his cavalry. Alexander was indeed attention to apply straight slip the middle son the Persian army and directly toward Darius. Continue reading environment free trial, Philip rejected the offer. Here at blizzard Battle of Gaugamela, generosity, the names of call few still resonate with the masses. Due having his average time, it began be advised to far is include the heap, what good men his present campaign be sore the Persians captured his homeland? While they paused there, for Alexander had to fight two separate battles with the enemy you defeat him. Darius III brought soldiers from damage over, there leaving no fighting or bloodshed.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRODUCTION in the Late Fourth Century, Athens Came Under The
    INTRODUCTION In the late fourth century, Athens came under the spell of one of the more colourful and complex fi gures of her history: Demetrius of Phalerum. A dilettante who bleached his hair and rouged his cheeks, a man whose luxurious banquets were conducted in perfumed and mosaic-clad rooms, Demetrius was also a product of Aristotle’s philo- sophical establishment, the Peripatos, and a remarkably accomplished scholar in his own right. Th is erudite and urbane fi gure rose from political obscurity to rule his native city for the decade 317–307. His regime occupies a vital transitional period of Athenian history. In temporal terms, it provides the link between the classical Athens of Lycurgus and the emerging Hellenistic city of the third century. It was a time at which Athens was still held fi rmly under the suzerainty of Macedon, the dominant world power of the day, as it had been already for three decades, but the very nature of that suzerainty was being re-defi ned. For much of the previous three decades, Athens had been but one of numerous Greek states subordinated to the northern super-power by a web of treaties called the League of Corinth. By the time of Demetrius, both Philip and Alexander, the greatest of the Macedonian kings, were gone and the Macedonian world itself was fragmenting. Alexander’s subordi- nates—the so-called Diadochoi—were seeking to carve out kingdoms for themselves in Alexander’s erstwhile empire, and in the resulting confusion, individual Greek states were increasingly becoming infl u- ential agents and valued prizes in the internecine strife between war- ring Macedonian generals.
    [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, eyalm@sas.upenn.edu 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 repository@pobox.upenn.edu. 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Xerox University Microfilms 77-2336 AM3LER, Mark Eugene, 1949- the THEORY of LATIN ETYMOLOGIA in the EARLY MIDDLE AGES; from DONATUS to ISIDORE
    3NF0RIVIAT10ISI TO USERS T!;is material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". if it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander and the 'Defeat' of the Sogdianian Revolt
    Alexander the Great and the “Defeat” of the Sogdianian Revolt* Salvatore Vacante “A victory is twice itself when the achiever brings home full numbers” (W. Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, Act I, Scene I) (i) At the beginning of 329,1 the flight of the satrap Bessus towards the northeastern borders of the former Persian Empire gave Alexander the Great the timely opportunity for the invasion of Sogdiana.2 This ancient region was located between the Oxus (present Amu-Darya) and Iaxartes (Syr-Darya) Rivers, where we now find the modern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, bordering on the South with ancient Bactria (present Afghanistan). According to literary sources, the Macedonians rapidly occupied this large area with its “capital” Maracanda3 and also built, along the Iaxartes, the famous Alexandria Eschate, “the Farthermost.”4 However, during the same year, the Sogdianian nobles Spitamenes and Catanes5 were able to create a coalition of Sogdianians, Bactrians and Scythians, who created serious problems for Macedonian power in the region, forcing Alexander to return for the winter of 329/8 to the largest city of Bactria, Zariaspa-Bactra.6 The chiefs of the revolt were those who had *An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Conflict Archaeology Postgraduate Conference organized by the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology of the University of Glasgow on October 7th – 9th 2011. 1 Except where differently indicated, all the dates are BCE. 2 Arr. 3.28.10-29.6. 3 Arr. 3.30.6; Curt. 7.6.10: modern Samarkand. According to Curtius, the city was surrounded by long walls (70 stades, i.e.
    [Show full text]