Diadochi

Given most of Alexander's long-serving veterans were great generals in their own right, how come the one who pretty much came out of top (Seleucus) was originally some literal nobody in Alexander's bodyguard?

Other urls found in this thread:

desuarchive.org/his/thread/3240746/#3240834
books.google.co.nz/books?id=RLr8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=chaonian agema&source=bl&ots=A-YnpX7AUY&sig=3kfjrDfFSuyFD8pP5Rl6_WjwjdI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAkOSi1KnYAhVDEpQKHYb3BewQ6AEIXzAL#v=onepage&q=chaonian agema&f=false
hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674728820
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Nicator’d

Seleucus was a power bottom

Certain people benefit more from the change of environment to cut throat action with constant backstabbing.

there´s no such thing
t. faggot

You dont fuck enough

t. top

Well Seleucus was a long-serving veteran rising to the command of the shield bearers, i don't know much else about him but he was far from a nobody and must have had some talent as a leader. Which begs the question, are there any good books or reading material on the Seleucids? I tried making a Diadochi thread a few days ago but it failed, hope this one doesn't die

Feminine seleucidbois fear the one-eyed warrior

I'm sure he was a very capable soldier and commander, but he wasn't in a position of great prestige or power at the time of Alexander's death. His rise to power only occurred throughout the Wars of the Diadochi, which means compared to the likes of Antigonus and Cassander he was basically a nobody.

>Given most of Alexander's long-serving veterans were great generals in their own right, how come the one who pretty much came out of top (Seleucus) was originally some literal nobody in Alexander's bodyguard?


First of all, history is full of literal nobodies who carved their own empires on bodies of more established opponents. So, such a career would not be beyond the real of possibilities.

Saying that, being Alexander's bodyguard was far from being a "nobody". Those "bodyguards" weren't some random grunts tasked with absorbing blows aimed at the king. It's actually mistranslantion, the correct term should be "closest companions". Those were people who were Alexander's closest friends, often since his very childhood. They spent their time with the king, drank and debauched with him, and were tasked with most delicate and dirty jobs. Alexander must have trusted them entirely.

So, anons which is the truest heir to Alexander? Which is your favorite?

Mauryan is the most comfy

ill post images to save this thread

...

...

> Which begs the question, are there any good books or reading material on the Seleucids?

I liked Ptolomey, he was laid back and a scholar, with some teeth.

>elephant ear armor

>tfw you'll never conquer the known world and fuck Egyptian, Persian and (Northern) Indian qts

Ptolemy is the patrician choice. Seleucid a shit

You are a gentleman and a scholar, also checked

I like the idea of a hellenistic egypt a lot, but the dynasty got too egyptian, they started fucking their sisters and speaking egyptian.

iktf

Fuck off Gyppo scum. Raphia was an inside job.

Eumenes obviously

>BTFO by Antigonos the One-Eyed Faggot of all people

No.

>killed craterus and defeated other brainless chad savages

>represented the highest (aka Hellenic) qualities of Alexander

Kratertos was a good guy though, one of the most respectable of Alexandros' generals. Eumenes was a faggot for murdering him.

This

Ive heard very little of him and a lot of people praise him

Plutarch chose him as the subject of one of his lives, so that's the main source on him.

Craterus was obviously a labourer who took a few too many blows to the head. Eumenes was squaring the circle while Craterus was still trying to figure out if his name is spelled with a C or a K.

KEK, (C)Krateros BTFO

Craterus BTFO

may as well post the hellenistic one

the ones on ptolemaic egypt and macedonia can be found in here
desuarchive.org/his/thread/3240746/#3240834

...

Kratterush (?) BTFO

God damn, thanks, but im not gonna live to 200, how on earth do i read this many books, or choose from them, Veeky Forums needs to make an absolute essentials guides to these things

>americans
maybe watch a documentary then

Yes these take the maximalist approach. Best bet is to take one(1) to read from the general works sections. You can pick at random or do a little research on google looking at the table of context or amazon or goodreads reviews.

Ptolemy is the Best

Don't touch any of those books. Literally none of them are worth reading, at least not at this point in time.

Read the primary source material. Only read the works of modern day academics (if you must) when you have an independent and SUPERIOR (based on the primary sources) base of knowledge.

Otherwise, you will learn nothing of value, just the vague thoughts of some limp wristed, s8ubsidised academic hack whose knowledge and experience is incomplete and whose opinions are ultimately worthless.

If someone tries to talk to you, and you learn that all his knowledge comes from secondary sources, dismiss him immediately and refuse to speak with him ever again. He has no connection to the Classics. I would speak even more harshly of modern academics, but I'll save it.

>If someone tries to talk to you, and you learn that all his knowledge comes from secondary sources, dismiss him immediately and refuse to speak with him ever again.
literal autism, i like having friends so no thanks

Ok, just change the subject then, because the person is not talking about the classics so much as he's talking about what some random other modern person. said about the classical world, and the person you're talking to has no foundation upon which to form a worthwhile opinion of anything.

Got any good recommendations for primary sources on the Hellenic age then?

Even kf you specifically want to read about the Hellenistic age, rather than Alexander and earlier, there are still some good choices available.

I would suggest starting with Plutarch's Lives and reading the biographies from that time period. Thats one of the more detailed and enjoyable texts focusing on that period. If you are really into it, then read Polybius next. After that... it's kind of slim pickings, but there's still Diodorus and other authors. If you are including Alexander the Great, there's more. The first that springs to mind is Arrian; they released a nice landmark edition of his text that has maps and all. All these texts are available for free online, too.

If you want to read about hellenistic armies, specifically, check out Aelian's work. There's another work by Aeneus that relates to sieges, too; it is an earlier work than you want but still relevant to the Hellenistic age.

>so much as he's talking about what some random other modern person
an academic is hardly a 'random person'. the question is why anyone should listen to a random person on a history board has open, likely ideological, contempt for academic historians without bringing up a single relevant criticism nor telling us why his opinion is better than theirs.

I found some interesting stuff in my unending research on the detailed history of the world.

books.google.co.nz/books?id=RLr8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=chaonian agema&source=bl&ots=A-YnpX7AUY&sig=3kfjrDfFSuyFD8pP5Rl6_WjwjdI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAkOSi1KnYAhVDEpQKHYb3BewQ6AEIXzAL#v=onepage&q=chaonian agema&f=false

The description is more than likely 70% correct.

lmao muh degree, muh qualifications let me travel in time to bring you the truth.

Forgive me if I would first read the words of an ancient person before reading what a current era professor from liberal arts academia wishes to say about the matter.

I'm not saying you can never read any current era text ever. You can still read about digs and check out the various objects discovered, you can still go to museums, you can still review (after reaching an independent understanding) what liberal arts academia has to say about it. Current era academics aren't a source, though, except for something they personally saw pulled out of the ground.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674728820

...

...

...

...

...

>the strongest
Without Roman intervention the Seleucids would have been the last ones standing, so according to Alexander it would be them.

>missing his shield
>hasn't pulled out his sword

...

I shiggy diggy doo

I can confirm Thundering Zeus is an excellent book.

he was given the worst part of the empire

the power center wasn't anymore in Persia rather than in the mediterranean shores

Hephaestion, but the fag had to die so my vote goes to Antigonus, the closest of them to the greek ways. Ptolemy and Seleucus were oriental LARPers

user has a pount
Go only to those sources who have had whistood the test of time (50 - 60 years)

The fundamentalist approach has glaring flaws though. If you do not know the context or the assumptions and biases of the ancient source youre reading you suffer a great handicap. Again, youre post betrays a hatred for academia (you use “limp wristed”, which can only mean you are signalling your belief in the /pol/ conspiracy that academia is a liberal communist institution, which cant be further from the truth)

>implying im an ammerimut
>implying im not European

>Read the primary source material

Well to be honest thats what i usually do, at least ancient secondary sources, like Arrian, ive read Livy, Caesar e.t.c. i absolute hate, and i mean HATE wasting time, which is why i asked Veeky Forums for recommendations, i don't have the time to waste on garbage books, im probably going to read some of those books, since once i have an interest in a certain point in history i feel compelled to read as much as i can, even youtube videos and blogs.

Thanks

Yes but Persia was still wealthy

This is demonstrative of substantial ignorance on the subject of classical historiography and the "liberal arts academia" conspiracy you're peddling is sad view of reality. You are on the wrong board with that mindset.

This. Alexander's companions were a noble retinue, not some upjumped Praetorians.

Now the question is does anyone have a .zip file?

I highly encourage people with an actual interest in the field to no listen to this crap. Primary sources should be read but should not be defied as the definitive version of the truth over all secondary or tertiary sources. Few "ancient historians" (read: aristocrats sponsored by their respective state to scribe down charitable interpretations of events or wholesale fabricate things) took the time to achieve the best historical authenticity possible for their subject and absolutely little effort to curb bias. Modern analytic works have the luxury of cross-examining primary sources for the context of accurate historiography in addition to integrating actual hard sciences (archeology, genetic anthropology, scientific examinations of historical reproductions, etc.) and the good texts will STILL give you the primary source's version so you can use critical thinking yourself.

Diving straight into a primary source for an introduction to a subject is a quick way to succumb to bias or misinterpretation from the lack of cultural/historical context in which the work is rooted/makes references to.

suck my shiggy diggy dingus

Its a picture based on a story in Curtius of a duel between Dioxippus (the Greek) and Corrhagus (the Macedonian). Dioxippus dressed(or not) as Heracles and Corrhagus dressed as a phalangite. The whole event was an embarrassment for Alexander which is perhaps why there are illogical parts (as you have pointed out) to the drawing.

Look carefully and laugh, anons. Muh professionalism, muh impartiality, muh modern understanding and honesty. Don't open the primary source material until we've told you the correct position, respect our holy monopoly on the classical world (which we fundamentally disagree with and would never see reborn in any way shape or form).

Total embarrassment. You are delusional if you think that liberal arts academia can maintain any sort of moral or intellectual monopoly on the past. Ancient authors were humans, just like modern academics are humans. No academic has a magical insight into the past that gives him unique authority not inherent in any of us who are willing to read the material and consider it. If people reach conclusions unsupported by the source material, people will point it out on forums like this and ultimately the only authority that can correct a "mistake" is the primary source material or a showing something is literally impossible.

>muh muh muh
>liberals
>strawmanning

This is just sad user.

>Tries to call someone out for strawmanning
>Strawmans literally the line before
I'll assume this is one of those funny ironic posts I hear so much about

Have a (you)

Nothing he said is wrong and he deserves a (you)