Talk:Seleucid Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia: writing on the ice[edit]

As time passes and Internet comes more under control, Wikipedia changes the past history of nations without leaving a trace back; hilarious. If this is not verifiable or notable or undermines rules of the community, please remove it

Parthia and Judea[edit]

This section seems highly racist to me. It falsely equates Judea as an equivalent power to Parthia, which is far from the truth. Judea did not exist and had not existed since about 470BC. Jews DID live in the region and had only protectorate status and provincial designation (not an ethnic indicator) from Rome. There is NO history from the ancient world which equates the region of Judea with Jews at this time. This was a Hellenic Kingdom as was Ptolemaic Egypt, and there fore mentioning such ethnocentric (and highly political)"ideas" like "aggressive Hellenization" indicates that this was not a Hellenized area. To remove the racism from the article it should indicate that Judea was populated by a majority of non-Jews. The territory was Hellenic, then Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Arche Seleukeia?[edit]

I'm curious about whether this name is attributed to the empire by historians in the aftermath, or by the subjects in the vast territory and during the timespan of the empire. What was the selfdesigned names used by the people, the aristocracy and the proletarii, those in Jerusalem or Persepolis? --Xact (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a name that was coined by historians. The Kingdom itself was named after the founder, Seleucus I, and was generally called either Seleukeia or Seleukis. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Army Sizes[edit]

Alot of this information seems exagerated. Hopefully a wikihistorian can do something about it. I still dont know much about the seleucid empire, though I do know 100,000 men and 9,000 war elephants is completly absurd. What moron would send all those men to india for a mere trade alliance instead of conquering something closer to him, or perhaps retaking the other greek provinces nearby(Maybe egypt to gain more mediterainian control?).

Wildly exagerated figures are pretty much par for the course for this period when proper bookeeping didn't exist.Dejvid 19:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


This article is awful...I shall overhaul at some point. john k 14:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the note! I was going to use it for a presentation.... Ah the dangers of wiki. The lesbian 21:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I've rewritten much of the article - unfortunately, I just discovered that there's a lot of overlap with Seleucid dynasty. Any thoughts on how to do this? john k 5 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

Seleucid Armies[edit]

Does any know the composition of Seleucid armies. Would they be composed like the Macedonian armies of Alexander or would they be closer to the Persian armies, or a combination of the best of both. Jak1985 13:29, 26 August 2005

I think they had a phalanx, like Alexander's armies. I know they had elephants, as well. Probably something of a combination of the Persian and Macedonian style armies - Macedonian style infantry, and Persian style cavalry. But I'm not sure. john k 22:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


This article, despite being lengthy and informative, contains no references at all, save for one web link. I'm putting the {{unreferenced}} template at the top of the page to reflect this worrying state of affairs. siafu 23:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Era names[edit]

This article is currently using a mix of BC and BCE, so we need to pick one over the other. siafu 12:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the History of Greater Iran series they use BCE and in other historical articles from about this era do to. Dougmuffins 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Palestina instead of Judah[edit]

Palestina versus Israel is a delicate and long debate present in many articles. A user changed the current word "Palestina" into "Judah", explaining that at the time of Seleucid dinasty the deleted name didn't exist yet. But he/she is wrong. First of all Palestina is the actual name of the region where present day Israel and Palestine Authority are based, while Judah it's not the name of that place. That's why I corrected the change. Also, that's not an anachronism neither. The word comes from the latin version of Philistine, (or שְׁתִּים, in hebrew), a people how inhabited the region long before jews arrive.

No, I'm not wrong at all. ALmost everything you said above is wrong and POV. The Philistines were there before the Jews? Where is your source? The place is controlled by Israel today, but the name in Seleucid times was Judah or Coele-Syria. FACT. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The source is the Old Testament (written by the jews). The place is off course controled by Isreal state, but the region's name doesn't change because of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
That would be wrong. This was the region's name from AD 135 to 1948. The Romans picked this name out of hatred for the Jews in AD 135. Before that it had other names. There is no logical reason to go with the later Roman name, it is anachronostic and obsolete and POV as a term to describe this region. There was an entity called Philistia, but it was nowhere near the size of the other entities and besides it is not the same as the Latin name Palestine. There is absolutely no reason to use that POV name when the name at the time, Judah or Coele-Syria would be more accurate. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Chronicles of the Bible Lands: A history of the Holy Lands. John Rogerson, 2003. ISBN 1-904594--05-0 pg36 ; "Betwen 200 and 198BC Judah was wrestled from Egypt by the Greek rulers of Syria, the Seleucids" Though my preference would be for either what the conquering empire called the region , or what the conquered people called themselves at that time. Shown with references. SmithBlue 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That would be Coele-Syria and Judah. Definitely NOT the Neo-Latin contemptuous term Palaestina which was designed solely to excise the name of 'Judah' from the history books, and it appears that very same spirit is once again raising its ugly head in the world... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I am looking forward to the references. SmithBlue 14:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The first time the term Palaestina was used by the greek historian Herodot (485-425). So the Romans did not invent the term. The terms "Judah" and "Palaestina" existed both at the same time during the seleucidian reign. Probably the Jews around Jerusalem used the term "Judah", while most of the inhabitants of the cities at the coast spoke of "Palaestina". That may have been a reason for the Seleucids to use the more neutral term "Coele-Syria" for the region.

Judah was a name for the southern portion of modern Israel and at the time the northern part plus Lebanon and such was called Syria or Israel. Dougmuffins 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I say Judaea. Why? That's what Tacitus says. In fact, he also says a Seleucid was king of Syria when Titus burnt the temple. So this article is kind of wrong... 00:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How about "Southern Levant"? People are concerned about this because of the current conflict, but what happened two millennia ago has diddly to do with what is just and true today.--TheronEC (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Double infobox[edit]

Apart dispute, the current article features two times the same infobox. Bye. --Attilios 23:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I know right. It's driving me crazy. Does anyone know anyone to get this problem fixed while others are still arguing.Dougmuffins 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasons of protection[edit]

The disputed sentence stated: “...the Empire comprised central Anatolia, Syria, Palestina, Mesopotamia, Persia, Turkmenistan, Pamir and the Indus valley.” as of 14:22, 29 January 2007. Then, an user called Codex Sinaiticus, judged the word “Palestina” undesirable. So he changed it into “Judah”, once, and, using a pop-up program, he did it twice, again and again until I asked a fully protection for the article. Well I’ll avoid to questioning about this user personal past behaviour in wikipedia edits, as well as whether he is totally impartial on this matter or not; me personnally I’m not jewish, and I’m not muslim neither.

So, let’s focus on the topic. The word that has to be retained (“Palestine” or “Judah”) is supposed to reflect the name of the region comprised between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea (I hope those names will be accepted by everybody). It’s absolutely irrilevant wich names were given to that region by the differents politicals entities that occupied it. Image if China would change the name of Tibet.

Well, it happens that the english name is Palestine. The word has its roots in the latin Palaestinae, who came from the hebrew Plishtim (שְׁתִּים). What is more, it have been the name since several millennia, long before the word Judea was coined. The firt written evidence of that was written sometime between the 11th and the 7th century BCE, and treaths about events roughly situated between the 23rd and 15th century BCE. It is, try to guess, the Bible. Written by Jews, in hebrew. In the Genesis book, the word “Philistins” is mentionned eight times before the first time the word “Juda” is. Still, “Juda” is just the name of a person, who will, based on the Bible story, found thereafter an offspring, while “Philistins” is since the second time coupled with “land of”: for instance, a land, a region. For exemple: “Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines for many years.”, Genesis 21, 34. So, the Romans didn’t invented anything, and Herodot wasn’t the first to mention the name neither.

Thereafter, many many others occupied Palestine. Notably, the jews did. And they created the kingdom of Isreal and Judea, who later split in two indipendent states. But still, those names were kingdoms’ names, they didn’t have vocation to designate the region, and if they had, it’s not really important because they didn’t follow the Philistins presence, but just went with. Jews were not the only ones to occupy Palestine. The region was later conquered by Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantins, Arabs, etc, etc... None of them tried to change the name of Palestine once acquired, perhaps because they had their native region far away, thus they weren’t interested on assimilate the region or change its appelation. Even the crusades used unchanged names of local cities to call their kingdoms.

So, based on the jewish sources, the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea was called “land of Philistins” since before Abraham time, thus prior to the 23rd - 15th century BCE, while, upon the same sources, the names Judea and Israel were superimposed to Palestine since the 13th BCE ‘til, and then there are other multiple sources to inform us, the 2nd century CE, and then again since the 19th CE ‘til the present day. Archeological evidence confirm the Philistins, and thus their name, were present in Palestine before jews tribes arrive.

Ok, that’s for the past, but what about today? Even if the disputed article concerns an ancient age, it’s important to know the present day name. It’s not unusual to read the Aztecs settled Mesoamerica, even if the word America was coined in the 16th century CE, or that dynosaurs inhabited Australia, even if Australia is a recent name and the retroactive appellation given to that land mass at dynosaurs’ times is Pangea. It’s not an anachronism, it’s just a way to define the limits of a place. Well, perhaps also because of the Romans’ decision in 135 CE (after all, they had a discrete influence in the Western civilization), the totality of the world retained the name Palestine. Anyway it is the name given in english language to the region today occupied by the Isreal state, and that since long before zionism arrised.

Of course here follows a list of scholar’s quotes who credit all that. Here is what says one of the biggest works about the Seleucid Empire: “301 BCE (summer): Seleucus and Lyisinadrus defeat Antigonus at Ipsus. Ptolomy I of Egypt seized Phoenicias and Palestine.” from The Cambridge history of Iran, page 19, volume 3 The Seleucid, Ponthian and Sasanian periods, ISBN 0 521 20092 X, ISBN 0 521 24693 8, ISBN 0 521 24699 7, chapter written by E. Bicherman, emeritus professor of ancient history, Columbia University, New York. Of course Palestine is used all along the book, and Judea is never mentionnned. But let’s read another source: “From IX to I century five big political entities were created including Mesopotamia and the West of the Middle East (western Syria, Phoenice and Palestine): the Neo-assyrian Empire, Neo-babylonian, Achamenid Persian, Hellenistic and Seleucid, the Arsacid Parthian.” from Mesopotamia at Ist millennium BC, page 5, volume I, ISBN 2 200 26120 9, section written by Francis Joanès, emeritus professor of ancient history, Paris VIII University, Paris. Also here, like elsewhere, Palestine is the only name used in the whole work.

Ok, these are exemples of what the world thinks, but what about Jews? What they think Palestine’s name is? Well, actually is not really important, but it can be helpful for avoid any doubt. So here is a text from and israeli author: “In the area dealing with geography, Le Strange and the collection of sources in his “Palestine under the Muslims” are considerably helpful, as are Avi Yonah’s work on the geographycal history of Palestine, Dussaud on the topography of Syria, and the encyclopaedic enterprise of Z. Vilny (Ariel).” from A history of Palestine, page XV, ISBN 0 521 40437 1, written by Moshe Gil, professor of jewish history, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. This quote is very interesting, not just for the nationality of its writer, but also because it states both in the book’s title and in its text the choice for the word Palestina, because in the choiced sentence it is used as sole definition the name Palestine even if it was suitable for style elegance avoid to repeat the same word shortly after in the same sentence, and because it credits an another israeli scholar. And what did Avi Yonah write? “Jerusalem: Old city in Palestine, first settled in the early 3rd millennium BC, and first mentioned in contemporary documents in the middle of the 2nd millennium.” from Illustrated encyclopaedia of the classic world, page 254, ISBN 0 06 010178 4, written by Michael Avi Yonah, professor of classical archeology and history of art at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. So. Of all dozens books I consulted, we can note that all the historians from all around the world, included jewish ones, used as sole name for the mentioned region the word “Palestine”, the majority of isrealians authors used as sole name “Palestine”, and a minority of isrealians authors used both “Palestine” and “Judea” as synonymes. Thus I think there shall no be any doubt about Palestine’s appellation.

Maybe I wrong, but I have little hope this list of proofs will convice Codex Sinaiticus. I feel like he made his choice long ago, before even his birth, so I don’t think logic or evidences can have any weight to his eyes. Instead, what can be done, is to develop a discussion, and contact the administrator resposible for the page’s protection, User:Steel359, once a consensus has been reached. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

You are arguing that the name of the region was was "Philistin" even before the Hebrews got there. However, the pre-Hebrew name that is corroborated by archaeological evidence, Biblical records, and records of all neighbouring peoples is "Canaan". Although the Bible mentions Philistines already in the country in Abraham's day, Scholarly consensus actually contradicts this and says that the Philistines were latecomers who got there well after the Hebrews. But even if they were there in Abraham's day, "Philistia" never applied to anywhere outside of their coastal settlements near Gaza. While some Greeks knew the term, it did not become official until 130 AD. The reason is because they could not stand the name Judah and they were attempting to do a large-scale damnatio memoriae on the name Judah so it would not appear anywhere. We don't have to follow this Roman damnatio memoriae today; the country was officially called Judea and Coelo-Syria in Seleucid times, so Palestine is both an anachronism and a pov term when used in the sense of a damnatio memoriae. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Palestine is a misnomer from 135AD that became accepted even up until the 1940s. This may have been said before, but the Philistines lived mainly in a narrow coastal strip. They were genetically distinct from modern day Palestinians, having come from Crete or Greece. So as well as a misnomer, it will make some readers assume that today's "Palestinians" have a historical claim to the land of Israel. So call it Judah, or Israel if you want to go further north. rossnixon 01:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
We could just cut out Syria and Palestina/Judah/Israel and call it the Levant instead; this would be accurate and avoid the whole issue. siafu 01:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok the hyperlink "judah" sends me to a page that does not represent the area that you guys are talking about. Stop being so goddamn uptight, just call that region whatever the seleucids called it.

-15 feb 2007. non-member.

Seeing as the principals of the debate are no longer discussing anything, consensus is not likely to be reached. However, this page needs to be unprotected so that we don't simply violate the fundamental principles of wikipedia. siafu 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


The map on here isn't very helpful considering it's not in English.

The map on this page is actually a map of the Achaemenid empire, which is what the key refers to when you zoom in. Although it looks about the same, can one that is actually the right empire be found?Ciriii (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)01:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the point in having wikipedia in different languages if you are going to add maps with german keys to an english article. If there is no English map then DO NOT ADD ANY MAP to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


Please do not change the introduction. The Seleucide empire was a Macedonian empire, the dynasty was Macedonian. The land was certainly Hellenised. Please refer to the well known literature starting with Hammond, Borsa etc, and older writers like Justin (Trogus), or Diodorus. I will give you these references if you do not know them (they are obligatory literature for the first university year of Greek studies all over the world!).Draganparis (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gotta disagree. If the Seleucid empire can't be called politcally Hellenistic, I don't know what state could. If you're merely referring to the fact that Seleucus Nicator was from Macedon, this is quite an unimpressive reason to alter the wording as Macedon's political elite were also fully Hellenized; Seleucus included. Brando130 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course the Seleucid Empire is hellenistic. The 3-5 great hellenistic powers all had a greek-macedonian elite, that's what Hellenism is all about. But to differ between Macedonians and Greeks is impossible, except for the royal families, which are mostly of macedonian origin. But no modern historian would call the Seleucid Empire "macedonian", since the term "hellenistic" has been established by Droysen more than one century ago. --Kryston (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
History can be written in number of different ways. The most popular and generally accepted is “political history”, where the evolution of the political institutions is followed. Indeed we may write cultural history or military history. Or we may use number of other genres like people’s history, economic history, social history, history of mentalities, etc. However, what we most often know as “History” is political history. The other genre most often rely very strongly on the political history which is kind of “frame” that gives us orientation in writing history. If we would for example write a social history of certain period, not relaying on political events, political institutions and their relation to social events, it would make the entire task impossible to formulate. It is much less so if we wrote cultural history, although also, some political frame is essential. Indeed, it is possible to write more specific history, like art history, without much of a burden of political facts. Or history of architecture or psychological history.
Examples. Let us remain on the subject that provoked the discussion and let us take an example from there. According to that method, to political history, the Seleucid kingdom is a Macedonian kingdom, as Ptolemaic Egypt is Macedonian kingdom also, and also Rome was Roman empire as Byzantine Empire was Eastern Roman Empire. This is how political history method would correctly treat these states. However, culturally, the Byzantine empire was a Hellenistic empire as early as 5-6 century, as the Seleucid kingdom or empire and Egypt was Hellenistic kingdom during the reign of Macedonian dynasty. What is also true is that some would characterise Roman Empire to be Hellenic empire. Indeed, the language in Rome was roman and we are reluctant to say that this was Hellenic empire. Similarly, in the Seleucid kingdom the use of Greek was only among the elite so we already may have a problem there. Let alone Bactrian or Indian kingdom. Some elements of Hellenic culture were present in these kingdoms, but most of Greek or Macedonian elements that were there, was their political and military organisation which were more typical Macedonian.
So I would agree with you: culturally yes, you may be right, you just may be right. My main point is that in Wikipedia, political history, a genre of history that is normally a frame of history writing should be used. The other aspects of developments should be given in separate sections in the same text. Therefore it would be correct to say that the Seleucid kingdom was a Macedonian kingdom. We may add then that the kingdom was Hellenised, with strong influence of the eastern elements.
Let me conclude. Please, correct in my text what you or other people carelessly or out of ignorance removed. I unfortunately can not suggest a page on the Internet where historical method is explained in more details. There are excellent books though on Method in history. I would warmly recommend: The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History by John Tosh and Sean Lang von Longman, 2006 I think. And, it may be also useful not only to cite Droysen but to read the book (I suspect that there is no Englisch translation - I am sorry, die Deutschen die unsere Diskussion volgen, konnten sich ein wennig bemühen dafür was zu tun). If you would read Droysen, I am afraid, you will see that he would not be of any help to prove that Hellenism is transferable into ethnic or political concept of the state.
Please see also a short discussion in “Mistake”, under „Hellenism” disambiguation.Draganparis (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it was a Hellenistic kingdom because that's what all the scholars call it. "Politically Macedonian" is a meaningless term here. The founder of the dynasty, Seleucus Nicator, may have been from Macedon but he ran his new state using many of the political structures inherited from its predecessor, the Persian Achaemenid Empire. Please don't import the tedious edit-warring between modern Macedonian and Greek nationalist editors which wrecks Wikipedia elsewhere into articles on ancient history. If you continue to do so you may find yourself subject to sanctions. You can cut out the patronising tone too. --Folantin (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Alors, alors, monsieur, un peut de tolérance et un peut moins d’agressivité, s’il vous plait. I saw your excellent contributions on other Wikipedia pages. So please keep your level!
So you would think that to say “Gothic kingdom” , “Renaissance state” or “France de Limier” would be fine political designations? May be. There are proponents of history that would be written in a way that would put in the front values of the simple citisen and his mental development. But this is the other question... the question of the methods for history writing, and I wrote somwhere else about this. I suggest you now to read first some relevant reviews (or books) on the subject and come back to this pages (for example: Walbank and Austin’s The Hellenistic World - The Cambridge Ancient History, volume VII). Particularly Chapter 3 by Walbank who explains the nature of Macedonian kingdoms where the dynasties kept their Macedonian line relaying on their “Friends” (protoi philoi) who were Macedonians AND, it is true, Greeks also. The Hellenisation is a question of degree also. It is unresolved question how far went Hellenistation in that region. Look up also Pierre Leveque, Empire d’Alexandre et empires hellenistiques, in “Le concept d’empire”, PUF 1980, edited by Morice Diverger and concept of “le roi des Macedonians” - the king as a king of the Macedonians. The Macedonian dynasties in the successor states kept their ethnic purity and in spite of the wars, they mixed between each others families; Ptolemy dynasty exaggerating in that to one today unimaginable degree. “Hellenistic” is NOT a political designation, this is just a cultural designation. The political system of the Ancient Greece disappeared with Alexander III and the political system of his empire and succeeding kingdoms was built on this Macedonian model. When you say “other scholars”, please say who you have in mind. There are just no scholars who accept such cultural designation as “political” designation. Greece is also a “Hellenic” state!!! But Greece - nevertheless. In the antiquity Athens was a “Hellenic” polis, but “Athens” (!) and not just a “Hellenic kingdom” or whatever would be applicable to her political status which was very specific and as I said differed from Macedonian at that time.
When we will arrive, in writing history on the Wikipedia pages, to define the genre of the main text (as political history I suppose), and to introduce stratification as to give it cultural, social, and other dimensions, we may hope to arrive closer to the “History on Wikipedia”. And this will be one step forward, I think.
Please for a consensus here. And please not a “democratic” consensus, but a “learned consensus”. Draganparis (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You say that "hellenistic" is a cultural term and should not be used for political descriptions. I have to disagree. The main authors, who wrote in the last two decades about the Seleucids like Grainger or Sherwin-White/Kuhrt are using the term "hellenistic kingdom" or "hellenistic king" on a political level.

1. Even if modern authors were wrong with this, Wikipedia would have to reflect this opinion because of WP:NOR. No room for personal opinions left.

2. You refer to Walbank and the role Macedonians played within a hellenistic state. No one is denying this fact. You wrote about the role of the "friends". The personal relationship between king and army could be added to this, because it's another factor, which had a macedonian origin and influenced the Seleucid Empire for generations. But this is only one column of the state. Many others have to be added, which aren't macedonian at all. Like mentioned by Folantin the Seleucids inherited the political structures of their empire from the Persians: the administrational system of satraps, the socio-economic base of land-based bondsman, the hiding of a taxsystem behind the king's cult. How to call such a political mixture? Historians made a decision and chose "hellenistic".

3. Historical inaccuracy of yours: The Seleucid dynasty did not keep its precious ethnic macedonian purity but mixed in every second generation with iranians lines which in those days ruled Pontos, Armenia or Kappadokia.

4. And another one: The political system of Ancient greece did not disapeared after Alexander. The system of independent city states lived on. An important role of the foreign policy of the Seleucid Empire was the relationship with this cities like Sardes or Milet.

5. You are mixing up "hellenistic" and "hellenized": The first is a political, the second a cultural term, which describes the taking-over of greek language and habits. For the political description it is not interesting, if the population or its elites have been hellenized. Most parts of the Seleucid Empire (and the Ptolemaic as well) have never been hellenized and used their old languages and habits.

The introduction already reflects the main opinion of modern authors and does not have to been changed. --Kryston (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What Kryston said. Plus, I've just finished reading Édouard Will's 900-page Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, so the idea that "Hellenistic" isn't a political term isn't going to fly. I'd also refer you to an even more relevant title: Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom by John D. Grainger (Routledge, 1990). --Folantin (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I am just asking to respect historical method and add to the “Seleucid Empire” another additional clearly political designator (Macedonian) which is correct. This would improve the quality of the contribution.
Hellenism a political term? Up to 19th century nobody knew that these kingdoms were “Hellenistic” or “Hellenized”! Yes IT IS a political term - but in some other sense unrelated to the ancient history, and we have ancient history here.
Interpreting history in terms of grossly cultural and not political terms, and then taking it to have political conotations, introduces confusion and neglect of important facts, and leads to misuse of history. It may in fact lead to ignoring some essential principles of justice and thereby destroying individual values of distinct political entities. Not respecting that distinction was used to justify imperial wars in the 19th and 20th centuries. For the Nazis all Arian or Germanic people had to be politically united. Interestingly, in the Wikipedia in the texts treating Alexander’s reign and after, the term “Macedonian” has been selectively replaced by “Hellenic”, thereby alleviating the importance of Macedonia during this period. This is NOT an accident!
Your comments are unfortunately all slight misinterpretations (marginal authors are not to be counted - and it is possible that you missed the meaning, as Folantin misinterprets Edouard Will; Seleucids were relatively pure up to one Armenian king - 1st cent. B.C.; political system of the Classical Greece DISAPEARED with Alexander III; as I already explained to use “Gothic state” is nonsense). Responding to your comments in more detail would lead just to new misconceptions and even more need for the responses, etc. and is pointless. Thank you for taking pains to respond anywhere.Draganparis (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"Seleucids were relatively pure (sic) up to one Armenian king". Since we're getting into the ridiculous area of "racial purity", er, no, that's completely wrong. Seleucus Nicator was married to an Iranian wife, Apama, so the Seleucid line was not "pure Macedonian" from its second ruler, Antiochus I, onwards. The rest of your comments are nonsense. It's obvious from your contributions here and elsewhere that you treat history in neither political nor cultural terms but ethnic and nationalist ones. This is completely anachronistic as far as the Seleucid Empire is concerned. --Folantin (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Even today the purity of royal line remains on male members.
Could we please have “Folantin” warned to restrain from offending insinuations like “getting into… racial purity” or “contributions here and elsewhere that you (“me”) treat history in neither political nor cultural terms but ethnic and nationalist ones” and ask him to remain, in his comments, on historical facts, avoiding value judgements of the other commentators.
I urg for the respect of methodology (for the method in history see: John Tosh and Sean Lang: The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History, Longman, 2006.)
I repeat: I am asking for a consensus to respect historical method and restrain from mixing political with cultural historiography which may lead to above mentioned misuse and disputes (as already visible in the Folantin’s comments). Therefore I propose to add to the “Seleucid Empire” another, additional designator (Macedonian) which is historicaly correct.Draganparis (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for waisting your time. Yes, it is crazy. The world is crazy in fact. I started reading other articles, more articles and wanted immediatelly to correct the first paragraph. No way. In some articles it is protected. A request should be made! Then started reading still more and more articles and… yes it is crazy. Hopeless. I read then some other articles, about other things (I in fact know only 4th century, but here...). No, there will be no “request" no editing, no more, no more discussion. I just think that the entiire project is a game. Not just the chapter on Hellenism, on Seleucid empire.... All is just a game. Makes people reading and playing science. This is wonderfull! One professional would spoil the game. Please accept my appology for waisting your time, or... this was what you were looking for?Good luck!Draganparis (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I posted the text below at the adequate place (there where the expert system is discussed), but I believe that you guys (even those who tried to insult me) may profit from this.
It is not the question whether people, I mean anybody, can learn. Neither is this a question of human value. Not to know in depth some specific subject - does not diminish our human values. In principle, as I said, it could not be decided what is and what is not by voting. It must be looked at it and first then we can say whether something is or is not the case. But to see, one needs to have some concepts already, some mentally built theory before even looking at the thing. Otherwise one can not see what is in fact there! Our observations are “theory laden”.
Where is the concrete problem then? Wikipedia has in principle the review texts. A basic article, an article that is first written for the Wikipedia page, can be written by an expert; or can be copied from some good textbook (these texts are written by the experts). So there is probably no problem there (although I saw some basic articles which obviously were the reproductions of the notes of may be some college or even graduate students. This is visible, but this even may be not a big problem. The problem arises after that, when various amateurs, some certainly good people, who acquire specific information from even scientific literature (I do not doubt this) start uncritically “improving” an existing text. What happens then?
A very difficult task for a scientist is to interpret, understand the whole, to make a synthesis out of the raw data. To build a theory around data, even a small theory about one isolated mechanism, and that that the theory is at the same time meaningful and probably true, more probable then the other possible theories. This is possible only if one has knowledge of majority of relevant facts, or the key facts, and experience in recognising them and using these facts to form abstract relevant concepts. An amateur is there almost always handicapped because of her/his isolation. Science is a community work which is hardly possible in isolation. A student and a PhD student is much better off, but still handicapped because they are yet to build up their experience. This is why I said that one level higher as a normal PhD or equivalent.
Other aspect of the problem is reflected in the fact that new, unconfirmed knowledge does not have place in these basic, review text. An amateur scientist can not judge this (or almost never can judge this).
Then, if the majority (majority, not all) of those who are active on the Wikipedia are at that level of knowledge and experience, and if they are a majority - as far as I was able to see, they probably are at least 10 against one expert, and if they are very eager to produce these pages, to see their own text - we have a salad. If now an expert starts correcting, he has against him 10 times more people who do not see the problem and who would oppose what he is doing and, as my experience is, start with intimidations and with building of a resistance against an intruder.
No, I am sorry. I think that the Wikipedia should use a model, for example, of the peer reviewing system that is a standard in thousands of scientific journals (one editor + editorial board that approves that an article can be reviewed by another (confidential) 2-5 reviewers – and all these people are approved experts in the field. Further problem is that just a few experts would be ready to take part in the project. So … it should remain as it is: great fun, but not more. As you are supposed to know “there is no royal way to geometry”.
I admire your enthusiasms and highly respect your intellectual contributions. But… here we have a talk about Macedonian empire and its successors. So the Macedonia must be mentioned. Your local “Macedonian” or “Greek” disputes please develop at some other adequate place. First of all it is correct to say Alexander III (the Great) of Macedonia. So it should be: "The Seleucid Empire (312 - 60 BC) was a Hellenistic Macedonian kingdom, one of the successor states of the empire of Alexander III (the Great) of Macedonia. ...." Because IT WAS one. We had long enough discussion, the problem has been clearly explained, so please do not change the text any more, or I will have to handle it to the Wikipedia editors.Draganparis (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe when you're done playing here you could collaborate with PelasgicMoon over at Talk:Alexander the Great. Real similar styles; when someone points out the nationalist agenda you guys pull out the same line, 'Please, don't make it about me, keep it on my long-winded bs arguments.' ;) Brando130 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, all is not lost yet. I posted (see below) a proposal to set an Expert consensus system in the form of peer reviewing system. I insisted that experts be designed for the general subjects (like the Ancient History, for example). The experts would be officially verified and approved. I think that very high academic level is needed. My suggestion is that they will be at least "one level higher then the PhD", or other equivalent, according to the list of publications in the peer reviewed journals or according to some other criteria that have to be established yet. I think that we can hope then to have a really good knowledge database on the Internet. The insulting comments (as on this very page) will also have to be diminished, and a software may be developed that would automatically issue warning when somebody would complain (mentioning “insult” for example). This may diminish disputes and assure smooth communication. For the proposal see at Wikipedia: Version 1.0 Editorial team/assessment, in the Discussion, under Expert consensus. Draganparis (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Citations, not credentials, are the basis of wikipedia. This is the basis of the OR policy, and the primary difference between wikipedia and the citizendium. A "very high academic level" is not needed in the persons of the editors or commentors, as the very purpose of wikipedia is to take advantage of the time and energy of everyday users. siafu (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think now that the Wikipedia page on Seleucid Empire must state that the kingdom was Macedonian. I was alwas reading these interestcing comments but never wrote something and it apparently does not work. Can somebody do this. Some site manager? And please be more scientific. It is pity that there are so many mistakes. Alexandros WAS a Macedonian king and then later he became a king of Greece also and the king - pharao of Egyptus and this also must be said. Otherwise... Herodotus1A (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Herodotus1A (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

OK: Political designation instead of cultural designation.
I think some corrections that imply the Macedonian nature of the Macedonian states, from early times and down to the fall of the last Macedonian state, are needed on this page (addition of “Macedonian” at appropriate place), designating the states not only as Hellenistic but also as “Macedonian”. Some discussions on this theme, sometimes with certainly unpleasant political bias, have been carried out previously. However, these changes are supported by the latest academic literature and by the most respected authorities on the subject. Retaining “Macedonian” to designate the political nature of the states is necessary also to avoid transition from cultural, which goes far beyond political organisation and introduces a risk of neglecting far more important political characteristics of the communities and states which were of importance for the geopolitical and historical developments during Hellenistic period all over territory of the Alexander’s empire.
These, now classical works, all show that Macedonians distinguished themselves from the Greeks (Hellenes), had significantly different language (which may or may not be from the Greek family of languages – this is still disputed), and insisted very strongly on these differences. Also these academic works show, what is of particular relevance here, that the political state organisation, particularly from Philip onwards, was “Macedonian” and was preserved throughout the diadochi reign in all three late successor states or empires. In addition, the Argeid dynasty being of Macedonian (or Greek) origin – what is also disputed, was strongly attached to their Macedonian people to often express substantial doses of nationalism, probably as a result of obvious Greek repudiation of all what was barbarous, i.e. the nations that did not speak Greek. Culturally, Macedonia was early Hellenised, at least its aristocracy, but this was kept separate from the political and to great extent administrative organisation of the state or succession states. The dynasties were closed toward external world, although hetero-national polygamy was a practice, but the successions was carefully preserved between the members of the Macedonian families (sometimes to the unprecedented extremes – Ptolemy’s intermarried even with the 1st degree relatives). I give the summary of the relevant literature: NGL Hammond and FW Walbank: A History of Macedonia, volume III, particularly chapter V (The legacy of Alexander – what concerns the political Macedonian nature of the diadochi kingdoms) (1988); NGL Hammond: The Macedonian State (also implying Macedonian nature of the diadochi kingdoms), particularly the chapter X (1998); EN Borza: In the Shadow of Olympus - The Emergence of Macedon, particularly chapter 10, what concerns the nature of the Philip’s and Alexander’s reign (1990); EN Borza: Makedonika, particularly chapter 8 (on military conservative and nationalist Macedonian army); EN Borza: Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedonia, chapter II (about Macedonian nationalism). More popular is RL Fox: The Classical World, an Epic History of Greece and Rome, particularly chapter 22, Alexander early successors (2006).Draganparis (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


I removed India from the list of belongings of the Seleucid Empire. As far as I know, only Seleukos I and Antiochos III owned parts of the Indus valley for a short period. But even their ownership existed only on paper, because they made deals with regional lords, who accepted the Seleucids as overlords, without giving up any sovereignty. I would suggest that only the regions, which were directy under the control of the seleucid administration (or their satraps), should be listed in the introduction. --Kryston (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, friend, let me explain again. This is again not only a historical fact but a political notion which depend on our concept of the empire. We can not discuss this fully here. Therefore, we have to rely on the established knowledge, “established scientific facts” or, as somebody said, on what is accepted as customary use, even if sometimes false. The definitions change also (I come to this later). To call the Holy Roman Empire an “empire” is certainly false after 13 century, but this is established use, so… we keep it. It is similar with the Seleucid Empire but not really the same at all. You gave nice explanation, but this is not enough. Isn’t it much easier to ask a political scientist what he would say? Or to start with, look up in Roger Scruton’s dictionary of the political terms for example, verify in the recent literature…? However, what you are saying has been discussed already between 20th century historians. I really can not now look for that literature. You may want to do this, may be. But, there is exactly now a discussion how should we describe the “modern empires” which are based on the economical and “multiple channels” employment of the “imperial” power. The concept of an “empire” is permanently changing and a modern empire will probably never look like the empires in the Antiquity. Wikipedia has its rules that the changes should be based on the references (unfortunately in Wikipedia these criteria are badly defined – peer revived articles, published consensuses of the expert bodies, or any published papers?... it is not clear, and this is very, very bad for Knowledge). Even if politically, Seleucid empire would not be an “empire” today, we probably should not change its designation here. So… please do not change.Draganparis (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I try again: Should India be kept in the list of the seleucids belongings or not? What about Armenia? What about the short-time belongings like Thrace? The newest literature (Dreyer) about the Seleucids says "No", that's why I removed India from the list. --Kryston (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The maximal size of the empire should be given and it should be stated that it is the maximal size and that its size changed substantially during its long history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draganparis (talkcontribs) 20:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The Roman and Byzantine empires were changing their size all the time; the Byzantine Empire was smaller then Greece today, before it collapsed. What size should be given? The maximal extent of the empire is most often given to describe its reach. If during the history it declined, as all of them did, this could be given but when describing its course through history, probably in a separated paragraph. The Seleucid Empire is problematic and some call it “kingdom”. There is enough space on the site of the Seleucid Empire, and a description where how it developed will be listed chronologically, would be good, if you can write it. Boris Dreyer is young scientist who works in Frankfurt. Why don’t you write to him and ask him for opinion. His e-mail is public domain, so…. If he is away, his secretary will know how you can get to him. But, I do not see what he could say to make us decide to change the description that was already given(before your changes). (This is just my oppinion, please.)
Tel. ++49-(0)69-798-32456 (Sekretary)
Could you please tell us where Dreyer states this and what he exactly says? Thanks.Draganparis (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And for the third time: Should the list of belongings consist only of the regions, that where in fact controlled by the seleucid "Staat" (state) or even the regions, that only belonged to a fictional "Reich" (empire). This is a difference Dreyer is making in one of his last works (Die römische Nobilitätsherrschaft und Antiochos III). India and Armenia would be part of the second definition.

P.S. Who is "us" ??? --Kryston (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My answer is: Please state the maximal size of the empire.
In theory, immediately after some publication, it could be referred to that publication, without taking it as a scientific fact (say: there is a proposition that…). When the finding/interpretation has been repeatedly commented In the scientific literature and it looks like there is an acceptance of the novelty, it may be given as a fact but still the author should be cited. In a popular text as the text in Wikipedia, I would wait until the scientific community start commenting on it. Since you did not give a full reference it is hard to say more right now. But may be you know that the interpretation of Drayer has been positively commented on? I would greatly appreciate, if this would not be to much to demand, a complete reference of the Dreyer’s work, please (a complete reference contains also all authors - if there are more then one, journal title, pages and the year of publication).
P.S. Who is “us”? My dog and I. Draganparis (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I got the book: Boris Dreyer, Die römische Nobilitätsherrschaft und Antiochos III (205 bis 188 v. Chr.). Frankfurter Althistorische Beiträge 11. Hennef: Buchverlag Marthe Clauss, 2007. Pp. 484. ISBN 3-934040-09-0 Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN..
All I ned now (we in fact. Ha, ha.) is the pages where he says that what you say that he says. Thanks. Draganparis (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
What are the names of the chapters? If I remember correctly, there is a chapter, which gives general informations about the Seleucid Empire. Should be in there. --Kryston (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
In principle, as I told you, my personal opinion is that the maximal extent of the empire should be certainly given, with may be some explanation, like: a full control of the empire was most of the time over the territories that excluded…(and then it could be listed what was not in the full control of the Seleucid kingdom).
As I suggested, if you propose to change something on the page it would make much stronger argument if you can give a full reference (with pages) and give full citation. This will make people believe. I am grateful that you spotted that article that I missed. Since I am in Berlin it will be easy matter to get it. I will come back to you when I will get it. Draganparis (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I finally examined Dreyer's book. There is nothing of what "Kryston" suggested. I am sory, Kryston, I have serious doubt that you saw the book. Dreyer, in the chapter V, it is true, mentioned "Unterwerfungsfertrag" as the means to limit the soverinity of these Indian regions. Therefore, you, Kryston, may be partially right: it shoud be stated that not "India" but the "North-West India was for some time under Seleucid Empire". Could you please do this. Thanks.Draganparis (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You are the master of kindness. On page 302 ff. Dreyer discusses the relationship between the central administration of the Seleucids and the periphery. Sadly he's concentrating on minor asia. He explicitly tells us, that seleucid power after 214/3 had a "streng durchgeliederte hierachische Struktur", above all in "direkt unterworfenen Gebieten" (page 319). Seleucid power in India never based on direct rule and even that never lasted for more than a few years. If you want to hear the opinion of a greek nationalist like myself, that leaves India out of the list of seleucid belongings. By the way: You have been right, I never read Dreyer's book. But kindly the devil gave me this informations. --Kryston (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Draganparis man, stop going around articles of Hellenistic content and trying to impose the non-existant term "Macedonian Hellenistic", because it simply doesn't exist. Miskin (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, Miskin, I have to correct your correction. I reintroduced "Macedonian" for Alexander's empire and for the succeeding generals (Diadochi).
The historians consider the “kingdom” of Alexander the Great or some of succession states (Seleucid) as “empires” (see Bosworth, A. B., Alexander the Great part 2, B,: Greece and the conquered territories, pp 859 and further, in: The Cambridge Ancient History, VI, The fourth century B. C. 1994. This has never been challenged. Modern European historians are even more loose when defining empires, listing over 20 empires in the past; see Maurice Diverger (Ed.) Le Concept d’empire, PUF, 1980 (also chapter IV, Pierre Leveque: Empire d’Alexandre et empires helléniques, who includes Egypt also as an empire), as literally all Ptolemys and Cleopatras were ethnic Macedonians. The Macedonians were quite ethnocentric as it could be judged from our today’s point of view. Almost all high positions in the army were held by Macedonians (see Borza, E.N., Makedonika, pp152-158) and Diadochi were all Macedonians. Also, the ethnic Macedonian army occupied the most important place in the empire(s). I do not understand why you all (Greeks?) insist on removing “Macedonian” from all designation of the Macedonian state, kingdom or empire? I do not know eminent historian who dismisses the “Macedonian” designation when talking of Alexander’s or Diadochy kingdoms. Do you? I explained at other places that political and cultural designations should not be confounded and would involve historiography error. These states are not politically but culturally designed as Hellenistic, and this is important so stress because as we understand today, cultural heritage had important impact on all sections of life including political aspects as well, but they must be seen separately. Not realising this may have far reaching unpleasant consequences. Thank you for your understanding. Draganparis (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I also replied in your talk page. It's not a question about removing words, it's a question about using the right terminology. Maybe I would like to call the British Empire an 'English colonial state', isn't that what it was? Arguably yes, but this is not the common name for the state hence I don't have the right to call it so on the grounds that "this is what it was". So let's take it from the top: "Macedonian Empire" is not a term that scholars use today for Alexander's empire, in fact it has never been used in history. If you look at hellenistic contemporary texts (the New Testament and the Old Testament deuterocanon are good examples) you'll find that the state is called either 'Greek empire' or 'Greece'. But I'm not saying that we should call it Greece either. We should call it what the modern scholars call it, which is simply "Alexander the great's empire" in 95% of the cases. There has been a similar conflict about the same name in a different article, it's not something I'm making up.
Secondly you really need to get over these obsessions of trying to point out a separate "ethnic macedonian" identity in the ancient world. Like I said in your profile this is anachronistic and unscientific. The only open question about the topic is whether or not there was a distinct ancient Macedonian language rather than a Macedonian dialect of Greek. It remains uncontested that:
  • Ancient Macedonian ruling family (the Argead dynasty) officially viewed themselves as Greeks from Argos.
  • By the time of Philip II the kingdom of Macedon had Attic Greek as the official state language.
  • After the conquests of Alexander the Macedonians were completely accepted by other Greeks as their kin.
  • After the conquests of Alexander all Greeks in his domain (including Macedonians) adopted the Koine Greek.
  • The Hellenistic colonies were colonies independently populated by Greeks from many different Greek cities (whereas in old Greek colonisation every new city had a metropolis="mother-city" on which it looked up to).
So really, there's not a question of "ethnic macedonian" identity in this topic. That's a modern Balkan conflict where the word "ethnic" is used as a red herring to make false implications about history. People are trying this on wikipedia everyday, and countless of times it has been tried it on the this topic, but it has never worked. Miskin (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Please give the citations of the “scholars” who maintain what you say. I think I gave the two most important references. Eugen Borza is another one who sees “Macedonian empire”. It is just pointless to give you the citations - there are hundreds. Or even better: please find books of late NGL Hammond on Macedonia, any one. The flagrant example is the book “The Macedonian State” (1989, Clarendon Press, 1989). THE Macedonian state! Referring also to the period 334-323 (particularly chapter 9).. There are hardly Greeks in Hammond, the kingdom is Macedonian, the king is Macedonian king, the army is Macedonian, and there are Greeks in the army also, but as the ancient biographies (Arrian, Curtius, Diodorus, Justin, Plutarch), Hammond accepts the possibility that their languages could have been similar to Greek. Or, consult other Hammond’s articles and you will see that the expression “Macedonian” prevails and is used as distinct from the “Greek” although, as I said, Hammond believed that the Macedonians were related to the Greeks ethnically. As you say, they really were united culturally. But only culturally, since the Macedonians kept their ethnocentrism to the very end of the Diadochi kingdoms! Or, in the “Genius of Alexander the Great” (1997, Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.), Hammond refers to the Alexander’s army as “Macedonians”, the state “Macedonian”, he is the king “of Macedonians”, etc. Of course there are the Greeks there also. However, he was “the King of Macedonians and King of Asia” (pages 114, 200), but never “king of Greeks”. Never, although he was one. In “A Hisrory of Macedonia”, book 3, p 93 (Clarendon Press 1988) Hammond and Walbank specify: “The aim of Alexander to create a Kingdom of Asia and not a Macedonian empire in Asia, similar to the MACEDONIAN EMPIRE IN THE BALKANS (my emphasis), was formally approved when he was publicly proclaimed “King of Asia” presumably by the Macedonians in his army…”. So we had, a Macedonian state, a Macedonian king of what we call today Macedonian empire. Well today German is similar to what Austrians or Swiss speak, but these are different states, aren’t they? Anyway, please do not introduce the current political disputes between Greece and FYRO-Macedona into these enthusiastic discussions of the ancient history.Draganparis (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Now wait: You want to prove your statement of a "Macedonian empire" with the phrase that it was "the aim of Alexander to create a Kingdom of Asia and not a Macedonian empire in Asia [...]"? That's remarkable. --Kryston (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
(See also in my Talk and Kryston's talk for the context) For Kryston "streng durchgeliederte hierachische Struktur", above all in "direkt unterworfenen Gebieten" (page 319) (see above comments) explains why Seleucid Empire could be defined as he wishes!!?? But, refering to the actual argument: Again no single citation! Dear Kryston and Miskin, I know you read English. Please read again all the context, all what I wrote and you will understand it. Dear friend even today the European dinasties are almost all foreign dinasties. English royal family is German, for example. What difference does it make, the queen is the Queen of England! No question of ethnic Macedonians? 99% of Alexander’s generals were Macedonians, Diadichi were Macedonians, Ptolomys went so far as to merry their sisters! to keep the Macedonian line!!! The garisons, almost all garisons, had the core of Macedonian units…. !!! You really do not know what you are talking about, I am sory (please do not be insultet, I mean it figurativelly).
I am trying to figure out why the Greeks (I presume that you are Greek, but tell me please if you are not) want to remove the name “Macedonia” from history? It is bewildering! You will force me to count the word “Macedonia” in Arrian, Diodorus, Justin (Trogus), Curtius or Plutarch, who are only existing early, but still tertiary sources on Alexanders biographies. I see that you and your “landsman” Kryston read and write English: please read one single book on history of Macedonia, read Hammond at least. Let alone the biographies. You will understand where is the emphasis of imperial power from the seconf half of 4th centuri to the 2nd century. It is ON MACEDONIA. Macedonia that has tremendous Hellenistic cultural impact, but Macedonia and NOT Hellas. James Ashley entitled his book “The macedonain empire” (McFarland, 2004). I already mentioned Maurice Diverger above, the most prominent French historian, Borza, Hamond etc, etc. This was not enough? You are not happy with my citations of the most prominent historians of Antiquity? OK. You “Googwick” scientist would do much better then to look up in Wikipedia! Or Google. There are hundreds of entries unde “macedonian empire”. Dear friends, there is no other solution then just reading. Please. Let me say again. I suported what I said with number of references that I gave, and your changes are pure vandalism, so I will take steps to punish you, I am sorry. If you are Greek nationalist, and since Macedonians were or become probably closer to the Hellens then to ANY other people in their surounding at that time, why do you then repudiate their importance? You are probably as much Macedonians as they are Greeks? I will never understand your absurd and certainly erroneous thinking. Please come back to this page AFTER HAVING READ some of the references that I gave you, but NOT BEFORE.Draganparis (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to continue replying I should have to ask from you to tone down the hysterical reactions and overtones. You want sources for what exactly? My source on the establishment of the Greek colonies throughout Alexander's empire is Ulrich Wilcken's Ancient Greek History. It analyses in depth how the Greek cities were established, their difference to the older Greek colonisation in Italy and Asia, as well as the role of Koine Greek as the common language of all Greeks (including Macedonians). The contemporary name of the empire, I told you, it's from the Bible - find a copy of the Maccabees online and read it. As for the Argead dynasty (the Macedonian ruling house) claiming itself royal Greek decent, that's just common knowledge and if you need a specific citation I could find plenty. Maybe the speeches of Alexander I and then Philip II to the Athenians, or the messages sent by Alexander to Greece would convince you of that, if happen to read any of it. If there was a question of separate Macedonian identity then Philip II wouldn't have named the alliance he lead "The Greeks" (known today as Corinthian league), nor would Alexander found Greek cities throughout his Empire and officialise the Koine Greek language in his world. All scholars mentioned earlier by you and me, Wilcken, Hammond and even Borza, but also other prominent scholars like Robin Lane Fox, they're all of the opinion that native Macedonian was a dialect of Greek, so reject the question of a separate ethnicity. That's just the majority opinion today, so for the majority (albeit not consensus) there was never a question of a Macedonian ethnic identity, of which you speak as if it was a common reality. For the scholars that there is such a question, it only remains an issue until the classical period, after that there's a complete assimilation in the Hellenistic world. Another striking proof of what the majority opinion is today, is the fact that we use the term "Hellenistic" (Hellene = Greek) in order to describe the historical period and the culture, and not "Macedonistic" or something similar, simply on the grounds that "Greek" is viewed as a superset of Macedonian, like "Iranian" is a superset of Persians. However, this is irrelevant to the question at hand so don't be starting a huge debate about it, it's very banal. Let's stick to what's relevent i.e. the use of terms such as "Hellenistic Macedonian" and "Macedonian Empire". I think even you would agree that the first one is a term you alone have made up and has never been used before, right? Right. And the second one is simply not a mainstream terminology. Whether or not it's been used once or twice is not the issue here. If it had been mainstream terminology then there would've been an article in wikipedia, Britannica and the dictionaries about it, but there it isn't. Like I said it's been discussed before in similar articles, I tried to use the term "Macedonian Empire" but other editors correctly stated that it's not a mainstream terminology. Yes that's right, it was me who tried to use that term, so I have no reason now to act bias or whatever. I'm just abiding by WP:NPOV. Miskin (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Help VANDALISM again[edit]

“Laveol”, “Miskin” and “Kryston”, all probably biased by their eventual Greek or Macedonian (FYROM) origins, obviously working in concert, permanently vandalise the page of Seleucid Empire removing from the Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great its "Macedonian" designation. We need an arbitration.Draganparis (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from insulting other editors over simple content disputes which happen on a daily basis all over wikipedia. Miskin (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, but for these kind of, what I would call - mistakes, Wikipedia imposes quite unpleasant term „vandalism“. I do not approve of the term, but here it simply indicates repeated erroneous actions (4 or 5 times you or your “supporters” corrected the qualification of the Alexander the Great empire as Macedonian empire. You say it was not Macedonian, opposing a historic truth and opinions of most prominent historians. To do this is false and you must be prevented of doing this. There are all signs that this is done out of simple ignorance, by you and couple of other people, who might be acting in concert -but this is also not sure. By itself it could not be morally wrong. Indeed I pointed out number of times to the mistakes and gave more then sufficient references, which you ignored again and again. There is either misunderstanding or profound ignorance. Ignorant are we all sometimes and this can not be insulting and is not my intention anyway. Please undo text of “Seleucid empire” and set it as I left it. In the circumstances, I have to call “help vandalism”. Please do not take it literally. I am asking for the editor’s arbitration to stop your erroneous repeated actions.Draganparis (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as wikipedia is concerned this is a typical case of content dispute and can by no means be considered as WP:VANDALISM. For what concerns the content dispute, I have replied and provided my sources in the section above. I'm not running for president and I have no supporters, I have never had any contacts with the involved editors before. It's just that the editor consensus is against you, and within good reason as far as I'm concerned. Miskin (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, you are trying to prove that something is not the case (“the Macedonian empire is not a term used to describe the Empire of Alexander the Great”) so you can not offer any evidence for this. This is logical: how can you demonstrate an inexistent fact. I am not blaming you for that. Indeed, the only way would be to list all possible places in literature where it is referred to and to show that the tem “Macedonian empire” is not there. This would require an extensive work of many years. I am not forcing you to do this, but I would appreciate very much if you would consider seriously the only possible alternative: A demonstration that it is an existent fact that “the empire of Alexander ahs been and is denominated as Macedonian empire”. If this were an existent fact it would be possible to demonstrate it. And I demonstrated to you, by listing number of references with EXACT pages and citations where this term is used or has been intended. The cited references are of such historical importance (coming from THE leading Anglo-Saxon historians like Hammond and Borza, James Ashley - his book “The Macedonian Empire” for example, leading French historian, like Maurice Diverger and his group, etc., chapter The Macedonian Empire” in a seminal work on the “Empires”). So you simply have to accept that “Macedonian empire” is a valid term. Therefore, I am blaming you for not accepting my demonstration. I am blaming you also for falsely citing and falsely using citations to prove your case.
My dear Miskin, when citing, the exact FULL reference must be given, that reference should be accompanied by also citing, word by word, the most relevant phrase. Then it is “a reference”. Simply giving the names or the titles of the works brings little. Also the Bible is not accepted as reliable reference, I am sorry. It must be a work of well known and accepted scientist-historian. Needless to say, as Kryston did – giving falsely spelled German citation that is irrelevant to the dispute, is also no proof at all and is an attempt to achieve something by illicit means. And then you, dear Miskin, for example, you are saying that all experts accept that Macedonian was a Greek dialect (what of course has nothing to do with our discussion), and give Hammond (who in reality says that he just “believes” that it could had been a Greek dialect; Borza, who DOES NOT believe that it was (!!!); and all say that they in fact do not know (!!!). The other “proofs” that you are advancing, that Macedonian royal family was Hellenes, although may be true, is IRELEVANT here!
Hellenism, in the end, has NOTHING to do in this discussion. It may well be that the inverse concerning “sets and subsets” of yours that you mentioned above: that the Greeks of the north were incorporated into Macedonian stock ( The kingdoms up to Perseus were indeed Macedonian kingdoms). On the other hand, Macedonians accepted Greek language as the language of trade, of the royal families and the language of culture, to slowly permit it to disappear after the dissolution of Ptolemy dynasty, who of course spoke Macedonian (language or dialect).
I am sorry, the way how you are trying to prove your (and your companions) point is not just incorrect, but since it is repeatedly done after you had been informed that the method is false, may be immoral and worth blaming. So, as a result, I claim “help vandalism”.Draganparis (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's start with my famous phrase in German: Of course it is irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps Draganparis hasn't noticed, that the phrase was about the question, if India should be kept in the list of Seleucid belongings or not. That's why it is listed in the chapter 'India'. The whole thing has nothing to do with the ethnic subject, that is mostly discussed on this page. Honestly, I don't care that much, which definition is used for the Seleucid borders: There is a good argument to take India in, and to leave it out.
  • It's true: My spelling has been terrible: It should be "hierarchische" instead of "hierachische". Well, if I have been wrong with this, perhaps I have been wrong with anything else also?! Wait, on the other hand Draganparis' spelling is much worse, so that would mean...
  • I don't understand, why Draganparis so desperately tries to change this article? It's about the Seleucids and its content isn't very close to the old macedonian-greek dispute. Wouldn't it make much more sense to change the article about Alexander the Great? Even I as a fanatic, nationalistic, conspirative, vandalistic Greek think it's unfair, that Alexander there is only counted as greek but not as macedonian. But that's no reason to spoil this little article. --Kryston (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Kryston, I recognised in my comment of 13th of August that, on the issue of India, you had just partially right and that issue was hard to decide, and we agreed I think on that matter. I objected that you did not see the book. The rule is in any case that, when describing power of empires, to mention their maximal territorial extent, and to mention what space they occupied for long time, which is often much smaller. So I proposed to do the same with Seleucids. I am sure you agree. Yet I think you did not correct - what you did on the page - I think, I even did not look. I lost enthusiasme about Wikipedia because its BUT you wanted to prove that you “read the book”, my friend, and you returned to this discussion with really completely irrelevant citations. OK? (The spelling mistake observation was just a joke, this is not so important here.)
On the other issue, on “Macedonian empire” we may agree if you would accept my argumentation. It is true the issue is not “India” but “Macedonian Empire” and if you know how to do this, please move it there. I will, on the contrary, take a rest and observe from time to time what you people are doing.
I am very sincere to you and would greatly appreciate if you were sincere to me also and explain me why do you Greeks (I presume) want to remove the term “Macedonian” from the historic period of Macedonian domination? Why? How is it possible that you do not see what everyone sees: Macedonian ethnocentrism during that period, this has been documented by all tertiary sources of Alexander’s biographers, and commented by number of modern historians. As I said, it is possible that Macedonians and Greeks (Hellenes) were of the same or related stock (as Germans and Austrians are; or Balkan Slaves, who are all also in the same way extreme nationalists in spite of their ethnic similarity). So Macedonians controlled almost all. Yet, you want to remove the term “Macedonian”. It is true Alexander wanted World Empire, since he knew that imposing Macedonism to the entire Empire would mean its end. And it did not last long. The Romans did not follow that ethnocentrism and the Roman Empire lasted. If today any multicultural society would relay on only one dominant ethnic group as Macedonian Empire tried in antiquity, such society would collapse immediately. Yes, unifying power of the Macedonian Empire WAS the common language (coine, so Greek) and Hellenic culture. So we had Macedonian state structure and Hellenic culture as fantastic social glue. What destroyed the Empire was, to very important extent, its local "Macedonism". I only beg you and the others to read Arrian at least, and Hammond, and it will be enough. Please. We will understand each other much better then. Draganparis (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Draganparis, you guessed right, I was a little pissed off, because you accused me of having not read the book. I did it two years ago and now I have read parts of it again. Let this thing rest: I take the India-thing back in the article.
The ethnic problem: First of all, I am not greek and I'm not of greek origin or anything else. And I think the term FYROM is discriminating. As I said, it's a shame that Alexanders true macedonian ancestry is denied in his article, BUT I still do not see any reason, why this fact should be mentioned here. Macedonia was the political power behind hellenism, Greece the cultural one. That's why historians are using the term hellenistic to avoid any ethnic conflict. Perfect solution. --Kryston (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Why do we dispute then at all when we agree?
But we do not agree completely, I suspect. This is good, since if we agreed, there would have been no converstation. It would be terribly sad to see disappear the expression “Macedonian”. I do not really know how much FYROM is really Macedonia. The land – yes, its north part… or who knows. These times are so remote, we do not know who exactly lived there at these times. The old Macedonia was certainly down around Thermaic bay. I was there many times in the eighties. If you are there, then you are suddenly Macedonian! But this is all that matters, because people are what they are, a mixture of various ethic entities anyway. When I go to Greece, I AM Greek. When I am in Germany, where I am now, I AM German. This is the land and this is history that make us “people”. My Kryston, the saddest thing that could happen at all and it happened! was that the Macedonia disappeared and has been left to the people of Slave origin or FYROM, or call it how you think the best would be, to defend that term, to defend the use of the word that was in the origin, as you sad, of the rise of Hellenism. It is not bad that they are defending it, but it is bad that we all are not trying to do the same, to pull it out from oblivion.
It is true Macedonians and Alexander (even if he was of Greek origin) had many vices (would have been in the Hague today for what he did then), but the idea of the united World based on Hellenic culture has been the greatest idea ever born in human mined. I think that he did not learn this from Aristotle. He learned this when he was deep in Persia and when he realised that life is short, and that worth of the human beings is just immeasurable, no matter which race there were. Then, to subdue them he thought that would be pure madness. So he tried to make them just equal to the Macedonians and to the Greeks. This is the idea born in Macedonian Asian expedition, not Hellenic idea, this was the Idea of the Macedonian king, who could have been Greek, but who was beyond, far beyond belonging to any race. But he did it all with his Macedonians, and he was proud of them! Read Diodorus Siculus and you will be happier man, Kryston. This is why I think we need the expression “Macedonian”. When you read Arrian, or even Hammond, a modern historian, the expression “Macedonian” overwhelms you Kryston. That was Macedonian world. We should keep it in history. This is something that was once, long time ago, and history is just about these things, Kryston.…Draganparis (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't got the slightest idea of how ridiculous you're making yourself sound with all those contradictions and conspiracy theories of yours. You have based your entire views on a sole author who happens to hold a minority view on the topic and he acknowledges it himself (Borza). I don't think you've read Hammond or if you did you didn't understand much. Hammond proposes first a Doric and then an Aeolian branch of what he considers a Macedonian dialect. This also happens to be a majority view among scholars, supported also by Lane Fox and many others older and modern. Borza holds a minority view on the topic and frankly I'm a bit fed up with people picking their favourite author and trying to build wikipedia according to minority views, this is against WP:NPOV. I'm not saying that this is what you did, you made minor changes to the article, but many people do so. You on the other hand have been acting very silly in this talk page. Just stop making personal comments to editors, calling them names and making ludicrous claims about conspiracy theories on the editor consensus. And please read WP:AGF while you're at it. It would be too easy for me or anyone here to reply to your comments by calling you Slav, Bulgar of whatever it is, but no-one has done so. Frankly I'm not going to edit-war you over this and I didn't intend you, I don't care so much. It's only a matter of time before someone rewrites the head and maybe the entire article, because this is wikipedia. I only made one edit in the article in an effort to improve it, I'm not fanatically trying to pass a POV like you are. And the only reason I'm replying to your silly comments is because, just like Kryston, I enjoy seeing that some articles remain free of fanatic POV-pushers. The facts up to this point are the following:

  1. Today "Macedonian Empire" is NOT a standard term for Alexander's empire, probably because none of its contemporaries ever called it so.
  2. There's no such term as "Macedonian Hellenistic". It's not that it isn't standard like in point 1, it's that it doesn't exist, it's a fiction of your imagination. It's like insisting on calling the Roman Empire/period "Latin Roman" or something.

If you can't understand those simple facts and abide by WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:UNDUE then I have nothing more to say to you, we just don't speak the same language. Miskin (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and so that you know, ancient Macedonia prior to becoming an empire under Philip II, was not at all located where the Slavic speaking modern Macedonia is, have a look at the maps in the article Macedon. Funny, for one who has no bias amongst bias conspirators like me and Kryston, you're really making a lot of mentions and drawing too many parallels between the things you allegedly don't care about. Maybe it's time you realised that you're not more smart or cunning than the people around you. Miskin (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave probably 20 references to support what I wrote. If you are not able to produce ONE SINGLE reference, then what you do is VANDALISM. In addition, your text above boils of pro “FYROM” or pro-"pan-Hellenistic" political bias. Will you please get out of the discussion. Thank you. Draganparis (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because you can isolate some authors who used "Macedonian Empire" a few times it doesn't mean that it's a standard term. The fact that there's no encyclopedia or dictionary entries by this title it is the proof that it's not a standard term. What do you expect? To find an author who says "So so so, Macedonian Empire is not a standard term in historiography so don't use it in wikipedia"? As for your other off topic claims and and statements on the Macedonians (such as their language), they're minority views of Borza and do not at all fall into the majority views of Hammond and Lane Fox. And Borza acknowledges that. There are your references. And please, do read wikipedia's policies. Start with WP:AGF, WP:VANDALISM and WP:CIVIL that you've been constantly abusing. You're not the one who decides who stays and who goes. Kthxbai. Miskin (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Miskin, what I first propose to some "GoogWik" scientists, is to look up - in Google or Wikipedia. Please do the same. In fact, my dear friend, the use of that expression is trivial matter, and your insisting on it is certainly of political nature. Please restrain from interfiring if you are not in clear about your political bias. Britannica uses Macedonian Empire, UNESCO uses it also... Please look up what I already cited and also what follows. Apart from the scientific literature that I already cited, here are some books and Internet sites (hundreds could be found, including Wikipedia, Wikimedia and similar sources. Just enter "Macedonian Empire" and you will find hundreds! Of course, majority are FYROM or pan-Hellenistic propaganda but number of them are not.) Here are some.

  • Alexander the Great Failure: The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire, By Grainger John D. Hambledon & London, 2008
  • Rise of the Macedonian Empire (Epochs of Ancient History) by Rev. G. W. Cox and C. Sankey, Scribner (1916)
  • An entry on Macedonian Empire in; Great Events from History: The Ancient World, Prehistory-476 C.E., Editor: Mark W. Chavalas, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Consulting Editors: Mark S. Aldenderfer, Carole A. Barrett, Jeffrey W. Dippmann, Christopher Ehret, and Katherine Anne Harper, ISBN: 978-1-58765-155-7, List Price: $175, April 2004 • 2 volumes • 1,089 pages • 8"x10"
I ma sorry, you are producing "vandalism". Draganparis (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

From my part you can add the term "Macedonian Empire" as many times as you like to describe Alexander's empire. This of course will create more conflicts in the future but you won't be here to participate so you obviously don't care. I don't have the intention of reverting your edits, I've only made one edit so far and that was with the intention to improve. However I will remove the term "Hellenistic Macedonian" or "Macedonian Hellenistic" in any article I see it simply because it's a term that you alone have invented. And for the last time, stop making personal attacks and assumptions about me, you don't know me. You keep breaching WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, both fundamental policies, and since you've been refusing to read wikipedia rules on your own then maybe someone should have an admin explain things to you. Instead of quoting what you read on the internet take two minutes of your life and read WP:VANDALISM before using that term again and making a fool of yourself. Miskin (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion turning out to become a personal discussion should continue on "talk" pages; so I left my last comment on the "talk" page of Miskin. Draganparis (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The comunity of obviously linked persons is permanently vandalising this page. If you can not develope an argument, please abondon the subject that you do not know. Accept knowledge. Do not vandalise, this distroyes the idea of Wikipedia. Thank you Draganparis (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Zakronian, Laveol and couple of others (probably acting as a group) are permanently vandalising the page. Sanctions are needed. Draganparis (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In what sense can the Diadochi be considered Macedonians regardless to each one's specific origin ? Not minding the first question your addition is redundant, it just makes the introduction uglier, this is how simple it is for me. This discussion here apart from revealing your obsession to highlight certain things, evolved around the term "Macedonian empire", not whether "Alexander's Macedonian generals" is an established reference to the Diadochi, which i'm sure it isn't. Please go cry for help to an admin or something and don't repeat yourself here, leave my last revert as proof of vandalism also. --Zakronian (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

Draganparis, Zakronian - please resolve this issue rather than putting the word "Macedonian" in and out repeatedly. It may help to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for expressing national preferences.

What national views ? What's this addition supposed to serve there ? To me it's inaccurate, and whatever we agree "Macedonian" should denote at that period, it's redundant in any sense. And i'm supposed to talk about it with an obsessed person who calls me and other editors vandals ? I read the discussions above and couldn't pick out any argument, do me the honor and point me to one. --Zakronian (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. It is hard to run an encyclopedia on democratic principles ignoring the power of argument. In addition, the absence of the academic arbitration is the cause of this endless dispute. But this is how Wikipedia is organized. I wrote long texts at other places about this, and received little understanding in return. Probably because the amateur scientists or as I call them "Googwik Scientists" (people who get their "scientific" knowledge mainly through Google and Wikipedia) are in majority. I would declare as a qualifying criterion for the people who want to change these pages to have read all 5 existing tertiary sources about Alexander III. Unfortunately this will certainly not receive much support. For Zakronian: the term "vandalism" is valid Wikipedia term, nothing personal.Draganparis (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Spare me the rants. There are three terms to account for: "Alexander's generals", "Alexander's successors" and "Macedonian generals", the last also (if not mostly) used to refer to the inner circle of Macedonian-by-origin figures, obviously the one to avoid in view of possible disputes. Your synthesis serves no purpose there other than to push a view that already failed to establish consensus, pretty limited use to even think of backing it that way. Had enough of pseudoexperts like you.--Zakronian (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Obvious militant nationalistic approach with insulting tendencies. I know that the problem is hard and that political bias combined with ignorance is quite “redoutable” opponent. The editor may want to resolve the dispute, or let the politically organised group subsist amid history pages on Wikipedia. For some time…Draganparis (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Zakronian removed my comments form his “talk” and my comment just above, from this “discussion” and is trying to hide the history of the discussion?! I have to warn Zakronian that removing the other people’s comment that he/she does not like does not remove them completely and they stay in “history”. Let alone that this is illegal and presents an immoral act and breach of the rules of Wikipedia and may lead to permanent expulsion from the site. Please don’t do it again.Draganparis (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Zakronian removes other people comments from Wikipedia. This is illegal. Zakronian must be prevented to edit Wikipedia pages. HELP VANDALISMDraganparis (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


Britannica, Seleucid kingdom, 2008, O.Ed.

The Seleucid kingdom was a major centre of Hellenistic culture, which maintained the preeminence of Greek customs and manners over the indigenous cultures of the Middle East. A Greek-speaking Macedonian aristocratic class dominated the Seleucid state throughout its history, although this dominance was most strongly felt in the urban areas. Resistance to Greek cultural hegemony peaked during the reign of Antiochus IV (175–163),

--Xenovatis (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. Thanks.Draganparis (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hellenistic, Macedonian or Diadoch?[edit]

I would hate to revive an old and inflamed debate, but I actually think that the introduction is somewhat imprecise.

The Seleucid Empire /sə'lusɪd/ (312 - 63 BC) was a Hellenistic empire, i.e. a successor state of Alexander the Great's empire.

Hellenistic states are not equivalent with the successor states of Alexander's Empire. (Or Diadoch state, after the Diadochs, who were Alexander's generals.)

And in this specific case, there is good reason to promote that these Diadoch states were Macedonian states, as opposed to Greek. The Ptolemies, Antigonids and Seleucids were all Macedonian on the male side - which was what mainly counted then and still does for whatever royalty remains in the world today - until the very end (except for the children of Cleopatra VII, whose fathers were Roman generals). All the Diadochs except Eumenes of Cardia were Macedonians. There were other Hellenistic states, such as the Pergamene or Bactrian, whose kings were possibly of ethnic Greek origin. Non-Greek but Hellenised states like Bithynia and Cappadocia are also frequently referred to as Hellenistic, and even the early Parthians and Hasmoneans were partly Hellenistic kings (for one reference see Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization VII), Aarhus University Press, 1996, which contains essays on Parthian, Bithynian and Hasmonean kings).

Pyrrhus of Epirus - who was Alexander's second cousin once removed - was apparently a Hellenistic king, especially as he was briefly king of Macedonia as well. While Epirus was without Alexander's empire, it was held by a related dynasty and hellenised in the same manner as

Classical authors such as Justin often refer to the Seleucids as Macedonians (cf Epitome, 41.4), even when setting them against such apparently Hellenistic entities as the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom.

For once, I think it would be misleading not to add that the Seleucid Empire was a Macedonian Hellenistic Empire, especially as the successors states were extremely centered around their dynasties. This has absolutely nothing to do with the unsubstantiated claims that ancient Macedonians are related to their modern namesakes. Sponsianus (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Although I think that your argumentation is wrong, your conclusion is right. A dynasty does not determine the nature of an empire. In the ancient times and even in our modern times the dynasties are very often not of the same ethnic origin as the inhabitants of the states, but the states may be still strongly nationalistic. This in spite of the fact that the sovereign does NOT belong to the nation. British empire had (and the Great Britain still has) a German dynasty. Whether Macedonian Argeides were of Greek origin is disputed, but the Macedonian state was very nationalistic “Macedonian kingdom”. Indeed the empires are made up of various peoples but their state organisation, particularly political, military and financial structures were in the hands of the empire building people and in the time of the Ancient Macedonian these were almost exclusively the Macedonians. So, the empire of Alexander III and Diadochi was a “Macedonian Empire” par excellence. Therefore it will be correct to continue to call them “Macedonian” and avoid “Hellenistic” which implies cultural and not political organisation. Culturally the Rome was a “Hellenistic empire” also – which would be of course absurd to say. The Third Reich tried to mix cultural and political values with the intention not only to unify “Germanic race” but to impose a domination of the Germanic people over all other who belonged to “Germanic race”. Similar tendencies could be seen in introducing “Hellenism” or “Hellenistic” there where the correct term would be “Macedonian”.Draganparis (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It is strange that expression "Macedonian" seams to be replaced by the expression "Greek" at many places. Is this here the case also? Both "Greek" and "Hellenism" are of modern date. With Alexander the Great and later (to the Roman occupation) the entire modern Greece land was Macedonian empire, not Greece! The territory of modern Greece was separated at least into Hellas (south), Tesali, Epirus and some other regions irrelevant here (see "Byzantine themas")and - Macedonia and Thrace (in the north). This was a great empire, too great to be removed from history so easily. Can somebody, some historian of profession verify this? Discussion of the article shows that some "vandalism" has taken place and the discussion deteriorated considerably to kind of offensive intimidation. Could some administrator intervene from time to time help avoid impolite interventions. Wikipedia must remain a reliable and decent source of evidence. Herodotus1A (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted to the version that I introduced, the previous version being confusing (reference to the Persian Empire) and inexact, in particular because of not mentioning Macedonian Empire and political connotations that it obviously had. The changes are based on the extended discussion already present and abundant literature, for example Edson C. Imperium Macedonicum: The Seleucide Empire and the literary evidence, Classical Philology LIII: 153-170, July 1958, or Billows, A. R. Kings and Colonists, Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism, EJ Brill, 1995; Billows, A. R. Antigonos the One-Eyed and the creation of the Hellenictic state, University of California Press, 1990.; Ashley, JR: The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare Under Philip II and Alexander theGreat 359-.323 B.C. Mcfarland & Co Inc, New edition (April 2004); John D. Grainger, JD, Alexander the Great Failure: The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire, Hambledon Continuum, 2009; Arthur Mapletoft Curteis, MA: Rise of the Macedonian Empire, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009. Please do not undo this scholarly correction.Simple100 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Finaly somebody resonable. Thanks.Draganparis (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Section 2 seems to duplicate the content in section 4. I haven't tracked down how this arose in the history of the article, but it needs to be fixed. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We have again a dispute about "Hellenistic" vs. "Macedonian". I think it was clear that both terms were correct!Buridan2001 (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Calling it a Macedonian state is seriously misleading; recent scholarship recognises the extensive Babylonian and Achaemenid legacies in its structures and ideologies. Look, for example, at Sherwin-White, The Cylinder of Antiochus I from Borsippa; this point has been exhaustively researched and demonstrated by Kuhrt, Sherwin-White, Briant, and possibly others, and I can give further references if necessary. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


The fact that the Seleucid king Antiochus XII Dionysus was killed by the Nabateans in 87 BC, the death of his army by starvation and the establishment of Nabatean rule over Damascus before Armenians, seems to be ignored in the article? Makeandtoss (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)