Discuss ancient history with an unqualified fool

[Representative Joe Mad]

Thanks for the good reply.  I read a book that translated and explained the writings of the roman general Arrian regarding Alexander's campaigns against the Persian Empire, but it only briefly dwelt on the Diadochi (I believe the same author has released another book focusing on these fellows though, which I need to pick up).  I found both Alexander's campaigns and especially the aftermath of his death very interesting.

Another question then, if I may.  This is straying a couple centuries outside of your criteria, but I figured you might have some interest in it, considering the current discussion.  The final war between the Sassanids and Byzantines wore down both empires, of course, so whenever the Arabs burst forth out of their peninsula bad times were to be had by all.  What are some of the reasons that the Byzantines survived and the Sassanids collapsed?  Was their land easier to defend?  Was it due to the leadership of their emperor?  Were the Sassanids just more depleted both economically and militarily?  I know that the Arabs twice laid siege to Constantinople, but never captured it.  So while they did do some major damage to the Byzantines, they never did manage to conquer them, and the Byzantines did rather well holding out as long as they did against the massive caliphates.

[Cassius]

Sorry for my tardiness in replying, but Latin and preparation for my next seminar are an absolute b!tch at the moment. Anyway...

I love the Alexius Comnenus scenario on that game . Its definitely more feasible to go with a Byzantine revival prior to 1204 (and probably prior to the reign of Manuel Comnenus) since after that the 'empire' would never really be an 'empire' again. However, I wouldn't rule out a Byzantine revival taking place, say, after the fall of the Latin kingdom, but after that point its very unlikely it would ever reach its former glory and be more than a small state based in and around the Aegean.

Well, a state covering between Syria and the Danube can be called properly an empire by medieval standards, and after all the Romaioi were the heirs of the imperial tradition in the East. Since the death of Manuel Komnenos, the disintegration of the state became evident, although the underlying causes can be traced earlier. If the issue is the mere survival of a Byzantine state around the Aegean Sea, perhaps a fictional success of the rebelion in Asia Minor led by Alexios Philantropenos -the so called "Belisarius of the Palailogian era" who ended blinded by the emperor's henchmen- might be an interesting startpoint for a storyline. Arguably that goal sounds too modest when I created the Kingdom if Rus twice, defeated the Mongols, Turks and other enemies and made the Mediterranean a Roman Orthodox lake in CK

Of course, in some games with the Byzantines you do have the advantage of the Turks (and the other Islamic factions) having a civil war every 6 months (at least that's what I've observed), a luxury that the Byzantines lacked to some extent . As for your first point, well that's true, my 'empire' comment was more referring to the restored 'empire' under the Palaeologi, rather than the empire during the days of the Comnenus family, which was indeed an empire.

Thanks for the good reply.  I read a book that translated and explained the writings of the roman general Arrian regarding Alexander's campaigns against the Persian Empire, but it only briefly dwelt on the Diadochi (I believe the same author has released another book focusing on these fellows though, which I need to pick up).  I found both Alexander's campaigns and especially the aftermath of his death very interesting.

Another question then, if I may.  This is straying a couple centuries outside of your criteria, but I figured you might have some interest in it, considering the current discussion.  The final war between the Sassanids and Byzantines wore down both empires, of course, so whenever the Arabs burst forth out of their peninsula bad times were to be had by all.  What are some of the reasons that the Byzantines survived and the Sassanids collapsed?  Was their land easier to defend?  Was it due to the leadership of their emperor?  Were the Sassanids just more depleted both economically and militarily?  I know that the Arabs twice laid siege to Constantinople, but never captured it.  So while they did do some major damage to the Byzantines, they never did manage to conquer them, and the Byzantines did rather well holding out as long as they did against the massive caliphates.

I've always found the successors more interesting than Alexander to be honest, because, in the end, its probable that they, and not Alexander himself, had a more long-lasting historical impact.

As for your question, I'd put it down to geographical distance to a certain extent. The heartlands of the Sassanid empire were far closer to the Arab world than Constantinople was, and thus they (along with the Byzantine provinces in the Levant and Africa) bore the full brunt of the Arab advance. By the time the Arabs reached Constantinople (and it should be remembered that Constantinople was a very well defended city at the time), they'd run out of steam a bit, and in failing to capture Constantinople, they failed to cut off the head of the empire, allowing it to survive. Of course, the Byzantine-Sassanid wars of the 7th century are an archetypal example of a disaster for both sides, but I think its true that the Sassanids were left a little bit weaker (bearing in my that they had done very well in the early stages of the war), and that this, when coupled with the vulnerable nature of their territories, proved to be their undoing.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Was there organised crime in ancient societies? Namely is there any evidence for Mafia-like organisations in Rome or Egypt or elsewhere?

[Cassius]

Was there organised crime in ancient societies? Namely is there any evidence for Mafia-like organisations in Rome or Egypt or elsewhere?

Sorry for getting back to you late on this, but the answer is a definitive yes. To take an example, many of the Roman 'collegia' (meaning an organisation of individuals joined by law), were in essence criminal enterprises, albeit ones to which Roman officialdom usually turned a blind eye (and even occasionally utilised, to deliver shipments or even collect taxes, as well as for the purpose of political intimidation). Many people would also be sold into slavery by criminal gangs that would roam the countryside looking for targets. I'm not as sure of the status of organised crime in Greece or Egypt, but I'd be pretty surprised if there were no similar organisations to the criminal segments of the Roman 'collegia'.

[Cassius]

Anyone have any queries on the Peloponnesian Wars? Given that I'm writing one of my essays on that topic (well, that and its aftermath) at this present point.

[Lumine]

Anyone have any queries on the Peloponnesian Wars? Given that I'm writing one of my essays on that topic (well, that and its aftermath) at this present point.

Along with the Diadochi that has to be one of the moments of Greek history with endless possibilities, so I was wondering, do you think the Athenian expedition to Sicily could have been a relative sucess with Alcibiades on the lead? (I know Sicily was too big for Athens to swallow, but surely the expedition didn't have to end in such a crippling disaster, right?)

And for that matter, if Alcibiades were to survive Tisafernes's ambush and live, do you think he would have had any chance of getting back into a position of power?