AEGYPTUS

So I am just wondering how did Greek rulers and nobles communicate with the lower classes of soceity if only the upper were willing to learn Greek? Did the rulers have to learn local languages?

So does anyone know under the Seleucids reign over the largest chunk of Alexander's Empire actually manage to bring Greek religion and language to the Mesopotamian region or did Greek/Macedonian colonist just have to learn the local languages, worship local Gods and wear similar dress?

what I mean is for example did the Macedonian language/Dress/religion mange to gain roots in the East (Mesopotamia) or not I thought the Sentence "what aspects of Greek/Macedonian life survived in the East" would have sumed all that up. The paragraph I quoted above I am going to try and explain better maybe it did come out kind of wrong. Alexander loved the east and it culture an luxuries. So therefore I am wondering as to whether Greek/Macedonian culture managed to get roots in the region is that clearer?

I was wondering if anyone could tell me what aspects of Greek culture survived in the Middle East (Mesopotamia) after the death of Alexander and later in the decline an fall of the Seleucids to Pompey in 63 BC. As everyone with some basic knowledge of the Middle East knows there were many cultural influences some examples Sumerian,Akkadian,Assyrian,Babylonian,Persian,Phoenician,Hittite,Egyptian an of course the Greeks and later the Romans so the list id endless. In this huge melting pot of different cultural influences which one was dominant? Would it be the Greeks as Alexander did pretty much conquer it all. So maybe Greek culture had time to flourish in the region. Although then again the same could be said for the Persians. Also it looks as though life in the East suited Alexander who loved the luxuries and riches that came hand in hand with ruling the region. He did after all marry Roxanne a native to the region opposed to a member of the Macedonian or Greek aristocracy. Alexander spent little tile in his homeland i know this is because he did not get the chance dieing in Babylon. It does no look as though he had intended to it he had lived as he built Alexandria and planned to make it his capital I know this was for campaign reasons nearer to action therefore easier for him to rule his empire but why not Pella in Macedonia it is his homeland after all. So perhaps because of these reasons above Greek/Macedonian culture was only able to dilute the diverse melting pot which is the East!!! I would like to hear other peoples opinions on the subject as I cannot really make up my mind. Thanks a lot Aegyptus

I thought the city was important for trade reasons that is how it accumalate all of it riches in the first place. I am not disagreeing with you but when did trade start to move further west?

Really now that is interesting. Anyones you could name in particular? That lead this small Feminist revolution. What greater freedoms did they gain?

I voted for Constantine The Great founding a city like Constantinople certainly had an effect on European history atleast. Also the Edict of Milan which legalized Christianity would certainly had major effects on world history. Or atleast the known world at the time.

I wonder would the Barbarian troops have known how to speak Latin atleast some anyway? If not communication throughout the armies of Rome that used barbarian units would have been relativley poor at best.

Didnt Alexander have plans to invade Italy before he died in Babylon? imagine how different history would have been if Macedonia had conquered Italy.

Quick question to anyone who can answer. How come Roman/Byzantine military tactics were so ill suited to fighting tribes like the Huns for example? Was this also due to bad leadership or were their military tactics/style getting out dated?

Phil if that is the case might I ask how on earth something like that could possibly float on the water? Marble walls an Mosaics. If it did float it must have been rather low on the water. From what they found did they work out how something so large and heavy could float?

I believe the High Priestess of Vesta and all the Vestal Virgins for that matter enjoyed a higher Social standing than most Roman Women of the time. As they were forbidden to have relationships with men this meant they were free of the legalities of "patria potestas" paternal power. So they could bequeath personal belongings and testify in law courts.

Very true. Mehmet gave them three days of looting but the city was effectively sacked in one. All the riches as you said had been taken 1204. Material that is. Citizens were the major form of wealth left in the city as in Slaves!!! The Churches and monasteries had the most of Constantinople's expensive items Chalices etc... So they were all marked out as major targets when little or nothing was found in the houses. The Relic Hodegetria depicting Mary and infant the most sacred of Constantinople relics was hacked into four pieces to be melted down. Which is rather sad really as this Relic had been marched along the city walls on many occasions previous to 1453 and is said to have been the reason why the city had never fallen. So a major part of the city history was lost in a sense.

Thanks a lot Ursus I will try to get some of those and have a read through them. I do not know alot about the Greeks but hope to find out more from what you have given me. Thanks again

The works of Conn Imakeitupasigoalong? I read Conn Igguldens books. It is based on fact but the author bends the truth throughout the book to put it lightly. Although I would agree with Ciro a very good read. How many in that series think it is four.

Mehmet grew up in Edrine (Adrinanople) he grew up very familiar with Greek and Roman works. He was absolutely fascinated by their cultures. Yes he also claim the title of Caesar. His dieing ambition was to conquer Rome. Also after the siege all the slaves he got (Greeks) he forced them to resettle in Constantinople (Istanbul) which is rather strange as these people would despise him for destroying their city!! However according to the book I just read by Roger Crowley during the looting Mehmet had troops posted outside the church of the Holy Apostle to prevent soldiers from looting it. Bizarre considering he worshiped an opposing religion. He kept many Greeks inside the city and believe it or not persevered to keep Istanbul as multi cultural as physically possible. However his successor did not agree and imposed heavy taxes on Christians through out the city.

I wonder how much that was? It may not have been as high as one would think perhaps jealousy of Constantinople may also have been a factor do you think just wondering? It may not be the case at all but I was just interested. Do you think due to the schisms in the Christian church would Catholics have been willing to help destroy a city of Constantinople? If I recall correctly there were some German engineers in the European mercenary section of Ottoman army!!

That is really funny. Keira Knightley Try wearing a corset! Was rather repetitive don't you think lol :D

Sure but with money comes the ability to buy better weaponry from place such as England and France as you said. So what if it was European engineers. The Ottomans were smart enough to exploit this knowledge to use it in the Siege of Constantinople. The Europeans were stupid enough to aid the Ottomans though some did not have a choice if the lived in Ottoman occupied Europe. It is important to remember that they indeed won at Constantinople so they had to be fairly advanced to take on the allegedly up till that point unconquerable walls of the city.

Could you explain one thing to me Kosmo I do not quite understand. Two question to ask of you. First I think that to say the turks did not have many resources is slightly underestimating them. They had control over Constantinople the Silk and Gold roads pass right through this city to get to Europe. Also they have control over sea trade in the Black Sea region due ot the cities (Constantinople) position on the Hellespont. So I would have thought they would have had much resources at their disposal would they not? Also my second question would be you said you dougth their capability to expand in to western Europe. Did they not get to the walls of Vienna I would consider that Western Europe. Even if they were defeated their this still proves that they had resources enough to launch the campaign in the first place would it not?

Yeah I suppose your right it would have been stretching Ottmoman resources to the limits. I also did not realise they were expanding above the Black sea. Thanks for answering my question. I feel rather silly now.

If they had control over Italy they could have attacked Vienna on two fronts is what I am trying to get at but yes I admit they would their forces would be rather stretched. Europe was not united maybe it may not put up to much resistance.

Perhaps Kosmos it was all to do with self promotion. By conquering sophisticated subjects they could claim that they were better than those they conquered. So therefore promoting themselves. Greece is a very cultured region with plenty of sophisticated people. So my question to you would be why would the Egyptians not want to conquer parts of Greece the ruling class at the time being the Ptolemy's. There simply trying to regain there homeland perhaps get in touch with their roots (Macedonia/Greece)!! Or try to rebuild Alexanders Empire. :D

I Learned a lot form reading your summary Ursus. It is really interesting !! Might I ask where do you get all your information form? Do you have any links where you got all info form? Or books?

Perhaps more of a morale blow to Europe Maybe then? Also what about Constantinople it was a important religous center for Orthodoxy was it not.