The Conflict between Macedonian King of Thrace Lysimachos and Getian King Dromichaites

Conflictul dintre Dromichaites si Lysimach [ cap-I-] 

Philip II of Macedonia

 Reconstructed face of Philip II 

Philip II of Macedon, (Greek: Φίλιππος Β' ο Μακεδών — φίλος = friend + ίππος = horse^[1] — transliterated Philippos (help·info) 382 – 336 BC, was a Greek^[2][3] king (basileus) of Macedon from 359 BC until his assassination in 336 BC. He was the father of Alexander the Great and Philip III.

http://www.livius.org/phi-php/philip/philip_ii.htm

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/macedon/

More photos at:

http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/PhilipposBibliogr.htm 

 

http://wwwofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Rawlinson.html

https://www.lssu.edu/faculty/jswedene/FLEM_CH_3_HELLENISM_LECTURE_TOTAL.html

Cothelas

 Cothelas, also known as Gudila, (fl. 4th century BC) was a Getae king, who ruled an area near the Black Sea, between northern Thrace and the Danube.^[1] His polity also included the important port of Odessos. Around 341 BC he concluded a treaty with Macedonian king Philip II, becoming his vassal. This relation was further cemented when Cothelas' daughter, Meda of Odessa, became one of the Macedonian king's wives.^[2]

Meda of Odessa

 

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phillip_Museum.jpg

Philip the II Greaves

"[Archaeologists] announced that the burial in the main chamber of the large rich [tomb] was that of Philip II, father of Alexander the Great, who was assassinated in 336 B.C," said Eugene N. Borza, professor emeritus of ancient history at Pennsylvania State University.

The initial suggestion that the tomb might belong to Philip II was indicated by the greaves, one of which indicated that the owner had a leg injury which distorted the natural alignment of the tibia (Philip II was recorded as having broken his tibia). What is viewed as possible proof that the tomb indeed did belong to Philip II and that the surviving bone fragments are in fact the body of Philip II comes from forensic reconstruction of the skull of Philip II by the wax casting and reconstruction of the skull which shows the damage to the right eye caused by the penetration of an object (historically recorded to be an arrow).^[6]

 Philip of Macedon B.C. 359-336]

 SIEGE OF ODESSUS

Then Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, made     65
alliance with the Goths and took to wife Medopa, the
daughter of King Gudila, so that he might render the
kingdom of Macedon more secure by the help of this
marriage. It was at this time, as the historian Dio relates,
that Philip, suffering from need of money, determined
to lead out his forces and sack Odessus, a city of
Moesia, which was then subject to the Goths by reason of
the neighboring city of Tomi. Thereupon those priests
of the Goths that are called the Holy Men suddenly
opened the gates of Odessus and came forth to meet them.
They bore harps and were clad in snowy robes, and
chanted in suppliant strains to the gods of their fathers
that they might be propitious and repel the Macedonians.

to meet them, they were astonished and, so to
speak, the armed were terrified by the unarmed. Straight-way
they broke the line they had formed for battle and
not only refrained from destroying the city, but even
gave back those whom they had captured outside by right
of war. Then they made a truce and returned to their
own country.

Confruntările Geto-Dacilor cu Sciţii si Macedonenii in timpul lui FilipII

http://www.universulromanesc.com/ginta/showthread.php?t=9

Expediţia macedoneană din anul 339 î.e.n., i-au surprins pe geto-daci angajaţi într-o acerbă rezistenţă împotriva vechiului lor adversar de la est - sciţii. Judecând după materialele arheologice descoperite şi mărturiile scrise, uniunile de triburi geto-dace ajunseseră să dispună de un potenţial economic şi militar suficient pentru a riposta adeseori cu succes repetatelor tentative scitice de înaintare spre vest şi de implantare în vatra de locuire geto-dacă.

Această realitate explică faptul că sciţii, incapabili să înfrângă singuri împotrivirea geto-dacilor, au început să caute aliaţi la alte neamuri vecine. Astfel s-a ajuns, episodic, la unele înţelegeri între sciţi şi macedoneni, al căror scop era prinderea într-un "cleşte" de importanţă strategică a teritoriilor geto-dace.

Realizarea unor astfel de alianţe temporare a fost vizibil facilitată de faptul că puterea macedoneană tindea în vremea aceea să se extindă spre litoralul vest-pontic şi spre gurile Dunării. Politica expansionistă a statului macedonean căpătase un impuls deosebit după ce la cârma lui venise în anul 359 î.e.n. un conducător remarcabil, regele Filip al II-lea.

Organismul militar în timpul lui Filip era format din infanterie şi cavalerie, la care se adăugau trupe speciale de asediu (care executau diverse "lucrări genistice") şi de "artilerie" (acestea mânuiau maşinile de asediu). Datorită faptului că pedestraşii macedoneni erau inferiori pe câmpul de luptă hopliţilor greci, falanga - în organizarea dată de Filip - a fost concepută exclusiv ca o masă compactă de izbire.

Cu o armată superioară ca organizare, dotare şi tactică tuturor oştirilor cunoscute până atunci, regatul macedonean a reuşit să-şi extindă autoritatea asupra statului odris, pe care formal nu l-a desfiinţat, dar a instalat pe teritoriul lui garnizoane puternice şi l-a subordonat din punct de vedere politic şi economic. De aici, în mod firesc, Filip al II-lea a căutat să împingă frontiera regatului macedonean spre Dunăre, aşa cum năzuise, la timpul său, şi statul odris. Dacă politica expansionistă a Macedoniei întâmpinase spre vest împotrivirea illyrilor, spre est şi sud riposta polisurilor greceşti şi - în măsura în care le mai îngăduiau forţele - a stătuleţelor ce succedaseră regatului odris, spre nord ea s-a lovit de rezistenţa geto-dacilor şi a unor triburi trace libere, precum şi de sciţi care, de dincolo de Dunărea maritimă, interveneau intermitent dar primejdios, prin culoarul dintre fluviu şi mare, în desfăşurarea unor evenimente din Peninsula Balcanică.

Preocupat de problemele complicatelor relaţii cu lumea greacă şi odrisă, Filip al II-lea nu se arătase la început îngrijorat de înaintarea spre sud a uniunii de triburi scitice conduse de Ateas. Singura rezistenţă întâmpinată de sciţi a fost aceea a geto-dacilor. O asemenea rezistenţă este atestată în zona de nord a teritoriului dintre Dunăre şi mare din partea "histrienilor", conduşi de un rege (Histrianorum rex) al cărui nume nu s-a consemnat (Trogus Pompeius, Historiae Philippacae, IX, 2, 1-2) dar sub această denumire trebuie înţeles un conducător de triburi geto-dace din regiunea respectivă.

Tocmai conflictul sciţilor cu geto-dacii a fost punctul iniţial al tensiunii survenite între Ateas şi Filip al II-lea, urmată curând de expediţia macedoneană din anul 339 î.e.n.. Pus la un moment dat în mare dificultate de către "histrieni", Ateas - bazându-se pe bunele relaţii avute cu Macedonia - a solicitat sprijinul lui Filip al II-lea, căruia i-a promis, potrivit relatării lui Trogus Pompeius, "să-l lase urmaş la domnie în Sciţia" (Trogus Pompeius, Historiae Philippacae, IX, 2, 1-2).

Filip i-a satisfăcut cu promptitudine rugămintea, dar, între timp, regele "histrienilor" a murit şi Ateas, redresându-şi situaţia, a trimis înapoi detaşamentul macedonean, căruia nu i-a plătit "nici măcar cheltuielile drumului" (Trogus Pompeius, IX, 2, 5). Deoarece Ateas a refuzat să-şi respecte promisiunile sau să achite despăgubirile cerute de Filip, acesta a întrerupt asediul Byzantionului - în care se afla angajat - şi a pornit cu oştirea împotriva sciţilor, cărora le-a provocat o înfrângere zdrobitoare, însuşi regele acestora căzând pe câmpul de luptă.

Resturile uniunii triburilor scitice au fost aruncate peste Dunăre, de unde nu au mai făcut ulterior decât sporadice incursiuni la sud de fluviu, până spre sfârşitul secolului al III-lea sau începutul secolului al II-lea î.e.n..

Preluat din : http://www.dracones.ro

Conflictul dintre Geto-Daci şi Alexandru cel Mare

http://www.universulromanesc.com/ginta/showthread.php?t=10

Formaţiunile politice geto-dace, ca şi alţi vecini din Balcani, au sperat că după moartea lui Filip al II-lea primejdia macedoneană avea să se diminueze. Ele au adoptat o atitudine mai fermă împotriva ameninţării macedonene şi au strâns relaţiile cu tracii, triballii şi illyrii.

În felul acesta se contura o alianţă mai largă a geto-dacilor cu celelalte neamuri din Balcani împotriva expansiunii macedonene, alianţă ce a devenit cu atât mai redutabilă cu cât sub Alexandru (335-323 î.e.n.), tânărul succesor al lui Filip al II-lea, statul macedonean înregistra şi o puternică criză lăuntrică.

Această situaţie l-a determinat pe Alexandru ca în primăvara anului 335 î.e.n. să pornească în fruntea unui corp expediţionar, care număra 30.000 de luptători, împotriva triballilor, illyrilor şi geţilor de la nord de Haemus. Lăsând la stânga cetatea Philippi şi masivul Orbelon (Ciandag), oastea macedoneană a trecut râul Nestos (Mesta) şi a pătruns, după zece zile de marş, în Munţii Balcani. Aici a avut loc o primă luptă cu tracii, care ocupaseră trecătoarea.

Tactica adversarilor lui Alexandru a fost foarte ingenioasă. "Ei - relatează scriitorul roman de origine greacă Arrian - aduseră căruţe şi, punându-le înaintea lor, le foloseau drept metereze, ca să se lupte de pe ele, dacă ar fi fost atacaţi, în acelaşi timp se gândeau să prăvălească căruţele asupra falangei macedonenilor din locul cel mai abrupt al muntelui. Ei îşi închipuiau că, cu cât vor întâlni şi vor izbi căruţele o falangă mai compactă, cu atât o vor împrăştia mai bine prin violenţa ciocnirii" (Arrian, Anabasis, I, 1, 7).

Replica tactică a regelui macedonean a fost la fel de ingenioasă: "Alexandru stătu la sfat cum să treacă muntele cât mai fără primejdii. După ce a hotărât că primejdia trebuie totuşi înfruntată deoarece nu exista trecere prin altă parte, porunci hopliţilor ca, atunci când vor fi slobozite la vale căruţele [de către traci], cei cărora lăţimea drumului le îngăduia să rupă rândurile să se risipească, ca să poată trece căruţele printre ei. Cei stânjeniţi de strâmtoare, să se strângă şi să se culce la pământ şi să-şi aşeze scuturile unul lângă altul, cu toată grija, în aşa fel încât căruţele care vor veni cu putere să treacă peste ele - după cum e firesc - fără a-i vătăma.

Faptele se petrecură întocmai după cum poruncise şi plănuise Alexandru" (Arrian, Anabasis, I, 1, 8-9). În lupta care a urmat, oastea macedoneană a respins adversarii, dar tentativa acestora de a destrăma falanga pentru a putea să o nimicească constituie o dovadă că triburile trace intuiseră exact în ce consta tăria formaţiei inovate de Filip al II-lea şi căutau soluţii pentru a o anihila.

În continuare oastea macedoneană s-a îndreptat, prin munţi, spre teritoriul locuit de tribalii. Informat din vreme, regele acestora, Syrmos, a ordonat evacuarea populaţiei - femei şi copii - spre malurile Istrului, unde a fost adăpostită într-unul din ostroavele marelui fluviu. După o tentativă de rezistenţă la râul Lyginos (probabil Roşită), luptătorii lui Syrmos s-au retras, la rândul lor, spre Dunăre. Trei zile mai târziu a ajuns la fluviu şi oastea macedoneană. Acolo ea era aşteptată de "corăbii de război sosite de la Byzantion prin Pontul Euxin şi pe fluviu" (Arrian, Anabasis, I, 3, 3). Aceste corăbii trebuie să fi servit fie la aprovizionarea oastei care acţiona pe uscat sau la împrospătarea ei cu noi efective, fie pentru asigurarea trecerii acesteia peste fluviu - ceea ce ar implica existenţa unei intenţii în acest sens încă de la pornirea expediţiei -, fie, în sfârşit, la intimidarea neamurilor geto-dace riverane.

Punctul de pe Dunăre unde s-a aflat ostrovul pe care se refugiaseră triballii ar putea fi localizat într-o zonă cuprinsă între gurile Jiului şi Vedei (după unele opinii mai noi ar fi vorba de ostrovul Belene, situat în amonte de Zimnicea, jud. Teleorman). Alexandru a încercat să efectueze "o debarcare forţată" pe ostrov, trecând acolo arcaşi şi hopliţi cu navele pe care le avea la dispoziţie. Dar, datorită rezistenţei triballilor adăpostiţi în ostrov, malurilor abrupte ale acestuia şi curentului puternic care antrena navele în aval, tentativa a eşuat.

Aflând de apropierea oştirii lui Alexandru, geto-dacii au concentrat pe malul opus al Dunării o puternică oaste formată din peste 10.000 de pedestraşi şi circa 4.000 de călăreţi, cu care "voiau să-l împiedice dacă ar fi încercat să treacă la dânşii" (Arrian, Anabasis, I, 3, 5). Judecând după mărimea efectivelor, această oaste nu putea să aparţină decât unei uniuni de triburi puternice, probabil aliată cu triballii lui Syrmos şi venită în sprijinul lor.

Modificându-şi planul iniţial, Alexandru Macedon a renunţat la ideea debarcării pe ostrov şi a decis, în schimb, să pornească o acţiune pe malul stâng al fluviului, împotriva geto-dacilor.

Cu corăbiile pe care le avea la dispoziţie, cu monoxile adunate din zonă - "căci acestea, se aflau din belşug, deoarece locuitorii de pe malurile Istrului le folosesc pentru pescuit în Istru sau când merg unii la alţii pe fluviu [...]" (Arrian, Anabasis, I, 3, 6) - şi cu mijloace improvizate (burdufuri umplute cu paie). Alexandru a trecut Dunărea în cursul nopţii însoţit de circa 1.500 de călăreţi şi vreo 4.000 de pedestraşi.

Profitând de întuneric, macedonenii au înaintat prin holdele bogate urmând malul fluviului, astfel că au apărut "mai neobservaţi" (Arrian, Anabasis, I, 4, 1) în apropierea castei geto-dace.

Realizarea surprinderii de către macedoneni a jucat un rol important în deznodământul confruntării care a avut loc, căci geto-dacii "rămăseseră uimiţi de îndrăzneala cu care [oastea lui Alexandru] într-o singură noapte trecuse atât de uşor cel mai mare dintre fluvii, Istrul, fără să facă pod la locul de trecere" (Arrian, Anabasis, I, 4, 3). Deşi macedonenii au realizat surprinderea la forţarea fluviului, acest fapt nu a determinat dezorganizarea sau paralizarea rezistenţei geto-dacilor şi nu a fost de natură să-i facă pe localnici să renunţe la luptă.

Regele macedonean a adoptat un dispozitiv diferit de acela utilizat în confruntările anterioare cu tracii şi triballii. Ţinând seama de inferioritatea în efective a trupelor proprii şi pentru a le proteja faţă de acţiunile de hărţuire ale adversarului, el a ordonat falangei, a cărei comandă a fost încredinţată lui Nicanor, să adopte "o formaţie pătrată" (Arrian, Anabasis, I, 4, 2), spre a înfrunta atacurile geto-dacilor din orice parte ar fi venit.

Cavaleria, sub comanda personală a regelui, a fost dispusă la aripa stângă a falangei, cu misiunea principală de a fi introdusă în luptă în momentul decisiv pentru a ataca în flancul şi spatele oastei geto-dace şi totodată, pentru a contracara o eventuală tentativă de încercuire efectuată de aceasta.

Geto-dacii au primit, iniţial, lupta în câmp deschis cu cavaleria adversă, dar sosirea falangei i-a obligat să se retragă spre o aşezare fortificată ce se afla "la o depărtare de o parasangă de Istru" (Arrian, Anabasis, I, 4, 4), adică la aproximativ 5.500 m. Retragerea s-a efectuat în ordine, fiind acoperită de elemente de siguranţă.

Constatând că falanga macedoneană, urmărindu-i de-a lungul fluviului, înainta în grabă - "ca nu cumva pedestraşii să fie încercuiţi de geţii care stăteau la pândă" (Arrian, Anabasis, I, 4, 4) -, oastea geto-dacă a părăsit fortificaţia fără luptă; femeile şi copiii au fost urcaţi pe cai şi transportaţi departe de linia Dunării, "prin locuri singuratice" (Arrian, Anabasis, I, 4, 4). Motivele acestei retrageri sunt arătate clar de izvorul antic: "oraşul nu era bine întărit" (Arrian, Anabasis, I, 4, 4), iar localnicii, apreciind realist situaţia, preferaseră să se pună la adăpost în altă parte, fără a se mai lăsa supuşi unui asediu neavantajos.

Eroica apărare a geto-dacilor în dramatica încleştare cu oastea lui Alexandru Macedon a produs o puternică impresie în lumea antică şi a fost consemnată în jurnalul generalului macedonean Ptolemaios, participant la evenimente, printre momentele memorabile ale epocii.

DR-005-Harta desfasurarii

Preluat din : http://www.dracones.ro

Last edited by Tricoderonga; 06-03-10 at 06:56 PM.

Conflictul Geto-Dacilor cu Zapyrion

http://www.universulromanesc.com/ginta/showthread.php?t=11

În primăvara anului 334 î.e.n. armata macedoneană condusă de Alexandru a trecut Hellespontul într-o mare aventură asiatică. Ca locţiitor al lui Alexandru în Macedonia a rămas Antipatros - unul dintre cei mai capabili generali din generaţia ce se formase încă sub Filip al II-lea. Antipatros a reuşit să menţină stabilitatea politică internă şi ordinea pe teritoriile balcanice înglobate statului macedonean, deşi nu a fost scutit de o serie de răzvrătiri ale populaţiilor supuse sau chiar de acţiuni de frondă ale unor strategi.

Din perioada respectivă s-au păstrat puţine relatări referitoare la evenimentele militare petrecute între Haemus şi Istros, iar acestea privesc spaţiul înglobat în strategia numită Tracia, care cuprindea teritoriile odrise şi, în general, zona litoralului vest-pontic. Un asemenea eveniment s-a petrecut între anii 335-332/331 î.e.n., când ambiţiosul strateg al provinciei, Memnon, a încercat să desprindă Tracia de regatul macedonean. El s-a bizuit atât pe armata pe care o comanda, cât şi pe neamurile băştinaşe supuse.

Planuri la fel de ambiţioase a nutrit şi urmaşul lui Memnon, Zopyrion (denumit de izvoarele latine praepositus Thraciae sau praefectus Ponti) (Trogus, Pompeius, XII, 2, 16; Curtius Rufus, X, 1, 43) care a iniţiat o expediţie militară dincolo de Dunăre, în spaţiul nord-pontic. Referitor la mobilurile acestei expediţii, Trogus Pompeius notează laconic că "Zopyrion, pe care Alexandru cel Mare îl lăsase guvernator al Pontului, a socotit că e ruşinos să stea degeaba şi să nu întreprindă el ceva" (Trogus Pompeius, XII, 2, 16).

Vor fi existat, totuşi, alte raţiuni, mai puternice, pentru organizarea expediţiei. Acestea nu au putut consta decât în tentativa de a extinde dominaţia macedoneană asupra ţinuturilor nord-pontice, căci, preluând moştenirea ahemenidă, Alexandru cel Mare nu putea să nu vadă ceea ce înţelesese la timpul său Darius I: avantajele transformării Pontului Euxin într-un "lac" înglobat imperiului său.

Că era vorba de stăpânirea litoralului nord-pontic pare să probeze şi faptul că expediţia, deşi apreciată de autorii antici ca îndreptată împotriva geţilor sau sciţilor, s-a concentrat în prima ei fază asupra coloniilor greceşti de dincolo de Istru. Oastea condusă de Zopyrion, cu efective între 20.000 şi 30.000 de luptători, a trecut Dunărea pe navele concentrate în acest scop (probabil la vadul tradiţional de la Isaccea) şi a înaintat paralel cu litoralul maritim până la gura fluviului Hypanis (Bug), unde a asediat Olbia (Parutino).

Cei din cetate au opus o dârză rezistenţă, iar conducătorii lor, pentru a mări numărul luptătorilor şi capacitatea de apărare a oraşului, au adoptat o serie de măsuri speciale: "în vremea asediului lui Zopyrion - menţionează scriitorul roman Macrobius - borysteniţii au eliberat sclavii, au dat drept de cetăţenie străinilor, au iertat datoriile şi au putut să ţină piept duşmanului" (Macrobius, Saturnalia, 1, 11, 32).

Eşecul asediului l-a determinat pe Zopyrion să ia hotărârea de retragere. Itinerarul oastei macedonene a străbătut o regiune intens locuită de geto-daci. În momentul când oastea macedoneană invadatoare a ajuns la Dunăre, ea a fost atacată de aceştia (Quintus Curtius Rufus, Historia Alexandri Magni Macedonis, X, 1, 43), răvăşită şi nimicită, în cursul acestei lupte însuşi Zopyrion şi-a pierdut viaţa. Succesul geto-dacilor - datorat în mare parte realizării surprinderii - a constituit un moment important în apărarea şi consolidarea puterii lor pe linia Dunării.

Noua confruntare cu macedonenii a demonstrat încă o dată că geto-dacii au fost în măsură să "radă de pe faţa pământului" (Orosius, Historiarum Adversus Paganos, VII, 3, 18, 1) - cum spune izvorul antic - o oaste invadatoare numeroasă şi experimentată aşa cum era aceea comandată de Zopyrion.

Cu toate că izvoarele antice nu permit o reconstituire în detaliu a înfruntării cu Zopyrion, având în vedere formele şi procedeele tradiţionale de luptă ale geto-dacilor are temei presupunerea că şi în acest caz rol determinant în obţinerea victoriei au avut: folosirea judicioasă a terenului, utilizarea acţiunilor de hărţuire şi demoralizare a adversarului, alegerea momentului şi locului potrivite pentru declanşarea bătăliei decisive.

Ştirea despre dezastrul expediţiei comandate de Zopyrion s-a răspândit repede în lumea tracă şi a populaţiilor din împrejurimile ei, contribuind la resuscitarea stării de spirit antimacedonene; în ţinuturile odrise aceasta s-a dezvoltat până la izbucnirea unei răscoale violente în a cărei dirijare un rol important a avut regele Seuthes al III-lea. Situaţia instabilă din provincia Tracia, survenită aproape concomitent cu o periculoasă acţiune militară contra macedonenilor întreprinsă de spartani sub conducerea regelui Agis al III-lea - şi ea greu înfrântă de Antipatros - a slăbit capacitatea Macedoniei de penetraţie şi de consolidare în zonele periferice anexate anterior.

La nord, stăpânirea macedoneană nu s-a exercitat se pare efectiv decât până la munţii Haemus, iar dincolo de aceştia pe o fâşie mai mult sau mai puţin întinsă a litoralului vest-pontic.

Preluat din : http://www.dracones.ro

 Balkan campaign

Before crossing to Asia, Alexander wanted to safeguard his northern borders; and, in the spring of 335 BC, he advanced to suppress several apparent revolts. Starting from Amphipolis, he first went east into the country of the "Independent Thracians"-the Getae; and at Mount Haemus, the Macedonian army attacked and defeated a Thracian army manning the heights.^[57] The Macedonians marched on into the country of the Triballi, and proceeded to defeat the Triballian army near the Lyginus river ^[58] (a tributary of the Danube). Alexander then advanced for three days on to the Danube, encountering the Getae tribe on the opposite shore. Surprising the Getae by crossing the river at night, he forced the Getae army to retreat after the first cavalry skirmish, leaving their town to the Macedonian army.^[59][60] News then reached Alexander that Cleitus, King of Illyria, and King Glaukias of the Taulanti^[61][62] were in open revolt against Macedonian authority. Marching west into Illyria, Alexander defeated each in turn, forcing Cleitus and Glaukias to flee with their armies, leaving Alexander's northern frontier secure.

While he was triumphantly campaigning north, the Thebans and Athenians rebelled once more. Alexander reacted immediately, but, while the other cities once again hesitated, Thebes decided to resist with the utmost vigor. However, the resistance was useless, as the city was razed to the ground amid great bloodshed, and its territory was divided between the other Boeotian cities. The end of Thebes cowed Athens into submission, leaving all of Greece at least outwardly at peace with Alexander.^[63]

Before crossing to Asia, Alexander wanted to safeguard his northern borders and, in the spring of 335 BC, he advanced into Thrace to deal with the revolt, which was led by the Illyrians and Triballi. He was reinforced along the way by the Agriani, a Thracian tribe under the command of Alexander's friend, Langarus. The Macedonian army marched up to Mount Haemus, where they met a Thracian garrison manning the heights. The Thracians had constructed a palisade of carts, which they intended to throw upon the approaching Macedonians. Alexander ordered his heavy infantry to march in loose formation and, when the carts were thrown, to either open the ranks or lay flat on the ground with their shields over them. The Macedonian archers opened fire and when the Macedonian infantry reached the top of the mountain they routed the Thracians.^[4]

Meanwhile, a large Triballian army led by their king, Syrmus, advanced upon the Macedonian rear. The Triballians retreated to a gorge, where they were drawn out by Alexander's light infantry. On the open ground, they were crushed by Alexander's infantry and cavalry, leaving behind 3,000 dead. The Macedonians marched to the Danube River where they encountered the Getae tribe on the opposite shore. As Alexander's ships failed to enter the river, Alexander's army made rafts out of their leather tents. A force of 4,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry crossed the river, to the amazement of the Getae army of 14,000 men. The Getae army retreated after the first cavalry skirmish, leaving their town to the Macedonian army.^[5]

It was to the island of Peuce (Scythia Minor)  that the Triballian king Syrmus took refuge when pursued by Alexander the Great. Alexander brought ships up the Danube to use in an assault on the island. The attempts failed due to the swift current of the river, steep banks, and fierce defense. Eventually the Macedonians abandoned their attacks on Peuce and instead crossed into the territory of the Getae.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peuce_Island

^ Arrian. Anabasis, Book IA. "The Getae did not sustain even the first charge of the cavalry; for Alexander’s audacity seemed incredible to them, in having thus easily crossed the Ister, the largest of rivers, in a single night, without throwing a bridge over the stream. Terrible to them also was the closely-locked order of the phalanx, and violent the charge of the cavalry. At first they fled for refuge into their city, which. was distant about a parasang from the Ister; but when they saw that Alexander was leading his phalanx carefully along the side of the river, to prevent his infantry being anywhere surrounded by the Getae lying in ambush, but that he was sending his cavalry straight on, they again abandoned the city, because it was badly fortified."

 http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/Aleksandros-Diodoros.htm

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=146663 

 

During the 1st millennium BC the Macedonian region was populated by a mixture of peoples – Thracians, Illyrians, and Greeks. Between 356BC and 342BC Philip II of Macedon would venture deep into Thrace. He would also conquer most of Greece, creating the League of Corinth, an offensive and defensive alliance of all the Greek states except Sparta, organized in 337 BC. The Greeks hated the barbarian Philip, and were especially aggravated by his thick accent when speaking Greek.Philip II tried to force a passage through the Triballi’s land. But they inflicted a heavy defeat on him, scaring him for life. When Philip II of Macedon died, his son, Alexander the Great set out to conquer the world.

He succeeded his father as head of the league of Corinth. The Greek contribution of soldiers to Alexander’s Asian campaign was neither significant nor dependable. That’s why the first thing he had to do, was conquer the Triballi, he was afraid they would attack him from the back, once he went east. Alexander succeeded in conquering the Triballi and the Thracians provided him with valuable light-armed troops during his conquests. Many prominent Thracians took part in Alexander the Great’s campaign, such as the Odrysian Sitalkes who followed Alexander with cavalry, peltasts and lightly armed foot-soldiers. Alexander’s conquests would take him as far as Bukhara.

But the Thracian tribes didn’t remain quiet for long. The Getae were formidable warriors, they successfully fought off Alexander the Great when he attempted to quell a rebellion amongst their southern neighbors, the Triballi. The Getae remained a thorn in the side of the Macedonians for decades. During Alexander’s expedition, Thrace fell again under the sway of Seuthes III, King of the Odrysians, and it was only in 313 that the Macedonian supremacy was re-established by Lysimachus. Below is a treasure thought to Belong to King Seuthes III.

 

 Discovered accidentally in 1949 near Panagyurishte by workmen digging up clay for the production of bricks. Made of pure gold, it weighs 6.164 kg. The amphora-rhyton, the four rhytons shaped like animal heads or fore-parts and decorated with mythological scenes, the three jugs-rhytons shaped like women’s heads and the phiale decorated with a black head and acorns compose a ceremonial set. Here’s three close ups of some of the items:
After the death of Alexander the Great, Lysimachos assumed the administration of Thrace. In 309 BC he built a new state capital, Lysimacheia, which lay a short distance from the Melana GuIf and the Propontis, for which reason it became a thriving commercial centre. In 306 BC he declared himself King of Thrace and, following his victory at Ipsos, became master of a large part of Asia Minor. By waging war against Demetrios and Pytrhos he added Macedonia and part of Thessaly to his realm. Lysimachos was defeated and killed at the battle of Koros, fought against Philetairos and his son Alexander in 281 BC. He was succeeded by the Ptolemy Keraunos, who married Lysimachos’ widow, Arsinoe. In 280 BC the Galatian incursions into Macedonia and Thrace began. Ptolemy was taken prisoner and murdered. The Gauls (Celts) continued their predatory raids and managed to create a state in Thrace, in 273 BC, with Tylis or Thylis as capital and Komontorios as ruler. Antigonos Gonatas, King of Macedonia, drove out the Gauls from the Chersonese and captured Lysimacheia. The Gauls passed into Asia Minor and settled in the northern pan of Great Phrygia, where they built their capital, Ankara.In 180 BC Kotys II became King of the Odrysae and allied with Perseas against the Romans, assisting his army in the battle of Pydna (168 BC). After Perseas’ defeat and the break up of the Macedonian state, Kotys made a truce with the Romans and acknowledged their sovereignty. The Romans were in no hurry to make Thrace a Roman province, but all its kings were their vassals and instruments, such as Kotys III, Raiskouporis I, Raskos, Roimetalkes I and Raiskouporis II. During the reign of the last king there was a revolt of the Bessi, led by the priest at the Oracle of Dionysos. Raiskouporis II was killed by the rebels, while Roimetalkes I was saved in the Chersonese. With the help of the Romans he supressed the uprising and became king of all Thrace(7 BC -AD12). The next king, Kotys IV (AD 12-19), was surnamed the Great. He was a friend and ally of Augustus. His court at Vizye was frequented by orators, authors, poets, painters and musicians. The poet Ovid, in one of his letters, praises the virtues of King Kotys. After his death the Romans shared Thrace between Raiskoupores III and Kotys V. However, because the first assassinated the second, he was exiled by Tberius and died in Alexandria, Egypt. Thrace remained divided, its heirs being Roimetalkes II and the sons of Kotys V.Another revolt of the Thracians against Roimetalkes II was quashed by the Romans. In AD 38 the next Roman emperor, Caligula gave the throne to Roimetalkes III, who was the last King of Thrace. When his wife was murdered in AD 46 the Romans dissolved the Thracian state for ever and declared Thrace a Roman province.The Thracians never put a Thracian nation above their tribe, but they were a freedom loving people and for a very long period individual tribes repelled the attempts of the Roman empire to conquer them. Thracian disunity ensured that Rome allied with some Thracian kings while fighting others but despite this Thracian weakess it was two centuries after they first set foot on the Balkans, that the Romans finally succeeded in subjugating all Thracian lands.Even after Rome “conquered” it, Thrace remained a wild and woolly place: the birthplace of the violent war god, Ares, the home of the man-eating mares of Diomedes. The geography of the Balkans not only protected and preserved the Thracians over the millenia, it also shrouded them in mystery and awe. The Thracians “were regarded as warlike, ferocious, and savagely bloodthirsty”. Warlike temper, courage, and soldierly qualities are generally recognized to have been characteristic of the Thracians. The Thynians and Bithynians were Thracian immigrants from the opposite shore, and had the same characteristics as their European cousins, savage hardihood, wild abandonment to the frenzy of religion and war. The terror of them kept the Greeks from making any settlement along their coast from Calchdon to Heraclea, and woe betide any mariner driven there. Could there be a more convincing personification of Ares’ spirit than the warlike Thracians? As early as the seventh century BC the poet Achilochus called the Thracians {in this case Abantes}, the gods of battle. And was not ashamed to admit having once fled from the field, leaving his shield as booty to a Thracian warrior. The ancients were hard put to it to decide which of the Thracian tribes was the most valiant: the Getae, Odomanti, Thyni, or Odrysae.

Conflictul Geto-Dacilor cu Zapyrion, Alexandru Macedon's praefectus Ponti

http://www.universulromanesc.com/ginta/showthread.php?t=11

 În primăvara anului 334 î.e.n. armata macedoneană condusă de Alexandru a trecut Hellespontul într-o mare aventură asiatică. Ca locţiitor al lui Alexandru în Macedonia a rămas Antipatros - unul dintre cei mai capabili generali din generaţia ce se formase încă sub Filip al II-lea. Antipatros a reuşit să menţină stabilitatea politică internă şi ordinea pe teritoriile balcanice înglobate statului macedonean, deşi nu a fost scutit de o serie de răzvrătiri ale populaţiilor supuse sau chiar de acţiuni de frondă ale unor strategi.

Din perioada respectivă s-au păstrat puţine relatări referitoare la evenimentele militare petrecute între Haemus şi Istros, iar acestea privesc spaţiul înglobat în strategia numită Tracia, care cuprindea teritoriile odrise şi, în general, zona litoralului vest-pontic. Un asemenea eveniment s-a petrecut între anii 335-332/331 î.e.n., când ambiţiosul strateg al provinciei, Memnon, a încercat să desprindă Tracia de regatul macedonean. El s-a bizuit atât pe armata pe care o comanda, cât şi pe neamurile băştinaşe supuse.

Planuri la fel de ambiţioase a nutrit şi urmaşul lui Memnon, Zopyrion (denumit de izvoarele latine praepositus Thraciae sau praefectus Ponti) (Trogus, Pompeius, XII, 2, 16; Curtius Rufus, X, 1, 43) care a iniţiat o expediţie militară dincolo de Dunăre, în spaţiul nord-pontic. Referitor la mobilurile acestei expediţii, Trogus Pompeius notează laconic că "Zopyrion, pe care Alexandru cel Mare îl lăsase guvernator al Pontului, a socotit că e ruşinos să stea degeaba şi să nu întreprindă el ceva" (Trogus Pompeius, XII, 2, 16).

Vor fi existat, totuşi, alte raţiuni, mai puternice, pentru organizarea expediţiei. Acestea nu au putut consta decât în tentativa de a extinde dominaţia macedoneană asupra ţinuturilor nord-pontice, căci, preluând moştenirea ahemenidă, Alexandru cel Mare nu putea să nu vadă ceea ce înţelesese la timpul său Darius I: avantajele transformării Pontului Euxin într-un "lac" înglobat imperiului său.

Că era vorba de stăpânirea litoralului nord-pontic pare să probeze şi faptul că expediţia, deşi apreciată de autorii antici ca îndreptată împotriva geţilor sau sciţilor, s-a concentrat în prima ei fază asupra coloniilor greceşti de dincolo de Istru. Oastea condusă de Zopyrion, cu efective între 20.000 şi 30.000 de luptători, a trecut Dunărea pe navele concentrate în acest scop (probabil la vadul tradiţional de la Isaccea) şi a înaintat paralel cu litoralul maritim până la gura fluviului Hypanis (Bug), unde a asediat Olbia (Parutino).

Cei din cetate au opus o dârză rezistenţă, iar conducătorii lor, pentru a mări numărul luptătorilor şi capacitatea de apărare a oraşului, au adoptat o serie de măsuri speciale: "în vremea asediului lui Zopyrion - menţionează scriitorul roman Macrobius - borysteniţii au eliberat sclavii, au dat drept de cetăţenie străinilor, au iertat datoriile şi au putut să ţină piept duşmanului" (Macrobius, Saturnalia, 1, 11, 32).

Eşecul asediului l-a determinat pe Zopyrion să ia hotărârea de retragere. Itinerarul oastei macedonene a străbătut o regiune intens locuită de geto-daci. În momentul când oastea macedoneană invadatoare a ajuns la Dunăre, ea a fost atacată de aceştia (Quintus Curtius Rufus, Historia Alexandri Magni Macedonis, X, 1, 43), răvăşită şi nimicită, în cursul acestei lupte însuşi Zopyrion şi-a pierdut viaţa. Succesul geto-dacilor - datorat în mare parte realizării surprinderii - a constituit un moment important în apărarea şi consolidarea puterii lor pe linia Dunării.

Noua confruntare cu macedonenii a demonstrat încă o dată că geto-dacii au fost în măsură să "radă de pe faţa pământului" (Orosius, Historiarum Adversus Paganos, VII, 3, 18, 1) - cum spune izvorul antic - o oaste invadatoare numeroasă şi experimentată aşa cum era aceea comandată de Zopyrion.

Cu toate că izvoarele antice nu permit o reconstituire în detaliu a înfruntării cu Zopyrion, având în vedere formele şi procedeele tradiţionale de luptă ale geto-dacilor are temei presupunerea că şi în acest caz rol determinant în obţinerea victoriei au avut: folosirea judicioasă a terenului, utilizarea acţiunilor de hărţuire şi demoralizare a adversarului, alegerea momentului şi locului potrivite pentru declanşarea bătăliei decisive.

 Ştirea despre dezastrul expediţiei comandate de Zopyrion s-a răspândit repede în lumea tracă şi a populaţiilor din împrejurimile ei, contribuind la resuscitarea stării de spirit antimacedonene; în ţinuturile odrise aceasta s-a dezvoltat până la izbucnirea unei răscoale violente în a cărei dirijare un rol important a avut regele Seuthes al III-lea. Situaţia instabilă din provincia Tracia, survenită aproape concomitent cu o periculoasă acţiune militară contra macedonenilor întreprinsă de spartani sub conducerea regelui Agis al III-lea - şi ea greu înfrântă de Antipatros - a slăbit capacitatea Macedoniei de penetraţie şi de consolidare în zonele periferice anexate anterior.

La nord, stăpânirea macedoneană nu s-a exercitat se pare efectiv decât până la munţii Haemus, iar dincolo de aceştia pe o fâşie mai mult sau mai puţin întinsă a litoralului vest-pontic.

Preluat din : http://www.dracones.ro

King of Macedon

Thirty thousand books are said to be written about Alexander the Great. This figure could be even higher as new publications continue to appear. We know nearly in detail his great eastern campaign from Hellespont to Hind; and almost by episodes we picture to ourselves his battles. We are familiar with the conqueror's words and deeds which gained popularity owing to his victories. When Macedonian troops reached the Asian shore it was him who first threw the spear towards the land and said that Gods confided the defeated Asia to him. Alexander longed for the Orient; he wanted to reach the 'eastern edge of the earth' and to create the greatest kingdom in the world. At the age of twenty-two the young king headed up the decennial all-Hellenic campaign to the Orient. It took him three years to conquer Central Asia, Sogdiana and Bactria which were situated on the territory of present-day Uzbekistan. Today not only specialists but also many tourists take a keen interest in everything which is connected with Alexander's deeds in this land. The story of his marriage to a daughter of Sogdian leader, beautiful Roxana, - a romantic and tragic story of deep but short-lived love - by all means ranks high. These three years were, probably, the hardest in Alexander's eastern campaign: in Sogdiana and Bactria of the Dachean Schytian, he met the most stubborn resistance. By the spring of 327 B. C. the rebellions centered in the southern hard-to-reach mountainous regions. Here the troops of the conqueror were resisted by a part of Sogdian nobility who were rather hostile towards Alexander. With their relatives, armed forces, and provision ample to last many years, the Sogdian aristocrats settled down in their unassailable mountain fortresses strongly influencing the whole population of the area. The first fortress that stood in the way of the Greek-Macedonian army was 'Sogdian Rock' or the 'Rock of Oxus' - a mountain fortress the fate of which could predestined the further course of the rebellion. Alexander with his troops reached the fortress when the mountains were still covered with heavy snow. They faced a steep stone rock; and high above them thousands of helmets of Sogdian warriors shone in the sun. Suddenly the Sogdians rained down a shower of arrows and darts, thus inflicting heavy casualty on the enemy. The rock was inapproachable and on the demand of Alexander to surrender the Sogdians responded with laugh saying that if the warriors of the king of Hellenes and Macedonians had wings they could have tried to reach them, otherwise it was better for them to leave because they could never reach the fortress.  Alexander took three hundred best warriors skilled in mountaineering and offered them to climb the rock, promising a great reward. Equipped with iron spikes and linen ropes, three hundred brave men waited till the fall of darkness and then started their climbing. It was a difficult ascent: people sank in deep snow, fell down from the steep rocks. Thirty warriors died, but the rest reached the top of the rock at dawn. They found themselves above the rebellious fortress and Alexander ordered his heralds to declare that 'winged warriors' proved to be among the Macedonians. The defenders of the fortress were stunned by this news and surrendered. Among the captives there was also a Bactrian noble man, Oxiart by name, with his family. When Alexander, at the head of his army, went up the narrow path and entered Oxiart's yard, he saw a door of the house open and a girl of medium height appear on the threshold. It was Roxana, a daughter of the nobleman. Her luxuriant hair was glittering with gold, her beautiful eyes were sparkling; it seemed that goddess of beauty Aphrodite herself was standing right in front of the young king. Their looks met and Alexander at first sight fell in love with beautiful Roxana, the Dachean. And though she was a captive, he decided to marry her, the action which Arrianes praised whereas Curcius reproached Alexander for. One can imagine what a beautiful couple they were: strong warrior in his prime, king and commander, and a golden-haired girl in the full bloom of her youth. In the famous picture by Greek artist Rotari 'Wedding of Alexander and Roxana', which was made to decorate the interior of the palace of Catherine II in Orienbaum, the master, guided by the works of Plutarch, depicted an episode of Alexander and Roxana's encounter. The Princess, surrounded by crying maidservants, is standing decently before the astonished commander. However the artist depicted a Greek girl instead of the daughter of Bactrian noble man. In reality Roxana was 'a true Oriental rose', and today we can only imagine her incomparable beauty. The ancient wedding ceremony was simple: a loaf of bread was split with a sword and given to the bride and bridegroom to taste it (until now the ceremony of 'splitting the flat bread' as a sign of engagement is used in some families in the Orient). But the wedding party was arranged with grandeur peculiar to kings especially since on that very day along with Alexander ten thousand warriors from his army also got married to the local girls. Until then mounted troops hired by Alexander from amongst the Parthians, Sogdians, Bactrians and other Central Asian nations acted as independent military units. Such mass weddings between the local and Hellenic people enabled these units to join the Graeco-Macedonian army on equal terms. Moreover, eminent Sogdian citizens, among them Roxana's brother and the sons of other satraps, formed the privileged units - agema. Introducing such a policy Alexander reckoned for certain results. He realized that by the sword one could create a huge empire but 'sword' was not enough to keep it from disintegration. He wanted as far as possible to mix all tribes and nations subjected to him in order to create the common eastern nation. Thus the love of Alexander and Roxana contributed to the alliance between Greece and the Orient, which had a beneficial impact on the development of science, culture and art of Central Asia and the world civilization as a whole. As to Roxana's father Alexander rendered homage to him. Oxiart was a 'noble satrap' and controlled a vast territory that, according to Hellenic chronicles, corresponded to Paretaken which stretched from foothills and south-eastern slopes of the Gissar Range to the north-east from Iron Gates (Darband), to the upper reaches of the Surkhandarya river. Oxiart got back his family estate and in addition he got the power over Parapamisads. He became a satrap of a huge territory that comprised a part of Northern and Southern Bactria as far as the Hindukush. Oxiart's position became even stronger after Alexander's death, when Oxiart, the first among the Central Asian rulers, began to mint his own gold coins - the fact that testifies to the sovereignty of his reign. Recently there has been published a book titled Alexander the Great in Bactria and Sogdiana. Historic and geographic sketches by Edward Rtveladze, member of the Uzbek Academy of Sciences. For many years he studied the ancient paths, along which the army of Alexander the Great had pushed its way through steppes and mountain ravines towards Central Asian Transoxiana. E. Rtveladze came to the conclusion that 'Sogdian Rock', an asylum for Oxiart's family, was located on the boundary between Bactria and Sogdiana near the famous Iron Gates. The researcher believes that the most appropriate place for it could be Buzgala-Khana gorge and Shurob-Sai valley that borders the gorge on the south and is limited in its southern and northern parts by Sar-i Mask and Susiztag cuestas located westwards from Derbent village. The mountain-dwellers of Boysun are most likely the descendants of the Greeks and Macedonians, whose colonies were spread along the Oxus (Amu Darya) and its tributaries. It is known that sixty years after the death of Alexander the Great on the banks of the Oxus there was formed Graeco-Bactrian kingdom, which existed for one hundred and twenty years. It must be said that some researchers believe that Greek name of the river Oxus originates from Ok-su, meaning 'white, sacred water'. The name Oxiart (Ox-Iart) is probably a derivative from the word 'Ox' and can mean 'owner of the river Ox'. Professor K. Trever in his book 'Alexander the Great in Sogd' claims the name Oxiart to be the Greek variant of local name Vakhshunvarta. Then what does the strange name Roxana mean? The name involuntarily brings to mind some names from Walter Scott's works: Rovena… Roxana…. According to Robin Lane Fox, Roxana, whom warriors of Alexander the Great called the most beautiful woman in Central Asia, rightfully deserved this name: in Persian language (farsi) it means 'a little star', but still this statement seems rather far-fetched. Some researchers, associating this name with the modern Tajik language, are of opinion that Roxana is the Greek interpretation of the local name of Roushanak, which means 'shining', 'bright'. We offer our own version that this name is also associated with the Oxus - Amu Darya. Indeed, ancient Bactria was situated along the upper and middle sections of the Great River and the name 'Roxana' being divided into separate parts will sound like 'R-ox-ana', where 'Ox' (Amu Darya) is the root of the word. Taking into consideration the fact that 'Ox' (Oxus in Greek) is the Greek interpretation of the Bactrian word 'Vakhsh' (Bactrian OAXPO), the name of the Bactrian beauty most likely sounded like 'Vakhsh-ona'. Probably the name meant 'the beauty of the Oxus', or 'owner of the Oxus'. Hence we are quite certain that the native land of Roxana, the wife of Alexander the Great, was the area located to the south of Maracanda (Samarkand) - Kashkadarya and Surkhandarya provinces of present-day Uzbekistan. Alexander the Great lived with Roxana the last four years of his by no means quiet and dull life. His uncontrollable aspiration for subjugating the whole world was driving to despair even his commanders. The young king wanted to take the lead in everything - in campaigns, in battles, and in feasts. At that time military leaders preferred to be in the front line of the battlefield rather than to watch the course of action from a bunker. And at last there came the year of 323 B. C., the last year in the life of Alexander the Great. Behind was left the conquest of Central Asia, including Bactria and Sogdiana, where he had stayed for two years suppressing insurrections. In history passed the campaign to Hindustan, which had started successfully and ended unexpectedly. For the first time in his ten-year 'advance to the Orient' when the conqueror reached the Indus, his army showed disobedience and refused to go further to unknown lands. After a lapse of two days, Alexander had to order his troops to leave Hindustan. Alexander the Great, the spoiled child of fortune, was destined to die young, before he reached the age of 33. The fatal illness started rather trivially: the king ordered to arrange celebrations to mark his impending western campaign. For several days Alexander was feasting with his friends. All researches connect the death of the great commander with these feasts which lasted days and nights. Having drunk a big bowl of Heracles at one of such feasts all at once Alexander screamed and groaned from a pang. His friends picked him up and put him in bed. The sickness progressed and none of the healers could help him. The pain he suffered from was so strong that sometimes Alexander begged his subjects to give him a sword to kill himself. It was his loving Roxana who kept him from committing suicide. On the tenth day after the beginning of the sickness Alexander the Great died in the arms of his young wife who was in her last month of pregnancy. Roxana closed his eyes and kissed him to 'catch his parting soul'. Alexander neither named the successor to his throne nor did he leave directions as regards governance order in his empire and in Macedonia in particular. This vagueness of his will inevitably resulted in the strife between his commanders who began struggling for power shortly after Alexander's death. Roxana was induced to participate in these plots. Nearchus nominated Heracles, Alexander's illegitimate child born from Barsine who was the widow of Memnon from Pergamum. Perdiccas, on the contrary, protected the interests of the yet unborn son of Alexander the Great; however Ptolemy Lagus ultimately denied Alexander's sons the right to succeed to the throne as their mothers were eastern women and Macedonian captives. Roxana's son was probably born several days after Alexander's death because in some ancient chronicles it is mentioned that the distribution of ranks and satrapies took place before the burial of the Macedonian commander. In order to avoid aggravation of the difficult situation and possible bloodshed it was decided to crown two men: Alexander's imbecile brother Arrideus, who began to rule under the name of Philippe III, and Alexander IV, a new-born son of Roxana, with Perdiccas being the regent. Indeed, the son of Roxana and Alexander the Great was half-Bactrian. All the Seleucid kings who ruled more than two hundred years in the Middle East had in their veins Sogdian blood. In 317 B. C. the power in Macedonia was usurped by Olympiad, mother of Alexander III. By her order, Arrideus was killed and her grandson, Roxana's son, was proclaimed the king, with Olympiad herself ruling on his behalf, though. Her rule nevertheless was short; being a revengeful woman, one by one she executed all the prominent men in the state thus incurring people's hatred towards her. In 316, having learnt about the approach of Commander Cassandr, Olympiad, who could not trust the Macedonians, left with her grandson and Roxana for the city of Pydna. Cassandr immediately sieged the city. Suffering from hunger, tired out because of long siege, Olympiad gave herself up in exchange for life. However, Cassandr gave her fate into the hands of the Macedonians, preliminary having done his best to harden their hearts. Olympiad was sentenced to death and executed. After that Cassandr married Phessalonica, sister of Alexander III, and exiled Roxana and her son to the fortress where they were placed under guard. (Justin: 14; 5 - 6). One of the Cassandr's men, Glaucus, who was extremely loyal to Cassandr, was entrusted to keep an eye on the captives. Moreover, Cassandr ordered to deprive Roxana's son of his pages and to treat him as if he were not the king of Macedonia, but an ordinary boy (Diodorus: 19). In 311 B. C., Cassandr, who was beware of young Alexander, whom the Macedonians could give the power back just out of respect for his famous father, ordered to underhand poison him and his mother Roxana. Their bodies were committed to the earth without performing any funeral ceremony in order to avoid possible suspicions with regards to their violent death. (Justin: 75, 2). The death of Alexander IV put an end to the whole dynasty of Temeids who had been ruling in Macedonia since antiquity. The strongest came into power. By then there had arisen mighty empires: Egypt under the reign of Ptolemy dynasty; Syrian empire, that embraced the whole Persian kingdom and where Seleucids dynasty ruled; and, finally, Macedonia, which kept the hegemony over Greece, where Antigonus Gonatus founded a new dynasty. All of them - Ptolemy, Seleucid and Antigonus Gonatus - were the military commanders in the army of Alexander the Great. Since then the historical age of Hellenism had started. It was the time of Greek dominion in the Middle East and interaction of Western and Eastern civilizations.

The Kingdom of Macedon in 336 BC

In 336 BC, whilst at Aegae, attending the wedding of his daughter by Olympias, Cleopatra, to Olympias's brother, Alexander I of Epirus, Philip was assassinated by the captain of his bodyguard, Pausanias.^vii[›] As Pausanias tried to escape, he tripped over a vine and was killed by his pursuers, including two of Alexander's companions, Perdiccas and Leonnatus. Alexander was proclaimed king by the Macedonian army and by the Macedonian noblemen at the age of 20.^[45][46][47]

Power consolidation

Alexander began his reign by having his potential rivals to the throne murdered. He had his cousin, the former Amyntas IV, executed, as well as having two Macedonian princes from the region of Lyncestis killed, while a third, Alexander Lyncestes, was spared. Olympias had Cleopatra Eurydice and her daughter by Philip, Europa, burned alive. When Alexander found out about this, he was furious with his mother. Alexander also ordered the murder of Attalus, who was in command of the advance guard of the army in Asia Minor. Attalus was at the time in correspondence with Demosthenes, regarding the possibility of defecting to Athens. Regardless of whether Attalus actually intended to defect, he had already severely insulted Alexander, and having just had Attalus's daughter and grandchildren murdered, Alexander probably felt Attalus was too dangerous to leave alive.^[48] Alexander spared the life of Arrhidaeus, who was by all accounts mentally disabled, possibly as a result of poisoning by Olympias.^{[45][49][50][51]}

News of Philip's death roused many states into revolt, including Thebes, Athens, Thessaly, and the Thracian tribes to the north of Macedon. When news of the revolts in Greece reached Alexander, he responded quickly. Though his advisors advised him to use diplomacy, Alexander mustered the Macedonian cavalry of 3,000 men and rode south towards Thessaly, Macedon's neighbor to the south. When he found the Thessalian army occupying the pass between Mount Olympus and Mount Ossa, he had the men ride over Mount Ossa. When the Thessalians awoke the next day, they found Alexander in their rear, and promptly surrendered, adding their cavalry to Alexander's force, as he rode down towards the Peloponnesus.^{[52][53][54][55]}

Alexander stopped at Thermopylae, where he was recognized as the leader of the Amphictyonic League before heading south to Corinth. Athens sued for peace and Alexander received the envoy and pardoned anyone involved with the uprising. At Corinth, he was given the title Hegemon, and like Philip, appointed commander of the forthcoming war against Persia. While at Corinth, he heard the news of the Thracian rising to the north.^[53][56]

 Balkan campaign

Before crossing to Asia, Alexander wanted to safeguard his northern borders; and, in the spring of 335 BC, he advanced to suppress several apparent revolts. Starting from Amphipolis, he first went east into the country of the "Independent Thracians"-the Getae; and at Mount Haemus, the Macedonian army attacked and defeated a Thracian army manning the heights.^[57] The Macedonians marched on into the country of the Triballi, and proceeded to defeat the Triballian army near the Lyginus river ^[58] (a tributary of the Danube). Alexander then advanced for three days on to the Danube, encountering the Getae tribe on the opposite shore. Surprising the Getae by crossing the river at night, he forced the Getae army to retreat after the first cavalry skirmish, leaving their town to the Macedonian army.^[59][60] News then reached Alexander that Cleitus, King of Illyria, and King Glaukias of the Taulanti were in open revolt against Macedonian authority. Marching west into Illyria, Alexander defeated each in turn, forcing Cleitus and Glaukias to flee with their armies, leaving Alexander's northern frontier secure.^[61][62]

While he was triumphantly campaigning north, the Thebans and Athenians rebelled once more. Alexander reacted immediately, but, while the other cities once again hesitated, Thebes decided to resist with the utmost vigor. However, the resistance was useless, as the city was razed to the ground amid great bloodshed, and its territory was divided between the other Boeotian cities. The end of Thebes cowed Athens into submission, leaving all of Greece at least outwardly at peace with Alexander.^[63]

Before crossing to Asia, Alexander wanted to safeguard his northern borders and, in the spring of 335 BC, he advanced into Thrace to deal with the revolt, which was led by the Illyrians and Triballi. He was reinforced along the way by the Agriani, a Thracian tribe under the command of Alexander's friend, Langarus. The Macedonian army marched up to Mount Haemus, where they met a Thracian garrison manning the heights. The Thracians had constructed a palisade of carts, which they intended to throw upon the approaching Macedonians. Alexander ordered his heavy infantry to march in loose formation and, when the carts were thrown, to either open the ranks or lay flat on the ground with their shields over them. The Macedonian archers opened fire and when the Macedonian infantry reached the top of the mountain they routed the Thracians.^[4]

Meanwhile, a large Triballian army led by their king, Syrmus, advanced upon the Macedonian rear. The Triballians retreated to a gorge, where they were drawn out by Alexander's light infantry. On the open ground, they were crushed by Alexander's infantry and cavalry, leaving behind 3,000 dead. The Macedonians marched to the Danube River where they encountered the Getae tribe on the opposite shore. As Alexander's ships failed to enter the river, Alexander's army made rafts out of their leather tents. A force of 4,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry crossed the river, to the amazement of the Getae army of 14,000 men. The Getae army retreated after the first cavalry skirmish, leaving their town to the Macedonian army.^[5]

Conquest of the Persian Empire

 Asia Minor

Map of Alexander's empire and the paths he took

Alexander's army crossed the Hellespont in 334 BC with approximately 42,000 soldiers from Macedon and various Greek city-states, mercenaries, and feudally raised soldiers from Thrace, Paionia, and Illyria.^[64] After an initial victory against Persian forces at the Battle of the Granicus, Alexander accepted the surrender of the Persian provincial capital and treasury of Sardis and proceeded down the Ionian coast.^[65] At Halicarnassus, Alexander successfully waged the first of many sieges, eventually forcing his opponents, the mercenary captain Memnon of Rhodes and the Persian satrap of Caria, Orontobates, to withdraw by sea.^[66] Alexander left the government of Caria to Ada, who adopted Alexander as her son.^[67]

From Halicarnassus, Alexander proceeded into mountainous Lycia and the Pamphylian plain, asserting control over all coastal cities. He did this to deny the Persians naval bases. Since Alexander had no reliable fleet of his own, defeating the Persian fleet required land control.^[68] From Pamphylia onward, the coast held no major ports and so Alexander moved inland. At Termessos, Alexander humbled but did not storm the Pisidian city.^[69] At the ancient Phrygian capital of Gordium, Alexander 'undid' the hitherto unsolvable Gordian Knot, a feat said to await the future "king of Asia".^[70] According to the most vivid story, Alexander proclaimed that it did not matter how the knot was undone, and he hacked it apart with his sword.^[71]

The Levant and Syria

Alexander Mosaic, showing Battle of Issus, from the House of the Faun, Pompeii

After spending the winter campaigning in Asia Minor, Alexander's army crossed the Cilician Gates in 333 BC, and defeated the main Persian army under the command of Darius III at the Battle of Issus in November.^[72] Darius fled the battle, causing his army to break, and left behind his wife, his two daughters, his mother Sisygambis, and a fabulous amount of treasure.^[73] He afterward offered a peace treaty to Alexander, the concession of the lands he had already conquered, and a ransom of 10,000 talents for his family. Alexander replied that since he was now king of Asia, it was he alone who decided territorial divisions.^[74]

Alexander proceeded to take possession of Syria, and most of the coast of the Levant.^[75] However, the following year, 332 BC, he was forced to attack Tyre, which he eventually captured after a famous siege.^[76][77] After the capture of Tyre, Alexander crucified all the men of military age, and sold the women and children into slavery.^[78]

Egypt

Egyptian alabaster statuette of Alexander the Great in the Brooklyn Museum

When Alexander destroyed Tyre, most of the towns on the route to Egypt quickly capitulated, with the exception of Gaza. The stronghold at Gaza was built on a hill and was heavily fortified.^[79] At the beginning of the Siege of Gaza, Alexander utilized the engines he had employed against Tyre. After three unsuccessful assaults, the stronghold was finally taken by force, but not before Alexander received a serious shoulder wound. When Gaza was taken, the male population was put to the sword and the women and children were sold into slavery.^[80]

Jerusalem, on the other hand, opened its gates in surrender, and according to Josephus, Alexander was shown the book of Daniel's prophecy, presumably chapter 8, where a mighty Greek king would subdue and conquer the Persian Empire. Thereupon, Alexander spared Jerusalem and pushed south into Egypt.^[81][82]

Alexander advanced on Egypt in later 332 BC, where he was regarded as a liberator.^[83] He was pronounced the new "master of the Universe" and son of the deity of Amun at the Oracle of Siwa Oasis in the Libyan desert.^[84] Henceforth, Alexander often referred to Zeus-Ammon as his true father, and subsequent currency depicted him adorned with ram horns as a symbol of his divinity.^[85][86] During his stay in Egypt, he founded Alexandria-by-Egypt, which would become the prosperous capital of the Ptolemaic kingdom after his death.^[87]

Assyria and Babylonia

Initial dispositions and opening movements in the Battle of Gaugamela, 331 BC.

Leaving Egypt in 331 BC, Alexander marched eastward into Mesopotamia (now northern Iraq) and defeated Darius once more at the Battle of Gaugamela.^[88] Once again, Darius was forced to leave the field, and Alexander chased him as far as Arbela. Darius fled over the mountains to Ecbatana (modern Hamedan), but Alexander instead marched to and captured Babylon.^[89]

Persia

From Babylon, Alexander went to Susa, one of the Achaemenid capitals, and captured its legendary treasury.^[89] Sending the bulk of his army to the Persian ceremonial capital of Persepolis via the Royal Road, Alexander himself took selected troops on the direct route to the city. However, the pass of the Persian Gates (in the modern Zagros Mountains) had been blocked by a Persian army under Ariobarzanes, and Alexander had to storm the pass. Alexander then made a dash for Persepolis before its garrison could loot the treasury.^[90] At Persepolis, Alexander stared at the crumbled statue of Xerxes and decided to leave it on the ground.^[91][92] During their stay at the capital, a fire broke out in the eastern palace of Xerxes and spread to the rest of the city. Theories abound as to whether this was the result of a drunken accident, or a deliberate act of revenge for the burning of the Acropolis of Athens during the Second Persian War.^[92]

Fall of the Empire and the East

Alexander then set off in pursuit of Darius again, first into Media, and then Parthia.^[93] The Persian king was no longer in control of his destiny, having been taken prisoner by Bessus, his Bactrian satrap and kinsman.^[94] As Alexander approached, Bessus had his men fatally stab the Great King and then declared himself Darius' successor as Artaxerxes V, before retreating into Central Asia to launch a guerrilla campaign against Alexander.^[95] Darius' remains were buried by Alexander next to his Achaemenid predecessors in a full regal funeral.^[96] Alexander claimed that, while dying, Darius had named him as his successor to the Achaemenid throne.^[97] The Achaemenid Empire is normally considered to have fallen with the death of Darius.^[98]

Silver coin of Alexander, British Museum

Alexander, now considering himself the legitimate successor to Darius, viewed Bessus as a usurper to the Achaemenid throne, and set out to defeat him. This campaign, initially against Bessus, turned into a grand tour of central Asia, with Alexander founding a series of new cities, all called Alexandria, including modern Kandahar in Afghanistan, and Alexandria Eschate ("The Furthest") in modern Tajikistan. The campaign took Alexander through Media, Parthia, Aria (West Afghanistan), Drangiana, Arachosia (South and Central Afghanistan), Bactria (North and Central Afghanistan), and Scythia.^[99]

Bessus was betrayed in 329 BC by Spitamenes, who held an undefined position in the satrapy of Sogdiana. Spitamenes handed over Bessus to Ptolemy, one of Alexander's trusted companions, and Bessus was executed.^[100] However, when, at some point later, Alexander was on the Jaxartes dealing with an incursion by a horse nomad army, Spitamenes raised Sogdiana in revolt. Alexander personally defeated the Scythians at the Battle of Jaxartes and immediately launched a campaign against Spitamenes and defeated him in the Battle of Gabai; after the defeat, Spitamenes was killed by his own men, who then sued for peace.^[101]

Problems and plots

During this time, Alexander took the Persian title "King of Kings" (Shahanshah) and adopted some elements of Persian dress and customs at his court, notably the custom of proskynesis, either a symbolic kissing of the hand, or prostration on the ground, that Persians paid to their social superiors.^[102][103] The Greeks regarded the gesture as the province of deities and believed that Alexander meant to deify himself by requiring it. This cost him much in the sympathies of many of his countrymen.^[103] A plot against his life was revealed, and one of his officers, Philotas, was executed for failing to bring the plot to his attention. The death of the son necessitated the death of the father, and thus Parmenion, who had been charged with guarding the treasury at Ecbatana, was assassinated by command of Alexander, so he might not make attempts at vengeance. Most infamously, Alexander personally slew the man who had saved his life at Granicus, Cleitus the Black, during a drunken argument at Maracanda.^[104] Later, in the Central Asian campaign, a second plot against his life was revealed, this one instigated by his own royal pages. His official historian, Callisthenes of Olynthus (who had fallen out of favor with the king by leading the opposition to his attempt to introduce proskynesis), was implicated in the plot; however, there has never been consensus among historians regarding his involvement in the conspiracy.^[105]

Indian campaign

Invasion of the Indian subcontinent

After the death of Spitamenes and his marriage to Roxana (Roshanak in Bactrian) to cement his relations with his new Central Asian satrapies, Alexander was finally free to turn his attention to the Indian subcontinent. Alexander invited all the chieftains of the former satrapy of Gandhara, in the north of what is now Pakistan, to come to him and submit to his authority. Omphis (whose actual name is Ambhi), ruler of Taxila, whose kingdom extended from the Indus to the Hydaspes, complied, but the chieftains of some hill clans, including the Aspasioi and Assakenoi sections of the Kambojas (known in Indian texts also as Ashvayanas and Ashvakayanas), refused to submit.^[106]

A painting by Charles Le Brun depicting Alexander and Porus (Puru) during the Battle of the Hydaspes

In the winter of 327/326 BC, Alexander personally led a campaign against these clans; the Aspasioi of Kunar valleys, the Guraeans of the Guraeus valley, and the Assakenoi of the Swat and Buner valleys.^[107] A fierce contest ensued with the Aspasioi in which Alexander himself was wounded in the shoulder by a dart but eventually the Aspasioi lost the fight. Alexander then faced the Assakenoi, who fought bravely and offered stubborn resistance to Alexander in the strongholds of Massaga, Ora and Aornos.^[106] The fort of Massaga could only be reduced after several days of bloody fighting in which Alexander himself was wounded seriously in the ankle. According to Curtius, "Not only did Alexander slaughter the entire population of Massaga, but also did he reduce its buildings to rubbles".^[108] A similar slaughter then followed at Ora, another stronghold of the Assakenoi. In the aftermath of Massaga and Ora, numerous Assakenians fled to the fortress of Aornos. Alexander followed close behind their heels and captured the strategic hill-fort after the fourth day of a bloody fight.^[106]

After Aornos, Alexander crossed the Indus and fought and won an epic battle against a local ruler Porus, who ruled a region in the Punjab, in the Battle of Hydaspes in 326 BC.^[109] Alexander was greatly impressed by Porus for his bravery in battle, and therefore made an alliance with him and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom, even adding land he did not own before. Additional reasons were probably political since, to control lands so distant from Greece required local assistance and co-operation.^[110] Alexander named one of the two new cities that he founded on opposite sides of the Hydaspes river, Bucephala, in honor of the horse that had brought him to India, and had died during the battle^[111] and the other Nicaea (Victory) at the site of modern day Mong.^[112][113]

Revolt of the army

Campaigns and landmarks of Alexander's invasion of the Indian subcontinent.

East of Porus' kingdom, near the Ganges River, was the powerful Nanda Empire of Magadha and Gangaridai Empire of Bengal. Fearing the prospects of facing other powerful Indian armies and exhausted by years of campaigning, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis River, refusing to march further east. This river thus marks the easternmost extent of Alexander's conquests.^[114][115]

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand war elephants.^[114]

Alexander spoke to his army and tried to persuade them to march further into India but Coenus pleaded with him to change his opinion and return, the men, he said, "longed to again see their parents, their wives and children, their homeland". Alexander, seeing the unwillingness of his men, eventually agreed and turned south. Along the way his army conquered the Malli clans (in modern day Multan), and other Indian tribes.^[116]

Return

Alexander sent much of his army to Carmania (modern southern Iran) with his general Craterus, and commissioned a fleet to explore the Persian Gulf shore under his admiral Nearchus, while he led the rest of his forces back to Persia through the more difficult southern route along the Gedrosian Desert and Makran (now part of southern Iran and Pakistan).^[117]

Last years in Persia

Discovering that many of his satraps and military governors had misbehaved in his absence, Alexander executed a number of them as examples, on his way to Susa.^[118][119] As a gesture of thanks, he paid off the debts of his soldiers, and announced that he would send those over-aged and disabled veterans back to Macedon under Craterus. But, his troops misunderstood his intention and mutinied at the town of Opis, refusing to be sent away and bitterly criticizing his adoption of Persian customs and dress, and the introduction of Persian officers and soldiers into Macedonian units.^[120] Alexander executed the ringleaders of the mutiny, but forgave the rank and file.^[121] In an attempt to craft a lasting harmony between his Macedonian and Persian subjects, he held a mass marriage of his senior officers to Persian and other noblewomen at Susa, but few of those marriages seem to have lasted much beyond a year.^[119] Meanwhile, upon his return, Alexander learned some men had desecrated the tomb of Cyrus the Great, and swiftly executed them, because they were put in charge of guarding the tomb Alexander held in honor.^[122]

After Alexander traveled to Ecbatana to retrieve the bulk of the Persian treasure, his closest friend and possibly lover^[123] Hephaestion died of an illness, or possibly of poisoning.^[124] According to Plutarch, Alexander, distraught over the death of his longtime companion, sacked a nearby town, and put all of its inhabitants to the sword, as a sacrifice to Hephaestion's ghost.^[125] Arrian finds great diversity and casts doubts on the accounts of Alexander's displays of grief, although he says that they all agree that Hephaestion's death devastated him, and that he ordered the preparation of an expensive funeral pyre in Babylon, as well as a decree for the observance of a public mourning.^[124]

Back in Babylon, Alexander planned a series of new campaigns, beginning with an invasion of Arabia, but he would not have a chance to realize them.^[126] 

Death and succession

Final days

An Astronomical diary (c. 323–322 BC) recording the death of Alexander (British Museum, London)

On either 10 or 11 June 323 BC, Alexander died in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II, in Babylon at the age of 32.^[127] Plutarch gives a lengthy account of the circumstances of his death, echoed (without firm dates) by Arrian. Roughly 14 days before his death, Alexander entertained his admiral Nearchus, and then, instead of going to bed, spent the night and next day drinking with Medius of Larissa.^[128] After this, and by 18 Daesius (a Macedonian month) he had developed a fever, which then grew steadily worse.^[128][129] By 25 Daesius, he was unable to speak.^[129] By 26 Daesius, the common soldiers had become anxious about his health, or thought he was already dead. They demanded to see him, and Alexander's generals acquiesced.^[129] The soldiers slowly filed past him, whilst Alexander raised his right hand in greeting, still unable to speak.^[130] Two days later, on 28 Daesius (although Aristobolus's account says it was 30 Daesius), Alexander was dead.^[128][129] Conversely, Diodorus recounts that Alexander was struck down with pain after downing a large bowl of unmixed wine in honour of Hercules, and (rather mysteriously) died after some agony,^[131] which is also mentioned as an alternative by Arrian, but Plutarch specifically denies this claim.^[128]

Roxana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Roxana (disambiguation).

Alexander the Great and Roxane

Roxana (In Persian, Rauxnaka, meaning "little star") sometimes Roxane, was a Bactrian noble and a wife of Alexander the Great. She was born earlier than the year 343 BC, though the precise date remains uncertain.

She was the daughter of a Bactrian named Oxyartes of Balkh in Bactria (then Persian Achaemenid Empire, now northern Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan), and married Alexander at the age of 16 after he visited the fortress of Sogdian Rock. Balkh was the last of the Persian Empire's provinces to fall to Alexander. Ancient sources describe Alexander's professed love for Roxana. She accompanied him on his campaign in India in 326 BC. She bore him a posthumous son called Alexander IV Aegus, after Alexander's sudden death at Babylon in 323 BC.

After Alexander's death, Roxana and her son became victims of the political intrigues of the collapse of the Alexandrian empire. Roxana murdered Alexander's other widow, Stateira II, as well as either Stateira's sister Drypteis (Pl. Alex. 77.4) or Parysatis II (Alexander's third wife). Roxana and her son were protected by Alexander's mother, Olympias, in Macedonia, but her assassination in 316 BC allowed Cassander to seek kingship. Since Alexander IV Aegus was the legitimate heir to the Alexandrian empire, Cassander ordered him and Roxana assassinated around 310 BC.

[edit] See also

• Balkh
• Alexander IV Aegus
• Alexandre et Roxane, opera, by Mozart

[edit] References

•  Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). "Roxana". Encyclopædia Britannica (Eleventh ed.). Cambridge University Press. 
• Livius.org: Roxane by Jona Lendering
• Wiki Classical Dictionary: Roxane, daughter of Oxyartes
• Roxana from Charles Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1867)

[edit] Historical Novels

• Roxana is one of the main characters in The Romance of Alexander and Roxana by Marshall Monroe Kirkman, 1909, reprinted 2010, ISBN 978-1-16001995-8.

• Roxana appears as one of the characters in A Conspiracy of Women by Aubrey Menen, 1965.

• Roxana appears as one of the minor characters in Persian Boy by Mary Renault, 1972, ISBN 0-394-48191-7. Renault uses the spelling Roxane.

• Roxana appears as one of the characters in Funeral Games by Mary Renault, 1981, ISBN 0-394-52068-8. Renault uses the spelling Roxane.

• Roxana appears as one of the characters in Alexander: The Ends of the Earth by Valerio Massimo Manfredi, 2002, ISBN 978-0-74343438-6.

• Roxana is the main character in Roxana Romance by A. J. Cave, 2008, Hardcover ISBN 978-0-98020610-4, eBook ISBN 978-0-98020611-1.

This royalty-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v • d • e

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxana"

Categories: 4th-century BC births | 309 BC deaths | 309 BC crimes | 4th-century BC women | Alexander the Great | Given names | Persian given names | Romanian feminine given names | Queens consort | Women in Hellenistic warfare | People who died under the regency of Cassander | Murdered royalty of Macedon | Ancient Macedonian queens consort | Royalty stubs

Hidden categories: Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica | Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference

Personal tools

• New features
• Log in / create account

Namespaces

• Article
• Discussion

Variants

Views

• Read
• Edit
• View history

Actions

Search

Conflictul dintre Dromichaites si Lysimach [ cap-I-]

http://www.universulromanesc.com/ginta/showthread.php?t=12

Politica macedoneană de dominaţie asupra zonelor dunărene - determinată atât de importanţa strategică a marelui fluviu, cât şi de bogăţiile teritoriului geto-dacic limitrof - a cunoscut în deceniile următoare perioade de flux şi reflux, care s-au succedat în funcţie de desfăşurarea ansamblului evenimentelor petrecute în Peninsula Balcanică şi, pe plan mai larg, în imperiul fondat de Alexandru cel Mare.

Dar, conform izvoarelor narative, se poate aprecia că o relansare de anvergură a politicii ofensive macedonene către nord nu s-a mai petrecut după dispariţia lui Zopyrion până în pragul secolului al III-lea. În prima etapă campaniile întreprinse de Alexandru în Asia au consumat masiv energiile statului macedonean.

În luptele dintre diadohi un rol important a avut Lysimah, fostul strateg devenit rege al Traciei elenistice. General capabil şi ambiţios, care încă în timpul vieţii lui Alexandru cel Mare se distinsese prin fapte de arme deosebite, Lysimah s-a angajat energic în competiţia pentru supremaţie în imperiu, îndeosebi cu Antigonos şi Demetrios, pentru stăpânirea Ioniei şi Asiei Mici, apoi cu Cassandru pentru tronul Macedoniei.

Sub conducerea lui Lysimah teritoriul geto-dacic dintre Dunăre şi mare, până la gurile fluviului, s-a aflat înglobat în aria Traciei. Stăpânirea lui s-a dovedit extrem de apăsătoare, atât în domeniul economic, cât şi politic. Ea a generat numeroase frământări ale populaţiei autohtone şi coloniilor greceşti. Către anul 313 î.e.n. este atestată documentar prezenţa unor garnizoane macedonene în coloniile greceşti vest-pontice, semn indubitabil al încordării la care se ajunsese.

În aceste condiţii s-a produs, în anul 313 î.e.n., o răscoală generală în estul balcanic la care au participat geţii, tracii şi efective din coloniile greceşti vest-pontice, acestea fiind încurajate şi de promisiunile de sprijin pe care le primiseră din partea lui Antigonos, rivalul lui Lysimah.

Semnalul revoltei a fost dat de cei din Callatis; a fost alungată garnizoana macedoneană şi cetatea şi-a proclamat independenţa, în faţa adversarului comun, cetăţile vest-pontice care au urmat exemplul Callatisului, reunindu-şi forţele, şi-au asigurat ajutorul geţilor, sciţilor şi tracilor. Momentul este înfăţişat limpede de către Diodor din Sicilia: "în vremea aceea, callatienii, care locuiesc părţile din stingă Pontului, au alungat o garnizoană a lui Lysimah - pe care o aveau de la el - şi au dobândit neatârnarea. Eliberând în acelaşi fel cetatea istrienilor şi celelalte cetăţi vecine, încheiară între dânşii o alianţă, ca să se războiască laolaltă împotriva stăpânitorului [macedonean]. Mai dobândiră şi prietenia neamurilor vecine, ale tracilor şi ale sciţilor, încât toţi aceştia - legaţi prin alianţa lor - să însemne ceva şi să fie în stare să se împotrivească unor oşti numeroase" (Diodor din Sicilia, XIX, 73, 1-2).

Amploarea răscoalei l-a obligat pe Lysimah să suspende acţiunile în care se găsea angajat în sudul Traciei şi să pornească împotriva forţelor aliate din nord. După ce a trecut munţii Haemus, oastea aflată sub comanda lui s-a îndreptat mai întâi spre cetatea Odessos - a cărei garnizoană participase la răscoală - unde şi-a aşezat tabăra, pregătindu-se pentru asediu; cei aflaţi în oraş s-au predat însă fără luptă, Lysimah redevenind "stăpânul cetăţii prin bună înţelegere" (Diodor din Sicilia, XIX, 73, 1-2). La fel au procedat de teama represaliilor cei din Histria şi, probabil, din alte colonii.

Numai în Callatis s-a continuat rezistenţa, în ajutorul cetăţii au venit - relatează Diodor din Sicilia - aliaţii lor, "potrivit înţelegerii" (Diodor din Sicilia, XIX, 73, 1-2). Lysimah a făcut, cu acest prilej, dovada unor evidente calităţi militare. El a atacat mai întâi prin surprindere oastea traco-getă şi a învins-o. Apoi, într-o luptă în câmp deschis, a înfrânt oastea sciţilor, provocându-i mari pierderi; resturile acesteia au fost urmărite "dincolo de hotarele ţării lor" (Diodor din Sicilia, XIX, 73, 1-2).

În faza următoare a derulării evenimentelor Lysimah şi-a putut concentra întregul potenţial împotriva Callatisului. Tenacitatea cu care callatienii, rămaşi practic singuri, şi-au apărat cetatea s-a dovedit până la urmă salvatoare căci, în vara anului 312 î.e.n., împotriva lui Lysimah au fost trimise, în sfârşit, forţele promise de Antigonos. O parte a acestora, sub comanda lui Pausanias, s-a îndreptat pe uscat spre coastele Asiei Mici, de unde a trecut ulterior în Tracia; aici i s-au alăturat şi odrisii conduşi de Seuthes. Cealaltă parte, transportată cu flota pusă sub comanda generalului Lycon, a pătruns în apele Pontului, îndreptându-se spre Callatis.

În împrejurările date, situaţia lui Lysimah devenise gravă. El risca să fie zdrobit la Callatis, dacă forţele adverse aveau să facă acolo joncţiunea, sau să aibă de înfruntat o răscoală generală în sudul Traciei, încurajată de prezenţa trupelor lui Antigonos. Iată de ce, apreciind că problema Callatisului trecuse pe un plan secundar, el a lăsat pentru continuarea asediului doar trupele strict necesare, iar cu majoritatea forţelor devenite disponibile a acţionat împotriva odrisilor şi a corpului expediţionar comandat de Pausanias.

Bătălia principală s-a dat în trecătorile din partea de sud a munţilor Haemus, pe care le ocupase oastea odrisă. A fost o înfruntare îndârjită singeroasă, de lungă durată, în care atât macedonenii, cât şi tracii, au avut pierderi mari. Diodor din Sicilia relatează, succint, că Lysimah "luă cu asalt defileurile şi îl ucise pe Pausania" (Diodor din Sicilia, XIX, 73, 10).

Asedierea Callatisului a continuat, probabil, până în anul 311, când diadohii - sleiţi de numeroasele războaie purtate până atunci - au convenit asupra unei "păci generale". Dar aceasta a fost peste câţiva ani încălcată, iar Callatisul a suferit, aşa cum se poate deduce din textul antic destul de laconic un al doilea asediu (cel mai probabil în 310/309 î.e.n.).

În deceniul următor Lysimah, a reuşit să anexeze o mare parte din Asia ionică, stăpânită până atunci de Antigonos, care a pierit în bătălia de la Ipsos (301 î.e.n.) şi a dispus de răgazul necesar pentru a relua acţiunile de consolidare a autorităţii lui în ţinuturile dintre Istru şi mare.

O nouă intervenţie militară dirijată spre nord, de data aceasta împotriva geto-dacilor, a fost determinată, cu certitudine, nu atât de dorinţa regelui Traciei de a-i pedepsi pe băştinaşi pentru sprijinul acordat, cu un deceniu în urmă, coloniilor greceşti răsculate, cât de faptul că între timp, profitând de diminuarea presiunii macedonene, geto-dacii din zonele situate la stânga Dunării îşi extinseseră stăpânirea peste fluviu, tinzând să-şi alipească teritoriile locuite de populaţia de aceeaşi etnie şi să-şi instituie controlul asupra cetăţilor greceşti de pe litoralul pontic, în orice caz, ameninţarea geto-dacilor trebuie să fi fost foarte puternică de vreme ce Lysimah a socotit că se impunea o expediţie de amploare spre a-şi consolida stăpânirea asupra ţinutului dintre fluviu şi mare, inclusiv a litoralului.

Re : Conflictul dintre Dromichaites si Lysimach [ cap-II-]

Quote:

Fiecare dintre formaţiunile statale respective a barat printr-o tenace rezistenţă căile principale de expansiune dinspre sud, est şi vest ale forţelor care încercau să pătrundă în vatra ancestrală de locuire geto-dacică.

Exercitându-şi autoritatea asupra unor arii mult mai întinse decât acelea cuprinse în perimetrele triburilor şi uniunilor de triburi, având la dispoziţie oştiri nu numai mai numeroase dar şi mai bine organizate şi înzestrate, dispunând de un număr relativ mare centre de puternic fortificate, conducătorii formaţiunilor statale geto-dace din acea perioadă - cărora izvoarele antice le atribuie, pe bună dreptate, titlul de regi - au fost în măsură să introducă elemente novatoare de ordin strategic şi tactic în purtarea războaielor de apărare, îmbogăţind astfel arta militară a înaintaşilor.

Toate acestea şi-au pus vizibil amprenta şi asupra modului de gândire şi de acţiune al marelui rege Dromichaites care prin viziunea lui politică şi prin capacitatea militară s-a ridicat la nivelul celor mai iscusiţi comandanţi de oşti din epocă.

Quote:

Prima luptă între geto-daci şi macedoneni s-a dat la scurt timp după bătălia de la Ipsos, după unele izvoare în anul 300 sau 299 î.e.n., Lysimah "avu de înfruntat nişte bărbaţi foarte pricepuţi în războaie şi care îl întreceau cu mult prin numărul lor" (Pausanias, I, 9, 7). Biruinţa geto-dacilor a fost deplină: "El însuşi [Lysimah] ajunse într-o primejdie cât se poate de mare şi scăpă cu fuga. Fiul său, Agatocles, care-l sprijinea atunci în luptă pentru prima oară, fu luat prizonier de către geţi" (Pausanias, I, 9, 7).

Înfrânt şi în alte lupte, date în anii următori, Lysimah a fost nevoit să încheie, prin anul 297 î.e.n., pacea cuDromichaites. În schimbul eliberării lui Agatocles, geto-dacii au obţinut restituirea teritoriului de peste fluviu, ocupat anterior de macedoneni.

Lysimah a încheiat această pace dezavantajoasă pentru el constrâns şi de alte evenimente, anume disputele declanşate, încă din 298 î.e.n., pentru stăpânirea Macedoniei.

Quote:

Dar, pentru a doua oară, în anul 292 î.e.n., Lysimah a hotărât să pornească un război de proporţii împotriva formaţiunii statale geto-dacice a lui Dromichaites, ale cărei întărire şi spor de autoritate le considera ca fiind în detrimentul său.

Pentru a-şi putea concentra forţele principale împotriva geto-dacilor Lysimah a realizat, în prealabil, o dezangajare de pe teatrul de acţiuni militare din Macedonia, încheind pace cu cel mai tenace rival din acel timp, generalul macedonean Demetrios Poliorcetes.

Quote:

Oastea cu care Lysimah s-a îndreptat împotriva adversarilor nord-dunăreni a fost mult mai numeroasă decât cea de care dispusese în anul 300/299 î.e.n. Efectivele ei, apreciate de Polyainos la 100.000 de oameni, i-au impresionat pe contemporani.

Împotriva acestui inamic periculos regele Dromichaites a aplicat cu deplin succes strategia "pământului pârjolit" a cărei esenţă consta în organizarea unei apărări tenace pe aliniamente succesive, adversarul fiind continuu hărţuit, lovit prin surprindere, în special la punctele obligate de trecere şi împiedicat să se aprovizioneze.

Astfel se face că deşi după ce a pătruns în teritoriul getic oastea lui Lysimah a reuşit să cucerească o serie de aşezări, inclusiv câteva fortificate, a fost pusă nu peste multă vreme într-o grea situaţie. Căci peste tot, ea a găsit pământul pustiit, iar Dromichaites şi-a păstrat forţele intacte, retrăgându-se - după obişnuitele acţiuni de hărţuire - fără să angajeze o bătălie hotărâtoare. Oboseala, foamea şi setea au început să facă ravagii în rândurile macedonenilor. Diodor din Sicilia scrie limpede în această privinţă: "Armata lui Lysimah era chinuită de foame. Prietenii îl sfătuiau pe rege să scape cum va putea şi să-şi mute gândul că oastea lui l-ar putea salva.

Lysimah le răspunse însă că nu era drept să-şi părăsească ostaşii şi prietenii, sigurându-şi lui o scăpare ruşinoasă" (Diodor din Sicilia, XXI, 12, 1). În momentul în care capacitatea combativă a armatei lui Lysimah se diminuase, oştenii conduşi de Dromichaites au atacat-o decisiv şi au capturat-o în întregime.

Evenimentul - mai ales datorită împrejurărilor insolite în care se petrecuse - a produs o vie impresie asupra unor autori antici. Plutarh a consemnat următorul moment, evocat şi de alţi autori pentru valoarea lui simbolică: "învins în Tracia de către Dromichaites şi silit să se predea împreună cu toată oştirea din pricina setei, după ce bău apă şi ajunse sclav, Lysimah spuse: O zeilor, pentru cât de mică desfătare m-am făcut rob, din rege ce eram!" (Plutarh, Basileon apofthegmata kai strategon: Lysimachos).

Astfel, în timp ce "tactica scitică" s-a practicat pe spaţii vaste, slab locuite şi lipsite îndeobşte de centre economice, de către neamuri nomade, crescătoare de vite, cărora le era uşor să se retragă continuu cu avutul lor mobil din calea adversarilor până când aceştia, sleiţi de forţe şi înfometaţi, piereau sau luau calea întoarcerii, tactica "pământului pârjolit" s-a aplicat la noi de către o populaţie sedentară şi pe un spaţiu nu numai redus, ci şi relativ dens populat dintotdeauna.

În primul caz, pustiul exista de la natură şi vastitatea lui juca rolul esenţial în înfrângerea adversarilor, împotrivirea cu arma în mină rămânând episodică; în cel de-al doilea, "pustiul" trebuia creat artificial, prin evacuări sau distrugeri de bunuri, implicând mereu un sacrificiu premeditat şi conştient, iar distanţele mici făceau ca efortul militar să constituie un factor de bază, cu efect decisiv în obţinerea victoriei pe câmpul de luptă.

Strămoşii noştri nu provocau distrugeri pe suprafeţe mari, cum s-ar putea imagina, ci în limitele strictului necesar, pe itinerarele urmate de inamic, în aşa fel încât acesta, oriunde şi oricât ar fi mers, întâlnea mereu în cale "pustiul".Această tactică tradiţională, originală şi ingenioasă a "parafatului pârjolit" aplicată şi cu acest prilej de geto-daci este descrisă cu lux de amănunte de Herodot. Este de reţinut şi constatarea că procedeul "pârjolirii" a avut la strămoşii noştri, în diverse situaţii, nu numai o valoare tactică, ci şi una strategică.

Acesta e cazul şi în confruntarea dintre Dromichaites şi Lysimah, în cadrul căreia folosirea de către geto-daci a practicii "pământului pârjolit" a avut un rol precumpănitor în atingerea ţelului războiului - înfrângerea armatei invadatoare.

Dacă în timpul războiului Dromichaites şi-a demonstrat calităţile proprii unui mare comandant de oşti, după victorie el s-a dovedit un om politic şi diplomat de excepţie, învinşii, inclusiv regele Lysimah, au fost duşi în cetatea Helis (nelocalizată până acum), unde au fost bine trataţi şi ospătaţi, iar soarta lor supusă spre dezbatere adunării poporului, organismul de decizie în entitatea statală condusă de Dromichaites.

Episodul este înfăţişat de Diodor din Sicilia, care zăboveşte asupra concepţiei lui Dromichaites despre bazele păcii - o concepţie ce depăşea vizibil moravurile şi etica epocii: "Ajungând oştirea lui Lysimah în puterea tracilor, aceştia se strânseră la un loc - alergând în număr mare - şi strigară să le fie dat pe mână regele prizonier, ca să-l pedepsească.

Căci - spuneau ei - poporul, care luase parte la primejdiile [războiului], trebuie să aibă dreptul de a chibzui asupra felului cum să fie trataţi cei prinşi. Dromichaites fu împotriva pedepsirii regelui şi-i lămuri pe oşteni că este bine să-l cruţe pe bărbatul acesta. Dacă l-ar omorî pe Lysimah - spunea el -, alţi regi au să-i ia domnia şi se prea poate ca regii aceştia să fie mult mai de temut decât înaintaşul lor.

Dar cruţându-l pe Lysimah, acesta - cum se şi cuvine - are să se arate recunoscător tracilor, care i-au dăruit viaţa. Iar locurile întărite, aflate mai înainte vreme în stăpânirea tracilor, ei le vor dobândi înapoi fără nici o primejdie" (Diodor din Sicilia, XXI, 12, 3).

În cadrul ospăţului la care Lysimah şi cei din anturajul lui au fost trataţi cu mâncăruri alese, din vase scumpe, în timp ce geţii au luat demonstrativ un prânz modest, Dromichaites l-a întrebat pe regele macedonean: "de ce ai lăsat acasă atâtea deprinderi, un trai cât se poate de ademenitor şi o domnie plină de străluciri [...]? De ce te-ai silit, împotriva firii, să-ţi duci oştenii pe nişte meleaguri în care orice oaste străină nu poate afla scăpare sub cerul liber?" (Diodor din Sicilia, XXI, 12, 6). Prin acest dialog autorii antici au vrut să sublinieze valoarea etic-umană a pildei, iar faptul că prizonierii luaţi de oştenii lui Dromichaites nu au fost ucişi, nici rău trataţi, nici transformaţi în sclavi sau vânduţi ca atare, nici eliberaţi pentru despăgubiri exorbitante - aşa cum considerau normal să procedeze învingătorii de alte seminţii -, ci puşi în libertate din raţiuni politice superioare, evidenţia voinţa geto-dacilor de a convieţui în pace şi înţelegere cu vecinii, în schimbul eliberării, Lysimah a acceptat să restituie geto-dacilor teritoriile ocupate în dreapta Dunării, inclusiv aşezările întărite, şi s-a angajat să se abţină pe viitor de la acte agresive împotriva lor.

Pacea a fost întărită printr-o căsătorie contractată între Dromichaites şi fiica lui Lysimah.

După războiul din anul 292 î.e.n. nu se mai cunosc alte conflicte militare între entităţile statale geto-dace de la nord de Dunăre şi statul elenistic condus de Lysimah. De altfel, acesta a reintrat imediat după prizonieratul getic în disputele pentru stăpânirea Macedoniei.

Preluat din : http://www.dracones.ro

Last edited by Tricoderonga; 06-03-10 at 07:20 PM.