A Hellenistic Arabia?

Perhaps, but it's important to remember that Antipater had no reason to obey such summons. In Macedon, he was in a position of strength, and further, it was necessary for there to be a smooth transition of command between him and Craterus, since there was a great deal of discontent in Greece after the Exile Decrees were read at Olympia. Even after Alexander summoned Antipater, he still tarried in Macedon, sending Cassander to plead his case. Alexander didn't trust Antipater anymore (thanks in no small part to Olympias) and wanted to lure him to Babylon as swiftly as possible.

However, I see your point and will respectfully agree to disagree with you here.

Same at you. It's a tricky situation that Alexander - who has been away from Macedon and administration in general too long (too long in the sense Antipater's position is going to be hard to pry him loose from) would need to approach carefully to get the desired results.

Assuming he lives, obviously. OTL it was rendered moot.

Remember, the epigoni had been taken from many high ranking Persian families and trained under the auspices of Alexander after his victory over Darius III. Alexander, for whatever his faults, had a great deal more legitimacy in Persia as Great King than Seleucus ever did. Even that aside, by this point, Alexander truly believed himself to be divine and the rightful successor of Darius, so in his mind at least, he believed that he could trust the epigoni. Now, I agree with you that there are plenty of arguments against the loyalty of these Persian troops in comparison to the Macedonians, and many of the Diadochi probably saw this. But Alexander wasn't thinking that way, for better or for worse.

Yeah. I think it is something that bears consideration in the context of "Alexander's next campaigns" - they could either become as or more devoted to him as his Macedonians, or they could use it against him. It's a situation that will be tested, that's for sure.

Agreed. Personally, while I'm a bit of Hellenophile, I've always had an equal fascination with Achaemenid Persia as well. This is why I've always been drawn to a surviving Argead Empire, myself, because of the possibilities of a very different Hellenistic period. The idea of a truly syncretic culture (though, admittedly, with some obvious dominance on the part of the Greeks) always interested me. Sort of a more Orientalised Seleucid Empire--but larger and more successful due to its reserves of men and money.

Yeah. Something like this is an intriguing mixture, but "MOAR HELLENISM" as Socrates mentioned . . . let's just say that I boycott that when polite.

So it should be interesting to see where you go with your timeline. Even if all goes right, Alexander's empire is going to be in for some very interesting times when he dies, if only because its unclear whether his son will be able to fill those shoes.

But if it wasn't interesting, it wouldn't be worth writing about.

This is mostly true, although we'd probably also see Arab gods take on more Greek attributes, the use of Koine Greek as a lingua franca and the ruling elite of Arabia adopt some minor Hellenic trappings as well.

Eeyup. What I meant was, it probably won't go much beyond that - borrowing some customs and some words and maybe even Koine Greek as a lingua franca as you just said, but it won't turn Arabia into Hellas Minor.


The Ubbergeek: I disagree, and I don't think this is really the thread to go into why.

Sufficient to say, it being anti-democratic is not something I think (as someone whose friends are almost to a man fully pro-democracy) makes a good counterargument in regards to monarchy being worse.
 

NothingNow

Banned
And that's the reason why we're having this argument, because making realistic sculpture is not necessarily better sculpture.

Or, Rather Hellenistic sculpture is actually better because of it's technical qualities, attention to detail, and ability to convey emotion simultaneously, and could easily transition to cover different subjects, and not just Greeks (look at the Standing Buddhas of Gandhara.)
It's the product of a uniquely Greek obsession with achieving this perfect form, (actually achieved in the classical period, then scrupulously ignored in places to make things more dynamic and expressive,) but this obsession with exaggerated realism led to some interesting places in art, and the diffusion of techniques and ideas will actually only improve the art situation world-wide, as cross-pollination always has.

As for the quality of the art, compare say Laocoön or Gaul killing himself and his wife to pretty much anything else from the period. I'll wait for you to get back to me.
624px-Laocoon_Pio-Clementino_Inv1059-1064-1067.jpg


As for the OP, Arabia Felix if conquered might be towards the periphery, but a surprisingly solid one as there's not much around to threaten it (like Bactria was in some ways,) aside from whatever states form in the Horn, or any of the other Diadochi. Assuming Alexander stops with Arabia Felix of course.
EDIT:And the campaign would set the course of the empire, although if Alexander IV turned out to be as great as his father was, and holding to the same general sorts of ideals, or just plays everyone off against each other skillfully, we might see the Argeads hold on to the whole thing longer. Which is interesting as hell from so many standpoints. Especially if the Macedonians eventually get over themselves. Not sure how Arabia itself would play in, or Bactria for that matter, but it'd be interesting alright.
 
Last edited:
Or, Rather Hellenistic sculpture is actually better because of it's technical qualities, attention to detail, and ability to convey emotion simultaneously, and could easily transition to cover different subjects, and not just Greeks (look at the Standing Buddhas of Gandhara.)
You know nothing is inherently better about any of those things, frankly I could say that Greek sculpture is a boring shallow imitation of real life while Persian sculpture is superior for its creative uses of symbolism and ability to get a lot of meaning across through rather minimalist approaches. Neither is wrong because they are both opinions (although it should be mentioned if you are just going off that then Persians are better painters than the Greeks so really they end up equal either way).
 
Eliphas8, you ninja. You expressed what I want to say here better than I can.

Personally I like Greek sculpture well enough, but saying that it's "better" in an absolute and universal sense because of it's approach to being hyper-realistic doesn't go over well with me either.
 

NothingNow

Banned
You know nothing is inherently better about any of those things, frankly I could say that Greek sculpture is a boring shallow imitation of real life while Persian sculpture is superior for its creative uses of symbolism and ability to get a lot of meaning across through rather minimalist approaches. Neither is wrong because they are both opinions (although it should be mentioned if you are just going off that then Persians are better painters than the Greeks so really they end up equal either way).

Yes, everything's opinions, as is all of art criticism. :rolleyes:
Truth be told, half of why greek sculpture is so impressive is because it's frankly, getting the folds right in a hanging cloth, or making it look like there's actual musculature and movement under clothing is actually really fucking hard when you're working in a medium like stone (any stone, even marble,) as is getting hair right. Or, portraying movement and dynamism from the composition and form of an artwork, which can be done as easily in an abstract manner as it is a realistic one, but is generally hell to attempt if you don't know what you're doing. That's what I mean by technical skill. Not some little thing here or there, but ideas and concepts that are normally taken as universals in art.

Sure a good sculpture will look worse in harsh sunlight than bas-relief carvings, won't last like a proper fresco will, and isn't as practical as a mosaic, but everything has it's own merits (usually, anyway.) And TBH, I rather prefer Classical Mayan sculpture, and enjoy the intricacies of Temple construction across the world, but Hellenistic statuary is seriously impressive as an artistic achievement, especially while the rest of the world was producing very stiff statuary, limited more by confidence in the materials and the artist's skills than anything inherent to the materials themselves.
 
This is mostly true, although we'd probably also see Arab gods take on more Greek attributes, the use of Koine Greek as a lingua franca and the ruling elite of Arabia adopt some minor Hellenic trappings as well.

.

This is what basically happened with the Nabataeans. Petra is the best surviving example to the Hellenization of Arabs and Arab Culture. Aretas III took up a major effort to adopt Hellenic cultural trappings and reshape Petra.

Blessed Al-Uzza the Lioness of the Desert was equated with Athena. The worship of Al-Uzza in particular was very prevalent amongst the Arab tribes and clans, especially so in the region of Mecca amongst the Quarysh.
nab.jpg


As well as Dushara who was equated with Zeus.
450px-Dhushara.JPG


Before Hellenization, the images of the Arab gods were
2210513-Dushara_Petra.jpg
 
Top