Did Hellenization really have any lasting effects east of Antioch?

Are there or were there any lasting traces of the Hellenistic period east of Antioch?

After all the Seleucids collapsed and Seleucia faded into the desert.
 
Yes, there were parts of Hellenization. I will talk about specifics in the morning, when i can think better.
 
Well there were the Kushans who were somewhat Hellenized after they had conquered and settled down in Bactria.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Are there or were there any lasting traces of the Hellenistic period east of Antioch?

After all the Seleucids collapsed and Seleucia faded into the desert.

Iconoclasm in Buddism the Greco-Bactrians, and fucking up the status quo in Northern India enough to allow the Mauryans to get as big as they were.
 
Are there or were there any lasting traces of the Hellenistic period east of Antioch?

After all the Seleucids collapsed and Seleucia faded into the desert.

Parts of Pontos where east of Antioch, otherwise more than anything else the greeks persianized. Egypt and Anatolia where the most effected, Aramians Armenians, Jews, and smaller groups managed to effectively resist Hellenization for a long time. The Byzantines helped a lot by giving an effective double dose of Hellenization to their territories while Persia under Parthia and the Sassanids despised a lot of the greek elements that had worked their way into Persian society and thus stamped them out.
 
Last edited:
None of those are Hellenization (the spread of greek culture and language).

It's to note I am told sanskrit and the prakrits had some subtile greek influence, some words entered indian languages from it.... A word for swords, by example, and the Yavanas of the ancient texts are the Ionans, I think.
 
It's to note I am told sanskrit and the prakrits had some subtile greek influence, some words entered indian languages from it.... A word for swords, by example, and the Yavanas of the ancient texts are the Ionans, I think.

Okay that makes far more sense for examples of Hellenization. Not disagreeing that the Greeks had an impact on India, just that those wherent really hellenization so much as they where effects of Greek invasion.
 
Okay that makes far more sense for examples of Hellenization. Not disagreeing that the Greeks had an impact on India, just that those wherent really hellenization so much as they where effects of Greek invasion.

Technically, it IS a subtile form of helenization, you could say.

Why else taking GREEK words?
 
Okay that makes far more sense for examples of Hellenization. Not disagreeing that the Greeks had an impact on India, just that those wherent really hellenization so much as they where effects of Greek invasion.

Well the question was "Are there or were there any lasting traces of the Hellenistic period east of Antioch?", which isn't really the same as "Are there still Hellenized Indians and Persians today".
 
Technically, it IS a subtile form of helenization, you could say.

Why else taking GREEK words?

I'm not disagreeing that taking greek words is a form of hellenization. I was saying stuff like destablising the north isnt, unless greek language inherently breeds instability.
 
Top