Diodorus Siculus or Diodorus of Sicily was a Greek historian. He is known for writing the monumental universal history Bibliotheca historica, much of which survives, between 60 and 30 BC, it is arranged in three parts. The first covers mythic history up to the destruction of Troy, arranged geographically, describing regions around the world from Egypt and Arabia to Greece and Europe; the second covers the Trojan War to the death of Alexander the Great. The third covers the period to about 60 BC. Bibliotheca, meaning ` library', acknowledges. According to his own work, he was born at Agyrium in Sicily. With one exception, antiquity affords no further information about his life and doings beyond in his work. Only Jerome, in his Chronicon under the "year of Abraham 1968", writes, "Diodorus of Sicily, a writer of Greek history, became illustrious". However, his English translator, Charles Henry Oldfather, remarks on the "striking coincidence" that one of only two known Greek inscriptions from Agyrium is the tombstone of one "Diodorus, the son of Apollonius".
Diodorus' universal history, which he named Bibliotheca historica, was immense and consisted of 40 books, of which 1–5 and 11–20 survive: fragments of the lost books are preserved in Photius and the excerpts of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. It was divided into three sections; the first six books treated the mythic history of the non-Hellenic and Hellenic tribes to the destruction of Troy and are geographical in theme, describe the history and culture of Ancient Egypt, of Mesopotamia, India and Arabia, of North Africa, of Greece and Europe. In the next section, he recounts the history of the world from the Trojan War down to the death of Alexander the Great; the last section concerns the historical events from the successors of Alexander down to either 60 BC or the beginning of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. He selected the name "Bibliotheca" in acknowledgment that he was assembling a composite work from many sources. Identified authors on whose works he drew include Hecataeus of Abdera, Ctesias of Cnidus, Theopompus, Hieronymus of Cardia, Duris of Samos, Philistus, Timaeus and Posidonius.
His account of gold mining in Nubia in eastern Egypt is one of the earliest extant texts on the topic, describes in vivid detail the use of slave labour in terrible working conditions. He gave an account of the Gauls: "The Gauls are terrifying in aspect and their voices are deep and altogether harsh, they are boasters and threateners and are fond of pompous language, yet they have sharp wits and are not without cleverness at learning." Pliny the Elder Strabo Acadine Ambaglio, Franca Landucci Gattinoni and Luigi Bravi. Diodoro Siculo: Biblioteca storica: commento storico: introduzione generale. Storia. Ricerche. Milano: V&P, 2008. X, 145 p. Buckley, Terry. Aspects of Greek History 750-323 BC: A Source-based Approach. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-09958-7. Lloyd, Alan B.. Herodotus, Book II. Leiden: Brill. Pp. Introduction. ISBN 90-04-04179-6. Siculus, Diodorus. H.. Library of History: Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. Siculus, Diodorus. Rhodomannus; the Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian in Fifteen Books to which are added the Fragments of Diodorus.
London: J. Davis. Downloadable via Google Books. Siculi, Diodori. Bibliothecae Historicae Libri Qui Supersunt: Nova Editio. Argentorati: Societas Bipontina. CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list Downloadable via Google Books. Clarke, Katherine. 1999. "Universal perspectives in Historiography." In The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts. Edited by Christina Shuttleworth Kraus, 249–279. Mnemosyne. Supplementum 191. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Hammond, Nicholas G. L. 1998. "Portents and Dreams in Diodorus’ Books 14–17." Greek and Byzantine Studies 39.4: 407–428. McQueen, Earl I. 1995. Diodorus Siculus; the Reign of Philip II: The Greek and Macedonian Narrative from Book XVI. A Companion. London: Bristol Classical Press. Muntz, Charles E. 2017. Diodorus Siculus and the World of the Late Roman Republic. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Pfuntner, Laura. 2015. "Reading Diodorus through Photius: The Case of the Sicilian Slave Revolts." Greek and Byzantine Studies 55.1: 256–272. Rubincam, Catherine.
1987. "The Organization and Composition of Diodorus’ Bibliotheke." Échos du monde classique 31:313–328. Sacks, Kenneth S. 1990. Diodorus Siculus and the First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. Sinclair, Robert K. 1963. "Diodorus Siculus and the Writing of History." Proceedings of the African Classical Association 6:36–45. Stronk, Jan P. 2017. Semiramis’ Legacy; the History of Persia According to Diodorus of Sicily. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press. Sulimani, Iris. 2008. "Diodorus’ Source-Citations: A Turn in the Attitu
The Augustan History is a late Roman collection of biographies, written in Latin, of the Roman Emperors, their junior colleagues, designated heirs and usurpers of the period 117 to 284. Modeled on the similar work of Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, it presents itself as a compilation of works by six different authors, written during the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine I and addressed to those emperors or other important personages in Rome; the collection, as extant, comprises thirty biographies, most of which contain the life of a single emperor, while some include a group of two or more, grouped together because these emperors were either similar or contemporaneous. The true authorship of the work, its actual date, its reliability, its purpose, have long been matters for controversy amongst historians and scholars since Hermann Dessau in 1889 rejected both the date and the authorship as stated within the manuscript. Major problems include the nature of the sources it used, how much of the content is pure fiction.
For instance, the collection contains in all about 150 alleged documents, including 68 letters, 60 speeches and proposals to the people or the senate, 20 senatorial decrees and acclamations. All of these are now considered to be fraudulent. By the second decade of the 21st century, the overall consensus supported the position that there was only a single author, writing either at the end of the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th century, and, interested in blending contemporary issues into the lives of the 3rd century emperors. There is further consensus that the author used the fictitious elements in the work to highlight references to other published works, such as to Cicero and Ammianus Marcellinus in a complex allegorical game. Despite these conundrums, it is the only continuous account in Latin for much of its period and is thus continually being re-evaluated, since modern historians are unwilling to abandon it as a unique source of possible information, despite its obvious untrustworthiness on many levels.
The name Historia Augusta originated with Isaac Casaubon, who produced a critical edition in 1603, working from a complex manuscript tradition with a number of variant versions. The title as recorded on the Codex Palatinus manuscript is Vitae Diversorum Principum et Tyrannorum a Divo Hadriano usque ad Numerianum Diversis compositae, it is assumed that the work may have been called de Vita Caesarum or Vitae Caesarum. How the work was circulated in late antiquity is unknown, but its earliest use was in a Roman History composed by Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus in 485. Lengthy citations from it are found in authors of the 6th and 9th centuries, including Sedulius Scottus who quoted parts of the Marcus Aurelius, the Maximini and the Aurelian within his Liber de Rectoribus Christianis, the chief manuscripts date from the 9th or 10th centuries; the six Scriptores – "Aelius Spartianus", "Julius Capitolinus", "Vulcacius Gallicanus", "Aelius Lampridius", "Trebellius Pollio", "Flavius Vopiscus" – dedicate their biographies to Diocletian and various private persons, so ostensibly were all writing around the late 3rd and early 4th century.
The first four scriptores are attached to the lives from Hadrian to Gordian III, while the final two are attached to the lives from Valerian to Numerian. The biographies cover the emperors from Hadrian to Numerian. A section covering the reigns of Philip the Arab, Trebonianus Gallus and all but the end of the reign of Valerian is missing in all the manuscripts, it has been argued that biographies of Nerva and Trajan have been lost at the beginning of the work, which may suggest the compilation might have been a direct continuation of Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars, it has been theorized that the mid-3rd-century lacuna might be a deliberate literary device of the author or authors, saving the labour of covering Emperors for whom little source material may have been available. Despite devoting whole books to ephemeral or in some cases non-existent usurpers, there are no independent biographies of the Emperors Quintillus and Florian, whose reigns are briefly noted towards the end of the biographies of their respective predecessors, Claudius Gothicus and Tacitus.
For nearly 300 years after Casaubon's edition, though much of the Augustan History was treated with some scepticism, it was used by historians as an authentic source – Edward Gibbon used it extensively in the first volume of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. However, "in modern times most scholars read the work as a piece of deliberate mystification written much than its purported date, however the fundamentalist view still has distinguished support; the Historia Augusta is unfortunately, the principal Latin source for a century of Roman history. The historian must make use of it, but only with extreme circumspection and caution." Existing manuscripts and witnesses of the Augustan History fall into three groups: A manuscript of the first quarter of the ninth century, Vatican Pal. lat. 899, known as P, its direct and indirect copies. P was written at Lorsch in Caroline minuscule; the text in this manuscript has several lacunae marked with dots indicating the missing letters, a confusion in the order of the biographies between Verus and Alexander, the transposition of several passages: two long ones which correspond to a quire of the original which became loose and was inserted in a wrong place, a simil
The Seleucid Empire was a Hellenistic state ruled by the Seleucid dynasty which existed from 312 BC to 63 BC. Seleucus received Babylonia and from there expanded his dominions to include much of Alexander's near-eastern territories. At the height of its power, the Empire included central Anatolia, the Levant and what is now Kuwait and parts of Pakistan and Turkmenistan; the Seleucid Empire became a major center of Hellenistic culture – it maintained the preeminence of Greek customs where a Greek political elite dominated in the urban areas. The Greek population of the cities who formed the dominant elite were reinforced by immigration from Greece. Seleucid expansion into Anatolia and Greece halted abruptly in the early 2nd century BC after decisive defeats at the hands of the Roman army. Seleucid attempts to defeat their old enemy. Having come into conflict in the East with Chandragupta Maurya of the Maurya Empire, Seleucus I entered into an agreement with Chandragupta whereby he ceded vast territory west of the Indus, including the Hindu Kush, modern-day Afghanistan, the Balochistan province of Pakistan and offered his daughter in marriage to the Maurya Emperor to formalize the alliance.
Antiochus III the Great attempted to project Seleucid power and authority into Hellenistic Greece, but his attempts were thwarted by the Roman Republic and by Greek allies such as the Kingdom of Pergamon, culminating in a Seleucid defeat at the 190 BC Battle of Magnesia. In the subsequent Treaty of Apamea in 188 BC, the Seleucids were compelled to pay costly war reparations and relinquished claims to territories west of the Taurus Mountains; the Parthians under Mithridates I of Parthia conquered much of the remaining eastern part of the Seleucid Empire in the mid-2nd century BC, while the independent Greco-Bactrian Kingdom continued to flourish in the northeast. However, the Seleucid kings continued to rule a rump state from Syria until the invasion by Armenian king Tigranes the Great in 83 BC and their ultimate overthrow by the Roman general Pompey in 63 BC. Contemporary sources, such as a loyalist degree from Ilium, in Greek language define the Seleucid state both as an empire and as a kingdom.
Seleucid rulers were described as kings in Babylonia. Starting from the 2nd century BC, ancient writers referred to the Seleucid ruler as the King of Syria, Lord of Asia, other designations, he refers to either Alexander Balas or Alexander II Zabinas as a ruler. Alexander, who conquered the Persian Empire under its last Achaemenid dynast, Darius III, died young in 323 BC, leaving an expansive empire of Hellenised culture without an adult heir; the empire was put under the authority of a regent in the person of Perdiccas, the territories were divided among Alexander's generals, who thereby became satraps, at the Partition of Babylon, all in that same year. Alexander's generals jostled for supremacy over parts of his empire. Ptolemy, a former general and the satrap of Egypt, was the first to challenge the new system. Ptolemy's revolt led to a new subdivision of the empire with the Partition of Triparadisus in 320 BC. Seleucus, "Commander-in-Chief of the Companion cavalry" and appointed first or court chiliarch received Babylonia and, from that point, continued to expand his dominions ruthlessly.
Seleucus established himself in Babylon in 312 BC, the year used as the foundation date of the Seleucid Empire. The rise of Seleucus in Babylon threatened the eastern extent of Antigonus I territory in Asia. Antigonus, along with his son Demetrius I of Macedon, unsuccessfully led a campaign to annex Babylon; the victory of Seleucus ensured his claim of legitimacy. He ruled not only Babylonia, but the entire enormous eastern part of Alexander's empire, as described by Appian:Always lying in wait for the neighboring nations, strong in arms and persuasive in council, he acquired Mesopotamia, Armenia,'Seleucid' Cappadocia, Parthia, Arabia, Sogdia, Arachosia and other adjacent peoples, subdued by Alexander, as far as the river Indus, so that the boundaries of his empire were the most extensive in Asia after that of Alexander; the whole region from Phrygia to the Indus was subject to Seleucus. In the region of Punjab, Chandragupta Maurya founded the Maurya Empire in 321 BC. Chandragupta conquered the Nanda Empire in Magadha, relocated to the capital of Pataliputra.
Chandragupta redirected his attention back to the Indus and by 317 BC he conquered the remaining Greek satraps left by Alexander. Expecting a confrontation, Seleucid marched to the Indus, it is said that Chandragupta himself fielded an army of 9,000 war elephants. Mainstream scholarship asserts that Chandragupta received vast territory, sealed in a treaty, west of the Indus, including the Hindu Kush, modern day Afghanistan, the Balochistan province of Pakistan. Archaeologically, concrete indications of Mauryan rule, such as the inscriptions of the Edicts of Ashoka, are known as far as Kandahar in southern Afghanistan. According to Appian: He [Sel
Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
Macedonia called Macedon, was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece, the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece. The kingdom was founded and ruled by the royal Argead dynasty, followed by the Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties. Home to the ancient Macedonians, the earliest kingdom was centered on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, bordered by Epirus to the west, Paeonia to the north, Thrace to the east and Thessaly to the south. Before the 4th century BC, Macedonia was a small kingdom outside of the area dominated by the great city-states of Athens and Thebes, subordinate to Achaemenid Persia. During the reign of the Argead king Philip II, Macedonia subdued mainland Greece and Thrace through conquest and diplomacy. With a reformed army containing phalanxes wielding the sarissa pike, Philip II defeated the old powers of Athens and Thebes in the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC. Philip II's son Alexander the Great, leading a federation of Greek states, accomplished his father's objective of commanding the whole of Greece when he destroyed Thebes after the city revolted.
During Alexander's subsequent campaign of conquest, he overthrew the Achaemenid Empire and conquered territory that stretched as far as the Indus River. For a brief period, his empire was the most powerful in the world – the definitive Hellenistic state, inaugurating the transition to a new period of Ancient Greek civilization. Greek arts and literature flourished in the new conquered lands and advances in philosophy and science spread throughout much of the ancient world. Of particular importance were the contributions of Aristotle, tutor to Alexander, whose writings became a keystone of Western philosophy. After Alexander's death in 323 BC, the ensuing wars of the Diadochi, the partitioning of Alexander's short-lived empire, Macedonia remained a Greek cultural and political center in the Mediterranean region along with Ptolemaic Egypt, the Seleucid Empire, the Kingdom of Pergamon. Important cities such as Pella and Amphipolis were involved in power struggles for control of the territory. New cities were founded, such as Thessalonica by the usurper Cassander.
Macedonia's decline began with the Macedonian Wars and the rise of Rome as the leading Mediterranean power. At the end of the Third Macedonian War in 168 BC, the Macedonian monarchy was abolished and replaced by Roman client states. A short-lived revival of the monarchy during the Fourth Macedonian War in 150–148 BC ended with the establishment of the Roman province of Macedonia; the Macedonian kings, who wielded absolute power and commanded state resources such as gold and silver, facilitated mining operations to mint currency, finance their armies and, by the reign of Philip II, a Macedonian navy. Unlike the other diadochi successor states, the imperial cult fostered by Alexander was never adopted in Macedonia, yet Macedonian rulers assumed roles as high priests of the kingdom and leading patrons of domestic and international cults of the Hellenistic religion; the authority of Macedonian kings was theoretically limited by the institution of the army, while a few municipalities within the Macedonian commonwealth enjoyed a high degree of autonomy and had democratic governments with popular assemblies.
The name Macedonia comes from the ethnonym Μακεδόνες, which itself is derived from the ancient Greek adjective μακεδνός, meaning "tall" descriptive of the people. It has the same root as the adjective μακρός, meaning "long" or "tall" in Ancient Greek; the name is believed to have meant either "highlanders", "the tall ones", or "high grown men". Linguist Robert S. P. Beekes claims that both terms are of Pre-Greek substrate origin and cannot be explained in terms of Indo-European morphology; the Classical Greek historians Herodotus and Thucydides reported the legend that the Macedonian kings of the Argead dynasty were descendants of Temenus, king of Argos, could therefore claim the mythical Heracles as one of their ancestors as well as a direct lineage from Zeus, chief god of the Greek pantheon. Contradictory legends state that either Perdiccas I of Macedon or Caranus of Macedon were the founders of the Argead dynasty, with either five or eight kings before Amyntas I; the assertion that the Argeads descended from Temenus was accepted by the Hellanodikai authorities of the Ancient Olympic Games, permitting Alexander I of Macedon to enter the competitions owing to his perceived Greek heritage.
Little is known about the kingdom before the reign of Alexander I's father Amyntas I of Macedon during the Archaic period. The kingdom of Macedonia was situated along the Haliacmon and Axius rivers in Lower Macedonia, north of Mount Olympus. Historian Robert Malcolm Errington suggests that one of the earliest Argead kings established Aigai as their capital in the mid-7th century BC. Before the 4th century BC, the kingdom covered a region corresponding to the western and central parts of the region of Macedonia in modern Greece, it expanded into the region of Upper Macedonia, inhabited by the Greek Lyncestae and Elimiotae tribes, into regions of Emathia, Bottiaea, Mygdonia and Almopia, which were inhabited by various peoples such as Thracians and Phrygians. Macedonia's non-Greek neighbors included Thracians, inhabiting territories to the northeast, Illyrians to the northwest, Paeonians to the north, while the lands of Thessaly to the south and Epirus to the west were inhabited by Greeks with similar cultures to that of the Macedonians.
A year after Darius I of
Sibyrtius was a Greek officer from Crete in the service of Alexander the Great, the satrap of Arachosia and Gedrosia shortly after the death of Alexander until about 303 BC. After serving in Alexander's army for a number of years, Sibyrtius was appointed by Alexander, on his return from India, governor of the province of Carmania. Shortly after, Sibyrtius exchanged this post for the more important satrapy of Arachosia and Gedrosia, to which he succeeded on the death of Thoas. Following the death of Alexander in 323, Sibyrtius, in common with most of the other governors of the remote eastern provinces, retained possession of his satrapy, again confirmed to him in the second partition at Triparadisus in 321. In the subsequent divisions involving the eastern satraps, Sibyrtius was one of those who supported Peucestas against Peithon and Seleucus, afterwards accompanied Peucestas when he joined Eumenes in Susiana in 317, his attachment was to Peucestas and not to Eumenes, in Peucestas' subsequent intrigues against his commander-in-chief, Sibyrtius supported him so that he incurred Eumenes' strong resentment, who threatened to bring him to trial.
Sibyrtius' open rupture with Eumenes had the advantage of securing him the favour of Antigonus, after the defeat of his rival, confirmed Sibyrtius in his satrapy, placed under his command a large part of the select body of troops termed Argyraspids. Antigonus adopted this measure with the ostensible object of guarding the Eastern provinces against the neighbouring Indians, but in reality Antigonus has in mind the gradual destruction of the troops in question, whose turbulent and disaffected spirit was well known.. Arrian mentions that Megasthenes, the historian and ambassador of Seleucus to India after his 303 BCE treaty with Chandragupta, lived with Sibyrtius, suggesting the latter may have remained at his post as satrap for quite a long time: "Megasthenes lived with Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, speaks of his visiting Sandracottus, the king of the Indians." Smith, William. "Sibyrtius". Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology
Antigonus I Monophthalmus
Antigonus I Monophthalmus, son of Philip from Elimeia, was a Macedonian nobleman and satrap under Alexander the Great. During his early life he served under Philip II, he was a major figure in the Wars of the Diadochi after Alexander's death, declaring himself king in 306 BC and establishing the Antigonid dynasty. Not much is known about Antigonus's early career, he must have been an important figure in the Macedonian Army because when he emerges in historical sources he is in command of a large part of Alexander's army. Antigonus must have participated in the battle of the Granicus since he command a division of the amry and Alexander's entire army was at the Granicus; when Alexander marched East he appointed Antigonus as governor of Phrygia in 333 BC. After the Battle of Issus he succeeded the Achaemenid satrap of Greater Phrygia Atizyes, who died in the battle. Antigonus was responsible for defending Alexander's lines of supply and communication during the latter's extended campaign against the Achaemenid Persian Empire.
Following Alexander's victory at Issus, part of the Persian army regrouped in Cappadocia and attempted to sever Alexander's lines of supply and communication running through the center of Asia-Minor. As part of the division of the provinces after Alexander's death in 323 BC, Antigonus received Pamphylia and Lycia from Perdiccas, regent of the empire, at the Partition of Babylon. However, he incurred the enmity of Perdiccas by refusing to assist Eumenes to obtain possession of the provinces allotted to him and Cappadocia. Leonnatus had left with his army for Greece, leaving Antigonus alone to deal with Cappadocia, a task he couldn't complete without additional aid. Perdiccas seems to have viewed this as a direct affront to his authority and led the royal army to conquer the area. From there Perdiccas turned west towards Phrygia in order to humble Antigonus, who escaped with his son Demetrius to Greece, where he obtained the favour of Antipater, regent of Macedonia, Craterus. With the death of Perdiccas in 321 BC, a new attempt at dividing the empire took place at Triparadisus.
Antipater was made the new Regent of the Antigonus became Strategos of Asia. Antigonus was entrusted with the command of the war against the former members of the Perdiccan faction. Antigonus took charge of a part of the Royal Army, after being reinforced with more reliable troops from Antipater’s European Army, he marched against the ex-Perdiccans Eumenes, Domikos and Polemon in Asia-Minor. Antigonos decided to deal with Eumenes, in Cappadocia, first. Despite being outnumbered Antigonus adopted a bold attacking strategy, he outgeneraled and defeatred Eumenes at the battle of Orkynia and forced him to retire to the fortress of Nora. Leaving Eumenes under siege at Nora Antigonos now marched on the combined forces of Alketas, Domikos and Polemon near Kretopolis. Antigonos defeated his opponents at the battle of Kretopolis. So Antigonos in two brilliant campaigns in the course of one campaigning season had annihilated the remnants of the Perdiccan faction; when Antipater died in 319 BC, he left the regentship excluding Cassander, his son.
Antigonus and the other dynasts refused to recognize Polyperchon, since it would have undermined their own ambitions. Antigonus entered into negotiations with Eumenes, but Eumenes had been swayed by Polyperchon, who gave him authority over all other generals within the empire. Effecting his escape from Nora Eumenes raised a small army and fled South into Cilicia. Antigonus did not move against Eumenes directly because he was tied up in northwestern Asia Minor campaigning against Cleitus the White who had a large fleet at the Hellespont. Cleitus was able to defeat Antigonus's admiral Nicanor in a sea battle but he was caught of guard the next morning when Antigonus launched a double assault by land and sea on his camp, Cleitus was taken by surprise and his entire force was captured of killed. Meanwhile Eumenes had been raising an army and building a fleet in Cilicia and Phoenicia, he had formed an alliance with Antigenes and Teutamos, the commanders of the Silver Shields and the Hypaspists, soon after formed a coalition with the satraps of the eastern provinces.
Antigonus fought against Eumenes in two great battles at Paraitacene in 317 BC and Gabiene in 316 BC. Both were inconclusive. However, in the aftermath of the second battle, Antigonus managed to capture the families and the valuables of the Silver Shields, an elite regiment within Eumenes' army, who in turn handed over Eumenes to Antigonus in return for their release. After some deliberation, Antigonus had Eumenes executed; as a result, Antigonus now was in possession of the empire's Asian territories, his authority stretching from the eastern satrapies to Syria and Asia Minor in the west. He entered Babylon; the governor of Babylon, fled to Ptolemy and entered into a league with him and Cassander. In 314 BC Antigonus invaded Phoenicia, under Ptolemy's control, besieged Tyre for more than a year, his son Demetrius was defeated at the Battle of Gaza by Ptolemy in 312 BC, after the battle, Seleucus made his way back to Babylonia. Seleucus returned to Babylon in order to build up a base of his own, he soon established control of the eastern satrapies.
The Babylonian War took place between Antigonus and Seleucus, resulting in Seleucus defeating both Demetrius and Antigonus, securing Babylonia. After the Babylo
Quintus Curtius Rufus
Quintus Curtius Rufus was a Roman historian of the 1st century, author of his only known and only surviving work, Historiae Alexandri Magni, "Histories of Alexander the Great", or more Historiarum Alexandri Magni Macedonis Libri Qui Supersunt, "All the Books That Survive of the Histories of Alexander the Great of Macedon." Much of it is missing. Apart from his name on the manuscripts, nothing else certain is known of him; this fact alone has led philologists to believe that he had another historical identity, to which, due to the accidents of time, the link has been broken. A few theories exist, they are treated with varying degrees of credibility by various authors. Meanwhile, the identity of Quintus Curtius Rufus, historian, is maintained separately. Curtius' work is uniquely isolated. No other ancient work refers to it, or as far as is known, to him. Peter Pratt pointing out that the Senate and emperors proscribed or censored works, suggests that Curtius had not published the manuscript before his death, but left it in care of the emperor.
The emperors did not find a political opportunity. They had adopted the identity of Alexander for themselves; the provinces fashioned from the Macedonian Empire were difficult to govern, always on the point of rebellion. The work of Curtius, Pratt conjectures, was not politically appropriate because it would have encouraged independence; the earliest opportune moment was the year 167, when the campaign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius against the Parthian Empire had failed, the returning troops were in bad morale and infected with the Antonine Plague. The emperor attempted to build national pride among the former Macedonian states. Avidius Cassius, commandant of Legio III Gallica, returning veterans, was promoted to Consul, he claimed descent from the Seleucids of Macedonia. New coins and medals were issued in Macedonia on Alexandrian themes. Pratt conjectures that the manuscript in storage, by this time damaged and destroyed, was published accounting for the previous lack of references to it, it is possible Books I and II along with other loci were censored out.
As the emperors had surmised, it was popular. The dating available relies on internal evidence, not certain, but offers some degree of preponderance. In Book X Curtius digresses to give an encomium on blessings of peace under empire, citing the Roman Empire with the implication of contemporaneity. In essence he reasserts the policy of Augustus, which casts the empire as the restoration of monarchy for the suppression of the civil wars fomented by the contention of powerful noblemen vying for control of the Republic. Curtius' glowing endorsement of the policy dates him to the Roman Empire, he mentions the Parthian Empire. It was formed by the eastern satrapies recusing themselves from Macedonian overlordship and restoring a purely Iranian empire, it defended itself against Rome though Rome absorbed what was left of the Macedonian kingdoms. The dates of the Parthian Empire are 247 BC through 224 AD. Although Curtius may have been writing about an empire vanished in his own day, the most straightforward approach assumes that he wrote in a window, 63 BC through 224 AD.
For further localization, the same imperial purple passage contrasts the civil wars of the Macedonians due to failure to obtain a stable emperor, with an incident of the Roman Empire in which the risk of civil war was avoided by the appointment of a new emperor in a single night. Not many incidents fit the description. Baynham summarizes the argument of Julius Nützell that the crisis might be the night of January 24/25, 41 AD, following the assassination of Caligula on that day; the Senate met on an emergency basis to debate. The Praetorian Guard forced its way in to insist on the appointment of Claudius, his reign concentrated on the restoration of the rule of law. A lawyer, he issued up to 20 imperial edicts per day. If this argument is correct, Curtius' work must be dated to after 41 AD; the upper limit is provided by a passage that mentions the "continued prosperity of Tyre under Roman dominion." The peace of the empire came to an end in 43 AD. None of these dates are certain, but the union of all the ranges presents a credible view of Curtius' date.
Baynham says: "many modern scholars now accept a date in the middle to late part of the first century A. D. as a floruit for Curtius." By his name, Quintus Curtius Rufus was a member of the Curtii Rufi branch of the Curtii family, one of the original nobility of Rome. Due to the used institution of adoption, people of the name Curtius might not be consanguineous. Moreover, the same name tended to be repeated from grandfather to grandson. After centuries of Curtii, a Curtius might turn up in any period; the candidates for the historical identity of the author are but few. Given the time frame of the mid-1st century, there is a credible candidate, he is a certain Curtius Rufus In the List of Roman consuls he served as Consul Suffectus for October through December, 43 AD under the emperor Claudius. He had been a protégé of Tiberius, he must have written the Histories in two before the consulship. Tacitus says that he was on the staff of the Quaestor of Africa during that time, which would have given him the opportunity to use the Library of Alexandria.
Tiberius had died in 37. Curtius’ relations with Caligula are not mentioned, but Caligula was not in his vicinity. On Curtius’