Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
|
Quote Reply
Topic: AE Chart: 200 BC update. Please submit DATES! Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 01:06 |
For the region of Anatolia, in the Successors Period, there should be the line of the "Antigonid Empire" (rulers, Antigonus I, Demetrius I) which expanded to include much of Greece (303 BC) which remained Antigonid, even after the Antigonid possessions in Anatolia were surrendered to Seleucus 285 BC. In Antigonid Greece, Antigonus II, son of Demetrius I, remained powerful and from where he expanded to gain possession of Macedonia (277 BC).
I noticed that you locate "Seleucid Empire" in Persia. It should also include Mesopotamia, for a beginning. It would expand to include Syria in 301 BC and Anatolia in 285 BC, subjugating "Antigonid Empire".
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 11:09 |
For Mesoamerica:
The chart says the Maya states 'stopped' in 1521, but in fact they
existed longer. The conquest began in 1524. In the 1540's most city
states were conquered, but the last one (Tayasal) wasn't defeated until
1697.
Furthermore you may add that the building of Teotihuacan started about 300 BC.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 11:36 |
Thx.
I'll probably also add in separate local lines for Mayan, Aztec, and Inca civilizations, since they are the most well known.
Persia, Anatolia and Mesopotamia presents a bit of a problem, and they start
to lose its individuality over time, first in the Classical age, and then in the Muslim conquests period. I think what I'll
do is at 1 AD, the regional boundaries will be reorder to include new
areas such as Africa, SE Asia, while old regions such as Anatolia and
Mesopotamia will be "merged", or else there will be a gap in the middle
of the chart, which will make it very spread out. Before then, I'll
probably just add a note saying "To selucid empire, etc.." in the
column.
BTW, do you consider Bactria to be Greek or Iranian?
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
I/eye
Baron
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 498
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 14:52 |
should Jomon and Yayoi be in bold?
they weren't countries, they were just ancient cultures
|
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
|
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Mar-2005 at 02:39 |
BTW, do you consider Bactria to be Greek or Iranian? |
Definitely Iranian, pre-329 BC. Afterwards, Greek, since 13,000 Greek mercenaries were initially settled there, but more followed soon after. Independent, c. 256 BC. Kingdom destroyed by the Sakas, c. 130 BC, but were pushed out by the Tocharians, c. 100 BC.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Mar-2005 at 11:27 |
Ok. So would you also qualify Ptolemaic and Selcuid as Greek rather than Egyptian and Persian?
|
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Mar-2005 at 23:54 |
Hmmm. Good point. I wouldn't use the term "Greek" then. A better term would be "Hellenistic". It would show political dominance and cultural derivation from Greece without having to show local ethnic identity. That green color you use for Macedonia would suffice, since Macedonia can be viewed as the earliest Hellenistic kingdom (i.e. culturally derived from Greece, without having to show local ethnic origins).
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2005 at 11:30 |
What do you consider to be the extent of significant states of Iranian
Nomadic origin? currently, Im planning on having Parthia, Bactria,
Kushan Empire, Hephtalites, and Avars (?), but that's all that comes to mind.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|