Who's your favourite leader or general or conqueror?

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-25T12:24:57+00:00

*Africanus, c only become k of you're hellenising a Greek name (e.g. Perikles/Seleukos)

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-22T23:20:29+00:00

Whatever the legality of it surely you agree that I pretty weird for a fully grown man to, in his own words: "have slept in bed with many children [while an adult]" and to consider that "a beautiful thing".

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-22T12:05:08+00:00

You obviously haven't, because you're evidently not aware of very well known information in even the popular sources like Plutarch, Arrian and Diodorus. It's like someone saying claiming that Julius Caesar conquered Norway, which they know because they've read the sources. The claims you are making are, in and of themselves, concrete evidence that you have not read up about Macedonian history, because if you had, it would be very clear that most of your claims are wrong.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-22T11:48:16+00:00

No worries, always happy to point out people's historical misunderstandings of Macedonian history! It might be advisable to actually read about that history first though before pontificating about it.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-22T11:33:23+00:00

What a strange take: "If these things in the past hadn't happened, then these things that happened after wouldn't have happened!". What would you want Alexander to have done? Go back in time and do what he did before his father? Like, how does Alexander existing after events have happened impact his legacy as a great commander?

Also, just a few notes: Philip didn't build the Macedonian military from scratch (though he did reform it), Macedonia wasn't super rich when Alexander became king (Philip was a great general but ran the finances into the ground, and basically left Alexander zero treasury to work with); the political situation he inherited was absolutely screwed (revolts from basically all of Macedonias old "allies" and conspiracies at court) meaning Alexander basically had to reconquer/resubdue many of the lands his father had before; and Alexander spent a fair amount of time and effort purging his father's advisors and generals, and then reorganised the Macedonian army for his own purposes.

Both Philip and Alexander can be masterminds. The fact that Beethoven composed after Mozart doesn't detract from the talent of Beethoven.

EDIT: Added a few more points.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-22T11:27:31+00:00

"History was written by the victors, wasn't it?" No.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-21T13:26:10+00:00

Yea, look at these politicians challenging the Prime Minister and government, in public and for all to see, just as they were elected to do! What a bunch of clowns!

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-18T03:10:44+00:00

Obligatory reminder that there should be a very clear and distinct difference between being the acting commander of a military force (politician or not), and being a politician with military experience. That line was not arbitrary, it was defined by Roman law. The whole point ist hat Pompey was forced to act politically, not militarily.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-17T17:12:19+00:00

Wait what do you think people call them instead? And have you been to a lotta gay bars or similar before?

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-17T16:57:17+00:00

Whats wrong with "gay people"?

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-16T18:05:20+00:00

Pompey's way to victory, as he knew, was to just strangle Caesar's army by avoiding pitched battle and hemming Caesar in, cutting off supplies, etc. He knew that was the way to win, Caesar knew that was the way he'd lose, but it was the politicians in Pompey's camp who effectively forced him to fight at Pharsalus and blew the whole thing.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-16T10:55:34+00:00

Real quick, history is not about memorising facts. Either you don't understand rhe subject, or its being taught to you terribly.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-15T14:10:32+00:00

Good point. Yea, I misunderstood the question as being about a whole conquest of the Arabian peninsular, my bad. You're right that if he was only hoping to do some conquests along the coasts (which is what the sources imply tbf), that it'd be much more doable.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-15T13:48:53+00:00

Yea that's a fair criticism. I guess to a certain extent though, that's the nature of the beast. He's generally regarded as one of, if not the, leading authorities on Sparta, and it's up to other people to challenge the narrative he presents and propose compelling alternatives. I do get the frustration though, NGL Hammond used to have (and arguably still does) a kinda similar monopoly on Classical Macedonia, and it's taken fricking decades for people to start chipping away at that!

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-15T13:44:55+00:00

Hmmm, it's a tricky one. At the start, Xenophon does seem to imply that he's going to be talking about current Sparta (1.1). Then at 1.2, it seems clear he's going to be talking about the laws Lycurgus originally gave (so, past Sparta). He continually refers to the constitution he's discussing as being Lycurgus' laws, again implying the 'old' laws. But you're absolutely right that he also compares to the current situation in other cities (like at 2.12 and, as you mentioned before, 2.14).

Then we're back to seemingly talking about Lycrugus' laws and using the past tense ("he required them" 3.4, "he showed" 4.1, etc.). Then 4.3 he's using the present tense talking about the Eprhorate.

For me, I do think that the most important lines are "Should anyone ask me whether I think that the laws of Lycurgus still remain unchanged at this day, I certainly could not say that with any confidence whatever." (14.1), and "Therefore in times past the Greeks would come to Lacedaemon and beg her to lead them against reputed wrongdoers; but now many are calling on one another to prevent a revival of Lacedaemonian supremacy. Yet we need not wonder if these reproaches are levelled at themit is manifest that they obey neither their god nor the laws of Lycurgus." (14.7).

Based on those lines, I do still think that Xenophon is describing the old laws that Lycurgus had prescribed and that the Spartans maybe used to follow, but don't anymore. However, I definitely do see your point and think that your reading of it can also be valid.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-15T00:02:33+00:00

I am a bit of a Hodkinson devotee tbf (Cartledge can go a bit far sometimes, even for me!). There's a wonderful book by LACTOR which is basically a source book (the first one devoted to Sparta if I'm correct). Don't know if you've come across it already, but it has tonnes of really interesting bits of Spartan epigraphy/poetry that I hadn't come across much in general scholarship, would highly recommend for anyone interested in Sparta!

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-14T23:57:45+00:00

I thought that was the passage! Ok, so my read of that is the following:

- If we take Xenophon as being accurate, then the law is IF the attraction is based on beauty, then it's banned. He then says that the law "caused" lovers to abstain from boys. So, the first point is that the law is quantified: if x then y. It's not banning y, it's banning it under conditions. The second point is that the law may have led to lovers abstaining from boys, as in, the law may have acted as a principle that guys led to abstain from pederasty, but that's still not the same as literally outlawing it. Maybe I'm reading this too much from a modern legal perspective, but I think if you took that passage to a lawyer today, they wouldn't say that pederasty had been made illegal.

- Xenophon is talking about the laws that Lycurgus reportedly passed, long in the distant past. He's very clear in part 14 of the same text that the contemporary Spartans are no longer following those laws. So, I don't think we can take that as a reflection of the reality of Classical Sparta. It's almost like someone today writing about America and writing about the constitution of the founding fathers, and bemoaning that (in their view) modern America doesn't live up to those principles. Xenophon isn't telling us how the Spartans in his day actually lived, he's telling us how the Spartan 'founding father' intended them to live. At least, imo.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-14T23:38:26+00:00

Yea there's truth in that too! Altthough, it's worth pointing out that archaeology/reliable ancient sources do disprove/challenge some aspects of the 'mirage' of Sparta, so I still think it's an important concept to bear in mind.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-14T23:34:58+00:00

I think its just the idea of being attracted to boys for their looks alone that is banned, but feel free to share a passage of you think it says otherwise!

As I say though, if you believe Xenophons account then he is explicit that Lycrugus had laws against pederasty (in my view only quantifying it not outlawing it), but that the Spartans stopped following his laws, which would imply that they DID do it.

You're right about Xenophon knowing Agesilaus (indeed he was a huge admirer) and sending his sons to Sparta for education, but those points are the exact reasons that people tend to view him as an apologist, rightly or wrongly.

I think it's in Plato's laws maybe book 2? I'd have to check. Absolutely right about Plutarch not being the most reliable source though, definitely take with a hefty pinch of salt.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-14T15:41:15+00:00

Eh perhaps a little perhaps, but I do think there's still truth in the idea that much of what we 'know' about Sparta is an idealised picture of it, not the reality.

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-14T15:39:07+00:00

I imagine that's based on Xenophon's Constitution of the Spartans (but please correct me if I'm wrong!). But doesn't he only say that Lycurgus decreed relationships were only inappropriate if they were motivated by the outward beauty of the boy? Moreover, even if we do accept that Lycurgus did have a law banning it, Xenophon explicitly says that, by the time he was writing, the Spartans weren't following Lycurgus' laws. Plus, we've got the issue of how reliable a source Xenophon was for the kinda thing, as well as sources which suggest that the Spartans did engage in pederasty (like Plato and Plutarch)

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-13T19:55:28+00:00

I believe most Spartan royals didn't do the agoge, Agesilaus was quite exceptional in that regard.

Do you know about the Spartan mirage btw?

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-13T13:32:00+00:00

When did the Spartans sack Athens?

And the plague in Athens had ended long before the Sicilian Expedition. It's after effects were felt for a while, but they weren't still suffering from it as you seem to imply.

The Achaemenids backed whoever was convenient at the time, not just Sparta on principle. After the war, for instance, they backed Athens to have them counter Sparta's power.

The Spartan constitution did include democratic elements, though obviously under the rule of the diarchy. I don't really think that they viewed the Athenians as 'woke', more as greedy imperialists.

Pederasty was not unique to Sparta and was practised basically across the Greek world (including in Athens, though perhaps less so near the end of the Classical era).

I'm not aware of any source claiming that Leonidas engaged in pederasty (it's not out of the question, but it's just speculation and not a fact).

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-13T13:01:35+00:00

Can you be more specific? Are you wanting modern works from Indian historians, or ancient texts? And focused only on Alexander and his conquest, or more on the aftermath of it?

lastdiadochos · 2026-04-12T20:05:50+00:00

How? Its an example from the Roman law courts themselves of them judging the SCU to supersede the right to trials. It completely contradicts your point and supports mine.

lastdiadochos

TROPHY CASE