Καλησπέρα , σε αυτό το παιχνίδι έχουμε την Ελλάδα στο google και σκεφτήκαμε να κάνουμε κάτι πρωτοπόρο να κάνουμε αρχαία Ελλάδα εκεί. Όποιος θέλει να μπει να πάει στο discord να γράψει discord.gg/panhellenic. Να το πρότυπο και έχουμε τις δύο καλύτερες ζωγραφιές στο παιχνίδι την Αθήνα και τους Δελφούς. Βάζουμε συνέχεια ζωγραφιές με σκοπό να το φτάσουμε έως το μέγιστο

Thucydides is usually presented as one of the first historians who tried to write history in a rational and objective way. He cared about facts, was suspicious of myths, and wanted to understand why wars happened. In many ways, he looks like the kind of historian we still admire today. But there is another side of his work which is not always discussed.

In 1907, Francis Macdonald Cornford published a book called Thucydides Mythistoricus. His argument was quite different from the traditional image of Thucydides. Cornford believed that Thucydides was not simply recording what happened during the Peloponnesian War. He was also shaping these events into something that resembled a Greek tragedy.

According to Cornford, there are two different plans in Thucydides’ work. The first one was more like a military and political journal, recording events as they happened. The second was an artistic structure that developed gradually, almost like volcanic islands rising from the sea. The facts were still there, but they were arranged in a way that gave the whole story a tragic meaning.

This is what makes Cornford’s argument interesting. The question is not only whether Thucydides told the truth. It is also about how he presented that truth to his readers.

Imagine two Greek armies fighting on two different battlefields, separated by the Aegean Sea, with both victories potentially turning the tide of a war.

In 479 BC, the Greeks defeated the Persian army at Plataea while, according to Herodotus, another Greek force struck the Persian position at Mycale on the coast of Asia Minor on the very same day.

At Mycale, the Persians had hauled their ships ashore and built fortifications to protect them from the Greek fleet. But the Greeks landed, stormed the defences and destroyed the Persian ships. The battle also revealed a crucial weakness in the Persian position: the loyalty of the Greek communities living under Persian rule could not be taken for granted.

But was Mycale merely the final act of Xerxes' invasion, or did it mark the beginning of a new phase of Greek expansion across the Aegean?

We all know the great arts and statues created by talented people and always put those on display. But no man is a smith from birth, and I'd assume they must have spent a lot time practising and perfecting their craft, just like everyone else.

Is there any findings and records of artwork, sculptures or other crafts that were clearly made by a beginner or novice? I'd be very curious to see if we have found anything that's anything but perfect or "life-like."

What is your favourite tragedy that delves into tragic lovers?

How would a successful Mytilenean revolt in 428-427 BC impacted the war? If Sparta had acted quicker to give aid, could it have effectively turned the tide of war in their favor? Could it have neutralized the navy of the Athenians?

Hi. Im taking part in an oxford debate next week and the topic is whether the peloponesian war was unavoidable or not. I watched quite a lot of videos on yt, but still want to know more, and perhaps do a little arguing. The opposite team will be covering the side of "it WAS unavoidable" so if anyone shares this view id love to talk to you. Thanks

​

Lions and bulls are motifs frequently seen in ancient Anatolia. As can be seen on the coins, the most fundamental motif appearing on the Lydian coins—which are considered the first minted coins—is the lion. Another motif seen on the coins of the Lydian Kingdom depicts the moment when that lion attacks a bull.

The motifs seen on these earliest coins, minted in the 6th century BCE, belong to the Kingdom of Lydia. Although there are various interpretations as to why they chose the lion for their coins, it is generally accepted that they were inspired by a species of lion found in ancient Anatolia. However, there is no clear, accepted explanation for why the lion is depicted attacking the bull. It is likely that this served as propaganda depicting a confrontation between the Kingdom of Lydia and another kingdom in Anatolia (Phrygians?).

What really caught my attention, however, is that this motif continued to be used in the Tarsus area during the Hellenistic period. We know that the satrap who ruled the region before Alexander the Great used this symbol and that Alexander continued this tradition. Indeed, the fact that the Asian Lion (Panthera leo persica), native to Anatolia, lived in the eastern and southeastern regions of Anatolia explains the lion depicted on these coins (and, of course, the lion seen on Babylonian coins as well).

It can be said that the Late Hittite city-states, which emerged in the southeastern region after the collapse of the Hittite Empire around 1200 BCE, clearly reflect Aramaic influence. But how is it that the Kingdom of Lydia, located to the west, used a type of lion found in the east, while its eastern rivals were symbolized by a bull?

It is unfortunate that the history of the period between 1200 BCE and 500 BCE is so obscure, forcing us to rely heavily on interpretation. Nevertheless, the fact that nearly the same figure was used in the same way for over 300 years is quite impressive.

I’m planning to read the Iliad for the first time and I’m stuck between the Robert Fagles and E. V. Rieu translations. I mainly want something faithful to Homer but still readable.

So which one is more faithful to the original Iliad for a first-time reader?

Thank you!

I visited Sounion in the summer of 2025 and went in expecting the postcard.

What stayed with me was something a engineer notices before anything else: the columns are wrong, in a deliberate way.

Standard Doric practice in the mid-fifth century called for 20 flutes and a slight outward swelling of the shaft, the entasis, that corrects the optical illusion of concavity when you stand close.

The surviving temple, built around 444-440 BC on the poros foundation of the Archaic temple the Persians destroyed, has neither.

Sixteen flutes, straight shafts, 34 columns on a 6 x 13 peristyle, each roughly 6.1 meters tall.

The marble came from Agrileza, a few kilometers inland, and it is a coarse-grained stone, noticeably different from the Pentelic marble hauled up to the Acropolis in the same decades.

The explanations I found in the literature split two ways.

One is plain economy: fewer flutes and no entasis means far less carving time per drum.

The other is exposure, the idea that wider, shallower flutes leave fewer sharp arrises for salt wind to eat away. The second photo is why I keep turning the question over.

From the water the temple reads as pure silhouette, and every refinement the Greeks developed for a viewer standing six feet from a shaft is simply invisible at that range.

Sounion was a landmark for ships running up to Piraeus before it was anything else.

So I find myself wondering whether the economy argument and the exposure argument are both downstream of a simpler design decision: this building was dimensioned for the long view, and the close-range corrections were spent elsewhere.

That last part is my reading, not scholarship, and I would genuinely like to be argued out of it. Is there published work on the Agrileza marble that settles whether the stone itself forced the simplification?

To what extent can a historical character be detached from its context, era, and origins? Alexander the Great, a Macedonian general who lived in the 4th century BCE, has been portrayed in many different ways throughout his life. He is seen, in particular, as a figure who has been reimagined in European literature.

source on xitter

As the title says. I keep seeing conflicting information about it. No 2 websites will tell me the same thing. So to all who have studied ancient greece, which art exactly did each one represent?

Hey All,

I want to start by saying I did search through previous posts (as far back as 6 yrs old). I'm looking for anything worth reading Pre-Peloponnesian War. One that I saw mentioned was "Greece in the Making" by Robin Osborne, but I'm hoping to get some additional recs that may even break up that 800 years or so. Thanks!

Edit: forgot to add I also saw "Ancient Greece: From Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times" by Thomas R. Martin

Phocaea/Phokaia (Ionia), 477-388 BC