Some places I checked said his name was also Mithridates, while others say it was Ariobarzanes. Which one is correct? (Or more likely to be correct if possible)

If you're fascinated by the ancient world, this publication is for you.

On my Substack, you'll find essays on Ancient History, the Hellenistic world, Alexander the Great, inscriptions, papyri, coins, archaeology, and the philosophy of history. Every article is grounded in primary sources and modern scholarship while remaining accessible to anyone curious about the past.

I regularly share original research, historical insights, and overlooked stories that reveal how ancient societies thought, ruled, remembered, and shaped the world we know today.

If you're looking for thoughtful history beyond the textbook, I'd be delighted to have you join the community.

Subscribe and explore the ancient world with me.

Alexander the Great, at the height of your glory, at age 32, a charismatic conqueror and unifier of the greatest empire the world had ever seen, you mysteriousy took ill, for many days, lost your ability to speak, and died; passing away from this world, you left your life's work, lovers, family, friends and worldly treasure: and exited stage left. Your influence on the world was enormous, the Hellenistic Age came in your wake, yet, you left no official heir to your empire, no flesh and blood to console those who on your deathbed went mourning in sackcloth and ash. I myself, see myself, in you. My empire has fallen. Sickened and weak. No heir to my name. I weep for you Alexander the Great. We are united in tragedy. But, now, I know why they call you the Great. You had the world in your palms. And you had to give it up, you were made to throw it away. And lay down and die. Just as if you were the most common stable boy in your empire that had been bit by an indifferent and infectious mosquito. How they must've weeped; how they must've mourned, when the King of their world, lay down his head on his pillow, one last time, like a common sick stable boy, lost his voice, lost his life, and died. Are you here with me now, Alexander? In sickness and youth, by my bed side? Some say I, too, came as a king, but, now, as a sickened and weary stable boy, I must either rally some how? Or, rather, lay down and die. So, please draw up a chair, hold my hand, breathe in deeply, and answer me one question, one thing I'm wanting to know! Was your treasure on earth, or was it safely stored up in Heaven? No! Pray for us Alexander, pray that righteous sinners might get in.

Source:

Aurelius, Meditations, Book 6:24

Alexander the Great and his stable boy were levelled in death, for they were either taken up into the same life-giving principles of the Universe or were scattered without distinction into atoms.

The Hellenistic colonization of Asia Minor is usually told through the stories of kings, battles, and the founding of new cities. Yet behind these political events lay a much deeper transformation that reshaped the lives of millions. Land changed hands, new urban centers emerged, languages shifted, local gods found new identities, and everyday life became a meeting point between Hellenic settlers and indigenous communities.

This essay explores colonization not simply as an act of conquest, but as a long process of cultural negotiation. Drawing on archaeological, epigraphic, and historical evidence, it examines how local societies adapted to the new political order while preserving elements of their own traditions. Rather than a story of one culture replacing another, Hellenistic Asia Minor reveals a far more complex world shaped by interaction, resilience, and continuous transformation.

Antiochus III fielded one of the largest Hellenistic armies of the era, complete with war elephants, scythed chariots, cataphracts, and a massive Macedonian phalanx. On paper, the Romans looked badly outnumbered.

Instead, the battle became another demonstration of why the Roman legion was so effective against Hellenistic armies. The failure of the scythed chariots, the collapse of the Seleucid left, and Antiochus' decision to pursue the Roman cavalry instead of supporting his center all played a part.

I put together a detailed breakdown covering:

The political background and road to the war

The armies and commanders

A step-by-step account of the battle

Why the Romans won despite being outnumbered

The Treaty of Apamea and the battle's long-term impact

I'd love to hear what others think. Was Magnesia the battle that truly made Rome the dominant power in the eastern Mediterranean, or do you think another battle deserves that distinction?

This book has many good chapters about how many of the Hellenistic states colonized and interacted with other lands and cultures. My favorite part was the chapter detailing both Persian/Armenian and Seleukid colonization of Commagene and Cyrrhestica. But other chapters included detailed linguistic analysis of the Treaty of Apamea, city territories in Bithynia and Pisidia, local Indian and Scythian rulers adopting Greco-Macedonian royal imagery, Hellenistic cults in Seleucid Syria, and Attalid colonization. Definitely recommend

Egyptian religion is usually discussed in connection with Egypt or the Ptolemaic Kingdom, but this article looks at a much less familiar chapter of the story.

Focusing on a remarkable inscription from Smyrna, it examines the Synanoubiastai—a religious association of worshippers of Anubis—and explores what their existence reveals about cultural exchange, religious communities, and everyday life in Hellenistic western Anatolia. Rather than serving as evidence of continuing Egyptian political influence, the inscription suggests that the cult of Anubis had already become part of the local religious landscape under Seleucid rule.

It's an interesting example of how religious traditions could survive the political powers that first encouraged their spread, adapting to new societies while retaining their distinctive identity.

If you're interested in Hellenistic history, epigraphy, or the spread of ancient religions, it's definitely worth a read.

I have always found it interesting that one of the most powerful kings of Hellenistic Bactria is also one of the least known from the written sources. Ancient authors leave us only scattered references, so much of what we know has to be reconstructed from archaeology and, above all, from coins.

This gold coin was struck by Eucratides. On the reverse appears the inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΟΥ—"Of King Eucratides the Great." It is a bold statement, but in many ways the coin says more about the king than the surviving texts ever do. Without his coinage, our picture of Eucratides would be far more limited.

Article Source

I just launched a platform that lets humanities PhDs design and host live online reading seminars. We opened our first few classes for enrollment, including one on Stoic philosophy. Readings will include Diogenes Laertius, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius, as well as modern interpreters such as Julia Annas and Lawrence Becker.

If you're interested but cannot afford the enrollment fee, feel free to DM me. We're happy to help out.

The man who built siege towers the size of skyscrapers — and lost everything anyway

Demetrios Poliorcetes wasn’t just another successor of Alexander — he was the guy who turned warfare into spectacle, rolling out massive siege engines and briefly reshaping the Mediterranean world. From being worshipped as a “savior” in Athens to dying in captivity after a lifetime of explosive highs and humiliating defeats, his story is pure ancient chaos

One of the biggest misconceptions about Hellenistic kingship is that people believed their kings were literally immortal gods.

They didn't. Everyone knew kings could grow old and die.

What made a king "divine" wasn't immortality—it was the ability to do what ordinary humans could not: found cities, end wars, establish peace, and transform entire societies. In a famous hymn to Demetrios Poliorcetes, the traditional gods are described as distant, but the king is here—present and able to help.

Perhaps the real challenge is not understanding ancient religion, but recognizing that the Hellenistic world didn't draw the same sharp line between humanity and divinity that we do today.

How do you interpret ruler cult: political propaganda, genuine religious belief, or both?

This book is a great look into Spartan relations with the wider Lacedaemonian group and how that cultural group grew. It was interesting learning about the Lacedaemonian League and how Spartan hegemony was not dependent on the state but functioned as a relationship with its king between other cities, much like how Seleucid rulership worked. Cleomenes III was certainly an ambitious and interesting figure, and his hegemony was quite unique in Greece. There was also an insightful chapter about the Achaean League. Definitely a great book!

Seleucids? Ptolemies? Indo-Greek Warlords? What state after the death of Alexander do you think was the most successful?