|
Relations between Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucids [Abstract] Traditionally, as for the relations between Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucids during the so-called Hellenistic Period, the conflict has been paid much more attention by some scholars in their works. Judged by the documents available, we have come to find that there happened some wars only in the period from 276 B.C. to 168 B.C. but the communication and co-existence were the main characters of the relations between them in the most part of whole history. This kind of relation greatly promoted the fusion of the politics, economy, culture and social life between these two kingdoms, and contributed to the regional integration in West Asia and North Africa, and even laid foundations for the rule of Romans and the cultural diffusion and conquest of Arabians. Of course, it was caused by some inner and outer factors at the same time. [Key Words] Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleucids, Conflict, Communication, Co-existence Generally speaking, the earliest states and civilizations came into being in West Asia and North Africa respectively at the end of the fourth millennium B.C.,[1] and had been proceeding in different directions from then on. As a result, two kinds of cultures and societies were formed in these two earliest civilized areas during the course of development for about 3000 years. There existed the contact and communication between ancient West Asia and North Africa from beginning to end according to existing sources.[2] However, it was just in the Hellenistic Period (323 B.C. - 30 B. C.) that the relations between them were furthered in many facets. After the death of Alexander the Great in Babylon on June 10, 323 B. C., [3]two great kingdoms in Hellenistic Period, the Ptolemaic Egypt (323B.C.-30B.C.) [4]and Seleucids (311B.C.-64B.C.)[5], on both of which this article is focusing, came to be built by Macedonian in North Africa and West Asia respectively, where they had conquered under Alexander the Great at the second part of the fourth century B.C. They were engaged in the continuous conflict for a long time seeking for hegemony around Mediterranean and especially Syria, which has been studied by many scholars in recent years.[6]Judged by the documentation available, however, the relations between them are not limited to conflict, but also involved peaceful contact and friendly exchange and communication in some fields such as politics, economy and culture in some times. Not all researchers have paid full attention to this point, and even these relations’ influences on the history of this region. Therefore, the author plans to conduct a comprehensive study on it through making references to some classical accounts and modern monographs, and analyzing the materials available. As far as the topic is concerned in this article, we can make conferences to three kinds of written materials, including the accounts of some classical writers, inscriptions and papyri, and even some monographs of modern scholars. For the first two decades after Alexander (down to 302B.C.), the survival of Books XVIII-XX of Library of History of Diodorus of Sicily (1st c. B.C.) provides the basic framework, some parts of which should be treated with analyzing. History of Polybius (ca 200B.C. - after 118 B.C.), a famous ancient Greek historian, records some important events happened in the later part of Hellenistic period. The Geography of Strabo (time of Augustus) and Histories of Tacitus (ca 56A.D. -120 A.D.) contain some valuable descriptions of some cities and regions in Hellenistic period. However, these classical authors can neither pile a whole history of Hellenistic period together, nor permit us to have all evidences which we need in this article. Therefore, this article has to rely on Greek inscriptions and papyri mainly. Fortunately, some famous modern scholars had translated and compiled most of important documents in their works in English, which we need to discuss in this research.[7] Furthermore, some ideas of mine owe to some monographs of these experts, along with other scholars.[8] I．Wars between the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Kingdoms from 276 B.C. to 168 B. C. Alexander the Great had successfully constructed a huge empire by the end of the fourth century B.C., which extended to some parts of three continents including Europe, Asia and Africa, and which is so-called “Empire of Alexander the Great”.[9] After a series of wars under Alexander the Great with Macedonian army, the empire came into being with the basis of the personal power and privilege of Alexander the Great. In fact, this empire was comprised of some conquered regional powers which were ruled relatively loosely by Alexander and Macedonians. Obviously, he didn’t spend enough time to rule his empire, and even not establish a kind of government system for this huge empire, for he had been always marching for more victories and lands after his ascending the throne of Macedon in 346B.C. That’s to say, before the death of Alexander the Great, there was not formed into a political and cultural foundation which can unite those different parts into a whole empire for a long time. The only effective bond which can combine various regions conquered in the known world with Macedon was Alexander the Great. Therefore, the empire was doomed to fall into parts, once the bond disappeared in some time. He did not arrange any powerful and legitimate heir to the throne before Alexander the Great died in Babylon in 323 B.C. His admissive son, Alexander IV, born by his wife Roxane in a few months after his death, was the legitimate successor of the throne in Macedon and Alexander’s empire according to the custom of Macedonian royal family. However, he was only a posthumous child without any power and prestige, not to mention military achievements, so he can not get the real support of the generals who believed the power and prestige rather than the birth background. [10]On the other hand, no any general had the same ability, power and prestige with Alexander the Great. Any general can not organize and order other generals except Alexander the Great. In addition, every general had almost his own followers. All of those generals regarded themselves as the legal successors of Alexander the Great, and thought themselves as the rulers of the empire. As a result, they fought each other for the control of the empire and the establishment of their own domains in the following twenty years, which was called Successors’ Wars or Diadochoi Wars(323B.C.- 301B.C.).[11] 1. Relations between Ptolemy I and Seleucus I during Diadochoi Wars. After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C., his generals firstly set up the heirs of the throne in Macedon, and made the half-brother of Alexander the Great and Alexander IV as the co-regents. [12] And then, “the strife broke out between the infantry and the cavalry,” the generals then sent numerous ambassadors to each other, and in the end concluded an agreement among them. “Antipater should be the general of Europe”, Perdiccas should command the Companion cavalry which made him supervisor of the whole kingdom. However, mutual suspicions were rife between Perdiccas and all the other generals. Nonetheless, in order to reduce the struggling chance of other generals, Perdiccas decided to appoint to the satrapies men who were suspected by him. “Accordingly Ptolemy son of Lagus was appointed to rule Egypt and Libya and the parts of Arabia that lie close to Egypt.”[13] Lysimachus was appointed as the master of Thrace and the surrounding area.[14] “As for the remaining satrapies in Asia Perdiccas decided not to disturb them but to leave them under the same governors as before”, but “Seleucus he appointed to the command of the Companion cavalry, a most distinguished post, held first by Hephaestion, then by Perdiccas, and thirdly by the aforementioned Seleucus.”(Diod. 18. 3. 2-5) After getting the grant of the Satrapy in 323 B.C., Ptolemy I immediately went to his post in Egypt. In 322 B.C., he kidnapped the body of Alexander the Great to Egypt. In eyes of Perdiccas, this action was an annotation that Ptolemy I attempted to be the only successor of the empire through getting the body. This was absolutely not allowed by Perdiccas. He possessed the ring of Alexander the Great which was the symbol of the kingship, and thought himself as the honorable ruler of the empire, and even hoped to become the real king. So, at the chance of Ptolemy I’ kidnapping the body of Alexander the Great, he marched and attacked Egypt with the aim to reunite the whole empire. Unfortunately, he encountered a bad failure, and even was murdered by his subordinate in Egypt. [15] As the result of this war, Antipater, a partner of Perdiccas, held a meeting at Triparadeisos in north Syria in 321/320 B.C., and arranged a new settlement. “Ptolemy was to control Egypt, Libya and all the expanse of territory beyond it together with any further conquests he made to the west.” “To Seleucus he gave Babylonia.” Lysimachus was still the ruler in Thrace. “Antigonus he appointed commander of the army previously under the orders of Perdiccas, with the mission of guarding and protecting the kings.” “Antipater himself, highly praised by everyone for all his exertions, then returned to Macedon.”[16] Actually, the separation of the empire basically became the truth. As regard to the situation during the following period from 321/20B.C. to 310 B.C., C. B. Welles gave us a perfect summary. “Then Antipater, the universally respected general of Philip II, had for two years maintained intact the inheritance of the royal family, and at his death, Polyperchon and especially Eumenes of Cardia had made a brilliant if not losing fight in the same cause (Diod. 18. 48. 4-50). Finally, for five years, Antigonus,[17] an earlier champion of disunion, had been struggling against his former allies Lysimachus and Ptolemy I to bring all of Alexander’s conquests under his control. The former of these, ably assisted by Cassander in Macedonia, had checked Antigonus’ efforts in Greece and in Thrace, and Ptolemy I’s victory at Gaza in 312 B.C. had enabled the fugitive satrap Seleucus I to reestablish himself in Babylon. It need not be assumed that Antigonus with these reverses definitely relinquished the ambition of becoming Alexander’s successor; he resumed an aggressive policy soon after. He saw, however, that an immediate execution of his plan was impossible. He needed a breathing space, and the price which he was forced to pay was a formal recognition of the status quo, an acknowledgement of the political independence of his three antagonists. ”[18] As regard to the abovementioned peace agreement in 311B. C., Diodorus (19.105.1-4) gave us some arguments. “In the archonship of Simonides at Athens (311/10B.C.) [……] Cassander, Ptolemy and Lysimachus put an end to the war against Antigonus and concluded a treaty. It was specified in it that Cassander should be general of Europe until Alexander, Roxane’s son, should come of age, that Lysimachus should be master of Thrace and Ptolemy master of Egypt and the neighbouring cities in Libya and Arabia, that Antigonus should command the whole of Asia, while the Greeks should be autonomous.”[19] We also have some direct evidences. Antigonus wrote a letter to all Greek and cities in Greek in 311 B. C., announced the peace concluded with Cassander, Lysimachus and Ptolemy I. The peace was a turning point of Hellenistic history. As a peace it was of short duration. War was resumed four years later. But the character of the war had then changed. It had become a war between states, not a civil contest. In this letter, it said, “When Cassander and Ptolemy were conferring about a truce and ……although we saw that some of the demands of Cassander were rather burdensome, still as there was agreement concerning the Greeks we thought it necessary to overlook this in order that the main issue might be settled as soon as possible; for we should have considered it a fine thing if all had been arranged for the Greeks as we wished……and because we were anxious that the question of Greeks should be settled in our life-time, we thought it necessary not to let details endanger the settlement of the principal issue.……After the arrangements with Cassander and Lysimachus had been completed, to conclude.……Ptolemy sent envoys to us asking that a truce be made with him also and that he be included in the same treaty .……then that the truce has been established and that peace is made.”[20] The letter of Antigonus got feedbacks from Greeks, and brought honors for him.[21] In the treaty, then, there were provided no changes in the regular bureaucracy to which belonged Seleucus I as a provincial governor. The fact that he was in revolt did not affect his legal position. The peace between himself and Antigonus called for separate negotiation. Otto discovered evidence in the Babylonian Chronicle of war in the east after 311B.C.; Antigonus did try to crush Seleucus I, but failed.[22] Although the peace agreement of 311 B.C. confirmed officially the territory and domain of several main kingdoms in Hellenistic period, and led to a temporary peace among them, several generals dissatisfied the situation and opened several wars during the following decade. The most important war among them was that Antigonus attacked Seleucus I, the satrapy of Babylon, in order to secure his control of All Asia. Seleucus I withdrew to Ptolemy I in Egypt, and got support from the latter, and even formed an alliance with other satrapies such as Kassander in order to fight with Antigonus. (App. Syr. 53) [23]In the end, with the help of Ptolemaic army, Seleucus I won and established his status in Babylonia.[24] After the fall of Antigonus, Seleucus I defeated other satrapies in Asia, and in the end controlled almost the whole Mesopotamia. (App. Syr. 55) Then, in autumn, 306 B.C., Ptolemy I of Egypt managed to expel the invasion of Antigonus and his son Demetrius.[25] And then, Ptolemy I captured Coele-Syria and Phoenicia in the fourth Diadochoi War (303B.C.-301B.C.), and finally possessed legally the ruling power to this region with the acquiescence of Seleucus I after the victory in Ipsus Battle in 301 B. C.[26] From the fore-mentioned contents, we can find that Ptolemy I entered into an alliance with Seleucus I against the powerful general Antigonus during Diadochoi Wars. The relation between these two kingdoms was relatively friendly without fight. Undoubtedly, they aligned with each other just in order to deal with the dangerous situation which both of them faced at the same time. This alliance was very fragile. They were both kingdoms formed through the separation of Alexander’s Empire, and potentially competitive each other for more power and domains around Mediterranean Sea. In Ipsus Battle in 301 B.C., the alliance of Lysimachus in Thrace, Seleucus I in Seleucids and Ptolemy I in Egypt, as one side, managed to defeat Antigonus as other side who was the ruler of the whole Asia Minor. As the result, Seleucids captured part of Syria and some cities in Asia Minor around Mediterranean Sea. So did Ptolemaic Egypt in Coele-Syria. It was very important that Ptolemaic dynasty did not have the plan to withdraw his army from Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, while Seleucids hoped to control the whole Syria. The main reason is that this region was very significant for Seleucids and Ptolemaic Egypt. It was not only an important trade route among Europe, Asia and North Africa then, but also itself one of some production places of main raw materials, and even a military strategic point. Therefore, Seleucids and Ptolemaic Egypt launched huge wars for 6 times during more than 100 years from 276 B.C. to 168 B. C., which are called as Syrian Wars by historian.[27] 2. Syrian Wars between these two kingdoms from 276B.C. to 168B.C. The first Syrian War began in 276 B.C.,[28] and ended in 271 B.C. This war was launched by Ptolemy II who attempted to control the whole Syria, Asia Minor and Aegean Sea. A Babylonian text recorded the victory of King Antiochus I in the early stage of war. It was said that in 274 B. C. “he went to the province Ebir-nari and marched against the Egyptian army which was camped in Ebir-nari. The Egyptian army fled before him.”[29] Four years later, it ended with the victory of Ptolemy II, who finally captured north Syria, Phoenicia, most parts of Anatolia and Cyclades islands.[30] At the end of the Second Syrian War (260B.C.-253B.C.), Antiochus II, the third king of Seleucids, recaptured Phoenicia and Anatolia from Ptolemaic Egypt which was still ruled by the king Ptolemy II.[31] The Third Syrian War lasted 5 years from 246B.C. to 241B.C. During the reign of Ptolemy III, Egypt was in the most prosperous and powerful stage of Ptolemaic dynasty. King Ptolemy III hoped to expand his territory outside Egypt, especially in Syria. After the death of Antiochus II, sons of his two wives fell into civil war for the heir of the throne, and one of his two wives, sister of Ptolemy III, asked for the help from Egypt, which provided a chance to conquer Seleucid Kingdom for Ptolemaic Egypt. A papyrus which was found in Egypt recorded the opening stages of the Third Syrian War.[32] Finally, Egypt defeated Seleucid Kingdom. According to the agreement after this war, Ptolemy III of Egypt took Seleucia in Syria, Pieria and coastal region in Thrace. An epigraphic account of Ptolemy III’s ‘Third Syrian War” provided some ideas on this point for us.[33] King Antiochus II of Seleucids started the Fourth Syrian War in 219 B.C. Ptolemaic Egypt made full of preparations for this war. (Plyb.5.63 and 65) At the beginning years, King Ptolemy IV of Egypt was always victor of the fight. Later, the riot of native Egyptian broke out in Egypt, and weakened the military power of Ptolemy IV. As the result, Ptolemy IV was defeated badly in the last battle, and therefore lost most of his territory in West Asia except Cyprus and Cyrene. Antiochus II agreed to end this war and withdraw back to Babylon with the mediation of Roman Public.[34] (Plyb.5.107.1-3 and 14.12.3-4) Both Macedonian king and Seleucid king Antiochus III became aware of the decline of Ptolemaic Egypt, and conspired to carve the latter’s territory in Asia and Aegean Sea. In 202 B.C., Antiochus III made use of the chance of Egyptian chaos and attacked Egyptian army stationed in west Syria. The Fifth Syrian War was ended by the defeat of Egypt and Roman interference in 199 B.C.[35] In 170 B.C., Ptolemy VI, Cleopatra II and Ptolemy VIII of Egypt invaded into west Syria in order to recapture this place, but failed. Then, Antiochus IV of Seleucids led his army to attack Egypt twice in 168 B.C. and finally arrived the foot of Alexandria. Egypt was at the fatal. A papyrus letter which a general wrote to King Ptolemy VIII told the last stage of the Sixth Syrian War in 168 B.C., and Egypt was defeated badly.[36] In the end, Roman Public enforced Antiochus IV to leave Egypt itself intact. (Plyb. 29. 27) However, another papyrus told us that Antiochus IV went into Memphis in Egypt, and took the throne of Ptolemaic kingdom. It said that “when they joined battle between Pelusium and Mount Casius, the generals of Ptolemy were defeated. Antiochus …… went up to Memphis, and, there, taking possession of the kingdom according to Egyptian tradition and declaring that he would watch out for the boy’s affairs, he subjugated with a small force all Egypt to himself. He entered rich and prosperous cities and did what neither his fathers nor his father’s fathers had done, for no king of Syria had thus ravaged Egypt. And all their riches he dispersed……” [37]Even if Antiochus IV really took the kingship of Memphis, he could not capture Alexandria, and so did not conquer Ptolemaic Kingdom completely. Actually, he had to withdraw back West Asia in the end. Nevertheless, these two kingdoms both had no any power to continue fighting after this war. Table 1. Syrian Wars
All in all, these two kingdoms did not conflict and launch war with each other during the initial stage in Hellenistic period, especially in Diadochoi Wars, but formed an alliance in order to be against the common enemy. However, since the second quarter of the third century B.C. they had been doing several huge wars in a long time for the hegemony of Syria and Asia Minor. Every war lasted at least two years, even more. It seems to be true that these two kingdoms lost much in war, whoever can win the war. We must notice that it was only in the period from 276 B. C. to 168 B. C. that the conflict was the main melody of the relations between two kingdoms. II．Communication and co-existence: Peaceful Relationship between the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Kingdoms In Hellenistic period, there was a long peaceful time between Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucids except the war ages. For these two kingdoms, it is counted that the wars spent 26 years which was only 10% of the total co-existence ages of about 247 years from 311B.C. to 64 B.C. There was relatively peaceful situation, at least no war between them in other years which consisted the 90% of the co-existence ages for them. 1. Official contacts and embassies during the Syrian Wars As it was narrated in Part I of this article, there was no conflict during the period from 323 B.C. to 277 B. C. On the contrary, they were allies against Antigonus. Undoubtedly, these two kingdoms had some contacts which happened at least between two armies during Syrian Wars. As we expounded in Part I, there were 6 Syrian Wars, and each war lasted for 2 years and beyond, which led to the contacts between armies each other. Beside this, there existed some more complex communication, most important of which was the mutual presents of ambassadors in two royal courts. It was reported by Polybius that, during the Fourth Syrian War, Sosibius, the most influencing and powerful figure in Ptolemaic court, led on some ambassadors to visit the Seleucid King Antiochus III in Syria and negotiated on the belongings of Coele-Syria. Two sides both wanted to surpass the rival during the negotiation, so they cited some examples in history which can stand for their aims respectively. As a result, this meeting lasted very long time. [38](Plyb.5.67) In fact, the ambassadors’ negotiation sometimes was regarded as a tactic in war. So was it here. Before the Fourth Syrian War in 219/8 B.C., Ptolemy IV wanted to make some preparations for this war as possible as he can, which needed more free time. Therefore, he sent some ambassadors to the court of Seleucids to discuss the details on the problem of Coele-Syria as possible as slowly. (Plyb. 5. 63) As French Egyptologist M. Chauveau pointed, the marriages happened occasionally. During these wars, they concluded several marriages between two royal families. Ptolemy II sent his sister Berenice II to marry with the king Antiochus II in Seleucid dynasty. [39]Then Cleopatra I, daughter of King Antiochus III in Seleucids, married with Ptolemy V in Egypt.[40] It was for ending wars and getting temporary peace that they concluded these two marriages. In other words, the peace “was achieved wherever possible through dynastically structured marriage alliances, which after a generation had produced a biologically interconnected Macedonian ruling (royal) class, the leading members of which were closely related to each other.”[41] Accordingly, we can think that the communication and co-existence were at least the harmonious voices of the relations between them, even though not the main tones, if we can regard the relation as a fair-sounding music allegorically. 2. Efforts for co-existence with each other after the Sixth Syrian War After several wars, these two kingdoms lost any power to continue war, even became weak states in that age, so they sought to conclude alliance with each other. The following letter here was probably written by Antiochus VIII to his ally Ptolemy X at a time when Antiochus was in control of Seleucia. Antiochus VIII and IX, both weak, “were forced to purchase support in any quarter and at any price at which it might be obtained. Here the cost was the recognition of the freedom of one of the capital cities, Seleucia in Pieria”[42] King Antiochus to King Ptolemy, also (called) Alexander, his brother, greeting. If you were well it would be as we wish; we ourselves were well and were remembering you with affection. The people of Seleucia in Pieria, the city holy and inviolable, [from of old] supported our father and to the end maintained steadfast their goodwill [towards him. They have been constant in] their love towards us and have shown it [through many] fine deeds especially in the most desperate times we have experienced. We have therefore hitherto furthered their interests both generously and as they deserve and have brought them into [more conspicuous] regard. And now, being anxious to reward them fittingly with the first [and greatest] benefaction, [we decided that they be for] all time free, [and we included them in the treaties] which we have made with each other, [thinking] that thus both [our piety and our generosity] towards our ancestral city will be more apparent. [So that you also may] know [these concessions, it seemed] best [to write to you]. Farewell. Year 203, Gorpiaios 29.[43] The text of the following letter is full of uncertainties. However, it proved that kings of Seleucid dynasty wrote letters to Ptolemaic kings anyway. [King Antiochus to the magistrates and the] boule and the demos [of the people of Seleucia] in Pieria, the holy [and inviolable, greeting. If you and the city were well, it would be] as we wish. [We have sent you a copy of the letter] which we have written [to King Ptolemy and of the one to the Senate of the] Romans (?), [so that you may know--[44] Map 1 Trade Routes in Hellenistic Period. See Grant, M. (1982, 57). Actually, the last years of the Seleucid dynasty were dominated by internecine rivalry and a labyrinthine series of marriage alliances with the Ptolemies. At the end of the second century Antiochus VIII Grypus and Antiochus IX Cyzicenus were ruling in different parts of Syria. They were at once cousins, being sons of the brothers Demetrius II and Antiochus VII, and uterine brothers, as both were born of Cleopatra Thea. Each of them, moreover, during his life married two daughters of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II: Grypus married Cleopatra Tryphaina, and Cyzicenus married Cleopatra IV, and both married (in succession) Cleopatra Selene, who went on to wed Antiochus X. Of the sisters, Cleopatra IV and Cleopatra Selene both had Ptolemy IX (their brother) as a first husband.[45] 3. Trade communication Although M. Rostovtzeff did not think there existed the direct trades between Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucids, he had to admit that there were some indirect trades between them through the Arabian markets.[46] He dealt with the foreign trades which Ptolemaic Egypt carried on with the Africans, the Arabians, the Aegean and Roman, but not with Seleucids. However, he believed that Ptolemaic dynasty imported some important sources into Egypt from some its dominions, such as Syria, Cilicia, Lycia and Cyprus, etc.[47] In fact, the trades did be conducted by these two kingdoms. For example, Laodicean wine found a large market in Egypt. (Str.16.752.) Laodicea was a rocky coast of Syria in Hellenistic age. Actually, the trade communication between these two kingdoms was very prosperous. M. Grant provides a map of trade routes of the Seleucids in his monograph. [48](Map 1)From this map, we can find that the trade routes connected some cities of Seleucids with those in Ptolemaic Egypt. Ptolemies “simultaneously looked towards the south and east as well, abandoning none of the old trading routes and creating many new ones. The first four Ptolemies’s seamen opened up the Red Sea and went much further afield as well, and later mariners continued to explore sea-routes of Africa and India, guarding the maritime terminals of the south Arabian caravans and suppressing the pirates who threatened the passage of their merchandise. Goods came into Egypt from the south and were re-exported into the Mediterranean area, including many materials which came in raw and un-worked and left the country in manufactured form.”[49] In a papyrus named the Oil Monopoly of Ptolemy Philadelphus, we find that the oil trade between these two kingdoms was conducted by them.[50] These trade routes were not only the results of trade activities, but also promoted the communications beyond trade between two areas. This kind of communication certainly caused the exchange in other fields, such as agriculture, technology, and so on. 4. Cultural communication In the field of the culture, there existed some communications between the two kingdoms. “Mathematics, astronomy, geography and medicine flourished in the Hellenistic age as never before.”[51] Besides the accumulation of knowledge and science thoughts in ancient Greece, the traditional and oriental experiences in ancient West Asia and Egypt provided some helps for the happening of this kind of flourishing in abovementioned fields in Hellenistic age. Obviously, these traditional experiences and new findings and works in this age had spread far and wide in Hellenistic world. This was not only the result of mutual communications, but also promoted the communications between West Asia and North Africa in turn. We know at least that the Babylonian astrology affected the development of that in Egypt. It was after 200 B.C. that “Bolus of Mendes in Egypt (a country that hade learnt its astrology from Mesopotamia) compiled a treatise On Sympathies and Antipathies which explained and justified the fictitious correspondence between heavenly bodies and human beings.”[52] Some philosophers of Stoics school, such as Diogenes ‘the Babylonian’ from Seleucia on the Tigris (d. 152B.C.) and Posidonius of Apamea in Syria (c. 135B.C.-50 B.C.), taught and spread their philosophy ideas throughout the Hellenistic world, which must affect some Egyptian.[53] 5. Communication among common peoples Actually, common peoples had some contacts, exchanges and communications in many fields. From some papyri found in Egypt, we can get some materials about the communications among common peoples in these two kingdoms. For example, we have a papyrus written in ancient Greek in 217 B.C. It said in the first paragraph “To King Ptolemy greeting from Pistus son of Leontomenes, Persian of the Epigone. I am being wronged by Aristocrates, Thracian, holder of 100 arurae, of the 1st hipparchy, resident in Autodice.”[54] This proves that some foreigners originated from West Asia lived in Egypt, and communicated with each other. In fact, “the forms of content of cultural interaction ranged from setting up an inscription with the names of the months of the calendar in Samos, probably to serve the needs of the members of the Ptolemaic garrison, to mixed marriages among the family members of soldiers of different origins, to the introduction of new cults.”[55] In another papyrus of a tender for preparing embankments in 257 B.C., we read that the embankments “of the Syro-Persian quarter” were “12 schoenia”.[56] In a papyrus in 242 B.C., we find that one of the prisoners from Asia was requested to pay the rent of house in Egypt.[57] Perhaps some Syro-Persians can take part in the social activity and production, even have some quantity of lands in Egypt. These are at least in-direct evidences to the communication between peoples with different origins. Based on the aforementioned, we can notice that Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucids had not been fighting every year during the period from 323B.C. to 64 B.C. On the contrary, there were some relatively peaceful phrases. There were some communications between them in peaceful times, even in the time of wars, such as marriages, trades, exchange of religions and ideas, communication of sciences and technologies, migration and integration of different peoples, etc. And even they sought to make alliance with each other after the Sixth Syrian War. Therefore, we can judge that it was certainly only in the period from 276 B.C. to 168 B.C that the war or conflict was the main melody of the relations between two kingdoms, while the communication and co-existence were at least the harmonious voices of the relations between them, even though not the main tones, if we can regard the relation as a fair-sounding music allegorically. Actually, viewing from the whole period which they co-existed, the communication and co-existence were the main melodies of the relation between two kingdoms. III．Influences: the Enhancement of the Regional Integration in West Asia and North Africa The conflict and communication between these two kingdoms brought many influences on the area around Mediterranean Sea, especially on West Asia and North Africa. 1. Regional decline and final annexation to Rome The conflicts between Ptolemaic kingdom and Seleucids did not bring any good advantages to each side, and did not make any side to become the powerful state around Mediterranean Sea for a long time. On the contrary, these two kingdoms consumed their power and materials during conflicts and wars, and as a result both declined. At the same time, it provided an excellent chance to develop and rise quickly for another state in this area—Ancient Roman Republic—which did not be expected by both Ptolemaic Kingdom and Seleucids. In the end, both of them were conquered by Rome at the end of the first century B.C. In West Asia, Rome began affected Seleucids from 200 B.C. “It is in this year (200B.C.) that we hear of the first certain communication between Rome and the Seleucid kingdom.” [58] As Polybius (16. 27.5) pointed, the ambassador who left Rome for the East to carry the ultimatum to Philip was also charged to visit the Ptolemaic and Seleucid courts in order to make peace between Antiochus III and Ptolemy V. Actually, this time was just in the Fifth Syrian War. This war ended with the interference of Roman Republic which forced Antiochus III of Seleucid kingdom withdrew his army from Egypt in 197 B.C. After that, and after five-time Syrian Wars with Egypt, Seleucid kingdom consumed too much materials and man-power, and as a result declined gradually. Rome began to conquer some parts of Seleucid kingdom from now on. In the end, it was annexed by Rome in 64 B.C.[59] With regard to Egypt, Syrian Wars made it become weak and division, which provided an opportunity to interfere in both inner and outer affairs of Ptolemaic dynasty starting from the reign of Ptolemy IV. From 170 B.C. to the summer of 163 B.C. Ptolemy IV Philometor and his younger brother Ptolemy VIII ruled Egypt jointly. The fifteenth year of their reign is 155B.C.. Dissensions between them caused Roman intervention and a division of the realm: the older brother retained Egypt and Cyprus, the younger only the Cyrenaica, to which he withdrew in 163B.C..[60] In 155 BC, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II issued a testament and left his kingdom of Cyrene to the Romans. The testament said, In the fifteenth year, in the month of Loos. With good luck. This is the testament of king Ptolemy, (son) of King Ptolemy and of Queen Cleopatra, gods manifest, the younger (son). Of this another copy has been sent to Rome. May it be mine with the good will of the gods to take vengeance worthily upon those who have organized against me the unholy plot and have deliberately chosen not only of my kingdom but also of my life to deprive of me. But if anything happens to me, in accordance with human destiny, before successors are left (by me) for my kingdom, I bequeath to the Romans the kingdom belonging to me, for whom from the beginning friendship and alliance have been preserved by me with all sincerity. And to the same (Romans) I entrust my possessions for them to protect, appealing to them by all the gods and by their own good reputation that, if any persons attack either my cities or my territory, they may help, in accordance with the friendship and alliance which {toward} toward each other we (now) have and (in accordance with) justice, with all their power. And I make witness to these (dispositions) Jupiter Capitolinus and the Great Gods and Helios and the Founder Apollo, to whose (custody) the text of these (dispositions) is also consecrated. With good luck.[61] From now on, Rome began to intervene in more and more affaires of Egypt. At the same time, Ptolemaic Egypt increasingly depended on Roman helps in international and interior affairs. A text which dates back to the first century B.C recorded a visit of a Roman Senator to Egypt. Hermias to Horos, greeting. A copy of the letter to Asclepius is appended. Take care that things take place accordingly. Fare well. Year 5, Xandikos 17, Mecheir 17. To Asclepius. Lucius Memmius, a Roman senator, who occupies a position of great dignity and honor, is making the voyage from the city [Alexandria] to the Arsinoite Nome to see the sights. Let him be received with special magnificence, and take care that at the proper spots the guest-chambers be prepared and the landing-places to them be got ready with great care, and that the gifts of hospitality mentioned below be presented to him at the landing-place, and that the furniture of the chamber, the customary bites of food for Petesouchos (A crocodile god of the Fayyum) and the crocodiles, the necessaries for the view of the labyrinth, and the victims to be offered and the supply for the sacrifices be properly managed; in general take the utmost pains in everything that the visitor may be satisfied, and display the utmost zeal.[62] By the time of this letter Egypt was no longer a power of the first rank, and Roman favor counted for a great deal. Roman visitors of senatorial rank, as here, were therefore naturally treated with the utmost deference. Under the reign of Cleopatra VII, Roman generals began to rejoin with her in order to defeat their political rivals in Rome. Of course, they also were attracted by her beauty and intelligence. She attempted to rebuild the powerful Egyptian empire with the help of Rome, but failed. In 30 B.C, Gaius Octavian conquered Egypt and ended the rule of Ptolemaic dynasty. 2. Conflicts, communications and regional integration During the Hellenistic period, West Asia and North Africa became a regionally integrated area. According to the world-system analysis set forth by Immanuel Wallerstein, a so-called world system may be defined as “a unit which a single division of labor and multiple cultural systems”.[63] That is to say, the standards which we can use to judge the situation of integration in some given area are comprised of population fusion, cultural exchange and changes, changes of economic production models, and convergence of politics for some states and countries. Although it is not sure whether this theory can be applied to the whole Hellenistic world, but in my opinion it can at least provide some ideas or ways for the research on the regional integration here. As A. Chaniotis pointed, “the invasion of foreign territory is one of the most frequent forms of Hellenistic warfare. Precisely this crossing of a (natural) boundary is underlined in the res gestae of Ptolemy III: ‘he crossed the Euphrates river and after subjecting to himself Mesopotamia and Babylonia and Sousiane and Persis and Media and all the rest of the land up to Baktriane…’[64] Naturally, one of the consequences of this practice was the continual change of frontiers among states.”[65] So was the conflict between Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucids. Actually, the war between Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucids not only changed the frontiers both these two kingdoms frequently, but also involved some other cities or polis in West Asia and North Africa. For example, in about 262/1 B.C., King Ptolemy II wrote a letter to Miletus with praising the city for its fidelity and promising it support. [66] In about 246 B.C., Seleucus II wrote a letter to Miletus with accepting the Honors accorded him on his accession and promising to the city his favor.[67] Without question, Miletus was an important city to get alliance for both two kingdoms. So were other cities in Asia Minor. The Seleucid King Antiochus III granted some privileges to the Jews in Jerusalem for their aid during the Fifth Syrian War in about 200, including restoring their city Jerusalem, providing them some kinds of goods, letting all members of the nation be governed according to their ancestral laws, exempting from taxes for three years, and so on, it is just for “as the Jews immediately upon our entering their land demonstrated their enthusiasm for us and received us splendidly upon our arrival at their city, meeting us with their Council of Elders and furnishing in abundance supplies to our soldiers and elephants and helping in expelling the Egyptian garrison in the citadel.”[68] War can break boundaries in a very physical sense. However, invisible boundaries--legal, social, cultural--are more difficult to break, but once broken, the results are both more fundamental and more lasting than those of territorial expansion or external rule.[69] The continual change of frontiers among states in the area of West Asia and North Africa caused the migration of populations from different states. In the Hellenistic age, the mobility for war meant the massive movement of populations: the carrying away of prisoners of war (women and children in particular), the migration of populations of destroyed cities, the relocation of captives or hostages, deserters, and runaway slaves, the expulsion of unpleasant intellectuals, and the service of mercenaries. [70]In the Hellenistic garrisons, men from very different areas served together, lived together, drank together, and sometimes died together. A list of mercenaries serving in the Ptolemaic army in Laodicea in Syria included men from central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, and Ionia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Cyprus (Salamis), Libya and Palestine.[71] After years, these populations began to exchange ideas, and marry each other, and even finally fuse a huge family with different origins. This fusion of populations promoted the exchange of culture and thoughts and even religion. Respecting the traditional worships in Egypt, Ptolemy I introduced a new cult, named Sarapis worship. The god Sarapis was regarded as the combination of some traditional Egyptian god and Greek god by some scholars.[72] However, according to Tacitus (Hist.4. 83-84), this god came from Asia Minor, and the original form of this god was Shal-apshi, a Babylonian god. It is very possible that Ptolemy I accepted some factors from Babylonian god, Egyptian god and Greek god to construct a new god, so that peoples can distinguish different characters from god Sarapis. At the same time, the worship of a traditional goddess of ancient Egypt, Isis, spread to some places in West Asia in Hellenistic period.[73] Of course, we must notice that these gods, whether Sarapis or Isis, both represent some religious thoughts of Greek and Macedonian in Hellenistic period, because the creators and disseminators were all Macedonian and Greeks who endowed these god and goddess with some new meanings. Certainly, the populations from different states brought their own technology and knowledge on agriculture and trade, and even some kinds of crops with them. Papyri Cairo Zeno (P. Cair. Zen.)recorded some information about the importation of some things from West Asia and Asia Minor to Egypt in Hellenistic age. M. Rostovtzeff cited these cases in his books. He pointed that Ptolemaic Egypt learned some kinds of vine, and introduced some foreign plants and the breed of donkeys from Syria, and a better quality of wheat from Median. And even “the well-known sakiyeh and the similar machines of the region of the Euphrates and Orontes came into being and are still extensively used in Egypt and in Syria.”[74] The most important was that the economic model became more and more similar with each other after several generations. In these two kingdoms, the kings and their family were the masters of the whole economy and finance of their countries. And they exercised almost similar economic and financial policy, although there were some differences between each other. [75] The ruling classes in these two kingdoms were both Macedonian, which should lead to the similar economic models in them. However, it is very possible that the communication and peoples’ fusion made some helps to the happening of this phenomenon. Of course, more evidences have to be provided in future, which depends on the coming findings of archaeology and papyrology. “The Hellenistic wars made alliances and diplomatic enterprises necessary to a greater extent than in any preceding historical period, thus substantially contributing to the creation of an extensive network of political relations which brought distant communities into close interaction.”[76] This must cause the adjusting of the politics for some states. Actually, the ruling classes in both these two kingdoms were Macedonians, so they might imply and practice the same policy and politics in West Asia and North Africa in theory. In reality, these two kingdoms indeed practiced some common institutions.[77] The traditional politics, however, were different from each other in these two regions. Therefore, they adjusted the policy and politics according to the situation, and learned some good elements from each other. M. Rostovtzeff pointed that an intricate system of taxes was collected in Judah in Ptolemaic times derived from correspondence to the Seleucids Antiochus III and Demetrius I Soter, who inherited the system.[78] That is to say, Seleucids sometimes learned some ingredients of ruling from Ptolemaic Egypt, vice versa. This kind of relation laid foundations for the rule of Romans, and the diffusion and the establishment of the reigning status of Arabian culture in these two regions, and formed the basic character of the relation between these two regions in the future, even till today. As we talked, the trade and cultural communications greatly promoted the understanding and cultural identity among the peoples in these two kingdoms in the Hellenistic period, especially in late Hellenistic age. Besides the direct communications between these two kingdoms, there were some indirect exchanges, which were mainly conducted by some Arabian traders in Nabatean kingdom and Palmyra. Petra, the capital of Nabatean kingdom, and Palmyra were both important trade posts in Hellenistic age. And there was an important caravan route passing through them.[79] Therefore, some traders in this area had an important role as trade agents. At the same time, some cultural contents were transmitted by them during the process of the trade. As a result, they became the actors of this cultural homogenization of the East, blending native and Eastern elements with Hellenistic traditions, and paved the way for the Arabic expansion. The conflicts between these two kingdoms led them to decline, and thereby provided chances for Rome to conquer them. By 30 B.C., these two regions had both been annexed by Rome and became the provinces of Roman Empire.[80] Under the reign of Roman, Greek and Roman cultures had widely and deeply spread to these two regions, and the communication and exchange between peoples in West Asia and those in North Africa became much more common and frequent than before, both of which strengthened the mutual understanding and acquaintance among different peoples in these two regions, and on the other hand reduced the individualities of different cultures.[81] In the end, this kind of fusion surely made the diffusion of Arabian culture much easier in these two regions in seventh century A.D. Then, this kind of relation which combined the conflict with peaceful communication went through the Middle Age, modern and even temporary time in West Asia and North Africa, till today. We find that the changes of the politics, economic system, culture and society in these two areas and beyond in the late Hellenistic Period had happened with the influences of the relations between them on themselves and other neighborhood countries. In a word, the relations between these two kingdoms laid foundations for the formation of a cultural circle of West Asia and North Africa, and foretold the coming of regional integration, and even showed some characteristics of the modern society and politics in this territory. Conclusion In Hellenistic Period, this kind of relation combining conflicts with peaceful communication and co-existence was the character among three kingdoms—Antigonids of Macedonia, Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucids, especially between the later two ones. And this relation is also the character of this region from beginning to end, even till today. Everything has almost its own reasons to happen or exist. So were the relations between these two kingdoms in Hellenistic age. Firstly, in history, Syria occupied a special and important location which was the strategic point for war and trade among some states around Mediterranean Sea. In Hellenistic age, it is very important for Ptolemaic Egypt who wanted to expand its territory into the whole Asia Minor, West Asia and even Aegean Sea through this point. For Seleucids, it is a natural barrier and part of the kingdom which can protect Seleucids from attacking of Egypt and other states. “Ptolemy had seized Coele-Syria in 319 B.C. after the conference of Triparadeisus but soon lost the northern part of it to Eumenes. Soon after Eumenes’ death the whole area was in Antigonus’ hands. Following Ipsus in 301 B.C. Ptolemy I seized the southern half of the province and refused to give it up to Seleucus I, who being in his debt politically did not press the claim for the present. But Coele-Syria remained an issue between the two kingdoms and was one important reason for wars fought between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids in the third century.”[82] Secondly, as Diodorus (18, 59.5 and 43.1) said, Ptolemaic Egypt was “the land conquered by spears”. It was the same to Seleucids. The Seleucids regarded their possessions as spear-won territory.[83] They both thought themselves as the legitimate ruler of whole area which Alexander the Great conquered before the death. This decided that they had to conquer more lands and struggle for the hegemony around Mediterranean Sea. That’s to say, it is necessary and doomed that they fought each other by the promotion of militarism and economic advantages. On the other hand, it is impossible for them to fight from beginning to end. They had to get enough time to get back from the destruction of the war, and prepare more sources for another wars. Actually, peoples would not like to fight every year. What’s more, the peaceful interaction was one of the traditions between these two regions. Of course, it should be noticed that Roman Republic played an important role in the relative peaceful relation between these two kingdoms after the Fifth Syrian War. From the explanation of the aforementioned, we found that we should judge the relation between Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucids from many aspects. Traditionally, compared to the peaceful communication and co-existence between Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucids during the so-called Hellenistic Period, the conflict has been paid much more attention by some scholars in their monographs and articles, so that some readers are wrongly led to think that the conflict was the most important and even only character of the relations between them. According to the documents available, however, we came to find that the relations between them were highly complicated, not very simple as it seemed at the first eyes. It was certainly only in the period from 276 B.C. to 168 B.C that the war or conflict were the main melody of the relation between two kingdoms, while the communication and co-existence were at least the harmonious voices of the relations between them, even though not the main tones, if we can regard the relation as a fair-sounding music allegorically. Actually, viewing from the whole period when they co-existed, the communication and co-existence were the main melodies of the relation between two kingdoms. Both the conflict and communication greatly promoted the fusion of the politics, economy, culture and social life between these two kingdoms, and contributed to the regional integration in West Asia and North Africa, and even laid foundations for the ruling of Romans and the cultural diffusion and conquest of Arabians. This kind of relation combining conflict with communication and co-existence is always the main character in this region. Of course, it was caused by some inner and outer factors at the same time. I would particularly like to express my thanks to Prof. Olaf E. Kaper in Leiden University and Prof. Juan Pablo in Northeast Normal University for his kind and careful directions to this article. I am highly appreciated of the supports of “Relations between West Asia and North Africa in Hellenistic Period”, an Independent Post-doctor Program of International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS) in Leiden from March 5 to July 31, 2012, and “Research on History of Arabic States in North Africa”, a key project of National Fund of Philosophy and Social Science in China in 2010, and then “Systems and Society in Ancient World”, an innovative project in Chinese Academy of Social Sciences from 2011 to 2014. Bibliography： 1．Austin, M. M. 1981. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translations. 1stedition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2．Austin, M.M. 2006. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translations. 2ndedition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3．Bagnall, R. S. 1976. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt. Leiden: Brill. 4．Bagnall, R. S. and Derow, P. (ed.s) 2004. The Hellenistic Period Historical Sources in Translation. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. 5．Bevan, E. R. 1966a. The House of Seleucus, vol. I. London: Rougledge & Kegan Paul. 6．Bevan, E. R. 1966b. The House of Seleucus, vol. II. London: Rougledge & Kegan Paul. 7．Billows, R. A. 1990. Antigonus the One-eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State. California: University of California Press. 8．Bowman, A. K. (et al., ed.). 1996. The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. X. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 9． Burstein, S. M. (ed. and trans.) 1985. The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Cleopatra VII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10．Casson, L. 1971. Egypt and Mesopotamia. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 11．Chadwick, R. 2005. First Civilizations: Ancient Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. London: Equinox Pub. 12．Champion, T. C. 1989. Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd. 13．Chaniotis, A. 2005. War in the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 14．Chauveau, M. 2000. Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra: History and Society under the Ptolemies, trans. David Lorton. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 15．Dantong, Guo. 2011. The Communication between Egypt and Easter Mediterranean Sea. Beijing: Social Science Academic Press (in Chinese). 16．Errington, R. M. 1970. “From Babylon to Triparadeisos: 323-320 B.C.”, In JHS, vol. 90. 17．Errington, R. M. 2008. A History of the Hellenistic World 323-30 BC. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 18．Frankfort, H. 1951. The Birth of Civilization in the Near East. London: Williams and Norgate. 19．Goold, G. P. (ed.) 1932. Select Papyri, vol. I, trans. A. S. Hunt and C. G. Edgar. The Loeb Classical Library. Harvard: Harvard University Press. 1934. 20．Goold, G. P. (ed.) 1934. Select Papyri, vol. II, trans. A. S. Hunt and C. G. Edgar. The Loeb Classical Library. Harvard: Harvard University Press. 21．Grainger, J. D. 2010. The Syrian Wars. Leiden: Brill. 22．Grant, M. 1982. From Alexander to Cleopatra: the Hellenistic World. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 23．Hölbl, G. 2001. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. trans. Tina Saavedra. London and New York: Routledge. 24．Joffe, A. H. 2000. “Egypt and Syro-Mesopotamia in the 4th Millennium: Implications of the New Chronology.” Current Anthropology,vol. 41. 25．Lund, H. S. 1992. Lysimachus: A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship. London and New York: Routledge. 26．Rostovtzeff, M. 1967. The Social & Economic History of the Hellenistic World, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 27．Shipley, G. 1993. “Distance, Development, Decline? World-Systems Analysis and the ‘Hellenistic’ World”. In Per Bilde (et al., ed.), Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 28．Skelton, D. and Dell, P. 2009. Empire of Alexander the Great. New York: Chelsea House Publishers. 29．Smith, S. 1924. Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon. London: Methuen & Co. LTD. 30．Tarn, W. W. 1926. “The First Syrian War.” In JHS, vol. 46, part 2. 31．Tod, M. N. (ed.) 1948. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, vol. II (403B.C.-323 B.C.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 32．Walbank, F. W. (et al., ed.). 1984. The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. VII, part 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 33．Walbank, F. W. 1981. The Hellenistic World. Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 34．Welles, C. B. 1966. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: a Study in Greek Epigraphy. Roma: “L’ erma” di Bretschneider. 35．Wolf, G. 1990. “World-systems Analysis and Roman Empire”. In JRA, vol. 3. （原文载《Journal of Ancient Civilizations》, vol. 27 [2012], pp. 38-60.） 注： [1] See Frankfort, H. (1951, chapters 3 and 4); Joffe, A. H. (2000, 113-123); Chadwick, R. (2005, 1-35, 218-226). [2] See Casson, L. (1971); Dantong, Guo (2011). [3] Traditionally, some scholars thought that Alexander the Great was poised to death by his some subjects. However, more and more scholars today agree that he died of the infectious disease, perhaps typhoid fever. See Skelton, D. and Dell, P. (2009, 66). [4] It was Ptolemaic Dynasty itself that regarded 323 B.C. as its beginning. This is proved by Parian Marble. It said that “From the time when Alexander died and Ptolemy took control of Egypt”. See Austin, M. M. (1981, 39). [5] Seleucids themselves insisted that the kingdom started from 311 B.C. when Alexander IV died in Macedonia. See Austin, M. M. (1981, 236, 237). [6] All of books on Hellenistic period almost deal with the conflict between several kingdoms after the death of Alexander the Great in order to explain the situation of that age. Of course, with regard to the topic which this article is studying, the following books are both the represents: Hölbl, G. (2001, 9-133); Grainger, J. D. (2010). [7] See Welles, C. B. (1966) ; Bagnall, R. S. and Derow, P. (ed.s) (2004); Burstein, S. M. (ed. and trans.) (1985); Austin, M. M. (1981); Austin, M. M. (2006); Goold, G. P. (ed.) (1932); Goold, G. P. (ed.) (1934). [8] See Hölbl, G. (2001); Rostovtzeff, M. (1967); Bagnall, R. S. (1976). [9] As to the resources of the establishment of Alexander’s Empire, F. W. Walbank (1981, 15-21) provided some excellent remarks in his book. Additionally, Parian Marble gave some arguments on the conquests of Alexander. See Tod, M. N. (ed.) (1948, 311). [10] See Austin, M. M. (2004, 37). [11]As for Successors’ Wars, see Hölbl, G. (2001, 13-18). And the so-called Parian Marble gives us some records on evidences happened during the period from 323 to 301 B.C. See Austin, M. M. (1981, 39-40). [12] Arrian, FGrH 156F 1.1. See comments and translations in Austin, M. M. (1981, 42). [13] Arrian, FGrH 156F 1.2-5. See comments and translations in Austin, M. M. (1981, 42). [14] See Lund, H. S. (1992, 51, 53). [15] See Bevan, E. R. (1966a, 34-35). [16] Arrian, FGrH 156F 9.34-38. See comments and translations in Austin, M. M. (1981, 46). Hölbl, G. (2001, 16). Errington, R. M. (1970, 49-77), explored the situation of the empire during the 3 years after the death of Alexander. [17] As to the detailed information of Antigonus the One-Eyed, see Billows, R. A. (1990). [18] RC 1 (OGIS 5) and OGIS 6. See comments and translation in Welles, C. B. (1966, 6-7). [19] See Austin, M. M. (1981, 56). [20] RC 1 (OGIS 5) and OGIS 6. See comments and translation in Welles, C. B. (1966, 5-6). [21] OGIS 6. See comments and translation in Austin, M. M. (1981, 59-60). [22] See Austin, M. M. (2006, 60). [23] See Austin, M. M. (1981, 87); Bevan, E. R. (1966a, 49). [24] See Errington, R. M. (2008, 7). [25] See Bevan, E. R. (1966a, 58). [26] See Hölbl, G. (2001, 304). [27] As for the details of Syrian Wars, see Hölbl, G. (2001, 35-113); Grainger, J. D. (2010). [28] See Tarn, W. W. (1926, 155-162). [29] See Smith, S. (1924, 156). [30] See Hölbl, G. (2001, 40). [31] See Hölbl, G. (2001, 43-45). [32] P. Petrie 2.45, 3.144. See comments and translations in Burstein, S. M. (ed. and trans.) (1985, 123-125). [33] OGIS 54. See comments and translations in Austin, M. M. (1981, 365). [34] See Hölbl, G. (2001, 127-134). [35] See Hölbl, G. (2001, 134-6). [36] P. Köln, 4.186. See comments and translations in Bagnall, R. S. and Derow, P. (ed.s) (2004, 85-6). [37] Porphyry, FGrHist 260F49a. See comments and translations in Burstein, S. M. (ed. and trans.) (1985, 53). [38] See Austin, M. M. (1981, 249-250). [39] See Goold, G. P. (ed.) (1932, 277). [40] See Chauveau, M. (2000, 29). [41] See Errington, R. M. (2008, 6). [42] See Welles, C. B. (1966, 290). [43] RC 71 (OGIS 257). See comments and translations in Bagnall, R. S. and Derow, P. (ed.s) (2004, 101). [44] RC 72 (OGIS 257). See comments and translations in Bagnall, R. S. and Derow, P. (ed.s) (2004, 102). [45] See Bagnall, R. S. and Derow, P. (ed.s) (2004, 101). [46] See Rostovtzeff, M. (1967, 386-397). [47] See Rostovtzeff, M. (1967, 381). [48] See Grant, M. (1982, 57). [49] See Grant, M. (1982, 40). [50] See Goold, G. P. (ed.) (1934, 31). [51] See Grant, M. (1982, 151). [52] See Grant, M. (1982, 220). [53] See Grant, M. (1982, 220-1). [54] See Goold, G. P. (ed.) (1934, 237). [55] See Chaniotis, A. (2005, 251). [56] See Goold, G. P. (ed.) (1934, 407). [57] See Goold, G. P. (ed.) (1934, 497). [58] See Bevan, E. R. (1966b, 35). [59] See Bevan, E. R. (1966b, 247-268). [60] See Burstein, S. M. (ed. and trans.) (1985, 135 note 1). [61] SEG 9 (1938) 7. See comments and translations in Burstein, S. M. (ed. and trans.) (1985, 134-5). [62] P. Tebt. I. 33. See Comments and translations in Goold, G. P. (ed.) (1934, 567); Bagnall, R. S. and Derow, P. (ed.s) (2004, 117-8). [63] See Shipley, G. (1993, 271-3). Immanuel Wallerstein’s basic model is conveniently summarized in the papers by Woolf, Champion and others. See Wolf, G. (1990, 44-58); Champion, T. C. (1989, 1-21). And G. Shipley quoted this summary of Woolf very briefly and correctly in his own paper. [64] OGIS 54. See Bagnall, R. S. and Derow, P. (ed.s) (2004, 52-3). [65] See Chaniotis, A. (2005, 245). [66] See Welles, C. B. (1966, 72-3). [67] See Welles, C. B. (1966, 106-7). [68] Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 12. 138-44. See comments and translations in Burstein, S. M. (ed. and trans.) (1985, 46-7). [69] See Chaniotis, A. (2005, 245). [70] See Chaniotis, A. (2005, 249). [71] See Austin, M. M. (1981, 453-4). [72] See Grant, M. (1982, 229). [73] See Grant, M. (1982, 228). [74] See Rostovtzeff, M. (1967, 353-380). [75] See Rostovtzeff, M. (1967, 267-274, 440-455). [76] See Chaniotis, A. (2005, 247). [77] See Walbank, F. W. (et al., ed.). (1984, 62-74). [78] See Rostovtzeff, M. (1967, 344, 349, 467, 469). [79] See Grant, M. (1982, 57). [80] See Grant, M. (1982, 17). [81] See Bowman, A. K. (et al., ed.). (1996, 676-737). [82] See Walbank, F. W. (1981, 101). [83] See Walbank, F. W. (1981, 124). (责任编辑：admin) |