No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis argues that the development of new transportation and communication networks in and around the Ottoman city of Salonica was largely responsible for its remarkable growth in the late nineteenth and early twentieth-century. The success of these new networks of steamships, telegraphs and railways, hinged upon their ability to overcome the geographical limitations of the region which, as in any pre-industrial society, had made the movement of people and goods both glacially slow and thus costly since time immemorial. The development of these new networks had many serious effects: it served to bring Salonica and the Empire under greater influence of the European powers, deeply link it to the emerging international economy and all but destroy traditional networks such as caravans and sailing vessels. Salonica was a central part of the late Ottoman story for a variety of reasons, and thus, attempting to understand its development provides us with a way to understand the late Ottoman story as a whole.

Modern studies of Classical Greek battle devote little attention to the role and importance of the general in achieving battlefield success. As a result of this the general is reduced to a simple leader of men whose only influential decision was where and when to fight, and whose major role was to provide inspiration by fighting in the front ranks. A modern conception of Hellenic fair play in warfare has further limited the importance of the general to Greek armies: apparently advanced manoeuvring and tactics were deliberately rejected in favour of a simple and direct test of strength and morale. I do not believe this to be the case, and in this study I demonstrate the importance of the general to Greek armies by offering a new analysis of his role in hoplite battle.

No description available.

When looking at Dark Age Greece, one of the most important sites to consider is Athens. The Dark Age was a transitional period between the fall of Mycenaean Greece of the Bronze Age, and Archaic Greece of the Iron Age. This period is called the Dark Age because the palaces that ruled the Mycenaean age collapsed, and with them fell civilization in mainland Greece. Writing, fine art, massive architecture, trade, and luxury goods disappear from mainland Greece. But Athens survived the fall of the Mycenaeans. In order to understand the reason why Athens survived one must look at what the causes of the fall of the Mycenaeans were. Theories range from raiders and invasion, to natural disasters, such as earthquakes, droughts, and plagues. One must also examine Greece itself. The landscape and climate of Greece have a large impact on the settlement of the Greeks. The land of Greece also affects what Greek communities were able to do economically, whether a city would be rich or poor. It is because Athens is located in Attica that it survived. Attica had the poorest soil in the Mycenaean world, and was the poorest of the major cities, therefore, when looking at the collapse of the Mycenaeans being caused by people, there would be no reason for said people to raid or invade Athens and Attica. It is because Athens survives that it is such an important site. Athens survived the fall of the Mycenaeans and in doing so acts as a refugee center and a jumping off point for the remaining Mycenaeans to flee east, to the Aegean islands and Anatolia. Athens also stayed occupied during the Dark Age and because of this it was able to make some advancements. In particular Athens was a leader in mainland Greece in the development of iron. Not only this, but Athens became a cultural center during the Dark Age, inventing both proto-geometric and geometric pottery. These styles were adopted by the rest of the Greek world, and Athens was looked to as the influence for these styles. It is because Athens was the poorest city and Attica the poorest area during the Mycenaean age that it survived. Because it survived it was able to continue to develop and in turn influence the rest of mainland Greece.

This thesis is an examination of how Greek tyranny in the fourth century and the early Hellenistic age was influenced by Achaemenid Persia and the Ancient Near East. The introduction lays out the problems of interpreting the Ancient Near East through Greco-Roman sources, via Ephippus' description of Alexander the Great, as well as discussing two important examples of Persianisation that have been examined in detail in the past: Pausanias of Sparta and Alexander the Great. The relevant Classical Greek and Achaemenid sources concerning Persian kingship are then considered, in order to establish four categories by which to examine the tyrannical dynasties chosen as case studies: Appearance, Accessibility, Dynasty and Military Function. Using these four categories, the dynasties of the Dionysii of Syracuse, the Clearchids of Heraclea Pontica, the Hecatomnids of Caria and Agathocles of Syracuse, chosen for their geographical and temporal variance, are examined individually over the next four chapters. Appearance concerns the ruler's dress and body presentation, the use of status items such as crowns and sceptres, and the display of luxury. Accessibility concerns the use of architecture and fortifications, as well as court protocol and bodyguards, in order to control access to the ruler. Dynasty concerns family trees, marriages and the role of women, and the role of close family and subordinates in important administrative positions. Military Function concerns the role of the ruler in warfare as well as power symbols, titles and epithets. The analysis of the tyrannies taken altogether using the same categories forms the basis of the subsequent chapter, and allows for comparison with the Achaemenid Persian evidence in order to determine whether there is any significant correlation. This chapter also examines the potential methods of transmission. The thesis concludes that there are significant similarities in some aspects of tyrannical rule with that of Achaemenid kingship, and demonstrates that tyrants were engaging in the political and philosophical discourse of the era. The 'royal nature' as demonstrated by Xenophon proves to be something that tyrants aspire to, without becoming kings in name. The thesis also concludes that thinking of Greek tyrants in rigid characterisation is no longer acceptable, whether temporally as alter and junger tyranny, or geographically as Greek rulers of Greek cities with no contextual influence.

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1966 M236 / Master of Science