one of Bonnard's main arguments or points of emphasis

even when it came to hereditary genes, the father's were more favorable

the importance of a man's strength vs a women's weaknesses

Perhaps this is because they immediately disregarded the female seed as a useful piece in the process of generation. I am not surprised that they recored or paid more attention to spermatogenesis, especially because of the fact that the sperm was their favorited and powerful being of reproductive ability. The female seed or egg were barely seen as food and were never mentioned to have really interacted with the sperm of the mighty man.

This essentially relates to their belief of differences connected directly to nature.

This statement summarizes the crazy beliefs related to menstruation and the menses. First of all, I was shocked to see the correlation that they gave the lack of menstruation and diseases in the female body. With some knowledge of gynecology or even the reproductive system, anyone in the modern age would think this is absolutely ridiculous. It seemed to me since they didn't know much of the anatomy of the body, and probably not much about the immune system, they felt the need to have women more prone to diseases because they were given this odd power of intercommunication. I find it so cool, though, to see how much medicine and the understanding of the human body has developed and continues to develop through the future.

Bonnard statement amount the "perfect machine" emphasizes the gender biased thoughts that were portrayed through the physiologies in the Greek medical and biological texts. This continuously proves their belief of the uselessness of the female seed. To them, the women is like a storage bin that is merely providing some nutrients while the sperm single handedly fertilizes within the uterus.

I see this as a slight improvement for their ideologies back then. I don't necessarily believe it is completely free of sexism because of the fact that they still believe that the woman's body is less perfect than a man's. Although they no longer believed it was an abnormality of nature, they still didn't let go of the fact that the man is the perfect human image.

I wonder what gynecologists would think of this ideology. I never would have thought that anyone would think of the uterus as its own being and practically having its own mindset. Bonnard's overview shows us that writers like Plato influenced the anatomy known to the Greeks.

I cannot believe that females were considered to have such an odd body. It was kind of interesting to hear that they actually thought that the female body was abnormal in many of its qualities. The fact is, the male body ended up being the perfect body that any female is compared to, leading them to their version of normal.

Greek medicine was not strong in anatomy. Physiology, on the other hand was somewhat better understood, although not unified. It is crazy to see that they thought the organs were basically storage bins.

Analyzing the texts of the Presocratics, allowed Bonnard to emphasize his following belief: the Ancient Greek physicians set up the female and male genders to be distinguished from the fetal stage and beyond. Even though there seemed to be a glimmer of hope with Galen's consideration of the female seed, the sexist mindset overpowered the rest of his ideals. None of these authors believed in the woman or the female fetus.

The differences in gender are continuous, starting at embryogenesis. His article seems to be an overview of the very large and developing study of Greek medicine and biological literature with a focus on gender studies. He also looks into multiple authors throughout the Hellenistic period to develop an analysis of the differences in gender and the two bodies.

Aristotle is considered the founder of Biology, as he wrote many biological treatises throughout his life.

Bonnard proposes that the medical discourse found in the Hippocratic corpus was composed of ideological thoughts formed by the Greek mindset. He believes that the rest of the Greek medical and biological literature influenced the creation of the male and female categories of gender, especially because of their construction of two separate bodies: a male body and a female body.

The Hippocratic corpus was a collection of treatises that were mainly written by unknown authors between the second half of the fifth century BCE and the Roman era. Although it isn't a complete source of all of the ancient Greek medicine, it ended up being a strong foundation for other parts of medicine. For instance, it laid the foundations for the physician, as a professional in the medical field. After all, it was practically used as a source in medicine until about the 18th century, when new advances and thoughts began to develop.

Born into a family of Asclepiadai, Hippocrates believed that he gained all of his medical knowledge because he was a true descendant of the god of medicine, Asclepius.

These studied topics were strung together by the belief of a common philosophical thought.

The thinkers that developed throughout the three generations of the intellectual movement are not only referred to as "'learned men'," but they used to also be officially called physiologoi. They dedicated their time to form a rational discourse focusing on nature and all of its entities. This development quickly lead to practicing rhetoric and the start of the polis, as the Greeks were influenced by the surrounding eastern cultures.

In Ionia, the intellectual movement, occurring over the next two to three generations, allowed for medicine to be interpreted in a different light. This was the start of a new and rational process in learning and explaining the unsolved questions of medicine. Medicine was even seen as a combination of both art and science.

The authors start off by relating health and sickness through the way they are both experienced. Both of them raise questions that may result in a variation of answers depending on the age of the patient and the place of the medical practice. Greek thought has rationally given us some variation of these answers.

This term is used in drawing a conclusion that is inferred to be even more certain than another.

Where was this accounted exactly? Maybe add the full quote on the other page that discusses Greek POV.

For one, we could have mentioned the authors most notorious, especially Herodotus.

I feel like it feels open-ended at the end. I think I am going to try and give it more of a concluding line. I may also want to quote Mayor on this specific statement that they made because I don't really like the start of this sentence either.

It is quite interesting to me that there are so many different legends that actually would not have really grown out of proportion without the need for the Greeks to make a clear distinction between their women and the barbarian Amazons.

We can also expand on this point. There was no mention of the fact that girls were also being brought up trained as much as the boys were. That is quite important, considering the fact that the boys were mostly predominant in most of the other ancient cultures we've looked at.

This is something I am interested in and believe in expanding. I think a comparison with the Greek women would be a clever and educational supplementary page for the students. I think that work for this would also include an appearance analysis based on images or statues that we could find and compare and contrast amongst them!

This is yet another beautiful artifact referring to Ai Khanoum, thus, I think in the future Ai Khanoum should be developed further into a separate page. Referring to the article we read would help a lot

This image can definitely be included in a separate page on this religion that the Parthians practiced. We would also need to fix the link for the original website.

I do not feel like this connects to much of the writing done on this page. Or we can keep it and link it to the website it came from and add more of a description.

These two sentences could easily be combined to make a more fruitful statement. I think that it is a bit choppy to have those three sentences at the start like that.

Although they somewhat introduce what these images exemplify or are examples of, I believe that if edited, we would need to expand on the captions below the images and maybe even give these locations and their names. Giving names and locations can further prove whether or not they are in fact from the Parthian era.

This piece is truly one of my favorites like I said on the DB. I think it really represents how much they worshipped horses. This truly brings out their love for them to even put them on the horses' cheek pieces. Horses were also always shown through most of the artifacts found from that era.

While I was reading Mayor, I realized that there are also plenty classical pieces that were found that depicted the image of the Amazons that were believed to be a myth by many. Thus, a nice addition could be that, but I am also including that in my page to enhance the Amazon's image.

I agree with their analysis because from what I read, the Scythians were nomadic peoples, thus, even though the king might have had his own tribe, I don't think they would be able to control a specific kingdom at a certain time and place. This type of king can also be compared to Alexander the Great and his compassion to expand. In my opinion, the Scythians were also slightly interested to expand or be somewhat always nomadic.

From what I have researched, this coin that the image portrays was often thought of as coinage for Azes I, due to the fact that Azes II may not have even extisted. Maybe we could just add that as a note because this sentence that I highlighted briefly mentions/references to it.

reward for his diversity

Egypt had the least amount of Greeks, leading to a weak army base.

They all wanted to try and form the world empire that he longed for. This was always in the back of their minds.

Their wealth allowed them to have a lot more developments in the army and even form a navy with enough money to experiment.

Macedonian rule didn't last very long. After the first Ptolemy, the Macedonian assembly had been forgotten.

The Egyptians were rarely administrative. The only admins were the high priests that were respected by the Ptolemies.

They wanted to make sure that it was more Greek in its culture than Athens ever was.

They needed to make. it an elite city, as it was a Greek one.

The wealthy Egypt was at and advantage because of the fact that they didn't need to spend pretty much anything on protection.

They had a large income and a protected country, unlike the Seleukids who had to protect their country and use up their larger income.

They had great resources of trade that allowed their income to become a very wealthy one.

They would calm them down by training them and allowing them to serve their country.

So interesting to me that a woman was the first to learn Egyptian. It is fascinating compared to her lazier predecessors.

He was able to become part of the Egyptian fabric because of the fact that everything went to the Pharaoh and as long as the natives liked him then he would be continued to be honored like a God too.

The inscriptions also showed us an image of Bicultural Egypt.

The Ptolemies were praised like the Egyptian Gods because they decided to be fair with the Egyptians and not change their religion. This allowed them to be a part of Egypt in the first place.

There were Greeks already found in Egypt before he came.

This is exactly how Bicultural Egypt ended up forming instead of a fused Hellenistic country.

This is why Egypt turned out to be a rich/wealthy country.

Ironically, the same desert that traps them inside their country is the one that keeps them safe from anyone outside.

This is why most communities ended up living along the Nile, for agricultural purposes.

A land where the ruler has absolute power.

Egypt had good defense borders that allowed them safety and lack of defeat. The desert was also a great protector from outsider invasions.

Due to the fact that he was much more comfortable writing in Demotic, he ended up writing up a Will, a concept of Greek Law Only, in Egyptian = shows us the influence of Bicultural Egypt**

Although, at the end of the Ptolemaic rule, there wasn't much fusing of the cultures like Alexander had believed in, the people who grew up during this monarchy ended up being bicultural. Most people embodied the Greek and Egyptian cultures as their identities now.

The name of someone tended to be given to them as a Status descriptor instead of an Ethnic descriptor.

Ethnic tension grew when the natives began to despise how much more of the Greek culture was engulfing the country. During the chaos there was no harmony left to see.

Thebes stayed very Egyptian. Not much of the cultural fusion happened here. They were mostly supported by the wealth of the temples.

They were fusing cultures like Alexander had envisioned.

This level of understanding of abuse of power at such an early point in history amazes me because they were able to control and understand it in their own unique way.

Although the cultivation of their lands seems to be debatable, the Kleruchs seemed to tend to lack the capital to work their own lands and end up selling or renting to a civilian.

Named after the original recipient not the Royal Dynasty.

Priests and civilians also settled in Lower Egypt at the Nile Valley adjacent to Fayum.

First seen intermarriage of Greeks and Egyptians. They were much friendlier in this community and even lived side-by-side without any differences. This is quite unique compared to the other communities above.

The social and ethnic composition of this community was quite complex because of its diversity of immigrants.

16% is much less than most other Greek populations in other villages.

We can observe connections with the ruling dynasty in the names of many Fayum village names. Shows respect, honor, & reverence.

New innovations and developments in agriculture were seen in Egypt, allowing for their wealth in agricultural production.

It seems like when you had links to the Ruling Dynasty, you were quite stable and wealthy.

Fayum and Lower Egypt (north) Greeks were all about social prestige and wealth being unkempt in their chora communities. A bunch of effort was put into making the ambience appropriate for Greek elitist lifestyle.

The Chora communities did not praise the idea of political autonomy or self-governing city state.

They made their voices heard through protests and mocking unpopular peoples because of the fact that there really wasn't a political standing in the city of Alexandria.

They mocked the rivals and killers in a serenade.

Women & Queens were beginning to become more and more respected than usually seen in ancient history.

The festivals showed off the Ptolemaic power and united all of the city's elements. They were also used to honor those who passed and were a big part of the royals in the past.

The Egyptians seemed to be looked down on by the Greeks and they were not respected at all. The Greeks, from the account of the ladies, also seem to think of the Egyptians as the criminals harming the people on the streets of Alexandria.

Alexandria lost its legislative body altogether, weakening their politics even more.

Politics were actually WEAKENED by the royals and their chaos especially toward the rivalry at the end of the Ptolemaic rule

The native style still overruled the Greeks' Hellenistic style.

The temple was Hellenistic in order to give the immigrants a sense of home within their new home in Egypt.

Temples increased as the respect of religion increased with the Ptolemies. They wanted the guidance of the high priests.

These changes have put a barrier in our look into the topography of the city.

"city states"

Cultural assimilation was instigated by these allotments that were granted to the fellow mercenaries (mostly Greek).

To gain loyalty, Ptolemy granted the mercenaries allotments (deeds to lands) throughout the countryside (where Egyptians lived with the new settlers).

Alexandria became the largest and wealthiest city of the Greek world, surpassing Athens which was actually in Greece.

Ptolemy was left to bring in more immigrants through Alexandria

Alexander seemed to have plans of peace for Egypt before he died.

Even before the time of conquest, Greek communities were found in Egypt. That seems to have been an advantage for Alexander's conquest.

What towns were they planning this grid?

They were the richest two cities because of the massive, wealthy temple complexes.

Over 2,000 years a multitude of pharaohs ruled over the 36 regions of Egypt. Thebes and Memphis were the most important.

The government (strong state) and the homogenous administrative system were able and encouraged to form because of the native's desire to improve upon nature by the control of water and the construction of the canals that allowed it to distribute water more efficiently.

The Greeks were shocked to see the developments and richness that this country had even before they came to conquer. Egypt was 2,000 years in the making.

Further showing us how rich Egypt truly was.

He foretold this disaster and fight for power with the natives.

The Egyptians were the ones receiving the orders. It gives us a real ethnic element in their history.

Loss of power led to chaos and messes around the natives and amongst all of Egypt.

There weren't anymore high priests, the taxes weren't being collected, and some of the temples and holy burial sites were lost or destroyed. All of theses events signified a clear loss of Ptolemaic control.

Dionysus wanted to use the brothers' rivalry against them. This joint kingship has caused the start of the downfall of the Ptolomies.

The king was no longer one with the central power.

Year 16 of Ptolemy IV ended up being quite a disaster in all the fields of the government (economics/politcs/etc.).

The Ptolemies ended up becoming honored through a multitude of Gods & Goddesses.

They were needed to provide divine connotations. Epithets seemed to be commonly used but may result in a trick or a poison.

The king was close to his people to gain there support, thus, he attended the start of the new year celebrations annually with his people.

They ruled through a monarchy only.

A trilingual decree that was passed to all ended up being our key to deciphering hieroglyphs by using the presence of the known Greek language and alphabet.

The translations of the same thing in three languages opened up our modern understanding of heiroglyphs and the demotic form.

The king and the high priest were close to the same rank of each other and were always working side-by-side. They had mutual benefits.

The royals always ran the administration, keeping a tight hold on the temples even though they preach freely. It seems like they were focusing mostly on controlling the finances.

The King was the head of the governmental system.

These acts all portray the Greek culture's ability to fuse with the Egyptian culture. This refers to Hellenization.

The monarchy has massive overriding power of Egypt.

Ptolemaic system was now monetarized as taxes were now being collected (cash & kind).

When Ptolemy II used cartonnage, instead of regular mummification, we were able to discover the stability and strength that papyri had in Ancient Egypt. Papyri did not only include the only preserved public and private texts, but preserved papyri also aided in giving us insight and more primary historical accounts of Ancient Egypt and its rich history.

We begin to see more of a writing system develop under Ptolemy I, allowing advances in our understanding and ancient technologies.

By promoting the religion and the traditions of the natives over his own, he was successful at getting all of their support.

He was kind to the natives unlike the Persians

He was so much more powerful than Alexander. It seems to me that he's got a lot of organization and smart strategies and plans in his hands that allowed to build such a strong civilization.

The Nile's floods allowed for great agriculture, allowing Egypt to remain a rich country.

This seems to be an early start on larger and more distanced trading systems

quite innovative of the Persians so early on in history

He had most control over the Nile but wanted to control the full valley along the Nile, making him slightly as greedy as Alexander in some ways.

was Ptolemy more willing to bring the priests into politics than his predecessor?

He built a temple to the goddess Isis, sacrificed to Egyptian Apis (& other gods) at Memphis, and visited the oracle of Ammon at Siwa. All these acts were done to give a clear policy statement to his successors. It seemed like he was focusing on their traditions to have the Egyptians like him and allow him to establish Alexandria.

The Persians weren't liked by the indigenous people of Egypt because of their lack of upholding any of their traditions, thus, Alexander had promised 'Pharaonic rule' restoration to please them easily.

Egypt's geography and topography helped it against some battles, especially because of the mass deserts surrounding land in Egypt.

He was not one a General, but he was also the historian of Alexander's conquests. He seems quite knowledgable of the geography of places, especially when he accompanied Alexander as he conquered Egypt.

3 Final Kingdoms

3 Dynasties were left

Demetrios was the only one who was inspired and wanted to follow in Alexander's footsteps.

defeated Kassandros & Ptolemy

4 rulers of 4 regions against Antigonos

The one-eyed became the lord of Asia

Olympias was Alexander's mother who was now reaching out Perdikkas and offering him a marriage alliance by offering Kleopatra, Alexander's sister, for marriage. She wanted him to also drop his alliance with Atipatros because he was her archrival.

Perdikkas's end was by his own army's betrayal.

Neither the baby nor the other incompetent king were able to hold any power, making them only symbolic of power.

Arrhidaios became King as they decided to form a co-kingship bw him and the child since he was a boy.

He was not only the person with Alexander's signet, but also had the audacity to ask for all of the executive power. He ended up becoming the chiliarch until Roxane's birth.

Ptolemy was the first to suggest a non-monarchial authority over the empire. He wanted to play fair, in my opinion.

she was one of Alexander's wives and was pregnant with a possible heir

These were the second rank commanders that ended up being the kings of the incoming generation.

There weren't any leaders, prime ministers, or a stable permanent structure for the empire that Alexander had created, leading the author to be allowed to say that wasn't any government.

There wasn't any Prime Minister either = no govt./no leaders

He came and all of the leading figures ended up either dead or executed.

He didn't make a regime that was helpful for his successors to continue with or improve.

his date of death and place of time

The Hellenistic world also made an impact on the Romans as they took on the imperial power after Alexander's death.

the traditions of the natives shouldn't be forgotten because they fused with the traditions that Alexander brought.

Although his character left a mark on this world, his practices didn't effect or inspire any of the regimes that came after him.

no other leader had the same divine mentality like Alexander

a very old fashioned way of referring to Alexander's male same sex lover

His belief of having Zeus as his natural father led to his absolute monarchy and beliefs in his godly character.

Philip had practiced a similar absolute monarchy during his reign of power, making Alexander's power not as original as Droysen had believed.

By worshipping Alexander as the godhead/sole king, Alexander was actually paving a route toward monotheism, a religion that wasn't focused on before.

Alexander was a "god king" following a regime of absolute monarchy. He was the sole monarch/ruler. It was supported by the promotion of his godhead (divine nature).

Alexandria Eschate = sinister parasite Evidence stems from the fact that it was a land that was made to be a militaristic foundation repelling nomad incursion or other intrusions. It also was the land used as the military's station (at this garrison) and support. It "excluded" any cultural motives too.

Those who were conquered by Alexander were ironically happier because they were being compelled to happiness by him; however, those who don't encounter him or anyone like him end up losing to their own miseries.

Alexander married 2 princesses from Achaemenid royalty after marching from the Indus to Mesopotamia (324 BCE). This mass marriage continued the traditional Argead policy, which saw marriage as a means of consolidation. Marrying for war and rewarding themselves for their win of land.

Droysen stressed the enlistment of the Epigonoi, also known as Iranian adolescents who were conscribed in the eastern satrapies & also trained in Macedonian weaponry and discipline.

Pre-Alexander's death = an absolute Monarchy that was fully controlled by him

Central power shifted to Regional power, further closing the ideal 'world' domination that Alexander had planned.

Post-Alexander ended up contracting the central power, lessening the central control that was founded by Alexander the Great.

A contraction of land occurred after his death, completely going against his world expansion theory.

Instead of world conquer, they decided to tidy up the lands and the power they have over the ones they already conquered previously. They wanted to consolidate the lands that they already had or had in mind

When Alexander died so did his thirst for world conquest. The troops and marshals decided to cut the plans for a 'world' empire short as soon as they heard of the impractical expenses that it would take for them to actually go through with it.

This time around, Droysen was influenced by the future accomplishments of the German states that would mainly stem from the inspiration from Alexander the Great.

This is similar to what Erksine stated was the inspiration for Droysen's writing. The fusion that paved a way for Christianity.

Its concise and straight to the point, making it both a lapidary and an apophthegm. It makes it easy to understand that the beginning and the end of the Hellenistic period came and went with Alexander the Great.

The Maronite faith also incorporates Aramaic text.

The Mauryan king Asoka spread the word of Buddha through the Aramaic and Greek languages, as shown in the inscription from Kandahar. After all, the inscription was made to spread the word of Buddha to the inhabitants of his Indian kingdom.

Native voices are usually hidden away in historical pieces. This is not only due to the fact that it is easier to interpret the Greek and Latin writings, but it is also because of writers believing that the Greek culture overruled all others as the only common culture worth looking into. Babylonians, Egyptians, and the Jews are the only ones that are heard otherwise.

Papyrus was a writing material made from a plant that grew in the marshes and lakes of Egypt. It has been used throughout the ancient world, however, it seems to survive and preserve quite well in Egypt's dry ground, desert climate.

Inscriptions are sometimes made to honor people or places. They are also made to announce or give information to the city's dwellers in a direct, condensed way.

After all, Strabo & Pausanias's land-focused writings led to a richer insight of the Greek lands that we here about in the history. Their descriptive tales of places ends up painting an image of the unknown ancient world.

Strabo mainly focuses on the geography of the world at the end of the Hellenistic period. He goes into detail to describe the cities that populate the Mediterranean and all that Rome rules.

Plutarch's collection of Greek and Roman biologies were able to highlight unique lives of the underdogs instead of the monarchs of the Hellenistic period, adding character to the pieces of history.

The two key author of the Augustan period, Diodoros and Trogus, wrote universal histories that allowed a sense of closure of the Hellenistic period. Their Greek and Latin versions emphasized that Rome became the sole controller of the East.

These changes makes them not necessarily the best source of accuracy. They may also become slightly misleading and distorted quotes/fragments.

Polybios was a harsh critic of the writings if they didn't necessarily come from experience.

These four early writers have also been lost. Kleitarchos and Ptolemy I of Egypt were two of the four writers who dedicated there works to Alexander the Great's history.

During his stay in Rome, he chose to write out his history to tell the Greeks how the Romans came to conquer almost the entire world. He was the only voice heard in history.

Events in the Hellenistic Period were not only recorded in Greek, but they were also found to be written in Egyptian, Akkadian, and Hebrew. This gave historians a better, fuller picture of the lives of the people of this era, especially the Non-Greeks of the time.

History is more so concerned with economic activity, gender, ethnicity, and cultural change than it is with political narratives. Majority of historians focus on those elements to bring forth different aspects of civilizations and ancient history. Hellenistic historians lacked these elements, not bringing forth a rich historical account.

The extent and nature of the cultural interactions was questioned. The direction of the cultural interactions, the separation of Greeks & non-Greeks, the meaning of being Greek, the relationship of immigrant and native, and the extent of the participation of non-Greeks in the royal administration were all questioned.

It was quite a cultural phenomenon too. As the elite took power, the Greek culture and language began to flourish throughout the alien lands (such as Egypt). Additionally, the largest collection of Greek books is actually located in Egypt, showing the major cultural influence.

There isn't a clear end to the Hellenistic period through politics because of the fact that Rome had been conquering different areas gradually until Augustus took over Alexandria.

These new questions led academics to look further into the forgotten Hellenistic period's literature, art, and philosophy.

Droysen's beliefs all stemmed from the fact that, in his eyes, Christianity was given a route to flourish because fo the Hellenistic period. He is mainly influenced by the fusion of Greek and Oriental cultures that was created by Alexander and gave room for Christianity to flourish.

The Hellenistic Period was one made up of Greek accomplishments and Greek culture flourishing and spreading under Alexander's rule. According to Erskin, however, the end of the Hellenistic Period is around 31 BCE because of the fact that as soon as Augustus came into power, it was seen that Greek culture and politics declined, increasing neglect of the Greek world and reiterating the end of the Hellenistic Period.

The neglect of the Hellenistic would have continued past the 1800s if it wasn't for Droysen's beliefs. Droysen was capable of "virtually" reinventing the Hellenistic period throughout the studies that he completely devoted to Alexander the Great and his successors. He was not interested in skipping over such an important period in his eyes.

Like the Classical Literature, the Classical Period was looked at for influence, while all things Hellenistic "survived only very poorly" throughout Greek history.

Full circle ending of the Hellenistic Period with king to king contact. The respect that Augustus showed on his tomb made it feel like he knew he needed to visit the king before him in order for him to take over.