It is true that Mingrelians moved into Abkhazia, yet this does not mean that the two groups of people lived separately. I am Mingrelian and my older family members have told me about how they had to leave their Abkhazian husbands and wives. The two groups interacted with one another and sadly as a result of the Abkhazia War those integrated families had to be split up.

It is also good that the author made use of a primary source to verify his words. Previously he had mainly been pointing out the various mistakes in Donald Rayfield's book, which I have not read, but I doubt was published containing the incorrect historical facts. I just believe that Hewitt's opinion is in opposition of Rayfield's, so he found means of disproving them.

It is possible to agree with the author in his claim that the Georgians were not fully justified in their claims of the Abkhazelebi being cold-blooded murderers who committed atrocious war-crimes. However, this misunderstanding could easily be clarified if the people living in those villages were tracked down. If they became refugees in Georgia, then the Abkhazelebi were correct. If these people are not where to be found then it is obvious that they were murdered.

Either way the author should provide direct quotations from both sides instead of simply relaying on facts from the side he is siding with.

The author is purposely attacking another historian accusing him of being biased, when in fact he is the one. I am not acquainted with Rayfield's work, yet I can conclude that ignorance is not equivalent to bias. When an author is ignorant (purposely or not) he simply not including a fact or two, but this does not weigh down his depiction of other facts with his opinion. On the other hand when the author is biased he may include all the facts, but they will all be portrayed in a manner that will purposely attempt to influence the readers.

Though it is true that in the ancient times these new clans of people we now categorize as Georgians moved into the region to live alongside the inhabitants, these claims cannot be used to justify current actions of initiating war. Secondly, Russia was not involved in these matters during the ancient times, but after the fall of the USSR they became so concerned with the independence of this region out of the kindness of their heart. It is obvious to see that much like how Russia stole Crimea, they claimed to be supporting Abkhazia in order to get more access to the Black Sea, which is the only means of accessing the Mediterranean.

In essence the author is doing the readers a "favor" in hastily guiding them along though the history of the region.

The author extensively describes the political geography of this region and goes into great detail discussing how it evolved over time, but why did he not just simply provide a rendering of a map to aid readers in comprehending his words? Because I am Georgian I am somewhat easily able to follow the flow of the text because I am able to clearly read the names of the regions and register them, yet any other reader would have a difficult time.

It is highly unlikely that the people that inhabited Georgia were the descendants of the Greek Trojan warriors. Myths of Jason and the Argonauts dates back further than the Trojan War and thought princess Medea may have been a myth, the fact still remains that this myth was based on some source of truth. In other words, there were people already living in ancient Georgia. The land was referred to as the Kingdom of Colchis, and to the east of that the Kingdom of Iberia.

The author is claiming how the Abkhazelebi feel regarding their relationship with the Megrelebi. However, he does not provide any primary evidence directly from the Abkhazelebi (which has not been sifted by Russians) to coroborate with his claim. Thus, why should I heed to his words. It is unlikely that eh Abhazelebi disliked living alongside their Megreli neighbors to such a degree that an all out war needed to take place to slaughter one another and displace their neighbors. A land, which to this day, remains unattended to and demolished.

This may just be me, but the phrasing of this statement feels a bit disdainful. Georgia has always been refered to as Sakartvelo, and its people are called Kartvelebi. The English word for the nation came about because when the nation used to be part of the Persian Empire it was referred to as Gurj. In addition, the people were also devoted to St. George. Thus, the English dubbed Sakartvelo as Georgia.

Though the author claims that it is the duty of the commentator to guide the readers to the proper conclusion through unbiased facts, it is difficult to believe that the author is even heeding his own words. His previous vocabulary and phrasing indicated that he is heavily biased and is in opposition of Georgia. Thus, it is unlikely that he is able to provide the facts without including his opinions between the lines.

Russia recognized these supposed republics by endangering the lives of countless people whom they bombed in Tbilisi. Additionally, the sole reason for this recognition is for their own future benefit.

These two regions were previously the territory of Georgia. Though with Russia whispering in the Abkhazian's and Ossetian's ears and providing them with military aid, these regions declared independence. Today, Georgians are unable to cross into that region because of Russian troops prohibiting it. Peoples whose families used live there are unable to go back and retrieve the items they left behind while they were forced to become refugees.

This line along with several prior ones clearly highlights the bias of the author and makes me doubt whether or not I can trust the information he is relaying. As a Georgian who believes in this "nonsensical Georgian orthodoxy" I am questioning the bias of the author especially because of the author's use of degrading vocabulary, such as "nonsensical." Such a word clearly highlights the author's bias and demonstrates his reliance on petty words in order to undermine the opposing argument.

I don't think most readers are thinking this, seeing as the Scythians are not that old and the humans had developed civilizations long before the Scythians.

The Scythians may not even have been nomads to begin with, much less travel to the Pontic steppes.

I love the directness of the first sentence. Makes the reader know what this is about immediately.

This post should also only be categorized as the "Final Project." This is the "1st Assigned Blog Post."

Which god? Does he have a name or is he just referred to as God?

This piece is about the Parthians. You should tag it as Parthia, not Scythia.

Which king? If possible this information should be provided. If not available, then it should be indicated that such information is not available.

The location of Olbia should be provided because the reader definitely has no idea where it is. According to google it is a is a city in Sardinia, Italy. This fact is even more surprising because why would a Scythian coin be found in Italy. An explanation for this phenomenon should be provided.

I think the writer meant to write "horse's head and hoof."

It is interesting that the Scythians had a wine jar because of how Herodotus claimed that they made use of their enemies' skulls. This jar possibly even disproves the myth, so the writer should mention this. The Scythians may have been less barbaric than they have been dubbed as being.

Though the gender is not indicated on the artifact and the Scythians made use of both female and male warriors, it can easily be seen in this jar fragment that the warrior is a man because of the mustache and the beard.

The writer did a good job categorizing the dates for us. The Scythian art style did change and evolve as a result of trade with neighboring civilizations, but it is unlikely to attribute this change to Hellenization.

These dates are not exactly accurate because some sources indicate that the Scythians established themselves in the 8th century BCE, so the writer should account for this fact.

This section is lacking a lot, like Anastasia pointed out. It is too focused on what happened over modern times and not emphasizing the fact that the Scythian graves are our few (if not only) sources of primary information about these people. The paragraph also completely does not explain how different classes of people were buried.

They did not only sew the skin of their enemies on the cloths (specifically cloaks). Onyshkevych clearly indicates that they were stitched onto horse bridles and quivers.

I also think that what we wrote for the db titled "Do you Believe?" can also be written about here. Some of us wrote about how the quotes about the Scythians drinking blood and using their enemies' flesh and skulls could not be proven with primary evidence. So, the readers should be made aware of the fact that the Scythians may not have been as barbaric as the Greek and Roman writers described. After all, they weren't big on writing about their own history and culture, so there is no way to prove these facts.

This is only true for the beginning of their empire, so that needs to be indicated because according to Onyshkevych..... "Scythian society, like all others, changed over time. Around the late fifth to fourth centuries B.C., some Scythians appear to have become at least partially sedentary, and some fortified Scythain settlements from this period have been found" (Onyshkevych, pp. 10).

This change in their behavior needs to be indicated.

The text we read highlight how important horses were to the Scythians. This phrase downplays their importance. So do you guys think it would be a good idea to go beyond the documents we read and provide a small paragraph explaining what breeds they used, how they used the horses, and why they were such a big part of their society?

This of course should be written later on and not in the intro.

Instead of saying "totally ruthless" it would be a better idea to write in a couple of words why they were ruthless. So, the sentence could be as follows: They are notorious [among Greek and Roman writers] for throwing wild parties and for ruthlessly slaying their enemies in face-to-face battles using foot soldiers with battle-axes and highly mobile archers, who developed a powerful new type of bow and used poison dipped arrows.

What do you guys think? Or is this too detailed?

The Scythians became very Hellenized after they began to trade with their neighbors, such as the Greeks. After the 6th century BCE, it is clearly noticeable in the Scythian artwork that they were impacted by the culture of their neighbors. Thus, I don't think Xenophon was diminishing the Scythians because they are not Hellenistic, but maybe because he personally viewed them as barbaric because of their earlier history in the 8th-6th century BCE.

Was the traits that Xenophon instilled in his character of Cyrus the Great fictional? This fact is not mentioned, so I cannot tell if this is actually how the founder of the Persian Empire behaved or not.

Seeing as this book was written in 370 BCE, this means that the author only accounts for only half of King Ateas's rule. King Ateas was the greatest king of the Scythian empire and ruled over a Scythia which was at its peak.

Shouldn't start off the new paragraph with "he." The writer should rewrite Herodotus's name. I have noticed this a lot on this page, the writer keeps using pronouns too many times. Because of this I, the reader, am confused as to what the writer is referring to.

The writer should refrain from using words like "it." Because he/she has used it so many times I am confused as to what "it" is.

One additional what? I counted only 22 red dots (cities).

I am guessing you mean to the east of Margiana, since the map above ends after that. But it'd be a good idea to indicate in which direction of Margiana because compared to the center of the mat, which is cluttered with names, there aren't many to the direct west of Margiana. So a student could assume any direction with the phrasing "far past."

This is very detailed map, so you should tell the reader what to focus on. What specific portion of the map are you discussing.

Because you have so many good images/maps it'd be a good idea to indicate which image the reader should look at during different parts of your text.

This may be a silly question, but what is a foil civilization? Maybe I am the only one who doesn't know what this means, but there could be other students in the future.

It'd be good to mention the Spartans here (as written in our reading) because everyone knows about the Spartans, so if you write that even they viewed the Scythians as superior in drinking then the reader would be even more intrigued by the fact. It'd help put things into perspective.

You wrote historians in plural, but from the reading we learned that only Herodotus wrote about the Scythians. At least the work we have remaining today.

What types of artifacts are the archeologists finding that allows them to learn more about the Scythians? Maybe list a couple of the artifacts.

If you are going to write about the relation to the Russian noun you'll have to go in and explain the ties of the Scythians with the Russians, or at least the history behind the word. Otherwise this statement just raises more questions.

If you have info regarding what they did with the organs after replacing them with straw you should include it because that is what I began to question when reading this. Otherwise good job!

What is this asking?

My favorite phrase

So these descendentats what were identified as Macedonian in reality were half-Macedonian because of the Macedonian soldiers that had side families with the natives and then left.

Unlike the Ptomelies who kept their Greeks and Egyptians separated, the Seleucids intermarried to create a more united population.

She was the sister-wife of Ptolemy II and was the one who introduced the Ptolomies to Egyptians temples

This stone is what aided modern historians in translating hieroglyphics because the same text was written in 2 languages: Greek and hieroglyphics (also in the cursive hieroglyphics, known as demotic). Was discovered by one of Napoleon's soldiers.

Ptolemy I had been assigned in charge of the satrap by Alexander the Great.

With the taxes imposed and now flowing to the monarch, the Egyptians were able to engage in Aegean-wide politics, meaning that Egypt was able to become a much bigger player on the Mediterranean.

Ptolemy II used brought about a new system of burying the dead, cartonnage which had public and private texts inscribed on them, providing modern historians with primary accounts.

Ptolemy set up his family members to rule over Cyrene and Cyprus. Cyrene is a city on the coast of modern day Libya and Cyprus is off the southern coast of Turkey.

Is a canal that links the Nile with the Red Sea. It was also known as the Canal of Pharos.

People took advantage of the Egyptian's hatred of Persian rule. Alexander, Ptolemies, and the Roman emperors tried to recreate the Pharaonic rule. I am curious though, how badly did the Persians treat the Egyptians?

Along with being a general in Alexander's army, Ptolemy was also a the historian because he knew a lot about geography. He knew especially a lot about Egypt because he accompanied Alexander the Great to conquer Egypt.

1 Thoth was the new year for Egyptians. Because the pharaohs were important to the people he was present In Memphis. There they held some sort of festival where the "trouble and triumphs of the year were marked."

Royal coronations took place at the temple of Ptah in an Egyptian style for pharaohs starting from Ptolemy V.

Hellenization is the process of combining the Greek culture with others. During the Hellenistic Period Greek culture was spread as far as Alexander the Great's empire could reach.

The kleruch rented out their property to civilian middlemen who had enough money to hire Egyptians to work the land.

Difficult to predict whether or not they could get married, but Greeks in the Egyptian chora weren't affected by the legal restrictions on marriage with non-citizens.

Hellene was a status descriptor.

Staple crops are food that is eaten regularly by the local people and cash crops are crops grown for the sole purpose of selling for profit and not to be consumed by the locals.

People of Greek ancestry are considered elite compared to those who are not. Egyptians do not have Greek ancestry at all and probably looked down upon.

Homer actually wrote that Menelaus was stranded on this island for a period of time while he was journeying back from Troy after the war.

Ptolemy cemented his loyalty by giving out kleroi, which are plot of agricultural land granted to a citizen under the cleruchy system.

The First Greeks in Egypt lived in camps in the Nile Delta and were then moved to Memphis. The Greeks were forced to live together and migrate from one place to another as a group.

Around 120 villages were typical of most nome.

The Egyptians were naturally blessed, not only did they have a whole desert protecting them from outside invaders, but they also had the winds and river currents working in opposite directions to allow boats to travel either way.

The reason behind Upper Egypt being title the upper one even though it was in the south is because of the way that the Nile flowed. The river flows from south to north, so Upper Egypt was found in the upper portion of the Nile.

For survival within the arid desert it was most likely to find settlements in Nile valley and Delta because they provided fertile soil for the populations to flourish.

The Greeks were impressed by the Egyptians having been around for so long before Alexander came around.

Were technically categorized as the weakest kingdom among the three because they did not have a military to challenge the other kingdoms and become an empire.

Egyptians were not in any administrative roles. Only Greeks and Jews made up those positions.

Because of his drive to make Alexandria the cultural center of the Hellenistic world, Ptolemy opened up the museum to serve as a library and school of the Muses to rival Athens as a cultural center.

Those Jewish populations who were relocated to Alexandria were housed in the Delta district, where they ere given jobs and administrators and crack mercenaries.

The Egyptians were not only the largest exporters of grain and papyrus to the rest of the Mediterranean, but they were also the middle-man for for products coming up the Nile from Africa and across the Red Sea from Yemen. This allowed for a for a disposable income far greater than any other kingdom.

With the Greek strategos administering over each district the Egyptians did not feel a change in their lifestyle because they had been paying taxes previously as well. The main adjustment was that during national emergencies the Egyptians were required to fill out the phalanxes.

The Egyptians and Greeks lived together within the 42 districts and did not get involved in each others lives. They peacefully coexisted with one another.

By being identified as a Pharaoh the Egyptian population would immediately identify him as their own king, especially those who had not seen him with their own eyes. Those four other names of his caused the Egyptians to visualize an Egyptian man, not a Greek one. Thus, it allowed him to become much more easily accepted. The fact that all the land, wealth, and life was the Pharaoh's made it easier for Ptolemy to rule over Egypt especially if the citizens saw them as one of their own.

For him to be understood by all the inhabitants of Egypt, the inscriptions on stone or bronze were carved in both Egyptian (traditional and demotic) and Greek. With the same message being directed to all the masses as the same time this would prohibit Ptolemy from being seen as though he favored one group over the other.

In order to ensure that the Egyptians accepted Ptolemy as one of their own he did not strip them of their traditions. He instead tried to integrate himself into their culture by portraying himself in the traditional Egyptian style. This would allow him to become more acceptable in their eyes and thus rule over them with ease.

Because Ptolemy did not want to follow in Alexander the Great's footsteps and force fusion by obliging the Greeks to "become one" with the large homogenous Egyptian community that was united by thousands of years of history, culture, and tradition. Thus, by being Janus-faced he was able to rule over each group separately and maintain peace.

The fact that Ptolemy I was able to defend Egypt from Perdikkas and Antigonos highlight the fact that this land was easily defendable.

The dessert served as the protector of Egypt and its prison because the people had no where else to live other than alongside the Nile River, where the arable soil could support life.

Though there was internal dispute for the claim of the throne, the main goal was still to protect the empire from external enemies, i.e. the Celts in the North.

All those who were vying for the position of king of Alexander's empire started off in the same position and had the same motivations, but they each faced various circumstances in their respective corners.

Kassandros had eliminated all his enemies, but was now using young Alexander IV's title as a means of having the military's support. He was not planning on handing over the throne once the boy had come of age.

Alexander's mother had her own plans of securing her grandson's succession. But later on her plans ended up backfiring on her.

This is the reason why Alexander's body is buried in Alexandria and not in Macedonia. This tomb had bee seized.

The plan was to wait for the birth of the baby before deciding the course of action and to have the council to rule in the meantime, but ofc there were certain conceded individuals, such as Perdikkas, who came up with lies to take the throne for himself.

The hope was placed in Alexander's wife's womb, that the son could be the next heir. The second option, his half-brother, was physically and mentally inept for the position.

Alexander had no permanent government structure created even while he was alive, so with his death no one had a the ingenuity to take the kingdom by the reigns.

Alexander''s death left the kingdom in a state of confuse, which led to to chaos. Without a named successor countless people fought for the throne.

Roman emperors view Alexander the Great as an equal and adopt many of the Hellenistic kingship. Because of the unity that Alexander brought to the land as a god king due to a lack of religion, the Romans were later able to take advantage of this empty spot and fill it with Christianity.

The children he sired served as loyalty tools because then the lands he conquered and married into would be linked by blood to the god king.

Because Alexander the Great's army kept being bolstered with foreign soldiers only trained in Macedonian warfare, the Macedonian military was losing its own unique identity and instead becoming a melting pot. This clearly exemplified what the Hellenistic Period stood for: cultural diversification.

Alexander the Great kept replenishing his army with new soldiers. The Epigonoi were one example. They were Iranian soldiers trained in Macedonian warfare.

The mass marriage of Susa was vital because it brought "pockets of loyalty." Much like his father, Philip, who had several wives to gain the trust of the peoples who's lands he had conquered, Alexander had several wives because this ensured that no hostility would result.

Alexander's conquest of Eschate was seen as sinful doing, which doomed the inhabitants of that land rather than bringing cultural diversity.

Alexander's father had been a splendid king who set out the playing filed for his son. Additionally, Alexander's blood and heritage from both sides of the family allowed him to trace his family back to the great mythical heroes of Greece and Troy. Such circumstances allowed him to have the ego to declare himself as the god king.

Alexander the Great expected to be treated like a god, an absolute monarch (the sole king). Because at the time there was no religion to unite the people, Alexander demanded loyalty. He wanted to be treated as a god king, so that he could be the reason for unity. By leveling his entire empire, for them to have their attention focused on him, this would allow the vast public to later unite under one religion, Christianity.

Alexander the Great's sexuality could not be boxed in by modern terms. One of his marshals, Hephaistion, was his male lover, as indicated by the word 'favorite.'

Christianity was able to spread because Alexander the Great leveled out the whole field to allow the monotheistic religion to desimanate. Once Rome began to take over, their reach allowed Christianity to reach its peak.

After Alexander's death, his military was no longer willing to go off and conquer new lands.

Indicates that Bosworth believed that Droysen was influenced by the belief that Alexander the Great’s Macedonia served as the foreshadowing of all the German states being united under the Prussian monarchy. Thus, Droysen’s contemporary times influenced the way he viewed Alexander the Great.

An apophthegm is a concise saying or a maxim

Were two historians who wrote about the life of Augustus. Their writing offered an appropriate ending to the Hellenistic Period, in which Alexander the Great triumphed. These historians clearly depicted that the new era belonged to the Romans, who viewed themselves as the successors to Alexander.

The inscriptions were also official letters from the city's government or monarchy. These inscriptions were originally intended to be stored in the archives on various types of parchment depending on the region (papyrus being the most common).

Historians are concerned with topics other than historical narratives.

Texts found in languages other than Greek offer a viewpoint about the lives of the non-Greek inhabitants of the poleis. Greek texts mainly focused on the Greek citizens because they were only concerned with their own lives and culture.

Papyri are thick and sturdy paper made by the Egyptians out of a weed plant that grew on the banks of the Nile. Needed to be stored in dry conditions to ensure its survival. If it is stored in humid places, mold could form and ruin the text.

King Asoka advertised the teaching of Buddha in the north-western territories by making the inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic. Used foreign languages to appeal to people in distant lands.

Inscriptions were a popular means of communicating to the general public. They were popular in various cultures, but the Greeks were especially fond of them.

Erskine raised countless questions based on how the Greek culture and people were integrating with the non-Greek.

Christian perspective influenced his scholarship.

Historian who came up with the term Hellenistic Period and used the term to describe the transition of the Greek Classic culture to the eastern Mediterranean culture. Studied Alexander extensively.

This marks the end of the Hellenistis Period because there was a power shift from Alexander to Augustus. In essence Augustus was inheriting Alexander’s kingdom because both men are on equal standing and the torch is now being passed down to the Roman emperors.

Augustus was in Alexandria because he was chasing Antony and Kleopatra after demolishing their army at sea. This visit took place in 31 BCE. Before viewing all the sights, Augustus killed Antony, Kleopatra, and their children (this was to ensure that no child would grow up to take revenge).

Clearly indicates that Augustus wanted to view the tomb of Alexander the Great in Alexandria because despite their varying origins, both rulers revolutionized their times and were on equal standing.

This anecdote indicates that Augustus did not want to see the tombs of the Ptolemies because their legacy did not live up to that of Alexander the Great.

Why would Augustus want to view corpses when their reign lead to the political and cultural decline