Question: When did the capital of the Roman Empire move to Constantinople?

Answer: 330 AD

Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. <hl> The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD . <hl> "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.

Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in <hl> 330 AD <hl>. "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.

The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in <hl> 330 AD <hl> .

question: When did the capital of the Roman Empire move to Constantinople?, context: Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.


Question: Which era refers primarily to just Greece?

Answer: Hellenic

Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. <hl> "Hellenistic" is distinguished from " Hellenic " in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself. <hl>

Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "<hl> Hellenic <hl>" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.

"Hellenistic" is distinguished from " <hl> Hellenic <hl> " in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.

question: Which era refers primarily to just Greece?, context: Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.


Question: Who moved the Roman Empire capital in 330 AD?

Answer: Constantine

Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. <hl> The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. <hl> "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.

Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor <hl> Constantine <hl> the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.

question: Who moved the Roman Empire capital in 330 AD?, context: Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.


Question: Rome's final conquest of Greek lands followed which war?

Answer: Achean War

Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. <hl> The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War , with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. <hl> "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.

Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the <hl> Achean War <hl>, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.

The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the <hl> Achean War <hl> , with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD.

question: Rome's final conquest of Greek lands followed which war?, context: Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.


Question: What is the period called that comprises all Greek influence?

Answer: Hellenistic

<hl> Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. <hl> The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.

Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the <hl> Hellenistic <hl> era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.

question: What is the period called that comprises all Greek influence?, context: Scholars and historians are divided as to what event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 AD. "Hellenistic" is distinguished from "Hellenic" in that the first encompasses the entire sphere of direct ancient Greek influence, while the latter refers to Greece itself.


Question: Who wrote Geschichte des Hellenismus?

Answer: J. G. Droysen

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. <hl> Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. <hl> Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was <hl> J. G. Droysen <hl> in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

question: Who wrote Geschichte des Hellenismus?, context: "Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.


Question: What does Geschichte des Hellenismus mean?

Answer: History of Hellenism

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. <hl> History of Hellenism , coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. <hl> Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. <hl> History of Hellenism <hl>, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

<hl> History of Hellenism <hl> , coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest.

question: What does Geschichte des Hellenismus mean?, context: "Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.


Question: Who wrote Culture and Anarchy?

Answer: Matthew Arnold

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. <hl> Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold , where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism. <hl>

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by <hl> Matthew Arnold <hl>, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by <hl> Matthew Arnold <hl> , where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

question: Who wrote Culture and Anarchy?, context: "Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.


Question: What century did Hellenistic become a concept?

Answer: 19th

<hl> "Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th -century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. <hl> Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a <hl> 19th <hl>-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a <hl> 19th <hl> -century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece.

question: What century did Hellenistic become a concept?, context: "Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.


Question: In Culture and Anarchy, Hebraism is contrasted with what?

Answer: Hellenism

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. <hl> Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenism us, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. <hl> Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des <hl> Hellenism <hl>us, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des <hl> Hellenism <hl> us, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest.

question: In Culture and Anarchy, Hebraism is contrasted with what?, context: "Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.


Question: The word "Hellenistic" was derived in what time period?

Answer: 19th-century

<hl> "Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. <hl> Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a <hl> 19th-century <hl> concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

question: The word "Hellenistic" was derived in what time period?, context: "Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.


Question: Who coined the term "Hellenistic?"

Answer: J. G. Droysen

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. <hl> Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. <hl> Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was <hl> J. G. Droysen <hl> in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

question: Who coined the term "Hellenistic?", context: "Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.


Question: What was Droysen's work called that explained the era?

Answer: Geschichte des Hellenismus

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. <hl> Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus , i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. <hl> Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work <hl> Geschichte des Hellenismus <hl>, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work <hl> Geschichte des Hellenismus <hl> , i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest.

question: What was Droysen's work called that explained the era?, context: "Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.


Question: Who wrote Culture and Anarchy?

Answer: Matthew Arnold

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. <hl> Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold , where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism. <hl>

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by <hl> Matthew Arnold <hl>, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by <hl> Matthew Arnold <hl> , where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.

question: Who wrote Culture and Anarchy?, context: "Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.


Question: Hellenism contrasts with what other similar concept of era?

Answer: Hebraism

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. <hl> Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism . <hl>

"Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with <hl> Hebraism <hl>.

Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with <hl> Hebraism <hl> .

question: Hellenism contrasts with what other similar concept of era?, context: "Hellenistic" is a modern word and a 19th-century concept; the idea of a Hellenistic period did not exist in Ancient Greece. Although words related in form or meaning, e.g. Hellenist (Ancient Greek: Ἑλληνιστής, Hellēnistēs), have been attested since ancient times, it was J. G. Droysen in the mid-19th century, who in his classic work Geschichte des Hellenismus, i.e. History of Hellenism, coined the term Hellenistic to refer to and define the period when Greek culture spread in the non-Greek world after Alexander’s conquest. Following Droysen, Hellenistic and related terms, e.g. Hellenism, have been widely used in various contexts; a notable such use is in Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold, where Hellenism is used in contrast with Hebraism.


Question: How much of the conquered world was affected by Greek influences?

Answer: Some

The major issue with the term Hellenistic lies in its convenience, as the spread of Greek culture was not the generalized phenomenon that the term implies. <hl> Some areas of the conquered world were more affected by Greek influences than others. <hl> The term Hellenistic also implies that the Greek populations were of majority in the areas in which they settled, while in many cases, the Greek settlers were actually the minority among the native populations. The Greek population and the native population did not always mix; the Greeks moved and brought their own culture, but interaction did not always occur.

The major issue with the term Hellenistic lies in its convenience, as the spread of Greek culture was not the generalized phenomenon that the term implies. <hl> Some <hl> areas of the conquered world were more affected by Greek influences than others. The term Hellenistic also implies that the Greek populations were of majority in the areas in which they settled, while in many cases, the Greek settlers were actually the minority among the native populations. The Greek population and the native population did not always mix; the Greeks moved and brought their own culture, but interaction did not always occur.

question: How much of the conquered world was affected by Greek influences?, context: The major issue with the term Hellenistic lies in its convenience, as the spread of Greek culture was not the generalized phenomenon that the term implies. Some areas of the conquered world were more affected by Greek influences than others. The term Hellenistic also implies that the Greek populations were of majority in the areas in which they settled, while in many cases, the Greek settlers were actually the minority among the native populations. The Greek population and the native population did not always mix; the Greeks moved and brought their own culture, but interaction did not always occur.


Question: How often did Greek population and natives mix?

Answer: not always

The major issue with the term Hellenistic lies in its convenience, as the spread of Greek culture was not the generalized phenomenon that the term implies. Some areas of the conquered world were more affected by Greek influences than others. The term Hellenistic also implies that the Greek populations were of majority in the areas in which they settled, while in many cases, the Greek settlers were actually the minority among the native populations. <hl> The Greek population and the native population did not always mix; the Greeks moved and brought their own culture, but interaction did not always occur. <hl>

The major issue with the term Hellenistic lies in its convenience, as the spread of Greek culture was not the generalized phenomenon that the term implies. Some areas of the conquered world were more affected by Greek influences than others. The term Hellenistic also implies that the Greek populations were of majority in the areas in which they settled, while in many cases, the Greek settlers were actually the minority among the native populations. The Greek population and the native population did <hl> not always <hl> mix; the Greeks moved and brought their own culture, but interaction did not always occur.

question: How often did Greek population and natives mix?, context: The major issue with the term Hellenistic lies in its convenience, as the spread of Greek culture was not the generalized phenomenon that the term implies. Some areas of the conquered world were more affected by Greek influences than others. The term Hellenistic also implies that the Greek populations were of majority in the areas in which they settled, while in many cases, the Greek settlers were actually the minority among the native populations. The Greek population and the native population did not always mix; the Greeks moved and brought their own culture, but interaction did not always occur.


Question: What term implies that Greek populations were a majority in the regions they settled?

Answer: Hellenistic

<hl> The major issue with the term Hellenistic lies in its convenience, as the spread of Greek culture was not the generalized phenomenon that the term implies. <hl> Some areas of the conquered world were more affected by Greek influences than others. The term Hellenistic also implies that the Greek populations were of majority in the areas in which they settled, while in many cases, the Greek settlers were actually the minority among the native populations. The Greek population and the native population did not always mix; the Greeks moved and brought their own culture, but interaction did not always occur.

The major issue with the term <hl> Hellenistic <hl> lies in its convenience, as the spread of Greek culture was not the generalized phenomenon that the term implies. Some areas of the conquered world were more affected by Greek influences than others. The term Hellenistic also implies that the Greek populations were of majority in the areas in which they settled, while in many cases, the Greek settlers were actually the minority among the native populations. The Greek population and the native population did not always mix; the Greeks moved and brought their own culture, but interaction did not always occur.

question: What term implies that Greek populations were a majority in the regions they settled?, context: The major issue with the term Hellenistic lies in its convenience, as the spread of Greek culture was not the generalized phenomenon that the term implies. Some areas of the conquered world were more affected by Greek influences than others. The term Hellenistic also implies that the Greek populations were of majority in the areas in which they settled, while in many cases, the Greek settlers were actually the minority among the native populations. The Greek population and the native population did not always mix; the Greeks moved and brought their own culture, but interaction did not always occur.


Question: I couldn't could up with another question. But i need to fill this space because I can't submit the hit.

Answer: moved

The major issue with the term Hellenistic lies in its convenience, as the spread of Greek culture was not the generalized phenomenon that the term implies. Some areas of the conquered world were more affected by Greek influences than others. The term Hellenistic also implies that the Greek populations were of majority in the areas in which they settled, while in many cases, the Greek settlers were actually the minority among the native populations. <hl> The Greek population and the native population did not always mix; the Greeks moved and brought their own culture, but interaction did not always occur. <hl>

The major issue with the term Hellenistic lies in its convenience, as the spread of Greek culture was not the generalized phenomenon that the term implies. Some areas of the conquered world were more affected by Greek influences than others. The term Hellenistic also implies that the Greek populations were of majority in the areas in which they settled, while in many cases, the Greek settlers were actually the minority among the native populations. The Greek population and the native population did not always mix; the Greeks <hl> moved <hl> and brought their own culture, but interaction did not always occur.

question: I couldn't could up with another question. But i need to fill this space because I can't submit the hit., context: The major issue with the term Hellenistic lies in its convenience, as the spread of Greek culture was not the generalized phenomenon that the term implies. Some areas of the conquered world were more affected by Greek influences than others. The term Hellenistic also implies that the Greek populations were of majority in the areas in which they settled, while in many cases, the Greek settlers were actually the minority among the native populations. The Greek population and the native population did not always mix; the Greeks moved and brought their own culture, but interaction did not always occur.


Question: What is the earliest, most credible source of the Hellenistic period?

Answer: Polybius

While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. <hl> The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. <hl> His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.

While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is <hl> Polybius <hl> of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.

question: What is the earliest, most credible source of the Hellenistic period?, context: While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.


Question: Where was Polybius from?

Answer: Megalopolis

While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. <hl> The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. <hl> His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.

While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of <hl> Megalopolis <hl> (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.

question: Where was Polybius from?, context: While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.


Question: Where was Polybius forced to go as hostage?

Answer: Rome

While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. <hl> The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. <hl> His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.

While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to <hl> Rome <hl> as a hostage. His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.

question: Where was Polybius forced to go as hostage?, context: While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.


Question: What years do Polybius books cover?

Answer: 220 to 167 BCE

While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. <hl> His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE . <hl>

While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years <hl> 220 to 167 BCE <hl>.

His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years <hl> 220 to 167 BCE <hl> .

question: What years do Polybius books cover?, context: While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.


Question: What League was Polybius a statesman?

Answer: Achaean

While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. <hl> The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. <hl> His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.

While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the <hl> Achaean <hl> League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.

question: What League was Polybius a statesman?, context: While a few fragments exist, there is no surviving historical work which dates to the hundred years following Alexander's death. The works of the major Hellenistic historians Hieronymus of Cardia (who worked under Alexander, Antigonus I and other successors), Duris of Samos and Phylarchus which were used by surviving sources are all lost. The earliest and most credible surviving source for the Hellenistic period is Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200-118), a statesman of the Achaean League until 168 BCE when he was forced to go to Rome as a hostage. His Histories eventually grew to a length of forty books, covering the years 220 to 167 BCE.


Question: When did Diodorus Siculus write Bibliotheca historica?

Answer: 60 and 30 BCE

<hl> The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). <hl> Another important source, Plutarch's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.

The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between <hl> 60 and 30 BCE <hl> and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). Another important source, Plutarch's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.

question: When did Diodorus Siculus write Bibliotheca historica?, context: The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). Another important source, Plutarch's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.


Question: What battle marks the end of Diodorus Siculus' work?

Answer: battle of Ipsus

<hl> The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). <hl> Another important source, Plutarch's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.

The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the <hl> battle of Ipsus <hl> (301). Another important source, Plutarch's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.

question: What battle marks the end of Diodorus Siculus' work?, context: The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). Another important source, Plutarch's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.


Question: Who wrote Parallel Lives?

Answer: Plutarch

The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). <hl> Another important source, Plutarch 's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality <hl> , outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.

The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). Another important source, <hl> Plutarch <hl>'s (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.

Another important source, <hl> Plutarch <hl> 's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality

question: Who wrote Parallel Lives?, context: The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). Another important source, Plutarch's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.


Question: Where was Apprian from?

Answer: Alexandria

The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). Another important source, Plutarch's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. <hl> Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms. <hl>

The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). Another important source, Plutarch's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of <hl> Alexandria <hl> (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.

question: Where was Apprian from?, context: The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). Another important source, Plutarch's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.


Question: Which writer outlined the history of important Hellenistic figures?

Answer: Plutarch

The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). <hl> Another important source, Plutarch 's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality <hl> , outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.

The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). Another important source, <hl> Plutarch <hl>'s (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.

Another important source, <hl> Plutarch <hl> 's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality

question: Which writer outlined the history of important Hellenistic figures?, context: The most important source after Polybius is Diodorus Siculus who wrote his Bibliotheca historica between 60 and 30 BCE and reproduced some important earlier sources such as Hieronymus, but his account of the Hellenistic period breaks off after the battle of Ipsus (301). Another important source, Plutarch's (c.50—c.120) Parallel Lives though more preoccupied with issues of personal character and morality, outlines the history of important Hellenistic figures. Appian of Alexandria (late first century CE-before 165 CE) wrote a history of the Roman empire that includes information of some Hellenistic kingdoms.


Question: When was the Peloponnesian War?

Answer: 431–404 BC

Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. <hl> After the Peloponnesian War ( 431–404 BC ), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. <hl> Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.

Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (<hl> 431–404 BC <hl>), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.

After the Peloponnesian War ( <hl> 431–404 BC <hl> ), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful.

question: When was the Peloponnesian War?, context: Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.


Question: What hegemoney replaced Sparta after the Battle of Leuctra?

Answer: Theban

Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by <hl> a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. <hl> It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.

Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a <hl> Theban <hl> one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.

question: What hegemoney replaced Sparta after the Battle of Leuctra?, context: Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.


Question: When was the Battle of Leuctra?

Answer: 371 BC

Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. <hl> Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra ( 371 BC ), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. <hl> It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.

Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (<hl> 371 BC <hl>), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.

Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra ( <hl> 371 BC <hl> ), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence.

question: When was the Battle of Leuctra?, context: Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.


Question: When was the Battle of Mantinea?

Answer: 362 BC

Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. <hl> Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea ( 362 BC ), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. <hl> It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.

Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (<hl> 362 BC <hl>), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.

Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea ( <hl> 362 BC <hl> ), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence.

question: When was the Battle of Mantinea?, context: Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.


Question: Which king lend the rise of Macedon?

Answer: Philip II

Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. <hl> It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II . <hl> Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.

Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king <hl> Philip II <hl>. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.

It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king <hl> Philip II <hl> .

question: Which king lend the rise of Macedon?, context: Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the rest of the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area.


Question: When did King Philip the II annex Thessaly and Magnesia?

Answer: 352 BC

Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. <hl> In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. <hl> In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.

Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. In <hl> 352 BC <hl> he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.

question: When did King Philip the II annex Thessaly and Magnesia?, context: Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.


Question: Who annexed Thessaly and Magnesia?

Answer: Philip II

<hl> Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. <hl> In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.

<hl> Philip II <hl> was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.

question: Who annexed Thessaly and Magnesia?, context: Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.


Question: When was the Battle of Chaeronea?

Answer: 338 BC

Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. <hl> In 338 BC , Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. <hl> In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.

Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In <hl> 338 BC <hl>, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.

In <hl> 338 BC <hl> , Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict.

question: When was the Battle of Chaeronea?, context: Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.


Question: Who formed the League of Corinth?

Answer: Philip

<hl> Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. <hl> In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.

<hl> Philip <hl> II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.

question: Who formed the League of Corinth?, context: Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.


Question: Who was Philip II planning a campaign against when he was assasinated?

Answer: Achaemenid Empire of Persia

Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. <hl> He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. <hl> However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.

Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the <hl> Achaemenid Empire of Persia <hl> was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.

question: Who was Philip II planning a campaign against when he was assasinated?, context: Philip II was a strong and expansionist king and he took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory. In 352 BC he annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. In 338 BC, Philip defeated a combined Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea after a decade of desultory conflict. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, while this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated.


Question: Who was Philip Arrhidaues' half brother?

Answer: Alexander

<hl> Meleager and the infantry supported the candidacy of Alexander 's <hl> half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, while Perdiccas, the leading cavalry commander, supported waiting until the birth of Alexander's unborn child by Roxana. After the infantry stormed the palace of Babylon, a compromise was arranged – Arrhidaeus (as Philip III) should become king, and should rule jointly with Roxana's child, assuming that it was a boy (as it was, becoming Alexander IV). Perdiccas himself would become regent (epimeletes) of the empire, and Meleager his lieutenant. Soon, however, Perdiccas had Meleager and the other infantry leaders murdered, and assumed full control. The generals who had supported Perdiccas were rewarded in the partition of Babylon by becoming satraps of the various parts of the empire, but Perdiccas' position was shaky, because, as Arrian writes, "everyone was suspicious of him, and he of them".

Meleager and the infantry supported the candidacy of <hl> Alexander <hl>'s half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, while Perdiccas, the leading cavalry commander, supported waiting until the birth of Alexander's unborn child by Roxana. After the infantry stormed the palace of Babylon, a compromise was arranged – Arrhidaeus (as Philip III) should become king, and should rule jointly with Roxana's child, assuming that it was a boy (as it was, becoming Alexander IV). Perdiccas himself would become regent (epimeletes) of the empire, and Meleager his lieutenant. Soon, however, Perdiccas had Meleager and the other infantry leaders murdered, and assumed full control. The generals who had supported Perdiccas were rewarded in the partition of Babylon by becoming satraps of the various parts of the empire, but Perdiccas' position was shaky, because, as Arrian writes, "everyone was suspicious of him, and he of them".

Meleager and the infantry supported the candidacy of <hl> Alexander <hl> 's

question: Who was Philip Arrhidaues' half brother?, context: Meleager and the infantry supported the candidacy of Alexander's half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, while Perdiccas, the leading cavalry commander, supported waiting until the birth of Alexander's unborn child by Roxana. After the infantry stormed the palace of Babylon, a compromise was arranged – Arrhidaeus (as Philip III) should become king, and should rule jointly with Roxana's child, assuming that it was a boy (as it was, becoming Alexander IV). Perdiccas himself would become regent (epimeletes) of the empire, and Meleager his lieutenant. Soon, however, Perdiccas had Meleager and the other infantry leaders murdered, and assumed full control. The generals who had supported Perdiccas were rewarded in the partition of Babylon by becoming satraps of the various parts of the empire, but Perdiccas' position was shaky, because, as Arrian writes, "everyone was suspicious of him, and he of them".


Question: Who was the leading calvary commander?

Answer: Perdiccas

<hl> Meleager and the infantry supported the candidacy of Alexander's half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, while Perdiccas , the leading cavalry commander, supported waiting until the birth of Alexander's unborn child by Roxana. <hl> After the infantry stormed the palace of Babylon, a compromise was arranged – Arrhidaeus (as Philip III) should become king, and should rule jointly with Roxana's child, assuming that it was a boy (as it was, becoming Alexander IV). Perdiccas himself would become regent (epimeletes) of the empire, and Meleager his lieutenant. Soon, however, Perdiccas had Meleager and the other infantry leaders murdered, and assumed full control. The generals who had supported Perdiccas were rewarded in the partition of Babylon by becoming satraps of the various parts of the empire, but Perdiccas' position was shaky, because, as Arrian writes, "everyone was suspicious of him, and he of them".

Meleager and the infantry supported the candidacy of Alexander's half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, while <hl> Perdiccas <hl>, the leading cavalry commander, supported waiting until the birth of Alexander's unborn child by Roxana. After the infantry stormed the palace of Babylon, a compromise was arranged – Arrhidaeus (as Philip III) should become king, and should rule jointly with Roxana's child, assuming that it was a boy (as it was, becoming Alexander IV). Perdiccas himself would become regent (epimeletes) of the empire, and Meleager his lieutenant. Soon, however, Perdiccas had Meleager and the other infantry leaders murdered, and assumed full control. The generals who had supported Perdiccas were rewarded in the partition of Babylon by becoming satraps of the various parts of the empire, but Perdiccas' position was shaky, because, as Arrian writes, "everyone was suspicious of him, and he of them".

Meleager and the infantry supported the candidacy of Alexander's half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, while <hl> Perdiccas <hl> , the leading cavalry commander, supported waiting until the birth of Alexander's unborn child by Roxana.

question: Who was the leading calvary commander?, context: Meleager and the infantry supported the candidacy of Alexander's half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, while Perdiccas, the leading cavalry commander, supported waiting until the birth of Alexander's unborn child by Roxana. After the infantry stormed the palace of Babylon, a compromise was arranged – Arrhidaeus (as Philip III) should become king, and should rule jointly with Roxana's child, assuming that it was a boy (as it was, becoming Alexander IV). Perdiccas himself would become regent (epimeletes) of the empire, and Meleager his lieutenant. Soon, however, Perdiccas had Meleager and the other infantry leaders murdered, and assumed full control. The generals who had supported Perdiccas were rewarded in the partition of Babylon by becoming satraps of the various parts of the empire, but Perdiccas' position was shaky, because, as Arrian writes, "everyone was suspicious of him, and he of them".


Question: Who order the death of Meleager?

Answer: Perdiccas

<hl> Meleager and the infantry supported the candidacy of Alexander's half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, while Perdiccas , the leading cavalry commander, supported waiting until the birth of Alexander's unborn child by Roxana. <hl> After the infantry stormed the palace of Babylon, a compromise was arranged – Arrhidaeus (as Philip III) should become king, and should rule jointly with Roxana's child, assuming that it was a boy (as it was, becoming Alexander IV). Perdiccas himself would become regent (epimeletes) of the empire, and Meleager his lieutenant. Soon, however, Perdiccas had Meleager and the other infantry leaders murdered, and assumed full control. The generals who had supported Perdiccas were rewarded in the partition of Babylon by becoming satraps of the various parts of the empire, but Perdiccas' position was shaky, because, as Arrian writes, "everyone was suspicious of him, and he of them".

Meleager and the infantry supported the candidacy of Alexander's half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, while <hl> Perdiccas <hl>, the leading cavalry commander, supported waiting until the birth of Alexander's unborn child by Roxana. After the infantry stormed the palace of Babylon, a compromise was arranged – Arrhidaeus (as Philip III) should become king, and should rule jointly with Roxana's child, assuming that it was a boy (as it was, becoming Alexander IV). Perdiccas himself would become regent (epimeletes) of the empire, and Meleager his lieutenant. Soon, however, Perdiccas had Meleager and the other infantry leaders murdered, and assumed full control. The generals who had supported Perdiccas were rewarded in the partition of Babylon by becoming satraps of the various parts of the empire, but Perdiccas' position was shaky, because, as Arrian writes, "everyone was suspicious of him, and he of them".

Meleager and the infantry supported the candidacy of Alexander's half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, while <hl> Perdiccas <hl> , the leading cavalry commander, supported waiting until the birth of Alexander's unborn child by Roxana.

question: Who order the death of Meleager?, context: Meleager and the infantry supported the candidacy of Alexander's half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, while Perdiccas, the leading cavalry commander, supported waiting until the birth of Alexander's unborn child by Roxana. After the infantry stormed the palace of Babylon, a compromise was arranged – Arrhidaeus (as Philip III) should become king, and should rule jointly with Roxana's child, assuming that it was a boy (as it was, becoming Alexander IV). Perdiccas himself would become regent (epimeletes) of the empire, and Meleager his lieutenant. Soon, however, Perdiccas had Meleager and the other infantry leaders murdered, and assumed full control. The generals who had supported Perdiccas were rewarded in the partition of Babylon by becoming satraps of the various parts of the empire, but Perdiccas' position was shaky, because, as Arrian writes, "everyone was suspicious of him, and he of them".