Question: Bactria was led by what king from 255-246 BCE?

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

Answer: Diodotus

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. <hl> Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus , took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. <hl> Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one <hl> Diodotus <hl>, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one <hl> Diodotus <hl> , took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king.


Question: When was Diodotus II overthrown?

Answer: 230 BC

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. <hl> Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. <hl> In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about <hl> 230 BC <hl> by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.


Question: What leader overthrew Diodotus II?

Answer: Euthydemus

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. <hl> Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus , possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. <hl> In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by <hl> Euthydemus <hl>, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by <hl> Euthydemus <hl> , possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty.


Question: The Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by what Seleucid leader?

Answer: Antiochus III

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. <hl> In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III . <hl> While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under <hl> Antiochus III <hl>. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under <hl> Antiochus III <hl> .


Question: Antiochus III married his daughter off to whose son?

Answer: Euthydemus

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. <hl> Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus , possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. <hl> In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by <hl> Euthydemus <hl>, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by <hl> Euthydemus <hl> , possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty.


Question: Who stated that the Greco-Bactrians had connections through the silk road?

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

Answer: Strabo

<hl> According to Strabo , the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). <hl> Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

According to <hl> Strabo <hl>, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

According to <hl> Strabo <hl> , the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I).


Question: When did Demetrius, son of Euthydemus invade north-western India?

Answer: 180 BC

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. <hl> Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC , after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). <hl> The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in <hl> 180 BC <hl>, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in <hl> 180 BC <hl> , after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids).


Question: Whose death signifies the beginning of confusing documentation of Greco-Bactrian history?

Answer: Demetrius

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. <hl> Demetrius , son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). <hl> The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. <hl> Demetrius <hl>, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

<hl> Demetrius <hl> , son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids).


Question: Who was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria?

Answer: Heliocles

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. <hl> Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. <hl> However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. <hl> Heliocles <hl> was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.


Question: Who was the first Indo-Greek king who did not rule from Bactria?

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

Answer: Apollodotus I

<hl> After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). <hl> Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed <hl> Apollodotus I <hl> (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.


Question: Who succeeded or ruled alongside Apollodotus I?

Answer: Antimachus II

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. <hl> Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II , likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. <hl> In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside <hl> Antimachus II <hl>, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside <hl> Antimachus II <hl> , likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I.


Question: Who succeeded Antimachus II?

Answer: Menander I

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. <hl> In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I . <hl> Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, <hl> Menander I <hl>. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, <hl> Menander I <hl> .


Question: What religion did Menander I convert to?

Answer: Buddhism

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. <hl> In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism , and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. <hl> He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to <hl> Buddhism <hl>, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to <hl> Buddhism <hl> , and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'.


Question: What was Menander I refered to by in Buddhist texts?

Answer: Milinda

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. <hl> In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as ' Milinda '. <hl> He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as '<hl> Milinda <hl>'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as ' <hl> Milinda <hl> '.


Question: When did Menander die?

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

Answer: 130 BC

After the death of Menander (c. <hl> 130 BC ), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. <hl> This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

After the death of Menander (c. <hl> 130 BC <hl>), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

<hl> 130 BC <hl> ), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions.


Question: What kingdom forced the Indo-Greek kingdom to the east?

Answer: Indo-Scythian

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. <hl> The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. <hl> The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting <hl> Indo-Scythian <hl> kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.


Question: Around 70 BC, Arachosia and what other region where taken over by tribal invasion?

Answer: Paropamisadae

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. <hl> Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. <hl> The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and <hl> Paropamisadae <hl> were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.


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

Answer: dom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. <hl> Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian king dom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. <hl> The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian king<hl> dom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek <hl> kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian king <hl> dom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek <hl> kingdom towards the east.


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

Answer: in

<hl> After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the K in gdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. <hl> This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the K<hl> in <hl>gdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the K <hl> in <hl> gdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions.


Question: What does "sarvajnaa yavanaa" mean?

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

Answer: the all-knowing Yavanas

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. <hl> The Mahabharata compliments them as " the all-knowing Yavanas " (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. <hl> The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "<hl> the all-knowing Yavanas <hl>" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

The Mahabharata compliments them as " <hl> the all-knowing Yavanas <hl> " (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so.


Question: Who said "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so."?

Answer: The Mahabharata

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. <hl> The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. <hl> The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. <hl> The Mahabharata <hl> compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .


Question: Who wrote the Brihat-Samhita?

Answer: Varahamihira

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. <hl> The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." . <hl>

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician <hl> Varahamihira <hl> says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .


Question: Who said "The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy."

Answer: The Mahabharata

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. <hl> The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. <hl> The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. <hl> The Mahabharata <hl> compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .


Question: Who said "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others...."

Answer: Varahamihira

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. <hl> The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." . <hl>

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician <hl> Varahamihira <hl> says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .


Question: What period was Hellenistic culture at it's height?

Hellenistic culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.

Answer: Hellenistic

<hl> Hellenistic culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. <hl> Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.

<hl> Hellenistic <hl> culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.


Question: Even though some regions were not ruled by Greeks, they still were influenced by which culture?

Answer: Hellenistic

<hl> Hellenistic culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. <hl> Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.

<hl> Hellenistic <hl> culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.


Question: Hellenism or Philhellenism reached the frontiers of what kingdom?

Answer: Hellenistic

<hl> Hellenistic culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. <hl> Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.

<hl> Hellenistic <hl> culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.


Question: Before Hellenestic influence, Greek colonies were on the shores of the Taman and what other peninsula?

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Answer: Crimean

<hl> Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. <hl> The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the <hl> Crimean <hl> and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.


Question: What kingdom under the Spartocid dynasty consisted of Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians?

Answer: Bosporan

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. <hl> The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). <hl> The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The <hl> Bosporan <hl> Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.


Question: Which Scythian people with the Bosporans have strong trade contacts with?

Answer: Pontic-Caspian steppe

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. <hl> The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe , and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. <hl> Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the <hl> Pontic-Caspian steppe <hl>, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the <hl> Pontic-Caspian steppe <hl> , and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis.


Question: From whom did the Scythians of Central Asia discover Hellenistic culture?

Answer: Greeks of Bactria

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. <hl> Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria . <hl> Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the <hl> Greeks of Bactria <hl>. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the <hl> Greeks of Bactria <hl> .


Question: Hellenized Scythians were known as?

Answer: young Scythians

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. <hl> These Hellenized Scythians were known as the " young Scythians ". <hl> The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "<hl> young Scythians <hl>". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

These Hellenized Scythians were known as the " <hl> young Scythians <hl> ".


Question: What did the Greeks call Bahrain?

In Arabia, Bahrain, which was referred to by the Greeks as Tylos, the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great. The Greek admiral Nearchus is believed to have been the first of Alexander's commanders to visit these islands. It is not known whether Bahrain was part of the Seleucid Empire, although the archaeological site at Qalat Al Bahrain has been proposed as a Seleucid base in the Persian Gulf. Alexander had planned to settle the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf with Greek colonists, and although it is not clear that this happened on the scale he envisaged, Tylos was very much part of the Hellenised world: the language of the upper classes was Greek (although Aramaic was in everyday use), while Zeus was worshipped in the form of the Arabian sun-god Shams. Tylos even became the site of Greek athletic contests.

Answer: Tylos

<hl> In Arabia, Bahrain, which was referred to by the Greeks as Tylos , the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great. <hl> The Greek admiral Nearchus is believed to have been the first of Alexander's commanders to visit these islands. It is not known whether Bahrain was part of the Seleucid Empire, although the archaeological site at Qalat Al Bahrain has been proposed as a Seleucid base in the Persian Gulf. Alexander had planned to settle the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf with Greek colonists, and although it is not clear that this happened on the scale he envisaged, Tylos was very much part of the Hellenised world: the language of the upper classes was Greek (although Aramaic was in everyday use), while Zeus was worshipped in the form of the Arabian sun-god Shams. Tylos even became the site of Greek athletic contests.

In Arabia, Bahrain, which was referred to by the Greeks as <hl> Tylos <hl>, the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great. The Greek admiral Nearchus is believed to have been the first of Alexander's commanders to visit these islands. It is not known whether Bahrain was part of the Seleucid Empire, although the archaeological site at Qalat Al Bahrain has been proposed as a Seleucid base in the Persian Gulf. Alexander had planned to settle the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf with Greek colonists, and although it is not clear that this happened on the scale he envisaged, Tylos was very much part of the Hellenised world: the language of the upper classes was Greek (although Aramaic was in everyday use), while Zeus was worshipped in the form of the Arabian sun-god Shams. Tylos even became the site of Greek athletic contests.

In Arabia, Bahrain, which was referred to by the Greeks as <hl> Tylos <hl> , the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great.


Question: Where was the central point of pearl trading?

Answer: Bahrain

<hl> In Arabia, Bahrain , which was referred to by the Greeks as Tylos, the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great. <hl> The Greek admiral Nearchus is believed to have been the first of Alexander's commanders to visit these islands. It is not known whether Bahrain was part of the Seleucid Empire, although the archaeological site at Qalat Al Bahrain has been proposed as a Seleucid base in the Persian Gulf. Alexander had planned to settle the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf with Greek colonists, and although it is not clear that this happened on the scale he envisaged, Tylos was very much part of the Hellenised world: the language of the upper classes was Greek (although Aramaic was in everyday use), while Zeus was worshipped in the form of the Arabian sun-god Shams. Tylos even became the site of Greek athletic contests.

In Arabia, <hl> Bahrain <hl>, which was referred to by the Greeks as Tylos, the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great. The Greek admiral Nearchus is believed to have been the first of Alexander's commanders to visit these islands. It is not known whether Bahrain was part of the Seleucid Empire, although the archaeological site at Qalat Al Bahrain has been proposed as a Seleucid base in the Persian Gulf. Alexander had planned to settle the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf with Greek colonists, and although it is not clear that this happened on the scale he envisaged, Tylos was very much part of the Hellenised world: the language of the upper classes was Greek (although Aramaic was in everyday use), while Zeus was worshipped in the form of the Arabian sun-god Shams. Tylos even became the site of Greek athletic contests.

In Arabia, <hl> Bahrain <hl> , which was referred to by the Greeks as Tylos, the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great.


Question: Which of Alexanders commanders were the first to visit Bahrain?

Answer: Nearchus

<hl> In Arabia, Bahrain, which was referred to by the Greeks as Tylos, the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great. <hl> The Greek admiral Nearchus is believed to have been the first of Alexander's commanders to visit these islands. It is not known whether Bahrain was part of the Seleucid Empire, although the archaeological site at Qalat Al Bahrain has been proposed as a Seleucid base in the Persian Gulf. Alexander had planned to settle the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf with Greek colonists, and although it is not clear that this happened on the scale he envisaged, Tylos was very much part of the Hellenised world: the language of the upper classes was Greek (although Aramaic was in everyday use), while Zeus was worshipped in the form of the Arabian sun-god Shams. Tylos even became the site of Greek athletic contests.

In Arabia, Bahrain, which was referred to by the Greeks as Tylos, the centre of pearl trading, when <hl> Nearchus <hl> came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great. The Greek admiral Nearchus is believed to have been the first of Alexander's commanders to visit these islands. It is not known whether Bahrain was part of the Seleucid Empire, although the archaeological site at Qalat Al Bahrain has been proposed as a Seleucid base in the Persian Gulf. Alexander had planned to settle the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf with Greek colonists, and although it is not clear that this happened on the scale he envisaged, Tylos was very much part of the Hellenised world: the language of the upper classes was Greek (although Aramaic was in everyday use), while Zeus was worshipped in the form of the Arabian sun-god Shams. Tylos even became the site of Greek athletic contests.


Question: Alexander planned to colonized the eastern bank of the Persian Gulf with what ethnicity of colonist?

Answer: Greek

<hl> In Arabia, Bahrain, which was referred to by the Greek s as Tylos, the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great. <hl> The Greek admiral Nearchus is believed to have been the first of Alexander's commanders to visit these islands. It is not known whether Bahrain was part of the Seleucid Empire, although the archaeological site at Qalat Al Bahrain has been proposed as a Seleucid base in the Persian Gulf. Alexander had planned to settle the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf with Greek colonists, and although it is not clear that this happened on the scale he envisaged, Tylos was very much part of the Hellenised world: the language of the upper classes was Greek (although Aramaic was in everyday use), while Zeus was worshipped in the form of the Arabian sun-god Shams. Tylos even became the site of Greek athletic contests.

In Arabia, Bahrain, which was referred to by the <hl> Greek <hl>s as Tylos, the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great. The Greek admiral Nearchus is believed to have been the first of Alexander's commanders to visit these islands. It is not known whether Bahrain was part of the Seleucid Empire, although the archaeological site at Qalat Al Bahrain has been proposed as a Seleucid base in the Persian Gulf. Alexander had planned to settle the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf with Greek colonists, and although it is not clear that this happened on the scale he envisaged, Tylos was very much part of the Hellenised world: the language of the upper classes was Greek (although Aramaic was in everyday use), while Zeus was worshipped in the form of the Arabian sun-god Shams. Tylos even became the site of Greek athletic contests.

In Arabia, Bahrain, which was referred to by the <hl> Greek <hl> s as Tylos, the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great.


Question: Tylos worshipped Zeus in the form of what Arabian sun-god?

Answer: Shams

In Arabia, Bahrain, which was referred to by the Greeks as Tylos, the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great. The Greek admiral Nearchus is believed to have been the first of Alexander's commanders to visit these islands. It is not known whether Bahrain was part of the Seleucid Empire, although the archaeological site at Qalat Al Bahrain has been proposed as a Seleucid base in the Persian Gulf. <hl> Alexander had planned to settle the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf with Greek colonists, and although it is not clear that this happened on the scale he envisaged, Tylos was very much part of the Hellenised world: the language of the upper classes was Greek (although Aramaic was in everyday use), while Zeus was worshipped in the form of the Arabian sun-god Shams . <hl> Tylos even became the site of Greek athletic contests.

In Arabia, Bahrain, which was referred to by the Greeks as Tylos, the centre of pearl trading, when Nearchus came to discover it serving under Alexander the Great. The Greek admiral Nearchus is believed to have been the first of Alexander's commanders to visit these islands. It is not known whether Bahrain was part of the Seleucid Empire, although the archaeological site at Qalat Al Bahrain has been proposed as a Seleucid base in the Persian Gulf. Alexander had planned to settle the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf with Greek colonists, and although it is not clear that this happened on the scale he envisaged, Tylos was very much part of the Hellenised world: the language of the upper classes was Greek (although Aramaic was in everyday use), while Zeus was worshipped in the form of the Arabian sun-god <hl> Shams <hl>. Tylos even became the site of Greek athletic contests.

Alexander had planned to settle the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf with Greek colonists, and although it is not clear that this happened on the scale he envisaged, Tylos was very much part of the Hellenised world: the language of the upper classes was Greek (although Aramaic was in everyday use), while Zeus was worshipped in the form of the Arabian sun-god <hl> Shams <hl> .


Question: Carthage was on the coast of what country?

Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the coast of Tunisia. Carthaginian culture came into contact with the Greeks through Punic colonies in Sicily and through their widespread Mediterranean trade network. While the Carthaginians retained their Punic culture and language, they did adopt some Hellenistic ways, one of the most prominent of which was their military practices. In 550 BCE, Mago I of Carthage began a series of military reforms which included copying the army of Timoleon, Tyrant of Syracuse. The core of Carthage's military was the Greek-style phalanx formed by citizen hoplite spearmen who had been conscripted into service, though their armies also included large numbers of mercenaries. After their defeat in the first Punic war, Carthage hired a Spartan mercenary captain, Xanthippus of Carthage to reform their military forces. Xanthippus reformed the Carthaginian military along Macedonian army lines.

Answer: Tunisia

<hl> Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the coast of Tunisia . <hl> Carthaginian culture came into contact with the Greeks through Punic colonies in Sicily and through their widespread Mediterranean trade network. While the Carthaginians retained their Punic culture and language, they did adopt some Hellenistic ways, one of the most prominent of which was their military practices. In 550 BCE, Mago I of Carthage began a series of military reforms which included copying the army of Timoleon, Tyrant of Syracuse. The core of Carthage's military was the Greek-style phalanx formed by citizen hoplite spearmen who had been conscripted into service, though their armies also included large numbers of mercenaries. After their defeat in the first Punic war, Carthage hired a Spartan mercenary captain, Xanthippus of Carthage to reform their military forces. Xanthippus reformed the Carthaginian military along Macedonian army lines.

Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the coast of <hl> Tunisia <hl>. Carthaginian culture came into contact with the Greeks through Punic colonies in Sicily and through their widespread Mediterranean trade network. While the Carthaginians retained their Punic culture and language, they did adopt some Hellenistic ways, one of the most prominent of which was their military practices. In 550 BCE, Mago I of Carthage began a series of military reforms which included copying the army of Timoleon, Tyrant of Syracuse. The core of Carthage's military was the Greek-style phalanx formed by citizen hoplite spearmen who had been conscripted into service, though their armies also included large numbers of mercenaries. After their defeat in the first Punic war, Carthage hired a Spartan mercenary captain, Xanthippus of Carthage to reform their military forces. Xanthippus reformed the Carthaginian military along Macedonian army lines.

Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the coast of <hl> Tunisia <hl> .


Question: What Hellenistic practices heavily influenced Carthaginian culture?

Answer: military

Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the coast of Tunisia. Carthaginian culture came into contact with the Greeks through Punic colonies in Sicily and through their widespread Mediterranean trade network. <hl> While the Carthaginians retained their Punic culture and language, they did adopt some Hellenistic ways, one of the most prominent of which was their military practices. <hl> In 550 BCE, Mago I of Carthage began a series of military reforms which included copying the army of Timoleon, Tyrant of Syracuse. The core of Carthage's military was the Greek-style phalanx formed by citizen hoplite spearmen who had been conscripted into service, though their armies also included large numbers of mercenaries. After their defeat in the first Punic war, Carthage hired a Spartan mercenary captain, Xanthippus of Carthage to reform their military forces. Xanthippus reformed the Carthaginian military along Macedonian army lines.

Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the coast of Tunisia. Carthaginian culture came into contact with the Greeks through Punic colonies in Sicily and through their widespread Mediterranean trade network. While the Carthaginians retained their Punic culture and language, they did adopt some Hellenistic ways, one of the most prominent of which was their <hl> military <hl> practices. In 550 BCE, Mago I of Carthage began a series of military reforms which included copying the army of Timoleon, Tyrant of Syracuse. The core of Carthage's military was the Greek-style phalanx formed by citizen hoplite spearmen who had been conscripted into service, though their armies also included large numbers of mercenaries. After their defeat in the first Punic war, Carthage hired a Spartan mercenary captain, Xanthippus of Carthage to reform their military forces. Xanthippus reformed the Carthaginian military along Macedonian army lines.


Question: Who reformed the military in Carthage in 550 BCE?

Answer: Mago I of Carthage

Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the coast of Tunisia. Carthaginian culture came into contact with the Greeks through Punic colonies in Sicily and through their widespread Mediterranean trade network. While the Carthaginians retained their Punic culture and language, they did adopt some Hellenistic ways, one of the most prominent of which was their military practices. <hl> In 550 BCE, Mago I of Carthage began a series of military reforms which included copying the army of Timoleon, Tyrant of Syracuse. <hl> The core of Carthage's military was the Greek-style phalanx formed by citizen hoplite spearmen who had been conscripted into service, though their armies also included large numbers of mercenaries. After their defeat in the first Punic war, Carthage hired a Spartan mercenary captain, Xanthippus of Carthage to reform their military forces. Xanthippus reformed the Carthaginian military along Macedonian army lines.

Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the coast of Tunisia. Carthaginian culture came into contact with the Greeks through Punic colonies in Sicily and through their widespread Mediterranean trade network. While the Carthaginians retained their Punic culture and language, they did adopt some Hellenistic ways, one of the most prominent of which was their military practices. In 550 BCE, <hl> Mago I of Carthage <hl> began a series of military reforms which included copying the army of Timoleon, Tyrant of Syracuse. The core of Carthage's military was the Greek-style phalanx formed by citizen hoplite spearmen who had been conscripted into service, though their armies also included large numbers of mercenaries. After their defeat in the first Punic war, Carthage hired a Spartan mercenary captain, Xanthippus of Carthage to reform their military forces. Xanthippus reformed the Carthaginian military along Macedonian army lines.


Question: What Greek style was the core of Carthage's military?

Answer: phalanx

Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the coast of Tunisia. Carthaginian culture came into contact with the Greeks through Punic colonies in Sicily and through their widespread Mediterranean trade network. While the Carthaginians retained their Punic culture and language, they did adopt some Hellenistic ways, one of the most prominent of which was their military practices. In 550 BCE, Mago I of Carthage began a series of military reforms which included copying the army of Timoleon, Tyrant of Syracuse. <hl> The core of Carthage's military was the Greek-style phalanx formed by citizen hoplite spearmen who had been conscripted into service, though their armies also included large numbers of mercenaries. <hl> After their defeat in the first Punic war, Carthage hired a Spartan mercenary captain, Xanthippus of Carthage to reform their military forces. Xanthippus reformed the Carthaginian military along Macedonian army lines.

Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the coast of Tunisia. Carthaginian culture came into contact with the Greeks through Punic colonies in Sicily and through their widespread Mediterranean trade network. While the Carthaginians retained their Punic culture and language, they did adopt some Hellenistic ways, one of the most prominent of which was their military practices. In 550 BCE, Mago I of Carthage began a series of military reforms which included copying the army of Timoleon, Tyrant of Syracuse. The core of Carthage's military was the Greek-style <hl> phalanx <hl> formed by citizen hoplite spearmen who had been conscripted into service, though their armies also included large numbers of mercenaries. After their defeat in the first Punic war, Carthage hired a Spartan mercenary captain, Xanthippus of Carthage to reform their military forces. Xanthippus reformed the Carthaginian military along Macedonian army lines.


Question: What Spartan mercenary helped reform Carthage's military?

Answer: Xanthippus of Carthage

Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the coast of Tunisia. Carthaginian culture came into contact with the Greeks through Punic colonies in Sicily and through their widespread Mediterranean trade network. While the Carthaginians retained their Punic culture and language, they did adopt some Hellenistic ways, one of the most prominent of which was their military practices. In 550 BCE, Mago I of Carthage began a series of military reforms which included copying the army of Timoleon, Tyrant of Syracuse. The core of Carthage's military was the Greek-style phalanx formed by citizen hoplite spearmen who had been conscripted into service, though their armies also included large numbers of mercenaries. <hl> After their defeat in the first Punic war, Carthage hired a Spartan mercenary captain, Xanthippus of Carthage to reform their military forces. <hl> Xanthippus reformed the Carthaginian military along Macedonian army lines.

Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the coast of Tunisia. Carthaginian culture came into contact with the Greeks through Punic colonies in Sicily and through their widespread Mediterranean trade network. While the Carthaginians retained their Punic culture and language, they did adopt some Hellenistic ways, one of the most prominent of which was their military practices. In 550 BCE, Mago I of Carthage began a series of military reforms which included copying the army of Timoleon, Tyrant of Syracuse. The core of Carthage's military was the Greek-style phalanx formed by citizen hoplite spearmen who had been conscripted into service, though their armies also included large numbers of mercenaries. After their defeat in the first Punic war, Carthage hired a Spartan mercenary captain, <hl> Xanthippus of Carthage <hl> to reform their military forces. Xanthippus reformed the Carthaginian military along Macedonian army lines.


Question: Rome dominated what peninsula?

Widespread Roman interference in the Greek world was probably inevitable given the general manner of the ascendency of the Roman Republic. This Roman-Greek interaction began as a consequence of the Greek city-states located along the coast of southern Italy. Rome had come to dominate the Italian peninsula, and desired the submission of the Greek cities to its rule. Although they initially resisted, allying themselves with Pyrrhus of Epirus, and defeating the Romans at several battles, the Greek cities were unable to maintain this position and were absorbed by the Roman republic. Shortly afterwards, Rome became involved in Sicily, fighting against the Carthaginians in the First Punic War. The end result was the complete conquest of Sicily, including its previously powerful Greek cities, by the Romans.

Answer: Italian

Widespread Roman interference in the Greek world was probably inevitable given the general manner of the ascendency of the Roman Republic. This Roman-Greek interaction began as a consequence of the Greek city-states located along the coast of southern Italy. <hl> Rome had come to dominate the Italian peninsula, and desired the submission of the Greek cities to its rule. <hl> Although they initially resisted, allying themselves with Pyrrhus of Epirus, and defeating the Romans at several battles, the Greek cities were unable to maintain this position and were absorbed by the Roman republic. Shortly afterwards, Rome became involved in Sicily, fighting against the Carthaginians in the First Punic War. The end result was the complete conquest of Sicily, including its previously powerful Greek cities, by the Romans.

Widespread Roman interference in the Greek world was probably inevitable given the general manner of the ascendency of the Roman Republic. This Roman-Greek interaction began as a consequence of the Greek city-states located along the coast of southern Italy. Rome had come to dominate the <hl> Italian <hl> peninsula, and desired the submission of the Greek cities to its rule. Although they initially resisted, allying themselves with Pyrrhus of Epirus, and defeating the Romans at several battles, the Greek cities were unable to maintain this position and were absorbed by the Roman republic. Shortly afterwards, Rome became involved in Sicily, fighting against the Carthaginians in the First Punic War. The end result was the complete conquest of Sicily, including its previously powerful Greek cities, by the Romans.


Question: Greek cities were absorbed by what republic?

Answer: Roman

<hl> Widespread Roman interference in the Greek world was probably inevitable given the general manner of the ascendency of the Roman Republic. <hl> This Roman-Greek interaction began as a consequence of the Greek city-states located along the coast of southern Italy. Rome had come to dominate the Italian peninsula, and desired the submission of the Greek cities to its rule. Although they initially resisted, allying themselves with Pyrrhus of Epirus, and defeating the Romans at several battles, the Greek cities were unable to maintain this position and were absorbed by the Roman republic. Shortly afterwards, Rome became involved in Sicily, fighting against the Carthaginians in the First Punic War. The end result was the complete conquest of Sicily, including its previously powerful Greek cities, by the Romans.

Widespread <hl> Roman <hl> interference in the Greek world was probably inevitable given the general manner of the ascendency of the Roman Republic. This Roman-Greek interaction began as a consequence of the Greek city-states located along the coast of southern Italy. Rome had come to dominate the Italian peninsula, and desired the submission of the Greek cities to its rule. Although they initially resisted, allying themselves with Pyrrhus of Epirus, and defeating the Romans at several battles, the Greek cities were unable to maintain this position and were absorbed by the Roman republic. Shortly afterwards, Rome became involved in Sicily, fighting against the Carthaginians in the First Punic War. The end result was the complete conquest of Sicily, including its previously powerful Greek cities, by the Romans.