Talk:Lord of Asia

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 December 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Reader beware! In spite of 765 Google hits for "King of Asia" (the whole phrase), this term is a naive anachronism. "Asia" in the 4th century BCE did not mean Syria and Persia etc [my error; see below-- Wetman]. This "crowning" and this "title" are modern fantasies. Wikipedians are notably gullible when it comes to history, and an attempt to delete this nonsensical entry would doubtless be voted down. Nevertheless, after the battle of Gaugamela, in October 331, Darius escaped. At Arbela Alexander recovered Darius' wagon train and all his treasure. But is it a fact, as Wikipedia's Front Page asserted, that "Alexander was then crowned "King of Asia" in a magnificent ceremony in Arbela (modern-day Arbil, Iraq)" I don't think so. Wetman 08:06, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that the title "King of Asia" was the main title used by Alexander and by the Seleucid Kings who followed him. Justin also uses the title for the Attalid kings of Pergamon. Here is a quote from Arrian, who quotes what is supposedly a letter from Alexander to Darius, where he refers to himself as King of Asia. He was apparently called "King of Lands" in Babylon, which was taken by the Greeks to mean "King of Asia." And Asia certainly did mean the whole of what we now call Asia. Herodotus used it in this sense, for instance. It was also used more specifically to refer to western Asia Minor. But the term "Asia Minor" is an ancient one, and obviously distinguishes Lesser Asia (i.e. Anatolia, the nearest part of Asia to the Greeks) from Greater Asia (the whole of what we now call Asia.) For the Greeks, at least from Herodotus, there were three continents - Europe, Asia, and Libya. I really don't think this is nearly as anachronistic as you think it is. john k 20:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the title "King of Asia" were the main title used by Alexander and by the Seleucid Kings who followed him, then it would appear in their inscriptions. Perhaps it does: that would certainly convince me. The letter from Arrian's biography, however, is a fiction, an invention, like the speeches in Thucydides. A whole fictive correspondence of Alexander circulated in Hellenistic times, according to a good modern biography of Alexander, that by Robin Lane Fox. Herodotus (Histories II) does say

For they all [the Ionians] say that the earth is divided into three parts, Europe, Asia, and Libya, whereas they ought to add a fourth part, the Delta of Egypt, since they do not include it either in Asia or Libya. For is it not their theory that the Nile separates Asia from Libya? As the Nile, therefore, splits in two at the apex of the Delta, the Delta itself must be a separate country, not contained in either Asia or Libya.

So apparently Herodotus did place Persia within Asia, and I am mistaken. If Arrian came up with the title "King of Asia" in the 2nd centry CE, that would be worth mentioning in the article.

Arrian was thought to be a fairly conscientious historian - that is to say, that he based most of what he said on his sources, who were primarily Ptolemy and Aristobulus, who were reasonably contemporary with Alexander - one would assume, at least, that the correspondence probably wasn't simply made up by Arrian. But I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that the correspondence was genuine, though, as I am fairly certain it was not. But it was an ancient, and, if you are correct, probably Hellenistic, fraud, which means that the title of "King of Asia" was one that would have at least seemed plausible as a title of Alexander to contemporaries (and to Arrian, of course).

Beyond this, it was my understanding that "King of Asia" was the Greek interpretation of the Babylonian "King of Lands" or "King of the World". The former was the primary title of the Persian kings, and since the Greeks knew that the Persian kings ruled neither Europe nor Libya, what the Persian kings actually were was "King of Asia." But, I will admit, I have no direct evidence of this, and I'm uncertain. The title "King of Asia" is definitely used by Justin's Epitome of Pompeius Trogus as the title of the Kings of Pergamon (at least, of some of them).

But let's see if we can find any evidence about the Seleucids. john k 05:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Appian uses "King of Asia" to refer to Seleucus I: [1]. john k 06:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And here's Memnon using it to refer to Antiochus I: [2]. john k 17:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arrian also uses the title for Bessus, see here. john k 17:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The title King of Asia ( more precisely lord of asia ie Kyrios tes Asias) was a title taken by Alexander after cutting the Gordian Knot hence fullfilling the old prophecy that whoever undo the knot shall become lord of Asia. here it is argued that Asia implies Asia Minor and not Asia proper. As such it would be more accurate to rename the article to lord of Asia and more precisely to Kyrios of Asia Melathron (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]