Question about Tindanotae

[Uticensis]

In the unit description for the Tindanotae, it says, “They favored devotion to Heracles, or traditional Gallic war gods like Teutatis; later, in severely reduced numbers due to Roman domination, they would be generally Christian fanatics.”

I find the idea fanatic Christian berserkers really interesting (and amusing), but I was wondering what the source for that is. I know you guys have access to sources that not all of us have (though as a university student I have access to a bunch, too), but I would really like to find the source. It would definitely change my conception of the Galatians, who, up until now, I assumed had been fully assimilated into Greco-Roman culture long before Christianity was a major factor in Asia Minor.

[lobf]

I'd be interested myself.

[Shylence]

ok ok! im quite drunk when i say this......But! i read/heard/listneded that western or albeit "native" Gallic had died out over vulgar soon to be frank latin. that there was still an eastrn Gallic ( as in Galatians of central turkey) language up to around the 4th-6th century AD

and reformed judaism ( christianity) spread through asia minor like hot cakes! ina fat camp.

[Uticensis]

Well, according to Wikipedia, the Galtians were still speaking Gallic in the time of St. Jerome. But its an unsourced statement from Wikipedia. Plus, I've read some Jerome and don't remember him talking about Galatia (my knowledge of Jerome is by no means exhaustive, though). So I take it with a graim of salt.

Anyway, even if they did maintain the language, that's very different from retaining the traditional fighting style. Already by EB's time frame nude fighting was on its way out. Languages, on the other hand, have a tendency of sticking around a long time.

[blitzkrieg80]

In the unit description for the Tindanotae, it says, “They favored devotion to Heracles, or traditional Gallic war gods like Teutatis; later, in severely reduced numbers due to Roman domination, they would be generally Christian fanatics.”
the writer who inserted that did not mean 'nude' fanatics in particular, i think. then it would be a matter of fanaticism / zeal, which is centered on religion, if you look at the quote you mentioned. Christian Gaelic-speakers think highly of themselves in that fashion. also, I am pretty sure that person was referring to Christian fanatics during a Christianized Roman Empire, hmm but then again, upon reevaluation, it seems phrased rather badly unless claiming that Celts were the true / early Christians and fanatic in a time of persecution :inquisitive: and that the Christian god was worshipped primarily in the function as war-god? Reminds me of Constantine, but the description is way too vague for my taste.

[Uticensis]

Yeah, the whole Christian war god thing made me think of Constantine too. I took the descirption to mean they still fought in this manner during the Christian Roman Empire. I tried reading it just as vague "fanaticism," but it doesn't make sense that way under the description of fanatic infantry unit.

I know a great deal about the later Empire (more than about EB's time frame), and I have no knowledge of Galatia being a source of soldiers of any sort (Isauria to the south was a major source, though). And though some of the German tribes Rome faced had rather fanatic "berserker"-like soldiers, I don't think the Romans ever utilized them.

So the description confuses me, and I really want to know what it means. Hey, maybe there were Tindanotae fighting beside Constantine or one of his successors but its only recorded in some obscure source somewhere; you never know.

[Watchman]

Isn't one of the parts of the New Testament titled "Galatians" (same way as in "Corinthians" and whatever there now are) or something...?

[Khazar_Dahvos]

Isn't one of the parts of the New Testament titled "Galatians" (same way as in "Corinthians" and whatever there now are) or something...?

indeed there is. It was Paul's letter to the church he had started there which was one of the earliest churches.:beam:

[Elmetiacos]

The Celts who invaded Asia Minor and carved out their own domain were never very numerous in the first place; classical authors, who tended to exaggerate numbers anyway, put them at about 10,000 warriors. Their language would probably always have been restricted to an aristocratic minority, like Norman French in England or Sicily. By the time of St. Paul's epistle, I would have thought everyone in Galatia was speaking Greek.

[General Appo]

Well, as I get it the area where the Galatians settled wasn´t exactly populated by Greeks, but more by various mountain tribes and the likes. In fact I remember reading that the local population of Cappadocians were allowed to live on in pretty much the same way as before, just paying tribute to new masters. I believe the Galatians were indeed more of an military aristocracy, but one that remained largly intact for many centuries.

[Uticensis]

Their language would probably always have been restricted to an aristocratic minority, like Norman French in England or Sicily. By the time of St. Paul's epistle, I would have thought everyone in Galatia was speaking Greek.

If they were not all speaking Greek, then they would have at least adopted Greek customs ad culture. That’s why I’m so curious about the Tindanotae. The description says, or at least strongly implies, that they were still around during the Christian Roman Empire, albeit it far fewer numbers than during EB’s time.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Even when one culture melds with another, they don't completely change. Instead, the two cultures mix into a new one, with one dominent. Even if the Galatians would have appeared Hellenized, the could have still held the romantic concept of a warrior fighting for his god in their minds.

[lobf]

Even when one culture melds with another, they don't completely change. Instead, the two cultures mix into a new one, with one dominent. Even if the Galatians would have appeared Hellenized, the could have still held the romantic concept of a warrior fighting for his god in their minds.

But we're looking for sources on the Tindantotae.

[Uticensis]

Exactly. Anything is possible, but I'm looking for documentation.

[lobf]

So does anyone on the team know where this came from?

[Elmetiacos]

It's another made up word. The Galatian Celts may well have had such warriors, but they didn't go by the name "Tindanotae". The stuff about Christian berserkers, devotion to Herakles-Toutatis and carving words into their flesh (a Viking trick, I think) is likewise fantasy, as is much of the elaboration on the descriptions of Celtic units.

[Uticensis]

Well, you said it, not me. but I have my suspicions as to the truthfulness of the description, that's why I asked for sources.

[Elmetiacos]

It's all a bit of a "running sore", really. Some time ago, a fake Celtic scholar supplied a load of wrong information to the EB Team (or so some people - and I'm one of them - are saying; it's not officially recognised) Sadly, a lot of effort was put into incorporating all the wrong material and undoing the damage will take more effort. There's a thread called "Materia Celtica" somewhere about where some of us have been discussing this and what might be done.

[Uticensis]

Yes, well, I've seen some aspects of the Celtic factions that seemed rather odd to me (such as the Irish version of Thorakitai Agema), but I haven't gotten involved in a discussion of such things since Celtic culture is by no means my area of expertise, and I definitly don't want to accuse anyone of making stuff up unless I really know I'm right.

The Later Empire, however, is something I quite versed in, and the idea of Celtic berserkers in Galatia around at that time seemed highly questionable to me, so that's why I brought it up, as politely as possible.

[blitzkrieg80]

it would be helpful if there was somebody in charge of such matters concerning cultures/language such as Celts who bothered to explain 1% to the fans :yes: unfortunately, not everybody has time for that.

nobody is perfect of course and it would be easy to make mistakes when no peers are around to review and collaborate on material. i don't think any deep malevolence is needed to explain the kinds of things that can happen with unchecked power... <ehem> Bushery.

I think ritual scarification is easily a possibility without stretching the imagination

[Ibrahim]

it would be helpful if there was somebody in charge of such matters concerning cultures/language such as Celts who bothered to explain 1% :yes:

nobody is perfect of course and it would be easy to make mistakes when no peers are around to review and collaberate on material. i don't think any deep malevolence is needed to explain the kinds of things that can happen with unchecked power... <ehem> Bushery

indeed.

[Cambyses]

Funny how differnt people have differnt interpretations...

For me Christian Fanatics was never about beserker type troops, but more that these people were "fanatically Christian". ie they believed very strongly in their religion. What we can then draw from that is they would have the same self belief on the battlefield as - say - Joan of Arc's French troops. So, these latter day Galatian people can fight in any style and still be fanatics.

Their mentality therefore has more in common with early "proto-crusaders" than maniacs involved with drug induced frenzies of violence.

Anyway, I wouldnt have any evidence of what actually took place either way, but that is what the statement seemed to mean to me when I read it... :oops:

[General Appo]

Indeed. From my reading of the Tindanotae&#180;s description I simply gathered that in the time of the Late Empire/Early Christianity there existed some people in this area that fought with unusual dedication and fanaticism, only that they worshipped the christian God. I at least didn&#180;t take it that they actually fought nude, only that they were a bit fanatic.

[Watchman]

The kind of odd relic often enough preserved in relatively insular highland communities, in other words.

[General Appo]

Indeed. Some people just seem to have an tendency to become fanatics to whatever dominant faith/cause/chieftain/whatever that exists in the area. It seems to me that at least some of the Galatians were these kinds of people.

[Elmetiacos]

Indeed. Some people just seem to have an tendency to become fanatics to whatever dominant faith/cause/chieftain/whatever that exists in the area. It seems to me that at least some of the Galatians were these kinds of people.
Why does it seem to you that this is the case?

[Uticensis]

Wait, wait, wait! None of this is backed up by sources. Even if the description is just about religiously fanatic soldiers, not necessarily nude berserkers (which would be weird, considering the claim is only in the description of the Galatian berserker unit), that isn't any more backed up by the sources.

In the Christian Roman Empire, troops came primarily from barbarian federates, especially around the Rhine and Danube, or from conscripts from within the Empire. Conscripts were not known for their ferociousness in battle, quite the opposite really. And the Hellenized people of the East were seen as especially soft. What’s more, during the earlier times of Christianity, Christians refused to fight in the military. A famous example is Saint Maximilian, who was put to death for resisting when he was drafted into a legion.

Now the Romans did heavily recruit from the Isaurians, who lived to the south of Galatia in western Kilikia, put these men were mostly thieves and marauders who had no religious reason to fight, and very well may have been pagans until very late.

It seems that the description of the “Tindanotae” is inspired by the fact that St. Paul wrote a famous letter to the Galatians, which meant that there was an early Christian community there. But that is a long way from meaning that those people became fanatic berserkers or crusaders, or whatever.

If there is a source that backs what the description says, excellent, I’d love to see it. But as far as I can tell, the last mention of the Galatians is in Paul’s letter, or perhaps a mention by Jerome about their language. But that’s it.

[Watchman]

Highland regions were always kind of lawless and heavy on minor everyone vs. everyone raiding and feuding. Nominal subjugation and pacification by one empire or another never changed that detail much. What's more, unless I'm entirely mistaken Galatia would have been part of the eastern "border marches" of the Roman Empire, a region which often enough was a full-blown war zone for years to an end as such frontier lands between major empires now always were...

I'd rather imagine the inhabitants were plenty enough used to warfare, even if they had no desire to sign up for the Legions for quarter a century.

[Uticensis]

Not really. Galatia was not really a lawless region like Isauria was-Ankyra was an important administrative center and large, Hellenized city under the Romans. The Arabs and Armenians would have been the people caught in the border zones in constant states of warfare. Galatia, the area around Ankyra in the middle of Asia Minor, would not be in such an area until Seljuk Turks invaded the Empire around the turn of the Second Millenium AD. I imagine the Galatians spent a cushy thousand years under Roman domination seeing very little warfare anywhere near their homeland. The Persians broke though under Heraclian in the Sixth century, but they were driven back fairly quickly.

[Watchman]

You mean like when the Byzantine-Muslim frontier ran in Asia Minor and the former had to come up with specific strategies for dealing with deep raids-in-force, just to name a Late Antiquity/Migration Period example...? :inquisitive:

Moreover even if major armies aren't operating in the region, wartime in the frontier lands tends to have everywhere been characterised by all kinds of vicious back-and-forth raiding and irregular fighting by border forces, local auxiliaries and whatever opportunists turned up. And the heavily mountainous Asia Minor region really should not have had any shortage of intractable mountain tribes, hill bandits and whatever to liven things up...

[Uticensis]

Yes, again, that's in the seventh century (alright, a little before the Turks), but very late. The Galatians, as I was trying to point out, had lived for almost 1,000 in peace under the Romans. Any martial traditions forged in constant warfare would have slowly died out by the time the Arabs come along.

And I still object to the conception that Galatia would be a frontier land. By the late Sassanid Empire and then the Arab invasion, yes. But before that, no. There is no reason to think the Galatia was at all lawless and full of raiding. All the Roman sources point to Isauria as the lawless place specifically, and the men there were thus sought for service in the legions.

[Watchman]

Given that the Romans were fighting over quite nearby regions such as Armenia and the Levant often enough with the Parthians and Sassanids, and the actual border often enough ran right to the east of Galatia in eastern Cappadocia, I would be very surprised indeed if trouble didn't often enough come calling over the central Anatolian plateau when the big boys rumbled...

[Elmetiacos]

If you look at a physical map of modern Turkey and look at where Galatia was located, compared to most of the rest of Anatolia, it's relatively low-lying and includes two fertile river valleys. The notion that it was a "highland region" as Wikipedia puts it, unfortunately evokes images of wildness and all those scenes from Braveheart...

[Uticensis]

I guess its possible, but I don't see any evidence. Accroding to the notitia dignitatum, there were two legions stationed in Isauria, and a third "Legio Iauria" in the field army. These theoretically were there to keep the peace amongst the famously chaotic natives. However, all other legions on the Eastern Border were much further East, in Syra, egypt, and Mesopotamia. Nothing even close to Galatia. And just going from memory here, I can only think on two occasions when the Persians even made it as far as Antioch, during the Crisis of the Third Century and during the reign of Justinian (the first before the area the legality of Christianity, the other far into the Christian Empire). Considering all this, I don't see a place for fanatically Christian Galatian warriors; at least not until Arab times, when the name Galatia is no longer even used for the region.

[lobf]

Edit- That came out totally wrong.

[Spendios]

So far the Tindanotae have been defended with "it's possible they existed." How can you guys, as historians, treat this as scholarly? There is no evidence for their existence as they are in the game. It is completely irrelevant whether or not is was possible or likely. That's not the point of this mod, am I right?

So you are going to pretend that there is no evidences for naked galatians warriors ? Interesting.

Have you ever heard of the "dying gaul" statue ?

[Megalos]

I'm no historian, so don't beat me up.

Copy and pasted:


Livy says of Galatians for instance, that their "wounds were plain to see because they fight naked... ...when the point of an arrow or a sling bullet has buried itself in the flesh, leaving a wound slight in appearance, but causing acute pain, and which does not come out as they search for a way to extract the missile, these same men become maddened and ashamed at being destroyed by so small an affliction; and they throw themselves prostrate on the ground... So on this occasion, on all sides were falling on their faces, while others rushed against the enemy and were struck by missiles from every direction"...

He describes the naked Gaesatae similarly: the "Celts in the rear ranks indeed were well protected by their trousers and cloaks, but it fell out otherwise than they had expected with the naked men in front, and they found themselves in a very difficult and helpless predicament. For the Gallic shield does not cover the whole body; so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were the better chance had the missiles of going home. At length, unable to drive off the javelineers owing to the distance and the hail of javelins, and reduced to the utmost distress and perplexity, some of them, in their impotent rage, rushed wildly on the enemy and sacrificed their lives, while others, retreating step by step on the ranks of their comrades, threw them into disorder by their display of faint-hearedness. Thus was the spirit of the Gaesatae broken down by the javelineers".

[paullus]

Its quite clear that the most notable Galatian warriors were primarily swordsmen, and primarily nude. We have abundant visual evidence to corroborate that. We also need to be careful how we're assuming assimilation worked in Galatia. I've seen several people saying that what happened was Hellenization, and that's not a very accurate portrayal. The Galatian warrior aristocracy, upon moving into the central Anatolian plateau (digression: that label, Elmetiacos, is the reason for the highlands descriptions--and if you've ever been to the area, highlands is not an unfair description: the land rises and falls sharply in some areas, or rolls around in others, and unlike the Taurus mtn regions, these highlands were habitable, and did not force the entire population to dwell in the valleys) moved into an area that had up to that time had been involved in little to no Hellenization. The native population was not Greek-speaking and did not identify with Greek monarchs or Greek religion, except in the west of the Galatian settlement area (eg Gordion). Hellenization was a process still yet-to-effect either the ruled Anatolians or the ruling Galatians.

One of the exciting and as yet unresolved questions of archaeology is the identity of the mass of the population of Galatia. Where they all Galatians? Where they Phrygians? Where they Greeks? If the latter, did they Hellenize more rapidly than their Galatian rulers? What was the impetus for Hellenization? The numbers of Galatian soldiers in service abroad or in battle locally, and the descriptions and numbers of Galatian people in Vulso's Galatian war all imply that the Galatians incorporated at least some of the subject population into the Galatian identity/state. On the other hand, preliminary excavations at major cities in Galatia evince a strong continuity with previous material culture and no major finds of "Galatian" material culture aside from the "Galatian ware" pottery that proliferated across the area in the Hellenistic period. Some imagine Galatians residing primarily in the countryside, with only partial rule over the major cities; others imagine "Galatian" becoming a more generalized term, with parts of the local population becoming partakers in a watered-down form of Celtic culture.

The process of significant Hellenization of the Anatolian Galatians only began after the Roman conquest, and only made major steps after the eradication of the Galatian leadership by Mithridates, during the kingships of the Deiotaros line. So for 100 years or so, there's little reason to doubt the continuation of a rather strong Celtic warrior tradition. It may be that the original Galatian warriors, even those of lower status, acted as the higher status warriors in Galatia, while local populations filled the general ranks of soldiers. I think we have to assume something like that, just to provide the numbers of specifically Anatolian Galatians in military service in the Hellenistic period.

[Megalos]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I8dA94h22S4C&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=wounds+were+plain+to+see+because+they+fight+naked&source=web&ots=ttHVE5TaKH&sig=fjPDymqyzXmsexZzhVtXSn-jndU&hl=en

Some more sources from Livy and DoH.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Dying_gaul.jpg/300px-Dying_gaul.jpg

[Urnamma]

If you look at a physical map of modern Turkey and look at where Galatia was located, compared to most of the rest of Anatolia, it's relatively low-lying and includes two fertile river valleys. The notion that it was a "highland region" as Wikipedia puts it, unfortunately evokes images of wildness and all those scenes from Braveheart...

This sort of statement makes me think that you're just here to bash people and heap invective.

Galatia is clearly part of the central Anatolian plateau, and though it isn't as mountainous as the southern coastal areas or eastern anatolia, it is still 'highlands' in the classical meaning of the term. Northern Scotland isn't particularly mountainous compared to, say, eastern Turkey. However, it does have a lot of hills and valleys, which is exactly what parts of Galatia have. The rest is still relatively high, and has quite a bit of contour as far as the land goes.

[Megalos]

Pausanias - 10.22.13, 10.23.5, 10.23.12, 10.22.6, 10.21.1-4


http://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias10B.html

[Watchman]

Accroding to the notitia dignitatum, there were two legions stationed in Isauria, and a third "Legio Iauria" in the field army. These theoretically were there to keep the peace amongst the famously chaotic natives. However, all other legions on the Eastern Border were much further East, in Syra, egypt, and Mesopotamia. Nothing even close to Galatia.This may have been due to purely practical reasons too you know. A decent-sized army, with all of its support personnel and inevitable hangers-on, eats as much as a small city, and can hence be only (more or less) permanently stationed where the resources exist to feed that many extra people, or the required foodstuffs can be easily brought in by water transport.

Anatolia, I rather suspect, lacked both. In other words, it may well have been logistically patently impossible to station a full standing army there, and first-line regional defence and policing hence had to be delegated to suitable (and presumably relatively small) Auxilia formations as well as local militias and irregulars (which should not have been in any short supply, given what highland regions everywhere have always been like).

And just going from memory here, I can only think on two occasions when the Persians even made it as far as Antioch, during the Crisis of the Third Century and during the reign of Justinian (the first before the area the legality of Christianity, the other far into the Christian Empire).:shrug: Late Roman history isn't my strong suit. I frankly find Roman history starts getting a bit boring after Augustus. But I'm pretty sure the whole Roman East from the Black Sea down to the Levant was a troubled war zone often enough, even if the major field armies tended to operate either north near Armenia or down south in Syria and Mesopotamia. The kind of minor border fighting, feuding and raiding that always went on in the frontiers everywhere between all kinds of clients, local cliques, opportunistic officers etc. while the attention of their masters was elsewhere just usually doesn't make it into the chronicles...

[Elmetiacos]

This sort of statement makes me think that you're just here to bash people and heap invective.

Galatia is clearly part of the central Anatolian plateau, and though it isn't as mountainous as the southern coastal areas or eastern anatolia, it is still 'highlands' in the classical meaning of the term. Northern Scotland isn't particularly mountainous compared to, say, eastern Turkey. However, it does have a lot of hills and valleys, which is exactly what parts of Galatia have. The rest is still relatively high, and has quite a bit of contour as far as the land goes.
Not at all; "highland" may be true to a geographer in that the elevation of the region may be quite high, but that wasn't the point being made. It was suggested that Galatia, as a highland region, tends to imbue the societies which inhabit it with certain characteristics, but if we pause to consider that Galatia, while on a higher elevation than Ionia, for instance, isn't "highland" compared to its neighbours, then whatever characteristics may be possessed by "highlanders" will be possessed to lesser degree by Galatians than Lycians or Cilicians, for instance, whose territory is more mountainous. The word also carries with it unwanted conotations; "Braveheart" may be a gross example, but the term does evoke a certain imagery which might not actually be true of the region at all.

[lobf]

So you are going to pretend that there is no evidences for naked galatians warriors ? Interesting.

Have you ever heard of the "dying gaul" statue ?

No. I'm talking about their supposed progression to Christian fanatics.

[Megalos]

So far the Tindanotae have been defended with "it's possible they existed." How can you guys, as historians, treat this as scholarly? There is no evidence for their existence as they are in the game. It is completely irrelevant whether or not is was possible or likely. That's not the point of this mod, am I right?


*IN Jim Carey voice* Oh rea-he-heallly?

[paullus]

The evidence of religious devotion in late antique Galatia is quite evident from the limited excavations in the area. If we interpret fanaticism to mean devotion then we're good. I think it implies more than that, though, so we'll try and get in touch with our source to provide sources for that assertion, and if we haven't heard anything within a certain amount of time, we'll remove that. It isn't really relevant to the unit description anyway.

[lobf]

*IN Jim Carey voice* Oh rea-he-heallly?

I'm only referring to Watchman's defense of the idea in this topic. The whole point is that nobody has shown evidence yet, so if you can point me in the way of it, please do so. "Oh rea-he-heally" doesn't help anyone at all.

I don't think it's unreasonable or insulting to simply ask for sources for your work, and I don't think anyone should be met with such hostility for doing so.

[blacksnail]

The word also carries with it unwanted conotations; "Braveheart" may be a gross example, but the term does evoke a certain imagery which might not actually be true of the region at all.
Are you unhappy with the modernly-understood connotation of a word in one of the unit entries?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I'm only referring to Watchman's defense of the idea in this topic. The whole point is that nobody has shown evidence yet, so if you can point me in the way of it, please do so. "Oh rea-he-heally" doesn't help anyone at all.

I don't think it's unreasonable or insulting to simply ask for sources for your work, and I don't think anyone should be met with such hostility for doing so.

Your post was full of entitlement (we have to defend decisions to you?) and holding us to some sort of peer-reviewed journal standard. I wrote a scathing reply to it myself but decided to delete it instead of posting it. Stop acting so holier than thou - you are trolling for a hostile response and you got a slight nibble and now are trying to reel it in.

[Urnamma]

Are you unhappy with the modernly-understood connotation of a word in one of the unit entries?

Indeed.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The word also carries with it unwanted conotations; "Braveheart" may be a gross example, but the term does evoke a certain imagery which might not actually be true of the region at all.

Far I can see, dicitionaries do not yet make any such distinction? Considering that a rather large % of people who play EB appear not to speak Enlgish as their native tongue; as well as the less accuracy of the word 'plateau' in this regard; why change something perfectly valid?

[Elmetiacos]

So far the Tindanotae have been defended with "it's possible they existed." How can you guys, as historians, treat this as scholarly? There is no evidence for their existence as they are in the game. It is completely irrelevant whether or not is was possible or likely. That's not the point of this mod, am I right?
It's very likely that the Gauls who invaded Galatia about the time of the start of the EB timeline would have fought in the usual Celtic manner complete with scary naked guys. Nothing wrong with that assumption, although they wouldn't have been called 'Tindanotae'. I would question whether their primary weapon was the sword rather than the spear, as it does seem that swords were much rarer than spears in Celtic warfare. As the Galatians became increasingly Hellenised, I would expect that the first thing to disappear would be nude fighting. Interesting reading Pausanias that he never mentions chariots, only cavalry, and yet the manner of its use is exactly the same as Caesar's description of British chariots: noble rides in, fights, if he gets into trouble, a servant comes to fetch him... that would make an interesting couple of units for the Galatians, sort of like the reverse of the Roman hastati, principes and triarii, but on horses. Of course, Pausanias also insists that the Gauls ate babies...

As to the peoples who lived in Galatia prior to the Celtic conquest, I'm not sure; there would be some Greek cities, I think, plus Phrygians in the North, maybe some Armenians in the East and a dwindling number of people speaking Anatolian languages. With no other Celts within 500 miles, I doubt the Galatian Gaulish would have survived long in the face Greek lanaguage and culture becoming more and more dominant.

[Elmetiacos]

Are you unhappy with the modernly-understood connotation of a word in one of the unit entries?
No, the word "Highland" doesn't appear in the unit entry. I was just pointing out that the idea of Galatia as a more highland region than the neighbouring regions of Anatolia is mistaken.

[lobf]

Your post was full of entitlement (we have to defend decisions to you?)

I never said you have to do anything.


I'm only referring to Watchman's defense of the idea in this topic. The whole point is that nobody has shown evidence yet, so if you can point me in the way of it, please do so. "Oh rea-he-heally" doesn't help anyone at all.

I don't think it's unreasonable or insulting to simply ask for sources for your work, and I don't think anyone should be met with such hostility for doing so.

Re-read it. I made no demands. I'm asking for a source if it exists. You can say "we don't know where it came from" or "it came from this book".

And if you feel like asking you for your sources is holding you to a peer-reviewed journal standard, then I don't really know what to say. I had to source everything I wrote in high school and college.


you are trolling for a hostile response and you got a slight nibble and now are trying to reel it in.

I'm such a troll.

[paullus]

With no other Celts within 500 miles, I doubt the Galatian Gaulish would have survived long in the face Greek lanaguage and culture becoming more and more dominant.

That's why they kept using Galatian names and were said to still speak Gaulish in late antiquity? You doubt Gaulish would survive long in the face of Greek language and culture, but where is this dominant Greek language and culture in the Anatolian plateau? The people of Tavion or Ankyra and their environs were not significantly Hellenized, and really, weren't much Hellenized at all. And even if they were, the presence of a culture among a subject population does not quickly compel the ruling population to adopt it. Trade with peoples outside the borders of Galatia or service in their armies would be the primary mechanism for Hellenization, and that means that, aside from likely developing bilingualism quickly, most of the changes are going to be rather slow.

[lobf]

It's very likely that the Gauls who invaded Galatia about the time of the start of the EB timeline would have fought in the usual Celtic manner complete with scary naked guys. Nothing wrong with that assumption, although they wouldn't have been called 'Tindanotae'.

I was never questioning the naked fighting Celts. I was only asking about their Christian descendants. I thought that was really clear, but apparently not.

[Watchman]

Not at all; "highland" may be true to a geographer in that the elevation of the region may be quite high, but that wasn't the point being made. It was suggested that Galatia, as a highland region, tends to imbue the societies which inhabit it with certain characteristics, but if we pause to consider that Galatia, while on a higher elevation than Ionia, for instance, isn't "highland" compared to its neighbours, then whatever characteristics may be possessed by "highlanders" will be possessed to lesser degree by Galatians than Lycians or Cilicians, for instance, whose territory is more mountainous. The word also carries with it unwanted conotations; "Braveheart" may be a gross example, but the term does evoke a certain imagery which might not actually be true of the region at all.You do realize that while Galatia itself may not be a "true" highland region, it's more or less hemmed in on all sides by such (ie. mountains or as close as makes no difference) and would duly have gotten its share of trouble from the intractable and troublesome elements that such regions ever hosted ? You run into the exact same pattern from the Scottish Highlands to the Alps, the "spine" of Italy, the Balkan uplands, and the wholle more-or-less unbroken succession of mountain ranges, rugged hills etc. running from the foothills of western Asia Minor about all the way to the damn Pacific in the distant East.

Such terrain quite simply produces hardy, tough, independent-minded and poor people since time immemorial ready enough to better their lot at a neighbour's expense, and furnishes both the native inhabitants and bandits, rebels and other drifters from the lowlands with a very secure and defensible base from which they could operate with virtual impunity even in the face of mighty empires.

Also, you get three guesses how much I care of the bullshit imagery peddled by crap like Braveheart. First two don't count.

[Elmetiacos]

That's why they kept using Galatian names and were said to still speak Gaulish in late antiquity?
Where and when, apart from this one reference by St. Jerome, who we don't know would understand Gaulish if he heard it? Even in the 1st Century BC the Galatian kings were striking coins in which they titled themselves ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ, so there was plenty of Greek influence early on.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Where I'm from, we still put a pyramid with a floating eye above it on our most common bills but how many people have a clue what it means? :laugh4:

[Watchman]

Where I'm from the heraldic animal of the state is a lion...
Three guesses how many of those were ever around ?

[Krusader]

Where I'm from the heraldic animal of the state is a lion...
Three guesses how many of those were ever around ?

A strange thing...no lions in the Nordic yet every country has a lion as either heraldic animal or in the coat of arms.

[Watchman]

Someone way back must've had a major fetish for the poor animal.

Funny detail: the Finnish word for King, kuningas, also happens to be a loanword of fairly obvious ancestry...

[Uticensis]

Well, my initial question was regarding the existence of Galatian soldiers fighting in a fanatical manner during the Christian period of the Roman Empire. Its quite obvious that during the EB timeframe, the Tindanotae fit fine.

And I'm not demanding sources, or demanding anything for that matter, merely asking politely. I'm interested in late antiquity, and, as I said in my OP, it would definitely change my conception of the region if there were indeed Galatians that adhered to the native culture in any manner but language. I believe Jerome about the language, by the way, as Celtic tongues were still being spoken in Gaul, and throughout the empire other native languages such as Syrian, Coptic, ect. lived on.
Now Paullus said something about some archeological indications for Christian Tindanotae/ fanatics/something or other. That is the kind of thing I was asking about. If he cares to elaborate in any way, I would be most appreciative.

[bovi]

The lion is seen as a regal animal. It rules the savannah, I suppose.

This article (http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/articledetail.asp?Article_ID=47) mentions that the star constellation contributed to its status. I dare not say what authority the site has though.

Jacob used the constellation of the lion to speak of Judah. Thereafter, the lion became the symbol of royalty — king of the jungle — and the royal tribe through which the Messiah would come. In Revelation 5, a search is made for someone worthy enough to redeem the earth. After a seemingly fruitless search, John is told:

“The Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book” (Rev. 5:5).

Apologies for contributing to making the thread off-topic.

[Watchman]

Off-topic ? Sheesh, I was making an underhanded jab at Elmetiacos by giving a parallel example of the loaning of "prestige" symbols/terminology from neighbours, and that this doesn't per ce mean much else than they were thought "cool"... :beam:

[paullus]

Where and when, apart from this one reference by St. Jerome, who we don't know would understand Gaulish if he heard it? Even in the 1st Century BC the Galatian kings were striking coins in which they titled themselves ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ, so there was plenty of Greek influence early on.

1. Jerome, in mentioning that the Galatians still speak a somewhat corrupted form of Gaulish as well as Greek, directly compares it to languages spoken in Gaul, he had visited (or so I've read), and with which he definitely had frequent contact. He also lists several heresies the names of which have Gaulish roots.

2. Writing Basileos on coins in the time of Deiotaros' line is by no means "plenty of Greek influence early on." That's near the end of the period covered by EB, in a time period that many scholars wouldn't even consider Hellenistic! How in the world is that refutation of Celtic character for the first century or so of their existence in Galatia? I already said a few posts ago that Hellenization only began in earnest in the 1c under the line of Deiotaros, thus we'd naturally expect to see coins minted with some Greek words. At the same time, Deiotaros is Gaulish, and inscriptions from that time record quite a few other Gaulish names. And isn't it significant that we don't get those sorts of coins until then?

edit: wow, lots of posts while I was typing that up.

As for the evidence of Christian devotion in Galatia, the few excavations at major population centers of Imperial and Late Antique Galatia have turned up a pretty good number of tombstones and other dedications, the vast majority of which have a Christian character. At Tavion, one of the 3 tribal capitals, there are literally hundreds of Christian tombstones, including quite a few that preceded the legalization of Christianity. What I thought was really cool was that, while the tombstones and archaeological edifices of Tavion were marble, the designs on many of the monuments look A LOT like Celtic artwork of the Late Antique/early medieval period, as far as knotwork and the like, etched into the marble. That's a little unsettling to me, it seems odd that two Celtic populations separated by well more than a thousand miles could develop such similar artistic conventions.

[Uticensis]

As for the evidence of Christian devotion in Galatia, the few excavations at major population centers of Imperial and Late Antique Galatia have turned up a pretty good number of tombstones and other dedications, the vast majority of which have a Christian character. At Tavion, one of the 3 tribal capitals, there are literally hundreds of Christian tombstones, including quite a few that preceded the legalization of Christianity. What I thought was really cool was that, while the tombstones and archaeological edifices of Tavion were marble, the designs on many of the monuments look A LOT like Celtic artwork of the Late Antique/early medieval period, as far as knotwork and the like, etched into the marble. That's a little unsettling to me, it seems odd that two Celtic populations separated by well more than a thousand miles could develop such similar artistic conventions.

That is really cool. Obviously on both sides of the Empire, Celtic culture remained latent but alive through the Roman period.

Would you by any chance know who did some of these excavations? I did a quick search of JSTOR for articles, but any search that has anything to do with Galatians or Christianity just brings up massive numbers of articles on the Pauline Epistle.

[paullus]

There's a 19th c. British travel narrative that describes Tavion as a gleaming city on a hill, due to all the marble used in its construction and its visibility from many miles away on the main highway. The narrative describes some of the monuments and their Christian character, but I don't recall the particular writer.

As for modern things, there might be a bit about Tavion/Tavium in Mitchell, but not much has been published so far. Strobel may discuss it in Die Galater, and you may find some in publications by Levant Vardar, but those are likely to be in Turkish. Not much has been published so far, unless you can find a publication on the holdings of the Yozgat museum.

[Foot]

Where and when, apart from this one reference by St. Jerome, who we don't know would understand Gaulish if he heard it? Even in the 1st Century BC the Galatian kings were striking coins in which they titled themselves ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ, so there was plenty of Greek influence early on.

And? Armenian kings also stamped their coins with greek words in the greek alphabet, hell their alphabet is based upon the greek one. Their ruling class were bilingual (either in Armenian/Persian or Armenian/Greek depending on what period we are talking about), hell! Tigran the Great's son wrote Greek plays (quite good ones). Greek influence in Armenian culture was huge, but it still didn't stop the Armenian language from maintaining its top spot for communication, even though it couldn't be written down until the 5th century AD!

Foot

[The Persian Cataphract]

Let me add some for the Parthians; Greek was largely the language of the administration, and one of the lingua franca along with Aramaic. The Aspasine nation of Characene largely was Greek-speaking. Yet this does not rule out the existence of the P&#226;rn&#238; language, or indeed the Parthian Pahlav&#238;g language, let alone the multiple pockets where Avestan (The Clergy) was used, or Ancient Persian and Medean (The fr&#226;tar&#226;k&#226;n of S&#251;si&#226;n&#226;/Elyma&#239;s, Persis, marzspend&#226;n of &#194;d&#251;rb&#226;dag&#226;n/Atropatene) or even early Deylamite/Hyrcanian (Ancestor of the Iranic G&#238;lak&#238; and M&#226;zandar&#226;n&#238; languages) of the Gashnaspid dynasty of V&#234;rkh&#226;n&#226;. When the dynasts adopted Hellenized names, in the shadows do we see treasures such as the N&#238;s&#226;-Mithradatkart ostraca showing clear-cut Iranian names. Yet the Arsacid kings minted their coinage with an inherited Seleucid nomenclature, along with the epithets. They also claimed descendence from Alexander The Great and the Achaemenids. It is not difficult to understand the complexity of state propaganda. Coins in particular, have always been a popular method.

The Sassanians envied the Arsacids. In the midst of their superficial hatred against them, on grounds of "blasphemy" we actually find a poorly disguised admiration of them. A re-codification of the "good faith", over-strikes of coins with Mithradates II The Great, and forever the association of the Parthians as champions and heroes. The Pahlav&#238;g. For a while, even the early Sassanians continued the usage of Greek in many instances.

History is rarely as black-and-white as some would rather have it to be.

[Elmetiacos]

Off-topic ? Sheesh, I was making an underhanded jab at Elmetiacos
Ouch! Ow...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Where and when, apart from this one reference by St. Jerome, who we don't know would understand Gaulish if he heard it? Even in the 1st Century BC the Galatian kings were striking coins in which they titled themselves ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ, so there was plenty of Greek influence early on.

That, or the Galatian kings decided this is a nice way of showing everyone who's boss. Obviously there were many people around in the kingdom itself who could at least understand Greek that well enough. (just like many people understand some basic French without being able to actually speak French fluently let alone write it) And obviously it served as a fine way to get a message across on the receiving end of such coins -- predominantly Greek speaking or bilingual peoples abroad. "We are here, and you better don't mess with our affairs." 'sides it's not unlike the more powerful Galatian rulers considered this Basileus concept thing a pretty neat idea?

[Elmetiacos]

And? Armenian kings also stamped their coins with greek words in the greek alphabet, hell their alphabet is based upon the greek one. Their ruling class were bilingual (either in Armenian/Persian or Armenian/Greek depending on what period we are talking about), hell! Tigran the Great's son wrote Greek plays (quite good ones). Greek influence in Armenian culture was huge, but it still didn't stop the Armenian language from maintaining its top spot for communication, even though it couldn't be written down until the 5th century AD!
The difference is that Armenian was always the language of ordinary Armenians as well as their rulers. Galatian Gaulish was only ever the language of a relatively small warrior aristocracy. As such, its survival depends on maintaining itself as the prestige language of the ruling class. With the Celtic aristocracy increasingly part of a Greek speaking world and with their language definitely identified as "barbarian" Gaulish would be sidelined fairly easily. We have the temple grafitti c.185 BC in which all the mercenaries who wrote it and who self-identify as Galatians have, with one possible exception, Greek names and are writing in Greek.

None of which has much to do with fanatical Christians...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Galatian Gaulish was only ever the language of a relatively small warrior aristocracy. As such, its survival depends on maintaining itself as the prestige language of the ruling class. With the Celtic aristocracy increasingly part of a Greek speaking world and with their language definitely identified as "barbarian" Gaulish would be sidelined fairly easily. We have the temple grafitti c.185 BC in which all the mercenaries who wrote it and who self-identify as Galatians have, with one possible exception, Greek names and are writing in Greek...

Or, does it depend on such things? For one thing, despite they now virtually all write and speak English in their daily lifes; the Scots still very much indentify themselves as Scots, right? Or how about the Welsh? Or the Irish?

And doubly so given that the mercenaries might've learned to actually write Greek simply because they made their living in the armies where Greek was the norm, rather than the exception? Wouldn't it be much easier to stick with Greek after some 20 years of service in which all you ever wrote (if you even had written in your life once, before you signed up in the military of those Greeks & co.) would probably have been Greek, and yet more Greek?

Indeed, the very fact that they still went to their 'own' temples serves as a testimony to sticking to your own culture?

To me the use of one language which is foreign to your own culture; even if it comes to virtually supplant (which is still a long way from what you can assert based on those facts) the 'native' tongue; it simply does not equal cultural assimilation.

[Elmetiacos]

No, this was an Egyptian temple.

[cmacq]

Did this occur during some Kush inspired revolt in southern Egypt?

[paullus]

whoa whoa whoa.

you celtic experts are getting way out of your area when you start talking about Galatian inscriptions in Egypt. Several things about that inscription:

1) its a temple graffiti, its not associated with worship
2) the men leaving the inscription identify as "of the galatians," which, while definitely an ethnic identifier, in the Ptolemaic context could refer to the name of a unit, a type of unit, or to an ethnicity. they are not even necessarily Galatians.
3) if they are "Galatians," the men are NOT imported Galatian mercenaries. they are verifiably Galatian settlers who were likely two or three generations removed from the original immigrants to Egypt, and even their ancestors had probably never set foot in "Galatia." Only one has a Celtic name, Akannon, the others have Greek names popularized in Egypt, save for Thoas, which is a rare Aitolian name.

There is little reason to cite that inscription as having any bearing whatsoever on Hellenization in Galatia. The Ptolemaic context is drastically different from the Anatolian context.

[Elmetiacos]

3) if they are "Galatians," the men are NOT imported Galatian mercenaries. they are verifiably Galatian settlers who were likely two or three generations removed from the original immigrants to Egypt, and even their ancestors had probably never set foot in "Galatia." Only one has a Celtic name, Akannon, the others have Greek names popularized in Egypt, save for Thoas, which is a rare Aitolian name.
How can you tell this? Was it just that by this date, no new mercenaries were arriving?

[paullus]

the date isn't actually certain. 185 is the more commonly given date, but it could also have been, if I remember correctly, 197 or 167. All are years of major military campaigns in the vicinity of the Memnoneion. Technically, it could have been any other year, but the inscription does look early 2c.

there may have still been occasional Galatian mercs arriving at that time, though by the mid-2c the Gaulish mercs are coming more from either Massilia or the Balkans, rather than Tylis, Bithynia, or Galatia. The appearance of Greek names makes me think it unlikely they are first generation. No known first generation Galatian mercs have Greek names--only the kings seem to have adopted Greek names on occasion (eg Amyntas of Tylis). Many second-gen Galatians frequently retained Greek names, and only few retained them after that.

[Elmetiacos]

Which makes me think that fairly quickly "Galatian" became simply a regional rather than an ethnic indicator.

[paullus]

regional? most of the men in the successor kingdoms whom documents, inscriptions, or histories identify as galatians never lived in any galatian settlement areas. i'd say its remains primarily a label for ethnicity, especially if we understand ethnicity as being primarily a factor of culture, and secondarily one of descent or physical appearance. region of origin has little do with it I think, at least in Ptolemaic Egypt. In the Seleukid empire, I think you may be right; I would be very surprised (if this could be found out) if there were no native Anatolians or Thracians soldiering as part of Galatian units.