Are there any native cavalry in Near East historically? I wonder why it's left out in EB and all the books I found.... So the Judeans and Phoenicians didn't ride horses?! :sweatdrop::smash:
Printable View
Are there any native cavalry in Near East historically? I wonder why it's left out in EB and all the books I found.... So the Judeans and Phoenicians didn't ride horses?! :sweatdrop::smash:
Ioudaioi (Judeans) would fight as Hellenes(Greeks) at least in Ptolemaic Egypt, therefore they would probably not have a distinctive unit of their own. Both Thraikioi/Thraikes and Ioudaioi were considered Hellenes by the Ptolemaic authorities. In cavalry, there was absolutely no distinction. Whomever was deemed good enough a rider, would get approx. 70-100 arouras, lease it to a agricultural enterpreneuer (who would pay him in produce for 3 years) and stay in Alexandreia to both enjoy life/ practice along with the rest of his hipparcheia/epile/ile-or wherever they would be sent). That'd be Pelousion in the North or Thebaid in the South. Thebaid would probably be considered as a very unlucky transfer due to the amount of regional violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by AqD
I suspect the same might hold true with the Seleukeides, but I am not sure. What I am sure of is that the Phoenicians of the shores of present day Syria and Lebanon, quickly hellenized to a degree that they too would be considered among the "Hellenes" of the kingdom which would occupy their cities. They would fight along those hippeis.
Thanks!!
One :balloon2: for your help! :2thumbsup:
IIRC, there is little to no mention of any Phoenician activity in Phoenicia during Hellenistic times. It seems that they focused on trade, rather than war.
I would bluntly think that the cav in the near east must have sucked that bad....
i mean, sure there are other units u might call sucky....
but even the most amateur general can tell if the horsemen they fought against sucked or not...
if it sucked, why care about it?
if its any good they'd stick it in their armies (or a copy of it) as soon as time permitted
so i guess that the cav there sucked, the invaders prob took no notice of them and the invaded prob abandoned them (ie, the sacred band inf that was sodomized in the punic war and was never used again)
The Sacred Band was destroyed by the Syrakousai before the Punic Wars, not Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stycks
First of all, mind the language please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stycks
Secondly, the Romans encountered a lot of good heavy cavalry during their expansion phase (including the cavalry equivalent of the Carthagian Sacred Band), yet they waited until well into the empire before adopting similar shock cavalry, so things are not clear-cut as you suggest.
Thirdly, you are probably right that the Semitic states of EB's time-frame did not possess good cavalry corpses, but keep in mind that the powers that (tried to) control Judea and the Phoenician cities possessed some of the best cavalry of the time, so the Semites were bound to look bad.
ooops.... :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
sorry...
talk like that to my history teacher....
i guess it carries.....
but anyways....
your last point was the one i'm trying to make...
Semitic cavalry was much too overshadowed by its neighbors to actually have been noted as a fighting force.
And on your point that the Romans never adopted similar shock cavalry. I think that is because the Romans IMO had no need for shock cavalry (using infantry for almost all roles) so i would hazard a guess that yes, Rome did encounter them and yes at hindsight, it would have helped them a lot in their campaigns, but I think in their time, they saw little need for a dedicated shock cavalry force (they hire mercs if they *really* need it)....
Back to topic though, the diadochi for sure would have wanted splendid cavalry and if there was cavalry of good quality in the Semitic region, they would have integrated it into their army. But instead they saw that the Semites (?) didn't have a good cav force (or were overshadowed) and prob brought their own cavalry traditions so much so that by the time frame EB starts, their native cav traditions didn't survive....
(all speculation but too me seems logical :sweatdrop:)
:yes:
Gosh...Quote:
Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó
Always thought it was the Romans who smashed them....
well...
I was thinking it happened in Sicily so I'm guessing that right (right?)
:help:
yes they where destryed in sicily during the wars on 500 and something bc beteween the greeks and the poeni in their everlasting war over the control of the western mediterranean trade resources
as for semitic cavalary sucking may i remind you that until ww1 the arabs had the best "light" cavalary in the world (lawrence of arabia rings a few bells)
these same weak cavalary destroyed the heavily armoured persian catraphacts of the sassanid empire when they took over persia in their islamic expansion
note that in both ocasions their moral and willingness to fight might have been at it´s highest and in both situations they probably used camels (wich must be considered cavalary)
as for eb time frame the carthaginian generals use one excellent cavarly forçe and poeni are semits so if the levant semits didn´t had the wealth for horses or nobility willing to fight doesn´t make them "sucky" it only means they didn´t had the resources since a far smaller population (also semitis) several hundread miles away with the nobles the horses and the time to practice made one hell of a fighting forçe that kicked out the romans out of africa in the 1st punic war (not sure about this but 15-17 thousand romans where forçed to depart africa)
furthermore this same cavalary was not present at zama or most schollars agree that if they had they would have routed the numidians suporting scipio and turned the tide of batle (hanno was so confident in hannibal´s hability and the 80 elephants he had that he didn´t allowed the 1000 sacred band cavalary to join the batle against the romans)
so please be carefull when making such statements because the semitic people didn´t had the wealth to field such forçes doesn´t mean they didn´t had the hability to do so if circumstances where diferent :wall:
They probably did realize the value of quality cavalry (they hired it, after all), but were unable to set up such a corps themselves. Ordinary horses are expensive enough, never mind well-trained war horses. Combine this with the lack of equestrian tradition and good horse-country in Italy, and it becomes infeasible for the Romans to create a home-made cavalry corps that rivals the Macedonians. Nor could they rely on conquered nations to provide them with it: the heaviest cavalry is extremely expensive and after Roman conquest it is unlikely that the local aristocracy was still wealthy enough to patronize the expensive horse-breeders that could produce proper shock cavalry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stycks
Nothing wrong with speculation. As long as it fits the known facts, of course. I know nothing of Judean or Phoenician (apart from Carthaginian) cavalry, so I am guessing you are right and they weren't very notable. But whether their overlords would have recruited such cavalry is not just determined by their quality, but also whether such recruitment is politically possible, and yields sufficient numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stycks
The kingdom of Judea may not have been particularly rich, but the Phoenician cities were major trade centres. They would have had the wealth to do equip heavy cavalry, but may simply have lacked good horses and an equestrian tradition (like Rome and many Greek city states). Of course, I am not sure if they were still wealthy after Alexander and his successors had finished with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn