Printable View
I found this somewhere on the endless stretch of the Internets, namely the website All Empires:
There are several towns called, or once called, Kharkhar, and all of them are in Iran, as far as I know. Some are far closer to Sargon's heartland of Assyria than the Kharkhar in this map, but still -- did the Assyrians really penetrate this deeply into the Iranian plateaux? Or anywhere near this far?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrus Shahmiri
Sargon fought wars and conquered cities as far as Samaria and Tarsus in the West and to the coast of the Persian Gulf in the South. Pure distance to the shores of the Caspian sea would hardly stop him. The mountaineous terrain would pose problems, but Sargon was successful in his war against Urartu in just such environment. So I wouldn't think it impossible for the Assyrians to reach even the towns on that map.
I didn't know that. Yet did he hold on to them? Seems like a weak possibility to me. No matter how advanced the Mesopotamians, this is still the 8th century BC.
Depends on how you define "hold". He could've just kicked them around long enough for them to submitt and then leave them as a vassal-state without necissery holding a fixed presence.
Holding on to conquered territory for long periods of time seems to have been a major problem in general during this era. The Assyrians often had to subjugate the same foes over and over. The city of Babylon alone was a major hotspot of trouble for them, and the Syrians and peoples of the Levant were all too happy to revolt given half a chance (not to mention proper "encouragement" from Assyria's enemies, such as Egypt).
That might've been a product of their much-maligned bloody measures of repressing subversion in their empire, though. Mishandled, it could easily backfire, just like with Timur almost two milennia later.
With "hold" I meant "directly rule from Assyria," by the way. Leaving it at vassalization is getting off easy for Sargon ~;)
didn't the assyrians basically create the concept of military garrisons? i believe they were the first culture to keep a core of troops in a conquered state's citadel in their major cities so that would have been their method of control.
Never heard that the Assyrians would be the first ones with an ockupation force. What I've understood the Assyrians were more for first subjugating, and then slowly assimilate conquered areas into Assyria proper in terms of language, culture, etc.
But then I admitt I am not very strong regarding that particiler piece of history.
Given that the same names seem to have been constantly turning up as their opponents in wars, I'd say that even if they made pioneering efforts in the field their success rate was pretty low.
That's not much different from Tamerlane, really. Brilliant general with, arguably, the best army of its time, using the same terror tactics as Chingis Khan and the Assyrians -- but he still spent a huge amount of his time backtracking to crush former enemies who had risen in his rear while he was occupied with other things. That is how, for instance, he came to sack Baghdad twice.
Forgive me for asking Baba Ga'on but are you refeering to Sargon II specifically or the Assyrians in general?
Well, when I originally saw this post on the website mentioned, I wondered if it was true, or even possible at all for the Assyrians. Plus, it's an interesting subject overall, so I brought it here. So yeah, I was referring to the Assyrians in general.
I read somewhere that there are still people in the mid east reffered to as "Assyrians":dizzy2:
in wiki I believe.
EDIT: funny what we find on the net?
Yup. Gotta give the peeps brownie points for having maintained their identity that long.
hm I wonder what would happen if they had their own country...
they dont seem like their ancestors at all...
Around the only folks who do are us sorry backwoods hicks whose swamps nobody ever particularly wanted, so... *shrug*
I'd say the language you speak is more important than the ancestors you have in determining what nation you're a part of.
I speak english, does that mean im from England?
"Nation" is a damn complicated and troublesome concept anyway. Especially after some bright mind thought up the idea of nationalism a century or two back, which like most "isms" has been nothing but trouble.
Isn't nation a people who feel that they are the same? While a state, which is to my knowledge often confused with a nation is a political ententity. For example, the Kurds are a nation, but there is no Kurdish state. While a national-state is a state based on the idea that every nation should have their own state.
I'm of mostly Nordic descent; but aside from physical resemblance (blonde hair & blue eys), I'm fairly certain I'm otherwise nothing like the Vikings of old. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
Nonsense!Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I know you have urges at times to attack and pillage monastaries etc.
Who doesn't?
Someone probably, although I haven't met one for real.
You certainly have a bigger connection to that country than a person who was raised speaking Dutch. Besides that, American Standard is different from the English dialect(s)... So, while you do make a point (it's more complicated than just language), language certainly is one of the most important elements pertaining to ethnic, cultural and national identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
Uh... I speak English too. They kinda teach it in school here.
As your mother tongue?
But true, let me illustrate his point to show the other side of the coin: I'm bilingual myself, and I speak the American Standard dialect of English besides Dutch. So what does that make me? Dutch or American? I've never lived in America, but I think in English... et cetera.
Langue maternelle is obviously another thing, but you might perhaps want to define it as such then. I mean, I can three languages well enough that I can think in them without translation, and only one is my mother tongue...
And it only gets harder when you were raised with two languages. Which illustrates how language isn't the only thing that determines your (national/ethnic/cultural) identity.
My point exactly. And let's not even go into the tangled history of reasonably-standardized "national" languages...