Assorted Historical Questions - Gertrude et al, ask them here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

The question was referring to the period of Alexander's campaign, and your response that 'the population was all Greek at that time' is wrong. Like I said, the Phoenicians controlled about a quarter of the island and traces of Phoenician inhabitance have been found at other sites. Just how much of the population was actually Phoenician is almost impossible to determine, but there definitely were settled Phoenicians around.

---

On the specific question of the time of Alexander, you are right. However not 20 years later Demetrios Poliorketes (the besieger) took his title as such after conquering Salamis of Cyprus. Salamis was a Greek city, not a Phoenician one. Had the Phoenician holdings in Cyprus been as important (and wealthy) it makes sense that Demetrios would have opted for them instead. Not saying that they didn't exist, but we are talking about a single city Kition who prospered while Achaimenids were in charge (managing to control a quarter of the island), only to disappear completely during Alexanders' and Ptolemaic rule.

uh..guys, I still have an urgent question that needs answering atm (I'm a hitorian for a mod about Assyria):

I see that the Assyrians depicted thse round shields of their's as being conical. Ospry has blindly followed suite, as well as a few others. yet, for some reason, I get the feeling that what they were aiming for was a Aspis like shield with a boss (rimmed and bowled, etc). is it true that that was artistic convention to simplyfy depiction, or is there archeological evidence (i.e a shield), that has survived, to show one way or the other?

I need to know which is right as soon as possible. our mod depends on it. (its in th TWcenter)

@ keravnos

Didn't Demetrios took the byname Poliorketes after the siege of Rhodos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Mummius took his 5,000 remaining soldiers and drilled them in camp, not daring to go out into the plain until they should have recovered their courage. While he was watching his opportunity the barbarians passed by, carrying a part of the booty they had captured. He fell upon them suddenly, slew a large number, and recaptured the plunder and the standards.

Some of the Lusitanians on the other side of the Tagus, under the leadership of Caucenus, being incensed against the Romans, invaded the Cunei, who were Roman subjects, and captured their large city, Conistorgis, and near the Pillars of Hercules they crossed over the straits, and some of them overran part of Africa, while others laid siege to the city of Ocile.

Mummius followed them with 9,000 foot and 500 horse, and slew about 15,000 of them who were engaged in plundering, and a few of the others, and raised the siege of Ocile. Falling in with a party who were carrying off booty he slew all of them, so that not one was left to bear the tidings of the disaster. All the booty that it was possible to carry he divided among the soldiers. The rest he devoted to the gods of war and burned. Having accomplished these results, Mummius returned to Rome and was awarded a triumph.

He was succeeded in the command by Marcus Atilius, who made an incursion among the Lusitanians and killed about 7000 of them and took their largest city, called Oxthracae. This so terrified the neighbouring tribes that they all made terms of surrender. Among these were some of the Vettones, a nation adjoining the Lusitanians. But when he went away into winter quarters they all forthwith revolted and besieged some of the Roman subjects.

Was it so hard?

---

I was only searching google search with Oxtraca. Thanks mate

Guys!!:furious3::furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

Guys!!:furious3::furious3:

---

Dude, chill. Not everyone in EB has the time to go through and answer every question nor is everyone an expert on everything. When someone who has the knowledge or the time to track down the specifics they will answer it. There are still three questions I've bookmarked in this thread alone (one of which on satrapies and economics) that I will answer when I get the time. And that doesn't even consider the fact that I have material to work on for EB1 and EB2, work a summer job, get my papers ready for school in the fall, and have a social life.

And that is the way it is for everyone on the team whether it be dissertations, signing up for mandatory military service, project deadlines for the real world, traveling, or just taking some time off because it is summer vacation.

sorry. but I have my own deadline too tragically.:embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

@ keravnos

Didn't Demetrios took the byname Poliorketes after the siege of Rhodos?

---

No, he already had that title after the succesful siege of Salamis in Cyprus and the consequent conquest of all of that island (Most Cypriot cities sought peace to escape the fate of Salamis). As you know, Demetrios didn't manage to actually conquer Rhodos, and sued for peace instead. One can't get a title as that after failing to do what that title says he has done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

Guys!!:furious3::furious3:

---

I'm sorry, but when did the team become your own personal academic slaves.

This was the first result off of Google
http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/warfare.../04shie_b.html

Notice the conical shape of two of them.

I'm sure there are many pictures of Assyrian reliefs out there, so do some research and get a book from the library.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keravnos

No, he already had that title after the succesful siege of Salamis in Cyprus and the consequent conquest of all of that island (Most Cypriot cities sought peace to escape the fate of Salamis). As you know, Demetrios didn't manage to actually conquer Rhodos, and sued for peace instead. One can't get a title as that after failing to do what that title says he has done.

---

Still it was a hell of a siege. I had the impression that he got the name then. Even if that was the case it would be worth it don't you think?

This is ridiculous, Ibrahim. I personally got like what five unread PMs from my fellow team members, and a backlog of chores to do for the day. No vacation from work to speak of either. Only afterwards, I deal with EB, and the public comes absolutely in last place of the chain of priority.

The Shipri Tukul speaks for itself as a continuation of Chaldaeans who are an amalgamated mix of late Achaemenid infantry body-guards, late Achaemenid cavalry (Which explains their helmets), and the introduction of a Graeco-Macedonian style Aspis, which was introduced as a shield into the Achaemenid empire a long time ago; There are numerous hypothesized depictions of the Cardaces, or the Persian-style hoplites. The shields are centered around an elder style. Search for "Urartian shield" at Google, and you'll find tons of reconstructions and an actual finding which was attributed to Sarduri II and another attributed to Sargishti I. It is from these findings that some scholars have argued that the Armenian auxiliary infantry of Darius III Codomannus at Gaugamela fought like Argos-style hoplites. You can't really assume that formation if the shield is of an impractical shape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keravnos

On the specific question of the time of Alexander, you are right. However not 20 years later Demetrios Poliorketes (the besieger) took his title as such after conquering Salamis of Cyprus. Salamis was a Greek city, not a Phoenician one. Had the Phoenician holdings in Cyprus been as important (and wealthy) it makes sense that Demetrios would have opted for them instead. Not saying that they didn't exist, but we are talking about a single city Kition who prospered while Achaimenids were in charge (managing to control a quarter of the island), only to disappear completely during Alexanders' and Ptolemaic rule.

---

Of course, the scale of the discussed area is small in comparison to the rest of the Hellenistic world, but in Cyprus itself the Phoenician holdings from the fifth century until Alexander were significant, even if they were not the richest on the island.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

Still it was a hell of a siege. I had the impression that he got the name then. Even if that was the case it would be worth it don't you think?

---

I would like to think that he got the title for a battle that he actually won. There are those who think that "The besieger" title was for what he did in Rhodos. Most of what I read seems to conclude otherwise.
http://www.historyofwar.org/Maps/maps_cyprus306BC.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Of course, the scale of the discussed area is small in comparison to the rest of the Hellenistic world, but in Cyprus itself the Phoenician holdings from the fifth century until Alexander were significant, even if they were not the richest on the island.

---

No arguments on the size of the holdings, my own doubts if you will are just what those Phoenician holdings were. Phoenician overlordship over Hellenic cypriots or a cluster of Phoenician owned, phoenician populated colonies? I think the first option is correct for the reasons I mentioned earlier, but I accept that the opposing conclusion can also be reached.

thanks. and sorry again:embarassed:

In EB's website description of Dorkim Maurim there is a mention to an inscription left by Hannibal in Italy, could you please tell us more about it?
I tried to get more info but unsucesfully so far...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarax

In EB's website description of Dorkim Maurim there is a mention to an inscription left by Hannibal in Italy, could you please tell us more about it?
I tried to get more info but unsucesfully so far...

---

If I remember correctly, the inscription was described by Livy. Unfortunately the inscription is no longer extant, but it was in Livy's day.

That's too bad, it would have been a wonderful source of informations about the carthaginian army...

Would a Kushan empire army roster be radically different from an Indo-Saka one, as presented in EB? Feel free to define 'radically' any way you like...

This one won't be simple: around what time do we get the earliest use of throwing axes within the germanic tribes?

I would suppose that practice came from far behind. It just got known (Though, not very much), during 'em barbarian invasions (Speaking from a unknownledged point of view, which is mine.). I wouldn't be too surprised if by EB's time there was already some tribes who fielded throwing axemen. (Actually, I think some Northern Iberian tribes already did that.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

Hi.
I have 2 questions.

[...]

2nd, what is the team's opinion on re-enactors?
I am thinking of joining one, so I appreciate if you can give me a general opinon on how accurate they are.

---

I didn't see any answer for the second question, and I was curious as well as to what people's opinions of them are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visitor13

Would a Kushan empire army roster be radically different from an Indo-Saka one, as presented in EB? Feel free to define 'radically' any way you like...

---

When you say Kushan, what time period do you mean? The Kushan army changed quite a bit over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

When you say Kushan, what time period do you mean? The Kushan army changed quite a bit over time.

---

Circa AD 100, anyway before the period in which they could raise troops from virtually all of northern India.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Hunt

I didn't see any answer for the second question, and I was curious as well as to what people's opinions of them are.

---

Well just like any 'source of knowledge & information' don't trust 'em 100%. If the re-enactors have been doing their homework it's a real nice way to get some 'firsthand' perspective; something which even movies or games can't give you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarax

This one won't be simple: around what time do we get the earliest use of throwing axes within the germanic tribes?

---

The Franziska was used between the 4rd Century and the 9th Ct.

I have a question about pre-Camillan Roman units. Namely, I believe that they were hoplites at that time, but were they identical in tactics and equipment to contemporary Greek hoplites, say? Or were they different in some way - and if so, how?

On a related note, were there any major shake-ups (like the Camillan or Marian reforms) before the Camillan reforms? Or did equipment and tactics remain largely unchanged from the time Rome really became a city and stopped being a collection of villages, to the time of Camillus?

Thanks in advance.

I Am Herenow

I have a question~

During the early 21st century, what prompt the ignorant public to believe that LS being the only correct set of armour the romans ever wore?

Hollywood.

... and Asterix comics :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satalexton

During the early 21st century, what prompt the ignorant public to believe that LS being the only correct set of armour the romans ever wore?

---

As I wrote in another thread, it's probably due to the universal appearance of it in popular history. It's very recognizable and quintessentially Roman, so it's popular amongst illustrators. This has fixed the image of the LS-wearing legionary in the public mind. As a result, many people now assume that all legionairs wore LS (never having seen any other), even though little to no popular history states this is the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

I have a question about pre-Camillan Roman units. Namely, I believe that they were hoplites at that time, but were they identical in tactics and equipment to contemporary Greek hoplites, say? Or were they different in some way - and if so, how?

On a related note, were there any major shake-ups (like the Camillan or Marian reforms) before the Camillan reforms? Or did equipment and tactics remain largely unchanged from the time Rome really became a city and stopped being a collection of villages, to the time of Camillus?

---

Little is known about the Roman military preceding the Punic wars, and Romans themselves only became interested in history following the second Punic war. Hence most of Rome's early history has to be guessed from legends and stories. Adrian Goldsworthy speculates that in the early days Romes military consisted of "heroic" combat in Homerian style (essentially stone-and-stick throwing contests with a few armoured guys on chariots getting all the headlines). As the Roman middle-class grew stronger, this transformed into hoplite warfare, until defeats by the Gauls and/or Samnites forced the Romans to adopt the legionary style of warfare. I can't answer the detailed questions, though. I do know that the Camillian legion war preceded by the Servian army, who were IIRC hoplites but already had some sort of hastati-principes-triarii division (the word hastati means spearman, after all).