Question about Tindanotae

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.

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...

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...

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.

Edit- That came out totally wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

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 ?

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

Copy and pasted:

Quote:

---

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".

---

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.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I...XSn-jndU&hl=en

Some more sources from Livy and DoH.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Dying_gaul.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uticensis

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).

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spendios

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megalos

*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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksnail

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

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksnail

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

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

---

I never said you have to do anything.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

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.

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:

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