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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by divulse123

My point is more for Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau. For the nuts and bolts of recruitment in the Seleucid army, check out Bar-Kochva's Seleucid Army volume. More recent, and with charts, try his "Judas Maccabaeus". For colonization and "macedonian" settlement in the east check out Getzel Cohen's volume on hellenistic colonization in mesopotamia. (I'm not at my desk now, I'm at home, so I can provide full biblio later.) For a conflicting but (in my opinion) slightly heavy-handed reading of the ancient sources check out Khurt and Sherwin-White's "Samarkhand to Sardis." Getzel Cohen has a forthcoming volume on the colonization in the Iranian plateau, and yet another on the colonization in Bactria and India.

---

:dizzy2: I'm not necessarily vexed by the mention of practically all of the above titles, but just the 'check out' bit. I've visited more libraries in the last few months, in a vain bid to track down at least some of these titles, than I'd care to count. Perhaps it doesn't help that I have, as yet, decided not to enter 3rd level education and so have had to rely mainly on public institutions.


In any case, the only solution that has actually borne any fruit has been to buy them from Alibris or other comparable companies. For the most part, this is just ridiculously expensive : Take Holt's "Thundering Zeus" for example, since it belongs to the same series as most of the above. Paying upwards of £60 for a book that has 248 pages! To buy several of the specialist titles in this series might be affordable over an extended period of time, but most of them seem increasingly rare as it is. Case in point of course is "Samarkhand to Sardis." I really don't care how flawed the approach is because after hearing so much about it I'd give my left bollock just to get the chance to actually read it. That seems unlikely though, given the pricetag of at least around £300 on the handful of copies that do seem to be available.


Sorry, rant over :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redshank

:dizzy2: I'm not necessarily vexed by the mention of practically all of the above titles, but just the 'check out' bit. I've visited more libraries in the last few months, in a vain bid to track down at least some of these titles, than I'd care to count. Perhaps it doesn't help that I have, as yet, decided not to enter 3rd level education and so have had to rely mainly on public institutions.


In any case, the only solution that has actually borne any fruit has been to buy them from Alibris or other comparable companies. For the most part, this is just ridiculously expensive : Take Holt's "Thundering Zeus" for example, since it belongs to the same series as most of the above. Paying upwards of £60 for a book that has 248 pages! To buy several of the specialist titles in this series might be affordable over an extended period of time, but most of them seem increasingly rare as it is. Case in point of course is "Samarkhand to Sardis." I really don't care how flawed the approach is because after hearing so much about it I'd give my left bollock just to get the chance to actually read it. That seems unlikely though, given the pricetag of at least around £300 on the handful of copies that do seem to be available.


Sorry, rant over :no:

---

Do you not have access to an interlibrary loan service? Most university and some public library systems allow people to place loans for rarer books like these, which is how most people (myself included) get access to them.

Yeah, the biggest shame in most branches of academia is that we do not let our stuff become available to the general public. As the above poster said, try to find a library that will let you ILL some of these books. A large metropolitan one is probably your best bet. Or, you can probably just go to a college library and photocopy a relevant chapter or two, though MANY college libraries do not actually have some of the VERY important works on more obscure topics, a real bummer that.

I have From Samarkand to Sardis here with me, but its a library copy. I rejoiced when I found it because of the rarity and things I heard about it, but really, why do these books co$t $oooo much to own them? Its like robbery or $omething.

They are expensive to print and VERY few people buy them other than libraries. The standard first run of editions of ancient texts from Oxford University Press, for example, is 400 copies. Not very many huh? Many pieces of secondary scholarship get even fewer copies made, the importance of the scholarship does not matter, if it's not lucrative it doesn't get printed. So people like Goldsworthy, Kagan, etc., water down their dissertations five or six different times, slap on some pretty pictures, and BAM, a brand new (and practically useless) easy to acquire "ancient history" books. But I suppose they are better than nothing.

If I was facing a roman army or another of the period, what size of soldier would I face? Because I believe that Romans were short people in comparison to many moderners and Gauls(I heard this, but it could be BS), for example, I am 6'2" what would the average Roman be?

Also, sprouting of this, is the height of peoples directly related to peoples, i.e UK, Scandanavia are larger then modern Italians etc.. because I am from the result of Germanic and Celtic genetics and Italians are from romans, and then their conquerors.

I guess just about the same size as you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by We shall fwee...Wodewick

If I was facing a roman army or another of the period, what size of soldier would I face? Because I believe that Romans were short people in comparison to many moderners and Gauls(I heard this, but it could be BS), for example, I am 6'2" what would the average Roman be?

Also, sprouting of this, is the height of peoples directly related to peoples, i.e UK, Scandanavia are larger then modern Italians etc.. because I am from the result of Germanic and Celtic genetics and Italians are from romans, and then their conquerors.

---

They had a minimum height requirement for the legions, but they noted that Germans and Celts were taller than them on average, and such peoples often noted how "short" the Romans were.

Did the minimum height requirement not go with the Marian reforms?

edit. actually I've realized it came in with the Marian reforms, not out. Sorry.:embarassed:

were night battles used commonly by any "faction"? :thinking2:



to see wheather or not should I use night battles :2thumbsup:

You know, I'd consider emptying my trust to start up a company that would publish works like From Sardis to Samarkand at low costs (i.e they literally be a reinforced binder, and paper mediumishly heavier than copier paper), but pharmacy is my calling you know?


Besides, the shit storm it would cause by some elitist academia wouldn't be worth it. Would you want to hear tales of another professor being axed a week by RA's legions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

were night battles used commonly by any "faction"? :thinking2:



to see wheather or not should I use night battles :2thumbsup:

---

When you get Empires Total War, select 'US' if that is a faction and go for night battles. Also: if they include the option to attack precisely at boxing day, that would be totally sweet... Washington, anyone?

Seriously though: night battles were usually not a grand-strategy as it's basically only a viable (because it's nearly always costly) option for the lesser of generals/armies. It gives you the edge of surprise at the cost of better coordination...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

were night battles used commonly by any "faction"? :thinking2:



to see wheather or not should I use night battles :2thumbsup:

---

Night battles were rare throughout history, because they were extremely difficult for both sides. All kinds of unexpected things happened, and men could panic for no reason, not to mention the problems of co-ordination.

I have a question...:book:

May be this is answered before but I wonder why Romans stop conquering other factions?? I mean Caledonians , Germanic Tribes or Parthians are more powerful than Greeks , Carthaginians , Iberians or Celts ?? Or are there other reasons???..:book:

Sorry for My English :sweatdrop:

Thanks for replying..:balloon2:

Augustus advised that future emperors keep Rome within the levels it was when he died, plus the empire at that time had a lot of natural borders ie the Danube ets. A few emperors did try to conquer more territory of course but most just defended what they had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Augustus advised that future emperors keep Rome within the levels it was when he died, plus the empire at that time had a lot of natural borders ie the Danube ets. A few emperors did try to conquer more territory of course but most just defended what they had.

---

:book: Thanks.... I didnt know Augustus advised that !!!! :book:

Well to be honest it probably didn't have much of an effect on future emperors, Romes empire was probably as big as it could get without becoming unmanageable at the time. Most emperors probably said they were going along with Augustus' advice, but more likely it was just too difficult to expand the empire, most gains in the Imperial era didn't last long. I think Trajan conquered a lot of territory, but most was given up when he died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atanamir

I mean Caledonians , Germanic Tribes or Parthians are more powerful than Greeks , Carthaginians , Iberians or Celts

---

Probably not the Caledons, but yes Germanic tribes and Parthians posed a major threat to the Roman Empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

Probably not the Caledons, but yes Germanic tribes and Parthians posed a major threat to the Roman Empire.

---

If they are threat to the Roman Empire what other emperors do about them .I mean when Carthaginians or many others threated Roman Repuplic they conquered them...is there any reason other than "becoming unmanageable at the time " . Is there political reasions or someting about one man on top??:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atanamir

If they are threat to the Roman Empire what other emperors do about them .I mean when Carthaginians or many others threated Roman Repulic they conquered them...is there any reason other than "becoming unmanageable at the time " . Is there political reasions or someting about one man on top??:book:

---

The first emperors campaigned heavily in Germany. The problem was not one of military might. The problem was that it was very difficult to garrison a permanent army in Germany. Armies require food, food requires agriculture, and Germany had very little of the latter. Classical logistics being what they were (no highways, freight trucks or refrigerators), the Romans could only campaign for short times, and the lack of population centers made it hard to conquer anything of value and leave a lasting impression.

I am less sure why the Romans failed to conquer the Parthians, but it was not for want of trying. I guess it was logistics again: the Parthians could fall back easily and recapture their losses while the Romans needed to resupply. Off course, the heavy-infantry based army of the Romans was not the best counter to Parthia's horse archers.

Then there is the political issue: an Emperor often could not leave Rome for extended periods for fear that an ambitious general would start a civil war. He could send others to wage the war for him, however that was a good way of breeding ambitious generals that could start a civil war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Labrat

The first emperors campaigned heavily in Germany. The problem was not one of military might. The problem was that it was very difficult to garrison a permanent army in Germany. Armies require food, food requires agriculture, and Germany had very little of the latter. Classical logistics being what they were (no highways, freight trucks or refrigerators), the Romans could only campaign for short times, and the lack of population centers made it hard to conquer anything of value and leave a lasting impression.

I am less sure why the Romans failed to conquer the Parthians, but it was not for want of trying. I guess it was logistics again: the Parthians could fall back easily and recapture their losses while the Romans needed to resupply. Off course, the heavy-infantry based army of the Romans was not the best counter to Parthia's horse archers.

Then there is the political issue: an Emperor often could not leave Rome for extended periods for fear that an ambitious general would start a civil war. He could send others to wage the war for him, however that was a good way of breeding ambitious generals that could start a civil war.

---

That is a good answer....:smash:

But when Julius Caesar was conquering the gaul, was there same situations like in in Germany?? or diferent??....:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atanamir

But when Julius Caesar was conquering the gaul, is there same situations like in in Germany?? or diferent??....:book:

---

Different, I think. For one thing, Ceasar was invited into Gaul by the Aedui: that means he had local allies (however unwilling these later became) to supply him and guide and reinforce his armies. AFAIK the Romans weren't invited into Germany, and although the Germans were happy to enlist in the Roman armies the tribes themselves were fiercely independent.

Unlike Germany, Gaul was also frequented by Italian traders, so Ceaser would have had some economic, geographical and political intelligence. Ceasar also wouldn't have had to worry about usurpers in Rome. He was not an Emperor, but a magistrate and senator. That does not mean there were no political threats to his position, but at least he did not have to worry about an army being sent after him until the very end of his term of office.

Also Gaul had large population centers and agriculture, the former can be occupied and garrisoned, the latter can sustain the garrison. This was far more difficult in Germany (although IIRC the Romans did try).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Labrat

Different, I think. For one thing, Ceasar was invited into Gaul by the Aedui: that means he had local allies (however unwilling these later became) to supply him and guide and reinforce his armies. AFAIK the Romans weren't invited into Germany, and although the Germans were happy to enlist in the Roman armies the tribes themselves were fiercely independent.

Unlike Germany, Gaul was also frequented by Italian traders, so Ceaser would have had some economic, geographical and political intelligence. Ceasar also wouldn't have had to worry about usurpers in Rome. He was not an Emperor, but a magistrate and senator. That does not mean there were no political threats to his position, but at least he did not have to worry about an army being sent after him until the very end of his term of office.

Also Gaul had large population centers and agriculture, the former can be occupied and garrisoned, the latter can sustain the garrison. This was far more difficult in Germany (although IIRC the Romans did try).

---

Thanks alot.....:balloon2: I am satisfyed..:2thumbsup:

What does Seleucia Pieria mean? Seleukeia of the/on the/of/ blahblah?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Labrat

I am less sure why the Romans failed to conquer the Parthians, but it was not for want of trying. I guess it was logistics again: the Parthians could fall back easily and recapture their losses while the Romans needed to resupply. Off course, the heavy-infantry based army of the Romans was not the best counter to Parthia's horse archers.

---

Yes, that's basically it: The Romans were defeated time and again by the Parthians. In fact they always run into serious problems when facing cavalry heavy armies.

I've got a new question that I think isn't too hard for someone a bit more oriented in ancient history than myself.

Could someone please explain the differences between the Agyraspidai, Klerouchioi and the Pezhetairoi phalangitai?

If I've understood it correctly, Pezhetairoi were landowners that were a sort of standig army, and Klerouchioi were sort of "bribed" (With land, etc) Hellens that were used to maintain the Hellenic army components amongst the Diadochi. The Agyraspidai were former Pezhetairoi that became Agyraspidai beacuse of.. Veteran status? (Many battles, exceptional bravery etc.)

The Argyraspides were veteran Pezhetairoi, who possessed large kleruchs. IIRC, the Klerouchoi were something of a late "invention", who consisted mostly out of the landowners in the Seleukide and Ptolemaic satrapies.

Thank you Hax. My "spelling" of ancient greek (Or.. Whats it called? :embarassed:) is a little (More than a little actually) rusty.. But you gotta start trying sometime.. Trial and error I suppose :sweatdrop:

Nah, it's also written as "Argyraspidai" in EB. Abou can tell you a lot more about this, though.

Hey Divulse. Sorry for the tardy response, I've been away for a few days.

I think we're actually on a pretty similar page in many regards. As has been noted, most of my description was from the Ptolemaic perspective, whereas you have been speaking mainly about the Seleukids. Noting the accessibility of the "Makedones" military pseudo-ethnicity for some Hellenic immigrants brings us pretty much to agreement. We can see further inclusion happening in the Ptolemaic case for some other peoples: Jews make a decent example I suppose.

If we look at the Seleukid case, can you shed any light on the experience of Jews in the army? We get some indications that they were among the troops that could be raised around Babylon, and then we hear of the troops raised to be settled as katoikoi in the reign of--correct me if I'm wrong--Antiochos III. Do you think these Jewish katoikoi were settled entirely on their own (that is, in a provincial town of some sort, but as a Jewish garrison, not as a part of a wider garrison) or would groups of these Jews settle alongside other katoikoi? Now, many Jews were recruited as mercenary or symmachic forces in the latter 2nd c and early 1st c, but I would suspect that the nature of their service differed from that of the Jewish settlers. Or do you think the settlers were little different from the mercenaries garrisoning and billeted upon numerous towns and outposts across the Seleukid domain?

Hey Paullus,
I'm super short on time, this whole PhD. thing can be a downer. I'll answer as fast as I can. The evidence suggests that all katoikoi were settle in katoikiai (oddly enough), and I'm not sure about the living conditions within each one. It is possible that they lived in segregated (officially or otherwise) districts. However, the evidence suggests that only rarely were there just one ethnicity of katoikoi in one of these settlements. 3500 Jews made up some of the original residents of Antioch, and several smaller military settlements in Asia minor. These would have been enrolled in the phalanx, and likely referred to in the lit. as "macedonians." (their existance is traced mostly through inscriptions, funeral stelai etc.) The mercenaries were different animal. they retained native armament or adopted other forms of non-heavy infantry panoply. We have evidence (from Iran I think) of Jews serving among the cavalry. I'm too busy to grab the CIJ, but if you have access and your greek is good you'll be able to find something I'm sure. Sorry I can't cite exact sources but I'm acting from memory here. Back to work. Mmmm, hydraulic engineering in temporary roman forts... :wall:

Again, apologies.

So What is your Opinion of Philip V of Macedon. Was he a Talented leader that just had alot of bad luck? was he an incompetent leader? or either one and jsut didnt really understand what he got himself into?

Yeah, I may take a look at the CIJ Wednesday, I won't be able to get to it till then. But I think we're generally in agreement. I'm under the impression that there's a pretty good likelihood that the Jews in the katoikiai of Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, and perhaps in Syria as well, were likely serving as members of the phalanx, though I'm sure quite a few others may well have served in other capacities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Nah, it's also written as "Argyraspidai" in EB. Abou can tell you a lot more about this, though.

---

:inquisitive: No it isn't. Anymore. Grr...

Pallus & divulse123,

Y'all reminded me of what I read in G. M. Cohen's The Seleucid Colonies Studies In Founding, Administration and Organization a few days ago, it did mention a few colonies here and there that were kept as one racial/national type where they settled or were moved. I'll type the relevant sections up right fast. Some good stuff ~:)

-Antiochus III did send Babylonian Jews to Asia Minor and allowed them to live under their own laws which, in turn, made colonization a bit more attractive to them. This arrangement excluded the natives from joining the colony. The reason was to maintain their loyalty and the ethnic demographic integrity which increases the stability of the colony. 200 years later Herod the Great settle Babylonian Jew in Trachonitis under the same arrangement (they keep their laws), but here other came to join the colony, but these would likely be Jews attracted by the favorable tax-status and living under their own laws. No mention of native Arabs joining the colony is found. The colony maintained its stability by excluding the native population and attracting future colonists with the same national background.

-Another example is the Cardacians in Telmessus in 181 B.C., known from an inscription recording a letter written by Eumenes II to a royal official, Artemidorus.

-He starts the next section off with examples of homogeneous transfers like the Jews and Cardacians, but mentions the Gauls with Attalus (Polybius 5.78.5).

-The inhabitants of Gergitha in the Troad were moved by Attalus I to a new village which received the same name as the old (Strabo 13.1.70). Here again there is nothing to indicate that the villagers were joined by other settlers in the process of the transferal. Certainly the fact that the colonies are designated by the nationality of th colonists is prima facie evidence of some degree of uniformity.

Cohen seems to be mentioning that in the initial creation/foundation of some colonies, the chance of the colony starting off as one nationality or being homogenous was greater at that time. Reading on, it mentioned that when a colony was founded that the Greeks/Macedonians were usually the initial colonizers and natives followed afterwards. Cohen states that "...we are sadly ill-informed about the process involved in bringing together various population groups. Despite the lack of details the end result of the process is clear enough: the appearance of many new cities which were Greek in character but distinctly cosmopolitan in population."

I have another (short) questions:
I've read in several sources that the Parni or Parnoi were one of three tribes of the Dahae confederacy. But who were the other tribes, what were they called?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by divulse123

The mercenaries were different animal. they retained native armament or adopted other forms of non-heavy infantry panoply.

---

Divulse, could you please discuss the evidence you know of for mercenaries retaining their native armament?

Quote:

---

We have evidence (from Iran I think) of Jews serving among the cavalry. I'm too busy to grab the CIJ, but if you have access and your greek is good you'll be able to find something I'm sure. Sorry I can't cite exact sources but I'm acting from memory here. Back to work. Mmmm, hydraulic engineering in temporary roman forts... :wall:

---

Josephus mentions a group of Jewish horse archers being raised in Mesopotamia in the 1st c. BC, IIRC.

What unit guarded the caesars after Constantine disbanded the Praetorian Guard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

Yes, that's basically it: The Romans were defeated time and again by the Parthians. In fact they always run into serious problems when facing cavalry heavy armies.

---

For being beaten time and again, they sure managed to cling on their provinces, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

What unit guarded the caesars after Constantine disbanded the Praetorian Guard?

---

You mean the Ceasars (junior emperors) or the Emperors in general? Well, Diocletion had already replaced the Praetorians as Imperial guard with the Jovians and the Herculeans. Constantine merely ended the unit's existence. Afterwards, the Eastern Roman emperor was guarded by the Constantinople-based Scholarian guard. I am not sure who guarded the western emperor, though. Didn't he have a German guard or something? BI featured an awfully bland Imperial German guard unit as bodyguard for the western Emperors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lysimachos

I have another (short) questions:
I've read in several sources that the Parni or Parnoi were one of three tribes of the Dahae confederacy. But who were the other tribes, what were they called?

---

This is actually very problematic and not at all agreed upon unanimously within scholarly circles; Some would suggest that the Dahae Confederacy, which was usually constituted in historiography as "seven tribes strong" and that we find this allusion in later Sassanian sources with the "Seven Great Parthian Clans". However our available data on these purported clans have been so scarce, in particular proper attesting of existence in the Arsacid period; We find the Sûrên and Kârên to be two of the other noble "houses" which for certain held magnate (Vuzûrgân) positions. This in itself is a problem, because it does not tell us if these two clans ever constituted a native part of the confederacy to begin with (Recent debate would rather have us believe that the Arsacid or royal clan itself, as Parni/Sparnii and the Dahae kin they brought were rather absorbed into the settled Parthian culture. I'm thinking what you are actually asking is "I've seen in some sources that three clans are attested", and these would be the Arsacids (Arshkân), the Sûrên-Pahlavân (Surenas), and the Kârên-Pahlavân (Karenas). But the answer is not correct at face-value either. We have no idea if the Surenas or Karenas were native to Parthia proper or a part of the nomadic conglomerate before imperial times.

We have to admit defeat here; The nomenclature for certain things have been lacking, and this of course is reflected upon the poor array of ethnicities and traits (Which has for now been "fixed" with translations, until we can launch a revamp); Sources are conflicting with each other, because the "Seven Parthian Clans" as a concept has recently started to become interchangeable with the nomadic Dahae and their belonging confederacy. The former is a concept which took place during imperial times, the latter is simply a pointer to the origins of the Parni as "Scythian out-casts". This makes your simple question a bit difficult to answer in simple terms, ironically :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

This is actually very problematic and not at all agreed upon unanimously within scholarly circles; Some would suggest that the Dahae Confederacy, which was usually constituted in historiography as "seven tribes strong" and that we find this allusion in later Sassanian sources with the "Seven Great Parthian Clans". However our available data on these purported clans have been so scarce, in particular proper attesting of existence in the Arsacid period; We find the Sûrên and Kârên to be two of the other noble "houses" which for certain held magnate (Vuzûrgân) positions. This in itself is a problem, because it does not tell us if these two clans ever constituted a native part of the confederacy to begin with (Recent debate would rather have us believe that the Arsacid or royal clan itself, as Parni/Sparnii and the Dahae kin they brought were rather absorbed into the settled Parthian culture. I'm thinking what you are actually asking is "I've seen in some sources that three clans are attested", and these would be the Arsacids (Arshkân), the Sûrên-Pahlavân (Surenas), and the Kârên-Pahlavân (Karenas). But the answer is not correct at face-value either. We have no idea if the Surenas or Karenas were native to Parthia proper or a part of the nomadic conglomerate before imperial times.

We have to admit defeat here; The nomenclature for certain things have been lacking, and this of course is reflected upon the poor array of ethnicities and traits (Which has for now been "fixed" with translations, until we can launch a revamp); Sources are conflicting with each other, because the "Seven Parthian Clans" as a concept has recently started to become interchangeable with the nomadic Dahae and their belonging confederacy. The former is a concept which took place during imperial times, the latter is simply a pointer to the origins of the Parni as "Scythian out-casts". This makes your simple question a bit difficult to answer in simple terms, ironically :smash:

---

Thank you for this insightful answer. I really thought there would be a simple answer, but obviously this is another thing obscured by the shades of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

This is actually very problematic and not at all agreed upon unanimously within scholarly circles; Some would suggest that the Dahae Confederacy, which was usually constituted in historiography as "seven tribes strong" and that we find this allusion in later Sassanian sources with the "Seven Great Parthian Clans".

---

Could the reference to seven tribes in the dahae confederacy be an echo of history surrounding Darius I's ascension to the Achaemenid throne? Much in the same way that Arsaces's history echoes the myth surrounding Cyrus's, a robber turned king, etc

Foot

Correct; All we know of the Parni at the beginning of the mod is that they moved in the vicinity of Alexander's empire by the end of his conquests, and furthermore the two purported predecessors of Arsaces I, whom we know only by Justin's narrative. Later sources attempt to portray Arsaces as a descendant of Achaemenid ruler Artaxerxes II (Which was also an epithet claimed by Ardashir I), but it has been ruled out as a later associative anachronism of late imperial Roman sources. The Parthians have been subject to many mythologically inspired theories of origin, and no less than that they have also seen many claimants.

I have a question again :beam:

When I was watching a tv documentary called "Footsteps of Alexander the great" or something like that I dont remember!, it sayid strange story..
....when Alex. conquered the Baktria and Songodia , Macedonians found strange town...Middle of the Asia they found greek speaking people, the town completely greek (Buildings,Oil trees , Streets, dally life). Macedonians asked them who they were...They said they were decedents of ionian greek who helped persians century ago against european greeks (I thing Xerxes time)...after persian returned from the greece they brought them Asia..

After couple day Alex. gave an order to exterminate all town and destroy everything inside end near the town...
I wonder anybody hear this...Is it true story ?????:book:

Yes that is true, or at least appears in the contemporary accounts of Alexander's expeditions. The Persians were certainly not against moving large populations to other parts of their empire, and this is seen as an example of that.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Yes that is true, or at least appears in the contemporary accounts of Alexander's expeditions. The Persians were certainly not against moving large populations to other parts of their empire, and this is seen as an example of that.

Foot

---

Thanks....::bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power2the1

Pallus & divulse123,

Y'all reminded me of what I read in G. M. Cohen's The Seleucid Colonies Studies In Founding, Administration and Organization a few days ago, it did mention a few colonies here and there that were kept as one racial/national type where they settled or were moved. I'll type the relevant sections up right fast. Some good stuff ~:) ... ...

... ... Cohen seems to be mentioning that in the initial creation/foundation of some colonies, the chance of the colony starting off as one nationality or being homogenous was greater at that time. Reading on, it mentioned that when a colony was founded that the Greeks/Macedonians were usually the initial colonizers and natives followed afterwards. Cohen states that "...we are sadly ill-informed about the process involved in bringing together various population groups. Despite the lack of details the end result of the process is clear enough: the appearance of many new cities which were Greek in character but distinctly cosmopolitan in population."

---

Hah! I can't get over how much Getzel lectures like he writes. That's a hoot. His conclusions are coming mostly from epigraphic evidence at these colonies, the literary stuff being sorely lacking. Antioch, which I mentioned above, was originally populated with Athenians, the Jews being moved there shortly thereafter. It would seem that, as Getzel suggests, generally the katoikoi lived in close proximity to one another, if not completely integrated within one settlement; however, there is evidence for settlements, few and far between, that consist of only one ethnic group. As it pertains to the army, I'm pretty sure the evidence suggests the katoikoi, regardless of their origin, served as manpower for the heavy infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Divulse, could you please discuss the evidence you know of for mercenaries retaining their native armament?

Josephus mentions a group of Jewish horse archers being raised in Mesopotamia in the 1st c. BC, IIRC.

---

Most of it is argumentum ex silentio, there is little if any evidence of mercenaries being used as phalangites. However there are many artistic representations on coins, monuments, stelai, etc. that show mercenaries with non-phalanx armaments. Thracians, cretans, galatians, etc. Bar-Kochva's Judas Maccabaeus has images I think.

Sorry I can't get into any more depth now. Last week of classes, trying to make sure my funding is renewed for next year. (Can't they just take my word that my dissertation will be good?) :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Could the reference to seven tribes in the dahae confederacy be an echo of history surrounding Darius I's ascension to the Achaemenid throne? Much in the same way that Arsaces's history echoes the myth surrounding Cyrus's, a robber turned king, etc

Foot

---

Yes, in fact these are all re-occuring allusions and motifs within especially ancient Iranian mythology; There has been an infatuation with personalities of humble origins, turning into majestic figures. In a curious relation, Arsaces and Ardashir thus appear very similar; Just like how the Arsacids were vassals of the Seleucids at first, and how the early Sassanians were vassals of the Arsacid royalty, we find that spark again when Ardashir elopes with an Arsacid maiden, inciting Artabanus IV to chase them. This by itself is only a slight modification of Cyrus' confrontation with his grandfather, the last Medean great king, Astyages. It is indeed the same theme.

The seven tribes of the Dahae sounds peculiarly like a mix of the original mass of nomads of which the Arsacids stemmed from, and the later seven clans. We don't know for sure who these were, but two popular lists (Which supposedly simplifies the case for the laymen... While I grow bald :shrug:) of seven clans seem to have circulated somewhat around the Internet:

"Parthian era" clans:

Sohae
Dahae
Arsacids
Surenas
Karenas
Merenas
Aspahapet/Sparapets

"Sassanian era" clans:

Surenas
Karenas
Merenas
Aspahapet
Spendiat/Espandiyar
Varaz
Andigas/Andegan

Of course, these lists in my opinion are bullshit. The only "Great" clans attested to the Arsacid era are those highlighted in bold-face. I am very suspicious over these popular constructs; Sohae and Varaz are completely unknown to me. Instead, the Bazrangids (Persis), Atropatids (Medea Atropatene), Kamnaskirids (Elymaïs) and Aspasines (Characene) seem much more well-attested to me. Nevertheless, you are correct that the "Seven tribes" are another recurring motif. Five wise men were not deemed sufficient to solve issues, let alone three, but seven appears to be the "magic number" of prudence and feudal statemanship. We indeed find the same allusion back in imperial Medean times when Deioces "unified" the six other Mede tribes (There is of course debate as to Deioces belonging to either tribe, or if he stood outside and formed the entity of royals... But then again we don't really know which tribe that ruled, so I am leaning towards the latter).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Labrat

You mean the Ceasars (junior emperors) or the Emperors in general? Well, Diocletion had already replaced the Praetorians as Imperial guard with the Jovians and the Herculeans. Constantine merely ended the unit's existence. Afterwards, the Eastern Roman emperor was guarded by the Constantinople-based Scholarian guard. I am not sure who guarded the western emperor, though. Didn't he have a German guard or something? BI featured an awfully bland Imperial German guard unit as bodyguard for the western Emperors.

---

I thought "Ceasar" was the title held by the emperors. This is the first I've ever heard of "junior" emperors.

Yeah, the WRE in BI had the Imperial German Bodyguard, while the ERE had the Imperial Household Bodyguard. Considering CA's habit of taking liberties with historical accuracy, I would rather have liked having Imperial Sarmatian Knights as bodyguards.

(expecting to be beat down with suits of Lorica Segmentata for that last remark :tongue:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

I thought "Ceasar" was the title held by the emperors. This is the first I've ever heard of "junior" emperors.

---

Tetrachy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

Tetrachy

---

Interesting. Never seen that article before.

I know a lot, but I can humbly admit that I don't know everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sad_wing667

So What is your Opinion of Philip V of Macedon. Was he a Talented leader that just had alot of bad luck? was he an incompetent leader? or either one and jsut didnt really understand what he got himself into?

---

Very short on time, but Hammond believes that he was just crushed by a Romani senate, and then made to look the arrogant fool for it. Romans at that time searched for excuses, any excuse that would let them attack and destroy Makedonia once and for all. Even if he could defeat the Romani, the senate would send another army, then another, then another, and another still, until Makedonia was no more.

On a much uglier note, Makedonians weren't made to suffer for the loss of Perseus, not like Epeirotes did. The amount of destruction and desolation wrought upon Epeiros at 167 BCE is unimaginable. Tens of cities destroyed, a lot of them never settled again. The capital of Thesprotians' (one of 3 top of epeiros tribes/clans, the other two being Molossians and Chaonians), Gitane, being one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by divulse123

Most of it is argumentum ex silentio, there is little if any evidence of mercenaries being used as phalangites. However there are many artistic representations on coins, monuments, stelai, etc. that show mercenaries with non-phalanx armaments. Thracians, cretans, galatians, etc. Bar-Kochva's Judas Maccabaeus has images I think.

---

Sorry, bit of a misunderstanding. I wasn't referring to mercenaries fighting in the phalanx versus fighting in their native fighting styles, I was referring to whether mercenaries provided their own arms or were provided by their employers, an issue which is tangential to the former.

Ahh, sorry about that. I'm not sure if that's something that archaeology can tell us, and I'm pretty sure the literature is silent. It would be nice if we had paycheck stubs of the mercenaries like we do for Roman soldiers, where there are itemized deductions from their pay "ad victum" etc. It's an interesting idea that their employers paid them for their services and added a little stipend for rounding out their panoply. Unfortunately, my gut feels that, unless we can cite something, we can say nothing.

I doubt the employers would give additional pay to round out their panoply. Its more likely that they would expect them to acquire the "rounding out" pieces by means of their pay. We do, by the way, have a few pay stubs, but they're by no means as detailed as Roman pay stubs: officer so and so, 600 drachmas, soldier so and so, 200 drachmas. And that's about it.

I think the armament process might depend on the type of mercenary. A group of Pisidians and such hired by xenologoi (I'm thinking of the Sidon stelai) might be armed by the state to serve in standing mercenary units alongside men from many different nations (consider the similarity in ethnicities between the couple of name lists from Koile Syria and the ethnicities on the Sidon stelai). But I see two exceptions to this.

1. As you've pointed out, Galatians or Kretans, in those cases where they would not expect to fight in a unit with a whole bunch of other nationalities, would likely bring their own equipment, and could probably expect better treatment, as specialized troops, than the filler troops for border forts. At the same time there's a decent chance that they could be rewarded with nice equipment as part of their service, or that they could purchase equipment from their pay (especially if they were being paid as well as regular heavy inf. troops).

2. Many mercenaries were seemingly hired abroad and brought to Alexandreia. That process is described in the lead-up to Raphia, and there are indications of it in the papyri and hints at it in quite a few other bits of history. In other circumstances mercenaries might be hired in the field. A soldier recruited in Pisidia to travel to Alexandreia probably would be armed by the Ptolemies, but a soldier recruited in Pisidia by a general operating in the area would likely use his "native armament."

It'd be great if we had some really clear sources on how this could work in various times and places, but a lot of it clearly requires some inference and guesswork, so don't take what I've written above as an attempt on my part to be authoritative. And yes, divulse, securing funding is important--surely your university, like mine, needs grunt workers to teach summer courses?

The sources actually aren't totally silent on this issue, and for general coverage of it you can see David Whitehead, "Who Equipped Mercenary Troops in Classical Greece?" pp. 105-13 in Historia 40, 1991 and Paul McKechnie, "Greek Mercenary Troops and their Equipment" pp. 297-305 in Historia 43, 1994. These deal overwhelmingly with the case in the 4th c. BC, but there are also a few excurses on the 3rd c. BC. Unfortunately, all the literary evidence is far too vague and scattered to be able to form any consistent image of the arming of mercenaries.

For less explicit evidence, yes we have sources of information like the Alexandrian and Sidon stelae, but those two are unfortunately contradictory. The Sidon mercenaries seem to have been fairly uniformly equipped (at least when it came to thureoi and helmets), but the Alexandrian mercenaries certainly weren't and seem to have been armed in their native panoply (Galatians being the most prominent group, obviously).

That reminds me, would you happen to have information on that papyrus that Thompson mentions in Memphis under the Ptolemies which refers to a 10-drachma annual clothing stipend for Ptolemaic troops? I think it was 3rd c. BC in date, and she mentioned that it was unpublished, but that was obviously in 1988 when the book was published. I'd just like to know a little more about it and if we can tell if it refers to mercenaries or standing troops. Any idea?

Sorry, I can't say anything about that. I haven't seen Thompson's book. Unfortunately there are 3/4 of a million papyri waiting to be published, and only a few hundred thousand have been so far. At the rate we're going we'll finish in a couple hundred years, assuming we do not find any more, which we do every 2 hours or so. (Glad I'm not a papyrologist). Sometimes we have to take their word for it, because the only way to interpret an unpublished papyrus is autopsy, and most of us mortals don't have the money to blow chasing them around! I'd love it if someone could answer your question though, you've got me interested.

I can't find it in the materials I have on hand. I'll check Thompson's book today, perhaps seeing it there can help me track it down...maybe she at least gave the collection its in?

Hi all, My big question is about the difference between the germans in say RTW or EB time frame and the BI time frame. First the german tribes are not all that much distinguished I know we have the cheruscii and suebi and so on, but they dont seem too advanced in terms of technology and equipment however by the BI time frame we have huge distinct german tribes with men whose equipment is the equal of rome and even whose troops in some cases are superior in many ways, some groups have great cavalry, heavy cavalry and all that jazz, the tribes seem to occupy a huge area?? did germanic tribes simply start breeding like rabbits in those few hundred years? were they inaccurately reported by the scholars in the time of caesar and augustus? there just seems to be such a huge difference, when you compare them to say....the celts. appreciate the help before my brain explodes...hope its clear what im getting at

Metallurgy methods improved, raw material stashes were found, farming methods improved (though in some cases, not enough)


Since where on the topic, were these German "problems" near the end more true lock stock and barrel migrations, or more like ambitious chiefs/kings deciding to carve themselves an empire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

I can't find it in the materials I have on hand. I'll check Thompson's book today, perhaps seeing it there can help me track it down...maybe she at least gave the collection its in?

---

Sorry for the delay... I got ahold of the book again and the quote is as follows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Page 57, N. 152

An army clothing allowance of 10 drachmas per annum is recorded in an unpublished Petrie papyrus (Sel. Box 137 = 2, cf. P. Hib. 51.3 n.); information from W. Clarysse.

---

Don't know where I got the 3rd c. BC date from, but anyway, there's the information.

P.S. I got your email paullus but I'm waiting until I find a particular paper that I got a hold of a while back that deals in detail with the politico-geographic situation in the Black Sea littoral at the beginning of the 3rd c. BC. It's proving harder to find among my papers than I had previously thought.

ooh, great, thanks for the cite...I'll try and hunt it down.

edit: P.Hib. 51.3? What is that? There are only 2 volumes of Hibeh papyri published. It makes sense that Clarysse would be the one to know it if its in the Petrie archive...I'll see if I can hunt anything down.

I need someone with a good knowledge of the Celtic language here.

'Plentyn tylwyth-teg, dw i'n blentyn tylwyth-teg'.

What does this mean? According to the book, it means 'Elvenchild, I am the Elven-child.'

how did the hoplites fought in EB time frame ??:sweatdrop:


I was wondering if TW fanatic's hoplite mod was historically accurate

(hoplites fight similar to a phalanx but...whithout being an actual phalanx, they can run and do pretty much everything but they fight in a compact formation ,spears pointing to the front and not breaking their formation as the original EB hoplites do)

:huh2:

What kind of sword is it that the Epeirote and I think Makedonian generals are using? It looks like a gigantic Kopis or Falcata, but what exactly is it? It´s incredibly cool, and my Epeiros generals slashes are just fantastic.
This be the sword I´m asking about:
https://i232.photobucket.com/albums/...alAppo/a-5.jpg https://i232.photobucket.com/albums/...eralAppo/n.jpg https://i232.photobucket.com/albums/...eralAppo/1.jpg https://i232.photobucket.com/albums/...eralAppo/w.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

how did the hoplites fought in EB time frame ??:sweatdrop:


I was wondering if TW fanatic's hoplite mod was historically accurate

---

Yes and no. The rear ranks holding the spears in an unnatural angle (try to do it with the overhand grip!) is not less acurate than have them fighting as Thureophoroi without javelins. The best formation to display Hoplites would probably be the BI shieldwall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

What kind of sword is it that the Epeirote and I think Makedonian generals are using? It looks like a gigantic Kopis or Falcata, but what exactly is it? It´s incredibly cool, and my Epeiros generals slashes are just fantastic.
This be the sword I´m asking about:

---

It's a kopis/falcata/machiara. Same as the sword used by Campanian equites and others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

What kind of sword is it that the Epeirote and I think Makedonian generals are using? It looks like a gigantic Kopis or Falcata, but what exactly is it? It´s incredibly cool, and my Epeiros generals slashes are just fantastic.
This be the sword I´m asking about:
https://i232.photobucket.com/albums/...alAppo/a-5.jpg https://i232.photobucket.com/albums/...eralAppo/n.jpg https://i232.photobucket.com/albums/...eralAppo/1.jpg https://i232.photobucket.com/albums/...eralAppo/w.jpg

---

This is the sword that was selected.
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...leScenes-1.jpg

It is a Long Kopis, an absolute slasher that would be used from horseback as per Xenophon.
Infantry generals would have the xiphos.

Thank you. I thought it looked like a Kopis, just bigger. I guess I was right. I´m starting to think it´s the coolest weapon in the game. Truly badass.

I was recently watching HBO Rome :smiley: It was really good series and I really enjoyed watching it ,Hopefully they would make the third season (!?)
But a question crossed my mind regarding the Egyptians ! How much accurate is the reconstruction of the Ptolemic egypt? to me their style of dressing and court seemed more like the old egyptians !

Thanks in advance and sorry for taking your time EB historians :wink:

The Ptolemies took on a lot of the ancient Egyptian customs, including marrying your sister...

Rome has been canceled by both BBC and HBO. Their will be no third season... Although the series is entertaining, it is not renowned for its historical accuracy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irishmafia2020

Rome has been canceled by both BBC and HBO. Their will be no third season... Although the series is entertaining, it is not renowned for its historical accuracy...

---

Although it was still better than many other attempts as far as historical accuracy went. I think they did a much better job of portraying Republican Rome than anything previous (which always seemed to project Imperial Rome back in time).

It was cancelled because it was too expensive to make. Shooting a lot of it in Rome will do that to production costs.

There was a BBC Series called Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire which was shot using a lot of the costumes and cast from Rome. One of the first times I've ever seen actual, accurate Polybian legionaries on film. Not a suit of lorica segmentata in sight.

I thought Rome got a lot of small, incidental things right, the ahistoric parts of the series seem to have been changed for storyline reasons rather than any lack of knowledgs of the period.

Yeah, but who cares?

There's a difference between saying you will create a realistic historical show and saying that you will create a show BASED on history. If you want 100% historical accuracy, just don't watch the show.

Quote:

---

But a question crossed my mind regarding the Egyptians ! How much accurate is the reconstruction of the Ptolemic egypt? to me their style of dressing and court seemed more like the old egyptians !

---

At least they look a BIT Macedonian (especially the awesome general guy). The last two things are correct though, and I have to say that Ptolemy whatever in that movie looked very Egyptian.

Still, I´d have watched the series just for Mark Antony (yes I know, Marcus Antonius, sigh). Another great performance by James Purefoy.

I have to say I agree with that, even though I knew what would happen I was still rooting for Antony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Although it was still better than many other attempts as far as historical accuracy went. I think they did a much better job of portraying Republican Rome than anything previous (which always seemed to project Imperial Rome back in time).

It was cancelled because it was too expensive to make. Shooting a lot of it in Rome will do that to production costs.

---

Not to mention the story kind of dried up.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

They killed off Vorenus. (or at least implied it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kambiz

But a question crossed my mind regarding the Egyptians ! How much accurate is the reconstruction of the Ptolemic egypt? to me their style of dressing and court seemed more like the old egyptians !

---

In that sense, not very. It was a Greek/Macedonian court and so style of dress and everything would be Hellenistic. Coins had Hellenistic motifs, new city foundations would have Greek-style temples and buildings, etc. However, temples built for the Egyptian people would be built in the Egyptian style as seen in many of the sites in Upper Egypt. In fact, many of the extant temples built in the same style as that of Luxor (read: old school) were built by the Ptolemies. On these you would see the Ptolemaic king in traditional pharaonic dress and portrayed in some classical Egyptian pose. Even then the Ptolemies introduced many new architectural conventions, which are viewed as improving temple design and raising the proverbial bar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

Not to mention the story kind of dried up.

---

Dude, seriously, spoiler tags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

I thought Rome got a lot of small, incidental things right, the ahistoric parts of the series seem to have been changed for storyline reasons rather than any lack of knowledgs of the period.

---

Indeed, I'd say a lot of it was creative license from the point of view of simplifying what there wasn't time to explain adequately, or simply save budget.