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

Yes.

Mark Antony was awesome though. Great character.

Hi.
I have 2 questions.

1st, Not that I want to doubt the team, but how accurate are the equipment of Camillan legions?
Do we actually know that principes in early 3rd century BC used spears, and Romans didn't use mail until the end of 1st Punic war?
IIRC the Celts invented mail in 5th century BC, so I thought the Romans would have adopted it earlier.
And were the Hastati really unarmored for this period?

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.

Well, my question mainly concerns the Seleucids....how did their administrative system work, when it was working (ie, the rare few times the satraps weren't in revolt)?

Basically, I'm looking for how much autonomy they had (could they launch a war against a nearby entity by themselves? How was the administration of their satrapy affected by the King, etc)

How were satrapy taxes handled? Did the King have his own guys to collect them, did the satrap collect them and then send a portion on to the King (and if so, what %)?

What was the currency system used? The FAQ seems to hint that everyone apart from Egypt and Carthage used the Attic system, but specifics would be nice....

Was the cult worship of Seleukos really that widespread, that there were temples for him and everything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Yes.

Mark Antony was awesome though. Great character.

---

and a great dick:clown:

anyways, the seleucid system of governance work the same way as the Acaemenid dynasty: the king was viewed as divine, and was considered head of state. then came the satraps; usually family, but also "trusted" men. their job was to collect the taxes and bring it to the king. they also kept peace, maintaine a garrison, and dealt with any problems in the king's abcense. in other words, the system was relatively decentralized. this is part of the reason why they fell; a guy can easily usurp the throne for himself. he can secretly mint coins, not to the king, but himself. he can even use his army to attack the satrapies. TPC has better info on this.

the kingdom used the same basic system most greek stats used (mnai, staters, drachmas., etc)

Actually, I think the guy that can tell you most about the Seleucid Empire would be abou.

I've another question when the romans overthrown the senate , did they still call themselves SPQR ? or something like roman empire? (if the later , how was it called ?):thinking2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

I've another question when the romans overthrown the senate , did they still call themselves SPQR ? or something like roman empire? (if the later , how was it called ?):thinking2:

---

of course they still called themselves that (SPQR). later on though they more of tencalled the place "Imperium Romanum" which later => "kingdom of the romans" in greek (as the byzantine empire).
also the senate was not overthrown by Octavius; it didn't even lose all of its powers (at least in theory). that was still a body to reckon with, as a few emprerors found. though admittedly the praetoriani were far more dangerous.

even on the late empire? 200-300 AC (I dont remember the exact date of the empire division)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

even on the late empire? 200-300 AC (I dont remember the exact date of the empire division)

---

The Roman Senate was still around in the fifth century AD, when the Empire had been split up and reunited several times already. It just wasn't important anymore.

and did they have eastern and western senates? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

and did they have eastern and western senates? :inquisitive:

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Senate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

1st, Not that I want to doubt the team, but how accurate are the equipment of Camillan legions? Do we actually know that principes in early 3rd century BC used spears,...?

---

The ancient sources don't give us much information on the equipment of soldiers of the Camillan army. Livy's description mentions only that the Principes are "furnished with superior weapons". We do know that the Servian 2nd class (which can reasonably be considered the precursor of the the Principes) fought with a spear and that the Polybian Principes used a short sword. Dionysios of Halikarnassos (Book 20) mentions that the Principes wielded spears during the Pyrric war. That tips the balance for us, though we can't say for certain we're correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

Do we actually know ... Romans didn't use mail until the end of 1st Punic war?

---

It's possible that a very small minority did. But writing about the Roman army of roughly 160 BC, Polybios implies that only fairly wealthy legionaries wore mail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

And were the Hastati really unarmored for this period?

---

The Servian 3rd class (roughly speaking, predecessors of the Hastati) apparently didn't wear body armor. The truth is probably that some Hastati of Camillan armies wore body armor and some didn't. But for game purposes our units must have uniform equipment. If we give them a pectorale/kardiophylax, they are no different from Polybian Hastati, so they've been portrayed as unarmored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atilius

The ancient sources don't give us much information on the equipment of soldiers of the Camillan army. Livy's description mentions only that the Principes are "furnished with superior weapons". We do know that the Servian 2nd class (which can reasonably be considered the precursor of the the Principes) fought with a spear and that the Polybian Principes used a short sword. Dionysios of Halikarnassos (Book 20) mentions that the Principes wielded spears during the Pyrric war. That tips the balance for us, though we can't say for certain we're correct.

It's possible that a very small minority did. But writing about the Roman army of roughly 160 BC, Polybios implies that only fairly wealthy legionaries wore mail.

The Servian 3rd class (roughly speaking, predecessors of the Hastati) apparently didn't wear body armor. The truth is probably that some Hastati of Camillan armies wore body armor and some didn't. But for game purposes our units must have uniform equipment. If we give them a pectorale/kardiophylax, they are no different from Polybian Hastati, so they've been portrayed as unarmored.

---

Does the team think the transition from "Camillan" to "Polybian" happened after or before the 2nd Punic war?

All,

Currently I'm adding a few units to the historical units lists. 2 of them are mercenary general types. I would like to post this question and request the community assist me in getting them as historically accurate possible. Ibrahim, any assistance would be greatly appreciated!

1. Arab Chieftain : This will be very similar in appearance to the Arab Cavalry, with higher attack and charge, due to thier status as full time retainers for the local Arab prince. Would they wear any additional armor? Was this common for chieftains of the time? How would they differ statistically from any other Arab cavalry?

2. Judean King : Basically, Herod. A puppet local King of Judea; posted to keep the local population pacified by any of the powers to occupy Judea as a type 4 government.

What would thier bodyguard entail? Would they simply be greeks? I would think they would need to be part of the local population. Possibly something similar to the Mesopotamian Spearmen?


3. Also, I'd like to create some kind of regional unit in Judea (slinger perhaps?) and in Phoenicia; since this area exists as a "black hole" for regional recruitment at the moment, specifically for the Romans. What was recruited around this time period from this location which would have doled themselves out to a local puppet government. Slingers?

Here are the other units I'm adding as part of my mini mod for EB1.1 Alex. they are pretty much built, however.

Celtiberian Heavy Spearmen
Syracusan Slingers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brymht

All,

Currently I'm adding a few units to the historical units lists. 2 of them are mercenary general types. I would like to post this question and request the community assist me in getting them as historically accurate possible. Ibrahim, any assistance would be greatly appreciated!

1. Arab Chieftain : This will be very similar in appearance to the Arab Cavalry, with higher attack and charge, due to thier status as full time retainers for the local Arab prince. Would they wear any additional armor? Was this common for chieftains of the time? How would they differ statistically from any other Arab cavalry?

---

At the moment, most of the Sabaean units are unfortunately far from historically accurate. For one, there is no evidence of Arabian cavalry carrying shields during the EB timeframe, or before Islam for that matter. If they would have worn any armour, it would have been lamellar like the Sabaean Medium Cavalry wear, but without a helmet (as helmets seem to have been very rare in pre-Islamic Arabia). Note that almost all heavy Arabian cavalry were lancers and not javelinmen, so the unit would probably be a lancer without helmet wearing a cuirass of bronze oblong lamellar plates.

Quote:

---

2. Judean King : Basically, Herod. A puppet local King of Judea; posted to keep the local population pacified by any of the powers to occupy Judea as a type 4 government.

What would thier bodyguard entail? Would they simply be greeks? I would think they would need to be part of the local population. Possibly something similar to the Mesopotamian Spearmen?

---

Regardless of ethnicity, they would most likely be armed as thureophoroi- see for instance the "hundred-killers" of Alexander Jannaeus in the early first century BC with their bronze-faced thureoi (Josephus, Antiquities 13.12.5).

Quote:

---

3. Also, I'd like to create some kind of regional unit in Judea (slinger perhaps?) and in Phoenicia; since this area exists as a "black hole" for regional recruitment at the moment, specifically for the Romans. What was recruited around this time period from this location which would have doled themselves out to a local puppet government. Slingers?

---

Slingers would probably be the most general units, but you could also include some of the other cities and peoples around Judaea who were hostile to the Judaeans- Idumaeans, for instance, who furnished mercenaries for the Seleucid army. For Phoenicia you could also include the hostile Arabs who are mentioned around the Anti-Lebanon.

Thank you sir! I appreciate the advice.

1. Are you certain the bodyguards of local chieftains would have worn bronze in the Arabian heat?

2. I'm not familiar with this. I'm tempted to build a thureophoroi unit with fairly decent stats which looked a bit more akin to the mesopotamian spearmen. How would they fair against other thureophoroi, stat wise?

3. I was actually considering making arab units recruitable in phoenicia; as well as Cylesian Pirates (if they're still around with 1.1) and create a Judean Levy unit (basically retired or rusty Judean Spearmen from the Ptolemy and Selucid armies) and Judean Slingers; both only available at the maxmimum level of type 4 governments.

Is there any historical basis for this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brymht

Thank you sir! I appreciate the advice.

1. Are you certain the bodyguards of local chieftains would have worn bronze in the Arabian heat?

---

The (very few) finds of armour from Arabia from around the EB timeframe are bronze. Some lamellar plates found at Jabal al-Emalah from the first centuries AD are bronze with iron rivets.

Quote:

---

2. I'm not familiar with this. I'm tempted to build a thureophoroi unit with fairly decent stats which looked a bit more akin to the mesopotamian spearmen. How would they fair against other thureophoroi, stat wise?

---

I'm really not sure, to be honest, as I'm not at all familiar with Herod's army. However, if you can get a hold of it, "Armies of the Hasmonaeans & Herod: From Hellenistic to Roman Frameworks" (Texte & Studien Zum Antiken Judentum Series, No 25) is an excellent source. As I mentioned before, Alexander Jannaeus' elite troops (8,000 in number) made up the front lines and were called "hekatontamachoi," which literally means "hundred-fighters," sometimes translated more dramatically "hundred-killers," which presumably referred to the number of men they could defeat, in which case they must have been highly effective troops.

Quote:

---

3. I was actually considering making arab units recruitable in phoenicia; as well as Cylesian Pirates (if they're still around with 1.1) and create a Judean Levy unit (basically retired or rusty Judean Spearmen from the Ptolemy and Selucid armies) and Judean Slingers; both only available at the maxmimum level of type 4 governments.

Is there any historical basis for this?

---

I'm not so sure about Judaeans being recruitable as mercenaries, especially under the Hasmonaeans, but if you use "Judaean" as an umbrella term for the Semitic peoples living around modern Israel (Idumaeans, Samaritans, etc.), then it would probably work well enough historically.

Samaritans were referred to as "Judeans" by the romans and the successor; and they served everywhere. I think there's definately a case to be made for Judean Levies; but not necessarily as mercs. They will probably only be able to be recruited in the higher level MICs for someone who took the time to setup a type 4 government; and will be better than average levy troops, since many were probably veterans from sucessor wars.

It also appears; after a bit of research, that Herod's and Agrippa II's personal bodyguards were made of of Gauls, Germans and Thracians! This really makes a lot of sense for a puppet Hasmonean King; as opposed to an actually Independent King of the Hasmonean line. A puppet king might have a lot more difficulty trusting Judeans with his personal security; due to the political and almost nationalistic climate in Judea at the time.

From the little I've been able to read, it appears that this would be the majority of the Judean forces. The 'Temple Guard' which was spoken of the in the Gospels may or may not have existed. I'm leaning away from making this unit at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

Does the team think the transition from "Camillan" to "Polybian" happened after or before the 2nd Punic war?

---

The game's requirements for the Polybian reform make it clear to me that earlier members believed it had taken place before 2nd Punic war. I agree with that.

there is evidence that the dress was different too (forgot to mention that). Ammianus Marcellenus mentions that the Arabs wore bright cloaks, and were naked waist down (the EB bibliographis in www.europabarbarorum.com have a translation); colors were typically leaning toawrds the dark hues (this is from a dicription in jewish cannonical law, whereby the blue that was mention was compared to an arabs dark clothes). this style is also shown in the sunna, and is reffered to as as-samma' (lit: barer; one that bares). it is basically like a greek himation, only it was worn withon the chiton
, so baring the groin area (hence the name). it is the one on the far left in this picture (all are pre islamic):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i260.photobucket.com/albums/...9/f54857ef.jpg

what Ammianus has to say(again matches a good deal of what the Arabs themselves had to say):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ammianus Marcellinus: The Roman History, Book XIV.iv.1-7. , c. 380 CE

Book XIV.4: At this time also the Saracens, a race whom it is never desirable to have either for friends or enemies, ranging up and down the country, if ever they found anything, plundered it in a moment, like rapacious hawks who, if from on high they behold any prey, carry it off with a rapid swoop, or, if they fail in their attempt, do not tarry. And although, in recounting the career of the Prince Marcus, and once or twice subsequently, I remember having discussed the manners of this people, nevertheless I will now briefly enumerate a few more particulars concerning them.

Among these tribes, whose primary origin is derived from the cataracts of the Nile and the borders of the Blemmyae, all the men are warriors of equal rank; half naked, clad in colored cloaks down to the waist, overrunning different countries, with the aid of swift and active horses and speedy camels, alike in times of peace and war. Nor does any member of their tribe ever take plow in hand or cultivate a tree, or seek food by the tillage of the land; but they are perpetually wandering over various and extensive districts, having no home, no fixed abode or laws; nor can they endure to remain long in the same climate, no one district or country pleasing them for a continuance.

Their life is one continued wandering; their wives are hired, on special covenant, for a fixed time; and that there may be some appearance of marriage in the business, the intended wife, under the name of a dowry, offers a spear and a tent to her husband, with a right to quit him after a fixed day, if she should choose to do so. And it is inconceivable with what eagerness the individuals of both sexes give themselves up to matrimonial pleasures.

But as long as they live they wander about with such extensive and perpetual migrations, that the woman is married in one place, brings forth her children in another, and rears them at a distance from either place, no opportunity of remaining quiet being ever granted to her. They all live on venison, and are further supported on a great abundance of milk, and on many kinds of herbs, and on whatever birds they can catch by fowling. And we have seen a great many of them wholly ignorant of the use of either corn or wine.

mind you this is from the 4th-7th centuries AD. it may have been similar to these items in EB's timeframe, but not sure.

swords were probably typical of the area of the middle east=straight. javelins were actually associated with Aethiopeans, at least in the timeperiod I'm aware of (some arabs did use them-but it was rare). also, like the romani, chain armor did start to replace scale armor (though never completely), at least in the late pre-islamic era (there are a few references to the mail coiff being used by then on helms).

also worth noting is that city folk wore stitched clothing, as apposed to what you just saw (so urban troops in EB Saba'=somewhat accurate). this is known due to the writings of Ibn-Khaldun (again this applies to the 4-7th centuries; Ibn khaldun was after this period).

@brymt: there is evidence that the dress was different too (forgot to mention that). Ammianus Marcellenus mentions that the Arabs wore bright cloaks, and were naked waist down (the EB bibliographis in www.europabarbarorum.com have a translation); colors were typically leaning toawrds the dark hues (this is from a dicription in jewish cannonical law, whereby the blue that was mention was compared to an arabs dark clothes). this style is also shown in the sunna, and is reffered to as as-samma' (lit: barer; one that bares). it is basically like a greek himation, only it was worn withon the chiton
, so baring the groin area (hence the name). it is the one on the far left in this picture (all are pre islamic):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i260.photobucket.com/albums/...9/f54857ef.jpg

what Ammianus has to say(again matches a good deal of what the Arabs themselves had to say):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ammianus Marcellinus: The Roman History, Book XIV.iv.1-7. , c. 380 CE

Book XIV.4: At this time also the Saracens, a race whom it is never desirable to have either for friends or enemies, ranging up and down the country, if ever they found anything, plundered it in a moment, like rapacious hawks who, if from on high they behold any prey, carry it off with a rapid swoop, or, if they fail in their attempt, do not tarry. And although, in recounting the career of the Prince Marcus, and once or twice subsequently, I remember having discussed the manners of this people, nevertheless I will now briefly enumerate a few more particulars concerning them.

Among these tribes, whose primary origin is derived from the cataracts of the Nile and the borders of the Blemmyae, all the men are warriors of equal rank; half naked, clad in colored cloaks down to the waist, overrunning different countries, with the aid of swift and active horses and speedy camels, alike in times of peace and war. Nor does any member of their tribe ever take plow in hand or cultivate a tree, or seek food by the tillage of the land; but they are perpetually wandering over various and extensive districts, having no home, no fixed abode or laws; nor can they endure to remain long in the same climate, no one district or country pleasing them for a continuance.

Their life is one continued wandering; their wives are hired, on special covenant, for a fixed time; and that there may be some appearance of marriage in the business, the intended wife, under the name of a dowry, offers a spear and a tent to her husband, with a right to quit him after a fixed day, if she should choose to do so. And it is inconceivable with what eagerness the individuals of both sexes give themselves up to matrimonial pleasures.

But as long as they live they wander about with such extensive and perpetual migrations, that the woman is married in one place, brings forth her children in another, and rears them at a distance from either place, no opportunity of remaining quiet being ever granted to her. They all live on venison, and are further supported on a great abundance of milk, and on many kinds of herbs, and on whatever birds they can catch by fowling. And we have seen a great many of them wholly ignorant of the use of either corn or wine.

mind you this is from the 4th-7th centuries AD. it may have been similar to these items in EB's timeframe, but not sure.

swords were probably typical of the area of the middle east=straight. javelins were actually associated with Aethiopeans, at least in the timeperiod I'm aware of (some arabs did use them-but it was rare). also, like the romani, chain armor did start to replace scale armor (though never completely), at least in the late pre-islamic era (there are a few references to the mail coiff being used by then on helms).

also worth noting is that city folk wore stitched clothing, as apposed to what you just saw (so urban troops in EB Saba'=somewhat accurate). this is known due to the writings of Ibn-Khaldun (again this applies to the 4-7th centuries; Ibn khaldun was after this period)

this was all meant for a mini mod of ibfd: all I need is a modeller..

Unfortunately, Ibrahim, almost all of that information relates to the late pre-Islamic Arabians, as you say, and then only the northwestern ones at that. Depictions of soldiers and civilians from around the EB timeframe show tunics being worn which stretch down to the knees or lower and without any kind of cloak wrapped around the body.

Swords were either about a metre in length, straight, and double-edged; quite small (perhaps slightly longer than a half a metre) single-edged chopping swords, kind of looking like a modern kitchen knife; or shorter versions of the straight long sword, being closer to daggers in length.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Unfortunately, Ibrahim, almost all of that information relates to the late pre-Islamic Arabians, as you say, and then only the northwestern ones at that. Depictions of soldiers and civilians from around the EB timeframe show tunics being worn which stretch down to the knees or lower and without any kind of cloak wrapped around the body.

Swords were either about a metre in length, straight, and double-edged; quite small (perhaps slightly longer than a half a metre) single-edged chopping swords, kind of looking like a modern kitchen knife; or shorter versions of the straight long sword, being closer to daggers in length.

---

yeah, I was worried about that part. at least they are of use in the ibfd mod:clown:

hey, can you guide me a bit on the manathirah? I know they weren't too different with the nomad recruits, but what of the nobles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atilius

The game's requirements for the Polybian reform make it clear to me that earlier members believed it had taken place before 2nd Punic war. I agree with that.

---

OK, thanks for clearing that up:beam:

what part of central europe did the celts come from?

all i know is that they originated in central europe like around austria (coincidentally i believe that area falls in where the only Heidelbergensis bones have been found)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

what part of central europe did the celts come from?

all i know is that they originated in central europe like around austria (coincidentally i believe that area falls in where the only Heidelbergensis bones have been found)

---

The greater part of them lived in modern day France. As for where they first originated, I'm afraid I don't know.

Why do Hellenic officers (I mean the unit leaders, not generals) use such phalangite shields? It makes sense for the standard bearers, as these need to have their left hand free, however the others could afford to use a larger shield.

Who was the last kingdom to use the classical hoplite/phalangite stile of warfare? When did it end?

Ptolemaioi...I think..

My question isn't really in EB's timeframe, nor do I even know if there is an Alexandrian specialist among these forums, but what the heck.

One thing I wondered recently was about the history about the non-Aegean Greek Islands (Rhodos, Crete and Cyprus). What happened to these during the conflict between Persia and Macedonia, under Alexander? How did those come within the Macedonian influence? Normally, I hear comments when Alexander captured Phoenicia and Egypt that the mighty Persian fleet, who had always threatened to cut off the supply lines, lost all it's home ports, and (I suppose) was thus forced to surrender. But what about Cyprus? Wasn't it aligned with the Persian Empire? The only part I remember seeing the island play was by reinforcing Alexander with ships during the Tyrian campaign.

And what happened in Crete throughout the Alexandrian expansion? Crete is unknown to me when it comes to interactions with the Alexandrian Empire.

If anyone knows the histories of those islands during the tiems of Alexander and wishes to tell them, I wouldn't mind hearing them! ^_^

Quite a bit in this thread that hasn't been answered yet. Maybe if I get the energy I'll go back and take a look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

what part of central europe did the celts come from?

all i know is that they originated in central europe like around austria (coincidentally i believe that area falls in where the only Heidelbergensis bones have been found)

---

I believe that Celtic society began and radiated from Bohemia, which name is derived from the Celtic Boii.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Why do Hellenic officers (I mean the unit leaders, not generals) use such phalangite shields? It makes sense for the standard bearers, as these need to have their left hand free, however the others could afford to use a larger shield.

---

No idea - before I got here. My guess is that for EB2 that the Diadochoi officers (yet to be concepted so no guarantees) might have the Makedonian aspis, which was slightly smaller and without a rim compared to the Argive type that we are more familiar with, yet larger than the phalangite shield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarax

Who was the last kingdom to use the classical hoplite/phalangite stile of warfare? When did it end?

---

Not entirely sure, but I believe that the last conclusively Hellenistic state we hear of using phalangites was Pontos. So, theoretically it might have been them depending on when the Ptolemaioi abandoned the Makedonian phalanx. In that era the Seleukids were a complete mess and barely able to field an army of 10,000 as the dynasty weakened due to civil wars. I would be surprised if they could have fielded much of anything other than small bands of thureophoroi-like infantry for their pissing-matches against each other.

careful abou, the makedonian aspis didn't always lack a rim. there were apparently quite a few ways of constructing it. i'm not sure which type we'll end up using for eb2. but the makedonian aspis is very likely the shield we'll use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

what part of central europe did the celts come from?

all i know is that they originated in central europe like around austria (coincidentally i believe that area falls in where the only Heidelbergensis bones have been found)

---

To add further to what abou mentioned above, you had early Tumulus and Urnfield cultures in Europe around the Danube Basin. Mixes of these gave rise to what were believed to be proto Celtic peoples in the western part of that region. However, in the eastern portion is where the majority of early hill forts are found which are obvious signs of early successes and power. As power shifted to the west you can say that early Halstatt signs started to spring up in the Bohemia, Austria, and these groups spread out from there. In the decades around 500 B.C. the Celtic forges, concentrated initially in the areas between the Alps and Danube, became increasingly efficient and stated 'mass producing' La Tene iron weapons which gave advantage over the older predominately bronze weapons that are found in the Halstatt technology era. So again, that Bohemia/Danube corridor became a home for them, then Gaul, then Britain, then Ireland, then Spain, then Northern Italy, then Galatia, and almost everywhere else in between :cool4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

No idea - before I got here. My guess is that for EB2 that the Diadochoi officers (yet to be concepted so no guarantees) might have the Makedonian aspis, which was slightly smaller and without a rim compared to the Argive type that we are more familiar with, yet larger than the phalangite shield.

---

Thanks for the answer. Will the same happen to the currently shieldless captains?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

My question isn't really in EB's timeframe, nor do I even know if there is an Alexandrian specialist among these forums, but what the heck.

One thing I wondered recently was about the history about the non-Aegean Greek Islands (Rhodos, Crete and Cyprus). What happened to these during the conflict between Persia and Macedonia, under Alexander? How did those come within the Macedonian influence? Normally, I hear comments when Alexander captured Phoenicia and Egypt that the mighty Persian fleet, who had always threatened to cut off the supply lines, lost all it's home ports, and (I suppose) was thus forced to surrender. But what about Cyprus? Wasn't it aligned with the Persian Empire? The only part I remember seeing the island play was by reinforcing Alexander with ships during the Tyrian campaign.

And what happened in Crete throughout the Alexandrian expansion? Crete is unknown to me when it comes to interactions with the Alexandrian Empire.

If anyone knows the histories of those islands during the tiems of Alexander and wishes to tell them, I wouldn't mind hearing them! ^_^

---

Crete. From what I gather they were busy quarreling amongst themselves, but there were Cretans fighting for Alexander I recall and wouldnt be surprised if some fought for Darius as well.

Rhodes. They probably remained neutral until Phoenicia was destroyed, from there I suppose they supported Alexander as their main trading rivals were subjugated, that is Tyre.

Cyprus. Well reinforcing Alexander with ships shows they did side with him and openly defy the King of Kings. From what I gather the island was mostly Greek, but with a sizeable Phoenician population too.

Maybe some others can give better answers or correct me if I'm mixing it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

careful abou, the makedonian aspis didn't always lack a rim. there were apparently quite a few ways of constructing it. i'm not sure which type we'll end up using for eb2. but the makedonian aspis is very likely the shield we'll use.

---

Ah, I forgot about stuff like the Pergamon altar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Thanks for the answer. Will the same happen to the currently shieldless captains?

---

No idea. We haven't even begun on them yet and they are probably a bit far off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Not entirely sure, but I believe that the last conclusively Hellenistic state we hear of using phalangites was Pontos. So, theoretically it might have been them depending on when the Ptolemaioi abandoned the Makedonian phalanx. In that era the Seleukids were a complete mess and barely able to field an army of 10,000 as the dynasty weakened due to civil wars. I would be surprised if they could have fielded much of anything other than small bands of thureophoroi-like infantry for their pissing-matches against each other.

---

What about the bosphorans? What kind of heavy infantry did they field?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarax

What about the bosphorans? What kind of heavy infantry did they field?

---

The Bosporans never fielded any kind of Macedonian-style phalanx. The heaviest troops seem to have been run-of-the-mill hoplites, but they also employed thorakitai during the Hellenistic period.

Well, that would be interesting to me too, sort of seeing who kept dragging the old hellenistic warfare until much later...

I have a question about javelins. Why the javelins dissapear in the dark/middle ages? :book:

Note: sorry for my english

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praetor Diego

I have a question about javelins. Why the javelins dissapear in the dark/middle ages? :book:

Note: sorry for my english

---

simplest way to put it: they didn't. Peltastoi units are mentioned in Byzantine sources refering to this type of weaponry.

however, it did decline and dissapear in western Europe, as to why, I dunno....rise of Knighthood
may have had to do with it, but I dunno. I know the Saxons hurled spear and javelins at norman knights in 1066 (bayeaux tapestry). same with the early Viking

among the Arabs, the predominance of northwestern Arabian styles of combat (Islam being part of the reason) meant javelins were rare there too (Uhud's account indicates association with Ethiopians or southern arabian, with few Arabs skilled in the weapon, prefering swords, spears, and arrows). that was why Hind bint utba assigned the job of killing Abbas ibn abd al-muttalib to a Ethiopian slave named wahshiy.

also, javelins were used by several African tribes up to the 1800's

that at least what I gathered. I hope someone more expert can add or correct anything I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

however, it did decline and dissapear in western Europe, as to why, I dunno....rise of Knighthood
may have had to do with it, but I dunno. I know the Saxons hurled spear and javelins at norman knights in 1066 (bayeaux tapestry). same with the early Viking

---

IIRC the Norman knights hurled them right back: the Norman shield was designed to protect the horse as well as the rider when making a turn after an attack. That suggest they weren't really the shock cavalry knight later became. Spaniards also used javelins from horse back during the middle ages. AFAIK they didn't really disappear until quite late in the middle ages, although they did become increasingly rare. Perhaps the widespread availability of decent armour played a part in it?

I'd have thought if anything javelins would be better against armour than arrows, even if the range wasn't as great.

I think what's more noticeable is the disappearance of the javelin as precursor weapon for heavy infantry, rather than it disappearing altogether. Is it just a logistical supply thing? As in thousands of javelins are yet more resources needed and more work for armourers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

I think what's more noticeable is the disappearance of the javelin as precursor weapon for heavy infantry, rather than it disappearing altogether. Is it just a logistical supply thing? As in thousands of javelins are yet more resources needed and more work for armourers?

---

It is more a point of the heavy infantry disapearing during the middle ages. That periode was marked by the dominance of the heavy cavalry. Infantry had a mere auxiliary role, such as archers, crossbowmen and later pikemen. Mediavel battles with heavy infantry fighting were usually fought by dismounted knights, what became very common during the later MAs.

When the infantry re-appeared on the battlefields from the late 13th/early 14th Century onward it was first of all as close pike formations - no way to use javelins for these men. The "precursor infantry" was re-introduced in form of the musketeers in the 15th/16th Century, but did not become the main fighting force until the late 17th/early 18th Century.

While javelins weren't that frequently used in Europe during the dark/medieval ages, the exception is Iberia. Berbers used javelins frequently and the Christian kingdoms copied the fighting styles according to some sources (do remember though that "javelin cavalry" was prominent in pre-Roman Iberia too), giving rise to the Jinetes. Then we also have the Almughavars from Aragon/Catalonia. They were very prominent in the Catalan company me thinks. And yeah the Byzantines still fielded Peltastoi, but from what I recall they were phased out in the 11th century.
The Irish & Welsh also used them, even think the Vikings too at some occasions.

I'm presuming people (especially poorer ones) still used javelins to hunt with throughout the Middle Ages?

Quote:

---

Cyprus. Well reinforcing Alexander with ships shows they did side with him and openly defy the King of Kings. From what I gather the island was mostly Greek, but with a sizeable Phoenician population too.

---

Nope. The population was all Greek at that time. There are mentions of Cypriots in the entourage of Alexandros and even the first two Satraps of Bactria were from Kypros.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

I'd have thought if anything javelins would be better against armour than arrows, even if the range wasn't as great.

---

Not really: cross-bow. Designed for the job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Not really: cross-bow. Designed for the job.

---

...If you can afford and maintain a crossbow, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

...If you can afford and maintain a crossbow, right?

---

once the signeur got a hold of them and gave them to you, yep. especially the Arbelest e tour (those windlass Crossbows).
that said, if they're cost is high, it didn't stop them from becoming popular.

I have my own question: 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 noticed that EB has followed my opnion, but their tukul shipri are 5 centuries after the Assyrians lost their empire...

here is a picture from the reliefs (from bible history.com):
http://www.bible-history.com/assyria...a_soldiers.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

...If you can afford and maintain a crossbow, right?

---

Of course. But then again: an abundant supply of javelins capable of actually piercing a decent kit of armour would not have been that cheap either. At the very least it would be time-consuming.

A little bit of topic, but I was wondering if anyone knows anything about the lusotana capital oxtraca?
Just curious because i cant find anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Of course. But then again: an abundant supply of javelins capable of actually piercing a decent kit of armour would not have been that cheap either. At the very least it would be time-consuming.

---

Are you serious? A crossbow is an expensive bit of mechanical kit. Javelins are just a bunch of light spears, the only expensive part are the heads, which are small and probably not a lot more expensive than the heads of crossbow quarrels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

I'm presuming people (especially poorer ones) still used javelins to hunt with throughout the Middle Ages?

---

Beeing a poor one, you were certainly not allowed to hunt in the Middle Ages. Armies during the MA were usually not levied from the poor classes but consisted of professionals (knights and their followers) and mercenaries. Compared to Ancient times these forces were very small, often not more than some hundred strong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keravnos

Nope. The population was all Greek at that time. There are mentions of Cypriots in the entourage of Alexandros and even the first two Satraps of Bactria were from Kypros.

---

In fact, Cyprus had had a significant Phoenician population since the early 5th c. BC and that portion remained during Alexander's reign and afterward. The primary centre of the Phoenicians on Cyprus was the city of Kition on the south coast, but it also extended to the island's fertile central plain and a much smaller settlement further inland called Idalion as well as Tamassos in the mountains. Before Alexander's eastern campaign, the Phoenician king of Kition actually controlled an area reaching all the way to the northern shore including Lapithos.

Kition was originally a Cypriot city which was then inhabited by Greeks and had a significant Phoenician merchant presence. A thoroughly Phoenician dynasty was established by the Achaemenids c. 480 BC, while brief Phoenician dynasties in Marion on the northwest coast and Salamis on the east coast are also known before the fourth century. Right before Alexander's campaigns, the Phoenicians on the island were at their most powerful under Pumyaton, who inherited a miniature kingdom including Kition and Idalion and then purchased Tamassos, a settlemed situated in the ore-bearing mountains, for fifty talents. At that time he controlled a good quarter of the entire island.

During the siege of Tyre, the kings of Cyprus, including Pumyaton, submitted to Alexander without a fight and supplied him with ships, which allowed Cyprus to survive the Alexander's advance unscathed. Alexander permitted Pumyaton to continue ruling, but he lost Tamassos for an unknown reason.

In the wars of the Diadochoi that followed, Kition was sacked and the Phoenician dynasty was removed, but the significant Phoenician population remained.

A dynasty, and ruling class of Phoenicians, deffinitely. But outside of Kittion, not that many. Population wise their number was small and growing less by each generation as Hellenisation had set in. Had it not been for the Achaimenids, who used them to rule Cyprus by proxy this would have happened a long time ago. There are no Phoenician speaking Cypriots by the time Ptolemaic rule of the island ends at 30 BCE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keravnos

A dynasty, and ruling class of Phoenicians, deffinitely. But outside of Kittion, not that many. Population wise their number was small and growing less by each generation as Hellenisation had set in. Had it not been for the Achaimenids, who used them to rule Cyprus by proxy this would have happened a long time ago. There are no Phoenician speaking Cypriots by the time Ptolemaic rule of the island ends at 30 BCE.

---

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.

can anybody care to pay attention to my quetin: its a little urgent atm. its the one about Assyrian shields up north:help::help::help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azzbaz

A little bit of topic, but I was wondering if anyone knows anything about the lusotana capital oxtraca?
Just curious because i cant find anything about it.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

In fact, Cyprus had had a significant Phoenician population since the early 5th c. BC and that portion remained during Alexander's reign and afterward. The primary centre of the Phoenicians on Cyprus was the city of Kition on the south coast, but it also extended to the island's fertile central plain and a much smaller settlement further inland called Idalion as well as Tamassos in the mountains. Before Alexander's eastern campaign, the Phoenician king of Kition actually controlled an area reaching all the way to the northern shore including Lapithos.

Kition was originally a Cypriot city which was then inhabited by Greeks and had a significant Phoenician merchant presence. A thoroughly Phoenician dynasty was established by the Achaemenids c. 480 BC, while brief Phoenician dynasties in Marion on the northwest coast and Salamis on the east coast are also known before the fourth century. Right before Alexander's campaigns, the Phoenicians on the island were at their most powerful under Pumyaton, who inherited a miniature kingdom including Kition and Idalion and then purchased Tamassos, a settlemed situated in the ore-bearing mountains, for fifty talents. At that time he controlled a good quarter of the entire island.

During the siege of Tyre, the kings of Cyprus, including Pumyaton, submitted to Alexander without a fight and supplied him with ships, which allowed Cyprus to survive the Alexander's advance unscathed. Alexander permitted Pumyaton to continue ruling, but he lost Tamassos for an unknown reason.

In the wars of the Diadochoi that followed, Kition was sacked and the Phoenician dynasty was removed, but the significant Phoenician population remained.

---

Thank you! That was just the thing I looked for! Nice piece of information!

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.)