Ancient Battlefields

Off and on for the last five years I've been associated with a project designed to relocate battlefields. What information can be gleamed about the actual location of the EB period battlefields? For example near the center of the linked map provided below is the approximate location of the so-called Battle of Arausio; Cimbri vs Rome 105 BC.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...30978&t=p&z=13

This looking from the west side of the Rhone towards the battlefield.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

This is again from the Rhone Crossing looking east towards the battlefield.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

Finally, from the direction of Orange looking south towards the battlefield and beyond the low hills which lay before the Rhone Crossing.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

Excellent. I'm involved in historical preservation a bit myself.

This may also be the site of the so-called Battle of the Rhone Crossing; Volcae vs Carthage, 218 BC.

Dhampir, no historical preservation here, these aren't your run of the mill battlefields; very small scale, southwest US (1860s-1880s). Its more about relocation and verification, often in very remote and difficult country. Often very demanding work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Dhampir, no historical preservation here, these aren't your run of the mill battlefields; very small scale, southwest US (1860s-1870s). Its more about relocating and verification, often in very remote and difficult country.

---

I would consider it the ancient battlefield equivalent. Simply locating the sites is a form of preservation when the sites are not previously pinned down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhampir

I would consider it the ancient battlefield equivalent. Simply locating the sites is a form of preservation when the sites are not previously pinned down.

---

Right,
you have a point.
If we're lucky there is a crude field map, however for the most part we work from what are called, 'scout reports.' That normally, gets us into the ball park. Finding the actual battlefield site is another story. I’ve found that after the actual site of the fight has been relocated and compared to the often merger written account, the events that transpired there, become much clearer.

Battle of Cannae; Rome vs Carthage 215 BC.

Provided is a map of the Cannae Battlefield to include the locations of the two Roman camps, the Carthagian field camp, and the town of Cannae.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...=14&iwloc=addr

First a photo of the Ruins of the Town of Cannae, were Hannibal had his Headquarters immediately before the battle. About 300 m west of Cannae, or left of center of the photo and just west of the small creek, was the approximate location of Hannibal's field camp.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...16372&t=h&z=16

This is from the south looking north with the Carthagian field camp and the town of Cannae on the center right. The Ofanto runs from the lower left to upper right, with the Cannae Battlefield beyond to the north.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

This view is looking south over the Cannae Battlefield towards the Ofanto, in the distance the Carthagian field camp and the town of Cannae in the far left background. During the Battle the Roman army would advance from the upper right moving northeast with the line of the Allied Punic army located just left of center and north of the Ofanto.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

A most worthwhile project, and a lot to be gained from it. I wonder if there's a talented EB map-maker who can interpret your findings for 2.0?

Now if you're looking for Telamon, I'm sure you'll be able to do so with a simple geiger counter, which should sense residual radioactivity from the Geseatae's massive cojones:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Now if you're looking for Telamon, I'm sure you'll be able to do so with a simple geiger counter, which should sense residual radioactivity from the Geseatae's massive cojones:inquisitive:

---

Right,
since you brought it up that will indeed be next. Once you see the battlefield the battle's description will make much more sense. But this threat is not about the details of what, whom, and why, it just concerns the when and where; as in the general combatants, date, and location/view of ancient battlefields.

Jesus that must be a though job.

I mean the battle of Bosworth (1485) is a major event in brittish history, and is recent, and has accounts.

And still it isn't pinned down exactly.


Add 2000 years to the time distance, and it is very tricky.

There are two battlefields located in a relatively remote area (they're actually only a few miles apart), of which I can't provide a name (sorry thats just the way it is), that date to 1866 and 1867, of which we have a very good topo map (so-called for the period) made during a scout in 1867 that pin-point both, and relatively good descriptions from scouts made in 1866 and 1867. We have tried seven times to find the later site and three to relocate the earlier, and each time have failed. We may have come close to the early site, but as far as the later battlefield, we have no bloody idea where it is.

Battle of Telamon; Cisalpine and Rhone Gauls vs Rome 225 BC.

Provided is a map of the Telamon Battlefield which is more or less located around the low hills southeast of Fonteblanda. The Via Aurelia passes through these hills.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...93641&t=p&z=14

This high elevation view is from the south looking over the hills of the Telamon Battlefield. Here the Gauls deployed to face two Roman armies. One Roman army had moved south from Pisa along the Via Aurelia, while the other advanced from the south and east. The relatively open plain to the north and east seems to have been the area contested by the Gaulish and Allied Roman Horse.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

Another high elevation view from the north looking south towards the Telamon Battlefield. The Via Aurelia appears in the lower left corner of the photo, runs south towards the hills of the Telamon Battlefield, and continues along the coast. The site of the ancient town of Telamon can be seen on a jet of land near the upper right corner.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

Battle of Agrigentum; Cathagian garrison vs Rome vs Carthagian relief army 262-261 BC.

A map of the Agrigentum Battlefield is provided. The site of ancient Agrigentum, modern Agrigento, is more located on the ridge in the center of the map. Here a Cathagian garrison was besieged by a Roman army for six months.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...,0.187283&z=13

A view of Agrigentum and the surrounding battlefield from the south looking north.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

Looking at Agrigentum and the surrounding battlefield from the north/northwest with the Mediterranean Sea in the background.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

Motya

According to Shigawire in the EB team the island in the middle is where Motya was situated, the Carthaginian "Base of Operations" in Sicily.

Apprently the causeway which went from the island to Sicily is the "road" going north and parts of it might have been the earthen mounds Dionysios of Syracuse built when he assaulted Motya, in a operation just as similar as Alexander's attack on Tyre.
Although I'm not 100% sure that causeway is the same that the Carthaginians built and/or Dionysios was forced to build on when he attacked Motya.

The causeway is the same one which you can see on the google map. Parts of it were demolished by the defending Carthaginians in an attempt to "blow the bridge" so to speak. Dionysios pooled together ALL the manpower he could muster, in the usual brilliant manner of his extremely efficient labor management. Sailors and other "idlers" would be used to rebuild the causeway.

Battle of Lake Trasimene; Rome vs Carthage 217 BC.

Below one will find a map of the Lake Trasimene Battlefield, which is by the way my personal favorite.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...z=14&iwloc=add

This view is from the southwest looking northeast towards the Allied Punic field camp situated on the low hill. Immedately infront of this the left flank of the Punic battle line was drawn up, extending north and west.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

Provided below is a view of the entire battlefield looking east, from the west or the Roman army point of entry, towards the Carthagian field camp on a hill in the far background. However, the bulk of the Punic army was hidden at the base of the foothills to the left center, with their horse which would swing around the hill and cut off the pass besides the lake shore located in the left foreground.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

This stuff is awesome guys. Thanks for sharing. I have what most would consider a great job in an interesting line of work, but I am envious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Right,
since you brought it up that will be indeed be next...

---

Thank you for that. I don't have the map skills to make much sense of that but its interesting to note features like the hills etc, some of which are probably consistent from the time of the battle.

The point you make about being unable to find really well described battle sites from as recently as 1867 is a sad truth I learned in archaeology. The Earth shifts around like a restless sleeper, valleys fill up, rivers twist across the plains like epilectic sidewinders, deltas spill out into the sea, new lakes form and erase the surface our ancestors knew. The process can take centuries, decades or even hours (did hurricane Katrina redraw a few maps?)

I used to revere maps as truth, now they seem more like snapshots. I am very impressed you have found such important sites as Hannibals battles: maybe the bony Italian penisula hangs together better than most landscapes.

I'll give you an example from the US southwest.
Battle of Bloody Tanks, (Southwestern Yavapai) Wipukepai vs Para US Military 1863.

Here is one account of the battle, given by King Woolsey's widow, recorded many years after it occurred. The most accurate version of the battle was written by Woolsey shortly after returning from the field. He sent this report to the headquarters of the New Mexico Military District. Several other versions of the battle are about, yet these were written many decades later and place the battle site near a mining town called Globe. This other battle site is associated with a scout misson, involving Lt Howard Cushing, that occurred in 1870.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pxE...l=en#PPA218,M1

Here is a map of the Bloody Tanks Battle site.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...=15&iwloc=addr

From what we have found, it appears that the battle started just north of Apache Trail or center left. Here there are large bedrock basins were the road crosses the wash. The fight seems to have progressed up the canyon to the center right. This is were the bulk of the Yavapai stuff was found and may represent a rancheria. This view is from the south looking north at what is today known as Tortilla Flat.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

The battle seems to have finished up at Mesquite Flat. This site is north of Apache Trail on the low ridges just north of a small wash. Here were found the east end of the Yavapai rancheria. This particular area also appeared on a 1866 scout map labeled as Bloody Tanks. The associated scout report also mentioned that there were human remains still present there from the 1863 battle. This view is from the south looking north.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

Despite all the problems and conflicting information, this was actually a very easy site to relocate.

Battle of Carrhae/Harran; Rome vs Parthia 53 BC.

Provided is a general map with the location of Carrhae/Harran (from the Akkadian Harranu meaning, 'The Roads') marked with a green arrow. At this point Carrhae/Harran was a large town within the vassal kingdom of Osrhoene. However, this particular battle transpired in three phases, over a wide expanse, which included several days. The battlefield of the first phase and first day appears to have occurred about 14 miles southeast of Harran, near a modern village called Aslanli, along the road leading towards Seleucia.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...23911&t=p&z=11

Below is a map of the probable Carrhae/Harran battlefield of the first phase and first day located near Aslanli. This modern village is centered in a relatively flat valley nearly surrounded by a series of low ridges.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...,0.130978&z=13

This view is of the probable Carrhae/Harran Battlefield, corner right foreground, from the south looking north with Harran in the distant background left corner.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

The second phase of the battle on the first day, most likely occured several miles west and slightly south of the Aslanli Locus. These low hills and ridges appears to be the general setting for the tragic end of the ill-fated Publius column. The actual battlefield site seems to have been somewhere between the modern villages of Duzce and Zenginvoa.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...=13&iwloc=addr

This is a view of Carrhae/Harran where the third and final phase of the battle occured on the second day and night.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...,0.065489&z=14

The actual site of the final phase of the battle may have occured about 2 miles south of Carrhae/Harran within the area near the Selgelen/Ballisur stream.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...,0.187283&z=13

I'd like to see the location of the Caudine Forks. They are supposedly two defiles somewhere in Apulia where Gaius Pontius' Samnite army trapped a Roman army and forced them to pass under a yoke.

How does this look...

Furculae Caudinae

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...3,0.32341&z=12

With a view from the west looking east and the first pass?

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

A view from the west looking east towards the second pass?

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

I selected this location based on the description, but there is something strange in this report. I think it may have something to do with the Roman supply train?

Battle of Corinth; Allied Spartan army vs Macedonia 265 BC.

Below is ancient Corinth in the center of the map, and the probable site of the 265 BC battlefield.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...,0.187283&z=13

This is a close up photo of ancient Corinth.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...8,0.02341&z=16

A view from the south looking north towards ancient Corinth in the center, with the Bay of Corinth in the background.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

Battle of Raphia or Battle of Gaza; Seleucid Asia vs Ptolemaic Egypt 217 BC.

Below is a map of the Raphia battlefield, located near the modern city of Rafah.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...,0.097075&z=14

A view of the location of Raphia and its port, Tell Rafah, from the Mediterranean Sea, looking from the northwest to the southeast.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

This is the location of the battle of river Trebbia (18 December 218 B.C. , Hannibal vs Romani), which is also featured in the vanilla RTW version.

The only problem is that many of the battlefields might no longer remotely resemble how they were at the time. Even when you're able to accurately locate them, 2000 or more years is a long time - bridging even into geological time for the kind of changes that can take place.

North Africa, for example, has succumbed in swathes to the Sahara where it was once fertile and productive. Climactic and geological changes aren't trivial over that span of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

The only problem is that many of the battlefields might no longer remotely resemble how they were at the time.

---

You are right, for example there is a dispute about the exact place of the above mentioned battle because some people thinks that river Trebbia has changed his course due to sedimentary deposits over the centuries. Anyway, proof of the battle (weapons, helmets and so on) have been found in that area, which is also accounted quite precisely in Polybian Histories ... so I think it depends on the sources of information you can get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

The only problem is that many of the battlefields might no longer remotely resemble how they were at the time.

---

Change indeed, yet the type and degree is always the question. For this little problem we have Geomorphology. Of course the relationship of a modern to the ancient landscape depends on the type and number of processes and their level of activity. Once the actual location of a battlefield has been ascertained and verified, as Vortexmind noted with the discovery of artefacts, it can be relatively easy to provide a general reconstruction. I believe one of the more challenging examples of this is Thermo-pylae.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Change indeed, yet the type and degree is always the question. For this little problem we have Geomorphology. Of course the relationship of a modern to the ancient landscape depends on the type and number of processes and their level of activity. Once the actual location of a battlefield has been ascertained and verified, as Vortexmind noted with the discovery of artefacts, it can be relatively easy to provide a general reconstruction. I believe one of the more challenging examples of this is Thermo-pylae.

---

But it becomes yet another uncertain point of speculation about the past. Truth is we really don't know that much about the ancient world, all we have are hints and suggestions provided by what has survived from an archaeological and geological perspective, and the fragments of contemporary (and often not actually contemporary, and in any case rarely written with authenticity or accuracy in mind) texts.

When it comes down to it, we don't actually know with certainty how ancient battles were fought, how the two bodies of men clashed. All we have are educated guesses based on readings of the texts and reconstructions of equipment and such.

Not clearly understanding your point? Starting to sound a bit like Epistemological-Existentialism now, or how can one know whys vs the why nots? If one wants to travel down a road that goes nowhere fast, in all true, we are little reality machines. And in that light everything is entirely what we make of it. Yet, again this threat is not about anything other than the who, when, and most importantly, the where of ancient battles.

Sorry, I don't speak Philosophically.

My point is that it's a very limited and highly speculative who, when and where. Even the where, since it's not necessarily like the where these things actually took place. And that's assuming we do have the correct locations.

Sorry, now, I have absolutely no idea what you mean?

He means that it is very hard (bordering on the impossible) to be sure where any battle was fought (especially in antiquity) and also points out that even if you do have the location, it will have changed dramatically since the time, restricting it's ability to give insight into the battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alatar

He means that it is very hard (bordering on the impossible) to be sure where any battle was fought (especially in antiquity) and also points out that even if you do have the location, it will have changed dramatically since the time, restricting it's ability to give insight into the battle.

---

And add to that, we don't actually know how the battles were even fought. Sure we have accounts that purport to tell us of the movements of some units and some of the major events, but the authors assumed the reader knew how things went in ancient warfare.

My point is this entire exercise seems a little wishful in it's usefulness given the number of things we really don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

And add to that, we don't actually know how the battles were even fought. Sure we have accounts that purport to tell us of the movements of some units and some of the major events, but the authors assumed the reader knew how things went in ancient warfare.

My point is this entire exercise seems a little wishful in it's usefulness given the number of things we really don't know.

---

Not to trivialize the complex and complicate the mundane; nor be too aggressive, but by we you mean, what exactly? Some may know more, or less than others, as I have found, through trial and error, that not all opinions are created equal. I was afraid that the 'Intrinsic Relevance' of said topic was what you were getting at. I just wanted you to spell that out. That was, what, you, spelled out, wasn't it?

Still, I had hoped for a discussion about the merits of one site, as in the case of a pre-Col Kurtz/Quintus Sertorius, lets say for example, Arausio or Aquae Sextiae, as opposed to another. Of course you're entitled to your opinion. One, you may have clearly noticed, I do not entirely share. Yet, I can't help but question, about the nature and extent of ones archaeological field experience, concerning such endeavors. I might also wonder why one, with such opinions, would bother posting repeatedly, herein? Theres no need to reply, so if you would please excuse me, I’m off to provide another particular prospective, that will in future, hopefully provoke a less wishful, and more useful discourse.

I'm not certain if an exact account of how a battle was fought is particularly relevant when you're finding where it was fought.

Battle tactics at Wavre didn't alter the location of the river Dyle, nor at Gettysburg did they alter the location of McPherson's Ridge.

And I have no doubt that if the actual locations were not known, using the accounts available and google maps, you could find the locations.

Battle of Ancyra; Eastern Seleucid Asia vs Allied Seleucid Anatolia 239 BC.

Although due to the extremely vague description, the actual battlefield site remains unknown. Considering this, below is a map of the possible Ancyra Battlefield. Near the upper right corner of the map on a hill is the site of the Galatian capital, Ancyra.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...,0.194149&z=13

Provided is a view of the site of the former Galatian fortress, located in the center of the photo, looking from the south to the north. A lower town, which was also walled, extended down the western slope of the hill. During the Roman period this area was extensively rebuilt and expanded towards the west. One will note that in this general area several large Roman Period structures have been excavated and remain exposed.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

The actual location of the 239 BC battlefield remains unclear, however the Hellenic Period road network suggests it was situated in the hilly area about three miles south southwest of the Galatian fortress. Still, it is important to remember that this site is speculative at best. Below is a view of this location looking from the south to the north towards the Galatian fortress located near the top center of the photo.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhampir

I'm not certain if an exact account of how a battle was fought is particularly relevant when you're finding where it was fought.

Battle tactics at Wavre didn't alter the location of the river Dyle, nor at Gettysburg did they alter the location of McPherson's Ridge.

And I have no doubt that if the actual locations were not known, using the accounts available and google maps, you could find the locations.

---

Given that where the general in question had a choice of where to fight, itself based on how his army fought, it's vitally pertinent to the question of where. Insofar as choice of location is influenced by the troops at his disposal, their morale and discipline and so on, then it matters. Where a battle is fought, and then where specific units are placed is intrinsically tied up with how they fight.

To put it into your context, battle tactics were a strong influence on a battle being fought at Wavre at all, and the specific places chosen to dispose of troops. How the land was then would interact with this mix. Without understanding how they fought (and with Napoleonic warfare, we actually have a pretty good idea with the number of contemporary accounts and manuals and so on that survive) it becomes difficult to pinpoint with a good degree of accuracy where it was fought. Because you don't have all the information on what influenced the general to choose to fight a battle where they did.

This is the crux of my query. I'm not just trying to be negative and difficult, but questioning how much you can get out of this exercise with so many unknowns. Unlike with Napoleonic battles, ancient ones suffer from not only deficits in information, but millenia of change in the landscape itself.

Quero Perfectus
Well then, put your money where your mouth is. Select, an ancient battle that has some degree of documentation and develop an argument based on the available evidence, why it's location can either be known, or can not be known. Then let others pick your research and logic apart. I'll even make it easy, why don't you use the Battle of Chaeronea, 86 BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Perfecto

Well then, put your money where your mouth is. Select, an ancient battle that has some degree of documentation and develop an argument based on the available evidence, why it's location can either be known, or can not be known. Then let others pick your research and logic apart. I'll even make it easy, why don't you use the Battle of Chaeronea, 86 BC.

---

How does that follow on from what I'm saying? I'm saying it's a flawed exercise, not that I know a battle where suddenly all my objections vanish. How would my engaging in something suffering all the flaws I've just been talking about make it all right? I'm not saying you're all doing a poor job of it and I'd do it better, I'm saying the entire venture suffers from some serious issues.

Because, in my humble opinion, you're simply incorrect in your assumption. Now, to prove me wrong, merely research said battle's location based on the available evidence and report back. If one does not attempt an exercise, in truth, how could one understand its value? Maybe you might learn something in the effort? Otherwise, your opinion has been duly noted, and thus, please leave others to opine, as well.

But looking at likely locations on google maps is a flawed way to find a battlefeild.

Perhaps if you went their and did some digging you could say for certain that it was in said area.


Armed with one account of the battle and 2000 years, it will be very hard to find the spot, and even if you did, 2000 years worth of change means you will likely gain little from the exercise.

Available Evidence
Again, have you tried to use the available evidence? If not, how would you know? I wonder why military colleges use these locations to teach the art of war? Somehow, without some trivial display of ones ability, the claims of, 'gifted armature,' in the Rorke's Drift sense, do not appear to ring true. One may note the citation provided at the bottom of the map. I am simply using google maps to display, not to find.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ene.gif/330px-
From the Department of History, United States Military Academy.

Some may have believed this tread was a voyage of discovery, which it certainly is not. It is simply a place to display that which is already known or understood. If one had taken a little time to review, rather than striving to increase their number of posts in this forum each day, one may have understood, this not too subtle point. Again, thanks for the input, but this tread was not designed to travel in a direction, some appear compelled to herd it. Nonetheless, I do wholeheartedly encourage those that want to, or have others, research and post the map locations and/or aerial views of ancient battlefields that date to the EB time frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Without understanding how they fought (and with Napoleonic warfare, we actually have a pretty good idea with the number of contemporary accounts and manuals and so on that survive) it becomes difficult to pinpoint with a good degree of accuracy where it was fought. Because you don't have all the information on what influenced the general to choose to fight a battle where they did.

---

I'm going to disagree with you. When an account says "two miles from this mountain near this river" you can find that general area and you have an approximate location. You don't need to know how the battle was fought to do this. Then you can look into the account to see the minor details about the land itself and using a map that shows elevation, you can start to narrow things down.

Quote:

---

ancient ones suffer from not only deficits in information, but millenia of change in the landscape itself.

---

Geologic landmarks--like rivers and hills--will still be there and are unlikely to have changed to the point where they are terribly different from two or three thousand years ago.

From what I'm seeing here, cmacq isn't saying these are exact locations. The maps linked are generally several miles across, meaning there is a hell of a lot of room for an ancient battlefield in there.

Quote:

---

rather than striving to increase their number of posts in this forum each day,

---

What a strange thing to say, clearly people are either with you or just trying to get some posts.

Ah well, clearly you do not understand us as much as we don't understand you, but it is your thread, and you just want to post where you believe the battles take place.

You have ignored QS's point, but you clearly don't want to hear it, so I'll leave this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhampir

...
Geologic landmarks--like rivers and hills--will still be there and are unlikely to have changed to the point where they are terribly different from two or three thousand years ago.

---

I have to disagree abour rivers, they snake around a lot. Even hills can shudffle about: I believe certain boundaries around the San Andreas fault move a yard a year or more. However there are definitely stable features you can rely on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhampir

From what I'm seeing here, cmacq isn't saying these are exact locations. The maps linked are generally several miles across, meaning there is a hell of a lot of room for an ancient battlefield in there.

---

Spot on. He's offering a useful resource based on historical sources and availabvle maps on a military simulation site. Very worthwhile: even if I don't have the skills to make use of it, I can see the value of it.

Second Battle of Chaeronea, Pontus vs Rome 86 BC.

this ones a bit tricky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I have to disagree abour rivers, they snake around a lot. Even hills can shudffle about: I believe certain boundaries around the San Andreas fault move a yard a year or more. However there are definitely stable features you can rely on.

---

Rivers and shores usually change.

For example, Gades (now Cádiz) was built in an island, but now this island is united to the continent.
All the coast of the Betis' mouth (now Guadalquivir), has changed a lot in two thousand years.