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

[Atanamir]

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....

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

[Labrat]

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

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).

[Atanamir]

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..... I am satisfyed..

[Hax]

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

[konny]

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.

[Socy]

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.)

[Hax]

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.

[Socy]

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

[Hax]

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

[paullus]

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?

[divulse123]

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...

Again, apologies.

[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?

[paullus]

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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

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

[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

-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."

[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?

[MeinPanzer]

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?

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...

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

[Spartan198]

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

[Labrat]

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.

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.

[The Persian Cataphract]

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

[Lysimachos]

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

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.

[Foot]

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

[The Persian Cataphract]

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.

[Atanamir]

I have a question again

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 ?????

[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

[Atanamir]

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....:

[divulse123]

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.

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?)

[The Persian Cataphract]

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 ) 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).

[Spartan198]

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 )

[konny]

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

Tetrachy