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

**MeinPanzer** · 07-08-2008, 14:03

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.

**Ibrahim** · 07-08-2008, 19:28

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

**keravnos** · 07-08-2008, 22:30

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.

**Ibrahim** · 07-08-2008, 22:51

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)

**Vorian** · 07-08-2008, 22:54

@ keravnos

Didn't Demetrios took the byname Poliorketes after the siege of Rhodos?

**keravnos** · 07-09-2008, 06:39

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.

**Vorian** · 07-09-2008, 09:04

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?

**The Persian Cataphract** · 07-09-2008, 14:30

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.

**keravnos** · 07-09-2008, 22:10

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

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.

**MeinPanzer** · 07-09-2008, 15:03

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.