Ancient Battlefields

[cmacq]

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

[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.

[QuintusSertorius]

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.

[cmacq]

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.

[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.

[cmacq]

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

[QuintusSertorius]

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.

[cmacq]

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.

[QuintusSertorius]

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.

[cmacq]

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.

[alatar]

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.

[cmacq]

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.


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.

[Dhampir]

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.

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.

[alatar]

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.

[Cyclops]

...
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.

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.

[cmacq]

Second Battle of Chaeronea, Pontus vs Rome 86 BC.

this ones a bit tricky

[Cartaphilus]

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.