Ephestion

What about the mods i was talking about?

I wanted to download some of his mod packs for AOM, AOEIII and his site is gone. Does anyone know where to get the mods and or where to find him? Wildfiregames-Markstrawson

I want to know because this is the first time i heard of them speaking Hebrew. And yes, Carthage was a Greek colony at some point, there are numerous artifacts and histories saying so. But what i am interested in is how you derived that they spoke Hebrew.

Jeru how do you know what the Punic language was?

Where you have the surrounding water try placing a forest instead. Also reduce the central lake so that there is more room for open field combat.

Γυνα is not modern, Γυναικα is modern. The reason i mentioned Γυνα is because it formed the root word for many other words pertaining to Women. Where as Γυνη would lose the last ee η sound and be replaced with an A at the end when combing two word roots. γυνη (γυνά, -αικός, -αῖκα; -αικῶν, -αιξί, -αῖκας) But the term γυνη has been used numerous times in ancient texts as opposed to γυνα so γυνη is fine. Also the word Θηλύς was used for the word Female if that is what you were looking for. Gine had the connotation of wife but was also applied as female. the ee or i sounds are as follows: η = long i sounds as in tree - female singular οι = long i sound as in tree - plural ει = long i sound as in tree - usualy used in verbs ι = short i sount as in sit (can be dichronus) υ = dichronus in that it makes two i sounds si-it

You could do it based on Indo European Ideas: Although the picture above makes it seem like there is only one Greek language but in reality all it's other branches like those that were found in SOuthern Italy and Spain have simply not made it into the modern era. North Armenia had Pontic Greeks and Georgia also had Georgian Greeks but they spoke different languages . They were Greek derived but were usually considered Greek dialects. But the distinction is rather hard to make because all the Eastern Greeks used more Ancient Greek words than did Modern Greek, by this i mean where an ancient word was replaced with a modern version in Greece, the Eastern Greeks did not change such word. eg. Phrases like Pou-then eisai in the east became apo pou eisai in Greece (Where are you from?).

The word is gina as in va gina. for woman. Γυνα. but Γυνή was used more i guess. Gine

I would go with oikos for the house. domos usually means living quarters. Gina is the word for woman.

It varies with which place we are talking about. But in the case of Italy the southern part was heavily colonised so it was not merely influencing the locals but actually forming cities where the inhabitants were mainly Greek. Of course over time the locals would have gone to live in the cities and outnumbered the Greeks. The city state was a new idea that the Greeks had introduced and as such Italy's roots lay in a Greek colonising effort. This does not mean that there were no Italian people, it just means that the concentrated population you find in cities were only found in the Greek cities of Italy. But later Latins and other tribes tried to take southern italy and eventually they succeeded. No longer were the Greeks the majority in their own cities. As for Egypt the Greek city was Alexandria where the majority of people were Greeks at the start. Hispania also was a Greek city. But as for Carthage well maybe there are two stories and you just need to choose which is right. So what i was saying is that although the local people existed in many of these places, their first cities (in the West) were Greek cities. (not all but most) And then eventually the locals took control of these cities and they changed them. Hispania for example was eventually run by Celts then Romans. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uA4DAA...lony%22&f=false Search the text where it says: "Rome was a Greek Colony"

There are only 4 books surviving regarding the Germanic people prior to 500AD. So it becomes hard to understand them completely. But from Greek accounts the Celts were generally allies to the Greeks during and after Alexander's time. That they attacked Rome may have been a peace keeping mission because they only raided Rome in 340BC. But later they tried to attack Rome on several accounts with intent to take some of the nearby cities. Note Also that the Germanic people had a large network of villages but stopped short of building cities until much later in their history. Possible reasons may have been that they lived by a Feudalistic type of government headed by a chief. This limited them from establishing large delegated labour networks to complete state works. But from 400AD onwards all this changes dramatically and the Germanic people end up taking all of Europe. The Americans as you put them were a branch of the Germanic people. English itself is a Germanic language. So don't think that Germany is the only place to find Germanic people. The Slavs, Celts, Gauls, Rus (Russians), Norse, Anglo-Saxxons etc are all part of a Germanic family. The Germanic people took a while to join the fight but they have literally taken over the world in our modern age. Rome and Greece fell! But getting back your point, I am not taking anything away from the history of other people. But the impact of having a Greek speaking empire that stretched from Europe to India had such a massive impact on the world. Also the deliberate attempts to colonise Western Europe by the Greeks and later Romans was the start of what you see today. Some historians say that the Roman's built the roads that made it possible for the Greek NT to travel all over the world. Imagine now what would have become of Europe and Russia if they didn't have a common faith that prevented them from slaughtering each other.

All those places you mention had some form of colony or were known to the Greeks intimately. Have you ever heard of the pact between the Celts and Alexander? The Danube river which stretches from the Bosphorus to Germany was dotted with villages that traded with the Greeks and borrowed from them many ideas, in part Hellenising themselves. It is not by chance that the Greek Gods can be interpreted into Roman Gods and NOrse Gods. (We saw this happen again when the Ostrogoths became hellenised in that same very region) There are ancient drawings showing the Celts fighting against the Greeks. So the Greeks had already impacted on the West. Hispania was at one stage a Greek colony, the name itself is Greek. Also Carthage according to Greek historians WAS a Greek colony. But as the years rolled by, well things changed: The Seleucids once asked Sidon or Biblos (Can't remember exactly) to attack Carthage and they said we have a pact to not attack our own. Meaning that by 320BC the city had become different to when it was a Greek colony but nevertheless it remained part of Ptolemy's rule through Egypt. Any attributed success of Carthage was dependant on it's support from Egypt. Cleopatra was the last to reign in the lineage of Ptolemy(former general of Alexander). This link shows you that the Greek coins were the most used in the city of Carthage as of 320BC http://www.jstor.org/pss/504208 Look for the part that says SNG coins were the most used: this is an abbreviation for Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, or simply Greek coins. Here are some database searches for some SNG's Ref. XIII Newcastle Antiquaries Soc. State: Spain Mint: Malaka Period: -199 to -100 Obv: Head of Vulcan bearded r Rev: Bust of Helios radiate Material: AE Weight: 12 Axis: 2 Width: 20 SNGuk_1301_0002 Ref. XIII Newcastle Antiquaries Soc. State: Campania Ruler: Augustus Mint: Neapolis Period: -395 to -385 Obv: Head of nymph r. in sphendone Rev: Man-headed bull l., head frontal, being crowned by Nike; below double exergue line, ??????????? Material: AR Weight: 8 Axis: 1 Width: 20 SNGuk_1301_0024 Ref. XIII Newcastle Antiquaries Soc. State: Calabria Ruler: Augustus Mint: Tarentum Period: -212 to -209 Obv: Rider l. crowning his horse on ground line; behind, ??; below, ??????? Rev: Dolphin-rider carrying Nike in r. and cornucopia in l.; below, ????? Material: AR Weight: 4 Axis: 11 Width: 18 SNGuk_1301_0038 Note all these Greek coins constitute the majority and are not rare occurrences. This timeline is reasonably ok. Look at 320BC and note Ptolemy uses Egypt to take Lybia and Carthage as a province. Carthages missions were driven by a central Greek leader in Egypt/Memphis. http://www.bible-history.com/jesus/jesusTime_Charts.htm Anyway, Rome was pretty much Greek or very Greekish in terms of population there are too many evidences for and only a few that contradict that.

Up until the fascists forced the revised Italian language on the Southern Italians most spoke a dialect similar to Greek it was called Grec. Dante who wrote the Komodia was writing in a dialect very similar to Grec. These were the last signs of an old heritage that linked Southern Italy to both Magna Gracia and later Hellenisation periods. I am not saying that Imperial Rome was Greek. The Latin tribes took over administration and Julius and Nero both worked towards increasing the power of the Latin people within Italy. But Latin was by no means a common language. It became at best a second administrative language and later became used by the Church in the West. Like I said the councils of Rome used Greek between 1AD-700AD as the common language between councillors. There is a distinction between Imperial Rome and the Roman Empire. If today Japan took over Australia, Britain, Canada and the USA then Japanese would be an administrative language. But the common language would be English. In the same way when Rome started to expand under Latin rule all it did was take over Greek or former Greek territories and colonies. That is pure fact! The Romans documented how they forced the Greeks out of the cities, slaughtered them and recolonised the said cities with Latin colonists. This happened mainly in Western Europe where the Greeks were reasonably few in numbers. The end result of the Roman Empire was that it had far more Greek speakers than any other language. At around 285 AD the tables turned Diocles also Known as Diocletian Defeated the last Imperial ROman armies and started to re Hellenise the former Greek territories including Southern Italy. Diocles along with many other generals in the Roman Army after Nero had to speak Greek because it was the common language. Diocles was born a Greek. When Christ was crucified on his Cross there was a wooden plaque (epitaph) that read: The reason for Greek is that it was the Common language of the Mediterranean, Latin because at the time Latin rulers governed central Rome and Hebrew for the locals.

How can i condense an entire lifetime into two paragraphs on a forum? Which part do you think is ridiculous? Neapolis was a suburb of what became Rome but it was it's oldest suburb. As for Titus and Livy, their history of Rome is just propaganda mainly. Plutarch gives a much more reliable account. And for one when you read the English translations of Plutarch they are not the same in any way. Infact most translations of Plutarch are hybrids between what others have said and what Plutarch is saying. As for Byzantine history the best modern book on the subject is by Warren Treadgold: Byzantine State and Society.

Why LOL? I suggest you read Warren Treadgolds Byzantine Society. It will give you enough information about the BYzantine society and culture.

Carthage and Rome (Nea-Polis meaning New City) were established between 900-700BC as Greek Colonies. Both Rome and Carthage were led by local administrators. But Neapolis/Rome started to rise in power while Alexander drew on Greek resources to establish the Eastern empire. Several Latin based groups invaded the peninsula during this time and established themselves in seats of power. Julius Caesar and Nero were the only emperors that are Suspected of not knowing Greek. It is these emperors that made possible for Latin to become part of the administration of Neapolis/Rome. But all the letters written by the apostles for example were in Greek. http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/saintpaul.html

The common language Belisarius was never Latin. Only two emperors did not know Greek, Julius and Nero. The common language that linked east and west was always Greek. The Wetsern provinces gradually drifted from this unity by accepting the influences of the schism that the Papist church introduced. The once Katholiki ekklisia (Katholik Church) divided into a Papist and Orthodox faction. The Papists (known today as Roman Catholics), began to heavily influence the West when they started to print the First Latin Bible post 700AD. Up until 700AD all Christians East and West were using Greek Bibles. The term Katholiko was introduced by Saint Chrysostom (A Greek from Constantinople) in The Creed which became the standard of what Christians believed. His usage of the term was not denominational like it is today ie there were no Catholics just Christians both East and West believing in the Katholik Creed. So after 700AD we start to see Latin Bibles influencing the West and more and more people learning Latin. At some stage post 1453AD Latin could have been considered a common language for Western Europe especially when the Renaissance started. But Latin was never spoken in the Eastern empire nor was there any evidence of its usage. Only one school in Ephesus appears to have been a translation center for Greek laws into Latin. Around 700AD there were claims by the Western Empire's Pope that the common language is Latin. However, Numerous other sources some from France claim that the "Ligua Franca was Greek" indicating that Latin phrases like Lingua and Frankish terms like Franca were being used, but that the common language was Greek. Even before the rise of the Romans Empire, Greek was used in Roman courts. During and after the fall of the Western Romans, the lingua franca was still Greek. You can refer to numerous writings by the Five good emporers of Rome as well as sporadic legal documents to realise that the administration of Rome was never using Latin until the Papacy introduced it. And the Papacy was by then arguably less Roman than the Ostrogoths. Charlamagne was crowned emperor of the East and Western empire by the then pope, only problem with that is that Charlamagne was documented to have come to the East asking to be recognised as leader of the West and was also asking to marry a Roman Byzantine princess so that he would have legitimacy to the Eastern throne, which still ruled over East and West. At this point the Western EMpire was getting more Germanic and Justinian decided that he had to restore the West, there were very few real Romans left. Lombards Vandals and a host of Germanic tribes swamped the old Greek/Roman cities. The Great schizm of the church around 1000AD coincides with the fact that the then pope was a German who wanted the power of ruling the Western empire. Also regarding the identity of Rome and Byzantium. Consider for a moment the British colonising the USA, the USA becomes all powerfull, then the USA falls then the British take back their colony after a few millenium. The same way, Greece was the seed that became rome, it grew expanded, and during its decline it became Greek again. There was no such thing as carrying the mantle of Rome and the Roman empire. Rome was loaned by the Latins and when they declined in power Rome returned back home where she started and back in the hands of her creators. There was no such thing as New Rome to denote a new empire. New Rome was one city formerly Byzantium or Constantinople. The empire was still considered Roman but more correctly ΡΟΜΑΙΟΙ. Hence the slander term given to Romanised British (POM or Poms).

I don't have a hatred for them, I just don't think they were very strong when it came to military. Egypt had a better chance against Rome than Carthage, but they mismanaged the navy which cost them in the end.

Every village had a king by the 1300's. The real king of constantinople gave those titles to almost any western tribe with an army in hope they would support the eastern front. Byzantium recognised numerous germanic kings and slavic ones etc. But the bottom line is that the name Serbia was not used by anyone except maybe the Serbs and the Latin Empire. I am pretty sure they were called Cyrilics or Macedonians by almost everyone and not recognised as a state by the name Serbia. Macedonia was still greatly populated by Greeks but the Slavs began to outnumber Greeks towards 900AD. (Keep in mind that the proto-Serbians and Greeks made up the population of Byzantine Macedonia, and has nothing to do with the modern state.) See ST Methodius and Cyril regarding the development of an alphabet for the Slavs. The reason the saints entered the slavic region was because they still belonged to Byzantium by 900AD but had been overrun by Slavs/Bulgarians. There were attempts to Hellenise or re-Hellenise the region in the 800's but those failed. Later post crusades of 1200's a Serbian kingdom was formed around 1300's that lasted almost 100 years. The Serbs come into play post 1453 in the 1800's when they were fully established as a sovereign nation. Before that the earlier kingdoms they tried to establish failed after short spans of time.

Greeks, Celts, Egyptians, Norse, and Mesopotamians...I would take out Celts and add China.

Yes but Elephants like those used by Hannibal were Ptolemaic not Selucid. I was trying to say that essentially North Africa had it's own style of army that was very similar in make up. They all had hoplites and cavalry or some variation of them but the style of army was different to those in Europe.

There is only one historical reference to what historians believe are the turks and that is on a Persian recruitment list of around 400AD. It is speculative. The Turks as such would be referred to as Ottomans since the Ottomans were made up of Arabs, Turks and Persians. The Turks within this Ottoman alliance appear in 1000AD-1200AD which was when they were at their strongest.

There was no such thing as Serbia in 0AD-1453AD. But if you are trying to make it into a Byzantine era game then your state would be called Macedonia. Byzantine Macedonia included Thessaloniki (ancient Macedonia) and essentially all of the Balkans. Maybe for fun you could add it but it is not historical.

You would be wrong. Greeks colonised it according to Heroditus and referred to it as Ethiopia.

Warren treadgold has a good book about the army of the Byzantien state. Also everything i saw on this thread, so far, is totally wrong about Byzantines. There was no Albania to start with it was Illyrium.Diocles was a Greek from that region and started the Tetrarchy basically dividing the empire in 2 and have two leaders per half. 285AD This is what the Byzantine army looked like upto around 400AD Saint George Saint Dimitrios The priests used to wear only black robes but after the last emperor they started wearing uniforms similar to the emperor: This tradition was part of the church because by 700AD the emperor had a role in the church service. And to take his place the Bishops wore his atire. Constantine XI Modern Orthodox Bishops wearing the same outfits: On all other occasions the Bishops wore these black uniforms similar to the Jews: After 400AD the Byzantines start to employ more mercenary armies than their own. Hence the varied uniforms you see about the armies post 400AD. However upto around 700AD the royal army always wore the same as those in 285-400AD.(or very similar) Later Orthodox icons show Venetians and several Germanic soldiers because they were recruited by the Byzantines. The Turks were never hired by the Byzantines as someone mentioned, the Turks were mainly hired by the Persians. The Turks dressed like Asiatic nomads with fur etc and wore pants. The Byzantine army never wore pants as this was the dress of the "barbarians". However, numerous Greek tribes like the Pontians wore something that was a cross between a pants and a foustanela (kilt type thingy) they called it the braka (Vraka). That became popular for mounted Anatolian/Greeks in the East. It looked similar to this: This male is wearing something similar to what i am talking about. But the image is showing how they looked in the 1400-1800's. This Vraka became popular because of the contact with Germanic and Persian tribes. And the average pleb would have worn something like this post 1000AD. Since they used Thematic (pleb) armies after 800AD whatever the fashion of the plebs was what they wore to war. But i am pretty sure that right upto the fall the emperor and his soldiers were still wearing the same gear i showed with St George. Try looking up military saints of the Greek or Byzantine Orthodox churches and you should find more depictions. Icons are better than artist interpretations because they were drawn near the time of the people they represent. El. Greco drew Venetians as part of the Byzantine Amry. http://www.artesmagazine.com/2010/01/el-gr...venetian-crete/