Jump to content

Shogun 144

WFG Retired
  • Posts

    890
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Shogun 144

  1. My 2 cents:

    To my knowledge there is just a lot we do not know about the Iberians and naval warfare. Thorfinn's suggestion makes sense. Also, we could add to the Iberians some Celtic warships, maybe one unit or two, acting as mercenaries in the Iberian player's service or what not. But I don't know if it would be supportable. Something to consider, nevertheless.

  2. Forud,

    Yes, Dr. Farrokh is one of the leading scholars of Pre-Islamic Iranian history in the world. I am proud to say that I do in fact own his book, Shadows in the Desert, and I do intend on using it for 0 AD when I am able. I have not read much of it yet, I have not had the time, but so far it is proving a great and useful work.

    Thanks again for your interest in 0 AD, Forud.

  3. Forud,

    Thank you for your contributions. As I don't know much Persian I can not comment on your accuracy but I do want to correct you on one point. As far as I am aware asabari or asabaran (depending on linguistic context) is a real Persian term that is used to denote medium or skirmish cavalry. I have seen the term used primarily to denote the cavalry of Media and Arachosia during the Achaemenid, Hellenistic, and Parthian periods.

  4. A minor aside then, on translations. We've known a fair share of the old Gallic language, and there are some interesting reconstruction products, but it wasn't until the Coligny Calendar was being understood that ancient language linguists began to understand the language, and it's relations in eastern Europe; portions of the Celtiberian language, though I'm told that may be from a separate family, though still quite Celtic. Prior to that boon I don't think we had much more than place names, a few verbs, some nouns, and a boatload of personal names.

    Sorry if I'm going on. I'll browse about, will try not to be much trouble. I don't quite understand forums as well as I'd like (M&B's forums still vex me). I'm a bit old for this kind of thing anymore I think, and changes too quick. I'll try to help how I can.

    Somairle,

    Well then I look forward to your feedback. About languages, I understand what you are saying. I hope you like my article about Gallic. I only have access to limited resources on the subject, but what was available online about the Coligny Calender was invaluable.

    Also, does your PM function work? I tried to send a PM but it said it was either disabled or your inbox was full. We should move this conversation to private messages.

  5. I do post on the M&B forums. Expert is a bit much. The language isn't my strong point, in so much as Celts in the period spoke many. I know my Old and Middle Gaelic decently, but that's practically useless to you folks. I'm more concerned with warfare.

    I think it's a good article, but there are problems with it. A good deal seems to be more the 1960s-1980s view of Celts. In the 90s and the current decade we made some major advantages in what we know of Celts. Even a handful of 'first hand' bits (essentially, Celtic temple inscriptions). But mostly, it has been critical examination of Roman descriptions.

    Ignoring propaganda in the period, we still see description of warfare not that isn't that different from Hellenes, really, who were probably a major influence in later Celtic warfare (and vice versa, Greeks during the Roman conquest had Celtic shields and tactics aplenty).

    It's not that the article is bad, but it seems a tiche out of date. Not to at all impugne the original writer, it's good stuff, just some parts seem off in concern to modern understanding of Celts.

    Somairle,

    Okay well, perhaps I came on too strong with the 'expert' stuff. Moving on, I am aware of most of your concerns about the article. The original author has since left the team, but as Dept. Head this falls under my purview.

    Recent advances have really surprised me for one, as I never thought we would ever be able to decipher a Celtic inscription. But I agree with you on Hellenic-Celtic warfare not being not different, they did influence each other. The spread of the Celtic shield as the thueros for one.

    Anyway, please feel free to comment on any other Celtic article here.

    God Bless,

    Shogun 144

  6. Somairle,

    Are the same person as a Celtic expert on the Mount & Blade forums? If so while I don't know if you know me, I do know you, if only by reputation. I am glad to see you here at 0 AD.

    As the Chief Historian for 0 AD I welcome any commentary or any help you can give on the Celts. If you are the same Somairle as the one on M&B I know you to be very knowledgeable on the subject. Please me PM me.

  7. Around the same period as the Athenian democracy was taking shape in Attika, a similar revolution was taking place in Italia. Surrounded by myth, the foundation of the Roman Republic and its system of checks and balances is nevertheless important in the history of government.

    Rome has always been an important city. By the closing years of the 6th Century BC, the Kingdom of Rome had expanded to become the most powerful in Central Italy and one the greatest in the peninsula. While the traditional accounts of the kings of Rome are usually not trusted, there is an element of truth to them. At the least, the last three kings of Rome, Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, and Tarquinius Superbus were historical figures. The account told by the historian Titus Livy of Priscus and his family migrating to Rome and taking control over a few years is likely, as similar events occurred across the Mediterranean world during the Archaic Age. Rome's leadership of the Latin League, a local political-military alliance, further increased her prestige and power.

    A word now must be said about the Roman political system. Despite common understanding of the events that surrounded the founding of the republic, the Roman kingdom was never an autocracy at any known point in its history. In fact, there is strong archeological and literary evidence that even as a monarchy Roman government was limited. The regal institution was elective, confirmed by the Senate, which acted as an advisory council. Legislative power, at least to an extent, was put in the hands of the Comitia Centuriata ‘The Assembly of the People-in-Arms’ that had displaced the original Comitia Curiata ‘The Assembly of the Clans’ by this time. The former former elected the king and acted as a supreme court among other duties. The latter body remained in existence, but its power was largely ceremonial. How the executive power worked under the monarchy is something of a mystery. Traditionally it has been believed the Kings held executive authority, but with restraints. However, recent theory has suggested the Roman monarchy was more sacral then secular, similar to the Japanese monarchy, and elected magistrates held power. These magistrates, the praetores, were the forerunners of the later consuls. The origin of the praetores remains largely unknown but the idea of collegial rule was not strange for the time. Other states in Italy practiced some form of collegial rule, such as the Samnites. In addition, there is the question of whether the praetores were equal.

    Now we will examine the overthrow of the monarchy. According to Roman accounts, based on the chronology of Marcus Terentius Varro, the Roman Republic was founded in 509 BC. Flaws in Varro’s chronology, and its conversion to the modern calendar, place it four years out-of-date with the BC AD era. In fact, it may have happened around 507 or 506. This clears a chronological issue between the usual dating for the founding and the dating of the Hellenes for an important battle that occurred in this same era.

    Several key events surround the founding of the Roman Republic. First is the ruling style of Tarquinius Superbus. It is clear from the literary evidence that Tarquinius was not content to be constrained by the limits of his office. He is portrayed as an active monarch, a good diplomat and general and over all a success on the foreign field. His internal policies are much more controversial. Tarquinius appeared to have made the choice to confront Rome’s powerful aristocracy, the patricians, and took measures to curb their power. The most well-known measure was the ‘packing’ of the Senate, doubling the size of the body to 300 with no intent of listening to the Senators. They took this move badly, giving Tarquinius the nickname of Superbus ‘the Proud’ or ‘the haughty one’. Accusations were made of tyranny by the monarchy. Tensions rose between the King and his nobles. The matter ended with the affair of the rape of the Roman noblewoman Lucretia by Prince Sextus, a son of the King, and her resulting suicide. This was the second key event.

    This incident would prove to be the catalyst for revolt. While undoubtedly mythologized over the centuries and embellished there is nothing unlikely with the idea that a scandal of this kind brought the downfall of the Tarquinii. At the least, it provided a convenient excuse for a coup. Two prominent nobles, both relatives of Tarquinius Superbus, headed the movement that expelled the kings, Lucius Iunius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus. Popular tradition has it the coup was bloodless but archeology paints a different picture. The archeological record makes it clear that Rome was engulfed in turmoil and several prominent buildings with connections to the Tarquinii were burned down. These include the Royal Palace on the Velia, the Regia, the Comitium, and the royal cult sanctuary on the site of the modern Sant’Omobono. It is important to note here the overthrow of Tarquinius Superbus and his family was just that, a political expulsion. There was no greater reasoning, certainly nothing having to do with some fanciful notion of an ethnic conflict between Latins and Etruscans. The near-contemporary Alkemeonidai of Athens is a good example of this, as they were repeatedly expelled from Attika before the foundation of the Athenian democracy.

    With the house of Tarquinius overthrown the question of what to do presented itself. The traditional Roman accounts make it seem like the transition from kingdom to republic happened overnight, with Brutus and Collatinus becoming the first consuls. However, this does not make sense logically or when other evidence is considered. A constitution does not take shape quickly; the process must have been gradual. In addition, the archeological record seems to suggest the chaos in Rome did not die down for many years, signaling continued internal turmoil. One of the key events of this period was Collatinus’ ‘abdication’ of his consulship before even serving out the full year. Livy is our primary source of these events, but leaves behind several clues that allow us to gain a better picture. Traditionally Brutus called on Collatinus to, after liberating Rome from Tarquinius Superbus, to liberate Rome of the King’s family and name as well. Collatinus initially refused but agreed in the end, exiling himself to a Latin League city. Legislation was then passed expelling all relatives of the Tarquinii from Rome. Publius Valerius was then elected to replace Collatinus as Brutus’ colleague. Now the reasoning here is suspect because it seems ridiculous the name Tarquinius itself was more hated then the family of the king. Especially since before this the traditional account does not hint to any problems with Collatinus. On a second point while bearing the name Tarquinius, Collatinus was only a distant relation of the Tarquinii. Brutus was a nephew of the tyrant. If all relatives were being expelled, then why was Brutus spared? The best answer was that Brutus had ambitions to replace Tarquinius Superbus as King of Rome, and wanted to remove any potential challengers before making his move. The two men may have already begun fighting. This questions whether they ruled as equals, or if they even occupied the praetorship at all. If they did, the record makes it clear that Brutus and later Valerius were clearly greater in power and position then their supposed colleagues. This makes sense when you consider there is strong evidence in Roman record the praetores were divided in rank between a praetor maior (or praetor maximus) and a praetor minor. This is of course disputed and there is no easy way in which to resolve the matter.

    Brutus would not however get his chance at the kingship. Tarquinius Superbus was exiled, not dead, and tried to get his throne back. The incident involving an internal conspiracy is probable, but was embellished as it bears the marks of a Roman morality tale. When this failed Tarquinius attempted to return by force and Brutus died in the battle, embellished into a duel to the death with Prince Aruns, the youngest son of Superbus. Valerius then assumed the position of Brutus. Thanks to Livy, we know that Valerius harbored monarchical ambitions and went so far to try to restore the Royal Palace on the Velia. Popular protest by the lower classes brought the would-be king to heel. Here it should be remembered the Tarquinii had empowered the Roman masses at the expense of the aristocracy. The overthrow of the Tarquinii had largely been an revolution of the patricians and equites (the cavalrymen, lesser aristocrats), and the plebeians now decided to act against them. This put Valerius in a difficult position; he had the trappings but not the power to rule as monarch over the heads of the Senate. This may show that he could have lost some aristocratic support as well, possibly from the equites. Valerius was forced to make several concessions, transforming the Senate and the Comitia Centuriata into real legislative bodies, with the latter gaining wide ranging powers. The Comitia Curiata remained much as before. This formed the basis of the classical Roman Republic. While many of the most recognizable features, the best-known magistracies, Comitia Tributa (Assembly of the Tribes), and Concilium Plebis (Council of the Plebs) do not exist yet the foundation was there. The praetores also underwent changes under Valerius (now nicknamed Publicola, 'Friend of the People'). It seems clear that he did not want an equal partner, but picked them personally, the process of election was restored in the concessions. Open friction between the colleagues was common. The term 'republic' itself comes from the Latin pharse 'Res Publica' meaning literally 'Public Matters'.

    Now the new republic had to deal with outside challenges. In the chaos brought about by the expulsion of the Tarquinii the Latin League broke free of Roman control. This only added to the historical period historians have begun to call the ‘Crisis of the 5th Century’ in Tyrrhenian (Etruscan) Italy (which has been extended to include the late 6th Century). This attracted the attention of Lars Porsenna, the ruler of the city of Clusium. There are several different theories about this important episode in Roman republican history, but it seems the most likely that Porsenna’s involvement was that of a ‘peacekeeper’. The traditional account of his intervention on the side of Tarquinius Superbus with intent to restore the Tarquinii, and his resulting withdrawal makes little sense in light of alternate accounts. Here it is said that he did take the city, but no mention is made of the Tarquinii or their ambitions. It seems more probable that Lars Porsenna was interested in restoring order to Rome, because the turmoil there was disrupting the whole region. The dating for these events can be reliably estimated to about 504. The Hellenes tell us that after the events in Rome, Porsenna's son fought at the battle of Aricia against the Latin League and the Hellenes of Kumai (or Cumae) that year. While much remains speculation the result was the Roman Republic survived (though whether because of or despite Porsenna remains to be seen) into the new century.

    In conclusion, the founding years of the Roman Republic, while not well known, is still interesting. Much of what would make Rome so strong was laid down in those years. The influence of these events would reverberate down through time, well into the present day.

  8. Of all the world religions Zoroastrianism, the pre-Islamic religion of Iran, is among the least studied. In this article, we will examine Zoroastrianism (and its development) under the Achaemenid Empire, including the question of whether it can be said to be Persia’s state religion during that period.

    The exact origins of Zoroastrianism are unknown. We do know a self-described poet and social reformer named Zoroaster or Zartosht created the religion, but when is in question. Typically historians have judged to it be anywhere from the 13th Century BC to the 7th Century BC. Zoroastrianism was in existence by the beginning of the 6th Century. Zoroaster’s religion was not so much a new faith so much as a radical reformation of existing Iranian religion. Transforming it from a pantheon-based religion into one based around a single creator, whom Zoroaster called ‘the Lord of Wisdom’ or Ahura Mazdah. Whether, as we will see, or not it can be classified as monotheistic will be explored later in this article. By the fall of the Assyrian Empire in 612 Zoroastrianism had settled itself in western Iran as the dominant religion of the Mada or Medes. How the Zoroastrian faith, previously a minor but growing religion in eastern Iran migrated westwards is not clear. However, the Mada seemingly embraced this religion with enthusiasm and a priestly caste, the Magi, grew up around it. This administrative priesthood would come to play a major role in later times. In 558, the Mada were defeated in a mostly bloodless coup by the vassal king of Anshan, Kouroush II better known as Cyrus the Great. Cyrus then combined his own people, the Parsa or Persians, with the Mada to create a unified Iranian state: the Achaemenid Empire.

    Under the Achaemenids the Zoroastrian faith would change and morph into an imperial religion. Cyrus’ own religious leanings are something of an enigma, as he had no problem with recognizing the religions of those he conquered and incorporated into his growing empire. However, Zoroastrianism had a presence in Anshan, and Cyrus would have been influenced by it. However, the extent of this influence is unclear.

    Darayavahush I or Darius the Great was the first Emperor of the Achaemenid Empire whom can be said to be Zoroastrian. Darius, in his great rock inscriptions, actively testifies to his faith and speaks almost unceasingly about his ‘great lord’, Ahura Mazdah. Darius speaks of how he sees Ahura Mazdah as a friend and how this friend rewarded his faith and piety by making him the Achaemenid Emperor and giving dominion of the world to Persia. Darius mentions how without Ahura Mazdah he would be nothing and that everything he succeeded was because of Ahura Mazdah making his will clear through him. Darius the Great also painted his wars with a heavily Zoroastrian brush. Rebellions were launched because people let themselves be led by ‘the Lie’ Zoroaster’s original principle of evil (druj). Wars against Persia were launched by ‘the Lie’ as Darius perceived it.

    However, there were differences between the religion of Darius and the Zoroastrianism of even a century previous. Darius’ Zoroastrianism is one that was changed to fit his own political outlook. It was not the politicized Zoroastrianism of later centuries, but one that was adopted to fit a purpose, an imperial cult, in other words. One area in which this was best displayed was from the earliest writings of Zoroastrianism it appears as an intolerant religion, one that was in fact spread by fire and sword. Darius changed this by, like Cyrus, recognizing other faiths and extending toleration to them. In his inscriptions he mentions other deities but never names them, viewing them as inferior to Ahura Mazdah and not worthy of being named. Nevertheless, Darius had begun a practice that would later be codified into Zoroastrian liturgy and practice. In addition, Darius had openly fought the Magi, the priestly caste, at the beginning of his reign and this hostility continued the rest of his life.

    In 485, the next major Zoroastrian ruler came to power, Xsayarsa, better known as Xerxes. As ruler, Xerxes is interesting for several reasons. He was the last Achaemenid monarch to leave behind many monumental inscriptions, and so a wealth of Persian perspective sources. For our purposes, he is interesting because of several religious changes that occurred during his reign. Xerxes allowed the Magi to assume religious significance once again but kept a careful eye on their ‘worldly ambitions’ and political power. The Magi in turn introduced a few changes to Zoroastrianism. Some of these changes could have predated Xerxes, but in this article, we will treat these changes as being introduced on a wide scale during this time. The exposure of the dead, blood sacrifice of various animals, and the promotion of incestuous marriage are the best known of these new customs. The Achaemenid Emperors however did not accept this in full. The burial practice of the time was to encase the dead in wax and bury them in the ground. Exposure of the dead later gained popularity however. Xerxes was willing to accept animal sacrifice (which was disdained by Zoroaster), and this is well testified. Incestuous marriage was also refused imperial patronage.

    Perhaps the best-known connection between Xerxes and Zoroastrianism is a rock inscription known as the ‘Daiva Inscription’. In this edict Xerxes, in the same manner as his father, praises Ahura Mazdah as supreme and then goes on to speak of how the worship of the ‘Daivas’ or demons was on the rise. Zoroaster had categorized some Iranian folk deities as demons, probably because their attributes did not fit into his reforms. Xerxes, as a righteous monarch devoted to ‘the Truth’ (the opposite principle of ‘the Lie’, arta or asha), therefore outlaws all veneration of the Daivas and records that he has destroyed their temples and set up worship of Ahura Mazdah. Like the inscriptions of Darius, this testimony of Xerxes displays how Zoroastrianism was being increasing used as an imperial cult, but the influence of the religion was undeniable.

    After Xerxes the development of ‘imperial Zoroastrianism’ rapidly accelerated. The later Achaemenid monarch Artaxsacra II or Artaxerxes Mnemon is the next major ruler of interest to us. In inscriptions left behind at Susa and Persepolis, he mentions Ahura Mazdah as his ancestors did. But unlike them, his mention of Ahura Mazdah comes with accompaniment of two Iranian folk deities: Mithra (a popular solar deity) and his mother Anahita. Artaxerxes II mentions all three as praiseworthy and calls on them for their protection of his throne and empire. This was the first popular instance of developments with in Zoroastrianism that saw the creation of a new theology within the religion. Ahura Mazdah now has helpers that aid him in a cosmic struggle against evil. These helpers were called the Amesa Spenta, the ‘bounteous immortals’. They in turn were simply the greatest of a host of deities called the Yazatas. All of these represented an attribute of Ahura Mazdah or of life in general. In turn, this host was opposed by their evil equivalents: Angra Mainyu and the Daivas. Angra Mainyu was cast as the twin of the greatest of the Amesa Spenta, Spenta Mainyu. They are the sons of Ahura Mazdah. This dualistic theology is what most people know as Zoroastrianism.

    However all Zoroastrians did not accept this. During the early Achaemenid period a rival interpretation arose from Zoroaster's teachings. Angra Mainyu was raised to the level of Ahura Mazda and made his twin. Both good and evil were now creators and equally powerful, all that is good being created by Ahura Mazda, all that is evil by Angra Mainyu. Their father is identified as 'infinite time and fate': Zurvan. This sect of Zoroastrianism is known as Zurvanism after this deity. The status of Zurvanism under the Achaemenids is not well known, but generally it is considered to have been judged a heresy and suppressed.

    It is a matter of great dispute if these developments were specific to the Achaemenid period or whether they were always present in Zoroastrianism. The oldest Zoroastrian texts make it seem possible that this ‘new’ theology was created by Zoroaster himself and came to maturity under the Achaemenids. This would seem to fit with Zoroaster’s primary identification as a religious reformer, not the founder of new religion. Many modern Zoroastrians reject this, insisting on claiming their religion is the oldest monotheistic faith. Some historians also reject this view. The question is likely never to be answered to the satisfaction of all sides. Another probable view is that Zoroaster may have meant for his new religion to be a reformed polytheism, with an emphasis on his ‘Lord of Wisdom’ as supreme. Then later Zoroaster could have changed his mind or come to a new conclusion. In such a case, he could have chosen to reword his former views to be more monotheistic, placing an emphasis on an ethical conflict of abstracts. The possibility of Zoroaster’s writings being changed by his followers, after his death also cannot be ignored.

    Following this Zoroastrianism continued to play an important role in the Achaemenid imperial system. It became a major religion in Iran, and the importance of the Zoroastrian religion and education within the Parsa and Mada communities, and their armies, is well testified. However, it was never enforced on the empire as a whole. For all of their religious proclamations neither Darius I nor Xerxes ever tried force Zoroastrianism on their populations. Instead, as Cyrus the Great had done they extended toleration to the many faiths of their empire. While it can be said that Zoroastrianism, or a form of it, was kept by some of the Achaemenid monarchs and the imperial court it was not a state religion in the modern sense of the word.

    This all ended with the coming of the Makedonians. Alexander the Great ended the Achaemenid Empire in 323 BC and with it; Zoroastrianism entered a decline that lasted until the Parthian period. As a side note, the Zoroastrians would view Alexander in dark terms ascribing to him a legacy of mass destruction and killing. According to their accounts Alexander destroyed their temples and the doused the fires kept inside (fire is sacred in Zoroastrianism and represents asha). He is believed to have killed many Magi and most disastrously Alexander burned down Persepolis and its great libraries. For this, Alexander is still remembered by modern Zoroastrians as Iskander Guzastag, Alexander the Accursed. The burning of Persepolis is accepted as historical fact, although whether this was done on purpose is disputed. The other acts credited to Alexander by the Zoroastrians are viewed with heavy skepticism, and ignored.

    In conclusion, Zoroastrianism had an undeniable effect of the Achaemenids. While not the state religion of the empire, the ‘Good Religion’ influenced Persia and in turn Persia influenced the development and course of Zoroastrianism.

  9. I had a feeling this might come up. I know I use the term Germanics in my articles but to be brief I just can not think of anything better. German or Germans is not correct for 0 AD's time frame as the Germans did not exist at the time and would not for some time. I have seen some scholarly articles on the Later Roman Era that do use the term Germanics to refer to the northern enemies of Rome. I believe this to be acceptable. If you have any concerns, please let me know.

  10. kazmosis,

    Thank you for comments on my article. However what you state about Ashoka is incorrect. In truth is there much about Indian history we do not know. Any historical records on Ancient and Early Medieval India are highly fragmentary and heavy dispute in the academic community. Ashoka's lineage is one such dispute. His date-of-birth is key to the debate and has never been fixed to academic satisfaction. Dates range variously from as early as 305 to as late as 300.

    It will likely never be solved unless a source that all sides will accept positively fixes the year. Until then historians will continue to speculate. For my part I don't think Ashoka had Hellenic blood, but he was obviously influenced by the Hellenes and held them in high regard. He didn't need to be born of a Seleukid princess for that.

  11. Just wanted to post to say that I have a new blog. It is called 'Asian Siege Warfare' and can be found here:

    http://asiansieges.greathistory.com/

    I have already worked on it for a while now and I am almost done with my first series. I am going to try to work at updating it on a more regular basis. The website is owned by the Weider History Group, for whom I have done most of my freelance work. I am still working getting printed in one of the magazines though.

    Anyway please check it out.

  12. Michael,

    Well as far as I know some Mycenaeans can be counted among the Sea Peoples, but it impossible to know if they were responsible for any of the attacks you mentioned. The Sea Peoples were a very disparate group composed of several peoples. I have seen the Ekwesh in particular hypothesized as the Mycenaeans. There is theory being aired out about how the Sea Peoples could have been predominantly Mycenaean and Anatolian in origin, but I don't know how credible that is. It don't have enough information on that at this time.

    For my part I do think that there were Mycenaean Sea Peoples, if for any reason then the fact that they were already being displaced in Greece. By natural disaster, their own wars, and the Dorians.

  13. Perhaps no conflict has excited the popular imagination like the Trojan War, as told in the epic poetry of Ancient Greece: the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Epic Cycle. The question whether these poems are a record of real historical events or not have plagued historians from the Hellenic Classical Age. In this article we will explore that question using the diplomatic correspondence of the Hittite Empire, a major regional power of the Late Bronze Age Near East, as our primary source.

    First we will cover a brief background on the dispute. During the Classical Age of Hellas the first major critical evaluations of the Trojan War emerged. Two of the most vocal of these were the historian Thucydides and the mathematician Eratosthenes. Thucydides accepted the historical basis of a Trojan War, but doubted it happened as recorded in the material. This view is commonly accepted today. Eratosthenes moved the conventional dates forward in time, to the 12th Century BC rather then the 13th, however this is still under debate and is considered key to the whole question. Later the geographer Strabo, in his famous survey, laid out the region he believed to be the site of Troy, the surrounding region (the Troas), and other places connected to the cycle. However starting in the European Age of Enlightenment scholarly opinion turned against a historical Trojan War. This all changed in the late 19th Century when the German archeologist-adventurer Heinrich Schliemann discovered the site of Troy at modern day Hisarlik in Turkey, and then went on to uncover the Mycenaean cities in Greece. Since then the debate continues to rage, encompassing a wide range of academic fields. It will likely never be settled.

    One advance that is important for our understanding of a historical Trojan War was the discovery of the Hittites. Not long after the discovery of Troy and Mycenae other archeological expeditions uncovered a mysterious new people who commanded an empire great enough to contend with Egypt and more. These people were soon identified as the Hittites of the Hebrew-Christian Bible. From that point Hittite studies took off. Since then academic advances have allowed for the deciphering of the Hittite language, allowing for our use of their massive textual archives. These archives have opened a new direction for discovering a historical Trojan War.

    For that reason we will use those textual sources, and reasonable reconstructions based on that material, for this article. In the world-view of the Hittite Empire, or Hattusa, the western part of Anatolia was a region that attracted the attention of the Great King himself more often then not. This was due, in part, to the strategic significance of the region to the Hittites. There are several areas here of importance to our focus on a historical Trojan War.

    First is the city of Wilusa. In the Hittite records Wilusa is a city of long-standing loyalty to the crown, and its affairs always drew in the Great King personally. This relationship started during the reign of Hattusili I, who forged this relationship through conquest, and continued until the end of the empire. Many western conflicts in the Late Imperial period seem to center on this city. Wilusa has been identified with Troy for reasons that will be explored. One reason is the likeness between the word Wilusa and the word Wilios. In the Epic Cycle an alternative name for Troy is Ilion or Ilios. In the archaic rendering of the Greek Dark Age, the period in which the Epic Cycle was committed to writing, this was written as Wilios. In connection with Wilusa is the region of Taruwisa. This has been equated with the Troas, even if the likeness is weaker. While it remains possible the connection is superficial it remains too good a clue to dismiss readily. Another possible connection is geographic. The Hittites were prodigious record keepers, and preserved a geographic description of their empire and their allies (such as Wilusa). The descriptions of the location of Wilusa and the Taruwisa match with that of Troy and the Troas. In fact a surviving piece of Luwian (the language and culture of western Anatolia) poetry has a line describing Wilusa in almost the same terms as Homer describes Troy in the Iliad.

    Second is Arzawa, or the Arzawa. According to the Hittites this was a Luwian kingdom or a confederation of kingdoms located in western Anatolia, roughly similar to what the later Hellenes called Lydia. Arzawa seems to have had a long history of opposition to Hattusa with the Assuwa confederation (led by Wilusa) until Hattusili I took it apart. The kingdom, or kingdoms, of Arzawa later came to depend on outside help against the Hittites. Most notably were Egypt and Ahhiyawa (more on that later). Under Great Kings Suppiliuliuma I and Mursili II (and solidified by Muwatalli II) the Hittites finally defeated Arzawa. They broke it into many client states, of which four were principal (Arzawa proper, Mira-Kuwaliya, Hapalla, and the Seha River Land). These played a large role in the ‘Trojan War’.

    Third is Ahhiyawa. More then any other kingdom, save Wilusa, is the identity of Ahhiyawa important to any reasonable reconstruction in a historical Trojan War. In the textual sources of the Hittites the kingdom of Ahhiyawa is referred to as existing over the great sea (the Aegean Sea), beyond the Great King’s reach but still involved in his affairs. For this reason, and others that will be explored, Ahhiyawa has come to be identified with Mycenaean Greece. One reason, like that Wilusa/Troy, is the likeness of the word Ahhiyawa to the word Akhaiwoi. In both the poetry of Homer (the Iliad and Odyssey) and in the Epic Cycle the Mycenaeans are called the Akhaioi or Achaeans. In the archaic rendering of the Greek Dark Age this was written as Akhaiwoi. Also the word Ahhiyawa bares resemblance to the Linear B in Knossos (Minoa/Crete) term for the Mycenaeans: Akawijade. This connection may be just as superficial as Wilusa/Wilios but the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing. Another hint of Ahhiyawa’s identity comes from how they were described. In their records, the Hittites refer to the men of Ahhiyawa as a major military power, exerting their control over the Aegean and western Anatolia through naval might and armed overland expeditions. The Ahhiyawans are also referred to as traders and slave raiders, much in the manner of the later Vikings. These descriptions match contemporary accounts of Mycenaean activities from Minoa and from Egypt. Unfortunately even identifying Ahhiyawa as Mycenaean Greece is not the end of the matter as the region was hardly unified politically. Mycenae proper, Tiryns, Argos, Pylos, and Thebes are all reasonable candidates based on the textual and architectural record.

    Fourth is Milawata. This city was located in western Anatolia, in Arzawan lands, but was not part of Arzawa itself. Later generations knew it as Miletos/Miletus, one of the great cities of Asia Minor. The city appears to have been founded by Minoan traders in the Middle Bronze Age, eventually falling into Hittite orbit. Milawata became a hotbed of intrigue and outside meddling within a few years of its founding, as all foreign power influence into Anatolia came through this port. Ahhiyawan/Mycenaean influence appears to be strongest. Archeological digs have uncovered evidence of a Mycenaean citadel complex, including possibly a palace, at Milawata. Other Mycenaean artifacts have been found at the site. This seems to suggest the Mycenaeans exercised an major presence in the region. The Hittite records seem to agree with this assumption. In the textual records of Suppiliuliuma I the Great King notes the originally peaceful ‘Great King of Ahhiyawa’ (a mark of respect by the Hittites) had intervened in his invasion of Arzawa, through Milawata, and allied with them. Suppiliuliuma’s son, Mursili II, complained of much the same. In his records, Mursili noted that Ahhiyawa had been supplying aid to Arzawa, and sheltered their leaders. The Hittites emerged victorious in the end, and Mursili managed to convince the Ahhiyawans to extradite the Arzawan nobles hiding there. But Milawata had not fallen back into the Hittite orbit, but stayed firmly Ahhiyawan. Nevertheless the city was in fact partially razed on Mursili’s orders. This set the stage for what was possibly the historical Trojan War.

    Having covered the locations now we will look at the ‘principal actors’ of a historical Trojan War. First is the figure of Piyamaradu. This man was seemingly a Luwian, possibly the grandson of the last Arzawan king on at least one side of his family, who rampaged across western Anatolia and the Aegean Sea from the 1280s on. Following a revolt in the former Arzawan lands Piyamaradu, with the possible military and financial backing of Ahhiyawa, attacked Wilusa. Muwatalli II, the reigning Great King, responded by sending in his vassal king in the Seha River Land, Manapa-Tarhunta, to take care of the problem. But he failed and Piyamaradu, alongside Atpa, King of Milawata, quickly evicted Manapa-Tarhunta from the Seha River Land and the island of Lazba (modern @#$%s). Muwatalli struck back personally and appears to have had successfully taken back control. Piyamaradu, however, evaded capture (possibly with the aid and intervention of Ahhiyawa) and would return to haunt the Hittites later. Our principal source on these events is the ‘Manapa-Tarhunta Letter’, a diplomatic giving-of-account by the King of the Seha River Land to Muwatalli II for the background on the crisis and why he was unable to join in the conflict. Manapa-Tarhunta pleaded illness, which was probably true as he vanishes from the record not long after this. Piyamaradu, by virtue of likeness in name, has sometimes been equated with Priam, King of Troy in the Epic Cycle. But this remains among the most controversial of these suppositions.

    Our next important figure is Alaksandu. This man is identified as the King of Wilusa for most of the period of which we are interested. The Hittites refer to Alaksandu as the heir of the previous King of Wilusa, whom they called Kukkunni. But in our principal source on this figure, the Alaksandu Treaty, Muwatalli stresses the unimportance of royal birth, suggesting that Alaksandu was probably not the son of Kukkunni. A possible explanation is that Alaksandu could have been adopted by Kukkunni, or the Hittites just put Alaksandu in power after Kukkunni’s death. He seems to have started reigning during the time of Mursili II in Hattusa, following of the conquest of Arzawa. Perhaps what is most interesting here is that Alaksandu is probably not a Luwian name, but their rendering of a foreign name. It could possibly be Arekasadoro, the Linear B rendering of Alexander. In the Epic Cycle Alexander is the alternate name of Paris, Prince of Troy. Could Alaksandu be the historical inspiration for Paris? There is a Luwian name that bares likeness, that of Parizitis. In that case, why would the Hittites refer to this man by a Luwian rendering of a Mycenaean name and not his Luwian name? On the other hand, Alaksandu could be a real Luwian name. In that case Arekasadoro/Alexander is the Mycenaean/Hellenic rendering of a Luwian name. In the end we will probably never know. Anyway shortly after (or shortly before) the incident with Piyamaradu the Hittite Great King drafted a new treaty with Alaksandu, mentioned above. In this treaty Alaksandu’s and Muwatalli’s responsibilities to each other were laid out and the political situation was settled. In short Alaksandu was held to offer the Great King military aid against a number of enemies, who were laid out (with the notable exceptions of Ahhiyawa and Milawata). Muwatalli was in turn held to offer Alaksandu any support he may require. In addition the Hittite monarch promised to uphold Alaksandu’s dynasty in Wilusa in perpetuity, as reward for his outstanding loyalty to Hattusa.

    Our third, and last, figure is Tawagalawa. This man is a mysterious figure mentioned only the fragment of a letter that bares his name (the so-called Tawagalawa Letter was written in three parts, but only the last third survived). The Hittites referred to him as the brother of the Great King of Ahhiyawa, seemingly put in charge of that kingdom’s affairs in western Anatolia. The events involving Tawagalawa occurred roughly 20 to 30 years after the first Piyamaradu episode. During that time the situation in Anatolia had changed drastically. Muwatalli II had died without heir, resulting in civil war. Ahhiyawa had backed the losing side, but took advantage of the chaos to expand their power up and down the seaboard. It even reached as far south as the Lukka Lands, which the later Hellenes would call Lycia, where Tawagalawa was recognized as king. Piyamaradu returned in this time and may have put Wilusa under siege together with the Ahhiyawans and their Lukkan allies. Their success here appears to be mixed, but Tawagalawa seems to have successfully moved Wilusa into his orbit. The success of the ‘allies’ is much better testified in the south. Hattusili III, the victor of the civil war, attests that because of Ahhiyawa he had lost control of the entirety of south-central and southeastern Anatolia. The Hittites went on the counteroffensive and succeeded in driving Ahhiyawa out of Anatolia except for a few enclaves. The power vacuum sent the local lords scrambling.

    It is in these circumstances the Tawagalawa Letter was written. In short Piyamaradu had stirred up trouble yet again, constantly flip-flopping on a series of deals he had struck with Hattusa. Hattusili then complains that Piyamaradu had fled into Milawata and asked that Tawagalawa do something about it with his brother. They then appear to have allowed the Hittites to take Piyamaradu from Milawata, but as Hattusili tells us it was a deception. The Hittite ruler then goes on to complain to Tawagalawa of not only this, but also of Hittite subjects that had been taken to Ahhiyawa. He suggested a compromise and his willingness to avoid going to war, making a tantalizing reference to a war over Wilusa they had settled amicably. The question of Tawagalawa’s identity is not an easy one. He has been supposed to be Eteokles, a name traditionally associated with Thebes and Orchomenos. The archaic form of Eteokles was Etewoklewes, and seems to be related to Tawagalawa through gradual mutation. On the other hand Tawagalawa could be a Lukkan throne name, like the Hurrian throne names of some of the Hittite kings. The question of Tawagalawa’s brother, the Great King of Ahhiyawa, is also under dispute, but lack of any evidence has prevented any reasonable theory from being formed.

    We can now put together a probable historical Trojan War. Under the leadership of one of the major palace-centers a confederation of Mycenaean kings endeavored to become involved in the affairs of western Anatolia since that region was vital to their strategic interests and their trade. Wilusa, which they called Wilios, was the key by virtue of its position on the Hellespont. By controlling the Hellespont they could control the trade routes, and exercise control over the Aegean Sea at large. However the Mycenaeans knew better then to dispute head on with the regional power of Hattusa and decided on a policy of proxy war. They used people and powers unfriendly to the Hittites to achieve their aims. During the reigns of Hittite monarchs Suppiliuliuma I and Mursili II they intervened in the affairs of Arzawa, using the seaport of Miletos/Milawata as a base. They lost the contest over Arzawa but successfully managed to make Miletos a client city, and carved out a small kingdom from its environs. But Mursili II partially razed the city in retaliation for their meddling. The Mycenaeans then turned their attention towards Wilusa, a loyal client state of Hattusa in the region of Assuwa, for the reasons outlined above. For this purpose the Mycenaeans used a local freebooter, Piyamaradu, as their proxy. Between 1289-1270 they attacked Wilusa and the surrounding Taruwisa, taking advantage of an earthquake to get through the city’s defenses (archeological evidence at Troy shows that level VIh suffered from an earthquake). They invested the city but the Hittites launched an attack through their vassals. Piyamaradu defeated them and went on carve out his own kingdom from Wilusa, the Seha River Land, and Lazba. But the Great King, Muwatalli II, struck back in person and defeated Piyamaradu. The Mycenaeans then stepped in and took Piyamaradu out of Anatolia, frustrating the Hittites. They reordered Anatolia, and confirmed the ruler of Wilusa, Alaksandu, to his throne. Shortly there after Muwatalli died without a legitimate heir, a son by a concubine then became Great King as Mursili III. When an uncle, Hattusili, rebelled, open war resulted. The Mycenaeans backed Mursili in the conflict, but did not supply aid in any form, seemingly content to hold on to Miletos and watch.

    In 1264 Hattusili emerged victorious from the conflict. In many ways the Hittite Civil War was a boon for the Mycenaeans in that by backing the losing side any ties they had to the Hittite Crown were cleared. In fact it gave them the perfect cassus belli as waging war on Hattusili III could be cast as a righteous act against a usurper. The attack came between 1260-1250 when the Mycenaeans and Piyamaradu returned to the region in force. Wilusa was put under siege for the second time while the Mycenaeans unified the men of the Lukka Lands into a client state to serve them. The leading king of the confederation then made his brother King of the Lukka Lands, whom they called Tawagalawa; all affairs in the east were delegated to him. At some point Wilusa changed sides to the Mycenaean camp, though under what circumstances are unclear. Together Piyamaradu and Tawagalawa seized control of vast tracks of western Anatolia and their influence was felt far into the central regions. Hattusili finally reacted now and started pushing back the Mycenaeans and their client states. A new kingdom was then created from the early gains against the ‘allies’, called Tarhuntassa. Hattusili placed a nephew on this throne, later named Kurunta, and gave him full discretion to bring the west under control. Kurunta went on to achieve startling success, forcing the Mycenaeans to agree to negotiate. All gains made by the Mycenaeans and their allies were returned to Hittite orbit, and the issue of Wilusa was resolved in Hattusa's favor. Except for in Miletos, the Mycenaean kings were removed from western Anatolia. Chaos resulted in the aftermath as the various kingdoms scrambled to ask for the Great King’s forgiveness. The last episode involving Piyamaradu occurred when he managed to escape from Miletos with Mycenaean aid (along with a sizable number of captives) under the guise of extradition to Hattusa.

    There is one more mention of the issue of Wilusa following these events. In around 1240-1230, during the reign of Great King Tudhaliya IV a new incident seems to have occurred at Wilusa. A letter known as the ‘Milawata Letter’ speaks of events at Wilusa leading to the deposition of a man named Walmu. This Walmu appears to have been the son of Alaksandu and was put in power by the Hittites during the struggle with the Mycenaeans. Tudhaliya asks the ruler to whom the letter is addressed, probably Tarkasnawa (the client King of Mira-Kuwaliya) to send Walmu on to him for restoration. Events in the letter, which is badly fragmented, suggest that Tudhaliya and Tarkasnawa had suspected Mycenaean involvement and sought to end their presence for good. Miletos was attacked and finally returned to Hittite control after nearly a century. Because of these events a new Hittite policy seems to have been enacted, with Tarkasnawa appointed as virtual viceroy over the western part of the empire. At this point the record ends. The archeological finds at the site seem to suggest that Wilusa/Troy was destroyed around the end of the Bronze Age. This may suggest that Wilusa was sacked by the Sea Peoples during their massive migration into the Aegean, around 1180 BC.

    In conclusion the question of a historical Trojan War is a complicated one. The Hittite textual record makes it clear that something did happen in that region of the world during the time period in which Homer’s war was said to have occurred. Was this then the basis for the Trojan War of Agamemnon, Achilles, Hector, and Paris? Did the Hellenes of later ages piece together an epic from the half-remembered memories of storied raids and wars fought in proxy? Perhaps, it is best said, we will never know the answer, but it will always fire our imagination.

  14. The ancient Olympic Games, lasting nearly 1,170 years, were the direct predecessor of the modern games. While differing on some points from the modern institution, the ancient Olympics and the modern Olympics are more similar then often thought.

    No one knows the exact circumstances of how the games originally came about. The mythological tradition holds that Pelops, for whom the Peloponnesian peninsula was named, started the tradition when he defeated the king of Greek Pisa in a chariot race during a religious festival at Olympia. The race was then repeated every four years to celebrate Pelops’ triumph.

    Another tradition, given credence by some historians, holds the games were founded because of a peace agreement between Pisa and its neighbor, Elis. In this tale the king of Elis, Iphitos, sought out the aid of the Oracle of Delphi (the Pythia) for a solution to the chaos that plagued the Peloponnesos. She suggested a pan-Hellenic festival held at the site of Olympia, a place of major religious importance, in honor of the pantheon in general, but Zeus in particular. The Pythia also suggested the idea of a truce during the festival. Iphitos did so and the idea caught on, being re-celebrated every four years.

    Regardless we do know some things for certain. Olympia was a major religious site for both Hera and Zeus, and there is evidence of running events there as early as the 9th Century. The first known Olympic Games (there was almost certainly earlier ones) occurred in 776 BC. At that point there was only one event, the stadion race, a 190-meter sprint across the length of a simple track. The historian Diodoros Sikulos tells us the first Olympic champion was an Elean baker, named Koroibos.This early Olympics was a simple one day event, but the basics were already down, such as the ekcheiria (the Sacred Truce, originally started between Elis, Pisa, and Sparta) and the dating (set about mid-July, occurring every four years). From that point the festival gradually grew in both importance and complexity.

    From this point on the certainties of the Olympics become easier to track. At first Olympia did not have the sacrosanct status commonly attributed to it. Both Elis and Pisa waged war for control of the site. By the end of the 8th Century control had shifted to Pisa, with the backing of Argos. For nearly a century Pisa organized the games and under their direction Olympia was beautified and the games expanded. Structures built by the Pisatans include:

    The Heraion (Temple of Hera).

    The Treasuries (a series of small buildings meant to hold votive offerings from the different city-states).

    The Pelopion (the memorial of Pelops, ‘father’ of the games).

    The Bouleuterion (the Council House, all oaths were sworn here in the presence of a statue of Zeus Horkios, the Oath-Keeper).

    Events added to the games by both the Eleans and the Pisatans during this time include:

    The diaulos (a double stadion race, a full lap of 380-meters), added in 724 during the 14th Olympiad.

    The dolichos (a 24 lap race around the entire sanctuary complex), added in 720 during the 15th Olympiad.

    The pentathlon (a five-part event including: discus, javelin, long jumping, running, and wrestling), added in 708 during the 18th Olympiad.

    The pale (wrestling, came in two categories: orthia or upright and kato or ground), added in 708 during the 18th Olympiad.

    The pygmachia (boxing), added in 688 during the 23rd Olympiad.

    The armatodromia (chariot racing, at this point only the tethrippon, a four-horse race of twelve laps of eight stadion was run), added in 680 during the 25th Olympiad.

    The hippodromos (horse racing, at this point only the keles, a six-lap race of eight stadion was run), added in 648 during the 33rd Olympiad.

    The pankration (a brutal hybrid of boxing and wrestling, came in two categories: ano or standing and kato or ground), added in 648 during the 33rd Olympiad.

    By the beginning of the 6th century the ownership of Olympia had changed. Around 580 BC an alliance between Elis and Sparta brought down Pisa and returned control of the sanctuary to Elis, where it would remain until the age of Rome.

    During this time the Eleans (with plenty of funding from the other city-states) would make several additions to the site of Olympia, but the most important was the construction of the first Stadion arena (or stadium) in 560. Measuring about the length of single sprint and wide enough to fit a full track, this first Olympic stadium was a simple building. Around the end of the century popular demand had led to the renovation of the Stadion. The building was rebuilt with sloping walls for spectators and shifted eastwards.

    The structure of the games also underwent change. During the 6th Century the Eleans came to realize the Olympic festival and the athletic sports had become too crowded in the current schedule. So they extended the total length of the festival to five days (from the previous one-three the last two centuries) and extended the ekcheiria from one month to three. No armies were allowed to enter Elean territory during this time as well. The Olympic rules also underwent renovation, with the individual city-states taking part in the games having to verify that their athletes making way to Olympia had trained for ten months prior. The ancient Olympic schedule, as we understand it, probably took shape during this time, or in the course of the next century.

    Two events were added to the games during this century. The first, the hoplitodromos was added in 520 during the 65th Olympiad. The race took place in partial hoplitai kit (helmet, shield, and greaves) in a full lap. Of interest is that this event was added to the Olympics during the first serious skirmishes with Achaemenid Persia. It is probable the hoplitodromos was originally meant as a training exercise. The second was the apene, added in 500 during the 70th Olympiad. This event was a chariot race with two mules, but for how many laps is unknown.

    The 5th Century marked the Classical Age in Hellas, and the beginning of the Olympic golden age. During this time participation in the games and the popularity it enjoyed across the Hellenic world reached its peak.

    This period saw many new buildings added to Olympia by the Eleans. The most well-known are the Temple of Zeus, including the world-famous 13-meter tall cult statue and the Hippodrome (for chariot and horse racing, large enough to hold an eight-stadion track). As well as the Prytaneion (the Executive House, where the magistrates lived and the priests tended the original Olympic flame). Also during this time the Stadion underwent its largest and final renovation. The last major construction was a naturally heated bathhouse on the banks of the Kladeos River.

    During the 5th Century, for the only time in Olympic history, events were canceled. In 444, during the 84th Olympiad the apene was canceled because of the lack of prestige enjoyed by the event. Also canceled was the kalpe, a trot race for mares. Not much is known about the kalpe, other then on the last lap the rider dismounted and ran alongside the animal. This event ran from 496, the 71st Olympiad, to 444, the 84th Olympiad. Also in this time the synoris, a chariot race with a two-horse team running an eight-lap race of eight stadion, was introduced in 408, during the 93rd Olympiad. In 450, during the off years between the 82nd and 83rd Olympiad, the decision was reached to drop greaves from the kit of the hoplitodromos race.

    The 4th Century was the last golden century of the ancient Olympics. During this time Hellas went through a series of convulsions following the close of the brutal Peloponnesian War at the end of the previous century. The Olympic Games provided a much-needed beacon of unity as Hellas went from Spartan hegemony, to Theban hegemony, and finally Makedonian hegemony. This century also witnessed the last armed fight over Olympia. In 364, during the 104th Olympiad, the Arcadians took control of the sanctuary. The Eleans fought back during the festival itself, breaking the ekcheiria. The attack failed, but the Arcadians gave Olympia back to Elis later in the year.

    In terms of construction the 4th Century saw a building boom. The Metroon was the first construction of the century and functioned as a general shrine to the mother goddesses of Hellas. It also ‘guarded’ the Treasuries below it. The most famous construction of this period was the Philippeion, a family monument built by Philippos II of Makedon following his victory at Chaeronea in 338. Until the death of Alexander in 323 the Philippeion hosted a family conference for the Argeadai (the Makedonian ruling dynasty) during the Olympiad, though many of these conferences were done through proxies rather then in person. Other buildings built during this time were the South and Echo Stoas (long, colonnaded, walkways). The zanes, small statues of Zeus commissioned with the money charged to rule-breakers, also started being put up in this time. The last major construction of the 4th Century, and the largest, was the Leonidaion (which housed the Olympic athletes over the course of the festival).

    No new events were added to the games during this time, but the existing ones were modified. In 384, during the 99th Olympiad, a variant of tethrippon was added. In this variant the race was run for 8 laps with a team of four foals. Also during this time the leather straps (himantes) used in pygmachia matches transformed into what would now be considered gloves (oxeis himantes), lined with wool.

    We will explore a standard program for the Olympic Games during the 4th Century. Preparations would begin 10 months in advance of the opening year of the next Olympiad, during which time they trained. Professional trainers were an important part of Hellenic sports culture, and Olympic athletes often had their trainers paid for by the government.

    At one month before the games these athletes would leave their own cities to journey to Elis for extra training. This marked the beginning of the ekcheiria, insuring the safety of the participants. Once in Elis the athletes were divided into camps according to sport-type (runners and pentathletes in the first, combat sports in the second, boys in the last) and judged by the Elean hellanodikai (Judges of the Hellenes). The fairness of the hellanodikai, a board of ten leading Elean citizens (and athletes in their own right) was famous. They would watch the men who arrived and make their decision on who was worthy to compete in the Olympics. Once this was done they divided the remainder into age categories: Boys (12 - 18) and Men (18 - 25 +).

    Now on to the Olympic Games proper. Before the first day of the Olympic festival arrived (usually around mid-July, but sometimes late-July, and even early-August) the athletes and hellanodikai left Elis to continue to Olympia. They went along a road known as the Sacred Way. This journey took two days, during which time they offered sacrifices and prepared themselves mentally. After arriving in Olympia (to cheering crowds) the athletes and the hellanodikai went to the Bouleuterion where they swore an oath in front of a statue of Zeus Horkios. The athletes vowed to abide by the rules, the hellanodikai to uphold the rules with all fairness. After this the athletes would go to the buildings set aside for them. The highlight of the day was the competition of the trumpeters and heralds, not a proper Olympic event but a contest all the same. The winners of these contests would be given the honor of announcing the competitions and on the last day the names, father’s names, and the city of the victors. The hellanodikai would then set up the heats and match-ups for the games. During this time the athletes were allowed to make any additional sacrifices they wished within the sanctuary.

    The second day of the festival was dominated by equestrian sports. The day started out with a parade of the horse racers and chariot drivers on their way to the Hippodrome. Chariot races were held first, with the original tethrippon always being the opening event of the day. The exact order is unknown but it is generally considered the chariot and bareback horse races were run alternatively. Following the equestrian events the pentathlon was held at the Stadion. The winners were proclaimed at the end of the day.

    The third day saw mixed ceremonies. On this day all events for boys (pale, pentathlon, stadion, diaulos, and dolichos) were held. The main event of the day was the hekatombe, the grand sacrifice of 100 oxen at the Temple of Zeus attended by all. This was followed by a parade of all participants, which closed with another sacrifice, this one at the Pelopion in honor of Pelops. The winners of the boys’ competitions were proclaimed at the end of the day.

    The fourth day was the ultimate Olympic day. On this day the main events of the Olympic Games were run. While the exact order remains unknown, it is generally agreed the stadion, as the original Olympic event, was ran first. It is also agreed the combat sports (pale, pygmachia, and pankration) were held later in the day. Of interesting note because of the nature of these events the combat sports were the most closely watched by the hellanodikai and their officials for signs of cheating. The winners were proclaimed at the end of the day.

    The fifth day was the last day of the Olympic Games. All victors assembled at the Temple of Zeus wearing the red headband and carrying the palm branch of victory. There before all the spectators they were crowned with a wreath of olive leaves (the kotinos) by the hellanodikai and proclaimed Olympic champions by the trumpeters and heralds. After this a great feast was held at the Prytaneion at the expense of Elis for the victors and the festival ended.

    The 3rd Century saw the radical expansion of the ancient Olympics, but also the beginning of its decline. Eligibility in the Olympics was restricted to freeborn Hellenic males. ‘Hellenic’ in this case is defined by citizenship in a city of Hellenic culture, and speaking a Greek dialect. When Alexander the Great increased the size of the Hellenic world by an unimaginable extent the previous century the number of eligible men shot up. This presented problems in organization and control that led to the creation of the is-Olympic Games. The is-Olympics were carbon copies of the Olympics but held elsewhere. The Hellenistic monarch Ptolemaios II (or Ptolemy II) started it with the creation of the Ptolemaia in 282. This festival was a copy of the Olympics held in Alexandria, but in honor of the deified Ptolemaios I Soter, rather then Zeus. These ‘copy Olympics’ (and soon copies of the other pan-Hellenic games) became widely popular and largely displaced the original. Nevertheless the games at Olympia continued to enjoy the greatest prestige.

    For Olympia itself the 3rd Century was the last great building spree. A separate training ground for wrestlers, called the palaistra, was built to give them a place to practice away from the main open air training area. A number of minor buildings were also added as ‘donations’ by the successors of Alexander the Great. The most famous being the donation of Ptolemaios II and his first wife, Arsinoe I. The first ‘Roman-style’ bathhouse was also built during this time, using an early version of the hypocaustum central heating system. The most well-known addition from this period however was the construction of a vaulted, covered, archway that connected the Stadion to the rest of Olympia.

    The 3rd Century also witnessed yet more modifications to the games. In 268, during the 128th Olympiad, the synoris was modified to include a variant run with a team of two foals for 3 laps. In 256, during the 131st Olympiad the hippodromos was modified to include a variant run with foals. It is unknown how many laps this race was run.

    From this point on the ancient Olympics declined, and while still run until 393 AD the games were considered little more then a tourist attraction. In the 2nd Century BC Olympia, with the rest of Hellas, fell under the dominion of the Roman Republic. The Romans had their own athletic tradition separate from the Hellenes and thought ill of the Hellenic tradition. A particular sticking point for them was the issue of athletic nudity, especially in the gymnasion (an enclosed all-purpose area from where ‘gymnasium’ stems). They felt such things were immoral and encouraged laziness. Nevertheless they did take part, but enforced changes. Eligibility was restricted to highborn Roman citizens, except in the armatodromia and the pygmachia, which was restricted only to the lowborn and slaves. The Romans also introduced their own version of the chariot race, the ludi circenses, to the Olympics and rebuilt the Hippodrome to meet their standards. The Romans also introduced many organizational changes as well. Wealthy Roman citizens even financed small-scale Olympic-like events for their own enjoyment alongside gladiatorial combat.

    Under the Empire the Olympics enjoyed something of a minor revival. When Augustus became Roman Emperor he introduced his passion for the Olympic tradition to the wider Roman world. His most famous accomplishment was the creation of the Actia, a festival celebrated on the Olympic calendar (and included on the Hellenic sports circuit or periodos), but it was not an is-Olympics. The Actia were celebrated in honor of Augustus’ victory at Actium and included a sports segment, a musical composition contest, and horse racing. It was held in Nicopolis (modern Preveza) starting in 27 BC and celebrated every four years. Augustus also renovated the Olympic Games itself and spent a great deal of money on restoring Olympia proper, which had fallen into disrepair over the years. The next emperor to be involved in the Olympics was Nero.

    The Emperor Nero was a major hellenophile and heavily promoted a fusion of the Hellenic and Roman sports traditions. Nero took part in sports himself and was a gifted musician and poet. He created his own games, like Augustus, called the Neronia in Rome in 60 AD (celebrated every five years). In 66-67 he organized a whirlwind tour of the entire periodos over the course of one year. Nero collected all the crowns for musical composition and chariot racing (even if he did use a massive ten-horse chariot in the Olympics). In 68 he held a quadruple triumph for himself in honor of his athletic skill in Naples, Antium, Alba Longa, and Rome.

    The last great athletically inclined emperor was Domitian. Unlike Nero, Domitian was not a hellenophile but was interested in the Hellenic sports tradition and an avid race fan. He created his own festival, the Capitolia in 86, in honor of Iupiter Capitolinus. Like previous Roman festivals it was added to the periodos and celebrated every four years. Domitian wanted his new festival to outshine the Olympics and even built his own version of the Olympic Stadion on the Campus Martius, the Circus Agonalis. The Capitolia was the Roman version of the Olympic Games in full, including all the Olympic events plus musical and poetic competitions. Domitian gave his games great prestige by judging the participants personally. He took on the role of the ancient hellanodikai and dressed like a member of that body with the addition of a gold crown depicting the Roman pantheon.

    In the end all of this led to the final decline of the original games. Over the course of the next several centuries the Olympic Games fell in importance as the prestige it previously enjoyed went to its Roman successors, with even the professional athletic guilds moving to Rome. However the Olympic festival would continue to be celebrated until 393, during the 293rd Olympiad, when Emperor Theodosius I Magnus (the Great) ordered the games to be closed. Theodosius was a Christian and felt the pagan nature of the games (which he had witnessed firsthand) to be incompatible with his decision to make Nicene (mainstream) Christianity the official religion.

    In conclusion the ancient Olympic Games were an important part of the Hellenic identity. At its height, during the Classical Age of Hellas, the Olympics were a unifying force that provided a means for all Hellenes to come together and compete.

  15. The battle of Mons Graupius in 84 AD was the last major battle of the Roman conquest of the British Isles. In this battle the Romans under Cnaeus Julius Agricola fought and defeated a force of Caledonian Celts under Calgacos.

    The Roman drive for conquest had pushed them to make a slow but inexorable push for control of the entire ‘Tin Islands’ (as they called Britain). In the years that followed the defeat of Boudicca in 61 AD the Roman advance went steadily further north towards Scotland and west to Wales. By 78 AD when Governor Sextus Julius Frontinus retired from his position all that remained was a mop up operation in Wales, while Scotland still lay mostly untouched. His successor was Agricola, a man of the Senatorial class of great political and military distinction. He had been stationed in Britain twice already before his appointment to the governorship. The first time as a military tribune attached to Legio II Augusta during Boudicca’s revolt and then again as Legate of Legio XX Valeria Victrix from 69 to 75. In that tour he earned distinction both during the civil turmoil caused by the suicide of Nero and in the Roman conquest of the Brigantes (a Celtic tribe that controlled a region stretching northern England and the Midlands).

    Now as governor Agricola set out to finish the conquest of Britain. He first subdued the Ordovices in Wales, finishing the Roman subjection of that region. From that point he pushed north from the border regions and by 80 he was already at the River Tay. On the banks of the river, near modern Dunkeld, Agricola started construction of a new military settlement. This settlement, called Inchtuthil today, was set to be the largest Roman military base in existence. Agricola meant to use it as a forward base, as his original military HQ at Deva Victrix (modern Chester) was too far to the rear of his advancing front. From Inchtuthil the Romans began a concerted campaign to bring the native Celtic tribes, organized into a confederacy headed by the Caledonii, to heel.

    The Romans would use their time-honored strategy of a slow, combined arms, advance to great effect. Agricola was cautious and so made sure that his troops never advanced beyond the ability of his naval fleet to support them. He also built a line of fortifications anchored to the site of Inchtuthil to provide permanence to the Roman presence. In 83, following a naval expedition to what is believed to be Ireland, Agricola used his naval forces to provoke the Caledonii by putting what we now know as the Firth of Forth under blockade. The Caledonii and their allies, led by the mysterious figure of Calgacos (possessing-a-blade) struck back by launching a surprise assault of the fortified camp of Legio IX Hispana. The attack was repulsed by the timely intervention of the Roman cavalry and Agricola followed up on his success. By the following summer, 84, Roman forces had reached the foothills of what we know as the Grampians.

    There the Romans found Calgacos. The Caledonii leader had taken position on a large hill called Mons Graupius and arrayed his host of 30,000 on the slopes. The exact location of Mons Graupius has eluded historians for centuries, but is commonly thought to have been located either at Bennachie in Aberdeenshire or the Gask Ridge in Perth. In any case Agricola encamped on the flat ground opposite. Once fresh reinforcements in the form of veteran auxilia arrived the Romans moved off to engage the Caledonii and their allies on the hill.

    The Caledonii host was impressive. As previously mentioned Calgacos had brought 30,000 men to the field. The army was arrayed out on Mons Graupius in a large half-moon formation. Light chariots, cavalry, and light infantry formed the front of the formation. The rest was spearmen with the typical core of swordsmen surrounding Calgacos and his nobles.

    The Romans on the other hand numbered less but were superbly trained. Our primary source for the battle, Agricola’s son-in-law Publius Cornelius Tacitus, tells us that multiple legions were involved at Mons Graupius though he does not tell us which. We know that regardless these men were in bad shape and the legions under strength. They numbered 9,000 in total. Agricola was hesitant to engage Calgacos until fresh troops arrived. These auxilia were mainly of Batavi and Tungri (Celto-Germanic) extraction. In total they numbered 8,000 men. The cavalry arm numbered 3,000 with an additional four squadrons in reserve. The line was arrayed with the auxilia out in front, the cavalry on the flanks. The actual legions stood in a second line behind a system of ditches. The reserve cavalry remained in camp, ready to ride out.

    The battle began with a missile duel. The Roman forces moved forward first and attempted to pepper the Celtic lines with their pila. This proved ineffective as the Caledonii were very nimble. The braver among them caught the incoming pila on purpose with their bucklers or attempted to bat at or cut the missiles with their swords. In response Calgacos sent forth his light infantry to pepper the Romans with darts. Agricola decided to commit the Batavi and Tungri to battle at this point. The light infantry of the Caledonii were pushed back as the auxilia used their larger shields and shorter swords to great effect against the larger swords and smaller shields of the Celts. When the Caledonii began to attempt a retreat up the hill the auxilia surged forward joined by the cavalry from the flanks. The cavalry and chariots of the Caledonii then counter charged, throwing back the auxilia and Roman cavalry momentarily. Agricola, fighting on foot (to comfort his men), ordered his cavalry to regroup and charge. The chariot force was defeated and the Celtic cavalry retreated into the woods. Fresh off this victory the Roman cavalry wheeled and prepared to charge the Caledonii light infantry. But the cavalry melee had bought them time to reform, so when the Romans charged they faced ordered ranks. Agricola realized what was happening and ordered his cavalry to break off before long.

    At this point the main body of the Caledonii and their allies, still on the top of Mons Graupius, moved to engage the Romans. Calgacos meant to encircle the Roman lines from the left. Agricola then ordered his four squadron cavalry reserve to commit to battle, having saved them for just this sort of eventuality. The Roman reserve was able to successfully pierce through the Caledonii formation and wheeled back into their rear lines. The result was chaos as the Celtic forces suddenly splintered apart. The majority of the Caledonii were able to move off the field in relatively good order, melting into the woods where they evacuated the local families and set fire to the settlements. For his part, Agricola knew the Celts well enough not follow them into the forest and contented himself to finish off those still on the field. Afterward the Romans took position on the forest edges just to be cautious, in case Calgacos returned. As night fell the Romans became confident in their victory and moved off.

    In conclusion the battle of Mons Graupius, while exaggerated by Tacitus, still had major repercussions. Agricola sent word back to Rome of his victory and that he had laid the whole of Caledonia (the Roman name for northern Britain, roughly Scotland) open to Roman rule. Agricola would continue his operations in Caledonia for another year, and took many hostages from those tribes who chose to recognize Roman rule. He also took the opportunity to have his naval forces sail around northern Scotland, proving the ‘Tin Islands’ were truly islands after all and were not connected to any greater landmass. In 85 the Emperor, Domitian, recalled Agricola from Britannia. Out of jealousy the Emperor denied his general a triumph, bestowing only triumphal honors and a statue. Agricola would never hold public office again.

    For the Caledonii the battle’s primary effect was to teach them never to engage Rome in pitched battle. This they did, until their eventual annihilation at the hands of Septimius Severus in 209-211.

  16. In general the ‘Celtic’ language is divided into two branches: P-Celtic which includes the languages spoken by the Gallic and Brythonic Celts. The other is Q-Celtic which includes the languages spoken by the Celtiberians and Goidelic Celts.

    Of these among the best understood is Gaulish, which covered much of modern France, Switzerland, the Benelux, Northern Italy, and parts of Germany. Gaulish also spawned a number of dialects, the best known of which was the language of the Galatians in Asia Minor. Another well known case was Lepontic, native to Northern Italy.

    Unfortunately the Celts did not leave much in the form of written records. As there was no native alphabet invented by the Celts they used the writing systems of the peoples they encountered. The most common were the Etruscan alphabet, the Greek alphabet, and the Latin alphabet. No full transliteration of spoken Gaulish into any of these alphabets exists so any attempt at written Gaulish is an adventure in conjecture and the educated guess.

    Nevertheless we do know enough about Gaulish to make some general guidelines. In his De Bello Gallico Julius Caesar notes that Gaulish was very similar to Latin and that Gallic leaders could understand his military dispatches. So Caesar used Koine Greek instead, a language that the Celts did not understand as easily. Surviving inscriptions (like the Coligny Calendar and curse tablets) are another important clue and give us a broad understanding of sentence structure and how the words were used.

    Gaulish was a viable language from approximately 600 BC when it separated from Common Celtic to the 7th Century AD when it fell out of use in favor of Vulgar Latin (which borrowed extensively from Gaulish) and Frankish, the language of the region's Germanic rulers.

  17. In the world of ancient languages one of the best known is a dialect of Ancient Greek we know as Attic. This dialect developed from the Ionic dialect, the language spoken by the Greek colonies of Asia Minor shortly after the collapse of Mycenae at the end of the Bronze Age. The Attic dialect is named after Attika, most famous as the home region of Athens. The date when Attic became distinct from Ionic is unknown, as Attic and Ionic remained similar enough for Athenians and Ionians to be able to understand each other as late as the Peloponnesian War.

    However we do know that because of the Athenian golden age its language became the lingua franca of the Aegean world. Attic fell out of widespread use after the advent of the Hellenistic Age, replaced by the ‘universal’ Koine dialect (a derivate of Attic developed by Makedon). It endured as a literary language long past that and well into the Middle Ages.

    Alphabet and Pronunciation

    The Attic dialect has the same alphabet of the rest of the Ancient Greek dialects and would be familiar to Modern Greek. It was given a standardized alphabet in 403 BC, having no fixed system prior to this. These letters, their closest Latin script transliteration, and how to pronunce it in English are:

    Alpha {A} like the first a in aha

    Beta {B} like the English b

    Gamma {G} like the g in good, except when occurring before the letters g, k ,m ,c and x when its pronounced like the ng in hang

    Delta {D} like the English d, but without aspiration

    Epsilon {E} like the e in pet

    Zeta {Z} like the sd in wisdom

    Eta {H} like the ê in the French word tête

    Theta {Q} like the t in top, with aspiration

    Iota {I} like the i in bit

    Kappa {K} like the k in skin, without aspiration

    Lambda {L} like the English l when it comes before a vowel

    Mu {M} like the English m

    Nu {N} like the n in net

    Xi {C} like the x in box

    Omicron {O} like the aw in awe, spoken shortly

    Pi {P} like the p in spin

    Rho {R} like a trilled r as in Italian in Scottish

    Sigma {S} like the soft s in mouse except when before b, g, and m when it’s pronounced like the s in muse

    Tau {T} like the t in stop, without aspiration

    Upsilon {U} like the ü in German

    Phi {F} like the p in pot

    Chi {X} like the ch in the Scottish word loch

    Psi {Y} like the ps in lapse

    Omega {W} like the aw in awe, dragged out

  18. The Savaran were the royal cavalry force of the Sassanian dynasty and the core of the Persian army in that time. They were the direct forerunners of the famous knights of the Middle Ages. Sadly the Savaran, like the Sassanians themselves, are poorly understood.

    In this article we will endeavor to document the history of the Savaran in 0 AD’s time frame and to make note of the organization and equipment of these units, as well as some example tactics.

    It is not known when the Savaran came into existence. Historical records are unclear when the Savaran were formally founded, but it seems likely that they were formed early in Sassanian history. It is also possible the Savaran may have been a carry over from the Ashkanian Parthians. This is bore out by the resemblance of the early Savaran to the Parthian cataphracts and similar cavalry. Combined arms between heavy cavalry and light horse archers became the focus of Savaran training.

    But starting in the late 4th Century this began to change. The Savaran became exclusively super heavy cavalry, but battlefield experiences against the Romans and against Central Asian nomads like the White Huns soon forced reevaluation.

    In the 6th Century the Savaran were transformed into all-purpose cavalry equally skillful with bow and lance. With the support of foreign levies from the Alans, Armenians, and others, the Savaran became the most feared and respected cavalry of Late Antiquity.

    Organization and Composition

    The organization of the Savaran, like the rest of the Sassanian army, was based on the Parthian model. The smallest tactical unit of the Sassanian Army was the vasht or company, of 100 men. Ten of these comprised a drafsh or banner of 1,000 men. Each drafsh had its own unique set of heraldry drawn both from the tamga brands of the Parthians and Alans and the banner system of the Achaemenids. Popular drafsh designs included boars, eagles, lions, tigers, gazelles, and elephants. Mythical beasts such as the esteemed Simurgh (a kindly creature with the head of a dog and the body of a peacock) and dragons were also popular. Dragons were also used as a standard-pole final like the Roman Draco. In turn ten drafsh made up a gund or corps of 10,000 men.

    As mentioned above the Sassanians were influenced by the nomadic tamga brands, which in the Sassanian system became the neshan or seal. Within the Savaran the neshan became useful as a handy means of identification, and as a result their use became institutionalized by the Sassanian bureaucracy. Each noble family had their own neshan, which was worn as a medallion, branded on their horses, and even painted onto their armor (alongside the regimental heraldry). This system was gradually expanded beyond the military, most famously in the civil service as a means of ordering government officials by branch, job, and rank.

    Within the command structure of the Sassanian military the commander of the Savaran was called the Savaran-sardar, answerable only to the Eran-Spahbad (Commander in Chief) and the Shahanshah himself. Another post of importance within the Savaran was that of Arzbad-e-Aspwaragan or Chief Instructor. These two titles were usually monopolized by two of the Seven Great Clans of Sassanian Persia: the Suren-Pahlav and Mihran, at least as far as we know. From these two posts orders were passed down to the individual commanders (or salar) of corps, banners, and companies. Confusion over the Sassanian command structure makes it unclear how many ranks orders had to go through before reaching ground level.

    The Savaran were intended to represent the flower of the Iranian warrior caste, the areteshtaran. While the Seven Great Clans held command and the prestige positions the majority of the Savaran regiments were of a lower grade. These men were part of the azadan class and they took great pride in their lineage. They traced their descent from the similar azata of the Achaemenids. The azata in turn traced their descent from the original tribal nobility of the Arya from whom the Persians and Medes came. Later, beyond the time frame of 0 AD, the reformer Khusrow I allowed the members of the dhiqan class, the lower nobility, into the Savaran.

    Famous Regiments

    The Savaran had several regiments of note; here we will examine those of particular prominence within the time frame of 0 AD.

    Pushtighban: ‘The Royal Guards’. The Pushtighban was the most senior regiment of the Savaran and seems to have existed early in the history of the Sassanians. The regiment was the official palace detail of the dynasty and in peacetime remained in Ctesiphon. The commander bore the special title of Pushtighban-salar. Their heraldry was the national banner of the Sassanians, the Drafsh-e-Kaviani (Kava’s Banner) itself. The unit always numbered 1,000 men.

    Peroozatae: ‘The Victorious Ones’. The Peroozatae were another Royal Guard unit and something of a mystery. We know they were a later addition to the Savaran, possibly founded by Shapur II. We also know that this unit was especially valued for devotion to the Shahanshah and as lancers.

    Zhayedan: ‘The Immortals’. The Zhayedan were the crowning homage of the Sassanians to their Achaemenid predecessors and were the greatest and most famous of the Royal Guard regiments. Unlike the Pushtighban, the Zhayedan were a regular military unit and acted as a reserve force, entering battle only when needed. Like the Immortals of the Achaemenid dynasty, the Zhayedan were kept at a constant 10,000 men always. The Zhayedan were also dressed in much the same fashion, stressing yellow and purple. The heraldry of the unit was the eagle of Cyrus the Great, and the commander (always a scion of the royal house) bore the title of Varthragh-Nighan Khvadhay.

    Gyan-avspar: ‘Those who sacrifice their Lives’. The Gyan-avspar or Peshmerga (Those who face Death) were a unique regiment within the Savaran. Their membership was restricted only the bravest of men, regardless of grade. This was because the regiment was a religious unit, created and maintained by the Zoroastrian clergy. The exact circumstance of this regiment’s creation, indeed much about them, is unknown. Because of this we do not know if the regimental commander held a special title, nor the heraldry. However given their religious status, the use of the Zoroastrian zarduxsht is likely.

    Battle Formation and Tactics

    Now we will examine the major battle formations and favored tactics of the Savaran against their most enduring foe, the Romans. In general when the Sassanians went to war the Savaran were considered central. A typical formation saw the Savaran regiments take position on the front of the battle line. Behind them was the heavy infantry and archers, both mounted and on foot. Behind them in turn was the elite Savaran regiments held in reserve.

    According to Roman authors the Sassanians used cavalry tactics similar to the Parthians, but much more sophisticated and dangerous. The most common strategy was the three-wave attack. One example, in 350, was when the front rank Savaran charged into the Roman infantry line head on. The Roman infantry adopted small hedgehog like formations to repulse the lancers. But just as soon as they came, they disengaged and peeled off from battle. A line of horse archers then came up and peppered the bunched-up Roman infantry with arrows. Thrown into disorder, the Romans were swept aside as a third line of Savaran followed up on the horse archers, taking full advantage of the chaos.

    The Romans eventually developed their answer to this tactic by taking measures to ensure their infantry maintained cohesion. In this manner the Romans hoped to take advantage of the Savaran’s fatal flaw, their short endurance in battle. The Sassanians developed a counter to this through a modified three-wave attack. In this example the front ranks would make their initial charge, but peel off and turn about at the last second. Instead of a cavalry charge, the Roman line would find itself facing an unexpected infantry assault.

    In conclusion the Savaran were, and still are, a fascinating subject of study. While sadly still mostly unknown, the royal cavalry of the Sassanian dynasty had a large impact on history. The fear and even admiration of their foes on both the western and eastern frontiers is more then testament to that.

  19. In the annals of history Hamilcar Barca is mostly forgotten in the shadow of his son Hannibal. However Hamilcar was a brilliant general in his own right. Following the twin disasters of the First Punic War and the Mercenary War Hamilcar went to Iberia to rebuild the fortunes of the Carthage.

    In 237 BC the Carthaginian Republic, humiliated by military defeat and the theft of Sardinia by Rome, sent her star general to Iberia on a gamble. As a military hero, Hamilcar Barca was able to build a political faction around him. With the aid of a young aristocrat named Hasdrubal the Fair (whom he made a son-in-law) Hamilcar was able to secure his election to Supreme Commander (Strategos Autokrator, a Hellenistic title). As effective military dictator there were little limit on his power, except for political considerations.

    With this in mind Hamilcar chose to take his battle-hardened veterans to the Iberian Peninsula, believing the vast wealth of the region would help Carthage to regain her standing after the loss of her maritime empire. But Hamilcar was also aware that if he failed in Iberia, his political career was sunk.

    So on landing he secured his base of operations by renegotiating the old alliance with the city-state of Gadir. Gadir, modern day Cadiz, was a Phoenician colony much like Carthage itself, but preserved its independence and was a sovereign state. With other neighboring Phoenician colonies (such as Malaka, modern Malaga) it formed part of a Punic colonial confederacy led by Carthage. Hamilcar needed to use Gadir as a jumping off point into Iberia, and knew better then to occupy it. Eventually the Phoenicians of Gadir allowed their city to be used as a supply depot by Hamilcar. Who then turned his attention to the silver and copper mines of ancient Tartessos (a Bronze Age trading empire of legendary wealth), to the northwest.

    But the native Iberians and Celtiberians were already preparing to meet the Carthaginian threat. Under the leadership of a Celtiberian mercenary leader named Isolatios and his brother a loose coalition led by the Turdetani was formed to stop Hamilcar from crossing the Rio Tinto. Leaving Hasdrubal behind to keep the Phoenician coast defended, Hamilcar marched north to confront Isolatios. In the resulting battle, according to ancient writers, the coalition was cut to pieces and much of the leadership was slain. Hamilcar treated the survivors with kindness and offered them a place in his army, resulting in 3,000 recruits. From a larger standpoint Hamilcar had achieved his immediate objective and now had a firm base to build on, stretching from Gadir to the lower Baetis River (modern Rio Guadalquivir) Valley, including the famed Tartessian mines.

    With his base secure and the silver already flowing in Hamilcar plotted his next move in the Iberian conquest. The Baetis valley was a flat and fertile territory stretching from the Atlantic coast to the mountains of what is now southeastern Spain. It was also heavily populated, dotted by various independent powers that answered to no one. The Carthaginian interest in the area was in the mountains to the north, the modern Sierra Morena, and the silver mines there. Hamilcar set out to conquer the Baetis area in either late 238 or 237 and met a second, more formidable, coalition arrayed against him.

    Formed from the powers of the central and eastern parts of the valley, this coalition was far more extensive then the first, and was headed by Indortes, king of the Turdetani. Ancient sources number Indortes’ host at 50,000 men, but while this may be an exaggeration it does give a sense that Iberia was waking up to the threat of Carthage. Hamilcar, it appears, did not engage Indortes immediately and instead undermined his position by deception. As a result when Hamilcar did move to engage the king he retreated into the hill country and was boxed in by the Carthaginians. When Indortes tried to break out at night he was captured with his men. Hamilcar dealt harshly with Indortes, blinding and mutilating him before sentencing the king to death by crucifixion. The remaining prisoners, numbering 10,000, were set free.

    It was clear the Carthaginians were telling the rest of the valley that their leaders could expect no mercy, but the populace itself would be well treated. By 235 Hamilcar had succeeded in conquering the rest of the Baetis River Valley through a mixture of military force and diplomatic negotiation. With the area secure and the Sierra Morena in reach Hamilcar had Hasdrubal begin sending the silver to Carthage.

    Just as the newfound wealth of Hamilcar's labor began to roll in other matters soon called his attention. A rebellion had erupted among Carthage’s Numidian (the ancestors of the modern Berbers) allies and this threatened the city itself. As Hamilcar’s military powers made responsible for Africa as well as Iberia he decided to deal with the problem by sending in Hasdrubal. With the aid of the Massyli (whose ruling family was tied to Hamilcar by marriage) Hasdrubal quashed the rebellion and redrew the map of Numidian politics. He then gave the eastern half to the Massyli and the western half to the recently elevated Masaesyli.

    While Hasdrubal was busy in Africa, his father-in-law was no less busy in Iberia. From 235 to 231 it appears that Hamilcar was kept busy by the business of consolidation in the Baetis Valley and by making extended assaults out beyond it to the north and east. This eventually led to Hamilcar launching a full-scale attempt to tame the southeast, bringing Carthaginian control out as far as the modern Cape de la Nao.

    In 231 he founded the city of Akra Leuke (Greek:White Cape) both as a capital for the new Carthaginian colonial empire and to take the pressure off Gadir as the logistical center. However the site of Akra Leuke remains in dispute, although modern Alicante is the most commonly advanced site. About this time Hasdrubal the Fair returned, bringing with him Hamilcar’s second son, Hasdrubal the Younger.

    With his chief lieutenant having returned Hamilcar was prepared to extend operations. In 229 while sending Hasdrubal elsewhere the main bulk of the Carthaginian army struck out on a campaign against Helike, whose location remains unknown. However one promising thesis places the location of Helike to have been in the modern municipality of Elche de la Sierra. If this was the case then Hamilcar’s goal may have been to bring the upper reaches of the Anas River (modern Rio Guadiana) under his control.

    In any case during the winter Hamilcar sent most his army back to Akra Leuke while staying behind with his sons and a small holding force. It was then the Oretani, the rulers of the important silver town of Castulo, came to relive Helike. Hamilcar was caught by surprise, as he thought the Oretani his allies (the king’s daughter had been arranged to wed Hannibal). Negotiations followed and it appeared the situation was settled.

    But the king betrayed him and struck at the retreating Carthaginians during what was supposed to have been a mutual withdrawal. Hamilcar lost his life in the fighting; according to Diodoros Sikulos (Diodorus Siculus) he willingly gave his life to save that of his sons by leading the Oretani down one road by himself and sending the boys down another. In any case the father of Punic Iberia was dead by the beginning of 228. Hannibal, just 20 years old, was judged too young by the Senate of Carthage to serve as Strategos Autokrator, and the title went Hasdrubal the Fair who would take up Hamilcar’s task.

    In conclusion Hamilcar Barca’s role in Carthaginian history was major, but overlooked. Over the course of 9 years he took his small, but elite army, and carved out a colonial empire for the Carthaginian Republic. One that would more then compensate for the loss of Sicily and Sardinia. Whether Hamilcar meant for his conquests to be used as a springboard for a war against Rome, as Hannibal did, remains controversial among historians. But Hamilcar’s accomplishment remains impressive nonetheless.

  20. In the history of the Late Second Temple Era there are no more famous groups then the Pharisees and the Sadducees whose religious and political bickering gave backdrop to that region’s most well-known events. Here we will cover the two groups’ history and beliefs, and what became of them after the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

    Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees had a common origin. During the Maccabee Revolt one of the groups that supported them in their war against the Seleukid authorities was the Hasidim or Hasideans (Hebrew: The Pious). A congregation of Jews from all walks of life united in their adherence to God’s Law, the Torah, for which many were martyred. Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees claimed the Hasidim as their origin, although from different ideological camps. The two make their first solid historical appearance during the reign of Yohanan Hirkanos, the son of the last of the original Maccabees, in 134-104 BC. The context was twofold: the war-time expansion of Jewish lands and the legitimacy of the Hasmonean (the proper name of the Maccabees) dynasty's claim to Israel’s High Priesthood.

    In the case of expansion the opposition fell on whether it was right to impose Jewish belief on those who did not believe. Hirkanos, who was influenced by the same Hellenistic culture that his father and uncles expelled, was a warrior leader in that mold. But unlike the Hellenic leaders that inspired him, Hirkanos used his military might to impose Judaism on the Idumeans (descendents of the Biblical Edomities) and the Samaritans.

    The Pharisees (perisayya ‘The Separate’) opposed Hirkanos’ policy. They held that such expansion was born of foreign influence and held that Judaism was not meant to be expanded in such a manner. Forcible conversion was not God’s way, and went against the principles of faith.

    The Sadducees (tsadiq ‘The Righteous’) supported Hirkanos’ policy. In contrast to the Pharisees they held that Hellenistic influence was not inherently bad, and the Jews had a right to do whatever they wanted inside their own lands. Including the imposition of religion. Hirkanos, they pointed out, had not expanded beyond the realm of David and Solomon.

    But a far bitterer divide was over the question of the High Priesthood of Israel. Despite his expansionist policies and the question of the Idumeans and Samaritans Yohanan Hirkanos, from a religious standpoint, was firmly a Pharisee and favored them openly. But when the leaders of the Pharisaic camp questioned the legitimacy of Hirkanos’ birth (accusing him to be the product of rape) he was furious. The Nasi (the official title of the Hasmonean ruler) lashed out against them and banned Pharisaic practices and imposed harsh legal penalties on those who resisted.

    The question at the heart of the matter was whether the Hasmoneans could rise to the position of Cohen ha-Gadol (Hebrew: High Priest) legally. The first Hasmonean to carry the title had been Yonaton, who was appointed to the position by the Seleukid pretender Alexandros Balas, during his brief reign as king. His brother Shimon, Hirkanos’ father, also became Cohen ha-Gadol on Yonaton’s death but combined it with the office with that of Prince of Judah (also given by Balas) and supreme commander into one hereditary title: Nasi. The Hasmoneans were a priestly family, which was undisputed. What the Sadducees and Pharisees divided over was whether they descended from Zadok, Cohen ha-Gadol under Solomon.

    Under Jewish tradition only those descended from Zadok could become Cohen ha-Gadol. The Pharisees held to this line rigidly and called the legitimacy of the Hasmoneans into question with disastrous implications. The Sadducees held the condition of descent from Zadok was innovation, not the Law, and that all God demanded in terms of bloodline was descent from Aaron.

    After the death of Hirkanos in 104 the balance of power between the factions changed radically. After the short reign of Judah Aristobulos and his controversial decision to raise the Hasmoneans to the Monarchy, usually reserved for the House of David, the Hellenistic Alexandros Yannai came to power. Yannai was a full-fledged Sadducee who backed their pro-Hellene policies and interpretation of the Law. He married his brother’s widow, Salome Alexandra, according to Jewish tradition to appease the Pharisees, since they were widely loved by the common people of Israel. But he had no intent of doing so for long.

    When the Pharisees and their middle and poor class supporters began to pelt Yannai with lemons during Temple ceremonies the King struck back. With his armies augmented by Hellenic mercenaries Yannai and the Sadducees waged a brutal six year civil war against the Pharisees, who ironically called on the Seleukids for aid. At the end of the conflict Yannai, in full contravention of Jewish tradition, appeared in front of his palace with Salome and many concubines in tow. While feasting them, Yannai ordered 800 Pharisees to death by crucifixion and while they suffered on their crosses ordered the dying men’s families executed before them. But this was not the end of the matter.

    While having eliminated many of the Pharisees Yannai would not be free of them. Along with his Sadducee supporters; Yannai was despised by his people and even his own wife. With their predominantly middle class background and total monopoly over the educational system the Pharisees maintained their popularity and hold over the majority of Israel. As a result the Sadducees were backed into a corner where the people would reject them unless they followed Pharisaic rite. When Alexandros Yannai died in 76 BC he recognized this fact and told his wife, who succeeded him as secular ruler of Israel, to reject the Sadducees.

    The reign of Salome Alexandra would mark a dramatic shift in power. The Sadducees were almost immediately expelled from authority and the Pharisees, led by the Queen’s brother Shimon ben Shetach, replaced them. Shimon led a religious and legal revolution that saw the Hasmonean state turned upside down. One popular measure was an injunction that held, in the case of divorce, the husband would pay a significant amount of his own money to his former wife’s care. A second was the implementation of the Pharisaic school system in the cities. Sadducee numbers dwindled and for a time it looked as though the Pharisees would gain control over the Temple itself, when Salome died in 67 BC. The Hasmonean dynasty descended into turmoil between her sons and both factions became marginalized in the chaos.

    When the dust had cleared the political situation had changed, and this affected the two parties. The ascension of Herod the Great in 37 BC with Roman backing ended the chaos that had engulfed Israel, but also ended the Hasmonean dynasty itself. Neither the Sadducees nor the Pharisees favored Herod for their own reasons and Herod in his part did not like them. The Sadducees suffered the worst of it, since as aristocrats Herod naturally did not trust them. The Pharisees, meanwhile, withdrew from politics to focus on religious matters and were spared the worst of Herod's excesses.

    Herod’s religious policies would have a large impact on Israel and on the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sanhedrin, the supreme religious and civil court authority in the land, was stripped of its secular powers and turned into a religious court only. Herod then took the unprecedented step of turning the High Priesthood into an office with a term of one year. The King also reserved for himself the right to depose and raise a Cohen ha-Gadol at will. With their great wealth the Sadducees were able to gain total control by buying the office from Herod with bribes. But Herod was not willing to allow the Sadducees to gain so much power. He raised the importance and status of the Cohen ha-Gadol’s chief aide, the Segan, which was usually a Pharisee. A balance of power resulted in the Temple that continued well past Herod and into Roman times (post AD 6).

    The result was thus. While the Sadducees had control over the High Priesthood and over the majority of priests that ran the Second Temple they were constrained by popular demand and unable to act as they wished. The Pharisees, by abandoning their political agenda, had increased their control over Israel’s spiritual life. Under Roman rule the extent of their influence was so great the lay teachers of the Law (soper ‘Scribes’) taught according to Pharisaic rite. The situation was much like the later half of the reign of Alexandros Yannai: The Sadducees held the illusion of power, while the Pharisees held it in reality.

    Now we move onto the last phase of the shared history of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In AD 66 the Great Jewish Revolt broke out in response to Roman abuse and neither the Sadducees nor the Pharisees had a unified response. Both groups had fragmented into pro- and anti-Roman camps and did not present a united front during the conflict. The destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 and the end of the era named for it had a massive impact on the two factions. The Sadducees ceased to exist as a cohesive group. Their existence had become so tied to the Temple and its worship services that without it the Sadducees could not continue. The Pharisees called a Sanhedrin of their own to decide what to do. A majority of the Pharisees made the decision to go underground and spread out, continuing their practices in secret. This became the foundation for modern Rabbinic Judaism. A smaller group opted to leave the Pharisaic camp to join the followers of Yeshua ben Nazareth, whom we know as Jesus Christ.

    In conclusion the political and religious infighting between the Pharisees and Sadducees forms an important part of understanding Jewish history in the last phase before the Great Diaspora. It also serves as an insight into how the mainstream of Jewish thought, the rabbinic tradition, developed.

    Addendum

    Spiritual Beliefs

    Sadducees:

    The Sadducees, as shown by their name, believed themselves to be the guardians of righteousness. They saw the Pharisees as not only below them on the social ladder but in religious matters as well.

    At the heart of the Sadducee religious philosophy was a literalist interpretation of the Law. They saw God’s Law as being clear cut and simple, with no room for interpretation or debate. Ironically this hard-line stance was informed and supplemented by sources outside the Law, the same ‘sin’ of which they accused the Pharisees. The Sadducee law code, for instance, was guided by a book they themselves had written: the Book of Decrees. The Book of Decrees was a guideline to which crimes merited a particular form of execution ranging from stoning to beheading and beyond.

    The primary source of Sadducee philosophy was not even Jewish, but Hellenic. The Sadducee lifestyle, and therefore their spiritual teachings, was based on the writings of the 4th and 3rd Century BC philosopher Epikouros. As a result we know they taught:

    *There is neither Angels nor Demons.

    *Death is final as the soul dies with the body, there is no life afterward.

    *God is not interested in Humanity or the actions of Humanity. Man has complete free will. As a result he does not need to fear divine punishment or look for divine rewards.

    Pharisees:

    Like their enemies, the Pharisees also saw themselves as guardians of righteousness. They viewed the Sadducees as obstinate and stubborn aristocrats who were more interested in having a good time rather then living as God intended.

    At the heart of Pharisee religious philosophy was what they called the Oral Law. The Pharisees felt God’s Law as being more then just simple words with a literal meaning. They saw it as having layers on layers of meaning that must be debated and argued to reveal the true meaning. As this was normally done in open spaces verbally this was known as oral tradition. The Pharisees used this oral tradition to supplement the Law, giving it a ‘modern’ meaning depending on the situation. This was popular among the common people, as it made the Law easier for them to understand and apply on a day-to-day basis.

    After the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 and the end of Jewish autonomy the Oral Law tradition was transferred to writing over the course of many years. Because of the nature of the Oral Law it was changed many times and edited. Today we know it as the Mishnah. As a result we know they taught:

    *There are both Angels and Demons.

    * Death is not final as the soul does not perish; there is an eternity beyond this world.

    * God is interested in Humanity and in Humanity’s actions. Man has free will but God can and does impose his will on us. As a result God will reward or punish in eternity.

×
×
  • Create New...