[Hellenes: The History and Evolution of the Hellenic Phalanx]

The Phalanx is easily one of the most recognizable military formations in history. But the phalanx changed and adapted overtime, as did the equipment, weaponry, and even the men who fought in these formations. In this article we will chronicle the history of the phalanx, its arms and armor, and the men who fought in it from roughly 700 to 323 BC.

Disclaimer: The above image is for illustrative purposes only.

Click here for a large [1600x1200] version!

The rise of the phalanx was tied to a revolution in Hellas. Around 700 BC Hellas was beginning to emerge from the Hellenic Dark Age. The long recovery from the catastrophic collapse of Mycenae had begun. The primary force behind this revival was the rise of the polis, plural poleis, the City-State. These poleis triggered a political and cultural revolution in Hellas, and it was only fitting that a similar military revolution went with it. Up to this point warfare in Hellas had remained unchanged since the days of Mycenae, a ‘heroic’ free-for-all with no sense of order. Argos changed all this with the introduction of the aspis or hoplon shield. The new shield was round, like previous shields, but far larger and with a pronounced convex and reinforced rim. It also did away with the old central handgrip, replacing it with an arm band that was fastened to the left forearm. Pieces of rope were affixed to the rim as a handgrip. From this was born the phalanx and a new soldier, the hoplitai. Meaning “One who is Equipped for War” the name of these soldiers fit nicely with what they were. The hoplitai were not full-time warriors or professionals, but members of the well-to-do middle class who could afford to buy or import the full panoply. This was a military innovation never before seen; the age of the citizen-soldier had begun. Argos would go on to use their invention to maximum effect, taking advantage of the rest of Hellas. By 669 Pheidon, the Argive king and the first man to use the phalanx to its full potential had achieved near total hegemony over Hellas. Once knowledge on how to make the aspis shield became widely known all of the poleis began to form their own bodies of hoplitai soldiery. Argos had changed the face of Hellas and war forever.

Much about these early hoplitai and their phalanx was transitional. Much has already been said about the revolutionary aspis shield, but more must be said. These shields were made from a core of oak wood. Fittings were added on the inside of the shield with nails and hammered flat on the front side of the shield. The rim of the shield was then reinforced with a sheet of pre-made beaten bronze. Decoration was embossed onto the bronze in a guilloche pattern. The wooden part of the shield was painted over, usually with geometric shapes, plain color, or a family badge. The chief body armor of the period was the bronze, so called bell cuirass. The armor earned its name from the bell-shaped flange at the waist. Sparse etchings following the natural musculature of the body accounted for decoration. Usually early hoplitai would wear nothing underneath the cuirass. Possibly as early as the Second Messenian War the wearing of tunics had been adopted by Sparta, and spread elsewhere. Groin protection, and for that matter any protection for the lower half of the body was not a consideration in the early stages of phalanx warfare. Quickly however the need for leg protection became obvious. In contrast to the plain cuirass the new greaves were highly decorated and stylized. The typical greave of this era went from below the knee to the ankle. Ankle armor was separate and some examples extended to cover the feet. Two additional pieces of the panoply of interest was the arm guard and limb guard. Arm guards were the most decorated part of the set, and hardly ever worn in battle. Limb guards were a legacy of Mycenaean armor, and made from leather. The last component of the full early panoply was the helmet. The two most popular helmet types used by the early hoplitai were the Illyrian and Corinthian styles. The Corinthian however was the style that would come to dominate Hellas until the 5th Century. A major flaw in these early helmets soon became clear, they completely blocked the ears. This could be a fatal nuisance in battle. It is believed today the famous horsehair crest that is associated with Greece nearly as much as Corinthian helmets started to appear by this time. Since hearing was made difficult, they used the crests as an easy identifier since no two hoplitai wore the same crest.

The weaponry of the early hoplitai is a matter of considerable debate. While we know a great deal about the panoply of the hoplitai throughout the history of the phalanx we cannot say the same for their weaponry. The original Argive hoplitai used two throwing spears in the Mycenaean fashion. According to the Spartan poet Tyrtaios the phalanx of Sparta still used throwing spears as late as the 640s. Eventually these two spears were phased out as they proved more of a hindrance then an aid in phalanx fighting. The replacement was the doru or dory, a spear 9 feet long made from seasoned ash wood mounted with an iron spear point shaped like a leaf. A further innovation led to the mounting of a bronze butt-spike called the sauroter, or lizard-killer, on the opposite end of the spear. It was one-handed, thanks to the lightness of the ash wood. The sword of choice was the Naue II, which had existed in one form or the other since the Late Bronze Age. Roughly a little over 2 feet long the Naue II was a long lasting design. However the Hellenes were never fond of swords and the Naue II was judged too long to be of use. A later innovation would see the gradual shrinking of the design.

The original phalanx was progressive for its time. While period sources detailing the organization of the first phalanx are lacking we are able to reconstruct a reasonably accurate model from what we do know about later phalanx organization. The main building block of this phalanx and all future formations of this kind are called an enomotiai, plural enomotia. Each of these consisted of 23 hoplitai with two officers, the ouragos at the rear who kept order and made sure each man did his job, and the enomotarch who lead the unit. These two men were usually the most experienced soldiers in the unit. In battle the enomotiai would be drawn up in formation 3 files wide, each consisting of 8 men. The enomotarch would take position at the head of the file furthest to the right. Two enomotia comprised the next level unit: the pentekostys, plural pentekostyes. Each pentekostys was commanded by an officer called the pentekonter, who was chosen from the enomotarchs. The pentekonter fought at the head of the right-most file. Two pentekostyes made a lochos, plural lochoi. The lochos of this period is technically called the archaic lochos, and it is from this unit that all phalanx formations derive. The total size of an archaic lochos was of 100 men drawn up into 12 files 8 men deep. The commanding officer was called the lochagos. How a lochagos was chosen from the two pentekonters is unknown. What we do know is the lochagos, like all officers, fought at the head of the right most file of the formation. Because he couldn’t control the entire lochos from that position the remaining pentekonter had control of the left side of the formation. While individual details in numbers and officer function vary between the poleis the basic organization given here is true for all of Hellas. Some famous battles of this period were Hysiai, where Argos smashed Sparta, and Deres, the battle which ignited the Second Messenian War.

Within a century the hoplitai were king of the field. By the time the 6th century dawned the phalanx had come to completely dominate. As the last vestiges of the Dark Age faded away and the Hellenes spread out in every direction in a great migration boom the first signs of the golden age of Hellas began to show. This century is most characterized, at least militarily, as the last in which the Hellenes would war near exclusively with themselves and as the first time the phalanx would meet a style of warfare alien to it. The Ionian colonies in Asia Minor provide the best example as the phalanx proved hard-pressed to fight effectively against the Lydians and later towards the end of the century the Persians. But despite this the reputation of these ‘Men of Bronze’ as they were so called spread far and wide. When Amasis II of Egypt, the last great native Pharaoh, came to power he based the might of Egypt on the backs of his hoplitai mercenaries. Another example is that of the Etruscans and other Italics near the Hellenic colonies of Megale Hellas, who took to phalanx warfare enthusiastically. In Hellas itself the hegemony of Argos was at last broken by Sparta early in the century, but the powerful polis bounced back and the long wars between the two powers continued. Argos’ weakening paved the way for a new structure of power. To the north Korinthos rose to a great position of power. While not inclined towards war the polis gained power by following a policy of trade, colonization, and the arts that paid back a hundredfold. Under the rule of Periandros the city of Korinthos became the preeminent city in southern Hellas, fielding more hoplitai then any other power, as well as a formidable navy. Athenai began its rise to prominence in this century, starting with the reforms of the lawgiver Solon, the reign of his cousin and popular tyrant Peisitratos, and lastly the foundation and first years of the Athenian democracy. As the 6th Century drew to a close great change in phalanx warfare laid on the horizon as the great Achaemenid Empire turned its attention to the Hellenes and the beginning of the Ionian Revolt.

The classic arms and armor of the hoplitai would reach their peak in this century. For body armor the 6th Century was a time of changing styles. The original hoplitai armor, the bell cuirass, had by the end of the 7th Century proven to be inadequate for the changing demands of warfare. No changes were made to the aspis curiously enough. However over the course of the first half of the 6th Century the bell cuirass went through several evolutions as advances in bronze-working allowed for extensive metalwork. The introduction of groin flaps, 8 bronze plates attached to the belt of the now standard tunic, solved a long-standing problem in hoplitai protection. By mid-century the bell cuirass had advanced to the point of near art. Instead of the musculature of the body being simply sketched onto the bronze the metal was beaten so it followed the musculature exactly. This armor is called the muscled cuirass for this reason. Although a derivative of the bell cuirass the muscled cuirass lacked the distinctive flange at the waist that gave the earlier armor its name. Instead the muscled cuirass curved upwards at the sides and down over the abdomen, allowing for unrestricted hip movement and eliminating the need for groin flaps. Unfortunately the amount of work that went into the muscled cuirass made it more expensive then most hoplitai could afford. As a result the muscled cuirass became the domain of the more wealthy hoplitai and the generals, tyrants, and kings that led the armies of Hellas. As a result the linen corselet became the new armor of choice. The linen corselet had existed since Mycenaean times, but never caught on until the mid 6th Century. The linen corselet was light, durable, and easy to produce in large numbers and adjust. It was also long, extending all the way down to the hips. Another advantage was the flexibility of the material. Altogether the linen corselet quickly soared to a level of popularity that was before unheard-of. The leg greaves of this era retained their previous levels of decoration and were extended far enough to cover both the knee and part of the ankle. Ankle armor was phased out about the same time as the linen corselet first appeared. Arm and limb guards were also phased out by the end of the century. As for the helmets the Illyrian continued to decline in popularity until only a few poleis still used it. The Corinthian type continued to be popular in this period but also began to decline as the problems it caused in hearing proved to be fatal. While the type experienced a major boost in popularity in cap form among the Italics, in Hellas proper adjustments were underway. The Chalcidian helmet was the result of this tinkering. With the Chalcidian helmet the hearing problem was solved, since the helmet did not cover the ears. As a result a revolution in phalanx tactics based on shouted commands and musical cues could now take place. The helmet crests also reached the height of their flamboyancy during this period, resulting in wild color combinations.

The weapons of the hoplitai now assumed their familiar form. At the beginning of the 6th Century the two throwing spears of Mycenae disappeared and the doru took its place as the primary weapon of phalanx fighting. The standardization of the materials and techniques used in the making of the doru led to widespread and easy construction. The chief innovation in weaponry in this period was in sword making. In the 6th Century the Naue II was phased out by the Hellenes and replaced by three new swords. The direct descendent of the Naue II was the xiphos, a short double-edged leaf shaped sword a little more then 1 foot long. In contrast to the longer Naue II the xiphos was the perfect weapon for phalanx fighting as in the melee that followed the breaking of the doru the xiphos was short enough to be used effectively. Alongside the xiphos were two similar recurved (forward curving) swords, the kopis and makhaira. The kopis was the direct descendent of the Egyptian khopesh sickle-sword. It was forward heavy and effective in the breaking of armor and helmets once enough momentum has been built up. The famous Iberian falcata sword was derived from the kopis. The makhaira was also a recurved sword but its curve was not nearly as great as that of the kopis. Neither sword was as popular as the xiphos, although the kopis would become widespread with the Spartans for some time and the makhaira became a cavalry sword.

The phalanx formations of this period were not much changed from the previous era. By the 6th Century the archaic lochos was still in use all over Hellas. The primary change in phalanx organization in this era was an Athenian innovation, that of the taxis, plural taxies. The taxis was roughly equivalent to the modern division and usually contained 1,000 men or 10 lochoi drawn up 30 files wide, 8 deep. The Athenian army was organized along the same lines as Athenian society that is by clan. Each of the 4 clans maintained its own taxis, which when not called up to serve the state was used to carry out vendettas between the clans. With the foundation of the Athenian democracy the old clan system was abolished and replaced with 10 tribes drawn and formed from their location, not blood ties. In times of war a taxis was formed from each tribe. Theoretically this would give Athenai a miltary strength of 10,000 hoplitai, but the polis lacked the wealth to field such a force and Athenian strength was in reality more like 3,000. Each taxis was led by the most senior soldier in the ranks, who was made taxiarch. The success of the Athenian system in conflict led to the wide spread adaptation of the taxis by the other poleis. Korinthos was one of the earliest non-Attic poleis to adopt the taxis as a formation, mainly to flaunt its wealth. Only a polis as wealthy as Korinthos could field 5 full taxies (that is 5,000 hoplitai) on a whim. Famous phalanx battles of this period include the 1st and 2nd Battle of the Promachoi, two battles between Argos and Sparta, and the Battle of Sybaris in Megale Hellas, in which Kroton destroyed Sybaris.

Now begins the Golden Age of Hellas. The 5th Century BC was the Hellenes’ brightest century, the glorious age when Classical Hellas came to full bloom. This is also the age of change for the hoplitai and phalanx warfare as the foes that they faced forced a complete reworking of how the Hellenes understood war. Almost from the get-go the Hellenes became embroiled in a war with the world’s first superpower: Achaemenid Persia. The Persian Wars began when the tyrant Aristagoras of Miletos in Ionia rose in revolt against Achaemenid rule, taking all of Ionia with him. For their part the Persians did not want make war on the poleis of Hellas, but only committed themselves to doing so after a combined Ionian-Athenian-Eretrian army burned the satrapal capital of Sardis to the ground in 498. The resulting war in Ionia was a humiliating defeat for the Hellenes and demonstrated the hoplitai, as he currently was, was not equal to the task of taking on the Achaemenid military. Up to this point the hoplitai had been the undisputed master of the field with little to no attention being paid to either cavalry or archers. The Persians on the other hand were masters of combined arms, using all three branches in tandem, even with their naval forces when appropriate. Clearly the Hellenes had to adapt to the changing face of war and quickly. In 490 the Persians followed up on their victory in Ionia by launching an expedition into mainland Hellas. At Marathon Athenai was able to win a great victory over the Persians by using a quick run in formation to close the distances between the lines, thus forcing the Persians into a melee which the Hellenes could win. Marathon was an important lesson for the Hellenes. From this point on the ability to run, in armor, while keeping in formation became one of the important courses in hoplitai training (the proper name for this course is hoplitodromos, ‘Running in Armor’). Following the battle the Persians withdrew and with the death of Darius the Great in 485 the Hellenes received much needed breathing room. Athenai and Sparta both took advantage of the calm to prepare for what was to come. In 480 Xerxes, son of Darius launched a full-scale invasion of Hellas after nearly 3 years of preparation. The battles that followed have become the stuff of legends and popular myth. The fabled battle of Thermopylae is well-known to all, but the true importance of the battle, from the standpoint of the military evolution of the phalanx, was that it reinforced the lesson of Ionia and Marathon. While Salamis was a naval battle it is often used as the benchmark to measure the effectiveness of the so-called sea hoplitai, the shipboard marines that so far only Korinthos and Athenai used. After Salamis these marines became widely popular with the naval powers of Hellas. At Plataia or Plataea the Hellenes, though divided by their own petty squabbles, were able to successfully defeat the Persians through the mastered tactic of running into the Persian line, defeating them in close combat. Following this battle and its twin naval victory at Mykale the Persians abandoned Hellas and began to retreat. The Hellenes followed them, starting an extended period of warfare between the poleis and Persia that lasted from 478 to 449. After the Peace of Kallias was signed Hellas settled into an uneasy peace, but it was not to last. For the development of the hoplitai the next most important date was the decade of the 440s. In this decade the Delian League, formed by Athenai during the last phase of the Persian Wars, attempted to colonize the Strymon Valley in Thrace. This brought the Delian League into direct contact with the Thracians for the first time in a hostile environment and proved to be a massive shock. The Thracians did not fight like either the Persians or the Hellenes and their unique method of warfare made it almost impossible for a hoplitai to catch them. The first innovation that resulted from contact with Thrace was the adoption by the Hellenes of Thracian dress. It was not uncommon to see Hellenic psiloi (the light infantry) dressed like Thracian peltast infantry. But this didn’t solve the league’s problems with the Thracians. So they began to choose the youngest and most fit hoplitai in the formation to drop their cuirass or corselet and greaves so at a prearranged signal they could run out and catch the Thracian peltasts. Without the weight of the armor the young men would be able to run fast enough to catch up to the fleet-footed Thracians. These new soldiers were called ekdromoi, the ‘Runners-Out’. The advent of the ekdromoi by the Delian League coincided with a similar revolution in the Peloponnesos. For there the Spartans had dropped armor entirely in favor of a new tunic called the exomis. This new tunic was quickly adopted across Hellas, and with the introduction of the ekdromoi a radical revolution in phalanx warfare had begun, one geared for speed and complex maneuvers.

The stage was set for the next phase of hoplitai evolution: the Peloponnesian War. When the inevitable conflict between the Delian League of Athenai and the Peloponnesian League of Sparta began in the later phase of the 5th Century the hoplitai and phalanx warfare had been reconstructed from the ground up. Cavalry, archers, skirmishers, and slingers had all become branches of major importance in warfare. In contrast to the beliefs of the beginning of the century, when soldiers of those kinds were looked down on with scorn, by now they were integral pieces in the army of all self-respecting poleis. The hoplitai was no longer king of the battlefield, and combined arms tactics would be that which won the day. Despite this the phalanx was still the center of all tactical and strategical considerations, and despite the newfound importance of the mounted and light infantry arms there was still a certain air of snobbishness towards them. Standardized equipment handed out and paid for by the state instead of being paid for by the individual hoplitai started during this period. This was a long hard process as the personal natural of each man’s armor and weapons formed a large part of the phalanx psyche. The largest hoplitai battle of war and the largest such battle in the history of Hellas to that point was the First Battle of Mantinea in 418. One of the major innovations of the Peloponnesian War was the enlarging scope of warfare. Up to this point phalanx warfare had been decided by a single decisive battle or a series of battles all driving for that decisive engagement, all with the aim of ending the fighting as quickly as possible. With the beginning of the Peloponnesian War this changed, a single battle was no longer enough to end the fighting. It was no longer simply just a matter of forcing the enemy to fight you in the field and leave his city alone. Now it was necessary to attack the enemy indirectly as well, to drag into the conflict the civilians of the enemy state. This was called the ‘strategy of devastation’. The Spartans and their allies were the first masters of this strategy and used it to full effect against the Delian League. Marching north after their own harvest season (since harvest came early in southern Hellas) the Peloponnesian League could catch their enemies’ right in the middle of their own harvest. And by devastating the countryside starve them out and bring the misery of war to their civilians. King Archidamos II of Sparta used the ‘strategy of devastation’ in the opening stages of the Peloponnesian War when he laid the entire Plain of Acharnae, the breadbasket of Attika, to waste. The Acharnians demanded that Athenai respond immediately, but Perikles calmed them down and settled in behind the great Long Walls of Athenai. As the war dragged on the ‘strategy of devastation’ was gradually expanded in meaning, encompassing not only the destruction of farmland and plains but also the devastation of the populace itself. The events at the island of Melos proved this when the Athenians killed all the Melian hoplitai and then all non serving males, selling the women and children into slavery. The Peloponnesian War ended, fittingly, in 404 BC not by the victory of hoplitai arms alone, but by both the phalanx and a naval victory at Aigospotamoi the year before. In the closing years of the 5th Century it was clear the previous 100 years had been the most momentous in the history of the hoplitai and the phalanx, if not the entirety of the Hellenic world.

The armor of the hoplitai underwent a drastic reformation during this period. The 5th Century BC was the century of greatest change for the hoplitai especially in terms of equipment. The first change was in the aspis shield itself. For one the convex of the shield was made deeper, which made it easier to carry as the inside edge could rest snuggly onto the hoplitai’s left shoulder, taking most of the weight off the arm. Great advances in bronze-working allowed for the entire aspis to be covered with bronze instead of just the rim. As it did with the rim the new total bronze covering give the aspis shield a great boost in rigidity, effectively eliminating the previous model’s buckle. Decoration design reached the height of form during the 5th Century as the bronze layer of the shield allowed for designs to be painted much more smoothly then on wood. The designs became increasingly elaborate over the years, though towards the end there emerged a standardized pattern between poleis. For example Athenai used the letter Alpha in their shield designs, Sparta used the letter Lambda, and Argos used a golden hydra, Thebes used the Club of Herakles, Korinthos used the Pegasus, and lastly Kroton used the Delphic tripod. Of course actual standardization dates to the 4th Century but has its roots in the later years of the 5th. For body armor the 5th Century is characterized by an increasing trend towards lightness, and eventually armor was abandoned altogether by mid century. Metal armor was replaced by tunics, of which three types we will discuss here. The first type was called the chitoniskos. The original tunic (chiton) first introduced during the 7th Century was thick and heavy though it provided much needed protection and comfort underneath the bell cuirass, muscled cuirass, and linen corselet. With the lightening of armor the chiton was lightened as well. This new model was called the chitoniskos and was made from linen and was light. It enjoyed its greatest popularity during the Persian Wars. The second type and arguably most popular was the exomis, a Spartan design. Previously the exomis was used by workmen and made from thick wool. What made the design so attractive from a military standpoint was the fact the exomis had false sleeves. What this meant was that the wearer could undo the seam on either side of the tunic and the ‘sleeve’ would fall down underneath the armpit. When Sparta dropped body armor following the Third Messenian War they adopted the exomis as the new tunic of choice. The military exomis was made from linen instead of wool, giving protective qualities to the tunic, and dyed Spartan red. When going on campaign the Spartans would loosen the right seam on the tunic, giving their right shoulder and arm unrestricted movement. The exomis was soon copied across Hellas in various colors. The other tunic from this period is the perizoma. The perizoma was originally a heavy blanket like ‘apron’ that was attached to the lower rim of the aspis shield during the Persian Wars or fastened onto the belt of the chiton worn underneath either the muscled cuirass or linen corselet. The material, which has been lost in time, was seemingly quite thick and could catch arrows and other missiles. The result was that after the Thracian expeditions the perizoma was transformed into a tunic that became the official body armor of the ekdromoi light hoplitai. For the leg greaves the 5th Century marked the end of their heavy decoration and from this century on they simply followed the musculature of the leg. The greaves would fall out of favor following the mass shift towards light armor in the 450s-440s but we know that at least some hoplitai wore leg greaves as late as the Peloponnesian War. As for helmets the 5th Century marks the end of the Corinthian’s reign as the king of hoplitai headgear by the end of the Persian Wars, though the Spartans retained them for some time longer. For a time the Chalcidian helmet took its place as most popular helmet and further tinkering with the design resulted in the creation of the so-called Attic helmet, which was characterized by the lack of a nose guard. Following the Thracian expeditions a new helmet type, the Thracian, gained popularity because of its partial similarity the Thracian cap. By the start of the Peloponnesian War two new helmet types emerged: the Boeotian and the Pilos. The Boeotian helmet was based off the wide-brimmed traveling hat native to Boeotia. A unique feature of this helmet is the inclusion of straps. It gained popularity following the Persian Wars. The second type is the Pilos helmet. This helmet was based off the felt conical cap worn by helots in Sparta. It was first used by the Spartans following the Third Messenian War around 450 and spread throughout Hellas.

Weaponry remained mostly unchanged. During the 5th Century the weapons used by the hoplitai did not undergo any drastic change, and for the most part remained the same as it did from the 6th Century. The only real changes would be the increased popularity of the kopis among many of the northern poleis, such as Thespiae who maintained a unit called the melanochitones (the Black Cloaks) who were armed near exclusively with the kopis. Towards the end of the century, during the Peloponnesian War, Sparta developed a specialized extra short version of the xiphos. The Spartan xiphos was shorter then l foot long, a fact that was initially ridiculed by the Athenians and others. However the Spartans soon proved that their short xiphos enabled them to be able to maneuver more effectively during the melee.

Phalanx organization did not undergo many changes in this period. Similar to weaponry the basic organization of the hoplitai did not change much during the 5th Century, except in the case of Sparta. At least two different military reorganizations occurred in the 5th Century. Since at least the 7th Century the Spartan phalanx was formed from 5 ‘super lochoi’. Each of these numbered around 900, close to the number fielded by a taxis. The super lochoi were comprised of 30 triakades (singular triakas), which were essentially a regular enomotiai but with 30 hoplitai and officers instead of the regular 23. In addition while retaining the same width of a regular enomotiai the Spartan triakas was deeper, being 10 men deep instead of 8. This gave Sparta a military strength of 4,500 hoplitai altogether. But this changed at the start of the 5th Century. For unknown reasons the triakas was dropped as the primary building block of the Spartan phalanx. It was replaced by an enlarged enomotiai and the pentekostys which altogether created a super lochoi with the strength of 1,000 hoplitai, giving Sparta a consistent strength of 5,000 hoplitai under arms. Unfortunately much of the details of this organizational structure have been lost. What we do know is that this marks the high tide of Spartan military strength, as never again would they be able to field such an impressive force. The second reorganization of the Spartan phalanx occurred the 450s, following both a devastating earthquake and the Third Messenian War. The new organization was comprised thus: An enomotiai was formed from 32 hoplitai in 4 files 8 men deep. 4 enomotia formed a pentekostys of 128. 4 pentekostyes formed a full super lochos of 512 hoplitai organized into 64 files 8 men deep. Sparta still retained the same number of super lochoi, giving the Spartan state during the Peloponnesian War a total military strength of 2,560 hoplitai under arms. This was a drastic decline from the 5,000 hoplitai from the beginning of the century. The famous phalanx battles of this period are more numerous to mention. But to list two from each of the greatest wars of the period: From the Persian Wars, Marathon, were Athenai turned back Persia with clever tactics, and Plataia, were the Hellenes turned a disaster into a crowning victory. From the Peloponnesian War, the First and Second Battle of Syrakusai, where the strength of Athenai was broken, and the First Battle of Mantinea, the greatest phalanx battle of the age.

The 4th Century was the last hurrah of the traditional phalanx and the hoplitai, and the beginning of something new. By the beginning of the 4th Century warfare in Hellas had changed considerably from the first days of the phalanx. The Peloponnesian War had just ended and for first time in Hellenic history the defeated had not immediately bounced back. The former Delian League was in shambles and Athenai was humiliated. Sparta and her Peloponnesian League were now in complete dominance of Hellas. But Sparta was never meant to be the all-conquering state and the strain of her empire soon broke the Lukourgon Constitution that governed the country. Without the famous rigidity which gave Sparta the strength the rest of Hellas so admired the Spartans lost all control and Hellas began to seethe against them. It reached the boiling point when one of the Spartan kings, Agesilaos II, suddenly left Hellas to make war on his former ally Achaemenid Persia in 396, ostensibly on the behalf of the Ionian poleis. This was the last straw and in 395 Athenai, which had since restored its former government, made war on Sparta. Athenai found willing allies in Argos (which Sparta had nearly destroyed in the Persian Wars), Korinthos, and the Theban lead Boeotian League. For the hoplitai and for the phalanx in general this war, commonly called the Korinthian War, is important. Because it showed that so long as the phalanx remained in its current form then the continued hegemony of Sparta over Hellas was assured. It would take a radical change in the organization of the phalanx itself and the way in which battle was joined to finally break the Spartan hegemony. The little known Athenian reformer, the strategos (General) Iphikrates attempted this with an experimental lochos of hoplitai equipped with both his traditional arms and those of a peltast. In 390 Iphikrates used his hybrid peltast-hoplitai formation to defeat a Spartan force on the field. But the so called Iphikratean reforms never gained much popularity outside Athenai, and even then they were not common. The Korinthian War ended in 387 with the famous King’s Peace or koine eirene (Common Peace) which stopped all the fighting and reaffirmed Sparta’s hegemony, but this time in the terms as Hellas’ Peacekeeper, with Achaemenid backing. Thus strengthened Sparta continued as the hegemon of Hellas, but their hegemony would never be undisputed. In 379 the uneasy peace was broken once again when Theban exiles led by the distinguished politician Pelopidas with Athenian support retook control of Thebes from the Spartan garrison in the Kadmeia (the Theban acropolis). From there Thebes was able to quickly reform the old Boeotian League into a solid federation, a first in Hellenic history. In 375 the Boeotians did the impossible when they, at the battle of Tegyra, defeated a Spartan formation in pitched battle. But the battle was small and the outcome not enough to force a change in Hellas. The true decisive battle did not come until 371 BC, at Leuktra. The Battle of Leuktra has been called one of the most important battles in history, and rightly so. At this battle the Boeotians, led by the rising military star Epaminondas and Pelopidas used revolutionary tactics and unheard-of formations to finally bring Sparta to its knees. In traditional hoplitai battle the best troops; usually a lochos strong, that a polis could field was always put on the right most position of the phalanx. These elite lochoi never faced one another at the crashing of the aspis and breaking of the doru because they always faced the opposite sides’ weaker left wing. Epaminondas however did the opposite. He put his hoplitai and the best troops, the Theban hieros lochos (Sacred Band) on the left wing of his army, so they faced the best Spartan troops directly. The hieros lochos was no regular formation however, being deeper then any lochoi in existence at the time. When the battle was joined Epaminondas sent the left wing, which resembled a giant slope, lead by the hieros lochos, forward against the Spartan elite. At the same time he began pulling his right and center back, achieving the first known instance of the oblique order. The victory at Leuktra broke the back of Sparta forever, and never again was Sparta to achieve hegemony over Hellas. The Boeotian League would then go on to take the offensive into the Peloponnesos itself. In the Peloponnesian campaign the Boeotian League made Sparta’s defeat total, destroying the Spartans’ alliance of poleis, creating the Arkadian League, liberating the helots and rebuilding Messene. As the final measure the Boeotians employed the ‘strategy of devastation’ in the farmlands and plains of Lakonia itself. In little over a decade the Boeotian League had practically turned Hellas upside down.

The new Theban hegemony had begun. By the dawn of the 360s the underdog of Hellas, the previously reviled Boeotians had become the new masters of the peninsula. The federated Boeotian League had achieved a new hegemony, and the influence of Thebes was felt across Hellas. The man who had masterminded it all was Epaminondas, by now widely acknowledged as the greatest strategic and tactical genius of the age. Perhaps one of the greatest, if not most understated, influences of Epaminondas was that he effectively brought back armor and helmets into style. His tactics on the field of battle caused the other poleis of Hellas to seriously reconsider the direction that they had gone in the 5th Century. The steadily increasing importance of cavalry, which played a vital role at Leuktra, and that of archers and other missile troops in the Boeotian armies, necessitated a return to more practical armor. The Boeotian League was quickly proving itself to be revolutionary in all fields, and it is believed today the Boeotian League may be the first Hellenic state to have attempted true combined arms tactics, however crude they have been. Before long the great poleis of Hellas began to resent the Theban hegemony nearly as much as they did the Spartan hegemony before them. Throughout the 360s the allies of the Boeotian League turned against them, even those poleis and alliances the Boeotians had themselves set up. In 362 the Second Battle of Mantinea, the largest hoplitai battle in history, took place with every major power in Hellas taking part either for or against the Boeotians. Epaminondas won the battle with the same revolutionary tactics and marching order that won Leuktra, but lost his life so doing. With Epaminondas dead the Boeotian League could not maintain control and Hellas fractured once more. Within another decade a new force would overtake Hellas and establish hegemony, but not from within Hellas but from without.

The age of Makedon had come. Until recently Philippos II of Makedon had not been fully credited for what he created, the complete tearing down and restructuring of the Hellenic military and Hellenic military thought. Philippos II did away with the old phalanx in its entirety, did away with the hoplitai and nearly all of his equipment, and fashioned from what little remained something new. While a young man Philippos had been held hostage by the Boeotian League and was taken in and perhaps even taught by Epaminondas himself. He was present during a majority of the Theban hegemony. However he was not there at either Leuktra or Second Mantinea. Nevertheless the young prince absorbed the lessons that both those battles taught, and took them to heart. When he became virtual King of Makedon, his title being actually Regent, in 360 he put those lessons to practical use. But Philippos II did not copy the Boeotian tactics and their new phalanx; he used them as the basis for a new kind of soldier and a new tactical formation of his own design. Philippos imposed a stern and regimented set of laws on the previously undisciplined Makedonian infantry first, and then he started to reform them into a fighting machine. The result of this reformation was the creation of the phalangitai, meaning “Phalanx Soldier”. The best of the phalangitai was raised by Philippos later in life to the dignity of pezhetairoi, meaning “Foot Companion”. The new soldiers received new equipment from armor and shields to weapons. Unlike the hoplitai that he superseded, the phalangitai was not a product of the well to do middle class that bought his own kit, or the state equipped and trained citizen levy of later Hellas. But a full professional soldier whose career was the army in which he served and continued in the army until he retired or was killed. The basic formation of the phalangitai was called the syntagma, a formation different to the traditional lochoi based phalanx of Hellas proper. What was probably the greatest difference between the phalanx and the syntagma was the syntagma was never meant to win a battle alone, like the phalanx was. But was meant to be the ‘anvil’ that held the enemy army in place so the cavalry, the ‘hammer’, could strike the enemy and defeat him. No part of the Makedonian army could win battles alone; all arms had to work together to achieve victory. This was the essence of the Makedonian art of war. When political turmoil in Hellas between the Boeotian League and the city of Phokis resulted in the Third Sacred War Philippos entered Hellas for the first time. In 345, with the end of the Third Sacred War, Philippos of Makedon had become de facto hegemon of Hellas. In 338 at the Battle of Chaironeia he made his hegemony de jure as well by defeating the last ditch attempt by Athenai and Thebes to delay the inevitable. Chaironeia proved the old phalanx was inadequate, and that a new age of Hellenic warfare had begun. In 337 Philippos II created the Korinthian League, made himself hegemon, and effectively fulfilled the dream of a unified Hellenic world. Philippos II was assassinated a year later by a disgruntled former guard. In 336 the leadership of Hellas and command of Philippos’ greatest legacy, the new army he created, passed to his teenage son: Alexandros III. Over the course of the next several years Alexandros took his father’s army and lead it like never before. It was on the backs of the elite pezhetairoi that Alexandros conquered the known world, and became Megas Alexandros, Alexander the Great. But when the conqueror died in 323 the leadership that made the pezhetairoi the best infantry in the world died with him. His successors, the diadochi, misused the syntagma and lead them like one would lead the old hoplitai phalanx. From the empires of the diadochi the fame of the phalangitai spread and became adopted by other powers in the Mediterranean. Kart-Hadasht, mighty Carthage, maintained the best of the imitation phalangitai. Unsupported the phalangitai were practically useless and the preeminence that they enjoyed passed to the soldiers of the Roman legio, and remained with them for centuries.

Armored protection was revitalized in the 4th Century. In terms of equipment for the hoplitai the 4th Century was the last gasp, while for his successor the phalangitai their equipment was mixed. The aspis shield did not go under any further evolutions in this century and remained unchanged. However the decoration did change as the individual poleis began to hand out standardized kits to their hoplitai with the chosen emblem of the polis painted on the shield. However some individual shields with custom designs still existed, though rare. The shield of choice for the phalangitai actually depended on the situation. In most normal circumstances the shield of choice was the small round shield called the peltai, so called because it resembled the shield carried by the Thracians that gave peltasts their name. But unlike the Thracian shield, the peltai was fully round, not crescent shaped. Like the aspis shield the peltai was convex, but the convex of the peltai was not so deeply pronounced as either version of the aspis. Like the 5th Century aspis the peltai was covered by a layer of bronze. Later in time during the Indian Campaign Alexander rewarded his best veterans by adding a layer of silver to their shields, hence their later names: the argyraspidai, the ‘Silver Shields’. A unique feature of the peltai shield was the lack of a rim. The reason was the phalangitai could not handle his weaponry using a rimmed shield. This naturally raises many questions about how the peltai was held. It was held by use of an arm band that was fastened onto the arm. It also had a handgrip, but this was used only when fighting out of the formation. For fighting in formation a strap hung on the neck was used. The neck strap performed the same function as the rim on the aspis; it took the weight of the equipment off the soldier. Decoration on the peltai shield chiefly took the form of embossing or engraving onto the metal. Painted work is not uncommon either. Since these shields were made by the Makedonian state, the emblem of choice was the 16 rayed Argeadai Sun. The pezhetairoi during the conquest of Persia are known to have had specific ‘medallions’ painted on their shields. Textual and artistic evidence exists that at least on two occasions Alexander also adopted the hoplitai kit for his phalangitai, including aspis shields. For body armor this century marked a revolution of sorts. The muscled cuirass had existed in Hellas since the mid 6th Century but except in Sparta (were the state made the armor) and Korinthos (were wealth was widespread) it wasn’t all that popular. At least compared to the linen corselet. When the poleis began to buy their soldiers’ equipment in the 4th Century and the tactics of the Boeotian League forced a return to armor the muscled cuirass experienced a mass revival. The muscled cuirass of this period incorporated some features of the linen corselet into its design. The most notable was the use of pteryges. In a linen corselet the pteryges were the second layer in the lower half of the armor. They were used to plug any holes. In the muscled cuirass the pteryges was sewn together into one, two, or three layers and attached to the waist piece in the new shorter model or the abdomen piece in the traditional longer model. The linen corselet also returned with the muscled cuirass and the two kinds of body armor were roughly equal in popularity. Except in some poleis, such as Sparta, the exomis and perizoma was phased out, since neither could be worn comfortably under armor and replaced with the old chiton and newer chitoniskos. For the phalangitai both the muscled cuirass and the linen corselet were used. The Makedonians had their own terms for each armor. The muscled cuirass was called the thorax and the linen corselet the cotthybos. The thorax was worn by the officers and front rank soldiers of the syntagma; the cotthybos was worn by the rank and file. The rear ranks of the syntagma wore no armor at all, just the chitoniskos or chiton depending on the climate. It is interesting to mention that during the later phase of the Persian Conquest Alexander began to de-equip his infantry of their armor. Issuing instead the so called hemi-thorax, ‘half-cuirass’, to the phalangitai front ranks to make them lighter and faster. After entering India the hemi-thorax was replaced with the regular thorax. For the other body armor, the leg greaves, the Hellenes did not adopt them again in 4th Century, though the Makedonians did and made the greaves a part of the official phalangitai kit. For helmets the 4th Century marks a rapid rise and fall in helmet styles. In the early part of the century the Pilos helmet of Sparta is most popular but the design is dropped except in the Peloponnesos following Leuktra. The Boeotian rose to take its place, but the style did not have the popularity of the Pilos. The Thracian style became the most popular helmet in Hellas about this time, alongside a new derivative from Asia Minor. The Phrygian helmet was based off the Thracian and gained its name from the distinctive cap worn in the region of Phrygia, which it resembled. A unique feature of both helmets was their long cheek pieces, which were heavily decorated with an etched beard or mustache. Both the Chalcidian and Attic helmets experienced a revival during the 4th Century. When Philippos II created his new model army he adopted the Phrygian helmet for the phalangitai, and the Boeotian for his cavalry. When he became king Alexander allowed his men to pick up different helmets if they wished, which is why some of the pezhetairoi in the mosaics and other artwork are depicted as wearing Chalcidians or Attics.

Weaponry was a changing field. For the hoplitai the 4th Century brought about the widespread adoption of the Spartan xiphos as the sidearm of choice during the years of the Spartan hegemony. But unlike the other Spartan equipment the xiphos was retained after Leuktra by some poleis, though many chose to go back to either the regular xiphos or the kopis. In Athenai the experimental reforms of Iphikrates produced a longer xiphos that he used to equip his unique peltast-hoplitai hybrid. Its length was about halfway between a xiphos and a Naue II according modern estimates. For the phalangitai the sidearm of choice was the kopis, which became so popular that it eclipsed the xiphos, though some phalangitai are recorded as having a xiphos as a back-up sword to their kopis. For the spears this was interesting period. The doru remained mostly unchanged, except in the case of the Iphikratean hybrids, which used a doru lengthened to 12 feet long. The phalangitai however used a new weapon. Called a sarissa by the Makedonians, plural sarissai, this new weapon was far longer then any doru in existence at a staggering 18 feet long. There is continuing scholarly debate on the issue of the length of the original sarissa, since many different sarissai of differing lengths have been found, but 18 feet is usually agreed on as being the standard. The sarissa was made in two pieces fashioned out of Cornelian Cherry wood. The pieces were fastened together using an iron sleeve. Because of its great length the sarissa was two-handed, which called for the rimless shield as mentioned above. The spear point of the sarissa was a small, pointed, iron head. This was different from the doru, which had a larger leaf-shaped iron head. The sarissa also had a bronze butt-spike, still called a sauroter.

It was in formations the 4th Century made the biggest change. Thanks to a wealth of period sources and eyewitness accounts we have information available on the phalanx formations of this century then any other. Three formations stand out in particular: The Spartan mora, the Boeotian systrophe, and the Makedonian syntagma. According to the historian and mercenary Xenophon, the Spartan mora was adopted at the beginning of the 4th Century and organized thus: The basic building block, as always was the enomotiai. As usual with the Spartans the enomotiai was enlarged to 36 hoplitai. The Spartan enomotiai was formed as 3 files long, 12 men deep. At times the enomotiai could divide in half, becoming 6 half-files wide each 6 men deep. The Spartan admiration for the ouragos, the rear ranker who kept order at the back of the formation, extended so far that when the enomotiai divided into half files then the front half-files had their own ouragoi. The rear half-files were commanded by the most senior file leader in the formation, who when the entire enomotiai was drawn together functioned as the second-in-command to enomotarch. Two enomotia comprised a pentekostys, and the organization level here did not differ from the rest of Hellas except in its depth. Two pentekostyes formed a lochos of 144 hoplitai drawn up 12 files wide and 12 men deep. This was the basic tactical unit of the phalanx. From here is where it differs. Up to this point an enlarged lochos was the highest organization level the Spartans used. But from here on out they started to use a new level, that of the mora, plural morae. A mora was the Spartan equivalent to the wider Hellenic taxis, and was essentially a division level formation. Four lochoi together form a mora, 576 hoplitai in all arranged in 48 files, 12 deep. From the lochagoi (the plural form of lochagos, the commander of a lochos) is chosen the polemarch, who is the overall leader of the mora. As with all other hoplitai officers he takes part in the formation, fighting at the head of the right most file in the mora. In recognition to the importance of cavalry each polemarch had at his disposal a separate mora comprised of 60 Peloponnesian cavalrymen. The entire Spartan army was comprised of 6 infantry and cavalry morae with one of the two kings nominally in direct command, giving Sparta a military strength of 3,456 hoplitai and 360 cavalry. This doesn’t mean that Sparta’s population had begun to recover from its devastating decline, but shows the effects of the Spartan decision to start creating helot hoplitai at the beginning of the century to compensate.

Unfortunately we do not have the same level of information available for the Boeotian systrophe. What we do know is that Epaminondas used the hieros lochos as the primary unit in the systrophe, which numbered 300 men in 150 homosexual pairs instead of the normal 100 for most poleis or 144 for Sparta. This allowed for the unit to be deployed and take formation differently then other lochoi. This was exactly what Epaminondas did. He had the hieros lochos take formation thus: The basic unit in this phalanx, like a normal phalanx, was the enomotiai. But unlike other units this enomotiai drew up 6 files wide, 50 men deep. Two enomotia became a pentekostys that drew up 12 files wide, 50 deep. Two pentekostyes became a full lochos, which arranged in 24 files, 50 men deep. When put into place on the left wing of the battle line it becomes the hammer of the systrophe formation as at Leuktra and Second Mantinea. In both battles the right wing and center was denied to the enemy and lead by the hieros lochos the ‘sloped’ left smashed the opposing right. At both Leuktra and Second Mantinea the Boeotian cavalry played a vital role in the left wing advance, making the systrophe a combined arms formation.

(article continues below...)

[Battles: Battle of Magnesia]

The battle of Magnesia was a battle of the 2nd Century BC. Fought between the Seleukid Empire and the Roman Republic this battle demonstrated that the age of phalanx warfare was over.

The battle was long in coming. By the dawn of the 2nd Century the power of the Roman Republic, which had since defeated Carthage and stalemated Makedon, could no longer be denied. In the Second Makedonian War the Romans decisively defeated Makedon, shocking the Hellenic world. With the entry of this previously belittled power (the defeat of Pyrrhos notwithstanding) into Hellas proper it was clear that times had changed. However even though the Makedonian king, Philippos V, was defeated, there were still others among the Successors to challenge Roman supremacy. The greatest of these was Antiochos III of the Seleukid Empire, also called Antiochos the Great for his military triumphs. The threat of Antiochos was readily apparent to the Roman forces in Hellas, who were constantly on their guard. In 195 the issue of Nabis of Sparta would bring all of this to a head. In that year Nabis conquered the city of Argos, which alarmed the two greatest alliances in Hellas: the Achaean and Aitolian Leagues. While the Achaeans wanted to ask Rome to take care of Sparta the Aitolians wanted to deal with Sparta on their own. Ultimately the Romans opted to just put down Nabis and solve the problem their way. This only aggravated the situation however, and the Aitolians broke from their alliance with Rome (which they had made to oppose Makedon). Several years passed before they attempted a military coup of Sparta in 192. While they succeeded in killing Nabis the Spartans threw the Aitolian forces out. Frustrated by this lack of success the Aitolians turned east to Antiochos. Antiochos III was already quite upset with Rome’s presence in what he considered his sphere of influence. He was also upset with the general actions of Roman ‘watchdog’ ambassadors, who had interfered in Seleukid affairs several times. The Aitolians told Antiochos that public opinion had turned against Rome and with their military leaving Hellas the time was right for ‘liberation’. Antiochos was ecstatic and prepared an expeditionary force and crossed the Hellespont to begin his conquests. But before long Antiochos found that the Aitolians had greatly exaggerated the situation. Whatever feeling they may have had about Rome the appearance of the Seleukid king overrode them all. The Achaean League quickly sent word to Rome. Worse still Philippos V, Antiochos’ old ally, joined with the Achaeans against him. By 191 Seleukid gains in Thrace and Thessaly had been lost and Roman military forces under Consul Manius Acilius Glabrio had landed. Antiochos attempted to stop the allied advance by blocking Thermopylae. But the allies defeated him here and Antiochos III, abandoning the Aitolians, left Hellas for Asia Minor.

With the Roman victory in Hellas the war took a course different then was expected. As Antiochos withdrew to Asia Minor the Romans did not follow. Despite the concern regarding him in the Senate the Romans considered it more important to bolster the Achaean League. The Aitolians were strangely left alone and not conquered; it was later revealed that Glabrio spared them to provide the Romans with a northern buffer against Makedon. One year later Lucius Cornelius Scipio as one of the year’s Consuls was given commission to defeat Antiochos III. His younger brother, the famous Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, demanded to be allowed to go along as a Legatus. The Senate agreed and the Scipio brothers went east. Meanwhile Antiochos had been busy, gathering a massive army from all corners of the Seleukid Empire and from his allies as well. In order to bide himself the time to gather this force Antiochos depended on his naval arm, which was in excellent condition. But the Romans had become adept sailors and with the aid of Rhodes, the premier maritime power of the region, they were able to quash the Seleukid navy. But it did buy Antiochos the time he needed and before long he had moved on Pergamon, Rome’s greatest Asiatic ally. With the seas secure the Roman army crossed the straights and into Asia Minor. But Scipio Africanus fell ill not long after the crossing and was forced stay behind at the coast, but he appointed Cnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus to replace him at his brother’s side. By now Antiochos was aware of the Roman crossing and made camp at Thyatira to await them. Deciding to try to negotiate Antiochos sent Africanus’ son Publius, whom had been captured in the naval campaign, to start talks. While many words were exchanged the talks came to nothing and Publius remained with his father. Africanus was stalling for time, as he wished to take part in the battle personally and exploit Antiochos' weakness in patience (he had none). Antiochos moved off from Thyatira and set camp further off, near the town of Magnesia and Mt. Sipylos. There he built a wall, which in conjunction with the nearby Phrygius River would allow him to choose the timing of the battle. But Antiochos underestimated the drive of Roman ambition. Neither the elder Scipio nor Ahenobarbus was willing to wait for Africanus to get well. Together the two men set the advance towards the Seleukid lines, crossing the Phrygius (thus turning the river to their advantage). For four days the Roman army inched closer to Antiochos’ camp, and for four days he sat put. On the fifth day after this began Ahenobarbus sent an envoy out and announced that the following day he would attack, Antiochos willing or not. The Seleukid king was now tired of waiting and decided that with his superior numbers he had no reason to fear Rome. So just before daylight on the sixth day the Seleukid host decamped and marched out to the meet the Romans, who had already arrayed their line. The battle of Magnesia had begun.

The Romans had not come alone to this battle. The Roman formation was drawn up in regular array with the left wing anchored on the river Phrygius. On the center of the Roman line was two legio of Roman citizens, commanded by Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus. Behind the legio were the Consul and his command staff. Behind them were the 54 African forest elephants of King Eumenes of Pergamon. On both right and left of Gracchus’ line was an additional legio of Italic soldiers. On the Roman right behind the legio was the infantry of Eumenes and 3,000 skirmishers on loan from the Achaean league. In support of these were 800 Pergamon cavalry and 2,200 Roman and Italic cavalry. On the left wing were 4 squadrons of Roman citizen cavalry commanded by Ahenobarbus and a squadron of Trallian and Cretan cavalry each numbering 500 men. In the rear at camp were 2,000 volunteers from Thrace and Makedon under Marcus Aemilius.

Antiochos commanded a truly formidable force. The Seleukid formation was drawn up in simple line. In the center of the line was the Pezhetairoi, the famed Makedonian infantry. The Pezhetairoi were divided into ten battalions of 1,600 men each. Between the spaces of the formation were placed the Seleukid trump card, the Indian elephants. These elephants numbered 22 in all. The center was placed under the command of Antiochos’ Master of Elephants, Philippos. Separating the center from the left and right wings were scythed chariots. On the right wing of the Seleukid line was about half of the Galatian infantry, half of the Kataphractoi, and half of the Hetairoi (Companions). 16 Indian elephants stood behind them in support. Furthering the line was the elite infantry of the Argyraspidai, the ‘Silver Shields’. Supporting the Argyraspidai was Dahae horse archers, Cretan and Trallian light infantry, Mysian archers, and finally the Cyrtian slingers and Elymaen archers. Antiochos took command of the right wing personally, but delegated command of the light troops to Mendes. On the left wing was the other half of the Galatian infantry, a number of Kappadokians, and assorted mercenaries. The other half of the Kataphractoi followed them in line with the other half of the Hetairoi. Stationed in front of the cavalry was a force of Arabian camel archers. Following the cavalry was a contingent armed in the manner of the Tarentines, the Galatian cavalry, the Cretan archers, and the Karian, Cilician, and Trallian archers. Following them was a mass of skirmishers and light infantry from across Asia Minor. Finishing out the line was more Cyrtian slingers and Elymaen archers and finally a further 16 Indian elephants. Antiochos’ son and heir Seleukos as well as his nephew Antipatros commanded the left wing, but delegated control of the light troops to Zeuxis.

The day of battle was dark and gloomy, which equalized the two sides. As day dawned it was shown to be one of general murk and the air was misty and heavy. King Eumenes of Pergamon, who had been given command of the Roman-Allied right wing, realized that under such circumstances the Seleukid superiority in archers would be nullified by the air itself. Upon conferring with Ahenobarbus and Scipio he concluded that the Seleukid scythed chariots would be the only real element to fear. Eumenes concluded that Antiochos would probably try to use them first. This was proven correct when the Seleukid king suddenly sent the scythed chariots forward, aiming towards the Roman right with the hope of disrupting the legio, which he perceived to be the strength of the Roman line. Eumenes reacted by sending out his contingent of Cretan archers, skirmishers, and slingers out in front of the formation in loose order, after being told to aim for the horses pulling the chariots, not the crews. This tactic worked brilliantly as the frightened and wounded animals turned around, plowing into their own lines and effectively throwing the entire Seleukid left wing into disarray, and the Arabs actually broke and fled the field. Scipio then sounded a general advance from the center, with Eumenes given the honor of leading the attack. Cheering and exhorting his troops on Eumenes led his cavalry and light infantry head on into the Seleukid left. Still in disarray from the rout of the chariots and lacking the protection afforded them by the smell of the Arab camels the Seleukid left was ill prepared to receive the Roman-Allied charge. The charge met greater success then the Romans’ anticipated as the entire Seleukid left wing crumbled and began to flee the field. A particular interesting incident during these events occurred when the Romans encountered the Kataphractoi and captured the majority of them, their armor hindering their ability to maneuver. As the Seleukid left disintegrated Ahenobarbus charged forward with his light cavalry, aiming to break the now exposed Seleukid center through hit-and-run tactics. But in a testament to Hellenic discipline the Pezhetairoi held formation and did not break under the hail of arrows and javelins from the Cretan and Trallian cavalry. Using their long sarissas the Seleukid infantry kept the cavalry and Eumenes’ (who had joined in by now) troops at a distance and at Philippos’ order began an orderly withdrawal. However they had forgotten about the elephants. The Romans had gained plenty of experience fighting the beasts in the Second Punic War. Although the Indian elephants were a great deal larger then any elephant the Romans had ever seen the tactics they had perfected against Hannibal’s elephants would work just as well. As the Pezhetairoi began to fall back the elephants, succumbing to the javelin and arrow fire, panicked and began to rampage in the midst of their own troops. Not even the iron discipline of the Pezhetairoi could hold out against rampaging elephants and the phalanx finally broke and the soldiers fled the field. While all of this happened Antiochos and Mendes had swung down the Seleukid right and smashed the Roman left and nearly broke the center. Antiochos however did not attempt to outflank the center, but instead chased the fleeing Romans straight to their camp. The commander of the camp, Marcus Aemilius, marched out with his volunteers and held off the Seleukid cavalry long enough for the Roman army to wheel about and hit Antiochos from behind. Even though the Seleukid cavalry cut through the Roman cavalry, including the Pergamon squadron commanded by Eumenes’ brother Attalos, when he saw that the rest of his army had been destroyed he fled the field towards Sardis. With their king having abandoned them the remaining Seleukid troops broke and the Roman-Allied army slaughtered them in great numbers till night fall. So ended the Battle of Magnesia and the era of Hellenic surperiority.

In conclusion Magnesia was truly a major battle. In the aftermath of the fighting Antiochos III was forced to agree to a humiliating peace treaty by Rome, being forced to pay a massive war indemnity, forced to abandon Asia Minor west of the Taurus Mountains, and give up all of his elephants. Shortly thereafter the Seleukid Empire began to fracture again as Antiochos’ vassals rebelled against his authority, undoing his previous success. For the Romans Lucius Scipio would be bestowed the title Asiaticus (Victor in Asia), gaining the fame he craved. The battle also cofirmed the Romans' faith in their imperial destiny. On a wider scale Magnesia reinforced what Cynoscephalae had first proved: the age of Hellas and Makedon was over, the age of Rome had begun.

[Battles: Battle of Ebhernis Ford]

The battle of Ebhernis Ford was one of the most important battles of pre-Gaelic Ireland. Fought around 100 BC between the recently arrived Goidels and the native Cruithni this battle, despite its small size, would have far-reaching implications.

Ireland was not what we think of today. In the 1st Century BC the island that would come to be known as Ireland was a patchwork of petty kingdoms, confederacies, and tribes. War regularly engulfed the entire island, with only the sacred grove at Uisneach, the central hill were the druids conducted ceremonies and attempted to mediate disputes, remained untouched. The main division of power at this time was between the Erainn, a confederacy of Brythonic kingdoms that held power over the south, and the Fir Bolg, a similar confederacy of Belgic kingdoms in the western part of the island. A wild card lay to the north in the form of the Cruithni. The exact nature of the Cruithni remains unknown to this day. The most common theory is the Cruithni were descendants of Pictish raiders who crossed the straights from Pictland into Ireland to plunder and never left. If true then the Cruithni carried on that tradition, as they posed one of 1st Century Ireland’s greatest problems with their constant raids. Into this mess stepped a new and unexpected power from across the waves: the Goidels.

Sadly the exact origin of the Goidels remains a great mystery even today. According to the best modern estimates the people known to us as the Goidels were a vast collection of interrelated tribes that inhabited bits and pieces of northern Iberia. This has raised the question of whether the Goidels were kin to the Celtiberians, but while this is an interesting question it is beyond our scope. In any case the Goidels were beginning to leave their homelands to go to Ireland at the command of their king. Named Mil Espaine (the Soldier of Spain) by later poets and chroniclers there is nothing concrete known about him. Despite this he was an important figure, a great warrior king. Misfortune struck when Mil Espaine died in battle before he could leave for Ireland, and leadership of the Goidels passed on to a man known in the chronicles as Erimon. This Erimon was either the son or nephew of Mil Espaine. Contrary to popular theory when the Goidels landed in southern Ireland it was not as conquerors but more like pilgrims, as they held the island as sacred land, and the Erainn welcomed them to their confederacy. It is not hard to see why; the Goidels were a completely different people then anyone who had come to Ireland before. In fact the difference was so wide the Goidels spoke an alien strain of Celtic. While the Erainn and Fir Bolg spoke P-Celtic, the Goidels spoke Q-Celtic. But perhaps the most noticed difference was the way they waged war. The Goidels made war in disciplined formations, organized into clear cohesive units. They made use of cavalry, which was little used in Ireland except in agriculture, and wore iron armor. Even their weapons were clearly of superior quality. The Erainn noticed this and decided to take advantage. The Goidels were sent north and west to live in the lands that formerly belonged to the Ebherni, whose land and people had been devastated by the Fir Bolg and Cruithni. Erimon’s people settled down in the land, took the name of the former inhabitants for their own, and married into the local Erainn families. The first hints of what was to become the Gaels appeared here in the land of Ebherni. To provide protection for this new home Erimon oversaw the construction of a great hill-fort, which was dubbed Ebhernis.

While the Goidels made their home among the Erainn the Cruithni to the north began to organize for war. A war band began to form under the command of a man named either Amag or Hama. Little is known of this man, other then he must have been a war leader of some importance, but probably not one of the great leaders of the Cruithni as a whole. Amag saw in the Goidels the opportunity for great plunder, and was undaunted by the presence of the hill fort of Ebhernis. He marched south and soon his host grew in size as Belgic warriors from the Fir Bolg joined him. Erimon soon became aware of this and knew he could not stand against Amag alone, so he called for aid from the Erainn. Aid was quick in coming and together the allied leadership decided to make a stand at a river ford to the north of Ebhernis. The reason for this is clear. From what can be gathered from later chronicles and archeology the Erainn and Goidels did not have the numbers to challenge the Cruithni on equal terms. By forcing the battle at a river ford the greater discipline of the Goidels would give them a decisive advantage over the more numerous raiders. When Amag learned of the gathering forces at the ford he did not change his plans and continued, confident in his numbers. Soon both forces soon aligned on opposite sides of the river and the battle began.

There is not much information on the composition of either army. Because of the difficulties of research on anything about the Celts information about what would of comprised the armies at Ebhernis Ford is sparse. Nonetheless what we do know about warfare in Ireland, as well as how the Belgic Celts and Picts waged war, and also how war was waged in Iberia, does give us some information. For the Cruithni and their Belgic allies their army would have been dominated by dart and javelin men, the young warriors. This core would have been supported by the sword wielding ‘champions’, the older, more experienced men who could afford some degree of armored protection. Since Amag does not appear to have been an important war leader it is unlikely the elites would have joined him. For the Goidels they would have attempted to capitalize on their strengths. This would mean that most of the Goidelic warriors would have been noble swordsmen, the elite heavy infantry. These would have been supplemented by the lighter short swordsmen and cavalry. The Erainn warriors would have been spearmen given their Brythonic heritage and the hurry that they would have been in to aid the Ebherni.

The battle was a short, bloody, confusing affair. Amag began the battle proper when he chose to cross the ford with his ‘champions’ first and signal for the young men to come up later. But the youths became impatient and tired of waiting and charged of their own accord, which threw the crossing into a frenzied madhouse as each man attempted to get to the opposing bank first. Erimon saw his opportunity and sent in his own warriors, probably the Erainn first followed by the Goidels. In the battle that followed in the ford the Cruithni were slaughtered. In contrast to the wild and unrestrained Cruithni and Belgic Celts the Goidels and Erainn (who had benefited from training at Goidelic hands) fought in disciplined close formation. Realizing what was happening Amag fled back to his side of the ford, Erimon refused to give chase and pulled the Erainn and his men back. This resulted in a pause in the fighting before Erimon did the unexpected. He sent his cavalry across the river. This resulted in a skirmish as the Cruithni and Belgic javelin men attempted to drive the horses away, while the horsemen scattered them all along the bank. Amag then made one last attempt to get across the river with his ‘champions’ but ran head on into the Goidelic infantry. While the cavalry had kept the Cruithni busy Erimon was moving most of his forces over the river. In this second melee Amag went down almost immediately and his head was cut off and lifted above the din. With their leader dead the Cruithni and Belgic Celts broke and ran. Erimon allowed his men to give chase and by day’s end nearly the entire war band was either dead or captured. The small but decisive battle of Ebhernis Ford was over.

The battle would change the face of Ireland. Even though the battle was small and probably fewer then 1,000 men total where involved, it had a major effect on the island. While Amag was not an important war leader his defeat spelled the end of major raids southwards by the Cruithni and by extension the Fir Bolg. The victory also propelled the Goidels to the forefront of island politics and they begun to spread ever outwards from Ebhernis both physically and influentially. Eventually the Erainn faded from existence as their culture and people combined with the Goidels to become the Gaels. The Gaels would then go on dominate the whole island within centuries, creating Ireland as we know it.

[Battles: Battle of the River Arius]

The Battle of the River Arius (Greek: Areios) today known as the Hari, was one of the battles fought by the Seleukid king Antiochos III the Great (Greek: Megas Antiochos) in his wars to re-unify the Seleukid realm.

The once powerful empire had fallen. By the time that Antiochos III had ascended the throne in 223 BC the Seleukid Empire had begun to disintegrate into several different bickering kingdoms with no sense of unity or loyalty to the throne. Antiochos III was determined to change all that. By 220 the worst of the rebellions, that of Media and Persis, had been put down and the corrupt minister Hermeias was executed. Though revolts still plagued the empire Antiochos felt confident enough to challenge Ptolemaic Egypt in 217, but was defeated at the Battle of Raphia. Unable to expand southwards the young king went north into Asia Minor. There he put down the rebellion of his cousin and former general, Achaios, who held out for four years against government forces before falling in 213. From there Antiochos III kept moving, and while forced to tolerate the existence of the minor kingdoms of Pergamon, Bithynia, and Kappadokia, there was nothing keeping him for going east. The Armenian king Xerxes was forced to submit through a show of overwhelming force in 212. Following this Antiochos pulled back, for beyond Armenia lay the nascent Parthian Empire and the Kingdom of Baktria, and Antiochos wisely choose to back off to allow him time to prepare for what promised to be a long hard march in hostile territory. The satrapy that the Parthians were then occupying, that of Parthyaia, had broken away from Seleukid control in 250 BC, while the king, Antiochos II Theos, was embroiled in a war with the Ptolemies. The rebellious satrap, named Andragoras, was slain and his satrapy conquered many years later in 238 by invading Iranian nomads called the Parni. By 212 the Parni had become the Parthians, but they had not yet completed the transformation. When Antiochos finally marched against them in 209 he had prepared for fighting in the harsh terrain against a highly mobile opponent. Hekatompylos, the current capital of the Parthians, fell in mere months and the king, Arshak (Greek: Arsaces) II, surrendered. Antiochos decided to adopt a feudal-style ruling arrangement in the East, allow Arshak to continue ruling, but only if he acknowledged the higher authority of the Seleukid king. Now Antiochos III set out for the true prize of his expedition: rich and mighty Baktria.

The Baktrian campaign had commenced. The satrapy of Baktria had always been a place of immense importance. To the Iranians Baktria was a spiritual center, being the place where they believed the first king, Kayomart, reigned, as well as being the birthplace of Zarathushtra (Greek: Zoroaster) and the Zoroastrian religion. To the Hellenes Baktria was important for its great wealth, being both fertile and rich in metals. Baktria also saddled the crossroads of the world, as trade to and from India and Central Asia flowed through the land. Antiochos had clear reasons for desiring to bring Baktria back into the fold. Baktria had been nominally independent since the 270s, but the reigning satrap Diodotos (sometimes known as Theodotos) was not a fool. He continued to pay tribute to the Seleukid throne even though its authority was basically nonexistent. In 250 he declared independence and created a small empire. By the time that Antiochos III launched his invasion of Baktria the tides of power had changed. The line of Diodotos had failed and was replaced by the former satrap of Sogdiana, a Magnesian named Euthydemos. When in 209 BC Antiochos crossed into Baktrian territory his opponent reacted quickly. Setting out from the capital of Baktra with 10,000 cavalry, Euthydemos made with all haste to the River Arius, which Antiochos would have to cross in order to reach Baktra. He set camp on the far side of the river and sent out scout patrols to keep watch for the Seleukids. Antiochos meanwhile had, with his usual impetuousness, ranged out far ahead of his main army with only his elite forces and some supporting infantry and mounted regulars. His own scout patrols soon found the Baktrian patrols, though the true size of the Baktrian force remained unknown. Deciding to take advantage of the situation Antiochos ordered the infantry to cross the Arius during the night, while the scouts retired to a nearby town. The following morning when the Baktrian scouts returned they found an unwelcome surprise. The battle had begun.

The Seleukid forces were nearly all elite. Due to his eagerness to get into battle, a trait that Antiochos III was never able to conquer, he had left behind the majority of his army, taking only his elite and some regular troops. The infantry was made up of the Argyraspidai; the elite infantry battalions formed from the best soldiers of the Pezhetairoi, the foot companions. They numbered at 10,000 men near constantly, an attempt by the Seleukids to mimic the Achaemenid Immortals. In addition was the Hypaspistai, the elite assault infantry of the Seleukid army. The rest of the infantry was made up from of levy archers. Their numbers are unknown. The cavalry was held in reserve across the river. Antiochos was personally accompanied by the Hetairoi, the companions and elite shock cavalry of the Seleukid army. They numbered at 2,000 men in 8 squadrons with 1 squadron being chosen as the King’s personal bodyguard. Antiochos also took along a second group of cavalry to support him, made up of the Prodromoi (the medium regulars), and some mounted skirmishers.

The Baktrians, in their haste, only brought their cavalry forces to the battle. Unfortunately not much is known about the Baktrian forces present at this battle. What we do know is that Baktria fielded some of the most feared cavalry of any state influenced by Alexander. Based upon their experiences in the east the Baktrians combined the Hellenic spirit to their Asiatic mounts, creating a crack force. Contact with the nomadic tribes such as the Parni and Saka also contributed to the mix. It appears from period sources that Euthydemos roughly divided his cavalry between the lance and sword armed Royal Guards and the armored horse archers.

The battle had been joined. The returning Baktrian scouts were caught completely off guard by the sudden appearance of the Seleukid infantry on their side of the Arius. However before the scouts could break off Antiochos had crossed the river with his Hetairoi and smashed into them head on. The fighting soon dissolved into a wild and messy melee as other scout squadrons joined in. Antiochos soon found himself caught in middle of the Baktrian forces with only a few guards left to protect him. In a feat of bravery praised by historians since that day Antiochos III fought with great skill and valor and eventually managed to hack his way back to his own lines to organize another charge, which broke the Baktrian line. By this time word had reached Euthydemos of the unexpected Seleukid crossing. Together with the main body of his forces the Baktrian king raced to the Arius. This time it was Antiochos’ turn to be surprised. He had thought that the scout force he was currently engaging was the main force. The sight of nearly 10,000 of some of the best cavalry in the east was not what he was expecting. Euthydemos joined the battle was his elite cavalry and began to drive the Seleukids back to the Arius. Antiochos soon found himself surrounded a second time, and at one point according to the historian Polybius he suffered a direct blow to the mouth that knocked out several of his teeth and had a horse killed from under him. It was only the strength and discipline of the Argyraspidai and Hypaspistai, which had positioned itself like a hedgehog to drive off the Baktrian cavalry that prevented a rout. On the far side of the river the remaining Seleukid cavalry under Panaetolos watched what was happening. Left in reserve in case of the unexpected Panaetolos knew that now was the time to act. The Baktrians, who had charged into the battle in loose order, were thrown into confusion by the sudden appearance of the Seleukid Prodromoi and mounted skirmishers in their previously thought secure flank on the river. The confusion allowed Antiochos to reform his shattered Hetairoi into a cohesive force and charged into the Baktrians. Caught between Antiochos, the regular cavalry, and the elite infantry block the Baktrian cavalry finally broke and fled. Antiochos immediately took to pursuit and took many prisoners. Euthydemos, broken and demoralized by the loss of his best cavalry, retreated with what remained of his forces to the nearby city of Zariaspa and from there to Baktra. The battle was over with a decisive victory for Antiochos III.

After the battle much happened. What had been expected to be a small skirmish had turned into a decisive victory. Emboldened by what he considered to be the killing blow to the Baktrians, Antiochos III quickly rejoined the rest of his army and set out to take Baktra. Euthydemos would attempt to impede him several times, only for the Seleukids to find victory again and again. Antiochos eventually reached Baktra in 208, only to find that the city was heavily fortified. It held out for two years before Euthydemos sent a letter to Antiochos, proposing an end to the fighting. In this letter, preserved in parts by Polybius, Euthydemos pointed out that Antiochos was wrong to wage this war if his aim was to punish a traitor. He pointed out, correctly, that he personally never revolted against Seleukid rule. Instead he had deposed the ones who had revolted (the line of Diodotos) and thus did Antiochos a service. In addition Euthydemos also pointed out that his position allowed him to guard the Hellenic world from the barbarians beyond his borders. Antiochos, who had been looking for an excuse to get out of this war, accepted the terms as correct. He did however force Euthydemos to acknowledge his authority, but allowed him to keep his throne and rule independently in 206. To seal the deal Euthydemos re-supplied the Seleukid army with provisions and gave Antiochos his elephant corps as a gift. Antiochos in turn decided to seal the deal on his side by offering one of his daughters to the son of Euthydemos, Demetrios, in marriage. The young prince had made a great impression on the king during negotiations, and he wanted to have him for a son-in-law. Antiochos III then proceeded to journey southwards into India where he met with Sophagasenus, the local client king for the Maurya Empire. This mission ended well with the gift of additional elephants. Antiochos, well satisfied with his achievements, turned back for home. He arrived in the capital of Seleukeia in time for New Year’s in April, 205. Antiochos would receive his epithet of 'the Great' for his success in the East. However it would not last for long, as all that Antiochos III achieved would be undone by Rome with their great victory over him at Magnesia in 190.

[Persians: Common Misconceptions about the Persians]

In part because of the bias of the Hellenes and Romans, modern Hollywood, and a general lack of research in the field there are many misconceptions today about the Ancient Persians. In this article we will try to dispel some of the more popular myths, and attempt to find the truth behind them.

MYTH ONE: The Persians were out to enslave the world

Undoubtedly the most widespread myth of all was that the Persians, the Achaemenids in particular, created their empire so that they could expand and enslave the whole planet. This is propaganda pure and simple, created by the Hellenes to give their conflict with Persia a more heroic light. Distortion by modern revisionism and Hollywood has only increased this. In truth the Persians did not want to enslave the world. It went against the very nature of the Achaemenid Empire, founded by Cyrus II the Great on the principles of equal treatment and full rights for all subject nations in the Persian Empire. There is no reason to believe that any Achaemenid monarch ever swerved from Cyrus’ intentions, which was one of the most unique features of Achaemenid monarchy.

MYTH TWO: The Greco-Persian Wars was a fight for freedom and democracy against Persian Tyranny

Rivaling with the above is the myth, accepted even by the historical community at large, that Greco-Persian Wars was a fight for freedom, the first conflict of East and West, and so on. In reality the Greco-Persian Wars are far more complicated then that, and attempting to put our own modern views on the conflict only do disservice to both sides. As a side note the Persians originally did not view Hellas as worth their time. It was only when the mainland Hellenes sent aid to the rebelling Ionians, which resulted in the burning of Sardis, that the Persians took notice and the wars began.

MYTH THREE: The Persian army was an ill disciplined mob

Another common myth is that the Persian army was a mob of warriors and tribal levies with no organization that got pulverized by the disciplined Hellenic and Roman forces. This is quite simply not the truth, for any of the three Persian dynasties Achaemenid, Ashkanian (Parthian), or Sassanian. The Achaemenid Army was organized along the decimal system, with the basic block being the number ten. Ten men to a company, ten companies to a battalion, ten battalions to a division, and ten divisions to a corps and so on. In addition the Achaemenid forces were usually formed from professional soldiers. The Ashkanians used a feudal system and did not as a result have soldiers as professional as what the Achaemenids could field. Nonetheless the Ashkanians did have an organizational system that allowed them to field fearsome armies. The Sassanians that followed them combined both the Achaemenid and Ashkanian systems, creating a crack army that earned the respect and admiration of Rome many times over.

MYTH FOUR: The Persian Shahanshah thought himself a ‘god-Emperor’

A popular myth with origins in the Hellenic misunderstanding of Persian tradition surrounding their idea of kingship is the belief that the Persian ruler was thought of as a ‘god-emperor’ and thus worshiped by his subjects. Even today much continues to be unknown in regards to the Persian kingship. What we do is that the Shahanshah held a very important role in the Persian religious universe, and was elevated to an exalted level above all other men. But the Shahanshah was never worshiped, just held in great awe since, according to Persian ritual, he was the chosen one of Ahura Mazdah, supreme deity of Ancient Persia.

MYTH FIVE: Rhinoceros Cavalry

A recent myth and a pure invention of modern Hollywood is the myth that the Persians utilized Rhinoceros cavalry. This has to be one of most ridiculous myths out there today. For one the Rhinoceros would, despite its tough skin, make a poor war animal by virtue of its poor eyesight and tendency to charge at whatever is ten feet away from it. Secondly it is impossible to ride a Rhinoceros, period; the animal is not domesticable.

MYTH SIX: Persians and Arabs

While this myth has its origins in events that occurred after 0AD’s timeframe the general prevalence of it in regards to events that occurred in 0AD’s timeframe warrant its inclusion. In part because of general ignorance in regards to the Middle East, and partly due to the Arabization of Iran since the fall of the Sassanians to the First Khalifat in 641 it has been commonly accepted that the Persians are Arabic, and that the Persian language is an outgrowth of the Arabic tongue. This is not true, both the Persian people and language belong to the greater ethnic group known as the Arya, or Indo-Iranians whose closest relatives biologically and linguistically are European.

MYTH SEVEN: Pahlavani

Another series of myths are those that surround Pahlavani, a traditional martial arts form and wrestling sport practiced by the Persians. We shall cover two here. First off is the belief that Pahlavani originated with the original Arya, or alternately was introduced by the Muslim Arabs after 641. Actually the sport was introduced by the Parthian Ashkanians after they conquered Persia, and has its roots in Mithraism (a popular religion among the Parthians). The very name of the sport is derived from ‘Pahlavan’, the name by which the Parthians called themselves. A second misconception is derived from a popular mistranslation of Zurkaneh, the ‘gym’ where the sport was practiced, as ‘House of Deception’. It actually means ‘House of Strength’ or ‘House of Power’.

MYTH EIGHT: The Parthians were Persian too

A confusing myth today is over how to class the Parthian Ashkanian dynasty, and most have opted just to class them as native Persian. This is incorrect. The Parthians were not technically Persian, but were of the wider Iranian ethnic group, of which the Persians are a specific sub-ethnicity originating from Parsa or Persis. When the Ashkanians took control of Persia they adopted Persian customs while retaining their own traditions, which ultimately led to the Sassanian Revolution.

MYTH NINE: The Achaemenids were Zoroastrian and promoted that religion above all others

One of the more widespread myths, even among the modern scholars of today, is the belief that the Achaemenid dynasty was officially Zoroastrian and that the Shahanshah actively promoted the religion. This seems to be a case of mixing up the Achaemenid and Sassanian dynasties, as only the Sassanians made Zoroastrianism the State Religion and actively enforced it on the realm. Whatever religion the Achaemenid royal family itself followed was never forced on the empire, and Cyrus II (himself a devotee of Marduk, the supreme deity of Babylon) and Darius I ( possible Zoroastrian, but more likely just a devotee of Ahura Mazdah) made that clear in their decrees. Religious freedom was a major building block of the Achaemenid Empire.

MYTH TEN: Persian Infantry were trash

A popular myth today which derives from the propaganda of the Hellenes and Romans is the belief that the Persian infantry was trash. This is quite simply not the truth. In reality the Persian infantry was excellent in both the Achaemenid and Sassanian dynasties while it was sidelined by the Ashkanians and thus we do not know about their quality. In the case of the Achaemenids their infantry was very well trained and formed the backbone of their armies. Bowmen were usually the most numerous of the infantry forces and Persian bowmen were renowned for their discipline and quick rate of fire (creating what was called an arrow storm). The spearmen were equally disciplined and fought with great tenacity. A significant problem in the research of the Persian spearman arises over the armor debate. This arises from the practice of the Persians to wear their Elamite-style court robes over their armor. It is safe to say that in all probability many Persians probably did wear iron scale armor into combat, though, again, probably not all. But this provided little protection when faced by the Hellenic hoplite soldiery, which wore heavier armor and used a longer spear and sword than the Persians. In respect to that fact they attempted to copy the hoplite, resulting in the Kardaka corps. As well as hiring Hellenic mercenaries in great numbers. In the case of the Sassanians they attempted to copy the Achaemenids as much as possible, resulting in a very strong infantry arm. While cavalry remained the main arm the Sassanian infantry was truly formidable. As with the Achaemenids the archers were the primary force, with their skill being great enough to force the Romans to try avoiding getting into archery duels with them. However it is the spear and sword carrying troops that got the most attention. Though ridiculed by the Romans for being little more then peasants with a huge shield on a whole the Sassanian spear and swordsmen were both well-trained and well-equipped. One Roman historian did admit admiration for the ability of the Sassanian foot to pull off their maneuvers as well as their fighting spirit.

MYTH ELEVEN: Persian Women

A common myth today that has its origins more in the 19th century, though heavily influenced by the Hellenes, then anywhere else is the belief that the Persians regarded women, especially their own women, as good for little more then decorating the harem and having babies. In addition royal women were thought to be corrupt control freaks, and that the Persian men could not control them was a sign of decadence. This is a misconception on a massive scale, and one that remains sadly common today. In reality Persian women always had a great deal of personal freedom through all three dynasties and even from before the Achaemenids during the time of the Medes. In short there was nothing that they could not do, and both the Hellenes and Romans attest to the fact that on the battlefield it was not uncommon to see units of women fighting alongside the men. Particularly notable, and to their sensibilities horrifying, was the sight of female officers and generals commanding the men. Other common roles for women were that of priestess (especially to the cult of Anahita, the mother of Mithra), public leader, and ‘guardian of learning’. On the subject of royal women, especially the Achaemenid women, that is a matter of great continuing debate. In short what can be said is that the extent of the powers and influence of the women within the Royal Palace was decided by how much latitude the Shahanshah let them have in affairs.

MYTH TWELEVE: The Persians still used war-chariots by the time of the invasion of Greece

This myth arises both from Achaemenid artwork and from the Hellenic accounts of the invasion. Actually the truth is a bit more complicated. By the time of Cyrus II the Great the chariot had fallen out of favor as a viable weapon of war. Nonetheless the devices were still kept around as a status symbol, or as a kind of carriage to transport the Great King or his representatives, or his generals. But they were never ridden onto the battlefield proper. There were exceptions, and the Indian and Libyan contingents of the Achaemenid army still used war-chariots. Scythed-chariots, invented by Cyrus II for use against Kroisos, better known as Croesus, king of Lydia, is the most famous exception. But scythed-chariots were actually quite rare, and low in number, used only on a few occasions in the entire history of the Achaemenid Empire. The chariot fell completely into disuse following the fall of the Achaemenids, and never appeared again under the Ashkanian and Sassanian dynasties.

MYTH THIRTEEN: The Persians generally wore dark, Arabesque, clothes

Another modern myth created by Hollywood is the image of the Persians wearing dark, often ragged clothing that more often then not resembles that of the stereotypical Arab. The Persians never wore clothes like that, as both their own records and that of both the Hellenes and Romans attest to. Persian, particularly Achaemenid, clothing was actually quite bright and colorful with a wide variety of browns, yellows, reds, violets, purples, greens, blues, oranges, and more. In addition the style of Achaemenid clothing was borrowed by the Persians from the original inhabitants of Parsa, the Elamites, as well as the Medes or Mada, who became one of the most important peoples in the empire. Elamite style clothing was characterized by long flowing sleeved tunics and soft tiaras. Median clothing was primarily used by the cavalry, and was most characterized by the shorter sleeved tunic and long trousers. The subsequent Ashkanian dynasty generally followed suit in terms of coloring, though they followed their native Parthian traditions regarding clothing, which was characterized by the short crossover jacket, headband, and baggy pants. The Sassanians who followed them again used the same colors as the Achaemenids as well as their own specific clothing style, which was a mixture of the different clothing styles of preceding eras, though it must be said that the Sassanians had a unique fondness towards silk robes.

MYTH FOURTEEN: Persian Mysticism

A particularly long lasting myth in regards to Persia is that the Persians were a mystical people without real learning. This is actually a modern myth created by Hollywood and modern revisionism. In the Achaemenid period the royal government was known for encouraging the arrival of foreign scholars, and Parsa, Babylon, and Egypt became the world’s greatest centers of astronomy, physical science, and geometry. In another example during the Sassanian period was royal support to the Academy of Gondishapur, a center of intellectual learning that became the greatest medical academy in the east. This is not to say the Persians weren’t mystical at all. The extremely popular religion of Mithraism was essentially a mystic’s cult, and the great Achaemenid Shahanshah Xerxes had the Aegean Sea flogged for not calming in his presence.

In conclusion we have touched on only a few of the myriad misconceptions that surround the Persians. However it is the firm belief of the author that in the end these misconceptions will fall away. Because when you get down to it fact is always more fascinating then myth.

[Battles: The Social War]

The Social War, waged from 91 to 88 BC, was one of the most politically important conflicts in the history of the Roman Republic. While the actual war did not last long the events which it brought about changed the Republic forever.

Rome’s Italic citizens were tired of being excluded from politics. By the 1st Century BC the Roman Republic had won an empire that stretched from Asia Minor to the Pillars of Herakles. But the Romans alone had not won that empire, her former enemies the Italic peoples had as well. Though officially citizens of the Republic the Italics had been deprived of the right to vote, and hence they had no say in the politics of their state. In 91 BC one politician sought to change all that. Marcus Livius Drusus the Younger, the son of the man of the same name who opposed Caius Sempronius Gracchus a few decades before, introduced radical legislation. He proposed to give Rome’s Italic citizens full voting rights. In reality the younger Drusus, like his father, was an Optimate (conservative) disguised as a Populare (liberal). His plan was to use his powers as a tribune to shore up the Optimate cause with new voters who would side with the conservatives to preserve the peace of the Republic from the more radical Populares. However his plan backfired. Drusus already had a reputation as a radical reformer. He had been the primary force behind the promotion of 300 equites to the senatorial class in an attempt to reform the court system by balancing it out. In the process he had effectively made enemies of the equites, whose power as a class had been undermined by his legislation. He then proceeded to make enemies of the very Optimates he sought to help through a series of agrarian reforms, which made him popular with the plebian class but made the wealthy conservative senators unhappy. This new legislation was the last straw. Drusus had failed to realize just how many enemies he had made. And the Optimates failed to see that his efforts actually helped them. Led by Consul Lucius Marcius Philippus the Senate struck down the voting reforms. Drusus was unfazed and he kept introducing them again and again, only for the Senate to keep striking them down. The political battle continued until one evening while speaking to a crowd of supporters Drusus was assassinated on the portico of his house. The Italics, who had put all of their hope into Drusus and his reforms, finally snapped following the assassination. In late 91 Italia from the Apennines to Samnium was set aflame with the fires of revolt.

The Social War had begun. Organized under the leadership of Quintus Poppaedius Silo, a Marsic, the Italics were no ordinary rebels to Roman authority. They choose how to stage their uprising with care. The place to feel the hammer fall of the revolt was Campania. Over the centuries Campania had become the exclusive dwelling place of the rich and famous. Nearly all of the Roman elite had a villa in Campania and stayed there for at least a few months a year. The Samnites, Rome’s old enemy, armed in secret and upon receiving word from Silo they launched an invasion from the hills down onto the Campanian plain. Completely caught off guard and with only a token garrison rich Campania fell easily. Ironically the Samnites choose Nola, the pleasure capital of the south, to be the new chief fortress of the newly proclaimed Samnite Republic. Before Rome could react similar revolts occurred up and down the Apennines range, and the rage of the Italics could no longer be contained. Despite the best efforts of Silo and his fellow leaders that rage more often then not took a wildly violent form. When the city of Asculum fell all Roman men and women were slaughtered, and the women scalped. Despite this optimism was still high and as other groups established their own republics Silo and the leadership of the revolt made their crowning move. In the town of Corfinium they proclaimed the formation of the Republic of Italica, made up from the republics of the Marsic, Samnite, Marrucini, Paeligni, Praetutii, Vestini, and Frentani, Venusini, and Lucanian peoples. This new government quickly took shape along the Roman model; a Senate was formed from the 500 representatives of the rebels and two Consuls appointed to lead the struggle. Coinage was minted and distributed, with the provocative image of an Italic bull goring a Roman wolf. But most shocking of all to Rome was the new rebel army, which was formed from Italic deserters, and every bit a match for the Romans. Even with all of the grumblings made beforehand the Senate would never had expected a rebellion of this scale to occur.

After the initial shock passed Rome knew that Italica had to be destroyed. A plan was formulated in 90 BC to fight the rebellion on two fronts, each lead by a Consul. The northern front was led by Publius Rutilius Lupus, with Caius Marius (the great reformer and soldier) and Cnaeus Pompeius Strabo (the father of Pompeius Magnus) as advising generals. The southern front was led by Lucius Iulius Caesar (a distant relation of Caius Iulius Caesar) with Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Titus Didius as advising generals. The first year of the war went badly for the Romans, especially in the north. On that front Consul Rutilius was heavily defeated in the Tolenus valley and killed in the aftermath. The defeat of the main northern army was a massive blow to Roman morale, and it was only through the talents of Marius and the great victory by Pompeius Strabo at Asculum that the remaining Roman forces did not dissolve then and there. In the south the war went slight better, as Consul Caesar was able to win some victories in Campania after a hard fought campaign. As the campaign season drew to a close the battle lines solidified into an ancient prequel of World War One as trench lines were dug by both armies. As soldiers on both sides of the line began to intermingle the Roman commanders discovered the best way to bring the conflict to a close. The Lex Iulia de Civitate Latinis Danda proposed by Lucius Iulius Caesar at the end of his Consulate would give full voting rights to the Italics who had not joined the rebellion as well as the Latins. The Lex Plautia Papira was added on to allow Italics or Latins not living in their home communities a chance to gain voting rights by registering with the local praetor in sixty days. A further amendment, the Lex Calpurnia, was also added to authorize Roman officers in the field to grant voting rights to whomever he saw fit. The whole body of these laws effectively took the steam out of the rebellion. Over the course of the winter massive numbers of enemy troops re-defected back to the Roman side, whole towns surrendered, and the rebel cause effectively teetered on the brink of collapse.

The tide of the war had turned. As the year 89 began the Romans returned to the field with renewed confidence, but also with a sense of hurry. For in the east the Hellenistic king of Pontus, Mithridates VI, had launched an invasion of Asia Minor. Whoever won the most glory against the Italics would almost certainly be chosen to lead the war against Mithridates, a command that promised great things for whoever was appointed to it. This time both Consuls, Lucius Porcius Cato and Pompeius Strabo, went north as the war would be decided there. Sulla, by virtue of the victories he won in Campania with Lucius Iulius Caesar the previous year, was given an independent southern command. Almost from the start it was clear that the war had taken a new course. The town of Asculum fell to the forces of Pompeius Strabo, who in revenge for the horrible massacre of Roman citizens, laid waste to the town and its inhabitants. He proceeded to Picenum, his home town and original target. Other events did not go as well for Rome as Lucius Porcius Cato was killed by Italic forces, as was his advising general Quintus Servilius Caepio the Younger. This prompted a major political scandal, as Caepio had been an opponent of Marius, and his son Caius Marius the Younger had been the second advising general. In the south the war went at a brisk pace. Sulla was quickly proving himself to be in possession of an extraordinary military mind, as one by one the fortresses of the Italic cause fell to him. Before long he had cleared the entirety of Campania save Nola, and after he put that town under siege he proceeded to enter Samnium proper. In the hills Sulla went on to pull a reverse Caudine Forks on the Samnites, destroying their ability to field an effective army, before going on to reduce the cities. Back north Marius the Younger was cleared of all charges and the war continued. Corfinium, the rebel capital, fell to Pompeius Strabo and most of the rebel leadership was captured. Quintus Poppaedius Silo, the ringleader of the revolt in the eyes of Rome, escaped Corfinium. He was killed in battle a little while later by Mamercus Aemilius Lepidus Livianus, the brother of Drusus the Younger. About the same time Sulla had successfully reduced the last Samnite strongholds in the south, effectively killing the rebellion and winning the war. The Social War was over.

In conclusion the Social War was one of the most important conflicts in the history of the Roman Republic. As a result of the conflict the face of Italy and Roman politics had been radically changed. Italic language and culture vanished as the people themselves became Romanized and adopted Latin, Roman culture, and Roman practices. Italy was effectively unified. The Social War was also important in that it made the career of several budding military leaders, the greatest of which was Sulla, who would go on to dominate Roman politics for the next decade.

[Battles: The Samnite Wars]

The Samnite Wars were a series of military conflicts fought in the period between 343-290 BC by the Roman Republic and the Samnite Confederacy. The last great war between Rome and an major Italic power the Samnite conflict resulted in the Republic gaining dominion over nearly all of Southern Italy.

At the same time as Philippos II of Makedon was gaining his dominion over Hellas trouble arose in Southern Italy. By the 340s BC the startlingly quick recovery of the Roman Republic from the horrific Sack of Rome by the Gallic Celts had forced many of the Italic tribes in the southern half of the peninsula into alliances or confederacies for mutual protection from Rome. The greatest of these was the Samnite Confederacy, formed by the Oscan and Sabellian mountain tribes of what would later be called Samnium in their honor. In the search for more fertile land to raise their crops and tend their livestock the Samnites, in conjunction with their Lucanian and Bruttii cousins, launched an invasion of the rich lowlands. Both Italic Campania and the Hellenic colonies of Megale Hellas were threatened by this invasion. The Samnites focused upon the city-states of Campania and achieved great success against the unwarlike lowlanders. When the great city of Capua and the allied Hellenic city of Neapolis suddenly found themselves in danger of falling into Samnite hands the Campanians, in desperation, called for aid from Rome. The Roman Republic was more then happy to get involved, and had been waiting for some time for an excuse to enter into rich Southern Italy. Later Roman historians would paint a picture of their diplomats attempting to broker a peaceful division of power with the Samnites, only to be rudely spat on. In actuality the Romans had no intention of sharing power with the Samnites or anyone. When the Senate approved intervention in 343 the Roman war machine rolled south for the first great bout with the hill tribes of Italy. The First Samnite War had begun.

Sadly not much is known about this first war. In contrast to most Roman conflicts the ancient sources are remarkably sparse on the First Samnite War. As a result modern historians have tried their best to reconstruct events from what we do have and conjecture. The Romans were able to defeat the Samnites in the open field several times, but they could not follow up on their success because of an army mutiny. The Dictator, Marcus Valerius Corvus, put the mutiny down with his famous eloquence but then concluded a hasty peace with Samnium. In any case the true importance of the First Samnite War is not the conflict itself but its aftermath. For in the months following the treaty in 341 the Republic annexed Campania entirely. This set a dangerous precedent for future Roman expansion as from this point on the Romans would take advantage of alliances to win new territory both through war and by annexing the same allies who invited them in. Rome had become like the very wolf that she so admired. The addition of Campania was a great boon to the Republic. For not only did Rome now acquire the great prosperity of those lands but also a new, and much needed, source of manpower.

Following the treaty there would be a lull, but not for long. The army mutiny of 341 had been a portent of things to come. Within a year the Latin allies of the Republic had risen in revolt out of disgust with Rome. In the resulting Latin War the Samnites actually joined the Romans in putting down her rebellious former allies. With the end of the war and the incorporation of the former Latin League into the Republic the Samnites went back to their own affairs. In 334 BC the Romans established the colony of Cales on the Liris River, in Samnite territory. This was a provocative move on the Romans' part and one that Samnium could not let go unanswered. But at the time they had bigger problems. Earlier in the decade the Lucanians and Bruttii, still at war with the colonies of Megale Hellas had called on Samnite aid, which they obliged. The primary city under pressure by the Italics was the city-state of Taras. With the full intervention of the Samnites the Hellenes issued a call for aid across the sea. This call was answered by none other then Alexandros I Molossis, uncle of the future Megas Alexandros, and king of Epeiros in 334. Despite the affront presented by the Romans the Samnites were smart enough to realize that the Epeirote King was a far bigger threat. In the resulting war King Alexandros was able to defeat the Samnites and their allies several times but never decisively. He was finally defeated by treachery and killed in 331, and the remaining Epeirote forces retreated back across the sea. Now Samnium could turn to deal with Rome. The Romans continued to egg the Samnites on, and in 328 they established another colony on the Liris, Fregellae. At this the Samnites began to gear up for war, but would not make the declaration. In 327 the Romans broke the last straw when they claimed that Samnium was encouraging Neapolis to expand into Campania. In response the Republic had to create those colonies now on the Liris, to protect their interests. The Samnites, angered by these accusations, decided to preempt any Roman move on Neapolis, which was under their protection, by investing it with a garrison. When the Samnite garrison arrived the nobility of Neapolis rejected them and called on Rome for aid. The Senate quickly approved the intervention and before long a Roman army had kicked the Samnites out of Neapolis. The Second Samnite War had begun.

Also called the Great Samnite War, the second contest between Rome and Samnium is the most famous of all. As the war began the Roman field armies were easily able to defeat the Samnites, and victory after victory followed. By early 321 the war had gone so badly that the leadership of the Samnite Confederacy sued for peace. But the Romans had been infected by victory disease, and the Senate was so overconfident that they dictated terms that were so one-sided that later Roman historians looked upon the whole affair with embarrassment. This served to reinvigorate the Samnites and they rejected the terms handily. The progress of the war thus far had taught the Samnites that as long as the Romans remained on the open field they were nigh on invincible. But the plains were not the Samnites' native element, the mountains were. So the Samnite leadership decided to pull their armies back to the mountains, thus leading the Romans to follow into territory unfriendly to them. This plan worked brilliantly as a army led by the year's Consuls, Sp. Potsumius Albinus and T. Verturius Calvinus, was baited by a large Samnite army led by Gaius Pontius, the Meddix (a Samnite position roughly equivalent to a Consul). The two Consuls followed Pontius into a narrow mountain pass called the Caudine Forks. As the Romans entered the defile the Samnites, who had dispersed into the hills, sprung the trap. Before the Romans knew what happened they had been caught between a rock and a hard place, literally. Rather then fall upon the Romans and slaughter them as his men urged him to do Pontius, after much indecision, choose to allow the Romans to surrender. After much deliberation the two Consuls agreed. The resulting surrender terms went down in Roman history as one of the most infamous events in the Republic's history. In addition to having to give up their weapons and armor the Samnites forced the Romans to march out of the defile under a yoke made from their own spears, all the while enduring taunts and insults from the victors. 600 equites were also forced to be left behind in Samnite hands. But most insulting of all the two Consuls were forced to surrender all of Rome's colonies in Samnium and not make war upon them for the next 5 years. The war was over, or so it seemed. The forced surrender of a Consular army was a massive prestige boost to the Samnites, for never before had Rome been humiliated on the field. The Romans themselves were so outraged that they would later deny the whole incident even happened. In the course of the truce period the Romans attempted to outmaneuver the Samnites politically by isolating them. One by one the Romans either absorbed or forced into alliance all of the neighboring peoples that lived in the area around Samnium. Even the Lucanians were forced to turn against the Samnites. But the Samnites were also active and in secret they forged an alliance with Rome's ancient foe, the Etruscans. When the truce period expired in 316 the Romans marched to war with new confidence in their victory. But in a series of military engagements culminating at Lautulae in 315 the Samnites smashed the Romans again and again, defeating them on the open field for the first time. By 314 the situation had become so grave that the Campanians were seriously considering joining the Samnite Confederacy. For one of the few times in the entire history of the Republic the Senate proposed peace terms. But the Samnites did not accept although they held the advantage. In 311 the reason why became apparent when the 40 year peace with the Etruscans expired and they joined the war. The entry of Rome's old foe into the fray reinvigorated them and the Republic fought back with a vengeance. Adopting the Samnites' manipular field formation (they had previously been using a modified Etruscan phalanx), increasing recruitment, and taking advantage of the construction of new roads, such as the Via Appia and Via Valeria, the Romans took the offensive. By 308 the Etruscans had been smashed and forced to submit to harsh peace terms. The Samnites, bolstered in 306 by an alliance of Italic tribes lead by the Aequi, held out until 304 when they finally surrendered.

Following the peace treaty of 304 the Samnites were down, but not out, not yet. The Second Samnite War was one of the greatest conflicts of the Republican period of Roman history. It is held today as one of the best examples of Roman perseverance in a war even when conditions had gotten to the point where most states would have just surrendered. For this perseverance Rome had won for herself near total dominion over Italy and a new military. This was the greatest impact of the Samnite Wars, in that the Samnites forced the Romans to totally reinvent their military machine. The Manipular Legion that resulted would become the basic building block for all future Roman militaries. The Second Samnite War also become the earliest example of Roman wartime engineering, as roads were constructed for the sole purpose of allowing ease of travel to the Samnite and later Etruscan fronts. Aqueducts were also constructed to bring water to newly built military colonies. All of this would later become integral pieces in the greater Roman infrastructure in Italy. However the Samnites were not subdued and although defeated as long as they remained free they would never stop fighting the Romans. Over the course of the following 6 years the Samnites worked in secret for yet another war with Rome. On the political front Samnite diplomats forged an coalition with the Etruscans, Umbrians (an Italic people unrelated to the Samnites), and the Gallic Senones. Internally they rebuilt their shattered military. The fact they kept all of this a secret from the Roman inspectors is still considered an amazing feat. Despite this however other events would force them into conflict prematurely. In 298 the Samnites attempted to draw their old allies the Lucanians into their growing coalition. But the Lucanians had chosen to remain allied to Rome. In anger at what they perceived to be betrayal by their own kin the Samnites attacked the Lucanians near the city of Neapolis. When the Lucanians sent a call for aid to Rome the Senate did not hesitate to grant it. But as the Roman war machine marched to war with Samnium for the third and final time the Samnites unveiled their coalition, and the Republic was caught off guard.

The Third Samnite War had begun. In previous conflicts the Roman Republic had been able to fight off her opponents because they were not united, or in the case of an alliance war, not coordinated enough to form a serious threat. But what became apparent this time was that the coalition that was arrayed against them was perfectly coordinated. For the first time Rome had to face her most determined enemies all at once, united as one. The Samnites took advantage of this initial shock to march their massive main army under Gellius Egnatius into Lucanian territory (that is Lucania), to force them into joining the coalition. The Republic responded by sending an army under Consul L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus. At Camerinum Gellius was able to inflict a grievous defeat on the Romans, but when the Roman reaction was to raise the largest army in the history of the Republic thus far, the Samnites decided to withdraw from Lucania. Over the course of the following years the war went back and forth between the two sides, neither gaining the decisive advantage needed. In 295 Gellius attempted to force the decisive engagement and marched north to join the other members of the coalition. Rome got whiff of this and marched their own forces under the year's Consuls, P. Decius Mus and Q. Fabius Maximus. A second force was also sent north. News of this second force, which was marching towards the homelands of the Etruscans and Umbrians, forced them to withdraw their forces. Now the Samnites and Senones stood alone. At the flat plains near the town of Sentinum the two forces met. In the ensuing battle the main advantage of the coalition lay with the chariots of the Senones, which were still formidable weapons at this point. The chariot charge nearly did in fact win the battle when they crashed into the Roman flank. But when Decius Mus made a wild countercharge that cost him his life the Roman troops held and repulsed the Senones. Fabius Maximus routed the Samnites on his flank and Gellius was slain in the rout. He then turned and rolled up the Senones. When the battle was over the power of the coalition had been broken forever, and total victory for Rome was from then on only a matter of time. In quick succession the Umbrians, Etruscans, and Senones all surrendered. But the Samnites, determined to the last, held out. This stubborn resistance in the face of certain defeat earned the Samnites the admiration of their foes. When they finally did surrender in 290 the Romans gave them peace with honor. They were incorporated into the Republic and given citizenship, but without the right to vote. Still this was a high honor, given only to foes that had earned Rome's respect. With treaty of 290 the long Samnite Wars finally came to an end.

In conclusion the Samnite Wars were one of the greatest conflicts in the history of Rome. As a direct result of the Samnite conflict the Romans had become the masters of nearly all of Italy save the last remnants of Megale Hellas and the Gallic tribes in the Po valley. But more importantly Rome now had the military machine that would lead them to carve the greatest empire of antiquity.

[Hellenes: Common Misconceptions about the Hellenes]

In part because of the bias of the Romans, the romanticism of the 19th Century, and modern Hollywood there is many misconceptions about the Hellenes. In particular about Athenian democracy, Sparta, and Hellenic homosexuality. In this article we will look at some of the more well known myths, and the truth behind them.

MYTH ONE: The Hellenes were die-hard freedom lovers

Probably the most well known of the modern myths about the Hellenes is the belief that they were die-hard freedom lovers. In truth one must realize two things: One: the Hellenic idea of freedom is not the same as the modern idea. Two: not all Hellenic states were democracies. Freedom to the Hellenes meant that a person was not a slave, and able to do what they desired, when they wished to do it. And democracy was not a very popular idea even in Athens, whose most distinguished son, Plato, openly criticized the system as weak and doomed to degrade into a tyranny ( a term that did not have the negative meaning it has today)

MYTH TWO: The Athenian democracy is the mother of all modern democracies

Almost as widespread as the above myth and one of the most annoying from a historian's standpoint is the belief that Athens is the direct ancestor of all modern democracies, and hence just like them. This could not be any further from the truth. In Athens the right to vote was restricted to Athenian citizens. Citizenship in Athens was confined to free men that were born within the confines of Athens itself to Athenian parents. Women, non-citizen free men called metics and slaves were not citizens. Another feature of the Athenian democracy was that it was essentially a permanent plebiscite, without checks or balances. All power was focused into the Ekklesia or the Assembly, which controlled (if not at times indirectly) or overrode the other three primary organs of the Athenian democracy: the Boule (the Council), the Areios pagos (a senior court for the most serious crimes), and the Heliaea (the People's Court). No other democratic government since then has ever been quite like the Athenian democracy.

MYTH THREE: Athens was the birthplace of Western civilization

Without a doubt one of the most exasperating misconceptions of all time is the belief that Athens was the birthplace of Western civilization. This is simply not true, no one civilization can be credited as the mother of Western thought. While it is true that many Western nations today borrow much from Athens it is not correct to label it as the birthplace of Western culture. In fact more inspiration was taken from the Roman Republic then Athens.

MYTH FOUR: The Hellenes invented science, philosophy, and mathematics

Another annoying myth, yet frighteningly common is that of the Hellenes inventing science, philosophy, and mathematics. While it is true that without the Hellenes, in particular the Ionians, we probably would not recognize any of those disciplines, they did not invent any of them. Mathematics for example was more the invention of Mesopotamia and Egypt then Hellas.

MYTH FIVE: The name Hellene comes from Helen

More a product of the Hellenes themselves then the modern world is the myth that the word Hellene comes from Helen of Troy. When it was discovered that Troy really existed historians began to give the old myth credence. In reality they had the right idea the first time, what the Greeks called themselves has no relation to Helen of Troy.

MYTH SIX: The Hellenes were open homosexuals

A particularly thorny issue today is whether or not the Hellenes were truly openly homosexual. It has long been held to be fact, especially by those who use history as means of pushing a political agenda, but modern scholarship has recently begun to call this belief into question. In truth we simply don't know what the real answer to this issue is, but what has been commonly agreed upon is this: That Hellenic homosexuality more often then not took the form of pederasty, that is a relationship between a older man and a young boy (usually about 16). In turn this practice was for the most part confined to the wealthy upper classes of Hellenic society. The common people disdained the practice, and used it as ammunition to criticize the wealthy. To make things even more confusing this was not even true for all of the Hellenic states. For example in Thebes pederasty was openly encouraged by all, while in Sparta all forms of homosexuality were held in high contempt.

MYTH SEVEN: The Sacred Band

Leading on from the former misconception are those that are held in regards to the Sacred Band of Thebes. The confusion arises from the fact that Thebes had fielded several units known as the Sacred Band since the Bronze Age, and solidly since Plataea. However the only Sacred Band that was formed by pederastic couples was the unit formed by Pelopidas, which incidentally was also the last unit to bare that name.

MYTH EIGHT: Hellenic Theater

This misconception is a product of the Victorian Age in Britain. When the first excavations in Greece were made, and the first theaters began to be uncovered they based their entire understanding simply on the ruins. As a result the popular misconception arose that Hellenic theater was a very solemn affair, held in a white washed theater, watched by people in white washed clothes. What is the truth may be best described as loud, in both meanings of the word. Hellenic theater actually originated from religious festivals celebrating Dionysus, festivals that had a reputation for being wild.

MYTH NINE: The Olympics

The misconceptions surrounding the original Olympics are many, here we shall address a few of them. One is that the name of the games is derived from Mt. Olympus, but in reality is derived from Olympia, where the games took place. Two is that all Hellenes could participate in the games, actually only those who belonged to the city-states could compete (this was changed later on). A third myth is that the athletes competed for an olive wreath and nothing more. This is untrue, as many city-states honored their winners with lucrative jobs and monetary payments that would set them for life.

MYTH TEN: The Marathon run

One of the most storied events in Hellenic history is that of the runner Pheidippides. It is commonly believed that Pheidippides ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for Spartan assistance in the impending Persian attack. He then ran back from Sparta to Athens to relay the news that the Spartans couldn't help because of a religious festival. Pheidippides then ran from Athens to Marathon, where the battle was taking place, fought in it and after the battle returned to Athens and died from exhaustion. Modern historians believe that only the initial run from Athens to Sparta and back took place, as told by Herodotos. The myth of the Marathon run has become the basis of the event in the modern Olympics.

MYTH ELEVEN: Sparta

There are many misconceptions about Sparta, a result of that state's own closed nature. This gave rise to a series of what are at best educated guesses about Sparta and the Spartan way of life. Nevertheless we can dispel a few common myths regarding Sparta. One is that the Spartans tossed their unwanted babies off a cliff as a sacrifice. This is untrue, what the Spartans did do was take their unwanted to Mt. Taygetos and leave them there for the Helots to find and raise. Another Spartan myth is that the Spartans were the best soldiers of the ancient world before the rise of Makedon. This myth is ridiculous as there has never been any one group of soldiers better than any other. However their discipline and culture did make them quite formidable. A third myth is that Sparta did not prefer to become involved in greater Hellenic affairs, but only did so when forced. Actually Sparta was quite active diplomatically and there was several recorded incidents in which competing city-states would ask for Sparta to arbitrate their dispute, or intervene militarily (Spartan judgment was held in high regard across the Hellenic world). A fourth myth about the Spartans was that they were bloodthirsty and always waging war. Actually the Spartans were difficult to provoke into a conflict and very slow to mobilize even once at war.

MYTH TWELVE: Thermopylae

No battle in the history of the world has been more distorted, mangled, twisted, and used for the purpose of propaganda then the Battle of Thermopylae in 480. First and foremost is 300 Spartans did not hold that pass alone for three days against a million man Persian army. Actually it more like 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans, and 900 Helots holding the pass for three days against 60,000 Persians. Most of the myths regarding Thermopylae come from Herodotos, who while regarded as the first historian could not be objective when it came to the Greco-Persian Wars. A big myth of Herodotos' is a conversation between the exiled Spartan king Demaratos and the Great King Xerxes. In this conversation Demaratos tells Xerxes that the Hellenes will never surrender to him, since it would mean slavery for them. Xerxes replied that no amount of free men could stand against a united army fighting at the whip. This myth both misrepresents the Hellenes and the Persians. In some ways the Persian idea of freedom is closer to the modern idea then the Hellenic idea was. As for the Spartans neither they nor their allies at Thermopylae fought for freedom, but simply for the glory of battle. Secondly what Demaratos did tell Xerxes was simply do not underestimate Spartan discipline. Another famous myth surrounding Thermopylae is that the reason the Spartans only sent 300 soldiers and their helots to Thermopylae was because of the Olympics, and they needed to send most of their men to the games. In fact the reason was the ephors did not see why Sparta should send her men so far north, but allowed Leonidas with his bodyguard and their servants to go anyway, so they could honor their commitment.

MYTH THRITEEN: The Oracle of Delphi

Many misconceptions have appeared in recent years in regards to the famous Pythia, or the Delphic Oracle. Most of these misconceptions can be traced back to 19th Century romanticism and in some cases the modern neo-pagan movement. The first of these myths is that Delphi was originally the sacred spot to a Mother-Earth religion that was overrun and destroyed by barbaric invaders worshipping a Father-Sky deity. This myth is quite simply ludicrous, as there is no proof for anything backing up this claim. A second myth is that Delphi was the only oracle, or alternatively the greatest oracle, in the Hellenic world. Actually there was several oracles in the Hellenic world, Delphi is simply the most famous. The greatest oracle was actually the Pythia of Dodona. The most famous myth regarding Delphi however is that regarding how the Pythia gave out her oracles. The traditional account is that the Pythia would sit on a tripod that stood over a chasm from which unknown gasses poured out. These gasses would put the Pythia into a incoherent state, and the oracles would come from the priests attempt to translate the mumbling into words. No chasm or strange gasses have ever been found in all of the excavations at Delphi, or any indication that there ever was a chasm. In addition more and more accounts from Hellenic and Roman times have surfaced that describe the Pythia as giving her oracles in a very calm, serene manner, speaking face to face with her supplicants.

MYTH FOURTEEN: Hellenes and Barbarians

Another myth about the Hellenes is their relationship with the so-called barbarians, that is non-Hellenes. Traditional wisdom has held that the Hellenes looked down their noses at the barbarians and had nothing to do with them what so ever. While there is some truth to that belief, in that the Hellenes always possessed a certain air of snobbery as a result of the pride they had in their heritage. However the Hellenes were not above using barbarian tactics and most commonly barbarian armament if it worked. The most common example from the classical period is the case of the Thracians. The Hellenes discovered early on that theirt hoplies could not fight effectively against the Thracian manner of warfare. So they copied their enemies and created the peltasts. This sparked a revolution in Hellenic warfare.

MYTH FIFTEEN: Hellenic cavalry was awful

A particularly longstanding myth is that the Hellenes were poor cavalrymen, and as a result the horse played a minor role in Hellenic warfare. For the most part this myth is like the one above, in that it is partly true, but still wrong. Most of Hellas was rough and rocky ground, especially the central regions. As a result in most of the city-states cavalry played little or no part in warfare. However this was not true for Northern Hellas, which was wide open plain country, perfect for cavalry. The Thessalian city-states, especially Larissa, fielded some of the best cavalry in the ancient world before the rise of Rome. Also of note was the superb cavalry of the Tarentines and other city-states in Megale Hellas, the Hellenic colonies in Italy.

MYTH SIXTEEN: Helmet crests

Another military myth surrounding the Hellenes involves their helmets. The popular image of the Hellenic hoplite is a heavily armored man wearing a Corinthian helmet with a tall crest. The truth is actually somewhat more complicated and still under debate. In truth we really don't that much about the crests of Hellenic helmets, however we can construct a few facts: One is that before the Greco-Persian Wars crests were very rare, the province of the wealthy and of the strategoi (generals) who are described as having triple-crested helmets. The Karians, an Anatolian people that adopted Hellenic ways, were the ones that introduced the Hellenes to more regularized crested helmets. After that the crest becomes more common, although still very much the privilege of the wealthy. Note that this is not universally true. In Megale Hellas for example helmet crests were wide spread. This became popular fashion in the militaries of the neighboring Italics. A second fact we know for certain is that the transverse (that is side-to-side) crest was not the sole province of the Spartans and officers. Which brings another point: uniformity in the military was a unknown concept to the Hellenes, each hoplite's panoply was unique. So no two helmets, and certainly no two crests, were alike. Beyond this little can be said for certain.

In conclusion we have touched on only a few of the myriad misconceptions that surround the Hellenes. However it is the firm belief of the author that in the end these misconceptions will fall away. Because when you get down to it fact is always more fascinating then myth.

[Iberians: The Lusotannan]

In this article we will give a short history of the Lusotannan tribe of Ancient Iberia. One of the most unique of the Celtiberian tribes, the Lusotannan are certainly one of the best known.

Their origins are still debated. Even to this day the exact origins of the Lusotannan are unknown, given that they developed independently of the other Celtiberian tribes. What we do know is that like the Celtiberians they appeared about the 3rd Century BC although it has been suggested that they could have appeared as early as three centuries earlier. This would explain some of their unique cultural features, such as their quadrangular houses and marriage customs (the Lusotannan alone practiced monogamy). Interestingly the Lusotannan were apparently accomplished sailors, with boats made of leather that could range as far Ireland. The valley between the Douro and Tagus rivers was their homeland, from which they began their expansion. This valley was part of the greater region of what was called by the Romans, Lusitania. This whole area was home to fifty different tribes which all shared a common cultural identity, but remained divided for most of their history. The land was capable of supporting the tribes that lived there, but they preferred raiding the wealthier tribes beyond the Tagus. Of the raiders the mightiest was the Lusotannan. By the time Hannibal came to the Meseta there was no region of Iberia that was safe entirely from Lusotannan raids. This impressed Hannibal who, by unknown methods, convinced the Lusotannan to 'loan' him some warriors for his expedition against Rome. When the Romans struck back into Iberia the Lusotannan laid low, and their raids ceased for a number of years, probably so that they could observe these new arrivals.

It would be the wars with Rome that would make the Lusotannan famous. By the early 190s BC the raids had once again resumed, and the Romans would now learn what the other Celtiberians had learned about the effectiveness of the Lusotannan style of warfare. In 193 the first of the great wars with Rome began when Lusotannan raiding parties struck into Andalusia. The raiding party was defeated before it could cross the Tagus, but this did not bring any change. In 190 the Lusotannan dealt Rome a serve defeat in battle with Aemilius Paulus, and in 186 struck again during the siege of Asta, defeating C. Atinius and killing many of his men. During the First Celtiberian War the Lusotannan threw in their lot with the rebel tribes, and their harassment of the Romans played a big part in the defeat of Q. Fulvius Flaccus. When Ti. Sempronius Gracchus took command he turned the tide, and even managed to defeat the Lusotannan in battle. This, and his fair treatment of their brethren, compelled the Lusotannan to accept Gracchus' peace settlement, although they were never actually conquered (not that this didn't stop Rome from claiming Lusitania as part of the Republic). To honor Gracchus the Lusotannan held off on their raids and instead worked on their internal issues. This proved to be quite a boon for the Lusotannan, and Lusitania at large. By this time the territory of the Lusotannan proper had expanded greatly, stretching from modern Gallaecia to Estremadura. However the Romans did not keep their agreement, and before long Roman rule again became oppressive, and the Lusotannan were driven once more to raiding.

One of the greatest disasters in the history of the Lusotannan loomed. In 155 BC the Lusotannan gathered a great army of both their own men and of their allies, of whom the Vettones comprised the largest part, and struck south against the Conii (who were Roman allies). They were quickly overrun and the Lusotannan continued southwards, crossing the Straits of Herakles into Africa. It was not until the Romans defeated them at Okilé (south of modern Tangiers, Morocco) that the raid was finally stopped. In Iberia proper the armies of both praetors were defeated. In just a few short years the Lusotannan demonstrated that Rome's hold on Iberia was still very tenuous. This great raid was a major embarrassment to Rome, and they struck back with surprising speed. Meanwhile the Second Celtiberian War began in the Meseta as a direct result of the Lusotannan raids. Roman manpower was soon stretched thin by having to fight two wars against enemies whose way of war had proven to be incredibly hard to defeat. As a result the Roman general M. Atilius offered peace terms shortly after the defeat of the praetors in 151. One of them, Ser. Sulpicius Galba, detested the peace settlement. About that same time L. Licinius Lucullus arrived in Iberia with proconsular powers. The two of them mounted a new offensive. The combined forces of Lucullus and Galba proved too much and the Lusotannan were defeated heavily by the Romans, who penetrated the Tagus river into the valley that was the Lusotannan heartlands. At this point the ruling council of the Lusotannan led alliance sued for peace with Galba. In an act of treachery and deceit that this day stands out as one of the vilest in history he pretended to accept, and told them he would give them a rich new homeland if they would lay down their arms. The Lusotannan and their allies accepted, and came out from the mountains. When they had all settled into three large groups the Romans fell upon them and either slaughtered or enslaved nearly the entire gathering, 30,000 people in all. However not all of the Lusotannan fell into Galba's trap, some survived and escaped into the mountains to later haunt Rome.

Now comes the time of the most famous Lusotannan of all. The treachery of Galba was an act that the Lusotannan would never forgive, nor forget. Although their homeland was conquered the people still existed, and that was enough. A new home was established in the Baetis valley from which they harried the Romans anew. In 147 BC the Roman magistrate C. Vetilius marched on the new Lusotannan homeland, determined to finish what Galba began. At this moment arose the figure of Viriato. A shepherd that had been one of the lucky few to escape Galba's massacre, Viriato was a charismatic and skilled leader. Rallying his people from their despair Viriato led a spirited counterattack using guerilla warfare. Vetilius' entire force was destroyed, which attracted Rome's attention. For the following six years the revitalized Lusotannan wreaked bloody vengeance on the Roman armies, and no commander was able to defeat them decisively. In 141 Viriato's rebel movement reached the height of military glory when he defeated the army of Consul Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus in the siege of Erisana and forced the Romans into a defile from which they could not escape. But rather then annihilate Servilianus' forces, which with all probability would have broken the back of Roman power in Iberia, Viriato choose to treat with them. The resulting peace, made in 140, was the crowning achievement of Viriato's life. The Romans were forced to recognize the whole of Lusitania (not just the Lusotannan alone anymore) as a free and sovereign nation, and Viriato as "Friend of the Roman People". This peace, which came on the heels of new success by the Arevaci against Rome in the Third Celtiberian War, sparked a period of euphoria in the ranks of the Celtiberians. Perhaps they could oust the Romans after all. But this all came crashing down in 139 BC when the Romans broke the peace terms to attack the Lusotannan led alliance once more. Led by Q. Servilius Caepio, the Romans achieved great initial success against the Lusotannan, but Viriato managed to avoid an outright defeat. To buy time he sued for terms, knowing that while negotiations went on he could rebuild his forces. But Viriato did not except the Romans to use underhanded methods to win the war. Caepio bribed the three diplomats of Viriato to betray him and upon their return assassinated their great leader. The war didn't end however with Viriato's death, and a new leader arose, named Tantalus who continued the resistance until 136 when they were at last defeated by D. Junius Brutus.

Despite this loss the Lusotannan endured. Following the campaigns of D. Junius Brutus the Lusotannan accepted his Gracchus style peace terms, and for the most part remained quiet until the coming of the Germanic Cimbri and Teutones, whose attempted migration into Hispania threatened them. This victory, combined with the effectiveness of the invaders against the Romans, prompted a Lusotannan revival. This new rebellion, which lasted from 109 to 93 BC was ultimately defeated, but the Lusotannan refused to give up. In 80 BC they joined the rebellion of Q. Sertorius and became the core of his forces. When Sertorius was assassinated in 73 the Lusotannan, who had come to regard him as Viriato reborn, defected on mass to Pompeius Magnus' government forces for the sole purpose of getting revenge on the assassin. This was still not the end of the Lusotannan however. They continued to resist Roman rule, until at last subdued by G. Julius Caesar during his praetorship. After this we hear no more of the Lusotannan as a separate people.

In conclusion the Lusotannan are undoubtedly one of the greatest of the Celtiberians. From their titanic battles with Rome, to their unique culture, the Lusotannan stand tall in the modern memory of the Celtiberians.

[Iberians: The Vaccaei]

In this article we will give a short history of the Vaccaei tribe of Ancient Iberia. More mixed then their cousins the Vaccaei are one of the most interesting Celtiberian tribes.

The Vaccaei lived on the edge of Celtiberian civilization. The settlements of the Vaccaei are located on what has been termed as the western edge of the traditional Celtiberian heartland, the Meseta. Of the Vaccaei not much is known, nonetheless we can reconstruct some things about them. The Vaccaei differed from the rest of the Celtiberians in many ways, even down to the way they constructed their towns and cities. For example excavations in Spain have found that most Vaccaei settlements were wide spaced and their homes were rectangular, mostly situated on flat land with an outer ring for the artisans and craftsmen. These characteristics are only shared with the Carpetani, which puzzles many historians. However we know for certain that the Vaccaei appeared with the rest of the Celtiberians in the 3rd Century BC. They were skilled traders, farmers and merchants, gaining a reputation for their pottery and grain, which was noted by the Hellenes. The Hellenes also noted that the Vaccaei took the Iberian practice of communal farming to the level of communal ownership, and there was no private property among them. They were also warriors, and they made many attempts to penetrate into the Central Meseta, coming into contact several times with the Arevaci, whom they more then matched in power and strength along with the Carpetani. The reaction of the Vaccaei to the Carthaginians when they arrived is unknown, although whatever it was they would have to deal with them personally before long. After Hannibal attacked the Olcades in 221 BC they brought the Vaccaei into the war as their allies. Hannibal turned to them next, taking the cities of Hermandica and Arbacala. The loss of the latter was a heavy blow to the Vaccaei, due to its prosperity. This in turn brought in the third member of the alliance, the Carpetani, and they too were defeated by Hannibal. The Vaccaei then disappear from the historical records for a time, leaving historians with a gap between 221-220 and the wars with Rome.

The Vaccaei had a long and tumultuous relationship with the Romans. It appears from the records that the Vaccaei and the Romans first met following the Second Iberian War, when the Carpetani involved them in a minor rebellion against Rome in 193, which ended badly for them. The Vaccaei next appear during the First Celtiberian War, a rebellion which they joined for unknown reasons. In any case the Romans thought them a great enough threat to assign a separate Consul (L. Potsumius Albinus) to deal with them independent of the main effort under Sempronius Gracchus. However at the end of the war the Vaccaei refused to surrender to Albinus, instead negotiating directly with Gracchus, whose deeds and kind treatment of their brethren had earned their respect. Out of respect with Gracchus the Vaccaei declared they would not take part in any more rebellions against Rome, a promise they would keep for many years. After this they turned inwards and rebuilt their former wealth. By the time the of the Second Celtiberian War the Vaccaei were the most wealthy of all the Celtiberian tribes. And also one of the largest, with Vaccaei territory dominating the region. When the war broke out the Vaccaei remained true to their word, and did not join the rebellion. But the new Roman Consul in 151 BC, Lucius Licinius Lucullus, did not care. Lucullus was a greedy man, lusting for both money and fame. So he attacked the Vaccaei claiming that they had broken the peace terms by mistreating the Carpetani. The Vaccaei resisted Lucullus and ultimately defeated him heavily with the aid of Cantabri. Which would seal a long standing friendship between them. While Lucullus' raid was condemned in Rome and regarded as a stain on Roman honor it set a dangerous precedent. In 137 the Consul Aemilius Lepidus also attacked the Vaccaei during the Third Celtiberian War. Aemilius was also defeated and ultimately stripped of his command. From this point onward the Romans would continue to raid Vaccaei territory over and over again, primarily for the reason of grain, as their farmlands were particularly rich. When Scipio Aemilianus took command in 134 he attacked the Vaccaei for this very reason, and this time around they were unable to repulse the raiders. This has actually been under dispute as recent studies have suggested that the Vaccaei leadership (in what form this leadership manifested itself is unknown) may have decided to throw their lot with the Arevaci, thus making Scipio's raid valid. However the Vaccaei never did so formally, from both the Celtiberian and Roman standpoints, and when Numantia fell the Vaccaei were left alone, recognized as Roman allies.

The Vaccaei were among the last of the free Celtiberians. In the years that followed the end of the Third Celtiberian War the Romans began to integrate themselves into Vaccaei society, and this combined with greater influence from Celtiberian refugees began to affect a change in the Vaccaei. From this period the first traditional style hill forts (oppida) appear in Vaccaei territory, along with distinctive Roman city-planning features. Things remained peaceful for several years, till Quintus Sertorius rallied the Celtiberians to war in 82 BC. In the Sertorian War the Vaccaei played a major role as a Sertorian supporter until Roman forces under Caecilius Metellus Pius and Pompeius Magnus (Pompey) defeated them. But this was not the end of the Vaccaei. They rebelled against Roman rule in the late 20s BC and were finally quashed once and for all in 29 by Titus Statilius Taurus. This caused great anger amongst the allies of the Vaccaei, the Cantabri and Astures, and led to the Cantabrian War. After this we hear no more of the Vaccaei as a separate people.

In conclusion the Vaccaei were one of the most interesting of the Celtiberian tribes. While sadly we do not know a lot about them the Vaccaei were a major player in Ancient Iberia, both economically and militarily.

[Iberians: The Arevaci]

In this article we will give a short history of the Arevaci tribe of Ancient Iberia. One of the best known Celtiberian tribes, the Arevaci were leaders of the resistance to Rome.

Not much is known of the Arevaci. As with most Celtiberian tribes the Arevaci did not leave many records, leaving us with a gap until the coming of the Romans during the Second Punic War. We do know however some facts about them. The Arevaci appeared about the same time as the rest of the Celtiberians in the 3rd Century BC, but quickly demonstrated some differences from the rest. Archeology bears out that the Arevaci held different funerary rites then the rest of Iberia, and their script is also different. The Arevaci soon gained dominance, becoming the greatest and largest of the Celtiberian tribes. They held themselves to be culturally superior to everyone else, Celtiberian and Iberian alike. This unique culture was spread to other tribes that they either held close ties with or subjugated. The Belli being the best examples of the former, the Pelendones and Turmogi the latter. The Arevaci, like most Celtiberian tribes, elected their leaders in council. Not much is really known on the how the Celtiberian political system worked, but that they had more then one leader, who was elected, is certain. By the time of the arrival of Hannibal the Arevaci were one of three dominant powers in Iberia, along with the Carpetani and Vaccaei. According to Strabo, the Arevaci was in fact the strongest of the three. It is unknown what the Arevaci reaction was to the Second Punic War, only that they took no part on either side of the conflict. In the First Celtiberian War, although the Arevaci took no part in the fighting, they took part in the fair treaty arranged by Sempronius Gracchus, whom they respected greatly.

In 153 the Second Celtiberian War broke out. In 154 the city of Segeda began to build a large circuit wall. Officially the reason behind the wall was the recent incursions of the powerful Lusotannan from the west. Rome, which had already fought three rebellions in Iberia, didn't trust the Belli (the tribe who owned Segeda) and a Senate delegation demanded they stop construction and offer tribute. The Belli refused and fled to the Arevaci. Being close kin to the Belli by both blood and culture, the Arevaci joined the rebellion, sparking the Second Celtiberian War. Encouraged by this move the other Celtiberian tribes began to join in, and a confederacy of these tribes was formed before the year was out. The Arevaci, of course, became the leaders of this rebel movement. Led by the Arevaci chieftain Caros the confederate forces inflicted a defeat on the Roman forces on August 23rd, 153 that was so heavy that never again would the Romans fight a battle on that day voluntarily. Though Caros died early in the fighting the Arevaci continued to play a role in the rebellion, their capital of Numantia was the brain center of the entire effort. By the following year however Roman advances, spearheaded by the great general Marcellus, had caused the confederate leadership to rethink their position. Under Marcellus' advice the Arevaci, Belli, and others sent peace delegations to Rome. The Senate was determined to punish the Arevaci however, believing them alone to be responsible for the war, and rejected all peace efforts. Marcellus negotiated a peace agreement anyway, demanding hostages and tribute, bringing the war to an end. In the aftermath of the conflict the Arevaci minted their first coinage at the new mints in Segeda. Which may indicate that the Belli joined the Arevaci in the aftermath of the war.

In the ensuing years the Arevaci were left in peace, and even the brutal Lucullus let them be. Numantia gained new importance in the years following the Second Celtiberian War, and the city began to rival Toletum (modern Toledo) in size and importance. The city was refortified, and it may have been this effort that earned the city its reputation for impregnability. In 147 the rebellion of the Lusotannan under Viriato broke out. Out of respect for Marcellus the Arevaci declared support for Rome. But when the Romans made clear they did not value the Arevaci for their contributions they joined the rebels in 144. The Roman response was quick, reducing the Arevaci to just two cities, Termes and Numantia. But it was in this situation that the Iberian style of warfare came into play. Fighting a guerilla war the Arevaci confounded the Romans for years. In 137 a brilliant ambush near Numantia resulted in the Roman Consul Mancinius surrendering his army to the Arevaci and declaring that the Celtiberians on a whole were equal to Romans. It was a great victory, but the fighting remained indecisive. The war finally turned against the Arevaci in 134, when Scipio Aemilianus took command. Aemilianus was unlike any other commander the Arevaci ever faced before. He made straight for Numantia and laid siege to the city. The siege of Numantia was one of the most brutal and yet brilliant sieges in the history of siege warfare. Although they resisted heroically the Arevaci could not break the Roman stranglehold. After nearly a year of resistance the council finally surrendered to Aemilianus. But rather then allow the conqueror to take them captive the remaining inhabitants of the city committed suicide, and the Romans torched the city.

Deprived of their greatest city, and much reduced in size the Arevaci still endured. In the aftermath of the Third Celtiberian War the power of the Arevaci was broken. Presided over by Aemilianus the confederacy of tribes was disbanded and the Pelendones and Turmogi given independence. The Arevaci were not a client state of Rome, but the influence of the Romans throughout the years had begun to change them. However the spirit of defiance never died. They prepared in secret for yet another revolt. In 98 they launched their rebellion, which was quashed ruthlessly by Titus Didius in 92. The swansong of the Arevaci came when they joined Quintus Sertorius in his uprising against Sulla. With the end of the Sertorian revolt in 72 we hear no more of the Arevaci as a separate people.

In conclusion the Arevaci was one of the most significant of the Celtiberian tribes. Taking part in nearly all of the Iberian Wars the Arevaci were easily one of the most well known tribes. Skilled in guerilla warfare the Arevaci proved themselves worthy of the grudging respect of later generations of Romans.

[Celts: The Trinovantes]

In this article we will give a short history of the Trinovantes tribe of Prydain, that is Ancient Britain. The strongest tribe in Prydain before the coming of the Romans, the Trinovantes became favored by Rome.

Unfortunately there is not much known about the Trinovantes. Because the Celts did not keep records much of what we know about the Trinovantes has to be pieced together from the archeological findings and the coinage they left behind. The record becomes clearer after the Romans arrive, but is still somewhat murky. The Trinovantes were Brythonic Celts, the original Celtic arrivals in the 5th Century BC. We also know that like the Iceni the Trinovantes grew wealthy on trade across the Channel. However they were far more involved in this trading then the Iceni, as a result the Trinovantes were one of the few tribes in Prydain to be aware of what was happening in the outside world. Perhaps this heavy trading would explain the most amazing thing about the Trinovantes. That is that they were the most powerful tribe in Prydain for what appears to have been a good length of time. At the time of Caesar's invasion the Trinovantes were the most powerful tribe in Prydain, even over the Belgic Celts, who were more warlike then the Brythonic Celts.

The arrival of Rome turned the whole of Prydain upside down. About the time of Caesar's invasion the king of the Trinovantes was Mannuetios, called Imanuentius by the Romans and it appears he was well aware of the conquest of Gaul. Caesar records in De Bello Gallico (Latin: The Gallic War) receiving an offer of surrender from the Trinovantes, asking him to spare them should he come to Prydain. Not long after that Mannuetios became involved in a struggle with the king of the Casse, Vellaunus (better known as Cassivellaunus), and was slain in the war. Mandubracius, heir of the Trinovantes, fled to Gaul and asked for Roman aid. When the Romans invaded Prydain in 54 BC the Trinovantes were the only tribe that welcomed them, giving the Romans much needed supplies and a safe haven. After defeating Cassivellaunus and his followers Caesar was ready to leave, as events in Gaul demanded his return. But before he left he made sure that all of Prydain understood that the Trinovantes were a Roman client state under his official protection. No harm was to come to them.

In the years that followed Mandubracius appeared to have ruled as a good king, and the capital of the Trinovantes at Braughing (modern Hertfordshire) prospered. Around 30 BC, after the death of Cassivellaunus, Mandubracius offered the hand of his daughter in marriage to the king of the Catuvellauni, which he accepted. This marriage solidified the bond enforced by Caesar, but this didn’t stop the bad feelings between the two tribes. Mandubracius died fifteen years later in 15 BC. His succession ignited a major dispute between the Trinovantes and the Catuvellauni. When the unnamed son of Cassivellaunus died ten years after his marriage he was succeeded by Tasciovanus, the grandson of Mandubracius. As the old king had no sons of his own it appeared that Tasciovanus was set to become king of two tribes, creating a super power that would dominate Prydain. But the Trinovantes did not want an outsider ruling over them. Rallying under the nobleman Addedomarus they opposed the succession of Tasciovanus and placed Addedomarus on the throne at Braughing, who then moved the capital to the city of Camulodunum. The two rivals nearly came to blows, and several small skirmishes did in fact occur, but ultimately the threat of Roman intervention insured Addedomarus stayed on the throne. Of the reign of Addedomarus not much is known, except that he laid much of the foundation of what would make Camulodunum great during the time of Cunobelinus, and that he shifted the coinage of the Trinovantes to conform to the Catuvellauni model. He died in 5 BC and was succeeded by his son, Dubnovellaunus. Much like his father not much is known of the reign of Dubnovellaunus. One event that was recorded in the Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Latin: The Deeds of the Divine Augustus) is that around 7 AD Dubnovellaunus arrived in Rome with the king of the Atrebates and reaffirmed the status of the Trinovantes and Atrebates as clients of Rome. Two years later the ambitious Cunobelinus, taking advantage of Roman distraction over the diaster at Teutoberg, conquered the Trinovantes and killed Dubnovellaunus. Cunobelinus ruled as king of the Trinovantes for about a year. In 10 AD he became king of the Catuvellauni, as his first act he made the Trinovantes a member of the Catuvellauni federation, and made their capital his new ruling seat.

The Trinovantes made their last stand with Boudicca. When the Romans returned to Prydain in 43 AD to conquer the island once and for all the Trinovantes at long last got their freedom back from the Catuvellauni. Claudius promised not long after that he would restore the Trinovantes to their former lands. But the Emperor had no intention of keeping his promise, only concerned with pacifying the Trinovantes for now. This became clear when the Romans turned Camulodunum into a Colonia for retired soldiers and their families. When Boudicca rose in revolt in 60 AD the Trinovantes joined her. After the defeat at Watling Street and the end of the rebellion we hear no more of the Trinovantes as a separate people.

In conclusion the Trinovantes were a major tribe in southeastern Britain. While our knowledge about them is small, we do know that they had a significant impact on Prydain and even post-conquest Roman Britain.

[Celts: The Iceni]

In this article we will give a short history of the Iceni tribe of Prydain, that is Ancient Britain. Undoubtedly the most well known of the Brythonic tribes, the Iceni were among the strongest of the native Brythonic tribes.

Much of the history of the Iceni is unknown. Before the arrival of the Romans, and even after until the time of Boudica, we have little to no reliable sources on the Iceni. What we do know is pieced together through conjuncture, mostly based on what archeological remains have been found and primarily their coinage. From this modern historians have been able to gather some facts about the Iceni. Unlike many of their neighbors the Iceni were native Brythonic Celts, which probably means that the Iceni can be traced as far back as the 5th Century BC, when the Celts first arrived in the British Isles. We also know that the Iceni were not ruled by one king absolutely, but by a high king who was checked by a council of 11 other kings, which would explain some later events. The Iceni were also wealthy, one of the few non Belgic tribes to be so, and would later come to mint their own coins, under the influence of the Catuvellauni.

Our first solid evidence of the Iceni comes from Caesar. When the Romans arrived in Prydain for the second time in 54 BC the Iceni chose not to join the alliance formed against them by their southern neighbors, the Casse. Preferring to sit and watch the course of the war. When Caesar crossed the Thames the Iceni decided to submit to him with the other surrounding tribes. In his memoirs the victorious general records the Iceni under the name Cenimagni, though whether this is a result of Caesar misunderstanding the Iceni kings or purposefully miswriting their name to humiliate them is unknown, though both is equally possible. Unlike with the Casse and other tribes Caesar did not make the Iceni a client of Rome, and after recording their name down under his defeated foes he appears to have left them alone. Left to their own devices the Iceni were forgotten again, and not remembered until years later.

The Iceni appear again after the birth of Christ. Our next major mention of the Iceni comes after the beginning of the present era, when a king known as Addedomarus first began to mint coinage. Addedomarus drew his inspirations for these coins from the coinage of Tasciovanus, going as far as to use the same design (face/horse). However unlike the Catuvellauni, the Iceni minted the name of the tribe as a whole on their coins, only later adding the name of the king who minted them. At some point Addedomarus died and was succeeded by a king only known today as Can, which was the mark on his coins. Can died around 25 AD and was succeeded by the first reasonably well known Iceni high king, Antedios. This king would go on to rule for nearly 20 years, making him the longest reiging of any known king, before the arrival of the Romans, who would in time become the worst foe the Iceni would ever face.

Rome returned to Prydain in 43 AD. As a result of the need of Emperor Claudius to prove himself, and of the internal disputes of the Catuvellauni, the Romans invaded Prydain for the third time in 43 AD. Antedios, like his unknown predecessor in the second invasion, chose not to get involved and sat the war out. When the Catuvellauni were defeated Antedios submitted peacefully to the Romans, who made the Iceni an allied client state, and appointed him sole king of the tribe. This outraged the other kings of the Iceni, who deeply resented being ruled by one man. When Antedios began to mint coins with only his name, and no other mark on them, the other kings had had enough. Two of these kings, known only by their coin marks as Aesu and Saenu, minted their own coins in defiance of the high king. In an attempt to appease them Antedios took his mark off the coins, and went back to using the name of the tribe as the coin mark. But this olive branch gesture failed. In 47 AD the Roman governor, Publius Ostorius Scapula, arrived in Iceni territory to disarm them. This move by the Romans was sudden and unexpected. The various nobles, angered by what they perceived as a betrayal, united behind Antedios and rose in revolt.

The Iceni Revolt of 47 AD was easily put down by Roman arms, and a new man was chosen to replace Antedios as king. This man was named Esuprastus, but is better known as Prasutagus. Esuprastus, it appears from the records, was one of the 11 kings under Antedios. But unlike the others he did not revolt. Esuprastus knew that he could not revolt against Rome and succeed, and so decided to reign in peace. Esuprastus had the best recorded reign of any Iceni king, and in his reign the kingdom prospered and grew. The Romans themselves came to respect Esuprastus, and gave him permission to mint his own coinage separate of Roman control. Esuprastus also increased the wealth of the Iceni greatly, through increased trade and production of high quality ceramics, for which the Iceni were famous. In 49 AD he married the woman who has made the Iceni so remembered, Princess Boudica. That Boudica was of royal blood is undisputable, but which tribe she came from is under debate. In any case the two formed what appears to have been a formidable pair, and had two daughters. At one point Esuprastus began to take several large loans from Roman financiers, which would cause much trouble later on. In 60 AD he died and when his will was read the Romans were in for a surprise. Despite his servile attitude towards Rome Esuprastus had no intention of giving his kingdom to them after his death. In the will the kingdom was divided, with Nero receiving a greater portion and his daughters receiving a rump portion to rule over jointly. To Rome this was unacceptable, a client king was supposed to will his entire kingdom after his death to the empire. Besides that female inheritance was a foreign concept to the Roman mind. Nero decided to take the entire Iceni kingdom by force. Boudica was flogged and her daughters raped during the seizure. A year later a general revolt by the Brythonic and Belgic tribes occurred, Boudica at the head.

Boudica was the last Iceni ruler. Burning with rage at her and her family's mistreatment at Roman hands Boudica lead a mass revolt against Roman rule. Even the Belgic tribes, whom the Iceni usually looked down upon as barbaric, united with Boudica. The warrior queen went on a rampage across Roman Britain, burning and looting the Roman towns of Camulodunum Colonia, Londinium, and Verulanium. The Roman governor, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, was unable to defeat Boudica and lost an entire legion in the opening stage of the rebellion. Paulinus was eventually able to defeat Boudica a year later at the Battle of Watling Street, near modern Athelstone. Following this Boudica and her daughters committed suicide to escape capture. As a result of this rebellion the Romans began an increased crackdown, though this lasted only a few years. After this we hear no more of the Iceni as a separate people.

In conclusion the Iceni were one of greatest tribes in Ancient Britain. Though much about them is shrouded in mystery we can say for certain that among the Brythonic Celts the Iceni were a major force. Remembered even to this day for their courageous last stand against Roman rule.

[Celts: The Catuvellauni]

In this article we will give a history of the Catuvellauni tribe of Prydain, that is Ancient Britain. One of the best known of the Celtic tribes in Britain the Catuvellauni dominated southern Prydain, and made the most impact on Rome.

The Catuvellauni were not as old as their neighbors. In terms of age the Catuvellauni were amongst the younger tribes of the Celtic world. In fact the Catuvellauni were not even a proper tribe, but the result of several tribes joined together following Caesar's second landing in Prydain in 54 BC. The principal tribe of the Catuvellauni was the Casse, from whom all of the kings came forth, and who lead the rest of this 'federation' for the duration of its history. The other members are unknown, with the exception of the Trinovantes, who were added to the federation by Cunobelinus in the early 1st Century AD. Of the Casse not much is known. We do know that they were Belgic Celts who had inhabited the area around the modern Thames at least as early as the 3rd Century BC. We also know that the Casse were considered the leaders of military innovation in Prydain and were wealthy by virtue of the tin trade that was so plenty in the British Isles. If the records are correct the Casse were also held to be skilled politicians and diplomats, a trait that the Catuvellauni inherited years later.

Rome sparked the creation of one of their worst foes. By the time Julius Caesar arrived in Prydain the second time in 54 BC he had attracted enough attention from the Brythonic and Belgic tribes to realize that they needed a kind of supreme commander to organize themselves if they were going to survive. They met and appointed Cassivellaunus, or more correctly Vellaunus of the Casse, to be their leader. At the time of Caesar's arrival Cassivellaunus had just finished a war with the Trinovantes, the virtual rulers of Prydain, defeating them and exiling Mandubracius, the heir of the Trinovantes. Mandubracius in turn fled to Caesar who thusly was already aware of Cassivellaunus by the time he reached the Thames area. It was not long before Cassivellaunus realized that conventional warfare was not going to work against the Romans, causing him to resort to guerilla warfare. This worked for a time but eventually Caesar pushed on and was able to cross the Thames and reach the territory of the Trinovantes, and thus to safety. Cassivellaunus was not done yet, but Caesar surprised him by attacking his great home fortress at modern Wheathampstead. But even then Cassivellaunus had one last trick. The four kings of Cantium, modern Kent, who had banded together for protection. The Kentish kings for the most part kept to themselves, but in the interest of unity they followed Cassivellaunus. He ordered them to attack the Roman naval base. This attack failed and Cassivellaunus, realizing he was outmatched, surrendered to Caesar. Caesar agreed and left for Gaul as quickly as possible, imposing only light terms and vassalage. Cassivellaunus, for his part, learned from the experience with the Romans and probably watched the Gallic Revolt as well, absorbing the lessons taught there. Melding all of these ideas together he unified the Belgic tribes along the northern shore of the Thames into one tribe and called them the Catuvellauni, the Smiters of Vellaunus.

The Catuvellauni would quickly dominate Prydain. Following the death of Cassivellaunus in 30 BC he was succeeded by his unnamed son, who married into the royal family of the Trinovantes to further solidify the peace enforced by Caesar's terms. This unknown king died after ten years and was succeeded by his son, Tasciovanus. This new king would oversee a long and glorious reign, ruling a total of thirty years. In the reign of Tasciovanus the capital was moved from the old fortress at Wheathampstead to the new un-walled city of Verlamio, or Verulanium. This move was meant to signal not only to Prydain, but also to Rome, that the Catuvellauni were going in a new direction. During this period the wealth of the Catuvellauni increased greatly, and their power grew with it. Even though this period of peace and prosperity brought the Catuvellauni to great heights not everyone was happy with the situation, even the king himself. Tasciovanus made it no secret he did not like the Trinovantes, even though his own mother was one. And he probably blamed them for the sad state of the Catuvellauni as vassals of Rome. But no one dared touch Caesar's favored tribe. That is until 9 AD, while Rome was distracted by the disaster of Teutoberg Forest. Led by Cunobelinus, the eldest son of Tasciovanus, Catuvellauni forces attacked and conquered the Trinovantes, and the city of Camulodunum became the new seat of power. Cunobelinus ruled the Trinovantes for a year, when his father died. Following his crowning the Trinovantes were absorbed into the great Catuvellauni federation, and the capital was moved to Camulodunum, which would become the largest and richest city in all of Prydain. Unlike his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, Cunobelinus sought the friendship of Rome and is now considered to be the First British Statesman. The Romans were greatly surprised by the wealth and power of the Catuvellauni, especially when they learned of the presence of not one, but two mints in Cunobelinus' territory. The reign of Cunobelinus was the golden age of the Celts in Prydain, even though the Brythonic Celts were left out in the great federation of Belgic tribes. Tiberius Caesar would go on to grant the title 'King of the Britons' to Cunobelinus, which started a series of military campaigns in the 20s AD. Cunobelinus there after was King of the Britons both in title and reality. In 35 AD the kingdom began to unravel when the king lost his brother and viceroy, Epaticcus. The kingdom was divided between the sons of Cunobelinus, to disastrous consequences. In 40 AD the old king suffered a stroke, and his younger sons Togodumnus and Caradoc seized control. This seizure prompted the eldest son, Adminius, to flee to Rome. Shortly afterwards Cunobelinus died, brining the golden age to a close.

Caradoc's reign was the end of Catuvellauni. With the death of Cunobelinus the eldest remaining son, Togodumnus, became the new king. But Caradoc was the true ruler of the Catuvellauni. Unlike their father, the two brothers were anti-Roman, and resented the increasing Roman nature of their kingdom. But first other matters drew their attention. The Atrebates, a new kingdom originally from Gaul, had earned the special hatred of the Catuvellauni when they killed Epaticcus. Caradoc focused all the energies of the kingdom on conquering the Atrebates. He succeeded and drove the king of the Atrebates, Verica, to Rome. In Rome the new Emperor Claudius was desperate to find some way to prove himself to the empire. The arrival of Verica, coupled with the continued pleas of Adminius, gave Claudius the opportunity he needed. In 43 AD the Roman Invasion of Britain began. Caradoc and Togodumnus rallied the tribes of Prydain to resistance, resulting in a situation eerily similar to their great-great-grandfather's when he confronted Caesar. The war went badly for the Catuvellauni, not even the chariots that worked so well in the last invasion could turn the tide. At the decisive battle at the modern Medway the Catuvellauni are broken by Roman arms, and Togodumnus fell in the battle. Caradoc assumed the kingship, now ruler in title and in fact. Caradoc would go on to fight one last field battle at the Thames, only to be defeated. Following this he returned to Camulodunum to try to get the populace to disperse into the woods and fight the Romans in a guerilla war. But they did not heed his words and the Romans conquered the jewel of Prydain shortly after Caradoc's departure with a small group of followers. This remnant followed Caradoc to Wales and there assisted the fugitive king in fighting a brilliant guerilla campaign from 47 AD to 50. In that year Roman authorities finally defeated the last Catuvellauni at the battle of Caer Caradoc. The king himself escaped capture for a while longer before he was betrayed by the Brigantes and sent to Rome in 51. After this we hear no more of the Catuvellauni as a separate people.

In conclusion the Catuvellauni were a major tribe of Prydain. Without a doubt the Catuvellauni are among the greatest of the Celtic tribes of Ancient Britain. They well earned their fame, and their kings were great warriors, diplomats, and leaders.

[Celts: The Sequani]

In this article we will give a short history of the Sequani tribe of Gaul. While not as well-known as their neighbors, the Aedui and Arverni, the Sequani nevertheless were a major power in the years before Caesar.

Not much is known of the early years. Unlike with the Aedui and Arverni, with whom we have a clear starting point in history, we have no clear starting point for the Sequani. They are a mystery even to this day. What makes them even more mysterious is the Sequani did not speak Gaulish, but a different language, with theories ranging from some form of Goidelic to a corruption of Ligurian. In any case one thing is clear, the Sequani were among the younger tribes of Gaul.

The Sequani first appear solidly in the 3rd Century. By the time of the 3rd Century BC we have far more solid ground on which to work on to the Sequani. Rome's influence had first begun to spread during this century. Roman contact shaped the Sequani in several ways. From the start they hated these new arrivals and were scornful of anything Roman. Despite this they engaged in trade wholeheartedly, and grew wealthy. This wealth was gained from the vast stores of cattle, sheep, and pigs the Sequani owned. If the Aedui were the masters of silver and gold and the Arverni of pottery, then the Sequani were the masters of domestic animals. In Rome the smoked ham of the Sequani became famous. It was this that lead to the beginning of the feud with the Aedui. Both the Aedui and the Sequani sat on the rich trade routes from the Mediterranean, their territories lay just across the modern Saone from each other. Soon the Sequani would commit themselves to whatever dispute their neighbors got in, just to be on the opposite side of the fighting. This lead to an alliance with the Arverni, which they took advantage of. When the Sweboz first began to raid Gaul in this period the Sequani tried to manipulate them, rather then cower in fear of them. In these people the Sequani saw the means by which they could achieve dominance. Which was the ultimate goal of all the Gallic tribes.

The 2nd Century marked the rise of Sequani power. In the 2nd Century BC the Sequani were in the early part of the century dwarfed by their more powerful allies in the Arverni Confederacy. All of that changed in 121 BC when Rome broke the power of the Arverni, insuring the dominance of the Aedui Confederacy in Gaul. This marked a major changed in Gallic politics, and a major change in the Sequani as well. Their most hated foe had become the most powerful tribe in Gaul, backed by foreigners they despised. This was unacceptable and as a result the Sequani stepped up their attacks on the Aedui. Despite Roman backing the Aedui could not stand under the pressure of Sequani attacks, and the cracks in the new order of Gaul began to show. By the end of the 2nd Century the power of the Sequani had risen to such an extent that many of the former allies of the Aedui had become members of a new Sequani Confederacy. Insuring their dominance in the coming century.

The 1st Century would mark the best, and worst, years of the Sequani. By the beginning of the 1st Century BC the balance of power in Gaul had changed more times then any in recent memory. The ruling power in Gaul had become the new power of the Sequani Confederacy, made up of former client states of the Aedui and Arverni alike. Many of the more conservative Gallic tribes had joined with the Sequani in alliances, in fear of the more liberal and open Aedui Confederacy, which had been reduced to a political nonentity. However it was not the support of the other Gallic tribes that allowed the Sequani to dominate Gaul, it was their Sweboz allies. By the 1st Century the numerous agreements between the Sequani and the Sweboz had turned into an all-out alliance between the two powers. Through the dominance of the Sequani the Germanic warriors were able to raid and attack as they pleased. All this considered the Sequani had every reason to be confident of final victory over the hated Aedui. But to the amazement of all Gaul not only did the Aedui resist the Sequani led invasion, but they were winning the war. The Sequani then decided to play their last, favorite, card: the Sweboz. But the other powers of the Sequani Confederacy, led by the Arverni, objected to this. But they did not listen and called on Ariovistus, war-leader of the Sweboz, to aid them in 71. But this was massive mistake. After Ariovistus conquered the Aedui he turned on the hand that called him forth, and the Sequani were nearly wiped out in the massacre that followed. The power of the Sequani Confederacy had been broken by the very allies they had depended on for dominance. Caesar defeated the Sweboz in 58 BC and kicked them out of Gaul, restoring the tribes that had been conquered by them to their former lands. This meant that when the Sequani were restored those lands they had conquered in their period of dominance were taken away. If any of the chiefs of the Sequani did not hate Rome yet, then they did from this point on. As a result when the call of revolt spread out in 53 the Sequani joined in wholeheartedly. When the Gallic Revolt was put down at Alesia the Sequani were among those treated harshly by Caesar.

The last mention of the Sequani comes to us years later, in the 1st Century AD. When Augustus reorganized Gaul as part of his general revival of the Roman world the district of Sequania in the province of Belgica was named for the Sequani and they were relocated there. When Julius Civilis and Julius Sabinus rose in revolt following the death of Vitellius the Sequani resisted them. This earned the Sequani the admiration of Rome, who made their chief settlement, Vesontio, a colony, and graced it with a triumphal arch. After this we hear no more of the Sequani as a separate people.

In conclusion the Sequani had a mixed impact on Gaul. They are remembered as the ones who produced the greatest domestic animals in Gaul, producing both clothing and meat of exceptional quality. Their greatest legacy however was bringing the Sweboz across the Rhine.

[Celts: The Arverni]

In this article we will give a short history of the Arverni tribe of Gaul. As one of the most powerful tribes the Arverni had a major presence in Gallic politics. Vercingetorix, the most famous Celt of all, was of this tribe.

Much of the Arverni's history is unknown. Because of the nonexistence of Gallic sources much of what we know of the Arverni must be reconstructed from the archeology, the Hellenes, the Romans. The historian Livy tells us the Arverni, like their Aedui foes, were part of the great migration to Italy under Bellovesus in the 6th Century. It has been suggested the Arverni belief that they were destined to rule Gaul may have started in this period, due to the influence of the Bituriges. This in fact may be the root of their name, as Arverni is Gaulish for Superior Ones.

Not much more is known until the 3rd Century. When we hear of the Arverni again in the 3rd Century BC they had prospered and grown to amazing heights. By this time the Arverni had long since surpassed the Bituriges and had begun a great conquest of Gaul. The primary force behind this conquest was religious in nature, and tied to their kings. The Arverni choose their kings by election, in which all free men took part. The king, whom they called the Verrix, was believed to be divine, the incarnation of Arvernos. To them the natural place of the Verrix was to be high king of Gaul. The formation of the Arverni Confederacy dates from this period. This confederacy allowed for Arverni power to spread from the Pyrenees to the Rhine. Their domestic might was also great from this time on. It is said there was no home in Gaul did not have Arverni made pottery, so great was their reputation for making pots. Gergovia, the Arverni capital, is now believed to have been home to the greatest kilns in Gaul, in terms in quality and sheer numbers. This, combined with Arverni control of the northern trade routes, made them very wealthy. So wealthy that for a time the Arverni fielded the best equipped army in Gaul. However the rising power of the Aedui and their allies threatened their power. This became the start of the famous feud between the two alliances.

The 2nd Century was both the high tide and the beginning of the end. Under a succession of brilliant Verrix the power of the Arverni Confederacy expanded to cover nearly the entirety of Gaul, and even the Belgae, the fierce tribes of what is now Belgium, feared them. The Hellenic traders of Massilia left behind a record speaking of the appearance of the Verrix Luernos when he visited their city at the height of Arverni glory. From this we know that at least in the mid 2nd Century the Arverni leadership had started to adopt some aspects of Hellenic dress. Luernos wore a robe of purple and gold (this speaks well for the wealth of the Arverni). We also know from this account the Arverni's main emblem was a wild boar. But all of this was about to come crashing down. When the Romans arrived in Gaul to the aid of Massilia the Arverni were drawn in by treaty ties tying them to the Allobroges. In the resulting conflict the powerful Arverni Confederacy was utterly broken by Rome (121 BC). The Arverni themselves were nearly wiped out, and the Verrix was humiliated. Following this the kingship lost its religious significance and was abolished. Gaul soon afterwards broke once more into chaos, the fragile unity brought by the Arverni's iron fist gone.

In the 1st Century the most famous Celt of all appeared. It is in this period that we know the most about the Arverni, and that even in their twilight they could still pose a threat to Rome. By the time of the 1st Century the Arverni had defied all belief by beginning to recover from what had appeared to be a mortal wounding at the hands of Rome. This rising strength enabled the Arverni to, with the help of the Sequani, challenge the power of the Roman backed Aedui. But even so the Arverni still suffered heavily, and they appeared to be losing the war. When the Sequani proposed inviting the Sweboz to help them the chief of the Arverni, Celtillus, was vehement in his opposition. The Arverni and the Sweboz hated each other, and Celtillus did not want their help. Nevertheless the Sequani invited them anyway, and brought disaster on themselves when the Sweboz turned on the hand that paid them. But this, ironically enough, would be a good thing. With the Aedui all but wiped out, and the Sequani beaten, the Arverni stood a good chance of regaining their former power. Celtillus began to develop dreams of grandeur, if he had not already, believing the path open to revive the office of Verrix. Thus he set out to unite Gaul. But his dreams were all cut short when his nobility assassinated him out of fear what a united Gaul would bring on them. As the son of Celtillus, the deliberately named Vercingetorix (which means Man who is Chief of a Hundred Heads), was too young to rule so the nobles ruled in his place. Vercingetorix would go on to eventually take control of the Arverni and in time became the leader of the great revolt against Rome in 53. Alongside the Arverni Guard, an elite formation he created, Vercingetorix lead his men into battle. In 52 the Gallic tribes, united in thier entirety for the first and only time, elected Vercingetorix as the Verrix, high king of Gaul. But his reign would be short, Caesar was relentless. When the Gallic Revolt ended Caesar spared the Arverni from destruction. Why he did so remains a mystery, but it is commonly believed that Caesar respected them for their nobility of person and fighting spirit. After this we hear no more of the Arverni as a separate people, except for a few scattered references here and there.

In conclusion the Arverni were a major power in Gaul. Rising from relative obscurity to become nearly masters of Gaul, to being all but wiped out by Rome, only to recover and almost defeat Julius Caesar himself, truly the Arverni were among the greatest movers and shakers in Gallic history.

[Command & Conquer 3]

Well I will be buying CnC 3 today, played the sheesh out that demo. I have been looking foward to this game for a long time, I can tell you that. And here I have not been a CnC fan for very long, I actually only got ahold of The First Decade games a year ago. I already love it, and I can finally understand why so many other people hated Generals. I disliked that game too, but that was because it stunk awful.

So if anyone sees a guy bouncing off the walls, that would be me.

Just Kidding

[Which Roman Emperor Are You?]

You scored as Augustus.

You are Augustus! First emperor of the Romans and one of the greatest statesmen in the ancient world. You brilliantly eased the old Republic into the Principate and set the path for an empire that would last for centuries and form the underpinnings for all western civilization. Hail Caesar!

Augustus

100%

Hadrian

86%

Claudius

79%

Antoninus Pius

71%

Marcus Aurelius

71%

Vespasian

64%

Trajan

64%

Tiberius

57%

Nero

36%

Nerva

36%

Caligula

29%

Domitian

29%

Vitellius

21%

Commodus

0%

[Celts: The Aedui]

In this article we will give a short history on the Aedui tribe of Gaul. One of the best known of the Gallic tribes the Aedui played a major role in the politics of the region, both before and after the Roman conquest.

Not much is known of the Aedui. It is unfortunate but like with most of the Gallic tribes we do not know a lot about the Aedui outside of their interactions with Rome. We know that the Aedui were in existence in the 6th Century BC, for Livy tells us that the Aedui were part of the great invasion of Italy under Bellovesus. The Insubres, who founded a city that would later become known as Mediolanum, were a sub tribe of the Aedui. It is interesting to note that the Aedui claimed to be the rightful heirs of the Bituriges (which means incidentally kings of the world), the rulers of Gaul in the 6th Century.

Roman contact had a great impact on the Aedui. From what little we know of them we know that contact with Rome must have happened fairly early in the history of the Aedui. For by the time of the 3rd Century they already have a Roman style political system in place. Of all the Gallic tribes the Aedui have the best recorded political system. Again by the 3rd Century we hear of them of having an assembly that elected a magistrate, called the Vergobret, whose power matched that of a Roman Consul according to Caesar. We also know the wealth of the Aedui increased by this time as the trade routes between the Greco-Roman cultures of the Mediterranean and Northern Europe went through their territory from Massilia (modern Marseilles). Gold coins, minted by the Aedui themselves, date from the 3rd Century. It is also from this time that we first hear of the long standing bad blood between the Aedui and Arverni. Previously the Arverni Confederacy had been the undisputed masters of much of Gaul, from the Pyrenees to the Rhine. The rising influence of the Aedui threatened their supremacy, and when the Aedui formed an alliance against them, tensions rose. If any wars broke out between them we cannot say for certain, but the bad blood started in the 3rd Century.

By the time of the 2nd Century the tide of power had turned. As we move forward in time more becomes clear. The 2nd Century was one of momentous change for the Aedui, and for all of Gaul. It was in these years the Roman Republic first made its presence felt. When Massilia became threatened Rome intervened on their behalf, and that conflict drew in the Arverni. They were nearly wiped out by the Romans, and the power of their confederacy was broken beyond all repair. The Aedui, who had supported the Romans as far as they could with out going to war, prospered for their support. In 125 the Senate officially recognized the Aedui as friends and brothers of the Roman people, giving them privileged status. When Roman trade from the newly established Province began arriving in force the Aedui switched to using Roman style silver coinage to fully take advantage of the new trading opportunities. Bibracte, the capital, became among the richest and largest of the Gallic cities. When Rome began to meddle in the political stage of Gaul they choose to back the Aedui, and it was Roman power that backed the formation of an Aedui Confederacy. But this new force never attained the same level of power the Arverni had, and the cracks soon showed. The rising power of the Sequani became a major thorn to the Aedui, and a even greater threat then the Arverni.

In the 1st Century BC we have the most information. We know the most about the Aedui during the period of Caesar's conquest of Gaul, with whom they allied themselves. In 71 BC the Sequani (allied with the Arverni) and the Aedui were at war and from all accounts the latter appeared to be winning. The Sequani as a result called a man we know as Ariovistus to help them. Ariovistus appears to have been a war leader amongst the Germanic Sweboz, whom the Romans called the Suebi. The Germanic peoples were the only warriors the Celts truly feared, and their entrance into the war turned the tide against the Aedui. To their credit they managed to hold the Sweboz off for ten years before appealing to Rome for aid. The arrival of Diviciacus in 61, a druid who was also Vergobret, is significant as not only one of the few named Vergobrets but also as the only named druid who really existed. Diviciacus left a great impact on Rome, and he even made friends with the great orator Cicero. However the Senate refused to help him and his people, and as a result the Aedui fell to their enemies soon after Diviciacus' mission. When Caesar arrived in Gaul he restored the Aedui to their former lands, and pushed the hated Sweboz back over the Rhine. Over the course of Caesar's conquests the Aedui were Rome's greatest Celtic allies and many young Aeduan nobleman joined Caesar's legions as a cavalry auxilia. For these reasons it is hard for historians, even to this day, to understand what motivated the Aedui to suddenly switch sides when the Gallic revolt began in 53. It has been suggested that the reason was a change in leadership. In 53 Diviciacus had lost his bid to be re-elected as Vergobret, so the new magistrate, possibly an anti-Roman, would have had good reason to align with the rebels. Interestingly enough Vercingetorix, who was an Arverni, was elected leader of the revolt at Bibracte. When the revolt was defeated by Caesar at Alesia in 51 it was the Aedui who were the first of the tribes to beg Caesar for forgiveness. Because the ties between the Aedui and Rome were still strong Caesar spared them and the Aedui quickly assumed a leadership position in the new Roman order.

The last mention of the Aedui comes in the 1st Century AD. When Augustus began his reorganization of Gaul in the early years of the new era the Aedui were among the first to be affected. Augustus dismantled Bibracte and built a new capital, a blending of Roman and Gallic cultures, for them. This new capital was called Augustodunum. In 21 AD an Aeduan nobleman named Julius Sacrovir rose in revolt in protest against the high taxes demanded by the Roman government. Tiberius dispatched Legio II Augusta under Gaius Silius to put down the revolt, which ended swiftly. Despite this the long history of friendship prevailed and the Emperor Claudius bestowed upon them jus honorum, the right to run for public office. After this we have no more mention of the Aedui as a separate people.

In conclusion the Aedui were an important part of Gallic history. Even though we do not have a lot of information about them the Aedui were certainly a major power in Gaul. And as a benefit of their long standing friendship with Rome the Aedui became the first Celts to run for Roman office.

[Additional Civs you'd like to see?]

Well I personally would love to see the Mauryans, Saka, and the Hellenistic Kingdoms. I have always liked the Successors, and the Mauryans I grew to like writing my bio of thier founder. Europa Barbarorum, a mod for RTW, got me interested in the Saka, who are definatly interesting.

[Celts: Common Misconceptions about the Celts]

In part because of the bias of the Romans and the Hellenes, and partly because of the rising romanticism in the 19th Century there is many misconceptions about the Celts. In particular about the Druids, the practice of head-hunting, and about Celtic warfare. In this article we will look at some of the more well-known myths, and the truth behind them.

MYTH ONE: Celts went into battle bright blue and naked

Without a doubt the most famous misconception of all is the belief that those Celts who could not afford armor went into battle naked, tattooed bright blue. In truth, the practice of the blue tattoos had died out by the time of 0 AD and was only practiced by the Brythonic Celts and Picts. As for going into battle naked, that practice was special to mercenary bands and religious groups like the Gaesatae. The purpose of which was to be closer to nature and the myriad deities they devoted themselves too. Most Celts went into battle with clothes and some rudimentary armor. Full armor, such as chain-mail, was reserved for the nobility and their retainers. The issue of how widespread the helmet was is a separate issue, and not easy to answer.

MYTH TWO: Celts were bloodthirsty and constantly at war

When writing of the Celts the Roman historians called them bloodthirsty savages, constantly at war. In truth the Celts were not bloodthirsty or at war all the time. But the Celts did fight amongst themselves quite often. This was however confined to cattle raiding and other forms of minor fighting, like honor duels and blood feuds between clans. Full-scale war did occur, but not any more or any less frequent for any other people in the ancient world.

MYTH THREE: Celts were barbarians

Sadly when most people think of the Celts they think of them as a barbaric horde, and that Rome was doing them a favor by bringing 'good Roman culture'. This was exactly what many Roman historians were aiming to do. Because of their view of the world, the Romans and Hellenes considered those outside their 'world' to be barbarians and beneath contempt. In truth, the Celts were most certainly not barbarians. While their records are scarce and not well understood today, we know that the Celts created a strong vibrant culture, and an identity separate of all of their neighbors. Despite the somewhat nebulous nature of Celtic civilization, it did exist, and was quite advanced. In some areas, the Celts were on par with Rome and Hellas. It is important here to note the ancient understanding of the word 'barbarian' was different from the modern understanding. To the Hellenes, a barbarian was one did not speak a Greek language. To the Romans a barbarian was one who did not live by the standards of Roman or Hellene civilization. While they viewed the Celts as barbarians according to their worldview, the modern view of the Celts as barbarians is incorrect.

MYTH FOUR: Women warriors

This is a complicated misconception, partly because there is truth to it, and it is hard to discern the stories from reality. Within Celtic society, women were given a great deal of freedom, and there was nothing stopping them from going into battle with the men folk if they wished. The problem is the practice was not widespread. The fact women were fighting in the Celtic armies is undeniable, but apart from a few extraordinary instances (like the defense of Ynys Mon in Wales) women warriors are the stuff of hero legends (such as in the Gaelic legends of Cu Chulainn).

MYTH FIVE: Celtic warfare

A great deal has been written about the manner in which warfare was conducted by the Celts, which would be well outside the purposes of this article. Instead we will cover some well-known misconceptions about Celtic warfare. First and best known was the belief that Celts fought as a disorganized mob. This myth is borne out of the differences in the Helleno-Roman and Celtic approach to warfare and battle. In general, the former stressed the cohesion and discipline of the whole formation, relying on the ‘group’. The latter focused on the skill, prowess, and training of the individual, or a small formation. Heroic culture was much of the inspiration for this. It is important to stress here the Celts were not incapable of formation warfare, indeed the Romans learned many of their tactics from the Celts, but they did not place as great an importance on it. A second myth we shall tackle is about the quality of Celtic weapons. Contrary to popular belief, the Celts were masterful weapon makers, and surviving battle paraphernalia is highly prized. This is especially true of swords, which could be of a very fine quality if made for a noble. The Romans sometimes mocked Celtic swords, but only because the Celts used their swords differently then Rome. Whereas the Romans used their swords for thrusting and slashing, the Celts used theirs more like a cudgel.

MYTH SIX: Druids

There are several famous misconceptions about the Druids. First, we will examine the myth of the Druids building Stonehenge. In truth, Stonehenge had been built and abandoned by whomever created it long before the arrival of the Celts around 500 BC. However, the Druids may have used Stonehenge for their own purposes, which is another matter. Other myths about this group will be addressed by listing what the Druids actually were. The Druids of the Celtic world were their culture’s educators, scholars, healers (and doctors of varying kinds), poets, and occasionally war leaders.

MYTH SEVEN: Human Sacrifice

Many Roman historians, most famously Caesar and Didorus Siculus, asserted the Celts practiced human sacrifice. Even today, the controversy still rages on the matter. However for this article we will assume it is a myth. There is simply not enough archeological evidence either way. It must be stated however that much was once thought to support the theory of Celtic human sacrifice is just artifacts of the head cult (addressed below) or criminals.

MYTH EIGHT: Rituals

A good deal of misconceptions arise over the rituals of the Celts, mostly because our primary source on them, the Romans, did not understand the Druids. Samain, modern Samhain, probably is the worst distorted of all. Perhaps the biggest misconception is that Samain is the Celtic New Year, it just marked the end of the harvest season. Other myths, such as Samain marking the first frost, or the festival was a celebration of the dead, are inventions of either Halloween tradition or modern neopaganism. In truth, we do not know a lot about Druidic festivals or rituals.

MYTH NINE: Headhunters

The Celtic head cult has garnered much attention over the years, probably due to the neopagan movement. The fact the head cult existed is not debated, the details are another matter. In short what we do know about the head cult is the Celts esteemed the head over all other body parts, believing it to be the center of power. Taking an opponents' head after a battle was a normal ritual. From the archeological evidence these heads were taken home and displayed, probably to demonstrate a man's prowess in combat. Beyond that little can be said with surety on this mysterious aspect of Celtic religion.

MYTH TEN: Celtic ships were flimsy

This is a modern misconception and one that is easily refuted. While not much is known of the ship building skills of the Celts we do know that their vessels were fashioned from strong wood, and reinforced with iron belts much like a wooden barrel (a Celtic invention most likely). We also know that the Celts built their ships big; Caesar himself notes this in his campaign against the Venetii.

MYTH ELEVEN: Horned Helmets

Much like the myth of women warriors (see above) this is a complicated misconception, but one nevertheless. Traditionally horned helmets have been considered to be merely ceremonial. However we know from the ancient historians that some Celts did wear horned helmets, and some wore even more extravagant headgear. Such as the famous helmet unearthed in modern Romania with a metal raven fixed to the top. This has led to the increasingly popular position that the horned helmet was ceremonial, but some of the more religious Celts or tribes (most notably the Carnutes) did choose to wear it. However, the horned helmet had likely died off as a popular piece of battle-gear by the late 3rd Century BC at the earliest.

MYTH TWELVE: All Celts used chariots in battle

This misconception falls into the same category as the one about blue tattoos. In other words by the time of 0 AD the practice had died out amongst the Celts in Europe, but remained intact in the British Isles, where it was used to great effect against the Romans by both the Brythonic and the Goidelic Celts. Celtic mastery of the chariot was impressive (as recorded by the ancient authors), and the Romans respected and feared the chariot warriors, who were undoubtedly the elite.

MYTH THRITEEN: All Celts limed up their hair and became bald

Much like the myth about the flimsy ships the myth about the limed up hair is a recent invention. In truth the practice was not at all wide spread, many warriors did use lime to spike their hair and make them more intimidating, but was not used widely. It was a personal choice, or part of a religious vow. As for lime making one bald, using lime once was not enough to make a warrior bald, using it repeatedly was what did that. Some forms of Celtic soap were also used in the spiking/balding process. The ingredients are still a mystery, even though theories abound.

MYTH FOURTEEN: Celts and Bagpipes

Another modern myth about the Celts is that they used bagpipes, both in battle and in peacetime. In truth there is no mention of bagpipes in the British Isles at all until the 8th Century AD, and not solidly until the 12th. The harp was the preferred musical instrument of the Celts. Evidence of this can be found in surviving Celtic hero poetry and in the epic cycles of Ireland.

MYTH FIFTEEN: Celtic Kilts

This misconception is a more of a product of Scot-Irish (or Gaelic) nationalism then a normal misconception. They assert, based any number of things, that the ancient Celts wore kilts. This is utter nonsense, the earliest kilt, the "Great Wrap" did not appear until the 16th Century. The Goidelic Celts may have used the leine and brat, a loose tunic and mantle used by the Irish, in 0 AD's period, but this is not certain, although possible.

MYTH SIXTEEN: Celtic Artwork

Perhaps one of the most enduring legacies of the Celts today is their artwork. To be precise the Celtic Knot. Unfortunately part of Celtic art's appeal is that today we just do not know a lot about its past. Nothing can be said with certainty before 450 AD, when Celtic Christian artwork first appeared. However, we can say that the ancient Celts did use knot work, just what form it took is unknown.

MYTH SEVENTEEN: Celtic Roads

There are many myths about Celtic roads, perhaps the most widespread being that Celtic roads were poor or just dirt paths. This is incorrect the Celts did build roads, and possibly started building them even earlier then Rome (the archeology is unclear). Celtic roads were built of wood and other materials, using a sophisticated system of planks and runners. In the later phases of Celtic history, they even used stone. Julius Caesar in his De Bello Gallico speaks highly of the Celtic road system, and admitted the speed of his advance was owed to the far spread and excellence of the roads in Gaul.

MYTH EIGHTEEN: Celtic Height

A very common misconception exists about the height difference between the Hellenes and Romans on the one hand, and the Celts on the other. Archeological findings have discovered that there was no great height difference between the Celts and their more ‘civilized’ enemies in Hellas and Rome. This has led to some confusion, as both Hellene and Roman writers frequently commented on the great height of the Celts. It could be the Celts simply seemed that much bigger due to the other factors. Possibly these writers were referring to certain extraordinarily tall exceptions that had been mistaken for the general height of Celtic warriors.

MYTH NINETEEN: Celtic Writing

Until fairly recently it had been taken as fact that the Celts left no written records whatsoever. However, recent advances have not only uncovered examples of Celtic writing, especially the Gaulish dialect, but also have allowed us to decipher it to an extent. While no historical writings have been discovered, if they exist at all, existing examples of Celtic writing have significantly added to our understanding. While no full alphabet has been uncovered in any of the known scripts used (for Gaulish: Etruscan, Greek, and Latin) it is now a misconception to say the Celts lacked writing.

MYTH TWENTY: The Celts lacked hygiene of any kind

Another common myth is the idea the Celts lacked hygiene or did not value cleanliness. This is not true and in fact the Celts were quite health conscious. While under dispute, it is generally accepted the Celts did in fact invent soap, which was varied in quality, composition, and usage. Three types we know of definitely are bar soap, a greasy compound, and head soap. The difference between the three is the lye content of the soap, which the Celts extracted from the fats they used in the soap making process. In addition, archeology as unearthed evidence the Celts may have discovered how to make artificial hot baths before the Romans brought their own hot water systems into Celtic lands. Undoubtedly, the Celts use did natural baths and hot water springs, but the discovery is still important. The Germanic cultures neighboring the Gallic and Belgic Celts apparently learned much of this, and in fact the Romans held the soap of Germania in higher regard then that of Gaul due to the much higher concentration of fat (and hence lye) in German soap.

In conclusion we have touched on only a few of the myriad misconceptions that surround the Celts. However it is the firm belief of the author that in the end these misconceptions will fall away. Because when you get down to it fact is always more fascinating then myth.

[Warlords: Total Realism]

Here let me provide you all with a link to the mod's thread on the Civilization Fanatics' Forum: Warlords: Total Realism

[Warlords: Total Realism]

Has anyone here played a mod for the game Civilization IV Warlords called Warlords: Total Realism? It is pretty cool, definatly makes the game more fun to play. BTW anyone playing the Greeks will be in for a little surprise, they used our Themistokles artwork as one of the three Greek leaders in the game (the other two being Megas Alexandros and Perikles). Just thought you would all like to know

[Biographies: Krateros]

Krateros (or Craterus) was a Macedonian general of the 4th Century BC. Krateros was the favored general of Megas Alexandros, Alexander the Great, and one of his earliest Successors.

No one knows exactly when he was born. Unfortunately not much is known about Krateros' life prior to the invasion of Persia. It is commonly believed that he born in 366 in the Orestis province. His father was a minor nobleman named Alexandros of Orestis and his mother is unknown. It is probable that Krateros grew up much in the same manner of other Macedonian youths. When he came of age he was given an command in the Pezhetairoi and served out his early career under Philip II. When Alexander the Great ascended to the throne he confirmed Krateros' position.

When Alexander set out to conquer the Achaemenids, Krateros went with him. We get our first solid mention of Krateros in 334 BC at the battle of the Granicus. At this battle Krateros commanded a battalion of Pezhetairoi on the left wing, under Parmenion's command. However Krateros' exact role in the fighting is not clear, but he must have done something extraordinary, because following that battle Alexander extended his command. The general was given command of all left wing infantry, as well as half of the Pezhetairoi phalanx.

The next major mention of Krateros' comes at Issus, where he commanded his men with distinction, garnering more attention from Alexander, which he craved. By this time Krateros, who was as ambitious as he was noble, began to resent Parmenion's position over him, he wanted to be Alexander's right hand man. When the king besieged the city of Tyre following Issus he gave Krateros a separate naval command. Alexander was probably impressed by Krateros' skill, but still put the general back in a subordinate position to Parmenion at Gaugamela, where he once again commanded his half of the phalanx and the left wing infantry. Following that battle Alexander at last 'promoted' Krateros over Parmenion, giving him a command that was subordinate only to the king. In his new position he commanded a force in the fight with the Uxians, at the Persian Gate (where he commanded the holding force), and in the pursuit of Darius III. Following this the general was given a command independent of the main army, a flying column. In this position he was sent out on a variety of special missions that required a small group of soldiers.

In late 330 Krateros, together with Koenos and Hephaestion, raised accusations against Philotas, the son of Parmenion. By this point in the war many of the Macedonian soldiers had lost faith in Alexander, in their eyes they had done their job and wanted to go home. A group of soldiers began to conspire together to assassinate the king. Philotas had found out but failed to report it to Alexander. Then Krateros found out and told Koenos, who in turn informed Hephaestion. Together all three plotted the downfall of Parmenion's son. Krateros, even though he was no longer Parmenion's subordinate, wanted his position. So he pressed with his co-accusers for Philotas to be treated as part of the conspiracy. In the end Alexander had both Philotas and Parmenion executed, making the conspiracy one of the darker moments in the conquest.

The next mention of Krateros comes during the Jaxartes campaign, were Krateros was able to capture the great city of Cyreschata before Alexander arrived. During the revolt of Spitamenes Krateros (along with Koenos) was put in command of the unit sent to capture him. Following the end of the revolt Krateros fought with the Massagetes, as a cavalry commander. Alexander had, like with many of the other generals, forced Krateros to change branches, making him a cavalry general. Next he was put in charge of building a series of military colonies along the northern and eastern border of Alexander's realm. When the king invaded India in 326 Krateros was in Alexander's wing of the army and took part in the Swat campaign, making use of his fortification skills. By now Krateros had risen very high in Alexander's favor, he was the top commander, trusted with duties no other commander would have had. In fact Krateros had risen so high he actively clashed for Alexander's favor with Hephaestion, who's position was believed to be unassailable by the army. When Alexander fought Poros at the Hydaspes, Krateros was in charge of the main body of the Macedonian army, effectively keeping the mighty Indian king in place. When Alexander moved further into India he left Krateros behind to build some new cities and gather supplies. When the army revolt forced Alexander to turn back Krateros was entrusted with a variety of important commands, usually with Hephaestion holding the opposite command, causing friction.

When Alexander set out for Babylon in 325 Krateros led one of the two returning columns (Alexander led the other, and a naval force led by Nearchos accompanied him). This was a major sign of Alexander's trust in Krateros, no other general since Parmenion had been given command of half the army. Not only that but Krateros was also entrusted with the protection of Roxana, Alexander's primary wife. When the army linked up once more at Susa in 324 Krateros, like the rest of the army, was forced into taking a Persian wife as the first step of Alexander's Brotherhood of Man. Because of his exalted status within the kingdom Krateros was married to Princess Amestris, a niece of Darius III. Alexander and Hephaestion were the only other men to marry Achaemenid princesses. This was the pinnacle of his career and it was about to get better. Later that same year Hephaestion died, and Krateros suddenly became Alexander's most favored official. When Alexander decided to replace Antipater as regent of Makedon he chose Krateros to be his replacement. Due to an unidentified illness Polyperchon was ordered to accompany Krateros and his army of retiring veterans to Makedon. They probably set out in late 324, early 323.

Krateros had no idea of what would happen next. While the small army was in Cilicia building a navy that would taken them the rest of the way to Makedon they received startling news. On June 11th, 323 Alexander died of fever in Babylon, the great conqueror was dead and all of the senior officials were in conference deciding on what to do. Even though Krateros was more then qualified to take part in the conference he did not return to Babylon. Why we do not know, but we do know from later accounts that Krateros was quite angry about being left out in the post-Alexander order laid down at the meeting. So it was that Krateros decided to remain in Cilicia and continue building his fleet, probably with the intent of eventually making his way to Makedon. Perdikkas meanwhile decided to not name a Satrap of Cilicia, no one would be foolish enough to try to go in while Krateros remained there. When news reached Krateros of the Lamian War and the bad condition of the old Regent Antipater he decided to sail to Makedon and aid him. Krateros arrived in Makedon in 322 and played a vital role in ending the Lamian War. During this time Antipater became very fond of his would-be replacement and offered his eldest and dearest daughter, Phila, to him in marriage. Krateros realized this was a wonderful opportunity and following his divorce from Amestris (whom Krateros couldn't stand anyway) they married. Though their time was short, by all records Krateros and Phila were happy together. Following the marriage Antipater and Krateros divided the control of the Regency between themselves so that both men had equal amounts of power. The arrangement worked well but soon other events would interrupt. By this time Perdikkas, the Regent of the empire, had announced his up coming marriage to Cleopatra of Epiros. Antipater was outraged that Perdikkas had broken the engagement with his daughter Nikaea. In the resulting alliance against Perdikkas that was constructed by his father-in-law Krateros was the first of the Successors to join, followed by Lysimachos of Thrace and Ptolemy of Egypt. Perdikkas declared them all traitors to the empire, sparking off the first civil war. When the war actually began in the spring of 321 Krateros led the main allied army into Cappadokia to face off with Eumenes, Perdikkas' sole ally and Alexander's secretary. To the surprise of the everyone Krateros was slain in the battle and his army defeated. So died Krateros, the greatest general of Alexander the Great, at the age of 45.

In conclusion Krateros was one of the greatest of Alexander's generals. Proving himself early on to be a able general with independent judgment he rose quickly through the ranks. Had he not been killed so early in the fighting Krateros would have been one of the greatest of the Diadochi.

[Today is my 20th B-day]

Well folks as of today I am now officialy out of my teens and am now an young adult. Well that is officially, unofficialy I intend to act like a 14 year old for a while longer....

Just Kidding

Seriously though this is a big day for me, turning the big two-oh is a major turning point of my life, one that so far has been great. I mean it was not long ago that I just got published for the first time, and I am still walking on air over that... And I plan sending many more for publication to AG. I got a new video card as my birthday present from my Mom and Dad, which means I can play the SupCom demo now. Not to mention as much better my other games are playing. I bought a Star Wars book, the new one on Darth Bane, and my parents paid for it as a second present. Aren't they sweet?

Over all I have spent a lot of today in serious thought, I mean twenty is supposed to be a big year. Well I am going to have to see what the Lord has in store for me.

But for all let's boogie!