Nabateans, Judean , Arameans, Samaritans, Idumeans and Syrian natives

[Stan`]

What props ?

[Lion.Kanzen]

These

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agal_(accessory)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keffiyeh

 

and more interesting things.

http://www.moddb.com/mods/europa-barbarorum-2/news/preview-arabian-part-2

Sources of them.

Quote

There is not a lot of material to go on for reconstructing the look, equipment, evolution, organisation and tactics of the ancient south Arabian armies of the Hellenistic period. Hence one is often dependent upon sources from different periods, logic together with the bits of archaeology and epigraphic remains of this obscure little part of history to make a coherent representation, which is impossible without the use of some guesswork to fill in the various blanks. Quite a bit of our reconstruction is thus partly based on the more numerous sources from the first century BC onwards, which is less of a problem than it may seem as not that much appears to have changed during this time span.

The first type of source available to us, which perhaps provides the most information, especially equipment-wise, are warrior, victory and hunting steles and other reliefs. There are quite a few of them depicting nobles in their full panoply, usually a buckler, spear and/or sword and bow or a different combination of these. Sadly not all are conserved as well, and it is often hard to spot details. Few depictions of armour remain and are usually not too clear. Dating as well can be somewhat problematic. Of much importance is a victory stele depicting archers carrying the hands of slain enemies - as was also an ancient Egyptian habit – proving that the original idea that bows were unimportant and mostly the preserve of the élite in south Arabia was flawed. This idea was based on the research of a large collection of epigraphic texts from the first century AD by Beeston, one of the most important scholars of ancient south Arabian studies. It is in this important work that he also explains the organisation and equipment of the Sabaean armies according to his findings, of which most are still standing today. Though research in this field has been limited. Except for the friezes and epigraphic evidence little has been found in south Arabia. One ancient bronze sword with an Egyptian-like design has been found, but almost certainly dates back to the mukkarib period. The largest finds of Sayhad weaponry comes from the archaeological survey from Wadi Dura, led by J.F. Breton, but date from centuries after the game ends. Not uninteresting is the finding of a halberd, perhaps introduced or influenced by Indians, though of far too late a date for use in our mod. Some of the other finds such as bronze bowls with depictions of archers, a short to medium-sized sword and daggers are of more use to recreate our image of Sayhad warriors. All in all the best visual aid for reconstructing these soldiers are the aforementioned warrior stelae.

Quote

Bibliography
This list is only a select bibliography and features mostly generic works on one of the cultures involved. 

• Warfare in Ancient South Arabia: 2nd - 3rd c. AD, A.F.L., Beeston.
• Ancient Yemen: some general trends of evolution of the Sabaic language and Sabaean culture,A., Korotayev, 1995.
• L'arabe heureuse au temps de la reine de Saba' VIIIe - Ier Siècle avant J-C, J.F., Breton.
• The pre-Islamic Antiquities at the Yemen National Museum, P.M., Costa, 1978.
• Queen of Sheba: treasures from Ancient Yemen, St John Simpson (ed), London, 2002.
• Sabaic Dictionary, A.F.L., Beeston & J., Rykmans, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1982.
• Geschichte der alt-südarabischen Reiche, K., Schippmann, Darmstadt, 1998.
• Die Geschichte von Saba’ II. : das Grossreich der Sabäer bis zu seinem Ende im Frühen 4. Jh. v. Chr., H., Von Wissmann, Wien, 1982.
• Documentation for ancient Arabia, K. A., Kitchen, 1994.
• Ancient South Arabian, 'The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages', N., Nebes and P., Stein.
• Corpus of South Arabian Inscriptions (
  Sig Banners:
  Sb' w-gwm

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Lion.Kanzen

[wackyserious]

Even the clothing styles were Hellenized, I see. I was thinking of more traditional like the one above. If that is so, that will be easy, we will just have to change the skin tone of the textures below and remove the sleeves (Very quick to do, I have clipped layers for changing skin tone and removing and extending cloth length)

21 hours ago, wackyserious said:

Preview

Ptolemaic Military Settlers (Macedonians)

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

More visual references.

Source : https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=333982.15

[Lion.Kanzen]

Hatra(Aramic)

Their own Aramaic alphabet

Spoiler

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

Mercenaries... from this guys.

 

Idumeans (Herod people)

Quote

Edom (/ˈiːdəm/ ^[1] or /ˈiː.dʌm/;^[2]Hebrew: אֱדוֹם‬, Modern ʼEdōm Tiberian ʼEd'hōm, , lit.: "red"; Assyrian: Udumi; Syriac: ܐܕܘܡ) was an ancient kingdom in Transjordan located between Moab to the northeast, the Arabah to the west and the Arabian Desert to the south and east.^[3] Most of its former territory is now divided between Israel and Jordan. Edom appears in written sources relating to the late Bronze Age and to the Iron Age in the Levant, such as the Hebrew Bible and Egyptian and Mesopotamian records. In classical antiquity, the cognate name Idumea was used for a smaller area in the same general region.

Edom and Idumea are two related but distinct terms relating to a historically-contiguous population but two separate, if adjacent, territories that were occupied at different periods of their history by the Edomites/Idumeans. The Edomites first established a kingdom ("Edom") in the southern area of modern Jordan and later migrated into southern parts of the Kingdom of Judah ("Idumea", or modern southern Israel/Negev) when Judah was first weakened and then destroyed by the Babylonians, in the 6th century BC.

Edom is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible but also in a list of the Egyptian pharaoh Seti I from c. 1215 BC and in the chronicle of a campaign by Ramses III (r. 1186–1155 BC).^[3] The Edomites, who have been identified archaeologically, were a Semitic people who probably arrived in the region around the 14th century BC.^[3] Archaeological investigation showed that the country flourished between the 13th and the 8th century BC and was destroyed after a period of decline in the 6th century BC by the Babylonians.^[3] After the loss of the kingdom, the Edomites were pushed westward towards southern Judah by nomadic tribes coming from the east; among them were the Nabateans, who first appeared in the historical annals of the 4th century BC and already established their own kingdom in what used to be Edom, by the first half of the 2nd century BC.^[3] More recent excavations show that the process of Edomite settlement in the southern parts of the Kingdom of Judah and parts of the Negev desert down to Timna had started already before the destruction of the kingdom by Nebuchadnezzar II in 587/86 BCE, both by peaceful penetration and by military means and taking advantage of the already-weakened state of Judah.^[4][5]

Once pushed out of their territory, the Edomites settled during the Persian period in an area comprising the southern hills of Judea down to the area north of Be'er Sheva.^[6] The people appear under a Greek form of their old name, as Idumeans or Idumaeans, and their new territory was called Idumea or Idumaea (Greek: Ἰδουμαία, Idoumaía; Latin: Idūmaea), a term that was used in New Testament times.^[

 

During the revolt of the Maccabees against the Seleucid kingdom (early 2nd century BE), II Maccabees refers to a Seleucid general named Gorgias as "Governor of Idumaea"; whether he was a Greek or a Hellenized Edomite is unknown. Some scholars maintain that the reference to Idumaea in that passage is an error altogether.^{[citation needed]}Judas Maccabeus conquered their territory for a time around 163 BC.^[44] They were again subdued by John Hyrcanus (c. 125 BC), who forcibly converted them, among others, to Judaism,^[45] and incorporated them into the Jewish nation,^[26] despite the opposition of the Pharisees. Antipater the Idumaean, the progenitor of the Herodian Dynasty along with Judean progenitors, that ruled Judea after the Roman conquest, was of mixed Edomite/Judean origin. Under Herod the Great, the Idumaea province was ruled for him by a series of governors, among whom were his brother Joseph ben Antipater, and his brother-in-law Costobarus. Josephus, when referring to Upper Idumaea, speaks of towns and villages immediately to the south and south-west of Jerusalem, such as Hebron (Antiq. 12.8.6,Wars 4.9.7), Halhul, in Greek called Alurus (Wars 4.9.6), Bethsura (Antiq. 12.9.4), Marissa (Antiq. 13.9.1, Wars 1.2.5), Dura (Adorayim) (Antiq. 13.9.1, Wars 1.2.5), Caphethra (Wars 4.9.9), Bethletephon (Wars 4.8.1). It is presumed that the Idumaean nation, by the 1st-century CE, had migrated northwards from places formerly held by them in the south during the time of Joshua.^[46]

The Gospel of Mark^[47] includes Idumea, along with Judea, Jerusalem, Tyre, Sidon and lands east of the Jordan as the communities from which the disciples of Jesus were drawn.

According to Josephus, during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE by Titus, 20,000 Idumaeans, under the leadership of John, Simeon, Phinehas, and Jacob, helped the Zealots fight for independence from Rome, who were besieged in the Temple.^[48] After the Jewish Wars, the Idumaean people are no longer mentioned in history, though the geographical region of "Idumea" is still referred to at the time of Jerome.^[26]

@wackyserious

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

@av93 we have more references even more possible mercenary units.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Herodians

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Nice brief.

 

Hasmonean Kingdom

1. 
   The roots of the Biblical state of Israel goes back far in time, and the country was assimilated by the Persians and then by the Seleucids. What was now as judea was part of the Seleucid Empire as a vassal state from 140 to 110, but became an Independent kingdom in 110 BC (until 63 BCE), known as the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Hasmonean dynasty ruled Judea and surrounding regions roughly between c. 140 and c. 116 BCE semi-autonomously from the Seleucids. After the Mithridatic wars, it became a client state of the Roman Republic (63–40 BCE) and then briefly of the Parthian Empire from 40 to 37 BCE.
   
   The nature of the army is little known, but through Roman eyes in the 60 BC civil war, and ancient accounts of local auxiliaries in the Seleucid Army. Royal Guards were Herodian palace spearmen/swordsmen, heavily armoured. Judaean spearmen were used by the Seleucid Army and resembled average thureophoroi. They were able to act as javelineers as well and had a sword for close combat. There is no indication of a local phalanx. Seleucid influence made of the adoption of the feared chariot (Merkava), also an age-old Judaean weapon, preferably mounting archers. Foot archers, both regular (driven from the surrounding villages) and elite ones, armoured and used as an auxiliary guard for the city of Jerusalem. The bulk of light infantry comprised Judaean javelineers but above all slingers (like the famous "zealots", driven from villages in the area, mostly herdsmen). Cavalry was important too. In particular eastern-influenced horse archers, both regular and armoured (mounted garrisons) which had to face the potential threat of Parthian incursions. There were also auxiliaries, in particular various troops that can be supplied by the Nabataeans, as allies or mercenaries.

    

   http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?763733-CATW-08

Edited January 13, 2018 by Lion.Kanzen

[Diatryma]

On 11/16/2016 at 6:40 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:

Conical helmet.

Name: Conical helmet

Origin: 8th century BC

Referred to as huliam by the Assyrians, The conical helmet can be described has a calotte helmet that rises to a point above the head and was made mostly of iron due to its lower cost. The picture depicted here is a bronze conical helmet. Other improvements such as additional cheek or ear pieces were made on the conical helmets in the later years of the empire.

https://web.wpi.edu/academics/me/IMDC/IQP Website/WAsiaFiles/800bc-600bcFiles/assyrian-empire.html

 

 

The Areamaens dont use Helmets... Research in Progress.

interesting supposition.

On 11/23/2016 at 9:08 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:

more Syrian helmets, the first one.

"worn by the eastern archers according to certain depiction details on Trajan’s Column65 . Such a helmet was discovered in the fort at Bumbeşti66. It is a bronze, undecorated helmet, whose cover extends sharply, ending in an empty cone-shaped top, originally provided with a button above. Analogies for this helmet are few, only three being identiied in the Roman world"

 

No, it is apparently one of the few conical helmets associated with Roman archers of Eastern origin (Robinson's Aux Inf. D). I am aware of the following:

 

Spoiler

Dahovo, Bosnia - Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, Hoffiller, V. 1910-11: 'Oprema rimskoga vojnika u prvo doba carstva', Vjestnik Hrvatskoga Arheoloskoga Drustva (Zagreb) n.s. 11, 145-240 (S. 27)

Intercisa, Hungary - Szabo 1986, 'Le casque romain d'Intercisa - recente trouvaille du Danube', Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III, 421

Karaagach, Bulgaria - Velkov, I. 1928-29: 'Neue Grabhügel aus Bulgarien', Bulletin de l'Institut d'Archéologie Bulgare 5, 13-55

Bumbesti, Romania - Petculescu, L. and Gheorghe, P. 1979: 'Coiful roman de la Bumbesti', Studii si Cervetari de Istorie Veche 30, 603-6

Dacia (I forgot the exact location) - potential cheek piece, Petculescu, L. 1982: 'Obrazare de coifuri Romane din Dacia', Acta Musei Napocensis 19, 291-300

Breda - Bredase Akkers, 4000 jaar bewoningsgeschiedenis op de rand van zand en klei. C.W. Koot, R. Berkvens. RAM102 Breda 2004. ISBN: 90-5799-056-3. Discussed here link from old RAT

There is another helmet classified in Robinson as a parade helmet which appears to be conical or parabolic so may fall in this category, I believe from Bulgaria (Ostrov?).

 

Petculescu mentions the Bumbesti helmet in an article on the equipment of Roman archers which I believe was published in the proceedings of the Vienna LIMES proceedings but the citation does not appear to be correct.

I have not found any other reference to the Bumbesti helmet.

the eastern archers’ equipment is represented by the “Levantine style” attire, as depicted on Trajan’s Column: an ankle-deep cloak covered by lorica squamata type armour, short-sleeved, and a conical helmet, atypical to the Roman army. he armour was imposed to those to whom it was uncommon, as they could not bear shields26. he bow case27, the quiver28 and the arrowheads are of special importance within the archer equipment. he arm guards29 come to complete the equipment. hey were used to protect the left arm from the bruises or burns inlicted by the bowspring when released. Material evidence of their presence is missing, however archer depictions on Trajan’s Column account for their use. Most likely, the lack of material evidence may be either due to the fact that arm guards were made of organic material30 or to erroneous interpretation of certain materials, framed in other categories as a result. Certainly, once incorporated within the Roman army, these auxiliaries would be under powerful “Romanising” inluences in all aspects of the spiritual or material life and implicitly.

 

for the simple fact that Roman workshops no longer made them. Practically, from the second half of the 2nd century AD they disappear entirely. In the ofensive weaponry ield, they would be forced to adopt certain weapons atypical to their specialisation as well, irstly for tactical reasons related to the adjustment to Roman army standards. hus, the traditional double-sided battle axe would be progressively replaced by the Roman sword, while the equipment would be occasionally completed with light spears for defence in case the archers were caught ofhand by the enemy31 . Military equipment inds evidence no peculiarities speciic to the area of origin, on the contrary, in numerous cases they account for extreme uniformity all over the Empire32. In Dacia, a record number of at least 23 units of eastern sagittarii  was reached. Large part of these troops was involved in the conquest wars of Dacia, in the aftermath either retuning to the provinces from where they were detached or remaining on the spot as garrison troops. Another category is represented by troops displaced subsequent this interval, according to the operational demands of the respective time. Issues related to the study of the military equipment of these troops are multiple: for some, the station is unknown, others garrisoned forts either succeeding or being succeeded and, respectively were garrisoned beside other troops, which due to unclear archaeological contexts from where part of the published material was collected, lead to equivocation and probable conclusions only. Below, we shall review data on published weaponry items on the territory of Dacia. Terminal stifeners are by far the most frequent artefacts pertaining to the military equipment of the eastern archers. hey are more or less arched, with a widened, most often rounded end, provided with a nock for the attachment of the bowspring. One of the surfaces is rounded and polished (the exterior), the other is iled in such a manner to exhibit certain parallel notches. he aim of this procedure was to increase attachment adherence to the wooden support34. Four terminal stifeners35 and one central36 come from the fort and civil settlement at Tibiscum. At least two archer units were stationed there: cohors I sagittaria milliaria equitata, consequently transferred to Drobeta and numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium. he excavators assigned the items to the 3rd century AD level when cohors I Vindelicorum was also stationed inside the fort beside the Palmyrenes unit. At Micia, a signiicant number of terminal stifeners, two central stifeners and a series of uninished pieces or processing waste were identiied in the central part of the fort, inside the level corresponding to the last phase (dated ca. 106–170 AD). he irst mention worthy of note here is that we are deinitely dealing with a composite bow-making workshop37, an exceptional case within the Empire. he second mention takes into account the shape and size of the terminal stifeners.

Dakovo in Bosnia, at Briastovets in Bulgaria and at Intercisa (A.XIII.34)67 in Hungary). H. Russell Robinson connected these helmets with those displayed on Trajan’s Column, assigned the irst two to sagittarii cohorts and framed them in type D68. he best analogy for the discussed helmet is that at Intercisa, which is also conical, bronze-made, undecorated and deinitely belonging to cohort I milliaria Hemesenorum sagittaria equitata. hus, the helmet at Bumbeşti most likely belonged to a soldier in a troop equipped according to the Levantine style, the single which would have been equipped as such being cohors IV Cypria c.R. (camped there subsequent the conquest of Dacia and displaced sometime prior AD 20169). As if to complete the image provided by the helmet at Bumbeşti, a bronze cheekpiece70 was found at Micia, which, due to its narrowness and special shape (the posterior rim is almost vertical) and for the lack of analogies within the Empire, was assigned by Petculescu to an undecorated conical helmet of an eastern archer.

Trilobate arrowheads80 and bow stifeners81 were identiied within accurate stratigraphic conditions in the fort at Straubing (Sorviodurum). he famous parade masks of obvious.

eastern inluences82 come from there. All these artefacts may be related to cohort I Flavia Canathenorum83 stationed there. Finds recorded on the territory of the Moesias may be reduced to a single mention from Topraichioi84 . Archers were intended to support other troops by standing behind them and shooting above. Commonly, they supported the heavy infantry against cavalry attacks however, they were unable to resist attack by themselves. One of their other tasks was to make vulnerable enemy orders by their iring shots, exposing them to cavalry charges and thus decreasing infantry losses. he archers’ position behind the battle line was useful for both their protection as well as for the fact they would continue iring in close combat cases85 as well.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Diatryma

[Diatryma]

the conical  helmet some times related with  Assyrian is celled Urartu.

Helmet of the Urartu king Sarduri II found at Karmir Blur near Teishebaini.[9] The inscription on the helmet reads: "Sarduri, son of Argishti dedicates this helmet to God Ḫaldi".[10] Right: detail of the helmet depicting the tree of life.

Helmet of the Urartu king Sarduri II found at Karmir Blur near Teishebaini.[9] The inscription on the helmet reads: "Sarduri, son of Argishti dedicates this helmet to God Ḫaldi".[10] Right: detail of the helmet depicting the tree of life.

tall, pointed helmet associated with the Iron Age kingdom of Urartu in Anatolia.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Diatryma

[Diatryma]

The Urartians adopted the same cuneiform script to inscribe their monuments, which sidelined the old hieroglyphic script (although it did not disappear altogether). Crucially the Urartians adopted Assyrian military practices and equipment, so that later Urartian armies used the conical Assyrian type helmets, which largely replaced the Hurrian style of cylindrical crested helmet. Thus Assyrian aggression was in time likely to have provided the impetus for these mountain dwellers to unite, as well as providing the inspiration for their culture.

Spoiler

The Assyrian attack had undoubtedly been destructive, but Kings at Tushpa had managed to maintain their authority over the lands of Urartu. At the opposite end of the kingdom a far more deadly foe was taking shape; that of transhumance. From the end of the eighth century BCE the peoples of the steppe, north of the Black Sea were moving. Stories of these migrations were still told in classical times, as Herodotus recounts that Scythians were forced southwards by the Massagetae, and fell upon a people called the Cimmerians, chasing them down into Asia Minor. Herodotus is famously unreliable, but part of the tale is supported by the facts. The Cimmerians hit Urartu first. Rusa I was compelled to devote attention to the defences of the northern frontier, and Assyrian records tell of an Urartian defeat at the hands of the Cimmerians in Rusa's reign. By the 7th century BCE the Cimmerians appear to have been accommodated, and were settled by Lake Van, and there is archaeological evidence that the Urartians employed Scythian mercenaries.

-----

 

I do not know if there is any connection, but these examples from Assyria and Sumer come to mind.

[Diatryma]

There are three main types of Late Assyrian helmets: pointed conical helmets, crested helmets, and scale helmets. Of these, only the first two can clearly be identified in the artifactual record. The third, scale helmets, will be discussed later under textual evidence.

 

he basic pointed or conical helmet is the ubiquitous head gear of the Late Assyrian army. Despite that prevalence, of the mere eleven conical helmets which Dezsö lists in his catalogue, only three are provenienced, and only one of those is definitely Late Assyrian. Eight of these helmets are bronze, two are iron, and one is of composite manufacture (2001). We will start by examining the single helmet from an excavated Assyrian context (fig. 6.1a). This helmet was found by Austen Henry Layard and is presently in the British Museum. It was one of the many objects which he uncovered in Chamber I of the Northwest Palace39 .

Spoiler

Crested helmets are the second type represented both in the Late Assyrian reliefs and among excavated arms. These crests come in a variety of patterns which will be discussed below under pictorial representations. The artifactual record provides us with only some fragmentary examples.

The reconstructing of these helmets was a somewhat difficult proposition. Not only are they just a collection of random fragments from an unknown number of helmets, comparative material to use as a model is rare. “There are only three surviving helmets from the ancient Near East from which to reconstruct the form and shape of our helmets, and unfortunately none of them comes from a properly controlled archaeological excavation” (Dezsö and Curtis 1991: 114)

by other hand:

 

The Hasanlu helmets can be grouped into the same two types as the Assyrians‟: bronze conical helmets and crested helmets. The conical helmets show the strength of Assyrian influence at Hasanlu in the ninth century. Dezsö argues that those with the frontal arcs, without corresponding figural or decorative scenes indicate that Hasanlu is one of the first places to adopt this type of helmet from Assyria.40 Both of the helmets of this type were found in Burned Building II, Room 5. A third helmet is somewhat lower and squatter in form, which may be a Northwestern Iranian tradition (2001: 73-74, pl. 67, 71). Its fragments bear rosette decorations, another clear Assyrian influence. The strong Assyrian appearance of these helmets make it difficult to say if they were made locally or came from Assyria (74).

 

Dezsö describes these as the only existing examples of a type which emerged in Transcaucasia and spread in the late second to early first millennium to the west, Urartu and North Syria, and to the southeast, Northern Iran and Hasanlu (2001: 77-78, pl. 75). 

 

Dezsö‟s catalogue lists a phenomenal forty-six conical bronze helmets, eight conical iron helmets, two conical crested bronze helmets, as well as a number of bronze neck-guards, and earflaps/cheek-pieces from Urartu. More than half the amount of ancient Near Eastern helmets known are Urartian....[they] have been found in large quantities in two types of findspot: votive stores of Urartian temples (e.g. Altintepe, south portico of the temple) and arsenals of royal palaces (Karmir Blur) (Dezsö 2001: 79). However, this vast number is swelled by several large hoards of unprovenienced material which may have come from the above sites or other sites unknown. There are also helmets excavated from a destruction level at Çavuștepe, Uçkale and five from the Urartian fortress at Burmageçit. This is not to suggest that Urartu used more metal helmets than other nations, rather that the thorough sacking of the Late Assyrian capitals by the Medes and Babylonians has masked the probably similar situation in Assyria (Dezsö 2001: 79). Only two undecorated bronze helmets are known from Urartu, and one of these has even been attributed as booty from the Assyrians. The Urartians showed a clear preference for decorated helmets from a very early period. The overwhelmingly favourite pattern, are the helmets with a repoussé motif on the front, considered to be a „lightning‟ symbol of the god Teisheba.41 These include some of the earliest known pointed helmets from Urartu, dating back into the ninth century as indicated by one inscribed with the name of Ishpuini (830-810). These helmets are frequently inscribed “Property of (Royal Name)”, an inscription well known from other bronze objects. This inscription, considered a royal property mark, along with the symbol of the god, and the quantity of these helmets found, has led to the hypothesis that these helmets belonged to the royal body guard. Either the king owned the helmet, or the man who wore it was the king‟s soldier. T

Are we to assume then, that by the end of the Urartian period, at the time of the destruction of their citadels, that the Assyrian-style pointed conical helmet had entirely replaced the native tradition? It should be noted, however, that some of the Urartian conical helmets with the „lightning‟ bolt are inscribed with the names of kings of the late ninth century such as Ishpuini. Clearly, the Urartians had a long tradition of these helmets themselves.

 

The most definitive of the extant Assyrian helmets is the British Museum example (fig. 6.1) with its distinctive bronze inlaid pattern. This, along with examples from Hasanlu, Zinçirli, and countless examples from Urartu clearly show Madhloom‟s Type A pointed conical helmet as illustrated in the Late Assyrian reliefs. The reliefs frequently show the repoussé bands around the rims and the frontal arches, but they never illustrate the figural images as incised or inlaid upon the surviving helmets. Dezsö suggests that it is possible that paint might have been used on the reliefs to indicate this more detailed decoration (2001: 56). By comparison, we have seen that the crested type of helmet is poorly represented in the artifactual evidence.

One important observation can be made about the difference between the people wearing crested helmets and those wearing pointed conical helmets in the Late Assyrian reliefs. A clear division seems to be made between Assyrian regular troops and foreign auxiliary units. As seen previously, units such as our possible Qurraean auxiliaries have crested helmets, whereas the corps of professional Assyrian soldiers has the pointed conical helmet (pl. 19).

The middle east helmet , pre-islam incluiding Macedonians.

Spoiler

1. Elam, 14th cent. B.C.E. 2. Luristan. 3. Marlik. 4-8. Hasanlu. 9. Safidrud. 10. K¨úorvin. 11-12. Luristan. (Nos. 2-12 dated to the first third of the first millennum B.C.E.) 13. Achaemenid helmet, from Egypt. 14. Achaemenid helmet, from Olympia. 15. Oxus Treasure (British Museum). 16-17. Helmets represented on seals. 18. Achaemenid helmet, from Azerbaijan. 19. Achaemenid helmet depicted on a 5th-cent. B.C.E. Greek vase. 20. Achaemenid helmet represented on a rock relief, Lycia. 21. Achaemenid helmet (Glasgow Museum). 22. Scythian helmet, from the Kuban, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E. 23-24. Scythian helmets, Checheno-Ingushetia, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E. 25. Scythian helmet, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E. 26. Scythian helmet (Greek helmet of the Thracian type, refashioned by Scythians), Nymphai, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E. 27. Saka helmet from the Altai region, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E. 28. Saka helmet from the Talas valley, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E. 29. Saka helmet in the museum of Samarkand. 30-31. Saka helmet, from the Talas valley, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E. 32-35 and 37-38. Helmets represented on coins of the Greco-Bactrian kings (32. Eucratides I; 33. Amyntas).

 

 

 

Description

 

Initially reported in error as from Luristan in the British Museum Report of the Trustees 1966, p. 38

Pointed bronze helmet; shape designed to deflect arrows and holes around bottom served to attach a leather or felt lining; pattern of dots, and crook-shaped bull's heads framing the Urartian version of the Egyptian sun-disc; decoration enhanced by rows of small incised circles around and above the bull's heads which move into apexes in harmony with the shape of the helmet; also rows of incised scallops exhibiting same pattern.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Diatryma

[Lion.Kanzen]

Idumeans.

Quote

It is evident that Diodorus’ references to the administrative status of Idumea are contradictory. In Diod. 19.95, Idumea is termed ἐπαρχία, while in Diod. 19.98–99, it is called σατραπεία. According to a classic theory advanced by W. W. Tarn, the Seleucid kingdom primarily continued the Achaemenid threefold adminis-trative structure – a satrapy (σατραπεία) was the largest and main administra-tive unit, and it was next divided into smaller eparchies (ἐπαρχίαι), which in turn included hyparchies (ὕπαρχοι consisting of villages). However, with time, the satrapies ceased to be the main administrative units, and in practice the role of the basic administrative units was played by eparchies,

which were based on natural geographical boundaries. Based on Tarn’s theory, E. Stern suggested that the idea of Idumea as a satrapy may go back to Diodorus’ source (Hierony-mus of Cardia, who took part in the campaigns against Petra), while the status of Idumea as an eparchy may be Diodorus’ own remark, which reflects the later Seleucid terminology. However, in the light of Tarn’s theory, a satrapy was a much larger political and administrative unit than Idumea could have ever been in any historical period. Consequently, it has also been suggested that the use of the term by Diodorus was not technical („metaphorical“ or „colloquial“). Such use appears to be employed in the Greek Bible in the description of five Philistine districts as satrapies (Jos. 13.3; Judc. 3.3). Also, in his Geographica 16.2.4, Strabo wrote about Coele-Syria consisting of four satrapies, and it has been speculated that Idumea may have been one of such satrapies.

...https://www.academia.edu/38121375/Hellenistic-Roman_Idumea_in_the_Light_of_Greek_and_Latin_Non-Jewish_Authors

Quote

884 Michał Marciak In looking at the geographical entity of Syria, Strabo employs ethnic categories by enumerating various ethnē located within the geographical borders of Syria, especially the Idumeans as well as the Judeans, the Gazeans, and the Azotians. It should be stressed that all of these peoples are presented as distinctive ethnic entities. At the same time, Strabo describes the relations between these peoples with a rare term – ἀναμεμῖχθαι. This is a verb infinitive in the perfect tense from the form ἀναμίσγω (which is, in turn, a poetic and Ionic form for ἀναμείγνυμι).This term can be generally translated as „to mix one thing with another“, but more specif-cally denotes social relations; in this context, it may also refer to sexual inter-course (Hdt. 1.199). In this light, the vocabulary used by Strabo points to close relationships between various tribes and peoples, including forms of contact based on intermarriage. Thus, Strabo’s evidence indicates a great deal of ethnic and cultural interactions between the primarily distinctive peoples of Palestine. For the time before Strabo (before 24 CE), we may enumerate several cases of such interactions known from other historical sources. Of course, the first example that comes to mind (and was well known to Strabo; see Strab. 16.2.34) was the conversion of the Idumeans to Judaism (to use the most general labels; for more details, see below). Although it has been claimed that the ethnic makeup of Palestine described here must predate Strabo’s own time and go back to before „the twenties of the second century B.C.E., since afterwards the Idumaeans merged into the Jewish nation“, it appears to be more straightforward to see Strabo’s view as the testimony of the survival of the Idumean regional ethnic and cultural distinctiveness. After all, Strabo is aware of the conversion of the Idumeans.

Nabateans and Idumeans. (Edom)

Quote

This location of the Idumeans is a little surprising in that Hellenistic-Roman Idumea was indeed located south of the Judean hills towards Egypt, but the area south of Idumea towards Egypt was in fact controlled by the Nabateans. Again, it appears that either the description is not very precise or Strabo may have had problems in distinguishing the extent of the settlements of the Idumeans and Nabateans.

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Lion.Kanzen

[Genava55]

Edited June 1, 2020 by Genava55

[Lion.Kanzen]

Samaritans were more Seleucid side.

Quote

From the accounts that we have (all Jewish in their perspective), the reactions of the Jews and Samaritans were very different. The Samaritans (or at least most of them) determined to seek peace with the Seleucids and adopt Greek culture. The Jews rebelled. Josephus provides an account of the Samaritan actions—albeit from a very biased perspective. They claimed no association with the Jews. According to Josephus, their petition culminated in this request to Antiochus IV:

We therefore beseech thee our benefactor and savior, to give order to Apollonius, the governor of this part of the country, and to Nicanor, the procurator of thy affairs, to give us no disturbance, nor to lay to our charge what the Jews are accused for, since we are aliens from their nation and from their customs; but let our temple which at present hath no name at all, be named the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius. If this were once done, we should be no longer disturbed, but should be more intent on our own occupation with quietness, and so bring in a greater revenue to thee.

Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12 5:261

Personally, I think Josephus’ writings can’t always be taken at face value. He clearly had an agenda and wrote with a bias. In many ways, he was never one to let the facts get in the way of a good story. Yet, there a couple of facts that can’t be disputed: the Samaritans were left alone by the Seleucids and the Jews were not.

You also don’t need to read too deeply between the lines to see that the Jews viewed this as an act of betrayal by the Samaritans. From their perspective, if they were true Israelites as they had claimed to be then they would stand alongside the Jews in Jerusalem to fight the Seleucids.

The Jews fought the Seleucids for 38 years. In the end, the Jews prevailed and finally drove the Seleucids from the land around 129 BCE. For the first time in more than 450 years, they were self-ruled by their own king. These rulers were known as the Hasmoneans. Along with this self-rule came devotion to God and increased fervor to follow Torah. In fact, the Jews of this period surpassed any of their forefathers in strict adherence to the commandments of God. It was during this period that we see the rise of groups like the Pharisees and Sadducees that figure so prominently in the New Testament.

In light of this growing piety (and probably a sense of revenge), the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus set his sights on Samaria. In 113 BCE, he invaded and destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim. For the Samaritans, this was the last straw.

As I mentioned in my previous posts, in an honor-shame culture memory is long. Very long. For the Jews, the Samaritans had betrayed them to a foreign power and forsaken “true” worship of God. For the Samaritans, the Jews had not only excluded them from temple worship in Jerusalem but had then destroyed their own temple on Mt. Gerizim. The river of bad blood between these two groups was wide and deep. The level of hatred and animosity between these groups was huge.

Samaritans claim they are Israelite descendants of the Northern Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who survived the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) by the Assyrians in 722 BCE.

Quote

The universal peril led the Samaritans, eager for safety, to repudiate all connection and kinship with the Jews. The request was granted. This was put forth as the final breach between the two groups, being alleged at a much later date in the Christian Bible (John 4:9), "For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans"^[56]—or not "alleged" if the Greek sunchrasthai merely refers to not sharing utensils (NABRE).

Anderson notes that during the reign of Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE):^[57]

the Samaritan temple was renamed either Zeus Hellenios (willingly by the Samaritans according to Josephus) or, more likely, Zeus Xenios, (unwillingly in accord with 2 Macc. 6:2).

— Bromiley, 4.304

Josephus Book 12, Chapter 5 quotes the Samaritans as saying:

We therefore beseech thee, our benefactor and saviour, to give order to Apolonius, the governor of this part of the country, and to Nicanor, the procurator of thy affairs, to give us no disturbances, nor to lay to our charge what the Jews are accused for, since we are aliens from their nation and from their customs, but let our temple which at present hath no name at all, be named the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius.

— Josephus

Shortly afterwards, the Greek king sent Gerontes the Athenian to force the Jews of Israel to violate their ancestral customs and live no longer by the laws of God; and to profane the Temple in Jerusalem and dedicate it to Olympian Zeus, and the one on Mount Gerizim to Zeus, Patron of Strangers, as the inhabitants of the latter place had requested.

— II Maccabees 6:1–2

Quote

During the Hellenistic period, Samaria was largely divided between a Hellenizing faction based in Samaria (Sebastaea) and a pious faction in Shekhem and surrounding rural areas, led by the High Priest. Samaria was a largely autonomous state nominally dependent on the Seleucid Empire until around 113 BCE, when the Jewish Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus destroyed the Samaritan temple and devastated Samaria.

The Hellinized Samaritan Temple at Mount Gerizim was destroyed by John Hyrcanus in 113 BC, having existed about 200 years. Only a few stone remnants of it exist today

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Definitely the Samaritans out of religious hatred were going to be on the side of the Seleucids.

Israel divided into two kingdoms. The northern kingdom, called Israel, established its capital first at Shechem, a revered site in Jewish history, and later at the hilltop city of Samaria.

 

In 722 B.C. Assyria conquered Israel and took most of its people into captivity. The invaders then brought in Gentile colonists “from Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath, and from Sepharvaim” (2 Kin. 17:24) to resettle the land. The foreigners brought with them their pagan idols, which the remaining Jews began to worship alongside the God of Israel (2 Kin. 17:29-41). Intermarriages also.

 

 

Meanwhile, the southern kingdom of Judah fell to Babylon in 600 B.C. Its people, too, were carried off into captivity. But 70 years later, a remnant of 43,000 was permitted to return and rebuild Jerusalem. The people who now inhabited the former northern kingdom—the Samaritans—vigorously opposed the repatriation and tried to undermine the attempt to reestablish the nation. For their part, the full-blooded, monotheistic Jews detested the mixed marriages and worship of their northern cousins. So walls of bitterness were erected on both sides and did nothing but harden for the next 550 years.

the Samaritans later allied themselves with the Seleucids in the Maccabean wars and in 108 B.C. the Jews destroyed the Samaritan temple and ravaged the territory. Around the time of Jesus’ birth, a band of Samaritans profaned the Temple in Jerusalem by scattering the bones of dead people in the sanctuary. In our own era which has witnessed the vandalism of synagogues and the burning of black churches, we should be able to understand the anger and hate such acts would incite.

 

Hellenic era 

Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Hellenization 

Antiochus IV Epiphanes was on the throne of the Seleucid Empire from 175 to 163 BC. His policy was to Hellenize his entire kingdom and standardize religious observance. According to 1 Maccabees 1:41-50 he proclaimed himself the incarnation of the Greek god Zeus and mandated death to anyone who refused to worship him. In the 2nd century BC, a series of events led to a revolution by a faction of Judeans against Antiochus.

Anderson notes that during the reign of Antiochus IV (175–164 BC)

 

the Samaritan temple was renamed either Zeus Hellenios (willingly by the Samaritans according to Josephus) or, more likely, Zeus Xenios, (unwillingly in accord with 2 Macc. 6:2).

 

— Bromiley, 4.304

Shortly afterwards, the Greek king sent Gerontes the Athenian to force the Jews of Israel to violate their ancestral customs and live no longer by the laws of God; and to profane the Temple in Jerusalem and dedicate it to Olympian Zeus, and the one on Mount Gerizim to Zeus, Patron of Strangers, as the inhabitants of the latter place had requested.

 

— II Maccabees 6:1–2

During the Hellenistic period, Samaria was largely divided between a Hellenizing faction based in Samaria (Sebastaea) and a pious faction in Shekhem and surrounding rural areas, led by the High Priest. Samaria was a largely autonomous state nominally dependent on the Seleucid Empire until around 113 BC, when the Jewish Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus destroyed the Samaritan temple and devastated Samaria.

 

The Hellinized Samaritan Temple at Mount Gerizim was destroyed by John Hyrcanus in 113 BC, having existed about 200 years. Only a few stone remnants of it exist today