Lannes
Tarqan
Da kine
Posts: 68
|
Post by Lannes on Jun 1, 2005 20:16:20 GMT 3
Unfortunately, the events of most Scythian battles have been lost to history. I'd be curious to see if anyone would happen to have a description of a Scythian battle (I'll post a description of the Battle of the Thates in a bit).
|
|
Lannes
Tarqan
Da kine
Posts: 68
|
Post by Lannes on Jun 5, 2005 18:38:45 GMT 3
Battle of the Thates River
Description of the battle comes to us from Diodorus Siculus. Actual battle occured in 310 or 309 BC.
Background: The Bosphoran king, Paerisades, had chosen his eldest son, Satyrus, as his heir. The second son, Eumeles, contested the claim and fled the capital to gain support. He fled to the Kuban River area, and gain the support of the Thataeans and their king Aripharnes (the Thataeans were vassals of the Bosphoran kingdom, so they saw this as a chance to get freedom). The Scythians, who had had ties with the Bosphoran kingdom for years, supported the Satyrus.
The Troops: Eumeles's army comprised of 22, 000 horse and 20, 000 foot. Satyrus had a force of 20, 000 Greek and Thracian mercenaries (likely the Greeks fought in the traditional phalanx and the Thracians fought as peltasts); 10, 000 horse (mainly made up of Scythian elite cavalry); and 20, 000 Scythian infantry (that number seems odd though).
Lineup: On Eumeles's side- Eumeles was himself, on the left wing with a force of cavalry to meet the Greek and Thracians (there was also a force of infantry on the left wing). Apparently the Thataean right wing was mainly infantry. And the Thataean king, Aripharnes, was in the center with the bulk of the cavalry (heaviest in front). On Satyrus's side- A combined force of infantry and cavalry on the left wing. The Scythian cavalry (including the elite heavy cavalry) is in the center under Satyrus's personal command. The Greeks and Thracians are on the right (obviously, the lighter Thracians are on the far right, while the Greek hoplites are on the interior).
The Battle: Eumeles was initially successful against the Greeks and Thracians, pushing them back. While Eumeles was engaging the two central cavalry forces crashed into one another. The Scythians, though greatly outnumbered, smashed their Thataean foes, and sent them from the field. The decisive action of the day occured as the Scythian cavalry managed to regroup and lead a second charge against Eumeles (who was still pushing the Greeks and Thracians). This successfully routed Eumeles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rava on Jun 7, 2005 19:59:05 GMT 3
What about Darius vs. Scythians and Massagetae vs.Cyrus?
|
|
Lannes
Tarqan
Da kine
Posts: 68
|
Post by Lannes on Jun 8, 2005 1:59:25 GMT 3
What about Darius vs. Scythians and Massagetae vs.Cyrus? What about them? In the former, there were no significant pitched battles, mainly just skirmishes, which Herodotus informs us were dominated by the Scythian horse. I don't know about the latter event. Maybe you could inform us? |
|
|
|
Post by Rava on Jun 8, 2005 11:32:06 GMT 3
That's right. These two remained as a background to many philosophical disscussions about freedom, and comparative studies on barbarian and non-barbarian cultures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 3, 2008 11:22:43 GMT 3
The battles king Darius fought with Scythians were due to the continual Scythian raiding of the Iranian crown territories which had a long history even before the emergence of the first Iranian kingdoms. At those times there were clearly the conscience amongst both Scythians or even Massegeths that they are fighting their distant blood kins somehow. For example Darius stated in his inscriptions that they are "disloyal or unfaithful" Scythians. this constant fighting amongst then Iranian steppe people and Iranians of Iran resulted in weakening both sides. Besides these Iranians of the steppe were most of the times not friendly to each other, As you see the Sarmatian almost destroyed Scythians of Pontic steppe so they never stood up again, or Alans were not nice to the eastern Sarmatian clans. The interesting is the battles fought between Alans and the Huns; I think that outlines some points, The Iranians of the Steppes lost their homeland in ensuing battles cause they were not united or were good at practicing a proper way of steppe government, at the same time you see that, it is said that Huns as Altaic steppe were able to gather very large and united armies ( also absorb the conquered). However in those times many Sakas preferred to search for Iranian allowance to settle and migrate in todays Iranian " Sistan (Sakestan)" instead of the traditional hostilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 3, 2008 18:49:17 GMT 3
For example Darius stated in his inscriptions that they are "disloyal or unfaithful" Scythians. thats one-sided, the account given by Herodot gives a quite different picture indeed. Darius of course saw all people on earth as his subjects and every foreign nation were therefore "disloyal, unfaithful" rebels.... that was not a matter of "can i stay at your place?" but a simple invasion. the Parthians were obviously not asked. it occured at the same time when a massive Scythian invasion destroyed the indo-Greek kingdoms. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jul 3, 2008 21:40:33 GMT 3
At those times there were clearly the conscience amongst both Scythians or even Massegeths that they are fighting their distant blood kins somehow. For example Darius stated in his inscriptions that they are "disloyal or unfaithful" Scythians. That sentence indicates that the Scythians and Massagets were "disloyal and unfaithful" to the Persian crown. It does not indicate any ethnic bonds. In the Inscription of Bilgä Qaghan, there are similar frases which call the Toquz Oghuz and On Oq as "our people", while sometimes the Chinese referred to the Toquz Oghuz as "Nine Tribes of (Blue) Turks (Jiŭxìng Tūjué/Chiu-hsing T'u-chüeh 九姓突厥)". These have a political meaning, not ethnical. One should make a distinction between the two. Otherwise, it would lead to confusions and misunderstandings. |
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 4, 2008 12:38:08 GMT 3
No, You didn't get the point rightly, in his inscription he referred to Scythians as "unfaithful" not unfaithful to Achaemenid crown. Its a difference was made in case of calling them. Of course they were even at the times of Achaemenid enemies, but the Scythian presence down in Iranian plateau from the steppes like other Iranians has older history than this, as some excavations for example in Lusrestan province showed artifacts similar to those of Scythians and Sakas or some surnames presenting names of Saka until now. It is also worthy to note by the time of the dawn of Parthians in eastern Iran up to steppes the massive region was full of Iranian nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes, in other words eastern greater Iran was always holding it's nomadic features and these weren't necessarily Iranians of Saka stock. About their settlement in Southeastern Iran there surely was an invasion but they were later granted permission to stay (Besides I'm no supporter of Achamenian expansion policies, even taking the fact it was more peaceful than many other nations did, as I'm against all the invasions to Iranian territory and won't ever never bow down to venerate conquerers.)
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jul 4, 2008 13:24:31 GMT 3
Nope, I ment that the expression "unfaithful" used in the inscription has a political meaning, not ethnical  |
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 5, 2008 0:01:58 GMT 3
(Besides I'm no supporter of Achamenian expansion policies, even taking the fact it was more peaceful than many other nations did, as I'm against all the invasions to Iranian territory and won't ever never bow down to venerate conquerers.) what do you mean by "peaceful expansion policies"? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 5, 2008 1:17:46 GMT 3
Son I don't really remember those times, in which I was saying "peaceful expansion policies"  |
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 7, 2008 21:50:22 GMT 3
Mein Herr temujin following your saying I took time and read thoroughly the inscrptions of king Darius I himself in Behistun, Susa, Alvand and Suez for detailed information, and I didn't face any sentence in which he claimed that all the poeple on earth are his subjects and every foreign nation were therefore disloyal and unfaithful. Interesting for me too.
|
|
