Difference between Dido and Gilgamesh: we have archaeological evidence Gilgamesh existed. Also Babylon and Sumeria aren't that far apart culturally. The only evidence for Dido comes from Graeco-Roman myths. Note that the Greeks had a fetish for female rulers (see "Semiramis"). I'm inclined to believe that she didn't exist.
You do have valid reasoning on this, and you could be right about that, however to be fair, lots of historical characters who people thought never existed later turned out to have existed ~ for instance, Babylonian ruler Belshazzar. I also suspect that quite a few characters of myths around the world were based on real people, who were a great deal more ordinary than their legends. It was not unusual for rulers to be viewed as gods, and so it wouldn't be difficult for such a person to gain fantastic stories from their loyal subjects, especially if they were trying to prove that they were gods. Ancient rulers typically didn't record their failings, but exaggerated their successes...This could be how we ended up with so many demi-gods and gods in mythology. I heard somewhere that the Babylonian god Marduk was originally based on some human leader ~ seems utterly ridiculous when we learn about this character, but exaggerations can be expanded onto exaggerations..
Oh, I'm not saying Dido couldn't have existed--just that at present no Puno-Phoenician inscription mentions her nor do we have any sort of inscriptional evidence--only Greek myths and one Greek history. If it's helpful, I consider her more likely to have existed than Tomyris.
There's a term for that: euhemerism. Personally I find it reductive; our ancestors were no less creative than we are.
Tomyris too, eh? Weren't the Scythians speculated to be essentially what was behind the Amazon myth? Or at least one of the peoples credited for it.Oh, I'm not saying Dido couldn't have existed--just that at present no Puno-Phoenician inscription mentions her nor do we have any sort of inscriptional evidence--only Greek myths and one Greek history. If it's helpful, I consider her more likely to have existed than Tomyris.
There's a term for that: euhemerism. Personally I find it reductive; our ancestors were no less creative than we are.
And there I was, standing in front of his tomb in Srinagar, Kashmir...
Nope, that's the Thracians. But yes, the Scythians existed; even Herodotus doubts Tomyris was real, and if Herodotus expresses doubt at his own stories...
Careful not to cut yourself on all that edge.
Careful not to cut yourself on all that edge.
How can you spot an Evangelical Atheist? Don't worry: they'll tell you all about it.
I'm pretty sure it was the Scythian and Sarmatian women that inspired the Amazon stories, though artwork depicting women warriors has been seen on Thracian pottery. I tend to believe Herodotus thought that every woman who possibly fought outside of Greece could have been an Amazon warrior.Nope, that's the Thracians. But yes, the Scythians existed; even Herodotus doubts Tomyris was real, and if Herodotus expresses doubt at his own stories...
Also about 40% of Thracian warrior burials have been female.
How can you spot an Evangelical Atheist? Don't worry: they'll tell you all about it.
Yes, I recall attacking other people's religious beliefs. I do it quite frequently. It's a hobby.
After seeing all these Civs get bonuses for being on rivers, some which I wouldn't have expected, it's crazy to see that their UA has nothing to do with that especially since they are one of the cradles of civilization founded between two of them. The only mention of rivers are more culture for their ziggurats.
In the long run, it is better that Sumer doesn't get a bonus for settling on rivers. While the rivers made their floodplains one of the most fertile places of the world in early antiquity, the Sumerian way of irrigation also ruined the soil for the future.
Odd comment, because whatever one's bias, there's a great deal more evidence for the existence of Jesus than many historically accepted people, including Dido, Tomyris, and Gilgamesh. This evidence comes from a variety of independent sources, which is more than that of many other characters we accept as real people...Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and even the Talmud all mention Jesus, besides the Bible. Really, the debate is not whether or not he existed, but whether or not he was who he said he was, if he really did miracles, and if he really was resurrected after being executed...I'll leave that for you to decide for yourself. But yeah, you don't have to be a Christian or Muslim to believe that Jesus existed, you can just be a historian.
