The Might of Assyria
- Thread starter Inhalaattori
- Start date
LBPB
King
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2003
- Messages
- 643
Originally posted by Xen
I thin ka seige engine would be neat as h***,
a cool one would be a seige engine witha a real ATTACK/DEFENCE, giving the assyrians the real edge in seige warfare
i have already made an Assyrian Heavy Siege Tower for my next GLC Mod release
Falcon02
General
Assyrians are famous for their Ruthlessness and how they conquered much of the world.
Hitties on the other hand were not only rather powerful militarily (didn't use it much IIRC), but actually were the first to develop Iron working, and made the first known written peace treaty with the Egyptians.
I think the Hitties have every right to be in there. And your argument about Babylon is a little "iffy" Babylon was the first civilization to develop written laws that we know of and did take over much of the world, to be later conquered by the Persians though. Each Empire has it's time... the Persians were later conquered by the Greeks, and Greeks by the Romans, the Romans, by the "Barbarians"....
I'm not saying the Assyrians don't belong in there, but I'm saying the Hitties and Babylonians have just as much if not more right to be in there.
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
The last Assyrian empire was more powerful, richer and larger than the last Babylonian empire because the Assyrian empire when it fell was divided up between Egypt, Babylon, Medea, and Cilicia. In fact, the Assyrians were also 6,000 years older than the Babylonians, and are still around today with a unique culture.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I know about the first treaty, but I've seen conflicting information about Iron Working (Some say Assyria, some say Hatti). I think I've come to a conclusion that, although the Hittites used it first, they used it to nowhere near the level Assyria did (Assyria was still advanced compared to most places in iron use).
I gave a huge list of Assyrian accomplishments. The Assyrians, although they lived and got fame for their military, where very scientific.
This is the story of all civilizations. The Sumerians conquered the region, but another city, Babylon, eventually took control. The Babylonians were conquered by the Hittites. The Hittites were destroyed by the Sea Peoples. Then the Assyrian Empire grew to power. Eventually, a coalition of Babylon and others overcame the Assyrian Empire, which (similar to Sparta's short-lived empire, and unlike Rome) couldn't accomidate to other nations and was very unpopular. The Neo-Babylonian Empire continued until it was conquered by Persia. Persia tried to conquer Greece and failed. Alexander the Great conquered Persia, Egypt, and more. His successor's empires were conquered by the Roman empire, which fell to Barbarians.
Ok, about iron working... What I read a while ago is that assyrians were the first to develop iron working, however, they only had scarce source of iron(coming from meteorites mostly). They traded the technology at the city of Kanesh, and the Hittites started using iron too, but more quickly. However, what little is known is that many civs, even Hittites, were reluctant to use Iron. Even if more resistant, it took MUCH bigger forges and heat to smelt iron, and required too much work compared to bronze, and was often of bad quality(coming from meteorites). However, when the 'Sea People' invaded the shores and settled in as the Philistines, they destroyed all trade routes with spain and britain, cutting off most supplies of Tin. Because of that, most civs switched to Iron.
That's what I read, I'm not 100% sure it's accurate however.
That's what I read, I'm not 100% sure it's accurate however.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Assyrians invented ironworking? Sounds odd, especially considering that, as you say, iron deposits aren't plentiful in Assyria.
Everything I've read on the subjects - which admittedly is not very much - says that ironworking was first developed by the Hettites, or possibly some other Anatolian people, in the 2nd millennium BC (not counting the very rare, earlier examples of cold-worked meteoric iron artefacts).
The Sea Peoples weren't the only migrant peoples at large during that period - the late 2nd millennium was quite an "Age of Migration". Among the casualities were Greece's Mycenaean centres, and, in this context crucically, the Hettite Empire. At least some researchers believe that the rapid spread of iron technology was due to fleeing Anatolian iron-smiths selling their services to the highest bidders.
Trade disruption playing a part seems plausible enough, tho. Notice that the Egyptians, who could make bronze form plentiful and nearby deposits of copper and arsenic, and therefore had little need of importing tin, stuck with bronze longer than almost anyone else in the region.
Everything I've read on the subjects - which admittedly is not very much - says that ironworking was first developed by the Hettites, or possibly some other Anatolian people, in the 2nd millennium BC (not counting the very rare, earlier examples of cold-worked meteoric iron artefacts).
The Sea Peoples weren't the only migrant peoples at large during that period - the late 2nd millennium was quite an "Age of Migration". Among the casualities were Greece's Mycenaean centres, and, in this context crucically, the Hettite Empire. At least some researchers believe that the rapid spread of iron technology was due to fleeing Anatolian iron-smiths selling their services to the highest bidders.
Trade disruption playing a part seems plausible enough, tho. Notice that the Egyptians, who could make bronze form plentiful and nearby deposits of copper and arsenic, and therefore had little need of importing tin, stuck with bronze longer than almost anyone else in the region.
Well, I've read somwhere that they found clay tablet of recorded deals about iron and iron working between Assyrian and Hittites at the city of Kanesh... but it wasn't clear on who was getting what. I'd say Hittites invented iron working, but that assyrian used it as weaponry first. Actually, the Hittites were never renowned for using iron a lot, prefering to use inferior bronze weapons, but better training and tactics.
And you are right, when the 'Sea People' came in, along with the mirriads of migrating cultures, and the Hittites Empire fell, that's when iron working started to spread. So, it's a combination of 'fleeing smiths' as you stated, and the fact that tin was starting to become rare without any trade routes possible with the west.
That would make sense.
And you are right, when the 'Sea People' came in, along with the mirriads of migrating cultures, and the Hittites Empire fell, that's when iron working started to spread. So, it's a combination of 'fleeing smiths' as you stated, and the fact that tin was starting to become rare without any trade routes possible with the west.
That would make sense.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
If I dare a little thread-jacking, how's going with CtE? It's been mighty quite on the CDG forum for a couple weeks now, beyond mine and TETurkhan's little discussion of Khmer city-lists.
I've not been playing any more CtE tests during the last week, due to all my civ playing time having been mysteriously sucked in by ACW, but I do intend to come back to it. Meanwhile, you may want to look into a couple minor issues I brought up on CDG (or tell me you've already done so, only not saying it on CDG).
Back somewhat on-topic, I'd like to restate my opinion that given Civ's scale, the best solution would have been to group Assyria, Babylonia and Sumeria as a Mesopotamian civ. They've already effectively done that with the Babylonian city list anyway; I'm interested to see what they'll do about the Sumerian one, given that most bigger Sumerian cities remained important centres in the Babylonian period, and have well-deserved places on the Babylonian list. They can't very well go by the different-names solution that they've done with Roman cities that now are important centres in modern European countries - eg Lutetia/Paris, Byzantium/Istanbul* - since most places kept the same (pre-Sumerian!) names for for the entire ancient period, yes, in at least one case till the present day; the Iraqi village Niffer bears the Arabicized form of the name it once bore as a major Babylonian city; Nippur.
* With Byzantium coming in C3C, we're sure to get Constantinople too!
I've not been playing any more CtE tests during the last week, due to all my civ playing time having been mysteriously sucked in by ACW, but I do intend to come back to it. Meanwhile, you may want to look into a couple minor issues I brought up on CDG (or tell me you've already done so, only not saying it on CDG).
Back somewhat on-topic, I'd like to restate my opinion that given Civ's scale, the best solution would have been to group Assyria, Babylonia and Sumeria as a Mesopotamian civ. They've already effectively done that with the Babylonian city list anyway; I'm interested to see what they'll do about the Sumerian one, given that most bigger Sumerian cities remained important centres in the Babylonian period, and have well-deserved places on the Babylonian list. They can't very well go by the different-names solution that they've done with Roman cities that now are important centres in modern European countries - eg Lutetia/Paris, Byzantium/Istanbul* - since most places kept the same (pre-Sumerian!) names for for the entire ancient period, yes, in at least one case till the present day; the Iraqi village Niffer bears the Arabicized form of the name it once bore as a major Babylonian city; Nippur.
* With Byzantium coming in C3C, we're sure to get Constantinople too!
What do you mean, 6000 years older? The old-babylonian and the old-assyrian were around the same time, ca 2000BC...
And you can hardly make a convincing strictly historical argument that the nestorian / assyrian church is direct descendants, culturally and historical of the original assyrians...
Actually, timeline wise, the Assyrians, as a culture, appeared at the same time as the Babylonian, at around 1900 BC. Both are different cultures, and have different ancestors, although the wars between them created mixing between both culture, especially since Nebuchadnezzar was of mixed blood, if I remember correctly.
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
I read somewhere that the Assyrian tribes emerged somewhere 8000BC. By the time of the conquests of Sargon the Great of Akkad in the 24th or so Century BC, they had already founded a lot of cities and had an advanced culture; and were also united under the tent-kings. The first real united Assyrian state only emerged following the expellation of the Guti in the 22nd or so century BC and the fall of Uruk as the leading city in Mesopotamia seven years after the Guti left.
want to know about the Assyrian milatary?
then go here-
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62177
then go here-
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62177
Well if that is true Mongoloid Cow, I have never heard about it, and that might of course be possible.
Of course there were all kinds of pre-civilization tribes in mesopotamia in the pre-history (at least in the borderzone between desert and mountains), but to call some tribe up north 8000BC assyrians is quite far reached. As the assyrians, as already mentioned, emerged as a culture with written language etc around 2000BC. At 8000BC we have no written evidence and therefore it is very hard to tell anything about what they called their cities and their deities and so on. Therefore it is quite impossible to convincingly show that that the assyrians can trace back their culture, habits, language, etnicity etc back 6000 years.
Of course there were all kinds of pre-civilization tribes in mesopotamia in the pre-history (at least in the borderzone between desert and mountains), but to call some tribe up north 8000BC assyrians is quite far reached. As the assyrians, as already mentioned, emerged as a culture with written language etc around 2000BC. At 8000BC we have no written evidence and therefore it is very hard to tell anything about what they called their cities and their deities and so on. Therefore it is quite impossible to convincingly show that that the assyrians can trace back their culture, habits, language, etnicity etc back 6000 years.
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
I read somewhere a while back that the Assyrians were around that long, and there is sufficient semi-mythological tales and Assyrian-style items and starting from about 3000BC permanent / semi-permanent settlement to suggest that they were that ancient.
All I can do is repeat what I remember other people saying, and although I know there is more to it than what is written above but I'll be buggered if I can remember the rest of it.
All I can do is repeat what I remember other people saying, and although I know there is more to it than what is written above but I'll be buggered if I can remember the rest of it.
Similar threads
