Isotope study hints ancient Greeks used foreign fighters in key battle(newscientist.com)
newscientist.com
Isotope study hints ancient Greeks used foreign fighters in key battle
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2277380-isotope-study-hints-ancient-greeks-used-foreign-fighters-in-key-battle/?utm_campaign=RSS%7CNSNS&utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=RSS&utm_content=news
65 comments
Soldiers are unlikely to have too different diet from the regular population. First, soldiers in greek cities were drawn from the population itself. Second, the enamel is formed during childhood and shows where the person has grown up, not where they've lived.
The possibility of a local coalition is not negligible, but you should also consider that the amount of different origins of the bodies implies that this coalition is really wide in geographic terms and is hard to form on diplomacy only. It would be illogical for an italian city to reach out to a Black Sea one for help and for the latter to respond in time and in force. It is more likely that the soldiers were already on the area and they were acting in their own interests, not in the interests of their origin city.
The possibility of a local coalition is not negligible, but you should also consider that the amount of different origins of the bodies implies that this coalition is really wide in geographic terms and is hard to form on diplomacy only. It would be illogical for an italian city to reach out to a Black Sea one for help and for the latter to respond in time and in force. It is more likely that the soldiers were already on the area and they were acting in their own interests, not in the interests of their origin city.
It might be illogical, but it's extensively documented - check out Thucydides. Indeed colonies were almost expected to be militarily supportive of the mother city, and when they weren't, it was sometimes a cause of war.
You might be right, but this can be checked by listing the colonies of the city in question. If the origin cities of the bodies and the list of colonies differ, it will be telling. Also, Black Sea was colonized from mainland Greece and Malaysia, not Sicily as far as I know. The greek diaspora was moving east to west in the Mediterranean Sea and east to west in Black Sea.
Malaysia is a typo for Ionia in Asia Minor, where most Black Sea colonists come from, I assume? Ie, Miletus.
In any case, an important point missed here in this thread that’s made in Thucydides is that Syracuse was a cosmopolitan melting pot of the Greek Mediterranean, large, rich, and attracting both Dorian and Ionian immigrants. An army raised there probably had Massalians and Athenians and Greeks from the Euxine and a dozen other tribes/cities.
In any case, an important point missed here in this thread that’s made in Thucydides is that Syracuse was a cosmopolitan melting pot of the Greek Mediterranean, large, rich, and attracting both Dorian and Ionian immigrants. An army raised there probably had Massalians and Athenians and Greeks from the Euxine and a dozen other tribes/cities.
Thanks for the correction. In my language Malaysia and Asia Minor are pronounced pretty much the same and I've transfered that.
> they speculate that the non-local individuals present were mercenaries
From the infamous Mauro Nero company?
From the infamous Mauro Nero company?
Mavro Nero :)
"Mauro" is the word for "black" in the Venetian dialect. Side-by-side with "Nero" (also "black") I thought you were making a joke in Italian, but I couldn't tell what it was.
Also, in ancient Greek it would be "Melan Ydor" (Μέλαν Ύδωρ).
"Mauro" is the word for "black" in the Venetian dialect. Side-by-side with "Nero" (also "black") I thought you were making a joke in Italian, but I couldn't tell what it was.
Also, in ancient Greek it would be "Melan Ydor" (Μέλαν Ύδωρ).
I was under the impression that 'nero' and 'hydor' were both 'water' in Greek. But apparently I mixed up modern and ancient usage in my head. Oh, well...
We actually do use both in modern Greek, but "hydor" is mostly used in compound words.
In ancient (but also in modern) Greek, "nearon hydor" means "young (i.e. "fresh") water", and at least according to a greek professor whom I was watching on tv the other day, this phrase is where the modern "nero" originates from.
In ancient (but also in modern) Greek, "nearon hydor" means "young (i.e. "fresh") water", and at least according to a greek professor whom I was watching on tv the other day, this phrase is where the modern "nero" originates from.
"Nero" also means "water" in Greek (modern Greek, as explained by d_tr). I was confused about whether you meant it as a Greek or Italian word by "mauro" that made the whole phrase sound Italian, at first. Sorry for the confusion :)
Indeed, nero (νερό) is water in Greek, as is hydor (ύδωρ). Mavro Nero (μαύρο νερό) translates to black water.
I think the joke was 'Black Water' the infamous mercenary security company
[deleted]
> They find that 67% of Greek soldiers from 480 BCE are likely non-local, while 36% of Greek soldiers from 408 BC were non-local.
The paper makes a weird mental leap here, in that the relative percentages of dead soldiers corresponds to the relative percentages of soldiers that participated in the fights. One would expect that if Himera (in Italy) went through the trouble of procuring the services of Greek mercenaries from far-away mainland Greece, it did so because Greek mercenaries were good at their job, which essentially was: not dying.
The paper makes a weird mental leap here, in that the relative percentages of dead soldiers corresponds to the relative percentages of soldiers that participated in the fights. One would expect that if Himera (in Italy) went through the trouble of procuring the services of Greek mercenaries from far-away mainland Greece, it did so because Greek mercenaries were good at their job, which essentially was: not dying.
I think it's a fair assumption that every soldier is equally likely to die. Zero bias is the easiest one to qualify here.
If the greek were less likely to die, how much less likely would that be exactly? I don't see how that could ever be determined.
If the greek were less likely to die, how much less likely would that be exactly? I don't see how that could ever be determined.
Well, that is the point: it cannot be determined.
True, stating that they were mercenaries is a big leap that needs further proof (some compensation for their efforts beyond any sense of duty as citizens from extended colonies).
I’d posit that these individuals could also have been slaves that were used as “meat-shields” to soften opposing armies resulting in a higher ratio of deaths amongst the group.
I’d posit that these individuals could also have been slaves that were used as “meat-shields” to soften opposing armies resulting in a higher ratio of deaths amongst the group.
Thanks for spelling this out, i know nothing about the topic but felt too there was a stretch between biology and social/political guesses.
What i was wondering: Does the strontium ratio in teeth change over the course of your life or is it determined by where you grew up/your teeth developed?
What i was wondering: Does the strontium ratio in teeth change over the course of your life or is it determined by where you grew up/your teeth developed?
I think you are going out on a limb too. Clearly you have never set foot in Greece, if you had, you would understand the logic behind the author argument.
I will save you the travel... Greeks have a very standard diet, and is also fairly uniform across Greece.
Even taking today, it probably hasn’t changed much to 2000 years ago at least for the staples.
I will save you the travel... Greeks have a very standard diet, and is also fairly uniform across Greece.
Even taking today, it probably hasn’t changed much to 2000 years ago at least for the staples.
>But did warfare really play out that way? Teeth found in fifth-century B.C. mass graves in Sicily suggest otherwise
Teeth found in one city (out of the major cities of mainland ancient Greece, Sicily's was more recent-ish colonies) is not exactly proof of widespread mercenary use "against popular lore" (which includes existing history and centuries of scholarship).
(They did use Scythes for something like guards/cops in Athens, and ocassionally made use of others, but nothing major).
Teeth found in one city (out of the major cities of mainland ancient Greece, Sicily's was more recent-ish colonies) is not exactly proof of widespread mercenary use "against popular lore" (which includes existing history and centuries of scholarship).
(They did use Scythes for something like guards/cops in Athens, and ocassionally made use of others, but nothing major).
“Sicily” was not a a Greek colony, the many Greek cities on the island were. Some of them are very much more ancient than you think - older than the Persian wars, and existing longer than our reliable record of classical Greece exists. The first wave of colonization, in the ~8th century BC, included Syracuse and Himera - about 300 years before the battle discussed in this paper. Syracuse had been part of a pan-Mediterranean Greek culture for longer than the US has so far existed when its tyrant raised a multinational force to defend Himera.
The Greeks were known for having lots of colonies / communities across the Mediterranean:
"like frogs around a pond" -Plato
Presumably this required some skillful diplomacy, alliances, and the ability to call for help when / if it was needed. Mercenaries seem like a logical tool in that case.
"like frogs around a pond" -Plato
Presumably this required some skillful diplomacy, alliances, and the ability to call for help when / if it was needed. Mercenaries seem like a logical tool in that case.
> some skillful diplomacy
I think you're projecting modern population density into pre-classical times.
Colonies were just a bunch of people from one place that decided to grab some available land somewhere else.
I think you're projecting modern population density into pre-classical times.
Colonies were just a bunch of people from one place that decided to grab some available land somewhere else.
I believe you’re projecting your modern assumptions about how the world worked in “savage” antiquity.
The Peloponesian War began with a dispute with Athens over the government of Corinth’s ancient (at least 400 years at this point) Adriatic colony of Cocyra. There is today in the museum of the Acropolis a stele recording a treaty between Cocyra and Athens agreed during this crisis. Corinth maintained mother-city ties - and disputed Athen’s influence.
Later in the same war, the Athenians launched an ambitious invasion of Sciliy, pursuing empire against their enemy Sparta’s ally Syracuse (and other cities of Magna Grecia).
After the war, a multinational Greek force famously marched all the way to Mesopotamia as mercenaries (and only a few generations later Alexander would come the same way). Those mercenaries were saved when the returned to the very edge of the Greek sphere at Trebizond (Thallata! Thallata!). From there they were plugged back in to a network of communication, commerce and diplomacy that stretched all the way down the Mediterranean to Marsielle (the colony of Marsala).
This diplomacy and internationalism of the Classical Greek Mediterranean was a change from the dark ages of the Bronze Age collapse, where a colony may indeed be another world. But before that there was another cosmopolitan period of treaties and internationalism (of a sort). We associate that period with the relations between Mesopotamian states (Akkad etc), Mediterranean states (Egypt, Knossos, Acheans) and Anatolian states (Hitties, Hurrians, etc). Complex diplomacy between these states is recorded in cuneiform clay.
The Peloponesian War began with a dispute with Athens over the government of Corinth’s ancient (at least 400 years at this point) Adriatic colony of Cocyra. There is today in the museum of the Acropolis a stele recording a treaty between Cocyra and Athens agreed during this crisis. Corinth maintained mother-city ties - and disputed Athen’s influence.
Later in the same war, the Athenians launched an ambitious invasion of Sciliy, pursuing empire against their enemy Sparta’s ally Syracuse (and other cities of Magna Grecia).
After the war, a multinational Greek force famously marched all the way to Mesopotamia as mercenaries (and only a few generations later Alexander would come the same way). Those mercenaries were saved when the returned to the very edge of the Greek sphere at Trebizond (Thallata! Thallata!). From there they were plugged back in to a network of communication, commerce and diplomacy that stretched all the way down the Mediterranean to Marsielle (the colony of Marsala).
This diplomacy and internationalism of the Classical Greek Mediterranean was a change from the dark ages of the Bronze Age collapse, where a colony may indeed be another world. But before that there was another cosmopolitan period of treaties and internationalism (of a sort). We associate that period with the relations between Mesopotamian states (Akkad etc), Mediterranean states (Egypt, Knossos, Acheans) and Anatolian states (Hitties, Hurrians, etc). Complex diplomacy between these states is recorded in cuneiform clay.
That was instructive, thank you. I only strolled through Xenophon and Thucydides in translation (although I believe θάλασσα gets pronounced/transcribed thalassa).
My impression is that the ties to colonies were like family obligations, and there was not a grand imperial design to them. Even so, Sparta let Melos perish without help, and helped Syracuse with just one man, who did lead the defense against the incompetent Athenian attack well enough.
I do not think that national unity and integrity of territory were part of the mindset back then. Alcibiades, for one, strolled back and forth to the hated Persians when out of favor. And it seems to me that colonies were planted either without consent in areas of tenuous control, or with the sort of permission a landlord might grant to a rentier likely to make a piece of empty land profitable.
My impression is that the ties to colonies were like family obligations, and there was not a grand imperial design to them. Even so, Sparta let Melos perish without help, and helped Syracuse with just one man, who did lead the defense against the incompetent Athenian attack well enough.
I do not think that national unity and integrity of territory were part of the mindset back then. Alcibiades, for one, strolled back and forth to the hated Persians when out of favor. And it seems to me that colonies were planted either without consent in areas of tenuous control, or with the sort of permission a landlord might grant to a rentier likely to make a piece of empty land profitable.
I don't know what you mean. You're going to have to trade with others and get along with your neighbors regardless.
> She adds, “The Greeks were obsessed with being Greeks,” considering all those who didn’t speak the language “barbarians.”
But "barbarian" meant something like "speaking another language".
But "barbarian" meant something like "speaking another language".
Yes, a modern close to the spirit of the original translation would be "blah-blah-rian", "yak-yak-rian" or "indicipherable-rian".
They however had no ideas about the inferiority of those (except that they preferred their own lifestyles which considered free-er).
Ancient slavery also was not about race, but about e.g. losing the battle and being caught or debt. Greeks could be (and often were) slaves to other Greeks.
They however had no ideas about the inferiority of those (except that they preferred their own lifestyles which considered free-er).
Ancient slavery also was not about race, but about e.g. losing the battle and being caught or debt. Greeks could be (and often were) slaves to other Greeks.
"barbarian" == "people who say bar bar bar bar bar" == "people who speak gibberish"
"barbarbar" ~ "blahblahblah"
"barbarbar" ~ "blahblahblah"
>> "barbarbar" ~ "blahblahblah"
I don't think this is right. "Blah blah" implies someone who is overly talkative. "bar bar" [1] is an onomatopoieia of someone speaking a non-Greek language, like "arf arf" is for a dog.
I'm not even sure it has the meaning of "speaking gibberish" that you give it. I think it was literally just the way that some ancient language that was not Greek sounded to Greek ears. A bit like with the Swedish chef in Muppet show.
_________
[1] Actually, "var var". In Greek it's "βάρβαρος", pronounced "varvaros".
I don't think this is right. "Blah blah" implies someone who is overly talkative. "bar bar" [1] is an onomatopoieia of someone speaking a non-Greek language, like "arf arf" is for a dog.
I'm not even sure it has the meaning of "speaking gibberish" that you give it. I think it was literally just the way that some ancient language that was not Greek sounded to Greek ears. A bit like with the Swedish chef in Muppet show.
_________
[1] Actually, "var var". In Greek it's "βάρβαρος", pronounced "varvaros".
I thought this originated with the Romans because of the high frequency use of barbarians to refer to Germans to the north that couldn't be conquered and were often a thorn in the side of Rome. But this could be a borrowed word, and my perceived definition to describe the Germans is just the long-lasting influence of the Roman empire.
Did the Greeks use it frequently to describe any one people in particular?
Did the Greeks use it frequently to describe any one people in particular?
No, it was used for everyone speaking a non-Greek language.
In Homer there is no "barbarian"; only "barbar-speaking". But by the time of Aeschylus, it was a noun denoting people speaking non-Greek. There was also the corresponding verb that meant "speak a foreign language" but also "speak broken Greek / make lots of errors speaking (Greek)".
In Roman times, "barbarian" meant anyone who was not Roman or Greek.
In Homer there is no "barbarian"; only "barbar-speaking". But by the time of Aeschylus, it was a noun denoting people speaking non-Greek. There was also the corresponding verb that meant "speak a foreign language" but also "speak broken Greek / make lots of errors speaking (Greek)".
In Roman times, "barbarian" meant anyone who was not Roman or Greek.
It’s a tricky sentence to parse, but I think the divide between those who spoke Greek and those who didn’t was what she intended to communicate, not that they affixed the modern connotations of the word “barbarian” to non-Greek speakers.
I'm pretty sure that was the intention conveyed there, but I'll be damned if I can find the quote. It seems to have disappeared from the page.
Barbarian is simply someone who does not (some might say, they don't because they simply cannot) verbally articulate deep thoughts and views on a topic.
It does not mean such people do not posses intelligence for this, it's just a cultural difference they might choose to keep their thoughts to themselves or see no point in convincing others through discourse if the power is established through sword.
It does not mean such people do not posses intelligence for this, it's just a cultural difference they might choose to keep their thoughts to themselves or see no point in convincing others through discourse if the power is established through sword.
Given the colonialism of Greece, couldn't they have been Greek mercenaries? The Herodotus source linked just says the Greeks in Sicily fought, not the Greeks of Sicily.
Greek colonies employed mercenaries rather than the other way around. But Greek mercenaries were quite popular in Greece proper (between city-states) and around it. Egyptians and Persians used them extensively. One of the famous stories of the ancient world (you can find it in the Anabasis) is that of the Ten Thousand : an army of Greek soldiers left stranded in Persian territory after their Persian employer, Cyrus the Younger, died in battle.
The context of the Anabasis, it always seemed to me, was that Greek hoplites had just finished whooping a massive Persian invasion - and the whole near east took notice of such highly effective heavy infantry.
Scythian archers were paid to guard the walls of Athens, so there was a clear understanding in doing business with barbarians (which is their word).
Weren’t Scythians also Greek? Or rather Greeks came from one of the Scythian tribes? Or am I mistaken in my recollection?
Those we call Scythians now are a group of Eastern Iranian horse-ridding people living on the Eurasian Steppe between modern Romania and Kazakhstan. What Greeks called Scythians was anybody riding a horse and living a bit North.
Starting from Late Antiquity they've been completely pushed out of the steppe, at least culturally, by nomads that came from further East (Turkic peoples). The last Eastern Iranian group living North of the Caucasus is the Ossetians.
Starting from Late Antiquity they've been completely pushed out of the steppe, at least culturally, by nomads that came from further East (Turkic peoples). The last Eastern Iranian group living North of the Caucasus is the Ossetians.
In as much as they probably shared deep ancestors in the Yamnaya culture, haha. But no, that’s not the origin of the Greeks.
You’re probably thinking of the Scythian-Greek syncretism that occurred in Greek Crimean colonies during a the Hellenistic (post Alexander) and early Roman periods.
You’re probably thinking of the Scythian-Greek syncretism that occurred in Greek Crimean colonies during a the Hellenistic (post Alexander) and early Roman periods.
I was not intending to go beyond Italian and recent examples, but I am unwilling to leave out Hiero, the Syracusan, he being one of those I have named above. This man, as I have said, made head of the army by the Syracusans, soon found out that a mercenary soldiery, constituted like our Italian condottieri, was of no use; and it appearing to him that he could neither keep them nor let them go, he had them all cut to pieces, and afterwards made war with his own forces and not with aliens.
- Machiavelli, The Prince, on Hiero II of Syracuse (308 - 215 BC)
- Machiavelli, The Prince, on Hiero II of Syracuse (308 - 215 BC)
Url changed from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/contrary-popular-l..., which points to this.
Also, the original article title ("Contrary to popular lore, ancient Greek armies relied on foreign mercenaries") seems to have had linkbait powers, resulting in some reflexive objections in the comments here. Keep that in mind as you read them.
Also, the original article title ("Contrary to popular lore, ancient Greek armies relied on foreign mercenaries") seems to have had linkbait powers, resulting in some reflexive objections in the comments here. Keep that in mind as you read them.
Maybe I am missing something, but the study I'm looking at just looks at mass graves after a Carthaginian attack, so they could very easily have been Carthaginian mercenaries?
Which would not be surprising at all; Carthage was a nautical trading state which is known to have used mercenaries extensively.
Which would not be surprising at all; Carthage was a nautical trading state which is known to have used mercenaries extensively.
No mention of slaves, which were internationally trafficked? Just because these people were put into mass graves doesn't mean they had core combat roles purportedly reserved for local citizens.
[deleted]
Didn't Romans always deploy recruits from one conquest to another territory? To keep them from favoring certain locals or some such. Perhaps the Greeks did a similar thing.
This is so true! I was waiting in the checkout line in the supermarket, and people all around me were discussing how the ancient Greek armies were composed entirely of male Greek citizens. Popular lore can be so wrong! ;-)
I have been whooshed so hard. Never in my entire life have I heard or even dreamed of people in supermarket discussing things like that. I think it is time to start a new trend.
Next time I am out grocering, I will be sure to mention that Carthage must perish ( and how Rome fell, because of communism -- gotta lure people in somehow )!
Next time I am out grocering, I will be sure to mention that Carthage must perish ( and how Rome fell, because of communism -- gotta lure people in somehow )!
Make a YouTube video.
What. I thought it was pretty well known that Greece used lots of non "Greek" soldiers and mercenaries. Same with Rome. Is this really a non-mainstream idea?
I don't think it's non-mainstream. It was taught to me in school that the downfall of the Greeks was outsourcing their army to mercenaries and I've heard it again and again in reference to Spartan lore.
It's well known among scholars but I think the title here is aimed at popular culture.
Hoplites (shield, spear, helmet, greeves) were rich citizens which is how they could afford their armor. Many of the men who fought in the Classical era were slaves or foreigners or teenagers, often from Macedonia, called peltasts or psiloi.
Hoplites (shield, spear, helmet, greeves) were rich citizens which is how they could afford their armor. Many of the men who fought in the Classical era were slaves or foreigners or teenagers, often from Macedonia, called peltasts or psiloi.
…and Carthage famously, no?
I wonder why does he think it is a popular lore
300 presumably, one of the battles the corpses were from supposedly happened the same day as the Battle of Thermopylae. If Herodotus was wrong about this battle, his records of Thermopylae become more suspect.
Kinda silly though, as "popular lore" already ignores the thousands of other Greeks at the battle, as well as the also concurrent Battle of Artemisium.
Kinda silly though, as "popular lore" already ignores the thousands of other Greeks at the battle, as well as the also concurrent Battle of Artemisium.
Does anyone take Herodotus as factual? He’s widely known as the father of lying in historical circles and is expected to play up a Romantic view of Greece.
Popular lore arguably does. Also, was the capitalization of "romantic" a mistake? I've never heard Herodotus described as overly pro-Rome.
Yes it was a mistake
Yes they do. I have also heard claim on podcast that 300 movie is acutely historically accurate and argument was that it fits Herodus.
They establish a baseline of what they expect local strontium isotope composition should be both from local flora and fauna samples and from burials not associated with the battle. They then compare this to the greek combatants of these two battles. They find that 67% of Greek soldiers from 480 BCE are likely non-local, while 36% of Greek soldiers from 408 BC were non-local.
Up to this point, the paper supports historical sources and seems to be quite well done. After this point, they speculate that the non-local individuals present were mercenaries based solely on the strontium isotope ratios in their tooth enamel, and further speculate on where specific individuals might have originated. This is where the authors might be going out on a limb.
Greek colonies were widespread at this point in history, and it's very likely that some "mercenaries" were just from distant colonies. This doesn't seem to be adequately addressed in the paper. It's also possible that soldiers ate a different diet than the locals, possibly higher in fish or imported foods, which could have made them appear non-local. It's also possible soldiers moved around more, and that might have affected their levels in difficult to predict ways.
Bottom line, strontium isotope analysis is great at the population level, but there's a lot that can go wrong when dealing with individuals. I find the notion that Greek's hired mercenaries plausible, but this paper doesn't provide strong evidence for it.