Sea People

[Minimalist]

Sounds like something has been lost in translation. Historians cannot even agree what region the Sea People originally came from but it does seem obvious that they scraped up refugees from conquered nations to fill in their ranks. The Philistines may have been Hellenic but there is no indication that all of them were.

[Beagle]

I know Min. I really don't think I misunderstood it, as I was really interested in the program. And I haven't had anything to drink this evening. I'm sure it will be on again soon and I'll let you know if I notice it on the programming.

Now, I'll have a drink and get to bed.

[daybrown]

In LaBlanc's "Constant Battles", Diamond's "Collapse", and innumerable other sources we see the rule by the alpha male warrior class tend to ever more concentrated power with ever more exploitation of all lower classes.

We also see some slave rebellions. But simply having some pirates show up at a port can start the wholesale looting of the entire city by the slave classes. So, it *looks* like an organized invasion, when in fact, its just an organic process that destroys a corrupt and exploitive system.

Atilla didnt set out to destroy the Roman empire, but when negotiations to deal with a refugee problem failed, some barbarians crossed the Danube anyway, and then the whole thing spun out of control.

I read where Carthage, one of the descendant cultures, had a senate. Republics do tend to be less oppressive, and they prolly had that tradition from ancestors in Phoencia.

[Cognito]

To expound a little, they said that the Sea People settled in the Levant and probably jump-started the expansion of the Phoenicians in their sea going trade network, but did not intermarry.

Well, they got it backwards. The activity of the Sea Peoples took out the Phoenicians' enemies ... that's why they were successful in expanding their sea empire so noticeably post 1200bce. By the way, the Phoenicians avoided war at all cost until after the split from Tyre and colonization of Carthage. Those who preferred to raise armies went to Carthage. No Levant cities had armies.

[Cognito]

I read where Carthage, one of the descendant cultures, had a senate. Republics do tend to be less oppressive, and they prolly had that tradition from ancestors in Phoencia.

Aristotle greatly admired the Carthaginian political system. Every year two "Suffetes" [literarly, 'judges'] were elected who were the state's chief administrative officers. They executed policy decisions made by a council of about thirty which itself was a standing subcommittee of a senate of 300. Additionally, citizens met in popular assembly. Leaders called upon each of the increasingly larger political bodies if they could not reach a concensus within the smaller group. Thus, if the the council reached consensus on a matter of policy, it simply instructed the suffetes to carry out its decision. If council members could not reach consensus, they referred the matter to the senate for debate and decision. If they senate reached consensus, it directed the suffetes to implement its decisions. If they senate could not reach consensus, it referred the matter to the popular assembly. Although the assembly would only be called upon in truly important and controversial matters, citizens enjoyed a great deal of freedom of speech in assembly. Suffetes and members of the council and senate, as well as generals, were elected by the citizenry as a whole.

The Carthaginians rested judicial authority in a council of 104 judges chosen from the senate of 300 by a board of five elected magistrates. The judges were charged with supervising magistrates and preventing the suffetes from acting on tyrannical temptations.

Source: http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/Carthage.htm

[daybrown]

Well kewl. Is there much data on the freedom of women? Seems like the more misogynistic a culture is, the more tyrannical.

[Cognito]

Queen Ellisar of Tyre (an early widow due to her brother's antics) is credited with founding Carthage. The native king where she settled in Tunis was impressed with her since she was literate and an expert mathematician. He offered to marry her, but she refused. As a result, he built a university of learning in her honour where women were allowed to study, hoping to find another one as equal as the Queen. This was sometime after 814bce ... a first for women's rights in the ancient world.

Makes for a nice myth. Ellisar was real as was her brother, Pygmalion, King of Tyre. She was a royal literate and accomplished mathematician and the university was real. However, the marriage offer seems like a convenient explanation to the public to allow women's studies.

Maybe the wrong side won the Punic Wars?

[kbs2244]

Wrong from whose point of view?
This country started to go down hill when Henry Ford invented a car and tractor that common people could afford.
The tractors would break down and so the farmers would teach their wives to drive and send them un-chaperoned into town for parts while they kept working in the fields.
(Men have always been kind of pratical.)
Used to be the women would only be in town on weekends, when the whole family “Went to town,” but Dad was always around to keep things under control.
Pretty soon the store that used to have guns and grain mills in the widows to get a mans attention had fabric and dresses in the window.
To get a woman’s attention.
Shop keeper have always seen a market from a long way off.
A lot of those women already knew how to shoot.
Now they had learned how to drive.
And then they learned how to buy something with out getting permission.
Pretty soon they wanted to vote.
And now they want to run the country!

[Forum Monk]

Ellisar was real as was her brother, Pygmalion, King of Tyre....Maybe the wrong side won the Punic Wars?

One man's Ellisar is anothers Dido, and so I have always referred to her. She is sort of hero of mine, a real woman's woman in a time of real men. I have always been partial to the legends of Carthage and have long been an admirer of Hannibal: the man who defied the mightest empire ever. (Well perhaps England was the mightiest ever).

And now they want to run the country!

Yikes! We go from Dido to Dodo.

[Minimalist]

Hannibal: the man who defied the mightest empire ever.

Certainly not true in Hannibal's time.

[Forum Monk]

Certainly not true in Hannibal's time.

Technically correct, and as usual your knowledge of history is excellent. Had Hannibal succeeded, the world would certainly be a different place today.

[Cognito]

Maybe the wrong side won the Punic Wars?

From what I recall women didn't have much say in the Roman Empire, at least not on the surface. I am left to wonder about women's roles in Carthage and Phoenician colonies in general. If they were allowed to participate in university studies, they may have had a wider role in society than their Roman counterparts. Anyone know of any women senators in Carthage? There certainly were none in Rome.

[Minimalist]

Hannibal relied, mistakenly, on the belief that the other communities which Rome had defeated would rally to his cause.

They did not.

I doubt the western world would have been a better place, though.

[daybrown]

Plutarch reported, that back in the days of the republic, the first thing a beseiged city would throw over the wall at the Romans, was the head of the mayor. The Romans offered a cheaper and more honest form of management. The Carthaginians didnt get that.

Because the Romans did, Hannibal didnt get the support he expected. The Roman legions became the world's first equal opportunity employer, and we see how many emperors came from other tribes, many of whom never even set foot in Rome, nor wanted to.

Plutarch also reports on Roman General Titus,(not emperor) who back in the days of the republic, waited while the senate quibbled over sending troops to relieve their ally, Venice, which was being attacked by Phillip (the Macedonian Great Grandson of Alexander).

At the time, Rome was afraid Phillip would attack them, and at the time, the Macedonian legions were still a very fearsome force. But Titus, one way or other, took two legions across the Adriatic to attack Macedonia from the rear, without having full support of the senate.

This was another lesson the Carthaginians didnt get; keep your word. Titus was also a frat boy, had been to the Academy, & spoke fluent Greek. After landing, he was kind of bottled up by 6 Macedonian legions, which for some reason, chose not to attack. He spoke with shepard boys, and like Xerxes at Thermapolye, found out how to get up and behind the Macedonians.

Where he fell upon them in great confusion and wiped them out. Then, he goes around to all the Greek vassals of Phillip, promising to restore their ancient constitutions, which did, in fact, happen. For centuries after, Greece had a unique status within the Roman empire.

Then, Plutarch says, that when he pillaged the Macedonian palace, he sent back 700 oxcart loads of gold to Rome, enuf money, Plutarch says, to fund the Roman government for 200 years. Which let the empire expand without having to expand the tax base.

But after the 200 years was up, it was time to raise taxes, which the senate could only do on the lower classes, which led to civil unrest, and they had to call in some general names Julius to restore order. And, if you recall, Julius came in with all the loot he got in Gaul, which he used to pay *his* troops.

The rich bastards always try to do it on the cheap, and thot letting Caesar pay the troops would save them money. <snurk> Carthage had the same kind of greedy bastards.

[Minimalist]

I guess you are telling the story of Titus Quinctius Flamininus, victor of the battle of Cynoscephalae.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/peop ... ininus.htm