Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The 'Myth' of the Silk Road
#21
(03-29-2017, 07:37 PM)Alanus Wrote: Hello, Bryan

I just read Evan's link to Malinowski's article, Origin of the Name Seres, and found it informative. I could not find any passage within his paper referring to moving "giant mammals along the land route and nothing else." Malinowski talks about a sea route and quates the "Seres" with the southwestern Indian dynasty of Chera, and he makes a good point. Where did you get your information about anyone trading elephants, and elephants only, along the land route? Cool

We know for a fact that various Hellenic kingdoms were using war elephants gained from the original breeding stock of 500 Indian elephants gained through the marriage alliance Seleucus made with his daughter and Chandragupta Maurya, the Indian king. We know elephants came from eastern India. So how did they get to Turkey, Levant, Egypt? Either they were teleported from India to the Hellenic kingdoms, or else all 500 were put inside a giant fleet, or else they walked. Most likely they walked...

Along the same route that Seleucus used for his east-west line of communication/supply route, which would have been the same route previously used by the Achaemenid empire, then used by Alexander to travel west, and then used by later kingdoms as well. Or are we also supposed to believe that Seleucus and those that came after (not to mention those before, who had an empire stretching from Egypt to Bactria) had no land route to reach the eastern side of their own empire?

(03-30-2017, 10:16 AM)Michael Kerr Wrote: Bryan wrote:

So we know that in antiquity elephants were transferred from India/Asia all the way to the Mediterranean area. They only moved large numbers of giant mammals along a land route and nothing else?

 That is probably the case in regards to Indian elephants to the Mediterranean, I have not heard of Asian elephants crossing overland at least in ancient times. There were transport ships for elephants at the time but probably not suitable for Indian Ocean travel.  Seleucus I Nicator transferred to Chandragupta Maurya’s kingdom his easternmost satrapies in exchange for 500? elephants and their mahouts and a treaty was sealed with a marriage where Chandragupta married a female relative of Seleucus.

 Considering how his war elephants played a major role in the defeat of Antigonus Monophthalmus at the battle of Ipsus and the fact that he probably didn’t have the forces to hold onto his eastern satrapies while fighting a war in the west anyway, it was probably a good deal for Seleucus. It is highly unlikely that he had the naval resources to transport 500 elephants and fodder as well as fresh water so he would have marched the elephants and their mahouts along with his army back to Babylon.

 It seems fitting as this thread is about land versus sea trade that the southern Egyptian Red Sea ports with elephant stations which were later used and improved by the Romans much later for the Indian Ocean trade, were developed by Ptolemy II Philadelphus when he sent hunting expeditions to find African elephants from for his army, as access to larger Indian elephants was blocked by his enemies the Seleucids. Shipping elephants from India was clearly not feasible, or if possible it would have been extremely hazardous, and would have resulted in an unacceptably high attrition rate of elephants, ships, and crews, and would certainly have been expensive so an alternate source had to be found closer to home from Sudan and Eritrea. Elephants were not the only reason for the development of ports, roads and canals on the Red Sea coast but the Egyptians felt they needed elephants to match the large war elephants of the Seleucid armies. He had his sailors ship them in specially designed ships called ‘elephantegoi’ as described by Diodorus Siculus for Red Sea navigation.
For ships, then, which are equipped with oars the place is suitable enough, since it rolls along no wave from a great distance and affords, furthermore, fishing in the greatest abundance; but the ships which carry the elephants, being of deep draft because of their weight and heavy by reason of their equipment, bring upon their crews great and terrible dangers.  For running as they do under full sail and often times being driven during the night before the force of the winds, sometimes they will strike against rocks and be wrecked or sometimes run aground on slightly submerged spits. Smile
Regards
Michael Kerr

That's in line with my point. It would require either a giant fleet making an extremely long sea voyage with a large force of adult male elephants, or else a slightly smaller fleet making numerous trips back and forth. Or they could walk. We know they could walk, as there was a route, because Alexander was following it when he was chasing after Darius III and the pretender into Bactria from Persia. This route was also used by the Archaemenid empire previously because Bactria was a satrap for some time and being land locked you can be sure there was a land route. You can't have an thousand mile empire with no roads and routes, they are the key. 

We know for a fact there was a land route to India. I have no idea what the situation between India and China was, but I'm guessing there was at least some direct land trading between each other. So if you can get to India by land (which we know they could, Alexander did it by following established routes, then Seleucus did it with his empire), then you can get to China by land, which means there was a "Silk Road".
Reply


Messages In This Thread
The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Nathan Ross - 03-12-2017, 01:17 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Dan Howard - 03-12-2017, 02:08 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Michael Kerr - 03-12-2017, 04:41 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Nathan Ross - 03-12-2017, 08:52 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Dan Howard - 03-13-2017, 12:03 AM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Alanus - 03-13-2017, 05:00 AM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Nathan Ross - 03-13-2017, 12:28 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Michael Kerr - 03-13-2017, 03:16 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Nathan Ross - 03-13-2017, 07:26 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Alanus - 03-13-2017, 09:00 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Nathan Ross - 03-13-2017, 09:32 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Michael Kerr - 03-14-2017, 03:59 AM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Nathan Ross - 03-14-2017, 12:21 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Michael Kerr - 03-28-2017, 04:07 AM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Nathan Ross - 03-28-2017, 08:14 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Alanus - 03-29-2017, 03:47 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Bryan - 03-29-2017, 05:13 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Alanus - 03-29-2017, 07:37 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Bryan - 03-30-2017, 02:51 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Nathan Ross - 03-31-2017, 12:04 AM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Michael Kerr - 03-30-2017, 10:16 AM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Alanus - 03-30-2017, 10:39 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Michael Kerr - 03-31-2017, 12:31 AM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Michael Kerr - 04-04-2017, 04:52 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Michael Kerr - 04-13-2017, 03:47 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Nathan Ross - 04-15-2017, 06:38 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Michael Kerr - 04-16-2017, 01:09 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Nathan Ross - 06-25-2017, 06:44 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Mikeh55 - 06-28-2017, 05:17 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Michael Kerr - 06-28-2017, 05:39 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Nathan Ross - 06-28-2017, 11:00 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Michael Kerr - 06-30-2017, 05:45 PM
RE: The 'Myth' of the Silk Road - by Robert - 07-14-2017, 11:09 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A Silk Road Before the \"Silk Road\" Alanus 8 4,248 02-19-2017, 05:21 PM
Last Post: Alanus

Forum Jump: