08-29-2008, 12:46 AM
Do not get me wrong, Tiglath Pileser. Give me a pen, and I will sign any paper which maintains that the Fertile Crescent, along with Egypt ad occasionally Anatolia, harboured the most advanced civilizations until 600 BC or so - globally.
But you listed a couple of things below, which I immediately recognized as the kind of mistakes orientalists, who insist too much on the priority of the Middle East, are prone to do: You underrate the amount of originality the Greeks and Romans gave in their time to these things.
Yes, you can do that, but you have to mention that in the very same paper John Peter Oleson refuted this hypothesis by his co-author. And Oleson is widely known to be the most conservative among English specialists on ancient water power (just compare with the views of Lewis, Orkander and Wilson).
Yes, you can do that, but you should also mention that the aqueduct of Sennacherib was a singular case in Mesopotamia, while there are more than 600 Roman aqueducts known. That it featured a 70 m long corbel arch bridge, while Roman aqueducts often rested for kilometers on true arches. That the per capita amount of water for imperial Rome (300 l) still exceeds the one of New York. That the Romans used siphons, and lead pipes several tens of thousand tons heavy (aqueduct of Gier), none of which AFAIK known in Assyria.
Yes, you can do that, but you wont find there catapults, which were a genuinely Greek innovation. You will also note that Assyrian siege towers rarely exceeded the height of 8 m, while there are - admittedly overengineered - examples in the Greek world which hit the 40 m mark, were clad with iron plates, and featured artillery throwing up to 78 k projectiles.
You will also note that Greek slingers used lead bullets, which clearly outranged the traditional Near Eastern sling (see the account of Xenophon). You will also note that while Assyrian infantry used two types of body armour (scale and lamellar), Greek and Roman forces used at different times at least 4 types in battle: scale, lamellar, mail, the lorica segmentata (and perhaps the musculata).
These are all examples which hopefully illustrate the point I am trying to make, and I believe SigniferOne, too: namely that the Greeks originally adopted many influences from the east, but brought science, (sports) culture and civilization to another level through their originality. In that sense, I believe, the Greeks are still rightfully portraited as a civilization which made itself.
But you listed a couple of things below, which I immediately recognized as the kind of mistakes orientalists, who insist too much on the priority of the Middle East, are prone to do: You underrate the amount of originality the Greeks and Romans gave in their time to these things.
Quote:I could discuss Sennacherib's water screw pump - claimed by Archimedes - that was used to irrigate the Hanging Gardens of Nineveh, not Babylon as erroneously passed down by Greek writers.
Yes, you can do that, but you have to mention that in the very same paper John Peter Oleson refuted this hypothesis by his co-author. And Oleson is widely known to be the most conservative among English specialists on ancient water power (just compare with the views of Lewis, Orkander and Wilson).
Quote:I could discuss architectural designs of Greek temples and projects such as the aquaduct of Sennacherib - used to irrigate the same gardens - 400 years before its Roman counterpart.
Yes, you can do that, but you should also mention that the aqueduct of Sennacherib was a singular case in Mesopotamia, while there are more than 600 Roman aqueducts known. That it featured a 70 m long corbel arch bridge, while Roman aqueducts often rested for kilometers on true arches. That the per capita amount of water for imperial Rome (300 l) still exceeds the one of New York. That the Romans used siphons, and lead pipes several tens of thousand tons heavy (aqueduct of Gier), none of which AFAIK known in Assyria.
Quote:I could show that military tactics, such as the Phalanx were depicted on the Stele of Vultures, that siege engines and military engineers, sappers and even hoplite armour and shields all have their antecedents in the Middle East.
Yes, you can do that, but you wont find there catapults, which were a genuinely Greek innovation. You will also note that Assyrian siege towers rarely exceeded the height of 8 m, while there are - admittedly overengineered - examples in the Greek world which hit the 40 m mark, were clad with iron plates, and featured artillery throwing up to 78 k projectiles.
You will also note that Greek slingers used lead bullets, which clearly outranged the traditional Near Eastern sling (see the account of Xenophon). You will also note that while Assyrian infantry used two types of body armour (scale and lamellar), Greek and Roman forces used at different times at least 4 types in battle: scale, lamellar, mail, the lorica segmentata (and perhaps the musculata).
These are all examples which hopefully illustrate the point I am trying to make, and I believe SigniferOne, too: namely that the Greeks originally adopted many influences from the east, but brought science, (sports) culture and civilization to another level through their originality. In that sense, I believe, the Greeks are still rightfully portraited as a civilization which made itself.
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
