Greeks on the Caspian Sea?

I suppose he refers to the fact that Armenian is thought to represent a branch of Indo-European significantly closer to Greek than Indo-Iranian.

Yes, I do.

It's not just language, its the way of life being closer between the Armenians and the Greeks than the (to use a term someone - RGB? used when the Alans came in some other discussion) horse culture of the Alans is to the ancient Greeks.

That may be geography in part, but a Greek colony is going to be planted with the knowledge and attitudes of those shaped by another place.
 
I have to ask why on the Dnieper, I mean, fair enough, Black Sea river, but it isn't the Don, which comes closest to the Volga, so I'm curious. Is this just for more population in the area.

The Don, as well, certainly. I was mainly thinking of the Dnieper because its by far the larger river. I'm picturing a widespread greek settlement of the region. If we just want communications and supply/trade, then the Don is all you need. But I imagine that first, the Greeks would settle along the larger river (particularly important when it comes to defenses) and only after move to the smaller rivers.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
The Don, as well, certainly. I was mainly thinking of the Dnieper because its by far the larger river. I'm picturing a widespread greek settlement of the region. If we just want communications and supply/trade, then the Don is all you need. But I imagine that first, the Greeks would settle along the larger river (particularly important when it comes to defenses) and only after move to the smaller rivers.

You're thinking along the same lines as me, I just came first from the trade perspective, forgetting quite how much grain/wood/slaves came from the region.

Luckily they already have, Olbia! But after that, I can see the unification of the greek euxine colonies, and potentially (I'm not sure on figures for the two) a second breadbasket in the med that reduces reliance on egypt.

I get ahead of myself, you are right that they'd probably focus on the Dnieper, until they realised they could get to the Caspian Sea another way.
 
You're thinking along the same lines as me, I just came first from the trade perspective, forgetting quite how much grain/wood/slaves came from the region.

Luckily they already have, Olbia! But after that, I can see the unification of the greek euxine colonies, and potentially (I'm not sure on figures for the two) a second breadbasket in the med that reduces reliance on egypt.

I get ahead of myself, you are right that they'd probably focus on the Dnieper, until they realised they could get to the Caspian Sea another way.

Olbia's actually on the mouth of the Southern Bug. While thats very close to the Dnieper, its not on it. But either way, I'm envisioning that they'd want to settle further up the river before moving to the Caspian.

However, we could be looking at this entirely the wrong way: Perhaps an analog to Bactria would make more sense, with Alexander or the Seleucids conquering one of the kingdoms in the region and establishing some Greek colonies there.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Olbia's actually on the mouth of the Southern Bug. While thats very close to the Dnieper, its not on it. But either way, I'm envisioning that they'd want to settle further up the river before moving to the Caspian.

However, we could be looking at this entirely the wrong way: Perhaps an analog to Bactria would make more sense, with Alexander or the Seleucids conquering one of the kingdoms in the region and establishing some Greek colonies there.

Hence Zopyrion, he was Alexanders General in Thrace, failed and conquering Olbia, could have then moved on to conquer Gelonus , or the local steppe tribes caesar-style (just wouldn't be quick business I imagine).

Gelonus I like, because it is actually on the Don, its just quite a bit inland, and as said, is already Greco-Scythian. Soooo... good place to start :)
 
Last edited:
Hence Zopyrion, he was Alexanders General in Thrace, failed and conquering Olbia, could have then moved on to conquer Gelonus , or the local steppe tribes caesar-style (just wouldn't be quick business I imagine).

Gelonus I like, because it is actually on the Don, its just quite a bit inland, and as said, is already Greco-Scythian. Soooo... good place to start :)

Its worth pointing out that Gelonus was destroyed by Darius during his Scythian campaign, and after that, nothing else is mentioned of it in Herodotus' Histories. Heck, the alleged Greco-Scythian Geloni that inhabited it may have been an invention by Herodotus. The likely site of Gelonus has been found on the Don, but no evidence as to its' inhabitants being Greco-Scythian AFAIK (that was probably, again, Herodotus using literary license).

More importantly, Olbia, Niconium, Tyras and the rest were quite exposed, and raids by the nomadic peoples were frequent. In MO, any Greek colonists along the (likely) northern coast of the Caspian Sea would have it VERY rough, both from the climate, the distance between them and other Greek-heck, other urbanized-settlements, and constant raids by their nomadic neighbours.

Given that the first time the Huns are mentioned, by Tacitus (Hunnoi) in AD 91, they were just north of the Caspian Sea, it might be the Greeks, not the Alans, that experience first contact with Attila's ancestors...and we all know how fun that was for the Alans:eek:

If the Greeks DO manage to establish colonies in this area, they could stand to prosper; the Caspian Sea has Sturgeon, Tuna and White Fish, which were and are highly sought after for their flesh and Caviar, both being considered delicacies. Like the Black Sea colonies, they can take up farming along the Ural and Volga rivers, and sell their grain and grain products (bread, etc.), and then there's run of the mill commodities, like textiles, pottery, and metal ware/tools/weapons. They can raise domesticated animals, and sell them and their products, but that's IF the Greeks can get there, IF the Greeks can STAY there, and IF they don't wind up as vassals of the Scythians, Alans, Sarmatians, Huns, Kushans or any of the other peoples that, in time, would and DID dominate this area.

But that's just my 2 cents; sorry if I'm a 'Buzz Killington', just thought I should point these out. The idea of Greeks on the Caspian Sea IS an interesting idea.
 
I honestly don't see any way for the steppe cities to remember independent of the steppe hordes, no matter who's living there. Best case scenario is autonomy and tribute.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned

Totally not a buzz killington, the challenge is satisfying, gives me more to think about.

Shame Gelonus may be fictional, do you think that people would have believed Herodotus? It could lead to catastrophe for anyone who tried to reach it if it didn't actually exist!

Regarding the cities, if the settlements in Dobrogea (Admittedly not as exposed, but still) are anything to go by, then there was a large amount of local trading, which is what the settlements were based on, not just inter-urban trade, in fact that seems to be the minority (at least there), even if they exported grain to Athens.

Also, those north coast greek colonies stood tenaciously, against all comers (including the Macedonians!... Just) I wouldn't be surprised if that tenacity and resilience would also be a characteristic of settlements on the Caspian as they could trade with much closer partners, but regardless of that trades importance, I would be surprised if they fell, especially if the area was purposely urbanised. (Though I guess that could become the reason, I just can't see how right now).

I do find the hun aspect interesting, partially because I can see a successful greek/urbanised society in the south-russias (it seems to be growing now) getting information from the Chinese, that information could be vital, and perhaps make steppe tribes much less dangerous, as they are less unexpected. - But that would require far more work to give any credence to.

to bring @DominusNovus back in,

Both of you are entirely right though, most likely a greek-dominant society would have difficulty without SERIOUS backing, and of the right type. I personally like the Macedonians/Thracians because of their cavalry traditions, and their relation to the steppe tribes. That and (whilst I don't assume common talents), Alexander did manage to pin them down and show them who was boss. AND AFAIK, the Macedonias, whilst culturally conservative, were willing to adapt to new military tech, and had their own cavalry, so they might be willing to see, then adopt that style of warfare in the area. (Might).

An alternative to more colonies existing and being independent states, or a series of symbiotic states is that it lead to an early-moskva/mongols situation, where the city states manage to assert themselves after a long time subservient to another.

But in summary

1) This'll be hard

2) They won't find independence easy without a stroke of military or diplomatic brilliance

3) If it works, it'll work well... assuming they don't just start killing each other. Bloody Greeks.


But seriously thanks :) It has given me a huge amount to think about, rather than just imagining triremes on the Don/Volga/Dneiper rivers :)
 
@ GdwnsnHo

Your welcome! If you want some more information, I'd read up on the Bosporan Kingdom, and how it managed to cooperate (or Co-exist) with the Sarmatians.

As to the Greeks gaining access to the Caspian, there are at least three routes that I could see:

1) The most obvious, being to sail up the Tanais (Don), portage to the Rhos (Volga), and sail down into the sea.

2) starting from Colchis, and the other Greek colonies along the southern shore of the Black Sea, cross the Caucasus Mountains and sail down the Terek river into the sea.

3) Related to #2, start in the Greek colonies in the Kuban peninsula (across from the Kerch peninsula in the Crimea), sail to the end, than portage to the Terek river, and follow it into the sea.

4) Finally, sail up the Don, but rather than continuing on to the Volga, sail to the end of the Manych river (a tributary of the Don), and portage to the Kuma river, and from there sail into the sea.

Here's a map for reference (doesn't show the Kuma):
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/romana117.jpg

EDIT: better map:
http://fofweb.com/Electronic_Images/ImageGallery/CaspianSea.gif
 
Both of you are entirely right though, most likely a greek-dominant society would have difficulty without SERIOUS backing, and of the right type. I personally like the Macedonians/Thracians because of their cavalry traditions, and their relation to the steppe tribes. That and (whilst I don't assume common talents), Alexander did manage to pin them down and show them who was boss. AND AFAIK, the Macedonias, whilst culturally conservative, were willing to adapt to new military tech, and had their own cavalry, so they might be willing to see, then adopt that style of warfare in the area. (Might).

I can only see the Greek colonies keeping the various nomadic societies at bay for a short period, at the height of their military power: Right around Alexander's lifespan and his immediate successors. There's just such a military disparity between sedentary and nomadic societies that is accentuated on the steppes. There's nothing that can really change that beside technology.

However, I could see a compromise that might serve the purposes and be incredibly interesting in its own right: Greek Cossacks.
 
Top