[tied], Re:, Urartu.

If you study the Assyrian history, you see first that Urartu was
suddenly destroyed by the Cimmerians. After this, the Assyrian king
(Sargon II?) received pleas from the neo-Hittite states in Anatolia
and Phrygia to save them from the Cimmerians, pledging to become his
vassals. Not one to turn down a chance to expand his empire, Sargon
took his army into Anatolia but was killed in battle. The Phrygian
kingdom was overthrown and the Cimmerians ruled there, with their
legends living in Greek myth as the Amazons. Meanwhile, the Scythians
appeared on the Assyrian northern borders. They never attacked
Assyria. Perhaps it was because they knew of the Assyrian enmity with
their enemies the Cimmerians. Instead, they stayed there, playing a
three-way geo-political game against the Medes. After the fall of
Nineveh, however, the Scythians withdrew back into the steppes.

Now, this chain of events obviously suggests that the Cimmerians came
through the Caucasus, destroyed Urartu, then rode west into Anatolia
where they attacked the small states there and even defeated the
Assyrians. The Scythians followed the Cimmerians as far as NW Iran
and Azerbaijan.

PS: I meant to say that there was never a campaign around the west
end _of the Caucasus - not the Black Sea_, as you apparently thought
I meant. The Mongols wiped out the Georgian army, then doubled back
to go through Derbend. Not even the Russians went that route in
recent times to fight the Turks.

--- In cybalist@..., "Rex H. McTyeire" <rexbo@...> wrote:
>
> Our differences remain the same on Cimmerians: Start point,
route, and
> Impact enroute (combining several of the last few posts on the
subject).
>
> On geography, you go to great lengths to explain the difficulty of
the
> Caucasus route, then close with:
>
> " I don't know about you, but I would ride off into Rumania or
Poland
> before I went south."
>
> My position is they did just that, with main elements moving to
cross the
> Dardanelles, and it isn't just H. who puts them precisely
there..Callamachus
> does too. (He has "mare milking Kimmerians numerous as sand" (even
naming
> the Cimmerian King) at Ephesus..but giving a bye because of the
Artemis
> temple, after threatening to burn it. (The Callamachus advantage:
the
> entire Alexandrian Library where he was chief librarian.)
Otherwise taking
> Mark's position as well on H.'s geography. H. remains a reference,
and if
> he was blind and couldn't see or describe a mountain..it doesn't put
> Cimmerians further east. If you look at a topo map (and consider a
Dniester
> to Dnieper center) the route is not South or west..it is sharp
terrain
> supported SW to the Aegean, turning SE into Anatolia..with no
Caucasus
> obstacle in the way..through the lands of other Thracians; a natural
> response to the opposing force moving due west...Jutland and
Anatolia appear
> as prime potential results of split movements.
> Then it follows that Scythians pursuing the disrupted and
baseless
> Cimmerians would have retraced known routes and supply lines,
allied forces,
> known territory and avoided sorting through all those other
Thracians to get
> to Phrygia.
>
> cas111jd: "I'm not aware of a single migration or military
expedition around
> the
> west end, so I doubt the Cimmerians did it."
>
> See points one up, and add: Hittites in, Moesi into Mysia, Many
other
> Thracians into NW Anatolia, Celts into central Anatolia, Alexander
into
> Persia, (And Persia going into Greece) Darius after Scythians,, Its
a
> revolving door of influence..both ways..wave after wave.
>
> cas111jd: "Artemis and Artemis-like goddesses were common all over
the IE
> world.
> The Greeks usually identified a given deity of another people with
> their own and called them as such. Apollo and Artemis were, IMO,
> borrowed from the Thracians. The Ephesian Artemis was originally the
> Anatolian Great Goddess, as was the goddess of Aphrodisias whom the
> Greeks identified with Aphrodite, etc."
>
> Generally agree except as noted below, but the point was the
resurgence in
> Cappadochia pointing to new Northern intrusion supporting that
site as
> receiving Cimmerian settlers, but we agree on that point. I also
believe
> Artemis was introduced much earlier OVER the in place Neolithic
Anatolian
> mother godess(es) Hanahana and Ma..and combined sysncretically only
in some
> areas, replacing in others.
>
> cas111jd: "After the Scythians withdrew from NW Iran, they settled
in the
> Ukraine to be found there later by Greeks and Persians. "
>
> And I carry the point further, with classical writer support: that
is where
> the Cimmerians where..and the Ukraine was Cimmeria..(and probably
not
> reaching the Volga, at least at that time, being already
significantly
> Steppe trodden .)
>
> cas111jd: "You seem to be a Thracophile."
>
> Ha ha..not really: My original focus and interest was Western
Anatolia and
> the Aegean.; but being here about the Danube, after years in Western
> Anatolia..the links and history are full of gaps in the current
perspective
> on the area pre-Roman..I kinda adopted it :-)
>
> cas111jd: Our buddy Herodotus never suggested that the Thracians
ever ranged
> into Asia.
>
> Beg to differ. To H. : Asia and Europe were primarily things
happening
> south of the Dardanelles, with the Aegean the dividing line. His
description
> of Thracian size and the region..leaves little room for any
conclusion other
> than: In his view; Thrace extended well east of the Dniester, and
well
> North of later mapping.
>
> You and Torsten can argue over Homer's passage and whether he meant
the N.
> Black Sea coast, or the North Sea..But I have an advantage..I
already know
> Torsten favors the Ukraine as a source for his northward movement
from the
> area into Jutland. ( I am positionless on the point :-) You have
yet to
> justify an opinion on more easterly Cimmerians. You say a Volga/
Don
> center, and I say they bordered the Dniester on the west but didn't
reach
> the Volga to the east (even if some Thracians did.).
>
> Rex H. McTyeire
> Bucharest, Romania