Syrian Archers and Europa Barbarorum 2

[alex33]

So as far as i remember Syrian Archers will not be represented in this mod because of their similarity with Kretan Archers. I do respect the decission of the team but i honestly still think the Syrian people have a right to be represented in this mod with their own dedicated unit. Tbh of obscure people lile Isaurians and Chaldians get their own unit why don‘t the Syrians? The Syrians seemingly had such a fine archery tradition that they were used en masse even later in the roman empire as far up as hadrians wall. Syria was also a huge hotspot during the time period of the mod so why shouldn‘t they be represented fighting for their homeland? And to be frank i really don‘t like the „they are to similar to others“ argument, if we really go that way why do we really need Eastern Iranian Archer-Spearmen and Western Iranian Archer-Spearmen? Do we need a special Boii Noble cav? I know it is a Mod Team decission in the end but i would really like to know the general opinion about this on the public side

[k123cp]

Yeah, I think Syrian archers should be included, judging by their historical prominence alone. They may be similar in function to the Cretans, but looking at the rosters of Eastern factions they are swarmed with light archers and skirmishers. An additional unit of heavy archer would give them some more diversity.

[Roma_Victrix]

Yeah, I think Syrian archers should be included, judging by their historical prominence alone. They may be similar in function to the Cretans, but looking at the rosters of Eastern factions they are swarmed with light archers and skirmishers. An additional unit of heavy archer would give them some more diversity.

Well, there are the Armenian Royal Guard archers, who are very heavily armored and even wield spears, but I think they can only be recruited by the Hayasdan faction. Having a more general mercenary-type unit like the Cretan archers, only heavier, would be very nice to have in the Eastern Mediterranean. At least in the Black Sea region you can recruit the heavy Thureopherontes Toxotai archers and their mounted counterpart, the Thureopherontes Hippotoxotai. In fact, you can recruit the horse archer variant in northern Anatolia. If you haven't done so you should try it; they are a major boon to any army and they're not too expensive either.

i would really like to know the general opinion about this on the public side

Personally, I support this idea to include Syrian archers. I'm not entirely sure how to portray them in a historically accurate fashion, though. I know they existed, obviously, but I don't know anything about their armor and equipment, aside from the fact that they wielded composite bows. Although this article deals with Syrian archers well after the EBII time frame, it does describe the nature of the famed Syrian archers recruited in particular from the city of Hama (taken by the Romans in 63 AD) and stationed in Roman Britain.

http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Page...ry/hamians.htm

[Cohors_Evocata]

Well, uhm, was there such a thing as "Syrian archers" before the Romans showed up (i.e. to what degree is the term a Roman invention to refer to all inhabitants of that province and/or is the specific equipment/unit a development of the Roman era)?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Under the Seleucids, S. was divided into 72 satrapies. There were some 70 cities which, although they retained their independence, were nominally under royal authority and were required to supply troops in the event of war. In the absence of written sources, no administrative structures, judicial institutions or trading policies are sufficiently understood for this period. None the less, the geographical, cultural and political disunity of S. is apparent, which finally led to the downfall of the Seleucid kingdom.

External and internal conflicts around and within S. led to the strengthening of indigenous peoples such as the Nabataeans (Nabataei), Ituraeans (Ituraea) and Palmyrenes (Palmyra), the*Hasmonaeans*in Palestine and local princes in the cities of S. and Phoenicia. In the early 1st cent. BC,*Tigranes I*briefly attacked S.

Klengel, Horst (Berlin) and E.M.R., “Syria”, in:*Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider, English Edition by: Christine F. Salazar, Classical Tradition volumes edited by: Manfred Landfester, English Edition by: Francis G. Gentry. Consulted online on 08 March 2018

"Syrians" are not mentioned in the main enumerations of the Seleukid forces, unless they are the "orientals" at Magnesia (plate taken from From Samarkhand to Sardis, p.54). If they are included as the Neo-Cretans (i.e. troops trained and equipped in the Cretan manner), then that would support the choice to use Cretan archers for the region.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

EB II is not a democracy, but we are not entirely above persuasion either. If you want to make a case for a unit, it'll have to be more than just "do this" however. We would have to see equipment and historical significance demonstrated. For example, were they actually wearing any (distinctive) armour before the Romans?

Note that this is not an "official final response" by the team; it can probably be disproven (I whipped this up without much in the way of expertise or research) should the sources for an earlier form of the unit be there.

[alex33]

Well, to be honest, I don't know a thing about this. I'm no historian or expert in any way but i would never take ancient authors by the word. (Looking at you Appian and your fake assessment of the Nabataeans, like srsly they treat their dead as they would dung?!) Whats the real source of the army at Magnesia? It's probably Livy, isn't it? He lived over a hundred years after that battle and surely said stuff like the seleucids lost 40.000 soldiers while the Romans 200 or some bs. I take everything I read from people like them with a huge grain of salt.

I honestly do think there have to be Syrian archers during our time period. Traditions like that don't appear overnight. If they didn't exist before why were the Romans so specific about recruiting them? The article Roma Victrix posted mentioned an altar to a Syrian deity in Great Britain. Ofc this is just an educated guess on my side but then this is also something you have to do with the general lack of sources. For example one of the new units previewed on twitter are the Chaldians which concept is based on Xenophons Anabasis which happened around 130 years before the start date of the mod. So who says Chaldians fought in the same manner as during the March of the 10.000 during the timeframe of the mod? I know this is whataboutism but I think you understand what I mean. I also could swear there was a mention of Syrian archers in the Maccabees. Early the Seleucids were quite reluctant to arm native troops (the egyptians learnd why this can be a bad idea) but after they lost much manpower they resorted to arm syrians. At least i think that is in bar-kochvas Maccabees book that i don‘t have at hand rn. So maybe they would be a good late unit?

And, yes I know we should not compare the two, but eb 1 also had Syrian archers. Why did the old team include them? There has to be some research about this for them to include them.

[Rad]

I am all for it, if enough evidence for their existstence during eb's timeframe can be found. It would be a shame to not include a regional unit like that just because it's somehow similar to the Kretans.

[Genava]

Syria didn't exist and if I remember correctly, it is the Hamian tribes (city of Hama) that are well known for archery during the roman period (when Syria becomes a province).

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

I do respect the decission of the team but i honestly still think the Syrian people have a right to be represented in this mod with their own dedicated unit. Tbh of obscure people lile Isaurians and Chaldians get their own unit why don‘t the Syrians?

Isaurians and Chaldians are an actual people, and in the case of Isaurians, speaking a language different from their neighbors.

Locals living in Syria didn't actually self identify as a single people, not only did their regional customs vary a lot, but they also spoke different languages. It was the Greeks who begun to refer to that region as Syria, during the times of the Assyrian empire, the closest term to call this region, if we exclude the Phoenicians who didn't switch to Aramaic, would be "Aram" which originally corresponded to Coele Syria but nevertheless, the Aramaic language was adopted both in Amorite lands as well as Jewish and Philistine territories, and during the achaemenid period the lands of Palmyra and Nabatea were still predominately inhabited by Aramean nomads, until the hellenistic when the Arabs begun to settle there further reducing ethnic cohesion.

As for the regional unit, if it's historically accurate that the peoples there were superb archers than I'm for it.

[Cohors_Evocata]

Well, to be honest, I don't know a thing about this. I'm no historian or expert in any way but i would never take ancient authors by the word. (Looking at you Appian and your fake assessment of the Nabataeans, like srsly they treat their dead as they would dung?!) Whats the real source of the army at Magnesia? It's probably Livy, isn't it? He lived over a hundred years after that battle and surely said stuff like the seleucids lost 40.000 soldiers while the Romans 200 or some bs. I take everything I read from people like them with a huge grain of salt.

The primary sources for Magnesia are Livy and Appian if I'm not mistaken. I'm not familiar with the exact minutiae how modern-day academia treats these sources, but IIRC the biases are usually more in the areas of over-exaggerating the size of victories and performing character assassination of people they didn't like. In this case I don't have a particular reason to distrust the troop composition they present, even if I do doubt their numbers.

I honestly do think there have to be Syrian archers during our time period. Traditions like that don't appear overnight. If they didn't exist before why were the Romans so specific about recruiting them? The article Roma Victrix posted mentioned an altar to a Syrian deity in Great Britain. Ofc this is just an educated guess on my side but then this is also something you have to do with the general lack of sources. For example one of the new units previewed on twitter are the Chaldians which concept is based on Xenophons Anabasis which happened around 130 years before the start date of the mod. So who says Chaldians fought in the same manner as during the March of the 10.000 during the timeframe of the mod? I know this is whataboutism but I think you understand what I mean. I also could swear there was a mention of Syrian archers in the Maccabees. Early the Seleucids were quite reluctant to arm native troops (the egyptians learnd why this can be a bad idea) but after they lost much manpower they resorted to arm syrians. At least i think that is in bar-kochvas Maccabees book that i don‘t have at hand rn. So maybe they would be a good late unit?

Apollodotos has already mentioned this, but we can't really speak of "Syrians" as an ethnic group, it seems to have been a way to simply refer to people from the Roman province of Syria. So if an archer unit from the region were to be included it would either have to be one generally Levantine or be one representing a specific people (more on that later).

Military traditions can change fairly rapidly: look at what Philip II did when he essentially invented a new way of fighting for his infantry or the way Shaka revolutionized warfare in South Africa. The earliest references to “Syrian” archers I have been able to find date from the time of the Civil War between Caesar and Pompey and thereafter:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

-Caesar, Commentaries on the Civil War, 3.4: “He [Pompey] expected also two legions that Metellus Scipio was to bring out of Syria. He had three thousand archers, drawn together from Crete, Lacedemon, Pontus, Syria, and other provinces; six cohorts of slingers; and two of mercenaries. His cavalry amounted to seven thousand; (…) Two hundred, most of them archers, were sent from Syria, by Antiochos of Commagene, who lay under the greatest obligations to Pompey.”
-Lucan, Pharsalia, 7 mentions the presence of Cretan and Iturean archers, but given the role of that work as an epic poem I’m not sure of the veracity.
-Pseudo-Caesar, De Bello Africo, 20: “From all his ships he [Caesar] brought archers into camp — Ityreans, Syrians and men of diverse races — and thronged his forces with numerous drafts of them; for he heard that on the second day after the battle was fought Scipio was approaching and uniting his forces — reported to comprise eight legions and three thousand cavalry — with those of Labienus and Petreius.”
-Finally the second Phillipic by Cicero accuses Mark Anthony of recruiting armed barbarians and bringing them into the city – specifically iturean archers.

This obviously is very, very late into the EB II time-frame. And indeed, if there is any population which seems to have been particulary noted for their skill with the bow in the area during that period it seems to have been the Ituraeans, who are singled out from the general “Syrians” in the description of the African War. Allow me to make a slight detour: having searched through 1 and 2 Maccabees, the only possible reference to Syrian archers I found in there is in 1 Maccabees 10, where Jonathan’s troops are surrounded and under arrow-fire by an army recruited by the reinstated governor of Greater Syria (they manage to win regardless). Neither book goes into much detail on the composition of the Seleucid troops (except when noting ridiculous army sizes), but when done they often seem to be mercenaries, Greek or even Thracian. I’m curious if you could provide the exact reference Bar Kochva makes, because I don’t see the evidence for Syrian archers in these texts.

Now as to why the Romans would have recruited “Syrian” archers and the Seleucids seemingly didn’t. The suggestion has been made that they wanted to avoid arming the natives in their homeland, although I know not everyone in the team agrees with that thesis. An alternative explanation is that they simply didn’t need to; they could recruit bowmen from sources like Crete or their eastern possessions to supplant the infantry drawn from the royal heartland. Possibly, the Neokretai mentioned were simply locals trained and equipped for the Cretan manner of warfare, i.e. at times with bow and arrow.

The following is simply speculation from my side, but as Seleucid power fragmented, and local dynasties arose, they would have needed new sources of missile troops and may have begun to arm the locals as archers to fill their ranks. When the Romans arrived, they found a source of archers to fill a niche they themselves could or did not want to fill: they already had their own source of good infantry. Notably, many of the “Syrian” auxilia regiments raised in the imperial period are not referred to as Syrian by name at all - consider the following list of named “Syrian” (mounted) archer regiments on the Danubian frontier (based on Ovidiu Tentea, Ex Oriente ad Danubium. The Syrian auxiliary units on the Danube frontier of the Roman Empire):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

-Ala I Commagenorum militaria sagittaria
-Ala I Augusta Ituraeorum sagittaria
-Ala I Osrhoenorum sagittaria
-Cohors I Aelia milliaria sagittaria equitata
-Cohors I Antiochensium sagittaria
-Cohors II Chalcidenorum sagittaria
-Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum sagittaria equitata
-Cohors II Flavia Commagenorum sagittaria equitata
-Cohors I Augusta Ituraeorum sagittaria
-Cohors I Ituraeorum sagittaria equitata milliaria
-Cohors I sagittaria
-Cohors I milliaria nova Severiana Surorum sagittaria equitata civium Romanorum
-Cohors I Tyriorum sagittaria
-Palmyreni sagittarii
-Numerus Surorum sagittaria

Most seem to have originally been drawn from regions or populations within Roman province of "Syria", but since they are not referred to as Syrian, speaking of generic "Syrian archers" may be rather problematic. That is not to say there was no tradition of archery in the region, even before the Romans arrived there, but I have not seen the evidence for the validity of an archer unit within the time-frame of EB II (NOTE: I am wholly and entirely unfamiliar with the archaeology of the area). The standard depiction of “Syrian archers” is AFAIK often drawn from their depiction on Trajan’s column, which would be too late and too different a context to serve as a source for what any Levantine archers would have looked like in the Hellenistic period. At least one historian mentioned internally that if there were Levantine archers in this period, they would not have been distinguishable from the Cretans or other Hellenistic archers in this period and would hence make a poor use of what is already a very limited pool of unassigned unit slots. That is not to say there will not be more units from the Levant, but judging by what seems to be the current internal consensus, it will likely not be troops looking like the old Toxotai Syriakoi from EB I.

And, yes I know we should not compare the two, but eb 1 also had Syrian archers. Why did the old team include them? There has to be some research about this for them to include them.

This may shatter your faith in EB I a bit, but having done as thorough a dig as I'm willing to do, no there isn't, at least none that I can find. One huge problem EB I has in hindsight is that a lot of the concepting was not done in the open (well, the open of our internal forums), but through private communications like PM and MSN (hey, it began in 2004 people). As such, I can't find where the idea for the Syrian archers in their Hellenistic iteration originates; given the BS regarding among others the Celts that slipped through with the old working method I'm not willing to just trust the old team on this without seeing their work. That is precisely why our historians now have to present and document their concepts, so other team members can scrutinise them and we can keep track of where things originate.

[alex33]

The primary sources for Magnesia are Livy and Appian if I'm not mistaken. I'm not familiar with the exact minutiae how modern-day academia treats these sources, but IIRC the biases are usually more in the areas of over-exaggerating the size of victories and performing character assassination of people they didn't like. In this case I don't have a particular reason to distrust the troop composition they present, even if I do doubt their numbers.



Apollodotos has already mentioned this, but we can't really speak of "Syrians" as an ethnic group, it seems to have been a way to simply refer to people from the Roman province of Syria. So if an archer unit from the region were to be included it would either have to be one generally Levantine or be one representing a specific people (more on that later).

Military traditions can change fairly rapidly: look at what Philip II did when he essentially invented a new way of fighting for his infantry or the way Shaka revolutionized warfare in South Africa. The earliest references to “Syrian” archers I have been able to find date from the time of the Civil War between Caesar and Pompey and thereafter:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

-Caesar, Commentaries on the Civil War, 3.4: “He [Pompey] expected also two legions that Metellus Scipio was to bring out of Syria. He had three thousand archers, drawn together from Crete, Lacedemon, Pontus, Syria, and other provinces; six cohorts of slingers; and two of mercenaries. His cavalry amounted to seven thousand; (…) Two hundred, most of them archers, were sent from Syria, by Antiochos of Commagene, who lay under the greatest obligations to Pompey.”
-Lucan, Pharsalia, 7 mentions the presence of Cretan and Iturean archers, but given the role of that work as an epic poem I’m not sure of the veracity.
-Pseudo-Caesar, De Bello Africo, 20: “From all his ships he [Caesar] brought archers into camp — Ityreans, Syrians and men of diverse races — and thronged his forces with numerous drafts of them; for he heard that on the second day after the battle was fought Scipio was approaching and uniting his forces — reported to comprise eight legions and three thousand cavalry — with those of Labienus and Petreius.”
-Finally the second Phillipic by Cicero accuses Mark Anthony of recruiting armed barbarians and bringing them into the city – specifically iturean archers.

This obviously is very, very late into the EB II time-frame. And indeed, if there is any population which seems to have been particulary noted for their skill with the bow in the area during that period it seems to have been the Ituraeans, who are singled out from the general “Syrians” in the description of the African War. Allow me to make a slight detour: having searched through 1 and 2 Maccabees, the only possible reference to Syrian archers I found in there is in 1 Maccabees 10, where Jonathan’s troops are surrounded and under arrow-fire by an army recruited by the reinstated governor of Greater Syria (they manage to win regardless). Neither book goes into much detail on the composition of the Seleucid troops (except when noting ridiculous army sizes), but when done they often seem to be mercenaries, Greek or even Thracian. I’m curious if you could provide the exact reference Bar Kochva makes, because I don’t see the evidence for Syrian archers in these texts.

Now as to why the Romans would have recruited “Syrian” archers and the Seleucids seemingly didn’t. The suggestion has been made that they wanted to avoid arming the natives in their homeland, although I know not everyone in the team agrees with that thesis. An alternative explanation is that they simply didn’t need to; they could recruit bowmen from sources like Crete or their eastern possessions to supplant the infantry drawn from the royal heartland. Possibly, the Neokretai mentioned were simply locals trained and equipped for the Cretan manner of warfare, i.e. at times with bow and arrow.

The following is simply speculation from my side, but as Seleucid power fragmented, and local dynasties arose, they would have needed new sources of missile troops and may have begun to arm the locals as archers to fill their ranks. When the Romans arrived, they found a source of archers to fill a niche they themselves could or did not want to fill: they already had their own source of good infantry. Notably, many of the “Syrian” auxilia regiments raised in the imperial period are not referred to as Syrian by name at all - consider the following list of named “Syrian” (mounted) archer regiments on the Danubian frontier (based on Ovidiu Tentea, Ex Oriente ad Danubium. The Syrian auxiliary units on the Danube frontier of the Roman Empire):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

-Ala I Commagenorum militaria sagittaria
-Ala I Augusta Ituraeorum sagittaria
-Ala I Osrhoenorum sagittaria
-Cohors I Aelia milliaria sagittaria equitata
-Cohors I Antiochensium sagittaria
-Cohors II Chalcidenorum sagittaria
-Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum sagittaria equitata
-Cohors II Flavia Commagenorum sagittaria equitata
-Cohors I Augusta Ituraeorum sagittaria
-Cohors I Ituraeorum sagittaria equitata milliaria
-Cohors I sagittaria
-Cohors I milliaria nova Severiana Surorum sagittaria equitata civium Romanorum
-Cohors I Tyriorum sagittaria
-Palmyreni sagittarii
-Numerus Surorum sagittaria

Most seem to have originally been drawn from regions or populations within Roman province of "Syria", but since they are not referred to as Syrian, speaking of generic "Syrian archers" may be rather problematic. That is not to say there was no tradition of archery in the region, even before the Romans arrived there, but I have not seen the evidence for the validity of an archer unit within the time-frame of EB II (NOTE: I am wholly and entirely unfamiliar with the archaeology of the area). The standard depiction of “Syrian archers” is AFAIK often drawn from their depiction on Trajan’s column, which would be too late and too different a context to serve as a source for what any Levantine archers would have looked like in the Hellenistic period. At least one historian mentioned internally that if there were Levantine archers in this period, they would not have been distinguishable from the Cretans or other Hellenistic archers in this period and would hence make a poor use of what is already a very limited pool of unassigned unit slots. That is not to say there will not be more units from the Levant, but judging by what seems to be the current internal consensus, it will likely not be troops looking like the old Toxotai Syriakoi from EB I.



This may shatter your faith in EB I a bit, but having done as thorough a dig as I'm willing to do, no there isn't, at least none that I can find. One huge problem EB I has in hindsight is that a lot of the concepting was not done in the open (well, the open of our internal forums), but through private communications like PM and MSN (hey, it began in 2004 people). As such, I can't find where the idea for the Syrian archers in their Hellenistic iteration originates; given the BS regarding among others the Celts that slipped through with the old working method I'm not willing to just trust the old team on this without seeing their work. That is precisely why our historians now have to present and document their concepts, so other team members can scrutinise them and we can keep track of where things originate.

Very insightfull thx. Oh I've lost my faith in EB 1 a long time ago, I'm still very thankful for getting me more interessted in this time period but after seeing the Casse roster and the seleukid an lusitanian tank infantry... yeaaaah

[Genava]

There is some indications there, but it is before the time frame of EBII:
https://issuu.com/soeministries/docs...109_-_ancient_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qarqar

During the wars between Seleucids and Ptolemaics, I couldn't find any mention, even during the Battle of Raphia.

[Cohors_Evocata]

There is some indications there, but it is before the time frame of EBII:
https://issuu.com/soeministries/docs...109_-_ancient_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qarqar

During the wars between Seleucids and Ptolemaics, I couldn't find any mention, even during the Battle of Raphia.

Yeah, there's certainly evidence for bowmen during e.g. the Assyrian era, just nothing I've found so far during the Classical or Hellenistic periods... This may not be weird given the dearth of sources on the Seleucid era though.

[Moros]

There probably will be Syrian archers in this mod, to be more specific Iturean archers.

[alex33]

There probably will be Syrian archers in this mod, to be more specific Iturean archers.

Hello Moros, it's good to hear from you!
Who were the Itureans?

[Elmetiacos]

Hello Moros, it's good to hear from you!
Who were the Itureans?

Warlike tribes of archers from what is now Lebanon. Nobody is quite sure who they were from a point of view of what language they spoke, but they caused trouble in the region for the weakening Seleucids until they in turn were conquered by the Hasmonean Jews and then by the Romans.

[Moros]

Warlike tribes of archers from what is now Lebanon. Nobody is quite sure who they were from a point of view of what language they spoke, but they caused trouble in the region for the weakening Seleucids until they in turn were conquered by the Hasmonean Jews and then by the Romans.

This doesn't do them completely justice though. They were famous raider and bandits as well as archers who attacked the valleys surrounding the Lebanon mountains where their main fortresses lay. From there they however seem to have spread. Eventually creating even a small kingdom (though I believe that never encapsulated the full population). They fought against the armies of Aristobulus I and Alexander Jannaeus, who only conquered Gallilee, in which little archaeological evidence suggest Iturean presence except for the most northern parts. Likely it was mainly a battle for control over a region in between both powers. By 20 BC their independence did end by the hand of the Roman Empire and were gifted to Herod the Great by August. While they served in the Herodian army and were officially part of Herod's and Phillip's realm they were all but fully subdued. In 6 AD Quirinus, governor of the province of Syria, mounted a new expedition against them as they seemed to have caused havoc once more. In 38 they were semi-independent or fully independent again for like a decade. After that they became a major recruitment pool for the roman army. In other words historically they are a Syrian ethnicity or Syrian-Arabian ethnicity that is attested, which can fill a unique role on the battle field and didn't shy away to fight for foreign powers.

[Rad]

This doesn't do them completely justice though. They were famous raider and bandits as well as archers who attacked the valleys surrounding the Lebanon mountains where their main fortresses lay. From there they however seem to have spread. Eventually creating even a small kingdom (though I believe that never encapsulated the full population). They fought against the armies of Aristobulus I and Alexander Jannaeus, who only conquered Gallilee, in which little archaeological evidence suggest Iturean presence except for the most northern parts. Likely it was mainly a battle for control over a region in between both powers. By 20 BC their independence did end by the hand of the Roman Empire and were gifted to Herod the Great by August. While they served in the Herodian army and were officially part of Herod's and Phillip's realm they were all but fully subdued. In 6 AD Quirinus, governor of the province of Syria, mounted a new expedition against them as they seemed to have caused havoc once more. In 38 they were semi-independent or fully independent again for like a decade. After that they became a major recruitment pool for the roman army. In other words historically they are a Syrian ethnicity or Syrian-Arabian ethnicity that is attested, which can fill a unique role on the battle field and didn't shy away to fight for foreign powers.

Could you make rough unit concept? Just curious about how they would look.

[Kilo11]

Given that they seem to have had a persistent presence in the region, and one which was noticeable/antagonistic enough to warrant periodic expeditions against them by the so-called "great powers", will they become AoR recruitable for the few territories in that area? Like in Antiocheia, Damaskos, and Bostra? Or just Damaskos? Or Damaskos and Bostra?

Also, do the historically informed here have any knowledge about whether the Itureans were Bedouin people or more settled in nature? How did they get on with other Arabian peoples, in particular the Palmyrenes to the east and the Nabataeans to the south?

Sorry, I've got lots of questions and no answers, but I find the region interesting and I'm trying to expand my knowledge of it (without doing too much work, hence me leeching the knowledge from you all ).

[Moros]

Given that they seem to have had a persistent presence in the region, and one which was noticeable/antagonistic enough to warrant periodic expeditions against them by the so-called "great powers", will they become AoR recruitable for the few territories in that area? Like in Antiocheia, Damaskos, and Bostra? Or just Damaskos? Or Damaskos and Bostra?

They will be available in the military settlers buildings and as a factional unit for Nabataea. In the latter case I believe Damaskos, Bostra, Antiocheia and Ptolemais-akko. They will also be mercernaries as history seems to indicate.

Also, do the historically informed here have any knowledge about whether the Itureans were Bedouin people or more settled in nature? How did they get on with other Arabian peoples, in particular the Palmyrenes to the east and the Nabataeans to the south?

They enter history as semi-nomadic, but I'm quite sure plenty of them did settle. They lived among the Arabs with whom they seem to have jointly raided their neighbours.

Sorry, I've got lots of questions and no answers, but I find the region interesting and I'm trying to expand my knowledge of it (without doing too much work, hence me leeching the knowledge from you all ).

Could you make rough unit concept? Just curious about how they would look.

I will be working at that. I'm waiting for Myers book to arrive as good general starting point for more Archaeological information. Most monographs in which they feature mostly rely on textual sources. But while they can come in handy for context and unit descriptions, archaeological evidence is more usefull for the actual concept.

[Rad]

Thanks Moros