The Garamantes: Rome's neighbours in the Sahara.

Submitted by AugustWolf22 t3_zmnnd5 in history

The Garamates were a civilization that existed in what is today Southern Libya, one of firs recordes of them was by the famous Greek historian Herodotus. despite their harsh environment they managed to build a unique agrarian civilization using irrigation derived from subterranean aquifers. The Garamantes would go on to have contact with the Roman Empire, both trading with and raiding the borders of the Empire at different times between the first and third centauries. the eventual depletion of the fossil water deposits needed for their farm led to this civilization collapsing and it's towns being swallowed up by the Sahara desert in around 5-600 CE.

702

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Cultural-General4537 t1_j0djmjf wrote

So many cool and interesting cultures we don't learn about on the peripheral of empires. This is neat!

175

balkanobeasti t1_j0e7q9b wrote

Replying to Cultural-General4537 (#939,433)

I knew about these people, you can find out about quite a few by playing historical games. There is one that shows them in it as a regional unit type, Europa Barbarorum I for Rome Total War. There's also II as well but it isn't finished so it may be missing some or actually have more idk. The game has lengthy texts from the historians of the era/archaeologists/modern historians for many landmarks, wonders, buildings, trade routes, peoples, classes of society, etc. While there is a max # of factions, they basically made all the rebel cities that are on the map inhabited by the tribes that lived there. So they are all like their own factions just unplayable but typically their units can be recruited as mercenaries or regional levies. They also patrol their territories, so they just aren't too aggressive. The most they will basically do is raid/attack inside borders. Tbh its probably the best researched mod I've seen.

14

Trovadordelrei t1_j0e9sn0 wrote

Replying to indecisive_maybe (#939,490)

Not at all. I'm an atheist, but saying that CE is "more correct" is silly.

It tries to cut ties with religious connotations but it still has Jesus's alleged birth as basis, so....

Not to mention that even the days of the week in most European languages (English included) have religious-related names (though not Christian). I'm not seeing anyone arguing that we should change the name of the 5th (or 4th, depending on the convention used) day of the week (thursday) just because Thor is no longer worshipped.

28

SolomonBlack t1_j0egwzi wrote

Replying to Trovadordelrei (#940,707)

Reason based calendars! Up with Thermidor! Vive le Revolution!

At any rate yeah this supposed ‘common era’ is even less correct because it directly applies Eurocentrism to everyone with something that isn’t the least bit held in common around the world.

If using BC/AD is that much of an issue clearly we need to adopt a new calendar from zero, a universal century or some such.

12

Hot_Squash_9225 t1_j0eyfzl wrote

Replying to clovis_227 (#940,661)

Have you listened to the tides of history podcast? There is a whole section about prehistory and the oxus civilization is featured in it. It's amazing to see how connected the world was during the bronze age.

9

Unnamed_Bystander t1_j0fjyc9 wrote

Replying to Trovadordelrei (#940,707)

I think in this context "more correct" can be taken to mean, "more in keeping with currently accepted practice." It's a style thing, whether or not it really makes any difference or sense. In official capacities, most present historians use BCE/CE.

As to whether we should, that's another question entirely. If anything, I'd say it makes more sense to call the breaking point around the time of the first evident monumental architecture circa 10,000-12,000 years ago if we really cared about secularizing the dating system, but that's expecting a lot of change. I can see the impetus to do so, given the ever diminishing role of Christianity in a global and generally less religious society, as well as a desire to re-frame history away from Eurocentric terms, but things like a dating system have tremendous cultural inertia to overcome, so we end up with half measures that satisfy nobody, but we use them anyway because that's the style.

6

Alluvium t1_j0fooi0 wrote

Replying to Trovadordelrei (#940,707)

It’s less Jesus and more the fact that during the start of the common era there was unifying religious events.

It also occurs as the romans establish a republic and kick off “modern government” in Europe. At the same time as others.

CE is less religion and more a western concept avoiding its primary importance to the religious folk - since fairytales don’t work well in history.

1

SolomonBlack t1_j0fypcl wrote

Replying to masshiker (#942,776)

Nobody knows but it is not a guess. That would imply you could lob out almost any answer which would be very lazy (and indeed unscientific) scholarship.

Like we have references in multiple Gospels to him being born in the reign of Herod the Great so 1 AD is rather probably off because the man was already dead then. Though there is some dispute about when Herod died too. Ancient dates are hard and every nice pretty date you see comes from sorting out and connecting X year of so-n-so's reign or who was consul. And taking on faith your source remembered it right.

Meanwhile even discounting mentions of his birth Pontius Pilate was only governor of Judea for a limited period so one can work backwards from there as to what might be an appropriate age.

So Anno Domini is most likely late by a few years but probably still within a decade of whatever the real number is, which maybe isn't bad for work done in 525 on such a low key historical figure.

3

Wonckay t1_j0gchft wrote

Replying to Alluvium (#942,821)

CE is literally just AD with a different name. It definitely has nothing to do with the establishment of the Roman republic which collapsed before CE even started. These backwards rationalizations trying to ignore the actual origin of CE place unmerited importance on the period.

5

GuglielmoTheWalrus t1_j0gxxrg wrote

Replying to balkanobeasti (#940,623)

Video games are a majorly underrated way of teaching people about history and related fields. One of the single most important things that got me to major in history was Age of Empires III, because every civ and every unit had little essays that contextualized them. No, those essays weren't always accurate, but it offered quite the window into further research. There were many things I had no point of reference for prior to playing the game, which I subsequently researched on my own time and learned a whole lot about.

3

desolateheaven t1_j0hvj4c wrote

The point about the Garamantes is that they were not exactly anyone’s “neighbours” in the sense that there was there was widespread cultural exchange, intermingling of populations, or even a profound existential threat to another power in the same geographical area. Their incursions into Roman/Mediterranean power-politics were as half-hearted allies of some much more problematic characters, such as Juba, who did frighten the Romans (briefly). They didn’t make much impression on the Persians or Greeks, who were actually far more interested in “Who exactly was out there” than the Romans were and could be counted on to tell the tale if there was one, or at least make it up. That’s what is fascinating about the Garamantes. A whole civilisation dependent on a particular eco-system, which would be destroyed when it failed and leave not much trace. Note to all of us.

5

ThatGIRLkimT t1_j0thrbo wrote

Interesting! Thanks for sharing this.

2