Differentiating Turan/Hyrkania and Shem

[Jakusotsu]

I've read a number of Howard's books, but that was years ago and my memory has faded since then.

So I've been brainstorming on distinct cultural differences between the Hyrkanians and the Shemites, as they have a lot of similarities. Further, the Turks/Mongols/Persians who are a major real world analog to the Hyrkanians have had a lot of cultural intermixing with the Arab/bedouin people who seem to inspire the Shemites because of Islam. So when I consider what I know about the Turks and the Persians, it is hard for me to imagine them without some of the trappings of Arabic culture, which confuses the Hyrkanians and the Shemites more in my mind.

Additionally, the Hyrkanians are inspired very diverse peoples, the Turks, Huns, Mongols, etc. So I'm having a little trouble deciding how much of one to draw on relative to the others.

So here's a list I made of similarities and differences between Hyrkanians and Shemites, and I'd be curious to hear others' opinions and corrections.

Similarities:
-Both are nomadic people who rely heavily on their mounts.
-Both are expert archers.
-Both have a few cities that are major centers of trade.
-Both occupy at least some desert area, and the people living their would necessarily have adapted to desert living (wearing veils, concern with water, etc.)

Differences:
-The Shemites worship a wide pantheon. Hyrkanian worship is limited to two major gods, a death god and a fertility god.
-The Shemites are inspired by bedouins, the Hyrkanians are inspired by Persians, Mongols and Turkic peoples.
-The Shemites use a lot of camels. Probably more camels than horses. The Hyrkanians use horses almost except for their desert-dwelling population.
-Hyrkanians are awesome at long-range archery. Shemites prefer short-ranged archery.
-Shemites are widely known as double-crossers and liars. Hyrkanians aren't necessarily trustworthy, but they don't have an actively bad reputation in this area.
-Hyrkanians are an imperialistic, conquering, violent people. Shemites are grimmer and less ambitious, but extremely practical.
-Shemites are hooked-nosed, brown-skinned with blue-black hair. They wear veils and other full-body covering to protect themselves from the desert sun. Hyrkanians have blockier features, are taller and their skin is more of a bronze. They wear more furs and their helmets frequently have little spikes on the top, or are the conical Persian kind.

That's all I can come up with right now. I'd love to hear more, either things specific to Hyboria or details concerning their real-world analogs for further research and characterization.

Also: What's up with the Ghanatans? They're a black, desert-dwelling, nomadic people. Who are their real-world analogs and how are they distinct from these other people.

 

[count_zero]

First things first... Turks and Mongols and Persians are very very different. Persians were Indoeuropeans and go way way back. Iranistan is closest to Persia and that is only to Persia of the Sassanids (I'd avoid later periods as they would coincide with the Muslim conquest).

Shem in my mind is more similar to the great semitic empire of the Assyrians than to the Arabs themselves. Mind you, Assyrian, Arab and Jew were all Semitic in origin (I think only Hittites and maybe Summerians were Indoeuropeans) but the army organization, ruthlessness and fame of Assyrian arms would make them better candidates for the Hawks of Shem. On a sidenote I am thinking of using 1/72 (20mm) historical plastic figures on regular 25mm bases for Conan. Assyrians (check available figures at www.plasticsoldierreview.net) look suprisingly like the Shemites described in the Conan Mythos.

Don't know much about Turks (living in Greece tends to colour them as mindless uncivilized savages so I'll spare you the state-driven drivel of my youth) and not much about the Mongols either. However I think that the Mongols might have been a lot more civilized than the average Joe gives them credit for.

 

[Jakusotsu]

First things first... Turks and Mongols and Persians are very very different. Persians were Indoeuropeans and go way way back. Iranistan is closest to Persia and that is only to Persia of the Sassanids (I'd avoid later periods as they would coincide with the Muslim conquest).

I realize they're different, but it seemed to me that Howard was incorporating a number of elements from all three of them into the Hyrkanians. I could be way off base here. Linguistic elements appear very similar, at least, as 'shah' and 'agah' and 'satrap' are Persian terms and describe some Hyrkanian rulers. Also, the Turks dominated Iran for some time, leading to another possible bleed-over of Turkic culture into Persian, and vice-versa. Then, maybe the Turks borrowed Persian terms and then kept them when they spread elsewhere.

It could be that I'm trying too hard.

I'll do a little research on the Assyrians, though, to get a better understanding of them.

 

[Mark Dunder]

I don't know if this will help, but this is how Lin Carter described them from the game, Royal Armies of the Hyborean Age.

"The Hyrkanians most resemble the Huns or Mongols."

"The Shemites are best known for their excellent archers who are sought after as mercenaries throughout the Hyborean age. Their bow has a longer range than any other bow in use and they have the solid morale of regular troops. In addition to archers, the various city states maintain forces of well equipped infantry in the tradition of the historical Greek hoplites..."

"Shemite cavalry would resemble Saracen mailed lancers and would be made up of the nobility of the various city states..."

------
This next description I put in for Turan, because they come from the Hyrkanians.
------

"Turan was a major power in the Hyborean Age and in many ways the greatest rival to Aquilonia. It can best be compared to the historical model of Moslem or Sassanid Persia..."

------
These descriptions were mostly to aid the wargamer in making up miniatures that mostly matched how Lin Carter saw the cultures.

Hope that gives a little more detail to at least how they might look like.

 

[Etepete]

I rather agree. I think that a lot of the despotic turkic ruler syndrome thats so typical of the Hyrcanians and Turanians is partially derived from the barbary beys, and thus actually from a situation where imported turkic slave-aristos would rule a largely arabic (and barbar) state. So hyrkanians and shemites are helplessly intertwined. Now I don't think this is a problem, since wheve basically got all of north african, mid-eastern, central asian and much of north Indian history to steal from. Were talking about an immense variety of states, peoples and historical events, a larger reservoir than for example european history.

Personally, I equate shemites with bedouins and city-state dwellers of Damascus, Nineveh or Jerusalem. Hyrcanian are definetely turkic or mongolic, I find that the tribal strife around the rise of Genghiz Khan gives a lot of inspiration. Turanians are inspired by Seljuks, Moguls, ancient Parthia and in part the Ottoman Empire. This gives a distinct cliché for each people.

 

[count_zero]

I realize they're different, but it seemed to me that Howard was incorporating a number of elements from all three of them into the Hyrkanians. I could be way off base here. Linguistic elements appear very similar, at least, as 'shah' and 'agah' and 'satrap' are Persian terms and describe some Hyrkanian rulers. Also, the Turks dominated Iran for some time, leading to another possible bleed-over of Turkic culture into Persian, and vice-versa. Then, maybe the Turks borrowed Persian terms and then kept them when they spread elsewhere.

The only reason I was insisting on this is that I had quite a few Persian friends when I lived in the States. They were not too happy the first time I mistakenly called them "Arabs" and I think it would have been much worse for me if we hadn't had that many Mai Tais. Call it enforced conditioning on my part... Read some on the Assyrians though and check out the figs on that site. Its a really cheap way to build up armies of mooks (or even do mass combat) and since most Hyborian cultures have historical equivalents it's easy too...

 

[J-Star]

"The Hyrkanians will evolve into the tribes later known as Tatars, Huns, Mongols, and Turks..."

- Core Rules, p 25.

They always struck me as being inspired by the aggressive horse archers from the steppes of central Asia, particularly the Mongols.

Meanwhile the Shemites are more Near and Middle Eastern in flavor. The city states of the Meadow Shemites, as well as their vast pantheon - particularly the gods and goddess of fertility - resemble Assyrian or Mesopotamian culture. The nomadic tribes of desert Shemites are more like Arabs, as far as I can tell.

 

[Mark Dunder]

Personally I think the term Meadow before Shemites sounds silly.