View Full Version : Epirus
hi there,
I see there ha sbeen a lot of disagreement on the forum about Illyria thrace and Dacia. Illyrians will be mercs, and Dacians and thracians seem to be difficult to separate..how about adding Epirus and remove thrace (divided up under Dacia and Thrace.
agree? disagree? why/ why not?
caesar44
04-29-2005, 15:55
the kingdom of epirus came to an end in the 3 century bce
the thracians had their kingdom long after that and of course the dacians
so in what year the mod begins ??
well, wasnt Phyrrus in 280BC? so if Phyrrus si there, epirus shoudl be there, right? or did i ( and RTR) mis the time/date?
Rodion Romanovich
04-29-2005, 18:50
Combining Thrace and Dacia is not good, as they were very different. Thrace was a diadochi (sp?), remnant part of Alexander's empire, and thus had some phalanxes (and heavy cavalry to some extent), but also in combination with some more "barbarian-style" weapons, for example some falx-like scythe weapons I believe. Dacians on the other hand were never conquered by Alexander and thus never implemented the phalanx, but used the sword formations that the forest areas of middle and western europe had been using since the time of the first celts in Europe, WAAAAAY back. However, it's believed that these swordsmen learnt some tactics/technology from roman deserters and thus altered there fighting style somewhat to look more like the legion in some ways (however I haven't heard anything of pila or similar). When Trajan conquered Dacia the Dacians had some men equipped with long swords and some equipped with the wonderful falx. They also had onagers (technology presumed to come from roman deserters), and their cavalry isn't mentioned much. Because the Dacians had sarmatians and others as allies at the time, that doesn't reveal much about the cavalry, as almost any cavalry would have looked futile in comparison to the sarmatians (and therefore not mentioned in any texts), I assume. EB team probably knows more than me about the Dacian cavalry... Anyway, my point is that Thrace and Dacia have completely different fighting styles from 280 BC to year 0.
Besides, if you'd make Epirus a specific faction, then the rest of "Greek cities" wouldn't be much of a faction as Pyrrhus of Epirus was probably the most active Greek warlord at the time. As long as faction number is so limited the "Greek cities" is probably the best sollution, just like you have to make the gallic tribes "Gaul" and the German tribed "Germania" etc.
BTW, will the falxmen in EB be extremely armor piercing? I read that the falxmen forced the roman army to alter their helmets because, I assume, many legionarries got their half their heads pulled off by the falxmen.
yeah, your right.
i just read this at www.rometotalrealism.com and wondered EB's position on this.
What was said in the RTR forums? In order to state my position, I must understand what has already been said.
they just say that Epirus will take the faction slot of thrace. and Dacia is named 'Thraco-Dacians' so, khev. your early for a friday
Simetrical
04-29-2005, 20:49
Epirus isn't taking the faction slot of Thrace. Illyria and Graeco-Bactria are taking the faction slots of Britain and Thrace. What we're going to do with the Greek Cities is still uncertain.
-Simetrical
EB spends an incredible amount of time researching each faction and putting together unit lists, and so on. We have begun unit work on all our factions. It is too late for us to make any changes to our faction lineup, at least for the forseeable future.
AntiochusIII
04-30-2005, 00:52
Epirus isn't taking the faction slot of Thrace. Illyria and Graeco-Bactria are taking the faction slots of Britain and Thrace. What we're going to do with the Greek Cities is still uncertain.
-SimetricalI believe you would go with the current setting as the unified whole and re-evaluate that jewel idea you yourself brought up for a possibility in 7.0, right? Could you predict if there is a possibility that this idea will be instated, even as a sort of beta (just like current 5.4.X ZOR system) in 6.X?
simetrical. i'm sorry. i didnt read enough. it was a RTR side-project.not 6.0
The Stranger
05-01-2005, 18:45
Combining Thrace and Dacia is not good, as they were very different. Thrace was a diadochi (sp?), remnant part of Alexander's empire, and thus had some phalanxes (and heavy cavalry to some extent), but also in combination with some more "barbarian-style" weapons, for example some falx-like scythe weapons I believe. Dacians on the other hand were never conquered by Alexander and thus never implemented the phalanx, but used the sword formations that the forest areas of middle and western europe had been using since the time of the first celts in Europe, WAAAAAY back. However, it's believed that these swordsmen learnt some tactics/technology from roman deserters and thus altered there fighting style somewhat to look more like the legion in some ways (however I haven't heard anything of pila or similar). When Trajan conquered Dacia the Dacians had some men equipped with long swords and some equipped with the wonderful falx. They also had onagers (technology presumed to come from roman deserters), and their cavalry isn't mentioned much. Because the Dacians had sarmatians and others as allies at the time, that doesn't reveal much about the cavalry, as almost any cavalry would have looked futile in comparison to the sarmatians (and therefore not mentioned in any texts), I assume. EB team probably knows more than me about the Dacian cavalry... Anyway, my point is that Thrace and Dacia have completely different fighting styles from 280 BC to year 0.
Besides, if you'd make Epirus a specific faction, then the rest of "Greek cities" wouldn't be much of a faction as Pyrrhus of Epirus was probably the most active Greek warlord at the time. As long as faction number is so limited the "Greek cities" is probably the best sollution, just like you have to make the gallic tribes "Gaul" and the German tribed "Germania" etc.
BTW, will the falxmen in EB be extremely armor piercing? I read that the falxmen forced the roman army to alter their helmets because, I assume, many legionarries got their half their heads pulled off by the falxmen.
but they where the same tribe
it was the Dacian people of Thrace
Rodion Romanovich
05-01-2005, 20:09
What? Was the people led by Decebalus the same people that Alexander conquered and hellenised? Is there something I've missed? The dacians are several people, probably the same as those called Getae by the greeks, which were a different tribe than the thracians, whom the greeks called thracians, as far as I know.
The Dacians are indeed the Getae, but they were part of the "Thracian" people. The Thracians that you refer are those of the Odrysian kingdom, which was much more hellenized those of the Daci....even before the time of Alexander.
Many of the more Hellenized Thracians were dead or run off by this point. The kingdom of Tylis, established by migratory Celts from Gaul, had taken much of the land of the more Hellenic Thracians, and, as I understand it, what remained were Thracians that were much closer in culture (though, still not identical) to the Dacians. Tylis still employed some native tactics and soldiers, but most of them had been killed or had fled, probably into Macedon or Dacia.
Simetrical
05-02-2005, 05:20
I believe you would go with the current setting as the unified whole and re-evaluate that jewel idea you yourself brought up for a possibility in 7.0, right? Could you predict if there is a possibility that this idea will be instated, even as a sort of beta (just like current 5.4.X ZOR system) in 6.X?This isn't really the right place. Ask on the RTR boards over at TWC.
-Simetrical
Rodion Romanovich
05-02-2005, 08:58
The Dacians are indeed the Getae, but they were part of the "Thracian" people. The Thracians that you refer are those of the Odrysian kingdom, which was much more hellenized those of the Daci....even before the time of Alexander.
Yes, that's what I meant.
When was the Tylis kingdom created?
AntiochusIII
05-03-2005, 02:56
Should Thrace really be a faction? I mean, it lost its last great king Lysimachus (a Diadochi) to Seleucus I Nicator in battle in the year 281 B.C. Then, Ptolemy, brother of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, who took up the throne of Thrace, was killed a few years after. Thrace, in fact, ceased to be a seperate faction in the year 269 B.C.
caesar44
05-03-2005, 13:53
Should Thrace really be a faction? I mean, it lost its last great king Lysimachus (a Diadochi) to Seleucus I Nicator in battle in the year 281 B.C. Then, Ptolemy, brother of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, who took up the throne of Thrace, was killed a few years after. Thrace, in fact, ceased to be a seperate faction in the year 269 B.C.
lysimachus's kingdom was a macedonian kingdom (of one of the diaduchi) in thrace , not a thracian kingdom !
the real thracian kingdom was that of rhoemetalces III who died in 43 ce and of his father cotys IV and of his father sadalas II and his father rheskuporis and so on
:book:
don't forget that caesar intended in 44 bce to cross into thrace against the thracians and the getae
:book:
cunctator
05-03-2005, 15:11
When was the Tylis kingdom created?
The celtic kingdom of Tylis was founded in 278BC and disapeared after 212BC, when they were defeated by thrakians.
wouldnt really make it a mentionable faction...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.