A Worthy Achamenid Successor...

[Reverend Joe]

I know it's a difficult question to answer, but of all the Eastern factions, who do you (the team and the fans both) see as being the "worthiest/truest" Achamenid successor? I ask based on bloodlines and culture (original or adapted), as well as unit roster and government style.

I am asking because I want to roleplay a reemergent Persian empire. Gonna kick some Makedonian ass. :2thumbsup:

[Havok.]

I know it's a difficult question to answer, but of all the Eastern factions, who do you (the team and the fans both) see as being the "worthiest/truest" Achamenid successor? I ask based on bloodlines and culture (original or adapted), as well as unit roster and government style.

I am asking because I want to roleplay a reemergent Persian empire. Gonna kick some Makedonian ass. :2thumbsup:

guess armenians or parthians should do great:viking:

[Reverend Joe]

Well, it would have to be Armenia, Parthia or Pontos... I was wondering who, among those three, would be the closest.

I would have chosen Parthia right off the bat, but their cavalry is absurdly heavy, and I just can't see super-heavy cavalry as being part of a "true" Achamenid empire. Plus, they were non-Persian steppe nomads; and I know, it shouldn't matter of they are converted Persians as opposed to historical Persians, but... it does. :shame:

[Fish-got-a-Sniper]

Well if your going off of bloodlines, Pontos is the only true successor but Armenia has the same fighting style and units, and gets the reforms that turn it into the Persian Empire. I wouldn't even consider Parthia, they seem to be more of usurpers than anything else.

[Reverend Joe]

Well if your going off of bloodlines, Pontos is the only true successor but Armenia has the same fighting style and units, and gets the reforms that turn it into the Persian Empire. I wouldn't even consider Parthia, they seem to be more of usurpers than anything else.

Arright, sounds lie Armenia is the right one for me, especially if they have a special "Persian Empire" reform.

[Olaf The Great]

Arright, sounds lie Armenia is the right one for me, especially if they have a special "Persian Empire" reform.
Parthians get one too, but it's quite a bit different.

But yes, it goes like this.

Pontos-Bloodlines
Armenia-Ambitions,military, and to a lesser extent, bloodlines.
Parthia-Historical fate

Armenia is the "true" Persia.

Pontos didn't really want to expand, and they were huge Hellenophiles, and their faction units(especially the late bodyguard, which are 90% hetaroi) are all greek or greek influenced.
With the exception of Galatian mercs, of course.

Parthia were really just Steppe Nomads that took over Persia and their customs, they are in a historical sense the "sucessors" of the Persian Empire. If the Saka or Dahae or anyone else did it, I'd bet they'd behave in a similar manner. Now, the Parthians are awesome, but they weren't Persians. per-se.

TPC and Foot could probably do better than me in explaining this.

[Fish-got-a-Sniper]

Yeah, the requirements for the full reforms are fairly complex and are listed in the FAQ.

[Cyclops]

I really feel the Pontians are the ones, despite their Greek-loving ways. I just kicked off a Pontian campaign but I feel like a challenge. Maybe I'll restart on VH/H with generalcam enabled, see how that flies.

Apparently the Seleucids thought they were worthy successors too. More of Alexander than Darius, but hey, Big Al claimed to be the rightful King of Persia. Ipsos facto...

Armenians are too much themselves to become Persian (if you know what I mean) and the Parthians are a Nomad faction.

[artavazd]

Well The Parthians were an Iranian people just like the Persians. There languages were just dialects of the same language.

Now going off of military, than I would have to say Armenia.

[Foot]

The Armenian royal family of the period is descended from the Achaemenid Royal Line. The Faction Leader's Grandmother was the son of the then Persian King of Kings. Also, Hayasdan got the reforms, baby!

Foot

[artavazd]

The Armenian royal family of the period is descended from the Achaemenid Royal Line. The Faction Leader's Grandmother was the son of the then Persian King of Kings. Also, Hayasdan got the reforms, baby!

Foot

That is funny Matt. thats one hardcore grandmother :laugh4:

[Foot]

yep, those Achaemenids had some crazy familial relationships. Its all part of being the rulers of an Empire the like of which the world had never seen before.

Foot

[artavazd]

yep, those Achaemenids had some crazy familial relationships. Its all part of being the rulers of an Empire the like of which the world had never seen before.

Foot

are you playing with my head, or you didnt notice that you put the "grandmother is the son" :beam:

[Foot]

playing. I'm all about the playing.

Foot

[General Appo]

Yeah baby, hardcore! So, is it a grandma, a grandpa or both?

[Hax]

Hermaphrodite?

[Maion Maroneios]

Well, I'd say Parthians. They did give birth to a new Persian dynasty, didn't they?

[General Appo]

Nah, that´s like saying the Holy Roman Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire, and not Byzantine. I´d say go with Armenia, they´re more Persia-like in both units, history, culture, bloodlines and what not.

Still waiting though Foot. Maybe she/he was born a son but later in life became a women trough unknown means. Either way, she/he sounds like one rock-solid grandma/pa.

[artaxerxes]

Nah, that´s like saying the Holy Roman Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire, and not Byzantine.

I agree. Parthia's definently out. Concerning whether Armenia or Pontus, I'd say the one with the closest ties to the Achaemenids will do - weren't Pontus descended from the former satraps? In any case, Armenia sounds closer, even if their descent seems plagued by some kind of ... androgyny... I don't think you should decide on military reasons. If Armenia descends from Achaemenids, they have a claim to BE Achaemenids, and whether they then fight with pogo sticks or lightsabers doesn't change that. Just as any Chinese dynasty could have outfitted a Persian-like army without having any connection to Persia, if they chose to do so. What then if the food eaten by the Carthagians is closer to Achaemenid food than that eaten by others?
I mean, since we're playing a war game, the Persian way of war as decisive as to who is Persian could get out of hand. They ones who actually descends from the Achaemenids will be the closest, even if they had by now migrated to Ireland...:laugh4:

[artavazd]

Nah, that´s like saying the Holy Roman Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire, and not Byzantine. I´d say go with Armenia, they´re more Persia-like in both units, history, culture, bloodlines and what not.

Still waiting though Foot. Maybe she/he was born a son but later in life became a women trough unknown means. Either way, she/he sounds like one rock-solid grandma/pa.

when you say bloodline are you talking about the kings (inter marriges between the nobility) or are you talking about the people? because if we look at as a people who are closer to Persians, it is hands down Parthia. They are both an Iranian people while the Armenians are a diffrent ethnicity

[The Persian Cataphract]

A simple question, that demands a more complex answer; Initially in EB's beginning both Pontos and Hayasdan equally fit the bill (However, in the length Hayasdan has the more appropriate administrative system thanks to their reforms). Their core army is one that admittedly resembles the classical Achaemenid system the most. By blood, both Pontos and Hayasdan fit the bill. We must also forget the blanket term "Persian" which is not at all representative of Achaemenid blood-line (Which was, if we allow for some re-occuring legends, of Medean royal blood, and that of the client ruler dynasty of Persis) . By later times, the Achaemenids actually started to inter-marry with Chaldaean nobility. The infamous Queen of Queens Parysatis was allegedly half-Babylonian (On her mother's side, Andia of Babylon).

By virtue only Pahlava achieved for itself to create a great Iranian dynasty, even though Hayasdan does now thanks to Foot's extremely crafty idea have an equal chance and possibility to the "Persianate" claim as well. The Pahlavân inherited this position from the Seleucids by virtue and by achievement. I think the word "Persianate" empire is an important word to spread. There are some great problems with deprecated nomenclature which makes it hard to explain for instance why the Sassanians were historically much closer to the Arsacids (The royal clan originally descended from the Âpârnîg nomads) than to the historical Achaemenians, to whom they claimed heritage. The Arsacids by this time had inter-married with several royal houses, not limited to the Atropatids of Medea Atropatene (Who were eventually completely absorbed to such a degree that they disappear from our sources), and the Kamnaskirids of Elymaïs. The changing looks of the initially Hellenistic Aspasine dynasty of Characene suggests that the Arsacids had absorbed the dynasty. Finally we come to Armenia, which saw the Artaxiad dynasty (With whom the Arsacids had also inter-married, the most famous case the blackmail wedding of Pacorus I) phase out to the cadet Arsacid branch.

The Sassanians themselves tried to claim themselves to be legitimate to the rule of the Greater Iran by two factors: Claim lineage from the Achaemenians, and to complete the marriage by taking an Arsacid lady (According to the Sassanian legend it was lady Myrôd/Mêyrûd). Shâpûr I may have been half Sâsânîg, and half Arshkânîg to put it all in such terms. This is also emphasized by the Graeco-Roman sources who peculiarly call both Ardashîr I and Shâpûr I "Parthian kings". Another interesting tidbit appears to be Arsacid fascination with... Milesian women.

In a nutshell, I fucking hate to chart royal genealogy :smash:

Pick either Hayasdan or Pahlava. Otherwise pick the Arche Seleukeia, they are also applied to in this giant mess of mixed blood, mongrels, bastard sons and half-breeds. Only then pick Pontos or Baktria. I'd recommend Pahlava, because of their incredible flexibility in government and because of their complete and total access to Iranian units.


I would have chosen Parthia right off the bat, but their cavalry is absurdly heavy, and I just can't see super-heavy cavalry as being part of a "true" Achamenid empire. Plus, they were non-Persian steppe nomads; and I know, it shouldn't matter of they are converted Persians as opposed to historical Persians, but... it does.

Actually, I think you are treading out on a too linear way of thought; This type of cavalry was allegedly the backbone of the Atropatenians during the Seleucid overlordship of Antiochus III Megas. We must remember that in the steppes the cataphract or heavy horse was merely a way to combat horse-archers, and not truly the apparatus meant to break infantry (Even if it could, and they certainly had that merit as horsemen); Instead it was indeed the Achaemenids with their later extra-heavy cavalry (Especially the Kinsmen, who were also later equipped with xystons during the very last military reform of Darius III Codomannus) and the Bactrian contingent, who turned the adopted "steppe nucleus" into the densely organized columns of heavy horse who would use the momentum ad continuum in order to break infantry. Their evolution of horse furniture allowed these "proto-cataphracts" to be quite heavily armed and armoured. The "Parthian" cataphract was however descended originally from the steppen tradition (Early Parthian bodyguard), but would come to adopt especially Medean techniques and later bloom into the ridiculously heavily armed and armoured knight (Late Parthian bodyguard), relying heavily upon classical Iranian regalia.

It is important to also understand that while we do know that the royal clan, or the Arsacids, indeed had steppen roots, their inter-marriage with several noble and royal families diminished that feature; We also don't really know if the other great clans were nomads, because when Arsaces had annexed Parthava proper, it seems that this is where their nomadism in all effect began to decline, once the Âpârnîg were introduced to a settled and urban Iranian culture in Parthia proper. The other clans may actually have been local Parthian nobility (In other words, not nomads). Parthia and Persia are stupid blanket terms. Period. Both were Iranian and Iranian-speaking. The Achaemenids were of mixed royal blood, just as much as the Sassanians were of mixed royal blood. It does not make the two the same, not by a long shot.

So if you want to pick Pahlava right off the bat, then just do it. Let me do the migraine-prone thinking for you :laugh4:

[Reverend Joe]

Well... it seems that the Armenian royal house is closely related to the Achamenids, however Persian they may be; and since I wanted to follow a resurgent Achamenid empire, I suppose they will be the best choice. I understand your other points; but on the other hand, I was also reluctant to go with Parthia because I love screwing with history, rather than following it. Alternate history for the win! :smash:

Also, I thought that the historical Persians were only distantly related to the Pahlava; and that the Parthians only later became more Persianized, so to speak. Or are they no closer or further away than the Armenians in that respect?

[Poulp']

Yeah baby, hardcore! So, is it a grandma, a grandpa or both?

reminds me of those "secretly female" popes in M2TW...

[artavazd]

Well... it seems that the Armenian royal house is closely related to the Achamenids, however Persian they may be; and since I wanted to follow a resurgent Achamenid empire, I suppose they will be the best choice. I understand your other points; but on the other hand, I was also reluctant to go with Parthia because I love screwing with history, rather than following it. Alternate history for the win! :smash:

Also, I thought that the historical Persians were only distantly related to the Pahlava; and that the Parthians only later became more Persianized, so to speak. Or are they no closer or further away than the Armenians in that respect?

Well the Parthians are an Iranian people just like the Persians, and the Medes. The Armenians even though have cultural similarites with the Persians, are a diffrent ethnicity alltogather

[Cyclops]

... Another interesting tidbit appears to be Arsacid fascination with... Milesian women....

As in Irish? ~;p

I read somewhere that Erin and Iran are cognate...

~:idea:Maybe the Casse could have a claim on the Persian crown, once they conquer Erain...

[Olaf The Great]

As in Irish? ~;p

I read somewhere that Erin and Iran are cognate...

~:idea:Maybe the Casse could have a claim on the Persian crown, once they conquer Erain...Just gave me an idea of an AAR...

[tapanojum]

If you do choose to play Armenia...remember one thing. . . SCYTHIAN HORSE ARCHERS! An army with a couple FM's plus a few stack of Scythian Horse Archers will tear apart nearly everything the AS throws at you early on.

[kambiz]

If you do choose to play Armenia...remember one thing. . . SCYTHIAN HORSE ARCHERS! An army with a couple FM's plus a few stack of Scythian Horse Archers will tear apart nearly everything the AS throws at you early on.Yes they are very usefull especiall early in the campaign. I had a nearly full stack of them ,always sent them to the critical poits of my empire. Although they gradually lost their position when I began employing zrahakir netadzi instead.

[The Persian Cataphract]

As in Irish? ~;p

I read somewhere that Erin and Iran are cognate...

~:idea:Maybe the Casse could have a claim on the Persian crown, once they conquer Erain...

No, Milesian as in Miletus of course :smash:

[Sarkiss]

Well the Parthians are an Iranian people just like the Persians, and the Medes. The Armenians even though have cultural similarites with the Persians, are a diffrent ethnicity alltogather
indeed, but in this instance its the Royal's House lineage that comes to account, not the etnicities of folks they rule. Yervandids are the closest afaik in that respect to Achemenids than anyone else.

Foot, thanks for reforms, in my campaign im currently unergoing the later onse.