Several Questions.

[Fluvius Camillus]

Greetings, fellow EB'ers!

I have several EB related questions...

1. Great Routes

I think you all know them, the three major routes in EB, the silk route, the amber route and the Persian Royal Road.

I get the idea that some of these route "buildings" are missing. The loading screen of the Amber route says it goes past Buridava, the Getic capital, but it is not there, there is only a river port.

The Persian Royal Road is said to go from the Aegean Sardis all the way to the Persian Capital, Persepolis, then again, in Persepolis is no Persian Royal road "building" there if I am correct.

Same goes for the silk road to the end trade hub which the map says is Seleukiea, AFAIK none there either.:dizzy2:

2. Victory Conditions

I my recent Pontic campaign I got a massive empire.:beam: But I have not the reached the Victory conditions yet. I thougth the Pontic royal family claimed to be descendant of the Persians and they tried to revive the Persians but also enjoy hellenic culture. The Pontic Victory conditions are from Seleukiea to Gawjam Bastarnoz and Vindobona, the last two being faraway inland Barbaric settlements. Why do the victory conditions suggest the Pontic kings want to claim these territories, as Persian successors I would rather think they would want more territories east, especially the Persian old capital. As Pontic king I expected to have the great dream of owning the Pontus Euxinus, the Hellenistic States and the old Persian provinces, not some faraway inland towns. Also after Pella the region become outlying regions, while eastwards the old Persian/Seleucid territories are Subjugation (type II) regions. It would make more sense the Pontic interests lay there. The Empire I have created now looks more like the Pontic "dream" IMHO (maybe plus the final Pontus Euxine settlements).

Enclosed picture of my current empire and VC.
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/PonticEmpire.jpg?t=1241359464

3. Ptolemaic - Roman Alliance

Curious to learn more, I read the EB biography of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the Ptolemaic ruler of the start of EB (if I am correct). It stated that after the defeat of Pyrrhos the Ptolemaioi allied themselves with Rome, an alliance which held for a long time, through the Punic Wars. The final battle of Pyrrhos in Italy was Beneventum, in 275BC. Why is the only ally of Rome Carthage (treaty) then? As EB starts in 272BC.

Picture showing the concerning biography (its said in the second part of the description):
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/BiographyPtolemaisIIPhiladelphos.jpg?t=1241697776

4. House of Yervand/Orontid Dynasty - Artaxiad Dynasty

I am not too much aware of Armenian/Hayasdan History, but also when searching Wikipedia (I know its not the most reliable source, but when taking it with a pinch of salt...) and Google (mostly only gave EB home site links or pictures of Hayasdan Cataphracts:sweatdrop:) I questioned myself this.

The EB icon is like this: https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/menu_faction_08hay_on.gif

This symbol is from the Orontid Dynasty (EB Hayasdan royal family of Yervanduni).

According to Wikipedia the Orontid dynasty (the house of Yervanduni, the royal family in EB) was not in power later in the time, when the Artaxiad dynasty grows in power under Artaxias I. They rule from 189BC over Armenia. The Artaxiads had this standard (again according to wikipedia:sweatdrop:).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Artaxiad_standard2.svg/800px-Artaxiad_standard2.svg.png

This is the faction symbol of the Artaxiads (ruling from 189BC until the overthrow by the Romans, Lucullus at Tigranocerta), not the Orontids, from the starting EB time period. Is the symbol still correct then?:dizzy2: (I am sorry if I missed a bit of text in EB which explains this question:shame:)

That was all.

Feedback much appreciated, thanks in advance!:2thumbsup:

EB is an awesome mod, team, keep up the good work!:yes:

~Fluvius

[Fluvius Camillus]

Extra Questions

5. Ptolemaioi and Seleukid States

a. What exactly were the Ptolemaic and Seleucid lands, Seleucids were an empire and Ptolemaic's too right? Wikipedia(:shame:) calls their both native names Arche Seleukeia and Arche Ptolemaioi. But that Ptolemaic article's title is Ptolemaic Kingdom:dizzy2:. Is this a difficult to explain state or a wikipedia typo?

b. At the start of the Seleucid campaign (272BC) the Seleucid capital is Antiocheia, but wikipedia (sorry:sweatdrop:) states the Seleucid capital was Seleukeia (at the Tigris) until it was moved to Antiocheia in 240BC.

c. And why is the Seleucid Empire so much referred to as Syria (or the inhabitants Syrians), it was much, much larger than Syria during the rule of Antiochos III Megas and before the Parthian invasion.:dizzy2:

That was really all!:beam:

~Fluvius

[Marcus Ulpius]

Extra Questions

5. Ptolemaioi and Seleukid States

c. And why is the Seleucid Empire so much referred to as Syria (or the inhabitants Syrians), it was much, much larger than Syria during the rule of Antiochos III Megas and before the Parthian invasion.:dizzy2:

That was really all!:beam:

~Fluvius

It depends at what point of its history the kingdom was referred as Syria. Eventually the Seleucids ended up only with Syria. But even before that their core regions were Mesopotamia and Syria. Their rule in Asia Minor and Iran was never strong and consistent. Culturally they were closer to the more Hellenized population of Syria than to more "Eastern" population of Mesopotamia.

I'm by no means an expert, so I can be wrong, so any corrections are welcome :)

[Mulceber]

It depends at what point of its history the kingdom was referred as Syria. Eventually the Seleucids ended up only with Syria. But even before that their core regions were Mesopotamia and Syria. Their rule in Asia Minor and Iran was never strong and consistent. Culturally they were closer to the more Hellenized population of Syria than to more "Eastern" population of Mesopotamia.

I'm by no means an expert, so I can be wrong, so any corrections are welcome :)

Also, this is just conjecture, but since they didn't have consistant power in Turkey, that means that the only area in which they consistantly had access to the Mediterranean was in Syria/the Levant. Roman and Greek sources are where much of our information on this comes from, so if the only area where the Seleukids touched the mediterranean was the Levant, that's what they would be known for to Greco-Roman writers - as Syrians. So they could be known as such strictly because that's what the Romans and Greeks knew them for. I'm not saying the Greeks and Romans wouldn't know anything about the east (that's definitely not true), but the Levant would likely be the area of the Seleukid Empire that they were most familiar with, and thus how they identify the Seleukids, even though they controlled far more than that. Again, this is just conjecture and I could well be wrong. -M

[Fluvius Camillus]

Alright thank you for the feedback.

I was thinking about that too, but I remember the Seleucid Empire being referred to as Syria at the time of Antiochos III Megas before Magnesia..:dizzy2:

Any shots at the other questions?

~Fluvius

[anubis88]

I've also read that Seleucia was the capital before 240 BC. I believe that the reason for this placement of the capital is for the AI to focus ont the west and the mediteranean more than on the east ( as in RL)

The seleucids were called syrians probably becouse their powerbase was in Syria, and that never changed throught history.

I also never heard that the romans actually concluded an alliance with the ptolemaioi. All i've ever read about was that the Ptolemys sent emisserys. I don't believe they concluded the alliance since the Ptolemaic kingdom helped carthage during the punic wars (at least one of them with money)

For the Arche thing. I asked that a long long time ago. IIRC the Arche in this context means something like the Mighty kingdom of Seleucia


hope anything helps

[everyone]

I think the victory conditions picture is outdated, in fact those of a few factions are outdated. such as Hayasdan. to view the real victory conditions, you should click on the '?' button on the top right of the scroll, then the advisor would appear and list the settlements you have to hold; and highlight those that you have yet to capture.

[Aemilius Paulus]

About the Syrian thing, in Russia, all sources refer to the Seleucid Empire as the Syrian Empire or the Syrians. What about Netherlands? What is it called there?

And yes, because the heartlands of Seleucia were in Syria, and because by the alter times, they have lost much of their holdings except Syria, the Seleukids are called Syrians, even when they were not. Most people in US never say "USSR" or "Soviet Union", but simply call that specific entity "Russia", despite the fact that Russia was simply the main "republic" of USSR, but of course, it was not the only. The area of USSR before the breakup was 22,402,200 km² (not counting the satellite states) and Russia's area is 17,075,400 km², much of which is wilderness.

[Fluvius Camillus]

About the Syrian thing, in Russia, all sources refer to the Seleucid Empire as the Syrian Empire or the Syrians. What about Netherlands? What is it called there?

And yes, because the heartlands of Seleucia were in Syria, and because by the alter times, they have lost much of their holdings except Syria, the Seleukids are called Syrians, even when they were not. Most people in US never say "USSR" or "Soviet Union", but simply call that specific entity "Russia", despite the fact that Russia was simply the main "republic" of USSR, but of course, it was not the only. The area of USSR before the breakup was 22,402,200 km² (not counting the satellite states) and Russia's area is 17,075,400 km², much of which is wilderness.

Alright that example of the USSR really made me see the light, I also still refer to England in modern wars, instead of the UK.

Well I had never heard about the Seleucid Empire until Rome Total War.

I played as Egypt, the mummy returns egyptians.... So I thougth I would face the Persian Empire:embarassed: Yes, bad knowledge back then. BUt to my surprise I fougth the Seleucids as my first enemy and usually referred to them as "The Suicide Empire".

Well in the Netherlands at basic school (the school were you go as kid) had really good history education, however the Seleucids were not mentioned. Until I played RTW I thougth that place was either filled by Alexanders Empire or the Persian Empire. Basic School did teach us about Greeks a bit and Romans a lot. On the school we also learned about the ancient stories of the time (Troy, Mozes etc.) At Middle School (sorry I cant keep the American names in my head, you know the one you go to from 12-18ish) we had history too, but it was far less general.

We learned the world history again, it was less interesting this time however, not the teacher's fault, but the books. In the 3rd Class we only had lessons from 1600-1991. In the 4th class we started all over again, alas, the Antiquity was over fast, so was the medieval period...

We mainly learned about the Early modern and modern period in 5th class. The dutch Republic (and Golden age, Holland FTW, mightiest country on earth that time:laugh4:) was the main subject, interesting, but I learned less about Antiquity.

To sum up I have never heard of the Seleucids or Syria in school, a short mention in a dutch history book though...

Glad I made a 93 page work on Rome's military myself:beam:, sad its dutch, else I could share.

Thanks for the feedback people, any shots on the other questions? Or are they more bug related?

~Fluvius

[Aemilius Paulus]

Glad I made a 93 page work on Rome's military myself:beam:, sad its dutch, else I could share.

Link please :grin:?

[Fluvius Camillus]

I also never heard that the romans actually concluded an alliance with the ptolemaioi. All i've ever read about was that the Ptolemys sent emisserys. I don't believe they concluded the alliance since the Ptolemaic kingdom helped carthage during the punic wars (at least one of them with money)

hope anything helps

Alright, now I've put the concerning biography in the first post (wrapped in spoiler tags).

~Fluvius

[Jebivjetar]

Originally Posted by anubis88 View Post
I also never heard that the romans actually concluded an alliance with the ptolemaioi. All i've ever read about was that the Ptolemys sent emisserys. I don't believe they concluded the alliance since the Ptolemaic kingdom helped carthage during the punic wars (at least one of them with money)


They did actually. Ptolemey XI Aulet (in time when Cesar was consul, 59BC) was proclaimed as "friend and ally" of Rome, and for that "honor" he make a promise to pay 6000 talents to Rome. (Ive found this in Plutarch book "Parallel lives")

Also, in time of first punic war, Ptolemey Philadelph declined to help Carthaginians with money (about 2000 talents) due to his friendly agreement with romans. (This ive found in one recent history book) -EDIT: in "History", 3. book named "Hellenism and Roman Republic", UTET Cultura, editor Enrico Cravetto, page 564 in croatian edition)

[anubis88]

I knew that the romans allied with the Ptolemaics in the late days of the republic, but i'm certain that i've read somewhere that the Ptolies DID help carthage with a payment during a punic war....

Sorry but i have no idea where i read this:dizzy2:.
I hope someone alse can back me up on this interesting matter:book:

[MeinPanzer]

The seleucids were called syrians probably becouse their powerbase was in Syria, and that never changed throught history.

Syria was only the centre of the empire after the shift from Seleucia in 240 BC, as stated. Before then, Seleucia (and, by extension, Mesopotamia) very much was the political and economic centre of the empire. Mesopotamia was Seleucus' home base, mainly because in his early struggles against Antigonus and the other Diadochoi he received a lot of support from Babylonia. It was only after the founding of the Syrian tetrapolis (Apamea, Laodicea, Antioch, Seleucia Pieria) that the focus of the empire shifted west.

As for the Syrians thing, this is really just a byproduct of the historical sources. Almost all of our sources relating to the Seleucid empire derive from later historical sources - Polybius, Livy, Appian, etc. These historians were writing during a time when the Seleucid empire's eastern holdings had been greatly reduced and the tetrapolis was the economic and political centre of the empire. Since much of our writing comes from Romans, and sustained Roman contact with the Seleucids didn't really begin until the late 3rd c. BC, the Seleucids are largely remembered as Syrians. For writers like Livy, the use of the term "Syrian" to refer to the Seleucids also had a pejorative sense.

[anubis88]

I just found where i read it.
It's in the chapter about carthaginian elephants in the book Hannibal by Gavin De Beer.

I will try to translate the part in question:
We know that Ptolemy II gave to Carthage a lot of financial help,. We can also assume that he sent them elephants, which was possible, since rome did not yet control the seas

[Jebivjetar]

I just found where i read it.
It's in the chapter about carthaginian elephants in the book Hannibal by Gavin De Beer.

I will try to translate the part in question:
We know that Ptolemy II gave to Carthage a lot of financial help,. We can also assume that he sent them elephants, which was possible, since rome did not yet control the seas

Well, it seems that Ptolies changed their attitude after the first punic war.

But one thing i do not understand: didn't Hannibal marched into Italy through Spain because he could not do that from the sea witch was controlled by Romans? I mean, in many books that is the main explanation why Hannibal crossed the Alps to reach Italy: sea was blocked by the Romans.

:confused:

[Fluvius Camillus]

Well, it seems that Ptolies changed their attitude after the first punic war.

But one thing i do not understand: didn't Hannibal marched into Italy through Spain because he could not do that from the sea witch was controlled by Romans? I mean, in many books that is the main explanation why Hannibal crossed the Alps to reach Italy: sea was blocked by the Romans.

:confused:

The battle for the sea was mainly the First Punic War, where the Cartaginians held the advantage at first, but eventually lost to the Romans.

The Second Punic War is with Hannibal, Hannibal was the governer of the Carthaginian posessions in Iberia. Also he was able to recruit local Celtic troops into his army on the way to Italy. If I remember correctly, a large fleet with a large army was being sent to Iberia by Rome, by going overland he evaded that army.

~Fluvius

[anubis88]

Yeah but guys, Ptolemy II Philadelphos ruled during the first punic war. Even though the book is about Hannibal, it gives an overview of carthage as a whole.
@ jebivjetar and fluvius: yes, but during the first punic war it was still carthage who controled the seas for the most part.

So the book says that carthage received money in the 1st punic war

[Jebivjetar]

The battle for the sea was mainly the First Punic War, where the Cartaginians held the advantage at first, but eventually lost to the Romans.

The Second Punic War is with Hannibal, Hannibal was the governer of the Carthaginian posessions in Iberia. Also he was able to recruit local Celtic troops into his army on the way to Italy. If I remember correctly, a large fleet with a large army was being sent to Iberia by Rome, by going overland he evaded that army.

~Fluvius


Yes, this are facts. No problem about it.

In my post i was replying to Anubis: he read that Ptolies were able to send some elephants to Carthage via sea in the second punic war , whitch was possible because the Romans in that time didn't control the sea. I found that contradictory with what i have read: that Hannibal went from Spain not because there was his major recruitment pool, but because he couldnt invade Italy via sea witch was under control of the Romans. Thats why im :confused:

[Jebivjetar]

Yeah but guys, Ptolemy II Philadelphos ruled during the first punic war. Even though the book is about Hannibal, it gives an overview of carthage as a whole.
@ jebivjetar and fluvius: yes, but during the first punic war it was still carthage who controled the seas for the most part.

So the book says that carthage received money in the 1st punic war



Oh, now i understand: it was the first, not the second punic war then...:2thumbsup:

[anubis88]

Yes, this are facts. No problem about it.

In my post i was replying to Anubis: he read that Ptolies were able to send some elephants to Carthage via sea in the second punic war , whitch was possible because the Romans in that time didn't control the sea. I found that contradictory with what i have read: that Hannibal went from Spain not because there was his major recruitment pool, but because he couldnt invade Italy via sea witch was under control of the Romans. Thats why im :confused:

I said Ptolemy II send the elephants... He died in 246BC.
I thought i was obvious, didn't mean to confuse anyone

[Jebivjetar]

I said Ptolemy II send the elephants... He died in 264BC.
I thought i was obvious, didn't mean to confuse anyone


Yes, i missed that ..


So, is it correct to conclude this:

Prolemey II did help Carthage in the start of the 1. punic war. After some time, Roman diplomacy made him to change his mind, so he refused to give loan/credit to Chartage (2000 talents, as i read in my book) when war was about to end?

[anubis88]

Yes, i missed that ..


So, is it correct to conclude this:

Prolemey II did help Carthage in the start of the 1. punic war. After some time, Roman diplomacy made him to change his mind, so he refused to give loan/credit to Chartage (2000 talents, as i read in my book) when war was about to end?

It would seem that way. Of course if both of our books have the correct information. Which book did you read?

P.S. Sorry i made i typo. It was 246 bc not 264. my bad

[Jebivjetar]

It would seem that way. Of course if both of our books have the correct information. Which book did you read?





"History", 3. book named "Hellenism and Roman Republic", UTET Cultura, editor Enrico Cravetto, page 564 in croatian edition)

[Fluvius Camillus]

Alright, so did we find a :skull:mistake:skull: by the EB team then??

If Ptolemaics did aid at the first part of the 1st Punic War, then the biography description is wrong:


It stated that after the defeat of Pyrrhos the Ptolemaioi allied themselves with Rome, an alliance which held for a long time, through the Punic Wars. The final battle of Pyrrhos in Italy was Beneventum, in 275BC.

Picture showing the concerning biography (its said in the second part of the description):
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/BiographyPtolemaisIIPhiladelphos.jpg?t=1241697776

~Fluvius

[anubis88]

It's possible. But i'm not sure what sources EB used in this matter. It is indeed wierd that the description says that Ptolomy was allied to the Romans, but in game it does not show

[Fluvius Camillus]

It's possible. But i'm not sure what sources EB used in this matter. It is indeed wierd that the description says that Ptolomy was allied to the Romans, but in game it does not show

And that is exactly the reason why I put this question here!:yes:

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

1- I'm not sure about the trade routes, some of them may have changed a bit during the versions but there shouldn't be a hole in the middle. IIRC, the Persian Royal Road went from Lydia to Susa at first, so that may be the cause. Though I had thought there was a building in game in Persepolis as well.
4- The symbol is well known to be incorrect. Other symbols for the ruling dynasty have been looked for, but nothing has come up. The thought of using an early religious symbol was put forward, but the symbol of the later dynasty would be just as correct as a national banner as that would be.

[Fluvius Camillus]

1- I'm not sure about the trade routes, some of them may have changed a bit during the versions but there shouldn't be a hole in the middle. IIRC, the Persian Royal Road went from Lydia to Susa at first, so that may be the cause. Though I had thought there was a building in game in Persepolis as well.
4- The symbol is well known to be incorrect. Other symbols for the ruling dynasty have been looked for, but nothing has come up. The thought of using an early religious symbol was put forward, but the symbol of the later dynasty would be just as correct as a national banner as that would be.

Thank you for the feedback MAA:

1. About the routes:

The Persian royal road loading screen shows from Sardis (Lydia) to Persepolis (Persis), that loading screen is quite old so it may be outdated, several web sources confirm that the route only goes from Sardis to Susa. So the route may be correct then.

The Silk Road has the problem that the ending point has no Silk route "building". (according to the loading screen map the end point is Seleuceia).

The Amber route's problem is not at the end nor at the beginning, in the city before the end point, Buridava, the Getic capital next to the Danube. No amber route building is to be found there.

4. So it is already known to be incorrect, but there was no better symbol available... ok then, this symbol is closest to reality then.

Also, does this thread belong here? Is this a main topic discussion or are the first 4 questions more bug related?

Looking forward to new replies.

~Fluvius

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The first question seems to be bug related...