Log in

View Full Version : EB - Countdown to Open Beta: Arche Seleukeia



khelvan
05-22-2005, 11:59
Greetings Europa Barbarorum fans!

As we continue to creep closer to the open beta, we would like to begin recording contact information for those of you who wish to be a part of our closed beta group. This group may receive a version of EB prior to the open beta being released, to help us hammer on it and get rid of major bugs, and will have access to future betas, all of which we plan to be closed betas.

You may find a signup area in our public forums. Please be aware that we will keep this group relatively small, and it will be made up of people who have time to commit to actual playtesting (both general and focused on what we desire at the time). If you're just in to get your hands on EB before everyone else, and provide no feedback, you will be removed from the group and never be allowed to participate in future betas. This also goes for anyone who shares the version before it is publically available.

We also invite those of you who have a background in historical research to sign up. We would definitely like to invite some of our long-term fans to join. If you cannot commit to the things we request above, however, please do not add your name to the list.

We are happy to say that things seem to be coming together, that we are overcoming the obstacles that newly discovered limitations have presented, and a playable open beta is now closer to reality than ever. We are not yet ready to announce a release date, however.

This week, the EB team is proud to present:

http://img267.echo.cx/img267/8961/logoseleukid1medium8al.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

http://img58.exs.cx/img58/3332/seleucid1au.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)http://img130.echo.cx/img130/3629/seleukidmap5ao.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

Alexandros knew. The key to his empire lay in Babylonia, not in Makedonia. After his death, Seleukos, another Makedonian, fought to regain Babylon for himself, and in 312 the city welcomed him with open arms and great joy. He repaid that generosity, retaking Susiana and then Media, pushing the limits of his new empire back to the Indos and then west to Syria, claiming much of Anatolia as his own. As a great old king he passed the throne to his son Antiochos seven years ago. Now the new king, of Makedonian and Persian blood, and master of an empire that stretches from the shores of the Aigaion to the borders of the Indos itself, must struggle to hold together his father's glorious gains. The wisdom of Achaemenid advisors, and now ancestors, will continue to guide this young empire and her army, but one thing must be remembered: Babylonia is still the key, even now, to the greatest empire in the world.

Alexandros' vision of a strong infantry combined with a Persian willingness to use local soldiers and their own styles of warfare have given the great king a powerful army for his empire. Persian light infantry and men from across the empire fighting in the Makedonian phalanx will be your basic footsoldiers. Greeks who have settled in Syria will form the bulwark of your regular troops and the best of their number, trained at the highest levels, are equipped for use as Argyraspidai, the famed "silver shields" and the legendary Hypaspistai. With the strong and fast Thureophoroi and their heavily armored cousins, the Thorakitai, few armies in the world can match your forces. Recruit skirmishers from across your empire and combine them with your cavalry forces, which include Median armored Lonchophoroi and Greek cavalry armored in the manner of the Kataphraktoi, to complete your mighty forces.

A great king must not allow his provinces to rebel, as petty princes are attempting to do in the "kingdoms" of Pontos, Baktria, and Armenia. Such is the burden of ruling a vast empire and you will not have the luxury of dealing with your enemies one at a time. Crucial decisions must be made in dealing with these rebellious princes; will you allow them begin their own empires, perhaps lessening your greatness, or will you risk your armies in an attempt to bring them to heel. The Ptolemaioi to the south were once allies to your father, but they now see their best hopes of expansion coming at your expense. They will send countless soldiers across the desert into the middle of your realm; if you are to preserve your Empire, they must be turned back, especially in southern Anatolia. Expand where you are able; some nearby cities are prime targets, isolated as they are from allies. Also, it would be unwise to take lightly the beating of hooves from the north. Our heavy cavalry have a difficult time standing against the great hordes of Armenian, Sarmatian, and especially Parni horsemen, and letting too many fall defending the northern borders will leave the Empire’s heartland exposed to attack from the treacherous Ptolemaioi. But take heart, great king! The blood of Alexandros and the Achaemenid rulers of the past will aid your throne, which is the greatest in the known world! Take heart, and prosper!

It may be in your best interest (if you wish) to reflect upon the history of your new empire. Great Seleukos built up his base of power among the elites and non-Greeks of Babylon in the years after the death of Alexandros in 323. The prize for his role in the murder of the regent Perdikkas two years later was the satrapy of Babylonia. He earned the favor of its citizens, and though he was forced out by Antigonos in 315, Antigonos and his violent behavior towards Babylon resulted in the reclaimation of the city by Seleukos in 312 with just a handful of soldiers. But Antigonos was not directly opposed in his actions against Seleukos, and it was left to Seleukos to contend with him directly in 'Asia' for a number of years without intervention of the other states. Seleukos' role in these years seems to have been focused on developing his possessions in Central Asia, further expanding his network of allies and base of power. While in the Upper Satrapies of Central Asia, he saw much potential for growth and expansion and he later put this experience to good use. But a final battle with Antigonos was sure to occur, however slow it was in developing.

In 301, after the Battle of Ipsos, when Kassandros, Lysimachos, and Seleukos defeated Antigonos and Demetrios, Seleukos finally was rid of the enemy that had plagued him for so many years. Antigonos, an octogenarian at the time, fell on the battlefield, while Demetrios escaped with a small portion of the army. Seleukos received Koile-Syria and Phoinikia, but as soon as he arrived there, Ptolemaios claimed the area as his own, and Seleukos agreed to not contest the claim "because of their friendship." Seleukos spent the time after Ipsos consolidating his eastern possessions and sending out numerous colonies across his domain. He capture Demetrios in 286 whereupon the latter was slain, and then he took advantage of uncertainties in Anatolia. He invaded western Asia Minor and defeated and killed Lysimachos in 281 at the Battle of Koroupedion near Sardis. Before the battle, Selelukos had already appointed his successor, and now the torch has been passed. The Seleukid dream of capturing Makedon itself was not to be fulfilled just yet though, as Seleukos was slain by a dispossessed heir of Ptolemaios who had sought the aid of Seleukos, but now it does lie within your grasp if you choose to direct your interests toward the west. Your father's legacy was considered the greatest of his age, and it is up to you to match his success.

"In my view, it is beyond dispute that Seleukos was the greatest king of those who succeeded Alexandros, of the most royal mind, and ruling over the greatest extent of territory, next to Alexandros himself." (Arrian, Anabasis VII.22,5)

Here we have a few action shots:

http://img267.echo.cx/img267/2491/med23ix.th.jpg (http://img267.echo.cx/my.php?image=med23ix.jpg)
http://img267.echo.cx/img267/4123/battle5qm.th.jpg (http://img267.echo.cx/my.php?image=battle5qm.jpg)
http://img267.echo.cx/img267/7195/thero45am.th.jpg (http://img267.echo.cx/my.php?image=thero45am.jpg)

Some of the units you will find in the Seleukid armies:

http://img267.echo.cx/img267/5990/asiaticlevys5po.th.jpg (http://img267.echo.cx/my.php?image=asiaticlevys5po.jpg)
The most basic and numerous of the infantry units used by the non-European Successor States were the Pantodapoi infantry. These men were called from a variety of nationalities and were usually settled in certain areas for garrison duties and the like. There were Jews, Syrians, Cilicians, Persians, Assyrians, Native Egyptians, and many other peoples counted among their number. They are not particularly reliable soldiers, but they are certainly better than their eastern counterparts. They can give a good account of themselves in battle if deployed properly. They wear no armor, and have only a light shield for protection, so most other infantry will slaughter them in droves. They can fend off light cavalry for a time, if need be.

Historically, the Pantodapoi were a group of various nationalities that were used as a militia levy and defensive group for towns and villages prone to raiding. While the name is conceptual (meaning, from everywhere), they were a standard fighting force of the day. They were trained rudimentarily, but had enough training to be counted as superior to many militia levies. They had some experience fighting off nomadic raiders, so they can be useful against light troops and some light cavalry.

http://img228.echo.cx/img228/6162/pantodapoiphalangitai9xk.th.jpg (http://img228.echo.cx/my.php?image=pantodapoiphalangitai9xk.jpg)
Pantodapoi Phalangitai are the standard levy of the Seleucid Kingdom and others influenced by the Successors, including Pontus. They are tough and reliable infantry, but are prone to rebellion and discontent and are hence more expensive than their Macedonian contemporaries. They are mostly levies of Jewish, Syrian, and Persian descent that are co-opted into the army. They fight as pikemen, with a soft leather cuirass, pikes, round Illyrian style shields and Phrygian caps. This makes them a viable pike unit, though they are less disciplined and more prone to flee than more reliable Greeks and Macedonians that make up the Pezhetairoi. They can be counted upon to present a solid wall of spear points to the enemy, but their lack of discipline and intensive training makes them even more prone to a flanking attack.

Historically, the Seleucids and others used pike levies from their various subject peoples to make up parts of the battle line that were facing the enemy’s least valuable troops. They gave decent accounts of themselves at many battles, but were the first line to break in the disasters at Raphia against the Ptolemies and in Macedonia against the Romans. They made up more and more of the Seleucid battle line as time went on, due to the dwindling number of Greek recruits that the army could draw upon for the pike units (most went to the more elite units), and more and more Asiatic peoples were put into the Pezhetairoi class and given land grants, to make up the loss. Still, these more unreliable formations were still used in many places.

http://img274.echo.cx/img274/2697/peltastai9jq.th.jpg (http://img274.echo.cx/my.php?image=peltastai9jq.jpg)
The peltast is a type of elite skirmisher that sacrifices heavy arms and armor for mobility and range. They are armored in linen and carry a medium sized ovular shield. Originally, they carried a crescent shaped ‘pelta’ that gave them their name, but this was phased out in the fourth century. Their armaments consist of several javelins and a sword. All this makes them light and mobile, but still easily able to engage in melee after their javelins have been thrown. They are a versatile unit but one must remember that their primary arms are javelins, and they are not equipped to stand toe to toe with heavier infantry. Their role is one of speed, harassment, and critical flanking maneuvers.

Historically, the Peltast was often a hoplite or Pezhetairoi phalangite equipped to fight in the manner of a skirmisher. This meant that they were extremely adept melee combatants as well as being deadly with their javelins. Peltasts were used to great effect on ancient battlefields but by 270 B.C. the Thureophoroi was becoming the dominant ‘melee’ skirmisher and the Peltast was carrying more javelins and was used in a manner that was consistent with this. This was simply a matter of specialization, and it did not mean that peltasts would be any less effective if deployed correctly. Their light armament makes them extremely fast, but tends to be to their detriment in melee combat. They were mostly used in the role of supporting missile troops who charged in at the last moment, after they had spent all their javelins. The great Athenian general Iphikrates is credited with the invention of the peltast as a distinct unit, and it is he that first employed them in this manner to great effect against the heavier armored and better trained hoplites of Sparta.

http://img267.echo.cx/img267/1668/theunit3qy.th.jpg (http://img267.echo.cx/my.php?image=theunit3qy.jpg)
Pezhetairoi are the bread and butter military unit of the Successor States. They are well disciplined and highly motivated pikemen that are armed and armored to the teeth. They are armored in a linen cuirass, a Thracian cap, a bronze greave on the right leg, stout boots, good bracers, and reinforced shoulder pads made from hardened linen (due to their experience with the deadly curved swords of Thrace). They have Illyrian style round shields attached to their bodies by leather straps that help support the weight of the shield and keep their hand free to grasp the sarissa. They are defensive infantry par excellent. They are the anvil of the two part Macedonian system of warfare, the heavy cavalry being the hammer. They should be used to anchor enemy soldiers while the Theurophoroi harass the flanks and the heavy cavalry smashes into the flanks and rear.

Historically, the Pezhetairoi are the classic Alexandrian phalanx. They were used to great effect against the Persians, Medes, Bactrians, Indians, Phoenicians, and many, many others. They are an effective force and have not changed much over the centuries. The Romans were able to defeat them as easily as they did for two main reasons. One, the Roman army was at a high state of readiness and tactical prowess after defeating the Carthaginians. Two, the heavy cavalry arm of the Successor armies had degenerated to the point where they were no longer able to field significant numbers to fulfill their part of the hammer and anvil tactic of Alexander. There were many small reasons, numbering among them the misuse of the Theurophoroi, the underuse of Peltasts, and the lax state of warfare that the Successor states were used to. In any case, the phalanx was not as anachronistic or inflexible as widely believed; it was simply used in the wrong way. In the thirteenth century onwards, pikemen in similar formations were able to work wonders with more capable generals and a better cavalry arm. Do not under appreciate pikemen, for they are still a war winning force.

http://img267.echo.cx/img267/9503/thero12ql.th.jpg (http://img267.echo.cx/my.php?image=thero12ql.jpg)
The Seleucids took to the thureophoroi and went one better, armoring their improved unit to the teeth and giving him a longer spear with a wider blade. These men are exceedingly well trained and often can make the difference in any battle simply by making their fearsome appearance known. They carry theuros shields with silver medusa heads emblazoned on the front and wear helmets that are strengthened with mail ‘veils’ further making their appearance fearsome. As if this was not enough, they carry heavy javelins to break enemy lines and long spears to drive the charge home when they are finished with their javelin throwing. They fight in an organized formation, but not in a phalanx, and are thus more mobile than the Phalanx. They are the best and fittest men within the Hypastistai and are often able to break an enemy line. They have no real weakness in battle, but are extremely expensive to maintain, so their numbers are always few and far between. They should be used as an elite shock infantry, because this is the role for which they were made. They should be well supported, because if these hardy and grizzled veterans rout, it could induce the rest of the army to do so as well!

Historically, the Seleucid Thorakitai Argyraspidai were a small elite unit of the Hypastists that were the leaders of an infantry charge. Their heavy armor was elaborate and expensive, making their numbers never more than one thousand (among six thousand Hypastistai). They were used during many battles, but were notoriously absent from Raphia due to their being refitted after a battle with rebels supported by the Parthians. They slowly dwindled in number as the kingdom’s finances did the same. They were no longer a factor when the Seleucid king fought the Romans in Macedonia, a battle at which they would have been sorely appreciated. If a capable ruler were to take the Seleucid throne and carefully manage the kingdom’s finances, perhaps he could utilize these fine soldiers far longer than happened historically.

http://img127.echo.cx/img127/8717/hypaspistai1js.th.jpg (http://img127.echo.cx/my.php?image=hypaspistai1js.jpg)
Hypastistai are the elite spearmen of the Macedonian and Seleucid armies. They are armed and armored much as traditional hoplites, but with a few notable differences. Their secondary arm is a Celtic style longsword, adopted from the Galatians. They are armed with the traditional hoplite shield, and are armored with a metal cuirass. They are versatile and elite soldiers, often forming the right wing of the Hellenic battle line. Their heavy armor and weapons allows them to fight as elite spearmen or swordsmen, and they are able to fight the hardiest opponents. They should be deployed where the fighting will be at its absolute thickest, as they are able to charge in for a kill once the enemy has exhausted himself on their spear points!

Historically, the Hypastistai were the elite foot guard of the Macedonian king, armed much like fifth century hoplites. Alexander changed their armor and weapons to allow them to fight in the deserts of the Middle East. When Alexander was killed and the Seleucids and Macedonians inherited the elite forces, they mostly wiped one another out in internecine squabbling. Still, the tradition was there, and it was re-adopted by the successor armies in Macedon and Syria. Their equipment went through a further revolution, re-adopting heavier armor. They now wore the less expensive and easier to produce (in relation to bronze plate) scale or mail armor that only provided a slightly smaller degree of protection. They were last used operationally during the time of Philip V, due to the expense of keeping such a unit around. The Romans never got to feel the bite of the most powerful of the Successor infantry…

http://img267.echo.cx/img267/6278/med14zi.th.jpg (http://img267.echo.cx/my.php?image=med14zi.jpg)
In the Seleucid and baktrian armies, these medium cavalrymen are very prevalent. Descended from the lesser Persian nobility they now render good service to their new masters. They are excellent medium cavalry, capable of skirmishing, charging, and fighting fairly well in melee. These cavalry are raised from the old Persian estates that had not seized by the Macedonian invaders. They are equipped with a cavalry spear and the single bladed Tabar axe with a vicious back-spike, well capable of penetrating heavy armour. The battle-axe was often used, especially by North Iranians. The spear was usually used overarm as a thrusting weapon. The shield used by these horsemen was the crescent shaped Scythian Taka shield. A conical persian helmet of iron is worn with brightly coloured helmet plume. Their armour is a scale cuirass with scaled shoulder guards and stiffened leather pteruges hanging from the waist. Loose richly embroidered trousers and a long sleeved tunic extending down to just above the knees, is secured by a leather belt. The horse has a stuffed Persian saddle and thick, bright coloured saddle cloth. The tails were tied up to prevent it being grabbed by the enemy. The forelock was left long and tired with ribbon to form a plume above the head.

Historically; The Macedonians came to Persia as invaders, sharing neither a common culture nor a common enemy. These lesser nobles are quick to make cause with any rebel, and the Greek upper class know this well. The Seleucids, and Baktrians intent on Hellenizing Iran, cannot rely on these men who are descended from a proud tradition, the Huvaka, Kinsmen cavalry who had faced Alexander the Great during late imperial times. It is for this reason that the Greeks often preferred to rely on mercenaries and Greek settlers, but these men are still able to be used in some roles and are conscripted in times of need. Some of these minor noble houses have intermarried with their Macedonian overlords and are thus somewhat more loyal than their neighbours might be. Still, they are often present in native revolts, due to the fact that they can often lead these revolts and have fewer opportunities due to their Iranian blood.

http://img127.echo.cx/img127/6351/hellenistickataphraktoi6oi.th.jpg (http://img127.echo.cx/my.php?image=hellenistickataphraktoi6oi.jpg)
After suffering heavy losses to the Parthian and Armenian Cataphracts, the Seleucid and Bactrian empires produced their own versions of these heavy horsemen, both adapting the unit to Greek technology and using superior metalwork to make them even more heavily armored. They are armored in an expensive combination of lamellar armor and chain, with heavy felt sandwiched in the middle. The resulting armor is tough and flexible, but offers outstanding protection. They are to be used as heavy shock cavalry, and have staying power in melee because of the sheer weight of their armor. They are slightly heavier than their Parthian counterparts, but lack the deadly maces that the Parthians carry and also the élan of their elite Parthian counterparts. Their horses are more heavily armored than those of the Hetairoi, but they lack the characteristic fierceness and discipline of the elite successor cavalry.

Historically, Hellenistic Kataphraktoi were at least as good as their Parthian enemy, but most Seleucid commanders did not quite understand how to use this cavalry. They won great victories over the Parthians when supporting the heavier and more elite Hetairoi, compelling the Parthians to settle for a peace treaty and suzerainty over some of the Seleucid eastern possessions. They passed into history when most of the unit was bribed by Pompey during his conquest of the east. They formed the basis for the Roman cataphracts of later ages.

http://img288.echo.cx/img288/9651/hetairoi9zg.th.jpg (http://img288.echo.cx/my.php?image=hetairoi9zg.jpg)
the Hetairoi, or Companions, were the elite noble heavy cavalry of Macedon and the Successor states. They are an elite heavy cavalry that is second to none and arguably the best cavalry of the period. They fight with a degree of élan, discipline, and simple ferociousness that is matched only by the horsemen of Iberia, Carthage, and the best heavy cavalry of some of the eastern nomadic peoples. They are armored from head to toe in iron plate (some still had bronze, but this was falling out of favor rapidly by 250 B.C.), reinforced with mail at key points. Their horses are barded with felt barding and often have bronze plates to protect their heads. Their helmets, with the two plumes, mark them on a battlefield. They are best used as heavy shock cavalry, able to decide many battles with a single charge. They are the second part of the hammer and anvil of Alexandrian battle tactics. They are armed with a xyston and a kopis, and are well able to use both weapons. If these men have any weakness, it is the front of a line of spearmen. Horses simply do not like charging into a row of men armed with big pointy sticks. They are still able to give a decisive blow to the flank and rear of any infantry.

Historically, the Hetairoi were first created by Philip, following the lead of the cavalrymen of Thessaly, to the south. Philip went one better, armoring them to the teeth and giving them a Xyston, a twelve foot long lance tipped with a large steel head. They were armored head to toe in bronze plate, from helms to cuirass to bracers to greaves. Alexander often replaced this armor with lighter linen when they were traveling, but was quick to replace the bronze in any hard fought engagement. Alexander added little to their equipment but trained them to ride their horses in such a way that each man was an expert horsemen as well as a shock cavalryman. The successors kept this mold, but added mail reinforcement to the bronze armor at the joints before replacing it with iron and added felt and lamellar barding to the horses after encountering horse peoples that did the same. During the third century their usage declined with the successor’s ability to pay for such heavily armored men. They degenerated to such a point where only a handful were present at major battles, and were far from the war winning force that they had been earlier. Perhaps with a bit of luck and more funding, a commander could use them in their true glory once more…

A few surprises may be found in Seleukid territory:

Ereipia Babyloniaka (BABYLONIA)
http://img87.echo.cx/img87/7259/babylonscreen28qk7yz.th.jpg (http://img87.echo.cx/my.php?image=babylonscreen28qk7yz.jpg)

Artemision Ephesou (LYDIA)
http://img71.exs.cx/img71/8929/ephesosscreen24it.th.jpg (http://img71.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img71&image=ephesosscreen24it.jpg)

Varkana Drubustih (Gorgan Wall) (ASTAUENE & HYRKANIA)
http://img185.exs.cx/img185/740/gorganscreen17mn.th.jpg (http://img185.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img185&image=gorganscreen17mn.jpg)

And, a few goodies you may enjoy:

http://img280.echo.cx/img280/4660/logoseleukid1medium8al1je.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://img280.echo.cx/img280/7232/logoseleukid1small9fv8bw.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

We would like to remind the fans that we welcome our fans to use the signature images we created; we made them for you to use. Please enjoy them as you wish.

We hope you enjoyed this week's update.

Please note that unless stated otherwise, ALL pictures shown in our news posts are of works in progress. We continue to improve on all parts of EB, and will do so long after our initial release.

Since some areas where these news items are posted cannot handle wide images, we appreciate your restraint from quoting full-size images.

As always, if you have questions or comments, the best place to post them would be here:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=70

Or here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?showforum=60

We give special thanks to http://www.imageshack.us who provide us with a simple, foolproof, and free way to show you all these pictures each week.

Have a wonderful day!

Sincerely,

-the EB team

Spendios
05-22-2005, 12:30
Wow ! These units are really awesome especially the cataphracts and hipastistai, each week I want to play the faction you present....
About the Gorgan wall wasn't it built by Parthians ?

Very good work as always I become more and more impatient to play the beta ~D

Bouchious
05-22-2005, 12:47
:jawdrop: man, i don't have time to read the descriptions this minute but god sweet jesus those units look absolutely beautiful ~D you guys are gods

jerby
05-22-2005, 13:21
wow, great unist again. but about the pezetairoi. in greek (ancient) there is no H. only a "spiritus lenis" or "spiritus asper" at the beginnen for a H or just the first a,e,o,u,i
so pezHetairoi is useless. and should be pezetairoi. ( for as far as i know. but hellenes shoudl know more about this than me) btw. they have a greave on their Left leg

Birka Viking
05-22-2005, 13:22
This is exelent work EB. This is my new favorit faction. :barrel: :medievalcheers:

jerby
05-22-2005, 13:28
:D just like bactria was it last week..
seleucid will get the best possble armie. but the worst starting location. gotta love them. personnaly i couldnt wait for the seleucids, allied hellenes or macedon.
so 1/3 of my dream has come true.

Moros
05-22-2005, 13:45
great work!
shouldn't it be 155 kilometer instaed of kilometre (or schould it be britsch englisch?)
(grogan wall)

The Stranger
05-22-2005, 14:08
YOU"RE LATE :whip: but great work, so this time i'll act like i didn't noticed

Proper Gander
05-22-2005, 14:08
...(or schould it be britsch englisch?)

let's bloody well hope so. ~:)

Bouchious
05-22-2005, 14:12
kilometer is the american spelling, whereas kilometre is british/english spelling, either way it is still pronounced the same.

Dâriûsh
05-22-2005, 14:14
Once again, beautiful work. ~:)

The Wizard
05-22-2005, 16:14
wow, great unist again. but about the pezetairoi. in greek (ancient) there is no H. only a "spiritus lenis" or "spiritus asper" at the beginnen for a H or just the first a,e,o,u,i
so pezHetairoi is useless. and should be pezetairoi. ( for as far as i know. but hellenes shoudl know more about this than me) btw. they have a greave on their Left leg

Do mind that the spiritus asper adds the 'h' tone to the pronunciation of the word. In other words, when we transliterate from Greek, we must add the 'h' tone or we will not be transliterating correctly.

And do mind that the jolly old Brit doesn't speak correct English. He not only has whackass grammatical forms (police are? wtf?), but also has allowed his English to degenerate over the years, while in America the good old form was clung onto and subsequently preserved. Never mind the pronunciation -- that's so bad I won't even dare start on the subject. ~;)



~Wiz

Big_John
05-22-2005, 16:31
when you see this maniac running at you..

https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/dem0819/sta.jpg

it's time to pack your things up and go home.

Sfwartir
05-22-2005, 17:00
Aafyfaendagitt! Absolutely superb units, as usual :bow:
Can't wait to break the Ptolemaioi lines with a great Kataphraktoi charge! :charge: :devil:

Was a bit surprised by _Arche_Seleukeia, though. Thought it was Basileia Seleukeion(sp?). Basileia = Kingdom/Empire? I'm not a great knower of Greek, though.

Anyway, thanks for y e t another splendid faction presentation.

Sfwartir
(impatiently awaiting the presentation of the Norvegia Ebrium faction, including the rather amazing, though disturbingly hairy, Naked Drunk Berserkr Fanatic unit.) ~D

Steppe Merc
05-22-2005, 18:29
That was one of the possibilties, yes.

Teleklos Archelaou
05-22-2005, 18:42
Was a bit surprised by _Arche_Seleukeia, though. Thought it was Basileia Seleukeion(sp?). Basileia = Kingdom/Empire? I'm not a great knower of Greek, though.We found ten possible (though not equally plausible) names for this faction. Here's an excerpt from a recent book on the Seleukids which might have helped push our decision to Arche.

From Sherwin-White and Kuhrt's "From Samarkhand to Sardis" (1993): (chapter 2: section on 'Defining the Seleucid State') "One factor about the Seleucid kingdom, at least, is indisputable: it was an empire, meeting two of the most basic criteria of imperial rule, i.e. (a) where one state, or central power, encompassing a large territory and incorporating a number of socities, often heterogenous in geography and culture, dominates the others by military conquest and military force, and uses the surpluses of the subordinated 'countries'; (b) there exists some sort of overarching administrative framework, which may be loose or tight. The state is created by conquest (Alexander the Great and Seleucus I) and perpetuated by military constraint (armies, colonies, military expeditions, garrisons), which permits the levy of tribute and service from the subjugated peoples. This broad definition the Seleucid kingdom fits."

There were contemporary references to the state as a kingdom 'basileia' as well as an empire 'arche'. Actually both exist in loyalty decrees from Ilium - OGIS 219). And basileia was our second highest vote-getting choice, but in the end I'm very glad Arche won out. It has the additional merit (though this was not ostensibly the reason for our choice) of being a closer match for what it's commonly referred to in English today ("empire") than basileia ("kingdom").

Idomeneas
05-22-2005, 19:50
will i look like a complete jerk if i complain about cataphract horses again? ~:)

Sfwartir
05-22-2005, 20:21
There were contemporary references to the state as a kingdom 'basileia' as well as an empire 'arche'. Actually both exist in loyalty decrees from Ilium - OGIS 219). And basileia was our second highest vote-getting choice, but in the end I'm very glad Arche won out. It has the additional merit (though this was not ostensibly the reason for our choice) of being a closer match for what it's commonly referred to in English today ("empire") than basileia ("kingdom").

I get your point. I am confused however, as the Byzantine Empire certainly did call itself the 'Basileia Romaion', and its Monarch was an Emperor, or 'Basileus'. Using the Byzantine Empire as an example, it seems like 'Basileia'/'Basileus' are used as terms for Empire/Emperor, rather than King/Kingdom?
After all, the Byzantine Empire was an actual Empire (as in 'ruled by an Emperor'), whereas Seleukos and his successors were Kings by title (and thus ruled a Kingdom, not an Empire).

However, as I stated earlier, I'm not an expert on the Greek language. Maybe a proper translation of 'Basileia' lies closer to our term 'Realm' rather than either 'Kingdom'/'Empire'?

Still, the decision has been made, and by all means, this isn't a crucial point to me. I don't wan't to be considered "difficult" ~;) You all do a great job with EB, and I can certainly live (and _happily_ so!) with an Arche Seleukeia :bow: ~:cheers:

Sfwartir

Turin
05-22-2005, 21:02
Another Successor army eh? Nicely done as always. I especially enjoyed the Companions.

There will be elephants too right?

Will the next week's faction be another Successor state? Can we see another faction type? Perhaps some nomads from the Far Eastern Steppes?

Vercingetorix
05-22-2005, 21:02
YOU"RE LATE :whip: but great work, so this time i'll act like i didn't noticed

No. These are weekend updates; it was posted on the weekend and still is the weekend. :dizzy2: :whip:

shifty157
05-23-2005, 02:47
I thought the phalanx formation was hardcoded and could not be edited. Do the overhand animations really work with the formation?

Speaking of animations, how are the other animations coming along?

khelvan
05-23-2005, 04:59
You'll have to ask the unit guys about the overhand animation. I know the sarissae and xyston animations are in testing at the moment.

Aymar de Bois Mauri
05-23-2005, 12:30
I thought the phalanx formation was hardcoded and could not be edited. Do the overhand animations really work with the formation?Although some aspects of the phalanx formations are hard-coded, others can be changed to fit our objectives. And there is no problem regarding fluidity of animation or killing power, if that is what you are refering by "really work".

Lord Tomyris Reloaded
05-23-2005, 13:14
Ah yes, I understand that though the pikemen are to hold their sarissas with both hands when in combat, they cannot do so when marching?

Ellesthyan
05-23-2005, 14:12
basileus is greek for king. Apparently the East Romans didn't care much for the difference between kings and emperors. I think that one can translate it to what suits the most; the meaning of basileus is quite flexible.
As a side note, the "emperors" of Rome were never actually called emperor, but rather princeps (first man), concul sine collegae, etc.

Aymar de Bois Mauri
05-23-2005, 14:18
Ah yes, I understand that though the pikemen are to hold their sarissas with both hands when in combat, they cannot do so when marching?Yes.

The Wizard
05-23-2005, 14:59
As a side note, the "emperors" of Rome were never actually called emperor, but rather princeps (first man), concul sine collegae, etc.

As a side note to your side note, princeps only means first. The full title of Augustus was princeps senatus, which translates to 'first senate' but was a title given to the most distinguished senator traditionally. It's just another tribute to Augustus' remarkable capability to draw all the power his way without the people really noticing. "Iron fist in a velvet glove," as they say. Just a little note ~;)



~Wiz

Unknown Chieftain
05-23-2005, 18:55
Looking extremely interesting! Well played, me hearties! ~:) However, minor niggle, "Gorgan wall" desciption-last word reads "assistence" instead of "assistance". I just thought that if you were making a mod with such gusto, then you'd want every detail correct!
Unknown Chieftain

Steppe Merc
05-23-2005, 20:47
Will the next week's faction be another Successor state? Can we see another faction type? Perhaps some nomads from the Far Eastern Steppes?
As much as I'd love to, we are limited by the amount of work done on a faction, and how much stuff we have to show. And we frankly don't have enough of any of the Eastern nomads to show.

Bar Kochba
05-23-2005, 23:00
these units r cool for this army but have u considerd using jewish units not just for rebels

Sheep
05-24-2005, 01:26
Just noticing that the upside-down anchor (if that's what it is) does look kind of like a Corinthian helmet at the bottom. I wonder if that's where the vanilla faction icon came from?

AntiochusIII
05-24-2005, 23:27
Nice...

Impressive.

My forum name simply signifies my favourite faction, after all. ~D

And the name is better than Tsorim, which could be disputed as the various social classes of the "Carthaginians" did not actually have a "name" for themselves as we understand it, and several names could be used with no less or more accuracy than each other.

Edit: Thank you, Khelvan. Your decision is wise and respectable. :bow:

khelvan
05-24-2005, 23:34
By the way: Khelvan, could you delete (like - delete, not just close) that thread you created? I'm aware of the civil war in TWC (poor, poor Veronans) but you should not bring the issue, even with links, over here to the org. With respect. :bow: This is a fair and valid point. I have locked it. I generally don't delete posts, but this one should probably go, as it will only incite the situation.

I suppose that I also let my emotions get away from me, and felt personally insulted as did the majority of our team members. My purpose was to ensure the community was aware of what was happening, but you're right, I can't let my anger at what happened allow me to make bad decisions. And that certainly was not an appropriate thing to do, so I apologize.

I hope that the decision will not be viewed too negatively, and is perhaps understandable, given that I was as shocked as the rest of you reading these things.

saulot333
05-25-2005, 01:10
I suppose that I also let my emotions get away from me, and felt personally insulted as did the majority of our team members. My purpose was to ensure the community was aware of what was happening, but you're right, I can't let my anger at what happened allow me to make bad decisions. And that certainly was not an appropriate thing to do, so I apologize.

I hope that the decision will not be viewed too negatively, and is perhaps understandable, given that I was as shocked as the rest of you reading these things.

Khelvan, I admire your (and the whole EB team's) maturity. After reading the monster thread about this cursed event at TWC, full of anger, lame excuses and accusations, I found your calm and seriousness incredibly appropriate and admirable. Once again, good job EB.

Alexander the Pretty Good
05-25-2005, 01:28
Yeah khelvan, it's probably for the best that you didn't keep that open and viewable for nutjobs like myself. I got angry. ~D

And like I said, soldier on, EB, soldier on. ~:cheers:

Zero1
05-25-2005, 01:32
I too must state that I truly admire the level of maturity EB is demonstrating. I myself after reading what had transpired well, as embaressing as it is to admit blew my stack over at the RTR forum and got suspended. On top of that I was so disgusted with the behavior demonstrated, I uninstalled the mod from my computer in a fit of rage...So don't feel bad for letting your emotions get the better of you Khelvan, I'm a pro when it comes to that. =p

But on the units, they look outstanding, particularly the Hypastisti *love the overhand animation*.

GMT
05-25-2005, 06:03
I'm a longtime lurker and I must say that this mod keeps getting better and better, congrats!

I'm kind of confused about something though. In the recent updates you always seem to show two different maps so I'm wondering which one will be used in the mod.

I don't see how you could use the small one (the one used in RTW) because most of the seleucid territory isn't even on the small map. Same thing with last week's update, none of Baktria's territory is on the small map. So I'm hoping you'll use the big map, if that would be possible.

Anyway, thanks for another great update and keep up the good work!

Zero1
05-25-2005, 06:08
I'm a longtime lurker and I must say that this mod keeps getting better and better, congrats!

I'm kind of confused about something though. In the recent updates you always seem to show two different maps so I'm wondering which one will be used in the mod.

I don't see how you could use the small one (the one used in RTW) because most of the seleucid territory isn't even on the small map. Same thing with last week's update, none of Baktria's territory is on the small map. So I'm hoping you'll use the big map, if that would be possible.

Anyway, thanks for another great update and keep up the good work!

I think thats because they use the standard RTW map to do playtesting and ballancing and what not.

Sheep
05-25-2005, 10:20
I think thats because they use the standard RTW map to do playtesting and ballancing and what not.

Not to mention that the official map is still mostly a secret ;)

LegVIIGemina-Tarraconense
05-25-2005, 12:03
I was trying to visualise the images from the seleukid army with a bigger size, but the quality of them decreases a lot ~:confused: . What I have done is: i) Copy the images and paste them to a word document; ii) Increase their size to make them bigger. But the images loose their quality. What I am doing wrong???

Can anyone help me, please :help: . For instance, Big_John, How did you manage to get a picture of the thureophoroi with this size and good quality?

Aymar de Bois Mauri
05-25-2005, 12:43
I was trying to visualise the images from the seleukid army with a bigger size, but the quality of them decreases a lot ~:confused: . What I have done is: i) Copy the images and paste them to a word document; ii) Increase their size to make them bigger. But the images loose their quality. What I am doing wrong???

Can anyone help me, please :help: . For instance, Big_John, How did you manage to get a picture of the thureophoroi with this size and good quality?Have you tried clicking on the picture?

Byzantine Mercenary
05-25-2005, 12:51
These new units for Seleukeia look realy good, are you going to have larger unit sizes for the less veteren units?
otherwise i fear that people will only use the elite units on custom battles,

Meneldil
05-25-2005, 12:58
That's part of balancing.
If a player can recruit a lot of elite unit and win with such an army, then the game is screwed up.

The Wizard
05-25-2005, 13:29
What? What happened? Civil war? Where's my rifle? And my sabre!



~Wiz ~D

Lord Tomyris Reloaded
05-25-2005, 13:43
What? What happened? Civil war? Where's my rifle? And my sabre!



~Wiz ~D

~D Allow me to elucidate:

Two teams of fans, both alike in dignity,
In fair TWC, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civitate blood makes civitate hands unclean.
From forth the fatal text files of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd modifications take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their supporters' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd data,
And the continuance of their supporters' rage,
Which, but their modification's end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours' traffic of our thread;
The which if you with patient eyes attend,
What here shall miss, the quote button shall strive to mend.

O_Stratigos
05-26-2005, 07:44
Hi all ~D

I am one of countless others lurking in this forum watching the development of EB, astonished by the depth of the mod, the enormous amount of research and detail that is invested in it and waiting with baited breath for announcements and the eventual release!! Seen the latest factions preview- the Seleucids- and noticing that you guys go to extraordinary lengths to ensure authenticity and accuracy on everything, I felt that I had to point out couple of things, Greek been my mother tongue, so without prejudice ... ~;)

The first one is about the card that says "Babylonian Ruins"; in Greek I believe should read "Babyloniaka Ereipia" instead of "Ereipia Babyloniaka" or alternatively "Ereipia Babylonos" or even "Ereipia tis Babylonos". As it stands, it sounds as what one might call "poor Greek"... :jester:

The other one is about the choice of the name “Arche Seleukeia”. I’ve read the post by Teleclos Archelaou several times trying to understand what is meant by the choice between “Basileia” and “Empire” (Autokratoria) and as to why “Arche Seleukeia” was finally chosen, but I must confess I don’t get it.. :embarassed:

I am sure you all know that the word APXH- arch, arche, archi- stands for “first”, “original”, “beginning”, also something akin to “the powers that be”(exousia) and it can be used to denote “greatness”; but when the word “arch” is used to signify “first” (as in the “top-one”) or “greatest” like in “archipelagos” or “archangel” and a lot of other Greek words, I believe it implies that it's “first” or “greatest” amongst others, and since there was only one Seleucid Kingdom –Empire, the choice of “Arche Seleukeia” appears quite strange... Pronounced correctly should sound as one word: “Archeseleukeia”, and with all due respect, IMVHO, this is not even “poor Greek” is more like a name just “made up” using these two words. :stars:

I believe the linguists in your team will agree that translations from one language to another can result in, some times, almost comical wording and there is no better example than this: “Our Galaxy is called The Milky Way”. To an English speaking Greek this is quite funny, because translated in Greek it means “Our Galaxy is called Galaxy” or “Our Milky Way is called Milky Way”! and who can forget the famous translation from English to Russian made by a computer of: “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”!! :devilish:

Remaining_In_Awe :bow:

O_Stratigos

khelvan
05-26-2005, 07:57
I am not one of our Greek speakers, myself, but we do have both native Greek speakers and Ancient Greek speakers on the team. The faction name happens to be Ancient Greek, and while I don't assume you're trying to translate it into modern Greek, until one of our Ancient Greek guys comes along to answer this, that is the best I've got. ;)

Teleklos Archelaou
05-26-2005, 22:15
The other one is about the choice of the name “Arche Seleukeia”. I’ve read the post by Teleclos Archelaou several times trying to understand what is meant by the choice between “Basileia” and “Empire” (Autokratoria) and as to why “Arche Seleukeia” was finally chosen, but I must confess I don’t get it.. :embarassed:

I am sure you all know that the word APXH- arch, arche, archi- stands for “first”, “original”, “beginning”, also something akin to “the powers that be”(exousia) and it can be used to denote “greatness”; but when the word “arch” is used to signify “first” (as in the “top-one”) or “greatest” like in “archipelagos” or “archangel” and a lot of other Greek words, I believe it implies that it's “first” or “greatest” amongst others, and since there was only one Seleucid Kingdom –Empire, the choice of “Arche Seleukeia” appears quite strange... Pronounced correctly should sound as one word: “Archeseleukeia”, and with all due respect, IMVHO, this is not even “poor Greek” is more like a name just “made up” using these two words. :stars:

I believe the linguists in your team will agree that translations from one language to another can result in, some times, almost comical wording and there is no better example than this: “Our Galaxy is called The Milky Way”. To an English speaking Greek this is quite funny, because translated in Greek it means “Our Galaxy is called Galaxy” or “Our Milky Way is called Milky Way”! and who can forget the famous translation from English to Russian made by a computer of: “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”!! :devilish:

Remaining_In_Awe :bow:

O_Stratigos
-----------------------------------------------
"arche" alpha-rho-chi-eta (feminine noun)

II. first place or power, sovereignty (not in Hom.), cf. Hdt.1.6, etc.; Arist.Pol.1284b2 : metaph., of a stroke of fortune, D.21.196: pl., A.Ch.864 (lyr.); S.Ant.744 , etc.: c. gen. rei, S.OT737 ; power over them, Th.3.90, X.Ath.2.7, etc.: prov., Biasap.Arist.EN1130a1, cf. D.Prooem.48; method of government, Th.6.54 .

2. empire, realm, Hdt.1.91, Th.4.128, etc.

3. magistracy, office, Hdt.3.80, 4.147; Id.3.89 ; Th.8.70; D.59.72, etc.; to obtain an office, Id.57.25; Th.1.96 ; Id.6.54 ; Lex ap.Aeschin.1.21; withsg. Noun, Th.4.53 ; term of office, Antipho6.42 ; POxy.119.16 (iii A.D.).

4. in pl., the authorities, the magistrates, Th.5.47 , cf. Decr. ap. And.1.83; Th.6.54; collectively, 'the board', D.47.22, cf. IG1.229, etc.; Antipho5.48 ; but of a single magistrate, PHal.1.226 (iii B.C.); against authority, A.Supp.485; Id.Ag.124 (anap.).

5. command, i.e. body of troops, LXX 1 Ki.13.17, al.

6. pl., heavenly powers, Ep.Rom.8.38, al., cf. Dam. Pr.96; powers of evil, Ep.Eph.6.12, al.

------------------------------
Seleukeios, -a, -on‚ adjective

A. of Seleucus, IG11(2).203 B 22 (iii B.C.); name of a month at Ilium, OGI212.11 (iv/iii B.C.), Supp.Epigr.4.664.3 (i B.C.): festival of S., IG12(1).6.3 (Ery thrae).

----------------------------
Have posted this elsewhere, but here is the explanation of why using "empire" (for which 'arche' is the closest word and the word attested to used in the Seleukid empire) is the best way to go and hardly "made up":

Contemporary references to the state as both a kingdom 'basileia' and an empire 'arche' exist in loyalty decrees from Ilium - OGIS 219. From Sherwin-White and Kuhrt's "From Samarkhand to Sardis" ('93): (chapter 2: section on 'Defining the Seleucid State') "One factor about the Seleucid kingdom, at least, is indisputable: it was an empire, meeting two of the most basic criteria of imperial rule, i.e. (a) where one state, or central power, encompassing a large territory and incorporating a number of socities, often heterogenous in geography and culture, dominates the others by military conquest and military force, and uses the surpluses of the subordinated 'countries'; (b) there exists some sort of overarching administrative framework, which may be loose or tight. The state is created by conquest (Alexander the Great and Seleucus I) and perpetuated by military constraint (armies, colonies, military expeditions, garrisons), which permits the levy of tribute and service from the subjugated peoples. This broad definition the Seleucid kingdom fits."

------------
I will see to it that the noun-adjective word order is reversed in the Babylonian description.

O_Stratigos
05-27-2005, 05:27
Impressive references indeed to say the least, especially to an amateur enthusiast like me!! but- and there is always a “but” isn’t there, lol- it looks to me like a kind of a circular argument here, so please indulge me.. :book:

I thought scholars would need more than one source-reference to accept something, and because “From Samarkand to Sardis” asserts that the Seleucid Kingdom meets the criteria for an Empire, that does not necessarily makes it so. “(a) where one state, or central power, encompassing a large territory and incorporating a number of socities, often heterogenous in geography and culture, dominates the others by military conquest and military force, and uses the surpluses of the subordinated 'countries'; (b) there exists some sort of overarching administrative framework, which may be loose or tight. The state is created by conquest (Alexander the Great and Seleucus I) and perpetuated by military constraint (armies, colonies, military expeditions, garrisons), which permits the levy of tribute and service from the subjugated peoples.”.
That “episode” in 1066 meets the criteria but does not an Empire make.. OGIS 219 is constantly referring to the “Kingdom” and “King Antiochus, son of King Seleucus” “the King and his sister the Queen” and then someone comes along and says “no no, you are not a Kingdom you are an Empire because you meet MY criteria”.. ~:)

But this discussion is not about whether the Seleucids where an Empire or not, is about the use of the word APXH “arche”, and obviously here is used having the meaning of: government, low and order, powers that be, exousia etc.
In this case I find it very hard to believe that a scholar or native Greek speaker with some knowledge of Ancient Greek will accept that APXH = AYTOKPATOPIA. The word APXH, APXAI, TON APXON (both Os Omega) refers to the government or whatever power is in control at the time, and it will be a huge leap to accept it as meaning Empire. :sad2:

TH 4.128 -on the same day he arrived at Arnissa, which is in the dominion of Perdiccas.

Hdt 1.91 For when the god told him that, if he attacked the Persians, he will destroy a mighty empire.

I am not sure if these are what you are referring to, but if they are, since I have no access to the original Greek texts nor the fluency to read them and translate them correctly, I can only speculate ( shame on me) :embarassed: : If in the original, APXH is for dominion that does not Empire means (sic) and if the text states “he will destroy a mighty APXH” knowing that Persia was a mighty Empire… you can guess the rest ~:)
What I am trying to say is that you scholars find mistakes in old translations all the time, but I am far from been qualified to even suggest…. :hide:

What I meant by, that looks like a “made up” name, was about IF it was one word Archeseleukeia – Arche as in first, greatest etc, then it looked like is “made up”; as the name is obviously made of two words Arche Seleukeia- using Arche as meaning government, exousia or even (~:mecry:)Empire-, then I think that grammatically you are required to have the second word ending with “s” to signify as to whom Arche denotes to, so I believe it should be ARCHE SELEUKEIAS. But then if we accept ARCHE to mean Empire then it should be SELEUKEIAKH ARCHE, SELEUKEIAKH APXH… after all it was the British Empire not the Empire British.. oh boy.. :wall:

So what we have is this: using “From Samarkand to Sardis” as a source the Seleucid Kingdom is made an Empire > using APXH to an extreme stretch, the word is made to mean Empire > put the two together the Seleucid Kingdom becomes the Seleucid Empire > hence ARCHE SELEUKEIA! :surrender: Hmmm.. it looks circular to me, but then again what do I know... :juggle2:
Please don’t get me wrong, this is YOUR mod and if you say you want to call that faction North Korea or Supercalifragilistic I am all for it.. ~:cheers: (just release the friging Beta already!! :furious3: lol)

Finally, I must confess I did try to translate Arche Seleukeia to modern Greek or even English, attempting to understand what it means- no luck…- like you guys do with these almost unpronounceable barbarian names and then you go to great lengths to spell the correct pronunciation and translation, especially about what Tsorim is and why the name was chosen.
Now this begs a question: the name Carthage was changed and one of the reasons given is that Tsorim is what they called themselves, so it makes one wonder… what did the Arche Seleukeis (Seleukeides?) called themselves… :joker:

Still_Remaining_In_Awe :bow:

O_Sratigos

Idomeneas
05-27-2005, 20:14
Impressive references indeed to say the least, especially to an amateur enthusiast like me!! but- and there is always a “but” isn’t there, lol- it looks to me like a kind of a circular argument here, so please indulge me.. :book:

I thought scholars would need more than one source-reference to accept something, and because “From Samarkand to Sardis” asserts that the Seleucid Kingdom meets the criteria for an Empire, that does not necessarily makes it so. “(a) where one state, or central power, encompassing a large territory and incorporating a number of socities, often heterogenous in geography and culture, dominates the others by military conquest and military force, and uses the surpluses of the subordinated 'countries'; (b) there exists some sort of overarching administrative framework, which may be loose or tight. The state is created by conquest (Alexander the Great and Seleucus I) and perpetuated by military constraint (armies, colonies, military expeditions, garrisons), which permits the levy of tribute and service from the subjugated peoples.”.
That “episode” in 1066 meets the criteria but does not an Empire make.. OGIS 219 is constantly referring to the “Kingdom” and “King Antiochus, son of King Seleucus” “the King and his sister the Queen” and then someone comes along and says “no no, you are not a Kingdom you are an Empire because you meet MY criteria”.. ~:)

But this discussion is not about whether the Seleucids where an Empire or not, is about the use of the word APXH “arche”, and obviously here is used having the meaning of: government, low and order, powers that be, exousia etc.
In this case I find it very hard to believe that a scholar or native Greek speaker with some knowledge of Ancient Greek will accept that APXH = AYTOKPATOPIA. The word APXH, APXAI, TON APXON (both Os Omega) refers to the government or whatever power is in control at the time, and it will be a huge leap to accept it as meaning Empire. :sad2:

TH 4.128 -on the same day he arrived at Arnissa, which is in the dominion of Perdiccas.

Hdt 1.91 For when the god told him that, if he attacked the Persians, he will destroy a mighty empire.

I am not sure if these are what you are referring to, but if they are, since I have no access to the original Greek texts nor the fluency to read them and translate them correctly, I can only speculate ( shame on me) :embarassed: : If in the original, APXH is for dominion that does not Empire means (sic) and if the text states “he will destroy a mighty APXH” knowing that Persia was a mighty Empire… you can guess the rest ~:)
What I am trying to say is that you scholars find mistakes in old translations all the time, but I am far from been qualified to even suggest…. :hide:

What I meant by, that looks like a “made up” name, was about IF it was one word Archeseleukeia – Arche as in first, greatest etc, then it looked like is “made up”; as the name is obviously made of two words Arche Seleukeia- using Arche as meaning government, exousia or even (~:mecry:)Empire-, then I think that grammatically you are required to have the second word ending with “s” to signify as to whom Arche denotes to, so I believe it should be ARCHE SELEUKEIAS. But then if we accept ARCHE to mean Empire then it should be SELEUKEIAKH ARCHE, SELEUKEIAKH APXH… after all it was the British Empire not the Empire British.. oh boy.. :wall:

So what we have is this: using “From Samarkand to Sardis” as a source the Seleucid Kingdom is made an Empire > using APXH to an extreme stretch, the word is made to mean Empire > put the two together the Seleucid Kingdom becomes the Seleucid Empire > hence ARCHE SELEUKEIA! :surrender: Hmmm.. it looks circular to me, but then again what do I know... :juggle2:
Please don’t get me wrong, this is YOUR mod and if you say you want to call that faction North Korea or Supercalifragilistic I am all for it.. ~:cheers: (just release the friging Beta already!! :furious3: lol)

Finally, I must confess I did try to translate Arche Seleukeia to modern Greek or even English, attempting to understand what it means- no luck…- like you guys do with these almost unpronounceable barbarian names and then you go to great lengths to spell the correct pronunciation and translation, especially about what Tsorim is and why the name was chosen.
Now this begs a question: the name Carthage was changed and one of the reasons given is that Tsorim is what they called themselves, so it makes one wonder… what did the Arche Seleukeis (Seleukeides?) called themselves… :joker:

Still_Remaining_In_Awe :bow:

O_Sratigos

Χαιρετισμοί απο την πατρίδα!
Well mate you do have a point in the general notice that some times translations are tricky.
But in this case EB has a point about the grammar part at least. Now if Seleukeia is kingdom (Βασίλειο) οr empire (Αυτοκρατορία) is debatable.
But grammaticly there is nothing wrong with Σελεύκεια Αρχή or Aρχή Σελευκεια (γενική) though the second one is more poetic usage. In greek as you know we can use επιθετο and αντικείμενο vice versa.

Sarcasm
05-27-2005, 21:17
How can it not be an empire? There are plenty of smaller empires than that of the Seleucids

Sfwartir
05-27-2005, 22:57
How can it not be an empire? There are plenty of smaller empires than that of the Seleucids

Well, Empires are usually ruled by an _Emperor_, while Kingdoms, as the Seleucid one.. ~;)
A Kingdom remains a Kingdom until it's ruled by an Emperor, no matter its size.

Big_John
05-27-2005, 23:35
the difference between empire/emperor and kingdom/king seems to be mostly semantic. was the british empire ruled by an emperor? teleklos has stated that ancient sources refer to seleukia as both an empire and a kingdom. so, in terms of EB's naming philosophy, either should be appropriate.

The Wizard
05-28-2005, 01:43
Well, Empires are usually ruled by an _Emperor_, while Kingdoms, as the Seleucid one.. ~;)
A Kingdom remains a Kingdom until it's ruled by an Emperor, no matter its size.

Yet the British Empire was ruled by a Queen ~;)



~Wiz

Sarcasm
05-28-2005, 01:51
Well, Empires are usually ruled by an _Emperor_, while Kingdoms, as the Seleucid one..
A Kingdom remains a Kingdom until it's ruled by an Emperor, no matter its size.
The others pretty much stated my point...

Ehrrr....you really didn't think that answer through did you? :shifty:

Epistolary Richard
05-28-2005, 02:01
Yet the British Empire was ruled by a Queen ~;)



~Wiz
Actually, Victoria was Empress of India as well. If we're going to talk semantics, then as we all know the word Empire is derived from Emperor, which comes from the Latin Imperator which was originally used to solely to describe a General and only crossed over to the origins of its current meaning because of Augustus.

Given that Empire from a latin word which didn't even have the same meaning in this period as it does today, I think we should trust that the Ancient Greek phrase used conveys the nature of the Seleucid state just as accurately, if not more so, than any of the alternatives. :wink:

Sarcasm
05-28-2005, 02:21
*ding* *ding* *ding* "Robert, tell this gentleman what he won!"

Sfwartir
05-28-2005, 05:40
No retreat, no surrender, heheh ~;)

S l i g h t l y beerified at the moment, so please excuse any spelling errors
:barrel:

Now now, I did think my last comment through (not this one tho'). Epistolary Richard - you weasel ~:cheers: , beating me to it in your post, when reminding people that old Vicky was indeed an Empress as well - and that was supposed to be an ever so slight moment of triumph for me..aargh :charge:

Now, on to the British Empire. Yes, indeed the United Kingdom _had_ an Empire, but it _was_ a Kingdom (or "Queendom" ~D ), just as the Seleucids. As you all know, "empire" in this (modern) context means just about 'Has Lots of Territories'. An agreement of some sorts between Victorian Britain and say, the great nation of Beeroslovenia, wasn't referred to as an agreement between "the British Empire and Beeroslovenia", but between the United Kingdom and Beeroschl.. Bieromph..that other country. My point is, will it really be correct to refer to the Seleukid realm as an Empire, on the basis of its territories, when the nation itself was clearly a Kingdom? I do understand your points, I just..disagree a bit. Slightly. And veryvery humbly.
:hide:

I would still recommend "Basileia Seleukeion", but the poor little thing lost the vote. ~:mecry:

Arr, now I must be off to ye olde hammock to honour me missis. Night-night/good morning me ol' fruitbats! ~:grouphug:

GoreBag
05-28-2005, 18:48
The United Kingdom was a kingdom. The British Empire was an empire. In the case of the Seleukids in EB, the player runs the Empire, not just the kingdom. In this case, I would suggest a definition of "Empire" be a dominion of one kingdom over many other kingdoms, and the Seleukid Empire is just that.

The Wizard
05-29-2005, 00:22
Actually, Victoria was Empress of India as well. If we're going to talk semantics, then as we all know the word Empire is derived from Emperor, which comes from the Latin Imperator which was originally used to solely to describe a General and only crossed over to the origins of its current meaning because of Augustus.

Given that Empire from a latin word which didn't even have the same meaning in this period as it does today, I think we should trust that the Ancient Greek phrase used conveys the nature of the Seleucid state just as accurately, if not more so, than any of the alternatives. :wink:

That is all swell, but we're talking about the British Empire here, not the Indian one, a title created because ol' Vicky was jealous of her nephew being Kaiser and all. ~;)



~Wiz

Sheep
05-29-2005, 02:54
I can go on and on with a plethora of other Seleukid coins.. I think you can see where I'm going with this... I think it's fair to say that the root of the word Basileos should be employed.

If you are going with what the factions called themselves, and they themselves minted coins with a particular name on it, I would have to agree that we should use that name.

O_Stratigos
05-29-2005, 07:38
As I said in my earlier post, this is not about whether the Seleucids were a Kingdom or an Empire, rather it's about Arche=Empire, but what the hell lets give it a bash anyway :gossip: ~D

It would be very hard to decide between Kingdom and Empire, especially for the later since any short Corsican, megalomaniac, or little King could proclaim himself Emperor; sources referring to them as an Empire may well have been influenced by political, financial or just plain sycophantic reasons. We all know that ancient writers were capable of all of the above- not unlike contemporary ones…- and that they were quite prone to exaggeration; but in the final analysis if the Seleucids were an Empire they would’ve had to have an Emperor, and to my knowledge there is no reference of any Seleucid ruler being called thus. :mellow:

Translations can be so tricky.. as this discussion is in English, by “King” we all understand that it can be translated to Greek as Vasileus and one can live with it, [the letter of Antigonus to his son Demetrius referring to him as “ Vasileus Demetrius” (δοτικη) can of course complicate things..] but when it comes to Emperor… ahh, that’s a different kettle of fish :mask: .. to quote from Epistolary Richard’s post,“ we all know the word Empire is derived from Emperor, which comes from the Latin Imperator which was originally used to solely to describe a General” but ( I’ve started to really hate the word “but” :tongue: lol) in Greek, Emperor >Autokrator means Self Ruler and has nothing to do with a General per se,- even though very often he was originally a General- so although we converse in the same language we might understand things quite differently. ~;)

Of course, they did call themselves a Kingdom and the rulers of the realm Kings, but from ancient to contemporary times, for one- as a rule- to be King must be born of a King [never mind the Ελεω Θεου (by the grace of God) nonsense] so the Diadochoi, been merely Alexander’s generals had no legitimate reason to call themselves Kings. :shrug: One can say that a King can be an Emperor, but an Emperor could never become a King. You either got Royal Blood or, so sorry, no cigar ~:cheers: Wow!! am a poet!! ~:thumb: :laugh3:

Lets make a few suppositions: if we accept that one cannot be King unless his daddy was a King, then the Seleucids could not have been a Kingdom even though they did call themselves so and others accepted them as such; on the other hand, if the Carthage > Tsorim reasoning of “that’s what they called themselves” applies, then they should be called a Kingdom or else inconsistency rears its ugly head..
Since we don’t really know whether the sources referring to the Seleucids as an Empire did so as praise saying that it was as grand and mighty as an Empire, even though it was known as a Kingdom at the time, or used it as a derogatory term implying that it was not a “legitimate” Kingdom, therefore was actually an Empire; so if we accept its Kings were not “legitimate”, then it should have indeed be an Empire, but (grr.. that word again.. :skull: ) an Empire without an Emperor cannot an Empire be… :eeeek:

In conclusion: six of one and half dozen of the other… :lost: and am getting dizzy… :dizzy: ~:dizzy: :fainting: lol

Now let’s get to the main point. :smash:
To quote Epistolary Richard again: “Given that Empire from a latin word which didn't even have the same meaning in this period as it does today, I think we should trust that the Ancient Greek phrase used conveys the nature of the Seleucid state just as accurately, if not more so, than any of the alternatives.”
Since the case for Kingdom or Empire can be argued ad nauseam, IMHO the decision by EB to call them an Empire is quite valid; however, the choice of the word Arche-APXH to mean Empire, I do not- with all due respect- believe it is; even if we accept ~:mecry: Arche=Empire :bigcry:I believe that the grammar is incorrect in Arche Seleukeia, as it should be: Η Σελευκεια >Της Σελευκειας (γενικη indeed Indomeneas :wink3: ). I have no idea as how to convey this in English so if I may try to paraphrase very very roughly :embarassed: : Arche=Empire, who’s Empire? Seleukeia’s = Arche SeleukeiaS. :sweatdrop: :help:
Even though I do not accept the validity of Arche=Empire I might of course be wrong :shame: :charming: , so it would be enormously appreciated if someone presents more direct evidence of Arche=Empire, links and all if possible. Please keep in mind that we don’t all have access to the materials you scholars have ~:)



:thinking2: ~:idea: :jumping:

Now I am going to suggest the use of another word instead of Arche (and I have no doubt that you guys have already thought of it), then RUN LIKE HELL!! ~:eek: :uhoh2:

:drummer: :drummer: :drummer: :drummer:

KRATOS

:oops: :scared: :rifle: Runiiiiiiiiiing…….. ~:wave:

And_Still_Remaining_In_Awe :bow:


O_Stratigos

GMT
05-29-2005, 09:30
Impressive!

By the way, you really love those smilies don't you? :tongue2:

Shigawire
05-29-2005, 14:57
Just so you know... though the pronunciation of the letter 'Beta' in Modern Greek is 'V', that is due to the process known as "palatalization." In classical Greek, they pronounced 'Beta' as 'B.'

O_Stratigos
05-29-2005, 16:44
Yes, thank you :book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet#Main_table,
http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/harry/lan/grkphon.htm, since I am no scholar I just try to keep things as simple as possible for everyone reading this thread, myself included!! :beam:

O_Stratigos :bow:

Shigawire
05-29-2005, 16:55
Great websites o_megas.

Teleklos Archelaou
05-30-2005, 03:43
To clarify which part of speech we are using for words in the name of the faction: Seleukeios, -a, -on is the adjective "Seleukid". Indeed Arche (fem, sing., nom.) needs Seleukeia to modify it correctly. What is being requested here by o megas is the fem., sing., genitive form of the noun that means Seleukeia, the smaller region, which does not refer to the whole of their realm. This would give us "Empire of (the area called) Seleukeia". The only other option along these same lines would be Arche Seleukidon ("'Arche' of the Seleukids"). We thought the use of the adjective (agreeing with its modified noun) would be better than the genitive plural form "of the Seleukids".

I actually didn't even vote for Arche Seleukideia (though I gave it as one of the ten possibilities I put forth for the vote), but it got more votes, and I think the other folks were right about it upon reflection.

O_Stratigos
05-30-2005, 09:46
@ Teleclos Archelaou

Please forgive my ignorance, but after reading your post 3-4 times I still don’t understand what you are saying… :embarassed: obviously my English is as bad as my Greek!! ~D I would really appreciate if you can explain it in plain English. ~:)

What I hope you are NOT saying- in part- is that, if Malta conquered all the Mediterranean countries, then it couldn’t be called the Maltese Empire because Malta is too small… ~:eek: :embarassed:
Anyway, I have to go away until tomorrow, but what really worries me is your silence about that cursed world Arche… maybe the deed is done and Arche is going to stay; :bigcry: if so please let me know so I can begin my lamentation… :wall: and I DO mean lamentation.. my 1000 word lamentation… unless you ask for mercy... :grin: lol

Quote: “I actually didn't even vote for Arche Seleukideia (though I gave it as one of the ten possibilities I put forth for the vote), but it got more votes, and I think the other folks were right about it upon reflection”.

Hmm.. am not so sure I believe you are considering this: “1.138. The verbal plays on arche cannot be coincidental:[49] the Athenian arche ('empire') is echoed in the arche ('archonship') of Themistokles, which is seen as the arche ('beginning') of Athenian might” and it is also echoed in Teleklos Archelaou … :evilgrin: ~D
Delusions of Immortality along with an Immortal Mod? :laugh4: ~:joker:

O_Stratigos :bow:

The Wizard
05-30-2005, 12:17
Let me try to explain, for I did understand...


Seleukeios | Suleukeia | Seleukeion


This is the nominativus adjective, which translated into English means 'Seleukid'. It is not possessive, like the genitivus. Rather, it describes a word.

In English, that would equate to 'cool' relating to 'water'. So, in 'cool water', 'cool' is the adjective.

Since 'Arche' is a feminine word, we use the feminine nominativus form of the adjective, which is the middle word above. So, translated, that should give us 'Seleukid Empire'.

Continuing my little example, 'water' is a nominativus. Therefore, in ancient Greek, that would mean the adjective would have to be a nominativus as well. And, just as well in ancient Greek, it should also be of the same sex as the word it is connected to. Therefore, we use 'Seleukeia' since 'Arche' is feminine.

Now, that was the grammatics. The meaning of 'Arche' I leave to the real Greek linguists, for I dropped Greek in favor of Latin two years ago...



~Wiz

jerby
05-30-2005, 14:50
impressive for a dutchmen.tough english grammar is not my strongpoint.
still very impressive. ;) i dropped both, couldnt stand the boredom. maybe it was my teacher. altough i found greek easier than Latin, since i understood the alfabet perfectly (mind you im using the past-form), i still sucked at both

Dux Corvanus
05-30-2005, 14:53
I dropped Greek in favor of Latin two years ago...



I dropped Greek and Latin in favor of sex even before... ~;p

The Wizard
05-30-2005, 18:42
Oh, don't begin -- you're reminding me of my gay Latin teacher.

Bah, too late.

But, let me get this straight. You like sex whilst following courses? :0



~Wiz

Dux Corvanus
05-30-2005, 19:03
But, let me get this straight. You like sex whilst following courses? :0


Team work is important. ~:joker:

jerby
05-30-2005, 20:13
gay latin teacher? not so bad. my (ex-)teacher is as old as the language. the damn bitch

Dux Corvanus
05-30-2005, 20:27
my (ex-)teacher is as old as the language. the damn bitch

Not bad. Not many can have a Latin native teacher... :laugh4:

jerby
05-30-2005, 21:01
:'D yeah i know. but I swear to god that woman was born in anticuaty. the looks likes she is about to vaporiza and turn in to dust...

O_Stratigos
05-31-2005, 08:41
The Wizard: Thank you for the easy explanation, obviously your grammatical knowledge is far superior to mine, ~:) but I always took Seleukeia to be fem. as a given; that’s why I wrote in one of my other posts; Quote: “Η Σελευκεια >Της Σελευκειας (γενικη indeed Indomeneas ). I have no idea as how to convey this in English so if I may try to paraphrase very very roughly : Arche=Empire, who’s Empire? Seleukeia’s = Arche SeleukeiaS” :balloon2:

Maybe I should’ve been more specific about what I don’t understand in Teleklos Archelaou’s post, so here it is: “What is being requested here by o megas is the fem., sing., genitive form of the noun that means Seleukeia, the smaller region, which does not refer to the whole of their realm.” What have I "requested", what is “Seleukeia, the smaller region” and what “which does not refer to the whole of their realm” means in this context? ~:confused: ~:eek:

Now, this is interesting.. ~;p Teleklos Archelaou again:“The only other option along these same lines would be Arche Seleukidon ("'Arche' of the Seleukids" so, if Arche Seleukeidon was an option and obviously you followed this: Oi Seleukeis (des?), Ton (omega) Seleukeidon (omega), doesn’t also this follow: H Seleukeia, Tis (eta) Seleukeias?!?! or is my Greek grammar really that rusty… :embarassed: :wall:

Anyway, never mind all this “trivia” ~D :devilish: lol, what about da big kahuna, da big mofo “ARCHE” is he still Da Man or should I say Da Woman since its fem... ~D :whip: :grin2: lol

O_Stratigos :bow:

PS: O_Megas is my nephew and he used my email address to register here some time ago, so I post using my TWC nick. Since he never posted and he is now in Greece, is there a way to change the registration from O_Megas to O_Stratigos? Thank you. ~:)

The Wizard
05-31-2005, 18:21
Ok... one last time...

Seleukeia is an adjective. Therefore it does not need to be possessive and therefore your request for a possessive form (genitivus) is void.

And regarding the thing about your proposition not referring to their entire realm; Teleklos is right. Your suggestion only refers to the area around the Seleukid capital of Seleukeia, in Mesopotamia. What we use refers to their entire realm.



~Wiz

O_Stratigos
06-01-2005, 07:12
Quote:“Seleukeia is an adjective. Therefore it does not need to be possessive and therefore your request for a possessive form (genitivus) is void.”

I submit that the syntax is correct – even if in meaning is slightly off – and humbly stand corrected. :2thumbsup: :bow:

Quote:“And regarding the thing about your proposition not referring to their entire realm; Teleklos is right. Your suggestion only refers to the area around the Seleukid capital of Seleukeia, in Mesopotamia. What we use refers to their entire realm.” ~:confused:

This one, I don’t know.. why does Arche Seleukeia refers to the whole realm, whereas Arche Seleukeias- ending with S- would refer only to a particular (small?) place? If you could elaborate on this- if is not too much trouble- I will be really grateful :charming: ~:)

Quote:“Ok... one last time...”

Maybe a bit more tolerance towards us-non-scholars-laymen-just-trying-to-understand-better-learn-something-and-if-posible-help-in-a-tiny-mini-lil-way-hoping-not-to-encounter-omnipotence, would be a good thing.. :sad: :disappointed:

O_Stratigos :bow:

Big_John
06-01-2005, 07:52
ok, i think what teleklos and the wizard are trying to say is that "arche seleukeias" would refer to a small area, specifically the area around the city of seleukeia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucia), whereas "arche seleukeia" is referring to the group of people (the seleukids).

a hypothetical analogy: let's say the australia is an empire. the suggestion of "arche seleukeias" is would be like calling australia "The Empire of Canberra", whereas "arche seleukeia" is akin to "The Australian Empire". don't know if that's accurate, because i don't speak or read a lick of greek, but i think that's what teleklos and the wizard are saying.. i think..


hmm.. that's probably more confusing than anything else.. nevermind. :no: :shrug:

eadingas
06-01-2005, 08:23
In short: the Seleukids - the ruling dynasty - has formed the Empire. Not inhabitants of region of Seleukeia.

O_Stratigos
06-01-2005, 09:42
In short: the Seleukids - the ruling dynasty - has formed the Empire. Not inhabitants of region of Seleukeia.

In circle: the Seleukids- the ruling dynasty-has formed the Empire. Not inhabitants of region of Seleukeia which was named after the ruling dynasty, namely the Seleukids :dizzy2: :juggle:

Please read my question again:
why does Arche Seleukeia refers to the whole realm, whereas Arche Seleukeias- ending with S- would refer only to a particular (small?) place?

It seems that you acept that Arche SelukeiaS- ending in S- means the region of Selukeia or its inhabitans; whereas what I ask is "why is it so". ~:) ~:cheers:


O_Stratigos :bow:

Dux Corvanus
06-01-2005, 10:24
In circle: the Seleukids- the ruling dynasty-has formed the Empire. Not inhabitants of region of Seleukeia which was named after the ruling dynasty, namely the Seleukids

Not such. The inhabitants of the region were never called that way, at least then. Seleukid, as Atreid, Nereid, Lagid, etc... are genitive person-related names that refer to the descendants and relatives of one important person -real or fictional. A Seleukid is a member of Seleukos's family, that is, a member of the founding dinasty. The Ptolemaic kings were also known as Lagids because of being descendants of Ptolomeo Lagos.

We, for extension, apply it to territory and people, but is in fact a term related to the ruling dinasty.

The inhabitants of Seluekeia, in modern English, should be named Seleukeians, and use a place-related term in Greek. Seleukid is not.

O_Stratigos
06-01-2005, 10:58
What I say here
In circle: the Seleukids- the ruling dynasty-has formed the Empire. Not inhabitants of region of Seleukeia which was named after the ruling dynasty, namely the Seleukids is in responce to the post by eadingas
In short: the Seleukids - the ruling dynasty - has formed the Empire. Not inhabitants of region of Seleukeia. merely pointing out that this was- as presented- a circular argument, not expressing an opinion on the matter; that's why I didn't make any other comment and went on to ask for my question to be read again.. ~;)

O_Stratigos :bow:

Teleklos Archelaou
06-01-2005, 14:55
Quote[B]Maybe a bit more tolerance towards us-non-scholars-laymen-just-trying-to-understand-better-learn-something-and-if-posible-help-in-a-tiny-mini-lil-way-hoping-not-to-encounter-omnipotence, would be a good thing.. :sad: :disappointed:

O_Stratigos :bow:You have received more helpful and polite attempts to explain and make clear two words than any other thread I have ever seen in a total war forum. These have been your only posts on any matter. Posting smiley-laden tomes on the same two words over and over while numerous people have tried to explain things shows who is being tolerant here. Your attempt to paint the EB members here and the non-members who have tried to explain things as being intolerant is not appreciated (by myself at least), whether Arche Seleukeia is right or wrong.

Forgus
06-01-2005, 17:56
OK... After reading all this thread I would suggest to take a more pragmatic approach: use the term that was used in the period in greek diplomatic letters or books or something... There are sources on the Internet for someone fluent in ancient greek, so if some of you is up to the job it is better to go there and take a look.
Personally I doubt, that in those days people called the country an empire. In casual talking most likely it might have been Seleukeia or something ,but even for a non-greek speaker Arche Seleukeia sounds artifical.

Idomeneas
06-01-2005, 19:06
Ok Αρχή Σελεύκεια is not wrong but rather poetic. It should be Σελεύκεια Αρχή.
Just to set things right about greek....

Big_John
06-01-2005, 19:15
what happened to shigawire's coins? is there comparable evidence for "arche" (vs "basileia")?

khelvan
06-01-2005, 19:25
We are having an internal discussion about the name, and as such have moved Shigawire's post to the appropriate place.

GoreBag
06-01-2005, 19:31
I think Arche is fine. It's not worth it to second-guess yourselves over something that has already been decided.

Han
06-01-2005, 22:39
ya, don't worry about the name of the Faction, it should do fine, imo, not really important, some countries call themselves many names and we may not really know

Teleklos Archelaou
06-02-2005, 01:44
what happened to shigawire's coins? is there comparable evidence for "arche" (vs "basileia")?We are discussing it internally still, but just to be clear, none of the coins ever said "basileia".

Big_John
06-02-2005, 02:17
We are discussing it internally still, but just to be clear, none of the coins ever said "basileia".!!

well what was the text then? was it just the particular king that was being named on the coins? like i saw one coin that read, "ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚοΥ" or something.. that just means "king seleukos", not "the kingdom of seleukos"?

Teleklos Archelaou
06-02-2005, 02:31
!!

well what was the text then? was it just the particular king that was being named on the coins? like i saw one coin that read, "ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚοΥ" or something.. that just means "king seleukos", not "the kingdom of seleukos"?Just pointing out that while they said "king", they didn't say "kingdom" on them, which is what your post sounded like. That's all mate. ~:)

O_Stratigos
06-02-2005, 11:55
@ Teleklos Archelaou

You have received more helpful and polite attempts to explain and make clear two words than any other thread I have ever seen in a total war forum. These have been your only posts on any matter. Posting smiley-laden tomes on the same two words over and over while numerous people have tried to explain things shows who is being tolerant here. Your attempt to paint the EB members here and the non-members who have tried to explain things as being intolerant is not appreciated (by myself at least), whether Arche Seleukeia is right or wrong.


I am sure that your grasp of the English language is much better than what you display in you post, because I don’t believe for a moment that you can’t see that there is no such intention in my post.

I, nevertheless, will try to give some explanations: ~;)
I did not “attempt to paint” as “being intolerant” ANYONE, I just asked for more tolerance simply because, I genuinely did not understand the answers given- call me dumb if you like- and because I also believed that “OK.. one last time..” was not called for. What is it that you wanted me to do, pretend that I understood so as to appear clever? All I was asking- and I still am- is ‘why” the S makes all this difference, here is my question again: why does Arche Seleukeia refers to the whole realm, whereas Arche Seleukeias- ending with S- would refer only to a particular (small?) place? and since I’ve already conceded that the syntax and grammar in Arche Selukeia are essentially correct, is obvious that I simply wanted to know for the sake of knowing, that's all.

The reason for “these have been your only posts” is maybe quite hard for you to grasp, but I’ll try and explain.. Short of joining the cheer leading squad thread- and I was very tempted to do so on numerous occasions and eventually made clear my sentiments about EB in my very first post- the main reason for not posting is…wait for it…
:drummer: :drummer: :drummer: :drummer: I HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY!! ~:cheers:
I was content to just sit back and enjoy the offerings, marvel at the accomplishments with enormous respect and admiration, and for that reason alone I will not allow YOU or anyone else, whether you are a member of EB or the Mafia, to even SUGGEST that I showed any kind of disrespect towards ANYONE!

About “posting smiley-laden tomes” again the explanation is quite simple: ~;p I just LOVE the damn things!! ~:grouphug: I find them to be totally charming and very clever; it also did it to keep my postings in a casual, friendly tone as to not upset or flame anyone (obviously I failed) and as an attempt to be humorous (obviously failed there too, so I won’t be quitting my day job any time soon..) since I am just a layman tackling a rather “specialized” subject.

Last but not least “whether Arche Seleukeia is right or wrong” has yet to be answered.
Please, let me make this absolutely clear: as far as I am concerned you don’t have to answer anything, and like I said before, if you choose to call the Seleucid faction Ding-Dong because that’s what you want to call it, you will never hear “pip” from me.. your_mod_your_choice, no arguments, period!
However, since you invite everyone to comment and you say you welcome any input, then you have to expect questions, some kind of scrutiny and even- hopefully constructive- criticism.
Take a look at this, please:
Q: Why is Carthage called Tsorim now?
A: Because that is what they called themselves!!
What a great answer indeed, precise, to the point, a marvel of simplicity, no much room for argument and very correct! I nearly fell off my chair the first time I read it! ~D

But, when I suggested that the word Arche does not mean Empire in Ancient Greek, you reply with some impressive references pointing to “translations” of the word to mean Empire, knowing full well that the word Empire didn’t even exist at that time period, and that it is translated to mean a Great Power, an Empire “as we understand it today”; so, you just selectively picked from Liddell-Scott the references that “sort of” supported your position and said “that’s it, no more explanations needed” knowing- again- full well that there are many other sources that do not translate Arche as Empire, and even knowing-much better than I, am sure- that “translation” is the means to communicate to your own what something “means” in another language or culture, therefore one has license to substitute words in order to convey that meaning.
That does not mean that the substituted translation is necessarily what the original meaning was.
For example, why don’t you post as a “source” the translation of “an arche imposing douleia” means “an Empire imposing slavery” and then explain that the Empire it is talking about is Athens!! Imagine how many eyebrows will reach for the havens.. and those that don’t will assume that it means what we might today call the “Microsoft Empire” or the “Donald Trump Empire”. Athens the Empire indeed..

This mode is supposed to be educational as well and I believe that it fulfils this role admirably !! The depth and scope of every aspect of it, research, analysis, historical accuracy etc, go far beyond the expectations one might have from simply “another game mod”, and I for one don’t underestimate even for a moment the dedication and hard work that all the people involved with it contributed, so that everyone can almost “see” what those long-dead peoples looked like and all the rest; so when a mod with such impeccable credentials claims that Arche=Empire, almost everyone- and with good reasons- will take this to be true, which it is not.
I firmly believe that Arche does not mean Empire in Ancient Greek and to claim otherwise is incorrect.

I venture that I can prove my position, can you? ~;)



Humbly,

O_Stratigos :bow:

Sheep
06-02-2005, 13:12
Silver shields... so shiny. Soooooo shiny...

jerby
06-02-2005, 15:38
now that you mention it, i cant find teh argyraspidai anywhere. only the torikatai version. but not the "regular" pikemen. th eonyl screenie ive seen is a wip on sheeps thread

Teleklos Archelaou
06-02-2005, 21:15
why does Arche Seleukeia refers to the whole realm, whereas Arche Seleukeias- ending with S- would refer only to a particular (small?) place? and since I’ve already conceded that the syntax and grammar in Arche Selukeia are essentially correct, is obvious that I simply wanted to know for the sake of knowing, that's all.Because while Seleukeia is a noun that refers to a more specific region, Seleukeios, -a, -on is the adjective that means "seleukid" (not necessarily referring to the region; more commonly used to refer to the "empire"). Using the noun as a genitive (arche seleukeias) would mean "empire of this area called seleukeia". Using the adjective in an attributive manner and modifying arche (arche seleukeia) means "seleukid empire". This is the same thing that Dux, Big John, and the Wizard have all stated. I'm saying it for the fourth time (at least) here because you keep calling me out on it.


Last but not least “whether Arche Seleukeia is right or wrong” has yet to be answered.There will never be an absolute answer to this. If there was one we wouldn't be having all of this.


you just selectively picked from Liddell-Scott the references that “sort of” supported your position and said “that’s it, no more explanations needed” knowing- again- full well that there are many other sources that do not translate Arche as Empire, and even knowing-much better than I, am sure- that “translation” is the means to communicate to your own what something “means” in another language or culture, therefore one has license to substitute words in order to convey that meaning.
That does not mean that the substituted translation is necessarily what the original meaning was.
For example, why don’t you post as a “source” the translation of “an arche imposing douleia” means “an Empire imposing slavery” and then explain that the Empire it is talking about is Athens!! Imagine how many eyebrows will reach for the havens.. and those that don’t will assume that it means what we might today call the “Microsoft Empire” or the “Donald Trump Empire”. Athens the Empire indeed.. Pissing me off here. :furious3: I'm not just "selectively picking from Liddell-Scott the references that 'sort of' support my position". Look up "Empire" in an English to ancient greek dictionary, what will you find? Yonge's 1899 English-Greek Lexicon (the best one I've ever found) says: "arche, Soph., Eur., Hdt., Thuc., Vid. Kingdom, Dominion." Look up "Rule" there: "(i.e., government) arche, Pind., Omn. Att.; kratos, Ep., also kartos, Omn.; dunasteia, Soph., Omn. Att. prose; hegemonia, Omn. prose." By the gods...just use Perseus: do a search for "empire" in english. Only in their Greek and Roman materials. Then look at those texts where it occurs and hit "greek version" and see what the word was. "Arche"=empire (when dealing with governments). Andocides' speeches, Aeschylus' tragedies, Appian's histories, Atistotle's treatises, Aristophanes' comedies... and those are just the "A" authors!


I firmly believe that Arche does not mean Empire in Ancient Greek and to claim otherwise is incorrect. You say that you are correct and the dictionaries are not? Oh, except that it is the first word given for "Empire" and "Rule".


I venture that I can prove my position, can you? ~;) :stare:

Sarcasm
06-02-2005, 21:19
Leave it be man. He's not worth it.

Big_John
06-02-2005, 21:32
Leave it be man. He's not worth it.true. though i'd like to thank all the guys that contributed to the discussion. i, for one, learned a lot. :bow:

The Wizard
06-02-2005, 22:10
Indeed... I realized that halfway into a post spanning most of my window. Don't stress yourself out further because of pointless debate, David... it certainly isn't worth it.

Just to deliver my final words on this debate: 'arche' is something referring to power, certainly, as in the words 'oligarchy', 'monarchy', et cetera. Therefore a translation of 'Arche Seleukeia' as 'Power' or 'Dominion' of the Seleukids is quite appropriate. From there, the term 'Empire' can acceptably be taken as a translation. It is necessary to make it immediately translatable to the term usually used in English to refer to the Seleukids, and therefore to make it immediately understandable by those not so well versed in Greek as, for instance, Teleklos.



~Wiz

GoreBag
06-03-2005, 02:01
Etymologically, does "archeology" mean "the study of what came first"? I never thought about the term "arche" before I read through this thread.

Teleklos Archelaou
06-03-2005, 02:12
Etymologically, does "archeology" mean "the study of what came first"? I never thought about the term "arche" before I read through this thread.It actually is an ancient greek word! An archaiologos is a person who likes to deal with ancient things. An antiquary. Used first (that we know of) in Thucydides. People interested in the "story" of the "first" dudes. ~D

GoreBag
06-03-2005, 02:17
It actually is an ancient greek word! An archaiologos is a person who likes to deal with ancient things. An antiquary. Used first (that we know of) in Thucydides. People interested in the "story" of the "first" dudes. ~D

Right, so the study of what came first. Awesome. Then there's Arch-nemesis or arch-enemy...see what I mean? I never bothered to think of that little nuance of English before. How enlightening.

Teleklos Archelaou
06-03-2005, 02:27
Right, so the study of what came first. Awesome. Then there's Arch-nemesis or arch-enemy...see what I mean? I never bothered to think of that little nuance of English before. How enlightening.Yeah, in those words, the "arch" root is closer to the meaning of "chief" or "primary", but it is still the same greek root. One of my favorite courses to teach is one on the Greek and Latin Roots of English. For non-latin or greek students. A pretty easy course, but great for preparing for things like the SAT or GRE or whatever.

GoreBag
06-03-2005, 02:33
Yeah, in those words, the "arch" root is closer to the meaning of "chief" or "primary", but it is still the same greek root. One of my favorite courses to teach is one on the Greek and Latin Roots of English. For non-latin or greek students. A pretty easy course, but great for preparing for things like the SAT or GRE or whatever.

There's no chance I could take that by correspondence or anything crazy like that, is there? I love etymology.

Teleklos Archelaou
06-03-2005, 02:41
There's no chance I could take that by correspondence or anything crazy like that, is there? I love etymology.It would be super easy and perfect for a correspondence course, but I doubt anywhere has it like that. The school I'm at currently doesn't even offer it (they do a version for students with a medical interest, but that's not as fun for me). But when I was at Mizzou as a TA, it was a blast (they didn't do it by correspondence either unfortunately). I'll have to remember this though. It would be great to propose one day.

O_Stratigos
06-03-2005, 03:38
Despite all my efforts as just a layman to keep this a simple, humorous and polite conversation while trying to learn something, I've managed somehow to step on to some very touchy toes, and in response there are some things said that I found them to be quite unfair.
My late father once said that “we scholars, live by: τον μεν πλουτον πολλοι εμισησαν την δε δοχα ουδεις, die for: εν ειδα οτι ουδεν ειδα, and don’t mush care about: γιρασκω αει διδασκομενος, how sad if true..

I could go on and argue that, these sources point mainly towards the meaning already assumed, counter with sources of my own, that the explanation for the S is quite arbitrary etc, but from this position on, things might get a bit too ugly for my liking and I for one, if I cannot be a gentleman in what I participate I will not participate at all; and let me be clear, I am speaking strictly about my self here, in case someone decides to take things out of context again.

I apologize if I’ve offended or “pissed” anyone- I was merely bantering- please be assured that it was never my intention, as I’ve learned from a very early age to have the outmost respect for everyone in general and learned people in particular, and I also like to thank anyone who tried to help me understand a few things.

I can’t even begin to comprehend what it is that I wrote that warrants a response like “he is not worth it” and that I found such a derogatory remark to be quite shameful.
I can’t, somehow, bring my self to be angry about the vitriolic responses directed towards me; I can only say that I am quite disillusioned.

Now, I’ll let all you good people to get on with your excellent work, looking forward to its eventual release.

Farewell in peace,

O_Stratigos :bow:

Sarcasm
06-03-2005, 04:01
Maybe that was a bit over the top, I admit it. We've all been a little bit touchy these days, with all that's been going on.

However, you were constantly, brushing aside the opinion of 3 of our guys like they were unimformed, and are just making stuff up. You made a question, they answered, both were repeated a few times, and you still refuse to acknowledge that they might be right. You just keep asking for every insignificant detail (which they were still patient enough to answer, long after I would have lost my patience, if I were in their place).What more do you want?

You can hardly blame me for loosing my cool, when you keep "harassing" people that I've come to consider as friends.