Kralizec
12-26-2005, 20:43
Historicly, Ptolemaic Egypt initially relied on its Greek subjects to fight. After a while though, they weren't able to adress their military needs with the sparse Greek population in their lands (IIRC they lost their Greek holdings in Asia minor, cutting them off from a major recruitment base). After that they started to rely heavily on mercenaries, and in case of emergencies they trained Egyptian natives as phalangites, the so called Machimachoi. They did so sparingly though, because they distrusted them and for good reason for they had a tendency to revolt.
My question: how is EB going to portray this? Just increased cost for pezetairoi and hetairoi for the Ptolemies? That would lead to the weird scenario when they conquer Asia Minor, Greece and other places where Greeks lived, they're still penalised...
Or the reverse: if the Seleucids conquer the nile coasts, and start to raise Greek troops there despite the fact that there never were enough Greek settlers there for military service.
Is there going to be a "Greek recource" similar to elephants that limits the provinces where you can recruit pezetairoi, peltasts and other Greek units? Or is this solved differently?
My question: how is EB going to portray this? Just increased cost for pezetairoi and hetairoi for the Ptolemies? That would lead to the weird scenario when they conquer Asia Minor, Greece and other places where Greeks lived, they're still penalised...
Or the reverse: if the Seleucids conquer the nile coasts, and start to raise Greek troops there despite the fact that there never were enough Greek settlers there for military service.
Is there going to be a "Greek recource" similar to elephants that limits the provinces where you can recruit pezetairoi, peltasts and other Greek units? Or is this solved differently?