Zenith Darksea
10-19-2007, 00:49
Hello all.
Yes, it's time for another annoying thread about the KH. I have to say that I very much like their presentation in EB 1.0, though I have to make a couple of entirely constructive comments concerning the nature of the faction and the government system. Naturally I have no idea what the government system will be like in the M2TW version, but here are some general ideas. I make these comments here since I realise that EB 1.0 is already far beyond this stage of planning. Do forgive the length and rambling nature of this post.
Now the model of the KH is a league of cities with Sparta as its hegemon, based on the Chremonidean alliance. Yet in EB 1.0 the homeland government type was not based on the model of a league, but on Sparta itself exporting its Agoge, with other league members represented by the expansion governments.
My suggestion is that it would be more appropriate to either keep the same general type of government system focused on Sparta but make the faction just Sparta (I know this sounds silly, but I'll deal with it at greater length shortly), or to keep the faction as the whole League but to make the government system more appropriate to a League, rather than just to Sparta.
So, what might a faction based around Sparta be like?
First off, it wouldn't mean cutting off Athens and Rhodes and leaving Sparta with just one starting province. The homeland resource would still be based around some kind of Laconicising Spartan government - on this point, I feel that if you do institute a Spartan Agoge then you ought to be able to train Spartan hoplites, though I don't think that the Spartans would necessarily export their Agoge (perhaps in alternative history they might though). Historically, when Sparta subdued another city the system seems to have been enslavement (as in the case of Messenia, though they do not seem to have considered extending this, and besides the helots had already been freed by 272), the imposition of a sympathetic oligarchy or a harmosteia. However, she could install oligarchies in any city, Dorian or not, and we can hardly have a harmosty in Sparta itself. It would seem then that an oligarchy would be a good type III government, and a harmosty a good type II.
In fact, in the case of Sparta being the faction, I would say that a good type I would perhaps be a Basilike Synoikia Spartiatike ('royal Spartan synoecism'). That way you emphasise the fact that Spartan is expanding into a Dorian homeland and consolidating it (and it represents Sparta itself too), but without introducing its own Agoge in an unrealistic way.
So, to summarise, the government types could be as follows:
Type I : Basilike Synoikia Spartiatike (Royal Spartan Synoecism)
Type II : Harmosteia Spartiatike (Spartan Harmosty)
Type III : Oligarchia Hypekoa (Subject Oligarchy)
Type IV : Polis Symmache Autonome (Allied Autonomous City)
But Athens and Rhodes shouldn't be left out of the picture - the player would start with these as well. This system would leave Athens and Rhodes starting with Type IV governments rather than Type II (though with the option to become harmosties/oligarchies) - perhaps this effect would not be preferable in terms of unit recruitment however.
But what if the faction were to be based entirely around the notion of the League?
The logical result of this should surely be that Sparta, while Hegemon, should not be the main factor in determining the League's 'homeland'. The homeland would become any city that would be a major player in the league potentially, while the subjugation (Type II) provinces would be those cities that were Hellenic but not important or central enough to have figured largely in the league's anti-Macedonian/Epirote strategy. This obviously changes the focus a lot - all of a sudden Athens, Rhodes and Sparta are all homeland provinces. So what kind of government might this focus produce? I would suggest:
Type I : Koinonia Hellenike (Hellenic Communion)
Type II : Klerouchia Panhellenike (Panhellenic Cleruchism)
Type III : Tyrannos Enchorios (Local Tyrant)
Type IV : Polis Symmache Autonome (Allied Autonomous City)
I have always seen (and I don't think I am alone in this) the role of the KH as realising the dream of Panhellenists such as Isocrates - though of course I do think that, if possible, the Greek cities in M2TW should fall out from time to time and maybe try to secede from the league. As such, instituting a Type I government would represent the act of integrating the government of a city into a larger league structure, while Type II would involve the league sending out settlers much in the manner of those who went to Thurii to conquered Hellenic cities that aren't important enough or relevant to the league's primary focus of uniting Hellas against Macedonia and Epirus.
One objection that I have heard to this is that there would be too many homeland provinces under this system - I disagree. Based on the campaign map of EB 1.0, I can think that only the following provinces would be homelands - Athenai, Sparte, Rhodos, Korinthos, Syrakousai, Taras, Thermon and Demetrias, a total of 8 cities (I don't include cities such as Chalkis or Mytilene that could be seen as being under a more important city's area of influence, such as Athens'). For comparison in EB 1.0 Epirus has about 7 homeland provinces, I think.
Conclusion
The Hellenic city states are always going to be difficult to represent as a faction. They would almost be best as rebel cities, but they really have to be shown in a playable form (and I wouldn't forgive you if you made them rebels!). As such, I think that you have to choose what your focus is to be. Is it one city and its allies (as in the case of the first option) or on the league as a whole (as in the second)? Personally I would be quite happy with either. Maybe the government system will be totally different in EB II; however, I think that the point of focus still stands.
I hope that, even if you disagree, you found this a worthwhile discussion point.
Yes, it's time for another annoying thread about the KH. I have to say that I very much like their presentation in EB 1.0, though I have to make a couple of entirely constructive comments concerning the nature of the faction and the government system. Naturally I have no idea what the government system will be like in the M2TW version, but here are some general ideas. I make these comments here since I realise that EB 1.0 is already far beyond this stage of planning. Do forgive the length and rambling nature of this post.
Now the model of the KH is a league of cities with Sparta as its hegemon, based on the Chremonidean alliance. Yet in EB 1.0 the homeland government type was not based on the model of a league, but on Sparta itself exporting its Agoge, with other league members represented by the expansion governments.
My suggestion is that it would be more appropriate to either keep the same general type of government system focused on Sparta but make the faction just Sparta (I know this sounds silly, but I'll deal with it at greater length shortly), or to keep the faction as the whole League but to make the government system more appropriate to a League, rather than just to Sparta.
So, what might a faction based around Sparta be like?
First off, it wouldn't mean cutting off Athens and Rhodes and leaving Sparta with just one starting province. The homeland resource would still be based around some kind of Laconicising Spartan government - on this point, I feel that if you do institute a Spartan Agoge then you ought to be able to train Spartan hoplites, though I don't think that the Spartans would necessarily export their Agoge (perhaps in alternative history they might though). Historically, when Sparta subdued another city the system seems to have been enslavement (as in the case of Messenia, though they do not seem to have considered extending this, and besides the helots had already been freed by 272), the imposition of a sympathetic oligarchy or a harmosteia. However, she could install oligarchies in any city, Dorian or not, and we can hardly have a harmosty in Sparta itself. It would seem then that an oligarchy would be a good type III government, and a harmosty a good type II.
In fact, in the case of Sparta being the faction, I would say that a good type I would perhaps be a Basilike Synoikia Spartiatike ('royal Spartan synoecism'). That way you emphasise the fact that Spartan is expanding into a Dorian homeland and consolidating it (and it represents Sparta itself too), but without introducing its own Agoge in an unrealistic way.
So, to summarise, the government types could be as follows:
Type I : Basilike Synoikia Spartiatike (Royal Spartan Synoecism)
Type II : Harmosteia Spartiatike (Spartan Harmosty)
Type III : Oligarchia Hypekoa (Subject Oligarchy)
Type IV : Polis Symmache Autonome (Allied Autonomous City)
But Athens and Rhodes shouldn't be left out of the picture - the player would start with these as well. This system would leave Athens and Rhodes starting with Type IV governments rather than Type II (though with the option to become harmosties/oligarchies) - perhaps this effect would not be preferable in terms of unit recruitment however.
But what if the faction were to be based entirely around the notion of the League?
The logical result of this should surely be that Sparta, while Hegemon, should not be the main factor in determining the League's 'homeland'. The homeland would become any city that would be a major player in the league potentially, while the subjugation (Type II) provinces would be those cities that were Hellenic but not important or central enough to have figured largely in the league's anti-Macedonian/Epirote strategy. This obviously changes the focus a lot - all of a sudden Athens, Rhodes and Sparta are all homeland provinces. So what kind of government might this focus produce? I would suggest:
Type I : Koinonia Hellenike (Hellenic Communion)
Type II : Klerouchia Panhellenike (Panhellenic Cleruchism)
Type III : Tyrannos Enchorios (Local Tyrant)
Type IV : Polis Symmache Autonome (Allied Autonomous City)
I have always seen (and I don't think I am alone in this) the role of the KH as realising the dream of Panhellenists such as Isocrates - though of course I do think that, if possible, the Greek cities in M2TW should fall out from time to time and maybe try to secede from the league. As such, instituting a Type I government would represent the act of integrating the government of a city into a larger league structure, while Type II would involve the league sending out settlers much in the manner of those who went to Thurii to conquered Hellenic cities that aren't important enough or relevant to the league's primary focus of uniting Hellas against Macedonia and Epirus.
One objection that I have heard to this is that there would be too many homeland provinces under this system - I disagree. Based on the campaign map of EB 1.0, I can think that only the following provinces would be homelands - Athenai, Sparte, Rhodos, Korinthos, Syrakousai, Taras, Thermon and Demetrias, a total of 8 cities (I don't include cities such as Chalkis or Mytilene that could be seen as being under a more important city's area of influence, such as Athens'). For comparison in EB 1.0 Epirus has about 7 homeland provinces, I think.
Conclusion
The Hellenic city states are always going to be difficult to represent as a faction. They would almost be best as rebel cities, but they really have to be shown in a playable form (and I wouldn't forgive you if you made them rebels!). As such, I think that you have to choose what your focus is to be. Is it one city and its allies (as in the case of the first option) or on the league as a whole (as in the second)? Personally I would be quite happy with either. Maybe the government system will be totally different in EB II; however, I think that the point of focus still stands.
I hope that, even if you disagree, you found this a worthwhile discussion point.