Printable View
The only factions whose histories I am overly familiar with are Rome and Carthage. I was planning on using force diplomacy to manage Roman expansion until they reached my borders, but I was wondering if anyone had any knowledge of what would have happened war wise and expansion wise had things gone well for them i.e. they won the Syrian Wars. It's like creating an alternate history but I'm not overly familiar with their histories.
Conquer Ptolemies.
Consolidate eastern territories/subjugate Baktria/Pahlava/India.
Conquer/subjugate the whole of Anatolia, everything south of Caucasus mountains, and possible Arabia.
Conquer the "Homeland", ie Makedonia/Hellas.
Focus on consolidating borders, build up trade, diplomatic relations and infrastructure.
Be the world power for a few centuries, defeating a few (nomad, in this case) migrations.
Have a civil war or two.
Have your economy start to weaken and your currency lose values, partly because of using less valuable materials to mint them (in order to have more money made to fund your empire's undertakings).
Have another migration, which you struggle with defeating, and perhaps a civil war with a similar scenario, too (at least either one of them).
Have some parts of your empire do better than others, leading to growing dissatisfaction in the general populace of your empire.
Have your empire split into several parts, ruled by your sons, to able them to be better defended...
:egypt:
Edit: Oh, and I don't know nothing, just some speculation based on very little amount of actual information. 8D
If you, as the Seleucids, want to face off against Rome in a somewhat historical manner, you could mirror the situation as it was leading up to Thermoplylae and Magnesia in 190 B.C.
Antiochus III had just about united the all the free Greek cities along the western edge of Asia Minor under the Seleucid sphere of control (not Pergamon), and even the ones on the southern edge that originally belonged to the Ptolemies. Antiochus III then set his sights on the European Hellenistic possessions. He and Philip V were both on good terms with each other and created an anti-Roman alliance of sorts. In Greece we find the Romans as so called 'champions' of Greek independence and wanted to keep the Greeks free as a buffer state you can say. However, Antiochus III claimed rights to the Thracian regions from Seleucus I Nicator's defeat of Lysimachus who originally held the Thracian areas.
So if you can have the Macedonians to ally with you, and lay claim to Thracian areas. You can pretend Hannibal is in your court as well, since he was a guest in Antiochus' court, but it *might* have been a mistake that Antichous III did not listen to him nor give him command/generalship of a Seleucid army. Or if you have a skill at modding, create Hannibal as a Seleucid general (that would rock!). :applause:
Historically, when Antiochus went into Greece, he had only about 10,000 infantry, 600 cavalry, and 6 elephants (not a big force). Antiochus III was defeated at Thermoplylae by the Romans. If you want to further follow history, retreat back to the west coast of Asia Minor south of Pergamon. Try and provoke a Roman attack into Asia Minor (how? I do not know). Maybe the A.I. will send a full stack Polybian army into western Asia Minor. Have a full stack as well and if your lucky you can have another Magnesia maybe.
Anyway, forced diplomacy might be able to pull off something close to this historical situation. Good luck,
Hmmm, I'll try that but I'll admit that doing this is much easier with the Carthies because you can fight the Punic Wars, but opposite. Any more suggestions are welcome as I want to get the best out of my campaign and I'm sure any other Seleucid fan could use this too. Btw, rough time lines are nice.
I'd say the way you're Seleucid campaign will get unrealistic is when you handle your enemies much better than the real Seleucids did. Try fx merely holding on to your current territory instead of expanding - fx in Asia Minor, the Levant and the East, the Seleucids don't actually START strong, but they start capable of soon BECOMING strong. I haven't tried it, but if you choose merely to keep Ipsos, Mazaka and Sardis, you'll prolly have far more problems in Asia Minor once Macedon and Pontus get going, than you'd have if you used your advantage of bigger starting position and expanded rapidly. The same on the other fronts - instead of quickly beating the Ptolemies, try letting them go into the offensive and ignore your chance of kicking them down into Egypt during the first couple of turns.
Usually players will win Asia Minor and the Asian coasts very quickly, and then they'll be unbeatable, and their empire will grow large and prosporous where the real Seleucid empire withered. If you stay on the defensive, however, I GUESS your initial advantages of size will diminish and you'd be able to live out a more realistic Seleucid kingdom - one which is veering towards destruction at all times. I dunno if you could use that, but 'we're slowly falling apart'-roleplaying may be more fascinating than total victory. I for one think I like the Seleucids so much, because theirs is a tragic tale of a kingdom that got so caught up in hellenic wars that it never got a chance of properly subduing its vast areas.
Once you really get you're empire into decline, it could be fun trying to save it.
Well I was hoping on having a semi-successful what-if campaign.
sounds like the course of the roman empire form the 3rd century AD onwards..:clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by The General
Yes, that is the principle of my seleucid aar, too (though i have not arrived at falling apart, yet). :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by artaxerxes
You could try to complete Alexander's plans before he died. He planned to take Arabia and gave orders for a fleet to be built to attack Carthage and the greek colonies from Sicily and Southern Italy.
I'll take the opportunity to ask some questions in this thread about how to roleplay the Selecuids with a historical fashion. Some questions that I have been thinking of for a while:
- How did the Seleucid Empire name the sucessor of the Basileus. By birthright? Military Might? Political Might? Etc?
- To what extent was the local aristocracy incorporated into the empire? In the game it is possible for different locals to marry into the royal family (Checking their "Ethnic Trait" etc.) but what about the other nobles? Were they used in the army? As advisors? I don't find it too hard to belive that for example Babylonian scholars would be used as scribes/accountants etc. But then again, the Hellens were a little elitistic, weren't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socy
Well, although I don't know the answer to the first question, from the ethnic trait descriptions, it sounds like the Selucids made use of whoever they could get, but they trusted some more than others (ie, Babylonians and Persians were good, Armenians bear watching). In fact, the Selucid ruling family themselves are described as Heterogenes, so it's not likely that they'd be as elitist as the Hellenes.
That point aside, one of my favorite parts of playing the Selucids is the different ethnicities the generals can have. :2thumbsup:
I think i can answer the first question (at least before it gets confusing at the end of the empire): by birthright. All kings (with little exception) were descendants of Seleukos or claimed to be so and i think mostly the first born became the next king, although there were sometimes internal conflicts.
The temple description did seem to make it sound like a state-cult had formed around Seleukos, so it'd definately make sense that everyone claimed to be his descendant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lysimachos