My KH dilema

While I greatly enjoy playing the KH, something that constantly bugs me is expansion. I don't think they would be able to invade, occupy, and assimilate Macedonia so I can never do it without breaking my semi-historical house rules so if anyone wants to prove me otherwise, that would be awesome. I've been considering doing a migration campaign, so out of the following, which had a chance of achieving empire: Cyrene, Massalia, Rhodes, Syracuse, Bosphoran Kingdom, Taras. The reason Peramon isn't on the list is because they were more of a successor state military wise and other states like Byzantium, Karia (Hallicarnassus), Emporion, Kydonia, Trapezeus, and Sinope don't really seem like powers of any sort, but again, prove me wrong and that would be great.

While not being exactly historical, I think a case can be made for the Bosphoran Kingdom entering into an alliance with Trapezous and Sinope, a kind of Thallasokratia Euxinou (feel free to correct my bad attempts at Greek, which I DO NOT speak). I think the Greek city-states on the Black sea coasts would band together, given the ambitions of the Seleukidai and Pontics in the region, not to mention the Sauromatae.

Well, any input is appreciated. Also, that's a good idea about the Black Sea alliance.

Edit to this -

I had a long post here but I'll shorten it. I just started a new campaign as KH (i know, i start a new one every few days and never finish it) and migrated to Masillia. I ended up 80k in debt by the time i got there and use the auto_win cheat to take Sagesta and Emporion and build up a couple of things so i could get an income, but once you do it's a lot of fun.

You're in a very good position for trade with Carthage, Averni, Aedui and Rome, and all of your cities have ports practically right next to each other so land and sea trade is fantastic.

The best part i think though is the recruitment in Masillia. You can put in a type 2 government there and you can recruit celto-hellenic infantry, Masillian hoplites, Thureophoroi and Thorakitai. Cavalry recruitment is limited to Greek cavalry unfortunately so your cavalry will always be limited to medium cavalry as the absolute best, unless you go shopping further east for some heavy stuff.

I'd go with Masillia or Syracuse, but there's no reason why you can't go for Masillia and then conquer Syracuse and make it a type 4, that would be a lot of fun too.

Well, one thing you have to know is that the southern Hellenes where more like the Portugese during the years of Colonisation, meaning they had more interest in trade than in land. The northern Hellenes, like the Makedones, where more like the Spanish, who conquered vast lands and used the minerals and agriculture that was offered.

As such, maybe you have to consider building a trade-centered empire. Free the Hellenic poleis scattered around the Mesogeios like Syrakousai, Taras, Rhegion, Massalia, Emporion, Sinope, Trapezous and the two poleis of the Taurike Chersonesos. You can also start conquering coastals parts of Anatolia and maybe even all of Megale Hellas (Italy) after your empire becomes more 'imperialistic'.

In any way, the possibilities with the Koinon are endless and one of the most fun to play because of the possibility of RP.

Maion

Right, forget everything i said in my previous post. Get Syracuse. 3 reasons.

Reason 1 - https://img510.imageshack.us/img510/...ruitbl6.th.png

Reason 2 - extremely fertile land.

Reason 3 - Extremely large population and readily built up infrastructure.

Edit - That recruitment tree also includes, when you build the barracks that takes 12 turns, Thorakitai, heavy hoplites (same stats as Thorakitai except don't throw missiles) and an elite hoplite unit, 122 soldiers in the unit with amazing stats, and an elite cavalry too.

Although, Greek cavalry is still only mediocre, even when it is elite.

But if you want to migrate anywhere, Syracuse is a fine choice.

The trade empire sounds good but would the Greeks really have been able to unite under one city's leadership for such a period of time? Also, would Syracuse at the start date still have the potential of becoming a power? I have a few house rules for the KH as well. I only build the Agoge type 1 government in Sparte, Kydonia, and Demetrios (but I never conquer Demetrios due to my whole invading Macedonia shouldn't happedn thing). I think it would be easier to me if there was a unified faction such as a city or state that grew into an empire, not a confederation. A role playing problem I have is simulating a city's hegemony because most if not all troops besides native mercs and levies would have to be supplied by the mother city. So if I was playing Athens or Syracuse, then all troops must be trained at the mother city but retrained anywhere else.

Simulating another factions independence is easy. Build a type 4 government, make a governor, then recruit troops from that city under an allied general recruited from said city.

Example. Conquer Syracuse, put in a type 2 government which is the highest one you can. Conquer Lilibeo and make it a type 4. Recruit a governor, build the auxiliary barracks, recruit troops from it, put them under an allied general and never have troops from that city led by anything other than an allied general recruited from that city.

According to the EB description also, Syracuse fielded the largest army of all the Greek city states and was extremely active militarily, politically and diplomatically at the period of EB, constantly at war with its neighbours in Sicily, even providing assistance to Rome when it was at war with Carthage.

Syracuse was well capable of becoming a power (an even greater power than it already was) during the period when EB starts, it just wasn't really as expansionist as other factions were, more happy with defending itself than expanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icydawgfish

The trade empire sounds good but would the Greeks really have been able to unite under one city's leadership for such a period of time?

---

Probably not, but one cannot completely reject the possibility. Certainly, it would be more possible that the alliance would shatter after their holdings where secure from the Makedonian threat, which means that RP-wise a player should focus on one polis and let the other(s) turn Eleutheroi. Then, he can build up his little 'empire' under leadership of the polis he chose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icydawgfish

Also, would Syracuse at the start date still have the potential of becoming a power?

---

Most certainly, yes. At that time, Syrakousai was one of the biggest cities in the Mediterranean, controlling many poleis in Sikelia and having a considerable influence in Magna Graecia as well. They also had a good military, as Syrakousai was maybe the first (or one of the first) poleis to actually organise and reform it's military in appropriate for the time fashion, as well as make usage of advanced siege warfare, as opposed to the rest of the great Hellenic poleis back in mainland Hellas.

Maion

Coalitions have lead to Kingdoms before...i think...

You could conquer Macedonia with the reasoning that you are reconquering land that once belonged to Greek states, and i think the Macedonians were dorian greeks but i am probably wrong...bringing greek reason to the world perhaps? Maybe make true greek settlements type 1/2/3 govs and all non greek lands client, then technically you only rule greek settlements then and have merely inforced dominace on your neighbours...:whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KozaK13

You could conquer Macedonia with the reasoning that you are reconquering land that once belonged to Greek states, and i think the Macedonians were dorian greeks but i am probably wrong...

---

Well, Macedonia never belonged to any southern Greek cities. The southern Greeks, as I stated before, where more interested in trading ports. In any maps of ancient Greece you find, you will see that only the coastal areas of Macedonia where controlled by southern Greek city-states.

As for Macedonians being Dorian Greeks, it is true. They where Greeks just like the rest (Athenians, Spartans, Thessalians, Epirotes), with the main reason of them regarded as 'barbaric' being the fact that they had too much contact with barbaric nations like the Thracians and Illyrians (resulting in the adoption of certain aspects of their culture and society), as well as their governmental system (monarchy, as opposed to the democracy or oligarchy of the city-states of the southern Greeks).

Maion

The quasi-feudal society probably didn't help much either, given how free peasantry has always tended to regard the arrangement. Anyway, since when did anyone ever really need much more than an opportunity and a really thin excuse to go put the boot in somebody else those days? IIRC the southern poleis had a rather lenghty history meddling in the Mac domestic politics, and good ole payback for getting conquered by Alex (didn't the southern Greeks revolt about the second they heard he was dead...?) and then repeatedly by the Antigonids should be quite enough of a grievance for a casus belli...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The quasi-feudal society probably didn't help much either, given how free peasantry has always tended to regard the arrangement.

---

Not necessarily. A feudal society fives peasants a sense of protection, plus let's not forget Macedonian societies where very xenophobic. At least a lot, preferring to work their own lands instead of having slaves do the work, not that they didn't have slaves of course. Now a 'free' democratic polis had more problems with it's inhabitants than an agricultural society, believe me. The expectations are always too high, you see. Plus, more clever people (ie intellectuals) always means a greater possibility of rebellion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

IIRC the southern poleis had a rather lenghty history meddling in the Mac domestic politics, and good ole payback for getting conquered by Alex (didn't the southern Greeks revolt about the second they heard he was dead...?)

---

Certainly the Hellenic poleis did interfere with Macedonian politics, mainly because of the timber that the region produced that interested the southern Hellenes. As you see, it's economic reasons again:tongue:

As for them rebelling, it's true. A free Hellenic polis had three main goals, with the most important of them all being Autonomy. No Autonomy equals no city-state. So whoever would conquer them, even their closest relatives ethnical-wise, they would revolt.

Maion

And what about Cyrene, Rhodes, Taras, Sparta, Athens, and Byzantium?

Well, various Hellenic poleis did attempt to run leagues or hegemonies all throughout Greek history, they just usually broke up at the first sign of trouble as there was little attempt to form an inclusive governmental structure by the dominant power. (ie Athens in the Delian League, Thebes in the Boetian etc). And yes Im aware that's a massive generalisation.

To form a successful empire it is essential that subject or allied peoples have some kind of involvement in the government process (eventually). For me this is the main reason for the success of Rome as opposed to the Greeks. Former enemy peoples became allies and in time were given the franchise and full voting rights. ie the Etruscans, Picentes, even - in the end - the Samnites. Whereas all too often with the Greek states former enemies remained enemies forever. The unfortunate history of Platea being a prime example.

However, I believe in an alternate history it is perfectly possible that a more inclusive approach might have evolved in one of these Greek leagues, and that it may even have extended beyond the boundaries of the classic Greek territories. Alexander was certainly showing glimmers of such wisdom before his death, for example, in adopting Persian customs and the infamous forced marriages of his troops to the local ladies. As his influences and teachers were largely Greek you can definitely make a case that a future Empire might adopt the same principles.

Even if the Greek character tended to define itself by creating differences between one place and the next and consequently adopted a little island mentality even in large cities, the dream of a united Greece remained sufficiently alive that you could role play a KH expansionist empire IMO. It just needs someone with the vision of Pericles to take control.

Incidentally, Thessally had a long history of independence and close involvement with the southern poleis. Taking Demetrias and setting up a class 4 government would be entirely historical - again IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

Not necessarily. A feudal society fives peasants a sense of protection, plus let's not forget Macedonian societies where very xenophobic. At least a lot, preferring to work their own lands instead of having slaves do the work, not that they didn't have slaves of course.

---

Erm, yeah. AFAIK while they generally put up with it well enough (as long as the barons weren't total assholes), feudal peasantry rarely if ever actually much liked the arrangement. It did after all rather directly put them under the thumb of the aristocracy, nevermind now if outright serfdom was involved (dunno if it was in the Macs' case).
However, the point is more how the "agrarian middle class" that more or less dominated the society and culture of the southern poleis viewed the matter; and AFAIK free, nevermind landowning, peasantry (which the old "hoplite class" was) has always tended to seriously abhor feudalism.

Quote:

---

Now a 'free' democratic polis had more problems with it's inhabitants than an agricultural society, believe me. The expectations are always too high, you see.

---

The last I heard the southern poleis were pretty agrarian too (the old hoplites were basically upper peasantry), but anyway. Please extrapolate.

Quote:

---

Plus, more clever people (ie intellectuals) always means a greater possibility of rebellion.

---

Wut ? Ever heard of peasant revolts ? More educati just means more in the way of weird new ideas potentially troublesome for rulers, not that the populace is actually interested in overthrowing the current regime (doubly so, obviously, if the polis in question happens to be under sufficiently democratic management that said populace - or the parts of it of any real consequence anyway - are that regime...). The latter requires sufficient dissatisfication with the current situation, and relatively prosperous independent peasantry and burghers tend to on the whole be a more content bunch than the normally baseline grumbling feudal tenants. (The hoi polloi of the underclass, being of little martial, economical and hence political weight, naturally don't count for much here...)

Quote:

---

Certainly the Hellenic poleis did interfere with Macedonian politics, mainly because of the timber that the region produced that interested the southern Hellenes. As you see, it's economic reasons again:tongue:

---

My point exactly. The motivation is there already, all that is required is the ability to actually act on it. Suitable handwave excuses to legitimise the matter should not be too hard to come by, doubly so given the unfriendly relations between the Macs and the southern cities since Philip's days...

Quote:

---

As for them rebelling, it's true. A free Hellenic polis had three main goals, with the most important of them all being Autonomy. No Autonomy equals no city-state. So whoever would conquer them, even their closest relatives ethnical-wise, they would revolt.

---

Right. And since the Antigonids had for a while been more or less the major threat to that autonomy as a whole, in the case of the poleis managing to stick together for fun & profit (the assumption made in EB) and actually mustering enough power to have a genuine shot at removing that threat more or less for good (a necessary precondition for the OP's concern to matter)...

Stick the place under type 3 or 4 gov't to represent installing reasonably sympathetic puppet regimes and client-kings or something. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch of credibility, that - didn't the more powerful poleis commonly do something similar all over the place during their heydays, anyway ?

It would be great fun to do a migration to Rhegion! As far is i know it was an greek colonial settlement. It wouldn't be to hard to conquer Syracuse from there and you have an great trading empire in which you can trade with Qart-Hadast and Roma

Has anyone tried a similar thing with the Arverni/Aedui with Galatia?

I often time see Galatia rebel to the Averni and I'll support them by giving them money or using FD to make sure they keep it. Anywho, wasn't Region a subjugated by the Romans that happened to be rebelling at the time?

@ Watchman: Since we aren't disagreeing with anything, I won't go as far as answering to everything you stated. The only thing I'll say is about the intellectual-thingie I mentioned. It's not the intellectuals that rebel, but they are the ones that give them the ideas. Anyway, since you said pretty much the same, I don't think there is any point in saying this at all.

Maion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icydawgfish

Anywho, wasn't Region a subjugated by the Romans that happened to be rebelling at the time?

---

IIRC the Roman army was supposed to protect Rhegion, but instead decided to take over and start for themselves. This is one of the few instances I know of that a Roman general turns his back on the Republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

IIRC the Roman army was supposed to protect Rhegion, but instead decided to take over and start for themselves. This is one of the few instances I know of that a Roman general turns his back on the Republic.

---

Er Civil wars and dictatorships? Though i suppose they all claimed to be defending the republic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KozaK13

Er Civil wars and dictatorships? Though i suppose they all claimed to be defending the republic...

---

Indeed. Roman generals rarely joined other factions or set up their own kingdoms. They always wanted to be part of the Republic, although several of them did want to change the nature of that Republic.