The Witch, Chivalry, Princess, Dread and the Ancient World

I am sorry if some of my questions and points have already been raised or answered or if I missed part of the FAQ but here goes.

1. Chivalry and Dread in the Ancient World really seem like anachronisms, are they being used/what is the logic behind them? The most glaring example is the Romani, would chivalry be gained by Aemilianus sacking Carthage? Would dread be gained by an indulgent Senator of the Late Republic who lead the way in abandoning traditional Roman Child Abuse? The concept of Chivalry is even more laughable for another example (Pontus) does killing 80,000 Italians make you a chivalric knight? (Mithradates is stil remembered as a great man in some cultures).

2. While the Witch is a clearly fantasy element of Medieval Total War 2 is it possible to make her a trainable agent? If so I could very easily see her having uses from every culture. The Witch leaves negative traits as she gains magic and stays in provinces, what universally acceptable ancient job did that? This isn't a smut idea, I am just pointing out that prostitution was an acceptable job, that could gain a woman a very large amount of money that in some of the cultures could be used to buy estates and other things that would make her wealthy for life (the notorious Lucius Cornelius Sulla owed his money and so his entire career to one such woman who left him her property in will). I could very easily see this agent being the Hetaira or the Camp Follower or even Poisoner.

3. The Princess as she is now doesn't work for some cultures (especially Romani) but would it be possible to modify her to look after the House instead of marriage? like the witch as a Camp Follower this isn't what it sounds like. Private life included running estates, managing the property, running large corporations (i.e. shipping), buying and selling goods that dominated the ancient world (i.e. Wool, Foodstuff, animals etc etc) and actually making the money. Leaving such "housework" in the hands of women was actually a universal part of the ancient world. The only function that resembles running the house is the Merchant, so would it be possible for princess to be Merchants instead of diplomats? The reason being women had no part in diplomacy, but did play the major part in business for most upper class families represented by Europe Barbarorum (well maybe not the captains).

I really, really, really, really want princesses in the game, though. Political marriages were one the primary things that made M2TW so amusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

I really, really, really, really want princesses in the game, though. Political marriages were one the primary things that made M2TW so amusing.

---

They would have to be disabled for quite a few factions tough...

2. What about the original role? Think about the unrest in Upper Egypt during the middle Ptolemaic Period. Local priesthoods trying to declare new pharaoh's like Ankhwennefer. But perhaps this is too faction specific. EDIT: Nvm, heretics can fulfill that role if needed.

~Fluvius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

I really, really, really, really want princesses in the game, though. Political marriages were one the primary things that made M2TW so amusing.

---

:yes: that would make things fun. but, there's only one Roman Faction, and most Roman Women aren't that charming

I appreciate your are trying to give these agents a role in the game, but aren't your suggestions for princesses and witches stretching it? These are not things the state would concern itself with. Also: someone with more modding knowledge may correct me on this, but I don't think we can change the abilities of a certain agent type.

I agree with your arguments against dread and chivalry, but couldn't this be solved by a simple rename? "Cruel ruler" and "kind ruler" are universal concepts.

It would be cool if you could use witches as scripted famous people(instead of ancillaries), get rid of the conversion factor(if they can convert to other than heretic then make them convert to specific civilization types like City-State), stick a biography and portrait on them, and some area-wide bonii via the script(check province where they are located, apply law/happiness/money bonii to city).

It would be cool to watch them move around so the world revolves around you slightly less.

Or you can make them something specific like the Egyptian one above or something like Jewish Zealots that screw up your PO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I agree with your arguments against dread and chivalry, but couldn't this be solved by a simple rename? "Cruel ruler" and "kind ruler" are universal concepts.

---

right Ludens...

Kind Ruler = Increase own morale is quite logic, you'll fought harder for a ruler that you love.... to protect him and even sacrifice your life so the society could be a better one with him survive...

but...

Cruel Ruler = decrease enemy morale?

Since religion, if I got it right, is been turned into different political types of government; the priests could be turned into philosophers, druids, zealots etc..
Depending on which faction they will "preach" their government, and may get particular traits and retinues which may increase their influence or turning them into "revolutionaries" (they will create unrest, in the end turning into "heretics", an example could be Epicureanism)...
Just an idea...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

right Ludens...

Kind Ruler = Increase own morale is quite logic, you'll fought harder for a ruler that you love.... to protect him and even sacrifice your life so the society could be a better one with him survive...

but...

Cruel Ruler = decrease enemy morale?

---

Well i think chivalry/dread could represent how the man approach his work, the dread type would be the "result at all costs" type, while the chivalry type would be the "concerned about the greater good" type.

So for example a governor who acts in a ruthless way and tax their people to death, would gain dread points. A governor who maintain people happy enough and build sewers, theathers etc. would gain chivalry points. In battle the dread type would be the general who is infamous for not taking prisoners and his extreme ways, while the chivalry general would be the honor-bound general that treat his enemies with respect.

I don´t know right now of names that could fit those things in antiquity, perhaps the stoic philoshopical types would be closer to chivalry than dread, maybe a good enough name could be "reputation", instead of "dread" and "chivalry". The reputation of the man would be what the public in general thinks of the man depending of what he has done in the past, so it can be either good (respect from his troops in battle, happy to be ruled by a kind governor) or evil (fear from enemy troops, fear from the people he governs over). I think something similar to that would be the a good option.

I've recently answered a similar question on TWC, but I want to point out that possibilities for modding the agents are very limited. We can reskin and rename them, but that is about it. There is not much that can be done to change how they operate, which means that aside from the Spy, Assassin and Diplomat, it is unlikely that any of the M2TW agents will appear in EBII: they just don't fit. We have some ideas about merchants, but it's not much of a priority.

Not even my solution? :[

:shame:I wish merchants could be tied into elephant recruiting like the suggestion I made a while back....I think it's impossible though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

Cruel Ruler = decrease enemy morale?

---

Ah, I forgot about the effect on morale. Shows how much M2:TW I have played. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

right Ludens...

Kind Ruler = Increase own morale is quite logic, you'll fought harder for a ruler that you love.... to protect him and even sacrifice your life so the society could be a better one with him survive...

but...

Cruel Ruler = decrease enemy morale?

---

I think there's no difference in your statement CW

so the chivalrous one is with "good virtous reputation", and the dread one is with "evil reputation", how about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

:shame:I wish merchants could be tied into elephant recruiting like the suggestion I made a while back....I think it's impossible though.

---

The only way that might be possible would be to make the elephants untrainable, make the elephant resource have -XXX money per turn simulating the cost of the elephants, and then use a script to generate an elephant unit in a city (capital perhaps?) for each turn this happens. Only issue would be if that script would be possible, and even then the AI would go nuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

so the chivalrous one is with "good virtous reputation", and the dread one is with "evil reputation", how about it?

---

My feeling is the mechanism is uitable for the EB era, its just a question of getting the semantics right.

Do we go with latin terms like "Just Ruler" and "Cruel Ruler" or can we find suitable Greek terms (as the most widespread and politically articulated culture in EB)? i don't know what Plato's terms for a good or just ruler were, maybe "Ideal Ruler"=chivalrous and "Drakonian Ruler"=cruel could serve as the suitable antonyms? That may be too Athen-ocentric but I doubt we have a more widely adopted political taxonomy: Roman political thought is primiive by comparison IIRC.

Were these distinctions articulated in other cultures? IIRC Cyrus the Great was almost universally admired by friend and foe for his justice and moderation. I imagine these qualities were admired in Celtic and Punic cuiltures as well, although not sure about the steppe people who seem to belong to the Mad Max school (of politics and philosophy...and economics...and warfare...and marital relations...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

... the Witch ... being the Hetaira or the Camp Follower or even Poisoner....

---

IIRC there's a recurrent theme of corrupting/seducing/influential women in Roman history. There's Kleopatra as denounced by the pro-Octavians (is she a Princess bribing away a general, or a witch giving him negative attributes?), Sophonisba seducing Syphax (thats straight Princess material there) and the role of Livia as interpreted by Robert Graves.

Perhaps theres a role for the witch agent repackaged as "powerful independent local queen/other female ruler" who may corrupt FMs who linger in her region, but thats a fairly Romano-centric view, I dunno if there is a similar recurrent theme in Greek history.

Both of the Artimisias of Caria lived before the EB period.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And furthermore, whats the collective term for Artemisias? A ram of Artemisias? A Mausoleum of Artemisias?

There are probably few influential women visible in Persian culture, and the one Celtic Queen I know of is post EB too (Boudicca).

Maybe "witchs rebranded as local female rulers" could add positive traits too? Didn't Alexander marry some local queen in Asia Minor?

I suppose I did stretch the limits of history by my agent suggestions (everyone loves the new agents), I thought about the fact that the state was not involved, but then again can't you use the logic that a princess is a member of the elite/royal family you are role playing, and that the new witch is prominent enough to know the royal family or elite? I do admit the connection to the state is an extreme stretch.

There is still the problem that you could be both in the ancient world. Somebody mentioned philosophy, but chivalry is generally measured by how you deal with the weak and powerless (philosophers despised and detested women and children, even at times when the law and social custom became liberal), and a great example of being a cruel and kind ruler at the same time is Marcus Aurelius.

On his German campaign he killed prisoners of war whenever confronted with food shortage, he purged all of Lucius Verus' freedman and slaves, his so called liberalization of family law which he is sometimes celebrated for did not extend to his own family, he persecuted Christians for unknown reasons, changed the law about searching a citizen's home so anyone pursuing a runaway slave could search any home (including a Senator's home), and the list goes on but fortunately not too much longer.

I didn't mention the good Marcus Aurelius did because everyone here knows that already, people here I think know the bad as well they just need to be reminded sometimes. My only point in bringing this up is to remind everyone that Kindly and Cruel often went hand in hand during ancient times. Perhaps unless the game hard codes it to the impossible there could be a cruelty and kindness bar that won't cancel each other out?

The problem is, that "good" or "bad" are quite relative and differ from culture to culture. What may seem cruel and evil to one is rational and prudent to the other. Also all successful ancient generals were cruel in one or the other instance. That's what made them efficient and victorious. The concept of Chivalry in war is a rather medieval one.

To support Oudy with an example. The Princess is unlikely to make it into EB2 because she is too powerful in one regard that cannot be modded. The Princess can, and very easily, "bribe" a general from another army away by marrying them. The princess agent is 'lost' but that is not an equal exchange for a multi-star general. No way could be found to remove this ability and thus, despite the importance of political marriages in antiquity, the princess is lost as an agent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tanit

To support Oudy with an example. The Princess is unlikely to make it into EB2 because she is too powerful in one regard that cannot be modded. The Princess can, and very easily, "bribe" a general from another army away by marrying them. The princess agent is 'lost' but that is not an equal exchange for a multi-star general. No way could be found to remove this ability and thus, despite the importance of political marriages in antiquity, the princess is lost as an agent.

---

excuse me, but I think there was some values in each general that made "mariage reversed" available, basically, that general will marry the princess, and still in his former faction. and when you are the one who own the princess, you'll got massage "marriage reserved!!!" telling that basically your princess really madly in love with that general and choose to join him instead....

*. But that will made most of the generals in EB 2 got "Handsome" line of traits... :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by machinor

The problem is, that "good" or "bad" are quite relative and differ from culture to culture. What may seem cruel and evil to one is rational and prudent to the other. ...

---

Yes there were varying standards across cultures. I would argue there were men whose behaviour garnered admiration across cultures but we are dealing with cultures across a broad spectrum in EB, from near-bronze-age nomads to near-modern city dwellers so I have to agree with you, it'll be tough to satisfy historical believability. TBH Chivalry/Dread fails the test in M2TW because I'm pretty sure the Byzantines didn't buy into that chivalry rubbish, they had a realistically negative view of war as a destructive neccesity, not a forum for glory acquisition IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by machinor

... The concept of Chivalry in war is a rather medieval one.

---

Certainly but is there at least a widespread concept of "the opposite of Cruel"?.

There is a recognised figure of the "Cruel Ruler/General" who is feared by his foes. Hannibal is such a one. I think theres also a recognised opposite, the Just Ruler although examples from the EB period are thinner on the ground. Cyrus the Great (too early though) certainly was viewed as such by Persians, Greeks, Jews and others. Of course he could be cruel but the aura of the man was that of a Just Ruler and that reputation probably benefited his rule (perhaps in a way modeled by the Chivalry attribute).

Likewise Phillip of Macedon (relevently close to our period) was selectively cruel and kind but his moderation toward Athens after Chaironea was an example of a leader accruing reputation (cynically? maybe) as a Just Ruler, which affected his rule in Greece.

I think Cruel Leadership is universally aknowledged as an effective leadership style (albeit with its own drawbacks) and should be a pathway open to FMs in EB2. Its how the "other way" is defined and named that will make or break the implementation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Septimus Severus

:yes: that would make things fun. but, there's only one Roman Faction, and most Roman Women aren't that charming

---

I definitely wasn't talking about the Romans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odisseyoyos

I've recently answered a similar question on TWC, but I want to point out that possibilities for modding the agents are very limited. We can reskin and rename them, but that is about it. There is not much that can be done to change how they operate, which means that aside from the Spy, Assassin and Diplomat, it is unlikely that any of the M2TW agents will appear in EBII: they just don't fit. We have some ideas about merchants, but it's not much of a priority.

---

If this be the case, then I assume all princesses will be "disabled" for the factions. It is very easy to enable princesses for factions; I've done it for the Muslim factions a few years back already.

You can also disable the ability to "seduce" generals entirely. So that need not be a reason to remove them. Although what purpose do they serve really? Several mods for MIITW have managed to "fix" diplomacy so that allies almost never declare war - and without the need for marriage alliances. Im sure EBII will be able to achieve the same. And apart from that, there would seem no point in princesses from a practical perspective.

I would hope actually that priests, inquisitors and heretics will not be in the mod either, as they can be totally abused by the human player. Culture change can be managed through other routes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by machinor

The problem is, that "good" or "bad" are quite relative and differ from culture to culture. What may seem cruel and evil to one is rational and prudent to the other. Also all successful ancient generals were cruel in one or the other instance. That's what made them efficient and victorious. The concept of Chivalry in war is a rather medieval one.

---

Perhaps but things like the purges I mentioned were not considered good or even acceptable in Ancient Rome, and there is Marcus Aurelius commiting it. We rightly see Marcus Aurelius as good, but you can't get around the fact that he clearly had that cruelty and that the evil actions co-existed with the good ones, I also only mentioned the cruel acts of Marcus Aurelius that his own culture would detest.

In the Ancient World cruelty and kindness could and did coexist, Marcus Aurelius stands along with many other good emperors in proving that (remember the great purges of Augustus), Roman Republican Heroes, the one important Pontic Hero, many ancient Greek philosophers and leaders (especially Alexander the Great), Carthaginian Generals (i.e. Hannibal), Judean Leaders (The Book of Maccabi has a lot of cruelty in it from both sides), and the list goes on. There was no chivalric sense of once you torch a village you are a dreadful person, or that the slaughterer of every Gallic tribe and army can't gain a vast and positive reputation for clemency like Caesar did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

IIRC there's a recurrent theme of corrupting/seducing/influential women in Roman history. There's Kleopatra as denounced by the pro-Octavians (is she a Princess bribing away a general, or a witch giving him negative attributes?), Sophonisba seducing Syphax (thats straight Princess material there) and the role of Livia as interpreted by Robert Graves.

Perhaps theres a role for the witch agent repackaged as "powerful independent local queen/other female ruler" who may corrupt FMs who linger in her region, but thats a fairly Romano-centric view, I dunno if there is a similar recurrent theme in Greek history.

Both of the Artimisias of Caria lived before the EB period.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And furthermore, whats the collective term for Artemisias? A ram of Artemisias? A Mausoleum of Artemisias?

There are probably few influential women visible in Persian culture, and the one Celtic Queen I know of is post EB too (Boudicca).

Maybe "witchs rebranded as local female rulers" could add positive traits too? Didn't Alexander marry some local queen in Asia Minor?

---

That depends on what you mean by "important". However the Greek culture restricted all women including even Hetaira to at best invisible positions and often not even that, with Greeks you could role play that some of your characters are uxorius but that applies to all cultures.

Rome put women and freedman in a very similar position during the EB time period, but women and freedman both could get a large amount of independence and wealth.

There are influential women in every culture no matter what, in Persia there is the Jewish tradition although their holiday may originate to the period of Xerxes I'm not an expert in Jewish history.

I didn't like the dread/chivalry system of mtw2 because it seems a bit to "fantasy". I mean, can you tell me a historical ruler who had "10 chivalry" or "10 skulls of dread"? Some rulers were romantizised afterwards, but I think, like modern politicians, they had their ennemies and their allies within their society. And the impact of having a lot of chiv/dread is way to strong, enginewise...