Printable View
text deleted
(moderator note: this thread was two years old, and the old ones have been split off as their own separate thread now, but the new posts can continue. Just keep in mind the poll is ancient and we considered many other options after it was posted - it was the very first considerations we had on the subject.)
we should aim for something that is based on the historical reality c. 270 BC. At this time the Aetolian League was largely limited to Aetolia (option 1 – Aetolia). The Achaean League was a new, small, and relatively weak alliance of 4-10 city states in Achaea, and would require the creation of a new province in the Northern Pelopponese to appear in the mod.
Well, I have chosen EB among all other mods for the purpose of fidelity to history and I think somehow the situation described above should be portraited. How ?
- There could be 2 minor factions in war with each other - as it was sometimes - and prone to swear allegiance to neighbor bigger powers.
- They could appear as rebels with more than one city each. That means Koinon Hellenion or greeks wiped out as powers. But if Lusitania is represented I guess Achaean Ligue should be also.
I was intrigued by the Epirus options, especially wherein they are in control of Syracuse because when I play as the factions throughout Greece I rarely find any desire to travel all the way past italy to attack Syracuse, even though it was supposed to be a very important city.
What would the other successor state be?
chemchok was the proposer of the Chremonidean League alliance I believe. This poll and these propositions were earlier attempts to figure out what the faction would look like. We definitely can't pull another faction out of a hat now. The league we depict is not fantasy - just read up on the faction history on the website. These poleis allied together to oppose the macedonians, and had a lot of support from the Ptolemies too. We definitely aren't getting rid of the Chremonidean alliance setup at this point and the main reason is because it *did* exist and did ally these poleis together at this time.
This thread is fun to look at though. This had to have been made before the team went to the hidden forum and seems like the very first attempt to figure out what they were going to do with the mod.
edit: I'm actually translating this section of Pausanias right now - here is the start of his account in the new Teleklos translation of the passage :grin:
3.6
[4] While Areus the son of Akrotatos was king in Sparta, Antigonos the son of Demetrios attacked Athens with an army and ships. To help the Athenians an Egyptian force came under Patroklos, and the Lakedaimonians came with every citizen, putting king Areus in charge of the expedition. [5] Antigonos blockaded Athens and barred the allies of the Athenians from entering the city. Sending messengers, Patroklos urged the Lakedaimonians and Areus to begin a battle against Antigonos...
Just as a heads up for those who don't notice, this thread is roughly 2.5 years old. The mod is very different in early 2007 than it was in late 2004, so everything before Brazidas' post today is rather dated.
Brazidas, we are currently at the faction limit so we can't add two minor factions. The Koinon Hellenon, Epeirotes, and Makedonians are our finalized Western Greek factions for EB; we are at a point where we can't really change that. There may be the opportunity to do such a thing with EB2, which will use the M2TW engine and has roughly 10 more faction slots.
I don't think that the issue is whether there is any historical basis for the Chremonidean League as early as 272 or not, but whether this is the best available 'Faction' in RTW terms. Obviously Chremonides was alive and politically active 5 years before his war, and I'm sure that he was trying to drum up anti-Makedon support in 272, but he had not yet succeeded, and I think that in modern terms Chremonides served mostly as a proxy for Ptolemy's and Arsinoe's ambitions: certainly the 'league' didn't survive long without Egyptian support, and the historical record doesn't suggest to me that Sparta and Athens could reasonably be imagined to have been likely to develop close enough bonds to allow for imperialist expansion. On the contrary, the individual cities and various leagues were at such cross purposes as to facilitate the eventual Roman takeover. Whatever else you call it, I don't think that that qualifies as a faction.
The question is begged: what defines a faction? There seem to be a couple of different types;
Straightforward Sucessor Monarchies (Ptolemy, Seleucids, Antigonids,
Epirus(slightly special case) ); Attalids have been left out because of limits.
Imperialist Republics with strong central governments (Rome, Carthage);
Closely Grouped Tribal Federations (Averni, Adui, Sweboz, Casse, Lusotannan);
Smaller Monarchical States ( Pontos, Saba );
Nomadic Tribal Groups ( Saka-Rauka, Sauromatae );
Precursors of Groups that would fully emerge later ( Getai, Baktria, Pahlava, Haydasan )
The 'Koinon Hellenon' doesn't in my view fit into any of these categories. Bear in mind that I have no argument with the precursor factions like Baktria- even though the Baktrian Kingdom as such did not quite exist yet in 272- because given the limits of the RTW engine, I think that in this (Baktria et al) case the team have done the best possible job to represent the world in 272 BCE and allow for its development.
My objection to the KH is that I cannot bring myself to believe that a Spartan-Athenian-Rhodian Alliance could a. ever have held together for longer than a few years and b. done anything more than maintain a precarious independence from Makedonia. Of course, in the event they didn't even do that.
Another problem is that the KH faction, as it stands in EB, seems to me to really be a Spartan Hegemony faction, and not a federal league. The faction leader is Spartan and the highest government available is the Spartan Agoge. Granted, the RTW engine doesn't do politics and diplomacy very well, but in that case why not call the faction Sparta and be done with it? There are a lot of interesting possibilities with such a faction, including a place for "Kleomenes' Reforms" later on in the game. Also, I don't find playing the KH to be much of a challenge which is very counter-historical: the Greeks should have a very hard row to hoe indeed.
The ahistoricity of the EB KH bothers me enough that I have had to stop playing it and move on to the Getai (they rock!). I have to be able to believe that the 'Faction' I'm playing could really have achieved the victory conditions set out for it, otherwise the roleplaying element that makes EB one of the best PC games ever is lost. I cannot see EB KH ever reclaiming the Greek world in that way- internal stresses, which RTW cannot model, would have pulled it apart long before any kind of Empire of the Greeks was achieved.
I do think that there are some solutions available, assuming that there has to be a Greek faction at all.
1.) Change the KH into the Aetolian League, with one city (Thermon, of course). The history of that league seems tailor made for an EB faction, and of course it did really exist in 272 BCE. In this model Sparta, Athens and Rhodes become rebel cities (with good armies). The gov types would have to be redone, but, I think, not much else. This would really be more accurate, and more of a challenge.
2.) Same as 1 but pick Syracuse instead of the Aetolians. This could be even more fun, and I think that either choice would have a better impact on AI development.
3.) Modify the existing KH- take away Rhodes for sure, Athens probably and rename it the Spartan Kingdom. You could script in a League Event or various Reforms. This way you can keep all of the gov types etc. and make the faction more interesting to play. Make 'em work hard for their league!
A final thought- there was indeed a Pan-hellenic League in existance all throughout this period, although it never included Sparta, as it was the proxy league of the Antigonid Kings. It seems to me more than a little ironic that EBs Independant Greek Faction has the same name as those quislings.
Would it make sense for Sinope or Trapezous or Emporion to join Aitolia all of a sudden? We aren't dealing with theory only here, but a game engine that has a lot of odd and interesting but also restrictive things in it. Having this Chremonidean alliance also allows for a much more reasonable experience in respect to things like that.
If the Aitolian league were the one in the game, there would be no unit of spartiates recruitable, and one big new thing we have for the next build that we haven't revealed yet would have to be thrown out as well. The govt systems would have to be redone for sure - at least the top two forms. We probably would not have quite as many ethnicities either, though some would creep in for sure, but the KH form lets us have lots of different ethnicities.
I wouldn't argue that it is likely that the alliance would have held together for good or for a century or anything like that, because it didn't, but it's possible, and given the situation in the first ten years of our mod's existence, it's a good setup for us to base the faction in. It is also unlikely that the Baktrian empire once it has grown much in size would have split apart too as it did quite often, but if we are going to get rid of all factions who did not hold together large empires in reality througout our mod's timeframe, then we will have to chuck out a lot of them. If our mod started ten years later also, we probably would not have this starting situation with the greeks though, I would definitely concede that.
I really like this idea. I Personally would like to see a purley spartan Kingdom. Playing as KH is pretty much like being them anyway only with two other states. I feel that their starting position is a little easy too as I've started several campaigns with them and never had much trouble steam rolling the Maks. It has been close sometimes, but never any real setbacks. I think having a Spartan Kingdom with a medium sized starting army would be really cool, plus I don't want to lose the spartan units I think they are one of the most awesome greek units and as TA hinted at something new for the spartan system I think this path should be taken. It does sound a little impossible for the KH's alliance to survive for as long as an EB campaign takes. Added to that role playing the Spartans as re-establishing their military dominance throughout the region is just plain badass!!~:pimp:Quote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos
No doubt that that would attract many more than just some few fans to play with them (and consequentially, to download the mod). It would be a splendid faction for doing marketing.Quote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos
Alas! Many units should be redone to do just that...
OMG I never knew this was that old...
Having the eperots and Greeks together would free up one faction slot for another faction.
I think the KH present a unique challenge, but I don't think its challenging enough.
I would really like to see a more attritional and drawn out war with the Maks but that never seems to precipitate. Once you destroy their one big army in the south, they're broken and you win Thessaly and Pella.
It would be interesting to script KH civil war between the Spartans and everyone else when the Maks are destroyed. The real thing that I don't like about the KH is how unified it is. Historically the Greek Cities banded together only when they wanted to fight a common enemy - then they would go back to interncine squabbling.
This is an interesting discussion, but IMHO I don't think the mod's pourpose is to replicate history exactly as it happened....In that case the replayability of the mod would be considerably reduce...because after all,history "happened" in only one way (another thing is the different interpretations of facts). Also in order to replay history you would have to lose on pourpose when your time to pass away as a nation/empire comes...(Imagine Carthage players...ok game's over...time to lose the third punic war)
I think the point of the mod is reproduce the CONDITIONS of the time (within the engine limitations) and let us players recreate some scenarios with a "What if" approach...so, in this case it would be "what could have happened if a Spartan-Athenian-Rhodian Alliance COULD HAVE held together"
just my 2 cents anyway.
Please! Thats an awful thing to say. Hayasdan was a fully fledged kingdom, who had defied the Seleucid Empire and got away with it. I'll have to work harder to change that perception.Quote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos
Foot
Just out of curiosity, what was their status during Acheamenid times ? A satrapy, some sort of autonomous allied realm, or something entirely different ?
In their faction description, it states that it was a satrapy...
EDIT: Found it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EB
The lazy man is grateful. :bow:
OT, but didn't the king of Armenia die at Gaugamela, even as Darius ran away? Fighting more as allies and friends of Persia rather than subjects?
Its a bit iffy as to whether he died or not, but I'm not entirely acquainted with the dispute. Of interest is that Darius III Codomannus was, before he was called to duty as Persian King, the satrap of Armenia for sometime, interrupting the Orontid dynasty (Yervanduni). It was Orontes II (Yervand) who is said to have died at Gaugamela. There are certainly some interesting articles on this subject, particularly the more important one of whether Hayasdan was a true satrapy to Alexander (Hammond even argues that some of Alexander's troops were campaigning in Hayasdan). In contradiction to that seems to be the evidence that after sending Mithrenes, a persian (perhaps even the son of Orontes II (Yervand)), to be Satrap of Armenia the greeks later sent one of their own, who ruled for a year before he was ousted and Mithrenes placed back in power. Doesn't sound to Satrapy to me, though knowing the Orontids (Yervanduni), they often rebelled against their so called masters and got away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Foot
The geography might of had something to do with that.
might've had a lot to do with it.
OK how about this for KH:
Why can't u script events which causes the leage to break appart? And forces you (as Sparta for example) to exert your City's hegemony over the other Greek cities. IF you take too long, then Anthens and Rhodes will start to carve thier own empires.
Sparta at that time was too weak to do this. If somethin g similar was done it should be Athens.
Yes, that is the other problem - as an alliance it is strong enough to justify a faction, but I would feel pretty certain that they would not merit a faction themselves. It's really tempting to put the Agiad king of Sparta for 272 in also though. I've been pondering that possible addition.