A Case for changing the names of Koinon Hellenon and Makedonia

This argument actually occurred to me while I was reading the thread on the Yuezhi, and how it seems that they are not going to make the final cut, primarily because they were not really around in 272 BC (or 482 AUC depending on who you ask:laugh4: ), even though they did appear later on in the period that RTW:EB covers. I was also deliriously happy that the 'Gauls' and 'Germans' were replaced by more convincing tribal confederations, and that instead of RTR's fictional Illyrians we have the Epirotes.

What I am now going to advocate is that the same excellent standards for faction inclusion be applied to the 'Koinon Hellenon' because no such entity ever existed. True there were various Pan-hellenic orators, but historically Hellenic Age Greece was never united in this way, particularly not in a faction that includes both Sparta and Athens!! The Chremonidean War which is invoked to lend legitimacy to this construct didn't even start until 267 BC- so the same doctrine that applies to the Yuezhi should apply here.

Happily there is a quick and easy solution- pick either the Achaean or Aetolian Leagues as your 'Greek Cities' faction.

The best, in my view, would be the Achean League. They had a fascinating character in Aratus of Sicyon who was a true faction leader from 271 BC until 213 BC (!), as well as the influential historian Polybius. We have a complete list of the League's Strategoi on which to base family members' names. They had a sophisticated political structure and a true spirit of independence and common cause that lasted for more than a hundred years (until crushed by the Romans). The Achaean League is truly one of history's great 'what if?' moments, very much like Phyrrus and his Epirotes. If they're in the game, Aratus should be as well. There is huge potential for expanding the historical script elements down the line and truly being immersed in the history.

Aside from changing the name of the faction, we have to consider its starting position. Sparta stayed mainly aloof from both of the leagues, so it shouldn't be in, but none of the Achaean cities are really on the campaign map. Corinth was not liberated from the Makedonians until much later than 272 BC, so as a compromise I suggest that the new faction 'Akhaia Sumpoliteia' start in possession of Athens and perhaps Thermon and be given a large field army under the command of Aratus, poised to attack Corinth. This is a compromise since Thermon would more likely have been in the Aetolian League, but I think that it would be too much work at this point to change the campaign map to include Sicyon and Megalopolis. :) Sparta should be a rebel faction under Araios I and Rhodes a rebel faction as well. It would be cool to leave the Spartan king on Crete but perhaps unfair as the AI would never bring him back to save his city. Once Sparta is conquered the Spartan units that I fervently hope are coming can be intergrated in the the Akhaian army.

Selah!

P.S. You really should change the name of the Makedonian faction to the Antigonids (Basileia Antigonia?)- the Seleucid and Ptolemies were as equally Macedonian (in their own minds) as the Antigonids or for that matter the Attalids in Pergamon (now there's someplace you could put another faction!). If you're gonna change 'Egypt' to 'Ptolemaioi' as indeed you should then truly the 'Makedonians' need a look as well.

Thanks for all the gaming joy- y'all rock. If you ever come to Dublin the pints are on me boyo!

Wow you really know your stuff.

Degree in classics from St' John's College, Annapolis Maryland.

I work as a chef though. Go figure.

Theres no justice eh? Anyways i think its a good idea, after all wasn't EB brought about to rectify historical inaccuracies?

Ahhh yes,finally someone who shares my point of view. I could never understand what the problem was with using one of the leagues to represent a united Greek cities. This has come up on RTR suggestions previously but was quashed for some reason. I do however like the representation that EB has chosen in some respects. For instance its generic enough to allow the incorporation of Rhodes, which to me is more than a rebel faction during this time period. The same could be argued of course for the cities of Syracuse and Pergamum, which by the way, hardcode limits aside I would love to play regardless of only having one province each.

Antigonid Kingdom? Absolutely. It seems a little lopsided as it is now with the other 2 successors named after their founding dynasties and the other named geographically. Lets remember too that factions in RTW arent tied to their capitals in any way, so you could forseeably have a situation where Macedonia is pushed sideways from its starting position, leading to a curious state of affairs where there exists a faction named Macedonia which isnt actually in Macedonia. lol

We had long discussions about names. We decided not to restrict a faction's name based upon how we referred to another faction. I suppose you'd all want us to change Iberia, Baktria, Epeiros also in addition to Makedonia. There are some factions that are more naturally associated with a place, some that are more naturally associated with the "people" themselves, and some more naturally associated with a rule. We aren't forcing some to behave like others when they aren't really like others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

Degree in classics from St' John's College, Annapolis Maryland.

I work as a chef though. Go figure.

---

I bet your food tastes... classic.

Wow that was the worst joke ever. :wall:

Teleklos has a good point regarding the name of Makedonia- even though the political faction represented in the game is more accurately the Antigonid dynasty, most historical work refers to it as Macedon (i.e the Macedonian Wars).

I still think that my point about the Koinon Hellenon is valid- that's not merely a question of nomenclature but a fictional construct that clashes with the authenticity of the rest of the game.

Love the game though. Please think about it- it wouldn'y be a very big change.

It would actually be a huge change (scrapping family members and traits and bios for starting family members and developing new ones, changing scripting placements of some buildings, changing diplomatic alignments, changing descriptions of the faction and of the faction history, dropping scripted forced-wars over Thermon, Sinope, etc., as these wouldn't apply to an Aitolian or Achaean faction), and believe me, we spent a lot of time discussing the potential ways to depict this faction. It all came down to the fact that if we tried to depict an Aitolian or Achaean league, it would bascially remove the faction from being considered as a separate faction in the game. An Achaean league is based mostly inside territory that it is clear Makedonia needs to control. We would have to carve out one small province in the corner of the Peloponnese to let them have a spot at all. Aitolian league would be just one province at Delphi (and wouldn't incorporate any of the big old cities that anyone cares about).

So we are talking about using one city state basically or using a grouping that we have clear information about just a few years later that amounts to an alliance of Sparta and Athens in alliance with Ptolemy (who also is closely supporting and allied with Rhodes) in addition to joint agreements with many other Greeks ("that the friendship and alliance of the Athenians with the Lacedaemonians and the Kings of the Lacedaemonians, and the Eleians and Achaeans and Tegeans and Mantineians and Orchomenians and Phialians and Kaphyans and as many of the Cretans as are in the alliance of the Lacedaemonians and Areus and the rest of the allies, be valid for all [time, the one which] the ambassadors bring with them").

The only problem with all of this is that the Chremonides decree itself (the official document) isn't put into law until a couple of years after our game starts. Current scholarly opinion on the decree is close to this (recent wording from a 2000 book on Aitolia at this time): "The year of the office of the archon, Peithidemos, by which this decree is dated has yet to be established with certainty. Possibilities range from 270 to 265; 268/7 seems the most likely. The exact date of the decree is less important, however, than the information it provides about the issues and actors involved in the conflict... Chremonides' proposal of an alliance between Athens and a group of Peloponnesian states headed by Sparta was only the last in a series of diplomatic moves that led to the creation of a formidable anti-Antigonid coalition on the southern mainland and in the islands sponsored by Ptolemaios II."

So we have many Greek cities including some very famous old ones that were allied with Ptolemaios and officially tied together by 268/7 (but maybe a little earlier than that), and were probably moving this way even a little earlier than that (the agreement didn't fall out of the sky upon them but instead was a reaction to what had been going on for most of the 270's). This is clearly the best option for 272 for us, and the internal vote wasn't even close on this issue. We don't call it the Chremodian Alliance or anything like that - but just an/the "Alliance of the Hellenes".

There is indeed a tiny similarity to the yuezhi issue here, I will admit. But that is an issue of more than a century difference, and here we are talking about the situation of common interests and ties that leads to (within 2 or 4 years) to an officially binding declaration. Even if the decree hasn't been announced yet, these states shared a common interest and did officially allign shortly after this, something which we are sure of. And us deciding to keep them like this isn't just stubornness. We've shown we are willing to scrap an entire faction when the evidence shows this is what we need to do.

(This doesn't even mention the fact that playing as Achaeans (not talking about the bronze age usage of the name as a pan-greek title) or Aitolians doesn't seem very exciting either, but that's just personal taste.)

Quote:

---

True there were various Pan-hellenic orators, but historically Hellenic Age Greece was never united in this way, particularly not in a faction that includes both Sparta and Athens!!

---

That's not actually true. Before the Chremondidean War, Chremonides had convinced Sparta to sign a treaty with Athens, with Ptolemy II as the third partner and sponsor, thanks to positive relations with Athens and all-around negative relations with Antigonos Gonatas. I honestly don't know how it was dated to 272, since to my knowledge the agreement came about only very shortly before Gonatas initiated hostilities in 267.

Edit: Guess Dave beat me to it, with a much more detailed description ~D

That said...

Quote:

---

Degree in classics from St' John's College, Annapolis Maryland.

---

I was onsidering applying myself, but the students/groups kind of came off as fruitcakes when I read about it. Would you recommend the classics and history program? Probably a stupid question from what I've read of the curriculum, but I have to ask ~D

Shucks. I see that you have indeed thought it through, which is all that I can ask- hope you're not mad or anything- it's just that I was dissapointed in the lack of attention to historical detail that runs through RTW vanilla and in my excitment at the seriousness of EB I thought, "Dammit, not another Greek Cities faction that means nothing!!"- But your points are well taken. Though I have to point out that Spartan-Athenian cooperation didn't last for long, and even Aratus called on the Maks to intercede against Sparta towards the end of his life. That'sthe problem with the Greeks- they couldn't stop fighting each other long enough to beat the Maks or the Romans.

Personal preferences do play a part as Polybius was always a hero of mine and through him I came to know of Aratus and the whole Achaean League, and the realization that Rome's rise to prominence from the Carthaginian Wars through the Macedonian Wars was anything but inevitable. I often wonder what our world would be like had Phyrrus not died in that alleyway or if a strong Panhellenic Greek Movement developed the concept of nationhood that the Romans had. For one thing I would never had studied all that Latin! I have played many campaigns in RTW and RTR (a very good mod) and my favourite faction is always the Greeks. The Romans are boring. Achaeans Rock!



Regarding St. John's College- haven't been there for many moons but I can strongly reccommend the program. Education is about more than acquiring skills- when you read Homer or indeed Aristotle in Greek (hard work) your are joining in a conversation in which Alexander once took part.

Perhaps when the human is playing as Koinon Hellenon, there could be scripted event when ceratin conditions are met that cause the loss of a city from the alliance. This could accurately portray the fact that this was a loose coalition and allow Koinon Hellenon to be more powerful at the beginning of the game without unbalancing the game.

If you are concerned about the Chremonidean alliance lasting longer than it did historically, consider one of the various ways for that faction to lose various combinations of the city states as a historical reflection on the breakdown on the alliance.

The starting conditions are what we are most concerned about, as we want the player to rewrite history, not repeat it.

That's fair enough. The only reason that I advocated changing to the Achaean or Aetolian is that they both did in fact last for a while and so I felt that one of the Leagues could accurately represent a 'jumping off place' for alternate history. I think that the truth is that a League or confederation of some kind would not have at that point in history gone on to form an empire. The Roman Empire was just that- the empire of the city of Rome, not an italian empire. It wasn't until after the Social Wars (quite some time into our game period) that Roman citizenship began to expand into Italy in any meaningful way and I think even in Imperial times everyone knew the difference between a Roman of the Romans and a citizen from one of the provinces. A more accurate analog for the Greeks would be the Athenian 'Empire', or in the period of RTW:EB the Spartan resurgence under Cleomenes III- but I think it would be very hard to start with just one city, even one full of Spartans.

Then again Chremonides was an Athenian and had he won his war who knows what would have happened? Frankly I think that Athens and Sparta would not have kept their alliance for long.

At the very least I think that Chremonides should be a family member of Koinon Hellenon- if not the faction leader. Whaddya think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

At the very least I think that Chremonides should be a family member of Koinon Hellenon- if not the faction leader. Whaddya think?

---

Have you played the Koinon Hellenon yet? He starts out in Athenai and we even have his biography in the game.

Quote:

---

{Chremonides_Aithalidos_Biography} Biography

{Chremonides_Aithalidos_Biography_desc}
Son of Eteokles of Aithalidai, he was an Athenian statesman who formed the Hellenic anti-Makedonian league.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n

{Chremonides_Aithalidos_Biography_effects_desc}
Chremonides' destiny is tied with the history of the Hellenic league that he helped form to face the threat of a Makedonian hegemony in Hellas. Chremonides himself was able to cultivate, during the 270's, a friendship between Athenai and the Ptolemaioi which in turn helped strengthen the support of Philadelphos Ptolemaios to the league. Soon after the league was formed, Antigonos Gonatas, King of Makedonia, opened hostilities, and the war that broke out between Makedonia and the league, supported by Ptolemaios, was called the Chremonidean War (267-261 BC). With the help of Ptolemaios, the league was able to gain victories at sea, but in land operations the Makedonian army proved to be superior to the allied forces of Athenai and Sparte. Athenai came under siege and was forced to capitulate in early 261 BC. Chremonides and his brother Glaukon found refuge in Aigyptos as Philadelphos' advisers. Chremonides attained the rank of a Ptolemaic fleet commander and his brother became a priest.

---

The Romans actually gave out citizenship pretty widely before the Social War, especially citizen without the vote.

Malrubius-
He must have been the dude that died assaulting Corinth on the first turn- my bad- oh so sorry. Truly EB is magnificent even in beta. Can't wait for the patch.

QwertyMIDX-
True, but my point was that it wasn't until 212 AD that all free inhabitants of the Empire were given citizenship, and that this was the culmination of a long process that included many intermediate steps such as the ius latii, but it wasn't until the lex julia of 90 BC and the lex plautia papiria of 89 that all of Italy south of the Po were conceded the full citizenship as a group. It was this conception of entitlement to participation in civic life that was one of the fundamental strengths of the Empire (in my very humble opinion)- but the important contrast that I am trying to make is that it sprang from a single source- that there were not equally competitors for citizenship in the Roman Empire- you were either a Roman or not, whereas in our 'Koinon Hellenon' there would have been at least three equal partners, each unwilling toyeild primacy. I don't think that it could have worked. That's all I meant.

You got him killed! How's he going to keep the alliance together?! :oops:

Most campaigns I see the alliance fall to Makedonia, with Rhodos deciding to stay out of mainland affairs, declaring itself neutral. :laugh4:

Have restarted the Koinon Hellenon and there he is! But as the faction heir, even though he's older than the Spartan dude. Anyway he's got 'one foot in the grave' so I might as well use his heavy cav to a good purpose, eh? Truth is I don't want to get too far into any campaign until the patch (hint)- but my goal as the greeks is to reunite all the colonies from Emporion and Massilia to Panicapion! The Achaeans will make that effete Macedonian primadonna look like five miles of bad road!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

Have restarted the Koinon Hellenon and there he is! But as the faction heir, even though he's older than the Spartan dude.

---

He let Areus have the Basileus title (he's king of Sparte, after all). It feeds his Spartan ego and strengthens the alliance to let him think he's in charge. Those crafty Athenians! ~;)