This has become kinda ridiculous. :dizzy2:
I can recruit Kleurchoi Agemata and Galatian Kluiddon in Hibis(near Nubia) and Ammonion(East Egypt).
Is the recruitment of these units restricted in 0.8?
Printable View
This has become kinda ridiculous. :dizzy2:
I can recruit Kleurchoi Agemata and Galatian Kluiddon in Hibis(near Nubia) and Ammonion(East Egypt).
Is the recruitment of these units restricted in 0.8?
Galatian Klerouchs or Galatian Kludollon?
With the insertion of a basic klerouch phalanx in the 0.8 build (April preview I think), I am hoping that the klerouchoi agemata will be contained to Alexandria, and perhaps Memphis, as some sort of hidden resource, while basic klerouch phalangites will be buildable elsewhere. This would better reflect reality, as the handful of klerouchoi agemata I know from papyri and inscriptions hailed from the Fayum, Alexandria, or Memphis.
As for the Galatian klerouchs, may I suggest EB take a similar route to that followed with the klerouchs and klerouchoi agemata? Allow the creation of a simpler Galatian unit in every type 1 or type 2 at a certain MIC, while tying the Galatian klerouchs to particular regions and perhaps even upping their MIC level (while Galatians lived on the Nubian borders as garrison soldiers at certain points in Ptolemaic history, they certainly were not trained there, and we don't have proof that they settled in those areas permanently). Besides, while some of the Galatians in Ptolemaic Egypt may have been the exceedingly well equipped soldiers we find in EB, many (probably most) were unarmored, spear- or sword-carrying soldiers, like the kluddolon or mala gaeroas, at least judging by the surviving artistic depictions.
The upkeep prices will be increased. We are still discussing the options of restricting recruitment of elite units, but keep in mind EB's aim is not to recreate history. If the player manages to conquer Syria and Babylonia wouldnt those places also prove to be good recruiting grounds for elite troops for the Ptolemaioi?
Galatians btw were imported in such large numbers to Egypt that according to our Ptolemaic expert they changed the ethnical lineup in some areas, most notably the Fayyum were today there are people with light hair and eyes. The Galatians will probably be trainable in most provinces. They will get these guys btw:
http://www.krusader.be/eb/tindanotae.jpg
And the Basilikon Agema stats were incorrect, their stats will be a bit higher than that of the Kleruchoi Agema in 0.8.
The recruitment of Galatians changed the ethnic composition of Egypt? Oh pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase... gimme a break!
At the battle of Raphia the ptolemies fielded some 70,000 foot - and of these only 6000 were GalatiansThracians, and of these 2,000 were mercenaries rather than kleroi.Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And when Ptolemy II was warring with his brother Magas in Cyrenaicia, his Keltoi mercenaries (thats right - I said mercenaries) were so unreliable and mutinous that he tricked them into camping on an isle in the Nile, and then left them there to die!
The genetic population studies of mitochondria with which I am familar, in Sardinia, Corsica and Spain, have, I believe, created a "golden rule" to keep in mind when considering these matters; indigenous populations always genetically dominate populations regardless of the ancient sources speaking of immigration, colonization and transformation. Phocaean, Etruscan, Phoenician and Roman immigrations and occupations of Corsica have not markedly transformed the genetic composition of that island. The insertion of several thousand Galatian kleroi into a geograhically limited region of Egypt would have been a genetic DROP IN THE OCEAN!
The kleroi Galatians in EB are over-powered, too cheap, too well equipped and too available. They are nearly in the same category as Vanilla Egyptian axe-men! They should be 5% of a Ptolemy field army (i.e. 1 unit in a full-stack) - not 1/3!:furious3:
Limiting the kleroi Galatians to a single province through the mechanism of a hidden resource is a terrific idea.:2thumbsup:
And what happens if Ptolemaic Egypt captures a province in Asia with the hidden "greek resource" representing a Macedonian/Greek military colony? Well it can recruit Greek soldiery there! Simple as that.
H.
H.
It is quite true, Hamilcar, that the genetics of people in some reasons of Egypt have been significantly differentiated from the "native" makeup, largely thanks to the Ptolemaic Galatians (AND THRACIANS, EB!) as well as the Roman Legio XXIII Deiotariana (I think that's the right designation).
I agree, Krusader, that the Ptolemies could import Galatian garrisons into newly conquered regions (either they or the Seleukids did so in areas along the seaboard of the Levant), but if the next build will have lighter Galatian troops, perhaps you could tie the Galatian klerouchoi to MIC 5, and have the Galatian katoikoi (or whatever you choose to call them, katoikoi would be most accurate I think) at MIC 3, and both tied to gov't types 1 and 2.
On the issue of Galatians in Egypt, here is what I know. As Hamilcar pointed out, the first Galatians in Egypt were mercenaries, who were probably slaughtered by Ptolemy II in 275/4 as a political stunt (everyone else who defeated Galatians was being hailed as Soter) and to avoid having to pay their wage when his campaign against Magas faltered.
Ptolemy II seems to have returned to hiring Galatians over time. The first to return after the 275/4 incident came from Thrace, where they had mixed with the Thracians (the first Galatians to appear in the papyri are found in Thracian units, and are distinguishable only by their Keltic names). By the time Ptolemy III launched his invasion of Seleukid holdings, the numbers of Galatians had increased a little, though we can make no estimate to actual numbers. What we do know is that the numbers of Galatians increased substantially as a result of Ptolemy III's campaigns, and they probably became the chief "barbarian" unit, as the Thracians were subsumed into klerouchoi units of skirmishers, heavy infantry, and cavalry.
While Galatians were common in Alexandria, and even made up parts of the basilikon agemata, they were also common in areas of unrest (the coolest papyri I have come across is a soldier's combat report, written in rather poor Greek, which mentions a volley of gaeson--Keltic javelins--putting rebels to flight).
As far as I am aware, we have no way to estimate numbers aside from the difficult Raphia numbers, but Galatians appear all the way through Ptolemaic history, and the last Cleopatra has a bodyguard of them several hundred strong.
Hamilcar, it is best for productive discussion not misrepresenting what others have actually said:Quote:
Originally Posted by HamilcarBarca
*Some* areas, not the whole of Egypt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
That said, I need to check it out, but I think that Ammonion is largely desert? If so, I agree that you should not be getting units based in the kleros system from there. We will be taking a look at those issues. I assure you. And they are not hard to fix. We don't even need to "spend" another hidden resource for it. However, it can be quite laborrious and, compared to some other issues that the port to 1.5 created, this is just relatively low priority. We tend to be chronically short of manpower.
Actually, you guys are seriously worried about this? Want to help us to get it right? Why don't you guys post here a complete list of the provinces where you can currently recruit those "problem" units? And the MIC level? Obtained, by wading through the code, of course. It's not actually difficult, just can be time-consuming. I'll gladly give directions to whoever takes this up. PM me.
The Kleruchoi Phalangitai will probably be recruitable wherever it can be to represent military colonies. The Agema units might get a restriction to a few provinces.
The Galatian Kleruchoi might be restricted to the Nile provinces to represent elite Galatians being raised from the Galatians living there.
This is still being discussed.
The first mercenaries hired by Ptolemy II were indeed slaughtered by him to justify his claims for kingship, something Antiochus I also did after his battle over them in ca.275 BC, and the Attalids of Pergamon did later a few decades later.
The Celtic invasions of 280-270s were portraited in Greek propaganda as something similar to the Persian invasions two centuries before and the Hellenic monarchies took the title 'soter' and claimed they had saved Greek civilization from a barbarian threat and thus were justified as kings.
And Raphia was just one battle (albeit the biggest) and is it certain that Ptolemaic armies were always organized along those lines? Most of the Basilikon Agemata weren't present in the battle and most of the Galatians in Ptolemaic service might have been elsewhere as well.
But don't take this as a sign I think Galatian Kleruchoi should be recruitable everywhere. I personally think restricting them to a few provinces might be a good solution to avoid stacks of them coming at you and we will probably increase their upkeep costs as well.
The Galatians Ptolemy lured onto and trapped on an island to starve were not killed to justify his kingship; who would it justify it to? The Galatians forced his hand when they tried to establish their own independent kingdom.Quote:
The first mercenaries hired by Ptolemy II were indeed slaughtered by him to justify his claims for kingship, something Antiochus I also did after his battle over them in ca.275 BC, and the Attalids of Pergamon did later a few decades later.
The Celtic invasions of 280-270s were portraited in Greek propaganda as something similar to the Persian invasions two centuries before and the Hellenic monarchies took the title 'soter' and claimed they had saved Greek civilization from a barbarian threat and thus were justified as kings.
In any case, though our recruitment is currently a bit exaggerated and being handled, the area of Galatian settlement (in klerouchies or city garissons), was fairly extensive - and oasis areas were tapped.
My wording was wrong I see and I forgot some key points :inquisitive: :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by VandalCarthage
I did not mean the Galatians were killed just for Ptolemy II to enhance his prestige, I meant that their mutiny offered him a good excuse.
Antigonos Gonatas & Antiochus I used their victories of the Galatians/Celts to justify their claims of kingship, as protectors of Greeks from an external threat.
Ptolemy II did not use his slaughtering of 4000 mercenaries as justification, but he used it to enhance his prestige along the lines of Antigonos Gonatas & Antiochus I and attributed his victory to the gods and in similar fashion to how the battle of Delphi had been attributed to Apollo giving his aid to the Greek soldiers present at Delphi.
---
And no one reacting to the fact Ptolemaioi will get 'Galatian Gaesatae' ~D
Actually I had just noticed that the Galatians are asexual and nude in that pic...that's great. I've been hoping we'd see Gaesatae in there eventually. And VC, shouldn't we be a little more suspicious of the official account of the Galatian mercenary rebellion, given by court poets and historians of Ptolemy II himself? They may well have attempted some sort of problem, sure; most likely they demanded their wage, which was what the mercs serving Antigonos did. For Ptolemy II, killing them could have been more beneficial than dealing with them, especially when everyone else is being called Soter and he is no longer planning a campaign against Magas. And he did indeed use the victory to justify/enhance his rule, as the Galatian shields figured prominently from then on in his coinage, and on the main displays at the first Ptolemaia. The Delphic Hymn by Kallimachos also uses the victory as part of the justification for Ptolemy II's rule, and as a connection between the Lagids and Apollo.
I have a suggestion: Add Galatian Kluddolon to the recruitment in Alexandria, Memphis, Thebes, Syria, Assyrie, and Babylonia, recruitable by MIC lvl2 and higher. And possibly you could just make them recruitable in every type 2 and 1 govt province. Also, considering Galatian Kleruchoi are so heavily armored, restrict them to all type1 govt areas (ie Alexandria and Memphis), reflecting the fact that their armoring would come at great cost and should restrict their recruitment to the most advanced areas, same going for Kleruchoi Agema. Also, making them only recruitable at lvl 5 MIC.
This keeps it historic and at the same type satisfies the 'what if' mentality of the EB team. Or simply add hidden resources to Galatian Kleruchoi recruitment so that they are not recruitable in every single lvl2 province. Anyway, just my suggestion.
Opportunism; what I'm saying is he didn't immediately evaluate or orchestrate the situation along those lines.Quote:
And VC, shouldn't we be a little more suspicious of the official account of the Galatian mercenary rebellion, given by court poets and historians of Ptolemy II himself? They may well have attempted some sort of problem, sure; most likely they demanded their wage, which was what the mercs serving Antigonos did. For Ptolemy II, killing them could have been more beneficial than dealing with them, especially when everyone else is being called Soter and he is no longer planning a campaign against Magas. And he did indeed use the victory to justify/enhance his rule, as the Galatian shields figured prominently from then on in his coinage, and on the main displays at the first Ptolemaia. The Delphic Hymn by Kallimachos also uses the victory as part of the justification for Ptolemy II's rule, and as a connection between the Lagids and Apollo.
But why would he slaughter Galatians for demanding their wage? These are people the Ptolemies employed for a huge amount of time, and what would future and current employees think of him for arbitrarily massacring mercenaries after asking for their pay? Besides, Ptolemy could certainly have afforded their expenses; heck, if they asked for coined money he could have given them estates. The Ptolemies had certainly not reached a point of such financial straits.
You guys are overanalyzing the situation; even if the event was used as political propoganda, it was just capitalization on the natural events. In any case, Ptolemy II didn't take Soter as a cult title, as he'd already had one - and only one of his contemporaries did use the epithet "Soter," so he could hardly have felt inadequated (his campaign into Aithiopia probably enhanced his feelings of self-worth). Beyond the almost universally accepted fact that Kallimachos' description was just some serious butt-kissing to his established patron, these soldiers were loaned to the king by Nikomedes, and had no particular loyalty to Ptolemy or any substantial expectations - thus it's hardly unreasonable to say they rebelled.