Pimping Magna Graecia

Has anyone seriously considered a Magna Graecia faction, centered on Southern Italy and Sicily?

Before you decide, please let me make an introductory case (I have more evidence to cite and game-play issues to defend).

It would no doubt be very weak militarily, but that might be a good challenge, and coupled with the smarter MTW2 Diplomatic AI, it might take the game to new heights with a creative player. I imagine a Syracusan Envoy landing in Cyprus begging for Ptolemaic intervention and coming back with the promise of an allied army on his heels. I don't think the development team should discount it due to an unexpected survival rate. The strengths of the new AI are worlds different than what we're all used to in EB1.

Someone's going to say that the city-states didn't get along:

On page 193 and 194 of

The Cambridge Ancient History
By I. E. S. Edwards, John Boardman, John B. Bury, S. A. Cook

Who wants to rumble? :book:

uh, Volume 7, part 1.

I think. (Book is at school....:embarassed: )

Barring historical reasons, I do know that another faction in that area would do much to liven things up.

There seems to be a large percentage of current EB players who would like to see Syrakousai be in as a playable faction. Perhaps the EB gods are listening...

Rome didn't subjugate Magna Graecia for quite awhile. A strong leader, some decent diplomacy and novel concepts in warfare could've seen them rise like other great powers in history.

Syracuse could be a faction. Nothing else in the area seems worthy of considering.

One problem with adding factions to the area, as well, is the AI. As we have all seen, since Epirus owns Taras, the Romans don't have it as a priority over rebel settlements to the north. Having a faction in southern Italy would cause additional crazy Roman expansion.

Unless there is some gallic faction to block their passage...
Pardon my ignorance but is there no chance to have either Aedui or Averni have the northern italian settlements in their starting territory maybe as lvl4 government?
That would make a lot of improvement on the game balance side imho.

Zarax, Insubramrog was settled by Gallic peoples, displacing the previous inhabitants. So, on the contrary: I would think that only a Type I gov't would be available, they being the 'King's People' - not a few Celts ruling a subjugated peoples.

And Marcus, has anyone thought of switching from Rhegium to Croton as the seat of power for Brettia, and giving that region to Rome? Croton was in Roman hands surely by 272 BC, and might help prompt a war between Rome and Carthage (even though, if I have it right, it was more because of Iberia that the war was fought)

HP, let me refine my previous post:
I meant lvl4 not because of the actual population but rather to represent that Aedui/Averni were allied with those tribes instead of them being proper members of the respective conferedacies.

The possibility of having LVL1 is of course plausible in my POV but not accurate as starting government.

Zarax, I think I understand: you want to know the cause of the migration so you can determine the nature of the local government as it relates to the seat of power?

Marcus, the Tarantine-as-Eperiote issue and, as you mentioned, the resulting Roman AI reaction (keeping the Roman AI armies away from Southern Italy) is another good case for having Taras as Eleutheroi.

I get the feeling someone on the dev team is attached to seeing green on the 'heel' of the peninsula! I admit, it looks good.

IMO, Taras should be Eleutheroi. Syracuse should be a faction. The seat of Brettia should be an Eleutheroi Croton, freeing up space between Messana and the toe of Italy.


from NYU:

"HIERO (or Hieron) was born around 306 BC of unknown lineage. He served as an officer under Pyrrhos, a Greek adventurer who briefly controlled Syracuse c. 278-276 BC. Hiero's ascent to power began when he was elected co-commander of Syracusan armed forces driven from Syracuse by civil authorities. He executed a military coup of Syracuse about 275 BC after "he used some of his family connections to gain entry to the city," as Polybius writes. He consolidated his power by marrying Philistis, the daughter of a popular and influential Syracusan named Leptines. When veteran mercenaries who helped him seize power became unruly and disruptive, he led them into a battle in which they were cut to pieces by the enemy after he held back his reserves of Syracusan citizens.

In 265 BC Hiero won a decisive victory over the Mamertines, a gang of Italic mercenaries who ran a pirate empire from the Sicilian city of Messana which they had captured. As a result, Hiero was proclaimed King of Syracuse by his grateful subjects.

Hiero's defeat of the Mamertines upset the delicate balance of power among the Greeks, Romans, and Carthaginians, all of whom sought the control of Sicily. Rome's support of the defeated Mamertines precipitated the First Punic War in 264 BC, in which Carthage and Syracuse were initially allied against Rome. The Romans gained early victories over the Greco-Punic forces and prepared to lay siege to Syracuse. Hiero reconsidered his position and decided that it would be wiser to be an ally of Rome than of Carthage. He negotiated a treaty with Rome in 263 BC under whose terms he agreed to pay tribute and provide supplies and grain to the Romans. Hiero honored this treaty the rest of his life and became a loyal ally of Rome. The treaty guaranteed him a peaceful and prosperous reign as long as the Romans and Carthaginians were occupied in fighting each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

Zarax, I think I understand: you want to know the cause of the migration so you can determine the nature of the local government as it relates to the seat of power?

---

Err, to be precise what I would like to know is if the northern italian tribes were part or not of either the Aedui or Averni confederacies so that Rome wouldn't have rebels bordering them but proper factional lands as for now the EB team didn't reveal any precise plans for that area.

TBH I wouldn't mind some historical details, I could always use some good data for XGM (BTWm you got a PM in your TWC account)...

Eleuthroroi Taras would be willful historical inaccuracy, as the city didn't surrender until after Pyrrhos's death. It would be nice for Roma's expansion, but it would also make the Epeirotes and the situation in 272 BC inaccurate...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elminster12

Eleuthroroi Taras would be willful historical inaccuracy, as the city didn't surrender until after Pyrrhos's death. It would be nice for Roma's expansion, but it would also make the Epeirotes and the situation in 272 BC inaccurate...

---

Bollocks. Taras invited Pyrrhus to help defend against the Romans. That is not permission to claim the area for the Molossian throne. At the time of the surrender there were no Molossian units to speak of, unless you have some evidence to the contrary. But even if there were, does that mean it has given up sovereignty? Hardly.

Is Iraq the 51st U.S. state? No. Does the presence of French troops in Bosnia make it French? No.

Gameplay has clearly trumped history.

Show me where either Tarantine public will or governmental control was permanently relinquished to Pyrrhus, or even that tacit approval of that happening in the future was implied. He stopped some festivals and levied some troops. Big deal. I don't think that qualifies.

Sticking feathers up one's butt does not make him a chicken.

I don't know the exact situation in-game now, but I'd have thought that would merit a type 4 government (represents military alliance) then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

Taras invited Pyrrhus to help defend against the Romans. That is not permission to claim the area for the Molossian throne. At the time of the surrender there were no Molossian units to speak of, unless you have some evidence to the contrary. But even if there were, does that mean it has given up sovereignty? Hardly.

---

But we are not talking about the time of surrender. We are talking several months earlier when there was (to my knowlegde) an Epeirote garrison in Taras. They may not have ruled the city, but they certainly gave Phyrus a degree of control, and would have intervened if Epeirote interests were threatened.

I agree that Taras was not part of Epeiros, but it wasn't fully independent either.

I don't know what type of gov we have setup there, but if it ain't 4 it perhaps should be.

Foot

Ludens, I understand that line of thinking. I just don't happen to think that merits the implication of genuflection, which is demonstrated in the game.

One gameplay reason that Taras is in Epieros' hands is because Pyrrhos was interested in Italia. Having Taras makes the AI expaned into Italia. Without Taras, Epieros would never land troops in Italy and would probably just take Illyria and wander north as Rome does.

All the more reason to have a Magna Graecia faction based on Syracuse.:focus:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

I just don't happen to think that merits the implication of genuflection, which is demonstrated in the game.

---

Agreed, but it doesn't imply independence either. For subtle political distinctions, don't play R:TW.

It is somewhat ridiculous to imply Magna Graecia was a 'nation' of any sort led by Syracuse.

Wow, we're really going to strictly define nation-status in one conversation with Zak, and then simutaneously, intentionally blur the lines of genuflection and independence in another with Ludens?

I have to show this around the lunch room.

Zak, you can call a faction based on Syracuse the "Pop Tart Empire" for all I care; the fact remains it was the most powerful city of Magna Graecia. Groups of people and regions are combined to form larger entities almost perfunctorily in EB. So, please... spare me the indignation. In any case, this is a place of ideas, try to manifest parsimony. It's difficult, I know, but consider this gem I have to swallow every time I start a game:

It is not merely ridiculous to represent Syracuse as at war with Pyrrhus in 272 BC: it's a complete fabrication. But, I've heard the excuse, and totally understand: engine limits. I get it.

Ludens, so we're in agreement? Shortcuts have to be made. I think EB needs a caveat page.

Syracuse is certainly being considered as a faction on its own merits, I dont mean to dismiss it as a powerful city-state.

Really? Sweet. That truly is good news. Even if it's as vulnerable as Pontus, it'd be a great addition.

If I have it right, the leader would be one of Pyrrhus' former generals? Perhaps they would be considered allied?

:book:

Hiero II ruled at the beginning of the games timeframe, having recently siezed power from Phyrrus. They would definitely be a fun choice to include.

From Wikipedia (gulp)...

""Hieron II, king of Syracuse from 270 to 215 BC, was the illegitimate son of a Syracusan noble, Hierocles, who claimed descent from Gelon. He was a former general of Pyrrhus of Epirus and an important figure of the First Punic War.

On the departure of Pyrrhus from Sicily (275 BC) the Syracusan army and citizens appointed him commander of the troops. He strengthened his position by marrying the daughter of Leptines, the leading citizen. In the meantime, the Mamertines, a body of Campanian mercenaries who had been employed by Agathocles, had seized the stronghold of Messana, and proceeded in harassing the Syracusans. They were finally defeated in a pitched battle near Mylae by Hieron, who was only prevented from capturing Messana by Carthaginian interference. His grateful countrymen then made him king (270).""

Do you have a source for 'seized power'? It would have bearing on how to portray, in game, the relationship between those two poiltical entities.

Well, your sources are my sources....

From the article on Syracuse, Sicily in Wikipedia...

"....Agathocles, who seized power with a coup in 317 BC. He resumed the war against Carthage, with alternate fortunes. He however scored a moral success, bringing the war to the Carthaginians' native African soil, inflicting heavy losses to the enemy. The war, however, ended with another treaty of peace which did not prevent the Carthaginians interfering in the politics of Syracuse after the death of the tyrant Agathocles (289 BC). The citizens therefore called Pyrrhus of Epirus for help. After a brief period under the rule of Epirus, Hiero II seized power in 275 BC."

It would appear that the author used a bad choice of words, and I stand corrected. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

In any case, this is a place of ideas, try to manifest parsimony. It's difficult, I know, but consider this gem I have to swallow every time I start a game:

It is not merely ridiculous to represent Syracuse as at war with Pyrrhus in 272 BC: it's a complete fabrication. But, I've heard the excuse, and totally understand: engine limits. I get it.

Ludens, so we're in agreement? Shortcuts have to be made. I think EB needs a caveat page.

---

My apologies, but I am not sure what you are saying. Certainly, it's not possible to be entirely accurate in the rendering of the political situation. However, I don't agree that an Epeirote-controlled Taras is inaccurate. Epeiros had a military force in Taras so it could hence influence Tarantine policies, whether the Tarentines liked it or not. Off course, this control would be less than absolute, but there is no way of representing that within R:TW, and it doesn't make the opposite, that of Epeiros having no control at all, accurate.

Syracuse on the other hand did not have a military presence in Taras or anywhere in the Italian mainland. If you can show that there were strong alliances between Syracuse under Hieros and the important cities of southern Italy at this time, then you could make a strong case for a Magna Grecian faction (I am not a historian, so for all I know this may have been the case).

Agathocles attacked Africa? Wow, I had no idea! That means that Syracusan ship-building capacity had some meat on the bone, unless they were mercenary ships, of course.

I think the issue of political relationship between Syracuse and Epirus merits some further research.

Wikipedia sucks. It has it's uses, but it isn't worthy of citation. I feel so ashamed...

What can we say....convenience killed the cat....er, something like that. :dizzy2:

@Ludens

I don't think Magna Graecia was ever a united entity (in fact, I'm quite certain of that fact), more a hodge podge of independent city-states with different mother cities from the Greek mainland.

Of all of those city states, only Syrakousai or Taras is really worthy of it's own faction, and Taras was so heavily influenced by Epirus at this point in history, giving Taras to them is justified IMO.

It seems from what I just read in

Unplanned Wars: The Origins of the First and Second Punic Wars
By B. Dexter Hoyos

that Syracuse didn't have the level of control over any polis worth mentioning in the way that Epirus had influence in Taras, and if that benchmark is to going define control, then I would guess Syracuse would be a single-state faction, like Pontus.

And no, Syracuse did not define 'Magna Graecia', but I think they clearly had designs on Messana, Rhegium, Croton and Paestum. Unfortunately, Rome happened to have those same designs also.