Baktria and it relations to Sogdia and Dayuan

Something I found a bit puzzling: Baktria starts the campaign with the two northern provinces having type IV government. If this is intended to represent that these provinces were separate satrapies, shouldn't they start of as AS provinces, given that Baktria is not independent yet? What was the historical situation like?

In addition, unless you demolish the government building any family members in the towns get the "interloper" trait. Shouldn't they start with client rulers in place?

And one small thing; I asked earlier why Baktria cannot recruit any phalangites in Sogdia. The reason given was that the province was not so strongly hellenised and the locals disdained infantry. Yet if the AS seizes the province, they can recruit Kleruchoi Phalangitai there. This is an inconsistency, if nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kongeslask

And one small thing; I asked earlier why Baktria cannot recruit any phalangites in Sogdia. The reason given was that the province was not so strongly hellenised and the locals disdained infantry. Yet if the AS seizes the province, they can recruit Kleruchoi Phalangitai there. This is an inconsistency, if nothing else.

---

Not necessarily. Kleruchoi are Greek settlers, not part of the local population.

AFAIK Baktria not having client rulers is a bug. I think it was mentioned before, and looked into it.
I guess the two provinces had some specieal relationship with Baktra.
The AS also starts with Babylon as a type 4 goverment so i guess this is similar

In the next version, those provinces are again part of the AS.

You mean Baktria is going to start out in 1.1 with one province? I'll take it if that's historically accurate, but it still stinks. :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bovi

In the next version, those provinces are again part of the AS.

---

:jawdrop:
Talking about a challenge...

Boy, are you in for a surprise! :yes:

Damn, why does AS get those provinces? It seems logical to me that those provinces would be under Baktrian jurisdiction, given that it's far removed from Antioch and quite close to Baktra.

But hell, I haven't done the research. EB mods know what's best.

That's gonna suck. Poor old Baktria is going to have just one province.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Boy, are you in for a surprise! :yes:

---

I guess death is just the beginning... :skull:

Hmm, hardly. Remember how we were only just surviving on one province in 0.81? And 0.71, too? EB10 was an unaccustomed relaxation in the level of challenge of the game more than anything else. :D

We really have struggled with trying to realistically depict the situation in those provinces. It shows our willingness to change things, even back again, given the power of historical arguments/discussions in the internal forum. Would the Seleukid king have total control over those provinces in 272? Nah. Would the satrap in Baktra? Nah. We just try to make it work as accurately as we can given the engine.

I'm taking a wild guess here, but wouldn't something like what you did for Krete work in this case?
Eleutheroi but with a power struggle going on for its control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Boy, are you in for a surprise! :yes:

---

so excited about the new eb.

but the kretan parallel is an interesting one. possible to pursue it?

Having the cities of Marakanda and AE under the control of no one would be worse we think. The Baktria player would rush to try and capture them, which the rulers wouldn't have had to do - it would have just been political wrangling most likely that decided who had the ultimate authority there. It may have been pretty solidly AS or Baktrian satrap-controlled (both were answerable to the king anyway) in 272, but we just don't know for sure. They weren't under control of neither though. :grin:

I think this change was necessary to somehow delay the powerful development of the Graeco-Bactrians, and to portray the political situation of the area before Diodotus declared himself independent with some accuracy. Historically, it was not until the era of the invasions of Mithradates I of Parthia and Eucratides I of Bactria when we observe the supplaunting of the Seleucid hegemnoy in their eastern sector; This is where the Graeco-Bactrians got their brief triumph, but also one of their most devastating defeats, which of course was capitalized enormously by both Menander of the Indo-Greeks and by Mithradates of the Parthians.

This poorly documented stage of war, symbolized the political turbulence of the East, and would repeat itself for several centuries. This change does not imply Seleucid authority, au contraire, it implies a burden.