Printable View
Erm, Trakans colum depicts the Emperor Trajan's conquest/genocide of the Dacian tribes in the 2nd century AD, the troops depicted on the coulmn are later roman legionaires quite a bit out of the EB time period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voevod al Moldovei
It depicts the CONQUEST of the Dacian tribes, not the genocide. There's no evidence which suggest a genocide and extermination of the Dacians. :skull:
Since the early legionaries do not wear trousers either I presume he is talking about the Getai faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
The Ptolemaic Galatian Kleruchoi are an excellent unit, but they are hardly invincible. I admit that it seems rather odd for a single unit to capture a walled city, but there are two reasons why it happened:Quote:
Originally Posted by HamilcarBarca
1. You had no good Galatian-countering units. Basic Gallic units (Bataroas, Botroas, Mala Gaeroas, etc.) don't stand a chance against the elite Galatians. The punic militia phalanx unit will lose to almost anything, especially when out of formation on a wall. The elite African pikemen unit can beat those Galatians, but only if in a phalanx and if the Galatians are force to stay in front of the pikes. If the pikemen are attacked by Galatians out of formatian, on a wall, or are flanked, they will be slaughtered.
2. The difficulty setting is too high. Playing on hard or very hard will give the AI stat bonuses, making an already great unit better.
The best Carthaginian unit to fight the Galatians is their elite African unit that is equipped like a Roman legionary. Most of the elite Gallic units (Cingetos, Arjos, Solduri, etc.) should be able to stand up to the Galatians.
I'm pretty sure that the helmets are Celtic. They are identical (except in color) to those worn by the Gallic Neitos.Quote:
those shiny new Greek-style helmets
Speakin of which, can't we let the Ptolemies get gaesatae? About half the Galatians depicted in Ptolemaic art (that I have seen at least) are nude. On the other hand, Galatians never numbered as much of the Ptolemaic armies as what usually happens with AI Ptolemaic forces...increase the upkeep maybe?
I think that the sahara should be made very hard to march across or at least find some way for the Ptolemys to stop pestering the Carths. All i wanted to do was fight Rome yet im stuck fighting with Ptolemies who should be more peaceful. Also it would be much more realistic if they sent the armies by sea as i doubt they would be interested in the non coastal cities.
Having to do with all this Ptolemai vs Carthage argument: you don't even have to defend Lepki, at least not as a city seige. All I do is put one, maybe two Elite african Pikemen or the greek mercenary pikemen unit at the furthest river crossing (currently though, I have stationed a group of two Elite African pikemen, one sacred band cavalry and one 3 experience unit of greek pikemen mercenary units at the crossing; the sacred band so that I can ride them down and make sure no part of their army survives). As long as you do not advance south past the western provinces, they will not be a real threat with a river defend point.
I have never taken southern african provinces past Kirtsan. And as a result, if the Ptolemai want to attack me, they usually attack from the east, having to march across these rivers. I find that even if I have only one pikemen unit is enough to defeat an ENTIRE STACK of Ptolemaic soldiers, although the Galatian sordsmen are by far the toughest adversary, able to usually break my phalanx and kill many of my men in hand-to-hand before I reform and destroy them. Which is why I took precaution and reinforced my lone pikement unit. Not to mention, there is virtually no benefit of marching armies south as Carthage. Very little income compared to a lot of resources in amry cost and loses, which does not net anything other than recruitment of forest elephants, which can be recruited in Siga, Ippone, etc, which you either start out with or can conquer much more easily.
Just defend the rivers, the AI is not smart enough to attack from the south, and the rivers are so easy to defend. I have never lost Lepki in every campaign I have played.
If you just defend Lepki then Ptolemy will do the following (and I know because I've tried);
a. take Garama
b. take Raphasa/Sahara (which must be the biggest province in the game)
c. take Tuat
then, one of two things will happen;
1. these provinces will rebel from ptolemy, and suddenly join Carthage
2. Ptolemy will hold these provinces, and start invading the Algerian & Tunisian coastline from the south.
The Galatian swordsmen should be mercs, not recruitable troops. That would limit there numbers by both availability and cost.
The greatest challenge that faced the historical Ptolemy regime in Egypt was internal order. The combination of dynastic quarrels (leading to the episodic revolt of Cyrenaica and/or Cyprus by royal figures), internal revolts (natives vs. Hellenes) and confrontation with the Seleucids in Coele-Syria was enough to bring Ptolemaic Egypy to stagnation.
In EB there are no dynastic quarrels, there appear to be no native revolts, there is simply a rich super power that than recruit locally both elite Keltoi troops and elite Macedonian style troops, when, in history, both of these military types were extremely LIMITED in number because there was not the Celtic or Greek population in Egypt to sustain large numbers.
This is why Ptolemaic Egypt is over powered.
H.
Hmmm... I play on VH/VH with the Ptolemies(my favourite guys) and I am at war with the Seleukids. Man, even with Pezhetairoi and Kleruchoi Agemata I get defeated. So, why are they easy?
Every faction in the game has 90 million denarii so we won't have rubbish armies. That's really something good, as the Seleukids have Pezhetairoi and Carthage(ally) is pumping Liby Phoenician infantry and some Elite African Infantry. :balloon2:
The reason your pezhetairoi and Kleruchoi Agemata are losing is because you are playing on very hard, which is, as the name suggests, very hard. The AI is still terrible, but the computer controlled enemies receive a rather large stat bonus. If you played on medium (I think that there are no stat bonuses for the player of computer), you would see that the elite Ptolemaic units are some of the best in the game and can be difficult to defeat. I don't think that there is anything wrong with the elite units, what is wrong is that too many of them can be trained.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Its 242BC and I am officially abandoning my fifth and final EB campaign as Carthage (H/H).
It will be the last EB campaign I play until the next (8.0?) version is out - which I am looking forward to very much.
By 242 BC my game had gone as follows;
1. I had progressively occupied Sicily without any interference from any faction. Rome had not yet even taken Rhegium. I had never fought a battle against Rome. They had been nuetral to me throughout the campaign.
2. My position in Spain had been slowly nurtured so that I had added two provinces to my original two, and was making good $$ on mining, and recruiting good local troops. Iberia had captured no provinces, nor had they lost any. They were at war with no other faction, and allies of mine.
3. I had occupied Siga, Tingis & Cirta in North Africa.
4. In around 255BC the Ptolemy faction finally betrayed me. They always do. Ptolemy took Garama, but then it revolted to me, and I occupied it.
5. In a long, grinding war, my forces held Lepki and Garama against a constant stream of excellent Ptolemy units - Agema phalanxes and Galatian swordsmen being prominent.
6. One Ptolemy force crossed Garama without pause, and captured Raphsa/Sahara. I sent in spies. Within only a few turns, they were recruiting Galatian swordsmen and Agema phalanxes there! Well, who knew - there was a Celtic and Macedonian population located deep in the Sahara! You live and learn.:furious3:
7. Now, its just too boring. My whole economy is geared towards replenishing my war effort in Libya and Chad, so that I can one day hope to storm my way into the Nile Valley. It would take me years no doubt. I feel like Rommel rather than Hannibal Barca:help:
I hope that EB finds a fix to this problem. Here's some ideas to consider;
* eliminate the bottom 20% of the map - and that means the Sahara, Ethiopia and perhaps even all those provinces at the southern end of the Arabian penninsula. These provinces only create trouble, not gameplay. You don't want factions expanding into the Sahara. Ethiopia only serves as a safe Ptolemy backwater. The historical fact that the Ptolemy dynasty struggled to have its authority recognised at Thebes let alone in the highlands of Ethiopia won't matter here. And it gives you about 8-10 extra provinces to place somewhere useful!
* the force pools need a re-think. Galatian mercenaries should be found at Alexandria, but not 'recruitable' at every Ptolemy city. That's true for Macedonian units too.
* the historical struggle for Greek and Macedonian manpower by the Successor Kingdoms was all about them lacking a domestic populace that could sustain the formations of Alexander the Great. That is why the Successor Realms turned to innovations like recruiting locals, importing barbarians, buying elephants, making chariots, etc. So many Macedonians were lured into immigrating into the Near East that by 220BC the Macedonian Kings struggled to maintain their own levy in Macedonia! On the eve of the battle of Raphia, on 22 June 217, the Ptolemaic army mustered 70,000 foot, 5000 cavalry & 73 African elephants; 20,000 of these foot were native Egyptians armed in the Macedonian style (Polybius V.65.9;82.6;85.9). The significant taxes required to support this army eventually triggered revolt. These population pressures doesn't exist for Ptolemy, Seleusis or Bactria in EB. The Successor Realms can recruit an endless number of Greek and Macedonian troops. They need never worry about recruiting the less reliable "natives". There needs to be a limit to this recruitment of Greek units in Egypt and the Seleucid & Bactrian Kingdoms. Perhaps it should require the presence of a hidden 'Greek' resource which can only be found in a few provinces? This would mean that the battle for GREEK population would be as as important to the Successors in EB as they were in history! For example, outside the Greek colony of Alexandria, not many Greek/Macedonian folk lived in Ptolemaic Egypt.
* there needs to be unrest in Egypt. A lot. Many serious uprisings of a scale that threatens the Ptolemaic regime. In history, the Egyptian revolts against their Ptolemaic masters were very serious. In the north of Egypt there was a revolt by disaffected local military forces against the Hellenes; a vicious 'partisan' war ensued during the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (219-217). By the end of the Third Century BC these revolts reached the point where a rebel 'pharaoic state' was established in the south of Egypt, the Thebaid, backed by military assistance from Nubia, and led by Herwennefer as Pharoah. It survived there against the Ptolemaic regime for 20 years (206-186)! Thebes itself was only recovered in 199/8.
* the nuetrality between Carthage & Ptolemaic Egypt endured. Carthage did not meddle when Cyrenaicia became the base of estranged members of the Ptolemaic royal family (Magas, the brother of Ptolemy II, declared himself King of Cyrenaicia in the 270s. He marched on Alexandria, gained support from the Seluecids, but was defeated because of a revolt of Libyan nomads in his absence. Ptolemy couldn't puruse Magas because of a revolt of his Celtic soldiers! Egypt and Cyrene were reconciled in the 250s.). Egypt remained nuetral during the Punic Wars - unlike the last priest-king of the Siwah oasis, who in 207 was a general in the Punic army (Silen. XV.672f). This nuetrality must be made to endure. In RTR there are "land block" mods that can make this happen; its unsatisfactory, but it works. EB needs something similar.
H.
with 1.5 isn't there loyalty? It seems like it would be fitting to keep loyalty low as it was and to make Africa slightly more interesting, though this part will probably never happen, give the natives a faction of their own. It, as far as I can tell is rich region deserving most of everything it has now, but it should have more to contend with than a overstretched seleucid empire and a empire it shouldn't be fighting, Carthage.
As far as getting the two to stop, would it be possible to redesign the sahara so that its either unconquerable or it's in a winding path that is more than 50 tiles away? and spikes north to create a border between the two. I don't particularily like the idea of a province wasted to separate the two by being unconquerable, but I think its a better solution than Ptolemy and Carthage fighting.
um..How would removing the saharan provinces stop Carthage and the Ptolemaic empire fighting? It seems to me it would actually hasten a war between the two as at present they both have some rebel settlements to divide up between them before they start duking it out for control of africa. Without these they'd be at each others throats within a few years.
Hamilcar, some of your ideas make sense. I think Greeks should be limited to some key areas, forcing factions to recruit local troops. I also agree about the Ptolemaic unrest, and I hope that EB is working on some sort of scripted rebellion sequence for the upper nile provinces.
As far as how Greek (and Galatian) troops should be limited, the Ptolemies had access to these troops through the kleruch and katoiche systems (govt type 2 in the EB Ptolemies, I think), so it does make sense that any location with these settlements could raise Makedonian or Galatian soldiers, as they were settled in these areas on land plots. The problem isnt so much that they could be raised: its more that its too easy to raise large numbers, which isn't realistic. So I suggest a POSSIBLE SOLUTION: a) if you can, raise recruitment costs in type 2 gov'ts, or b) add a trait to Ptolemaic type 2 gov'ts, which increases unit recruitment costs. There's still the problem that Galatians in particular were never settled (by the Ptolemies I mean) outside of the Nile provinces.
And while you point out that 20,000 natives served in the Raphia campaign, an even larger number of Makedonians served: according to the ancient numbers, more middle to upper class Makedonians lived in Egypt than in Makedonia.
And it would be nice to cut off some of the southern map, gaining extra territories for other portions of the map...unless of course one of the new factions will go in this region? hmm?
A possible 'minimalist' solution to the Sahara problem would be to have the majority of the Sahara as a single province (that is, at least amalgamate the existing provinces of Tuat & Rahpsa), and then have that province's city located at an unreachable point at the far south of the map (in sub-Saharan Africa).
That would mean that the area became an unconquerable region that still served up the occasional nomadic raider as rebels and brigands.
In addition, if this proposed "unconquerable" province was designed so that it "spiked" northwards and a small portion of it actually lay between Lepki and Cyrene, so that these two provinces did not border each other, then that may help too.
If the AI Ptolemy or AI Carthage never believe the other is a "neighbour", then they may not go to war. It seems to me that the AI always turns on its immediate neighbours - its just a matter of time. I've noticed that if I don't want to go war with a faction, the key is to never share a border. So I'm thinking that at least part of the solution to the endless Carthage-Ptolemy Wars is to prevent them ever being neighbours.:laugh4:
"And it would be nice to cut off some of the southern map, gaining extra territories for other portions of the map...unless of course one of the new factions will go in this region? hmm?"
Unless a new faction in this region is either a Nubian or Ethiopian one (to balance Ptolemy and compete for the Nile Valley), it will just add insult to injury. Our Africa problem will become worse - with additional factions fighting over the sand sea.
H.
What determines the elephants ability to knock down a gate? Could this be given to axe wielding units at a reduced rate?
why not making ijsland on the map wite city and a normal site
and the position can not by correct
and more of east azie
Er.... What?:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by oscar.k
IIRC Iceland was uninhabited at this time of history. Adding more of East Asia would inevitable include China, which, in turn, would require even more factions to be added. This is not an option.Quote:
Originally Posted by oscar.k
Since we are talking about the map, are there any plans for changing the mini-map? I recall seeing a mod (Mundus Magnus?) that had changed it to resemble an ancient map (albeit one that was far more accurate than ancient maps usually are). I think this would fit the general theme of this mod better, and it would be far more accurate than the current one, which looks like a satellite-picture.
I won't reply in detail, but can tell you that:Quote:
Originally Posted by HamilcarBarca
1) We won't be changing the map significantly. Certainly not lopping off the bottom half. It might not be a bad idea, but not at this this stage.
2) The "Sand War" between Egypt and Carthage. I completely agree - ahistorical and mind-numbingly boring, too boot. We have some comparatively simple fixes that should eliminate the desire of either the Qarthadast or Ptolemaic AIs to war with one another. If you as the player choose this option? Good luck Mr. Rommel!
3) Successor Greek Recruitment. Hmmm. You may be right. I'll post something to this effect for the team to consider.
4) Egyptian Revolts. Man. This is the one feature of RTW that most people HATE, and you want more of them? I'm not sure how we could script in something special for the Egyptians. The real issue is that RTW doesn't model large Ancient Empires very well. Historically, most were undone by some form of internal problem, exacerbated by revolts or external invasion. But in RTW, other than the mostly annoying rebel pop-ups, your only danger comes from external invasion. So chalk this up to the engine (if we DID script in lots of revolts and rebel invasions in Egypt, it would probably just annoy people so much they wouldn't play them anymore.)
A response on the issue of Greek recruitment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angadil
A response to Angadil on Greek recruitment in Asia.
I don't believe I am exageratting the paucity of Greek numbers in Ptolemaic Egypt - or the Seleucid empire either for that matter.
Have a look at pp. 108-141, C T Griffith, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Ares Publishers, Chicago, 1934 - which, together with J Lesquier, Les institutions militaires de l'Egypte sous les Lagides, Paris, 1911, are the classically authorative texts on this subject.
In brief, this text reveals that there were three types of troops in the Ptolemaic army, "Macedonians", mercenaries and Egyptians; the evidence for these forces includes literary evidence, the evidence of Polybius as to the army at Raphia, and the papyri.
1) The Ptolemy regime in Egypt never had large numbers of Macedonian or Greek (hereafter collectively called Macedonian) manpower at its disposal. At the outset Ptolemy came to Egypt in 323BC with no soldiers, and found there only a small garrison (of Greek mercenaries led by the finance minister Cleomenes). At the battle of Gaza (312BC) only about 25% of the 22,000 men deployed by Ptolemy were "Macedonian"; thereafter deserters, defections and prisoners of war (such as 8,000 after the battle of Gaza) were important sources of Macedonian manpower. By 305BC the army of Ptolemy can have contaiend only about 5000 Macedonians, the remainder of his army being Greek mercenaries and Egyptians; after this date no king of Egypt could ever recruit directly from Macedonia again. In the Second and Third Centuries BC the system of military settlers was established, organised into military divisions (hipparchies & chiliarchies) and received kleroi of varying sizes, from 100 acres downwards; the majority of these were Greek and Macedonian, but the next largest group were Thracians, and other barbarian settlers are known also (including relatively small numbers of 'Galatians'). The military purpose of the kleroi was to found a community capable of supplying the reliable army upon which a military monarchy must depend. The system failed. The twenty years of peace (241-221BC) appear to have been the period where the kleroi became better farmers and worse soldiers. "In time the Macedonians had become Egyptians". The preparations prior to the battle of Raphia (217BC) reveal that Ptolemy now had to rely upon a "phalanx" recruited among native Egyptians and mercs - the Graeco-Macedonian 'kleroi' only accounted for 15,000 (the royal guard 3000, the phalanx proper 5000, the peltasts 2000, household cavalry 700, and 4000 of the 6000 Gauls and Thracians. Note how few the Gauls and Thracians were!).
2) While many Greek mercenaries were settled as kleroi, the use of mercenaries could never be abandoned; particularly after the kleroi system decayed. The great Ptolemaic empire required a garrison of professional soldiers for its provinces and garrisons, and in times of danger new mercenaries were recruited from Greece and elsewhere. There was a very heavy reliance on mercenaries by the Ptolemy dynasty, and after Raphia the mercenary army concentrated around Alexandria became the army of Egypt;
3) The Egyptians were used not only for transport & commissariat, but, at least after Raphia (217BC) also organised into a phalanx, 20,000 strong, trained by Greek officers, and equipped in the Macedonian manner, recruited from the population in general, and not from a closed class or order. It proved an error of policy; teaching a subject people they could fight as well as their masters!
Money was at the root of the highly artificial military system in Egypt. The dynasty constantly recruited mercenaries from Greece and elsewhere to compensate for its inability to build a national army.
Ptolemaic Egypt could never establish a national army. The army was most reliable when it could be recruited from a "Greek" population, and this population was always small, and could only be rienforced by mercenaries. The loss of the empire overseas to Phillip V, the collapse before Antiochus IV in 170BC, and the subsequent dependence upon Rome in questions of foreign policy all argue a military weakness that couldn't be overcome.
So, in EB terms, I would say;
* to have a limitless supply of so accomplished a domestic soldiery as the existing kleroi phalanx is simply not historic, and a dramatic exageration of a system of soldier-settlers that must be judged a failure; and
* to have a limitless supply of so accomplished a domestic soldiery as the Galatian swordsmen is bordering on fantasy.
So, I stand by my contention that EB should scrap the Galatian swordsmen as 'recruitable' infantry, and convert them to mercenaries found in the Nile Valley, AND that the kleroi forces should only be found where there is a 'Greek population resource', and that should be confined to Alexandria.
If you want to be historic, then the Ptolemaic player must learn to rule an empire that is money rich, rebellious and heavily reliant on Greek mercenaries to supplement a VERY SLENDER local supply of Graeco-Macedonian stalwarts.
H.
You are undoubtedly right on the Galatians (probably just a recruitment error - god knows we have enough of those in v.74), but as to sources? I'll go with our guys who have access to modern scholarship.
Hamilcar has a very strong point. :book:
Maybe you can limit the recruitment of Kleurochoi Agemata and Basilikon Agemata just to Memphis?
The province of Memphis included the Fayuum Region, which was responsible for the recruitment of the guys.
Hamilcar,
In a nutshell: I mostly agree that the Ptolemaic system largely failed in history, but I don't see that it was *necessarily* doomed to fail. For example, the Seleukid one, not really that different, did reasonably well. It seems that the Ptolemies eventually mismanaged a system that, otherwise, could work (it worked for others). Hence, we believe that the player is entitled a shoot at doing better in this aspect.
Now some specific comments:
Sorry, but 5.000 Makedonian settler phalangites can only be postulated by purposefully disregarding the actual evidence in Polybius. Why don't we take a look at what Polybius *actually* wrote?:Quote:
The preparations prior to the battle of Raphia (217BC) reveal that Ptolemy now had to rely upon a "phalanx" recruited among native Egyptians and mercs - the Graeco-Macedonian 'kleroi' only accounted for 15,000 (the royal guard 3000, the phalanx proper 5000, the peltasts 2000, household cavalry 700, and 4000 of the 6000 Gauls and Thracians. Note how few the Gauls and Thracians were!).
"Eurylochus of magnesia commanded about three thousand men of what were called in the royal armies the Agema, or Guard; Socrates of Boeotia had two thousand light-armed troops under him; while the Achaean Phoxidas, and Ptolemy the son of Thraseas, and Andromachus of Aspendus were associated in the duty of drilling the phalanx and the mercenary Greek soldiers on the same ground,--Andromachus and Ptolemy commanding the phalanx, Phoxidas the mercenaries; of which the numbers were respectively twenty-five thousand and eight thousand. The cavalry, again, attached to the court, amounting to seven hundred, as well as that which was obtained from Lybia or enlisted in the country, were being trained by Polycrates, and were under his personal command: amounting in all to about three thousand men. In the actual campaign the most effective service was performed by Echecrates of Thessaly, by whom the Greek cavalry, which, with the whole body of mercenary cavalry, amounted to two thousand men, was splendidly trained. No one took more pains with the men under his command than Cnopias of Allaria. He commanded all the Cretans, who numbered three thousand, and among them a thousand Neo-Cretans, over whom he had set Philo of Cnossus. They also armed three thousand Libyans in the Macedonian fashion, who were commanded by Ammonius of Barce. The Egyptians themselves supplied twenty thousand soldiers to the phalanx, and were under the command of Sosibius. A body of Thracians and Gauls was also enrolled, four thousand being taken from settlers in the country and their descendants, while two thousand had been recently enlisted and brought over: and these were under the command of Dionysius of Thrace. Such in its numbers, and in the variety of the elements of which it was composed, was the force which was being got ready for Ptolemy." (5.65.1-11)
If you take the time to add up all the units' strengths you'll end up with 69.000 infantry, which matches very well with what Polybius says once again:
"Ptolemy accordingly set out from Alexandria with seventy thousand infantry, five thousand cavalry, and seventy-three elephants" (5.79.2)
Very clear, I'd say. After having been allowed to fall into disrepair, as was widely recognized, the Ptolemaic system still produced 25.000 men for their phalanx.
I know some scholars choose to disregard Polybius' figures and go for 25000 for the settlers+egyptians phalanx. Their argument largely being that, 45.000 thousand phalangites would make the Ptolemaic army far stronger than the Seleukid one. To me, preferring that sort of speculation to straightforward, cosnsistent textual evidence is very poor scholarship. Moreover, with a 25000 total Ptolemaic phalanx the argument swings the other way!. That would make the Ptolemies very weak! The Seleukids, plagued by revolts in Cyrrhestica and Achaeus revolt in Asia Minor (both important recruiting areas, that could provide some 6.000 phalangites each) still showed up with 10.000 argyraspides and a 20.000 settler phalanx *and* 20.000 Asian auxiliaries (10.000 Arabs, 5.000 Medes & al. 5.000 Karmanians & al.) *and* 5.000 Greek mercenaries to form their main battle line. The number (and proportion) of Seleukid Asian auxiliaries is *very* high and could well suggest an effort to compensate for the missing settler troops and be able to face the expected numbers of Ptolemaic infantry. However, note that even if not at full strength the Makedonian Seleukid phalanx still outnumbered the Asian, battle-line auxiliaries (30.000 vs. 20.000).
At Raphia, yeah. After Raphia? Where were those Egyptian phalangites at Panion, the battle that eventually settled the fate of Koele-Syria? They are not mentioned as part of the Ptolemaic army there.Quote:
3) The Egyptians were used not only for transport & commissariat, but, at least after Raphia (217BC) also organised into a phalanx, 20,000 strong, trained by Greek officers, and equipped in the Macedonian manner, recruited from the population in general, and not from a closed class or order. It proved an error of policy; teaching a subject people they could fight as well as their masters!
EDIT: all of the above notwithstanding, restricting the Agemata units to a single province as edyzmedieval suggests, could be a sensible move, IMO.
More dynamic scouting would be neat.
I don't know if it is possible but basing detection on both range and army size (so that small forces - these raiding parties - would only be detected at close range or by skilled scouting generals, while larger forces can be seen from miles away) would be extremely neat.
It also occurs to me that having forces pillage the enemy hinterland perhaps should provide some small income as well as damaging the economy of the enemy province.
Angadil,
You are right to say that I am disposed to thinking that Polybius figure of a phalanx of 45,000 (Macedonians + Egyptians) at Raphia is incorrect; I am swayed by the argument that the conduct of the battle (Ptolemaic tactics don't suggest an advantage in phalanx forces of 45,000 to 20,000) and its later description as an "egyptian victory" mean that Polybius 'muddled the two Ptolemaic phalanxes when he was getting out his figures: the combined phalanx was 25,000, of which 20,000 were the new Egyptians' (Griffith, p. 123).
But, of course, we will never be able to resolve that particular debate.
It seems we agree, however, that it would be more accurately "historical" to limit Ptolemaic access to kleroi forces - to an 'Alexandria' and/or Memphis/Fayuum province as Edyzmedieval suggests.
What is your reaction to the Galatian swordsmen? Would you be inclined to retain them as kleroi or are you persuaded that Keltoi/Gallic warriors should only be found in the Nile Valley as mercs?
Also, what is your reaction to the "domestic unrest" element in Ptolemaic Egypt. How can this be replicated in-game? There is good modern scholarship on this subject; I recommend Chapter 5, "Domestic resistance and the Pharaonic state in Thebes (206-186)" in Gunther Holbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, Routledge, 2001.
I agree with your fundamental point about the Seleucid empire; its 'soldier-settler' system was more successful. But nonetheless, Seleucid armies in EB continue to have too many Graeco-Macedonian recruitable troops. I think the notion of a "Greek population resource" should apply to the Seleucids also - they should just have more of them.
I also believe this innovation will be good for gameplay.
Now we can see why the Seleucids fought so hard in Asia-Minor - it was an important source of their being able to renew their Graeco-Macedonian soldiery! Unlike the Ptolemaic empire, the Seleucids struggled to remain 'in direct contact' with Greek population sources, that is, the Ionian coastline of Asia-Minor.
The military strength of the Seleucids was built on the foundations established by Alexander the Great and Antigonus "one-eye" - and that means the Graeco-Macedonian military colonies. These Hellenistic military colonies were a source of Graeco-Macedonian manpower - but they were limited in both location (i.e. the Hellespont, Antioch and others in the Orontes Valley in Syria) and the number of formations they could sustain.
The Seleucid regular army lasted much better than the kleroi army of Egypt; the Seleucids needed mercenaries, but, unlike the Ptolemaic dynasty, they did not need an army of mercenaries. The "Macedonian" phalanx lasted through the centuries - but it still only numbered 20,000 of 62,000 foot at Raphia (217BC) and 16,000 of a total of 70,000 at Magnesia. There was always a heavy reliance on Greek & Cretan mercenaries, and "barbarian" mercenaries and subjects like the Thracians, Medes, Persians, Arabs (incl. Nabateans), Galatians, the Scythian Dahae, Cilicians and Jews.
H.
Would it be possible to handle elite recruitment in the way that follows?
1. For Player faction: scripted recruitment options, a la the mercenary recruitment system in ChivTW, so that you can effectively limit the numbers of hypaspistai/klerouchoi agemata, etc, and the player would have the option to not take up that financial burden.
2. For AI factions: still scripted recruitment, but the AI factions (for whom finances are not the burden they can be for the Player) receive their elites automatically.
Perhaps you could still tie the script to a certain level of MIC, such that reaching lvl 3/4 whatever unlocks a key unit.
And I wouldn't restrict recruitment of Galatians, etc based on location. Both Ptolemies and Seleukids relocated settler populations to useful areas: so useful in lower Egypt to reinforce the homelands, useful in upper Egypt, or in parts of Asia Minor, to quell dissent. There are very clear evidences, in both papyri and inscriptions, for katoikoi settlements in upper Egypt, including Makedonians, Kretans, Thracians, and Galatians.
Now, as another thing, since the Ptolemies will have both kleruch phalanxes and pezhetairoi, would it be possible to make the pezhetairoi available in Alexandria, but not Memphis?
Hello Hamilcar, paullus et al.
Well probably not ~:) , but I'm surprised that you find that the events at Raphia support a total Ptolemaic phalanx of 25.000. I think it's rather the opposite. We could take a look at the battle. First, I am giving the disposition of units (excluding cavalry and Cretans and neo-Cretans) and their numbers, as given by Polybius, for both armies.Quote:
Originally Posted by HamilcarBarca
From the seaward side of the battlefield (Seleukid right, Ptolemaic left) to its landward end (Seleukid left, Ptolemaic right), we would have:
Seleukid
....5000..........5000......10000....20000.....10000..5000....3000....1500
Mercenaries Karmanians Argyr. Settler Phal. Arabs Medes Persian Lydians
Ptolemaic
Agema "Peltasts" Libyans Settler Phal. Egypt. Phal. Mercenaries Gals&Thrac
..3000....2000.....3000.......250000.......200000.........8000.........6000
From Polybius account we know who engaged who and we can establish the sea and landward ends of the main battle line (italics indicate my comments):
"Ptolemy's guard [Agema] gave way before the rush of the animals [fleeing Ptolemaic elephants]; while Antiochus, wheeling his men [cavalry] so as to avoid the elephants, charged the division of cavalry under Polycrates. At the same time the Greek mercenaries stationed near the phalanx, and behind the elephants, charged Ptolemy's peltasts and made them give ground," (5.84)
and at the other extreme:
"Echecrates the commander of the right wing [Ptolemaic] waited at first to see the result of the struggle between the other wings of the two armies: but when he saw the dust coming his way, and that the elephants opposite his division were afraid even to approach the hostile elephants at all, he ordered Phoxidas to charge the part of the enemy opposite him with his Greek mercenaries; while he made a flank movement with the cavalry and the division behind the elephants; and so getting out of the line of the hostile elephants' attack, charged the enemy's cavalry on the rear or the flank and quickly drove them from their ground. Phoxidas and his men were similarly successful: for they charged the Arabians and Medes and forced them into precipitate flight." (5.85)
So, the main battle line for the Seleukids goes from the Greek mercenaries to the Medes and would total 55.000 men. For the Ptolemies, it would go from the "Peltasts" to their own Greek mercenaries. With Polybius numbers they would have been 58.000 thousand men against 55.000 Seleukids. With the evidence-less, "Polybius-must-have-got-it-wrong", figures it's 43.000 thousand against the Seleukid 55.000. *Nothing*, nothing at all in the subsequent development suggest the Seleukids had such a substantial numerical advantage in the infantry clash (which they *lost*). If we discount the already engaged/routed units we would have 35.000 Seleukids vs. 48.000 thousand Egyptians according to Polybius, or 35.000 Seleukids vs. 28.000 Egyptians if we go with the "must-have-been" figures.
We know the Seleukid battle line crumbled quickly in the phalanx clash ( "the division of Nicarchus [Seleukid settler phalanx 20.000 strong] quickly broke and fled" (Pol. 5.85)). Now, the "Polybius-is-wrong" set of numbers would require that those 35.000 Seleukids, comprising 20.000 settlers and the 10.000 *elite* Argyraspidai, all of them with recent battle experience (winning experience, btw) in the suppression of Molon's revolt in the upper satrapies were easily and quickly defeated by a Ptolemaic phalanx that was not only numerically inferior, but with at least 20.000 (maybe even 23.000) of its supposed 28.000 men seeing battle for the very first time!. Personally, I find that a healthy Ptolemaic advantage in numbers in the final phalanx slugfest (48.000 vs. 35.000) explains very well the quick Seleukid rout *and* does not need to resort to the "Polybius has to have been wrong" claim. Honestly, I can't see how the battle account can't do anything but confirm that Polybius numbers are right indeed.
Hmmm... Not really. There is evidence of the Ptolemies establishing a chain of military settlements in the Jordan valley and the eastern plateau and, west of the Jordan, in Samaria. Eventually, these fell into Seleukid hands after Panion, but that raises the question, what happens if the Ptolemies conquer areas where, let's say, the Seleukids had military settlements? The evidences shows that when a Successor state conquered the military colonies of another it proceeded to use them without much trouble. For example, we know that after Magnesia the Pergamene Attalids gained control of a good chunk of the Seleukid recruiting grounds in Asia Minor and quickly incorporated those troops into their forces.Quote:
It seems we agree, however, that it would be more accurately "historical" to limit Ptolemaic access to kleroi forces - to an 'Alexandria' and/or Memphis/Fayuum province as Edyzmedieval suggests.
One of the Polybius passages I posted very clearly states that 4.000 Galatians and Thracians came from settlers in the country and, as paullus has pointed out, there is abundant additional evidence of Galatian kleruchoi.Quote:
What is your reaction to the Galatian swordsmen? Would you be inclined to retain them as kleroi or are you persuaded that Keltoi/Gallic warriors should only be found in the Nile Valley as mercs?
I fully agree that domestic unrest was a huge problem for the Ptolemies. Now, I need to remind you all that EB's purpose is to allow a "sensible" rewriting of history, not just a mere replaying of it. Therefore, when we look at such historical phenomena and its relation with EB, we need to answer a number of questions. We begin with the following set, which we consider critical ones: Why did the unrest appear? Was it "unavoidable"? Was it the consequence of specific policies? Did the Ptolemaic rulers had the "tools" to do things differently and solve/avoid the problem? How could they have gone about it?Quote:
Also, what is your reaction to the "domestic unrest" element in Ptolemaic Egypt. How can this be replicated in-game? There is good modern scholarship on this subject; I recommend Chapter 5, "Domestic resistance and the Pharaonic state in Thebes (206-186)" in Gunther Holbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, Routledge, 2001.
So far, our analysis of Egyptian unrest does not indicate that it would have been there no matter what the Ptolemies did. Thereore, we are trying to strike a balance between what you could call the "base unrest level" that would be present no matter what and we need to implement and allowing the player to do sensible things that the Ptolemies may have done, but didn't do. Sometimes it seems you guys are too focused into what actually happened and not into what *might* have happened, but the "what if's" are central for EB (or any mildly serious historical simulation). We look at the actual events, of course, but we need to pay as much attention to the conditions that led to them. It's the conditions that we really want to bring into the game. Then, ideally, according to the player decissions, history will be reproduced or entirely rewritten.
You need to add a bunch of places to that list. We know there were sizeable military colonies as well in, for example: Cyrrhestica (6.000 phalangites), the northern Euphrates, Media around Ecbatana (founded by Antigonos. His son, Demetrios, in his invasion of Syria was trying to get there in search of support from the soldiers his father had settled in the area and they provided the heavy core of Molon's army in his revolt), Persis to a lesser extent (but it still could provide 3.000 Thracian and Makedonian infantry and a similar number of cavalry) and Elymais around Susa. That is just for the Seleukids, we know there were also military settlements in areas that eventually came under the rule of the Graeco-Baktrians, too.Quote:
Now we can see why the Seleucids fought so hard in Asia-Minor - it was an important source of their being able to renew their Graeco-Macedonian soldiery! Unlike the Ptolemaic empire, the Seleucids struggled to remain 'in direct contact' with Greek population sources, that is, the Ionian coastline of Asia-Minor. The military strength of the Seleucids was built on the foundations established by Alexander the Great and Antigonus "one-eye" - and that means the Graeco-Macedonian military colonies. These Hellenistic military colonies were a source of Graeco-Macedonian manpower - but they were limited in both location (i.e. the Hellespont, Antioch and others in the Orontes Valley in Syria) and the number of formations they could sustain.
Additionally, we know the Seleukids could recruit troops from areas which had had Hellenic population from old. So, our historical evidence points out towards a potentially large pool of manpower. An astute player should be able to tap into it.
Hmmm... you keep leaving out the 10.000 Arygraspidai who were present at both battles and that originated from the same source of manpower. Therefore, the military colonies turned out *only* 30.000 phalangites of 62.000 at Raphia and 26.000 of 70.000 at Magnesia. However, you need to remember that the infantry of an Hellenistic army was not supposed to be composed of phalangites only. For example, Alexander had some 40.000 infantry at Gaugamela, but only 15.000 were Makedonian, sarissa-armed phalangites. And that may be actually inflating their numbers by accepting the theory of 2.000 men as the strength of a Makedonian taxeis and counting the hypaspists as part of the phalanx. If we go with the classical 1.500 strong taxeis that'd be only 12.000 men out of 40.000 total infantry.Quote:
The Seleucid regular army lasted much better than the kleroi army of Egypt; the Seleucids needed mercenaries, but, unlike the Ptolemaic dynasty, they did not need an army of mercenaries. The "Macedonian" phalanx lasted through the centuries - but it still only numbered 20,000 of 62,000 foot at Raphia (217BC) and 16,000 of a total of 70,000 at Magnesia.
Moreover, at neither Raphia nor Magnesia were the Seleukids operating at their potential maximum or even close to it. At Raphia, the rebel Achaeus controlled the military colonies of Asia Minor, the Cyrrhestians were also in revolt and Molon's insurrection in Media had just recently been subdued, but presumably the area still needed garrisons and the loyalty of some troopers from there might have been suspect. At Magnesia, the Seleukids had just lost 18.000 phalangites in the expedition to Greece that ended up in the defeat at Thermopylae. Therefore, under reasonably ideal conditions (which a player may be able to attain) you could expect the Seleukid system to yield in excess of 40.000 phalangites (Argyraspidai included) for a royal field army. That's a lot of phalangites.
Yes of course. No one is denying that, but reliance on mercenaries and subject contingents does not necessarily equate with shortages in military settler manpower. For example, mercenaries were abundantly employed for garrison duty, as the settler troops were not adequate for that task. The katioikioi were landlholders and would want/need to go back home to take care of their katoikia during peacetime. Additionally, some of those contingents performed necessary or desirable specialist roles that the settler troops could not provide: missile troops, light infantry... You don't compensate a lack of phalangites by recruiting Dahae horse archers...Quote:
There was always a heavy reliance on Greek & Cretan mercenaries, and "barbarian" mercenaries and subjects like the Thracians, Medes, Persians, Arabs (incl. Nabateans), Galatians, the Scythian Dahae, Cilicians and Jews.
If anyone has had the patience to read up to here, I will add now that I am not personally certain of all the nittty-gritty details of our current Successor recruitment. Diverse problems have prevented me from having RTW in my current computer. However, I will take a look at the code and will encourage the true Hellenistic experts to do the same (I'm just one of the chaps that tries to make sure EB has enough Horse Archers...) to make sure that we have not inadvertently gone overboard at some point.
heres my suggestion: Stronger ships for Carthage. Ive been reading about Carthage and found out it was founded by Phoenicians. These peoples were seagoing and had a very strong navy. Since Carthage was a Phoenician colony why not give them a strong navy?