Ha, on this one I confess, i do not know the geographic situation of the region the sabba lived in and i spoke out of what I believed! I thus give my umble apologize... for the Sabba, the ptolemaioi aren't included in those excuses!
cheers!
Printable View
Ha, on this one I confess, i do not know the geographic situation of the region the sabba lived in and i spoke out of what I believed! I thus give my umble apologize... for the Sabba, the ptolemaioi aren't included in those excuses!
cheers!
Thanks, I wanted to ask about it. (But even more info wouldn't do harm.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
And just for clarification Egyptians didn't live in desert, they lived near Nile which was one of the most fertile regions in that time. Neither did Makedonians and Greeks who lived mostly in the Alexandria region near Mediterranean Sea and their presence made Egypt a true Mediterranean nation.
And finally I like deserts. And desserts too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andronikos
Well most of Yemen is a monsoon affected area, so one could hardly call it a desert. Especially in the days of ancient Arabia when the desert had not spread that much yet. It's spread had already started though. However this is not compelety true for the more northern parts, where Maryab used to be. But due to the ancient climate it was far from a desert. And great constructions, dams, irrigation systems,... helped at keeping it that way.
Same is also true for the Sahara IIRC, which was much less sandy and smaller in ancient times. The spreading of desert or desertification is btw something that is happening at scary rates these days as well. Ghana being an example.
Also imo, I think it's wrong to call egyptians desert people as well, as their life was focused on and around the nile. The true desert people would have been mostly nomads, as that is the only way of life on the steppes or in the desert. Berbers, and many other libyans could truely be called desert people. This was of course true for the scenitae/bedouins living in Arabia. Most famous desert tribes/people form EB's time would be the Qedar and the Nabataeans. The latter migrated north and settled in modern day Jordan, though because of the climate. And of course the Minaeans, a people famous for their trade caravans going from all the way south of Arabia to Egypt and Syria and back. Which they had been doing at least half a millenium before our game starts.
Now you got me rambling. Either way in EBII the deserts in Arabia will have some unique buildings and other things to represent the real desert people and their lives, influences,... For example the incense routes will be represented this time. But I'm not going to spill any more beans, I've been telling way to much lately. I'm getting soft. I guess it's the lack of an occultus sig or something. Gah!
Maybe the way to counter the Ptolies swallowing the AS or vice versa is to give them different barracks. As things stand, either side can start pumping out high-tier troops as soon as they take a city off the other.
Perhaps the Ptolies could share the Baktria/Macedonia line of barracks.
That said, it's not so much the elites that worry me so much as the endless phalanx spam. Given the width of a unit, 10 or more in a single stack make a pretty tricky proposition as they're tough to outflank.
That's why in my Epeiros campaign I'm bridge-hogging outside Tarsos, I'm fed up of being on the downslope even in defensive battles.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought Caesar's child with Cleopatra the Slut was named Caesarion not Ptolemy XV.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Wow, maybe they should have been Pharaohs of Kentucky.
Wel, at least their family tree is one of the clearest ones I've ever seen.
And don't you just hate when you have to scroll horizontally? No such thing necessary here.
My encyclopedia says: Ptolemy XV Caesar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blxz
Full name Ptolemy Philopator Philometor Caesar.
Nicknamed: Caesarion.
OMG It's really wild with children of Ptolemy V and VIII. That's perhaps the only thing I dislike about Ptolemies. And traits of later kings.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
So the famed Cleopatra did both her brothers too? Yuck, I'm getting images of the little brat seen in HBO Rome.:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Also the part around Cleopatra Selene and descendants is a bit nasty:dizzy2:
A miracle that Cleopatra (the most known one), turned out to be such a beautiful woman as told. Were there a lot of cases about deformed or slightly handicapped Ptolemies known?
Thanks for sharing the picture!
~Fluvius
this is why i hate the ptolemaios
https://img242.imageshack.us/img242/...madnessnt0.jpg
in that game they conquered carthages with a single army of 10, 3 gold chevrons FM
Whoa!
I couldn't cope with that, how the hell are the Saba doing just fine?
:idea2: Protectorates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosemanmoo
The Germans expanded... wow.
I was about to say, "Hmm, I'm liking Hayasdan's expansion", before I realized that those blue spots were the Black and Caspian Seas. *sigh* Not very smart to think after a soccer game. :dizzy2:
again...Quote:
Originally Posted by Arutima
https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/205/daaaamn.jpg
:inquisitive::inquisitive::inquisitive:
Poor Getai :(
Sweboz own!!! Oh yeah, and ptolies can just tramble in sight of such warriors! mouhahahahahaha!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Behold the riturn of Duguntz on the battlefield... in october!
From a scientific point of view, incsetial children (between bro's ans sister, as shown in that falily tree... wich really deserve it's name as... FAMILY tree!!!) start to show physic defect after only 10 or more generations... that's mean that when the first of that great line decided that his sister was cute enough to sleep with, it COULD take up to even 15 generation before we could actually physicly see it by defects on body AND mental... The problem of it... is that even if the grand grand grand grand grand pa' slept with a family member, and was the only one, the cromosome defect could strike like 100 years later, even if the rest took wife (or husband) in the good order, that is, with someone NOT from the family. so even a ''normal'' children could be deformated because his grand grand grand father slept with somebody he souldn't have!Hmmm... complicated even for me... still, it's only a matter of cells and chromosomes...
still, even if it takes, in general, couples of generations before deformations can be seens, don't sleep with your sister... it's awkward!
Cheers everybody!
I think you are going to enjoy the AI faction progression report I will be uploading soon... Ptolies getting owned by Swêboz (that is, me)...Quote:
Originally Posted by Duguntz
I'll wait with impacience that upload! i'm glad to finally find another Sweboz player on that forum and i wish you to kick those ptolies asses! :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
Let's come :yes:back to topic now!!!
well, i've never had any hatred for the ptolies, in fact i like them better than the AS (but then again, I am playing as Saba)
I think it's fairly easy to stop the 'Yellow fever' if you can take all of arabia, and then cut off the choke point around syria and israel. I'd prefer to side with the Ptolies, and maybe give them something in india, but not much more than that for help.
It strikes me as odd that so many people have no real idea about genetics on any level and yet still claim to know everything about it from heresay and general guesswork.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duguntz
The stuff i put in bold in the quote is probably the most laughable part of the whole inaccurate lot. Its way off topic so i won't explain what actually happens but if you really have to know PM me and I will give anyone a nice big boring lecture. (its actually kinda interesting if you are into that)
Seriously people, don't try and talk about specifics on anything if you really have no idea or if you heard the absolute truth according to this "real reliable guy you met down the pub". It just spreads around wrong information.
15 generations is about 450 years. I highly doubt that one incestal relationship would lead to problems half a millenium down the line.
True, a shallow breeding pool just tends to bring recessive genes to the front. And often these tend to be mutations and some stuff. So loads (read LOADS) of inbreeding can get rid of the correct genes and just leave you with mutations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
AND, it would show up as soon as it happened, not magically appear 450 years down the track.
So everyone, it is safe to sleep with your sister. Just really disgusting morally and illegal in all western countries. Except 1st cousins are allowed to marry in Japan. Apparently thats far enough apart on the family tree.
Genetics is not my strongest field, but I do recall that, as a species, humans are genetically weak and derived from a small stock. So incest is a risk after a few generations. If I am wrong, feel free to send me your lecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blxz
Yes, if you don´t mind i would also like to know a bit more about it.:book:
I would like to know more about this too. I have little knowledge in biology as it wasn't a main subject in the last years of high school.
the following first countries also allow the cousin marriages: Kuwait, Emirates, and Qatar*. its an Arab thing:clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blxz
Inbreeding does indeed tend to cause serious trouble over generations, regardless of the genetic pool of the species (Ludens?), though it can get sharper in effect with a shrinking group. the Reason is because it tends to concentrate defective, or deleterious, mutations over a period of time, to the point of being incompatible with a healthy life. a simple example: suppose there are a pair, husband and wife, both having a gene, Xx. X is doinent, x is recessive. the recessive one gives people hell (say, born with bad hearts). the punett square will make the following children: XX, Xx, Xx, and xx. now, lets mate two at random, and see how the xx (bad heart) concentration changes. believe me, it goes up very quickly. here is a real life example. notice his jaw:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...arreno_002.jpg
he's a Hapsburg...
*seriously, they should be considered 1st world: they have government care for people, and have modern infrastructures, high incomes, and good economies (and Kuwait has real freedom of speech). their only problem is that they are all oil addicted, though that is changing...slowly.
I want to add that there are two lines of the House of Habsburg, the Austrian and the Spanish. The Spanish are the inbred.
:dizzy2::dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
Ibrahim beat me to it. There is not alot more I could add without repeating what he basically said or going into more real-life examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
And ludens you are very right, humans have had a very small stock to draw from in the past. There are some theories that the human population (or almost human creature thingy's on the evolution scale) may have gone as low as a few thousand people scattered over a country sized area at at least one and possibly other points in our history.
We are also supposedly linked to one woman (really old corpse) that was found who happens to have an almost exact match of a DNA that we have in a location that is not prone to mutations (coz mutations there lead to death - i think number of fingers and heart function are closely linked). This means that if that scientific paper was not lying, then we are all brothers from another mother. Although I think it could be faked. Getting DNA of any kind, especially accurate DNA from a 100,000yr old corpse no matter how preserved is close to impossible I thought.
Anyone able to provide more info on this? I think it might have been the 'Lucy' corpse that they found.
/OT talk
This reminded me of an old saying: 'All wars are civil wars, as all men are brothers.'......
Oil-addiction is a problem? I thought it was a requirement for entering the first-world club.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
I doubt it, since Lucy is only tentatively identified as a female. I agree it sounds unbelievable, by the way. Extracting DNA from organisms that old is possible, but there is a great risk of contamination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blxz
Reading the last posts in this thread I think this should be locked...
I highly doubt kid that age can produce sperm. Their union produced no child. I'd say no. They were co-rulers but those lines aren't supposed to be there. Clearly it's just people needing to exaggerate.Quote:
So the famed Cleopatra did both her brothers too? Yuck, I'm getting images of the little brat seen in HBO Rome.
Incest is only bad if you produce offspring. Then again I encourage pretty much everyone not to reproduce until we don't see each other one county apart. Yes county. Country is too big.
The thread has moved OT, but I think the original question has been sufficiently answered. If you disagree, feel free to PM me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien of Germania
No, she was definitely married to both her brothers, although not at the same time. Presumably she couldn't rule on her own, and needed to do it through a male relative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weebeast
funniest quote in this damn thread :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Weebeast
Yes I know but marriage =/= sex and the chart in this thread was labeled "family tree" not "list of Ptolemaic Pharaohs." That's what I'm trying to point out to Fluvius.Quote:
No, she was definitely married to both her brothers, although not at the same time. Presumably she couldn't rule on her own, and needed to do it through a male relative.
Funny how? Funny haha or funny "lol you did your sister" funny?Quote:
funniest quote in this damn thread
Producing children would be inbreeding, not incest, so the statement is quite correct. Technically.
Hell, even Carlos I/Charles V found it difficult to eat properly, and always ate alone, out of shame. Charles II on the other hand, (I.e. this guy) not only found it impossible to eat without assistance, but was mentally incapacitated, infertile and his death brought about a 13 year long war for his throne.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
So that is why you don't inbreed.
please do we´re here to learn if anyone finds it boring he can just skip it :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blxz
to the best of my knowledge dna studies show that the diference beteween a native american and a greek was only of around 24.000 years since they had a common ancestor and most humans in the world are extremly similar except for africans wich are those who are most diferent from the rest and thus can be the human salvation towards a diversification of our gens pool
the explination that was given to me for this was the java super volcano that exploded around 80.000 years ago and created a type of nuclear winter wich in turn killed all major animals in great numbers and thus humans also creating a botleneck effect like the one currently seen in cheetah´s in africa
as for people talking about mutations i don´t consider them bad the base for any species diversity lies in those mutations or else we would all be clones, the major problem i believe (and i´m not certain of this) is that most mutations are the "right" mutations
it doesnt matter if their children became retarded through inbreeding, its the fact that they were inbreeding that is the funny part. i mean come on, just bring a noble daughter over from makedonia and just farm babies from her. keeping power within the family is a lame excuse. ptolemy was a cunning fox but i dont tink inbreeding was one of his better ideas.
did i mention the incredibly boring starting location of the egyptians? your settlements in israel and asia minor are so vulnerable and you feel obligated to defend them.
actually i tend to leave those jews and asian mountain monkeys to their own devices, n secure western north afrika first, then spam keltoi and elite pikemen to streamroll the seleukidai.
There's no such thing as "right mutations".Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
Yes, because Ptolemy had an advanced knowledge of genetics. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaza
They are in pretty much exactly the same boat as the Makedonians, who have their own undefended cities in Korinth/Pellas. Besides, I find the Ptolemaioi's position interesting because those areas are vulnerable.Quote:
did i mention the incredibly boring starting location of the egyptians? your settlements in israel and asia minor are so vulnerable and you feel obligated to defend them.
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
True again. Although I did end up losing the asia minor ones in my last game it was as a decent trade for securing every city up to and including Antiochea. It sort of requires you to spread yourself around a bit, especially if you are also chasing the southern regions and have no way to quickyl bring your army back from Meroe area, etc. Fun times with a bit of strategic planning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Ding ding ding! Do I win a prize? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blxz
Exactly. Besides, there's loads of different playing styles. You can abandon Cilicia, defend it, focus on Africa, go for Anatolia or Persia... You've got more possibilities than, say, the Luso have, who can only go into Iberia and then can go for Gaul or Africa.Quote:
Although I did end up losing the asia minor ones in my last game it was as a decent trade for securing every city up to and including Antiochea. It sort of requires you to spread yourself around a bit, especially if you are also chasing the southern regions and have no way to quickyl bring your army back from Meroe area, etc. Fun times with a bit of strategic planning.
As ARCHE SELEUKEIA, Ruling from the greatest throne in the world, taking all the Ptolemaioi border regions and developing them proves very lucrative. The Ptolies have had nothing outside of Egypt for many years now and I would say out of those whom I am at war with they are the least threatening to my borders :beam: those would be of the ARCHE SELEUKEIA
That is, the ARCHE SELEUKEIA, the greatest throne in the world. Did I mention that it is the greatest throne in the world? :smash: Eat it, Ptolies :2thumbsup:
because the makedones settlements are close together and the ptolemaioi far apart. antigonos gonatas also starts near athens so he can quickly connect it. and no the makedones arent in the same boat, the ptolmies have their settlements spread throughout the desert which take 510 turns to traverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
It's been a long time since my undergrad days but I think you may be referring to 'Mitochondrial Eve'. As far as I remember it this term doesn't denote a particular paleontological find, rather a theory of coalescence in mtDNA to provide an estimate for the most recent common female ancestor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blxz
There's a book I started, but didn't finish, by Steve Olson called Mapping Human History if you're interested in this kind of thing.
Very much interested. I'll go and search it out. Thanks for helping clarify all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Casse
The one legitimate complaint you have posted, and even then only to a degree if you go for Syria/Anatolia rather than Africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaza
Which is what makes the Ptolemaioi even more vulnerable, and thus even more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaza
Again, you seem to be thinking that the word "difficult" is a synonym for "boring". For most people, it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaza
To mix Absinthe with anything but caramellised sugar or a bit of water is barbaric.
I have rarely fought the EB Ptolies as they are so far away then become the Yellow Fever or succumb to The Grey Death, and I have never played them either. Factions with a strong warrior ethos appeal to me, or exotic factions. Res Publica Romana, Macs and Sweboz are the former, Bactria the latter. Ptolemaioi... not. Perhaps one day in EB II.
Quite. That's why I used Absinthe, as we're, uh, more "refreshing" than ginger beer, but not any less sophisticated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macilrille
That's not entirely true. They may not be called "right" mutations per se, but there are certainly such things as beneficial mutations. Beneficial gene mutations are the basis of biological evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Why is it that the last three posts I've made on this forum pertain to Darwin? It's just not normally what I expect to be talking about here...
yeah I forgot to mention that.:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
I'm well aware of how this particular hapsburger changed history: the war of Spanish succession practically made britain a military power, not just in Europe, but the world. it also made the Churchills rich and famous. no john churchill winning battles right and left = no Winstton Churchill as prime minister.
@ Ludens: yeah, I know Oil Addiction is a 1st world thing, but what I meant was that the well being of the economy depended on it far more than even the US or some european country, not just their 1st world transportation systems:clown: in the sense that 70-90% of all revenue headed to government comes from Oil.
If oil production falls, it's not just our transportation systems that will be in trouble. But this is getting very OT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
To those who hate the Ptolemaioi, this might cheer you up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ubEXSDKoig :laugh4:
Btw personally I love the Ptolemaioi :egypt:
i am biased towards arche seleukia so naturally i dislike them. Its also to do with the fact that:
1. They have a typical successor roster with worse units. Only their galatians and elite pikemen are great. For some reason their expensive agema unit always does nothing for me
2. They spam elite pikemen
3. They conquer the world due to good starting position and only one enemy and i love the underdogs. In EB AS is something of an underdog, because despite their large territory no other faction has to face 4-5 enemies straight away and pressing from every single direction
4. On VH/M their campaign becomes a nightmare due to large rebel stacks besieging cities down south which take SOOO long to get to
5. I hate seeing yellow death no matter which faction I play. I always help Seleucids if im rich enough. No matter what faction I am i will send an army on some ships and take alexandria, sack it and give to AS with a money gift. I then send the stack to reconquer Antioch for the AS and all of Syria and down to Jerusalem. I sack every city and give all the profits to the AS
6. Historically Ptolemies would have been wiped out by Antiochus IV but they went and begged the Romans for help like any common coward. If they had just accepted the fact that the AS were better than them then the Seleucids would have the wealth of Egypt and Greeks would have ruled the east instead of the Romans
Let's be fair about whom we call a coward. Antiochus IV gave up on conquering Egypt because a single Roman envoy intimidated him in front of his own army.Quote:
Originally Posted by seleucid empire
As for the claim that the Seleukids were "better" than the Ptolemies - better in what way? Militarily? That's a valid claim, though it didn't help them in being conquered by the Parthians and Pompey.
That envoy had ultimatum directly from Roman senate, kind of like some modern country (not russia or china) would receive ultimatum from U.S senate, there aren't many rulers/countries who would go to ignore such threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by MButcher
And calling Ptolemies cowards due to their actions during sixth syrian war is valid afterall Ptolemy (or his advisors) started it by demanding return of coele-syria and after being rebuffed reacted by declaring war where they were totally defeated by Antiochus. Philometor then went to betray his uncle when he made peace with his brother after which they cryed for Rome's help. All in all sounds quite spineless to me.
Is there any other way to determine superiority than military strength? Organisation maybe,but both kingdoms suffered from dissent so it's hard to say which one was better governed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MButcher
The "line in the sand" episode is a nice tale and all, but one must put it into context: the Seleucid court was in a deep financial crisis, due to war indemnities and lost wars; Demetrios (the real heir and brother to Antiochos IV) was held hostage in Roma...
It was the wisest choice to make: taking on the Ptolemaioi as they were dealing with rebellions in the Thebai and Triakontaschoinos was feasible, facing the SPQR wasn't...
Not to mention at the same time the Pahlava were occupying Media...
Bottom line it wasn't an ultimatum, but the political equivalent of an adult holding a child by the forehead...
I'm afraid I should have been more clear. My comment wasn't an argument that the Ptolemies were somehow more brave, or less cowardly, than the Seleukids. I absolutely agree that certain actions taken by the Ptolemies can be called cowardly. My comment was merely meant to show that there was more to the episode than the original poster stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinnishedBarbarian
This is precisely what I was calling into question. To say that "the AS were better than them (i.e. the Ptolemies)" is quite a broad statement. We cannot say that one kingdom was "better" than another, because "better" is too broad and subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinnishedBarbarian
My way of dealing with AI Ptolemies and Quarthadast becoming too powerful is to set up Saba to become their nemesis. I figure the only cities Ptolemies and Quarthadast really exercised good control over historically were the coastal cities (with ports) - i.e. the ones that are easy to ship reinforcements to quickly. But the inland towns are more native Egyptian and Numidian than Hellenic or Carthaginian, so shouldn't really be under long-term Ptolemy/Carthage control. So I use Force Diplomacy to take the inland towns off them and give them to Saba on a regular basis - simulating regular native rebellions.Quote:
Originally Posted by seleucid empire
Well Antiochus IV made a smart decision. His empire was crippled by the war indemnities which his predecessors had to pay after Magnesia. Thats why im not a particularly big fan of his predecessor Antiochus III. In the battle of Magnesia the right wing of the Seleucid cavalry led by Antiochus III routed the Roman left but instead of turning around and flanking the Romans or supporting his own failing left he charged n chasing routers believing the battle was won. This was almost EXACTLY the same mistake he had made at Raphia. I guess he was a little too hot headed to learn from his mistakesQuote:
Originally Posted by MButcher
As for the Ptolemies, they pretty much became vassals of Rome after they begged them for help
More likely, Antiochus III didn't have sufficient control over his cavalry to stop them chasing routers. Not that this makes him a bad general - chasing routers was a very normal activity for ancient cavalry. Only very disciplined cavalry can be stopped from chasing routers and made to reform for another charge on a different part of the battlefield, and usually this has to be planned for and communicated to the men in advance of the battle (like Hannibal's cavalry at Cannae.) If a general wanted formed cavalry for the later stages of a battle, normally he had to keep a fresh, uncommitted unit in reserve. Which is hard to do when you're short of cavalry, because you are forced to throw everything in at the start just to fight off the enemy cavalry.Quote:
Originally Posted by seleucid empire
good point but from what i read i blame antiochus himself for his defeats because he personally led the cavalry in at both Raphia and Magnesia. And wouldn't the Seleucid cavalry be pretty disciplined especially the companions and the agema? also the Seleucids had quite a big advantage in cavalry in that battle. i read this online extract too which said he put elephants in between his phalanx companies which seems like a weird move.Quote:
Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato
Well to be honest im not really a fan of any seleucid generals other than Seleucus himself and Antiochus IV. But i have to admire them because unlike the Ptolemies, most of the Seleucid Kings had to go on campaigns a lot because of the vastness of the empire and the frequent rebellions and attacks of the Parthians
To be frank you should read more about the Ptoleis :P
Soter was a great general and secured for himself a kingdom out of nowhere (he actually made the Seleucid Empire possible, without his help Seleukos would have ended up a beggar)...
Philadelphos had a decent go at thalassocracy of the eastern mediterranean; and as a ruler (economy and internal affairs) could have possibly been the most successful among all the Epigonoi...
Eurgetes was actually recognized as Basileos of Asia...
Philopator faced superior indian elephants and cavalry, had enough field generalship to regroup and win Raphia (if only Antiochos Megas could have picked a little of that :P)...
As for campaigning, just look at how many syrian wars there are and rebellions they faced a lot of them...
Both kingdoms stood equal, whether due to military/economic might or political shrewdness, that's why the constantly "cancel" eachother out and bled themselves, allowing new powers to rise...
ahh yes i was aware that Ptolemy was the one who helped seleucus rise to power
im really talking about the entire history of the empires not just the first dew good kings tho :D
most of the Ptolemies after Ptolemy III just lost more and more land and less influence
for raphia it it was antiochus not realising that the battle was over rather than Ptolemy IV's strategy
also i believe that although he was present in the battle he left most of the commanding to merc generals such as Polycrates of Argos?? correct me if im wrong. As well as the fact that ptolemy himself was a weak king under the influence of his ministers who were the ones who organised the recruitment of the army
Which is the same exact (actually shorter) story for the Seleukidai...Quote:
Originally Posted by seleucid empire
In fact, the Ptolemaioi were smarter and retained a certain independence: most of all the roman emperors could have been part Lagidai under certain circumstances or at least friend of Roma and rulers in the east...
Why would a basileos personally oversee recruitment and training? That's what strategoi and officials are for XDQuote:
Originally Posted by seleucid empire
Philopator was leading the left flank, they did their best against all odds, eventually got overrun and he had the cool to get back to the center and lift spirits and coordinate the phalanx, thus winning the battle...
haha nono i meant that he was like a puppet for his ministers. They recruited when they saw the threat and they managed most of his policies thus the decline of the ptolemies
He and Antiochos were both like 20, anyway that's not true: he/they faced rebellions (quite well organized) and backed by Meroe in the south...Quote:
Originally Posted by seleucid empire
The Aegean territories were already lost previously, they could only keep a defensive policy (except the usual syrian claims), rather than expansionistic, considered the several succession crisis to come aswell...
the simplest answer is because they are like barnacles eating into the hull of my enjoyable game, they swallow AS and everything else, i dont even know why, i turned down their money script so they get less each turn, still they destroy every eastern faction (although it seems to be slower than before), even with a turned down money script and giving 80000 to the AS every second turn they rip them apart. it makes the game tedious. i imagine a better strategy would be to run spies and a good assassin to antioch as soon as the ptolemaioi take it, and disable their barracks each turn, then they cant make elites, and hopefully they would get pushed back
ptolemaioi in terms of army are easy to disable just take out the barracks in alexandreia and the other city just bellow and they will be 10 years without recruiting their elite armies and then they should be easyer altough ...
if they lack the elite units it means they can recruit far more in numbers ...
can´t wait for eb2 with limited recruitment pools
recently i started doing 1 simple thing i try and have 1 single unit of every recruitable units in the city and when war arrives i just gather them all together into regional armies to face off the threat
works great aslong as you got enough cash and don´t need the men (i play in huge)
if there was a script to allow the recruiting of 9 units in 1 turn but limited it to 1 single unit type it would be amazing and really help the historical accuracy since most armies where levies who where disbanded before the harvest time (so add a timer where to recruit you would only pay like 25% of their recruitment cost and then for every turn you would have to add 25% and try to disband them before autumm or else you would pay the full priçe + a small bonus )
just saying