Printable View
Well said, abou. They aren't kidding when they say history is written by the victors, but they should also say 'written by the nostalgic'.
And Spoofa, at first the Romans hadn't seen the map! Once the inspired leaders of that city saw a map of the known world and realized their strategic position, I can't believe that they couldn't see the time and the place for what it was.
I'm fairly certain they told Alexander not to enter Italy.
I'm also fairly certain many other military leaders told him not to enter their lands, but did that stop him? :laugh4: nope
Think you "got" me? That's a laugh. Well then if that's the case, allow me to put one across your (anti-)intellectual bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoofa
If you're so smart and Alexander was so tough, "Why did he go east?"
I wonder if you've ever asked yourself that question (objectively). Happy surfin'...
:book:
ps: I know why.
To avenge them after SPARTAAA :clown:
He hated persia....Everyone knows that.
Hate....? No, not really. But he saw the opportunity; just like Caesar saw the opportunity to take over a very large & rich area with relatively little effort. (Persia wasn't anywhere near as powerful as it had been during Dareios or Xerxes' time.)
Word.
Cost/Benefit analysis, Macedonian style..
I figured all Hellenes hated Persians in those days....
I just had a happy thought: if this business of permanent forts representing smaller cities and the like proves workable, would that mean factions like the Sweboz being surrounded by forts with Eleutheroi troops which need to be gradually conquered before a decent profit beyond retraining and expansion is possible? If so, that'd be so excellent!
I would like to think that Alexander was lucid enough to base his empire-building on the do-able, and where animosity may have played a part, practicality might have been more of an inspiration. Until he went to Egypt: then I think he lost his marbles... :egypt:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Of course, nobody knows, nor will they ever.
Well said....absolute power would probably do that too most people IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
So is there a consensus on the participants of this thread regarding the application of the new characters into the EB2 adaption?
I like princesses, but think merchants and priests are a waste of time, though I think Marcus said something about re-modelling merchants into building instead that had some campaign map application.
I really like the concept of re-modelling a character into a building (a genuinely intelligent sort figured that one out).
But I would like to see Generals, Diplomats, Princesses, Spies and Assassins and possibly regents (based on the general/governor model) as the only characters in the game. Merchants, Priests, Heretics, Bollucks..
Could a princess be reworked into some sort of diplomat type 2?
Princesses DO work as Diplomats in M2, it's just that they can also ask Generals to marry them.
That would be a problem.
No roman general would marry a barbarian princess, or even a greek one.
Well, indeed, so they will presumably not be included in EB2?
Marriage alliances were common in the ancient world, for example a Ptolemy princess might marry the Seleucid ruler, or Alexander himself might marry a Persian wife (Roxanne) while his generals also take such wives. Even the Romans married their daughters and sisters to men whom they wanted to adopt into their family. Just have the princess marry some general you hire to simulate that - or have her marry your adopted FM's. Some important Iberian nobles were able to marry Carthaginian daughters...Either way Princesses should be in the game. Just because you think that a Roman wouldn't marry an outsider doesn't mean it didn't happen (Cleopatra essentially "stole" a FM from Rome with Anthony). Just don't do that in your campaign if you feel strongly about it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmafia2020
Do you know one marriage between a barbarian princess and a roman general?
No.
Cleopatra was not a good example, she was greek, and the common roman people hate her and criticize Caesar and Marcus Antonius. But at least she was queen of Egypt.
But if a noble roman had married a celtic or germanic princess, he will have the contempt of all the SPQR (there were some examples of that in the post-classic age).
And on the contrary, when a barbarian marry a roman "princess"? Only in the last days of the empire.
The greeks were all the same race, and the royal houses were related, so that was not a problem.
But the greeks were reluctant to marry barbarian women, only with the example of Alexander their generals start to change their minds.
The ancient peoples were racist. They look foreigners and barbarians with contempt.
Read Iuvenalis.
I think that Princess character would be great for certain factions - I think that Ptoleis, Seleucids, Pontos, Hayasdans, Baktrians, Macedonians and maybe Pahlavans should have princesses. Because in history they really used princesses to marry into other nation/kingdom to tighten alliances and improve relations.
I think a good substitute for priests, since religion is now culture, are "great people".
Immobile so that nor you or the AI can wierdly pit them agianst each other, thier recruitment depends largly on what culture recruits them. A Barbarian great person will get picked from a pool of poets, bards, druids, ect while Romans would get orators, historians and whatnot. Traits would stem off of thier original careers, and the building that enables them would vary per culture. Romans can recruit from academys, while barbarians from advanced temples and taverns.
Advancing the buildings needed for recruitment will give your people better stats, to show that they're better able to do thier job and will reach more people, spreading your culture more effectivly.
It would also add a lot to historical flair. Traits can be gained while a general is stationed in a city with a well known scholar for example. As Alexander was taught by Aristotle, your young family members can take a que from these people (for better or worse).
Cultural spread through a province should still be as slow as possible. People like sticking to thier own ways and it's gonna be hard to change that. But if a state sponsered, persuasive agent were to convince a few people a season your ways were best...
Wait, who ever said that?Quote:
I think a good substitute for priests, since religion is now culture, are "great people".
Whoa, whoa, let's back up here for a moment. You're coming across as very angry although it may be that English is your second language.
First, let's not confuse racism with xenophobia. People in antiquity did not view other people as inherently flawed, but rather an issue of cultural clashing. Furthermore, Greek colonies may have a different view than Greeks from Greece proper. I imagine areas near Gaul got along very well with the Celts seeing as just how much Greek merchandise the Celts bought. Also, during EB's time frame the Antigonids got along very well with the Celtic tribes north of them. And that doesn't even begin to mention the relationship that the eastern Hellenistic powers had with the Galatians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartaphilus
Well, to be clear, we likely won't be having that marriage mechanism with states like Rome or powers like the Koinon Hellenon. How we may limit that (read: prevent) is yet to be seen. Hopefully we can, but I'm not entirely sure. Experimentation still needs to be done.Quote:
Do you know one marriage between a barbarian princess and a roman general?
No.
Now, this is a trickier matter. It is extremely debatable how related the "Greeks" were. However, as far as EB is concerned there is a distinct difference between groups people would consider "Greek". Makedonian does not equal Greek nor does Thessalian. In antiquity they considered themselves different and therefore in our descriptions and how we approach the subject we will do the same.Quote:
The greeks were all the same race, and the royal houses were related, so that was not a problem.
So that is what? Something like 50 years before our game start, if I recall correctly.Quote:
But the greeks were reluctant to marry barbarian women, only with the example of Alexander their generals start to change their minds.
To be clear, we see infusions of Iranian blood into the Seleukid royal line a couple of times as well as the marrying of Seleukid princesses to different nobles whether they be Pontic or the Greeks in Baktria. Also, the family tree in EB is pretty broad. Considering how well some of the Hellenistic powers got along with their neighbors I wouldn't be surprised if a noble here or there was married to a Celtic "princess".
Finally, take a look at Carthage and a look at Hannibal's ancestry. What do we see? We see Phoenician from his father and Iberian from his mother who was the daughter of an Iberian tribal leader. Considering how nasty the Carthaginians could be to the Libyans, that they could accept a half-Iberian as such a powerful person in their government says quite a lot.
On the issue of Romans not marrying princesses from other nations, you are comparing apples to oranges. The Greeks (Makedonians included), Celts, Iranians, and others, were all using Monarchial forms of government. The reason that you don't see as many Roman nobles and royalty from other countries getting married is the same reason you don't see American politicians getting married to European royalty. It wouldn't make sense. The Romans were Republicans, so for one of their leaders to marry a foriegn princess would seem to indicate him making a bid for power. That's the real reason that the Roman people despised Anthony and Cleopatra together, because he looked like he was trying to become king (something that the Romans hated more than almost anything). And Abou's point about the difference between racism and xenophobia is very good. Argos and Sparta were both greek cities, not only that, they were both Dorian Greek cities, but they hated each other. That's an example of xenophobia, not racism.
Another reason you don't see Romans intermarrying with foreigners is that the Romans would often make large portions of those foreign populations citizens, like they did in Italy. When that happened, the Romans had no real qualms about intermarrying. A good example is the number of later emperors who came from outlying provinces, like Trajan, Septimus Severus...
Chairman
I believe that Megos Alexander's mother was Epirote, and therefore not Macedonian, so that would be another example of a prominent state political marriage in the ancient world. As to the Romans, I won't argue that they frequently avoided marriage to non-Romans, however it did occur occasionally, and while Anthony/Cleopatra might have represented an anomoly, it is clearly a high profile one. I would hope that Roman Princesses could be used to cement Roman political alliances and adoptions. Roman suitors will appear for any unmarried princess anyway, but I personally like to hire a general and adopt him into my family by marrying off my daughter/sister to him. Even so, as Rome grew from a city-state to an empire, their soldiers must have started families with local women in Spain. Africa, and Britain. Their descendants would be Roman. Perhaps it is possible to script that Roman FM's can't marry barbarian women without a massive influence/unrest penalty, or that Roman Princesses simply do not have the marriage option in their diplomacy screen, and they must therefore wait for a proper Roman suitor to appear with a proposal that appears from the adviser at the beginning of the turn. Either way, princesses add depth to most factions diplomatic options. One possibility is simply to not have Roman princesses at all like in vanilla MTW2 where the Islamic factions lack princesses. The other factions should get them though - and they should be able to marry within their culture at least.
I know that. The problem is not for greeks or if you prefer macedonians, but mainly for the romans.
In the time-game there was not any great roman politician that marry a non roman woman. In the patricii that would be almost impossible.
In fact the mix of bloods was only made when roman became an Empire. And this was first ill-considered for the romans.
But this changed with the passing of the years - we all know the origin of the different emperors.
But I insist, please read Iuvenalis, and the other classics - They hate/despise the "graeculi" and other foreigners - "in Tiberim defluxit Orontes".
Well, I've talked about racism to simplify the matter but if you prefer we better speak of xenophobia.
And I've talk about greeks for the same reason. The greeks were not all the same.
I think that you are wrong about Hannibal's ancestry - If I am not mistaken both his father (Hamilcar) and mother were Phoenicians (maybe even with some Libyan blood in them - It was quite common for Carthagiens colonisers to marry with Libyans)Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Hannibal's wife was Iberian princess (daughter of Iberian tribal leader) and her name was Imilce.
EDITED: Sorry you were right I have just checked the net and I see that his mother was of Iberian descent. I didn't knew this.
I don't think Juvenal can be used as any real means to measure the average Roman attitude toward other people for a number of reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartaphilus
The first is that he is writing well after EB's time frame.
The second is that there are a variety of interpretations of his work including the Satires as being actual satires.
The third is that the target audience of Juvenal would have been an incredibly small portion of Roman society.
Finally, the amount of acculturation the Romans had done throughout and after EB's time frame points to certain extreme hate of Hellenistic culture as being in the minority.
Also, what other works are you talking about? What are their contexts? One only needs to look at the multitude of Greek phrases that show up in Cicero or the clear use of the Classical style in Augustus' monuments to understand what their view of the Greek world actually was.
EDIT: I would also like to add that many of the portraits we have of Mediterranean personalities of EB's time frame are Roman copies. For example, one of the portraits that we have of Seleukos Nikator was found in the ashes of Herculaneum.
Learn something new every day, right? :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bactron
I really like this idea, I think that it's great. But I think that some factions could also have some religion characters for example Pahlavans could get priests of Zarathustra, Baktrians (or if Mauryan Starapy will be in) could get buddhist monks later on etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOmegaWalrus
Now I realized that this could be complicated because bards, poets, historians, druids, priests of Zarathustra are already ingame in form of ancilliaries. So maybe it is not so great idea - Because what would happen with these ancilliaries? But I personally would welcome as many agent/characters as possible if there will be some useful tasks for them.
Let's also not forget the famous Meneriphton Kubos, by Iulius Caesar, quoting Menander.Quote:
What are their contexts? One only needs to look at the multitude of Greek phrases that show up in Cicero or the clear use of the Classical style in Augustus' monuments to understand what their view of the Greek world actually was.
Perhaps the plebeians were a bit xenophobic towards Hellenes, but I'm pretty sure Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman world, and the Romans looked up to the great poems/philosophers etc.