Even Caesar wanted the Belgae: "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres..."
With the Eremos getting bigger, bring more settlements in Belgica ^^
Printable View
Even Caesar wanted the Belgae: "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres..."
With the Eremos getting bigger, bring more settlements in Belgica ^^
He hasn't even played EB1, so he doesn't count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Seriously, Caesar's phrase describes cultural rather than political divisions in Gaul: the Belgae, the Aquitanii and the Galli (Gauls). The last group includes arch-rivals the Aedui and the Sequani (who took over from the Averni). I also don't see anyone arguing for a Aquitanii faction on the basis of this line.
My thoughts exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I would addQuote:
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius
1. Belgae
2. Syracuse
3. Iberian faction
4. German faction
5. Kartli (Caucasian Iberia)
6. Bithynia
7. Reserved for scripting?
I think a Celtiberian faction is pretty much a given. Aside from that I think the Belgae would be a good candidate for a faction in terms of gameplay and uniqueness. They're (unless I am mistaken) a sort of Celto-Germanic faction in an interesting place, with the options of going east into Germania, south into Gaul and west into Britain. The kingdom of Bithynia would also be a good candidate for a faction, I think.
Another Germanic faction is, I think, unlikely, due to lack of contemporary evidence and the fact that even the Sweboz only barely meet faction guidelines. Syracuse I think was quite happy controlling only the immediate area without any real ambitions to expand (under Hiero at least, though from Livius I gather that his grandson would have liked to control the whole of Sicily).
I think other good faction candidates would be Atropatene (can't really find any information on it to be honest, but wikipedia seems to think it was independent in 272 BCE) and Massaesylia (sure, it might get a bit crowed in this corner of the map, but other than that, it seems like a perfectly legitimate faction to me...).
As you said it describes cultural divisions, to me that's an even bigger reason to add the Belgae...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Of course I would love an aquitanian tribe, but the slots aren't infinite...
The "Germanic" origin of the Belgae, as described by Caesar and Tacitus, is likely a reference to the Belgae originating east of the Rhine and thus being "from Germany" rather than "German". As far as I know the Belgae were La Tene in culture and Celtic in language. The reference of a Germanic origin for the Belgae is most likely a geographical rather than ethnic note, in the same way the Aquitanii were Iberians but lived within the borders of Celtic Gaul. Your absolutley correct though in saying that the Belgae could expand into Gaul, Germany or Britain. All these possibilities are supported by the historical record (Germanic origin recorded by Caesar and Tacitus, Diviciacus of the Suessiones ruled over parts of Gaul and Britain, the Belgic invasions as recorded by Caesar) and thanks to the recent work of a young and upcoming archaeologist at Edinburgh University the Belgic presence in Britain can be demonstrated (they were in Hampshire).Quote:
Originally Posted by Folgore
About Syracuse, belive me, with Pyros, Carthage, Rome, Other greeks and so on Syracuse had no time to think a lot about expanding outside Sicily, but even then they tried to get a hold in other islands and in Italy itself, they just did not have the real chance, but perhaps, with a human player EB's Syracuse luck can be very different! (srry for the misspelling)Quote:
Originally Posted by Folgore
I think that the Arevaci will be in.
The Arevaci were the main tribe of the Celtiberians, and had lots of polical influence in the affairs of the Iberian Peninsula. When the Celtiberian War began, the other Celtiberian tribes (Titti, Belli, Lusones, etc.) were willing to rally around them to head the war against Rome. This the Arevaci did very well, as Polybius illustrates well:
"The war between the Romans and the Celtiberians was called the 'fiery war,' so remarkable was the uninterrupted character of the engagements....The engagements as a rule were only stopped by darkness, the combatants refusing either to let their courage flag or to yield to bodily fatigue, and ever rallying, recovering confidence and beginning afresh. Winter indeed alone put a certain check on the progress of the whole war and on the continuous character of the regular battles, so that on the whole if we can conceive a war to be fiery it would be this and no other one."
Polybius, The Histories (XXXV.1)
Indeed, when Scipio Aemilianus besieged Numantia, the Arevaci capitol, He refused to give battle to the enemy, though they offered battle many times out of desparation from starvation, because he recognized that he would lose. In the end, it was not a crushing military defeat that felled the Arevaci, but starvation. The Arevaci fulfill the Europa Barbarorum Team's requirements for a faction: That they were politically relevant and important, they were militarily formidable and expansionistic, and there is ample historical record to consruct a faction for them. Furthermore, the Iberian Peninsula is begging for another faction. Having the Lusotana conquer all of the peninsula in a breeze is not very realistic, after all, they never expanded due to hostile neighbors. Having the Arevaci would help to slow down the Lusotana. Also, the Arevaci's expansionistic tendancies were counteracted by hostile neighbors, just like the Lusotana. Having both would make the portrayal of each more realistic.
Welcome to the .Org, and to EB, SPQRules! ~:wave: .
I'd say the Arevacci are a safe bet: there's already a respawning army there in EB1 and the provinces in Iberia are going to be remapped.
yea they're the most likely faction guess of all that are
I, too, agree the Arevaci will be in; i think the belgae will be in as well.
Anyway, knowing the extraordinary high standards of the Eb team, we can rest asure that they best factions will be in.
Thank you, Ludens!
I think it almost assured that there will be some faction in Iberia. The Arevaci are the best bet.
How about Khwarezm?:juggle2:
their geographic position was uncertain at this time
many have defended them so far but it seems it would be as dificult and conjunctural (or even worse depending on the archeological work and finds) as the pritanoi (also the dates mighty be tricky)
As for their geographic position, I believe it is just south of the Aral Sea, where Khwarezm has always been.
There is actually a lot of material available on them, sadly it is all in Russian and only found old Soviet archeological reports, from what I've heard they were a highly organised, centralised state and quite powerful in the region.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
Are we talking about the Khwarezm or the Soviet Union?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
It certainly ain't Belgium...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennus
How would that reconcile with the fact that Pahlav own the Khwarezm region at the game's start? Is this inaccurate?
I do realize they were not independent technically from the Seleucids at this point but would they have any sort of influence over that region?
How does M2:TW handle lots of factions packed into a small area? I ask because Asia Minor is going to be awash with factions, Makedones, Seleukids, Ptolemies, Pontos, Pergamon and possibly Galatia as well. Five or even six in hotly-contested region could be messy indeed.
Nope, it's accurate. Parthia was a Seleukid satrapy that declared independence. During the dynastic crisis during the reign of Seleukos II, what would become the Parthians we know and love (i.e. those wacky horse archers) conquered the province of Parthia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
I personally have no idea. But it should be a lot of fun to find out!Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius
lol!Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
According to Wikipedia (Yes, Wikipedia. Kill me.), Khwarezm was largely independant from the Seleucids. Unfortunately, that is all Wikipedia said at all and gave no dates or anything more specific:wall:. They also said Khwarezm was the most powerful Kingdom in the Aral Sea area during the time of Alexander, although that is 50 years before Europa Barbarorum's timeframe:wall:.
I was wondering, in a very uneducated way as I'm sure I'm speaking too generally for this forum, what about the Libyans?
It may well have been asked before (even by me with my memory) but they were allies of the Carthies and must of had a bit of clout until Scipio burnt them IIRC. Could they turn up in some form or is that a no no?
What do you mean with Libyans? AFAIK Libyans was the term Greeks used to describe North Africans west of Egypt.
In some form? Yes: several Libyan units have been already previewed (1, 2). In the form of a faction? I doubt it. As Horatius mentions, the Libyans do not represent a single group: it's a broad ethnic label given to them by others. That said, there was one "Libyan" kingdom still around by the time of EB, if I am not mistaken. It had to be fairly powerful and expansionistic to qualify as a faction, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by olly
I am wondering about
Helvetii
Numantines
Odrysian Kingdom (to give Getae competition)
I also wonder about the Britons faction, with the number of British cities is anyone else worried it might prove to be just like the Britons in Rome Total War? The Britons managed to steamroll the Gauls with fewer cities.
I was dissapointed to see the Casse replaced by the Pritanoi and likewise the announcement that the Pritanoi would be the only British faction (actually really annoyed by the fact Ireland has been decreased to a single province centred on Tara, UP NAVAN!) however I have since reconcilled myself with the fact that there really is no other possible British faction to compete against the Casse/Pritanoi. The main rivals of the Casse, the Atrebates, did not arrive to 100BC at the earliest, even with historical information and numismatic evidence we cannot seperate the Trinovantes history from the Casse and to set them up as rivals would be foolish as they are in such close proximity. Elsewhere in Britain there are no suitable candidates for a faction, the Brigantes and Caledones were both confederacies and quite possibly only emerged as result of the Roman threat in the 1st century, whilst other tribes such as the Iceni, Durotriges and Dumnonii in the midlands were not expansionist and instead appear to have been primarily traders.Quote:
Originally Posted by OvidiusNasso
With regards to your concern that the Britons might just steamroll Gaul my hope is that there will be a powerful buffer faction across the channel to prevent such things and the danger of Sweboz blitzkriegs from occurring.... Belgian waffle anyone?
Is a steamroller from the British isles even a risk? Is the M2:TW better on naval invasions than RTW/BI was? Better meaning it actually launches them, and they're more than 3-5 units that are easily defeated.