Dead Moroz's New Map

Hi,

One of the fellows suggested that we keep the news thread clean of discussion of the map itself. I wholeheartedly agree. Please, see the original sticked news thread for the map image itself.

What can I say, great work, Dead Moroz! I have also enjoyed seeing your prior work in other threads. This is my first post, by the way. The map is so good, I just had to stop lurking!

Anyways, I have a question - is the orange faction still the Scythians? Vernadski and other authors say that by the 3rd century BC the Scythians were pressed closer to the Crimean peninsula by the Sauromatae (or Sarmatians, as they are commonly known). Are you keeping the Scythians as a faction or is it going to be changed to Sarmatians? Maybe there are other sources on the Scythians that contradict Vernadski, I am not sure??

Overall, I am amazed at the work this team has done so far, and your ambitions sound most worthy and encouraging!! I wish I could assist in some way, however my expertise is limited to Central European pre-Roman cultures, and even that is limited to a couple of undergrad courses in university. You appear to have plenty of knowledgable people on board already!

Keep up the good works, and cheers!!

Russa

on the new map, the orangey faction are sarmatians. the scyths are out until they can add new factions, afaik. but the map isn't final anyway.

For commens on the map, all I can say is WOW! HOLY MAMAJAMMA GO DEAD MOROZ! YOU ARE THE MAN! ~D

I knew it was going to be historically accurate and quite detailed but I never imagined that could be done to such a fine and surpremely detailed level. I wish I could give some sort of constructive criticism but I can't find anything about it to criticize, its absolutely perfect.

Playing as the Carthies is going to have a whole new level of depth with the deep interior of Africa to expand into, and the Sarmatians are going to be surrounded with endless steppes to conquer and the Scelucids will have the difficult task of holding their massive empire together and the Parthians ready to pounce on their tender underbelly and and and and AND!!!!

Whew...I seriously CANNOT wait for this mod, its going to blow everything else out of the water

Russa: well, if you could add some info about _names_ in Central, Eastern and North-Eastern Europe... all we have so far is archeological cultures, and for names we have to use either Herodotus, or Ptolemy, neither of which is very accurate... With Dead Moroz being from Russia and me being from Poland, we have some extra knowledge of these lands, but perhaps you have found something interesting?

I like the current extent of the map. But is there a way to make 'dead space' that isn't possible to move onto and doesn't have a capital? I was thinking the bottom seven provinces in the southwest of the map (the Sahara) looked particularly useless.

Or, since it's only the cities that have to be within 50 tiles of adjacent cities, make really tall provinces where the cities are clustered up closer to the coasts or the Nile, but the land within the provinces extends vertically all the way down to the map border?

Mostly I'm not looking forward to slaughtering the Carthaginians up in the important provinces but then having to send armies down to root them out of the Saharan provinces by capturing and holding seven completely useless settlements there.

Can't edit my posts but this is what I mean by really tall provinces. As far as I can tell the cities that remain will be no farther from the adjacent cities than they were before.

http://img1.exs.cx/img1/9179/mapsmall4si1jo0hz.gif

I think that's a great idea!

Especially since you can take those 7 provinces and use them elsewhere... you could make cool, happening cities like Philippi, Agrigentum, Bononia, another province on the east Adriatic coast, give Carthage another city on their coast... heck, there's probably a whole crapload of cities I don't even KNOW about...

EEP! That's incredible! Except....well when it comes to those cities in the southern most area of Africa...those will be hell if rebels pop up. So much open space away from...well anything.

Are you all reading what khelvan and other people from EB said ? It there's more than 50 tiles between two province, it will break both the AI and trading. That's why there's no huge RTR-style province (those provinces might actually be causing the slowdown during AI turn).

We will most likely be implementing a solution to cut down on the number of desert provinces, but only if we can do so without sacrificing any stability in the game mechanics. We do not know if we can, yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Are you all reading what khelvan and other people from EB said ? It there's more than 50 tiles between two province, it will break both the AI and trading. That's why there's no huge RTR-style province (those provinces might actually be causing the slowdown during AI turn).

---

I did read what Khelvan said... he said:

Quote:

---

By definition, you're talking about increasing the size of the map provinces. The settlements cannot be more than 50 tiles by road away from each other. If we increase the scale of the map we will be extending the distances beyond this limit, thus breaking the game mechanics.

---

So I think a map like the one above would work, given that the settlements are still close together, clustered up against the coast and the Nile (like they were in real life, for the most part).

Dead Moroz seems confident that this will break the AI as well. As I said, we are discussing different options.

Maybe this is too late, but I think we should incorporate the sacred Island of Delos as a province to our map. This place was considered a focal point of pilgrimage until the introduction of christianity. People from many religions and deities were visiting this holy place throughout the year. Imagine something like Jerusalem or Mekka of the Ancient and Hellenistic World. Temples of Apollo and Isis were amongst the more prominent. In particular the statue of Apollo was about 15 metres high and even today there are fragments surviving. :bow:

maybe the "isle of delos" could be a new wonder, if EB chooses to add those.. it could belong to athens (that's the closest of the game cities to delos, right?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheep

So I think a map like the one above would work, given that the settlements are still close together, clustered up against the coast and the Nile (like they were in real life, for the most part).

---

Actually, safe distance between regions is smaller than 50px. With lots of large regions, even within 50px radius from each other, you will always have problems. You need some number of small/medium provinces to bind the web of regions around.

Hmm, the opening turns for the Seleucid player could take absolutely hours. You could even take out Parthia in a few years but sacrificing a few provences and moving your units into their terrority early on. Same for against Armenia.

And Carthage can conquer Numidia almost immediately too.

Holy crap, that map is massive! The Eastern Factions would actually be able to build up a stronghold back home before assaulting the MeditteraneaN!

that's the point mate, I huess it's more accurate that way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

Actually, safe distance between regions is smaller than 50px. With lots of large regions, even within 50px radius from each other, you will always have problems. You need some number of small/medium provinces to bind the web of regions around.

---

K, if that's the case then I stand corrected. Do what you have to do. Just trying to throw ideas out there.

I have question about the rivers in Britain: Why have the Thames featured, but not the river Severn? The Severn is the biggest longest river in Britain. I'm not suggesting you replace the Thames with the Severn, its just to be more 'geographically accurate' it should be added. I find it perplexing how the Severn was not included in vanilla RTW either, I mean CA are actually British, I can't blame a foreigner for not knowing the features of the British countryside.

Please do add it though, and perhaps could you lengthen the Thames slightly, and if you're feeling extra generous maybe you could add the river Trent in England and the river Shannon in Ireland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrashaholic

I have question about the rivers in Britain: Why have the Thames featured, but not the river Severn? The Severn is the biggest longest river in Britain. I'm not suggesting you replace the Thames with the Severn, its just to be more 'geographically accurate' it should be added. I find it perplexing how the Severn was not included in vanilla RTW either, I mean CA are actually British, I can't blame a foreigner for not knowing the features of the British countryside.

Please do add it though, and perhaps could you lengthen the Thames slightly, and if you're feeling extra generous maybe you could add the river Trent in England and the river Shannon in Ireland.

---

Then please show us some geographical information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

Then please show us some geographical information.

---

Righty ho,

Here's a map of the River Severn and river Wye (severn on right):

River Severn

here's one of the shannon:

shannon

Here's a link that'll show you the position of all the noteworthy rivers in Britain:

rivers

Thank you for the info. We'll do our best to make the map more accurate.

Were these rivers easily fordable or were they major obstacles? Cause if they were small rivers that armies just walked across, then personally I would rather not have them on the map as obstacles forcing me to march around them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheep

Were these rivers easily fordable or were they major obstacles? Cause if they were small rivers that armies just walked across, then personally I would rather not have them on the map as obstacles forcing me to march around them.

---

Um... if you remove the natural defences and obstacles of a territory to make it easier to attack then the very idea of this mod is thrown away.

*edit*

I think I may have actually mis-interpreted your post.

As i live near the River Severn and Wye I can safely say you'd need a bridge or you'd have a lot of floating legionaries ~:)

What 'city' are you planning to have in Wales ?

I know Caerleon was a major Roman stronghold in South Wales but then I guess this is set sometime before the Roman conquest of Britain...

It has nothing to do with the 'idea of this mod'. The idea is not to make everything harder :) Nor is it to show every possible geographic detail. Of the rivers in Britain, only Severn and Thames are big enough to appear in game, I think. If we'd put any smaller, then we'd have to put about a hundred other rivers of equal length that are in mainland Europe...

Mona will be there, in Tribus Ordovices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eadingas

Russa: well, if you could add some info about _names_ in Central, Eastern and North-Eastern Europe... all we have so far is archeological cultures, and for names we have to use either Herodotus, or Ptolemy, neither of which is very accurate... With Dead Moroz being from Russia and me being from Poland, we have some extra knowledge of these lands, but perhaps you have found something interesting?

---

Hi, eadingas! ~:wave:

Pardon me for being rather late in replying: I was unable to access the board for a few days and then things got hectic at work for a while. I would certainly love to do what I can in terms of names. Would you like place-names as well, or just personal names? I will have to look through my reference materials to see what I have. I was trained by Dr Schutz, one of the few experts on Germanic and Central_European culture in North America.

Here are some of his books, if anyone is interested:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...599821-5570268

Den' dobre and zdravstvuite, eadingas and Dead Moroz! I was born and raised in Russia and my ancestors on the father's side came from Poland in the 18th century (Prus I clan, last name Plonski). I somehow ended up moving to Canada eight years ago, go figure!

Thanks for letting me participate in your project!

Russa

It is a great map however i would like to point out that the borders of Armenia should be extended east of the Arax river. The Arax river is Armenia's eastern boundry in the map. However historicaly, and in the modern sense Armenia extends beyond the Arax river, but not to the Caspian sea. Infact the captial of the province, Artashat (Artaxata) is actualy located east of the Arax river.

P.S. I dont know if it is possible to change the terrain and climate of a province, but if it is then it would be accurate to change the dry looking climate of Armenia into more of a greener enviroment. Armenia is not a desert. In the winter there should be snow in Armenia, becasue it snows alot in that land. Thank You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigran

It is a great map however i would like to point out that the borders of Armenia should be extended east of the Arax river. The Arax river is Armenia's eastern boundry in the map. However historicaly, and in the modern sense Armenia extends beyond the Arax river, but not to the Caspian sea. Infact the captial of the province, Artashat (Artaxata) is actualy located east of the Arax river.

P.S. I dont know if it is possible to change the terrain and climate of a province, but if it is then it would be accurate to change the dry looking climate of Armenia into more of a greener enviroment. Armenia is not a desert. In the winter there should be snow in Armenia, becasue it snows alot in that land. Thank You

---

You are essentially correct with regards to the borders of Armenia but I believe the mistake lies in the name of the river. Dead Moroz is showing the Kuru (Cyrus) river rather than the Aras (Araks/Araxes). The city Mtskheta is located on the Kura river. The river is not at present in the correct place and needs the southern fork (Araks) of the river to be displayed.

The capitol of Armenia in 270 BC was Armavir rather than Artashat (Artaxata), though you are correct about the location. It is not as well represented on the map as we would like, but we are working on it and if you see anything else do not hesitate to correct us as we appreciate all the help we can get.

Regarding the snow and greener pastures you are again correct! I missed that and will point it out to the First Secretary of the E. B. Grand Map Commission.

Do you have any information on old (ancient) Armenian terms for cavalry, infantry, spears, armour, etc? Anything you have would be helpful!

hi Sharrukin thank you for taking my suggestions into considerations. In Ancient Armenia the cavalry was know as Ayrudzi. THis word is a compound made of of the word ayr=man and dzi=horse. The Ayrudzi was famed in the ancient world, and whoever had them on their side was considered an advantage. Here are some of the military terms that u requested.Arka means king Aspet is a knight. Sparapet is a general. Azat is a lesser knight. sur= sword nizak=spear vahan=shield



P.S. are there any units made by EB for the Armenian, and Parthian factions. If there are are they the same identical units for both factions or do they have historical diffrences thanks.

»Since you´re talking about armenia, and as I know that you are making new faction symbols- the German and the Numidian (although thats not gonna see the light of day for the moment)-I thought I´d leave a link I have come across:

http://www.angelfire.com/hi/Azgaser/symbols.html

Hope it´s useful in some way. :bow:

»Although I´m probably gonna be bashed by this, don´t you think Armenia should be in the same category as Numidia? They were pretty much puppets in power struggles between empires. By removing it, it would mean another free spot to use elsewhere, but I guess this a personal opinion. Feel free to correct me.... :book:

»Also, the inclusion of the kingdom of Bactria seems to be somewhat surprising...all I´ve read about it was just internal dissention, a few unsucessful campaigns in India and eventually was destroyed by Nomadic tribes as early as 125 B.C. Surely there are other cultures which would be more of a priority since the mod is called Europa Barbarorum (I know it´s expanded beyond it´s name) and the game itself is Rome: Total War. Rome showed no interest in Eastern conquests. It abandoned most of its shortly-held Eastern conquests after the death of Trajan and that was 117 A.D! :dizzy2: Or is this a deliberate attempt to make the game more varied by the inclusion of Indian units?

Please don´t shoot me.....I´m just curious :book:

I was almost lynched when I suggested re-evaluating Armenia's place in our mod.

Thanks for the information!

I'll let Urnamma speak about Bactria, he championed the cause.

When one is talking about ancient history and does not mention Armenia that is like talking about contemporary history without mentioning Great Britain, France, or Germany. So it will be a mistake to put it in the same catagory as Numidia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigran

hi Sharrukin thank you for taking my suggestions into considerations. In Ancient Armenia the cavalry was know as Ayrudzi. THis word is a compound made of of the word ayr=man and dzi=horse. The Ayrudzi was famed in the ancient world, and whoever had them on their side was considered an advantage. Here are some of the military terms that u requested.Arka means king Aspet is a knight. Sparapet is a general. Azat is a lesser knight. sur= sword nizak=spear vahan=shield



P.S. are there any units made by EB for the Armenian, and Parthian factions. If there are are they the same identical units for both factions or do they have historical diffrences thanks.

---

Thank's for the list. It is suprising close to Parthian for some of the terms.
Some of the units for Armenia are similar to Parthian units while others are not. The model limit does not allow us as much latitude as we had hoped for but the increase in the number of units has allowed to include some we might not otherwise have been able to. Thank's for the Armenian terms, anything like that is always useful.

With regards to the position of Armenia in history it has a much more significant role than most people realize. In some ways it was the linchpin to victory in the warfare between Rome and Parthia. Without control of, or an alliance with Armenia victory was not possible for either side. Crassus tried it the hard way and he found out at Carrhae why it's a bad idea.

Numidia does not even come close to the power or strategic positioning of Armenia. Armenian cavalry was numbered as the heaviest and the best the ancient world fielded. Unfortunately they faced some of the best infantry the ancient world had to offer in mountainous terrain that on balance favoured infantry. Even at that Armenia retained more self rule than any other Roman client state was allowed and I believe they were a Roman province for something like 3-5 years. 114 AD to the reign of Hadrian in 117 AD who immediately reestablished the kingdom. They were still a Roman client state in 362 AD. Numidian history lacks anything of a similar nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

With regards to the position of Armenia in history it has a much more significant role than most people realize. In some ways it was the linchpin to victory in the warfare between Rome and Parthia. Without control of, or an alliance with Armenia victory was not possible for either side. Crassus tried it the hard way and he found out at Carrhae why it's a bad idea.

---

i thought king artabazes tried to help crassus, and wanted crassus to use armenia. didn't crassus dismiss the armenians help? your post makes it sound like the romans weren't allied with armenia at carrhae, wasn't armenia a client state then? i could be way wrong, just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

i thought king artabazes tried to help crassus, and wanted crassus to use armenia. didn't crassus dismiss the armenians help? your post makes it sound like the romans weren't allied with armenia at carrhae, wasn't armenia a client state then? i could be way wrong, just curious.

---

Yes and no. Crassus dismissed king Artabazes' advice, not the king himself. Crassus foolishly ignored king Artabazes advice and instead of invading Parthian territory by taking an indirect route through the rough and mountainous terrain of Armenia (which would have helped to neutralize Parthia's horse archers and cataphracts) he chose a more direct route on the open plains to the south. It was then that Artabazes took his several thousand horsemen and left Crassus to his fate.

Actually this site does a better job than me of explaining what happened, I didn't know about the deceitful Arab mercenary who betrayed Crassus...

http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/cr...nd-parthia.php

»Khelvan:

I figured I would be too. :help: j/k

»Sharrukin & Tigran:

I´m not talking about not representing Armenia. It should be represented and it held great strategic value. The real question is wether to make it a playble faction or not. I think you can agree that are numerous similarities between the 2 factions, such as:

*Both supplied troops (namely cavalry) to Rome. The Numidians were the best Western cavalry and the Armenians had the best Eastern (in your opinion anyway. Historians of the time considered Parthian cavalry to be the best of the Near East). But this is besides the point. It´s just a funny coincidence.
*They were both regarded as client-states by Rome. And as such, their kings had to be endorsed by the Romans.
*Armenia was a pawn in the wars between Rome and Parthia. Numidia was a pawn between Rome and Carthage.
*Neither fought "real" wars by themselves, only civil wars, and even then it was as a result of competing powers, interfering with their politics.
*Armenia was pretty much always dominated by foreign powers. First by the Seleucid Empire, then by Rome, and finally the Parthians. Numidia had Carthage and then Rome.
*Both had their strategic value, on different time-periods, for diferent reasons. Scipio won at Zama only because of Numidian cavalry as Hannibal had won before because of them as well. Armenia was geographically strategic instead.

Maybe the real diference is, that there aren´t any people from marroco here.

Also:

*The nation was never united under a common pourpose. Local rulers held the real power and regularly fought amongst themselves to gain power. The final insult was when a Parthian noble became king of Armenia, strangely crowned by a Roman Emperor...
*The territory is barren and not particularly rich. It was solely disputed because it was a staging ground for Roman expeditions into the rich Parthian lands, without having to face the dreaded Parthian cavalry in the open. Most of the fight for Armenia was the attempt by Persia to deny them that all-important route into their territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Actually this site does a better job than me of explaining what happened, I didn't know about the deceitful Arab mercenary who betrayed Crassus...

http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/cr...nd-parthia.php

---

oh, ok. i read that crassus dismissed artabazes and his 6000 horses because he wanted the coming glory of parthian conquest to be his alone. i don't recall exactly where i read this, i might try to find it again. yeah, i read about the arab spy too.. that was pretty click. crassus was a very trusting guy. ~:grouphug:

oh, i also read (same source maybe?) that orodes sent a force to attack artabazes for trying to help crassus.. but i don't recall the outcome of this venture. feel free to fill me in. ~:)

Armenia with its Artashesyan dynasty which included King Tigran the second who had the title king of kings conquerd the Selucids. When u say the land was barren u cant be more wrong. I u read what Heredotus wrote on armenia u will see that the land contained great wealth. He talks about the people being rich in cattle sheeps, chickens, and he even says they had barley water which the greeks drinked with a straw ( basicaly it was beer ) What i am trying to say that armenia was rich in agriculutre and minerals. The grape vine, the apricot, and i think the pomegranite is native to armenia. Armenia had powerful nobels, and the king was viewd as the first among equals. this fact however does not dismiss the idea that the Armenians were a very unified people who held on to their culture and traditions. ( THIS IS STILL TRUE TODAY ) U are right that throught out its history it has been in many wars, and has been under many forighn rules. It is also true that armenia has been a free kingdom many times in her history. Going all the way to the middle ages with cilician armenia where it played a critical role in the crusades. Even though for parts of her ancient history armenia was a smaller ally of parthia, the parthians gave armenia much freedom in conducting her affairs, becasue in times when they forced the pressure a little more then they should have they were met by revolts which had caused them dearly at times.

I've seen in a number of posts on this thread references to civilizations throughout their history. EB is focusing on a start date around 270 BC. Debates on qualities and descriptions of civilizations at any time are great, but as it pertains to EB they really don't matter. All it is concerned with is trying to represent what factions were like at this start date, although importance in the whole range from 300-250 must be considered to some degree I would think. This would pertain to Numidia, Armenia, Briton, Ptolemaic Egypt, etc.

People are maybe misunderstanding me. I´m not in favor of removing Armenia. I´m just questioning that if Armenia (which in my mind is a minor faction) should be allowed to stay as a playable faction, when Numidia was removed, without taking any particular sides. I´m sort of playing the devil´s advocate....I must have noticed EB is focusing on other factions.

But...if one questions Numidia and Armenia, one would have to question the Odrisian Thracians as well......etc...

BTW: Ptolemaic Egypt is immensely wealthy in this time period, so even if it historicaly was kind of weak militarly (except against the Seleucids in an early period and Cleopatra´s brother uprising against caesar) it´s potential is enormous. On a side note IMO Egypt has way too much unrest, espeacially when comparing with other parts of the map. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

*Both supplied troops (namely cavalry) to Rome. The Numidians were the best Western cavalry and the Armenians had the best Eastern (in your opinion anyway. Historians of the time considered Parthian cavalry to be the best of the Near East). But this is besides the point. It´s just a funny coincidence.

---

Legio I Armeniaca was established in the third century AD. 500+ years after the start of the game. Armenian auxiliaries served with Rome around 40 BC. No troops that I know of were used in Roman service before this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

*They were both regarded as client-states by Rome. And as such, their kings had to be endorsed by the Romans.

---

after the deafeat at Carrhae; 53 BC, 220 years AFTER the game starts!
"Artavazd, who had been charged with the duty of blocking the Parthians, promptly abandoned the Roman cause. He made advances to Orodes, the Parthian king and sought his alliance, which was accepted and consecrated by the marriage of Artavazd's sister with Pecoras, the son of Orodes.

Since the Roman army had been crushed, it was now easy for the Parthians to invade Syria, and in 51 they besieged Antioch. Rome, then torn by civil wars, could give no thought to the deliverance of Syria, which was thereupon occupied by the Parthians and Armenians for fifteen years."

Then Mark Anthony and Octavian; around 36-40 BC
"Artavazd now executed another volte-face by placing auxiliary troops at the disposal of the Romans. Antony accepted the offer, and in accordance with the Armenian king's advice, avoided the arid plains of Mesopotamia, so fatal to Crassus, and took the route via Armenia to march on Ecbatana and Ctesiphon, with the intention of striking at the heart of the Parthian Empire."

"When Octavius (now rechristened Augustus) came to the East in 29 B.C., the Roman partisans gained sufficient strength to drive out Artashes. Once more Armenia fell under Roman influence; but Augustus found it advisable to endow the country with an autonomous government under its native King."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

*Armenia was a pawn in the wars between Rome and Parthia. Numidia was a pawn between Rome and Carthage.

---

shortly before the end of the game timeline;
"This Median dynasty, however, could not be maintained. The national opposition to foreign rule soon found expression in the assassination of the King. Augustus thereupon abandoned his ill-conceived policy and sent Tigran V, a descendant of the national dynasty, to occupy the throne."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

*Neither fought "real" wars by themselves, only civil wars, and even then it was as a result of competing powers, interfering with their politics.
*Armenia was pretty much always dominated by foreign powers. First by the Seleucid Empire, then by Rome, and finally the Parthians. Numidia had Carthage and then Rome.

---

Tigran the Great;
"A quarrel arose between him and King Ardan (or Vardan) of Sophene, and Tigran attacked the latter, vanquished him and took over his domain."

"Mithridates VI of Pontus, who aspired to the annexation of Cappadocia, sought an alliance with Tigran"

"The ensuing invasion of Cappadocia in 93 B.C. compelled Ariobarzan, its king, to yield and hurry to Rome for aid. His appeal won a ready response. The great Roman general Sulla came to Asia Minor, reinstated Ariobarzan on his throne and forced the Armenian army to retreat to the east bank of the Euphrates."

"When Parthia's great king, Mithridates II, died in 86, Tigran felt himself equal to the task of proving his supremacy over the Parthians. He recaptured the lands which had been ceded to them, and marched still further to seize Atropene, Gordiene and a part of Mesopotamia, thus once more subjugating the territory of old Nairi-Urartu. To this were soon added the domains of Adiabene, Mygdonia and Osrhoene. The Armenian armies penetrated further into Greater Media and reduced its capital, Ecbatana, in whose royal palace Tigran had once been held as a hostage."

"Tigran's glory attained its apogee when he was invited to Antioch in 83 B.C., and offered the crown of the Seleucid dynasty. Syria, which had long been torn by internal strife, under Tigran's rule enjoyed full peace for eighteen years. His power reached even beyond the confines of Syria proper, to include Palestine on the south and Cilicia on the west."

Armenia then went to war with Rome and lost. She defeated Parthia, conquered her neighbours and then went to war with Rome. The Seleucid kingdom didn't cause this much trouble for the Romans.
The idea that Numidia would have invaded and defeated Carthage, occupied the capitol and then fought a war with Rome is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

*Both had their strategic value, on different time-periods, for diferent reasons. Scipio won at Zama only because of Numidian cavalry as Hannibal had won before because of them as well. Armenia was geographically strategic instead.

Maybe the real diference is, that there aren´t any people from marroco here.

---

Well I am not Armenian but I do recognize the difference between a tribal group that was in the timeline of the game, for the span of one mans life an independent nation and a nation that for 240+ years an indep kingdom that fought major wars with BOTH superpowers.

This what Armenia ruled during the reign of Tigrans the Great.
Hardly a puppet.

http://img145.exs.cx/img145/9904/arm...rethumb3nz.gif

Sharrukin i admire ur knowledge on the issue of armenia. What the average person knows about ancient history is Egypt, Greece, and Rome. These three ancient cultures have influenced human civilization greatly, but they were privileged cultures, in the sense that they had their accounts available for future generations to observe, and study their civilizations. Unfortanaly not all ancient civilizations had this blessing. In the case of Armenia, its location being in the middle of east and west had made the land a place of constant and continues war. Many of its accounts were destroyed by these events. Therefore i admire and respect people, who if u will take the extra push in studying these cultures. As some may have noticed i hae been posting issues related to ancient armenia. I apologize if my posts hae bored some people, but since EB is all about making the game as historically accurate as possible i belive that my posts, as well as Sharrukin's will aid EB in their project.

I am very intrested in the "barabrian" culturs of the ancient world. especialy the Celts.

Sharrukin is heading up the research for the Armenian faction in EB, so no worries, it will be done well.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigran

Sharrukin i admire ur knowledge on the issue of armenia. What the average person knows about ancient history is Egypt, Greece, and Rome. These three ancient cultures have influenced human civilization greatly, but they were privileged cultures, in the sense that they had their accounts available for future generations to observe, and study their civilizations. Unfortanaly not all ancient civilizations had this blessing. In the case of Armenia, its location being in the middle of east and west had made the land a place of constant and continues war. Many of its accounts were destroyed by these events. Therefore i admire and respect people, who if u will take the extra push in studying these cultures. As some may have noticed i hae been posting issues related to ancient armenia. I apologize if my posts hae bored some people, but since EB is all about making the game as historically accurate as possible i belive that my posts, as well as Sharrukin's will aid EB in their project.

I am very intrested in the "barabrian" culturs of the ancient world. especialy the Celts.

---

You are entirely correct with regards to surviving records. Some records for cultures and civilizations were preserved only if they were written in particular languages or by certain peoples. Jewish and christian development is well documented due to the theological interest and the fact that they were using Greek or Latin. Without either of those things the chance of any one document being preserved is much lower. Then of course even if it is preserved the same documents often remain untranslated and unseen in the basements of museums around the world waiting for one scholar with enough interest and time to put the effort in.

Don't apologize, history is NEVER boring!

I see that sharrukin is an Armenian fan. He is both knoledgeable and tenacious. Terrible combination to face!

I should have written this before my post:

"What follows next can be shocking and viewer discretion is advised" ~;)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

STILL, Tigranes II was forced to surrender (even without battle) to Pompeus who allowed him to stay king, in return he ceded all of his conquests to the Romans in around 45BC, only retaining Greater an Lesser Armenia- his Ancestral Kingdom as was put by historians of the time. In his remaining eleven years of rule, he disbanded most of his formidable armies, and became a farmer, a builder and a merchant. By doing this he effectively destroyed all chances for any future Armenian Empire, even if they were still a local power. It meant his sons and grandsons had, from then on, to answer to Rome and Parthia.

The great empire you show here lasted very little time. :book:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the others, sorry for the discussion, but as sharrukin puts it, History never gets boring (at least to us it doesn´t).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

I see that sharrukin is an Armenian fan. He is both knoledgeable and tenacious. Terrible combination to face!

I should have written this before my post:

"What follows next can be shocking and viewer discretion is advised" ~;)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

STILL, Tigranes II was forced to surrender (even without battle) to Pompeus who allowed him to stay king, in return he ceded all of his conquests to the Romans in around 45BC, only retaining Greater an Lesser Armenia- his Ancestral Kingdom as was put by historians of the time. In his remaining eleven years of rule, he disbanded most of his formidable armies, and became a farmer, a builder and a merchant. By doing this he effectively destroyed all chances for any future Armenian Empire, even if they were still a local power. It meant his sons and grandsons had, from then on, to answer to Rome and Parthia.

The great empire you show here lasted very little time. :book:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the others, sorry for the discussion, but as sharrukin puts it, History never gets boring (at least to us it doesn´t).

---

There have been some ugly rumours going around about Armenia. Tigrans is but one man and Armenian history has it's share of other men if not quite of his stature. The Armenian have always been an independent minded people and not easily ruled by outsiders. As I said before Rome treated Armenia in a somewhat unique manner by never really making her a Roman province. The following should indicate why Armenia even when under foreign control was not ever closely held.

Actually I am a Parthian fan, Armenia was an orphan they forced onto me without mercy! I do like their history though, lots of blood and betrayal.

They were on occassion nominally a vassal kingdom of the Seleucids for periods of time, but were not in fact ruled by them until around 220-200 BC.


Enclopedia Iranica;

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...=en&lr=lang_en
"ORONTES, Old Iranian masculine name... a form OPers. *Arvanta- (continued by MPers., NPers. Arvand),
3. Leader of the Armenians (together with Mithraustes) in the battle of Gaugamela (Arrian, Anabasis 3.8.5), hence presumably the satrap of Armenia under Darius III Codomannus (who held this same rank before his accession to the throne); from the fact that we find homonymous satraps of the same province some decades before and after him (see nos. 2 and 4, respectively), it may be inferred that this province was (at least partly) hereditary within one family, which can be traced back to the famous "Seven Persians," and that this Orontes was a descendant of Hydarnes, too, and possibly a grandson of no. 2. Since Alexander the Great did not subdue Armenia and never even approached this province, it must be the same Orontes, who is satrap of Armenia still in post-Alexandrian times, about 316 B.C.E. (Diodorus 19.23.3; Polyaenus 4.8.3), all the more so as this Orontes is a friend of the Macedonian general Peucestas (Diodorus, ibid.; see, in general, H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage II, Munich, 1926, p. 295 no. 593)."

301 BC
http://img224.exs.cx/img224/6826/hellen28xn.th.gif

"He (Antiochus III) obliged Xerxes of Armenia to acknowledge his supremacy in 212 BC."

220 BC
http://img224.exs.cx/img224/5936/hellen42tf.th.gif

"From the death of Alexander the Great until the establishment of Artashesian kingdom, all the events are uncertain and the information is contradictory. The most important feature is that Alexander the Great brought the culture and the high Greek civilization to the Middle East during the 6th century. This had a very important influence on Armenian kings, Armenian literature, even in the formation of an Armenian nation. After the decline of the Seleucid Empire, new semi-independent states had been founded in 250 B.C. They were Cappadocia, Pontus, Armenia and Aterpatakan (Azerbeydjian). Greek political power ceded to the Roman Empire. In Iran a new kingdom had taken over the Parthian Iran, they were Arsaces-Arshakouny dynasty in 249 B.C."

http://img224.exs.cx/img224/872/maph...stic9bw.th.jpg

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...URARM/10*.html
"The occupation of Armenia by Alexander's forces, for example, as related by Strabo and others, should be confined to Armenia Minor, whose government had been entrusted by Alexander to the Persian satrap Mithrines (Mihran). As to Armenia proper, it had by that time its own governor, Orondes-Erouand, who led the Armen army against the Macedonians in the battle of Arbela (331 B.C.), which was the death-blow to the Persian Empire."

http://img224.exs.cx/img224/5152/dia...ap036qi.th.gif

"The kingdom of Cappadocia had been reduced by the Macedonian commander Eumenes. "But Ariarat, the son of the slain king," says Diodorus, "escaped to Armenia in company with a few men, and later on, procuring soldiers from Ardoates, King of the Armens, fought and killed the Macedonian general, Amuntas, quickly expelled the Macedonians from the country and regained p62his father's kingdom." Reinach and other Armenists have proposed to read the above name Ardoates as Artavazdes. Marquart and Manandian prefer the reading Artoandas (Orontes, Erouand). The date of the founding of the Cappadocian kingdom through the aid of the Armen king must have been about 270 B.C."

270 BC
http://img224.exs.cx/img224/6765/hellen34st.th.gif

"Armenia Major, Armenia Minor and Sophene maintained at that time their autonomous identity by paying money tribute to the suzerain and giving him military aid when called upon."

"Another Greek author, Polianus, says that the Seleucian Antiochus Hierax, in revolt against his brother, King Kallinikos, entered Armenia through Mesopotamia and took refuge at the court of Arsabes, the King, in 230 B.C. This monarch may be identified with Arsham, King of Sophene, who founded the city of Arshamashat, in the so-called Beautiful Plain, between the Euphrates and Tigris."

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...=en&lr=lang_en
"While Seleucid authority was never fully established over several kingdoms in Anatolia, like Armenia and Pontus, more distant areas, like Parthia and Bactria, began to drift away. Antiochus III stopped this process and began to reverse it, marching to India and wresting Palestine from the Ptolemies, but then had the misfortune to become the first Seleucid to clash with Rome. His defeat in 190 began a steep decline for the kingdom."


http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/lrc...armol-2-R.html
"Alexander's conquests did not take him through Armenian territory, however, and so the fall of the Persian empire left the Yervandunis an opportunity for consolidating a completely independent rule over the Armenian region. Initially Alexander appointed governors over Armenia, but the Yervandunis led a revolt and refused taxation. They reasserted their autonomy later in the face of the Seleucids. In the end, three distinct regions opened up in the Armenian region. There was a western region, Lesser Armenia, which periodically fell under Seleucid rule and was never completely annexed by the Yervandunis. To the east of this was the region of Dsopk, which acted as a buffer region between Lesser Armenia and the third region, Greater Armenia, in which the Yervanduni foothold was firm. Yervanduni rule finally came to an end in roughly 200 B.C., when they were overthrown by the Armenian noble Artashes, incited to revolt by the Seleucids."

"Although the Yervandunis had succeeded in securing an independent Armenia, Seleucid influence again began to assert itself when Antiochus III convinced two members of the Yervanduni family to revolt. These two, Artashes and Zareh, succeeded in overthrowing Yervanduni rule, with Artashes taking control of Greater Armenia and Zareh taking Dsopk. Antiochus, however, went too far when he tried to drive the Romans out of Macedonia and Greece. Defeated decisively at Magnesia, Antiochus was forced in 188 B.C. to cede Asia Minor and northwest Syria to the Romans."


"His brother, Antiochus III the Great, found, in these difficult times, his opportunity. It didn’t begin well. In the IV Syrian War, as he attempted to take Ptolemaic Syria and Palestine back from Egypt he was decisively beaten by Ptolemy IV at the Battle of Raphia (217 B.C.). Afterwards things began to look up. His campaigns in the east brought Armenia into his kingdom and subjugated both Bactria and Parthia. It was his very aggressive establishment of his interests in India and Arabia that earned him the title “the Great”."

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...=en&lr=lang_en
"Having thus recovered the central part of Asia Minorfor the dynasties in Pergamum, Bithynia and Cappadocia the Seleucid government was obliged to tolerateAntiochus turned to recover the outlying provinces of the north and east. Xerxes of Armenia was brought to acknowledge his supremacy in 212."

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache...=en&lr=lang_en
"Despite pressure from the Seleucid monarchy, one of the Greek kingdoms, the Orontids, continued to retain control over the largest of three kingdoms into which Armenia itself had been divided: Greater Armenia, Lesser Armenia and Sophene."

"Alexander the Great died in 323 BC. The Seleucid rule that followed, was weak and disorganized. Several Armenian princes, profiting from the situation, broke away to establish semi-independent kingdoms, notably, Greater Armenia, Lesser Armenia and Tzork (Sophene), the Yervantunis however, continued to retain control over the largest of three kingdoms into which Armenia itself had been divided."

http://img224.exs.cx/img224/8366/greekworld1pf.th.gif

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...=en&lr=lang_en
"One of the last Persian satraps of Armenia was Artašata, who became king of Persia under the name Darius III (336-330). During his reign, the Macedonian king Alexander the Great conquered the Achaemenid empire (between 334 and 330), and Armenia regained its autonomy."

Sharrukin since u are in charge of the Armenian faction for EB do u know any sites, or books that show pictures of Armenian cataphracts, or other military units. I have seen some pictures of Parthian cataphracts, but i have not been able to find pictures of Armenian military units. If u know any sources with these pictures i would appricated thanks.

As would I. Armenia is a sketchy part of history....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigran

Sharrukin since u are in charge of the Armenian faction for EB do u know any sites, or books that show pictures of Armenian cataphracts, or other military units. I have seen some pictures of Parthian cataphracts, but i have not been able to find pictures of Armenian military units. If u know any sources with these pictures i would appricated thanks.

---

Absolutely nothing! I did find a site with some armour clothing and equipment.

www.iatp.am/culture/ taraz2/t1.html

it's in Armenian and I cannot speak or read Armenian. Or at least I assume it's Armenian.

http://www.iatp.am/culture/taraz2/1eng.html

This is the same site in english.

From what i know the cappadocian cavlary in the game looks very much like what the Armenian cavlary would have looked like. The Cataphracts that are used by the Armenians and Parthians in the game are incorrect in representing Armenian cataphracts. That style of cataphracts with the face coverd were used in the 5th century AD by the Sassanid Persians. Armenian Cataphracts would have their faces open, with a conicle helmet much like the scytians have in RTW. So in conclusion an Armenian cataphract would look like the cappadoican cavlary from rtw with a conical helmet similar to the ones the syctian nobles have.

ive found a site which shows minatures of an Armenian horse archer, and an Armenian cataphract. this first link is of the horse archer second one is of the cataphract

http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/mis...les/Ess193.JPG
http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/mis...les/Ess188.JPG

I have found a site which shows the bust of an armenian warrior which was taken from a statue. It shows the kind of helmet he wore and the armour on and around his bust. The time frame is of a later period, but it should help u Sharrukin

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olym...5/page13b.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigran

I have found a site which shows the bust of an armenian warrior which was taken from a statue. It shows the kind of helmet he wore and the armour on and around his bust. The time frame is of a later period, but it should help u Sharrukin

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olym...5/page13b.html

---

Actually the Shishak hemet below it is very useful as the Assyrian style helm was still in use by the Armenians at this time. The guys doing the models need visual idea of what we are asking for so this is useful!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigran

From what i know the cappadocian cavlary in the game looks very much like what the Armenian cavlary would have looked like. The Cataphracts that are used by the Armenians and Parthians in the game are incorrect in representing Armenian cataphracts. That style of cataphracts with the face coverd were used in the 5th century AD by the Sassanid Persians. Armenian Cataphracts would have their faces open, with a conicle helmet much like the scytians have in RTW. So in conclusion an Armenian cataphract would look like the cappadoican cavlary from rtw with a conical helmet similar to the ones the syctian nobles have.

---

Already being done in exactly this way. The face cover 'may' have been used but I would rather avoid it's use as we do not have enough to substantiate it.