Printable View
Sorry for my English.
i EU there are Ptolemaioi with greek like units. In the original ROME there Egypt. As far as i know Egypt was conquered by persians, and after Alexanders wars there are new Pharaoh in there - Ptolemaios. The new Egypt in EB have greek like army.
But in Rome there are different units. I want to know why. Is there a mistake of Creators of Rome TW, or in the EB is EARLY egyptians warriors(greek like), and in ROME there are late egyptians????
:egypt: :egypt: :egypt:
https://europabarbarorum.com/faction...i_history.html
Bascially R:TW got it very, very, very wrong.
RTW represented a pre-persion Egypt, New kingdom I think but don't quote me, while EB strives to accurately represent the hellenistic kingdom of Ptolmaios. You ask any Greek civ. professor and they will gladly tell you that Egypt was a greek nation from the time Alexander annexed it to when the Romans conquered it in 30BC.
They weren't a Greek nation, they were simply the old Egyptians under the occupation of a tiny Hellenic minority. The Egyptian culture remained mostly the same.Quote:
that Egypt was a greek nation
I know what you meant, just nitpicking ~;)
They got it wrong on purpose for variety of gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
Or Hollywood ignorance brainwash....:laugh4: either way the result is the same....Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Variety? I don't think so. They would have spent more time on making the barbarians varied, instead of just changing the color of their pants if they wanted variety...
CA were merely trying to add another kind of civilization, they had Barbs/Rome/Greek and Eastern, and wanted one more. So they put in the Mummy Returns (lol why do we always call them that, why not The Mummy, which is a better film :P) for variety in terms of civilizations, presumably to introduce more replayability.
Obviously, this was a totally stupid idea and not neccessary. But I understand where they were coming from :shame:
It is amazing how many people think that the Ptolemaic Dynasty was Egyptian. And say things like "Cleopatra (VII) was the last pharaoh". This is just one of my pet-peeves. Ptolemaios were not Egyptian! :wall:
I gotta tell u guys I've learn a LOT of history from EB. And I gotta thank u fellas for that.
p.s I think it should be made part of the Ancient History curricula.
The term "Pharaoh" survived into Roman times. Augustus took the title for example, as shown on the Temple of Dendur. They didn't have to be Egyptian; as long as one was to claim power over the populace of Egypt the term was popular.
Yes the Greeks were a minority in Egypt at the time but there was still a very large amount of them. All of the successor states offered huge land grants and titles and such for any Greeks that would migrate to their territory and fight in their armies. This could be also seen as why the Romans had such an easy time taking the new Macedonia state the elite class had slowly dispersed throughout a huge amount of territory.
What does "succesor states" mean and which factions are succesor states?
Successors to Alexander. Roughly the Seleucids, Ptolemies, Macedonians, but also possibly "Greco-Bactrians" and more distantly Epeiros as factions in our mod go. Pontos might be considered by some, but since it was not really controlled by Alexander it's a little outside the scope.
The successors, or Diadochi, were the nations that were created by the rivalry of Alexander's general's and surviving family members after his death. Originally this included Makedon, Thrace (Lyssimacchus), Ptolmaioi, and Seleukids. I think there was another but I don't remember. By EB's time frame the only true successors left were the Ptolmaioi, Seleukids, and Makedon. You also had the pseudo-successors. Nations that were mildly greek and claimed to be successors of a sort but weren't by the definition I have just given, kind of like the Holy Roman empire wasn't in any way Roman (just an example, please don't start a new discussion). This includes Pontos, Baktria, and Epeiros in the game though there were others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
I understand that original Rome Egypt is not historical realistic. But if I wath to play with original Egypt units how can i import them into game?????!!!!!!!!!!:egypt: :egypt: :egypt:
To restore the vanilla Eygptians would be a large task, involving skins, models, stats, balancing issues and a whole lot of work.
If you like the ancient Eygptians, the Rise of Persia mod (not yet finished) includes true Eygptians (being a few hundred years earlier).
As already stated, the Successor states were the generals of Alexander the Great's army who divided his empire amongst themselves (and eventually declared themselves kings). They spent a heck of a long time warring amongst each other, trying to re-unify Alexander's empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lignator
The original Successors were Kassander (Macedonia) Antigonos (western Anatolia), Lysimachos (Thrace), Seleukos (Syria, plus most of modern Iraq/Iran) and Ptolemaios/Ptolemy (Egypt). In EB, Makedon (the Antigonid dynasty), Arche Seleukeia and Ptolemaioi are the only surviving Successor kingdoms, most of which were in their second or third generation of their dynasties.
To pity.... I want to play with vanilla Egypt on EU...... AH! no matter! :)
MarcusAureliusAntoninus thanks! I will download this mod ASAP! Ж) Ж) Ж)
Wasn't Pergamon a successor kingdom as well? Or did it only come into being later?
Technically they would be, since they were part of Alexander's empire and were also part of the later hellenistic culture.
Also an important successor, if only for a relatively short time, was Antigonos; his defeat at Ipsus made almost any attempt at unifying the Diadochi fruitless.
Greater: Makedonia, Seleukids, Ptolemaioi
Lesser: Pergamon, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pontos, Armenia/Hayasdan, Parthia, Baktria.
----
Read that some authors consider the lesser Diadochoi by that name, as they were all part of or within the sphere of Seleukid (and early Antigonid) influence.
Armenia was largely independent by 272 BC, only paying lip-service to the Seleukid kings.
Pontos was fully independent, but they always tried to have strong ties to the Seleukid courts and two Pontic kings married Seleukid princesses.
Cappadocia gained independence shortly after 270 BC (not 100% sure) and was a independent kingdom up to Mithridates VI Eupator began acting naughty.
Parthia (in this sense modern Turkmenistan) broke off from the Seleukids before the Parni tribe (the Parthians) invaded it.
Epirus had been an independent kingdom before Phillip II and was thus not considered a diadochoi, by the text I read.
Yes, but Pyrrhus considered himself to be the leader of a successor state I believe. Largely because it was a "Greek" nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
And because he himself was a distant relative to Megas Alexandros...
Yep, and because of that and more important the fact that he had no son or other qualified successor at hand, the last ruler of Pergamon decided that it had to be given to the Romans after his death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Eprius had been a player in "North-Greek" politics before Alexander (or Philip, for that matter) made Macedon a major player in world politics, so technically they never 'suceeded' Macedon in anything, nor were they a splinter from the Alexanderian empire. However due to promixity and intermarriage, especially since Olympias of Eprius was married to Philip II and Alexander's mother, Eprius become a player in the politics of the sucessors. I suppose one could say, if Eprius took Pella and Phyrrus was more sucessful in the Hellenistic world, Eprius could have 'suceeded' Macedon.
Baktria was no small player.
Especially post 185 BC when it basically rolled over what is now Pakistan and the eastern half of India, reaching not long after that (during Menandros) Pataliputra near the Ganges Delta.
To put Baktria along with Bithynia, is, well, wrong.
Of course, since you all see my sig, you must understand I am biased!
Baktria sucks! (just kidding, though I do hate how over powered they can get in some campaigns)
On Baktria: Why is it so over looked? For example, I know they were involved in India, but I watched a two hour long show on the history channel about India (it was a slow tv time of day), and not once was there mention of Baktria. In fact I don't think I've ever even heard the name "Baktria" on television, or even in the classroom for that matter.
Not lesser as in lesser accomplishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by keravnos
Lesser Diadochoi as in states that broke away from the Seleukid kingdom or who bordered on the Seleukid kingdom and managed to retain a big degree of autonomy.
"Because so little survives to guide the modern researcher in our quest for Bactrian history. In all of the surviving literary works of the ancient world, we can find today the names of only seven of the kings who ruled Hellenistic Bactria and, later, India: Diodotus I, Diodotus II, Euthydemus I, Demertius I, Eucratides the Great, Apollodotus I, and Menander I. Little more than a thousand words about these kings can still be read in th ancient languages of Europe and Asia, compared with the "meager" seventy-five thousand folios remaining in the Library of Congress from the administration of the first U.S. president." "The lack of reliable evidence has rendered Bactria an enigma." (from Holt's Thundering Zeus)
Coins reveal to us most of what we know about the history of this empire, along with a few scanty pieces in the ancient histories. Coins, archaeology, ancient texts, in that order.
If there is little written record of Baktria, then how is it known that Baktria conquered deeply India, and there was not simply a Baktrian trade and Hellenistic influence on India?
Now I'm curious about Baktria...
You know, I was Japan with my family during the summer for a few weeks. One place we visited was Nara, one of their first capitals. There was one really old Buddhist temple there, something like one of the first built in the country when the faith was introduced well over a millenia ago (the deer of the region, whose ancestors supposedly led some important Buddhist monk to the place where the first temple was built or something along those lines, are to this day protected, no doubt still regarded as sacred in some circles, and as a result quite tame, indifferent to humans, and often act like damn four-legged pigeons or seagulls...).
What caught our attention was the mention in the guidebook about - believe it or not - Greek-style pillars being imitated in the woodwork, as well as Helelnic influences in the appereance of the guardian deities around the main Buddha statue. And true enough, the wooden pillars holding up the ceiling had been cut in rather loyal imitation of that Greek stonework you can see in assorted museums and neo-classical architecture... Some of the guardian deity thingies seemed to have what looked like derivations of pteryges in parts of their armour too.
I quickly played connect-the-dots with what I knew of the interaction of the Hellenic world and the home haunts of Buddhism, and promptly remembered what I'd read of Baktria on the EB site which got me relatively curious on the subject too. Looking it up on the Wiki turned up interesting names like "Indo-Scythian" and "Indo-Greek"...
Which goes to show: EB is good for learning odd and interesting things. :rtwyes:
...speaking of which, is there some connection between what's apparently the Gallic word for king rix by what I've read in these forums (as in Verrix and Vergingetorix) and the Latin word for same rex ?
Yes, they are all indo-european languages so their origins are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Foot
Nevermind next-door neighbours. Heck, we picked up the proto-German word for king and still use it almost unchanged (kuningas) and we're not even in the same language family...
Indian written records describe Greek invasions, and the current archaeology of the region suggests Hellenic style fortifications were built under their rule, beyond the old Mauryan capital in Pataliputra. The huge distribution of coins and markers on them also helps pinpoint certain kings (there are several dozen known Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings) to particular regions like Gandara or the Punjab.Quote:
If there is little written record of Baktria, then how is it known that Baktria conquered deeply India, and there was not simply a Baktrian trade and Hellenistic influence on India?
Don't forget coins with Greek and Indian text on them. I would say that the use of both languages is a good indicator of conquest.
I seem to recall that those guardian statues at the temple, had some connection to Greek-Buddhist artistic depictions of Herakles.
Well, many Buddha icons were found to have obvious resemblances to depictions of Alexander and Herakles, so that's not surprising.
It's not surprising that when Buddhism spread eastwards along the silk road, the Hellenic art style migrated with it.