Question regarding the KH

[Fish-got-a-Sniper]

So the KH seem to be a very interesting faction, but I have a few questions about them.

1. Historically, where would a type 1 government (Spartan Agoge) be appropriate other than Sparta and Crete?

2. Historically, what cities in the game fielded or would have fielded classical hoplite phalanxes during the period and what cities in the game fielded or would have fielded the Iphakratean reformed phalanxes?

3. When does the Macedonian Phalanx unit become available to the KH?

4. When and how were Thorikitai and Theurophorai first fielded?

5. If the Chremoidian League had managed to subdue the Pelleponesus and Aitolia, would they have had the manpower to march on Macedonia Proper and Thessaly?

[Pezlu]

I'm totally NOT a historian, so I can only answer #3

The KH gets makedonian-like units after the "march of time", which is the new name for the vanilla marian reform. You get it when a huge city is built in Italy.

Yes, it doesn't make much sense, but I think it's hardcoded. At least the way you obtain the "march of time"... I don't know why the EB team decided to use it for some "reforms" though, IMHO scripted reforms are waaay better.

Actually, I'm curious about the reason that lead to this decision... not criticizing, I'm just curious.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

2. I know Athens was into the reformed military...
3. It requires the Vanilla Marian Reform (huge city in central Italy).
5. I doubt they would have ever been unified enough to march successfully against Makedonia. They probably would have started fighting amongst themselves again.

I'll let a historian answer better...

[Fish-got-a-Sniper]

Well, the reason I ask about being able to invade Macedonia is because I've never been able to justify how such a small faction could invade a power like Macedonia, especially with all those internal squabbles between Athens and Sparta. And I know the cities behaved very independently, so I can imagine that they all used very different tactics. When I play, I treat Athens and Sparta as mini factions and Rhodes is just kind of there...But if I set up a type 3 government in Syracuse, Byzantion, Pergamon Taras, the Bosphorus, and Massilia, to a form of independence (I don't use type 4 as I deleted the puppet ruler script), what would their forces look like. These are the things that bug me about playing KH

[Fish-got-a-Sniper]

Bump

[Olaf The Great]

Well, the reason I ask about being able to invade Macedonia is because I've never been able to justify how such a small faction could invade a power like Macedonia, especially with all those internal squabbles between Athens and Sparta. And I know the cities behaved very independently, so I can imagine that they all used very different tactics. When I play, I treat Athens and Sparta as mini factions and Rhodes is just kind of there...But if I set up a type 3 government in Syracuse, Byzantion, Pergamon Taras, the Bosphorus, and Massilia, to a form of independence (I don't use type 4 as I deleted the puppet ruler script), what would their forces look like. These are the things that bug me about playing KH

In my current Koinion Campaign I roleplay that, while loosely governed, the Greeks are determined to unite all Greeks under one banner, and one-up the Macedonians in terms of conquering. Also, the City-states get closer each year, and eventually will become one solidly based "United Hellen Republic" mostly led by Athenians, however.


And from what I read , at this time Macedon underwent 2 massive invasions and was terribly weak for a few years, as Epeiros and the Gauls sacked Pella twice, and burned down most of the Aigai.

[Parallel Pain]

Wait wait wait what?

For KH in EB you can't get pikes until there's a huge city in Italy? Why is it dependent on Italy?????

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Wait wait wait what?

For KH in EB you can't get pikes until there's a huge city in Italy? Why is it dependent on Italy?????

Because all units that don't have their own reform are dependent on that, not just the KH unit. It is an arbitrary time delay...

[Maion Maroneios]

So the KH seem to be a very interesting faction, but I have a few questions about them.

1. Historically, where would a type 1 government (Spartan Agoge) be appropriate other than Sparta and Crete?

2. Historically, what cities in the game fielded or would have fielded classical hoplite phalanxes during the period and what cities in the game fielded or would have fielded the Iphakratean reformed phalanxes?

3. When does the Macedonian Phalanx unit become available to the KH?

4. When and how were Thorikitai and Theurophorai first fielded?

5. If the Chremoidian League had managed to subdue the Pelleponesus and Aitolia, would they have had the manpower to march on Macedonia Proper and Thessaly?

Very interesting questions I must admit I 'll try my best:

1. Yes. It is known that Thassalia (Thessaly) used a government system pretty much like the Spartan one, before Macedon came to power that is. Apart from those states I don't think there are any other places that would use governmental systems like the Spartans used. So it should be just Sparte, Kydonia and Demetrias with a type 1 government.

2. Classical hoplites where used by any Hellenic city-state at that time, just not to the same extensive length as during the classical era. Of course, city-states with more traditional governemnts (Sparta, Cretan cities) would probably rely more on classical hoplites to fill their ranks. But even those cities where forced to adapt to the ever shifting dynamics of war at some point in history. Just about every major city-state armed their soldiers in the Iphikratean manner, or started training them to fight as phalangites.

To sum up, every Hellenic city in-game could field at least a small number of classical hoplites. Now about Iphikrateans, I would say just about any city except Sparte and Kydonia. That's what I do in my KH campaign, anyway.

3. When Roma becomes a huge city under the Romani. This means NO shacking of Roma before you get your units. It won't take a very long time for that to happen, believe me.

4. You can search on Wikipedia to find more about Thureophoroi and/or Thorakitai. They where generally another evolution of the peltast, who shifted to the ''thureos'' shield and fought using a doty instead of a short sword or dagger.

The Thorakitai where better armed Thureophoroi fielded only in small numbers by Hellenic city-states and Hellenistic kingdoms, but where only used more extensively after the Roman legions proved superior to the standard greek hoplites, peltasts and thureophoroi.

5. I don't think so. Let me tell you why. First of all, even when Athens had become the Hegemon of most of the Hellenic states spread through Hellas an Mikra Asia, they where nver interested in conquering lands as Macedonia or Thrace. The only thing they cared about was coastal areas to build ports and gain more wealth. Would it seem strange to you that during the Golden Age of Greece an average Greek citizen was even richer than an average Egyptian orlater Roman one? Just think of the tiny lands they held compared to those two economical powers I just stated.

To make my point clearer, I should say that thay would be able to theoretically call upon a couple of thousand soldiers, enough for a serious invasion of Macedonia and Thessalia, but the Hellenic city-states hadn't a sophisticated recruiting system like the Macedonians or most of the Successor kingdoms had. That way, even if they would invade these lands, they would be faced by a more ready defending Macedonian army, as the Macedonian king could sraw upon a much wider population than the Hellenes.

Another thing that shouldn't be forgotten, is that the Chremonidean Alliance was formed as an anti-Macedonian act to free themselves from the constant threat of a Macedonian army in their homelands. Especially Peloponnesos, Aitolia and Attike where always under threat. If they would secure those lands, chances this alliance would hold are small on an astronomical scale. It would probably fall apart with each city minding their own business again, only to be attacked again by Macedon or another power and so on.

Hope these answers enlighted you!

[anubis88]

yeah i agree with your 5th post. That's why i never play with KH, because i could never justify their existance

[Maion Maroneios]

yeah i agree with your 5th post. That's why i never play with KH, because i could never justify their existance

Yep, that's one of the many reasons I prefer the Mekedones

[Teleklos Archelaou]

1. Role play as KH in a way that simulates the natural friction between the competing components (e.g., don't let Athenians control Peloponnesian troops, don't let Rhodes control Athenian ones, or allow it only rarely, if another Spartan or Athenian general accompanies their own soldiers, etc.).
2. Play as KH and don't worry about it.
3. Don't play as KH.

If you think we are going to have no factions at all representing Athens or Sparta or Rhodes or any such cities, you are mistaken. Does the fact that you think the alliance would have fallen apart after they defeated the Macedonians and that the would not have been able to actually hold an "empire" (even a small "empire") mean that any other faction that might not have been able to hold one should not be included either? It sounds to me like that is the case. I would think either Gallic faction, the Casse, the Sabaeans, the Sweboz, the Getai, the Lusitanians, the Sakae, the Epeirotes, and the Macedonians all would be dropped then too - because none of them post-272BC were able to conquer and hold a substantial one as far as I know. That is not the only requirement we have in determining which groups are worth of being a faction. We have been over this one quite a lot actually - numerous threads.

[Dhampir]

I think playing as KH is more fun because cooperation and conquest is rather ahistorical with them. It allows for excellent roleplaying/alternate history possibilities.

[Maion Maroneios]

1. Role play as KH in a way that simulates the natural friction between the competing components (e.g., don't let Athenians control Peloponnesian troops, don't let Rhodes control Athenian ones, or allow it only rarely, if another Spartan or Athenian general accompanies their own soldiers, etc.).
2. Play as KH and don't worry about it.
3. Don't play as KH.

If you think we are going to have no factions at all representing Athens or Sparta or Rhodes or any such cities, you are mistaken. Does the fact that you think the alliance would have fallen apart after they defeated the Macedonians and that the would not have been able to actually hold an "empire" (even a small "empire") mean that any other faction that might not have been able to hold one should not be included either? It sounds to me like that is the case. I would think either Gallic faction, the Casse, the Sabaeans, the Sweboz, the Getai, the Lusitanians, the Sakae, the Epeirotes, and the Macedonians all would be dropped then too - because none of them post-272BC were able to conquer and hold a substantial one as far as I know. That is not the only requirement we have in determining which groups are worth of being a faction. We have been over this one quite a lot actually - numerous threads.

My friend Teleklos Archelaou, I must say that I never even thought of this. I am greek myself and thus am more than happy with having the Koinon Helenon added as a faction. My oppinion is that this alliance would historically, if they managed to throw off Macedonian hegemony, not be able to maintain themselves united and reconquer the Hellenic city-states scattered around the Mesogeios. Someone else might have another oppinion. I just stated mine hear, no misunderstandings.

[keravnos]

1. Role play as KH in a way that simulates the natural friction between the competing components (e.g., don't let Athenians control Peloponnesian troops, don't let Rhodes control Athenian ones, or allow it only rarely, if another Spartan or Athenian general accompanies their own soldiers, etc.).
2. Play as KH and don't worry about it.
3. Don't play as KH.

If you think we are going to have no factions at all representing Athens or Sparta or Rhodes or any such cities, you are mistaken. Does the fact that you think the alliance would have fallen apart after they defeated the Macedonians and that the would not have been able to actually hold an "empire" (even a small "empire") mean that any other faction that might not have been able to hold one should not be included either? It sounds to me like that is the case. I would think either Gallic faction, the Casse, the Sabaeans, the Sweboz, the Getai, the Lusitanians, the Sakae, the Epeirotes, and the Macedonians all would be dropped then too - because none of them post-272BC were able to conquer and hold a substantial one as far as I know. That is not the only requirement we have in determining which groups are worth of being a faction. We have been over this one quite a lot actually - numerous threads.

I would have to agree. Had Chremonides' gamble succeeded, it is entirely possible that KH would remain as a united force. Reason? The big bad Makedonians over the border or the rising power of Epeiros (at that time).

Judging from past times (Athenian hegemony) or later ones (Theban hegemony) is a bit mistaken. We can't know whether it would happen again, in the exact way.

Besides, if having a united KH does bother you, how about considering a hegemony under a "favorite" city state as leader, aka either Athens or Sparta. But wait, that is why the different governments exist as such... 1-4, encompassing all we know of the way city states were governed at the time, from Sparta to Athens to even Tyrranos' governments. (lvl 4).

KH encompasses all Ionian, Dorian, Aiolian greeks both in homeland and the outer colonies, which would unite under a common threat (either Persians or Makedones) but also STAY united. Nobody says that would be easy. But it was doable. It didn't happen, but it could.

Phillipos united the greeks. That much is known. What isn't known is what would happen if Chremonides could do the same. KH is a gamble, a gamble that could work, as most of the factions of the time. It didn't but then, nobody but the Romani or Pahlavan did.