Question regarding the KH

[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.

[anubis88]

Yeah, no nagging ment from me either... I love playing against them

[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.

[Maion Maroneios]

Good points, Keravnos. Again, I don't agree nor disagree with anyone. But surely I never said, directly or indirectly, that the KH shouldn't be included.

[Fish-got-a-Sniper]

Well, I have a system so to speak set up but I have a few problems now also. I've established the empire's of Sparta (type 1) and Athens (type 2). Sparta controls Corinth (type 3) and Kydonia (type 1) and Athens' hegemony encompasses Chalkis (type 3) and Thermon (type 3). When the Maks attacked Pergamon, I sent the Athenian army to liberate them and established Pergamon an empire with a type 2 government and had them take Mytilene (type 3). Rhodes is by itself but is ready to take Halicarnassos if it falls to a foreign power. Each mini faction doesn't enter the others sphere of influence unless military support is needed and they are allied. I'll list my problems and questions below.

1.I would prefer if each of these mini factions were ruled by family members from their own ethnicities. Spartans rule Sparta's empire, Athenians rule Athens' empire, etc. So how common is it to get more ethnicities into the family as so far I only have Rhodians, Athenians, and Spartans.

2.I have an over abundance of Spartan family members. 1 in Crete who is there because he is adopted and has a regular bodyguard, and 4 in Sparta, three of which are undergoing the Agoge and one who is my faction leader and a great governor and an O.K. general. They all have good traits, but how can I thin their ranks or justify them governing other non type 1 provinces because at this rate, I'm going to have nothing but Spartans.

3.Is there a way I can simulate a civil war so one mini-faction could gain hegemony? I would like to have a periodic change in power such as Athens taking over Sparta and setting up type 3 governments, and maybe later have Pergamon take control (once I have a strong Ionian dynasty). But if I did this, wouldn't all troops have to be supplied from the Metropolis (besides levies and psiloi)? I can't picture the natives being to compliant to having a unit of Iphikrateans being levied for a foreign empire.

Edit:By the way, I'm in the mid 250's and I'm just waiting for either Byzantion, Hallikarnassos, Syracuse, or Taras to be taken by the Romans/lost by the Epierotes to expand any farther.

Edit2:I know I probably seem OCD about this, but when it to a Greek Roman era mod, these types of things always bugs me.