Very nice! I'm looking forward to some more balance in Asia! Good show EB team!
Very nice! I'm looking forward to some more balance in Asia! Good show EB team!
I will buy a new PC only AFTER EB2 is out .
Since my PC has no problem with EB1 , who needs a new PC , as if there are other games to play ....
Satyros
Smell the battle in the wind, before you see us.Winterhorde of furyride, the wind will lead us.
now that ive played a few battles on the mtw kingdoms engine im drooling over what everything will be like with when Eu 2 comes out .sick for that one!!!!!
Who or what were the Trallians? Were they a Celtic people? Or an Anatolian one? Or something else?
Last edited by QuintusSertorius; 07-19-2008 at 12:58.
It began on seven hills - an EB 1.1 Romani AAR with historical house-rules (now ceased)
Heirs to Lysimachos - an EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR with semi-historical houserules (now ceased)
Philetairos' Gift - a second EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR
IIRC he left his kingdom to Rome and made this publically known to his aggressive neighbours, so if they killed him and tried to grab his kingdom the Romans would come storming in and rip them all apart.
Hilarious as he died unexpectedly and the Romans came storming in and (eventually) ripped everyone apart.
From Hax, Nachtmeister & Subotan
Jatte lambasts Calico Rat
Where are some good readings on Pergamon? Especially anything available online (and free)? Looking for some inspirations for my EBI Pergamon game.
And a couple of questions; why did Pergamon not go in for elephants or phalanxes? On the former I could hazard a guess at supply issues, but why would they not copy other Hellenistic Successors in using the phalanx as their mainstay?
Last edited by QuintusSertorius; 07-22-2008 at 00:56.
It began on seven hills - an EB 1.1 Romani AAR with historical house-rules (now ceased)
Heirs to Lysimachos - an EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR with semi-historical houserules (now ceased)
Philetairos' Gift - a second EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR
Obviously, you cannot recruit elephants if you don't have access to them. Phyrrus got his as a gift of the Seleucids (IIRC), and tried to set up a breeding program. The Seleucids themselves did likewise in Syria. However, the Attalids didn't have elephants to begin with, so they couldn't do this.
As for phalanxes, I am pretty sure Pergamon did use them. However, phalanx armies require a lot of mass to be effective, and I assume that before taking over the Seleucid military colonies in Asia Minor, Pergamon didn't have a lot of manpower available. Also, when confronted with Galatian raiders you need something mobile and flexible, not a slow-moving phalanx.
Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!
that's a good summary, Ludens. Before the Attalids had access to the Seleukid colonies, they drew their mainstay soldiery from Pergamon itself, neighboring cities (that were in allied or subject status to Pergamon or the Attalids), and mercenaries who showed up in Pergamon looking for work in the army. They would not have been able to field a very impressive Makedonian-style phalanx at that point. They probably could have equipped a decently sized phalanx by so arming the Mysians, but there's no good evidence they ever even seriously considered that, keeping them as skirmishers or light-medium infantry. As Ludens pointed out, a slightly more mobile force was generally a better idea against the Galatians.
"The mere statement of fact, though it may excite our interest, is of no benefit to us, but when the knowledge of the cause is added, then the study of history becomes fruitful." -Polybios
I figured as much; even getting access to African forest elephants might have been difficult with the Ptolemies potentially blocking their access. This was purely a curiousity point, mind, I have pretty much zero interest in recruiting or using elephants, personally.
Makes sense; in some ways facing the Galatians might have been similar to the problems Romans had against Gauls in northern Italy.
That might then explain the prevalence of thureophoroi amongst the armies I've seen. Don't need as many men as in a phalanx, and they're flexible.
Talking of the Mysians, were they eastern Greeks? One army list had "Mysian javelinmen" in it; would they simply be akontistai in the current EB roster?
Last edited by QuintusSertorius; 07-22-2008 at 14:25.
It began on seven hills - an EB 1.1 Romani AAR with historical house-rules (now ceased)
Heirs to Lysimachos - an EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR with semi-historical houserules (now ceased)
Philetairos' Gift - a second EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR
yup, you're free to think of units like akontistai, EB1 peltastai, or EB2 euzonoi, as units constituted primarily of Mysians.
"The mere statement of fact, though it may excite our interest, is of no benefit to us, but when the knowledge of the cause is added, then the study of history becomes fruitful." -Polybios
The Mysians by the 3rd c. BC were pretty much like almost every other minor group or kingdom in western Anatolia in that they were very thoroughly hellenized when it came to arms and armour. A few depictions of Mysian warriors come down to us from funerary stelae, including a thureophoros, a thorakites, and a heavy cavalryman, and they all pretty much look like your run of the mill Hellenistic soldiers (save for the fact that the Mysian cavalryman doesn't seem to have carried a shield).
A question: can the faction of the Reign of Pergamon be called with name of the ruling dinasty (obviously translated in Greek), the Attalids, just like the Ptolemies in Egypt and the greym reape... the Seleucians in Syria/Mesopotamia/Persia?
Not a request, just a personal curiosity.
Last edited by Connacht; 07-27-2008 at 18:48.
You're an island of tranquillity in a sea of chaos.
O! Plus! Perge! Aio! Hui! Hem!
guys...figure this is as good a place as any...be excited about the next preview, JMRC has been doing some magnificent animation work, and skinners have produced some new, great-looking units...
"The mere statement of fact, though it may excite our interest, is of no benefit to us, but when the knowledge of the cause is added, then the study of history becomes fruitful." -Polybios
From what I've picked up, it does indeed look very promising. It'll surely be worth your time.
This space intentionally left blank.
The Appomination
I don't come here a lot any more. You know why? Because you suck. That's right, I'm talking to you. Your annoying attitude, bad grammar, illogical arguments, false beliefs and pathetic attempts at humour have driven me and many other nice people from this forum. You should feel ashamed. Report here at once to recieve your punishment. Scumbag.
Well, Seleukos did declare himself Basileus in 305 BC, so saying the Seleucids isn't really that bad. Also, the fact that they ruled a large piece of land would make "Seleukeia" easier than "The Empire of Mikra Asia, Syria, Assyrie, Babylonia, Persia, Media, Parthiyaia, Drangiane, Arachosia, and Some Other Locations I Have Not Yet Mentioned", which shortened to "EoMASABPMPDAaSOLIHNYM", which doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.Well, if you mean their historical name, then Attalids doesn't work, no. But then again, neither does calling the Seleucids by that name. As a modern name, though, calling the dynasty the Attalids is quite common.
Also, the Attalos I Soter hadn't declared himself Basileus in 272 BC.
This space intentionally left blank.
They are never called Seleukidai in ancient sources, only Kings of Syria or some variant thereof. Seleucid and Attalid are both modern titles and they are both the common scholarly names for their respective dynasties, so they are acceptable in a modern context but not in an ancient one.
Sooo.... what do you wanna call them?
The Appomination
I don't come here a lot any more. You know why? Because you suck. That's right, I'm talking to you. Your annoying attitude, bad grammar, illogical arguments, false beliefs and pathetic attempts at humour have driven me and many other nice people from this forum. You should feel ashamed. Report here at once to recieve your punishment. Scumbag.
I'm pretty sure Kings of Syria is a Roman name. They were known as the Kings of Asia, IIRC.They are never called Seleukidai in ancient sources, only Kings of Syria or some variant thereof. Seleucid and Attalid are both modern titles and they are both the common scholarly names for their respective dynasties, so they are acceptable in a modern context but not in an ancient one.
Whether or not they were called Seleukidai in the past is not the point. The fact is that they were the descendants of Seleukos, who had declared himself Basileus in 305. Philetairos had not declared himself Basileus of Pergamon in 272 BC, so I think this is the reason why the one is called the Arche Seleukeia, even though Seleukeia is referring to the city, not so much to the dynasty, and the other is called Pergamon.
This space intentionally left blank.
Yes, we cannot really call them the Kings of Syria when in half of the games they lose Syria after at most 10 years. Besides, those sources you refer to are all Roman ones, usually from more than a hundred years after the games start. For example when Polybius wrote the Seleukids had pretty much been reduced to Syria, and so calling them the Kings of Syria only seemed natural. I don´t quite remember what he called them in his writing covering the earlier times though, the Battle of Magnesia and such.
The Appomination
I don't come here a lot any more. You know why? Because you suck. That's right, I'm talking to you. Your annoying attitude, bad grammar, illogical arguments, false beliefs and pathetic attempts at humour have driven me and many other nice people from this forum. You should feel ashamed. Report here at once to recieve your punishment. Scumbag.
Still, Kings of Syria. It is a Roman name though. At least Livius said Syria.
This space intentionally left blank.
I'm not criticizing EB's title for the Seleucids. I remember the thread from way back when where they discussed what they should be called and I think they arrived at the logical answer. My point is that Arche Seleukeia is not the ancient name for the Seleucids, though, and so something along those lines for the Pergamene dynasty would not be inappropriate.
If whether a dynasty had been named or not before the starting point is the criteria, then that makes sense.Whether or not they were called Seleukidai in the past is not the point. The fact is that they were the descendants of Seleukos, who had declared himself Basileus in 305. Philetairos had not declared himself Basileus of Pergamon in 272 BC, so I think this is the reason why the one is called the Arche Seleukeia, even though Seleukeia is referring to the city, not so much to the dynasty, and the other is called Pergamon.
The Seleukeia in Arche Seleukeia is an adjective meaning "of Seleukos," and has nothing to do with the city.
Contemporary Ptolemaic inscriptions refer to the Seleucids as the Kings of Syria.
But was the Ptolemaic dynasty refered to as "Egypt" then?
This space intentionally left blank.
I know of some non-royal sources that refer to the Ptolemies as the kings of Egypt, but not official sources. The Ptolemies had their own very complex system of royal titulature and offhand I can't think of any all-encompassing official title for the Ptolemaic state. Paullus can surely shed much more light on that matter than I can.
But what the hell did the man of the street call them? I doubt he used those very complex systems of royal titulature, probably consisting of 40 different titles or something. Did the ordinary Roman say "did ya hear, the Syrians got their asses kicked by the Egyptians at some place called Raphia."
I know it´s next to impossible to find out about these things, but still.
The Appomination
I don't come here a lot any more. You know why? Because you suck. That's right, I'm talking to you. Your annoying attitude, bad grammar, illogical arguments, false beliefs and pathetic attempts at humour have driven me and many other nice people from this forum. You should feel ashamed. Report here at once to recieve your punishment. Scumbag.
Bookmarks