Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 153

Thread: Stele #6: Pergamon

  1. #91

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Very nice! I'm looking forward to some more balance in Asia! Good show EB team!

  2. #92
    Member Member Satyros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    158

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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.

  3. #93

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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!!!!!

  4. #94
    EBII Hod Carrier Member QuintusSertorius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    23,140

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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


  5. #95
    Not Just A Name; A Way Of Life Member Sarcasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olissipo, Lusitania
    Posts
    3,744

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Who or what were the Trallians? Were they a Celtic people? Or an Anatolian one? Or something else?
    Neither, they were Thracians...at least initially.



    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars

    -- Oscar Wilde

  6. #96
    Member Member Cyclops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    968

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus View Post
    I always thought it was something like, better to give it to an ally then let it be torn apart by civil war and conquered by an enemy.
    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

  7. #97
    EBII Hod Carrier Member QuintusSertorius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    23,140

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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


  8. #98
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    9,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Lightbulb Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    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?
    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!

  9. #99
    Member Member paullus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    always in places where its HOT
    Posts
    11,904

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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


  10. #100
    EBII Hod Carrier Member QuintusSertorius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    23,140

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludens View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludens View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by paullus View Post
    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.
    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


  11. #101
    Member Member paullus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    always in places where its HOT
    Posts
    11,904

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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


  12. #102

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    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?
    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).

  13. #103
    :.:: Member Connacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Where I end and you begin
    Posts
    148

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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!

  14. #104

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Quote Originally Posted by Connacht View Post
    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.
    Yes.

  15. #105
    Member Member paullus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    always in places where its HOT
    Posts
    11,904

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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


  16. #106
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    From what I've picked up, it does indeed look very promising. It'll surely be worth your time.
    This space intentionally left blank.

  17. #107
    Not your friend Member General Appo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    As far away from you as possible. Scuzzbucket.
    Posts
    1,645

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Quote Originally Posted by Connacht View Post
    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.

    Since they weren´t called the Attalids at the start of the game, some EB team member said NO!!!. Usually that meants no.
    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.

  18. #108

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Quote Originally Posted by General Appo View Post
    Since they weren´t called the Attalids at the start of the game, some EB team member said NO!!!. Usually that meants no.
    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.

  19. #109
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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.
    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.

    Also, the Attalos I Soter hadn't declared himself Basileus in 272 BC.
    This space intentionally left blank.

  20. #110

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Quote Originally Posted by Hax View Post
    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.

    Also, the Attalos I Soter hadn't declared himself Basileus in 272 BC.
    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.

  21. #111
    Not your friend Member General Appo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    As far away from you as possible. Scuzzbucket.
    Posts
    1,645

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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.

  22. #112
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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.
    I'm pretty sure Kings of Syria is a Roman name. They were known as the Kings of Asia, IIRC.

    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.

  23. #113
    Not your friend Member General Appo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    As far away from you as possible. Scuzzbucket.
    Posts
    1,645

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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.

  24. #114
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Still, Kings of Syria. It is a Roman name though. At least Livius said Syria.
    This space intentionally left blank.

  25. #115

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Quote Originally Posted by General Appo View Post
    Sooo.... what do you wanna call them?
    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.

    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.
    If whether a dynasty had been named or not before the starting point is the criteria, then that makes sense.

    The Seleukeia in Arche Seleukeia is an adjective meaning "of Seleukos," and has nothing to do with the city.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hax View Post
    Still, Kings of Syria. It is a Roman name though. At least Livius said Syria.
    Contemporary Ptolemaic inscriptions refer to the Seleucids as the Kings of Syria.

  26. #116
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    But was the Ptolemaic dynasty refered to as "Egypt" then?
    This space intentionally left blank.

  27. #117

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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.

  28. #118
    Not your friend Member General Appo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    As far away from you as possible. Scuzzbucket.
    Posts
    1,645

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    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.

  29. #119

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Quote Originally Posted by General Appo View Post
    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.
    For the average person, I only know of evidence for Ptolemaic Egypt. I know of an epigram from a funerary stele of a Bithynian who came to Egypt that calls the Ptolemies "the kings of Egypt."

  30. #120
    Vindicative son of a gun Member Jolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Chuck Norris' hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: Stele #6: Pergamon

    Quote Originally Posted by Hax View Post
    Still, Kings of Syria. It is a Roman name though. At least Livius said Syria.
    Seleucid Monarch: "My name is Asia. King of Asia."
    BLARGH!

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO