An Irish protest

[Horatius Flaccus]

Nah, you would claim that you would control the whole of Ireland. As I understand it, it was nigh impossible to fully control the area.

[Brennus]

Nah, you would claim that you would control the whole of Ireland. As I understand it, it was nigh impossible to fully control the area.

Like Agricola at Mons Graupius.

[HFox]

The irish stood united on Saturday and beat us into the ground......a rugby reference and lame attempt at derailing the thread

[Tyrfingr]

But if you're making Ireland unconquerable because no of the EB-factions held it during the timeline, then why don't we make the Baltics and Scandinavia the same? I'd would prefer giving Ireland some nasty "roving defenders", similar to the ridicolously strong Mrogbonna-guy (Rhesus, right?), making it nigh-impossible to claim Ireland. EB is all about historical accuracy, but the player is at the same time given the possibility to change the course of history.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

But if you're making Ireland unconquerable because no of the EB-factions held it during the timeline, then why don't we make the Baltics and Scandinavia the same? I'd would prefer giving Ireland some nasty "roving defenders", similar to the ridicolously strong Mrogbonna-guy (Rhesus, right?), making it nigh-impossible to claim Ireland. EB is all about historical accuracy, but the player is at the same time given the possibility to change the course of history.

I agree with the idea of making the Baltics and Scandinavia ungovernable - well, certainly Scandinavia, rather than making it 'possible' to govern somewhere like Ireland or Scotland. There just wasn't any central government of any sort in these areas to be able to conquer. I think the idea of the Eremos is a good one - if anything I would have it extended and have it produce (spawn) rebel stacks as an irritant to the faction holding neighbouring areas.

[oudysseos]

Not really a response to the thread as such, just an idea thrown out there: if you look at the areas that the Hellenic kingdoms and the Romans after them conquered and held in a reasonably stable, orderly fashion, they are largely areas that already had dense (by contemporary terms), cohesive, organized societies. The Romans could make 'good' provinces out of Gaul and southern Britain because the basic conditions for centralized control of the areas already existed: all the Romans had to do was co-opt the existing order. And even better example is Alexander's conquest of Achaemenid Persia: after only three major battles (and some sieges and so on), he inserted himself into the existing power structure, which he left largely unchanged, excepting that he was now in charge. The situation would have been much different had there not already been a highly organized central government for him to take over.

Does this mean that the converse is true, i.e., are the areas that Rome did not conquer bound to be ones without advanced societies? I don't want to group all non-Roman areas of the world under one rubric, but there might be a grain of truth to that idea.

[oudysseos]

Here's a great example from Britain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...=ILCNETTXT3487

[fightermedic]

Not really a response to the thread as such, just an idea thrown out there: if you look at the areas that the Hellenic kingdoms and the Romans after them conquered and held in a reasonably stable, orderly fashion, they are largely areas that already had dense (by contemporary terms), cohesive, organized societies. The Romans could make 'good' provinces out of Gaul and southern Britain because the basic conditions for centralized control of the areas already existed: all the Romans had to do was co-opt the existing order. And even better example is Alexander's conquest of Achaemenid Persia: after only three major battles (and some sieges and so on), he inserted himself into the existing power structure, which he left largely unchanged, excepting that he was now in charge. The situation would have been much different had there not already been a highly organized central government for him to take over.

Does this mean that the converse is true, i.e., are the areas that Rome did not conquer bound to be ones without advanced societies? I don't want to group all non-Roman areas of the world under one rubric, but there might be a grain of truth to that idea.

This could very well be the truth i think, as it reminds me very much of the situation in Chile, the natives living in the south had been as good as not conquerable as they were extremley decentralised and only when weapons were MUCH more advanced in the spanish north they were able to conquer the south