Regional Descriptions: Help the EBII Team

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Lack of reviewing, or at least very slow reviewing. Work on other areas of the mod seems to be surging ahead, and I'd like to expedite the process by any road possible. It's the primary reason I chose to contribute, even if my fraction of the effort is pitiful compared to others. My impression was readers would correct and refine province descriptions so that by the time the team's actual historians read them - who are very few in number, to my knowledge - most of the work has been done. And considering the length of some descriptions, the work load is heavy indeed.

That is the whole point of this project: letting them use their time fully on everything else...
And this isn't happening how?
I mean if you are referring to grammar and such, I don't see why you couldn't offer to be a proofreader (since I'm gathering, you are keen on it). Or do it right of the bat.
Otherwise demanding that people should do it, it would be forcible. Not that such freedom of action is in any way precluded...

Also I cannot speak for the team, but I think they'd like to have some credentials or confidence in any volunteer, for such a delicate task as proofreading.
For example I can easily see how terrible I would be with my own mother tongue :P

And again, we are in the middle of holiday season. If anyone wants to do something, it'd be great and welcomed. But otherwise let people live ^^

Obviously. Which is why I suggested - not demanded: suggested - non-EB team readers could proofread them and save the team effort.

I believe that I speak for the EB team as a whole when I say that any critiques, if they provide constructive feedback, are welcomed. Having said that, we reserve the right to further editing if we feel that it requires it.
However, as has been mentioned, as far as I am concerned, the inclusion of deliberately provocative items, or mistakes, is counterproductive. While I appreciate the point that you raise, Rex Somnorum, it is the middle of the Northern Summer and people are travelling. More pertinently while I am making an effort to read each and every post in this thread briefly, I am currently more concerned with writing the Roman and Bosporan building descriptions (which is a huge task, as I am sure that you can appreciate) and do not have the time to proofread these carefully alongside my own research and teaching…
The team as an entity will get to these eventually, until such a point we are grateful for all the work put in by our fans, ask for patience, and welcome any constructive feedback from among the wider group. If you would like to volunteer, Rex Somnorum, you could take temporary charge of editing for this thread, but please do not feel under any pressure or obligation to do so…

In other news, I'll take Karmania if it's free.

Karmania is free, please proceed, if you are so inclined.

Overall, though fascinating, the history section indicates clear misunderstanding of the audience. The length poses a major problem, which itself stems from a deeper root: the content. Instead of providing a brief historical overview of the province, the description enumerates every political occurrence in the province's history regardless of how negligible an effect it had on Bithynia's development. It essentially constitutes superficial recitation of facts devoid of any meaning, which in turn, implies a profound misapprehension of the nature of history. History represents not a body of names, dates and events, but a combination of numerous other fields, most importantly sociology, political science and archaeology, which endeavour to explain the past, not just record it. Facts form the basis of history. Analysis with the ultimate goal of understanding forms the substance.

My only suggestion for improvement it is to compress most of the information. Instead of spending an entire paragraph devoted to a single ruler's actions, merely mention them as part of a wider trend in Bithynian history. In fact, only the truly pivotal rulers deserve mention by name at all. Unless an individual is responsible for long term changes in the political, social and cultural framework in Bithynia, don't include them. Recounting each leader, temporary alliance and minor skirmish just makes for bad history and reading. Long reading.

But what was recorded was the Basileis' history. Which influenced Bithynia's and "reading between the lines" there are the deeds of the Bithynoi following those Basileis...
I disagree, while yes it is lengthy and needs to be shortened, the idea behind is that it offers the players the following:
- Understanding of the events and political precedences connected to the region, to allow the player to choose any course of action in response to them.
- A possible guideline for the Hellenistic period.
- A model on which to base any RPing policy.
You might see it as a boring list of events, probably due to my bad writing, but the "fields" are there (examples: euergesia towards Rhodos, which enables military assistance. [political science?] Intricacies related to the establishment on new tributes and how it affected the populace, prompting their reaction. [sociology?] 5th century tholos showing a new/stronger leadership; funeral stela to gather the Bithynian (at least higher class) clothing [archaeology?]
I tried my best with a part of the world and history, relatively unknown. I'd love to write more detailed or encompassing analysis towards a greater understanding, but there isn't so much about Bithynia (in the languages I can read). Bithynian history is an history of minor skirmishes (in your opinion), diplomatic/political games played along/against greater powers. Regardless of how your subjectivity perceives it, that's its history.
Stylistically I hoped that was the shortest way of writing it (! XD). For by connecting the concepts into a cause-effect or broad implications, it'd become an even longer read...
Also I'm just going to redirect your point: you make an overview of the development of civilization in Fars (which is interesting, but personally I find it only remotely connected to "our" Persis. Which yourself mention changed in culture and gets the minimal attention. But I know how difficult it is to write with little evidences.). After that you jump between few Kings and hardly speak of anything about Persis, condensing the whole Hellenistic age portion of EBII's in a sentence. Which as far as we know, it wasn't even "simply another province in a vast empire", for by numismatics alone there's ground to see Persis' political independence and from there it could be reconstructed its relation and 'political power-play' between Seleukia and Parthia. The only portion of Iranian Persis' history is the burning of its capital and in a very oratorical manner.

I don't pretent to know any 'right' or 'wrong' way, but the way I see it your suggestion of 'compressing' makes for a rather superficial approach, which generalises and in the end says little to nothing...

These History sections are a very complex issue, imo, should we offer the players the prior knowledged up to 272 BCE of what is necessary to "know where and what you are"? Or grant them the tools to undestand and being able to recreate at their leisure "hellenistic life", to the best of the evidences allow? Or just throw at them a snapshot and call it a day? I do not know, that's why I'm leaving mine as they are, for the team to make that call. Because the required brevity in itself denies the proper delivery of what is asked for...

This discussion raises two important points: length and content. While I am tempted to bypass the question and state that there will always be differences in approach, I will make an attempt for some sort of consistency.

While the team recognises the broad swathe of history, encompassing royal, noble and ‘peasant’ history, stretching from the Atlantic to India, there obviously has to be a limit somewhere. Unlike the proclivities of my esteemed colleague (and I would hope friend) @ Brennus I would press for a limit of 1000-1500 words per description all up. Exceptions should be granted in exceptional cases, but I believe that a decent and accurate overview of a given province can be achieved within that limit. If this provokes a storm of protests, then consider me overruled, but that was the expectation placed upon me when I joined the team, and is what I continue to aim for.

Here is an example of a shorter description already integrated into the build that fulfils our criteria:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Overview

On the farthest shores of Euxeinos, the Bosporion Tyrannesis holds sway. It is a kingdom of Hellenes and barbarians, a cluster of poleis surrounding the entrance to the Maeotian Lake, beyond which lies the vast emptiness of the open steppe. Truly this might be considered the very edge of the civilised world. This coalition controls the route up the mighty Tanais, monopolising the trade with the Skythai and Sauromatai beyond. Furs, fish, hides and slaves are among the items sold on to Hellas. Yet it is the natural gifts of the Bosporos which provide the foundations for the kingdom’s success. The fertile land brings forth such copious amounts of grain that even the vast demand of grandiose Athenai cannot exhaust their supply, while their coasts are ringed with natural harbours and populated by a plethora of cities. It is for this reason that the pressure of Skythai is resisted, the freezing assaults of Boreas endured and that the Bosporion Tyrannesis, under its Leuconidean basileis, remains a force to be reckoned with.

Geography

The poleis of the Bosporion Tyrannesis are constructed in the harbours and coves surrounding the entrance to the Maeotian Lake (Sea of Azov). While numerous rivers flow into this internalised sea, by far the most important is the Tanais (Don), which flows from the midst of the Russian steppe. In addition the Hypanis (Kuban), which used to empty into the strait separating the Maeotis from the Euxeinos (Black Sea) and, now, flows directly into the lake, watered the area known as the Sind, the source of much of the kingdom’s agricultural capacity.

The area suffers particularly harsh winters due to prevailing winds crossing the steppe from Siberia, and, given the extremely low salinity of the Maeotian lake, the waterways of the area are prone to freeze over, perhaps giving rise to the tales, related by Strabon, of fish being cut out of the ice (Str. VII.3.18).

The area surrounding the straits was noted in antiquity for its bounty; huge fish abounded (Herod. IV.53, Str. VII.3.18), but it is grain that was the staple export of the Bosporion Tyrannesis. Strabon notes the extreme fertility of the region, stating that the Greeks and Mithridates of Pontos imported Bosporan harvests (VII.4.4, 6). Certainly Athens was one beneficiary, providing a huge and willing market for Euxine grain (Isoc. XVII.3-5, Thuc. III.2.2).

History

The Bosporion Tyrannesis originally arose out of a coalition of Hellenic colonies clustered at the mouth of the Maeotian Lake (Sea of Azov). Pantikapaion (modern Kerch), later the seat of the Bosporan rulers, was founded by the Milesians, after driving out the Skythians who had originally inhabited the area, in the late 6th century BCE (Plin. HN. IV.86, Str. XII.2.6). Across the straits, Hermonassa was built by the Mytilineans in the same period, while Phangoria was founded by the Teans in approximately 550 BCE (Herod. I.162-164). The relationship with the neighbouring Skythians does not seem to have been overly unstable, but by 500 BCE, these initial colonies seem to have merged their sovereignty against outside threats, with the possible inclusion of the nearby Sindi, whose small islands in the delta of the Hypanis (Kuban) were extremely fertile.

An early ‘Archneanic’ dynasty seems to have arisen in approximately 480, displaced four decades later by the first Spartokos (Diod. XII.36f.). The long reigns of his son and grandson, Satyros and Leucon, oversaw the rise of the kingdom to a substantial power (Diod. XIV.95, XVI.31.6, XVI.52.10). This coincided with a huge rise in demand for grain from Aegean states, particularly Athens and Mytilene and the Bosporion Tyrannesis, with its huge production capacity, stepped into this niche as a stable and reliable supplier (Lys. XVI.4, Isoc. XVII.3-5, Thuc. III.2.2). During this period, the emerging kingdom annexed the city of Theodosia in the southern Crimea, and fought an indecisive conflict with Heraklea Pontika ([Arist.] Oec. II.2.8, Polyaen. V.23, 44, VI.9.2-4, VII.57).

In the late 4th century bce, a brief civil war was fought, but the ambitious victor, Eumeles, restored order, attempting to police the Euxeinos against piracy. His son, Spartokus III, became the first Bosporan to be called ‘Basileus’ (CIRB 974, 1043). Even during this apogee, however, the Bosporans never claimed to rule the Skythai in their midst.

The collapse of Athens as a secure market led to an extensive and wide-ranging search for a replacement buyer, but, by and large, this was never forthcoming. While a Paerisades managed to distract Atheas of the Skythai (Dem. XXXIV.8), and seems to have been granted divine honours (Str. VII.4.4), the age of Bosporan expansion was largely over. Palakus, a son of Skilouros, managed to unite the Tauroi and Rhoxolanoi against the Bosporan rulers in the late 2nd Century BCE in the course of his conflict with Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontos, to whom the final dynast, Paerisdae V, entrusted his kingdom. Some final intrigue involving a Skythian named Saumakos, raised at the court, attempting to seize power was crushed, and Pantikapaion became the centre of the Pontic ruler’s northern domain. This area passed to his son, Pharnakes, upon his final defeat, until he succumbed to Caesar, and finally became a Roman client kingdom.

While EB II is focused on the Hellenistic period, we recognise that it cannot be analysed in a vacuum. Previous, and in some cases subsequent developments, can be examined. In terms of socio-political or cultural developments as opposed to what might (cruelly) be referred to as ‘Kings and Dates’ history: both have their merits. It is easy as an aspiring (English as a First Language) academic to sit back and criticise these descriptions at a post-graduate level, but most of the people writing do not have those advantages. If there is a critical weakness with a particular description, we will endeavour to fill it or recognise it, but exhaustive presentation of the facts is as valid approach as a prima facie more nuanced investigation of the development of land division.

In summary, I encourage those engaged in this aspect of the project to engage in as much constructive criticism (and peer-review) as you wish to, but please be mindful that everyone wants to advance the project and will not be approaching this from the same historiographical perspective.

Thank you…