They fought as mounted javelineers, I kept the same name of EBI's unit Thraikioi Hippeis (Hippeis being also the word any Hellenic/Hellenistic person would use to define them. Lacking a Bithynian noun for it)...
It most certainly did and well into the Hellenistic period too...
"Peltastai" and "Hippeis" might mislead the reader into thinking the population at large had been Hellenised.

I don't fully get that, sorry...
The grammar is muddled. Did the Odrysai flee and abandon the treasure? If so, who recovered it and later dispersed?

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...
The problem remains that you provided a treasure-trove of fact with little to no analysis, instead leaving most of it up to the reader to infer. While I agree "the 'fields' are there," they certainly aren't explicit. Aside from a few coy references, it's just a string of chronologically related events. I'm not decrying specific information, but the inclusion of insignificant facts. Facts without analysis - expressly stated analysis - are meaningless. Conversely, analysis without facts is mere supposition. Together, the facts and analysis form history. Unfortunately, adding the amount of analysis commensurate with the current facts would about triple the length of the description. And, even though I'd thoroughly enjoy reading it, such a description is inappropriate for the task.

I also disagree that summarising diminishes the significance. Over-generalisation does present an ever-present risk. But forming a synopsis requires the writer to sift through a mass of information to decide what's important and what's not. A properly supported synopsis contains far more significance than the original hoard of facts. Even if Bithynian history consists of nothing but shifting alliances and intermittent warfare, each minute change in policy does not merit attention. Identify broader tendencies and, then include the most important facts to exemplify them. "Short" in no way equates to "shallow," inasmuch as "long" does not mean "in depth." Of course, this is all opinion, but there is no such thing as a truly objective position anyway - every argument is founded upon some inherently unprovable assumption. But I feel my definition of history matches the brevity guidelines.

Reading through your history section, I could identify roughly four phases in Bithynia's past: the early migratory and establishment period of Thracian tribes, the Hellenic and Persian period, the Hellenistic period, and the Roman and Pontic period. Every event in the history section fits into one of those categories. Summarise the trends - such as the growth of population, changes in demographics or culture - and focus on the net effects of each period. What changed in Bithynia as a result of foreign and internal interactions? And then include the most important kings and actions that characterised the period. If notable exceptions to the general flow occur, mention them, but only the genuinely remarkable ones.

In regards to Persis, the sources I used claimed Parsapura was Old Persian. Considering the similarities between Sanksrit and OP, it's possible the word is the same in both languages. In terms of structure and content, I concentrated more heavily on the periods prior to the game's time frame to simulate a telescopic view for the reader. Since the goal of EB is to forge an alternative history, I thought everything leading up to and influencing the province at the beginning of the game was the most important since everything afterwards might change. Another part of the issue is my fascination with early Iran, especially Elamite civilisation. In hindsight, I know I should have supported some of my assertions better, and I fully intend to elaborate more on Hellenistic Persis. The greatest hurdle is that Persis really was just a province in a vast empire. It sported no major cultural or literary centres, it spawned no kingdom-builders and never hosted bids for autonomy: the ruling aristocracy in Persis barely resisted when the Parthians arrived. To all appearances, Persis hibernated until the rise of the Sassinians. Archaeology and government records point to no major population shifts or changes in subsistence methods. The amount of urbanisation remained the same. Linguistically, the Persians shifted from late Old Persian to Pahlavi, but those were totally indigenous developments independent of outside influence. Nor did the lingual evolution entail change in other areas. Persis simply existed.


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.
The purest intellectual snobbery. All that is necessary for a good historian is a critical mind and a well-stocked library. At best, you have access to better sources. Otherwise, this is nothing less than an appeal to authority.