A Case for changing the names of Koinon Hellenon and Makedonia

[oudysseos]

This argument actually occurred to me while I was reading the thread on the Yuezhi, and how it seems that they are not going to make the final cut, primarily because they were not really around in 272 BC (or 482 AUC depending on who you ask ), even though they did appear later on in the period that RTW:EB covers. I was also deliriously happy that the 'Gauls' and 'Germans' were replaced by more convincing tribal confederations, and that instead of RTR's fictional Illyrians we have the Epirotes.

What I am now going to advocate is that the same excellent standards for faction inclusion be applied to the 'Koinon Hellenon' because no such entity ever existed. True there were various Pan-hellenic orators, but historically Hellenic Age Greece was never united in this way, particularly not in a faction that includes both Sparta and Athens!! The Chremonidean War which is invoked to lend legitimacy to this construct didn't even start until 267 BC- so the same doctrine that applies to the Yuezhi should apply here.

Happily there is a quick and easy solution- pick either the Achaean or Aetolian Leagues as your 'Greek Cities' faction.

The best, in my view, would be the Achean League. They had a fascinating character in Aratus of Sicyon who was a true faction leader from 271 BC until 213 BC (!), as well as the influential historian Polybius. We have a complete list of the League's Strategoi on which to base family members' names. They had a sophisticated political structure and a true spirit of independence and common cause that lasted for more than a hundred years (until crushed by the Romans). The Achaean League is truly one of history's great 'what if?' moments, very much like Phyrrus and his Epirotes. If they're in the game, Aratus should be as well. There is huge potential for expanding the historical script elements down the line and truly being immersed in the history.

Aside from changing the name of the faction, we have to consider its starting position. Sparta stayed mainly aloof from both of the leagues, so it shouldn't be in, but none of the Achaean cities are really on the campaign map. Corinth was not liberated from the Makedonians until much later than 272 BC, so as a compromise I suggest that the new faction 'Akhaia Sumpoliteia' start in possession of Athens and perhaps Thermon and be given a large field army under the command of Aratus, poised to attack Corinth. This is a compromise since Thermon would more likely have been in the Aetolian League, but I think that it would be too much work at this point to change the campaign map to include Sicyon and Megalopolis. :) Sparta should be a rebel faction under Araios I and Rhodes a rebel faction as well. It would be cool to leave the Spartan king on Crete but perhaps unfair as the AI would never bring him back to save his city. Once Sparta is conquered the Spartan units that I fervently hope are coming can be intergrated in the the Akhaian army.

Selah!

P.S. You really should change the name of the Makedonian faction to the Antigonids (Basileia Antigonia?)- the Seleucid and Ptolemies were as equally Macedonian (in their own minds) as the Antigonids or for that matter the Attalids in Pergamon (now there's someplace you could put another faction!). If you're gonna change 'Egypt' to 'Ptolemaioi' as indeed you should then truly the 'Makedonians' need a look as well.

Thanks for all the gaming joy- y'all rock. If you ever come to Dublin the pints are on me boyo!

[Masy]

Wow you really know your stuff.

[oudysseos]

Degree in classics from St' John's College, Annapolis Maryland.

I work as a chef though. Go figure.

[Masy]

Theres no justice eh? Anyways i think its a good idea, after all wasn't EB brought about to rectify historical inaccuracies?

[Baldwin of Jerusalem]

Ahhh yes,finally someone who shares my point of view. I could never understand what the problem was with using one of the leagues to represent a united Greek cities. This has come up on RTR suggestions previously but was quashed for some reason. I do however like the representation that EB has chosen in some respects. For instance its generic enough to allow the incorporation of Rhodes, which to me is more than a rebel faction during this time period. The same could be argued of course for the cities of Syracuse and Pergamum, which by the way, hardcode limits aside I would love to play regardless of only having one province each.

Antigonid Kingdom? Absolutely. It seems a little lopsided as it is now with the other 2 successors named after their founding dynasties and the other named geographically. Lets remember too that factions in RTW arent tied to their capitals in any way, so you could forseeably have a situation where Macedonia is pushed sideways from its starting position, leading to a curious state of affairs where there exists a faction named Macedonia which isnt actually in Macedonia. lol

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We had long discussions about names. We decided not to restrict a faction's name based upon how we referred to another faction. I suppose you'd all want us to change Iberia, Baktria, Epeiros also in addition to Makedonia. There are some factions that are more naturally associated with a place, some that are more naturally associated with the "people" themselves, and some more naturally associated with a rule. We aren't forcing some to behave like others when they aren't really like others.

[fallen851]

Degree in classics from St' John's College, Annapolis Maryland.

I work as a chef though. Go figure.

I bet your food tastes... classic.

Wow that was the worst joke ever.

[oudysseos]

Teleklos has a good point regarding the name of Makedonia- even though the political faction represented in the game is more accurately the Antigonid dynasty, most historical work refers to it as Macedon (i.e the Macedonian Wars).

I still think that my point about the Koinon Hellenon is valid- that's not merely a question of nomenclature but a fictional construct that clashes with the authenticity of the rest of the game.

Love the game though. Please think about it- it wouldn'y be a very big change.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

It would actually be a huge change (scrapping family members and traits and bios for starting family members and developing new ones, changing scripting placements of some buildings, changing diplomatic alignments, changing descriptions of the faction and of the faction history, dropping scripted forced-wars over Thermon, Sinope, etc., as these wouldn't apply to an Aitolian or Achaean faction), and believe me, we spent a lot of time discussing the potential ways to depict this faction. It all came down to the fact that if we tried to depict an Aitolian or Achaean league, it would bascially remove the faction from being considered as a separate faction in the game. An Achaean league is based mostly inside territory that it is clear Makedonia needs to control. We would have to carve out one small province in the corner of the Peloponnese to let them have a spot at all. Aitolian league would be just one province at Delphi (and wouldn't incorporate any of the big old cities that anyone cares about).

So we are talking about using one city state basically or using a grouping that we have clear information about just a few years later that amounts to an alliance of Sparta and Athens in alliance with Ptolemy (who also is closely supporting and allied with Rhodes) in addition to joint agreements with many other Greeks ("that the friendship and alliance of the Athenians with the Lacedaemonians and the Kings of the Lacedaemonians, and the Eleians and Achaeans and Tegeans and Mantineians and Orchomenians and Phialians and Kaphyans and as many of the Cretans as are in the alliance of the Lacedaemonians and Areus and the rest of the allies, be valid for all [time, the one which] the ambassadors bring with them").

The only problem with all of this is that the Chremonides decree itself (the official document) isn't put into law until a couple of years after our game starts. Current scholarly opinion on the decree is close to this (recent wording from a 2000 book on Aitolia at this time): "The year of the office of the archon, Peithidemos, by which this decree is dated has yet to be established with certainty. Possibilities range from 270 to 265; 268/7 seems the most likely. The exact date of the decree is less important, however, than the information it provides about the issues and actors involved in the conflict... Chremonides' proposal of an alliance between Athens and a group of Peloponnesian states headed by Sparta was only the last in a series of diplomatic moves that led to the creation of a formidable anti-Antigonid coalition on the southern mainland and in the islands sponsored by Ptolemaios II."

So we have many Greek cities including some very famous old ones that were allied with Ptolemaios and officially tied together by 268/7 (but maybe a little earlier than that), and were probably moving this way even a little earlier than that (the agreement didn't fall out of the sky upon them but instead was a reaction to what had been going on for most of the 270's). This is clearly the best option for 272 for us, and the internal vote wasn't even close on this issue. We don't call it the Chremodian Alliance or anything like that - but just an/the "Alliance of the Hellenes".

There is indeed a tiny similarity to the yuezhi issue here, I will admit. But that is an issue of more than a century difference, and here we are talking about the situation of common interests and ties that leads to (within 2 or 4 years) to an officially binding declaration. Even if the decree hasn't been announced yet, these states shared a common interest and did officially allign shortly after this, something which we are sure of. And us deciding to keep them like this isn't just stubornness. We've shown we are willing to scrap an entire faction when the evidence shows this is what we need to do.

(This doesn't even mention the fact that playing as Achaeans (not talking about the bronze age usage of the name as a pan-greek title) or Aitolians doesn't seem very exciting either, but that's just personal taste.)

[VandalCarthage]

True there were various Pan-hellenic orators, but historically Hellenic Age Greece was never united in this way, particularly not in a faction that includes both Sparta and Athens!!

That's not actually true. Before the Chremondidean War, Chremonides had convinced Sparta to sign a treaty with Athens, with Ptolemy II as the third partner and sponsor, thanks to positive relations with Athens and all-around negative relations with Antigonos Gonatas. I honestly don't know how it was dated to 272, since to my knowledge the agreement came about only very shortly before Gonatas initiated hostilities in 267.

Edit: Guess Dave beat me to it, with a much more detailed description

That said...

Degree in classics from St' John's College, Annapolis Maryland.

I was onsidering applying myself, but the students/groups kind of came off as fruitcakes when I read about it. Would you recommend the classics and history program? Probably a stupid question from what I've read of the curriculum, but I have to ask