Restricing Ptolemaioi recruitment

[Krusader]

The Kleruchoi Phalangitai will probably be recruitable wherever it can be to represent military colonies. The Agema units might get a restriction to a few provinces.
The Galatian Kleruchoi might be restricted to the Nile provinces to represent elite Galatians being raised from the Galatians living there.

This is still being discussed.

The first mercenaries hired by Ptolemy II were indeed slaughtered by him to justify his claims for kingship, something Antiochus I also did after his battle over them in ca.275 BC, and the Attalids of Pergamon did later a few decades later.
The Celtic invasions of 280-270s were portraited in Greek propaganda as something similar to the Persian invasions two centuries before and the Hellenic monarchies took the title 'soter' and claimed they had saved Greek civilization from a barbarian threat and thus were justified as kings.

And Raphia was just one battle (albeit the biggest) and is it certain that Ptolemaic armies were always organized along those lines? Most of the Basilikon Agemata weren't present in the battle and most of the Galatians in Ptolemaic service might have been elsewhere as well.

But don't take this as a sign I think Galatian Kleruchoi should be recruitable everywhere. I personally think restricting them to a few provinces might be a good solution to avoid stacks of them coming at you and we will probably increase their upkeep costs as well.

[VandalCarthage]

The first mercenaries hired by Ptolemy II were indeed slaughtered by him to justify his claims for kingship, something Antiochus I also did after his battle over them in ca.275 BC, and the Attalids of Pergamon did later a few decades later.
The Celtic invasions of 280-270s were portraited in Greek propaganda as something similar to the Persian invasions two centuries before and the Hellenic monarchies took the title 'soter' and claimed they had saved Greek civilization from a barbarian threat and thus were justified as kings.

The Galatians Ptolemy lured onto and trapped on an island to starve were not killed to justify his kingship; who would it justify it to? The Galatians forced his hand when they tried to establish their own independent kingdom.

In any case, though our recruitment is currently a bit exaggerated and being handled, the area of Galatian settlement (in klerouchies or city garissons), was fairly extensive - and oasis areas were tapped.

[Krusader]

The Galatians Ptolemy lured onto and trapped on an island to starve were not killed to justify his kingship; who would it justify it to? The Galatians forced his hand when they tried to establish their own independent kingdom.

In any case, though our recruitment is currently a bit exaggerated and being handled, the area of Galatian settlement (in klerouchies or city garissons), was fairly extensive - and oasis areas were tapped.

My wording was wrong I see and I forgot some key points
I did not mean the Galatians were killed just for Ptolemy II to enhance his prestige, I meant that their mutiny offered him a good excuse.

Antigonos Gonatas & Antiochus I used their victories of the Galatians/Celts to justify their claims of kingship, as protectors of Greeks from an external threat.
Ptolemy II did not use his slaughtering of 4000 mercenaries as justification, but he used it to enhance his prestige along the lines of Antigonos Gonatas & Antiochus I and attributed his victory to the gods and in similar fashion to how the battle of Delphi had been attributed to Apollo giving his aid to the Greek soldiers present at Delphi.

---

And no one reacting to the fact Ptolemaioi will get 'Galatian Gaesatae'

[paullus]

Actually I had just noticed that the Galatians are asexual and nude in that pic...that's great. I've been hoping we'd see Gaesatae in there eventually. And VC, shouldn't we be a little more suspicious of the official account of the Galatian mercenary rebellion, given by court poets and historians of Ptolemy II himself? They may well have attempted some sort of problem, sure; most likely they demanded their wage, which was what the mercs serving Antigonos did. For Ptolemy II, killing them could have been more beneficial than dealing with them, especially when everyone else is being called Soter and he is no longer planning a campaign against Magas. And he did indeed use the victory to justify/enhance his rule, as the Galatian shields figured prominently from then on in his coinage, and on the main displays at the first Ptolemaia. The Delphic Hymn by Kallimachos also uses the victory as part of the justification for Ptolemy II's rule, and as a connection between the Lagids and Apollo.

[Slider6977]

I have a suggestion: Add Galatian Kluddolon to the recruitment in Alexandria, Memphis, Thebes, Syria, Assyrie, and Babylonia, recruitable by MIC lvl2 and higher. And possibly you could just make them recruitable in every type 2 and 1 govt province. Also, considering Galatian Kleruchoi are so heavily armored, restrict them to all type1 govt areas (ie Alexandria and Memphis), reflecting the fact that their armoring would come at great cost and should restrict their recruitment to the most advanced areas, same going for Kleruchoi Agema. Also, making them only recruitable at lvl 5 MIC.

This keeps it historic and at the same type satisfies the 'what if' mentality of the EB team. Or simply add hidden resources to Galatian Kleruchoi recruitment so that they are not recruitable in every single lvl2 province. Anyway, just my suggestion.

[VandalCarthage]

And VC, shouldn't we be a little more suspicious of the official account of the Galatian mercenary rebellion, given by court poets and historians of Ptolemy II himself? They may well have attempted some sort of problem, sure; most likely they demanded their wage, which was what the mercs serving Antigonos did. For Ptolemy II, killing them could have been more beneficial than dealing with them, especially when everyone else is being called Soter and he is no longer planning a campaign against Magas. And he did indeed use the victory to justify/enhance his rule, as the Galatian shields figured prominently from then on in his coinage, and on the main displays at the first Ptolemaia. The Delphic Hymn by Kallimachos also uses the victory as part of the justification for Ptolemy II's rule, and as a connection between the Lagids and Apollo.

Opportunism; what I'm saying is he didn't immediately evaluate or orchestrate the situation along those lines.

But why would he slaughter Galatians for demanding their wage? These are people the Ptolemies employed for a huge amount of time, and what would future and current employees think of him for arbitrarily massacring mercenaries after asking for their pay? Besides, Ptolemy could certainly have afforded their expenses; heck, if they asked for coined money he could have given them estates. The Ptolemies had certainly not reached a point of such financial straits.

You guys are overanalyzing the situation; even if the event was used as political propoganda, it was just capitalization on the natural events. In any case, Ptolemy II didn't take Soter as a cult title, as he'd already had one - and only one of his contemporaries did use the epithet "Soter," so he could hardly have felt inadequated (his campaign into Aithiopia probably enhanced his feelings of self-worth). Beyond the almost universally accepted fact that Kallimachos' description was just some serious butt-kissing to his established patron, these soldiers were loaned to the king by Nikomedes, and had no particular loyalty to Ptolemy or any substantial expectations - thus it's hardly unreasonable to say they rebelled.