True, but the unstable alliance argument applies to a greater or lesser extent to all factions. Even the Italian Socii revolted when Rome became powerful and refused to share out the booty. Being loyal to ones place of origin rather than to the idea a greater nation is hardly a exclusively Greek characteristic.Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
The problem with splitting up the KH is that it would result in both Athens and Sparta getting quickly gobbled up by either the Macedones or the Epirotes. They need to be in a single faction in order to survive. It seems a waste to spend two or three faction slots to a couple of not-very-powerful city states when there are so much more potential factions out waiting there.
Taking this argument to it's logical extreme, none of the empires in EB should be included since they all fell in history. But the achievement of an empire is not the criteria, it's the potential to form an empire. The Romans and Diadochi obviously had this potential. The Celts had it too, because they had once been an empire. The Suebi may also have pulled it off. The Scandiniavians on the other hand lacked a governemental structure that would allow empire formation. Heck, they probably weren't even unified. They wouldn't have been capable of serious expansion in the way the existing factions are. Could they have formed an empire? Well, who knows, if they were unified and proved themselves adaptable, but that seems rather slim ground for turning them into a faction when there are much more likely candidates available.Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
Bookmarks