Why Epirus instead of Illyria?

[Brynjolfr]

Why was Epirus included in EB instead of Illyria? It seems to me that Illyria was greater in power, and of greater size, than Epirus. Not to mention the fact that the Illyrian culture would have brung a more intresting acpect to the game; the Epiran culture is too hellenic and non unique. EB does already have plenty of hellenic factions.

[Tellos Athenaios]

If only for the fact that Epeiros in 272 BC was actually one political entity as opposed to the independent and in-fighting Illyrians?

And actually Epeiros is pretty unique insofar as that it is the Westernmost 'true' Western Greeks - relatively tribal compared to the other Greek factions, a different dialect from the lingua-franca that Attic had just about become, and most notable - those Illyrians you speak of a partly just Epeirotai by 272 BC, members of the league.

Finally at 272 BC Epeiros was the big guy of Hellas: bigger than Makedonia, and far bigger than any of the Leagues. Illyria would never become as significant during the game's timeframe as Epeiros was right at the start.

EDIT: You may want to keep in mind the various Illyrian ethnicities for Epeiros also; and note the existence of the Syrakosios and similar ones as well.

[Foot]

Epeiros was the dominant power in that region at our startdate. Also, Illyria would be poorly represented if it was all as one faction, when in fact it was a grouping of many different tribes. Representing it as one tribe would make it far less powerful and far less worthy of inclusion.

Foot

[johnhughthom]

I was under the impression a few of the factions represented different tribes, like the Aedui, Arverni and Getai to name but three. How would representing the Illyrians in this way be any different? Not arguing with you by the way, it's a genuine query.

[anubis88]

I was under the impression a few of the factions represented different tribes, like the Aedui, Arverni and Getai to name but three. How would representing the Illyrians in this way be any different? Not arguing with you by the way, it's a genuine query.

AFAIK those tribes you just mentioned were far more powerfull than any Illyrian tribe in 272 bc

[Gebeleisis]

The Getai were tribes but as you see they start off with 1 town and you have "to unite the tribes" and excluding getai from the game leaved a Big gap cause they had their influences over eastern europe and the balkans

[CirdanDharix]

When the Illyrians were briefly more-or-less united they had the potential to become respectable imperialists but that's some forty years after EB's start, and even if the start date was moved including them as an R:TW faction would be impossible since they had a female regent and a minor de jure ruler, neither of which the engine would allow as the faction leader. So no Illyria for you

[Moros]

I was under the impression a few of the factions represented different tribes, like the Aedui, Arverni and Getai to name but three. How would representing the Illyrians in this way be any different? Not arguing with you by the way, it's a genuine query.

Note that the Aedui, Arverni do not represent one tribe or just some tribes. They represent a historic confederation. (Just like the sweboz for that matter).

[Maion Maroneios]

Why was Epirus included in EB instead of Illyria? It seems to me that Illyria was greater in power, and of greater size, than Epirus. Not to mention the fact that the Illyrian culture would have brung a more intresting acpect to the game; the Epiran culture is too hellenic and non unique. EB does already have plenty of hellenic factions.

Can I ask you a question as well? Do you happen to be an albanian? I'm not being a racist my friend, just that every time I see a post like that the guy seems to be abanian 99% (now why would that be? ). Anyway, be well my friend and I can reccomend you many mods that include Illyria if yu are interested

[artaxerxes]

I think the Epirote are FAR more interesting. Actually their inclusion, as well as the addition of the greater parts of the map, are my two favourite things about EB.
The Illyrians ALMOST became a 'faction' before Rome destroyed them. The Epirote were kinda cool for much longer, and existed Just long enough to be a serious force to be reckoned with. I'm so thrilled they're in the game, and even in their prime, Illyrians werent that much stronger than what can be represented by Eleutheroi so they're not even in the top 5 of factions I miss
(the only serious one here being Syracusans - I'm thinking of doing a version of Catos "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" and then end ALL my posts in here, no matter the subject, with "Btw I think EB needs a Syracusan faction" ;P )

[Vorian]

One name: Pyhrus.

You can't make him a rebel, just to have some tribes that became a force only as pirates and were defeated by the Romans.

[anubis88]

One name: Pyhrus.

You can't make him a rebel, just to have some tribes that became a force only as pirates and were defeated by the Romans.

The illyrians became quite strong.... Stronger than Epeiros after Pyrhuss death.
And who wasn't defeated by the romans?

[Watchman]

But they never actually did much did they ? Or even were really in much of a position to try to, right ? Pyrrhus could have and tried to - he just failed and got killed, which more or less spelled the curtains for the Epirotes.

For the sake of comparision, Alexander came quite literally to within an inch of losing his life at the Granicus; very little indeed would have been needed for him to have become yet another young hothead killed by his rash overconfidence, and some rather major periods of history would have worked out quite different indeed...

[Justinian II]

The illyrians became quite strong.... Stronger than Epeiros after Pyrhuss death.
And who wasn't defeated by the romans?

...The Sweboz? *cough*Teutobergerwald*cough*

[agron]

Can I ask you a question as well? Do you happen to be an albanian? I'm not being a racist my friend, just that every time I see a post like that the guy seems to be abanian 99% (now why would that be? ). Anyway, be well my friend and I can reccomend you many mods that include Illyria if yu are interested

i went to greece once and everybody spoke like this. It's like they were trying to sell me all this crap and they kept assuring me it's a bargain.

[V.T. Marvin]

Extended Realism mod to RTR features BOTH Epeiros and Illyria...

Ad Geoffrey S - Excellent ideas! I prey to see them implemented eventually!

[keravnos]

Epeiros has long been underrated, much as its greatest king Pyrrhos, even if it was one of the bastions against Romani, both in offense as well as in defense with the Molossians allying with the Makedones of Perseus against the Romani. The defeat of 168 BCE meant that its fate was forfeit. All 70 molossian towns were sacked and 150.000 Molossians, now slaves, were taken to Italia, never to be seen again. Thesprotoi and Chaones were left alone as they were Romani allies.

Another reason is that Epeirotes were fairly late into the "scene". Until 360 they were dwelling in villages, most were illiterate, herders who would go up in the summer and down in the winter on Pindos mountains, following their goat herds. It is post 360 BCE that larger towns began to emerge, and most of those were "synoikismoi" or banding together of villages. The easternmost territories of Epeiros, which would be the westernmost areas of Makedonia were very often in contest, with Elimeia, Orestis and Lynkestis often changing hands. Elimeia was Mollosian before Phillipos B', father of Megas Alexandros brought it back into the Makedonian kingdom. King Pyrrhos of the Molossoi was the first to be crowned "King of Epeiros" as he was the first one to bring ALL of the lands that Epeirotes dwelled in under one crown. Prior kings would be called "Leader of the alliance of Apeirotan" (as Epeirotes would call themselves in their version of dorian greek).

It is no doubt that Pyrrhos gets a very bad treatment. In all honesty he was just another "Do wonders or die trying" Hellenistic monarch. I can't really blame them as everyone tried to be "Megas Alexandros". In his time he was considered one of the best generals. In all honesty, he won most of his battles in his campaigns, but he did suck in overall strategy.

However, he is now considered a fop. I have no problem admitting that I used to believe the same , so I don't really blame anyone who has called him as such.

The reason is fairly obvious. He fought Roma. All those who did have been doomed as the objects of bad jokes, and worse propaganda which has been passed down upon us as "history". It is only now, after the work of Historians of the calliber of Hammond that the truth is finally known. It is only now that Celts and Greeks have been shown to be a much better "people" than were originally considered.

I hope, as the new FC of Epeiros, to try and show the Epeirotes of what they were, a small version of Makedones, but with different elements all to themselves, such as the council of "Damiourgoi" (loosely translated as "senior public servants") which would serve as advisory board to the king (many steles are found mentioning them), and NONE of which were Molossian.

So far as the relation with the Illyrians is concerned. It was friendly, most of the time. There were syncretic deities that both peoples worshipped, which did have a different name from Epeiros to Illyria. Pyrrhos himself was raised in Illyrian court, prior to fighting in Ipsos in 301 BCE on the Antigonid side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ipsus

Then he found refuge in Ptolemaic court, with Ptolemaios I considering him a son. In their literature, passed down to us one would start his letters as "Dear Father" the other would respond as "Dear Son".

It is all those things that people don't know about Pyrrhos, and just consider him a loose cannon,fop, unable to grasp victory, etc. Just as Perseus, the last king of Makedonia is considered to be a megalomaniac, hubris ridden figure, who started good but ended up doing terrible things...

...whereas the Romani were destined by "divine justice" to rule the world. If you take this into account it is no wonder that some mistakes are made, such as Plutarch calling Epeirote tribes Illyrians or what not. Plutarchos, while a greek in birth, is basically Roman. As such, he deffinitely considered all enemies of Roma, past and present as mortal enemies of his civilisation to be forever disgraced, and diminished. It is very important, when reading Romani history to remember that all history written in them, is basically the world as seen by Romani eyes. Winners write history and all that. A lot of very important stuff is there, and we should be grateful that they exist at all, but a thinking person needs to clear the chaff from the wheat.

At least Qin were more gratuitous. They just burned books which wrote bad things about them.

[Lysimachos]

Not to forget, Pyrrhos was considered the second greatest general in history (until then, that is) by no one less than Hannibal.

[Irishmafia2020]

I like the Epirotes, although they seem a little overpowered. Given a choice between another tribal confederacy, and Epiros, I support the epirotes. Still, I hope that an Illyrian faction (even an unplayable one) makes it into EB2. The Tribal factions make the game interesting for me when I am playing a "civilized faction". Generally speaking, the more the merrier, and I hope the Illyrians get added later, but not at the expense of the hard fighting Epirotes (who are busy conquering Italy in my current game, The Romans have lost Rome!).

[abou]

Not to forget, Pyrrhos was considered the second greatest general in history (until then, that is) by no one less than Hannibal.

Well, I have a feeling (as do most historians) that that little blurb in Livy is apocryphal, but the point stands.

The same could be said for many military leaders and having a better understanding of history and its main characters is certainly the goal of EB. Now, if I could just get my historical battles functioning you guys could read the descriptions and learn even more.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Not to forget, Pyrrhos was considered the second greatest general in history (until then, that is) by no one less than Hannibal.

Indeed. Pyrrhos was beaten by superior Roman logistics - the Romans could replace their losses more quickly than the Greeks.

[machinor]

Can I ask you a question as well? Do you happen to be an albanian? I'm not being a racist my friend, just that every time I see a post like that the guy seems to be abanian 99% (now why would that be? ). Anyway, be well my friend and I can reccomend you many mods that include Illyria if yu are interested

Actually, what is today's Albania would be about the size and position of Epirus (speaking purely geographical terms, not ethnical or cultural). Antiquity's Illyria would be more or less Ex-Yugoslavia.
So yes, you seem kinda racist (no offense).

[Vorian]

Actually, what is today's Albania would be about the size and position of Epirus (speaking purely geographical terms, not ethnical or cultural). Antiquity's Illyria would be more or less Ex-Yugoslavia.
So yes, you seem kinda racist (no offense).

Not really. Ancient Epirus would reach into an area even smaller than modern Greek Epirus, and Illyria would be a vast territory above it reaching undecipherable borders in the north.

[Scundoo]

a map

[/Bean\]

I think you need to look around the fact that Epiros was bested by the romans. Epiros would have become a much bigger player in the mediterrainian had Pyrros not had to face the romans outside Tarentum. If Epiros had had the freedom to concentrate their forces elsewhere who knows how powerful they could have been? Whereas in contrast the Illyrians were a tribal pirate nation...maybe with some potential, but unlikely to ever become a world power. All in all i think epiros is included and not Illyria just because its about what they could have been, not what they were. Games are about changing history's path

[artavazd]

Kervanos, I was going over the names, and their meanings and I found three really quickly that has the same meanings as in Armenian.

to name a few:

Greek: Agathon ( wealth) Armenian: Agah (greedy)

Greek: Beroe (bring) Armenian: ber (bring)

Greek: meno (to last) Armenian: mena (stay, stay put)

[The Persian Cataphract]

Kervanos, I was going over the names, and their meanings and I found three really quickly that has the same meanings as in Armenian.

to name a few:

Greek: Agathon ( wealth) Armenian: Agah (greedy)

Greek: Beroe (bring) Armenian: ber (bring)

Greek: meno (to last) Armenian: mena (stay, stay put)

Hehe, let the resident Iranophile elaborate a bit more on the lingual similarities:

Wealth: Âdan/Âdanîh

Bring/Bear/Bearer: Bar/Burdâr

Stay/Linger/House/Dwelling: Mând/Mân

Here's a Jägerbomb for the three giants of the Antiquity

[Elmetiacos]

Actually, what is today's Albania would be about the size and position of Epirus (speaking purely geographical terms, not ethnical or cultural). Antiquity's Illyria would be more or less Ex-Yugoslavia.
So yes, you seem kinda racist (no offense).

For this reason it always puzzles me that Albanians identify with the Illyrians rather than the Epirotes, to the extent that Albanian websites even have the identifier .il
Can anyone explain why this is?

[keravnos]

Because present day Albania is where the Illyrians fled to after having their territories being taken over by mostly Slavic invaders, much later than EB timeline.

-thanks for the map Scundoo-

[Hax]

Because present day Albania is where the Illyrians fled to after having their territories being taken over by mostly Slavic invaders, much later than EB timeline.

So those Albanians saying Alexandros III was Albanian came never even near the truth?