The Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus: the case for a new faction

**oudysseos** · 12-18-2008, 17:58

I'll take Smeels comment in the spirit it was offered, 'cos obviously I agree with him- if you really think that x faction should be considered, then you should do a little work and make a substantive argument for its inclusion.

I have updated the first post with some books- a mini bibliography for the Kimmerikos Bosporos. If there is anyone who can add to the list please post and I'll update with your addition.

Just about factions in general: if the EB1 factions are all kept as they are for EB2, and with the addition of Attalid Pergamon, we have so far

6 Macedonian/Succesor States (including Epeiros)
3 Celtic Factions
3 Iranian-speaking Peoples
2 Devolved Persian/Alexandrine Satrapies (Hayasdan & Pontus. 3 if you want to include the Pahlava here rather than above)
1 German Faction
1 Dacian/Thracian Faction
1 Iberian Faction
1 Greek Faction
1 Arabian Faction
Carthage
Rome

9 to be revealed

In terms of completeness, with the addition of Pergamon, the gang's all here as far as the Macedonian States of 272 BC goes.

There were many more strong Celtic groups than the Averni, Aedui and Casse, and if I can consider them together with the Sweboz, there definitely seem to be room for more Celts/Germans.

It seems to me that the Saka, Sauromatae and Pahlava cover most of the bases as far as steppe riders go: there were still significant areas of Scythian control into the EB time period, but their 'great power' status had definitely waned. Someone correct me here if I'm wrong.

Hayasdan and Pontus are only two former satrapies-turned-kingdoms: there's also Commagene, Bithynia, Sophene, Osrohene, Atropene, Cappodocia, Colchis, Adiabene, Galatia: probably most of these were too small or insufficiently independent to merit full faction status, but a case could maybe be made.

The Getae were not alone in Thrace/Dacia: the glory days of the Odrysian Kingdom were gone but some independent identity remained; perhaps a case could be made for the Triballoi, Scordisci or someone else.

There clearly was a heck of a lot more going on in Iberia than just the Lusotannan: I'd bet money that at least one of the new factions will be here: Cantabri, Averaci, Aquitani, Celtiberi

I'd guess there won't be another Arabian/Axumite/Meroe faction, mostly 'cos the team has said there won't be.

There's only one Rome, ditto Carthage.

SO, the Greeks...

In real life the Greek players on the stage at the time were the leagues in Aitolia and Achaea, neither of which really included Athens or Sparta. "Koinon Hellenon" is a construct of the EB team to represent a temporary (and unsuccessful) alliance between the two latter city-states, some of the stated reasons for doing so being an unwillingness on the part of the team to overload Greece with cities (you'd need at least one more in the Peloponnese for the Achaeans) and a similar unwillingness to give up a faction slot to have two virtually identical factions (at least as far as culture and unit rosters go). There has been statements by the team that the KH will stay, although it may be changed somewhat, and at least a broad hint in Mithridates Aitolian League thread that there may be another Greek faction. This may all be deliberate misinformation. :)

My point with this being that a Bosporan faction is a very good choice: it is a unique synthesis of Greek, Scythian and local cultures (and therefore something new), in an area that is otherwise just an expansion zone for the Sauromatae most of the time. It is well documented and sourced, and can expand the accuracy of EBs depiction of the orld at the time.

**Cartaphilus** · 12-18-2008, 20:54

Congratulations for your great posts, I agree with you at 100%.
Now, we just have to wait.

**Ludens** · 12-18-2008, 21:14

Originally Posted by oudysseos

Just about factions in general: if the EB1 factions are all kept as they are for EB2, and with the addition of Attalid Pergamon, we have so far

6 Macedonian/Succesor States (including Epeiros)
3 Celtic Factions
3 Iranian-speaking Peoples
2 Devolved Persian/Alexandrine Satrapies (Hayasdan & Pontus. 3 if you want to include the Pahlava here rather than above)
1 German Faction
1 Dacian/Thracian Faction
1 Iberian Faction
1 Greek Faction
1 Arabian Faction
Carthage
Rome

9 to be revealed

The team has stated that all EB1 factions will be in, and that the tenth new faction slot may remain open for scripting purposes.

**antisocialmunky** · 12-18-2008, 23:44

Don't forget another German Faction because of all the talk of preventing the redish-purplish-proto-germanic death.

**General Appo** · 12-19-2008, 09:59

That could be prevented with different methods. Another Germanic faction is far from certain IMO.

**brymht** · 12-19-2008, 18:53

Personally, I'd still really like to see Axum make a showing; but there are very legitimate reasons for them not to. Culture slot, few troop types, and map not really going far enough south.

However, I don't see a problem with making a special dispensation to almost "Egyptianize" them when they take over all the Egyptian provinces, and from then treat them more as a native egyptian culture. Aethiopian Kings made up good portions of a few dynasties of Ancient egpt, if I rmember correctly. And when they did, they tended to move their stakes up the nile to be closer to their richer holdings; kinda like King James uniting the thrones of Scotland and England. He picked up stakes and for all intents and purposes the dynasty forget which Kingdom they had first.

Based of the Hyasdan reforms, I could almost say they they MIGHT even have the opportunity to be a resurgent Ptolemaic dynasty, and become a counter balance later successor state.

Bring on the abuse......

**General Appo** · 12-19-2008, 19:10

*abuses Brymht*

**Ludens** · 12-19-2008, 19:24

Originally Posted by brymht

However, I don't see a problem with making a special dispensation to almost "Egyptianize" them when they take over all the Egyptian provinces, and from then treat them more as a native egyptian culture. Aethiopian Kings made up good portions of a few dynasties of Ancient egpt, if I rmember correctly. And when they did, they tended to move their stakes up the nile to be closer to their richer holdings; kinda like King James uniting the thrones of Scotland and England. He picked up stakes and for all intents and purposes the dynasty forget which Kingdom they had first.

Based of the Hyasdan reforms, I could almost say they they MIGHT even have the opportunity to be a resurgent Ptolemaic dynasty, and become a counter balance later successor state.

But could they realistically attempt this? To the best of my knowledge, all they managed during the entire length of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods were a few raids. Did they have anything that could stand up to a professional army? Yes, they held of the Ptolemeans and Romans, but this was probably more related to logistics and the lack of suitable places to take and hold (similar to the problems faced by the Romans in Caledonia). As for becoming pseudo-Ptolemeans, that really is impossible. The Ptolemeans already had major problems attracting Greek settles: they would have stopped coming entirely if the dynasty was replaced by a barbarian one.