Why are the Ptolemaioi such a hated faction?

[moonburn]

It strikes me as odd that so many people have no real idea about genetics on any level and yet still claim to know everything about it from heresay and general guesswork.

The stuff i put in bold in the quote is probably the most laughable part of the whole inaccurate lot. Its way off topic so i won't explain what actually happens but if you really have to know PM me and I will give anyone a nice big boring lecture. (its actually kinda interesting if you are into that)

Seriously people, don't try and talk about specifics on anything if you really have no idea or if you heard the absolute truth according to this "real reliable guy you met down the pub". It just spreads around wrong information.

please do we´re here to learn if anyone finds it boring he can just skip it

to the best of my knowledge dna studies show that the diference beteween a native american and a greek was only of around 24.000 years since they had a common ancestor and most humans in the world are extremly similar except for africans wich are those who are most diferent from the rest and thus can be the human salvation towards a diversification of our gens pool

the explination that was given to me for this was the java super volcano that exploded around 80.000 years ago and created a type of nuclear winter wich in turn killed all major animals in great numbers and thus humans also creating a botleneck effect like the one currently seen in cheetah´s in africa

as for people talking about mutations i don´t consider them bad the base for any species diversity lies in those mutations or else we would all be clones, the major problem i believe (and i´m not certain of this) is that most mutations are the "right" mutations

[fleaza]

it doesnt matter if their children became retarded through inbreeding, its the fact that they were inbreeding that is the funny part. i mean come on, just bring a noble daughter over from makedonia and just farm babies from her. keeping power within the family is a lame excuse. ptolemy was a cunning fox but i dont tink inbreeding was one of his better ideas.

did i mention the incredibly boring starting location of the egyptians? your settlements in israel and asia minor are so vulnerable and you feel obligated to defend them.

[satalexton]

actually i tend to leave those jews and asian mountain monkeys to their own devices, n secure western north afrika first, then spam keltoi and elite pikemen to streamroll the seleukidai.

[Subotan]

as for people talking about mutations i don´t consider them bad the base for any species diversity lies in those mutations or else we would all be clones, the major problem i believe (and i´m not certain of this) is that most mutations are the "right" mutations

There's no such thing as "right mutations".

it doesnt matter if their children became retarded through inbreeding, its the fact that they were inbreeding that is the funny part. i mean come on, just bring a noble daughter over from makedonia and just farm babies from her. keeping power within the family is a lame excuse. ptolemy was a cunning fox but i dont tink inbreeding was one of his better ideas.

Yes, because Ptolemy had an advanced knowledge of genetics.

did i mention the incredibly boring starting location of the egyptians? your settlements in israel and asia minor are so vulnerable and you feel obligated to defend them.

They are in pretty much exactly the same boat as the Makedonians, who have their own undefended cities in Korinth/Pellas. Besides, I find the Ptolemaioi's position interesting because those areas are vulnerable.

[Blxz]

There's no such thing as "right mutations".

True.

Yes, because Ptolemy had an advanced knowledge of genetics.

True.

They are in pretty much exactly the same boat as the Makedonians, who have their own undefended cities in Korinth/Pellas. Besides, I find the Ptolemaioi's position interesting because those areas are vulnerable.

True again. Although I did end up losing the asia minor ones in my last game it was as a decent trade for securing every city up to and including Antiochea. It sort of requires you to spread yourself around a bit, especially if you are also chasing the southern regions and have no way to quickyl bring your army back from Meroe area, etc. Fun times with a bit of strategic planning.

[Subotan]

True.
True.
True again.

Ding ding ding! Do I win a prize?

Although I did end up losing the asia minor ones in my last game it was as a decent trade for securing every city up to and including Antiochea. It sort of requires you to spread yourself around a bit, especially if you are also chasing the southern regions and have no way to quickyl bring your army back from Meroe area, etc. Fun times with a bit of strategic planning.

Exactly. Besides, there's loads of different playing styles. You can abandon Cilicia, defend it, focus on Africa, go for Anatolia or Persia... You've got more possibilities than, say, the Luso have, who can only go into Iberia and then can go for Gaul or Africa.

[king of thracia]

As ARCHE SELEUKEIA, Ruling from the greatest throne in the world, taking all the Ptolemaioi border regions and developing them proves very lucrative. The Ptolies have had nothing outside of Egypt for many years now and I would say out of those whom I am at war with they are the least threatening to my borders those would be of the ARCHE SELEUKEIA

That is, the ARCHE SELEUKEIA, the greatest throne in the world. Did I mention that it is the greatest throne in the world? Eat it, Ptolies

[fleaza]

There's no such thing as "right mutations".

Yes, because Ptolemy had an advanced knowledge of genetics.

They are in pretty much exactly the same boat as the Makedonians, who have their own undefended cities in Korinth/Pellas. Besides, I find the Ptolemaioi's position interesting because those areas are vulnerable.

because the makedones settlements are close together and the ptolemaioi far apart. antigonos gonatas also starts near athens so he can quickly connect it. and no the makedones arent in the same boat, the ptolmies have their settlements spread throughout the desert which take 510 turns to traverse.

[Head Casse]

Anyone able to provide more info on this? I think it might have been the 'Lucy' corpse that they found.

It's been a long time since my undergrad days but I think you may be referring to 'Mitochondrial Eve'. As far as I remember it this term doesn't denote a particular paleontological find, rather a theory of coalescence in mtDNA to provide an estimate for the most recent common female ancestor.

There's a book I started, but didn't finish, by Steve Olson called Mapping Human History if you're interested in this kind of thing.

[Blxz]

It's been a long time since my undergrad days but I think you may be referring to 'Mitochondrial Eve'. As far as I remember it this term doesn't denote a particular paleontological find, rather a theory of coalescence in mtDNA to provide an estimate for the most recent common female ancestor.

There's a book I started, but didn't finish, by Steve Olson called Mapping Human History if you're interested in this kind of thing.

Very much interested. I'll go and search it out. Thanks for helping clarify all that.

[Subotan]

the ptolmies have their settlements spread throughout the desert which take 510 turns to traverse.

The one legitimate complaint you have posted, and even then only to a degree if you go for Syria/Anatolia rather than Africa.

because the makedones settlements are close together and the ptolemaioi far apart.

Which is what makes the Ptolemaioi even more vulnerable, and thus even more interesting.

antigonos gonatas also starts near athens so he can quickly connect it.

Again, you seem to be thinking that the word "difficult" is a synonym for "boring". For most people, it isn't.

[Macilrille]

To mix Absinthe with anything but caramellised sugar or a bit of water is barbaric.


I have rarely fought the EB Ptolies as they are so far away then become the Yellow Fever or succumb to The Grey Death, and I have never played them either. Factions with a strong warrior ethos appeal to me, or exotic factions. Res Publica Romana, Macs and Sweboz are the former, Bactria the latter. Ptolemaioi... not. Perhaps one day in EB II.

[Subotan]

To mix Absinthe with anything but caramellised sugar or a bit of water is barbaric.

Quite. That's why I used Absinthe, as we're, uh, more "refreshing" than ginger beer, but not any less sophisticated.

[WinsingtonIII]

There's no such thing as "right mutations".

That's not entirely true. They may not be called "right" mutations per se, but there are certainly such things as beneficial mutations. Beneficial gene mutations are the basis of biological evolution.

Why is it that the last three posts I've made on this forum pertain to Darwin? It's just not normally what I expect to be talking about here...

[Ibrahim]

I want to add that there are two lines of the House of Habsburg, the Austrian and the Spanish. The Spanish are the inbred.

yeah I forgot to mention that.

I'm well aware of how this particular hapsburger changed history: the war of Spanish succession practically made britain a military power, not just in Europe, but the world. it also made the Churchills rich and famous. no john churchill winning battles right and left = no Winstton Churchill as prime minister.

@ Ludens: yeah, I know Oil Addiction is a 1st world thing, but what I meant was that the well being of the economy depended on it far more than even the US or some european country, not just their 1st world transportation systems in the sense that 70-90% of all revenue headed to government comes from Oil.

[Ludens]

@ Ludens: yeah, I know Oil Addiction is a 1st world thing, but what I meant was that the well being of the economy depended on it far more than even the US or some european country, not just their 1st world transportation systems in the sense that 70-90% of all revenue headed to government comes from Oil.

If oil production falls, it's not just our transportation systems that will be in trouble. But this is getting very OT.

[Servilius Novus]

To those who hate the Ptolemaioi, this might cheer you up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ubEXSDKoig

Btw personally I love the Ptolemaioi

[seleucid empire]

i am biased towards arche seleukia so naturally i dislike them. Its also to do with the fact that:
1. They have a typical successor roster with worse units. Only their galatians and elite pikemen are great. For some reason their expensive agema unit always does nothing for me
2. They spam elite pikemen
3. They conquer the world due to good starting position and only one enemy and i love the underdogs. In EB AS is something of an underdog, because despite their large territory no other faction has to face 4-5 enemies straight away and pressing from every single direction
4. On VH/M their campaign becomes a nightmare due to large rebel stacks besieging cities down south which take SOOO long to get to
5. I hate seeing yellow death no matter which faction I play. I always help Seleucids if im rich enough. No matter what faction I am i will send an army on some ships and take alexandria, sack it and give to AS with a money gift. I then send the stack to reconquer Antioch for the AS and all of Syria and down to Jerusalem. I sack every city and give all the profits to the AS
6. Historically Ptolemies would have been wiped out by Antiochus IV but they went and begged the Romans for help like any common coward. If they had just accepted the fact that the AS were better than them then the Seleucids would have the wealth of Egypt and Greeks would have ruled the east instead of the Romans

[MButcher]

i am biased towards arche seleukia so naturally i dislike them. Its also to do with the fact that:
6. Historically Ptolemies would have been wiped out by Antiochus IV but they went and begged the Romans for help like any common coward. If they had just accepted the fact that the AS were better than them then the Seleucids would have the wealth of Egypt and Greeks would have ruled the east instead of the Romans

Let's be fair about whom we call a coward. Antiochus IV gave up on conquering Egypt because a single Roman envoy intimidated him in front of his own army.


As for the claim that the Seleukids were "better" than the Ptolemies - better in what way? Militarily? That's a valid claim, though it didn't help them in being conquered by the Parthians and Pompey.

[FinnishedBarbarian]

Let's be fair about whom we call a coward. Antiochus IV gave up on conquering Egypt because a single Roman envoy intimidated him in front of his own army.

That envoy had ultimatum directly from Roman senate, kind of like some modern country (not russia or china) would receive ultimatum from U.S senate, there aren't many rulers/countries who would go to ignore such threat.

And calling Ptolemies cowards due to their actions during sixth syrian war is valid afterall Ptolemy (or his advisors) started it by demanding return of coele-syria and after being rebuffed reacted by declaring war where they were totally defeated by Antiochus. Philometor then went to betray his uncle when he made peace with his brother after which they cryed for Rome's help. All in all sounds quite spineless to me.

As for the claim that the Seleukids were "better" than the Ptolemies - better in what way? Militarily? That's a valid claim, though it didn't help them in being conquered by the Parthians and Pompey.

Is there any other way to determine superiority than military strength? Organisation maybe,but both kingdoms suffered from dissent so it's hard to say which one was better governed.

[Arjos]

The "line in the sand" episode is a nice tale and all, but one must put it into context: the Seleucid court was in a deep financial crisis, due to war indemnities and lost wars; Demetrios (the real heir and brother to Antiochos IV) was held hostage in Roma...

It was the wisest choice to make: taking on the Ptolemaioi as they were dealing with rebellions in the Thebai and Triakontaschoinos was feasible, facing the SPQR wasn't...
Not to mention at the same time the Pahlava were occupying Media...

Bottom line it wasn't an ultimatum, but the political equivalent of an adult holding a child by the forehead...

[MButcher]

And calling Ptolemies cowards due to their actions during sixth syrian war is valid afterall Ptolemy (or his advisors) started it by demanding return of coele-syria and after being rebuffed reacted by declaring war where they were totally defeated by Antiochus. Philometor then went to betray his uncle when he made peace with his brother after which they cryed for Rome's help. All in all sounds quite spineless to me.

I'm afraid I should have been more clear. My comment wasn't an argument that the Ptolemies were somehow more brave, or less cowardly, than the Seleukids. I absolutely agree that certain actions taken by the Ptolemies can be called cowardly. My comment was merely meant to show that there was more to the episode than the original poster stated.

Is there any other way to determine superiority than military strength? Organisation maybe,but both kingdoms suffered from dissent so it's hard to say which one was better governed.

This is precisely what I was calling into question. To say that "the AS were better than them (i.e. the Ptolemies)" is quite a broad statement. We cannot say that one kingdom was "better" than another, because "better" is too broad and subjective.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

5. I hate seeing yellow death no matter which faction I play. I always help Seleucids if im rich enough. No matter what faction I am i will send an army on some ships and take alexandria, sack it and give to AS with a money gift. I then send the stack to reconquer Antioch for the AS and all of Syria and down to Jerusalem. I sack every city and give all the profits to the AS

My way of dealing with AI Ptolemies and Quarthadast becoming too powerful is to set up Saba to become their nemesis. I figure the only cities Ptolemies and Quarthadast really exercised good control over historically were the coastal cities (with ports) - i.e. the ones that are easy to ship reinforcements to quickly. But the inland towns are more native Egyptian and Numidian than Hellenic or Carthaginian, so shouldn't really be under long-term Ptolemy/Carthage control. So I use Force Diplomacy to take the inland towns off them and give them to Saba on a regular basis - simulating regular native rebellions.

[seleucid empire]

Let's be fair about whom we call a coward. Antiochus IV gave up on conquering Egypt because a single Roman envoy intimidated him in front of his own army.


As for the claim that the Seleukids were "better" than the Ptolemies - better in what way? Militarily? That's a valid claim, though it didn't help them in being conquered by the Parthians and Pompey.

Well Antiochus IV made a smart decision. His empire was crippled by the war indemnities which his predecessors had to pay after Magnesia. Thats why im not a particularly big fan of his predecessor Antiochus III. In the battle of Magnesia the right wing of the Seleucid cavalry led by Antiochus III routed the Roman left but instead of turning around and flanking the Romans or supporting his own failing left he charged n chasing routers believing the battle was won. This was almost EXACTLY the same mistake he had made at Raphia. I guess he was a little too hot headed to learn from his mistakes

As for the Ptolemies, they pretty much became vassals of Rome after they begged them for help

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

In the battle of Magnesia the right wing of the Seleucid cavalry led by Antiochus III routed the Roman left but instead of turning around and flanking the Romans or supporting his own failing left he charged n chasing routers believing the battle was won. This was almost EXACTLY the same mistake he had made at Raphia. I guess he was a little too hot headed to learn from his mistakes

More likely, Antiochus III didn't have sufficient control over his cavalry to stop them chasing routers. Not that this makes him a bad general - chasing routers was a very normal activity for ancient cavalry. Only very disciplined cavalry can be stopped from chasing routers and made to reform for another charge on a different part of the battlefield, and usually this has to be planned for and communicated to the men in advance of the battle (like Hannibal's cavalry at Cannae.) If a general wanted formed cavalry for the later stages of a battle, normally he had to keep a fresh, uncommitted unit in reserve. Which is hard to do when you're short of cavalry, because you are forced to throw everything in at the start just to fight off the enemy cavalry.

[seleucid empire]

More likely, Antiochus III didn't have sufficient control over his cavalry to stop them chasing routers. Not that this makes him a bad general - chasing routers was a very normal activity for ancient cavalry. Only very disciplined cavalry can be stopped from chasing routers and made to reform for another charge on a different part of the battlefield, and usually this has to be planned for and communicated to the men in advance of the battle (like Hannibal's cavalry at Cannae.) If a general wanted formed cavalry for the later stages of a battle, normally he had to keep a fresh, uncommitted unit in reserve. Which is hard to do when you're short of cavalry, because you are forced to throw everything in at the start just to fight off the enemy cavalry.

good point but from what i read i blame antiochus himself for his defeats because he personally led the cavalry in at both Raphia and Magnesia. And wouldn't the Seleucid cavalry be pretty disciplined especially the companions and the agema? also the Seleucids had quite a big advantage in cavalry in that battle. i read this online extract too which said he put elephants in between his phalanx companies which seems like a weird move.
Well to be honest im not really a fan of any seleucid generals other than Seleucus himself and Antiochus IV. But i have to admire them because unlike the Ptolemies, most of the Seleucid Kings had to go on campaigns a lot because of the vastness of the empire and the frequent rebellions and attacks of the Parthians

[Arjos]

To be frank you should read more about the Ptoleis :P

Soter was a great general and secured for himself a kingdom out of nowhere (he actually made the Seleucid Empire possible, without his help Seleukos would have ended up a beggar)...
Philadelphos had a decent go at thalassocracy of the eastern mediterranean; and as a ruler (economy and internal affairs) could have possibly been the most successful among all the Epigonoi...
Eurgetes was actually recognized as Basileos of Asia...
Philopator faced superior indian elephants and cavalry, had enough field generalship to regroup and win Raphia (if only Antiochos Megas could have picked a little of that :P)...

As for campaigning, just look at how many syrian wars there are and rebellions they faced a lot of them...

Both kingdoms stood equal, whether due to military/economic might or political shrewdness, that's why the constantly "cancel" eachother out and bled themselves, allowing new powers to rise...

[seleucid empire]

ahh yes i was aware that Ptolemy was the one who helped seleucus rise to power
im really talking about the entire history of the empires not just the first dew good kings tho :D
most of the Ptolemies after Ptolemy III just lost more and more land and less influence
for raphia it it was antiochus not realising that the battle was over rather than Ptolemy IV's strategy
also i believe that although he was present in the battle he left most of the commanding to merc generals such as Polycrates of Argos?? correct me if im wrong. As well as the fact that ptolemy himself was a weak king under the influence of his ministers who were the ones who organised the recruitment of the army

[Arjos]

im really talking about the entire history of the empires not just the first dew good kings tho :D

Which is the same exact (actually shorter) story for the Seleukidai...
In fact, the Ptolemaioi were smarter and retained a certain independence: most of all the roman emperors could have been part Lagidai under certain circumstances or at least friend of Roma and rulers in the east...

As well as the fact that ptolemy himself was a weak king under the influence of his ministers who were the ones who organised the recruitment of the army

Why would a basileos personally oversee recruitment and training? That's what strategoi and officials are for XD
Philopator was leading the left flank, they did their best against all odds, eventually got overrun and he had the cool to get back to the center and lift spirits and coordinate the phalanx, thus winning the battle...

[seleucid empire]

haha nono i meant that he was like a puppet for his ministers. They recruited when they saw the threat and they managed most of his policies thus the decline of the ptolemies