Topic: The Wages of Success is - Succession!

[Strategy]

Okay; before I get any further with this, please realize that we are discussing how things should work, if the interactions of the characters work out as intended. We're dealing here with my predictions of the emergent behavior of the game system here - not anything that will be hardcoded.

Surely a few generations of continued imperial unity would be in order.

There is no such thing. Much will depend on how you secure the succession to your King/Prince; whether you have sufficiently strong candidates for the throne ready, and what the opposition is like. The larger and more multi-cultural your empire is, the stronger the position of your successor better be.

The Ptolemaic empire did not disintegrate on the death of the early Ptolemies,

An empire of limited extent, and with a very strong succession in the early years.

nor the Seleukid on the death of the early Seleukid rulers.

Again an empire with a strong line of succession (Antiochus I serving 13 years by his father's side). And if I'm not too wrong on this, there is evidence that he had to deal with revolts immediately upon his accession - IIRC, wasn't this one of the reasons why the Galations succeeded in establishing themselves in Asia Minor?

Not to mention long-lived dynasties in Pontos, Pergamon, Bosporos, Armenia, Bithynia, Kappadokia, Numidia etc etc.

There is a scale of difference between small nations ([font color=blue]There can only be one![/font]) and huge empires, in which there is space for 10s of independent kingdoms/empires to pop out of the woodwork (at least in Imperium).

In short, times of succession during this game will always be a good time for the player to get paranoid, and the player must select the successor to his dead regent with care, since the player's decision here will be followed closely:

- Each potential heir to the throne will be evaluating his chances of a grab at the throne (and of course the Seleucid and Ptolemaic historical characters are going to be "blessed" with a very unreasonable amount of ambition , based on their historical behavior).
- Each governor-general will be considering his chances of establishing his own dynasty.
- Each grouping of people in the empire will be considering its chances of regaining its independence.

Obviously, the larger the empire is, the greater the risks of such rebellion becomes - even more so if the Empire is engaged in wars which tie down its army against external threats (or other revolters). The other problem a large empires face (except the Romans), is that the player will have to draft armies from his subject peoples - which means that he will have to largely depend on his sparse citizen manpower and mercenaries to keep his empire subjugated.

If things work out as designed, the smart player is one who limits the extents of his territorial ambitions, keeps peace in the realm, and establishes a clear and strong line of succession in each generation.

Comments on this? An unreasonable goal?

[Demonic_Emperor]

I think what you're trying to do is very reasonable. I'm weary of "historical" games where endless blitzkrieg seems to be the most effective strategy. Assuming it turns out as planned, Imperium would be the first game that models to what extent the monarch actually controls his country. Genghis Khan 2 sort of did this but was far too oversimplified.

Will the Seleucid King, while fighting a war in Asia Minor, have any control over what happens in Bactria (assuming it's still under Seleucid rule)? I think that playing a single individual and having to secure a line of succession adds roleplaying elements to the game, very nice.

I'm interested to know how a contested succession will be handled.

Example: Seleucid King dies and his eldest son claims the throne, but his younger son wants the throne too and claims it as well. But wait, the king's wife wants to rule and just declared herself Queen. Meanwhile, the king's brother is rumored to be raising an army in Babylonia to seize power for himself. If that wasn't enough, a charismatic yet previously unknown man claiming to be a direct descendent of Alexander the Great has gained widespread support and is currently marching on Antioch with a large army.

Will the player be asked to choose a side in such a situation?

[Strategy]

Won't go into too many details (might be useful to do this in a new update to the webpage), but in its basics, the player controlling a monarchy controls the Royal family (unlike the Republics, where one controls multiple families), and their immediate circle.

Basically, there is:
The King : Official head of state
The Queens : The consorts of the Kings
The Royal Heir : The currently selected heir to the throne
The Regent : The actual head of state (this is not necesarrily the King - though it can be very troublesome if it is not). The Regent is the player avatar (just like the faction leader is in the Republican systems).

In addition, the player has to fill several positions (Royal Chancellor, Treasurer, Administration) from the available nobles; and finally he may appoint a number of Royal Companions (0-3), who are controlled by the player and are also directly under his control.

Generally speaking, the Regent has complete control and governs the home province of his state, with the Royal Companions as his Legates (i.e., able to assist with governing the province). For every other province, the player must appoint a Strategos (Governor), and possible a Hyparch (Assistant) from among the available nobles. The player will not have any direct control over these governors, unless they belong to the Royal Family (i.e., it makes sense to appoint the Royal Heir to govern the second-most important province, as often happened historically).

If the Regent is campaigning in Asia Minor, he will thus have very little influence on Bactria, unless he has a family member as Strategos there, except by sending directives and orders to the Strategos (who will obey them at his own volition - though you could always say "Or Else...", and hope that he doesn't get so scared that he rebels :-)). Thus a small Kingdom (e.g. Macedon) will be completely player-controlled, whereas the larger it gets, the less it will be under the control of the player.

To get to your question on the contested succession:
The Seleucid King (and Regent) dies. The player now chooses:
- He can appoint the Royal Heir (elder son) King and Regent; this is what people will expect, and is thus likely to proceed most smoothly (though perhaps unfortunate if the heir is incompetent).
- He can appoint the ambitious younger son (perhaps also a better leader) King and Regent. This will almost certainly spark a difficult civil war, as the elder son's claim is better, and will cause a lot of nobles to side with the heir.
- He might appoint one of the son's King, and make the able and ambitious Queen his Regent. This would keep the populace and nobles happy, while leaving the power in the hands of someone able. This may cause problems later if the King is ambitious, but might be useful in the short run to let people know there is a strong hand at the reins. This may of course affront the Uncle who feels he should have been made regent.

Thus the player makes his choice when he selects whom to succeed his previous King-Regent. Note that sides will always be polarized into two camps in such internal civil wars, rather than fragmented. I think this is not much of a limitation, given that there will usually not be more than two or three characters with any clear claim to the throne.

Younger sons will not usually be much of a problem (unless the player is playing badly), though able and famous uncles will likely be.

The other kinds of revolts one can expect to see would be:
- A local strategos (governor) declares his province independent of the Kingdom (e.g., Bactria).
- A subject people (e.g., Commagenes, Judea, Egyptians) declare their independence.

In each of these cases, the goal of the revolters will be to achieve and get recognized their independence, rather than trying to destroy the monarchy, so the player has no choices to make in those cases.

[Philj]

I also like intended approach you have outlined.  

It has always been worrying to me that strategy games let you lead a nation with little relationship between your leadership and the nation.  Taking the blurb and forum iscussions from EU as an example (I found out about this game from those forums), I get the impression that typically the gamer is cast as an omnipresent immortal nonaccountable adviser.  

I can't tell if within your game, you have addressed the omnipresence issue (I'm not sure that today's information rich gamer would appreciate the blinding lack and delay of information that was available in ancient times) but making decisions based on getting your family through 250 years 1 alive and 2 successful, lines up with how I see political systems work (I almost put in until recent times but current political dynasties may give the lie to that).  

As I see it to succeed at this game, you need your country (sic) to do well and you need your 'family' to do well.  In this regard, are the factions in Rome and Carthage better placed to survive periods out of control which a deposed monarch in the east will not be?  

I am overjoyed that you are taking total control away from the gamer.  The sheer difficulty of maintaining an empire should be 10 times the problem of getting it in the first place.  

As an aside, will the succession for Roman and Carthagian factions operate in the same way as for eastern monarchs?

Best of luck in keeping kicking goals.

[Strategy]

Well, omnipresent the player definitely isn't, though I don't blind the player to the world (wouldn't be much fun).

As you say, to do well in the game you need both your family and your nation to do well. Given that there are five factions in Rome, and usually only 3 wil be in the ruling coalition at a time, a faction in Rome will tend to find itself "out-of-control" 2 out of every 5 voting periods. This does not mean that the player is without influence in the greater scheme of things.

A deposed monarch in the east will have a short period (approximately a generation) in which he can potentially return to his nation and raise a popular revolt against their occuppiers, though unless he has powerful allies, he is likely to see the lineage wither.

As an aside, will the succession for Roman and Carthagian factions operate in the same way as for eastern monarchs?

Completely different concepts (for one, selecting a new faction leader does not result in civil war), though here again choosing the right man to lead the faction is very important. Pick the wrong man, and watch those senators walk out...

[Nikanarchon]

- Each potential heir to the throne will be evaluating his chances of a grab at the throne (and of course the Seleucid and Ptolemaic historical characters are going to be "blessed" with a very unreasonable amount of ambition , based on their historical behavior).
- Each governor-general will be considering his chances of establishing his own dynasty.
- Each grouping of people in the empire will be considering its chances of regaining its independence.

Obviously, the larger the empire is, the greater the risks of such rebellion becomes - even more so if the Empire is engaged in wars which tie down its army against external threats (or other revolters). The other problem a large empires face (except the Romans), is that the player will have to draft armies from his subject peoples - which means that he will have to largely depend on his sparse citizen manpower and mercenaries to keep his empire subjugated.

If things work out as designed, the smart player is one who limits the extents of his territorial ambitions, keeps peace in the realm, and establishes a clear and strong line of succession in each generation.

Comments on this? An unreasonable goal?

Greetings Imperator,
Hope I've managed to correctly excerpt the portion of your post I want to reply to. Apologies if not.

I hope and presume there will ALSO be large numbers of relatives, governors and peoples who actually do not have ambitions for the throne and/or independence. Even at times of weak successors there was a surprising (to me) degree of loyalty to these alien dynasties.

The larger the empire, the greater risk of revolts. Hmm, surely no more or less than the Roman empire. The key is surely the contentment and/or integration of the component territories. Where there was most hellenization and city development, there was most loyalty. viz southern Asia Minor, Syria, Babylonia and for Ptolemies, Kypros, Kyrenaika (although all occasionally followed alternative members of the dynasty)

Smart player-unreasonable goal?
Hmm, am not certain about the restricting territorial ambitions. This for sure does not apply to the Romans, although they were usually more interested in looting and ruling only as a means to loot (in this period; later they learnt more civilized behaviour from the Greeks  ).
I think a smart royal player should be one who has increased loyalty to his dynasty, by hellenizing and urbanizing his empire. As to restricting territorial ambitions and keeping peace in the realm, I am not sure that they should necessarily be the smart things to do. Should it not be smarter to increase the extent of the empire and wage war on its enemies if that helps build loyalty, and enables hellenization and urbanization? If your recco is followed, Antiochos III would have acquiesced in Achaios' succession, the Ptolemaic occupation of Seleukeia-in-Pieria and Koile-Syria, the Baktrian, Armenian and other eastern successions, and the Pergamene grabs and Balkanization of Asia Minor. His 'smartest' action would be keeping the peace in the rump empire of Syria and Babylonia.

Also have an issue with your statement elsewhere about Makedon and Karthage avoiding elimination by 'submitting'. In both case the Romans were steadily eroding those states by always supporting nibbling neighbours. They would surely have died from this eventually anyway. Revolt just meant they ended with a bang not a whimper.  

OK, enuff wittering on for now!

[Strategy]

I hope and presume there will ALSO be large numbers of relatives, governors and peoples who actually do not have ambitions for the throne and/or independence.

Since the ambition attribute will be randomly generated for most characters, there will always be some you can trust.

The larger the empire, the greater risk of revolts. Hmm, surely no more or less than the Roman empire.

Popular revolts, yes. But the advantage (the only advantage in this respect) of the Republics (like Rome/Carthage) is that they never suffer from the succession syndrome (the Empire is a different kettle of Fish and not really treated in the game).

As you say, you can always try to hellenize/romanize various territories to stabilize the empire (in the game, this will take the form of planting colonies), however the native population may still rise in revolt if the opportunity arises.

Hmm, am not certain about the restricting territorial ambitions.

Discussion here applies to the Royal player's not the Romans and Carthaginians.

Should it not be smarter to increase the extent of the empire and wage war on its enemies if that helps build loyalty, and enables hellenization and urbanization?

But why should conquest build loyalty? Yes - it results in a well-trained and loyal army (though to its general, who is not necesarrily the King), but it certainly won't build the loyalty of the subjects of the empire. Quite on the contrary, they are likely to be footing the bill (war-making is expensive), and are unlikely to be very pleased about that.

If your recco is followed, Antiochos III would have acquiesced in Achaios' succession.......His 'smartest' action would be keeping the peace in the rump empire of Syria and Babylonia.

And who is to say that this wouldn't have been the smartest course of action, in terms of securing the longevity of the Seleucid line? Not that I would avocate it - it is basic human nature to want to hold on to what one has, and fight to expand.

Also have an issue with your statement elsewhere about Makedon and Karthage avoiding elimination by 'submitting'. In both case the Romans were steadily eroding those states by always supporting nibbling neighbours. They would surely have died from this eventually anyway.

I agree that they would have ended up being assimilated ("Resistance is futile!"), but would that have been a particularly terrible thing for Carthage? Macedon might eventually have ended up like Pergamon, Bithynia, or Egypt, but in "game terms", I'd class all of those states as being quite successful historically (except that Egypt was weakened horribly by internecine fighting and feeble rulers).

Again, note that I'm not talking of forcing the player into playing any particular way or from not being as aggressive as he wants. He'll just have to cope with the "realities" of the game: war is damnably expensive, people (particularly newly conquored ones) are prone to revolting, and succession problems are the downside of total power.

[Philj]

Hello Nikanarchon

[I will one day work out how to quote, like the experts ]
RE: Revolts
I think I expressed my opinion on longevity of empires in another thread but I don't mind having another go (I work in economics so this is a lovely bit of relief).

I don't know that appealing to Rome's history helps with your argument about longevity.  What was the longest rule by a family (even allowing for adoptions) in the West -  my knowledge of East Roman history is pretty terrible?  If we take the traditional collapse date of 476, there are the Julio-Claudians, Flavians, 100 years from Nerva to Commodus (going through uncles or cousins) Severans ...
Compered with the 250 years of this game, the 'first' Roman empire was quite short-lived (with plenty of internal culling).

Having a big empire meant you had a bigger army to hold it and all sorts of upstarts called Generals who thought they could do a better job (or their legions thought so).

But this does raise an interesting point.  The republican Romans got a lot of browny points with the 'people' by pillaging their neighbours.  A sort of extension of teh patronage system where you look outside your borders to please your supporters.

Was their a similar dynamic working in the eastern monarchies?  The Macedonian people was the Macedonian army (in the sense that the first Alexandrian? succession was challenged by the unrepresented, i.e., the Macedonian army not in Babylon at the time).

Were these guys kept happy by expanding the borders?  Their predecessors certainly benefited from pillaging the Persian empire, but even they got sick of it.

How do you keep sub-ordinates happy except to let them try to take someone else's land and then make a killing from the governorship?  

On the issue of the eastern dynasts sitting pat, to survive in the game.  Is some degree of dynamism/adventurism required to stand a chance against the coming Roman (or Carthagian for that matter) tide?  That is, to stand up to Rome, does one of the dynasts have to be teh size of the Alexandrian empire or at least combine with one other?

I don't see this a problem in a strategic sense - Although hindsight tells me that Rome is coming, history should tell the Diodochi that someone (another Alexander) would knock them off their perch.

In a tactical sense, there is no need within the game for teh threat to come with the same timing/location.  

RE Roman Succession
So if I read you correctly, there is a degree of robustness about Roman (& Carthagian) succession.  As you said, pick teh wrong man and watch the Senators walk out.  Will this be equivalent to teh end of a dynasty or a big hiccup for your faction?

Enough for now.

Thanks again for taking time to respond.

[Nikanarchon]

Aaarghh quote system didn't work so prefacing your quotes with the word 'quote'

NIK
Thanks for your reply Imperator. I mostly agree with you on most things, just see a slight risk that the disadvantages of the monarchies might get coded in too strongly!  

QUOTE
Since the ambition attribute will be randomly generated for most characters, there will always be some you can trust.

NIK
I would suggest that you should be able to trust most characters most of the time. It is anticipating and handling the exceptions which will make it interesting!

QUOTE
Popular revolts, yes. But the advantage (the only advantage in this respect) of the Republics (like Rome/Carthage) is that they never suffer from the succession syndrome (the Empire is a different kettle of Fish and not really treated in the game).

NIK
Agreed.

QUOTE
As you say, you can always try to hellenize/romanize various territories to stabilize the empire (in the game, this will take the form of planting colonies), however the native population may still rise in revolt if the opportunity arises.

NIK
A side query. Most so-called colonies were in fact settlements within existing cities. I knew this of the Greek colonies, but recently did some research in this area and was very surprised to find it was also true of the Romans. Is this how you handle them or will they be 'virgin soil'. More on-topic, will there be differences between the readiness to hellenize/Romanize of different areas? There are big differences between say Asia Minor, Syria, Africa once conquered on the one hand and Spain, Judaea, Persia on the other.

QUOTE
Discussion here applies to the Royal player's not the Romans and Carthaginians.
But why should conquest build loyalty? Yes - it results in a well-trained and loyal army (though to its general, who is not necesarrily the King), but it certainly won't build the loyalty of the subjects of the empire. Quite on the contrary, they are likely to be footing the bill (war-making is expensive), and are unlikely to be very pleased about that.

NIK
I'm not sure this is true. Surely the subjects of the successor empires were made more loyal by successful campaigns against neighbouring marauding barbarians and more civilized neighbours who could be plundered. And while warmaking was expensive to the subjects, it was rarely as expensive as being governed by the Romans  . There is nothing to compare with the initial popularity of Mithridates VI's campaigns or the long Spanish resistance or Spartacus' revolt or the Pirates popularity in the Successor kingdom histories. Resistance to Rome would probably have been loyalty-building but for the fact they usually won militarily!  

QUOTE
And who is to say that this wouldn't have been the smartest course of action, in terms of securing the longevity of the Seleucid line? Not that I would avocate it - it is basic human nature to want to hold on to what one has, and fight to expand.

NIK
Yes, good points both.

QUOTE
I agree that they would have ended up being assimilated ("Resistance is futile!"), but would that have been a particularly terrible thing for Carthage? Macedon might eventually have ended up like Pergamon, Bithynia, or Egypt, but in "game terms", I'd class all of those states as being quite successful historically (except that Egypt was weakened horribly by internecine fighting and feeble rulers).

NIK
I think you again underestimate the degree to which Roman republican rule outside Italy was usually just legalized looting. So it was a particularly terrible thing. This was particularly for the lower and middle classes, but increasingly so for every native. And the Romans frequently enslaved all their captives or totally depopulated areas. Liguria, Epeiros, Karthage, Korinth etc etc

QUOTE
Again, note that I'm not talking of forcing the player into playing any particular way or from not being as aggressive as he wants. He'll just have to cope with the "realities" of the game: war is damnably expensive, people (particularly newly conquored ones) are prone to revolting, and succession problems are the downside of total power.
[/quote]

NIK
YES!  , this is what I am hoping for and expecting! So stop reading this and get back to work on it!  

[Nikanarchon]

N
Lets try again with these quotes.
Failed in preview mode, Imperator, please can you point me to instructions on this.

P
I don't know that appealing to Rome's history helps with your argument about longevity.  What was the longest rule by a family (even allowing for adoptions) in the West -  my knowledge of East Roman history is pretty terrible?  If we take the traditional collapse date of 476, there are the Julio-Claudians, Flavians, 100 years from Nerva to Commodus (going through uncles or cousins) Severans ...
Compered with the 250 years of this game, the 'first' Roman empire was quite short-lived (with plenty of internal culling).

N
OK how about the Arsakids or Sassanians?

P
But this does raise an interesting point.  The republican Romans got a lot of browny points with the 'people' by pillaging their neighbours.  A sort of extension of teh patronage system where you look outside your borders to please your supporters.

Was their a similar dynamic working in the eastern monarchies?  The Macedonian people was the Macedonian army (in the sense that the first Alexandrian? succession was challenged by the unrepresented, i.e., the Macedonian army not in Babylon at the time).

Were these guys kept happy by expanding the borders?  Their predecessors certainly benefited from pillaging the Persian empire, but even they got sick of it.

How do you keep sub-ordinates happy except to let them try to take someone else's land and then make a killing from the governorship?  

N
Well the Seleukid and Ptolemaic kingdoms had a system of klerouchies, land grants to soldiers.
And they paid them rather more than the Romans did. Hence Imperator's point about war being expensive for them.
Incidentally, Imperator, do you cover these differential(at least in the first part of the period) wages. These armies were much more professional standing armies compared to the Roman citizen levy system.

P
On the issue of the eastern dynasts sitting pat, to survive in the game.  Is some degree of dynamism/adventurism required to stand a chance against the coming Roman (or Carthagian for that matter) tide?  That is, to stand up to Rome, does one of the dynasts have to be teh size of the Alexandrian empire or at least combine with one other?

N
This should depend on the fortune of battle, as I think you intend. However, historically, one defeat and these guys were beaten. In this respect the Kelts of the Po Valley, the Ligurians, the Pontic kingdom, the Spanish tribes were all much more resilient. Although it could be argued Philip V, Antiochos III and even perhaps Perseus could have continued the wars but deemed it more realistic not to.

[Strategy]

Quotes: Well, just use the "Insert Quote" button in the post-reply to generate the [ quote ] [ \quote ] boxes (white spaces deliberately inserted, and copy and paste the text you wish to quote in a little gray box in-between. Otherwise, the help button on the bar at the very top should take you to some pages with various instructions.

[Strategy]

How do you keep sub-ordinates happy except to let them try to take someone else's land and then make a killing from the governorship?

The way it (should) works in the Hellenistic Monarchies of Imperium is to:
1. Appoint them to various important posts (governors, legates, chancellor, etc.) There are a number of these.
2. Give them gifts and land grants. Gifts = money; not worth too much. Land grants on the other hand is an extremely valuable gift (= permanent wealth to the recipient), but is a very limited resource as well. One way of gaining more crown lands would be to conquor some more land...
3. Generally maintain a strong Empire.

On the issue of the eastern dynasts sitting pat, to survive in the game.  Is some degree of dynamism/adventurism required...

I absolutely don't know. Keep in mind that the AI and huge parts of the game is not yet complete and it is very difficult to predict how the system will interact.

One note: There will be no such thing as a Carthaginian tide, (unless a player somehow ends up in sole control of Carthage). The Carthaginian Senate will not be expansionist.

I expect to implement a "block" on the Romans that prevents them from accepting a peace treaty unless the situation is extremely dire. This will make the best way to handle Rome be that one completely avoids confrontation. THe only other way would be to make a very strong coalition to face them (which will not be very easy).

In a tactical sense, there is no need within the game for teh threat to come with the same timing/location.

It most certainly won't.

So if I read you correctly, there is a degree of robustness about Roman (& Carthagian) succession.  As you said, pick teh wrong man and watch the Senators walk out.  Will this be equivalent to teh end of a dynasty or a big hiccup for your faction?

No, your faction will always survive, unless you get everyone in it killed. Furthermore, the smaller your faction is, the easier it will be to attract new blood to the Faction (ambitious Senators will often prefer to be the sole star of your faction, rather than having to share the spoils in a larger faction).

Btw - thanks for pointing me to Lucius Fabius; I probably have such a list myself, but I actually never thought of checking their fathers.  

[Strategy]

I would suggest that you should be able to trust most characters most of the time. It is anticipating and handling the exceptions which will make it interesting!

Well, I would hope that the characters will be smart in their betrayal; i.e., (just like in real life), they will betray the player if they see an advantage to it - it should be mentioned that the Integrity attribute has some influence here. Integrity determines how likely they are to betray you; most characters will be of average integrity meaning they will take the chance if it looks good. Ambition determines how much of an advantage they deem necesarry.

In general, one could simply avoid characters with low integrity and high ambition. On the other hand, one might have to make use of them due to political pressure, or simply because their abilities are too good to waste.

A side query. Most so-called colonies were in fact settlements within existing cities. I knew this of the Greek colonies, but recently did some research in this area and was very surprised to find it was also true of the Romans.

Indeed? Could you point me to some sources on this; it as it seems from my reading that most of the Roman colonies were "new" foundations. The details of the colonization order hasn't been worked in yet, but it would be simple to make both types possible.

More on-topic, will there be differences between the readiness to hellenize/Romanize of different areas? There are big differences between say Asia Minor, Syria, Africa once conquered on the one hand and Spain, Judaea, Persia on the other.

No. In general, Hellenization/Romanization is a very long-term investment; such differences as you are considering here (e.g., Asia Minor/Syria) will be reflected in the game through the process already having been at work for a few 100s of years. As I understood it, Africa was more Punicisized (or whatever one calls it), rather than Romanized until a long time into the Empire.

I'm not sure this is true. Surely the subjects of the successor empires were made more loyal by successful campaigns against neighbouring marauding barbarians and more civilized neighbours who could be plundered.

I think we need to distinguish in this discussion (as in the game), between the various particular elements here. We have the:
Nobles (Characters) : Conquest provides new Crown lands, which can be given out as gifts to important nobles. Some benefits here.
Empire's Ruling People (i.e., the Greeks/Macedonians) : Winning wars and expanding increases the glory of the King and the Empire (besides, soldiers go abroad and gain plenty of plunder); yes - these will become more happy.
Empire's many subject peoples : These are the guys who bear the brunt of the taxes, and furthermore do not gain any part in ruling the empire. These guys couldn't really care less...

And while warmaking was expensive to the subjects, it was rarely as expensive as being governed by the Romans.

Heh - but then I didn't say that the Romans were likely to be popular... The Roman AI is going to be rapacious, so Mithridates should find himself quite popular.

I think you again underestimate the degree to which Roman republican rule outside Italy was usually just legalized looting. So it was a particularly terrible thing.

Depending on the Governor, of course. And I don't really know if they were really that much worse; I seem to recall several Seleucids getting killed while plundering temples within their own Kingdoms...  

And the Romans frequently enslaved all their captives or totally depopulated areas. Liguria, Epeiros, Karthage, Korinth etc etc

But in war, not in peace. But Egypt did quite well, until assimilated. Karthage is a more difficult case, but one speculates whether they wouldn't have survived prosperously if they had kept on taking the unfair treatment heaped on them for just a little longer. Massinissa was soon to die (and his Kingdom to be split up), thus removing the primary agent of their destruction. The Seleucids self-destructed, but I'm pretty sure that Macedon could have survived (diminished, of course), if it had followed Pergamon's example.

Incidentally, Imperator, do you cover these differential(at least in the first part of the period) wages. These armies were much more professional standing armies compared to the Roman citizen levy system.

Yes.

Although it could be argued Philip V, Antiochos III and even perhaps Perseus could have continued the wars but deemed it more realistic not to.

And the hope is that (for once, in a game) in the context of the game system, this sort of behavior should make sense.

YES!  , this is what I am hoping for and expecting! So stop reading this and get back to work on it!

I'm working, I'm working.

[Philj]

Quote:A side query. Most so-called colonies were in fact settlements within existing cities. I knew this of the Greek colonies, but recently did some research in this area and was very surprised to find it was also true of the Romans.

Indeed? Could you point me to some sources on this; it as it seems from my reading that most of the Roman colonies were "new" foundations. The details of the colonization order hasn't been worked in yet, but it would be simple to make both types possible.

My memory of Roman colonisation of north Italy was that they were new.  Perhaps it is related to how urban (and depopulated going to Nikanarchon's point about Roman practices) the area was in the first place.  [The context I was reading about related to how effective Roman colonies were in terms of providing a bulwark against invaders.  As I recall that answer was "not".]  

I definitely agree about Macedonian colonies; as I remember my Bar Kovcha, the Macedonians would occupy a citadel with the locals around them.  This may suggest that Macedonian colonies were less likely to get overrun but perhaps also less reliant on the "central administration" to look out for them.

Foundations may be different, though Antigonus did do at least one? "new" city by moving the building materials from an existing city.

I can see, I'm going to have to go back to the books and document this a lot better.

[Nikanarchon]

Colonies
OK I'll try to get some details for you, but probably cannot do so for a few days yet. Guests in town!
The Oxford Classical Dictionary is a good one stop source on this as if you look up a colony by name the short entry usually mentions pre-Roman occupation.

From memory(am at work) those with pre-Roman occupation include (at the least) Venusia, Beneventum, Kroton, Ariminum, Aesernia, Bononia and several of those closer ones which were formerly owned by the Aequi, Volsci, Hernici and those early enemies of Rome.

[Philj]

Thanks Nik (may I call you Nik )

Colonies
OK I'll try to get some details for you, but probably cannot do so for a few days yet. Guests in town!
The Oxford Classical Dictionary is a good one stop source on this as if you look up a colony by name the short entry usually mentions pre-Roman occupation. ...


Quite correct about the Roman colonies.  Certainly they made use of existing ex-Etruscan towns and Gallic oppida(sp?)  

On my other point, I guess I have a problem thinking about a Roman colony performing the same way as a Macedonian. Isaac Benjamin's "Limits of Empire" did a quick review of the use and usefulness of Roman colonies (his book was looking at late Roman east policy, but surveyed the earlier colonisation process).  My thinking came from his analysis that early Roman colonies were readily overrun by the locals.  The impression I have, is that the main effect of the colony was to highlight the locals loss and provide a nice target for retribution.  As a result, the colony could have a Romanising effect as long as a Roman military presence was handy.  He had a very low opinion of the military strength of colonies, even veteran ones.  Hopefully I haven't conflated too broad a survey.

In contrast, the Macedonian military colonies had a recruitment function (?)  

[Nikanarchon]

Hi Phil,

Yes plain'Nik' or whatever spelling variant you wish is fine!   On cities, you are probably right about differences between Mak and Roman colonies. However, one needs to be careful to distinguish between garrisons and klerouchies. Tarn's work on 'The Greeks in Bactria and India' has some useful stuff on distinguishing polis foundations from purely military colonies. The latter may have more resembled Roman colonies. Also worth reading AHM Jones 'Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces'. Although the focus of this is the imperial period, he also covers the earlier history of the cities under the Maks.

[Hamilcar]

btw I'm new here but the game looks like it could be fantastic, congrats on so many great ideas.

There are a few points that need to be made about Carthage:

There will be no such thing as a Carthaginian tide, (unless a player somehow ends up in sole control of Carthage). The Carthaginian Senate will not be expansionist.

This is all very well for the early period and for a Carthage under the control of the more oligarchic factions but surely there should be some mechanism for the Barcid dynamic? It would be strange if there were no Hamilcar urging for every inch of Sicilian territory to be defended then for the creation of a new powerbase in Spain, no Hannibal urging a frontal assault on Rome.

It might be interesting if the Barcids had the opportunity to create a dynastic form of government in Spain and secede from the control of the council of one hundred. This is after all what they effectively did.

Africa was more Punicisized (or whatever one calls it), rather than Romanized until a long time into the Empire.

This is a matter of some controversy, Numidia remained punic in culture but africa proper was pretty much depopulated by Scipio Aemilianus then populated with Gracchan & Caesarian colonies. Even in St. Augustine's time there were still Punic speakers among the people of Hippo.

The question of Numidia's relations with Carthage will be absolutely vital, surely this should be treated as a subject nation with its own succesion problems in which Carthage must play an active, managerial role. It would not make historical or strategic sense to treat it either as a province or an independent territory (until after the second punic war at any rate)

How will the game simulate events such as the Mercenary war or (for Rome) the great social war? These seem to fit better into the system designed for the dynasties than the more stable one for the republics.

Another point is that Carthage (like the late Soviet Union) succesfully maintained control over diverse peoples by using Numidians to oppress Spaniards, Spaniards to oppress Numidians etc. will there be some system to make it worth a country's while to transfer troops in this way?

[Strategy]

The issue of Barcid ambition was also discussed on theold forum. Goldsworthy also touches briefly upon this issue in his discussion of Hannibal's motivations in 218 B.C.

My conclusion at the moment is that there never was the threat of a "Barcid Kingdom" in Spain, and there is very clearly no indication that Carthage would have expanded (except to take back Sicily) even if they had won the Punic wars. Trade, commerce, and colonization will remain the most powerful incentives of the Carthaginian player - prospective world conquorers should play with Rome.

Numidia remained punic in culture but africa proper was pretty much depopulated by Scipio Aemilianus then populated with Gracchan & Caesarian colonies

This is incorrect; more or less only Carthage was depopulated, there remained substantial settlements of Poeni (Carthaginians) at Utica, etc.

Numidia will most likely be vassal kingdoms of Carthage.

The Social War will most likely be a scripted event, though it can be prevented by passing the appropriate laws. The mercenary war - well, this is one of the hazards that one must face if one uses mercenaries extensively and the nation goes bankrupt.

It will make very good sense to maintain mercenary (and levy troop garrisons) in different nations than their home: mercenary units will never fight rebelling armies of their own people.

[Hamilcar]

I'm afraid I find it difficult to see how the game will be able to simulate with historical accuracy the clash between Rome & Carthage if Carthage is billed as a totally passive power.

My conclusion at the moment is that there never was the threat of a "Barcid Kingdom" in Spain, and there is very clearly no indication that Carthage would have expanded (except to take back Sicily) even if they had won the Punic wars. Trade, commerce, and colonization will remain the most powerful incentives of the Carthaginian player - prospective world conquorers should play with Rome.

Carthage did significantly expand its territory, both in Africa, immediately following the Mercenary war and in Spain under the Barcids. (See Serge Lancel 'Carthage, A History')

It seems very surprising to totally reject the idea of a Barcid Kingdom in Spain. The territory remained tributary to Carthage but retained most of its vast wealth for the purposes of expansion and the building of a powerful army.

The army with which Hannibal besieged Saguntum was largely a Spanish army formed by, and loyal to Hannibal and his family. Remember also that the Barcids had an unbroken rule through three succesive leaders in Spain, built their own capital at New Carthage and engaged in marriage alliances with prominent local cheiftains.

Furthermore the Second Punic War was initiated by Hannibal and his Barcid army without the permission of the Carthaginian senate. Carthage sent few serious reinforcements of any kind until very late in the war and it is highly doubtful whether the senate ever approved the expedition to Italy.

I'm sorry to go on about this but I find the Rome-Barcid-Carthage clash one of the most fascinating of the period and it would be a shame if Hannibal's genius were not allowed its chance to shake Rome to its foundations because of the limitations of what I wold certainly agree was a mercantile, largely pacifist republic.