Remove ads

Magna Graecia: Titanomachia (A City State Quest)

Reader mode
Driven by Apathy said:
And you think the Athenians will just accept this?

No way. They'll take Kerkyra. And we aren't in a position to stop them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They might do, but the chances they'll go out of their way to take it back will decrease noticeably, especially as they lose their man in way to take the city, aka the Democrats, and if rather have lower chances then a near certainty.
Cetashwayo said:
Uh, I mean, he's a person, and people told him he was boring, and so he decided to scale back all the speechmaking. People remarked on his ability in the past and he decisively lost the Xenoparakletor election last time, so he decided to work harder on being more concise.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except he's been losing for a long time? This honestly shouldn't have been the first election he lost, he's the leader of the party and pushing fifty, he should've already come up for election, been told he's boring in his long political career, which we saw the start of at the end of the last thread, and then didn't act on it.

Because otherwise he's never been up for political office, and never been told he's boring, and yet somehow became a Party leader and ran that party through the period of Drakonid dominance whilst never participating in an election.

He either took his damn time rising through the ranks, whilst ignoring speech criticism, or there's something that changed during this election, apart from the fact his party started gaining political decisions and actually doing well
 
Cetashwayo said:
Kerkyra is at the end of Athenian supply lines and without organizing a major expedition they could not just take and sack the city like that. In our historical timeline Athenai was forced out of the Ionian Sea by a coalition of all the local powers in 425 BCE who simply diplomatically pressured the city to withdraw from Akarnania including their own allies, and Athenai, not wanting to fight everyone in the region at once, did. It's because of the vulnerability of the Athenians at the end of a long supply line that Demos Drakonia believes they can do this and not get wiped out in four years, while their proxenoi in Athenai smooth over any disputes with the Athenians. Eretria remains an important source of grain imports for Athenai and Symmachos believes he can leverage that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not the worst plan imaginable. But I still don't think it will work.

If we gain control of Kerkyra, the Athenians will expect us to side with them. Anything else will be perceived as a betrayal - after all, we're a fellow democracy, right? True, a less entitled people would know better than to believe that makes us Athens's quasi-vassal, but the Athenai are nothing if not entitled.

If we are perceived as having betrayed them - and we will be - we risk the Athenian democracy's infamous fickleness turning against us. That's something we should very much want to avoid.


Furthermore, even if we have no intention of siding with the Athenians... the Korinthians and the Spartans don't know that, do they?

@Cetashwayo, how would the Peloponnesian League react to Eretria effecting regime change in Kerkyra?
 
Last edited:
Sarpedon said:
And then what will Athens do in response? You seem to be coming to this decision assuming that only Kekyra and Eretria matter, but the fact is they do not exist in a vacuum, other polities have interests that they will seek to ensure, especially in the face of such a dire conflict as the Peloponnesian War.

Also as others have pointed out Obander isn't Mr. Magoo, he's an elder statesman who won his scars and is known to be wise and respected by Greeks. Who is then being sent to treat with...Greeks! He is literally the best candidate for that job.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We aren't assuming that...you guys are both overestimating Athenian naval capacity (see GM post) and assuming a priori that this will force us into the war.
 
McLuvin said:
I never said that we would face them off directly, I was advocating keeping their attention away from us, if they have to get up and solve this Adriatic issue West, if their eyes get turned West, then it's likely they may keep an eye West as they do so.

And your idea, to directly oppose Athens in a game of diplomacy and bribery, is the truly incoherent idea, right now we are seen by the Italiotes as an outright different region. And you think you can change this with Obander, an old man described in universe as often being boring with little experience as a diplomat.

Good luck. You'll need it more than the strategy to try and keep Athenian eyes away almost entirely.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Athens still has Sparta, Thebes and Corinth to deal with. Unless they see in the west a way to win that war they won't turn their eyes in that direction. If they do they will, no matter what we do or don't do in Kerkyra.

Moreover, at this point Athens see Kerkyra as part of her sphere of influence, trying to prop up a puppet regime there is likely to not be appreciated on the Eklesia and, considering Sparta ties with Taras, I do believe we need to keep friendly relations with Athenai, just in case.

----

''Syrakousai is once again barring her teeths, seeking to avenge the demise of Gelo empire, Taras remain to be reconcilied to our domination over the Messapii, as might the Messapii themselves in spite of their words, and the Dauni King has shown himself willing to make war on given a good opportunity. Yet, some would have commit ourselves to the war in Hellas!

For, let us not blind ourselves: intervening in Kerkyra will, inevitably, do so. The polis role in the balance of power in Hellas is simply too important to be otherwise. Wasn't the polis, after all, the very source of the conflict? With the Korinthians fleet harshly chastised at Naupaktus it is likely that the Athenians will restore the democrats to power. As Athenai remain friendly to Eretria such an outcome isn't, if not fully desirable, at least acceptable to Eretria and does not present any true threat for the forseable future.

While the threat represented by the Dauni king and the need to properly absorb the Messapii in our hegemonia are undoutebly matters of great importance Obander Eupraxis ultimately has the right of it: Syrakousai cannot be allowed to rise once more and Eretria must be ready to help prevent it to do so.''

[X] Xenoparakletor: Obander Eupraxis (Demos Antipatria)
 
Last edited:
I will repeat what @Sarpedon already said, if we want to dominate the Adriatic (and we do), we want the two great powers to bleed each other, thus allowing us to take the opportunities they are too distracted to exploit.
Note that none of Kerkyra, Korinth or Athens had sought to control that amber route in the past four years, because they're all very, very busy.

By the time one comes out victorious but bloodied, we are vastly stronger and able to present our control as a fait accompli.
 
[X] Proboulos: Theron Archippos (Demos Exoria)

Even though that choice has almost no chance of winning by now, I still have to give it my vote. This provides us with the highest immediate boost to income by giving us two new trade routes and also increasing tariff efficiency slightly. It will improve our relations with our Barbaroi neighbors and also economically strengthen our allies there.
The new calendar shores up happiness in the city and has potential further side benefits.
The Immigration policy provides the highest number of new immigrants and therefore the highest long-term benefits in terms of taxes and manpower for our city.
Overall I feel this will strengthen our finances the most and money can be exchanged to buy almost everything else. :)

[X] Xenoparakletor: Athenagoras Symmachos (Demos Drakonia)

I'm much less certain about this vote, but I feel we have to risk it. We regularly get more and more dire news about pirates. I don't want to let this fester any longer. I fear that if we don't deal with them now they might do real damage in the next 4 years and cost us a trade route or two.
I'm uncertain about the political situation in Kerkyra, but since many more knowledgeable people are confident in this vote, I will join here.
 
Eretria control of the Adriatic, provided that Eretria remains officially neutral and continues to ship grain to the Athenians, is not something that will force Athens to war. It's not existential or an encroachment into the Aegean.

Corinth likewise has little to gain by forcing Eretria and Kerkyra into war given that its navy has already taken a few beatings.

Our neutrality and naval strength makes us tolerable to both parties and too substantial to swat aside.
 
Last edited:
McLuvin said:
Except he's been losing for a long time? This honestly shouldn't have been the first election he lost, he's the leader of the party and pushing fifty, he should've already come up for election, been told he's boring in his long political career, which we saw the start of at the end of the last thread, and then didn't act on it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Obander didn't become the leader of the Antipatrids until before the 345 elections. He spoke up often as a young man and then retired and came back later, as is often Eretrian custom for someone who humiliates themselves or simply fails to win in the public sphere.

McLuvin said:
Because otherwise he's never been up for political office, and never been told he's boring, and yet somehow became a Party leader and ran that party through the period of Drakonid dominance whilst never participating in an election.

He either took his damn time rising through the ranks, whilst ignoring speech criticism, or there's something that changed during this election, apart from the fact his party started gaining political decisions and actually doing well
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There are other parts of being a leader than making speeches. Oratory is important but people respected Obander's integrity of manner and intelligence, and his great wisdom, even if it was sometimes delivered in a meandering way. He rose up mostly through his persistence of participation and his good counsel despite the fact he was poorer than most high-ranking members of the demes, who all have vast wealth by the city's standards. But it also placed higher expectations on him to improve as a speaker, and he has been working hard for several years to do so.
 
McLuvin said:
They might do, but the chances they'll go out of their way to take it back will decrease noticeably, especially as they lose their man in way to take the city, aka the Democrats, and if rather have lower chances then a near certainty.

Except he's been losing for a long time? This honestly shouldn't have been the first election he lost, he's the leader of the party and pushing fifty, he should've already come up for election, been told he's boring in his long political career, which we saw the start of at the end of the last thread, and then didn't act on it.

Because otherwise he's never been up for political office, and never been told he's boring, and yet somehow became a Party leader and ran that party through the period of Drakonid dominance whilst never participating in an election.

He either took his damn time rising through the ranks, whilst ignoring speech criticism, or there's something that changed during this election, apart from the fact his party started gaining political decisions and actually doing well
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The xenoparkletor is usually a position given to older people. So he rose through the party with speeches, but then found that they weren't sucessful in citywide elections.

Also, he lost the last election by a LOT. even though his party swept the domestic scene. That factors into it.
 
Sarpedon said:
And then what will Athens do in response? You seem to be coming to this decision assuming that only Kekyra and Eretria matter, but the fact is they do not exist in a vacuum, other polities have interests that they will seek to ensure, especially in the face of such a dire conflict as the Peloponnesian War.

Also as others have pointed out Obander isn't Mr. Magoo, he's an elder statesman who won his scars and is known to be wise and respected by Greeks. Who is then being sent to treat with...Greeks! He is literally the best candidate for that job.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And you seem to believe that this doesn't reduce the risk noticeably?

They have no true in anymore, not only that they still get their grain, and Korinthinos loses their naval base, they may intervene, but that risk is still distinctly reduced, since they probably don't want to start another war with their second largest grain supplier and possible ally. Unlike the situation if they have to come out here themselves and see the West right on their border, with money they could use and areas they could intervene more easily in now.
phil03 said:
Athens still has Sparta, Thebes and Corinth to deal with. Unless they see in the west a way to win that war they won't turn their eyes in that direction.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...You mean like they didn't in OTL? When they started sending money to the Messappi to deal with Taras? Or This:
Sicilian Expedition - Wikipedia
 
Satar said:
We aren't assuming that...you guys are both overestimating Athenian naval capacity (see GM post) and assuming a priori that this will force us into the war.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just because it isn't a 100% sure thing, that doesn't mean there isn't a very real risk. What's more, even if we manage to avoid being directly drawn into the war, we will still critically damage our diplomatic relations with the Athenai, and five the Korinthians even more reason to dislike us.

And all that is if we even manage to overthrow the Kerkyran oligarchs in the first place! Do you think that will be easy, or bloodless?

For that matter, say we pull it off, and manage to impose democracy in Kerkyra... what happens if said democracy collapses again, as it already has once? What happens if they decide to align with Athens, as they were already on the cusp of doing? All our efforts would be for nothing, even worse, we'd have achieved the exact opposite of what we were seeking to achieve.

No, meddling in Kerkyra is simply not a good idea. We'd be doing Athen's dirty work for them, but instead of being thanked for it, we'd end up being cursed.
 
Last edited:
Cetashwayo said:
Obander didn't become the leader of the Antipatrids until before the 345 elections. He spoke up often as a young man and then retired and came back later, as is often Eretrian custom for someone who humiliates themselves or simply fails to win in the public sphere.



There are other parts of being a leader than making speeches. Oratory is important but people respected Obander's integrity of manner and intelligence, and his great wisdom, even if it was sometimes delivered in a meandering way. He rose up mostly through his persistence of participation and his good counsel despite the fact he was poorer than most high-ranking members of the demes, who all have vast wealth by the city's standards. But it also placed higher expectations on him to improve as a speaker, and he has been working hard for several years to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So he basically took his defeat in the last thread harder than we thought? How long did he take trying to return and climb up the ranks? Hell, how long has he been trying to fix his speechwork?
 
Obander is described now as mature, forceful, respectful of law and custom, and extremely wise. He's exactly the sort of man you would want to send to do diplomacy with other Greeks. A strong personality who embodies Hellenic ideal of law and wise conduct is ideal for impressing the other cities that Eretria come sincerely, and are to be respected. He's learnt how to stop meandering in his speeches, which shows character growth, and part of the magic of this quest is that characters are human and will change and grow over time.

By comparison, Memnon is probably the ideal man to send to do diplomacy with Barbaroi. His gregarious nature and martial exploits suit a more informal style of diplomacy, like the wrestling match with King Gorgos. There are often different men best suited for different jobs.
 
Ironanvil1 said:
Note that none of Kerkyra, Korinth or Athens had sought to control that amber route in the past four years, because they're all very, very busy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And yet while they haven't sought control of that one trade route, Korinthos has openly, consistently and brazenly attempted to extend their presence in the Adriatic to gain control of it.

Their Triremes have been clashing with Kerkyra for years now while they attempt to regain control of their wayward colony Kerkyra, which they've now accomplished, and they attacked and seized Epidamnos during the 34-year time skip.

They want the Adriatic, they've never hidden this, and as Eretria also desires it we have to slow their progress.
Adhoc vote count started by Admiral Skippy on Jun 1, 2019 at 6:21 PM, finished with 136 posts and 46 votes.
Click to expand...
 
McLuvin said:
...You mean like they didn't in OTL? When they started sending money to the Messappi to deal with Taras? Or This:
Sicilian Expedition - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You truncated my argument: I also said that if they did see a way for the west to help win the war they would come, no matter how much of a puppet Kerkyra is to them...

Moreover, wheter its us or Athens the returning democrats are not gonna be budies with Corinth, and therefore Sparta, so it will need assistance from any possible reprisal. Even if we do manage it in the short run it isn't like we have the means to station sizable forces there for the forseable future. They will have to seek a new protectors and, at the end of the day, is probably gonna turn toward Athens no matter what.
 
Satar said:
Eretria control of the Adriatic, provided that Eretria remains officially neutral and continues to ship grain to the Athenians, is not something that will force Athens to war. It's not existential or an encroachment into the Aegean.

Corinth likewise has little to gain by forcing Eretria and Kerkyra into war given that its navy has already taken a few beatings.

Our neutrality and naval strength makes us tolerable to both parties and too substantial to swat aside.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Which is why interfering with Kerkyra is an unnecessary risk. Kerkyra is not the key to us controlling the Adriatic.
 
McLuvin said:
So he basically took his defeat in the last thread harder than we thought? How long did he take trying to return and climb up the ranks? Hell, how long has he been trying to fix his speechwork?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

He took twenty-five years to rejoin the public life, and then rose up the ranks of the Antipatrids in a few. By that point he had already earned the nickname the black bull as well as fame for his ability to discuss philosophy and intellectual pursuits despite being the image of a smallholding farmer complete with dirty tunics. But that also meant that he had to relearn how to act in the public eye and to improve his speechmaking.
 
And what happens if Athens gains foothold and decides to intervene in Italy? They already were interfereing with Messapi and Taras, what if they simply decide to invade, are we going to go to war with them then?

It's better to not tempt them, remember Italy is divided as it is and they can easily find ally that is opposed to us if we try to stop them.

It is better to take Kerkyra and keep the Athens and Peloponnese war that comes with them out.
 
Last edited:
phil03 said:
You truncated my argument: I also said that if they did see a way for the west to help win the war they would come, no matter how much of a puppet Kerkyra is to them...

Moreover, wheter its us or Athens the returning democrats are not gonna be budies with Corinth, and therefore Sparta, so it will need assistance from any possible reprisal. Even if we do manage it in the short run it isn't like we have the means to station sizable forces there for the forseable future. They will have to seek a new protectors and, at the end of the day, is probably gonna turn toward Athens no matter what.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And both of my examples literally took that into account. Their funding of the Messappi and the Sicilian Expedition were not clear in how they were supposed to help Athens win their war, yet they were done anyway! In fact that's one of the major reason the Sicilian Expedition failed so badly.
 
Satar said:
We aren't assuming that...you guys are both overestimating Athenian naval capacity (see GM post) and assuming a priori that this will force us into the war.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I read it, and the reinstatement of the democrats, was in fact a pretty big expedition, which involved at the end, all of those who opposed or were suspected of opposing the Democrats being put to the sword in the same manner as Sparta did fair Plataea. To be blunt, Kekyra matters a lot more to Athens than it does to us, and they have a far bigger stick to swing around. It costs us nothing to leave them be, It may cost us dearly to interfere.
 
Driven by Apathy said:
Just because it isn't a 100% sure thing, that doesn't mean there isn't a very real risk. What's more, even if we manage to avoid being directly drawn into the war, we will still critically damage our diplomatic relations with the Athenai, and five the Korinthians even more reason to dislike us.

And all that is if we even manage to overthrow the Kerkyran oligarchs in the first place! Do you think that will be easy, or bloodless?

For that matter, say we pull it off, and manage to impose democracy in Kerkyra... what happens if said democracy collapses again, as it already has once? What happens if they decide to align with Athens, as they were already on the cusp of doing?

No, we'd be doing Athen's dirty work for them, but instead of being thanked for it, we'd end up being cursed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, there is risk in war? Of course there is a chance that it all goes belly-up, but there is that risk with diplomacy in Taras (what if they take it as an insult?) and likewise with the Messapi.

But allowing either Athens or Corinth to seize control of the Adriatic is to fasten a noose around our necks and wait for it to tighten.

You chronically overestimate the Athenian reaction to Eretria meddling given that said meddling does not endanger their critical interests. To the Athenians the Adriatic is not the Aegean.

Ironanvil1 said:
Why, when we can let Athens handle that slowing and profit thereby?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Because unlike in OTL it isn't guaranteed that Athens loses. If they win, they will hold round our necks a tight leash.
 
Cetashwayo said:
Kerkyra is at the end of Athenian supply lines and without organizing a major expedition they could not just take and sack the city like that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's not saying "they won't do that." It's saying "they'd have to work at it."

Putting a bull's eye on Eretria by pissing off Athens and Corinth at the same time seems a poor way to secure Eretria's lack of involvement in the Peloponnesian War in any case. Then we face the prospect of simple failure of the plan to succeed in toppling the oligarchs. Suppose we happen to wind up faced with a Corinthian fleet at Kerkyra? Or that our attempted coup is betrayed from within? Or simply that the body of Kerkyrans as a whole reacts badly to armed foreigners storming ashore and decide to fight our force?

It might be best if Symmachos' delegation just doesn't convince the Democrats to separate themselves from Athens and comes home empty-handed.

In any case there is no threat to our position in the Adriatic from the Corinthians or the Athenians for some time. Time we can use to settle issues far nearer at home. We can mount an expedition to the Illyrians later, or pass a user motion to send out triremes on patrol as a lesser measure to alleviate some of the pressure of piracy, or discuss a joint operation with the Enetoi. The matter of the Adriatic is not so pressing that we must attempt a dangerous coup d'etat of another state tied to both sides of the most brutal war between Hellenes ever.
 
Star said:
And what happens if Athens gains foothold and decides to intervene in Italy? They already were interfereing with Messapi and Taras, what if they simply decide to invade, are we going to go to war with them then?

It's better to not tempt them, remember Italy is divided as it is and they can easily find ally that is opposed to us if we try to stop them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's why we spend the time cementing our position in Italy and Sicily, such that we are far less open to interference than if we let our own backyard fester while we make a risky lunge for a prize that will lead us into conflict with Hellas.

The Messapii under our yoke, and Taras content with our pre-eminence mean neither Athens nor Sparta have an easy means to intrude upon Epulia. An agreement with the other Italiotes to resist such foreign interference would make it even harder. The goals you want to achieve are not best realised by the plan you've selected.
Adhoc vote count started by Admiral Skippy on Jun 2, 2019 at 11:21 PM, finished with 414 posts and 90 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top