Remove ads

Magna Graecia: Titanomachia (A City State Quest)

Reader mode
Hyria revolted against their own nobility, who we were very lax in overseeing.
Allowing them autonomy would effectivley bind them more firmly to us by making us the arbiter of the region. Add to which that Hypua is currently hellenizing as a city, a process that will only accelerate with more direct contact.
Finally I would point out that Cetashwayo does not give inherently "bad" options. People are perhaps looking at the numbers if soldiers, and the "ally" vs vassal distinction (which in this context is frankly not as distinct as one might imagine) and simply thinking that sacking Hypia is a "better" choice, but ask what we might be giving up for the raw troop numbers? Ultimately we want to fully assimilate our tribal vassals and sacking one part then putting the rest under a hatchet man is not the way to do that. Doing the Roman thing of dividing them up into allies, vassals, and client states, and letting our cultural, economic and political dominance slowly bring them into the fold is the way to do that.
 
Last edited:
Redium said:
Based on the numbers given in the votes themselves, I think Artahias is going to massacre a couple thousand people in Hyria. This doesn't seem to be a light purge that he's planning. He's going to have to sack Hyria and defeat its army in the field in order to restore order under his overlordship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Cetashwayo said:
Warning Artahias to restrain his retribution to the direct ringleaders and grant an amnesty elsewhere would also prevent it from transforming into the kind of bloodbath that Harpos inflicted on Canosa a few decades before.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We would explicitly order Artahias to not go scorched earth on Hyria and while he could ignore us I doubt that he would be that careless in endangering our goodwill.


And sure we would probably win a conflict with the Dauni, not even they dispute that, but it would be a very costly affair and with ancient sieges there is always the danger of disease and the like killing more or our army than the enemy ever could. Keeping an army out in the field over the winter or even for several years is unliekly to bee popular with our people and having to supply them with all their food will likely be a significant economic undertaking no matter if we can use the river or not which coupled with less trade with Athens and the increased upkeep of our navy and Co doesn't exactly leave us a lot of freedom monetarily speaking.
 
@Cetashwayo What happens to Caelia and Brention, if we side with Hyria and only ally Artahias? Will they fall under the control of Hyria? Become minor vassals ala Egnatia? Or somehow still follow Artahias?
 
Undead Martyr said:
Hyria revolted against their own nobility, who we were very lax in overseeing.
Allowing them autonomy would effectivley bind them more firmly to us by making us the arbiter of the region. Add to which that Hypua is currently hellenizing as a city, a process that will only accelerate with more direct contact.
Finally I would point out that Cetashwayo does not give inherently "bad" options. People are perhaps looking at the numbers if soldiers, and the "ally" vs vassal distinction (which in this context is frankly not as distinct as one might imagine) and simply thinking that sacking Hypia is a "better" choice, but ask what we might be giving up for the raw troop numbers? Ultimately we want to fully assimilate our tribal vassals and sacking one part then putting the rest under a hatchet man is not the way to do that. Doing the Roman thing of dividing them up into allies, vassals, and client states, and letting our cultural, economic and political dominance slowly bring them into the fold is the way to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We aren't Rome so we can't really achieve things the way Rome did and even then they did it through long curse of time with completely different state and administrative model than you are proposing.

Having Messapi secede may as well reverse what you want because while Hyria doesn't like Artahias who is to say that they won't like any future Messapi king, add to it that once Messapi themselves are independent while our allies they won't be as close to us and that could reverse hellenisation we achieved through curse of time, add to it that since Hyria is their cultural centre they will probably gladly take it back and as said before no can't guarantee that Hyria won't be willing to do it.

Also this raises the question of our future relationship with our vassals, if Messapi are allowed to break away so easily while retaining protection of Eretria via alliance what is to stop them from doing the same and retain the benefits of Eretrian protection while not having to pay taxes.

I will not even mention our Leauge member who as well pay taxes (even as meager as they are) and how will they react to the news that Barboi now suddenly have better position than them.
 
Last edited:
Cetashwayo said:
They will become minor vassals, of course.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

All the more reason to go along with this route.

We might (and TBH probably should) need to put in a hit more work to handle a few smaller vassals but well, divide et imperia. And again assimilation is a task that requires patience and planning, but this is a step in that direction. The update itself showed how religion is affecting relations, and how those relations get interpreted- the Messappii rebels are rejecting the OG divine marriage but are open to Artemis and Orion and Dinysus. Addressing their concerns will increase the appeal if our gods, our culture and our way of life, synergising still with he reputation for generosity and undoubtedly boosting Messapian hellenization.
This choice is similar to the one we faced with the Oracle- a direct benefit for the city vs a broader benefit for our league and polity as a whole. In the long term we want the Messappi to Hellenize and the immediate benefits of a forceful subjugation are not worth disregarding our prior trend towards cultural influence among our spherelings.
 
Undead Martyr said:
All the more reason to go along with this route.

We might (and TBH probably should) need to put in a hit more work to handle a few smaller vassals but well, divide et imperia. And again assimilation is a task that requires patience and planning, but this is a step in that direction. The update itself showed how religion is affecting relations, and how those relations get interpreted- the Messappii rebels are rejecting the OG divine marriage but are open to Artemis and Orion and Dinysus. Addressing their concerns will increase the appeal if our gods, our culture and our way of life, synergising still with he reputation for generosity and undoubtedly boosting Messapian hellenization.
This choice is similar to the one we faced with the Oracle- a direct benefit for the city vs a broader benefit for our league and polity as a whole. In the long term we want the Messappi to Hellenize and the immediate benefits of a forceful subjugation are not worth disregarding our prior trend towards cultural influence among our spherelings.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Divide and rule works when you are dividing your enemies, not yourself.
 
Star said:
We aren't Rome so we can't really achieve things the way Rome did and even then they did it through long curse of time with completely different state and administrative model than you are proposing.

Having Messapi secede may as well reverse what you want because while Hyria doesn't like Artahias who is to say that they won't like any future Messapi king, add to it that once Messapi themselves are independent while our allies they won't be as close to us and that could reverse hellenisation we achieved through curse of time, add to it that since Hyria is their cultural centre they will probably gladly take it back and as said before no can't guarantee that Hyria won't be willing to do it.

Also this raises the question of our future relationship with our vassals, if Messapi are allowed to break away so easily while retaining protection of Eretria via alliance what is to stop them from doing the same and retain the benefits of Eretrian protection while not having to pay taxes.

I will not even mention our Leauge member who as well pay taxes (even as meager as they are) and how will they react to the news that Barboi now suddenly have better position than them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Messappi is not seceding- they will become direct vassals of the city aside from Artahias. IOW Messappi kings become irrelevant to Hypia because they won't answer to any king, only us directly.

What happened, in CKII terms, is that we, the king, had a Duke vassal who pissed off his counts, some of whom then revolted. Our choice is now basically appoint a new Duke or take direct control over the counties themselves as direct overlord. The ltter strengthens our control significantly in the long run.

In another context, imagine Romes conquest of Armenia. They conquer a big unified kingdom and make the king a vassal. Then a couple generations later the kings descendant has a revolt. So rather than crushing the revolt for him we take the opportunity to break apart Armenia proper into separate states, some direct Roman provinces, some as vassals or client states, and after a couple generations more they potentially have all become provinces of the empire (assuming it's worth the trouble since a vassal/client king can potentially suit our needs as well). This is obviously part of long term integration of a region and will strengthen our control over it provided we take the time to make it work. In the long run we will be much stronger for doing this.
 
Last edited:
Cetashwayo said:
They will become minor vassals, of course.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And presumably already included in the 5,500 Freeman?

The Hyria vassal option is tempting, but I can't help but feel that it wastes our gains from the Brother's war even further. Caelia and Brention we could have always had as vassals. If Arthias Messapii remnants fall under Taras' influence (while we are distracted somewhere down the line) then we truly won the war but lost the peace.
 
[X] [Hyria] Grant Hyria autonomy and Artahias allyship [+5,500 freemen providing tributes and levies including heavier infantry, Artahias becomes a loyal Eretrian ally rather than vassal].
[X] [Dauni] The Path of Peace [Eretria and the Dauni will cease hostility, open trade to one another, and stop plotting against one another].
[X] [Athenai] Refuse the Treaty [Taras will be extremely grateful, Athenai will be unhappy, Eretrian grain trade may be superseded in favor of the Bosporos].
 
Spacegnom said:
And presumably already included in the 5,500 Freeman?

The Hyria vassal option is tempting, but I can't help but feel that it wastes our gains from the Brother's war even further. Caelia and Brention we could have always had as vassals. If Arthias Messapii remnants fall under Taras' influence (while we are distracted somewhere down the line) then we truly won the war but lost the peace.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, they're a separate number. 5,500 is Hyria alone.
 
Undead Martyr said:
Messappi is not seceding- they will become direct vassals of the city aside from Artahias. IOW Messappi kings become relevant to Hypia because they won't answer to any king, only us directly.

What happened, in CKII terms, is that we. The king, had a Duke vassal who pissed off his counts, some of whom them revolted. Our choice is now basically appoint a new Duke or take direct control over the counties themselves as direct overlord. The ltter strengthens our control significantly in the long run.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No it doesn't it just replaces Messapi as they are with Hyria under same conditions while at the same time minimising our controll of Messapi who are becoming independent under Artahias.

Not to mention that it complicates the region even further politically and has us trying to keep Messapi on out side in face of Taras and even Athens as Artahias himself said that he is ready to consider other options.

Edit:
In CKII terms that means that what is happening is that peasant rebellion happened and vassals joined in, so we the King are now giving independence to the Duke and right to proclaim himself a King (our equal ) while at the same time giving the vassals who rebelled position of a Duke.
 
Last edited:
Cetashwayo said:
No, they're a separate number. 5,500 is Hyria alone.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wouldn't it then make more sense to also list those numbers? Otherwise we are comparing apples with oranges, since one option provides 10,200 and the other 5,500 + ???. Or do we not know them?

Edit: Just saw, that the frontpage lists the full Messapii Confederation with 13,774 Freeman. So both Caelia and Brention are probably excluded from both values.
 
Last edited:
Star said:
No it doesn't it just replaces Messapi as they are with Hyria under same conditions while at the same time minimising our controll of Messapi who are becoming independent under Artahias.

Not to mention that it complicates the region even further politically and has us trying to keep Messapi on out side in face of Taras and even Athens as Artahias himself said that he is ready to consider other options.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

By granting the Hyrians autonomy as vassals they become a subject city state, the first of many in the region.
Granting Artahias control is basically a return to the status quo- which is unacceptable, since that's a very light hand which does not increase our cultural influence over the Messappii.

If Arthias is so unreliable then why should we empower him? Again divide and rule- let Arthias severas a regional client and buffer afainst Tara's while the cities themselves look to us for leadership. Arthais is trying to use our influence to centralize his own power- all well and good while he is loyal but can we count on that, or on the loyalty of his son?
 
Last edited:
Spacegnom said:
And presumably already included in the 5,500 Freeman?

The Hyria vassal option is tempting, but I can't help but feel that it wastes our gains from the Brother's war even further. Caelia and Brention we could have always had as vassals. If Arthias Messapii remnants fall under Taras' influence (while we are distracted somewhere down the line) then we truly won the war but lost the peace.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That would be a clear casus Belli, especially if we also ended up rejecting the Athenian treaty (the reverse where we take it gives is the opportunity to back Tara's alongside an athenian fleet and basically rewrite history by winning the Pelloponesian wars and presumably carving out hegemony in the Adriatic as an Athenian ally.. not that we could t then betray them or whatever.). TBH I think we will need to fight Tara's again eventually if we want to establish ourselves as top dog in the region.
 
Spacegnom said:
Wouldn't it then make more sense to also list those numbers? Otherwise we are comparing apples with oranges, since one option provides 10,200 and the other 5,500 + ???. Or do we not know them?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hmm? This is only in relation to the issue of Hyria. It's a reflection of how many you'd specifically be gaining from the resolution of the Hyria problem. Caelia and Brention if that option aren't taken are entirely separate, although fuck's sake I miscalculated the levies from the Brention option. Shouldn't just be 1,200. Annoying as hell.

Caelia and Brention will be pulled into vassalage next turn after this crisis is dealt with.
 
Undead Martyr said:
By granting the Hyrians autonomy as vassals they become a subject city state, the first of many in the region.
Granting Artahias control is basically a return to the status quo- which is unacceptable, since that's a very light hand which does not increase our cultural influence over the Messappii.

If Arthias is so unreliable then why should we empower him? Again divide and rule- let Arthias severas a regional client and buffer afainst Tara's while the cities themselves look to us for leadership. Arthais is trying to use our influence to centralize his own power- all well and good while he is loyal but can we count on that, or on the loyalty of his son?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Did we count on loyalty of Peuketii King and his heirs and they remain loyal, so will Arthias who knows that there is nothing to be gained in rebellion against Eretria.

Granting Artahias control is retaining stability until we can pass necessary reforms, as for our cultural influence, remember it was under Artahias and this existing system that cult of Dionysus spread through Messapi and nobility hellenised, so don't disregard the achievement of this system while pointing all its flaws.

This rebellion itself isn't cultural product, it's product of us choosing not to oversee our vassals and remaining blind on how do our laws affect them. Reform the system and you will remove the causes for future rebellions.

Rash decisions like what you are proposing won't solve the problem, what happens under Messapi happens through all our vassals and proper reforms are needed, not rash decisions that will see even further complications when it comes to reforms and solutions to this crisis.
 
Last edited:
[X] [Hyria] Allow Artahias to subjugate Hyria [+10,900 freemen providing tribute and levies, Hyrian revolt is crushed and Artahias becomes an Eretrian vassal just as the Peuketii].
[X] [Dauni] The Path of Peace [Eretria and the Dauni will cease hostility, open trade to one another, and stop plotting against one another].
[X] [Athenai] Refuse the Treaty [Taras will be extremely grateful, Athenai will be unhappy, Eretrian grain trade may be superseded in favor of the Bosporos].

The Hyrians would not make faithful vassals, I fear. They rose up in part because they resent our power. Even if we ensure their freedom from Artahias, they would quickly become restless if placed directly under our aegis.
As for the Dauni and Athenai, these issues should be taken into consideration together. Both bear the seeds of war.
Accepting the treaty would make Eretria a target for Sparta and their allies. They would not hesitate to burn down the city that acts as Athenai's granary should the war in Hellas flare up again. It is true that they lack the triremes to reach our shores today, but Ares is fickle, and so is Poseidon. Moreover, under Linos's guidance, we have built dozens of triremes in a few short years. If we can do it, so can Korinthos.
And yet, if we wish to wage war on Ausculos of the Dauni, we must accept Athenai's friendship. For with that friendship comes silver, and our treasury is growing sparse. Our fleet has been expanded, we are rebuilding Byssos harbour at great cost, and we granted lighter taxation to the Metics. We would be hard-pressed to campaign for years on end without Athenian talents.
In these troubled times, war will find us soon enough. Why run towards it?

So speaks Nereos, son of Theodotos, sail-maker.
 
[X] [Hyria] Grant Hyria autonomy and Artahias allyship [+5,500 freemen providing tributes and levies including heavier infantry, Artahias becomes a loyal Eretrian ally rather than vassal].
[X] [Dauni] The Path of Peace [Eretria and the Dauni will cease hostility, open trade to one another, and stop plotting against one another].
[X] [Athenai] Refuse the Treaty [Taras will be extremely grateful, Athenai will be unhappy, Eretrian grain trade may be superseded in favor of the Bosporos].
 
[X] [Hyria] Allow Artahias to subjugate Hyria [+10,900 freemen providing tribute and levies, Hyrian revolt is crushed and Artahias becomes an Eretrian vassal just as the Peuketii]
[X] [Dauni] The Path of Peace [Eretria and the Dauni will cease hostility, open trade to one another, and stop plotting against one another]
[X] [Athenai] Accept the Athenian treaty [Athenai will be grateful, Taras will be disturbed, Eretrian grain trade will grow faster in the future].



Fellow citizens, I will try to make in short time. Firstly I say we should allow Artahias to subjugate Hyria, this will keep the Messappii in line, the Kretans beholden to us alone and the king and the nobility of the Messappii will be beholden to us. They rule because of Eretria. That will bring its own kind of loyalty. To the second point, although the Dauni king chose a most distasteful and treacherous form of securing his reign, I must say that he is right up to a certain point. A war of subjugation against the Dauni will most certainly be a tedious, cruel affair, expensive in men, treasure and opportunity. Not to speak of the interior barbaroi we would share a border with. And last but not least I say we accept the Treaty of Athens. Admittedly it is not something I do lightly but as I understand it, we will have still time to poru oil on troubled water with Taras and the potential silver we may make by additional shipments of grain to Athens is its own reward. So says I Isigas son of Euplastos.
 
Last edited:
phil03 said:
Why did wise Obander believed his time as Xenopralector was well served by going to Athenai if he seek to have as little contact with the city as possible? How could the man who ended Syrakousai ambitions of hegemonia over Sicelia be caught blindsided by Alkibiades as he was? Why had he not, especially since he profess to now want nothing more then to find peace in his country estate, put polis above demos and tell Antipater the Younger, who I pray will find the wisdom that he now seem to lack, that Obander and not Antipater was Xenopralector?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

OBANDER: I thank you for your criticism, Nikephoros. I will address it. In the first place, I was met with significant difficulties in making a foothold in Athenai due to the depth of its politics and the shortness of my stay. I was also heavily restricted in where I could go and what I could see as I was a mere foreign delegate to Athenai, no great man of renown to them. I am in the second place unable to transmit orders to my deputy across the vast distances of the Aegean and Ionian seas. That he made a decision, whether influenced by Antipater Antipatros or not, is part of Gennadios' responsibility as a deputy, and it is something he must be allowed to do as I cannot give orders at all times. Further, given there was a crisis in Hyria, him waiting for my arrival may have only made the situation more critical. I do not think what he did was in poor judgment.

On the matter of Alkibiades, I was not in a situation I was familiar with and could easily parlay. I was also, as a foreigner, unable to address the Athenian ekklesia and thus did not become aware of the decision until it happened. Further, I believe that Alkibiades was influenced by Erasmos Dion, who may have pressured him to take a harder stance on Eretria than he may have otherwise wished, but on the other hand it is possible it was Alkibiades' own decision. Eretria is more a figure of fascination than respect in Athenai and thus I was significantly more restricted than in Sicilia, where my office was much respected and I could count on many allies.

phil03 said:
While the wisdom he had shown in other matters will ensure that Obander will be well remember by Eretrians never would he now be able to pretend to be the equal of the heroes who lead the city in stormy first years.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

OBANDER: I am a citizen of Eretria as were those heroes. We are equal in every way except accomplishment, and if my achievements do not rise to the same scale as theirs then I have only myself to blame.
 
I actually forgot to vote to here it is.

[X] [Hyria] Allow Artahias to subjugate Hyria [+10,900 freemen providing tribute and levies, Hyrian revolt is crushed and Artahias becomes an Eretrian vassal just as the Peuketii].
[X] [Dauni] The Path of Pain [Eretria will continue to recieve options relating to war against the Dauni, there will be no easing of hostilities].
[X] [Athenai] Refuse the Treaty [Taras will be extremely grateful, Athenai will be unhappy, Eretrian grain trade may be superseded in favor of the Bosporos].

I can already see the direction we are heading in with the Dauninwith so many voting for accepting the peace deal. I can only point you to the previously mentioned anti-peace arguments and hope some see reason and keep the Dauni relationship as it is. Hoping and wishing for a peaceful and rainbow coloured world is all well and good but it doesn't work. They cant be trusted, we have been wanting to go to war with them for ages now and further we simply need their lands. We gain nothing from a peace deal with them expect showing other factions that Eretria backed down when the Dauni King threatened us with a strategy so ridiculous that not even the most desperate tribes would even consider. Scorched earth doesn't work, especially not when he clearly isn't well liked.

As for Hyria, allowing Artahias yo deal with it is probably the best case scenario log term. Him we can control and giving an alliance instead of vassalage to the Messapi will only embolden our other vassals to seek independence from us. We could literally stand to loose much of what we've gained so far just because some want to be the good guys. And dunno if yall forgot but the good guy doesn't win, ever.

Come on folks, the dark side is always better...and it has cookies.
 
Last edited:
Vote will remain open for a while. I see several votes that could swing one way or another and encourage further discussion and questions.
 
That would just mean we would have them looking over our shoulder half if not all the time and we really dont want the eastern Greek states to get any foothold in the west until we are atleast secure enough to be able to be able to hold on own against someone like Korinth, Athens or even Sparta if even just for a bit.

Edit:
Which is why conquering the Dauni is necessary, we need access to their salt and other resources maybe even their manpower if we can integrate them in a timely manner
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top