Have a little something I made. I'll put it in spoiler since it's a bit embarrassing for me.

Draft 1:
The Reconciliation of Zeus and Hera
by
Timanthes, son of Thymoetes


Dramatis Personae:
Zeus - King of the Gods, husband of Hera
Hera - Queen of the Gods, wife of Zeus
Artemis - Goddess of the Hunt
Hestia - Goddess of the Hearth


Basic Plot:
Zeus, tired of Hera's nagging, once more leaves Olympus for the mortal lands to seek another lover. He has not yet even begun his search, however, when he hears a clamor coming from Olympus. Thus he turns back, in order to find out the cause of the ruckus.

Upon returning to the sacred mountain, Zeus finds that the realm of the gods has descended into chaos, half-revelry and half-battle. Aghast, Zeus seeks out Hestia for an explanation for the madness. Hestia says that Hera, who keeps order in Olympus when Zeus is away, as befits her role as Queen of the Gods, has gone away. To where? No one knows. After restoring order to Olympus, Zeus commands all the gods to go out in search of his missing wife.

It is Artemis who finds her, hidden in a cave in Italy, close to where Furthest Eretria was founded. She tells Zeus that Hera refuses to leave the cave for any reason but would not tell Artemis the reason why. Hearing this, all the gods begin to compete to draw Hera from her cave, having experienced the chaos that comes from her absence. None of their methods work, however. When everyone else has had their turn, Hestia speaks to Zeus of a plan she has devised. Zeus, in disguise as Hestia and wearing her shawl, will enter the cave and attempt to speak with Hera, in order to find out why she's hiding. Zeus agrees to the plan and enters the cave.

Inside the cave, Zeus finds Hera, alone and miserable. Prompting her under the guise of Hestia, Hera laments how all her brothers and sisters are in happy marriages, while she, the very goddess of marriage, languishes in her "union" with her boorish husband. Moved, Zeus tells his wife of the chaos that ensued in Olympus following her absence, noting that she is not only the goddess of marriage, but also Queen of the Gods. Her place will always be above her subjects, and beside her king. With that, Zeus sheds his disguise. Hera is taken by surprise at this revelation, and doubts the truth in his words. Zeus assures her that all he said is true, and that what he will say next is also true: no longer will Cronides search for another bride, not when the queen of brides is his. They share a happy moment.

Finally convinced, Hera leaves the cave hand-in-hand with Zeus. Together, they revel and admire the gods' handiwork in attempting to bring her out. She blesses the cave, as well as the fields and mountains that surround it with much bounty before departing with the other gods back to Olympus.
Okay, that definitely feels like something that Eretria might spin up, with how relentlessly romantic the city happens to be.
 
Humorism doesn't gain dominant currency until Galen during the Roman Empire. Here, it is one of a competing number of theories in a period of philosophical efflorescence.
 
Have a little something I made. I'll put it in spoiler since it's a bit embarrassing for me.

Draft 1:
The Reconciliation of Zeus and Hera
by
Timanthes, son of Thymoetes


Dramatis Personae:
Zeus - King of the Gods, husband of Hera
Hera - Queen of the Gods, wife of Zeus
Artemis - Goddess of the Hunt
Hestia - Goddess of the Hearth


Basic Plot:
Zeus, tired of Hera's nagging, once more leaves Olympus for the mortal lands to seek another lover. He has not yet even begun his search, however, when he hears a clamor coming from Olympus. Thus he turns back, in order to find out the cause of the ruckus.

Upon returning to the sacred mountain, Zeus finds that the realm of the gods has descended into chaos, half-revelry and half-battle. Aghast, Zeus seeks out Hestia for an explanation for the madness. Hestia says that Hera, who keeps order in Olympus when Zeus is away, as befits her role as Queen of the Gods, has gone away. To where? No one knows. After restoring order to Olympus, Zeus commands all the gods to go out in search of his missing wife.

It is Artemis who finds her, hidden in a cave in Italy, close to where Furthest Eretria was founded. She tells Zeus that Hera refuses to leave the cave for any reason but would not tell Artemis the reason why. Hearing this, all the gods begin to compete to draw Hera from her cave, having experienced the chaos that comes from her absence. None of their methods work, however. When everyone else has had their turn, Hestia speaks to Zeus of a plan she has devised. Zeus, in disguise as Hestia and wearing her shawl, will enter the cave and attempt to speak with Hera, in order to find out why she's hiding. Zeus agrees to the plan and enters the cave.

Inside the cave, Zeus finds Hera, alone and miserable. Prompting her under the guise of Hestia, Hera laments how all her brothers and sisters are in happy marriages, while she, the very goddess of marriage, languishes in her "union" with her boorish husband. Moved, Zeus tells his wife of the chaos that ensued in Olympus following her absence, noting that she is not only the goddess of marriage, but also Queen of the Gods. Her place will always be above her subjects, and beside her king. With that, Zeus sheds his disguise. Hera is taken by surprise at this revelation, and doubts the truth in his words. Zeus assures her that all he said is true, and that what he will say next is also true: no longer will Cronides search for another bride, not when the queen of brides is his. They share a happy moment.

Finally convinced, Hera leaves the cave hand-in-hand with Zeus. Together, they revel and admire the gods' handiwork in attempting to bring her out. She blesses the cave, as well as the fields and mountains that surround it with much bounty before departing with the other gods back to Olympus.

I like it. Refine it a bit to something you're happy with and I'll threadmark it as a sidestory and incorporate it in the next update.
 
And thus our way of developing and exporting Eretrian culture was discovered.

Omakes.

Fly you fools.
 
There is a practical component to the city's marriage obsession. It is one of the reasons why Eretria is culturally the way it is; because the city has an innately unifying spirit and tends to abhor division. Even the factions are seen as social clubs, not official parties or factions, as to do so exacerbates social and political division. Everything is seen as a series of relationships and unions between the city and its people, the aristocrats and the commoners, the citizens and the metics, the city and the league, the city and the Iapyges. See the explicitly familial language employed by Mnemnon about the Messapii which is frankly unprecedented except in self-serving rhetoric given by the Athenians and Spartans about their own leagues which effectively served as extortion vehicles for empires and in which any opposition was both functionally impossible and suppressed when it happened anyway.

In fact, the most popular use of such familial terms tends to be between a king and his people, as he uses it to convey his immense power in personal and comprehensible terms. For a city to use it reflects both its institutional confidence that a city exists as an institution beyond the various factional squabbling, and that it is willing to extend the bounds of empathy far farther than is normal for Hellenic city states to do so practically (even if rhetoric could fly high and even became pan-Hellenic in the 4th century BCE regardless of the fact that a pan-Hellenic state came no closer to existing before Philip II).
 
What library? We're in the 420s BCE right now. Alexander is over 100 years away from conquering Greece, much less founding Alexandria. The Great Library won't be built for even longer than that.



Italians, man. There's nothing we can do. Even lead poisoning can't keep them away - spaghetti is their destiny.
Well we could mimic what they did so there is a second library then.
 
There is a practical component to the city's marriage obsession. It is one of the reasons why Eretria is culturally the way it is; because the city has an innately unifying spirit and tends to abhor division. Even the factions are seen as social clubs, not official parties or factions, as to do so exacerbates social and political division. Everything is seen as a series of relationships and unions between the city and its people, the aristocrats and the commoners, the citizens and the metics, the city and the league, the city and the Iapyges. See the explicitly familial language employed by Mnemnon about the Messapii which is frankly unprecedented except in self-serving rhetoric given by the Athenians and Spartans about their own leagues which effectively served as extortion vehicles for empires and in which any opposition was both functionally impossible and suppressed when it happened anyway.

In fact, the most popular use of such familial terms tends to be between a king and his people, as he uses it to convey his immense power in personal and comprehensible terms. For a city to use it reflects both its institutional confidence that a city exists as an institution beyond the various factional squabbling, and that it is willing to extend the bounds of empathy far farther than is normal for Hellenic city states to do so practically (even if rhetoric could fly high and even became pan-Hellenic in the 4th century BCE regardless of the fact that a pan-Hellenic state came no closer to existing before Philip II).
Is that why Pylonas wept when we agreed to the Leagues requests? Considering that they are likely more classically hellenic then we are.
 
Well, it was partly just dramatic flair. But there was honestly fear that they had overstepped and that Eretria might punish them for doing so.
I mean, the Ekklesia I think, has a habit of, if you are asking for greater privilege, or are asking for things in general, as long as you have a reason, and its a reasonable reason, and a reasonable thing to ask, we take your argument seriously.

Otherwise, we would just say no. I don't know how other polities would react to a subordinate overstepping their bounds, but I don't see why a simple 'no' wouldn't be enough. I don't think the Ekklesia, or Eretria in general, has a reputation for spite and cruelty.
 
I don't think the Ekklesia, or Eretria in general, has a reputation for spite and cruelty.

The defining early-game event in Eretria's history is when we found out the Iapyges were conspiring against us and reacted by slaughtering all of our Peuketti slaves before launching a brutal war that shattered the demographic base of our neighbors. We probably do have a reputation as a very ferocious and bloodthirsty city when pressed.
 
Otherwise, we would just say no. I don't know how other polities would react to a subordinate overstepping their bounds, but I don't see why a simple 'no' wouldn't be enough. I don't think the Ekklesia, or Eretria in general, has a reputation for spite and cruelty.
We shattered the native tribes to the point of causing permanent demographic decline.

Hellenic Leagues are pretty tyrannical. Subordinates/League members that gets too uppity can get punished through things like Sacking and then escalating.
 
The defining early-game event in Eretria's history is when we found out the Iapyges were conspiring against us and reacted by slaughtering all of our Peuketti slaves before launching a brutal war that shattered the demographic base of our neighbors. We probably do have a reputation as a very ferocious and bloodthirsty city when pressed.
Yes, but that was a conspiracy. Pylonas brought their grievance before the Ekklesia. Granted slaves arent allowed anything to do with the Assembly, beyond perhaps cleaning it, but still.

We are generous to our friends and cruel to our enemies. Pylonas brought the grievances before us as a friend might, and did not attempt to twist our arms but allowed us due consideration of the issues at hand. I dont see how that might make them afraid we would retaliate against them for making such requests of us.
 
We are generous to our friends and cruel to our enemies. Pylonas brought the grievances before us as a friend might, and did not attempt to twist our arms but allowed us due consideration of the issues at hand. I dont see how that might make them afraid we would retaliate against them for making such requests of us.
Because the balance of power is skewed heavily in our favor. They have no way of defending themselves if we turn violent. We could sack the entirety of the League and sell everyone into slavery and it honestly wouldnt hurt us that badly. They have little leverage and are entirely at the mercies of our whims.
 
Yes, but that was a conspiracy. Pylonas brought their grievance before the Ekklesia. Granted slaves arent allowed anything to do with the Assembly, beyond perhaps cleaning it, but still.

We are generous to our friends and cruel to our enemies. Pylonas brought the grievances before us as a friend might, and did not attempt to twist our arms but allowed us due consideration of the issues at hand. I dont see how that might make them afraid we would retaliate against them for making such requests of us.

The question isn't just what we would said, it is how they would react to it. If we said no and they decided to withdraw army or throw a Veto on our war with Taras i could see Eretria going out of its way to punish/make an example of them.
 
Last edited:
Not possible in the scope of this quest, full stop.

It really just takes two philosophers -- one to create an accurate map of Eretria; and one to add points on the map during the next cholera outbreak.

And, like, even if an Eretrian philosopher does come out and put down on paper "disease is caused by tiny invisible seeds, transmitted through contagion, and spread through contamination" -- we have no way of proving that that's the case until real microscopes are invented, and no way to turn that knowledge into useful medical advice.

At best, we can end cholera in Eretria. That's a lot -- but it's not really revolutionary.
 
One thing that's interesting to know is that the disease load in Europe actually went up considerably over time until the 20th century. It wasn't a constant; people in the 16th century CE had a lot more to contend with than those in the 3rd BCE. Pathogens tended to arrive, and then stick around, especially if they weren't so virulent that they burnt themselves out, or had animal reservoirs.

There are a few nasty bugs we see described in various ancient sources which may have died out in the interval, or could be identified with pathogens known to us, and it's the sort of thing historians of a certain stripe argue about. But they're greatly outnumbered by the number of really nasty diseases which had not arrived yet; smallpox, plague, cholera, typhus, probably measles, and others. Even malaria is probably not yet in the swamps around Rome right now.

This is not an incidental or insignificant thing, especially when you're thinking about how deaths from disease amongst armies seem to be less than you'd expect in Classical and Roman accounts. Not all of that was because the Romans knew how to dig latrine pits in straight lines.
 
Back
Top