Cetashwayo
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
- Location
- Across the Horizon
The Dauni have 19,000 tribesmen to call on. Decades of relative peace and fertile lands as well as growing urbanization and irrigation works have done them well.
Magna Graecia: Titanomachia (A City State Quest)
- Thread starter Cetashwayo
- Start date
- Original Alt. History
-
- Tags
- ancient greece alternate history empire builder civ quest democracy gods save us granary management hubris it's an eretrian thing. let lose the weasels of war lithocracy lithocracy is my fetish maximum hellene my big fat greek divine wedding this granary aint gonna fill itself cetash unwinnable
Professor Vesca
Good News Everyone!
Every time I come into this thread there is a chance that a voice will appear inside my head.
It says...
*In a thick Scottish accent*
Lunch lady Dolores, do ye have the Greece?
Yes. Yes we do.
THEN GREECE ME UP WOMAN!
Okey dokey.
It says...
*In a thick Scottish accent*
Lunch lady Dolores, do ye have the Greece?
Yes. Yes we do.
THEN GREECE ME UP WOMAN!
Okey dokey.
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- Him/He
How much of that can they keep on the field all at once tought? And for that matter how much of that is represented by Herdonia and Salapia?
Cetashwayo
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
- Location
- Across the Horizon
You don't really know the Dauni's military capabilities; you haven't fought them for decades now.
Herdonia and Salapia are both small cities worth about 4,000 tribesmen altogether.
As far as the Dauni go, I feel the positions being staked out here are a little all-or-nothing.
There are actually positions between a total invasion and years-long subjugation of the Dauni, and completely ignoring them and not exploiting any of the lucrative trade opportunities. Crazy but true!
Particularly, we could go for a strategy of engagement that focuses on building ties through trade and diplomacy, bringing the Dauni further into our sphere of influence, without forcing things to a crisis point.
Herdonia and Salapia already like Eretria, and resent the king for stopping their trade with us, and would like to resume trade. We could pursue a strategy of strengthening our ties with them, and trying to resume trade, using the implicit threat of our greatly superior force without actually invading. King Ausculos is in an unstable position and is widely disliked. If we don't force him into a corner, there's a lot he may be willing to allow to keep his throne. Hell, if he gets a cut of the action and can be reassured that our intentions for the foreseeable future don't involve war, he may even be happy.
This has a number of benefits. Stronger trade ties with Salapia and Herdonia bring them into our sphere of influence, especially if we're the one who restored their fortunes and has protected them from royal wroth. In a future conflict, they would be likely to side with us. Other Dauni cities may also see the lucrative benefits of good relations with Eretria and this further fractures any Dauni coalition against us. This sets us up well for a war in a decade or so, but it does not force things. Alternatively, we could pursue a more "salami slicing" strategy of simply concluding treaties with individual cities one at a time.
Moreover, if the Samnites invade the Dauni outright, if we have pre-existing relationships with many cities then we could ride into the rescue. Then we pick up the pieces in the aftermath, and cement our position as their protector.
This sort of strategy does not commit us fully to any later action, but it broadly improves our position for future moves we may want to make with the Dauni, or future crises that emerge. It also means we can gain the lucrative benefits of the salt trade in the meantime, so all around it seems a reasonable approach to me.
There are actually positions between a total invasion and years-long subjugation of the Dauni, and completely ignoring them and not exploiting any of the lucrative trade opportunities. Crazy but true!
Particularly, we could go for a strategy of engagement that focuses on building ties through trade and diplomacy, bringing the Dauni further into our sphere of influence, without forcing things to a crisis point.
Herdonia and Salapia already like Eretria, and resent the king for stopping their trade with us, and would like to resume trade. We could pursue a strategy of strengthening our ties with them, and trying to resume trade, using the implicit threat of our greatly superior force without actually invading. King Ausculos is in an unstable position and is widely disliked. If we don't force him into a corner, there's a lot he may be willing to allow to keep his throne. Hell, if he gets a cut of the action and can be reassured that our intentions for the foreseeable future don't involve war, he may even be happy.
This has a number of benefits. Stronger trade ties with Salapia and Herdonia bring them into our sphere of influence, especially if we're the one who restored their fortunes and has protected them from royal wroth. In a future conflict, they would be likely to side with us. Other Dauni cities may also see the lucrative benefits of good relations with Eretria and this further fractures any Dauni coalition against us. This sets us up well for a war in a decade or so, but it does not force things. Alternatively, we could pursue a more "salami slicing" strategy of simply concluding treaties with individual cities one at a time.
Moreover, if the Samnites invade the Dauni outright, if we have pre-existing relationships with many cities then we could ride into the rescue. Then we pick up the pieces in the aftermath, and cement our position as their protector.
This sort of strategy does not commit us fully to any later action, but it broadly improves our position for future moves we may want to make with the Dauni, or future crises that emerge. It also means we can gain the lucrative benefits of the salt trade in the meantime, so all around it seems a reasonable approach to me.
To put this into perspective, that's about 50% more than the Peuketti or Messapii separately. It's a lot. Definitely something that we can overcome through only dedicated effort.
A theoretical army:
Eretria: (Half levy)
50 Kleos Exoria
500 Heiros Ekdromoi
2,000 Hoplites
375 Cavalry
3,000 Psiolli
Epulian League: 1,000 Hoplites
Peuketti:
2,500 Skirmishers
400 Cavalry
Egnatia:
300 Skirmishers
30 Cavalry
Turai:
200 Skirmishers
40 Cavalry
Messapii: (About the same as Peuketti; their tribesmen populations are slightly larger)
2,500 Skirmishers
400 Cavalry
50 Kleos Exoria
500 Heiros Ekdromoi
2,000 Hoplites
375 Cavalry
3,000 Psiolli
Epulian League: 1,000 Hoplites
Peuketti:
2,500 Skirmishers
400 Cavalry
Egnatia:
300 Skirmishers
30 Cavalry
Turai:
200 Skirmishers
40 Cavalry
Messapii: (About the same as Peuketti; their tribesmen populations are slightly larger)
2,500 Skirmishers
400 Cavalry
If you assume the Dauni can call 75% of their tribesmen into combat (a similar ceiling to us and the other Iapyges), then they could field an army of 14,250.
We'd have to throw pretty much our entire army and all of our allies at the Dauni if we wanted to outnumber them in war.
With this information in mind, I think we're going to be better off in bribing some of the Dauni cities to our side. We could crush them if we absolutely had to, but it's going to be expensive and needlessly risky. I think a more diplomatic approach with multiple annexations over time would make digesting them significantly easier.
We know Salpia and Herodonia would come over to us right now. If we worked for it, we might be able to convince some of the other cities as well. Anything that fractures the Dauni coalition and makes their king look weak will be beneficial in forcing them to engage on our terms.
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- Him/He
The issue with such those strategies is that, while it adress the financial cost-benefits part of the matter well it isn't nearly as effective at dealing with the purely geopolitical part of the equation.
As stated by word of god, even if we peel away Sallapia and Herdonia on board that will still leave more then three quarter of Ausculos manpower pool at his disposal and the longer the more risks we take, as we inevitably be busy with a major conflict at some point, giving Ausculos the opportunity he is looking for.
Here, I feel, is the crux of the my disagreement with those not wanting to fighting the Dauni: it isn't so much a matter of finance then it is a matter of security.
The way I see it, those things aren't necessarely exclusive. After all, the issue here isn't so much the Dauni as a people but the Dauni Kingdom as a state, or at the very least the regime presently leading it. I would, of course, expect our xenopralector to see what he can do to peel away other cities before we start marching, and to try any to leverage any success we might in the first year of campaign to make separate deals to limite the scale of further operations.
As for the rest, correct me if I am wrong but the 75% has only be stated for Eretria, and his presumably similar to what other greek polis could muster. I would expect the Dauni to still be a bit lower, despite their progresses. I would also believe that, even if they probably had time to adapt to fighting greeks to at least some extant, we probably still have a pretty good quality edge as well. Hell, if the Dauni had such capacities and had managed to close the bulk of the quality they would have probably made a move already!
- Location
- Vicksburg, MS
A. Samnites are bad neighbors, they historically didn't become an issue for Romans until later because it took that long for the Romans to start bordering them. As it stands, we don't have an effective counter to them; we have no hoplite reform or other applicable military reform, and we've repeatedly heard that people of our fighting style up against them have a terrible, terrible time. Fighting against them drove the Romans to drop hoplite-based warfare in favor of manipular legions in part because our style of warfare is ill-suited to face them.
B. I'm not saying to let the Dauni get eaten by the Samnites while just sitting by, I'd rather that we intervene to help them out (preferably while extracting some concessions such as salt). I do think that the Samnite are likely to have the hardest time if the Dauni are kept strong and we provide an assist rather than us wrecking the Dauni and then later being called in to defend them after we've already torn through their defenses and slaughtered their military.
C. You're proposing that we take all of the Dauni in war, I think that we will have plenty of resentful people in that package deal or else it wouldn't even be a hard conflict to swoop in and take over while it has been confirmed that the Dauni aren't going down without a fight.
D. Yes, I do believe the Dauni king is easier to negotiate with, despite all the bad history. This is because to him we're an 800 pound gorilla and by virtue of our constant land contact and close relations among other Iapygians we have plenty of people who can converse with the Dauni, who are in turn far more hellenized than the Samnites, as well as that we have sway with some cities under him. As such we can push him around more easily, as we precisely did to pull him back down from the brink of war. We have zero such leverage on the Samnites, which is a part of why we have such difficulty in evacuating Kymai from the similar Campani people.
Sure, it'll take time to develop inter-league trade, as all options will. They'll take less time, though. For example, setting up amber trade is a matter of a direct mission to the Enetoi. Setting up salt trade is a matter of take the option to fight the Dauni, years of prosecuting the war, then reconstructing salt pans on grander scale, then establishing the trade when that's done. That's a long time even assuming it all goes correctly and doesn't get derailed by necessary factional changes in the meantime. It would be rather silly to go through all the effort of developing this excellent harbor and have available all the additional trade routes it could support only to leave it barren for years to come.
They have made probing attacks, which is why the Dauni built so many fortifications against them and live in fear of Samnite attacks, organizing to make themselves a less attractive target. The most attractive targets just got wiped off the map, so there is that for indicating that the Samnites are strong and expansionist. And no, being our vassals would not make the Dauni stronger; it would strengthen us by allowing ourselves to take the Dauni in on whatever boondoggle we wished, but Daunia itself would have defenses destroyed, less organization, less manpower, less forces on the ground in general. We could send an army there to clash with Samnite invaders but in the meantime the Samnites would be able to destroy their countryside and cause rural depopulation, allowing for easier effective expansion because whenever our armies have to march back and tend to their crops they can just chill and graze their sheep in the new pastureland while the Dauni can't do a thing about it on the local level.
Who cares how they feel about us, what's important is what they can do to us. The Samnites can do much worse to us out of desire for more grazeland than any combination of Iapygians can out of hatred. The decentralized nature of the Samnites means that it is also harder to come to a lasting arrangement with them or to focus our efforts against one weak point. We can attack Auscula and capture the king and terribly damage the efforts of the Dauni; that's much less possible when we're up against a people more than a person.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Leukos the Accountant:
"Indeed, when I accompanied a merchant among the Enetoi, did I meet a mighty Hyperborean named... some barbarous thing... Ou-ee-lee. Most formidable. Oiled like an Olympian, for no reason I could see."
- Location
- Mists of Albion
This also has major issues, mainly the two cities you quoted desire annexation or independence, mere trade probably wouldn't be enough. Then there's the issue that the current king is ruthless and ambitious, the minute we turn our backs to deal with another problem he rips out our alliances root and stem in any way he can.
A soft approach doesn't work with the kind of King on the throne the Dauni currently have. Not to mention said approach doesn't allow us access to the salt works at all, since the Kings of the Dauni have had a long policy of tearing down any salt works. Thus we'd have to maybe even fight a war, or at least pay for a civil war, to gain access to one of the biggest draws of the region, except this time it'll also empower the Dauni King as well of we do succeed in building said Salt Works.
Far less profit on a far shakier ground for potentially more economic and political investment.
Then there's the fact that, if the Samnites do invade and we pick up the pieces, the remnants aren't going to be nearly as valuable when it comes to troops and tribute, also there is a far lesser chance we could eat the Kingdom wholesale. Thus making the venture far less profitable for far more investment and danger.
A. The Samnites historically, if you wanna use that here, won't become a major issue for the Italiote Greeks for a good while yet. Yes they raid, but major invasions as has happened at Neapolis won't be seen again for years and years. Not only that we have superior skirmish lines and cavalry formations, and we have multiple military reform actions.
Finally, we've had multiple factions bordering the Samnites for a good while in the quest, and we've seen a couple different of raids, one war, and one brief conflict over near Thurii, if they're such terrible neighbours we'd be dead already
B. So your plan is to keep an enemy who's King definitely hates us and will definitely invade if he has the chance around because someone else might invade at some point? And to keep this faction 'strong' and then help them for a few 'concessions' when we have no alliances or positive relationship with the vast majority of them?
Yeah, no, helping them wouldn't even be an option if they were invaded. Us invading them as well would be the closest you would get unless we made an alliance, which is highly unlikely unless we split off some of their peoples, which would require a war anyway. And then there's the fact you're keeping a real dagger near your back because of the dagger that might be positioned at your back in the future.
C. Yes, the Dauni won't go down without a fight, but almost a fifth of their population openly wants to be annexed, and several other cities were willing to take bribes to possible rebel against their King instead of going to war with us. They might not go down without a fight, but they're not at all on Eretria's current level, not even close. We could very easily conquer the Dauni, saying otherwise is ignoring the fact that we have much higher manpower, troop quality and experience in warfare at the moment.
If their King manages to find the time to solidify his rule this could change, which is why we need to strike quickly at some point.
D. So the Samnites, who haven't done anything to Eretria directly, who have been shown to be relatively peaceful outside of forced exodus' and a couple raids at the moment, are worse neighbours than the ruthless King who hates our guts and will backstab us the moment he can and is seeking to solidify his rule? Yes the Samnites may become a problem in the future, but here's the issue, that's a far future, one that we can prepare for, and one that ignores that the Samnites would roll over the Dauni anyway, or take their land and border us and have the Dauni resources anyway.
If you're gonna spend the entire game worrying about the possibility of Samnite invasions in twenty years, then we might as well hunker down and never d anything aside build up defences.
The issue we are having with the evacuation isn't because the Samnites are impossible to leverage, it's because they don't know who we are, we are way too far away and they are in the cusp of victory, where their war goals are land and wives. The Dauni are right next door, know who we are, but their goals are much the same, the only difference is, they're not in the literal opposite side of the Peninsula wondering 'who the fuck are these guys trying to tell us to negotiate when we're winning?'
Next, trade. So we set up Ankon, and have expected large Murex profits from the colony for eight years now, where are they? We were promised more trade routes due to our colonies after destroying the Illyrians, right now those trade routes aren't raking in very much, then there's the Amber trade, first we need to convince the Enetoi to do it, then we need to gather enough people to make a viable port, then we need to properly establish the trade route. For the Dauni salt? We would win the war in two years, I have no doubt about that (looks at Taras and the Illyrians). Then we'd have to build up the salt works, true, but we literally did a major work in 5 years, so in seven years we'd be getting that salt out, Maximum, not accounting for the time it'd take for a trade route to settle.
So, overall, you definitively overemphasise the difficultly of besting the Dauni, you previously underemphasised the importance of salt and how profitable it is and finally you talk about empty ports, when the Salt trade would fill that port faster than the Murex and Amber would, and those are two trade routes that are the most valuable we have available right now, and the other routes you wish to cultivate will also be far less profitable than the salt trade.
You want to focus on a bunch of lesser options, for fear of the Samnites, leaving a real dagger at our backs, whilst ignoring the fact that such Adriatic dominance invites Korinthos, a real threat of Athens stays at peace for too long, to challenge us. Whilst leaving that dagger near our backs.
Last edited:
Ausculos is worth watching, but he is not some kind of dire threat to Eretria. We've already seen what happens when he tries to exploit us being at war with a major power, and we pretty much destroyed his ambitions just by peeling two cities off of his coalition. He is an old man who may die relatively soon without a clear successor, and he is widely disliked by his own people. We are also not likely to be in a major land war for the foreseeable future, unless it's to save the Dauni from the Samnites.
The idea that we need to preemptively stage an invasion of the Dauni because Ausculos might be able to put together a ramshackle coalition to raid some Epulian olive groves before our retribution falls on him like the wroth of Olympos is just genuinely odd.
It goes on the list of the other bizarre things a portion this Quest has convinced itself of for a few pages, before Cetash pours cold water on it or we move onto the next thing and it is quickly forgotten.
Straight up, in terms of basic strategy, if you want to subjugate the Dauni, an invasion has a large number of risks and costs versus the obvious strategy of fracturing the Dauni coalition over time through trade and befriending individual cities, with maybe a short war against whatever holdouts remain. We have most of the cards here, so it is actively disadvantageous to take unnecessary risks. Divide and conquer is a classic for a reason.
The idea that we need to preemptively stage an invasion of the Dauni because Ausculos might be able to put together a ramshackle coalition to raid some Epulian olive groves before our retribution falls on him like the wroth of Olympos is just genuinely odd.
It goes on the list of the other bizarre things a portion this Quest has convinced itself of for a few pages, before Cetash pours cold water on it or we move onto the next thing and it is quickly forgotten.
Straight up, in terms of basic strategy, if you want to subjugate the Dauni, an invasion has a large number of risks and costs versus the obvious strategy of fracturing the Dauni coalition over time through trade and befriending individual cities, with maybe a short war against whatever holdouts remain. We have most of the cards here, so it is actively disadvantageous to take unnecessary risks. Divide and conquer is a classic for a reason.
- Location
- Mists of Albion
So first you talk about how weak the Dauni are and how we could smash them, then you later talk about the 'risks'? Clear up what you mean please. Is it Bizzaro to consider him a threat at all? Or is invading him a risk?
Next 'Divide and Conquer'. Doesn't work, it relies on trade and political focus, when we're about to get our diplo actions reduced to two per slate and one extra, not only that it'd take bribes and more money, whilst getting no tribute or salt in return, and this is when we're in increasing risk of running a constant deficit. This also means that the next time we go into a major war we have to throw more money at the Dauni, thus costing us more, when we could just crush them, put someone more popular in charge and then gain true unfettered access to their economy so we can ensure harmony through trade and prosperity.
You're acting like the King would just let us divide his realm, that someone who was witty enough to crawl his way up to the throne with corpses and make everyone outside believe everything was fine in a Kingdom where he is disliked would just sit around and do nothing. Counter bribes, assassinations, hell, we already have examples of the Dauni Kings outright intervening in local economics when they tore down the salt works.
You basically expect the Dauni Monarchy to sit there for however long it takes, and for us to throw money and diplo actions at this when we have other things to do, and be happy with the lesser profit. All because a war would apparently be 'risky', when previously you mentioned how we could crush him.
Just overthrow the unpopular King and put someone willing to pay us a small amount of tribute and build the Salt Works in charge. A fifth of their population wants to be annexed, it shouldn't be that hard.
Last edited:
Shard
One and Many
- Location
- Malaysia
"I would rather not risk our lives on the field when victory may be won in other ways." So says Phanagoras.
- Location
- Mists of Albion
What victory? The claims of 'divide and conquer'? Which has more evidence against it than for it? More examples showing why it cousin work? That show that it would cost us money when conquest will get the job done and bring us tribute and salt?
If your heart is so weak, then I certainly will not miss your presence on the field. If you value your life so much over the prosperity of the city, of an end of the spectre of Dauni raids when our attention is away, then go! Keep your life.
It is obviously worth more to you than Eretria
So speaks Ajax son of Lalage of the Ekdromoi
Last edited:
- Location
- Vicksburg, MS
A. You're the one who brought the 'historical' label into the matter. At any rate, I don't much care if they wouldn't be so bad as launching faction-ending mass invasions just quite yet, I would still not like having their raids to deal with and they are a much more difficult entity to intimidate or retaliate against. I would much much rather focusing in on other areas. Also I would not count having the option for military reform as having done it, especially since what we'd be reforming to face is kind of up in the air- the vote for the Antipatrid faction made it sound that the style of the reform was a bit up in the air.
We've seen Oscan peoples overcoming an entire city in a night attack when it ran into civil strife purely on the initiative of an ambitious local chief, and when they're organized we have seen both the southern Etruscans and the militarily capable Kymaians absolutely trashed. Even the weaker Bruttii have been quite obnoxious in raiding their neighbors and carrying off captives and cattle after killing locals, and with the Samnites we see that the Dauni have invested substantial effort in fortifying their north and organizing themselves to oppose them. They would not do this if the Samnites were great neighbors to have.
B. Yes. The Dauni are organized into a more familiar concept of cities and settled land that is much easier to fight back against; the Samnites can retreat to the hills with their flocks and mess around while we run ourselves ragged until they find an opportune time and place to ambush us, and when we march away because we have to harvest our crops they can fall back down and take up the uncontested space. Regardless of however much the Dauni or their king hate us, they are easier to deal with because they adhere to a model that we are better equipped to engage with, and one that we have successfully fought against repeatedly in the past. If their king isn't willing to deal with us in such a scenario even should the Dauni be falling, then we may take that moment to fall upon them; I imagine that the southern cities would be none too enthused to be slaughtered by the Samnites, and it would be easier to strike when the Dauni and Samnites have weakened each other in such a way rather than dealing with the Dauni at full strength and then really hoping that the Samnites don't take advantage.
C. So they're not at all on our level and we can easily conquer them, but the reverse will be the case if we don't conquer them right now? They've got a lower population, no helpful immigration, no colonies being founded, and have intentionally limited their potential in respect to such areas as trade. The odds are very against them in the long-run. Cities like Garnae and Sipontion are only becoming more fortified. Furthermore, Eretria was far weaker than now when it overcame a combination of all the Iapygians in what was more of their heyday.
D. Again, their feelings don't matter as much as their capabilities, and the Dauni have much lesser capacity to harm Eretria than what the Samnites do. As such I would rather that the less capable enemy border me, and as I said I don't intend to stand by and do nothing if the Dauni are under attack. It's not as if we are particularly limited in options for expansion here, there are more sites with less effort necessary to establish ourselves at.
We haven't been able to capitalize on league trade because our limited harbor has been stuffed to the gills with ships for our existing trade, and what sole spot was available we were hoping to secure with the Enetoi to trade in precious amber. (By the way, we just need a trade post for that one as it's the Enetoi who have it, not a colony needing to develop it- the colony among the Enetoi would actually not have been trading amber for itself, that would have been our privilege via the Enetoi.) As it happens, we are just now finishing our harbor and per the choice will immediately get extra staple trade routes from some of our league members upon completion of it for ships that we are not presently able to handle. Presumably after the harbor is clear and we have a tremendous number of spots available for new ships we will be able to negotiate deals with our league members that would not make sense were we not able to physically accommodate such traffic. The Drakonid slate was offering up to four in this election (two by harbor construction and one by immigration if we're lucky, and one luxury one for amber in their foreign policy) and the harbor isn't even done yet. I can use my sense of precognition to tell you that the trade-oriented faction will probably not let us down for trade options when we have the harbor completed. Also I don't how you calculated with such precision that salt will be more profitable than all such trade routes put together.
My vote to build up the navy, increase ties with Athens and convince over to our side the independent cities in the central Adriatic was precisely to limit the threat of Korinth, and fortunately most people seemed to have listened. Regardless, that is a naval threat; should the leader of the Dauni decide to invade us, we would still have ground forces present with which to wipe the floor with them as us and our ancestors have for generations.
- Location
- Mists of Albion
So the Military Reforms don't count because you don't know what they are yet? Also you'd rather have an organised aggressive Kingdom on your Flank then the occasional raid? We've seen the Eteuscans who are historically the most unlucky people of the period get trashed, the Kymaians get overwhelmed due to great numbers of a migrating populace, poor luck and bad battlefield choice. And then hold out for years under siege. Note they had lesser numbered than we can call upon, with lesser cavalry and skirmishers, the Brutti also backed down when Thurii got serious.
Next the Dauni have not done any major movements or suffered any major raids for a great deal of time, there have been periods when they've been raided, but if you recall the stealing of the sheep by the Peuketti, you'll recall that the Samnites and those other Interior tribes are not the only raiders around.
In essence, you make a big deal of having Interior tribesman as neighbours for our Vassals, when we've had Interior Tribesmen, the Lucani, the brothers of the Samnites, on our Vassal borders for decades and have actively raided and stole from them, with no retaliation.
Overall, you've massively overblown this, equivocating occasional raids and disorganised opportunistic strikes with a Monarch who wants to march an army of thousands into our borders when he gets the first sign of weakness.
You're right, the Samnites don't act like the Dauni, they don't have long term political strategy, they don't have mustered armies that march whenever the King points them at a target.
And that's why the Samnites aren't as much of a threat at the moment unless we deliberately go after them.
The Samnites send out invading forces when they want to send excess people to settle, at least, that's what they did with Kymai. Otherwise it's singular chieftains with perhaps a thousand or so troops or small raiding bands. They don't wait until your weakest point to try and send their organised planned assault at you, they don't have war goals they've picked out long in advance. And that's why they're far less dangerous at the moment.
Especially as their next major migrations and expansions won't be for years and years yet.
Lastly, for someone who rants and raves about the might of the Samnites, to think that the Dauni could stop the scenario you mentioned previously, weaken them enough on their own to ensure an Eretria that went naval focussed (and you yourself proudly speak of how you advocate for such) could push them out of the Dauni Kingdom?
If the Samnites are the threat you claim, instead of the threat they actually are, then we'd lose that fight.
Actually no, you'll note I mention raids, and damage, I don't think the Dauni could conquer us outright, but I truly believe that they are a knife waiting for our back to become vulnerable. If they sense a moment of weakness they will cause massive damage, especially if we are engaged against another enemy in a major war, as I have repeatedly stressed.
Next you speak about us beating them so easily before that they shouldn't be an issue, note, we had Taras and other city states on our side often during that time, and Iapgyian tactics were a desperate attempt to mimic Greek heavy infinity with no experience, later they switched to cavalry and skirmished focuses which brought us to the closest we have ever come to defeat. We have adapted now, we hold the numbers, have experienced cavalry and skirmishers of our own, men on the inside, we could easily win, however, they can do massive damage to our land whilst we are focussed on another war.
You talk about fortified cities, but for someone who loves to talk about the dangers of raiders, you also blatantly ignore the fields and peoples who would be left outside of the city, our people would not continue to fight a separate war, when their homes were aflame. Which is a major risk.
We can crush them in a one on one war, but if our backs are turned, they will hurt us.
So you would have the enemy with less overall potential, but still very able to cause major harm if they get the opportunity, live beside you, instead of an enemy who is far less likely to attack in an organised manner anytime soon?
You would claim we can swoop in and save the Dauni if they were at war, yet they have been our enemy for a very long time, and nearly declared war on us recently, there is no way we would be allowed to march off to aid someone we have no positive history with in the manner you are suggesting, again, at best we could annex and conquer strips of their territory, which would destroy the purpose of having a barrier against the Samnites as you desire anyway, and also leave us with less tribute and a less secure hold on the salt sources.
And yes, we are not limited in expansion options overly, however, it must certainly be noted that the Dauni are a major opportunity to gather coin, via tribute and salt, that would greatly help in defending our expansion, especially as ever seen how much a fleet and larger professional army cost, and especially due to he fact that they will take an opportunity to hurt us majorly if and when they can, which increases in risk as we grow and come into contact with more regions that could explode into violence.
Overall, you have become utterly paranoid about the Samnites, who will not be a threat for a while, you are seeing a dagger that is held by someone miles down the road and allowing someone to hold a real knife to your back right now to try and delay meeting that man. You are refusing Eretria's symbolically important and economically great victories and resources.
Eretria can win this war, I have no doubt about that, the Samnites will not be a problem for a good while, I am sure about that, and denying us tribute and salt in some misguided attempt to defend ourselves with a barrier that wouldn't work? That would only feed the enemy you fear, or bring us into conflict with them anyway? Makes no sense. You are being paranoid about a future that has not occurred and circumstances that haven't, and won't arise for years and years. You're shooting yourself in the foot to make sure you never have to risk getting hurt in combat in several months time.
We still had at least one free slot still in our port, yet it was never filled despite that despite two new trade routes forming. The larger port will help, hell, I voted for it, but the fact of the matter is, Fleets are expensive, Korinthos has one almost twice our size and we need more money fast, tribute is fast money, not only that but Salt is the most lucrative business around for most of the Classical world. If we want to be able to field our whole strength, without getting tangled with Athens, which would lead to our destruction, trusting Athens or getting too close to them is a death sentence from Sparta of Athens itself, then in the mid to long term, the Dauni conquest would greatly aid us.
I'm not saying it's a cure all, but it gets rid of a legitimate problem, boosts our revenue mid to long term and doesn't have a real, immediate reason not to aside from fear of a war we can and will win in a one on one, and the very much currently overblown fear of the Samnites
Horologer
Incertae sedis
- Location
- a risen sea
"Just have Ausculos assassinated" is not a trivial task. If it was, he would already be dead. And if we get caught plotting his murder, there will be some long-lasting and unpleasant consequences for us.
Why risk all that? We can just wait for him to die. I doubt it'll take very long, since he's unpopular. And old, apparently.
Cetashwayo
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
- Location
- Across the Horizon
Did I say Ausculos was old anywhere...? I don't remember saying so.
Horologer
Incertae sedis
- Location
- a risen sea
You didn't notice and correct Skippy's one throwaway line immediately. By the Ninth Law of Quest Thread Derailment, Ausculos is now canonically an old man, regardless of any previous characterization.
- Location
- Luton Airport
The route I'd prefer for the Dauni is we take the two cities eager to come under our hegemony, and invest in the saltworks. I'd suspect a combination of the prospect of facing Epulia with his own forces suddenly diminished by a quarter, and us already with footholds on his side of the river would be rather daunting, in concert with his vassal cities being unlikely to be fanatical about going to war to ensure their fellow Dauni cities obey the will of the King at all times.
It's then just a case of letting the same process that occurred with the Messapii and Peuketti happen, with the "free" Dauni seeing how much more the vassal Dauni prosper under our hand.
It's then just a case of letting the same process that occurred with the Messapii and Peuketti happen, with the "free" Dauni seeing how much more the vassal Dauni prosper under our hand.
Shard
One and Many
- Location
- Malaysia
"Victory is achieved everywhere, not just on the fields of Ares. Eretrian lives ought not be thrown away wastefully, especially when superior alternatives exists. You should not call others cowards simply because they do not disagree with you, Ajax.
Besides which, the Dauni will be rebellious if we were to 'simply' crush them military, ready to rise up at an inopportune time."
- Location
- Space
I mean we crushed other tribes before and they are not so rebellious if you take into account the fact that we are treating them fairly and they have unpopular king ruling them.
- Location
- in the trash
Yes, actually. Organized polities can be negotiated with. A bunch of decentralized sheep herders won't be persuaded to stop raiding by any methods short of physical violence.
Last edited:
- Location
- Space
Yes, they are so uncivilised that they surely won't be interested in trade.
Bunch decentralized sheep herders need serious vendetta against you to mount an invasion.