Magna Graecia: Titanomachia (A City State Quest)

[Cavalier]

The Salt trade everyone is so eager for would require winning a war, itself a costly endeavour, and then would require infrastructure be put in place to produce the salt, also a costly endeavour, all for something like a monopoly Staple route. We can get a non-monopoly trade route simply by agreeing to peace, with none of those costs on our end, and spend the next xenoparakletor's term filling out the massive new harbor with new trade routes and an Amber luxury route. There is a substantial opportunity cost to seizing Salapia, and no guarantee that the Dauni are just going to be pushovers we can walk all over- and even if they were, again, campaigning is expensive. And while we don't know anything about the internal situation of the Dauni, it is rather more likely that after purging his enemies and redistributing their lands to the common people that Ausculos is in a stronger position and can command more obedience from the Dauni at large. A couple of years maintaining an army in sieges will eat away at our budget pretty rapidly while also leaving us unable to pursue further opportunities in the Adriatic or among the Italiotes or even diplomacy with Taras to build off rebuffing Athens.

If the Peace works out then we have the buffer zone we wanted - indeed two buffer zones, since the Peuketti are between us and the Dauni; as well as a trade route and the potential for further Hellenization among the Dauni via trade, and building some degree of trust to maintain the peace. If not we can go to war later, whatever. The insistence that the Dauni are a backstabbing lot of cowards who need to be subjugated because we can't otherwise trust them and will attack us at every turn to conquer territory - territory the Peuketti inhabit anyway, is kind of frankly more than a little concerning. They aren't insane, irrational, or spectacularly immoral and in so far as they have cause to wish Eretria harm it's a good cause. So maybe give peace a chance and wear away at their hatred of the people who butchered their Iapygian cousins long ago by letting them see that we are capable of treating them fairly and being magnanimous.

 

[Star]

The Salt trade everyone is so eager for would require winning a war, itself a costly endeavour, and then would require infrastructure be put in place to produce the salt, also a costly endeavour, all for something like a monopoly Staple route. We can get a non-monopoly trade route simply by agreeing to peace, with none of those costs on our end, and spend the next xenoparakletor's term filling out the massive new harbor with new trade routes and an Amber luxury route. There is a substantial opportunity cost to seizing Salapia, and no guarantee that the Dauni are just going to be pushovers we can walk all over- and even if they were, again, campaigning is expensive. And while we don't know anything about the internal situation of the Dauni, it is rather more likely that after purging his enemies and redistributing their lands to the common people that Ausculos is in a stronger position and can command more obedience from the Dauni at large. A couple of years maintaining an army in sieges will eat away at our budget pretty rapidly while also leaving us unable to pursue further opportunities in the Adriatic or among the Italiotes or even diplomacy with Taras to build off rebuffing Athens.

If the Peace works out then we have the buffer zone we wanted - indeed two buffer zones, since the Peuketti are between us and the Dauni; as well as a trade route and the potential for further Hellenization among the Dauni via trade, and building some degree of trust to maintain the peace. If not we can go to war later, whatever. The insistence that the Dauni are a backstabbing lot of cowards who need to be subjugated because we can't otherwise trust them and will attack us at every turn to conquer territory - territory the Peuketti inhabit anyway, is kind of frankly more than a little concerning. They aren't insane, irrational, or spectacularly immoral and in so far as they have cause to wish Eretria harm it's a good cause. So maybe give peace a chance and wear away at their hatred of the people who butchered their Iapygian cousins long ago by letting them see that we are capable of treating them fairly and being magnanimous.

Click to shrink...

Congratulations on posting 300 page. Yay!!!

 

[McLuvin]

The insistence that the Dauni are a backstabbing lot of cowards who need to be subjugated because we can't otherwise trust them and will attack us at every turn to conquer territory - territory the Peuketti inhabit anyway, is kind of frankly more than a little concerning. They aren't insane, irrational, or spectacularly immoral and in so far as they have cause to wish Eretria harm it's a good cause. So maybe give peace a chance and wear away at their hatred of the people who butchered their Iapygian cousins long ago by letting them see that we are capable of treating them fairly and being magnanimous

Click to shrink...

So, what your saying is, ignore the multiple examples of Iapgyian trickery and backstabbing in war and politics, we can obviously diploannex them, despite not having large amounts of trade or diplomatic contact, despite them having a cultural and political hatred of us backed by half a century of butchery and violence, despite them wanting the land we're sitting on. And they only count as a buffer state of they aren't a vassal, despite the Peuketii counting as such despite actually being a vassal.

When you sit down, and listen to what you're actually saying 'give peace a chance' it really takes away from your claim that 'we can go to war later' Because in the end, it boils down to you seeing peace as the objective, instead of the long term prosperity and security of the state.

Edit: The sad thing is, there are reasons to not go to war, and to take peace. The part about The Salterns taking a while to get us profit is good.

However, the idea that the Dauni actually want to be friends, they won't immediately betray us the first chance they get, that we can annex them without violence, that we can gain the benefits of the Salt trade from a nation which tore down its Salterns and killed those who objected just to deny us, is actually starting to actively aggravate me, to the point in starting to get less civil.

 

[Cetashwayo]

So, what your saying is, ignore the multiple examples of Iapgyian trickery and backstabbing in war and politics

Click to shrink...

I am getting pretty annoyed at this especially as the growing implication is that I have designed an ethnic stereotype where a single group is innately tricky or backstabby and cannot be trusted. The Peuketii are and have been loyal to you and if some Iapyages are not loyal it's because you're a colonial overlord, not because backstabbing is an inherent part of Iapygian society.

 

[Random Member]

Dareios: "Who cares about salt and the amount of drachma it will bring in? Glory in battle is its own reward!"

 

[HastyGaming]

Well, it explicitly closes the door to peace with the Dauni. There won't be an opportunity like this again.

Click to shrink...

What I mean is it doesn't commit us to taking any action.

Although it's quite odd tbh that it permanently locks out peace, that feels more like a game mechanic than a realistic representation of diplomacy which is what decisions here usually feel like. But then, I guess this is a game.

The Salt trade everyone is so eager for would require winning a war, itself a costly endeavour, and then would require infrastructure be put in place to produce the salt, also a costly endeavour, all for something like a monopoly Staple route. We can get a non-monopoly trade route simply by agreeing to peace, with none of those costs on our end, and spend the next xenoparakletor's term filling out the massive new harbor with new trade routes and an Amber luxury route. There is a substantial opportunity cost to seizing Salapia, and no guarantee that the Dauni are just going to be pushovers we can walk all over- and even if they were, again, campaigning is expensive. And while we don't know anything about the internal situation of the Dauni, it is rather more likely that after purging his enemies and redistributing their lands to the common people that Ausculos is in a stronger position and can command more obedience from the Dauni at large. A couple of years maintaining an army in sieges will eat away at our budget pretty rapidly while also leaving us unable to pursue further opportunities in the Adriatic or among the Italiotes or even diplomacy with Taras to build off rebuffing Athens.

Click to shrink...

This argument, that a war will be difficult, is perhaps the one I find the weakest. Yes, war is difficult especially a kind of war you're not experienced in. But how I wonder, do people expect to ever overcome that? Is a solution expected to simply appear?

Figuring out how to conduct war against enemies you're not experienced against is something you only gain through war. There will come a point where we have to engage in a war that requires a siege, there will come a point where we have to engage in a war that isn't on the flat terrain that a Phalanx requires, it's simply unavoidable. So let's begin that process now against an enemy that we benefit considerably from conquering and has shown us a persistent hatred.

Otherwise, this is simply the argument that will be used to avoid all wars forever... Until suddenly we can't and we find out that our army is unable to wage the wars we'll be forced into.

If the Peace works out then we have the buffer zone we wanted - indeed two buffer zones, since the Peuketti are between us and the Dauni; as well as a trade route and the potential for further Hellenization among the Dauni via trade, and building some degree of trust to maintain the peace. If not we can go to war later, whatever. The insistence that the Dauni are a backstabbing lot of cowards who need to be subjugated because we can't otherwise trust them and will attack us at every turn to conquer territory - territory the Peuketti inhabit anyway, is kind of frankly more than a little concerning. They aren't insane, irrational, or spectacularly immoral and in so far as they have cause to wish Eretria harm it's a good cause. So maybe give peace a chance and wear away at their hatred of the people who butchered their Iapygian cousins long ago by letting them see that we are capable of treating them fairly and being magnanimous.

Click to shrink...

In my opinion, as I laid out before, this is short term thinking that doesn't consider the benefits of subjugating the Dauni. While peace with the Dauni does grant us a buffer zone, it's unreliable and it can be removed by either of the Samnite factions that border them. Conversely, by making the Dauni our vassals we actively present a force sufficient to deter the Samnites from going to war with them, and by extension us, which encourages them to engage in diplomacy with us.

 

[Cetashwayo]

Although it's quite odd tbh that it permanently locks out peace, that feels more like a game mechanic than a realistic representation of diplomacy which is what decisions here usually feel like. But then, I guess this is a game.

Click to shrink...

No, it's not. You've made the explicit diplomatic decision to rebuff their advances. How is that unrealistic? Why should they bother dealing with you when you reject their advances? Any detente is ruined at least until Ausculos' death. How do you envision a peace going when they say 'stop plotting to kill us' and you say 'no thanks lol'?

I have warned players again and again and again that other factions have agency and that I try to see things from their perspective. If players have trouble understand that or thinking from the perspective of another power they will have a bad time in this quest.

None of this is to say you can't reject the peace, but the argument that it's just a return to status quo is not true. It's making near- permanent hostility the status quo.

 

[McLuvin]

I am getting pretty annoyed at this especially as the growing implication is that I have designed an ethnic stereotype where a single group is innately tricky or backstabby and cannot be trusted. The Peuketii are and have been loyal to you and if some Iapyages are not loyal it's because you're a colonial overlord, not because backstabbing is an inherent part of Iapygian society.

Click to shrink...

Slave conspiracy, traitorous guides that brought us closer to defeat than ever before, the multiple instances of the Dauni lords cutting each other's throats for their own gain that led to the current ruling dynasty, the betrayal of the peace treaty by the Messapi, after we paid them, the reputation of the current Dauni King, the willing Dauni defectors and their betrayal of their lord in the Salentine war, the fact the Messapi just so happened not to mention how they were getting so much cattle and the current discount Red Wedding.

Yeah, you wanna get annoyed at stereotypes? Stop creating them and have them be so prominent in Iapygian history.

 

[Star]

Dareios: "Who cares about salt and the amount of drachma it will bring in? Glory in battle is its own reward!"

Click to shrink...

Logic is undeniable, yet your reasoning... It beckons.

 

[Random Member]

Slave conspiracy, traitorous guides that brought us closer to defeat than ever before, the multiple instances of the Dauni lords cutting each other's throats for their own gain that led to the current ruling dynasty, the betrayal of the peace treaty by the Messapi, after we paid them, the reputation of the current Dauni King, the willing Dauni defectors and their betrayal of their lord in the Salentine war, the fact the Messapi just so happened not to mention how they were getting so much cattle and the current discount Red Wedding.

Yeah, you wanna get annoyed at stereotypes? Stop creating them and have them be so prominent in Iapygian history.

Click to shrink...

By that logic, what would our neighbors be saying about the Hellene?

 

[McLuvin]

By that logic, what would our neighbors be saying about the Hellene?

Click to shrink...

Hellene are butchers.

It's true and completely warranted and accurate.

We literally set the Sicilian Greeks on the local populace just to maintain the balance of power, leading to thousands being slaughtered or enslaved just a few turns and we applauded.

 

[HastyGaming]

No, it's not. You've made the explicit diplomatic decision to rebuff their advances. How is that unrealistic? Why should they bother dealing with you when you reject their advances? Any detente is ruined at least until Ausculos' death. How do you envision a peace going when they say 'stop plotting to kill us' and you say 'no thanks lol'?

I have warned players again and again and again that other factions have agency and that I try to see things from their perspective. If players have trouble understand that or thinking from the perspective of another power they will have a bad time in this quest.

None of this is to say you can't reject the peace, but the argument that it's just a return to status quo is not true. It's making near- permanent hostility the status quo.

Click to shrink...

That's fine and I absolutely get it, it's just a bit different from saying there would never be an opportunity like this again, which is the point I was making. If it's it can never happen while Ausculos is alive I get it, or it could never happen for the next few decades, also cool. It was just the certainty of your statement that I was referring to, that this opportunity wouldn't come again, ever.

Although even with all that said there are still 'events', I guess we never know just how the dice will cause things to go.

 

[Professor Vesca]

Hellene are butchers.

It's true and completely warranted and accurate

Click to shrink...

What about the Peuketii King? Harpos was completely true to his word when we allowed him to take control of Rhyps even when Rhyps was completely terrified of what he would do and literally begged us to keep them away from him. Even when we allowed Rhyps to go against our own better judgement.

We turned them down and allowed him to take control, and true to his word, he did not harm them and instead married their leaders into his household as a sign of good will.

We know that there have been uneasy rumblings from the Peuketii, who are also Iapygians. But those rumblings have never been against us, but merely the Peuketii settling and dealing with their own internal unrest. They have been perfectly loyal vassals. So have the Egnatians been perfectly loyal and supportive vassals to us. We dont see much of Dauni loyalty because we do not have much interaction with them that is not hostility in some way or another. But there are plenty of examples of Iapygians not being backstabbers.

 

[Cetashwayo]

Slave conspiracy, traitorous guides that brought us closer to defeat than ever before, the multiple instances of the Dauni lords cutting each other's throats for their own gain that led to the current ruling dynasty, the betrayal of the peace treaty by the Messapi, after we paid them the reputation of the current Dauni King, the willing Dauni defectors and their betrayal of their lord in the Salentine war, the fact the Messapi just so happened not to mention how they were getting so much cattle and the current discount Red Wedding.

Yeah, you wanna get annoyed at stereotypes? Stop creating them and have them be so prominent in Iapygian history.

Click to shrink...

So basically you've discovered that being a colonial overlord is hard and that it doesn't engender trust among your subjects except when you give them the leeway and relationship that they need to trust you, as the Peuketii do. Great. Everything else in terms of the instability and backstabbing is a function of the reality of these nascent states and has many analogies in the development of Hellene states and internal civil strife. None of this suggests any particular propensity for backstabbing beyond your temerity in cherrypicking these examples when Alkibiades exists, when Leontios exists, when many examples of such craft and cunning exist including Odysseos, literally idolized for his trickery.

I'm not fucking around. Stop stereotyping the Iapyges. I have zero tolerance for what is turning into soft bigotry.

 

[Deadly Snark]

@McLuvin fucks sake calm the hell down

 

[Cetashwayo]

My willingness to write this quest and allow people to roleplay and so on will only last for as long as people do not fall into this kind of behavior. As I have said in the past I do not have a tolerance for bigotry, misogyny, or genocide advocacy on the part of the questers. This has generally not been a problem, but if it becomes a problem I will tamp down on it and if it keeps being a problem I will just stop writing. I need to be able to depict the reality of the time and the actual things which happened rather than sugarcoating it without any players taking that depiction as social license to behave like they're from the period when they're OOC.

If I come off as aggressive I have to, because when I tell someone more politely to stop rather than stopping they decide it's a good idea to double down. Now, I am not asking.

 

[Cetashwayo]

That's fine and I absolutely get it, it's just a bit different from saying there would never be an opportunity like this again, which is the point I was making. If it's it can never happen while Ausculos is alive I get it, or it could never happen for the next few decades, also cool. It was just the certainty of your statement that I was referring to, that this opportunity wouldn't come again, ever.

Although even with all that said there are still 'events', I guess we never know just how the dice will cause things to go.

Click to shrink...

Sure, I was a bit too flippant. The point is that it's an opportunity for peace that won't happen again for a while unless there's a big change with the Dauni. If you don't trust the peace, of course, or find the path of pain more attractive, then that's your prerogative.

 

[Professor Vesca]

Honestly this is why I vote for giving the Hyrians their autonomy.

The thing is the Peuketii king only asked that he be made King of ALL the Peuketii and that he be permitted to see to his own internal affairs as he sees fit. As long as the King provides tribute in a timely fashion and levies when needed we leave them alone. He did kill his rivals, who turned to the Dauni as a way to try to retake power from Harpos. Not because they wanted to kick us out (though I am sure that would have been icing on the cake for them) but because they were pushed out of power where before they had enjoyed power within their own fiefdom.

The Messappii are not like this. Many view Daxtus as their last legitimate King, and see Artahias as opportunistically positioning himself to speak on behalf of them all and making himself the defacto choice for King. Yet he has not done much to earn that position beyond holding our spear above all the cities.

Thus when he abuses his position, the people revolt, and because we are the overlords, even though nominally that revolt is against us as well as Artahias is our puppet King in their eyes, they turn to us for protection.

Because they arent completely stupid and know that if they make us mad we are perfectly capable of coming down there and kicking butt.

So a central authority figure doesn't fit the Messapii the way it does the Peuketii. I would rather see Messapii hoplites marching in our phalanx then more light infantry and cavalry. The Peuketii and the Kleos Exoria fulfill that roll quite nicely, and I would rather help the Hyrians hellenize so that one day they might stop being vassals and become a part of our league as proper Hellenes with all the rights and privileges that entails.

With their own unique spin on what it means to be Greek after all, just as we put our spin on our interpretation of Greekness.

Honestly, by giving the Hyrians what they ask from us, they indebt themselves to us. We become to them as we are to the Peuketii. When you want something, you come to us, and if your logic and reasoning is sound, we, the kindly Patriarch, provide it. They come to us, they say they are suffering under the rule of Artahias and his supporters. We are the Father, when our child, adopted or otherwise, is suffering, it is our duty to relieve that suffering.

Just as the Aristoi has a duty to the commoner and to the serf and to the slave, and they to him, just as the citizen has a duty to the polis, and the polis a duty to the citizen, so do we have a duty to our hegemonia and to our vassals and subjects. They provide us with tribute, they and their horses march in our wars and fight in our phalanx. Now they come to us and say they are suffering. Let us do our duty as wise Fathers and relieve their burden.

So says I, Arkadios.

 

[McLuvin]

Sure, I was a bit too flippant. The point is that it's an opportunity for peace that won't happen again for a while unless there's a big change with the Dauni. If you don't trust the peace, of course, or find the path of pain more attractive, then that's your prerogative.

Click to shrink...

The peace relies on the Dauni King, who you described as treacherous even before he murdered our allies in his land at a peace talk feast.

So if it's a matter of trust, what proof do we have that this isn't another trick by him?

Can we ask for some insurance? Hostage maybe?

 

[Cetashwayo]

And let me clear now that I'm a little more calm; I don't have a problem about saying Ausculos is a backstabber. It's when you make it an argument about the Iapyges as a whole where I'm going to come down on you. Not even the in-game Eretrians believe this because they've had good relations with the Peuketii for a while; their problem is with Ausculos. Neither do they really interpret what's going on with the Messapii as backstabbing; why on earth would the Messapii provide them a sociological report on the changes to the peasantry? Even they wouldn't have been able to predict what would happen.

The peace relies on the Dauni King, who you described as treacherous even before he murdered our allies in his land at a peace talk feast.

So if it's a matter of trust, what proof do we have that this isn't another trick by him?

Can we ask for some insurance? Hostage maybe?

Click to shrink...

He's not going to give you a hostage because you can't give him a hostage. It privileges you over him because you're a democracy and he's a monarchy. The argument the Dauni would give is very basic; that they've laid out the path ahead, and don't see how they could possibly be more dangerous after having developed trading relationships with Eretria that would make a war less attractive. He's not even against rebuilding the saltpans as I told Cavalier.

It's up to you on whether you believe any of that.

 

[Cavalier]

While also airing personal peeves (and the way the Iapygians were being characterized was pretty unsettling to me too) I'd like to address the constant comments that people voting for Peace are doing so just because Peace is an end in itself and we're afraid of war and neglecting the opportunities that it opens.

Bitch, please.

I started the first war Eretria initiated with a User Motion. That was back when were hugely outnumbered, had no sworn allies, and could lose and have the polis effectively die in a single battle. I gambled on being able to shock the Peuketti with violence and beat them in detail. That was a far more dangerous war than any we've waged before or since and it paved the way for Eretria to be what it is now.

I'm against war when it's unnecessary or stupid, because it costs money and carries risks and closes out other opportunities. If Salapia and Herodia were revolting and calling for us to come in I'd be in favor of doing so. But we lost our chance and and I don't see a monopoly staple route being worth the time and effort required to beat the Dauni now. Not to mention having to give up a chance to pursue more lucrative opportunities in the Adriatic. That's it.

Let us remember that the Spartans held it wise not to fight too many wars, nor against the same opponent too often. It's good advice whatever the real source.

 

[McLuvin]

It's up to you on whether you believe any of that

Click to shrink...

After everything we've heard and seen of him?

I can't trust him.

Not a single part of me believes he suddenly woke up one morning and decided to make peace with us after killing the trade faction nobility.

He spent years manoeuvring his enemies into a position where he could slaughter them all in one great purge, he raised armies to attack us once before when he saw the opportunity.

I do not believe he is capable of peace without ulterior motives, and we are going to pay far more in Blood one day should we take his deal then if we went to war here and now.

 

[Cetashwayo]

After everything we've heard and seen of him?

I can't trust him.

Not a single part of me believes he suddenly woke up one morning and decided to make peace with us after killing the trade faction nobility.

He spent years manoeuvring his enemies into a position where he could slaughter them all in one great purge, he raised armies to attack us once before when he saw the opportunity.

I do not believe he is capable of peace without ulterior motives, and we are going to pay far more in Blood one day should we take his deal then if we went to war here and now.

Click to shrink...

Well, then that's your determination from the post, and it's something held by some other members of the ekklesia and is an acceptable position to take. What I had asked you to do was not to extend that characterization to the entire Iapyges.

 

[HastyGaming]

I'm against war when it's unnecessary or stupid, because it costs money and carries risks and closes out other opportunities. If Salapia and Herodia were revolting and calling for us to come in I'd be in favor of doing so. But we lost our chance and and I don't see a monopoly staple route being worth the time and effort required to beat the Dauni now. Not to mention having to give up a chance to pursue more lucrative opportunities in the Adriatic. That's it.

Click to shrink...

It's true, of course, that the saltpans alone wouldn't be enough to justify a war with the Dauni but there are plenty of short and long term benefits and strategic considerations that make it quite desirable as I laid out previously here...

I think people are looking at this is the wrong way. Especially the matter of the Samnites.

Yes, by choosing to make peace here rather than maintaining the status quo (because that's what Path of Pain is, not an immediate declaration of war) we gain a peaceful border in the short run, and we would ensure that we don't end up bordering the Samnites. However that's only in the short run.

The next time the Samnites choose to go to war they can go west again and attack the Ausconi or the Volsci or they can go East and attack the Dauni. Obviously, our preference is for them to continue to look to the west, so how do we encourage that?

If we maintain the status quo and at some point in the future we subjugate the Dauni we - in my view - greatly decrease the odds of the Samnites looking east. Because in that scenario if they choose to make war with the Dauni (our vassals) they would also be going to war with the Peuketii, the Messapii and Eretria; much better for them to continue to focus on the west. By conquering the Dauni we form a regional block that can act as a deterrent against anyone choosing to attack any of our vassals or us, thereby increasing the securing of Eretria and the Epulian League in Italia.

But if the Dauni remain independent then the Samnites -or anyone else - can freely make war on them and we can end up - once again - with an enemy at our borders.

Furthermore, by eventually conquering the Dauni we actively gain a vassal with who boarders the Samnites, and in this scenario, I view that as a positive. The Samnites are the faction in Italia we least want to fight, so by gaining a vassal who boarders them we can proactively approach them and open diplomatic channels while still having a vassal as a buffer. Additionally, as I said above, because attacking that vassal would result in the Samnites simultaneously ending up at war with four different factions it incentivises them to have diplomatic relations with us rather than going to war.

Now, this isn't just important in the short term to avoid a war with the Samnites it's also important as a longer-term strategic move to prevent anyone else from consolidating too much of central and western Italia. Especially Rome.

While Rome doesn't look particularly threatening right now historically over the next 40 years they conquer or diplomatically vassalise a great deal of the southern Etruscian cities, the Sabini, the Volsci, the Ausconi and nearly all the tribes of central Italy (and part of Campania but recent events might change that). And the war(s) that all but decides the fate of Italy are the wars against the Samnites. It's incredibly important that we are in a position to intervene at that point, if not before, and that's considerably easier to do (but not impossible otherwise) if there isn't an independent Dauni between us and the Samnites.

Because again, if the Dauni are independent and the Samnites do conquer them the balance of power shifts and the deterrent we can present is lessened it will be harder to gain a peaceful, positive, relationship with them.

So by maintaining the status quo and eventually conquering the Dauni we not only make the Eretrian homeland considerably more secure. We also increase our wealth through tribute and gaining the Salt Pans and the salt cannot be underestimated. And beyond that we also lessen the threat of the Dauni towards us because we're taking said tribute from them. And as if that wasn't enough we get the extra benefit of lessening the chance we end up at war with the Samnites and gain the opportunity to open diplomatic relations with them.

There are factions and tribes that it will be better to make peace with, to slowly pull into our sphere of influence via trade and patient diplomatic annexation. The Dauni are not, in my view, one of them.

Click to shrink...

So while the salt trade alone isn't enough to justify an eventual war there are plenty of other reasons that do.

 

[Godwinson]

I am appreciative of this most recent chunk of discussion for firming up my resolve on what path I want Eretria to take. Not that one.

[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].