There are a number of issues I have with this. Firstly regarding their 'dickery' with the Messapii and Peuketii, while it's true that they hold an advantage over Eretria in that area do remember they wouldn't be working against us there. They would be working against the established Nobles and Kings of said kingdoms who they do not have an advantage over.
Yes, but the nobles also have disadvantages of their own.
Firstly, they are a divided class (some Messapii and Peuketii would prefer independence for the Iapyges, or independence from our chosen vassal rulers like Harpos and Arthaias). Secondly, their power is concentrated in the politically unpopular cattle trade, creating a ready-made source of rebelliousness and impoverished people willing to revolt against the nobles. Thirdly,
OUR power to back the nobles is limited by the fact that, well, as a class they aren't entirely under our protection and the Eretrian
ekklesia has limited political will for bailing the Iapyges vassal nobles out of the fires created in large part by their own oppressive agricultural/pastoral policies.
While the Dauni has been an ongoing problem that has caused us issues it doesn't, therefore, follow that the best option to that is a short term solution by accepting a peace with them. While that does bring an end to the immediate problems it does nothing for the longer-term concerns of us having an untrustworthy neighbour on our border. Additionally, as I think we all accept King Auscelos will break this peace if it's ever in his advantage to do so, simply making peace here doesn't remove the threat of them putting a knife in our back the next time we have to send troops elsewhere.
Actually, Ausculos might very well prefer to keep such a peace, especially in his old age (how old is he anyway). This is because the Dauni, and the Iapyges as a whole, have learned that historically, while Eretria has been threatened several times, it generally found some way to rally and punish its enemies. Ausculos is not going to be able to say
with certainty that his plan to backstab Eretria while someone else hits us from another direction will succeed... and he knows that if the plan fails, his ruin is far more certain than if he'd never signed the treaty in the first place. Furthermore, this state of "cold war" is necessarily costly to the Dauni, in ways they might well prefer to put an end to. So Ausculos DOES have incentives to keep the peace.
But beyond that, I don't agree with your basic characterization of the Dauni as inherently a long term threat. By your argument, the very state of
having neighbors is a long term cost, because any neighbor we have might at some future time turn into an enemy. Except that we cannot avoid having neighbors; there will always be another one on the far side of the one we conquer because we don't trust them. And those new neighbors are unlikely to seem trustworthy to us either, because
exactly like the Dauni, by the time we make contact with them, they'll already be arming, fortifying, and intriguing to preserve their independence from our armies. Indeed, this is precisely our dynamic with the Dauni- unlike the Peuketii, whom we started attacking almost immediately, the Dauni had time to prepare against us, and as such were able to strike back, which in turn made us angry and has led to us distrusting them while also wanting to conquer them.
Frankly, it's an ugly sentiment, and one I am not immune to.
Moreover we also have to consider the opportunity costs of accepting peace, because they do exist and are substantial. The tribute might not on it's own be game-changing but when it's combined with the income from the salt it begins to look more respectable. Additionally we, and Garnae, Sipontion and Aufidenos would all benefit from gaining new lands. We are after all, out of public lands.
Yes, and as I already said, if we want to follow the Roman model of conquering our neighbors to grant more land to our freemen to make more soldiers to conquer the next ring of neighbors, going after the Dauni makes a lot of sense.
But a lot of us don't want to pursue that strategy, and instead pursue some combination of oceanic settler colonization, seagoing trade, and navy-focused thalassocracy.
Beyond that, there remains the threat of the Samnites. As an independent Kingdom the Dauni represent a very appealing target for future Samnite expansion in 15-20 years when they next need more lands. A Dauni which is a vassal of Eretria is considerably less appealing, to put it mildly. We want the Samnites to continue focusing on the east and by vassalising the Dauni we ensure that happens. And also by gaining a border with the Samnites (through a vassal) we open the opportunity for diplomatic contact and trade with them during a period where they will not be raiding and expanding, this is the best opportunity to do so and presents a significant strategic win be removing the Samnites as a threat.
Does not a similar argument apply to the Dauni? Can we not, through trade and diplomatic contact, remove them as a threat? They seem rather less fierce and expansionist than the Samnites, so surely they would be more susceptible to such an approach.
Furthermore, if the Samnites begin to conquer the Dauni, then from your perspective this is quite an opportunity! Eventually, the surviving remnants of the Dauni will be weakened enough to appeal to us for aid, and in the aftermath we are likely to be able to establish ourselves as the senior partner in such a relationship... At least, that's assuming the Dauni don't successfully defend themselves, which would leave us with the status quo.
Again, it bears remembering that the strategy of conquering your "untrustworthy enemies" in hopes of securing your frontier is
recursive. Doing it once will just make you a new "untrustworthy enemy" on the far side of the one you just conquered. The idea of conquering one's way to total security is a pipe dream.
Because we're good at it and it tends to make us rich in the long run?
