Counterargument: Alkibiades exists.
And Alkibiades will keep existing, whether we accept the treaty or not. He's just as, if not even more likely to drag us into the war if we refuse the treaty.

Seriously, let's not try to understand what Alkibiades' motives or plans are here. That way lies madness and headaches.
 
I did not know that the men of Eretria were cowards who hid behind precise wording. To those who argue to accept the Treaty if you truly believe it is for the good of Eretria, then at the very least you should be manly about it and be open about the facts as you stand atop your raised platforms.

Many in Eretria considers the treaty a betrayal of Taras. Many in Taras will consider it a Betrayal. Linos and Obander both considers it a betrayal of Taras. And from what Obander has relayed to us about Athens's interest in us, I am sure that their leaders would also consider it as such. If all involved agree that it would be so, then at least be honest about it.

If your position is that fair Eretria benefits more from the friendship of Athens than the friendship of Taras, and as such it is worthwhile to betray Taras for Athen, than state as much. But cease your attempt to coat your actions as just when all know it is not.
 
Honestly, I can understand why Taras feel the way it does but I also do believe they are more then a little bit hypocrital here.

They have an established Proxenos in Sparta, which doesn't seem a big matter in and off itself until you stop to consider how isolationalist Sparta was. Such is the strenght of Spartan isolationism that I wouldn't be surprised if the states outside the Peloponesian League who have an embassy there could be counted on one hand, despite their political and military importance.

Taras is one of those states and that means that, while they aren't Sparta's allies, they still have an unusually friendly and close relationship with them. A relationship that is formalised through concrete diplomatic institutions.

In a nutshell this is pretty much what we would have with Athens if we conclude the treaty so they really shouldn't complay on this one.

Moreover, I would say we shouldn't exagerate exactly how hostile Taras would be. It took the treaty with the Messapii to give the war party the means to barely manage to get a mandate for war with Eretria and power ration between the two cities was far kinder to Taras at the time then now.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I can understand why Taras feel the way it does but I also do believe they are more then a little bit hypocrital here.

They have an established Proxenos in Sparta, which doesn't seem a big matter in and off itself until you stop to consider how isolationalist Sparta was. Such is the strenght of Spartan isolationism that I wouldn't be surprised if the states outside the Peloponesian League who have an embassy there could be counted on one hand, despite their political and military importance.

Taras is one of those states and that means that, while they aren't Sparta's allies, they still have an unusually friendly and close relationship with them. A relationship that is formalised through concrete diplomatic institutions.

In a nutshell this is pretty much what we would have with Athens if we conclude the treaty so they really shouldn't complay on this one.

Moreover, I would say we shouldn't exagerate exactly how hostile Taras would be. It took the treaty with the Messapii to give the war party the means to barely manage to get a mandate for war with Eretria and power ration between the two cities was far kinder to Taras at the time then now.
Sparta isnt a power who could move its forces to tip the balance of power in Italia in Taras's favor. So there is a bit of a qualitative difference. Like lets not forget that there is a reason why we are also afraid of Athens despite having friendly relationships with them while many actually prefer Sparta despite them treating us with disdain.

And for all people spit on the Dauni leadership for being untrustworthy due to past actions on their parts, if we take this treaty, the Tarentines would have much the same to say about Eretria due to historical precedent. So you will excuse me for finding your accusation of Taras being hypocrites to not be worth much weight when you are using it to argue for our own hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
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.
You're drifting from your original point here; which was that by accepting peace with the Dauni we can stop worrying about them jumping us when we send troops elsewhere. That's not the case, it might lessen the chance of that happening but it certainly doesn't remove it. And even setting aside the emotional aspect, it's in the Dauni's interest for Eretria to be weakened and so if the opportunity arises, of course, Ausculos will take it. It's just good decision making. This could be anything from outright attacking when Eretria next sends its troops abroad, especially if that happens to be oversees, to bribing the Samnites to attack the Peuketii (and by extension us) instead of them, to letting a hostile force move through Dauni territory to attack Eretria. Historically the Gauls that are settling/invading the Po Valley didn't go much further south than Ancona (Ankon...) but Ankon is ours here so we can't ignore the possible threat that can come from the north that the Dauni could facilitate.

As for Ausculos potentially preferring peace. I'm sure to an extent he does, any capable leader knows you can't be at war with all your neighbours at once. If he can maintain the peace with Eretria so that he can focus on the Samnites on his other borders that's a win for him. Until it's suddenly not... which is the point.
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.
No, thats not my point at all. And the neighbours of the Dauni are very much not exactly like the Dauni.

The Dauni are a long term threat to us because of the history we have with them, and more importantly because of their strategic position. The Dauni don't independently present a threat to us, by which I mean the armies of the Dauni randomly marching into Eretria doesn't represent a significant threat. A considerable annoyance yes, but not a considerable threat. The threat that they represent is when they choose to act in conjunction with another force or event which they are likely to eventually do so because of their strategic position.

All societies in this era are eventually forced to make war, for wealth, for glory, but most importantly for land and the Dauni are in a very unfavourable situation for that. To the west, they have the Samnite confederation who are considerably stronger than they are. But worse than that they reside in mountainous terrain where they have a massive advantage and even if the Dauni emerge victorious it's not great land to take. To their north they have the Frentani, also Samnites but not part of the confederation, and they don't provide an appealing target either. While they do have some good land along the coast it's not much and the Frentani have a better strategic position than the Dauni. To their north they have smaller, weaker factions and to the west they have their relatives who - even though they're not part of the confederation - they remain closely connected with. This means that even if the Dauni successfully catch the Frentani while they're at war to the north they're likely to be able to put an end to it quickly enough and turn south that the Dauni won't get much of an advantage.

And then there's us. We and the Peuketii have all the land they want, and historically there's a great enough dislike to justify a war if the circumstances arise.

Now, if we compare the situation of the Dauni to the neighbours we would gain if they became vassals. The Samnite Confederation have no historic reason to dislike us and they have a solid, if largely decentralised to the tribal level, Confederation making them a particularly appealing target to approach diplomatically. Additionally, even by forming strong relations with us and thereby closing off an expansion to the east they have just conducted a massive migratory conquest and so won't need to do so again for several decades. And when they need to, there are several smaller, weaker factions on the west that they can look to instead of Dauni, instead of us.

The Frentani, on the other hand, have space to expand to their north and with the Dauni removed as a threat to their south would be freed to act. Combined with the opening of trade with them they would have no reason to be poor neighbours.

So it isn't at all the case - as you implied - that my argument is that simply having neighbours is a threat and it's very clear - to me at least - that having the Dauni as a vassal and gaining the Samnite tribes as neighbours is a considerably better strategic position for Eretria than having an independent and hostile, in intent if not action, Dauni at our border.
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.
That's quite clearly the feeling of the thread and it's mine as well. But you're misrepresenting, or maybe just mistaking, the desire to conquer the Dauni for very valid strategic reasons to stabilise out homeland so we can more easily do exactly that with a desire to conquer the Dauni and then everyone else.

It's incredibly obvious that the overwhelming, but not unanimous, desires of the thread is not to conquer Italia but that means that an ongoing strategic priority of Eretria is to ensure no one else can do so. By conquering the Dauni, for the reasons I laid out above, we can secure our position in Italia and use the power that comes with it to block any other faction that seeks to unite Italia. Because of the position the Samnites have, and because of how we know things played out historically with Rome, it's therefore imperative that we open positive diplomatic relations with the Samnites and move to ensure they focus their attentions on the west. Also by doing so now while they have no desire to expand and before Rome becomes the threat we know it can we can lay the foundations necessary to block Rome in the future.

My desire to subjugate is not now nor has it ever been part of a greater desire to conquer all Italia. It's precisely because I want Eretria to be able to focus on trade and Adriatic colonisation that I think it's necessary to do.
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.
In the short term yes because it would be an easier victory. But it would mean that we and the Samnites would be competing over the same land and so our initial meeting would be as rivals, as enemies and so while it would allow us to secure a chunk of the Dauni lands it wouldn't provide us with the friendly relations with the Samnites that we could gain otherwise.

In that situation we would be doing exactly what you're saying, conquering one untrustworthy neighbour and gaining another one. But if we do it before the Samnites go to war with the Dauni again we have the chance to gain a trustworthy neighbour.

Timing matters.
 
Why i'm so supportive of fighting the Dauni in the first place is due to our already established relationship with then. Even if we conquer the Dauni and have some new barbaroi neighbours who look at us in suspicion due to our actions with the Dauni we can still repair that by then and only then playing the part of the benelovent and kind hellenic neighbour. We do not need to get into conflict with the Frentani or Samnites, we do however need to with the Dauni.
...You don't actually know who the Samnites are, do you? If you knew who they were, and the OTL historical interactions they had with Rome, which was no more foreign to them than the Eretrians would be... You wouldn't assume that having a border with them is a good way to get a fresh start and build a positive relationship.

Secondly, I have repeatedly pointed out that when you conquer someone's neighbor, they will automatically view you as a threat. You cannot reassure them by being kind because they have already seen you conquer and subjugate someone. You are still holding that large bloody axe, as it were.

The same amount of positive effort, directed towards the Dauni themselves, would achieve better results simply because they have already decided it is to their advantage to seek peace with us. The Samnites have not made any such decision and convincing them of the idea is likely to be costly.

As I see it, here are out options. We accept the peace deal and end up going to war with them later anyway. Because as I've said before now, where I go into more detail about why I believe this is the case. War with them is inevitable, it's as sure of a thing as water being wet.
Bluntly, you are wrong to assert that war with the Dauni is inevitable, or that the Dauni will automatically continue provoking and harassing us even after swearing not to.

It is getting deeply tiresome to have you repeat this over and over, like a broken record. I have already discussed why it's not necessarily true, and you have not addressed my arguments except to say that you think war is inevitable and the Dauni are treacherous.

A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Please, either show evidence that you're open to actual discussion that doesn't fall back into circular reasoning*, or change the subject.
____________________

*(As in, "war with the Dauni is inevitable because they will inevitably break the treaty and harass us because war with the Dauni is inevitable" is circular logic)

And what is the fun or even purpose of following an already set step of guidelines of an already historicaly established greek state? Why not try for something different, a mix of different ideologies and cultural aspects, diferent goverment styles and values? Because if we are only imitating something that already exists we might as well just pick up a history book and read about something that has already happend.
We're already doing that.

The point is, if Athens can succeed through mercantile trading, then that's a very good argument that we can too. Your increasing signs of obsession with conquering the Dauni, as if Eretria somehow could not succeed as a city-state without doing so, does not change this. I see no relevant evidence for your contention that "conquering the Dauni is a must."

Actually just to add here that option path of pain only says that we will continue to receive options related to war, not go to war which means that war won't start until we want it.

Also there is really small chance that Dauni will attack us if we aren't busy somewhere else, because as they themselves said if we attack them they have forts and even them they will lose, so attacking us means loss for them.
The Dauni may not attack but they will harass, for example by stirring up dissent among the Peuketii and Messapii. Their continued hostility is not a "free" option; it has costs of its own, costs we cannot eliminate without a war that is itself very costly.

So this really is more how you want to achieve our goals (salt mines) and weather you believe that Dauni King will keep his word and not attack us if we are busy in another war.
If Ausculos attacks us, or even harasses us, then under this treaty we'll have grounds to attack him. @Cetashwayo isn't going to say "aha, now the Dauni are attacking you and you're fucked because you promised away your war options!" That's not even slightly realistic and his QMing isn't unrealistic that way.

To that whole focusing on other things first part I'd like to repeat what I've said a few posts ago.

Focusing on the Adriatic is a good idea and something I defiently support but first let us consolidate our growth and power in the mainland first, make neighbours such as the Dauni can't be a problem at all in the future by conquering them and fully bring the Peuketii and Messapi to heel. THEN focus on colonization and expansion in the Ionian and Adriatic. I mean shit people, don't you know that you NEVER leave a job half finished?
There will ALWAYS be another potentially hostile neighbor. The Samnites are just as hostile and warlike a people to outsiders as the Dauni, if not more so. The job will NEVER be "finished," because there is no such thing as "conquer all your neighbors who don't trust you and fear you, until you only have neighbors who like you and trust you."

That is not a thing. It cannot happen for reasons that should be very obvious once you stop thinking of neighboring factions as brainless NPCs from an RPG and start thinking of them as collections of living humans.

If we're not watching our backs worrying about the Dauni (after they signed a treaty and opened trade relations with us no less!), we'll be watching our backs worrying about the Samnites, who are stronger and will not have signed such a treaty.

Your plan simply cannot work because every time we conquer another polity, we'll create a new wary and watchful neighbor on the far side of it. You cannot conquer your way to peaceful borders, any more than the Romans ever could.

The only way to have peace with your neighbors is to act peacefully. Have defenses, yes, but act peacefully. Continued conquest and hostility will not lead to further neighbors deciding to be peaceful rather than fearing you and seeking to disrupt any future ambitions of conquest.

This seems like wishful thinking - based on their actions to date, what evidence do you have that the Dauni are treating in good faith? I really do not see any of the offers we've gotten this turn that way.
1) It is to their advantage to have some kind of guarantee that Eretria will not try to conquer them. It would thus benefit them to treat with us in good faith.

2) There is no feasible way that they can safely deal with us in bad faith here. If they swear not to interfere with, harass, or attack us, then do any of those things, we will land on them like a ton of bricks.

When someone has good reasons to act in good faith, and cannot safely act in bad faith, and isn't stupid or a pathological liar, they usually act in good faith.

I've outlined the reasons I'm skeptical of their motives, and why a treaty would benefit them more than it benefits us. I've seen a lot of talk about "opportunity cost" - there's, what, the expanded harbor that will reap economic benefit, compared to access to Lake Salapia and expanding the tribute base?
The up-front costs of the war are very large, and we may have ongoing expenses associated with policing the Dauni and keeping whatever vassals we set up loyal and protected.
 
My thought on Alchy is that if we take the treaty his time is better spent fucking up someone ELSE(is busy Athenian, got lots of things to fuck). Whereas if we refuse he's going to be more motivated to take us down a peg rather than move to the next target.
 
Sparta isnt a power who could move its forces to tip the balance of power in Italia in Taras's favor. So there is a bit of a qualitative difference. Like lets not forget that there is a reason why we are also afraid of Athens despite having friendly relationships with them while many actually prefer Sparta despite them treating us with disdain.
Considering the role they played in making the Sicilian Expedition the disaster it turned out to be in OTL I am inclined to disagree. Moreover, they only need peace for their allies to be able to ferry them accross the Adriatic if they so desire.

Honestly, I would say the preference some have for Sparta, both IC and OOC, strict me as a tad illogical. Athens like us, is a democracy like us, actually like us, share with us one of our patron deity as well as more then a few political values, cultural ties and outlook on things. Her commerce has filled our coffers and her military actions where what made the Adriatic empire possible in the first place.

Sparta disdain us, despise democracies, has significant ties with both Syracuse and Corinth and socially and culturally is probably as far from Eretria another hellene polis can socially and culturally.

I tend to ascribe the preference some have for Sparta to a mix of lingering resentment from the first due to Athens not having raised the siege of Old Eretria before the quest began (tough I would argue that the Spartan answer ''Oh yeah, we will be there helping you push back the persians in just just a sec, we only to wait until the end of this festival of ours. We are totally not taking our time to see who will win! Promess!'' to the call for aid sent to them does have its share of responsability too) and the witewashing Sparta tend to often get in pop culture (yes, Athens does benefit from some too from time to time but not nearly as much as Sparta).

I just hope those things won't make us take a very bad decision.
 
Last edited:
Considering the role they played in making the Sicilian Expedition the disaster it turned out to be in OTL I am inclined to disagree. Moreover, they only need peace for their allies to be able to ferry them accross the Adriatic if they so desire.

Honestly, I would say the preference some have for Sparta, both IC and OOC, strict me as a tad illogical. Athens like us, is a democracy like us, actually like us, share with us one of our patron deity as well as more then a few political values, cultural ties and outlook on things. Her commerce has filled our coffers and her military actions where what made the Adriatic empire possible in the first place.

Sparta disdain us, despise democracies, has significant ties with both Syracuse and Corinth and socially and culturally is probably as far from Eretria another hellene polis can socially and culturally.

I tend to ascribe the preference some have for Sparta to a mix of lingering resentment from the first due to Athens not having raised the siege of Old Eretria before the quest began (tough I would argue that the Spartan answer ''Oh yeah, we will be there helping you push back the persians in just just a sec, we only to wait until the end of this festival of ours. We are totally not taking our time to see who will win! Promess!'' to the call for aid sent to them does have its share of responsability too) and the witewashing Sparta tend to often get in pop culture (yes, Athens does benefit from some too from time to time but not nearly as much as Sparta).
The preference to Sparta is purely geopolitical. Most dont give a shit that Athens is a Democracy and the Sparta is a horrifically warped Slave State. Both are Hegemons who would gladly enslaved and sack cities that get on their bad side, regardless of political ideology or cultural ties. The difference is simply which is more able to do the same to us.

Athens has the fleets to potentially come over and take Italia over, and has the experience and the fleets for it. And due to its expansion of the Athenian Empire in the current timeline clearly has the power and the intent to do something like that. This can be used to argue for sucking up to Athens to avoid getting sacked, or used to argue against empowering Athens too much so that when war finishes with an Athenian victory they might turn their sight on us and make us bent the knee.

Sparta is a landbound power focused on keeping its Helots in check, whose disdain of the fleet in favor of its Hoplites and reliance on potentially unreliable allies for ships means that they are not in a great position to come over and fuck over the region. This can be used to argue that its foolish to help them because if we help them Athens will sack us and they cant send help. Or to argue that in a Post-War situation, a victorious Sparta has less ability to subjugate us than a victorious Athens.
 
Last edited:
It is getting deeply tiresome to have you repeat this over and over, like a broken record. I have already discussed why it's not necessarily true, and you have not addressed my arguments except to say that you think war is inevitable and the Dauni are treacherous.

A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Please, either show evidence that you're open to actual discussion that doesn't fall back into circular reasoning*, or change the subject.

If that's truly all you got from my discussion on this topic with you I'd advise you to give it another read, I've laid out enough reasons for my stance on this matter that 90% of my posts on SV in the last two days have been about this Dauni thing.

And I wouldn't exactly say that my continued attempt to change the mind of people here from following through with something that in my opinion I see as one of the biggest mistakes we can make at this time. Just because I don't agree with the arguments you've made doesnt mean I'm not open to discussing this subejct I mean shit dude, I have multiple posts in the last 2-4 pages alone on the Dauni issue just because I'm actualy taking my time to discuss these things with people.

So I would thank you for not trying to mischaracterize me trying to change peoples minds on something I see as a big mistake as something obsessive. Which is a weird conclusion to come to in the first place.
 
Last edited:
A victorious Athens isn't going to look towards little Eretria, its eyes will be on the far greater price to the east.
 
A victorious Athens isn't going to look towards little Eretria, its eyes will be on the far greater price to the east.
Thats not something you can claim with any confidence. Athens build its Empire and League on the idea that it will fight the Persians, and then it used that excuse to subjugate whole regions of Hellas and forced rich polis to either bend the knee or be sacked.

The truth of the matter is that for a lot of Greek Cities in this generation, the threat of Persia is nothing more than a distant boogeyman being waved around by Athens to justify its own Imperialism, while the threat of Athenian Tyranny is a very real and present thing. And the Cities of Italia and Sicily are enormously rich and as tributaries would probably double or triple Athen's income by themselves.
 
[X] [Hyria] Allow Artahias to subjugate Hyria [+10,900 freemen providing tribute and levies, Hyrian revolt is crushed and Artahias becomes an Eretrian vassal just as the Peuketii].
[X] [Dauni] The Path of Pain [Eretria will continue to recieve options relating to war against the Dauni, there will be no easing of hostilities].
[X] [Athenai] Refuse the Treaty [Taras will be extremely grateful, Athenai will be unhappy, Eretrian grain trade may be superseded in favor of the Bosporos].
 
The preference to Sparta is purely geopolitical. Most dont give a shit that Athens is a Democracy and the Sparta is a horrifically warped Slave State. Both are Hegemons who would gladly enslaved and sack cities that get on their bad side, regardless of political ideology or cultural ties. The difference is simply which is more able to do the same to us.

Athens has the fleets to potentially come over and take Italia over, and has the experience and the fleets for it. And due to its expansion of the Athenian Empire in the current timeline clearly has the power and the intent to do something like that.

Sparta is a landbound power focused on keeping its Helots in check, whose disdain of the fleet in favor of its Hoplites and reliance on potentially unreliable allies for ships means that they are not in a great position to come over and fuck over the region.
Well, considering the fact that many of my arguments over the quest have often boiled down to ''yes, this would be the nice and idealistic thing to do but lets be realistic here'' I am honestly not sure that's true.

I would argue the whole Phyrgian satrap son thing tend to indicate that a victorious Athens is far more likely to go for another round with the Persians. Especially if they don't have any specific reasons to go east.

Moreover, there is simply no scenario where Sparta is victorious without developing a fleet of some kind, or somehow arange for a massive strenghtening of the Corinthians one.

The first eventuality might very well see them take a new interest in areas to whom they had never take interest and the second might prove catastrophic for obvious reasons.

I rather Athens, who is generally friendly to us despite everything else that can be said, win the war then Sparta, the ally of our ennemies.

Basically they're will probably always gonna be some kind of big naval hegemon among the polis, and until we can realistically have a shot at the status Athens is probably the best possible one from that POV.

Thats not something you can claim with any confidence. Athens build its Empire and League on the idea that it will fight the Persians, and then it used that excuse to subjugate whole regions of Hellas and forced rich polis to either bend the knee or be sacked.
The only massive large scale conquest Athens made beyond the cities who where part of the league since the begining or almost was Boitia, and that proved transient since a revolt drove them out not too long after. Athens had a rivalry with Thebes going back eons so I definitely wouldn't deem their actions there as any indications of design they might have on Italy and Sicily.
 
Last edited:
If that's truly all you got from my discussion on this topic with you I'd advise you to give it another read, I've laid out enough reasons for my stance on this matter that 90% of my posts on SV in the last two days have been about this Dauni thing.
Except that all your reasons loop back to one of the same few things you keep repeating:

1) War with the Dauni is inevitable.
2) We can never be safe as long as the Dauni are independent.
3) If we conquer the Dauni, the Italic tribes on the other side of the Dauni will surely be well-behaved and non-threatening neighbors.

(3) is laughable given the history of the Samnites. (1) and (2) are, as of this time, unsupported assertions on your part.

So tell me, do you have a fourth reason that isn't a copy of one of the first three?
 
Well, considering the fact that many of my arguments over the quest have often boiled down to ''yes, this would be the nice and idealistic thing to do but lets be realistic here'' I am honestly not sure that's true.

I would argue the whole Phyrgian satrap son thing tend to indicate that a victorious Athens is far more likely to go for another round with the Persians. Especially if they don't have any specific reasons to go east.

Moreover, there is simply no scenario where Sparta is victorious without developing a fleet of some kind, or somehow arange for a massive strenghtening of the Corinthians one.

The first eventuality might very well see them take a new interest in areas to whom they had never take interest and the second might prove catastrophic for obvious reasons.

Basically they're will probably always gonna be some kind of big naval hegemon among the polis, and until we can realistically have a shot at the status Athens is probably the best possible one from that POV.
Sparta isnt a traditionally naval power if the First possbility did happen, not only would their fleet be weak, but at the same time their current allies wouldnt be happy. Corinth for one would not take the rise of a Spartan fleet which would challenge theirs lying down.

And as for the second eventuality, you assume that the Spartans would trust Corinth with that kind of power. When we know that they dont. Corinth as an ally against Athens is great. Corinth as Naval Hegemon is simply another Athens who will challenge their hegemony.

Sparta's current Anti-Athens alliance is not build on anything solid. Its united solely by shared disdain for Athens and to counter its expansion. In OTL it fell apart the moment Athens lost, with Sparta delibrately keeping Athens alive to keep it as a counter to Corinth and Thebes, while Corinth and Thebes lead the rebellions that allowed Athens to rise again and deal crippling blows to Sparta.

An Athenian Empire united under Athens is a mighty Titan. A True centralized Empire with Athens controling the purse and the sword of the state. A Spartan Hegemony is a patchwork alliance, where their lack of expendable manpower, the fear of the Helots and lack of native naval traditions is hampered by the powerful Polis around them and their lack of ability to sack cities at will like Athens can.
The only massive large scale conquest Athens made beyond the cities who where part of the league since the begining or almost was Boitia, and that proved transient since a revolt drove them out not too long after. Athens had a rivalry with Thebes going back eons so I definitely wouldn't deem their actions there as any indications of design they might have on Italy and Sicily.
Perhaps, and ultimately my vote on the treaty is a more IC thing than not. I am simply stating that from the perspective of a Greek Polis living in the era Athens rise and its fleets is something that is noticeable, very real and terrifying. Whether they would actually do so isnt what geopolitics care, its that they could and have demonstrated that they do have ambitious to be the Greek Hegemon.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to bother going through the rest of your post to RagnvarOdinson and responding to it as I've responded to every one of them in my own reply to you just above it here. Do feel free to let me know where you think Im wrong.

But this I feel the need to reply to.
...You don't actually know who the Samnites are, do you? If you knew who they were, and the OTL historical interactions they had with Rome, which was no more foreign to them than the Eretrians would be... You wouldn't assume that having a border with them is a good way to get a fresh start and build a positive relationship.
First off, the Samnite's spent most of the century at war with Rome because Rome started a war with them, then another, and finally another. They did this for many reasons, but in large part they did it because Rome by that point had actively decided to engage in conquest throughout all Italia.

Yes, the Samnites are fierce warriors. They are not, as you're implying, an utterly unreasonable people who simply seek war above all else who live only to make war on their neighbours. They have a distinct culture, politics and they actively trade with others. Moreover, they have engaged in alliances and peaceful relations with their neighbours previously and historically (in the future for us) even traded extensively with and allied with Greek city-states in Italia.
 
Last edited:
[x] [Athenai] Refuse the Treaty [Taras will be extremely grateful, Athenai will be unhappy, Eretrian grain trade may be superseded in favor of the Bosporos].

I'm not sure what the current vote tally looks like, and I don't have much time right now, but just in case accepting the treaty has gained supporters since I last checked, allow me to draw your attention to the following: According to the vote option, if we refuse the treaty "Taras will be extremely grateful".

This is no small thing. Gaining Taras as a reliable long-term ally would be far preferable to the kind of loose alliance we can hope for with Athens. We have wisely pursued a policy of putting Italian matters first so far, and I remain convinced that this is the correct decision.
 
[x] [Athenai] Refuse the Treaty [Taras will be extremely grateful, Athenai will be unhappy, Eretrian grain trade may be superseded in favor of the Bosporos].

I'm not sure what the current vote tally looks like, and I don't have much time right now, but just in case accepting the treaty has gained supporters since I last checked, allow me to draw your attention to the following: According to the vote option, if we refuse the treaty "Taras will be extremely grateful".

This is no small thing. Gaining Taras as a reliable long-term ally would be far preferable to the kind of loose alliance we can hope for with Athens. We have wisely pursued a policy of putting Italian matters first so far, and I remain convinced that this is the correct decision.

Taras won't provide us with a huge boost in income or a naval shield against Corinth. An alliance with Taras is only useful to avoid hostility from Taras or if we're invaded by another major power. Athens or Carthage are the only powers that could be such a threat, and Carthage has never evidenced any interest in expanding beyond Sicily. And we already have a durable peace with Taras so closer alignment does not buy us more peace.

Furthermore, Taras has started aligning itself with Rhegion. We could not avoid being seen as aligning with them both if we ally with Taras. That would be against the interests of our allies in Thurii, Krotone, and the Sikeliote League. We would trade a profitable distance from Hellene affairs for having to unravel the incoherence of our strategic alignments in Italia. Whether you want it or not we would be entangled in the reaction and counter-reaction of the Italiote powers in response to the Rhegion-Tarantine axis. That is not an advantage to Eretria, and it would almost certainly require an Antipatrid xenoparakletor and thus forgoing the development of the Adriatic even longer.

So then what is the value of Tarantine gratitude in such a case?
 
Last edited:
At the moment Refusing the treaty, Path of Peace and subjugating Hyria are winning. Of these Hyria is the closest.
 
[x] [Athenai] Refuse the Treaty [Taras will be extremely grateful, Athenai will be unhappy, Eretrian grain trade may be superseded in favor of the Bosporos].

I'm not sure what the current vote tally looks like, and I don't have much time right now, but just in case accepting the treaty has gained supporters since I last checked, allow me to draw your attention to the following: According to the vote option, if we refuse the treaty "Taras will be extremely grateful".

This is no small thing. Gaining Taras as a reliable long-term ally would be far preferable to the kind of loose alliance we can hope for with Athens. We have wisely pursued a policy of putting Italian matters first so far, and I remain convinced that this is the correct decision.
Dareios: "The gratitude of Taras is worth less than the Athenian silver that will stream into our coffers if we expand our grain trade and Athens protection against Corinth, no matter how long that one might last. To make it even clearer: their gratitude is worth nothing! Alliances are build on mutual benefit, not "gratitude". If they no longer see benefit in allying with us and more benefit in stabbing us in the back, they'll break our alliance and stab us in the back, no matter how "grateful" they will be that we refused the Athenian offer. If they still see benefit in allying with us after we've accepted the Athenian offer, they will grind their teeth but still ally with us, no matter how much it will gall them. Some people may call me cynical for believing this, but I am merely describing the way the Greek poleis function."
 
Sparta isnt a traditionally naval power if the First possbility did happen, not only would their fleet be weak, but at the same time their current allies wouldnt be happy. Corinth for one would not take the rise of a Spartan fleet which would challenge theirs lying down.

And as for the second eventuality, you assume that the Spartans would trust Corinth with that kind of power. When we know that they do. Corinth as an ally against Athens is great. Corinth as Naval Hegemon is simply another Athens who will challenge their hegemony.

Sparta's current Anti-Athens alliance is not build on anything solid. Its united solely by shared disdain for Athens and to counter its expansion. In OTL it fell apart the moment Athens lost, with Sparta delibrately keeping Athens alive to keep it as a counter to Corinth and Thebes, while Corinth and Thebes lead the rebellions that allowed Athens to rise again and deal crippling blows to Sparta.

An Athenian Empire united under Athens is a mighty Titan. A Spartan Hegemony where their lack of expendable manpower, the fear of the Helots and lack of native naval traditions is hampered by the powerful Polis around them and their lack of ability to sack cities at will like Athens can.

Perhaps, and ultimately my vote on the treaty is a more IC thing than not. I am simply stating that from the perspective of a Greek Polis living in the era Athens rise and its fleets is something that is noticeable, very real and terrifying. Whether they would actually do so isnt what geopolitics care, its that they could and have demonstrated that they do have ambitious to be the Greek Hegemon.
With all due respect, you take the bits of OTL that fit your case here while ignoring the rest.

The fleet that won at Aigos Potamos and ended the war was definitely not weak and the fear of Athens wasn't so much motivated by the fear of having any hegemon, most cities generally accepted that Sparta filled the role for a fairly long amount of time before Athens started to compete with it, but by the fact that Athens was a democracy. They feared that her power might be used, or at the very least her success motivate, the commons of other polis to try to launch their own revolutions against the rulling oligarchies. Obviously that isn't a concern for us.

As for Athens sacking cities at will, that wasn't really the case. They had the capacity to squash local revolts from some of their tributaries, preventing them to spread. That account for the bunch of the sacks that happen.

Basically, an athenian victory could take two forms. Either its gonna be a partial victory that let Sparta and co still standing, and therefore wouldn't allow Athens the freedom of movement you fear or its gonna be a total victory, who would keep them busy reorganising and quelling revolts attempts in their new conquests for the forseable future, therefore also depriving them of the freedom of movement you fear.

This is no small thing. Gaining Taras as a reliable long-term ally would be far preferable to the kind of loose alliance we can hope for with Athens. We have wisely pursued a policy of putting Italian matters first so far, and I remain convinced that this is the correct decision.
If that was the case I might agree but it isn't. We choose the Drakonid background, with naval related bonuses. We invested allot in our new colonies and to put Kimay there. We built a massive new harbour, completed with our first great work of art emphasising naval power, and a few years ago we voted for a massive expansion of the fleet.

Having the Adriatic as the most important geopolitical theater wasn't my choice but we made our bed and we must now sleep in it. Athens good will and continual pressure on Corinth is simply too valuable to be risked in the circumstances.
 
Except that all your reasons loop back to one of the same few things you keep repeating:

1) War with the Dauni is inevitable.
2) We can never be safe as long as the Dauni are independent.
3) If we conquer the Dauni, the Italic tribes on the other side of the Dauni will surely be well-behaved and non-threatening neighbors.

(3) is laughable given the history of the Samnites. (1) and (2) are, as of this time, unsupported assertions on your part.

So tell me, do you have a fourth reason that isn't a copy of one of the first three?


Fuckin' ay...Here we go again, alright let's boil it all down for ya in shorter terms so I don't have to write it all down. Again.

-We are culturaly, and socialy different from the Dauni. That there ever will come a day where the Dauni and Eretria can peacefully coexist without one or the other waging war on eachother either for land once we've run out of public land we can hand out to our citizens or be it because some other minor reasson.
-Should we accept peace and begin to trade with the Dauni, at any point should they feel they can extort us for something they want in exchange for providing Salt to our ever expanding trade network.(because let's face it, it's only a matter of time until we become a major trading power in Italy and Greece, maybe even further beyond) That gives them way too much of a strangehold on one resource our trade will probaly revolve around for a while considering Salt was a important comodity in that age.
-Geopolitics, again this boils down to the fact that we are the only faction around the Dauni they could possibly have a chance to expand towards as HastyGaming was so kind to point out before, they don't stand a chance against the Samnites or the Frentani and Eretria afterall has always been a historical enemy of the Dauni.
-For us to fully be capable of shifting the lions share of our efforts into colonization and expansion of our naval power we should first make sure that there aren't any issues we have left unchecked around our home. What good is having one of the best navy around if there is this neighbour of yours who you have always been at odds with, who have more then one reason to betray you down the line and can easily grow in strength should they be given the chance?
-Delaying the issue with the Dauni for later down the line again just doesn't seem to be that good of an idea. Who knows what the situation will look like for us in a decade or two or more...
-Having the Samnites who themselfs don't seem to have a monarchy or something of the sort and are more a gathering of a loosely aligned tribes working as one should be more susceptible to overtures from Eretria then the Dauni, money talks when it's used right and as all factions do, the Samnites must atleast have some ambitious tribes amongst them willing to work and trade with a Hellenic faction to one-up their rivals.
-And let's not even mention that by accepting a peace deal that is praticly being thrown into our face with the Dauni King 'threatening' Eretria demanding we make peace with him "Or else" just isn't something I'm willing to do. The damage it would do to Eretrian reputation and image is something we can't take right now with the Peuketii and Messapi who are unhappy with Eretrian rule stearing up the pot.

I'm sure I could add even more here but I think I've made my point clear, so I won't bother.
 
Last edited:
People! A vote for Hyrian autonomy is a vote for increased Hellenization among the Messapii.

Vote Autonomy!
 
Back
Top