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.
