rename Phrygia to Syria and Seleucid empire to Persia
If someone own both Persia and Syria, they become Asia.
Thoughts?
If someone own both Persia and Syria, they become Asia.
Thoughts?
Naming suggestion
- Thread starter lucaluca
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'd name Phrygia Antigonia and Seleucids Seleucia. Unless wanting to keep it in line with Seleucid Empire, in which case Phrygia should be renamed Antigonid Empire. After all, Antigonus had during the years prior to Ipsus built up a reputation worthy of an Empire!
True. Then the tags (or at least the names of the tags) must change.
So from that perspective, I'd change Phrygia to Asia (yes, I know!) and Seleucid Empire to Syria or Babylonia (yes, I know #2), depending on where capital is located.
I'm basing this on the Macedonian satrapy names and on the Greek view of what was actually Asia (to them, it was the western parts of modern Turkey).
Ck2 has the best solution, whereby some countries are named after the ruling dynasty. If this isn't possible I'd use names like Macedonia and Egypt for successor states based around a historical kingdom. But Seleucid empire makes more sense than Syria because the only uniting factor behind their lands is they are ruled by the Seleucids. If the ruling dynasty changes surely they'd want to emphasise some continuity with the Seleucids anyway. A compromise is to give players the option in the game settings for the successor states (and maybe others) to be named after their founders/dynasties, or after a geographical area.
Wouldn't the same apply for the Antigonids too? Please keep in mind that we're pre-Ipsus and Antigonus has a higher standing than all the other Diadochi. After all, he's going for a reunification of the Alexandrian empire, which neither Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, or Cassander are.
I really don't see much point of changing the name of Seleucid empire. Yes, it's a dynastic name, but it's a well known name that people can relate to. As for Phrygia, it will probably end up being wrong no matter what they use, just like dozens of other tag names.
I do not understand why would you want make a Greek dynasty and rename it as Persia? it is true they are on land that Persians used to rule on but even Persian were on fraction of their own empire they ruled (parsis province), what about Medians and Parthians and all the other people that lived in Persia?
But then again I might be miss reading what you want I do apologize if that is the case.
Unlike the BC/AD date format, dynasty related names for the Seleucid empire was actually used in the time frame of the game (which is why I assume you suggested Seleucia in the first place?). Using a more modern and anglicanized version is just another example of the terrible mess the map names are.As well known as the BC/AD calendar that the player can relate to as well?
I don't see how opposing wasting time on changing tag names which isn't entirely wrong contradicts my reasons for opposing making the devs spend time implementing optional date formats.
Dynamic dynasty naming would be my preference. The diadochi occupied such varied territory that changed hands so many times that dynastic naming makes more sense to me.
how did the hellinistic kingdoms call themselves? i'm pretty sure Ptoleemies called themselves Egypt, but what about the others?
Inscriptions and later ancient writers tend to refer to the kings themselves as the "kings of Egypt/Syria/Asia/etc", so it's reasonable to call the kingdom itself "Egypt/Syria/Asia/etc". So maybe you could have a territory-based name?
For example, if you could group provinces together into a larger Region called "Asia", then controlling the majority of provinces in Asia would mean your kingdom is called "Asia". Likewise, if you controlled the majority of provinces in Egypt, your kingdom is called Egypt. But if you don't control enough of the provinces, your kingdom instead gets called by your capital province, like Syria or Lower Egypt.
Another option would be to name the kingdom after its king. For example, if your ruler is named Seleucus, your kingdom is "Kingdom of Seleucus". If he dies and Demetrius becomes your ruler, it becomes "Kingdom of Demetrius". But then it gets confusing if you have two kingdoms led by rulers with the same name...
This is why I prefer to just use dynasty name, which seems to be preferred in modern scholarship.
Yes, i used the Seleucids as an example but the same would apply for the Antigonids. It also occurs to me that if a successor state reunites Alexander's empire, would their name revert to Macedonian Empire, or stay the same. It would be strange for all of that land to be labeled as 'Egypt' for instance.
And this would be resolved using a regional naming system
I might take note of this and see what's possible when we can start modding things.
I disagree entirely with the basic premise of the thread. The Hellenistic dynasties should be named after the dynasty and not a territory to which they have no special connection.
I agree with naming Hellenistic countries (except for Macedonia) after their dynasties, but I see only one problem here: what if two Hellenistic countries are ruled by same dynasty?
If that could pose a problem, then maybe naming Hellenistic countries after the Alexandrian satrapies in which their capitals are located. I still like Asia for Antigonus at start though (and Babylonia or Syria for Seleucus, depending on its capital's location).
If that could pose a problem, then maybe naming Hellenistic countries after the Alexandrian satrapies in which their capitals are located. I still like Asia for Antigonus at start though (and Babylonia or Syria for Seleucus, depending on its capital's location).
That's the thing, ancient sources (both literary and epigraphical) call the kingdoms by the territory they ruled over - Macedonia, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Thrace, etc. It's more of a modern thing to call the kingdoms by their dynasty. But both could be considered correct.
This seems like something that would be unlikely to happen, but still problematic when it does. What if the kingdom were named after the ruler, rather than the dynasty?
"Kingdom of Ptolemy Euergetes"
"Kingdom of Antigonus Monopthalmus"
"Kingdom of Demetrius Poliorcetes"
This would be even less likely to create a naming duplication, and would still be period-appropriate.
Only downside is the sheer length of the kingdom name.
The problem with calling it Phrygia is that you can no longer call the people who live in that kingdom "Phrygians" because then people start thinking "Ah yes, the Kingdom of the Phrygians", which is very much not the Hellenistic state Phrygia.