Petition for a new, expanded map

[coreymas]

Am i the only one that says No to an expanded map?

Corey

 

[unmerged(86432)]

What I meant is that Western Civilization traces its lineage to the Near East, they share a closer cultural heritage (especially at during Rome's period) than the Near and East and India do, so it makes sense to include that part of the world especially since they were so connected politically.

There's no an imaginary border separating the Indian world from the Mediterranean, but there is a whole lot of inhospitable desert and mountains. Ever notice that hardly any states straddled India and Persia? In fact the only one I can think of was the Mughal Empire over 1500 years after this games timeframe (and that was only during its early years.) Physical boundaries separate India from the west in a similar way that the Sahara separates West African culture from North African. There's a transmission of culture, and I'm sure more so in the case of India and the Near East (The Sahara was just the first example that popped into my head and probably not the best) but its limited. Cultural differences between the regions attest to that.

Even during Alexander's invasion of India, the conquered regions were places that the Greeks hadn't charted yet. The fact that India was so remote and alien was the main motivation for Alexander drawing the eastern border of his empire where he did; or at least, it was the motivation for his disgruntled army to persuade him to make that decision.

As for the Indo-Greek states; they might have been Greek in origin but they were absorbed into Indian culture. Almost as soon as the seeds of Greek civilization were planted the continuity between Greek culture and the Indo-Greek Kingdoms was severed. They became Indianized and embraced Buddhism. How many ancient Buddhist ruins are there in Greece?

There is a border between India and everything west of it, and its right about at the eastern edge of Rome's map. That's why I'm against expanding it. And if they do add India to the map, then they can't justify not adding China.

Granted Persia was mostly steppe and semi-desert, and this separated the fertile lands to the east and the west; but this wasn't going to stop the transfer of culture. In case you've wondered, the reason Persia became so hugely rich and powerful was because it sat right next door to the most sophisticated cultures in the world. All Persian civilizations have combined aspects of both their eastern and their western neighbours, and they always expanded in one direction or the other. Persian civilizations were often formed from steppe nomads, due to the terrain and Persia's northern neighbours, but they quickly merged with Near Eastern and Indian culture. Persia and the Mediterranean were the world's biggest highways of cultural transfer. Persia became a hugely rich civilization, and, despite its barren lands, became heavily urbanized. Because of Persia's unique status as the bridge between the world's mightiest cultures, it became a rich land. Even when ignoring the benefits of east-west trade, it became economically valuable. Thus, it overcame its lack of fertile land to become one of the most economically and strategically valuable territories in the world. With this and the amount of cultural transfer it achieved, it was hardly an inhospitable and impenetrable desert separating the India and the West.

It's reasonable to expect to be able to try to expand towards India, when, by the game's period, one power has already covered Persia, the Near East, and the most important part of west India. If Alexander's empire hadn't fragmented, there was little keeping him or a successor from expanding farther into India. It seems silly saying that India was thoroughly cut-off from the West when a Western people could so easily have controlled both it and the Near East.

Because of Persia, cultural links between India and the Near East were surprisingly strong, but they were even stronger during the game's period. The remnants of Alexander's empire had left strong Greek colonies in its East, and the local peoples happily absorbed Hellenistic culture. Greek gods were absorbed; Greek language was absorbed; Greek philosophy and learning was absorbed. Indo-Greek culture was barely different from Seleucid culture; the Indo-Greek kingdoms kept up with the mainstream of Greek culture right until their invasion by the Kushans two centuries later. Even then, local peoples were admiring of the Greek legacy, and the later Kushan empire was more closely based around Hellenistic culture than around Hindu culture. One title for Kushan emperors was basileus, after the Greek word, and the major centre of culture and learning was the Indo-Hellenistic school of Gandhara.

By our period, India was far culturally closer to the Mediterranean than the Germans were, despite the far vaster distance. Jared Diamond is right that culture and technology prefers travelling east-west to north-south. Including Germany in the map, but not including India, makes little sense from a cultural point of view. Similarly, claiming that India was alien and uncharted territory follows the same problem: Northern Europe, such as Scandinavia, was at least as alien, and no one from the Mediterranean had charted the North or Baltic Seas. Granted, the Romans conquered Britain, rather than Persia, but another fearsome state was Rome's barrier to eastern expansion, not terrain or culture. The Romans tried to conquer the Parthians long before they tried to conquer the Britons, but Crassus was defeated, and thereafter they saw it as too dangerous a campaign. Had the Romans conquered Persia, India could have been the next step.

India is a far more accurate end of culture and society. The Himalayas created an almost impenetrable barrier that truly separated East Asia from everywhere Westwards. At the game's time, the Mediterranean to India was a continuous band of similar urban culture, yet urban culture only further appeared in the very heart of China. I discuss this more thoroughly in my thread at http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=330150&page=1&pp=20.

 

[unmerged(82794)]

Am i the only one that says No to an expanded map?

Corey

yes

 

[Zagys]

There is a border between India and everything west of it, and its right about at the eastern edge of Rome's map. That's why I'm against expanding it.

The border of India is much further than the edge of the map, so I guess Parthia could never have interacted with Rome either.

And if they do add India to the map, then they can't justify not adding China.

Why do some people insist on linking "Chindia" together. These were very separate civilizations that had no contact with each other. India was logistically closer to Rome than it was to China.

 

[Slasher]

Why do some people insist on linking "Chindia" together. These were very separate civilizations that had no contact with each other. India was logistically closer to Rome than it was to China.

The Persians had a few skirmishes with them, plus I believe the silk road was running, they have as much link as India does...

 

[Zagys]

India is another rival to weaken the Seleucids, and imagine the difference to Roman politics if India caused the empire controlling Persia to fall. For one thing, it would create a power vacuum into which other rival cultures would flow. Similarly, India gives the Seleucids something to occupy them, thus keeping the Mediterranean world safe from attack.

If this would happen frequently in the game, then the Indians are not modeled correctly, and in such a case it's probably better that they are not on the map. No Indian power was ever an existential threat to either the Seleucids or the Parthians, and they were not a major factor in Seleucid foreign policy after Seleucus made peace with them early on. I'd have to say, it would ruin the game for me if the Romans would enter Mesopotamia to find it ruled by Indians.

 

[unmerged(86432)]

I have a glorious image showing the spread of technology around the game's time, but it's in a book of mine, and I can't scan it and post it because I can't post attachments.
The most useful image I've found is one showing the continuity of Indo-European languages in 500 BC, shortly before the game's time.
It's figure 9, marked 500 A.C., a third of the way down the following page--http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean/indoeuropea.htm .
Iron working was continuous across almost this entire map (even the Sahara), with the exception of the tundral areas of the north, and Tibet.
The Himalayas made a huge divide between this world and China, and there was a complete absence of urban civilization, common languages, and iron working between the two.

A map like this adapted for EU:R would need the tundral areas of the north cut out (roughly along the line of blue and purple denoting the germans and the iranian nomads).
I have a feeling the proportions might want changing, too. This looks like it came from a world map.

 

[unmerged(59432)]

Considering that the Indo-Greek kingdom covered about half of India, and had huge influences on Indian culture, it seems odd to consider India a different cultural sphere. When the player is meant to be able to take his own route through history, it's a pity missing out a great chance for expansion of the world that plays the biggest part in this game (the Hellenistic one). That Greeks stretched into India shows how close India is, and realistic it would be for a player to do the same.
Even if there was some sort of imagined barrier between the Mediterranean and India, Indian politics would still affect the west. India is another rival to weaken the Seleucids, and imagine the difference to Roman politics if India caused the empire controlling Persia to fall. For one thing, it would create a power vacuum into which other rival cultures would flow. Similarly, India gives the Seleucids something to occupy them, thus keeping the Mediterranean world safe from attack.

Bit of an exaggeration there, but I basically agree - no civilization developed in some kind of isolation in anceint times as some people in this thread seem to think - the argument that India or China were outside the 'sphere' of Rome, is not really correct - they all played a part in each other's history a great deal.

 

[unmerged(86432)]

The Persians had a few skirmishes with them, plus I believe the silk road was running, they have as much link as India does...

Persia often had wars with India, although the Silk Road's trade was what linked India with China. The Silk Road had more trade going through it at its peak than just about any other land route, and it caused India and China to share a lot of culture.
One main reason why India and China were linked together is because they were the two big civilizations that were both not in Europe, and rarely in direct contact with with Europe. It's not really fair, since, at least in India's earlier history (until the later parts of the first millennium AD), India was far closer connected with the West. Chindia is really a misleading Euro-centric term.

 

[unmerged(59432)]

What I meant is that Western Civilization traces its lineage to the Near East, they share a closer cultural heritage (especially at during Rome's period) than the Near and East and India do, so it makes sense to include that part of the world especially since they were so connected politically.

There's no an imaginary border separating the Indian world from the Mediterranean, but there is a whole lot of inhospitable desert and mountains. Ever notice that hardly any states straddled India and Persia? In fact the only one I can think of was the Mughal Empire over 1500 years after this games timeframe (and that was only during its early years.) Physical boundaries separate India from the west in a similar way that the Sahara separates West African culture from North African. There's a transmission of culture, and I'm sure more so in the case of India and the Near East (The Sahara was just the first example that popped into my head and probably not the best) but its limited. Cultural differences between the regions attest to that.

Even during Alexander's invasion of India, the conquered regions were places that the Greeks hadn't charted yet. The fact that India was so remote and alien was the main motivation for Alexander drawing the eastern border of his empire where he did; or at least, it was the motivation for his disgruntled army to persuade him to make that decision.

As for the Indo-Greek states; they might have been Greek in origin but they were absorbed into Indian culture. Almost as soon as the seeds of Greek civilization were planted the continuity between Greek culture and the Indo-Greek Kingdoms was severed. They became Indianized and embraced Buddhism. How many ancient Buddhist ruins are there in Greece?

There is a border between India and everything west of it, and its right about at the eastern edge of Rome's map. That's why I'm against expanding it. And if they do add India to the map, then they can't justify not adding China.

States arnt the only measure of interaction though.

Non-military non-government interaction is just as important.

So while India was exotic and alien to the west in terms of its geography, its ideas and trade played a very important part in everyday Roman life, and vis a vis.

 

[unmerged(86432)]

If this would happen frequently in the game, then the Indians are not modeled correctly, and in such a case it's probably better that they are not on the map. No Indian power was ever an existential threat to either the Seleucids or the Parthians, and they were not a major factor in Seleucid foreign policy after Seleucus made peace with them early on. I'd have to say, it would ruin the game for me if the Romans would enter Mesopotamia to find it ruled by Indians.

The Maurayans were certainly powerful enough to threaten the Seleucids, and the Kushans almost always won wars they fought against the Parthians. Indeed, the Maurayans defeated the Seleucids in a major battle that dramatically weakened Seleucid power in the east and lost it one of the richest and most urbanized of its provinces. This paved the way for the foundation of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom, which further weakened the Seleucids. The Seleucids were the first of the Successor states to crumble, and this was brought about by the attacks by Mauraya, Graeco-Bactria, and the Parthians. Without these eastern neighbours, things would have been a lot harder for the Romans.

Claiming that India can dramatically affect a power in Persia is far from claiming that India can conquer all the way to Mesopotamia. It just says that Indian power can have a huge effect on the West, because of its influence over the West's mighty neighbour--Persia. A fully stable and developed state could easily have bridged the gap between the Near East and India (Alexander did), although the Indians had far less chance of this than the West. Taking away the opportunity to expand into India could be taking away a vital strategy (it could be very prudent for the Seleucids to attack India: it takes them farther from the Romans).

 

[unmerged(86432)]

Bit of an exaggeration there, but I basically agree - no civilization developed in some kind of isolation in anceint times as some people in this thread seem to think - the argument that India or China were outside the 'sphere' of Rome, is not really correct - they all played a part in each other's history a great deal.

It's not really an exaggeration. The Indo-Greeks conquered south to Barygaza and east to Mathura, and this covered about half of the fertile and economically important parts of India. The southern tip isn't really relevant when talking about BC India as one culture. Have a look at Wikipedia's page on the Indo-Greeks.

The thing a game company has to consider is how much different civilizations affected each other. I remember a post where someone said about playing as Central America something like, 'You've now conquered all possible rivals'. Now sit and wait two thousand years for the game to end.'. A civilization like this is never going to be affected by foreign politics. Even China, while it had a big exchange of culture across the Silk Road (particularly late in the first millennium AD), barely had any military or political influence on the West. The first time it managed to extend farther than the Gansu corridor was in the seventh century, and even then it was by proxy control. China's isolation from Western wars was one reason why it managed to repeatedly achieve large, united empires, when other nations squabbled over their territory.

Playing a nation that is cut off from all others is going to lose its point rather soon, since there's no competition. It's easy to simulate trade with a distant culture without simulating the culture itself, and China doesn't have enough political influence over the West to be worth simulating. What a game company needs to decide is what civilizations had enough of a political effect on others to make them worth simulating. While China could never extend its civilization beyond the Himalayas, I think India had too much of a political effect to miss out, and I think Paradox should move their 'Ends of the Earth' to Bengal (excuse the advertising of my own thread).

 

[unmerged(86432)]

States arnt the only measure of interaction though.

Non-military non-government interaction is just as important.

So while India was exotic and alien to the west in terms of its geography, its ideas and trade played a very important part in everyday Roman life, and vis a vis.

But this can easily be simulated without including the states that are interacting so remotely, and it makes the game simpler for it. I think India has more connecting it and the Mediterranean than just its trade.

 

[coreymas]

Won't happen.

While i do respect all the research that everyone has done I think it is obvious that it Won't Happen (See quote above from Johan on page 2 of this thread).

I think you should concentrate on forming a Mod for this to include the areas you feel you are missing....

Corey

 

[lucaluca]

Granted Persia was mostly steppe and semi-desert, and this separated the fertile lands to the east and the west; but this wasn't going to stop the transfer of culture. In case you've wondered, the reason Persia became so hugely rich and powerful was because it sat right next door to the most sophisticated cultures in the world. All Persian civilizations have combined aspects of both their eastern and their western neighbours, and they always expanded in one direction or the other. Persian civilizations were often formed from steppe nomads, due to the terrain and Persia's northern neighbours, but they quickly merged with Near Eastern and Indian culture. Persia and the Mediterranean were the world's biggest highways of cultural transfer. Persia became a hugely rich civilization, and, despite its barren lands, became heavily urbanized. Because of Persia's unique status as the bridge between the world's mightiest cultures, it became a rich land. Even when ignoring the benefits of east-west trade, it became economically valuable. Thus, it overcame its lack of fertile land to become one of the most economically and strategically valuable territories in the world. With this and the amount of cultural transfer it achieved, it was hardly an inhospitable and impenetrable desert separating the India and the West.

It's reasonable to expect to be able to try to expand towards India, when, by the game's period, one power has already covered Persia, the Near East, and the most important part of west India. If Alexander's empire hadn't fragmented, there was little keeping him or a successor from expanding farther into India. It seems silly saying that India was thoroughly cut-off from the West when a Western people could so easily have controlled both it and the Near East.

Because of Persia, cultural links between India and the Near East were surprisingly strong, but they were even stronger during the game's period. The remnants of Alexander's empire had left strong Greek colonies in its East, and the local peoples happily absorbed Hellenistic culture. Greek gods were absorbed; Greek language was absorbed; Greek philosophy and learning was absorbed. Indo-Greek culture was barely different from Seleucid culture; the Indo-Greek kingdoms kept up with the mainstream of Greek culture right until their invasion by the Kushans two centuries later. Even then, local peoples were admiring of the Greek legacy, and the later Kushan empire was more closely based around Hellenistic culture than around Hindu culture. One title for Kushan emperors was basileus, after the Greek word, and the major centre of culture and learning was the Indo-Hellenistic school of Gandhara.

By our period, India was far culturally closer to the Mediterranean than the Germans were, despite the far vaster distance. Jared Diamond is right that culture and technology prefers travelling east-west to north-south. Including Germany in the map, but not including India, makes little sense from a cultural point of view. Similarly, claiming that India was alien and uncharted territory follows the same problem: Northern Europe, such as Scandinavia, was at least as alien, and no one from the Mediterranean had charted the North or Baltic Seas. Granted, the Romans conquered Britain, rather than Persia, but another fearsome state was Rome's barrier to eastern expansion, not terrain or culture. The Romans tried to conquer the Parthians long before they tried to conquer the Britons, but Crassus was defeated, and thereafter they saw it as too dangerous a campaign. Had the Romans conquered Persia, India could have been the next step.

India is a far more accurate end of culture and society. The Himalayas created an almost impenetrable barrier that truly separated East Asia from everywhere Westwards. At the game's time, the Mediterranean to India was a continuous band of similar urban culture, yet urban culture only further appeared in the very heart of China. I discuss this more thoroughly in my thread at http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=330150&page=1&pp=20.

Totally agree, the idea of the Indo-Greek reign as "indianized" is skewed, India was more graecized. Hellenistic culture was so powerful and universal that could be exported just everywhere.

 

[lucaluca]

Rome-expansion: Expanded map!

Just like with the autosend-merchant feature lacking in EU3, a feature they had in EU 2(..), I think they are going to include the obvious in their Rome Expansion..

And the east was very important to Rome: they attempted to conquer the areas of modern Iraq, Iran in an attempt to reduce transportation-costs of their imports. A very substantial part of their gold went east...

I can't think of any paradox expansion where they changed the map though. o

 

[Zagys]

The Maurayans were certainly powerful enough to threaten the Seleucids, and the Kushans almost always won wars they fought against the Parthians. Indeed, the Maurayans defeated the Seleucids in a major battle that dramatically weakened Seleucid power in the east and lost it one of the richest and most urbanized of its provinces. This paved the way for the foundation of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom, which further weakened the Seleucids. The Seleucids were the first of the Successor states to crumble, and this was brought about by the attacks by Mauraya, Graeco-Bactria, and the Parthians. Without these eastern neighbours, things would have been a lot harder for the Romans.

Claiming that India can dramatically affect a power in Persia is far from claiming that India can conquer all the way to Mesopotamia. It just says that Indian power can have a huge effect on the West, because of its influence over the West's mighty neighbour--Persia. A fully stable and developed state could easily have bridged the gap between the Near East and India (Alexander did), although the Indians had far less chance of this than the West. Taking away the opportunity to expand into India could be taking away a vital strategy (it could be very prudent for the Seleucids to attack India: it takes them farther from the Romans).

When did the Seleucids fight the Mauryans after 305, when Seleucus Nicator made peace with Chandragupta Maurya and traded land (roughly modern Pakistan) for some elephants? By the way, Bactria and Parthia didn't become independent until over 50 years later.

 

[Oriental Despot]

Why do some people insist on linking "Chindia" together. These were very separate civilizations that had no contact with each other. India was logistically closer to Rome than it was to China.

India and China didn't have any contact with each other? That's funny, I could've sworn Buddhism was a big deal in China. Anyways, China was no more cut off from the world than India. The Himalayas don't form a wall around East Asia. Silk Road anybody? I'm not trying to join India at the hip with China, I'm just saying that they had about a parallel influence on the Roman world.

India was more accessible to East Asia than it was to the west, and as a result its cultural influence had a much bigger impact there. Indian civilization laid the basis for the cultures of Indonesia and Malaysia before the introduction of Islam. The cultures of Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos are heavily indebted to Indian influences and all of these countries had extensive direct contact with China, as did India. Southeast Asian Kings modeled themselves on Ashoka the Great's example, Shivan cults were widespread (and still are), and the Southeast Asians imitated Indian architecture in their own monuments.. just look at Angkor Wat, the temple complex is devoted to a Hindu God-King. Those countries were a part of India's cultural sphere. There was no similar exchange between India and the west. The Romans never had Hindu cults, Alexander the Great never held a place in India's collective memory the way native Emperors like Ashoka did, and the Indians didn't translate Greek tragedies (and if they did, they aren't being performed today.. so much for Hellenisms enduring impact on Indian culture.)

As for the argument that German culture was about as foreign to Rome as India would have been.. its kind of a far fetched comparison. The Indians never invaded Rome, Indians didn't serve in the Roman military, Indian Kings never attempted to trace their lineages to Roman families, or kissed the Bishop of Rome's feet. The exchange between Roman civilization and German culture created Western European society, the exchange between the Greeks and India did not leave such a lasting impact on India.

 

[unmerged(86432)]

When did the Seleucids fight the Mauryans after 305, when Seleucus Nicator made peace with Chandragupta Maurya and traded land (roughly modern Pakistan) for some elephants? By the way, Bactria and Parthia didn't become independent until over 50 years later.

I never said the Seleucids fought the Maurayans after 305. I said the Maurayans had a big effect on later Seleucid prospects. Removing their richest eastern territory significantly weakened the Seleucids, and it paved the way for the independence of the Graeco-Bactrians. Bactria's isolation from the rest of the Seleucid empire, its friendship with Mauraya, and the weakness of the Seleucid empire were all helped by the conquests of Mauraya, and they all caused Bactria's independence. This further weakened the Seleucids, and the rest of the history of the Seleucid empire was a runaway story of factions breaking off and conquest by foreigners. It shows the effect that India had on the Seleucids, and, through them, the West.

 

[Plushie]

Alexander the Great never held a place in India's collective memory the way native Emperors like Ashoka did

The Hindi word 'Sikandar' is a corruption of the name 'Alexander', meaning expert or extremely skilled. Skanda, IIRC, is the name of a Hindu god inspired by Alexander. The Greco-Bactrian kingdom left an enduring mark on the Indian sub-continent that was only wiped away with the Islamic conquest a millennium later.

I mean, god damn, why do you not want India included? I can think of a million good reasons it should be and not a damned one it shouldn't be.