Seleukid empire vs Kingdom of Babylonia etc

[AirikrStrife]

In the screenshot we've seen so far we see Lysimachus realm as Thrace. I wonder how consequent the naming will be, for example will Ptolomeic kingdom be that or Egypt? Will Antigonos rule over Phrygia or the Antigonid empire? Seleukid empire or Babylonia?

This is further complicated by how often titles could change, the Antigonids ended up as kings of Macedonia, the Seleukids would use the title "King of Syria and lord of Asia" But at the start of the game Seleukos would style himself "King of Babylonia".

If thracian tribes defeat Lysimachus, will they form thrace, can Babylonia be restored as a proper Babylonian/Arameic kingdom?

So far we don't know enough of the game to make certain guesses. Maybe names will be flexible (as have many times been requested from EUIV), mabe the game don't use primary culture like EUIV.

I think it'll be really interesting to see how developers deal with these sort of things.

 

[Gurkhal]

Indeed it will be interesting and I really, really hope they go with the dynastic names. In the case of the Hellenistic kingdoms its after all families who rules stuff, not a nationality or a city like in the case of the Roman Republic. Thus in honestly I think that pretty much all monarchies should be named after the dynasty that's in command while governments who are more tribal in nature can be named after the tribe or such. Or possible, if they want to go so deep, tribal monarchies can be named after the tribe but more multinational monarchies should be named after the dynasty.

 

[Ekyman]

I believe we've seen "leaked" screenshots from the PDXCon session that have "Egypt" and "Seleucid Empire." But it is of course a long way to release and names could change very easily.

I could see either for Egypt, but "Bablyonia" for the Seleucids would be really weird to me. They're basically never called that and their capital wasn't even Babylon, and the original Babylonia hadn't existed for a very long time. Whereas Ptolemy's stuff is often called "Ptolemaic Egypt" and is often considered part of the history of the Kingdoms of Egypt.

 

[Thure]

I would prefer geographical names. What would otherwise happen if the dynasty change? WOuld be like EU4 with a Ottoman Empire ruled by another family than the Ottomans...

I could see either for Egypt, but "Bablyonia" for the Seleucids would be really weird to me. They're basically never called that and their capital wasn't even Babylon, and the original Babylonia hadn't existed for a very long time. Whereas Ptolemy's stuff is often called "Ptolemaic Egypt" and is often considered part of the history of the Kingdoms of Egypt.

In 303 the Seleucids used the title 'Kings of Babylonia'.

 

[Gurkhal]

I would prefer geographical names. What would otherwise happen if the dynasty change? WOuld be like EU4 with a Ottoman Empire ruled by another family than the Ottomans...



In 303 the Seleucids used the title 'Kings of Babylonia'.

I would suggest a change in the name of the state to be honest. Also Ottomans were not to my knowledge a family but a tribal grouping of Turks.

 

[Ekyman]

In 303 the Seleucids used the title 'Kings of Babylonia'.

And the Byzantines didn't call themselves that (outside the period, I know). But the Seleucids are rarely at best called "Babylonia" today. They're called the Seleucids and that's pretty much it. They're also generally not lumped in with Babylonia proper in the history of Babylon(ia). But Ptolemaic Egypt is sometimes called just "Egypt" and does get lumped in with the general history of Egypt.

I think the general reaction for a player loading up the map for the first time would be "oh, they're not specifying that it's Ptolemaic Egypt" for the Egypt name but for Babylonia would be more along the lines of "why is Babylonia in my Rome game and where the heck are the Seleucids?"

 

[Sarog]

It's a bit weird to have dynastic naming for the Seleucids but geographical naming for the Antigonids and Ptolemaic Kingdom. Macedon is fine, sure. Egypt is OK but not great. "Phrygia" especially stands out as kind of a sore thumb, especially considering that the Antigonids went on to being kings of Macedon.

I think dynastic names for all the Successor States would be preferable. There really was no emotional investment in their territory as anything more than a means to support their regimes (hence why the Ptolemies and Seleucids hugged the Mediterranean and left most of their realms at their backs), and the territory changed hands often enough that you can't really associate any of them of bar the Ptolemies with a specific geographical tag. Seleucus started as Satrap of Babylonia, but his descendants and the polity they ruled have always been much more associated with Syria - which they don't own at game start, so neither tag is great. Antigonus started as Satrap as Phrygia, but if he'd held onto his domains is that really how we would be referring to his polity? I doubt it. And his line set themselves up in Macedon, so if history repeated itself we'd end up seeing the Phrygian tag in Macedon.

The concept of "King of Babylonia/Egypt/Syria/Wherever" did not exist for these men. They were Kings in Babylonia/Syria/Egypt/Wherever. The Successor model of kingship was not associated with a nation or geographical entity, it was based purely on the authority/accomplishments of the dynastic founders. There's nothing "Phrygian" about the polity ruled by Antigonus beyond the coincidence of his starting position, nor is the Seleucid Empire meaningfully "Babylonian". Which makes it particularly jarring if these tags are geographically named and lose their eponymous starting territory. If something like Rome loses the city of Rome and is reduced to a rump state in Hispania, at least that state will still be of a Roman character to justify its name. Whereas Demetrius in Macedon would be King of a Phrygia that is neither Phrygian nor in Phrygia.

 

[Thure]

I would suggest a change in the name of the state to be honest. Also Ottomans were not to my knowledge a family but a tribal grouping of Turks.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_dynasty

 

[Gurkhal]

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_dynasty

I'll be damned, thanks for correcting me.

 

[The Sharmat]

The Diadochi empires should all use dynasty names, full stop. Especially at start date they were held together by individuals not geography or tradition or common heritage. Hell. Demetrius was running around as a king without any territory for a good while. Just a fleet.

 

[Marinakis]

IMO, they should all be dynastic names unless there is only one left. At which time it should revert to the primary title. Though, all the dynasties are technically part of a larger Macedonian Empire and equally could be called a Macedonian Empire. Theyre just splinter kingdom of the parent Macedonian Empire. The situation if pretty analogous to the split of Roman Empire into the WRE and ERE. Both are equally Roman, politically, and can both be called such, but have differing cultural centers of gravity.

With that said, if the Seleukids were called anything but Seleukeia, it should be the Syrian Empire. As a side note, of all the successors, its so awkward to call Seleukeia a kingdom... Its an empire in 303.

Arkhe Seleukeia

 

[SchwarzKatze]

With that said, if the Seleukids were called anything but Seleukeia, it should be the Syrian Empire.

Seleucus did not have Syria in 304 BC.


And IMO either make them all use dynasty names or all geographic names, no "Phrygia" next to "Seleucid Empire" please.

 

[illidan1371]

if Seleukia were to be called anything it would be Persia, the problem is however that other than the Ptolemaic dynasty, no other successor dynasty lived long enough to be accepted by the locals as their native rulers and were always seen as foreign invaders till they got conquered by others thus no nation be it old or contemporary traces it's origin to any of those succesor states so it's impossible to call them anything other than Seleucia,Baktria etc.

 

[Marinakis]

Seleucus did not have Syria in 304 BC.


And IMO either make them all use dynasty names or all geographic names, no "Phrygia" next to "Seleucid Empire" please.

Ah yeah, this is a year or two before the Battle of Ipsus. Then just call them Seleukeia.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Could we potentially see a dynamic geographic name for at least some of the states?

So if they hold their capital in, and the majority of, a particular region, that becomes their displayed name. So, holding Babylon and the surrounding area makes you "Babylon", but if you lose that and get driven into another region, your name changes to reflect the location of the new capital.


Dynastic naming could be a bit strange in some cases. I'm not sure I'd recognise a dynastically named Egypt under a native dynasty for example (and do we even have a name for those dynasties??).
Would a Greek kingdom be named for the dynasty of the king in question, or still named for the home city (or as some hyperbolic Kingdom/Empire of Hellas)?

Meanwhile what would the dynastic name be for the northern and western tribes (Gallic, German, British, Pictish, etc) if they managed to erect a strong kingdom? Or would they have to name themselves after the primary tribe/culture?

Would Rome always be Rome? Would it change to a dynastic name if it became a kingdom?
If it splits in a civil war, what would the part that doesn't hold Rome be called?
What if Rome loses Rome?
What if Rome loses Rome, and then Rome (the city) revolts free from whoever has conquered it, but doesn't rejoin the previous empire? Which gets to still be called Rome?

 

[machtharry]

I would use geographic names except for the seleucids. Yes its inconsistent but its the common naming in my opinion.
Ptolemaic Empire is really rarely used. Much more commen is just "Egypt" oder "Ptolemaic Egypt".
While the seleucids are just called seleucids or seleucid empire basically every time they are referenced somewhere.

 

[Tim O]

What if the Ptolemies conquer Syria and Anatolia, but not Persia or Macedon or Greece?

Should be the Ptolemaic Empire, not the Egyptian empire or the Macedonian empire.

 

[AirikrStrife]

The Seleukids are indeed almost always refered to as Seleucid empire (of sort), but are accounted for as king of Babylonia until the parthian conquest of mesopotamia.

We can see from the screenshots that Lysimachus will rule Thrace.

Problem with Antigonid empire is that it will later become Macedonia, which starts ruled by Canssander (and is also named Macedonia in the screenshot).

Most likely Seleukids will be known as that, though personally I would appreciate the possibility for a dynamic naming system, I would love to style myself King of Babylonia (maybe depending on how the character system works out it might include possibilities to hold titles for characters).

Regarding the discussion on reforming the Macedonian empire of Alexander, it should probably not be an option, considering there is a Macedonian kingdom (ruled by Cassander, later the Antigonids). This Macedonia should probably be formable by other states, or the possibility to claim the Macedonian royal title (like Pyrrhus and Lysimachus later did). Reforming Alexanders empire in name would be a strange thing, there can't be a formable Macedonian empire requiring holding everything from Bactria to Egypt, neither can it be called "Alexandrian empire". While there should be something for defeating the other diadochis, it's not necessary to have a formable covering that (more like Seleukids claiming the role of Alexander's heir but still calling themselves the Seleucid empire)

 

[The Sharmat]

Ptolemies are called the Lagids everywhere but in pop culture, just use that.

 

[Marinakis]

The only way the names can work is if theres a pseudo title system where when one of the dynasties gains the Kingdom of Macedonia title, the nation flips from the dynastic name to the proper kingdom/empire name. The same can be true of Syria and Egypt. Whichever one is the primary would supersede the others and with Macedonia superceding all the rest for successor factions.

But, who knows if the game will support that.