Doesn't make sense: There must be another definition of an empire. Otherwise, every country controlling the centre of an old empire is also an empire.
Better not to use the term Empire at all in a country name in this game.
Seleukid empire vs Kingdom of Babylonia etc
- Thread starter AirikrStrife
- 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.
Doesn't make sense: There must be another definition of an empire. Otherwise, every country controlling the centre of an old empire is also an empire.
Better not to use the term Empire at all in a country name in this game.
True, but that does seem to be the devs reasoning neverthless. Nothing else comes to mind unless you care to suggest someting?
Egypt was an empire at one point too. And Macedon was, albeit very briefly, the heartland of an empire. Phrygia includes the core of the Hittite empire. It still even has some people speaking related languages in its borders at this point. It's all quite arbitrary.
I meant suggest another reason for their choice, not suggest a better name.
We call these things empires anachronistically. The concept of an empire as something different (and of higher rank) than a kingdom did not exist. It's a concept we get from late-era Rome and retroactively apply to things for which the word "kingdom" is still probably more appropriate, just as a convenience of terminology (because our definition of kingdom has also shifted).
Still I understand why Paradox would use names like "Seleucid Empire" and "Maurya Empire", for the same reason CKII/EUIV has "Byzantium". Those are how modern people refer to those polities, so it's practical to use. It's worse for things like Phrygia - we don't call Antigonus the King of Phrygia when we refer to him historically, he didn't call himself that, no one called him that, it is a wholly unsatisfying way to refer to his polity.
I really hope not, tbh. Seleucus is the reason that Babylon declined and vanished. He replaced it with a new city just nearby, named after himself, and Babylon faded into history. To refer to his realm as Babylonia just feels awkward and ironic.
I would be fine with Paradox naming the Diadochis after their founder, as long as they do it to all of them.
Seleucus was the Satrap of Babylonia, there's nothing awkward about it.
Yeah that would be my preference.
The game lasts for 300+ years though. If it were confined to the wars of the Diadochi, sure Babylonia would be fitting. But the time you're a century into the game, and you have Romans fighting Antiochus III, with his capital at Antioch, when Babylon hasn't really existed as a city for as long as anyone's been alive... at that point referring to it as the "Roman-Babylonian" war would feel very awkward.
Hm, this does sort of emphasise how badly the CK2-based feudal/legalistic idea of de-jure realms fits the Hellenistic era - especially the Diadochic period.
Also, I'm sure that the CK2-style option for realms named after dynasties will be available.
Or something that allow a country to change its name like how the later Seleucid identify themselves more with Syria and Asia.
Using dynasty name opens another bag of worms though, since the Ptolemaic Dynasty also held Macedonia for a short time, and Cyrenaica was a separate Ptolemaic kingdom for some time as well.
I've heard that the game isn't going to let you pick later start dates like CK/EU (though I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere, someone correct me if I'm wrong). If that's true then this is less of an issue because you don't have to account for those odd start dates where you briefly have the wrong dynasty on the throne. But yeah the main successor tags would need to be locked into their starting dynasties. Cyrenaica could probably just stay Cyrenaica.
There is no clear cut-off point where successor states "went native" and turned from warlord entities into more or less ordinary kingdoms, but death of last Diadochi (281 BC) is decent point.
I think all Diadochi states should start with dynastic names, but with exception of Seleucids (or whomever controls Persia) they should later tag-switch to something else, depending on where their core territory is.
I think all Diadochi states should start with dynastic names, but with exception of Seleucids (or whomever controls Persia) they should later tag-switch to something else, depending on where their core territory is.
I agree with your notion and the tag switch should be made when the king in question dies (Antigonus, Lysimachus, Ptolemy), but I believe Macedonia should be the permanent name.
This is history-porn.
I like it.
The term Empire comes from Imperium, which means power, as in the power to command armies (the Imperator was actually the commander in charge of an army, only centuries later become a "royal" title).
Stretching the concept, an Imperium (as political entity) could be considered as a state that has an uncontested military might, a sort of Hegemony.
Obvously, this means that it will probably extends on many people, thus fitting the concept on why the Seleukids Empire was an empire, the Makedonian Kingdom a kingdom and the Makedonian Empire an empire.
But this is only a theory of mine...
A nice thing would be a sort of "reform" that can be triggered if a dynastic-based state holds all the core-regions of a certain "area" for some time.
For example, if the Ptolemies can hold the Egypt for 30 or 40 years, they acquire the "title" of King/Pharaoh of Egypt, actually going native ang getting a tag-switch from Ptolemies to Egypt.
Actually, it would be awesome if other dynastic-based kingdoms could rise... like for example the Sertorian Roman state in Hispania... that could later go native (if surviving enough time) becoming the Lusitania...
The Seleucids never went native, that seems pretty clear. The Ptolemies... they adopted sibling marriage early on to attain some native legitimacy, and they used the role of Pharoah to co-opt the Egyptian clergy into collaborating with them, so they were the most changed of the successor dynasties. But they didn't go native in any emotional I-identify-with-the-Egyptian-people sense until right at the end with Cleopatra VII who was the first of them to learn the Egyptian language. You really can't think of them of them as nativized at all, and certainly not as early as 281 BC.
(Referring here to seleucids and as to whether empire of seleucids is appropriate)
A at best rather mangled persian empire lacking something half the territory and power.
But yeah a succession of titles sounds far more believable and i suppose empire of persia could well be at the top and accepted as such upon having key provinces of egypt, persia, a beaten india, thrace, egypt... and perhaps most critically of all sparta, athen and macedon.
Then you can demand foreigners to come kneel and you can "mediate" issues across the world. All shall tremble and obey when the emperor of (almost all the) world speaks.
On and naturally a new capital must be built, Alexandria at Babylon? (or name it whatever actually to solidify the dynasty holding it)
I think the reason why the Seleucid Empire is included as the Seleucids and not simply 'Persia' or 'Syria' is because it probably has simply been called the Seleucid Empire in history books after the collapse of that empire.
I also suspect that the Seleucids have a lot of cores within their empire of probably a dozen or more satrapies, including Syria and Persia. The Seleucids in history fanatic culture on the internet as well as in strategy gaming culture is usually known for being the stereotypical multicultural empire that collapses into a dozen new states and is afterwards divided amongst its neighbours due to incompetence and bad management. This could be seen in Rome Total War and Total War: Rome II for example. There is also this pretty popular history meme floating around which is perhaps the most famous meme besides Charles II on /his/:
I also suspect that the Seleucids have a lot of cores within their empire of probably a dozen or more satrapies, including Syria and Persia. The Seleucids in history fanatic culture on the internet as well as in strategy gaming culture is usually known for being the stereotypical multicultural empire that collapses into a dozen new states and is afterwards divided amongst its neighbours due to incompetence and bad management. This could be seen in Rome Total War and Total War: Rome II for example. There is also this pretty popular history meme floating around which is perhaps the most famous meme besides Charles II on /his/:
The Roman Empire countinued to call itself such long after Rome ceased to be its capital and later on even a city controlled by the Roman Empire. That alone sets a good precedence for states named after cities or specific places not needing to rename themselves even if their heartland is moved and there are other examples throughout history.