Some general historical issues

[LAF1994]

Some questions about the starting setup in 304BC and the Diadochoi Wars:
1) Why do Judea and Samaria exist at game start? Historically, Judea was not re-established as an independent state until the Maccabean revolt over a hundred years later.
2) Related to the above, why are there Jewish pops in pretty much every major Mediterranean city in 304BC? Babylon makes sense, but why Rome, Carthage or Sparta? Historically, Jews were settled in Egypt as military colonists by the Ptolemies, but that was after the end of the Fourth Diadochoi War.
3) When the Antigonid Kingdom breaks up on Antigonus' death, why do the Antipatrids get Caria and Cilicia? Historically, after the Battle of Ipsus Ptolemy took Caria and Lycia and Lysimachus took Asia Minor.
4) The 'Syrian Ambition' mission gives the Seleucids the option of building up and then moving the capital to Seleucia Piera- except Antioch was the western Selucid capital historically.
5) The Ptolemies should start with Agnatic Primogeniture, not Familial Marriage; the practice of royal incest wasn't adopted until later.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

1) They had local self-government. Being tributaries reflects this. But Judea should be much smaller and other tags should exist there as well (Ammon, Moab and Idumaea).
3) Caria was ruled by Cassander's brother Pleistarchus for at least 7 years after Ipsus.

The rest are errors that should be corrected.

 

[Augustine1995]

4) The 'Syrian Ambition' mission gives the Seleucids the option of building up and then moving the capital to Seleucia Piera- except Antioch was the western Selucid capital historically.

This is actually a clever case of Paradox doing their research. It is believed Seleukia Pierea was intended to be the new western capital, (hence being named after Seleukus himself, like Antigoneia and Lysimachia) but the city was very quickly occupied by the Ptolemies, which led Antioch to supercede it. By the time the Seleukids reoccupied Seleukia Piereia, Antioch was already the capital. So in-game, unless Seleukia Pieria is similarly occupied, it should logically be chosen as the capital instead of Antioch.

Some quotes from the website "Livius"

"Seleucia was part of the "Syrian tetrapolis" (four Syrian cities); the other three towns were Antioch, Apamea, and Laodicea. Seleucia was to be the capital of his realm and the equal of Alexandria. However, the Seleucids temporarily lost Seleucia to the Ptolemies after the Laodicean War (also known as the Third Syrian War; 246-241).
The city was recovered by king Antiochus III the Great during the Fourth Syrian War (219-217) and eclipsed Alexandria near Issus as main port of Syria, but by now, Antioch had become the most important city in the Seleucid empire."

"Probably, Seleucus Nicator wanted to make Seleucia his capital, but his descendant Seleucus II Callinicus lost control of that city during the Laodicean War (a.k.a. Third Syrian War; 246-241), when the Ptolemaic king Ptolemy III Euergetes captured Seleucia and Antioch. The latter city was immediately recovered and the port was reconquered in 219 (during the Fourth Syrian War), but in the meantime, Antioch had become the real capital of the Seleucid Empire. The royal palace was still on the island in the Orontes."

 

[Samitte]

Related to the above, why are there Jewish pops in pretty much every major Mediterranean city in 304BC? Babylon makes sense, but why Rome, Carthage or Sparta? Historically, Jews were settled in Egypt as military colonists by the Ptolemies, but that was after the end of the Fourth Diadochoi War.

No one knows why they are there (the Devs never explained what they based it on), or why they are still there, and its been pointed out many times. But if I had to hazard a guess: Wikipedia or other generally undesirable source material. Jews would have been present in a few cities in Babylonia as well, since not all returned after the fall of Babylon to Persia.

 

[LAF1994]

No one knows why they are there (the Devs never explained what they based it on), or why they are still there, and its been pointed out many times. But if I had to hazard a guess: Wikipedia or other generally undesirable source material. Jews would have been present in a few cities in Babylonia as well, since not all returned after the fall of Babylon to Persia.

That makes sense for Babylon or Egypt, but not Rome, Carthage or Greece.

 

[Shogun96]

Yeah Jews being present in Rome at the start date is just wrong. I don't think there is any source from the time which mentions a sizeable Jewish minority.

 

[LAF1994]

1) They had local self-government. Being tributaries reflects this. But Judea should be much smaller and other tags should exist there as well (Ammon, Moab and Idumaea).
3) Caria was ruled by Cassander's brother Pleistarchus for at least 7 years after Ipsus.

The rest are errors that should be corrected.

I don't think that their status was as autonomous as the in-game tributary system would imply. Most cities in this era had 'local self-government' of some kind.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I don't think that their status was as autonomous as the in-game tributary system would imply. Most cities in this era had 'local self-government' of some kind.

And they are represented as feudatory or tributary tags (many of them since 2.0).

BtW, Neapolis should be made one as well instead of being owned by Rome directly.

 

[Chiron]

This in the Britannia tree is just weird.

 

[Emre Yigit]

This in the Britannia tree is just weird.

View attachment 686842

In theatres near you: Boadicea, Queen of the Nile.

I must admit, though, I find that weirdly wonderful. Like Norsemen in India in CK2.

 

[LAF1994]

And they are represented as feudatory or tributary tags (many of them since 2.0).

BtW, Neapolis should be made one as well instead of being owned by Rome directly.

Did they (Judea and Samaria) have any more autonomy than any other area under the control of the Diadochoi at this point?

 

[Arthrodira]

Judea and Samaria are always going to start independent at game start - there's no point having a discussion about how independent they were compared to other regions. The fact of the matter is they are uniquely significant in world history, and they are always going to be player favorites. Their needs to be some way to play as them, so it makes sense to have them start as tributaries. Want to argue that they should be clients or something else instead? Fine. Want to argue that since they are independent tributaries then x or y should also be tributaries, also fine. But the independent status of Judea and Samaria is never going to change, nor should it.

 

[Bauer Maggott]

When we are are already talking about issues with the current setup of Judea there is something wrong with the current stup of the high priest and his successor.
In game Simon I. is high priest at the start and Onias is his son. I am not sure but i think this got mixed up and should actually be the other way around. Since Onias supposedly was a contemporary of both Alexander the great and King Areus of Sparta(who supposedly tried to get an alliance with him).

​

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

This in the Britannia tree is just weird.

View attachment 686842

There's recent genetic evidence that in prehistoric times the British Isles were peopled from two distinct sources: the east from sources directly across the North Sea and English Channel and the west by people who moved up the Atlantic Coast from Iberia. Maybe that tradition is a nod to the ancient Britons' Iberian roots? Although of course nobody in the Imperator era was aware of that heritage.

 

[Bauer Maggott]

There's recent genetic evidence that in prehistoric times the British Isles were peopled from two distinct sources: the east from sources directly across the North Sea and English Channel and the west by people who moved up the Atlantic Coast from Iberia. Maybe that tradition is a nod to the ancient Britons' Iberian roots? Although of course nobody in the Imperator era was aware of that heritage.

TBF there is no other tree the Britannic one could lead to. And considering the tin trade with the Iberian city state of Tartessos and later with the Carthaginians Iberia and Africa was probably the Region with the most contact with Brtannia apart from Gaul. So there is a much more recent connection than the genetic and mythological links to Iberia.

 

[Shogun96]

Judea and Samaria are always going to start independent at game start - there's no point having a discussion about how independent they were compared to other regions. The fact of the matter is they are uniquely significant in world history, and they are always going to be player favorites. Their needs to be some way to play as them, so it makes sense to have them start as tributaries. Want to argue that they should be clients or something else instead? Fine. Want to argue that since they are independent tributaries then x or y should also be tributaries, also fine. But the independent status of Judea and Samaria is never going to change, nor should it.

They weren't that significant at the time. Like at all, they only became significant when revolting against the Romans, but that's almost 400 years after the start of the game

 

[LAF1994]

Judea and Samaria are always going to start independent at game start - there's no point having a discussion about how independent they were compared to other regions. The fact of the matter is they are uniquely significant in world history, and they are always going to be player favorites. Their needs to be some way to play as them, so it makes sense to have them start as tributaries. Want to argue that they should be clients or something else instead? Fine. Want to argue that since they are independent tributaries then x or y should also be tributaries, also fine. But the independent status of Judea and Samaria is never going to change, nor should it.

This seems roughly equivalent to arguing that the Netherlands should exist at start in EU4 or that the Ottomans should exist at start in CK3. An independent Jewish state simply did not exist in any form in 304BC and would not exist until over a century into the game's timeframe.

 

[Battlex]

This seems roughly equivalent to arguing that the Netherlands should exist at start in EU4 or that the Ottomans should exist at start in CK3. An independent Jewish state simply did not exist in any form in 304BC and would not exist until over a century into the game's timeframe.

The Dutch get the Dutch revolt, and ck2 had a seljuk event. As IR has a single start date we need some ahistorical parts. Eu4 is getting Aceh in 1444,and safavids in ardabil got added in CoC as examples of anachronisms, evenki as one of the 3 old manchu tribes was also ahistoric as its what the Chinese iirc called them. Not themselves

 

[Bauer Maggott]

Judea was ruled by the high priest at the time and we even know that Areus of Sparta tried to ally them shortly after the start date. The high priests also retained their power after switching alligence to the Ptolemy so they clearly acted somewhat independantly. There is no need to argue with the historical importance. If you dont represent them as subjects you might as well remove the roman subjects or Athens.

 

[Chiron]

There's recent genetic evidence that in prehistoric times the British Isles were peopled from two distinct sources: the east from sources directly across the North Sea and English Channel and the west by people who moved up the Atlantic Coast from Iberia. Maybe that tradition is a nod to the ancient Britons' Iberian roots? Although of course nobody in the Imperator era was aware of that heritage.

The Atlantic Fringe from Spain to Scotland and Ireland existed in the prehistoric era and theres the odd link to Spain in the South West later than this. Ireland also has links to Spain in its mythology. It would make slightly more sense without the African aspects. I'd rather it focused on a Germanic or dedicated Gallic tradition though which doesn't seem to exist as there were links to the continent in SE Britain.