I still have a lot to learn about ancient history, but why is Etruria presented as tribal in this game? I would imagine they would be more organized as they bordered Rome and seemed to have a number of cultural imports from the Greco-Roman world. What defining factors of their civilization make them tribal, or at least imply they were more likely than not tribal?
Why is Etruria Tribal?
- Thread starter Br0f1st
- 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.
Disclaimer: I studied Etruscan/Rasna history but it is very rusty and dated.
There doesn't seem to be a 'league' alliance type that properly represents them. The Rasna at the game start were a confederation of 12/13/15 independent-ish city-states (depending), but are generally shown on maps as a united polity when the truth was more in between. Their conquests would be sponsored by one or more city states, and not the league as a whole. The closest more modern analogue would be the Swiss confederacy, I think.
Failing getting a confederation alliance type into the game, the Rasna being tribal 'works', in the sense that if they had a lot to overcome in order to properly centralize. Another issue they faced was a potentially self-fulfilling prophecy - the Rasna believed that they were given ten? (I thought it was eight, but Wiki says ten...) saecula for the total lifespan of their civilization. In any case, around the game's start they believed their decline was inevitable.
Of course, being tribal doesn't work in the sense they were certainly one of the most civilized powers of the era. We use their alphabet, and the word the game uses for them literally refers to what the Romans knew them for - building towers.
There doesn't seem to be a 'league' alliance type that properly represents them. The Rasna at the game start were a confederation of 12/13/15 independent-ish city-states (depending), but are generally shown on maps as a united polity when the truth was more in between. Their conquests would be sponsored by one or more city states, and not the league as a whole. The closest more modern analogue would be the Swiss confederacy, I think.
Failing getting a confederation alliance type into the game, the Rasna being tribal 'works', in the sense that if they had a lot to overcome in order to properly centralize. Another issue they faced was a potentially self-fulfilling prophecy - the Rasna believed that they were given ten? (I thought it was eight, but Wiki says ten...) saecula for the total lifespan of their civilization. In any case, around the game's start they believed their decline was inevitable.
Of course, being tribal doesn't work in the sense they were certainly one of the most civilized powers of the era. We use their alphabet, and the word the game uses for them literally refers to what the Romans knew them for - building towers.
There was no Roman World yet, as the Greco - Cartago World were the Dominant force. Etruria or Rome could have both been civilized at this point in time because it was rather subjective, same can be said for the Iberia civilizations that had Connections/Trading with Phoenicians and Greeks prior just as Italia had.
Etruscans were not unified entry, more like city-states of Greece. Sometimes united, sometimes at each others throats.
Making several small monarchies, like Tarquinii and Volsinii and Velulonia would make it too easy for Rome to gobble them up.
Making them either republic or monarchy would cause similar post like this, only with topic like Why the hell are Etruscans monarchy, this is incorrect, fix it at once.
Hope they start with high civilization level though. After all, besides other matters, they were the ones who built Cloaca Maxima in Rome.
Making several small monarchies, like Tarquinii and Volsinii and Velulonia would make it too easy for Rome to gobble them up.
Making them either republic or monarchy would cause similar post like this, only with topic like Why the hell are Etruscans monarchy, this is incorrect, fix it at once.
Hope they start with high civilization level though. After all, besides other matters, they were the ones who built Cloaca Maxima in Rome.
The Rasna (Etruscans) and the Raeti. I agree with them being put into the Latin group on reflection, though. Latin culture and language would not be recognizable without their influence, and similarly, Greece and Rome greatly influenced the Rasna. Leaving the Rhaetians entirely on their own would be like leaving the Basque on their own in EU4.
There are some Greek city state leagues that aren't tribal, so the same should apply to the Etruscans. It's quite silly that they have clan chiefs and tribal retinues like every other tribe.
I only know them from this discussion but if they were acting as semi-independent city-states in a confederation where each were jealously guarding their individual prerogatives, it makes a lot of sense. I imagine this is how non-sham Greek Leagues would work as well but since we have Phygrian Leagues and such already, this is the best alternative available.
ymmv.
The Rasna were a lot stickier than Greek leagues, to my knowledge.
Edit: Nevermind, they were defeated 40 years in, making them strong-ish city states with normal leagues would probably be more appropriate.
Edit: Nevermind, they were defeated 40 years in, making them strong-ish city states with normal leagues would probably be more appropriate.
Last edited: