Theory: Parthia will be part of Seleucid Empire.

[Evan MF]

Hi all,

The original Rome: Total War main campaign ran from 270 BC – AD 14, the starting year roughly being the beginning of the First Punic War against Carthage.

It occured to me that Parthia was a province of the Seleucid Empire until approximately 250 BC. I quote Wikipedia, with emphasis on the underlined parts:

In 316 BC, Stasander, a vassal of Seleucus I Nicator and governor of Bactria (and, it seems, also of Aria and Margiana) was appointed governor of Parthia. For the next 60 years, various Seleucids would be appointed governors of the province.

In 247 BC, following the death of Antiochus II, Ptolemy III seized control of the Seleucid capital at Antioch, and "so left the future of the Seleucid dynasty for a moment in question." Taking advantage of the uncertain political situation, Andragoras, the Seleucid governor of Parthia, proclaimed his independence and began minting his own coins.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia

If Total War: Rome 2's campaign has the same period stretch as the original Rome then I believe Parthia will be part of the Seleucid Empire at the start of the campaign.

If CA is going to be historically accurate in this instance then I think it can be quite certain that the final 2 playable factions to be revealed are going to be Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire.

However, a game without an autonomous Parthia is unthinkable surely? Especially because of the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC, arguably a larger and more significant defeat for the Romans than Teutoburg, which is being featured at the moment in recent CA press releases. I think their solution to that is the multiple playable campaign families/sub-factions within the 8 factions. Just as we have 'great families' of Rome, perhaps Parthia will be one of the playable 'sub-families' of the Seleucid Empire.

The Seleucid Empire could be an ideal faction for intrigue and civil strife - something that CA is evermore emphasising in their press releases - because of it's sheer size and conglomeration of different cultures. It also still has the essence of 'Empire building' to it as we know historically the Parthian splinter grew to take over the whole region:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Extent of the Parthian Empire by 1 AD according to Wikipedia.

As the wikipedia articles have alluded, a Seleucid faction with a Parthian lineage as one of a few playable sub-factions would work quite well within the game's intentions (from what we currently know about the campaign). I could imagine some very fun campaigns where something like the death of the Seleucid Emperor triggers some sort of civil war and power struggle within the Empire. You could play as a Hellenic lineage loyal to Alexander's legacy and fight to restore and expand the Seleucid Empire, or you could play as Parthian lineage and fight for your own autonomy and eventual rise to imperial status. These sorts of scenarios are quite analogous to the Roman civil wars (e.g. Caesar vs Pompey) that we know will be an eventuality in Rome 2, and thus ought to be considered as possibilities.

I know there's quite a chance of me being compeltely wrong on this, but I haven't yet seen a formal proposition put forward on this possibility. I believe it's a more of an optimistic possibility for the faction playability than most threads and suggestions. At the very least I hope I've given a lateral slant on the big faction dilema. It is quite unthinkable that CA would not make Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleucid Empire and Parthia all playable on release, all being great adversaries of the Roman Empire, so perhaps we've not been looking at the faction issue with the right mentality. Opinions?

[griffi31]

I suppose that it could work similarly to Empire, where if a rebel army took control of your capital, your government would change and depending on the new administration you could get new units.

[vietanh797]

I think at best Parthia will begin as a vassal of SE but it will be really small compare to your map
Just like Tokugawa was a vassal of Imagawa

[ColtonCM]

It's even later than the date you used when the Parthians become important.

For a time, Arsaces consolidated his position in Parthia and Hyrcania by taking advantage of the invasion of Seleucid territory in the west by Ptolemy III Euergetes (r. 246–222 BC) of Egypt. This conflict with Ptolemy, the Third Syrian War (246–241 BC), also allowed Diodotus I to rebel and form the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom in Central Asia.[14] The latter's successor, Diodotus II, formed an alliance with Arsaces against the Seleucids, but Arsaces was temporarily driven from Parthia by the forces of Seleucus II Callinicus (r. 246–225 BC).[21] After spending some time in exile among the nomadic Apasiacae tribe, Arsaces led a counterattack and recaptured Parthia. Seleucus II's successor, Antiochus III the Great (r. 222–187 BC), was unable to immediately retaliate because his troops were engaged in putting down the rebellion of Molon in Media.[21] Antiochus III launched a massive campaign to retake Parthia and Bactria in 210 or 209 BC. He was unsuccessful, but did negotiate a peace settlement with Arsaces II. The latter was granted the title of king (Greek: basileus) in return for his submission to Antiochus III as his superior.[22] The Seleucids were unable to further intervene in Parthian affairs following increasing Roman Republic encroachment and the Seleucid defeat at Magnesia in 190 BC.[22] Phriapatius of Parthia (r. c. 191–176 BC) succeeded Arsaces II, and Phraates I of Parthia (r. c. 176–171 BC) eventually ascended the throne. Phraates I ruled Parthia without further Seleucid interference.[23]

The next section on Parthian history is called "Expansion and consolidation" and the first significant dates are in the early second century BC. Rome's campaign starts in the early third century BC.



Parthia should be a DLC that adds depth to the Seleucid campaign. It should be possible for the player to stop the rise of Parthia and hold the empire together (and perhaps utilize their units - giving them an edge against Rome's military superiority). If the player fails, Parthia rebels with several full stacks and becomes a huge problem - one that the player solves either diplomatically or through conquest.



The AI should almost always fail the Parthian rebellion.

[Drtad]

I agree with this plan if the game starts the same as Rome 1. Parthia could be an emergent faction, and have another of the plethora of Eastern factions playable as one of the playable factions. I doubt it will be this way though.

[ColtonCM]

Parthia wasn't even a vassal until 30+ years after the start of the game - it was just another Seleucid province under the rule of a Seleucid satrap.

[Sharpe]

I approve of this.

Could be interesting if there was a civil war and from that point on you decide to be Parthia or stay with the Seleucids.

[Evan MF]

It's even later than the date you used when the Parthians become important.




The next section on Parthian history is called "Expansion and consolidation" and the first significant dates are in the early second century BC. Rome's campaign starts in the early third century BC.



Parthia should be a DLC that adds depth to the Seleucid campaign. It should be possible for the player to stop the rise of Parthia and hold the empire together (and perhaps utilize their units - giving them an edge against Rome's military superiority). If the player fails, Parthia rebels with several full stacks and becomes a huge problem - one that the player solves either diplomatically or through conquest.



The AI should almost always fail the Parthian rebellion.

I agree with all your suggestions and think it would really be an awesome scenario for the Seleucid campaign. However, I don't believe it should be DLC (and hopefully such a thing will not). CA have already promised unique faction experiences across each faction on release and this is a perfect example of a unique situation for a player to play in. It's an ideal way of marketing the viability of a Seleucid/Parthian faction and I hope they don't shy away from the challenge.

[Arcani 4 Ever]

Parthia wasn't even a vassal until 30+ years after the start of the game - it was just another Seleucid province under the rule of a Seleucid satrap.

The Iceni didn't exist on 275 BC, yet you will play them right from the start.

[ColtonCM]

The Iceni didn't exist on 275 BC, yet you will play them right from the start.

See my reply to you in the other thread.

We don't know when the Iceni came to exist. We only know they settled a certain area of Britain at a certain time. They have no written record, like most barbarian tribes that came into contact with the Romans.

[vietanh797]

The Iceni didn't exist on 275 BC, yet you will play them right from the start.

any proof?

[Arcani 4 Ever]

any proof?

Any proof they did exist on 275 BC?

Sorry but that type of question deserves that type of answer XD

[Drtad]

Any proof they did exist on 275 BC?

Sorry but that type of question deserves that type of answer XD

Britain is sort of an enigma, and a lack of archaeological evidence doesn't mean they didn't exist at that time. Knowing about any people in a definitive way in pre-Roman (and for that matter, 6th and 7th century England too) is quite uncommon.

[vietanh797]

Any proof they did exist on 275 BC?

Sorry but that type of question deserves that type of answer XD

they are celt and celt people populate Brit long before 275BC

[HigoChumbo]

This has been discussed before.

Just look at Carthage and tell me CA is going for Historicall accuracy... They will just adpat the starting positions to gameplay.

Also there is no official starting date, only speculation around the bits of map they have already released (and that we already know are unhistorical).

We can asume that the game starts around the First Punic War, mainly because of th e situation in Sicily.


I honestly think they will stretch the dates and include Parthia. Althought the game could start even ealier, given that Rome doesnt even own Cisalpine Gaul yet. So who knows.


The fact that the major faction they have released has only 4 or 5 provinces weights heavily against the inclussion of a juggernaut like the Seleucids (which also would probably scare casual players, and anyways would be a lot more profitable as a dlc) (i personally know an entire forum that would buy a seleucid dlc on sight).

[CaesarOfSeleucid]

If they want to be historical accurate, and want the Parthians in the game, they should add the Parni, who are the Parthians, but the only different thing will be that they ill be located more to the north.

[Mando75]

It would be interesting if they were a vassal state but still playable. It might be interesting to start out in that kind of position, having to slowly gather forces to liberate yourself. Just a thought.

[Sherm]

The Parthians that we need at that time are called Parni, and are living a little more north respect the satrapy of Parthia.
Are different things, you need to read about the Arsacids and not about Andragoras

They can simply call the Parni, "Parthia" from start.

EDIT: The Parthia that we need should be located in the area were is written "Dahae" in the map you posted. Also becouse they were part of that confederation.

[Gazi Husrev-Beg]

IN Shogun 2 , tokugawa start as vassal state...so If you start playing as Parthia being vassal, doesnt really matter. Exept that both Seleucid player and Parthia players now who their main enemy is.

[Mando75]

IN Shogun 2 , tokugawa start as vassal state...so If you start playing as Parthia being vassal, doesnt really matter. Exept that both Seleucid player and Parthia players now who their main enemy is.

I don't own Shogun so I didn't know.. my bad