Armenia 270 AD - a satrapy of Sassanids?

[Vardan the Great]

Dear CA team and TW fans,

First, I want to mention that this thread isn't meant to push any specific faction etc. Yet, of course, Armenia will be my favourite in the upcoming DLC (which I pre-ordered) I am only for historical truth and accuracy. When watching the early access campaigns of some youtubers, I noticed that Armenia is represented as a Satrapy of Sassanids. Knowing the history of Armenia well and taking into account that the starting date is 270 AD I will argue this fact.
After overthrowing Parthian Arshacid Dynasty and taking the throne (226 AD), Persian Sassanids (in the face of the king Ardashir) started building their own empire. Among them who resisted their expansionism was Tiridates II of Armenia (the same Khosrov I). Eventually, Sassanids broke the resistance of many.
"Ardashir was now master of an empire extending from the Euphrates to Merv, Herat, and Siestan...Conflict with Rome...ended...in the reoccupation by the Persians of the two important fortresses of Nisbis and Carrhae." - Ghirshmann, Iran (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1975), p.291.
"Ardashir had much fighting to do to consolidate his rule...His boundaries did not include Armenia". - Frye, The Heritage of Persia (Weidenfeld and Nilson, 1965).
The Armenian defeat resulted from the assassination of Phosrov by Anak Pahlavi, who had been bribed by Ardashir. And here is the gap between the rule of Tiridadates II and his son Tiridates III (who had fled to Rome and gained the rule at 287 AD after reconquering Armenia from Persians) where we can put Armenia under the yoke of Persians. Taking into Account that Tiridates III adopted Christianity in 301 AD (which refers to the independent status of the Armenian Kingdom) and that the next 3 kings ruled Armenia independently until 367 AD, makes it reasonable not to depict Armenia as a Satrapy of Persia with the friendly attitude towards the latter. (There are cases in TW games where the design of some aspects was done taking into account not just an exact date but also the historical perspectives).

Thanks for your time, I hope you find the topic reasonable and take it into account until the official release.

Best,

Vardan.

[gerfand]

Mate, Romans have Pikeman... just wait for something like DEI to fix the game problem.

[Welsh Dragon]

I can't claim any particular knowledge of Armenian history, but from what little I've found doing a quick internet search, seems like the Sassanids occupied Armenia in 270AD, so making them a Satrapy seems reasonable to me, much like how Britannia and Hispania appear to be Client States to Gallic Rome.

From a gameplay perspective, I'm actually quite looking forward to being able to play as a Satrapy, as I don't think we've ever had that option before. (Some, like Athens in Grand Campaign, start as Client States, but don't think we've had a Satrapy.)

But like I said, it's not really my history so maybe I'm missing something.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Shapur I then reconquered Armenia, and incited Anak the Parthian to murder the king of Armenia, Khosrov II. Anak did as Shapur asked, and had Khosrov murdered in 252; yet Anak himself was shortly thereafter murdered by Armenian nobles.^[11] Shapur then appointed his son Hormizd I as the “Great King of Armenia”. With Armenia subjugated, Georgia submitted to the Sasanian Empire and fell under the supervision of a Sasanian official.^[9] With Georgia and Armenia under control, the Sasanians' borders on the north were thus secured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapur_I

[ariyan]

This has already been discussed in official total war forum but in the opposite direction ,this may be interesting to you

Amin N said:

Dear devs,

At this period of time (Year 270) Armenia is completely under Persian (Sassanid) rule, so why go in a non-historical direction?

Edit: At 270 AD, King of Persia is also the Sassanid King of Armenia; Somewhere between 271 - 273 AD, his brother Narseh (which is the king they chose to go with) becomes king of Armenia, and he is also part of the Sassanid Dynasty.

I do understand you might want to put Armenia there for flavor, but shouldn't you make them a vassal of the Persians or at least give them a diplomatic bonus with Persia instead of Rome (since the governor of Armenia was the Persian King's brother and they were under Persia). Please do answer me, I am confused.

Thank You

CA_Eric said:
Hi Amin,

Thanks for bringing this up and I hopefully have some answers for you.
On the subject of how you play Armenia, we realise that in 270 AD Armenia was not independent as you say. This is why in Empire Divided when you play as Armenia you will start as a Satrap of the Sassanids. Where you choose to go from there, is up to you!

As for who the ruler of Armenia and the Sassanids are at the time, we used “Iranica online” as our source for historical facts around this period. Specifically http://www.iranicaonline.org/article...-sasanian-king

There seems to be no exact timeline that can be agreed upon as to either when Narseh was viceroy of Armenia, or when Hormozd-Ardašir became the shahanshah – the latter ascending to the throne between 270 and 272 AD. As such, we decided to have both events occur prior to the game starting, although we accept that there could have been other possible rulers of both Armenia and the Sassanids at this time.

Specifically the paragraphs we are referencing are:

Narseh:

Narseh, viceroy of the Sasanian Empire. Before his coronation as king of kings (šāhānšāh), Narseh governed two viceroyalties: in the beginning, he was viceroy of Hind(estān), Sakastān, and Turān to the Edge of the Sea (Kettenhofen, 1995, pp. 11-12; Huyse, 1999, I, sec. 34: MPers. 23, 24; Parth. 19; Gk. 42), and later, viceroy in Armenia (Humbach and Prods O. Skjærvø, III/1, secs. 3, 19). We do not know the exact time-span of both viceroyalties (Huyse, 1999, I, pp. 10-14). Šāpur I’s entrusting of this vast territory to Narseh testifies to his belief in his son’s ability to rule. As viceroy, Narseh probably played “a key role in Sasanian Eastern policy” (Alram, 2012, p. 279; Weber, 2012, pp. 160-68). In the 3rd century CE, Armenia, Narseh’s second viceroyalty, was the politically and strategically most important province of the empire. The first two Sasanian kings’ policy of western expansion was closely connected with the Armenian question and repeatedly caused military encounters between Rome and the Sasanian Empire. The small number of Western sources and the unreliability of Armenian sources (Kettenhofen, 1995, pp. 48-73) make it difficult to write a history of Armenia in the 3rd century CE (Weber, 2012, pp. 173-82).

Hormozd-Ardašir:

When Šāpur I passed away (270/72), Hormozd-Ardašir ascended the Sasanian throne as Hormozd I. There is no detailed information on Narseh’s appointment as Hormozd-Ardašir’s successor in Armenia. Also not clear are the circumstances of the coronation of Bahrām I, whom his father had not had in mind for succession (Huyse, 1999, I, secs. 33-34; see the chapter “Narseh’s Genealogy”). It may be assumed that only Bahrām I, after Hormozd’s early death (273), made Narseh king of Armenia in return for the latter’s giving up of his right to the throne. Narseh’s damnatio memoriae of his brother, testified to by Bahrām I’s inscription and investiture relief, may count as a late reaction to his brother’s action.

Hopefully this answers your questions.

Amin N said:
But I still have some very important questions.

Does Armenia start as a Christian Satrap? If yes, this would be totally wrong. Since Narseh was a Persian and a Zoroastrian. The Persians (like the Romans) persecuted the Christians in their Empire. I know that there probably was a christian population in Armenia, but the King of Armenia (Narseh), and most importantly their overlords, the Persians were not Christians.

CA_Eric said:
Armenia does not start as a Christian Satrap. We have several "let's play" videos coming which will allow you to see how the mechanics of Empire Divided work, and hopefully enable you to better understand how Armenia fits in to this.

Yes, one of their religious building chains is Christian, to represent that historically they were going in that direction. But Narseh is not in control of Armenia in Empire Divided, you are! So where they end up going, is not based on history but on your own actions. If you wish to keep them Zoroastrian then that is your choice.

[Vardan the Great]

Thanks to everyone for the answers! What you said is true and does not contradict what I said. The period of the Sassanid control over Armenia is the gap between Thiridates II and Thiridates III (263 AD - 287 AD), which I had mentioned. What I said that it was a short period for what stands the adoption if Christianity by Armenians as a state religion at 301 AD. The real occupation took place after 397 AD and finished by the division of Armenia between Byzanteens and Persians at 428 AD.

[JERUSALEM]

In 270 AD Armenia was under the control of Sasanid Persia, but de jure it was a kingdom ruled by king, who was a subject of king of kings of Iran and non-Iran (official title of the rulers of Sasanid Persia).
As we know from the latest researches, in 270 AD Shapur I (r. 241-270) died and his eldest son and successor, Hormizd-Ardashir (ruler/king of Armenia before ascension to the throne of Persia), was elevated in the royal throne of Sasanid Persia, after 270 AD to 271 Hormizd-Ardashir (also know as Hormizd I) was a king of kings of Iran and non-Iran while his junior brother, Narseh (future king of kings of Persia), was appointed as the great king of Armenia and subject (vassal) of his elder brother (Hormizd-Ardashir/Hormizd I). The title the Great King was use for the Armenian rulers, while the title King of Kings was used for the Persian rulers.

The term "setrapy" is absolutely incorrect for this time-period. Armenia was a vassal kingdom of Sasanian Iran and not a satrapy. This and many other mistakes are disgraceful and they must be corrected before the release of the game.


PS. The books you have provided above are not latest academic research, they are more popular books based on the early research (before the 70s of 20th c.), now we definitely know that Armenia was subject to Persians from 252/3 up to at least the 70-80s of 3rd c.

Armenian king Tiridates (Trdat) III was baptized, probably, in 314 (or later), but not in 301. The latter date is rejected by the most scholars. Only some Armenian "researchers" (and those who are under their influence) are maintaining this wrong opinion about the Christianization of Armenia in 301.

[Welsh Dragon]

In 270 AD Armenia was under the control of Sasanid Persia, but de jure it was a kingdom ruled by king, who was a subject of king of kings of Iran and non-Iran (official title of the rulers of Sasanid Persia).
As we know from the latest researches, in 270 AD Shapur I (r. 241-270) died and his eldest son and successor, Hormizd-Ardashir (ruler/king of Armenia before ascension to the throne of Persia), was elevated in the royal throne of Sasanid Persia, after 270 AD to 271 Hormizd-Ardashir (also know as Hormizd I) was a king of kings of Iran and non-Iran while his junior brother, Narseh (future king of kings of Persia), was appointed as the great king of Armenia and subject (vassal) of his elder brother (Hormizd-Ardashir/Hormizd I). The title the Great King was use for the Armenian rulers, while the title King of Kings was used for the Persian rulers.

The term "setrapy" is absolutely incorrect for this time-period. Armenia was a vassal kingdom of Sasanian Iran and not a satrapy. This and many other mistakes are disgraceful and they must be corrected before the release of the game.


PS. The books you have provided above are not latest academic research, they are more popular books based on the early research (before the 70s of 20th c.), now we definitely know that Armenia was subject to Persians from 252/3 up to at least the 70-80s of 3rd c.

Armenian king Tiridates (Trdat) III was baptized, probably, in 314 (or later), but not in 301. The latter date is rejected by the most scholars. Only some Armenian "researchers" (and those who are under their influence) are maintaining this wrong opinion about the Christianization of Armenia in 301.

While it may not be 100% historically accurate, in terms of Rome 2's gameplay mechanics I believe making Armenia a Sassanid Satrapy is correct. The Sassanids are an Eastern Kingdom, and Eastern Kingdoms use Satrapies (while Roman and Hellnic use Client States, and Barbarians have Confederation.) Vassal kingdoms do not exist in Rome 2, so it seems to me they went with the next best thing within the framework of the game.

Also as you have highlighted yourself, it's difficult to get a definitive answer to questions about history from so far back in time. Various historians have different ideas about how things worked, what events happened and in what order, sources from the time are often few and far between. As has already been highlighted, CA have chosen to use the Encyclopædia Iranica which appears to be a fairly well respected English Language source for history on the region. It seems like a reasonable choice to me, though as I have previously said this really isn't an area of history I know much about.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[LestaT]

What's the difference between satrap and vassal?

[Gäiten]

Satrapy - being part of the Sasanian Empire, ruled by a Satrap (though Marzban would be more suitable for the Sasanian era) who is directly appointed by and is responsible to the Shahanshah.
Vassal - semi-Independent, mostly a native ruling dynasty.

Armenia was somewhat unique for the Sasanians because the successor to the Royal throne often was appointed as ruler of Armenia. Something like the contemporary Prince of Wales.

[JERUSALEM]

While it may not be 100% historically accurate, in terms of Rome 2's gameplay mechanics I believe making Armenia a Sassanid Satrapy is correct. The Sassanids are an Eastern Kingdom, and Eastern Kingdoms use Satrapies (while Roman and Hellnic use Client States, and Barbarians have Confederation.) Vassal kingdoms do not exist in Rome 2, so it seems to me they went with the next best thing within the framework of the game.

Also as you have highlighted yourself, it's difficult to get a definitive answer to questions about history from so far back in time. Various historians have different ideas about how things worked, what events happened and in what order, sources from the time are often few and far between. As has already been highlighted, CA have chosen to use the Encyclopædia Iranica which appears to be a fairly well respected English Language source for history on the region. It seems like a reasonable choice to me, though as I have previously said this really isn't an area of history I know much about.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

Some issues are debatable, but some of them are not. Showing Armenia as a satrapy in the 3rd c. AD is absolutely non-historical and false. Sasanid Empire had no satrapies in Armenia in 270. The authors of Encyclopædia Iranica would never make such a mistake (at least, I hope so), and your wrong estimation ("Eastern Kingdoms use Satrapies" as you have mentioned) is caused by the failure of CA to depict more or less historical picture of that period. You guys are repeating the mistakes, which they have in their games and are shaping wrong perception about the historical process of "the Roman period" in the East. This "system of satrapies" in Rome 2 EE was wrong as well that was employed from Seleucid faction of Rome 2 main campaign.

Now about more mistakes in this game: Kingdom of Colchis, which was abolished in the 1st century BCE is depicted as independent state in Caucasus/Caucasia in the game that starts in 270 AD, the state symbol of that faction is taken from Colchian tetri, local coins that were minted from the 6th to the 4th cc. BCE, and capital city of this "3rd century Colchian kingdom" is Phasis. Characters are dark skinned more like to the Persians than to Lazi people, which are and were pale and blond in the most cases. So many mistakes, which I have noticed in the depiction of this one unplayable faction.

I know that CA is well aware of Wikipedia, at least they can see in Wikipedia that instead of Colchis in the 3rd century we have Kingdom of Lazica (successor kingdom of Colchis, but still with a different name) and the capital of Lazica was Archaeolpolis (Tsikhe-Goji), and that Colchian tetri ceased to be minted (last remnants are from 4th or 3rd cc. BCE) at least 500 years before the game starts (270 AD). And, I know that they know this from the release of Attila TW, because Attila TW (starts in 395 AD, closer to Rome 2 Empire Divided) is more accurately crafted than this "beta" version (or I do not know what to call it) of Empire Divided. But, do you know why they have so many mistakes? because they simply copy-pasted many things from Rome 2 EE. They even copy-pasted the introductory video from Rome 2 EE... Besides, there is no problem of making this game to look more historic, they simply can change the name "Satrapy" to "Kingdom", the same with Colchis - Change the name "Colchis" to Lazica; Change location and name of its capital - Archaepolis is in the center of while Phasis is washed by sea; Change the banner/symbol and appearance of the characters. The name are not visible from this beta version but I am sure they are wrongly crafted as well... People can learn much from the historical games, but they should not learn it wrongly.

Here I have discussed only one example of "Colchian" (which did not existed in the 3rd c. AD) faction, while they need to correct some others too, especially, eastern factions.

What's the difference between satrap and vassal?

See the post below by Gäiten. Take into consideration the fact that Prince of Wales have never been called a King before their ascension on the throne, while royal princes of Sasanid rulers were called as "the Great King of Armenia", which was lower political status, but still royal status, of course below King of Kings of Iran/Persia.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

I can't claim any particular knowledge of Armenian history, but from what little I've found doing a quick internet search, seems like the Sassanids occupied Armenia in 270AD, so making them a Satrapy seems reasonable to me, much like how Britannia and Hispania appear to be Client States to Gallic Rome.

From a gameplay perspective, I'm actually quite looking forward to being able to play as a Satrapy, as I don't think we've ever had that option before. (Some, like Athens in Grand Campaign, start as Client States, but don't think we've had a Satrapy.)

But like I said, it's not really my history so maybe I'm missing something.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

The Lakhmids in TW:Attila start as a satrapy to the Sassanids but their campaign has a silly bug where sometimes Allies of Sassanids declare war on you while you are still a satrapy of Sassanids particularly Arran does this. Declaring war on a satrapy without declaring war on the master faction is technically impossible so this is a buggy situation but yeah, the option of a satrapy is there.

Also If I remember right the Tokugawa started as a "satrapy" to the Imagawa on Shogun 2, which was pretty much the same rules when it comes to the game.

[Daruwind]

Also If I remember right the Tokugawa started as a "satrapy" to the Imagawa on Shogun 2, which was pretty much the same rules when it comes to the game.

In Empire/Napoleon we have only protectorates, in Shogun 2 only Vassals.... Problem is the Vassal option is not in Rome 2 but have been replaced by two different kinds of "vassals". Which kind you have depends on your culture:

Satrapys are the Vassal equivalent of eastern factions, they have very limited diplomacy abilities
Client States are the Vassals of Greko-Roman factions, they have more diplomatic freedom then Satrapys (like they can start wars on their own)
Barbarian nations can't have Satrapys or client states but could confederate..

Plus we have Alliance, Defensive Alliance and non-aggression pact. So the problem here are the options. I could imagine new Vassal relation but sadly without more robust diplomacy system it makes no practical use...It is the same reason why in older titles we have just one "vassal" option instead of wide spectrum of possibilities..