GCS campaign and the Chremonidean War

[DimeBagHo]

The current GCS campaign is supposed to represent the alliance of Greek City States that sought to break the Macedonian hegemony over Greece c. 270 BC. Below is a translation of the Athenian decree which formalized the alliance. From the decree it looks like a better representation of the alliance would be Sparta, Athens, Patras (Achaea), and Cydonia (Crete), with Pergamon and Rhodes going to the Independent Greeks Cities.

19. CHREMONIDES’ DECREE

Staatsverträge 476 (Syll.3 434/5) 265/4

Although it is not a war vote, this decree effectively marks the beginning of the war named after its proposer. The target was Antigonus Gonatas of Macedon, here cast in the role of enemy of the cities of Greece, who had been extending his influence and control in Greece since securing the throne of Macedon in 277/6. The instigator of this bellicose co-operation between Athens and Sparta was clearly Ptolemy II of Egypt, whose influence in Greece had been waning directly as Antigonus' increased. The attempt proved disastrous for the Spartans, who were defeated in a battle near Corinth that cost them their king, Areus, for the Athenians, who capitulated to Antigonus in 261/0 after a siege that Ptolemy's admiral Patroklos had failed to break, and for Ptolemy himself, who eventually lost his naval domination of the Aegean after a defeat at the hands of the Macedonian navy.

Gods. In the archonship of Peithedemos, in the second prytany, that of (the tribe) Erechtheis, on the ninth (day) of Metageitnion, the ninth (day) of the prytany, (in) a statutory assembly. Of the prohedroi Sostratos, son of Kallistratos, of (the deme) Erchia, and his fellow prohedroi put the motion to the vote. Resolved by the demos: Chremonides, son of Eteokles, of (the deme) Aithalidai, spoke: Whereas in former times the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians and the allies of each, after making friendship and common alliance with one another, together fought many noble struggles alongside one another against those who were trying to enslave the cities, from which deeds they both won for themselves fair reputation and brought about freedom for the rest of the Greeks, and (whereas) now, when similar circumstances have overtaken all Greece on account of those who are trying to overthrow the laws and the ancestral institutions of each (of the cities), King Ptolemy, in accordance with the policy of his ancestors and his sister, shows clearly his concern for the common freedom of the Greeks, and the demos of the Athenians, having made an alliance with him, has voted to urge the rest of the Greeks toward the same policy; and, likewise, the Lacedaemonians, being friends and allies of King Ptolemy, have voted an alliance with the demos of the Athenians, along with the Eleians and Achaeans and Tegeans and Mantineians and Orchomenians and Phialians and Kaphyans and as many of the Cretans as are in the alliance of the Lacedaemonians and Areus and the other allies, and have sent ambassadors from the synhedroi to the demos (of the Athenians), and their ambassadors having arrived, make clear the zealous concern which the Lacedaemonians and Areus and the rest of the allies have toward the demos of the Athenians, and bring with them the agreement about the alliance; (and) in order that, a state of common concord having come to exist among the Greeks, the Greeks may be, along with King Ptolemy and with each other, eager contenders against those who have wronged the cities and violated their treaties with them, and may for the future with mutual good-will save the cities; with good fortune, be it resolved by the demos: that the friendship and alliance of the Athenians with the Lacedaemonians and the Kings of the Lacedaemonians, and the Eleians and Achaeans and Tegeans and Mantineians and Orchomenians and Phialians and Kaphyans and as many of the Cretans as are in the alliance of the Lacedaemonians and Areus and the rest of the allies, be valid for all [time, the one which] the ambassadors bring with them; and that [the] secretary of the prytany have (it) inscribed on a bronze stele and [set up] on the Acropolis, by the temple of Athena Polias; and that [the] magistrates [swear] to the ambassadors who have come [from them the oath] about the alliance, according to [ancestral custom]; and to send [the] ambassadors [who have been] elected by the demos to receive the oaths [from] the [rest of the Greeks]; and further, that [the demos immediately] elect [two] synhedroi [from among] all [the Athenians] who shall deliberate [about the common] good with Areus and the synhedroi [sent by the allies]; and that [those in charge] of public administration distribute to those chosen (as synhedroi) provisions for as long as they shall be away [whatever] the demos shall decide [when electing them]; and to Praise [the ephors] of the Lacedaemonians and Areus and the allies, [and to crown them] with a gold crown in accordance with the law; [and further, to praise the] ambassadors who have come from them, Theom [. . . of Lacedae]mon and Argeios son of Kleinias of Elis, [and to crown] each of them with a gold crown, in accordance with [the law, on account of their zealous concern] and the good-will which they bear toward [the rest of the allies] and the demos of the Athenians; and that [each of them] be entitled to receive [other] benefits from the boule [and the demos, if they seem] to deserve [any]; and to invite them [also to receive hospitality] tomorrow [in the prytaneion], and that the secretary of the prytany have inscribed [this decree also and the agreement] upon a [stone] stele and have it set up on the Acropolis, and that those in charge of [public administration] allocate [the expense for the inscription and erection] of the stele, [whatever it] may be. The following were elected synhedroi: Kallippos of (the deme) Eleusis, [and- - - ].

The treaty and alliance [of the Lacedaemonians and the allies] of the Lacedaemonians with [the Athenians and the allies] of the Athenians, [to be valid] for all [time]: [Each (of the parties)], being [free] and autonomous, [is to have its own territory, using its own political institutions in accordance with] ancestral tradition. If anyone [comes with war as their object against the land] of the Athenians or [is overthrowing] the laws, [or comes with war as their object against] the allies of the Athenians, [the Lacedaemonians and the allies] of the Lacedaemonians [shall come to the rescue in full strength to the best of their ability. If] anyone comes with war as their object [against the land of the Lacedaemonians], or is overthrowing [the] laws, [or comes with war as their object against the allies] of the Lacedaemonians, [the Athenians and the allies of the Athenians shall come to the rescue in full strength to the best of their ability.] - - - The (following) Athenians swear the oath to the Lacedaemonians [and to those from each] city: the strategoi and the [boule of 600 and the] archons and the phylarchs and the taxiarchs [and the hipparchs]. “I swear by Zeus, Ge, Helios, Ares, Athena Areia, [Poseidon, Demeter] that I shall remain in the alliance that has been made; [to those abiding by this oath] may many good things befall, to those not, the opposite.” (Of the Lacedaemonians] (the following) swear the same oath to the Athenians: the [kings and the ephors (and)] the gerontes. And the magistrates [are to swear the same oath also in the other] cities. If [it seems preferable to the Lacedaemonians and) the allies and the Athenians (to add something) or to remove something in respect to (the terms of) the alliance, [then whatever is decided upon by both] will be in accord with the oath. (The cities are) to have [the agreement] inscribed [upon) stelai and have (them) set up in a sanctuary wherever they wish.

Notes:

His sister: Arsinoe (Philadelphos), daughter of Ptolemy I and sister of Ptolemy II, was also the second wife of the latter, the first having been Arsinoe, daughter of Lysimachus.

Areus: son of Acrotatus, king of Sparta from 309 to 265/4. He died in battle against Antigonus at the Isthmus in the first year of the war.

Synhedroi: i.e., from the council of the states in the Spartan alliance; cf. further on in the inscription.

[Balikedes]

Thanks DBH, what a cool read!

To me it looks like it should be the second choice. This would give the GCS players a different approach to the beginning of the games i.e., won't need to blitz Crete and fend off hordes of TSE armies simultaneously.
It will also give the player a chance to take Rhodes, which was historically pretty tough, maybe they can get a scripted garrison...?

[supeerme]

yeah...that is an great idea...I hated the fact that you had to protect against two powerful factions....


It will make the battles for more interesting as greek lands are more important than barbarian lands!

[Spartan198]

I agree with the posts above me. It would be more historical, plus it would make the initial military build-up with the GCS easier, as you'd only have to focus on defending against Macedon.

The Seleucid Empire is a shadow of its former self in 280, but it's still the "800 lbs gorilla" of the time...

[TM Is Back]

Sparta, Athens, Patras, Cydonia

I have fought enough battles against full stacks of TSE in the beginning

[Stilgar CG]

Good idea, Dime. My vote goes to the second option, just to keep GCS close together.

[Zarax]

Hmm, didn't EB use Sparta, Athens and Rhodes as members of the Chremonidean alliance?
Crete was actually split between Spartan and Macedonian influences, being de facto a mercenary recuiting ground.
Rhodes was also an important member because they provided an important part of the allied fleet (although it was mostly tied against the seleucids it was strong enough to fend them off).

Maybe we could keep Crete independent/rebel but have a GCS stack on the island?

[DimeBagHo]

Rhodes and Crete are tricky to place. Rhodes was not part of the alliance, but they were closely allied with the Ptolemies, who were the financial backers of the alliance. Unlike Rhodes, Crete was not united. Some parts clearly were part of the alliance, other parts were not.

I think Rhodes should be independent, because it's not named in the decree, and its allegiance lay more with the Ptolemies than with the mainland cities. I also like the idea of adding a garrison script. Trade from Rhodes is worth a lot, and historically they were very successful in resisting invasion.

On the other hand I think it makes sense to include Crete in the GCS because the Cretans are named in the decree, and most players take Crete in the first couple of rounds anyway. It would be more historical, and make for better gameplay, if the GCS campaign opens with a war against Macedon, rather than an invasion of Crete.

[LucretiusTC]

Yep, that makes sense to me. The combination of Sparta-Athens-Patras-Cydonia gives a pretty coherent starting position for the GCS, and they don´t have to worry about Pergamon, the Seleucids, and the two-front war in the early game. Besides as we know those Attalids of Pergamon are also playable as a provincial campaign. The scripted garrison for Rhodes sounds cool too..

Luc.

[Kara Kolyo]

I agree whit what others said plus most of us had plenty of time to have early wars with TSE so a change in the starting positions could be good. But maybe Rhodes could be included in the starting alliance to have nice naval invasions?

[CaesarVincens]

The only real problem I can foresee in changing to this set-up is that if the GCS loses to Macedon in Greece proper, they are pretty much done, with only Kydonia to fall back to. I've seen some nice Pergamonian Greek Kingdoms, but I still think this is worth trying.

[DimeBagHo]

The IGCS would have a stronger position in Asia Minor, so we might see that grow into a significant power. With loyalty enabled there is even a chance it would turn into the GCS if the GCS were wiped out.

[Hippias]

The IGCS would have a stronger position in Asia Minor, so we might see that grow into a significant power. With loyalty enabled there is even a chance it would turn into the GCS if the GCS were wiped out.

You are not kidding!! In both my current 5.8 (beta) campaigns The IGCS is making a better show of things than I have ever seen before - which at the moment is making things a lot more fun

Loyalty really is a knockout feature for this game - especially now Ethnic Traits is in with it's Optimate/Populare and Democrat/Oligarch potential.

If possible I think that Loyalty should become a major issue/problem/feature for the GCS/IGCS, with frequent changes of alliance between Sparta/Athens/Pergamon/Olbia/Thebes/Rhodes etc (represented by characters/armies/cities swapping due to Loyalty) A frequently fractured and re-built set of Greek alliances would feel much more historical (and more fun late game) than a world empire of hoplites IMHO

[Barend]

The only real problem I can foresee in changing to this set-up is that if the GCS loses to Macedon in Greece proper, they are pretty much done, with only Kydonia to fall back to. I've seen some nice Pergamonian Greek Kingdoms, but I still think this is worth trying.

I voted 2nd option.
Hopefully this will stop the AI nonsense of shipping everything to Pergamon which I've seen in multiple campaigns when playing as Pontus and the TSE.

But how can we be certain that the GCS will expand in Asia Minor? What if they do exactly what Macedon does in many campaigns, and expand towards the steppes?

[Scutarii]

But how can we be certain that the GCS will expand in Asia Minor? What if they do exactly what Macedon does in many campaigns, and expand towards the steppes?

This makes no sense whatsoever. Under the current starting position, the GCS expands into Asia Minor 100% of the time, 99% of the time committing the majority or all of there forces. Under the proposed position, they would obviously not expand there as they would not have a foothold. They would concentrate on Greece itself and fight the Maks. They may expand into Anatolia after securing Byzantion.

[Publius Quirinus]

But how can we be certain that the GCS will expand in Asia Minor? What if they do exactly what Macedon does in many campaigns, and expand towards the steppes?

This makes no sense whatsoever. Under the current starting position, the GCS expands into Asia Minor 100% of the time, 99% of the time committing the majority or all of there forces. Under the proposed position, they would obviously not expand there as they would not have a foothold. They would concentrate on Greece itself and fight the Maks. They may expand into Anatolia after securing Byzantion.

I think what Barend meant was that, with the new starting position, since the GCS would have no foothold in Asia Minor, if they happen to gain control tof the whole of Greece (like the Macedonians typically do), they probably will expand upwards into the steppe like the Macedonians sometimes do after uniting Greece, instead of into Asia Minor, the more logical route.

[LucretiusTC]

I didn´t think Crete should have two settlements, because it would make it a little bit too heavy and too important for a gameplay. But we could make a little map change in Crete, so that the main settlement would be Gortyn in the central Crete and the place of the port would be same as Knossos.

Here is a good map about ancient Crete with Greek names:
http://www.unc.edu/awmc/downloads/apaCrete.pdf

If Gortyn were a new settlement instead of Kydonia, then the Cretan Rebels could have a big army with a minor settlement or a fort in western part of the island. Then the player (as the Greek City States) just had to deal with those Rebels sooner or later in the game, and unify the island under his command...


Luc.

[Scutarii]

I think what Barend meant was that, with the new starting position, since the GCS would have no foothold in Asia Minor, if they happen to gain control tof the whole of Greece (like the Macedonians typically do), they probably will expand upwards into the steppe like the Macedonians sometimes do after uniting Greece, instead of into Asia Minor, the more logical route.

In nearly all my campaigns whoever unfies Greece (the Maks, more often than not) expands into Anatolia and the East. I've never seen them go into Scythia.

[Scutarii]

I voted Patras, Cybonia etc... Sounds like thats most accurate.

[Centurion44]

I voted the for the second option because at the start of every GCS campaign it is so annoying waiting for TSE to attack.