Achaeans or Aetolians? Or?

[Caligula Caesar]

At the moment, I have the Achaeans in the mod. However, a comment by an EB team member sparked me to look into things again (something along the lines of the Achaeans not being considered because they were a very minor power, unlike the Aetolians, who had just saved Greece by defeating the Galatai). Here is the result of my research on the Achaeans:

-In 264 BC, it should be a group of 12 Achaian cities, among them Patrai, Aigion and Dyme.

-In 251 BC, Aratus of Sicyon brought Sicyon into the league. Sicyon was not an Achaian city, because it was Dorian, but they took the name Achaian thereafter. At this time, "the Achaeans [...] had neither brilliant repute nor great strength." [Plut. Arat. 9.4]

-In 243 BC, Corinth was taken [Plut. Arat. 16.2]

-It was only after that, in 235 BC, that Megalopolis under Lydiades became part of the Achaean League. [Plut. Arat. 30.1 and following]


On the other hand, the Aitolians sent their largest muster of troops ever to the Battle of Thermopylai against the Galatai. This amounted to about 7,800 troops. Adding to that the Locrians and Phocians, which would be in Aitolian territory, you get almost 10,000. [Paus. 10.20]

The ability to raise such an army - comparable in size to that of the Boeotians, who went into decline - and the Athenians shows that they had some population. They also maintained their independence for a long time, until 189 BC when it was forced to become incorporated into Rome.

However, they are noted to have had limited manpower and wealth.


Neither of these are exactly ideal. The other options are Athens, which was in sharp decline (so no!) and Sparta (which was also in decline and has no more right to be there than any of the others). So, erm... I'm stuck. Ideas, anyone?

I'm inclined to keep it as the Achaians, now that I have assessed it... it will be easiest

[hannibalcaesar]

In my opinion, as you said, it is a hard choice. They all had their influences in Greece but none were major regional powers. They both fought a few wars like the aetolians, as they were anti-roman, they fought the gaullic invaders. The acheans fought sparta on a few occasions, but did not do much other military actions. Since they both held balance over the other, it would be best to have both, but that is not possible, so i would like to hear other facts before i say something. .(i may lack some things or have some minor details wrong, but i am not really an expert on the leagues)

[Caligula Caesar]

The problem with the Achaeans is that their territory is so small that it is actually only a fraction of the province which would be Achaea on the map in 267 BC. But they were notably successful in many of their wars, managing to hold back Macedon and then defeat Sparta.

[hannibalcaesar]

Yeah, i agree. That is why this is a very hard thing to decide, and should be carefully considered.

[Caligula Caesar]

And to think - some people would rather have two Greek factions than have, say, the Mauryan Empire!

I think it is vital that I do have a Greek City States faction which is fully playable. I also have a Greek minifaction, which controls various colonies, Sparta, Rhodos, and the Aitolian League. This, it occurs to me, is somewhat silly, because the Chremonidean War between the coalition (Athens and Sparta, mainly) and Macedon was starting in 267. But I wouldn't agree to this coalition being a full faction, because it didn't last long and the states were still independent, even if they were fighting for the same cause. So maybe they should be part of the minifaction.

The Achaeans were neglectable in this war, it would appear. There really isn't a strong case for their inclusion at this point. The Aitolian League would certainly be a better bet. But there is another intriguing option: What if I took the Kingdom of Rhodos? They played a part in the Successor Wars with their great navy, and also controlled the Aegean Sea with the help of the Ptolemies. This would solve the problem with the other factions - namely that they are too small, had limited manpower, and could easily be destroyed very fast. Because Greece was divided between Macedon and non-Macedon, which fought amongst itself as often as it fought Macedon. But to actually represent most of their conquest attempts - the taking of a city, inching further across the land - is impossible on my map without many more regions. There are some powers which don't even get a region - The Boeotians, the Arcadians, the Argives, etc.

Ok, so there is the problem that the Rhodians never actually expanded beyond their island, despite having a great fleet (which destroyed the Seleucid one on one occasion). But the Aetolians never expanded after 267, nor did the Athenians (in fact, they went backwards), nor did the Boeotians or the Arcadians or the Argives. The Achaeans did expand, but barely beyond the Peloponese, and they were unable to defeat Sparta without the Macedonians. Sparta had a long series of setbacks and "reforms", but it never amounted to much. So I think it is much of a muchness.

If Achaea becomes Rhodos, the Greek Minifaction would either become Athens and Sparta or Achaia and Aitolia. I think Athens and Sparta would be better, because they were in alliance and at that time at war with Macedon.

[hannibalcaesar]

That's probably a reasonable solution

[Caligula Caesar]

I assume they would have a similar military to Pergamon - traditional Greek hoplites with more light infantry (notably Rhodian Slingers ) and a heavy reliance on mercenaries. And Reform Phalangites, should they expand.

[Taipanissimo]

Kinda late for my reply but here goes

If I understand correctly there are to be two factions in Greece? 1 mini faction and 1 normal faction? (and some rebels probably?)

The issue is that there was no faction in that time in Greece which stood head and shoulders above the rest. It was all city state and loose sand alliances. So I would not be able to pick two factions.

What you could do however is look at the cities which were influenced ot protected by another faction. You could have a pro macedonian faction and one against them. you can start them as allies with or at war with Macedonia.

Military wise there were some changes during that time to the shields mostly (more round) but statistics would be about the same

[Caligula Caesar]

I suppose my analysis of the situation is ok, then.

[Quinn Inuit]

You definitely need to keep Sparta playable. Zeus help the RTW modder who doesn't allow people to play as Sparta.

Carados and I are in full agreement on the importance of the Aetolians, and have them as a minifaction.

Rhodos is a tough one. It was extremely important, but completely non-expansionist. As such, it's one of those places that would be not just implausible to have conquering things, but downright _weird_. And with only one province on the island, I don't see much advantage to making it part of a minifaction vs. a single rebel holding.

[Caligula Caesar]

I haven't actually done any coding here... so I'll go with Chremonides' League after all. The date is just right for it.

Btw, Rhodos did try to take Lycia a bit before Alexander came along, but I don't recall if they managed.

[DukeCanada]

Why can we only keep one?

Sorry I've been out for a while.

What was the decision by the sorry. Sorry Im having trouble understanding this thread.

[Caligula Caesar]

What? I think you're confusing VII and FO VII will of course keep all the Greeks, FO, on the other hand, cannot do this due to RTW not having enough faction slots and region slots etc.

[Dunadd]

I thought the Achaeans and the Aetolians were the two main powers in Greece and the Balkans other than Macedon when Phillip V was king - so it might be best to have both? Could be wrong though - i've only read little bits of Polybius on that period.

Attalus of Pergamum is mentioned a fair bit but it only seems to have been only his navy that was significant and more due to the skill of its' crews than it's size.

[Caligula Caesar]

I have Pergamon, which is in Asia Minor and not particularly significant to Greece (not that he couldn't have been, but to my knowledge Pergamene soldiers never set foot in Greece).

The problem is that I start in 267, when no one is really the main party in Greece. I am still uncomfortable with the Chremonidean Alliance being a faction, as it was destroyed just a few years later. I have not made a final decision, but I will probably end up with the Aetolians as the main faction, with Athens and Sparta in the minifaction.

[Maurits]

After reading through this thread, I'd go for the option described in your last post with the Aetolians as a faction. Furthermore, I'd also choose for a rebel Rhodos, as that would better represent it's status.

[Evalation]

I think the Aetolians would be a better choice. In RTR7 i liked their units better then the Achaeans anyway..

[Caligula Caesar]

I've stuck with Achaea in the end... It was easier than changing things around. Btw, most of these threads are quite out of date, so they mostly don't really apply anymore...