Been inactive for a while, but with the new patch and traits for so many factions, I had to put something for Parthia in. Unfortunately, I haven't yet found any administrative, profession stuff for them, but I think these few traits would be good nevertheless
Parthian education:
There is no real evidence on Parthian education, but it is believed it was similar to that of the Sassanids.
The people who would be given education were royal princes, the nobility, the clergy and administrative secretaries (dabīrs). Most peasants were illiterate, but most urban merchants were probably acquainted at least with writing and calculation.
The Parthian nobleman began his education between ages of 5 and 7 and finished it around 15. Since it would be no point in making an education trait system for a character of that age (I think), we could make him a student between ages 16 and 18. He would learn in
... writing, religious instruction, physical education, and training in courtly arts ...
. After this, he would begin his military education (years 18-20) -
... then trained in riding, archery, polo, and the military arts ...
and
... It was customary to entrust the education of a prince, especially a crown prince, to a tutor, in some instances far from the court ...
. My idea is that while a nobleman is getting his basic education, he would have to be in a city (preferably with a school), during which he would lose his movement points. He would learn the skills to run the city etc. After this, he would be free to go anywhere to begin his military instruction. He could educate in a city (and become a strategist, tactician, gain logistics knowledge etc), or he could join a commander in the field and learn from him (getting similar traits as him; and the better the commander his tutor is, the better he'll become).
Spoiler for Education of Bahram V:
Bahrām V (Bahrām Gōr, q.v.; 421-39), whose education was said to have been entrusted to Monḏer, Arab ruler of Ḥīra in Mesopotamia, was instructed by various tutors (moʾaddeb) in writing, archery, riding, and law. His general education is reported to have finished at the age of twelve years, after which he continued training in archery and riding until he attained mastery.
... The prince was not only trained in horsemanship, archery, hunting, and the arts of war but also learned social etiquette, ceremonial rites, conduct on festive occasions, and delivery of orations. The results of his education were later apparent in the skills in archery, polo, and hunting that he exhibited when he lived at the court of Afrāsīāb ...
hērbed : if a nobleman is out of the favour with the king, he would be forced to study the religion and become a priest, or a religious teacher (this is how I envision it) -
... he would learn to write and would memorize the yašts, Hādōxt, Bayān Yasn, and Vidēvdād ...
- ofc every nobleman had to learn those texts, but I feel that a herbed would have to study them harder...
moʾaddeb (tutor) - an ancillary
Names for schools:
frahangestān, lit., “place of education”
dibīrestān, probably a school for training scribes and secretaries
hērbedestān, evidently a school for religious studies
The general term for “teacher” was hammōzgār, for “religious teacher” hērbed, and for “instructor” frahangbed, also moʾaddeb al-asāwera “instructor of horsemen”)
Even though the Parthians were polytheists, two major religions were mithraism and zoroastrianism.
...
The Parthians worshiped the cult of Mithra, the same Mithraism that was embraced by much of the ancient world. The spread of Mithraism over the entire Roman Empire, the absorption into Christianity of Mithraic beliefs, rites and practices, ceremonies and festivals are a reflection of the influence of the Parthians on the ancient world.
It is also believed that Parthians widely practiced Zoroastrianism, and the holy documents of this religion were first compiled by the Parthians and used by the Sasanians. The ostraca found at Nisa confirm the connection with numerous place names that are Zoroastrian in character, but there as yet is no evidence of a flourishing Zoroastrian cult in Nisa. Also, the ostraca are dated in the Parthian with Zoroastrian month names
...
I don't know how it is now, but I believe you only added Ahura Mazda (zoroastrianism) into the game. I would highly advise adding Mithra as well.
Last edited by Rex Basiliscus; May 05, 2011 at 07:53 AM.
Parthia was for several centuries a kingdom with nomadic/tribal-oriental constitution. The rule of the oriental governments was always permanency, so the law of the land didn't change much from the times of the nomadic life to the 3rd century BC for the Parthians, when they established their monarchy.
In the reign of Mithridates I (171-138 BC), however the "constitution" drastically changed. Up until Mithridates, the Parthian kings were content (read: forced) on keeping with the borders of Parthia itself and minimal territories around her. This was due to the great anabazis of Antiochus the Great, who not only defeated Parthians, but also lowered them to a sort of vassalage. The Parthian kings Arsaces II, Phriapatius I and Phraates I all maintained a peaceful relationship with the Seleucidae. The kingdom was at that time only one of the many petty monarchies feudal to the Seleucid crown (others being Baktria, Armenia, Media Atropatene etc) and with her petty monarchs, didn't pose much threat to the Syrian kingdom.
When Mithridates came to the throne, the Seleucids were embroiled in a war with Judeans and Armenians, but more importantly among themselves. Mithridates was a man who knew when to strike and do so effectively.
He first took Media (which at that time was its own kingdom) and placed a Parthian satrap to govern it, while he dealt with the Hyrkanian revolt. The Seleucid rulers were to busy with internal strife to check the Parthian invasion, so soon after Media, Mithridates took Elymais (Sousiana). At that time control over any one of the three satrapies (Babylonia, Sousiana, Persis), meant the control of all, and soon the other two defected from the Seleucids to Parthia. Thus the greatest conquest of the Parthian kingdom was finished in little over a year. No doubt it made it easier when the Syrians were fighting among themselves.
However in 138 BC, Antiochus VII Sidetes (from Side) came to the throne of the Seleucid Empire. He was the last Syrian monarch of any stature. In that year Mithridates died, leaving the throne to Phraates II, who was no such brilliant strategist, or ruler as the former. Antiochus VII was able to amass an army of reportedly 200,000 men and invade Babylonia. He defeated the Parthians in three battles and by some sources, limited the Parthian kingdom to the area which it held before Mithridates' rise to power.
However, the Greek and Babylonian population didn't like the army residing in their towns. There were several riots in the towns where Antiochus' army was stationed for the winter. The citizens planned to betray the Syrian ruler and after secret messages were exchanged with Phraates, the day was set when the revolts in all of the cities would begin. When it happened, the garrisoned troops were attacked by the civilians and city militias alike. Great many were killed and those who tried to escape were mowed down by Phraates' army. Even Antiochus VII was killed in such attempt to flee.
Reportedly, not much was left of this grand armada. It is said that almost every house in Syria mourned for the loss of their close one in that campaign. That year the Parthian Empire was solidified and Seleucid Empire reduced to a petty kingdom, limited to Syria.
In Mithridates' reign, the Parthian kingdom was transformed into an Empire. In some sources it is said that he took all the best known laws (I guess Persian and Seleucid) and from them made a common constitution. He was also the first Parthian monarch to have taken the title King of Kings (Basileus basileon was the official Greek title) or Satrap of Satraps. Among his other titles was also "Brother of the moon and the sun", which was the old title of the Achaemenid rulers as well.
Previous Parthian monarchs had been content to call themselves "the King," or "the Great King"—Mithridates is "the King of Kings, the great and illustrious Arsaces."
...
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ, basileōs megalou arsakou philellēnos ([coin] of the Great King Arsaces, friend of the Greeks)
...
THE TWO COUNCILS
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Like most sovereignties which have arisen out of an association of chiefs banding themselves together for warlike purposes under a single head, the Parthian monarchy was limited. The king was permanently advised by two councils, consisting of persons not of his own nomination, whom rights, conferred by birth or office, entitled to their seats. One of these was a family conclave (concilium domesticum), or assembly of the full-grown males of the Royal House; the other was a Senate comprising both the spiritual and the temporal chiefs of the nation, the Sophi, or "Wise Men," and the Magi, or "Priests." Together these two bodies constituted the Megistanes, the "Nobles" or "Great Men"—the privileged class which to a considerable extent checked and controlled the monarch. The monarchy was elective, but only in the house of the Arsacidae; and the concurrent vote of both councils was necessary in the appointment of a new king. Practically, the ordinary law of hereditary descent appears to have been followed, unless in the case where a king left no son of sufficient age to exercise the royal office. Under such circumstances, the Megistanes usually nominated the late king's next brother to succeed him, or, if he had left behind him no brother, went back to an uncle. When the line of succession had once been changed, the right of the elder branch was lost, and did not revive unless the branch preferred died out or possessed no member qualified to rule. When a king had been duly nominated by the two councils, the right of placing the diadem upon his head belonged to the Surena, the "Field-Marshal," or "Commander in Chief of the Parthian armies." The Megistanes further claimed and sometimes exercised the right of deposing a monarch whose conduct displeased them; but an attempt to exercise this privilege was sure to be followed by a civil war, no monarch accepting his deposition without a struggle; and force, not right, practically determining whether he should remain king or no.
After a king was once elected and firmly fixed upon the throne, his power appears to have been nearly despotic. At any rate he could put to death without trial whomsoever he chose; and adult members of the Royal House, who provoked the reigning monarch's jealousy, were constantly so treated. Probably it would have been more dangerous to arouse the fears of the "Sophi" and "Magi." The latter especially were a powerful body, consisting of an organized hierarchy, which had come down from ancient times, and was feared and venerated by all classes of the people. Their numbers at the close of the Empire, counting adult males only, are reckoned at eighty thousand;' they possessed considerable tracts of fertile land, and were the sole inhabitants of many large towns or villages, which they were permitted to govern as they pleased. The arbitrary power of the monarchs must, in practice, have been largely checked by the privileges of this numerous priestly caste, of which it would seem that in later times they became jealous, thereby preparing the way for their own downfall.
REGIONAL DETERMINATION (FOR RSII)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The dominion of the Parthians over the conquered provinces was maintained by reverting to the system which had prevailed generally through the East before the accession of the Persians to power, and establishing in the various countries either viceroys, holding office for life, or sometimes dependent dynasties of kings. In either case, the rulers, so long as they paid tribute regularly to the Parthian monarchs and aided them in their wars, were allowed to govern the people beneath their sway at their pleasure. Among monarchs, in the higher sense of the term, may be enumerated the kings of Persia, Elymaiis, Adiabene, Osrhoene, and of Armenia and Media Atropatene, when they formed, as they sometimes did, portions of the Parthian Empire. The viceroys, who governed the other provinces, bore the title of Vitaxae, and were fourteen or fifteen in number. The remark has been made by the historian Gibbon that the system thus established "exhibited under other names a lively image of the feudal system which has since prevailed in Europe." The comparison is of some value, but, like most historical parallels, it is inexact, the points of difference between the Parthian and the feudal system being probably more numerous than those of resemblance, but the points of resemblance being very main points, not fewer in number, and striking.
It was with special reference to the system thus established that the Parthian monarchs took the title of "King of Kings", so frequent upon their coins, which seems sometimes to have been exchanged for what was regarded as an equivalent phrase, "Satrap of Satraps". This title seems to appear first on the coins of Mithridates I.
In the Parthian system there was one anomaly of a very curious character. The Greek towns, which were scattered in large numbers throughout the Empire, enjoyed a municipal government of their own, and in some cases were almost independent communities, the Parthian kings exercising over them little or no control. The great city of Seleucia on the Tigris was the most important of all these: its population was estimated in the first century after Christ at six hundred thousand souls; it had strong walls, and was surrounded by a most fertile territory. It had its own senate, or municipal council, of three hundred members, elected by the people to rule them from among the wealthiest and best educated of the citizens. Under ordinary circumstances it enjoyed the blessing of complete self-government, and was entirely free from Parthian interference, paying no doubt its tribute, but otherwise holding the position of a "free city." It was only in the case of internal dissensions that these advantages were lost, and the Parthian soldiery, invited within the walls, arranged the quarrels of parties, and settled the constitution of the State at its pleasure. Privileges of a similar character, though, probably, less extensive, belonged (it would seem) to most of the other Greek cities of the Empire. The Parthian monarchs thought it polite to favor them; and their practice justified the title of "Phil-Hellene," which they were fond of assuming upon their coins. On the whole, the policy may have been wise, but it diminished the unity of the Empire; and there were times when serious danger arose from it. The Syro-Macedonian monarchs could always count with certainty on having powerful friends in Parthia, whatever portion of it they invaded; and even the Romans, though their ethnic connection with the cities was not so close, were sometimes indebted to them for very important assistance.
To sum up - upon taking a region, a player would have to construct "Government determination" building. After this is constructed, he will have one, two or three choices, depending on the region.
1) Parthian Satrapy - this government option will be available for any region and will enable the recruitment of Parthian units (HA, cataphracts etc) via the "Cavalry stables". Mercenaries will be available through "Mercenary recruitment" building. The governor's title is Mazbad.
2) Parthian client/dependant kingdom - this government option is available for Mesene, Elymais, Persis Mikre, Persis Hypertera, Media Atropatene, Adiabene, Armenia, Palmyra, Armenia Hypertera, Iberia, Albania and Nabataia Arabia in Area 11 and everywhere in other areas (except 15). If a player chooses this option, he will only have mercenary units available through "Client barracks" (like dvk did with the Romans). The governor's title is Vitaxa. The Mercenary building shouldn't be constructable in these regions.
3) Autonomous Greek city - this option should only be available to some, obviously Greek cities: Seleucia, Antiocheia, Laodikeia and possibly Pergamon, Sardeis, Nicomedia, Ephesus, and Alexandria. Recruitable troops should only include levy pikemen, thuerophoroi, peltasts, possibly slingers and archers. If it can't be done through another barracks building, then through AOR, but if it isn't possible, none units should be recruitable. The governor's titles were probably different for each city, but I'd say Archon would be a safe bet.
GOVERNMENT BONUSES IN DIFFERENT REGIONS:
1) Since making it a Satrapy would mean total control (admitedly through viceroys) and subordination to the Parthians, this option will give happiness and law bonuses to (as I call it) Parthian area of influence, which is Area 15. In Area 11, it would give a small law bonus. In every other area, this option would mean repression of the local populace under "another Persian yoke", so would give negative law and happiness bonuses (like Annexation outside of Italy by the Romans).
2) If a player chooses to make a region a Client kingdom, this would greatly benefit the local population, no matter where they are, since a local (albeit vassal) dynasty would rule a semi-autonomous local state. At least better than they were under Graeco-Makedon rule, and better than being just another servant nation to the Parthian Shahanshah. In areas 15, 11, 14 and 12, this option would give big happiness bonuses, but take away some of the income (just like the Roman Client building). In all the other areas, it would give only a small (5%?) happiness bonus and the same amount negative income bonus as elsewhere.
3) If a Greek city is granted its autonomy, this would result in huge happiness and law bonuses, and take away the same amount of income as in the Client states.
MAZBAD: +2 Influence, +1 Trade, -5% on recruitment costs
I would like to propose to include scripting into the Parthian campaign. I hope chris can help with this. It won't be much
I'm thinking on scripting a sort of mission to rise Parthia into an Empire. Recreating the conquests of Mithridates I. I know you all said that you don't want to do this and allow players to recreate or create and alternate history and that's OK with me. But since almost everyone is playing Rome, Carthage or the Hellenistic factions, I think it wouldn't hurt to do this kind of thing. Plus, it wouldn't actualy limit player's options of conquest, but kinda show him the way to recreate history up to the point of Mithridates' death. I think it would be fun. Plus, we can include some history in it.
I'm thinking the way EB team has done with the first couple of turns when playing Rome. You know: you have an army and attack Tarentum. If you capture it, the advisor will pop out and tell you some historical info about this event and then "guide" you toward taking Rhegion. Ofc, you don't need to take it (1. there isn't a time limit, 2. you can take other cities before it), but since it is in your path of conquest as Rome (in Italy), you'll eventually take it anyway. But reading what happened makes you wanna take it ... it adds another level of role-play into the game: missions.
Let's say your first objective would be Zadracata (Hyrkania). Obviously you'll want to take it eventually. The advisor pops out on the second turn and informs you of the historical background etc. Since it is a rebel territory and you don't wanna start a war with the Seleucids just yet, you'll take Zadracata and voila - the mission is completed. At this point the advisor pops out again and advises you to prepare to invade the Seleucid lands and take Apamea ... and so on, until you've taken Rhagae, Ecbatana, Persia, Susa and Charax. At that point the missions would be over and you'll have the total control over what you wanna do next.
When you have completed the missions, your Parthian kingdom will become Parthian Empire. Your FL will become King of Kings (Basileus basileon), the Brother of the Moon and the Sun, the Ruler of four corners of the world, as was the title of Achaemenid rulers. I would advise you to disable the ancillary King of Kings until that point. If its possible, make the Government options available only after the ruler has become King of Kings.
I would like to propose to include scripting into the Parthian campaign. I hope chris can help with this. It won't be much
I'm thinking on scripting a sort of mission to rise Parthia into an Empire. Recreating the conquests of Mithridates I. I know you all said that you don't want to do this and allow players to recreate or create and alternate history and that's OK with me. But since almost everyone is playing Rome, Carthage or the Hellenistic factions, I think it wouldn't hurt to do this kind of thing. Plus, it wouldn't actualy limit player's options of conquest, but kinda show him the way to recreate history up to the point of Mithridates' death. I think it would be fun. Plus, we can include some history in it.
I'm thinking the way EB team has done with the first couple of turns when playing Rome. You know: you have an army and attack Tarentum. If you capture it, the advisor will pop out and tell you some historical info about this event and then "guide" you toward taking Rhegion. Ofc, you don't need to take it (1. there isn't a time limit, 2. you can take other cities before it), but since it is in your path of conquest as Rome (in Italy), you'll eventually take it anyway. But reading what happened makes you wanna take it ... it adds another level of role-play into the game: missions.
Let's say your first objective would be Zadracata (Hyrkania). Obviously you'll want to take it eventually. The advisor pops out on the second turn and informs you of the historical background etc. Since it is a rebel territory and you don't wanna start a war with the Seleucids just yet, you'll take Zadracata and voila - the mission is completed. At this point the advisor pops out again and advises you to prepare to invade the Seleucid lands and take Apamea ... and so on, until you've taken Rhagae, Ecbatana, Persia, Susa and Charax. At that point the missions would be over and you'll have the total control over what you wanna do next.
When you have completed the missions, your Parthian kingdom will become Parthian Empire. Your FL will become King of Kings (Basileus basileon), the Brother of the Moon and the Sun, the Ruler of four corners of the world, as was the title of Achaemenid rulers. I would advise you to disable the ancillary King of Kings until that point. If its possible, make the Government options available only after the ruler has become King of Kings.
Can it be done?
This is no problem...I have done this in FGE
If you work out the "script" or path to be taken and the messages to be displayed (no to short but not to long either), remember to start with an initial intro message right at the start to introduce people into what its going to happen and why and point them directly to the first "mission"...
once you are done post the stuff (make a structured .txt file please starting with intro 1st misson,2nd and so on) and I do the script and prepare the necessary files which I will upload and you can run some testing then...
The king trait/ancillary/empire thingi can then use the taken settlements and the overall number of settlements as trigger and voila...empire
Originally Posted by dvk901
I guess that would only involve re-ordering the building tree so that the base "Government determination", then gives you the three choices you propose. Then ALL units that are mercs and AOR units would be moved into the appropriate building, then remove Parthia from the merc building altogether. This would, however, have to be dependent on having built a 'city' size Parthian Barracks, whatever that is, because otherwise all the units become available instantly, and people didn't like that when I did it with the Romans.
The Parthain EDB only uses 51 building trees...there could be easily an additional one, could it ?
Parthia was for several centuries a kingdom with nomadic/tribal-oriental constitution. The rule of the oriental governments was always permanency, so the law of the land didn't change much from the times of the nomadic life to the 3rd century BC for the Parthians, when they established their monarchy.
In the reign of Mithridates I (171-138 BC), however the "constitution" drastically changed. Up until Mithridates, the Parthian kings were content (read: forced) on keeping with the borders of Parthia itself and minimal territories around her. This was due to the great anabazis of Antiochus the Great, who not only defeated Parthians, but also lowered them to a sort of vassalage. The Parthian kings Arsaces II, Phriapatius I and Phraates I all maintained a peaceful relationship with the Seleucidae. The kingdom was at that time only one of the many petty monarchies feudal to the Seleucid crown (others being Baktria, Armenia, Media Atropatene etc) and with her petty monarchs, didn't pose much threat to the Syrian kingdom.
When Mithridates came to the throne, the Seleucids were embroiled in a war with Judeans and Armenians, but more importantly among themselves. Mithridates was a man who knew when to strike and do so effectively.
He first took Media (which at that time was its own kingdom) and placed a Parthian satrap to govern it, while he dealt with the Hyrkanian revolt. The Seleucid rulers were to busy with internal strife to check the Parthian invasion, so soon after Media, Mithridates took Elymais (Sousiana). At that time control over any one of the three satrapies (Babylonia, Sousiana, Persis), meant the control of all, and soon the other two defected from the Seleucids to Parthia. Thus the greatest conquest of the Parthian kingdom was finished in little over a year. No doubt it made it easier when the Syrians were fighting among themselves.
However in 138 BC, Antiochus VII Sidetes (from Side) came to the throne of the Seleucid Empire. He was the last Syrian monarch of any stature. In that year Mithridates died, leaving the throne to Phraates II, who was no such brilliant strategist, or ruler as the former. Antiochus VII was able to amass an army of reportedly 200,000 men and invade Babylonia. He defeated the Parthians in three battles and by some sources, limited the Parthian kingdom to the area which it held before Mithridates' rise to power.
However, the Greek and Babylonian population didn't like the army residing in their towns. There were several riots in the towns where Antiochus' army was stationed for the winter. The citizens planned to betray the Syrian ruler and after secret messages were exchanged with Phraates, the day was set when the revolts in all of the cities would begin. When it happened, the garrisoned troops were attacked by the civilians and city militias alike. Great many were killed and those who tried to escape were mowed down by Phraates' army. Even Antiochus VII was killed in such attempt to flee.
Reportedly, not much was left of this grand armada. It is said that almost every house in Syria mourned for the loss of their close one in that campaign. That year the Parthian Empire was solidified and Seleucid Empire reduced to a petty kingdom, limited to Syria.
In Mithridates' reign, the Parthian kingdom was transformed into an Empire. In some sources it is said that he took all the best known laws (I guess Persian and Seleucid) and from them made a common constitution. He was also the first Parthian monarch to have taken the title King of Kings (Basileus basileon was the official Greek title) or Satrap of Satraps. Among his other titles was also "Brother of the moon and the sun", which was the old title of the Achaemenid rulers as well. THE TWO COUNCILS
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Like most sovereignties which have arisen out of an association of chiefs banding themselves together for warlike purposes under a single head, the Parthian monarchy was limited. The king was permanently advised by two councils, consisting of persons not of his own nomination, whom rights, conferred by birth or office, entitled to their seats. One of these was a family conclave (concilium domesticum), or assembly of the full-grown males of the Royal House; the other was a Senate comprising both the spiritual and the temporal chiefs of the nation, the Sophi, or "Wise Men," and the Magi, or "Priests." Together these two bodies constituted the Megistanes, the "Nobles" or "Great Men"—the privileged class which to a considerable extent checked and controlled the monarch. The monarchy was elective, but only in the house of the Arsacidae; and the concurrent vote of both councils was necessary in the appointment of a new king. Practically, the ordinary law of hereditary descent appears to have been followed, unless in the case where a king left no son of sufficient age to exercise the royal office. Under such circumstances, the Megistanes usually nominated the late king's next brother to succeed him, or, if he had left behind him no brother, went back to an uncle. When the line of succession had once been changed, the right of the elder branch was lost, and did not revive unless the branch preferred died out or possessed no member qualified to rule. When a king had been duly nominated by the two councils, the right of placing the diadem upon his head belonged to the Surena, the "Field-Marshal," or "Commander in Chief of the Parthian armies." The Megistanes further claimed and sometimes exercised the right of deposing a monarch whose conduct displeased them; but an attempt to exercise this privilege was sure to be followed by a civil war, no monarch accepting his deposition without a struggle; and force, not right, practically determining whether he should remain king or no.
After a king was once elected and firmly fixed upon the throne, his power appears to have been nearly despotic. At any rate he could put to death without trial whomsoever he chose; and adult members of the Royal House, who provoked the reigning monarch's jealousy, were constantly so treated. Probably it would have been more dangerous to arouse the fears of the "Sophi" and "Magi." The latter especially were a powerful body, consisting of an organized hierarchy, which had come down from ancient times, and was feared and venerated by all classes of the people. Their numbers at the close of the Empire, counting adult males only, are reckoned at eighty thousand;' they possessed considerable tracts of fertile land, and were the sole inhabitants of many large towns or villages, which they were permitted to govern as they pleased. The arbitrary power of the monarchs must, in practice, have been largely checked by the privileges of this numerous priestly caste, of which it would seem that in later times they became jealous, thereby preparing the way for their own downfall.
REGIONAL DETERMINATION (FOR RSII)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The dominion of the Parthians over the conquered provinces was maintained by reverting to the system which had prevailed generally through the East before the accession of the Persians to power, and establishing in the various countries either viceroys, holding office for life, or sometimes dependent dynasties of kings. In either case, the rulers, so long as they paid tribute regularly to the Parthian monarchs and aided them in their wars, were allowed to govern the people beneath their sway at their pleasure. Among monarchs, in the higher sense of the term, may be enumerated the kings of Persia, Elymaiis, Adiabene, Osrhoene, and of Armenia and Media Atropatene, when they formed, as they sometimes did, portions of the Parthian Empire. The viceroys, who governed the other provinces, bore the title of Vitaxae, and were fourteen or fifteen in number. The remark has been made by the historian Gibbon that the system thus established "exhibited under other names a lively image of the feudal system which has since prevailed in Europe." The comparison is of some value, but, like most historical parallels, it is inexact, the points of difference between the Parthian and the feudal system being probably more numerous than those of resemblance, but the points of resemblance being very main points, not fewer in number, and striking.
It was with special reference to the system thus established that the Parthian monarchs took the title of "King of Kings", so frequent upon their coins, which seems sometimes to have been exchanged for what was regarded as an equivalent phrase, "Satrap of Satraps". This title seems to appear first on the coins of Mithridates I.
In the Parthian system there was one anomaly of a very curious character. The Greek towns, which were scattered in large numbers throughout the Empire, enjoyed a municipal government of their own, and in some cases were almost independent communities, the Parthian kings exercising over them little or no control. The great city of Seleucia on the Tigris was the most important of all these: its population was estimated in the first century after Christ at six hundred thousand souls; it had strong walls, and was surrounded by a most fertile territory. It had its own senate, or municipal council, of three hundred members, elected by the people to rule them from among the wealthiest and best educated of the citizens. Under ordinary circumstances it enjoyed the blessing of complete self-government, and was entirely free from Parthian interference, paying no doubt its tribute, but otherwise holding the position of a "free city." It was only in the case of internal dissensions that these advantages were lost, and the Parthian soldiery, invited within the walls, arranged the quarrels of parties, and settled the constitution of the State at its pleasure. Privileges of a similar character, though, probably, less extensive, belonged (it would seem) to most of the other Greek cities of the Empire. The Parthian monarchs thought it polite to favor them; and their practice justified the title of "Phil-Hellene," which they were fond of assuming upon their coins. On the whole, the policy may have been wise, but it diminished the unity of the Empire; and there were times when serious danger arose from it. The Syro-Macedonian monarchs could always count with certainty on having powerful friends in Parthia, whatever portion of it they invaded; and even the Romans, though their ethnic connection with the cities was not so close, were sometimes indebted to them for very important assistance.
To sum up - upon taking a region, a player would have to construct "Government determination" building. After this is constructed, he will have one, two or three choices, depending on the region.
1) Parthian Satrapy - this government option will be available for any region and will enable the recruitment of Parthian units (HA, cataphracts etc) via the "Cavalry stables". Mercenaries will be available through "Mercenary recruitment" building. The governor's title is Mazbad.
2) Parthian client/dependant kingdom - this government option is available for Mesene, Elymais, Persis Mikre, Persis Hypertera, Media Atropatene, Adiabene, Armenia, Palmyra, Armenia Hypertera, Iberia, Albania and Nabataia Arabia in Area 11 and everywhere in other areas (except 15). If a player chooses this option, he will only have mercenary units available through "Client barracks" (like dvk did with the Romans). The governor's title is Vitaxa. The Mercenary building shouldn't be constructable in these regions.
3) Autonomous Greek city - this option should only be available to some, obviously Greek cities: Seleucia, Antiocheia, Laodikeia and possibly Pergamon, Sardeis, Nicomedia, Ephesus, and Alexandria. Recruitable troops should only include levy pikemen, thuerophoroi, peltasts, possibly slingers and archers. If it can't be done through another barracks building, then through AOR, but if it isn't possible, none units should be recruitable. The governor's titles were probably different for each city, but I'd say Archon would be a safe bet.
GOVERNMENT BONUSES IN DIFFERENT REGIONS:
1) Since making it a Satrapy would mean total control (admitedly through viceroys) and subordination to the Parthians, this option will give happiness and law bonuses to (as I call it) Parthian area of influence, which is Area 15. In Area 11, it would give a small law bonus. In every other area, this option would mean repression of the local populace under "another Persian yoke", so would give negative law and happiness bonuses (like Annexation outside of Italy by the Romans).
2) If a player chooses to make a region a Client kingdom, this would greatly benefit the local population, no matter where they are, since a local (albeit vassal) dynasty would rule a semi-autonomous local state. At least better than they were under Graeco-Makedon rule, and better than being just another servant nation to the Parthian Shahanshah. In areas 15, 11, 14 and 12, this option would give big happiness bonuses, but take away some of the income (just like the Roman Client building). In all the other areas, it would give only a small (5%?) happiness bonus and the same amount negative income bonus as elsewhere.
3) If a Greek city is granted its autonomy, this would result in huge happiness and law bonuses, and take away the same amount of income as in the Client states.
MAZBAD: +2 Influence, +1 Trade, -5% on recruitment costs
This is really good stuff...hope I live long enough to implement it.
Seriously, the first parts of your post are all possible......just traits. The last part, however, is a problem. I cannot use conditionals to say where a building CAN'T be built....the building disappears from the ques if you do that. You can only say where it CAN be built. The problem there is that you then have to separate the faction you want to have all the conditions for, from the other factions that use the building, and they also have their own conditions. So you can't do that either, because you can't have a list of factions who can build a building 'with a bunch of conditions' and then an 'or (faction-name)' with a bunch of other conditions. Just doesn't work.
The only solution would likely be to have a re-written client state building tree (with the same coded names, or at least the ones that must be there because they are written into trait triggers), and then have different descriptions for them.
I guess that would only involve re-ordering the building tree so that the base "Government determination", then gives you the three choices you propose. Then ALL units that are mercs and AOR units would be moved into the appropriate building, then remove Parthia from the merc building altogether. This would, however, have to be dependent on having built a 'city' size Parthian Barracks, whatever that is, because otherwise all the units become available instantly, and people didn't like that when I did it with the Romans.
You could also do me a favor and check our map in the east to ensure that the cities that ARE\WERE Greeks actually have the right cultural building. I think they are, but if we get that right, then we could have Greek cities giving Greek traits to Parthian characters (like Seleucia Senator)....and also, for the Seleucids, it would be cool if Eastern cities gave Eastern traits. But I have no idea what those would be.
As for the missions thing...hmmm, that's all scripting and out of my area of knowing anything.
Creator of: "Ecce, Roma Surrectum....Behold, Rome Arises!"
R.I.P. My Beloved Father
This is really good stuff...hope I live long enough to implement it.
Ah you're not THAT old. Oh... wait
Seriously, the first parts of your post are all possible......just traits. The last part, however, is a problem. I cannot use conditionals to say where a building CAN'T be built....the building disappears from the ques if you do that. You can only say where it CAN be built. The problem there is that you then have to separate the faction you want to have all the conditions for, from the other factions that use the building, and they also have their own conditions. So you can't do that either, because you can't have a list of factions who can build a building 'with a bunch of conditions' and then an 'or (faction-name)' with a bunch of other conditions. Just doesn't work.
The only solution would likely be to have a re-written client state building tree (with the same coded names, or at least the ones that must be there because they are written into trait triggers), and then have different descriptions for them.
I'm not sure if I understood just everything you said here. So if we re-write the client state building tree, it could be as I described? Or must some things be dropped then? I think EB has done it the way I think.
I guess that would only involve re-ordering the building tree so that the base "Government determination", then gives you the three choices you propose. Then ALL units that are mercs and AOR units would be moved into the appropriate building, then remove Parthia from the merc building altogether. This would, however, have to be dependent on having built a 'city' size Parthian Barracks, whatever that is, because otherwise all the units become available instantly, and people didn't like that when I did it with the Romans.
I was thinking about the same system that Rome uses, but with another option after Government determination.
That means that if he chooses "Client state", the "Client barracks" tree would be there, right? And that one has two levels, I think. So I don't see the problem about the number of units available from the start...
You could also do me a favor and check our map in the east to ensure that the cities that ARE\WERE Greeks actually have the right cultural building. I think they are, but if we get that right, then we could have Greek cities giving Greek traits to Parthian characters (like Seleucia Senator)....and also, for the Seleucids, it would be cool if Eastern cities gave Eastern traits. But I have no idea what those would be.
Apart from Alexandria, I'm certain they have. I think that Parthian characters receiving Greek traits is great, but not the other way around... I don't think the Greek/Macedonian class attempted to get much Eastern influence over their children... unless ofc they are of "mixed heritage", which would make that possible.
As for the missions thing...hmmm, that's all scripting and out of my area of knowing anything.
If you're OK with it, I'll ask chris. He's done some great scripting on his FGE submod.
I'm not sure if I understood just everything you said here. So if we re-write the client state building tree, it could be as I described? Or must some things be dropped then? I think EB has done it the way I think.
I was thinking about the same system that Rome uses, but with another option after Government determination.
That means that if he chooses "Client state", the "Client barracks" tree would be there, right? And that one has two levels, I think. So I don't see the problem about the number of units available from the start...
Apart from Alexandria, I'm certain they have. I think that Parthian characters receiving Greek traits is great, but not the other way around... I don't think the Greek/Macedonian class attempted to get much Eastern influence over their children... unless ofc they are of "mixed heritage", which would make that possible.
If you're OK with it, I'll ask chris. He's done some great scripting on his FGE submod.
1. Sometimes I 'feel' that old.
2. Not important to understand. I was just kinda thinking out loud whether it could be done. And you're right, the Roman version of the client state tree + one choice could work.
3. Parthian characters only would get this then, and they would be specific to the cities with a Greek cultural building. For example, a Parthian character in Seleucia would be a client ruler and could get the Senate trait. In some other city, he could get 'Boule' if he was Governor....stuff like that. Just a little to add a bit of 'flavor' concerning the Parthian method of ruling.
4. Any ideas on how you would split out the Parthian government stuff...what traits, descriptions, who, what and where?
Creator of: "Ecce, Roma Surrectum....Behold, Rome Arises!"
R.I.P. My Beloved Father
Here are the missions for the script. If anything isn't possible, or you'd have a better way of doing things, we should discuss it here. Dvk, you should read it too, so we can all agree on the way this should happen.
okidoki...one thing though...As I dont know nothing about the Parthian Campaign I have no feeling for the difficultys at the start...
If it would be easy to steamroll this citys rather quick you may wanna have a mini garrison script for those mission settlements to assure they actually would put up a bit of a fight as the AI notoriously let his Settlements unguarded...
maybe 8-12 units with 3 copper up to 1 silver chevron ? ...so poeple would have some nails to bite...
another thing...it is not possible to do new events in RTW..theses strings (event titles) are hardcoded...
so the only way is the advisor thread...thats the reason I said that the messages should not be to long
EDIT....
ok...what I will do...I will make some notes and start a Parthian Campaign to see what this is about...stay tuned for questions
Parthia workthread (new stuff in post #6)
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Rex Basiliscus
