View Poll Results: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

Voters
299. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    227 75.92%
  • No

    72 24.08%
Page 1 of 12 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 270

Thread: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Kinjo's Avatar Taiko
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,758

    Default Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    When one of the Dev's mentioned the map would expand farther East then Rome 1, I immediately started to think about the Seleucid Empire and maybe some of Mauryan Empire should be in the game.

    After all there was a Seleucid–Mauryan war 305 BC, Chandragupta Maurya had a massive army that could add some interesting end game challenges and there is a historical pretext to include them. With an army of over 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, and 9,000 war elephants it could be one of the most powerful factions in the game and be the North America distant land of Medieval 2.

    If nothing else it would add a new faction and not make Rome II feel like a rehash.

    Seleucid–Mauryan border 270 BCE
    http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/f...khoi270nbc.jpg

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by Kinjo; July 09, 2012 at 12:27 AM.

  2. #2
    Tiro
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Grosvenor Square London, England
    Posts
    273

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    I don't see how this would hurt anything with them sharing and contesting a border with the Seleucids.

  3. #3
    Vaskill's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    178

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    This would be interesting.

  4. #4
    Kinjo's Avatar Taiko
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,758

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    Considering the fact that the Seleucid empire's border was the Indus river at one point and looking at this picture at the start date of RTW. That looks like some pretty serious campaigning against the Seleucids by the Mauryans if you ask me.


  5. #5
    Hobbes's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hobs Crk
    Posts
    10,684

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    Only if the map stretches all the way to the Indus.

    BLM - ANTIFA - A.C.A.B. - ANARCHY - ANTI-NATIONALISM

  6. #6
    The Useless Member's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chlοe's Basement, 'Merca
    Posts
    3,168

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    More factions = more fun.

    So, yes.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wetblowdryer View Post
    More factions = more fun.

    So, yes.
    I agree, and therefore I voted "yes". But a huge mag with huge empty areas can spoil a game. Deserts make the east of RTW bad... So... I don't know.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    Um, India is not full of Deserts, I should know There are some parts, but not like Egypt, or Carthaginian lands Mostly India is grasslands and jungles,

  9. #9
    General Maximus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Bhopal, India
    Posts
    11,292

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSwordofRome View Post
    Um, India is not full of Deserts, I should know There are some parts, but not like Egypt, or Carthaginian lands Mostly India is grasslands and jungles,
    Absolutely right!

    I live in India and I know my terrain. There is no desert in mainland India, only the westernmost part has some desert.

    Indus river is running between two small patches of desert. The western one is in in now what is Pakistan and Afghanistan. The eastern one is mainly in Pakistan, but it has a decent portion in India.

    The fact that Mauryan Empire consisted of all three nations and more, there was some desert in the far west, but only on the Seleucid border. Otherwise we have mostly lush grass, some some semi-arid plateaus here.
    सार्वभौम सम्राट चत्रवर्ती - भारतवर्ष
    स्वर्गपुत्र पीतसम्राट - चीन
    महाराजानाभ्याम महाराजा - पारसिक

  10. #10

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    I don't live in India, but I am descended

  11. #11
    Kinjo's Avatar Taiko
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,758

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    It appears even the Parthians even had a run of the area.


  12. #12

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    I voted yes, but logically I would say no...mainly because CA would screw it up if they're a periphery faction.

    If they stretch it to include the entire Mauryan empire, longitude wise to the north they'll have to include a part of the Han Dynasty Empire as well. That creates a set of entirely new problems. The Mauryan Empire was also extremely powerful and thus probably wouldn't even be accurately portrayed either. (just like how RTW1 made a mockery of the Seleucids and Parthians by cutting their empires in half and giving them lulz units)

  13. #13
    Kinjo's Avatar Taiko
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,758

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    You could just have the map end at the Indus river and the Mauryan Empire occupy the land west of the Indus (basically Pakistan). This could be one of the victory conditions of the Seleucids and Parthians and would keep it historical as far as borders go. The one thing I don't want to see is the Seleucid empire cut in half again. Even if they are a non-playable faction its better then having nothing there, at least if they are present you can trade with them and restore the border Alexander established.

  14. #14
    saxdude's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    House of Erotic Maneuvering
    Posts
    10,420

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    Yes, definitly. I would argue that The western portion of india (the north-western coast) Should be added as well. And then, Greco-Indian and Independant Indian Factions could emerge around the Indus.

    EDIT: The thing is, If starts under Ashoka, then It should start out with very strong armies and big cities, but a terrible economy to balance things out, or something of the sort. The empire was at its greatest extent and after Ashoka died it all went to hell, so it should be pretty hard extending that "golden" era.
    Last edited by saxdude; July 08, 2012 at 11:24 PM.

  15. #15
    Kinjo's Avatar Taiko
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,758

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    The Seleucids definitely had quite a bit of dealings with the Mauryan Empire including a Royal marriage as part of a treaty. If Rome II starts in 270BC then the Mauryan would already be established west of the Indus river.

    There are some interesting details from the Wiki, including a wedding gift of 500 War Elephants!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Foundation of the Empire

    Relations with the Hellenistic world may have started from the very beginning of the Maurya Empire. Plutarch reports that Chandragupta Maurya met with Alexander the Great, probably around Taxila in the northwest:

    "Sandrocottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth". Plutarch 62-3

    Reconquest of the Northwest (c. 310 BCE)

    Chandragupta ultimately occupied Northwestern India, in the territories formerly ruled by the Greeks, where he fought the satraps (described as "Prefects" in Western sources) left in place after Alexander (Justin), among whom may have been Eudemus, ruler in the western Punjab until his departure in 317 BCE or Peithon, son of Agenor, ruler of the Greek colonies along the Indus until his departure for Babylon in 316 BCE.

    "India, after the death of Alexander, had assassinated his prefects, as if shaking the burden of servitude. The author of this liberation was Sandracottos, but he had transformed liberation in servitude after victory, since, after taking the throne, he himself oppressed the very people he has liberated from foreign domination" Justin XV.4.12–13

    "Later, as he was preparing war against the prefects of Alexander, a huge wild elephant went to him and took him on his back as if tame, and he became a remarkable fighter and war leader. Having thus acquired royal power, Sandracottos possessed India at the time Seleucos was preparing future glory." Justin XV.4.19

    Conflict and alliance with Seleucus (305 BCE)

    Silver coin of Seleucus I Nicator, who fought Chandragupta Maurya, and later made an alliance with him.

    Seleucus I Nicator, the Macedonian satrap of the Asian portion of Alexander's former empire, conquered and put under his own authority eastern territories as far as Bactria and the Indus (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars 55), until in 305 BCE he entered in a confrontation with Chandragupta:

    "Always lying in wait for the neighboring nations, strong in arms and persuasive in council, he [Seleucus] acquired Mesopotamia, Armenia, 'Seleucid' Cappadocia, Persis, Parthia, Bactria, Arabia, Tapouria, Sogdia, Arachosia, Hyrcania, and other adjacent peoples that had been subdued by Alexander, as far as the river Indus, so that the boundaries of his empire were the most extensive in Asia after that of Alexander. The whole region from Phrygia to the Indus was subject to Seleucus". Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars 55

    Though no accounts of the conflict remain, it is clear that Seleucus fared poorly against the Indian Emperor as he failed in conquering any territory, and in fact, was forced to surrender much that was already his. Regardless, Seleucus and Chandragupta ultimately reached a settlement and through a treaty sealed in 305 BCE, Seleucus, according to Strabo, ceded a number of territories to Chandragupta, including southern Afghanistan and parts of Persia.

    Accordingly, Seleucus obtained five hundred war elephants, a military asset which would play a decisive role at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BCE.
    Marital alliance

    It is generally thought that Chandragupta married Seleucus's daughter, or a Greek Macedonian princess, a gift from Seleucus to formalize an alliance. In a return gesture, Chandragupta sent 500 war elephants, a military asset which would play a decisive role at the Battle of Ipsus in 302 BC.

    In addition to this treaty, Seleucus dispatched an ambassador, Megasthenes, to Chandragupta, and later Deimakos to his son Bindusara, at the Mauryan court at Pataliputra (modern Patna in Bihar state). Later Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the ruler of Ptolemaic Egypt and contemporary of Ashoka the Great, is also recorded by Pliny the Elder as having sent an ambassador named Dionysius to the Mauryan court.

    Mainstream scholarship asserts that Chandragupta received vast territory west of the Indus, including the Hindu Kush, modern day Afghanistan, and the Balochistan province of Pakistan. Archaeologically, concrete indications of Mauryan rule, such as the inscriptions of the Edicts of Ashoka, are known as far as Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.
    “ "He (Seleucus) crossed the Indus and waged war with Sandrocottus [Maurya], king of the Indians, who dwelt on the banks of that stream, until they came to an understanding with each other and contracted a marriage relationship." ”
    “ "After having made a treaty with him (Sandrakotos) and put in order the Orient situation, Seleucos went to war against Antigonus." ”

    —Junianus Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, XV.4.15

    The treaty on "Epigamia" implies lawful marriage between Greeks and Indians was recognized at the State level, although it is unclear whether it occurred among dynastic rulers or common people, or both

  16. #16

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    Based on what I've seen in this thread, definitely.

  17. #17
    Kinjo's Avatar Taiko
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,758

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    Here is a better map of 270 BCE

    http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/f...khoi270nbc.jpg


    You see some major land change hands in 170 BCE as well.

    http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/f...khoi170nbc.jpg

  18. #18
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The western part of an Island They thought a kind of Coffee...
    Posts
    1,932

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    I curious how R2TW would simulate the Collapse of the Mauryan Empire...and the Parthian Takeover of Iran from the Seleucids...

  19. #19
    Civis
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    194

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    Quote Originally Posted by weirdoascensor View Post
    I curious how R2TW would simulate the Collapse of the Mauryan Empire...and the Parthian Takeover of Iran from the Seleucids...
    They wouldn't need to. The Mauryans and Seleucids could both have some structural weaknesses that if not addressed lead to emergent factions and a possible end, but there wouldn't need to be an event that just gifts Persia to the Parthians, for example. The idea of TW is that it recreates faithfully the starting date, then lets you experience the various "what-ifs" of the period, such as 'what if the Seleucids hadn't collapsed?' etc.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Should the Mauryan Empire be in Rome II?

    I'm afraid the inclusion of the Mauryans would cause a major imbalance in the Eastern part of the map and take the focus too far away from Rome. In game the Seleucids will probably have their hands full already with Parthians, Pontus, Armenia, Egypt, rebellions, etc so they could use a small respite from a gameplay standpoint. Perhaps a trade node of some sort could represent them?

    Forgot about Bactria+possible Indo-Greeks. If those factions can balance out the conflicts with the Mauryans so that the Seleucids don't have to take all the heat then that would be great.

    You see some major land change hands in 170 BCE as well.

    http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/f...khoi170nbc.jpg
    That map isn't 100% accurate. It doesn't show Sophene as an independent kingdom under Zariadres.
    Last edited by Drtad; July 09, 2012 at 02:23 AM.
    Under the patronage of John I Tzimisces

Page 1 of 12 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •