Where r the Achean league and Aetolian league??

[torongill]

Perhaps few people know this:



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

Just to add to the importance of the Aetolians for the Romans.Hadn't be there, the Roman wouldn't have won the battle.

I've read the descriptions of the battle by Plutarch, Livy and Polybios and I have to say that's pure speculation. The Aetolians, when mentioned, are praised for their cavalry action in the prelude before the battle, but not during the battle itself. The quote by Polybios goes like this:

But the chief obstacle to their putting the enemy entirely to rout was the high spirit of the Aetolian cavalry who fought with desperate gallantry. For as much as the Aetolian infantry is inferior in the equipment and discipline required for a general engagement, by so much is their cavalry superior to that of other Greeks in detached and single combats.

And it's not as if the Aetolian cavalry routed the enemy. No, their effect, as good as it undoubtedly was, was to enable a fighting retreat instead of a rout of the advanced Roman force.

[neoptolemos]

I've read the descriptions of the battle by Plutarch, Livy and Polybios and I have to say that's pure speculation. The Aetolians, when mentioned, are praised for their cavalry action in the prelude before the battle, but not during the battle itself. The quote by Polybios goes like this: And it's not as if the Aetolian cavalry routed the enemy. No, their effect, as good as it undoubtedly was, was to enable a fighting retreat instead of a rout of the advanced Roman force.

Well Aetolians were supposed to be famous for their infantry,light infantry and peltasts and not the cavalry which is quite odd.
However there is no information available about how the phalanx broke-apparently not by the legion but presumably also from the actions of the Aetolians -both cavalry and infantry?-individually?that's the speculation but nevertheless underlines the importance of the Aetolians.It is also quite odd that the Macedonian cavalry didn't engage nor protected the phalanx at all which also has contributed to the defeat of the Macedonians.The passage in wikipedia which makes some really good points may have been the case for the battle.
IMHO it is a highly probable considering the events.

edit quite interesting about Aitolians and their military:

. The greatest recorded number of the Aetolian troops is more than 20000 foot and no less than 1 000 horse, ready to join Polyperchon against Cassander in 310 (Diod. 20,20,3)

47
. Modern scholars tend to take literally the latter passage and to think that these numbers were impossible without many individual foreigners having entered the Aetolian ranks or simply without allied foreign units having been attached to the bulk of the Aetolian troops, and an extreme proposal was made that the army of 12 000 foot and no less than 400 cavalry, which invaded Amphissa and Thessaly in 322/1, was not purely Aetolian, either

48.

Army


The Aitolian League was known for its warlike tendencies, it was viewed as one of the most lawless and violent Greek states in the Hellenistic world, known for piracy and similar activities. The armed forces of the Aitolian League are peculiar as compared to other Greek states in the fact they barely used at all any mercenaries, in fact it was more likely for Aitolian to be exported abroad as mercenaries. This is mainly because the Aitolian League itself was much poorer than their counterparts in Greece and also of the lack of manpower in Aitolia. This affected the Aitolian method of warfare, towns and cities were fortified and garrisoned, and obviously the higher quality of fortification, the smaller the garrison needed to be. Much like the Achaians, the Aitolians were more at home in rough terrain, fighting as light troops than in close formations on the open field. Of course this suited them due to their lack of manpower. Aitolian cavalry was more easily available in larger numbers than the infantry due to the fact that it was supplied by the rich and by the nobles, so a cavalry force of 500 could well be possible.

http://www.reference.com/browse/aetolian+league
http://otworzksiazke.pl/images/ksiaz...onfederacy.pdf

[Sixer19]

LEAGUES ARE WEAK. POWER IN OLD HELLAS.

[Xerrop]

Well using the old map of Rome1 (with only 106 provinces or so) you had the provinces to represent these two leagues. The Peloponnesus was divided into two provinces (instead of one province now) and Aetolia was an additional province south of Thessaly and Epirus.
Using the same disposition would have been a wise idea imho. Especially when considering the many players asking for so much greek factions plus also the developers putting so much work in them (as being shown with their confirmed first DLC)

[Dan113112]

Well using the old map of Rome1 (with only 106 provinces or so) you had the provinces to represent these two leagues. The Peloponnesus was divided into two provinces (instead of one province now) and Aetolia was an additional province south of Thessaly and Epirus.
Using the same disposition would have been a wise idea imho. Especially when considering the many players asking for so much greek factions plus also the developers putting so much work in them (as being shown with their confirmed first DLC)

Fans are asking for more Greek factions. Not necessarily the majority. You also have to consider that the campaign map has more sub-provinces (regions) than the first game and the new map also covers more of the world than the first. I've also noticed that the sub-regions are almost all nearly the same size. Even if the province itself might be larger.

[Mausolos of Caria]

Well using the old map of Rome1 (with only 106 provinces or so) you had the provinces to represent these two leagues. The Peloponnesus was divided into two provinces (instead of one province now) and Aetolia was an additional province south of Thessaly and Epirus.
Using the same disposition would have been a wise idea imho. Especially when considering the many players asking for so much greek factions plus also the developers putting so much work in them (as being shown with their confirmed first DLC)

Very good point. To possibly have less regions in Greece than Rome I had is very disappointing to say the least. However there's still hope the campaign map will be a bit more detailed than the artistical representation. Spartan_warriors map still had 10-15 regions less than 183 and if those are in Greece, Asia Minor and Italy it should be alright. Imagine 5 more regions in Greece- Achaia, Korinthiaka, Euboia, Aitolia, Boiotia - then it would be good enough (still not good as some mods, but that's the maximum I'd expect from CA).

[AngryTitusPullo]

Very good point. To possibly have less regions in Greece than Rome I had is very disappointing to say the least. However there's still hope the campaign map will be a bit more detailed than the artistical representation. Spartan_warriors map still had 10-15 regions less than 183 and if those are in Greece, Asia Minor and Italy it should be alright. Imagine 5 more regions in Greece- Achaia, Korinthiaka, Euboia, Aitolia, Boiotia - then it would be good enough (still not good as some mods, but that's the maximum I'd expect from CA).

183 includes sea which is also now divided into many regions.

[Mausolos of Caria]

183 includes sea which is also now divided into many regions.

Oh does it? Damn I didn't know that...

[Stath's]

183 includes sea which is also now divided into many regions.

Nevermind, i found it...http://www.pcgamesn.com/totalwar/tot...un-your-laptop

That's bad news..

[torongill]

Of course there is information how the phalanx broke. The left wing wasn't in battle order and were charged first by elephants and second by the advancing Roman right, which routed them. Then a tribune took the initiative and with twenty maniples hit the advancing Macedonian left in the flank and rear. The phalanx was thus attacked from three sides and routed. Traditionally the allied infantry would've been on the wings of the infantry line, so it's quite possible that the Aetolian infantry faced both formed and unformed phalanx and would've been in contact with the Allied cavalry on the Roman left. As such, it probably did as good at the Romans under the same circumstances - fighting retreat on the left and charge on the right. For me the main contribution of the Aetolians seems to have been in neutralizing the Macedonian cavalry on the Macedonian right, despite the fact that they had been fighting for some time beforehand(in the skirmish).

I didn't see any remark or citation for that... interesting suggestion, that the Romans won because of breakthroughs made by the Aetolians. I believe the author is mistaken by the praise given to the Aetolian cavalry by Polybios and assumes Polybios talks about the battle itself and not just about the initial skirmish. That is, of course, assuming the author was genuinely mistaken; the other reason is he was making it up for some unknown reasons.

@Mausolos Don't get your hopes too high. From everything shown or said by CA, they seem to be going away from the Greco-Roman centrism. This could mean more regions in Eastern and Central Europe, as well as Mesopotamia, because these are the only places not yet seen from the campaign map. In other words, more EB and less XGM and Diadochi:Total War.

[neoptolemos]

Of course there is information how the phalanx broke. The left wing wasn't in battle order and were charged first by elephants and second by the advancing Roman right, which routed them. Then a tribune took the initiative and with twenty maniples hit the advancing Macedonian left in the flank and rear. The phalanx was thus attacked from three sides and routed. Traditionally the allied infantry would've been on the wings of the infantry line, so it's quite possible that the Aetolian infantry faced both formed and unformed phalanx and would've been in contact with the Allied cavalry on the Roman left. As such, it probably did as good at the Romans under the same circumstances - fighting retreat on the left and charge on the right. For me the main contribution of the Aetolians seems to have been in neutralizing the Macedonian cavalry on the Macedonian right, despite the fact that they had been fighting for some time beforehand(in the skirmish).

Not quite like that according to Hammond's analysis from all the sources:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...owAccess=false
The left side of the phalanx pushed the Romans and while the Romans (or the allies?) retreated, the descenting phalanx left without orders?bad positioning?(not enough information the sources) and the men couldn't properly form the phalanx and they routed without even wait for the Romans and terrified by the elephants.The move and the timing of the tribune was actually the winning move according to Hammond, because otherwise the phalanx could have withstand,got relief from reinforcements and win.These according to the sources which again do not inform us in details about the engagement.
Now were are the 6000 Aetolian infantry men and the 400 cavarly men?
The cavarly men are mentioned in withholding the Macedonian cavalry attack which would have routed the legionaires and the infantry is mentioned as "mostly of " the 2500 reinforcements of the Roman reconnaissance force which pushed back the Macedonians on the tops.
Now considering the pre-Roman bias of the sources, it is no wonder that the Aetolians except from the regiment the Roman seemed to lack in operational success(the cavarly) are scarcly mentioned despite being almost 1/4 of the army?
Maybe their actions on the left side aided the ill-cohesion of the Macedonian phalanx?They haltered the phalanx and take care of phalanx's lighter auxillaries and wing men?Probably but they are deemed not to be mentioned clearly due to their status.Plutarch after all was a pro-Roman who despised Macedon and Livvy even more pro-Roman (according to Hammond).
Maybe the significance of the Aetolians is speculation, but for me such a large part of an army, familiar with the ground and the warfare on high ground being unimportant seems to be deliberately left out of the focus.

[bekiristein]

@Mausolos Don't get your hopes too high. From everything shown or said by CA, they seem to be going away from the Greco-Roman centrism. This could mean more regions in Eastern and Central Europe, as well as Mesopotamia, because these are the only places not yet seen from the campaign map. In other words, more EB and less XGM and Diadochi:Total War.

I liked the EB map. Did CA said that they won't be included or is it a speculation ?
Thx

[torongill]

I liked the EB map. Did CA said that they won't be included or is it a speculation ?
Thx

I meant it as more like the guidelines of CA - more recognition given to tribes and peoples outside the Greco-Roman sphere.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I liked the EB map. Did CA said that they won't be included or is it a speculation ?
Thx

No this is the best RTW campaign map ever, from the Darth Mod Risk Style campaign:

[Woodrow Skillson]

Like I mentioned before, the problem with adding all the depth to Greece is that it then imbalances the map. You have to have regions for these factions to start with, and to do that, you need to cram more and more tiny regions into Greece. While this may reflect reality, it imbalances the game because then all you ever have to do is own Greece and you then have a gigantic territory advantage over other factions. This would make nearly every campaign have to focus on Greece, or otherwise one of the computer factions will own Greece and steamroll the others before you get there. 4 factions owning literally the entire province is enough already, adding 2 more factions would just be getting crazy.

[Xerrop]

Like I mentioned before, the problem with adding all the depth to Greece is that it then imbalances the map. You have to have regions for these factions to start with, and to do that, you need to cram more and more tiny regions into Greece. While this may reflect reality, it imbalances the game because then all you ever have to do is own Greece and you then have a gigantic territory advantage over other factions. This would make nearly every campaign have to focus on Greece, or otherwise one of the computer factions will own Greece and steamroll the others before you get there. 4 factions owning literally the entire province is enough already, adding 2 more factions would just be getting crazy.

But many factions fighting over a small area will probably prevent one of them from steamrolling the map. As nearly each province has a own "native" faction there one might see regular uprisings and re-emerging states once the dominant faction lowers their garrison troops in order to conquer far away lands.

[neoptolemos]

But many factions fighting over a small area will probably prevent one of them from steamrolling the map. As nearly each province has a own "native" faction there one might see regular uprisings and re-emerging states once the dominant faction lowers their garrison troops in order to conquer far away lands.

Indeed and not to mention that for example Greece had been conquered by a various campaigns and gradually by Romans unlike other regions in the map exactly due Greece's complex geopolitical environment.

[torongill]

Yet Macedonia steam roll in Vanilla till they're fighting Rome.

I like the idea of having them present, but it is already hard to add more depth to Greece. We have not touched the East at all really and that is where much of the money back then was.

Macedon steamrolled them in vanilla RTW because they had a pike phalanx vs a hoplite phalanx for the Greeks and they also had shock and heavy cavalry.

But many factions fighting over a small area will probably prevent one of them from steamrolling the map. As nearly each province has a own "native" faction there one might see regular uprisings and re-emerging states once the dominant faction lowers their garrison troops in order to conquer far away lands.

No, not really. One faction emerges sooner or later. It may be one of the Greek factions or an outsider. But when you have many regions in a small space, you have a well-protected center of wealth.

Remember the infamous triangle Athens-Sparta-Crete? Once you had these three settlements and you had modernized them a little bit, cash began to flood. It was always funny to see Sparta provide more income overall and more income from trade than two or three mainland regions combined, when the Spartans didn't have any goods to trade. It was just money out of thin air.

Apart from that, if you apply these rules to Greece, why not to Thrace or Illyria? Why not Iberia or Gaul or Germania or Britain?

[Xerrop]

Apart from that, if you apply these rules to Greece, why not to Thrace or Illyria? Why not Iberia or Gaul or Germania or Britain?

Because in each TW-campaign the provinces are selected by number of factions in an area, population density, wealth and historical importance. They are not separated in equally sized square kilometres. And Greece was a military and diplomatic battleground between the local factions there, Rome and all the Hellenistic eastern Empires of Asia (Pontos, Pergamon, Seleucids) and Africa (Egypt, Kyrene).

In Empire you had a large Swedish province, but five small german states filling a smaller area on the map to show the more scattered political reality there. Or think about Sicily in Rome1 = 3 provinces on a small amount of land that is usually only one province in most other parts of the map.

And another aspect to think about - there are 12 playable factions announced - four of them (a third!) located in Greece.

[torongill]

I was just looking at the original RTW map - Greece has five regions - Sparta, Corinth, Athens, Thermon and Larissa. Apart from Epirus and Macedonia, of course. In comparison, Egypt has 3 regions, the whole Iberian peninsula has six, the whole of Britain has three, all of Gaul without Massilia has six... You get the hint?