Discussion about ancient superpowers Around the Mediterranean

[seleucid empire]

So which nations do you guys think were real superpowers in classical antiquity (end of Bronze Age to the fall of the WRE)

give reasons

[Boriak]

New Kingdom Egypt, Hittite Empire, Assyria, Median Empire, Persia, Alexander the Great.

[Frtigern]

Neo-Assyrian Empire
Achaemenid Empire
Phoenicia, if you measure from its height until the fall of Carthage.

[Ownager]

Rome? Is there something wrong with it? Why hasn't anyone said it so far? Phoenicia, Huns. Franks, maybe?cwere they in the time period?

[Bcman]

Parithia

[seleucid empire]

Hmm given the responses, I suspect I misused the term classical antiquity. What I meant was the period from the Bronze Age to the fall of the western Roman Empire

anyway here's my criteria for judging whether a nation was a super power or not:

Size of territory
military might
number of cultures they had power over
their influence outside their own territories and global impact

So in the end I only included 2 for my list:

rome: covered the entire Mediterranean. Their rule was generally More stable. Ruled over many different ethnic groups. Had almost uncontested military might. And they could stop foreign nations with just the threat of war as seen when they stopped Antiochus iv from invading egypt

persia: one of the largest empires ever created. Ruled over many eastern nations as well as Ionian Greeks. At its peak they could muster the largest army in the world. Even after losing two large armies to the Greeks their own lands weren't really in danger from counterattack. Even after years of decline it still took the greatest military genius in history (Alexander the great) and the most advanced and well disciplined army of the time (the reformed Macedonian army created by Phillip) to defeat them.


factions which I didn't include:

parthia: IMO they weren't really a superpower. They were strong no doubt being able to withstand rome. But if you think about it, they could never threaten to destroy rome, only it's eastern territories whereas rome could threaten Parthia's capital.

carthage: they had the potential to become a superpower but earlier in their history they were defeated a few times by Syracuse and failed to become truly strong before the rise of rome and their defeat at roman hands

seleukids: they had a large empire but had very little control of it. There was rebellion and infighting. They also didn't have much influence outside their territory it seems. The one exception would be during the reign of Antiochus the great when they received the submission of Armenia and could send an army all the way to take control of Greece

neo Assyrian empire: although they were the strongest power of their time and dominated their rivals, they seemed to be in a constant state of war throughout their 300 year history. They would conquer their rivals only for the king to die and rebellion to occur everywhere

[Ownager]

1/2! Yessss.

[Samariten]

Some not mentioned but under the time period refrain to (i suppose that is 476 A.D).

Sassanid Empire

Hunnic Empire

Maurya Empire

Qin and Han dynasty

PS I noticed now it was "around" the mediterranean so ignore post : D .

[Ownager]

Heeeey. I said the Huns. Parthia wasn't exactly around the Meditarranean was it?

[Principe Alessandro]

In the geographical area depicted by EB I think that the only political entities that could be defined as superpowers were the Roman and the Persian (Achemenid) empires, the other political entities were no more than regional powers.

[Ownager]

Phoenicia has their home city in the area around Egypt, influence in Africa, Sicily, Iberia and parts of Italy. Not to mention Sardinia and Corsica.

[seleucid empire]

Phoenicia has their home city in the area around Egypt, influence in Africa, Sicily, Iberia and parts of Italy. Not to mention Sardinia and Corsica.

Was Phoenicia ever really a nation??? I don't think you could count tyre and Carthage as the same entity

[Ownager]

Maybe not united, but they did have influence on those areas. Influence is one of the best ways to measure an empires effectiveness. No one questions Romes influence, or Alexander's. Carthages might have spread further if they hadn't been destroyed by roman pugs.

[Samariten]

I wouldnt call Phoenicia an empire either.

[Ownager]

It isn't an empire. Carthage is the empire. Phoenicia is the collective name of the people who lived in Tyre.

[Samariten]

I would not call Carthage an empire. Ancient empires, Achaemenid Empire, Macedonian Empire, Roman Empire, Armenian Empire, Maurya Empire etc. Carthage an ancient empire, no.

[Ownager]

Why not? They owned lands. They were ruled from their capital. They were large enough to be considered one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CarthageMap.png

[Ownager]

They were the largest empire on the Western side of the Meditarranean, and they can't be a regional power, since they were not only in their homelands. They could be considered more of an empire than rome at the beginning of the game.

[Samariten]

Carthage were an oligarchal republic, sure they fit somehow under the definition of the term "empire" ("supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority"). But i see them more of a large regional power as the control were of mostly colonies and not countries.

In the start of EB campign there really are no "empire" but perhaps the Seleucid empire.

[Ownager]

Sure, but still, they are larger and more powerful than the Romans. I didn't say they were an empire, but they are more of an empire than Rome. Besides, during the second Punic war, they had half of Iberia, which is definitely more than a colony. On top of that, a large regional superpower might be something like Aedui controlling all of Gaul, or the Makedonians holding all of Greece. But Carthage didn't have the same amount of control in Africa, instead, their power was in colonies, and sometimes countries abroad.