Amphipolis as a province?

[Doulkus Pontikus]

In most campaigns I've played so far, the Epeirotes have an easy task conquering Pella and effectively taking out the Macedonians from the beginning.
Historically speaking things never happened so easily. Apart from Pella there were many Macedonian strongholds in modern Northern Greece with Amphipolis being the most important. It was probably the second largest city in the area, the biggest commercial and military port (Alexander's navy set sail from there), controlled the famous gold mines at Mount Pangaion and all the trade along the Strymon river which back then was navigable.

Thoukidides mentions that the Athenians attacked the powerful city state of Amphipolis twice, without success, and clearly states that the port and the mines of the city were of utmost importance for the Athenians, the Spartans and the Macedonians. When finally Phillip took control of the city he used the gold from the mines to finance the preparations for the campaign against Persia.


Alexander set the city as the burial ground for his closest and dearest friend and second in command Hephaistion. Later Amphipolis was used as the place of "safe holding" for Olympias, Roxanne and Alexander IV and the latter two were also killed in the city. In Roman times the city served as military outpost, commercial bridge and was the site of the famous Battle of Phillipoi (around 15 km from the city).

Recent archaeological excavations shows the wealth and importance of the city and the news about the Amphipolis Tomb have become viral : http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird...s-tomb-n223576

So I propose for Amphipolis to be included as a province in the next installment. I don't know if i'm asking for too much or if it's even possible but for historical accuracy and gameplay reasons (it's totally unrealistic to capture the Macedonian heartland by taking over one city plus the Macedonians are already a province short -Mytilene anyone?- from EB1) i believe Amphipolis should be a city and a province on it's own and not just a "minor settlement".

With respect to the team's excellent work so far!

[QuintusSertorius]

I'd be supportive of this idea. One of the things that always puts me off playing an actual Epeiros campaign (rather than migrating them) is the fact that if I use the army with Pyrrhos to take Pella, I cripple Makedonia right at the start of the game. I did this in the only Epeiros game I played in EB1, and they never recovered from it, and indeed never tried to retake it.

[Rad]

I support this idea, even though I play Epeiros much more often than Macedonia. It's just too easy, even the Pella garrison is small.

Edit: If a new province can't be put there, increase the Macedonian garrison size...

[Nicov55]

We are coming back to the debate about settlement distribution choices by the EB team and how Greece and other areas were a bit forgotten.

[Doulkus Pontikus]

You are right Nicov55. Considering how many cities and camps are included in the Germanic and Gaul region of the map, it makes me wonder how come major Greek cities like Amphipolis or Argos (in the Peloponese) are left out.
OK i understand that the Greek peninsula is small in size and it would be difficult to fit a lot of cities. On the other hand half of the settlements in central Europe would not quality as towns using Greek or Persian standards.
In the case for Amphipolis things are quite forward actually. We are dealing with one of the biggest cities in mainland Greece, with numerous population, historical significance and strategic value. The area around Strymon River was known as "Thracomakedones" in antiquity and was the frontier between Greek and Thraician populations. Amphipolis is recorded to host a big amount of Hellenized Thraicians.
For gameplay and realism reasons the area between Pella and Byzantion is too vast not to incude one more city.

[Nicov55]

You are right Nicov55. Considering how many cities and camps are included in the Germanic and Gaul region of the map, it makes me wonder how come major Greek cities like Amphipolis or Argos (in the Peloponese) are left out.
OK i understand that the Greek peninsula is small in size and it would be difficult to fit a lot of cities. On the other hand half of the settlements in central Europe would not quality as towns using Greek or Persian standards.
In the case for Amphipolis things are quite forward actually. We are dealing with one of the biggest cities in mainland Greece, with numerous population, historical significance and strategic value. The area around Strymon River was known as "Thracomakedones" in antiquity and was the frontier between Greek and Thraician populations. Amphipolis is recorded to host a big amount of Hellenized Thraicians.
For gameplay and realism reasons the area between Pella and Byzantion is too vast not to incude one more city.

Amphipolis is for sure a must have i think. Would be more difficult for Argos due to it's proximity with Korinthos; seems difficult whithout moving Korinthos on the right and then it would be too close to Athens. As for the Peleponnesus, Megalopolis could be a good alternative (easier to put on the map).

[Lysimachos]

Since Argos keeps getting mentioned, how important exactly was it at this time? I thought it was way past its peak and for gameplay reasons I don't think it would be ideal to squeeze another settlement there.

[Doulkus Pontikus]

I agree about Argos. Not that it wasn't important during Hellenistic times (which settlement in Germania was more important for example?) but it would be a waste of space to squeeze it between Sparte and Korinth. If another city in Peloponesus was to be represented i'd go with Patra or Megalopolis or even Messiny.
But what about Amphipolis?
No opposite arguement is expressed so far.

Today i checked the map playing as Macedon. Pella could move a little to the west closer to the minor settlement representing Aigai (?) which is actually more realistic and the province could stop east, at the mountains near the settlement representing Amphipolis (?). It would still be sizeable since it would contain the Macedonian heartland and Chalkidiki.
Amphipolis could move a little to the east and inlands, also a lot more accurate, it would contain the Gulf of Strymon and stop right before the port of Tylis to the East.

[Sarkiss]

Phoenicia too please now that Nabateans been added, Mideast needs more provinces not less (especially ones of such great value).

[alex86]

If this helps gameplay considerations, I'm all for it. It sounds like Macedon is too vulnerable and I'm not sure how that could get addressed without this.

About barbarian dominance in Europe, however, keep in mind that's something that could change considerably with the introduction of Belgic and Scordisci factions. Both of these should be checks on existing expansion designs in Europe. AI Rome should probably dominate rather than get snuffed out, but AI disintegration of Hellenic power doesn't sound as bad for this time period.

[Stringer Bell]

I too would like to see this city added. In 5 of the 6 campaigns I have played, Makedonia is gone in under 30 turns! The culprit is always Epeiros too.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

My reply to this thread comes a bit too late, but still...

it makes me wonder how come major Greek cities like Amphipolis or Argos (in the Peloponese) are left out.

I would love to see Argos included, however it was not that important and there are better candidates, Megalopolis would be the best option, in my opinion. I agree about Amphipolis though, it would be great to include it.

Since Argos keeps getting mentioned, how important exactly was it at this time? I thought it was way past its peak and for gameplay reasons I don't think it would be ideal to squeeze another settlement there.

It was the most beautiful and advanced city in all of the Greek world, just as it is today, Athens is nothing when compared to it.
I'm joking, the city was past its glory, there were more important cities in the Peloponnese that could be included, although that region is not quite spacious in EB2 map terms, I would support the addition of Megalopolis.

Phoenicia too please now that Nabateans been added, Mideast needs more provinces not less (especially ones of such great value).

Splitting Phoenicia and Judea and including Jerusalem above all, is something I think that would greatly benefit the greater Syria region, there are to few provinces there, in my opinion.

[Abdülmecid I]

I agree that the western part has too many regions. I understand a pro-western orentation and I recognize that EB2 is much better than the vanilla on this. However, I'd prefer more regions in Asia not in Greece. Syria, Mesopotamia and Iran need more regions, imo:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...map&highlight=

Finally, if the team decides in favor of Amphipolis, I'd include as a landmark, Draviscus, where the Thracians slaughtered the Athenian colonists or even the tomb which was recently found!

[Sint]

it makes me wonder how come major Greek cities like Amphipolis or Argos (in the Peloponese) are left out.

Region limit...

[QuintusSertorius]

Actually, come to think of it, why is Sparta there out of all the other Greek settlements which were significant in this period? Weren't they a spent force who were largely irrelevant by the 3rd century BC? Might we switch out Sparta for Argos?

[Cyclops]

Actually, come to think of it, why is Sparta there out of all the other Greek settlements which were significant in this period? Weren't they a spent force who were largely irrelevant by the 3rd century BC? Might we switch out Sparta for Argos?

At the EB2 start date they are part of a final paroxysm of semi-indepenedent action against Epiros, and as such they qualify in some form as part of a faction. Plus they are toio cool to leave out, if you're hardcore you can RP a Spartan revival.

[Doulkus Pontikus]

It's every fanboy's dream to lead red-hooded-geraldbutler-like Spartan Hoplites into battle! You just can't take that away!

Since I opened this thread, there's been a lot of positive response to this idea. So I'll make a final effort to support the inclusion of Amphipolis as a region using historical proof.

The area located to the east of Chalkidice, between the Nestus and Strymon rivers, were called "Edonia" (Ηδωνία) in ancient times. It was home to a barbarian-probably Traician- people, with Draviscus and Myrcine being the most notable cities. Greek settlers came to the area around 800-700 BC. Xerxes I of Persia passed during his invasion of Greece of 480 BC and buried alive nine young men and nine maidens as a sacrifice to the river god Strymon or some say to Orpheus. Near the later site of Amphipolis Alexander I of Macedon defeated the remains of Xerxes' army in 479 BC. After an unsuccessful attempt at colonisation in 497 BC by the Milesian Tyrant Histiaeus, the Athenians founded a first colony at Ennea-Hodoi (‘Nine Ways’) in 465, but these first ten thousand colonists were massacred by the Thracians.^[4] A second attempt took place in 437 BC on the same site under the guidance of Hagnon, son of Nicias.
The city was named Amphipolis. Thucydides claims the name comes from the fact that the Strymon flows "around the city" on two sides; however a note in the Suda (also given in the lexicon of Photius) offers a different explanation apparently given by Marsyas, son of Periander: that a large proportion of the population lived "around the city". However, a more probable explanation is the one given by Julius Pollux: that the name indicates the vicinity of an isthmus. Furthermore, the Etymologicum Genuinum gives the following definition: a city of the Athenians or of Thrace, which was once called Nine Routes, (so named) because it is encircled and surrounded by the Strymon river. This description corresponds to the actual site of the city.
Amphipolis subsequently became the main power base of the Athenians in Thrace and, consequently, a target of choice for their Spartan adversaries. The Athenian population remained very much in the minority within the city.A rescue expedition led by the Athenian strategos (general, and later historian) Thucydides had to settle for securing Eion and could not retake Amphipolis, a failure for which Thucydides was sentenced to exile. A new Athenian force under the command of Cleon failed once more in 422 BC during a battle at which both Cleon and Brasidas lost their lives. Brasidas survived long enough to hear of the defeat of the Athenians and was buried at Amphipolis with impressive pomp. From then on he was regarded as the founder of the city and honoured with yearly games and sacrifices.
The city itself kept its independence until the reign of king Philip II (r. 359–336 BC) despite several Athenian attacks, notably because of the government of Callistratus of Aphidnae. In 357 BC, Philip succeeded where the Athenians had failed and conquered the city, thereby removing the obstacle which Amphipolis presented to Macedonian control over Thrace. According the historian Theopompus, this conquest came to be the object of a secret accord between Athens and Philip II, who would return the city in exchange for the fortified town of Pydna, but the Macedonian king betrayed the accord, refusing to cede Amphipolis and laying siege to Pydna as well.
The city was not immediately incorporated into the Macedonian kingdom, and for some time preserved its institutions and a certain degree of autonomy. The border of Macedonia was not moved further east; however, Philip sent a number of Macedonian governors to Amphipolis, and in many respects the city was effectively "Macedonianized". Nomenclature, the calendar and the currency (the gold stater, created by Philip to capitalise on the gold reserves of the Pangaion hills, replaced the Amphipolitan drachma) were all replaced by Macedonian equivalents. In the reign of Alexander the Great, Amphipolis was an important naval base, and the birthplace of three of the most famous Macedonian admirals: Nearchus, Androsthenesand Laomedon, whose burial place is most likely marked by the famous lion of Amphipolis.

Amphipolis became one of the main stops on the Macedonian royal road (as testified by a border stone found between Philippi and Amphipolis giving the distance to the latter), and later on the Via Egnatia, the principal Roman road which crossed the southern Balkans. Apart from the ramparts of the lower town, the gymnasium and a set of well-preserved frescoes from a wealthy villa are the only artifacts from this period that remain visible. Though little is known of the layout of the town, modern knowledge of its institutions is in considerably better shape thanks to a rich epigraphic documentation, including a military ordinance of Philip V and an ephebarchic law from the gymnasium.
Conquest by the Romans

After the final victory of Rome over Macedonia in 168 BC, Amphipolis became the capital one of the four mini-republics, or merides, which were created by the Romans out of the kingdom of the Antigonids which succeeded Alexander’s empire in Macedon. These merides were gradually incorporated into the Roman client state, and later province, of Thracia.


Fresco from Amphipolis:


"The Abduction of Persephone by Pluto" from the third chamber of the Amphipolis Tomb which is currently being excavated:




The best known monument (so far) of Amphipolis. The Great Lion.


Pictures of the Amphipolis Tomb, the largest Macedonian tomb ever found. The excavation is ongoing

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

Actually, come to think of it, why is Sparta there out of all the other Greek settlements which were significant in this period? Weren't they a spent force who were largely irrelevant by the 3rd century BC? Might we switch out Sparta for Argos?

Sparta was still important during the initial EB timeframe, and there was a short resurgence of spartan power in the later period. As for potential addition of another city to the Peloponnese, there are better candidates than Argos. Sparta was just too much important for the Peloponnese to be left out, or reduced to a minor PSF settlement.

[QuintusSertorius]

Sparta was still important during the initial EB timeframe, and there was a short resurgence of spartan power in the later period. As for potential addition of another city to the Peloponnese, there are better candidates than Argos. Sparta was just too much important for the Peloponnese to be left out, or reduced to a minor PSF settlement.

I think the area is far too small to add a new province, but my thinking was just that if there were more important places in the Peloponnese, Sparta would be a good candidate for removal (and downgrading to minor settlement).

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

I think the area is far too small to add a new province, but my thinking was just that if there were more important places in the Peloponnese, Sparta would be a good candidate for removal (and downgrading to minor settlement).

I agree that the region is too small for an additional province, however I think that Sparta is more important than any other likely candidate.
If, however, EB team removes Sparta (which I believe it will never happen) then I would like to see Megalopolis instead of Sparta.