What's a logical capital city for an Epirote Greece/Anatolia empire?

[I_Damian]

After playing a few turns with pretty much every faction I've finally settled on Epirus (for reasons unknown, I was just feelin' it). So imagine this:

It's 272 BC and Pyrrhus is besieging Sparta, but instead of getting himself bogged down in street fighting with the legendary Spartans and dying from a roof tile thrown by an old biddy he actually takes Sparta. Then he is victorious over a KH army in the region and he takes Corinth, then turns his attention north to Athens and Pella and uses his legendary generalling skills to bring all of Greece under his dominion (except for Thermon and Byzantion, which I will roleplay as independent cities who didn't stand in my way at all).

Pyrrhus then dies of old age or ill health and leaves the whole thing to his sons who manage to not squabble and fall into civil war but instead hold their father's dominion together and begin expanding into Anatolia, warring either with the Ptolemies or the Seleukids (or both if the AI is feeling particularly belligerent).

What would make a good capital for such an empire? Not in gameplay terms but in roleplay terms. Pyrrhus and his sons may have felt some attachment to Ambrakia, but legendary cities like Athens and Sparta aren't going to accept being subjugated by a king who rules from there... not when Greece is full of so many legendary and renowned ancient cities with huge amounts of prestige.

Where do Pyrrhus and his heirs consider to be the center of this empire I intend to build?

[QuintusSertorius]

Perhaps they found a new city in Thessalia, which is relatively central, but not dominated by a pre-existing city state the way Attike or Aitolia are?

[Dooz]

If it's a roleplay decision, I say let the story unfold and tell itself, let it tell you where capital should go over time. A ruler grows fond of a certain city for some reason, traits or ancillaries or particularly memorable battles or campaigns, competition between brothers contributing to decision making, who knows. Maybe you get a hellenophile king and he decides Korinth is where he wants to rule from.

Keeping it where it starts originally can also make sense if you fully take over greece and assert authoritarian control successfully enough to make them accept your roots and heritage and rule of strength over them whether they like it or not. I'm not speaking from experience as a makedonian player or anything.

Can also roleplay dual capitals with the limited availability highest gov levels acting as surrogates. I sort of have a system like that where ruler stays in the original capital-capital of Pella and heir in co-capital Demetria, when not out conquering anyway.

[I_Damian]

Hmm, I like the idea of Thessalia. The people there are used to being ruled by a king, Pyrrhus and his sons are related to Alexander and their ancestors went on his adventures and all that so the people around there would be well disposed to them, it's not heavily involved with all those silly southern Greek ideas of democracy but it's close enough to remind them that the king is nearby and is not to be screwed with.

Hmm... yes. It could work.

[isa0005]

I went with Byzantium because its very centralised and from memory it had a history of being ruled by kings. You can't get top tier factional units from the settlement, but you do get some nifty local troops and from a role playing stand point I felt it was kind of fun I mean it did eventually become the centre of the Greek/Byzantine/Roman world and was the gateway to the east after all. I mean if Phyrrhus' sons gave up on the idea of freeing Magna-Graecia from Roman/Carthaginian dominion, heading east would be the logical direction for any ambitious conqueror who sort to equal or even eclipse their father's greatness and be a second Alexander.

[Beckitz]

It depends on a few things. What relationship does this dynasty claim to Alexander the Great, and to Macedon, the homeland of all the Hellenistic rulers outside of the heartland and their soldier-colonists? (If you're expanding beyond Epirus, then you can no longer style yourself as just 'King of the Epirotes' or 'King of Epirus'). Similarly, what is your title now, of what are you the king? If it was only Epirus, you would have to use puppet rulers outside of your homeland inaugurated according to the regnal and ethnic customs of each nation, for legitimacy. A better option may be to fabricate a Macedonian heritage for yourself and have yourself crowned as King of Macedon. Then you can justify your conquests in Anatolia as reconquests of your historical dominion - however, nothing will ever obviate the historical independence of the Ionian cities nor the Hellenic ones, both cultures which always preserved a cannon of free rights in the Hellenistic empire-states on the basis of their independent existence. For related reasons, I think you would need to invent an ingenious explanation for why you have claim to Pergamon, for example, and to the Ptolemaic and Seleukid anatolian possessions, given that the respective Seleukid and Ptolemaic rights to these territories was enshrined in international law by the treaties of mutual recognition signed by the Diadochoi in the late 4th and early 3rd Century.

To get around the force of these historical and ethnic boundaries, I believe you would have to go deep and appeal to the highest possible authority. You must almost certainly procure from one of the Oracles or some other divine source a statement that you are Alexander reincarnated, or something similar, to allow you to lay claim to all of these territories. Then your capital could feasibly be in Pella, or indeed anywhere you wish, o king. I suspect there is an alternate route using royal marriages to control the Attalid and Antigonid dynasties through your wives, perhaps, or baby sons which you may issue from these marriages. But what could be better than securing the trappings of divine legitimacy yourself?

[I_Damian]

It depends on a few things. What relationship does this dynasty claim to Alexander the Great, and to Macedon, the homeland of all the Hellenistic rulers outside of the heartland and their soldier-colonists? (If you're expanding beyond Epirus, then you can no longer style yourself as just 'King of the Epirotes' or 'King of Epirus'). Similarly, what is your title now, of what are you the king? If it was only Epirus, you would have to use puppet rulers outside of your homeland inaugurated according to the regnal and ethnic customs of each nation, for legitimacy. A better option may be to fabricate a Macedonian heritage for yourself and have yourself crowned as King of Macedon. Then you can justify your conquests in Anatolia as reconquests of your historical dominion - however, nothing will ever obviate the historical independence of the Ionian cities nor the Hellenic ones, both cultures which always preserved a cannon of free rights in the Hellenistic empire-states on the basis of their independent existence. For related reasons, I think you would need to invent an ingenious explanation for why you have claim to Pergamon, for example, and to the Ptolemaic and Seleukid anatolian possessions, given that the respective Seleukid and Ptolemaic rights to these territories was enshrined in international law by the treaties of mutual recognition signed by the Diadochoi in the late 4th and early 3rd Century.

To get around the force of these historical and ethnic boundaries, I believe you would have to go deep and appeal to the highest possible authority. You must almost certainly procure from one of the Oracles or some other divine source a statement that you are Alexander reincarnated, or something similar, to allow you to lay claim to all of these territories. Then your capital could feasibly be in Pella, or indeed anywhere you wish, o king. I suspect there is an alternate route using royal marriages to control the Attalid and Antigonid dynasties through your wives, perhaps, or baby sons which you may issue from these marriages. But what could be better than securing the trappings of divine legitimacy yourself?

All fine and dandy, but what about the concept of spear won land eh? I conquered all these cities, they should be happy that I'm respecting their traditions and not walking all over them by erecting a royal palace in Athens. And I didn't enslave or sack them either, I just walked in there and set up a puppet government and let them go about their business (provided they pay their taxes and behave themselves). Life is better for them now. Greece is peaceful and totally devoid of civil war for the first time in forever. I'm renaming Greece to Peece.

And in time, if they're lucky, the cities in Anatolia will also enjoy peace and benevolent monarchy. No more sending your sons to fight in the 86th Ptolemaic-Seleukid war because the Seleukids insulted the Ptolemies when some obscure cousin of the Seleukid Basileus divorce his wife, who was the second cousin of the daughter or the son-in-law of the Ptolemaic Basileus.

But not those cities in the north-east of Anatolia though. Bloody barbarians the lot of them with their mountains and axes and whatnot, pretending they're Greek just because they figured out how to use a long spear. They won't be enjoying any of my benevolent monarchy.

[Asdf]

I don't think any fabrication would be necessary, what with Pyrrhos having already been proclaimed King of Macedon by game-start (a title which is presumably inherited by his sons given the failure of the Antigonids) and Alexander being of royal Epeirote stock through his mother. Perhaps the Aeacidae would go the route of later European monarchies and simply accumulate more and more royal titles?