Seleucid

[Queshnaba]

Sorry to bother everyone here but I have a qauestion because something in the game I noticed bothered me. Is this game suppose to be historically accurate or only pretend to be history like AOE? I only ask because the if the goal is accuracy the Seleucid Roster is wrong. It employs native units of Seleucid held territories which is something they would have never done (training or using native troops was seen as dangerous and beneath Greeks at the time). Furthermore the Successor Kingdoms did not integrate with native cultures. They simply dominated them via key enclaves throughout their empires (with the exception of Macedon of course since it was the same group of people). A key example of this was the city of Alexandria which was completely Greek and Macedonian and no native Egyptians were allowed inside unless they were making an extremely vital visit to the Pharoah and even then couldn't stay. The Successor Kingdoms for military purposes imported Greek and Macedonian soldiers from Europe which is part of the reason why their position was fragile.The one historical instance to which I am aware that natives were trained to fight was in Ptolemaic Egypt and that ended in disaster with a massive revolt simply reinforcing the old idea of soldier importation. Sorry for the rant I just was curious and being a history major in college it bothered me (when I downloaded the game I thought it was trying to be an accurate version of AOE).

Edited December 15, 2015 by Queshnaba

[Stan`]

Hello, please read

http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20129

Might help you understand why it was not done, and what is done to fix that

Your feedback is welcome.

Welcome to the forums

[Queshnaba]

Hmmm alright. Some mercenary divisions make sense. My only complaint then would be that it is most of the roster when mercenaries outside of the imported troops were usually compliments rather than the main force. I also noticed Cretans were mentioned. They would probably serve better as the standard ranged unit since the Seleucids would have trusted them more being Greek and also they were known for their archers (unless the sources he was reading said otherwise). One other side little note from that forum part of me has to say is "Well, the Seleucids were the ONLY of the Diadochi kingdoms to successfully resist Roman invasion." actually isn't true. The Romans beat Antiochus III pretty badly. They simply chose not to invade because they were busy with other matters. When they returned in 63 BC all that was left was Antioch and a disputed succession so they just took it and made it a Roman province. Thank you fo the forum link though now it makes more sense why their roster is set up like it is. Also thank you for the welcome.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Queshnaba

[Stan`]

Well, this game is based on volunteering, so If you feel like you can provide good artistic references for the roster in this thread., please do so. Our Artistic workforce isn't that big, but It might interest other people to fix that for us. Which they wouldn't be able without references.

[Queshnaba]

Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to for some time. It is currently exam week and I am currently working on a mod for a game. After both are completed I may be able to provide extensive help but at the moment I cannot. I will probably be able to provide some references at least in a couple weeks maybe a little sooner. I in the meentime will probably leave a few suggestions on the forum (Such as Pontus, Thrace, Garamatia, Axum, Nabatea, and Armenia) for the sake of keeping a flow of ideas going.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Queshnaba

[Stan`]

Don't worry, game is 15years old, it can wait for some time

[Zeta1127]

The Seleucids have definitely been difficult to find good references for, but it is clear that native troops were used.

[feneur]

Are you out of your mind?

Please be more polite, saying someone is out of their mind isn't very nice

[Lion.Kanzen]

The biggest issue is about some archer troops, the Seleucids uses in the time of first successors Greek troops, but when they broke the links with homeland they must used Iranian and Anatolian troops, even not Syrians. And have mercenary troops like Scythians.

The best reference two know about this army is read careful the Parade of Daphne. But I research I lot about them, can be nice you, give a read later, the Seleucid isn't even close or near to be finish, mostly of troops are place holders.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Please be more polite, saying someone is out of their mind isn't very nice

Sorry, I meant to ask if he is crazy. I will try more precise next time.

[Queshnaba]

Wow just saw these posts after the exam. No I am not crazy. During its height the Seleucid Empire either did not use natives or they were local supplements not really part of the main army. Antiochus IV for example the last great Seleucid king used only Greeks/Macedonians as did Seleucus himself (I am unaware of Atiochus III compostion but based on the dates you provided of the native troop usage would have been from his reign and I think I know why). Antiochus III fought and lost against the Romans and tried to gain numerical superiority over them in order to try and win after the supply of new Greek/Macedonian troops was damaged (although he could still recuit from his own Greek enclaves and likely already had mercenaries from prior to Philip V losing to Rome). Thus he would have likely saught adding local forces or mecenaries to compliment his main force (which would have still been Greek/Macedonian). Based on what I know as well they were only really present in large numbers at two battles: The Battle of Raphia, and the Battle of Magnesia (which is the one against the Romans he wanted superiority in). Thus in my personal opinion based on what I know 2 battles and a parade under 1/3 great Seleucid kings would not be enough to justify a large place on their faction roster but make sense as perhaps a cheaper alternative available at the colony or something (the mercenary/native troops were also blamed for the defeat of Antiochus III in both of those battles). I just wanted to clear the air on this matter and apologize for disturbing the peace but I feel like this historical issue must be adressed.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Queshnaba

[Lion.Kanzen]

You need source and , You need detail each units

The composition of Seleucid army is highly debated, say all were Greek isn't enoght, you need prove with sources.

I agree with archers for example, they were Cretans mercenaries and serve all Succesors factions.

They use Celtic ( galatians) units, you can't refuse this.

And there are more examples...

[Queshnaba]

Very well I will dig back into Curtius Rufus, Petrarch and others for quotes on this matter later in the day when I have a bit more time.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Queshnaba

[Lion.Kanzen]

Perfect.

[Phalanx]

Well, according to the Daphne Parade and other sources, the Seleucid Army was, during the time of the Empire's war with the Egyptians, called "The people's army" because it was based almost entirely of milita thureosphoros, which must have had not just Greek but native troops as well. As for native archers, the Seleucids logically HAD to use native archers, because Greeks (aside from Cretans) aren't known for their archery. Most of the light skirmishers were native, because a lot of greeks saw skirmishing as a job for the "lower peoples" while they fought as thureosphoros, thorakites, cav, and obviously, the Syntagma/Phalanx. So while I do agree with you, native melee troops is a bit unreasonable, the roster I am working on (slowly, I grant you that) uses native troops for almost only the skirmishing/archer arm, with the exceptions being Dahae Horse archers and Median cav, but at least the Median cav, and the native peltast have Greek/heavier counterparts in the roster for Greek purists like me.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

In order to create diverse roster, the Daphne Parade and 2 large battles fought near height of the empire's power against 2 of its biggest foes are used as source. Why would you not think this is a good era to depict?

We know from sources that the Selucid use:

• Dahae/Scythian cavalry archrs
• Median and Persian light and medium cavalry
• Galatian mercenaries (probably infantry and cavalry, sword and spear)
• Thracian mercenaries (rhomphaiaphoroi and skirmisher)
• Arabic mercenaries (skirmishers)
• Greek mercenaries (thureophoroi mostly, maybe some traditional hoplite style, and Cretan archers)
• Greek Citizen/Militia/Colonist from Syrian tetrapolis, armed in thureophoroi/medium spear - "Power of Cities"
• Bronze Shield pikes, Silver shield Pikes, and Romanize sword recruit from the "flower" of the Greek colonists
• Elephants from India
• Heavy cavalry, Hetairoi, Agema, and Cataphracts recruited from Greek colonies, but mostly from Syrian, Persian, and Median natives

Asking if you are crazy was joke.

Edited December 17, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Phalanx]

Queshnaba, if you want. Look at the "Finishing the Seleucid Faction" thread for the finished suggestion roster, and you can post what you think there.