Were there any Land Bridges between Turkey and Greece area?

[Kruelgor]

I need to know this for my Roman Empire scenario I'm making. Does anyone know if there were any actual land bridges during the Roman Empire era between Turkey and Greece area, or have those thin strips of water always been there? My inclination is to believe the thin water strips have always been there, which would basically mean for a land army to invade it would need ships.

 

[Shiggs713]

I know those areas were easily crossed by any army as early as 500 bc, probably sooner. I'm not sure exactly the width, but imo its narrow enough to just make a land bridge, for gameplay as much as realism. At least near Thrace, probably not down near Mysia.

 

[Kruelgor]

I know those areas were easily crossed by any army as early as 500 bc, probably sooner. I'm not sure exactly the width, but imo its narrow enough to just make a land bridge, for gameplay as much as realism. At least near Thrace, probably not down near Mysia.

Right, I'm wondering if historically they used a couple of ships to cross their land armies across.

Then again, the AI can be too ******ed to use a ship as a bridge for mass infantry crossing, so I might just have to make it land there at Thrace.

 

[Shiggs713]

no they didn't use ships, they used pontoon bridges, this is historical fact from the persian-greco wars and the gigantic armies of Darius/Xerxes.

 

[Kruelgor]

no they didn't use ships, they used pontoon bridges, this is historical fact from the persian-greco wars and the gigantic armies of Darius/Xerxes.

Cool. That's good to know. I'll make it land since obviously there are no pontoon bridges in this game.

Thanks

 

[Terrance888]

Make it river.

 

[SerriaFox]

Or put a city there cause boats could go through it, if there were friendly, otherwise I think they got hit with greek fire, a type of oil I think

 

[Kruelgor]

Make it river.

Exactly what I did.

 

[Kruelgor]

Or put a city there cause boats could go through it, if there were friendly, otherwise I think they got hit with greek fire, a type of oil I think

true.....

 

[henryMCVII]

I don't see the probem with having coast terrain (water) instead of land. Since every Civ5 unit can cross coast terrain pretty early in game, there is no reason for having land tiles where "normaly" is water. To me its just the opposite: if you make it land, then ships never can't cross if there is no friendly city on that land tile.

 

[Zen Blade]

You need boats capable of going through the strait(s) of that area.
Some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporus

 

[Lamb Chop]

No, there are no natural land bridges or crossings. It is water all the way. with a constant 5-10mph current and depths reaching 150m's...

Every Civilization in the History who ever made a play for the opposite shore used ships...
You can get away with small ones but no one had the technology to build a makeshift bridge over 1.5km's of water while under fire and against a current of 10mph yet (Currents are strongest on the narrowest parts which is about 1500m's)

Thrace is actually a City quite inland. The other crossing, strait is Dardanelles. WE should all know how that would go looking at the example of WWI...

Yes I live in Istanbul.
Hit me up if you need any more info on how Byzantium fell to the Ottomans

 

[Shiggs713]

research the Persian war and you will know that they used pontoon bridges to cross. Of course they had ships as well, but constructing temporary bridges was very possible, and in fact did happen even thousands of years ago.

For the map, its basically at your discretion however you want it to be is probably fine either way. Its not like you can equate 1 tile to the width of the straight anyways, things are abstracted in civ.

 

[Terrance888]

How about look at my straits and other sea terrain suggestion? Gonna scrounge up idea thread. here it is!

 

[Agent327]

My inclination is to believe the thin water strips have always been there, which would basically mean for a land army to invade it would need ships.

Correct. (Alexander needed ships; and his great fear was the Persian fleet would cut off his line of communications - hence Phoenicia and Egypt first, Persia after.)

 

[zappara]

I remember reading long time ago from science magazine that there was land connection during the last ice age where the city of Istanbul is located. When ice melted, sea levels rose as the climate warmed, and saltwater poured in from the Mediterranean through the Sea of Marmara. During this "flood" the Black Sea rose some 30-50 meters (can't remember exact number) and probably forced people to move out from the plains that were sunk into water. The same thing happened in middle east where Persian Gulf formed after the last ice age.

 

[Shiggs713]

actually zappara, I think I saw a tv series about the same thing. They went diving for ancient artifacts and found many things out in the black sea that showed evidence that it used to be inhabited where it is now sea.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, but that's not relevant for a Roman era scenario. It was possibly the inspiration for the Biblical flood story, however.

Anyway, I say go with a tile of coast. With the exception of the Persian empire, everyone needed ships to cross. Even then, his bridge was destroyed by the weather at one point and was almost too much of a hassle (if he didn't need to cross such a ridiculous army, he probably would have used boats as well).

 

[Kruelgor]

Thanks everyone for your input. It's a tough decision. I think I will end up going with small hex of coast in between.

I took the last few days off from Civ5 while I played a little ModNation Racers on PS3. Now I'm back working on Roman Empire again.

 

[cephalo]

Crossing the Hellespont was a major challenge back in the day. Xerxes built a bridge accross it that was destroyed by a storm, he then re-built it and it took his army seven days to get accross. His navy was busy carrying supplies for his huge army.