Oh well.... I've been really against the idea of Macedon being a sole civ ever since I've speculated about the two-pack DLC (together with others here in the forums), but I guess I have to submit and get used to this.
Besides the Holy Roman Empire was in Civ4: BTS and it's appearance in the game is a bit problematic, but I just went along with it.
How will this be explained to Greek players? Do you guys think there will be less Greeks playing Civ6 now that Alexander isn't placed in Greece? Or will there be no bother at all, since they label Alex's civ as Macedon and not Macedon
ia?
Macedon during Phillip & Alexander's time is entirely different to modern Macedonia. In ancient times they were two distinct, though with numerous cultural similarities, peoples. They spoke different languages (though Alex and Phillip both spoke Greek too), had vastly different customs and Macedon had a system of Government that was abhorrent to the Greeks. It wasn't until the Successor Kingdoms that they became considered, more or less, the same thing (but even that was only within the Successor Kingdoms. Within Greece and Macedon they still hated each other and it would be like calling an Irishman/Scotsman English today) and remained far more distinct until the Roman conquests.
It wasn't until Rome cherry picked them apart that Greece and Macedon largely fused. Modern Macedonia is an entirely different ethnic group trying to steal the glory of someone who clearly has no ethnic history from them .
Personally I see ancient Macedon and ancient Greece as both parts of modern Greece. I would hope that Greek players wouldn't take it as a OMG YOU DON'T THINK ALEXANDER IS PART OF GREEK HISTORY!!
I do not think they are distinctive enough that they would warranty separate Civs under normal circumstances. But Phillip and Alexander are responsible for one of the greatest military feats in history, which changed the world more than virtually any other expansion (due to the spread of Hellenic culture) and was vital to how the world panned out afterwards. It directly affected Roman expansion and the existence of the Roman/Byzantine Empire for over 1,000 years.
Like what the hell even is a hypaspist. Its like they were playing as Greece in Age of Mythology and were like 'damn, we already used hoplites, what other unit names are around we can copy'. I'm no historian but I have never heard anything to do with Macedonian swordsmen being fearsome or especially powerful.
They were the cream of Alexander / Phillip's crop and integral to how Alexander got his army working. They were equipped like a Phalanx (rather than the Macedonian Phalanx which was very different) but trained in speed and manoeuvring. Alexander used the Macedonian Phalanxes in much smaller units than the "standard" Greek version we think of, to allow flexibility, but they were still slow moving. The Hypaspists would roam the edges of the line, or fill the gaps between units, moving rapidly to protect allies, or take advantage of gaps in the line. They stopped the Macedonian Phalanxes from being flanked or becoming isolated as the line moved. They were actually an amazing concept and one that only Alexander/Phillip ever used properly, as they were never used like that by his successors.
Without these guys the whole concept of Alexander/Phillip's style of combat wouldn't have been possible.
EDIT: The most famous unit in the Alexander / Successor Kingdom period was the Silver Shields. They were the most sought after unit of soldiers and were regarded as the best of the best. They were hypapists.
Until today I didn't even know modern Macedonia is officially named Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia...
FYROM and Macedon aren't the same thing. They may have some of the same territory, but there is no path from one to the other. It would be like modern Americans treating the Indians as their ancestors.
EDIT: The model used looks like he comes from Gumby or something.
