Play as the Macedonians!!

[Exsanguination]

UPDATE (v1.2, 01/20/02):

28 Macedonian city names added; capital changed to Aegai.

UPDATE (v1.1, 01/19/02):

Ahhh... so soon. But my I realized my utter stupidity and fixed the problem with playing as the Greeks in a normal game.


Yep, thats right. I replaced the Greeks, as I do not know as of yet how to make a new civilization. (If you know how, please please post how in the thread I started in the Creation & Customization forum - link at bottom)

Besides that, here are the Macedonian stats:

Ruler: Captain-General Alexander
UU: Phalanx (2.3.1)
Capital: Aegai
Leaders: Ptolemy, Hephaestion, Parmenio, Nearcus, Cleitus the Black, Craterus, Perdiccas, Coenus
Attributes: Scientific and Commercial

re: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=14721

 

[Exsanguination]

see next post

 

[Exsanguination]

v1.0 removed after... 0 downloads (I wonder why???)

Here is v1.2:

 

[Pangur Bán]

You created a Macedonia civ and DIDN'T include Philip II. How can you ignore the man who unified Macedonia, and brought from being it an undeveloped semi-barbarous pseudo-kingdom to the greatest power in the Mediterranean. He conquered mainland Greece. He made what Alexander did possible.

 

[Exsanguination]

Originally posted by calgacus
You created a Macedonia civ and DIDN'T include Philip II. How can you ignore the man who unified Macedonia, and brought from being it an undeveloped semi-barbarous pseudo-kingdom to the greatest power in the Mediterranean. He conquered mainland Greece. He made what Alexander did possible.

So he did, but it took a man of even greater greatness and stature to renew that unification, bring all of asia, the mediterranean and northern india under his control, and remain undefeated in every battle he fought. That man was Alexandros III the Great, son of Philip II of Macedon. No man ever had as many titles as he.

With that, where does Philip fit in?

 

[History_Buff]

Have we forgotten a certain battle at the Indus battle where Alexanders troops turned and routed at a brand new thing called War Elephants.

As for phillip, He should be the ruler, and Alexander a leader, and conquests of Alexander a wonder available only to them, that would do what Heroic Epic does now, only better.

 

[Exsanguination]

history_Buff - actually, alexander's troops did not turn back, but fought and won by a very small margin. It was the elephants who turned back and soon surrendered.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

You need Philip to be at least a great leader. What about Archelaus who built Pella and made it grand enough to rival Athens? Or Karanos (the first recorded King), or even Argaios I of whom the Argead Dynasty (which Alexander was from) was named after?

 

[Keygen]

Originally posted by Exsanguination
history_Buff - actually, alexander's troops did not turn back, but fought and won by a very small margin. It was the elephants who turned back and soon surrendered.

Indeed. Alexander the Great did win that battle but he gifted to the Indian kingdom its freedom because they fought bravely.

Of cource the true reason wasn't that.
Perhaps he had something else in his mind and needed good relations with the Indians that time.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Exsanguination, I think you exaggerate Alexander's greatness. Alexander's transient conquests were of an empire created by Cyrus the Great and given sustainable organization by Darius I. He conquered an empire which already existed (it was Philip's idea anyway). Furthermore, he was only successful because of his father's military reforms. The already existing superiority of the Greek military over the Persian, which Philip improved upon, made any large scale Greek invasion of the Persian Empire a virtually guaranteed success. One ancient Greek before Alexander's time said, "it would be an easier task to conquer the lands of the Great King than the cities of Greece". Philip conquered most of the Greek mainland, a task which neither Darius nor Xerxes, even with the help of the world's largest empire, succeeded to achieve. If Alexander had ruled in the time of Philip, his adventurism would have got him killed and would have left Macedonia in ruins. Alexander was one of the greatest self-promoters, but his dying instructions leaving his conquests "to the strongest" and his alienation of the Macedonian soldiers reveal that he was not a politician of the same calibre as his father. Alexander was a lucky man who stood on the shoulder of a giant.

But even if you think Alexander should remain the ruler, how can you possibly justify making Hephaestion, Cleitus the Black and Craterus great leaders but not making Philip one?

 

[Exsanguination]

Originally posted by calgacus
Exsanguination, I think you exaggerate Alexander's greatness. Alexander's transient conquests were of an empire created by Cyrus the Great and given sustainable organization by Darius I. He conquered an empire which already existed (it was Philip's idea anyway). Furthermore, he was only successful because of his father's military reforms. The already existing superiority of the Greek military over the Persian, which Philip improved upon, made any large scale Greek invasion of the Persian Empire a virtually guaranteed success. One ancient Greek before Alexander's time said, "it would be an easier task to conquer the lands of the Great King than the cities of Greece". Philip conquered most of the Greek mainland, a task which neither Darius nor Xerxes, even with the help of the world's largest empire, succeeded to achieve. If Alexander had ruled in the time of Philip, his adventurism would have got him killed and would have left Macedonia in ruins. Alexander was one of the greatest self-promoters, but his dying instructions leaving his conquests "to the strongest" and his alienation of the Macedonian soldiers reveal that he was not a politician of the same calibre as his father. Alexander was a lucky man who stood on the shoulder of a giant.

But even if you think Alexander should remain the ruler, how can you possibly justify making Hephaestion, Cleitus the Black and Craterus great leaders but not making Philip one?

Lemme answer yer question and address what you said:

"Alexander was one of the greatest self-promoters, " -I'm sorry, but from anything and everything I have ever read about Alexander, I could only gather he was very oriented towards to people (esp those he conquered) and not self-glorifying. In fact, of all the kings and queens and princes and tyrants and... you get it, he probably promoted himself the least. When he let his veteran soldiers depart to Macedon, he gave them a huge protion of the treasury for their personal usage. He treated himself as the equal to everyone, the farmers, scientists, kings, everyone. The only way he ever tried to rise above the people is the way he tried to relate himself to Kurush, the great king of Persia who made Persia what it was. I'm sorry, but I have to pay no heed to that statement.

As for your comments about him essentially only using his father's creation, like i said, Philip was a great man to do all this. But for Alexander to finish it off, keep the Greeks loyal (which Philip could not do), and conquer almost all of Asia is his accomplishment. Even greater - it was not his person (or army) that kept it all together, it was his ways and loyalty that kept the Persians, greeks, egyptians, indians, scythians... the lot, together. After his death, these domains remained for a lengthy time.

And finally, I did not include Philip as a great leader for this reason: I guess I'm the only person who thinks this, but I believe kings have no place as great leaders. Only generals, nobility and non-royalty deserve that spot. The other spot - the ruler - is a dog fight between the kings. In my opinion, Alexander III wins.
That probably sounds totally dumb, but thats because I can't really explain my rationale all too well, all I know is that, unless I am personally/religiously/racially/etc etc offending someone, I shall keep this mindset for making Great Leaders.

 

[Megas Paulos]

Lets set something straight.

Fighting is easy.

Winning is easy.

Macedonian army lost a minor battle in Afganistan(luckily Alexander himself wasnt a casualti).

There is something else that sets Alexander as the most succesful general in the history of mankind.

The very fact that he was loved by the nation he conquered as much as if he was one of their own.

The Macedonian empire didnt collapsed upon his premature death simply because of it.

There are countless sourses that state that instead of a revolution, after the death of Alexander the women all across Asia saved their heads to express their grief.

The Macedonian empire didnt lost its purpose after no oponents remaind in the know world.
On the contrary the arts and the sciences flourished under the macedonian rule.

And as many non greek historians of the time stated ...

"of all the Nations that won a place in history by standing in the path of Alexader the most unfortunate where the ones he Didnt conquered!"

I would also like to note that Alexader crossed Asia with NO reinforchments relying only on the recources he had from his tiny (compared with Persia) homeland.
The victory of the greeks was far from assured ... if it was other people whould have done it before him and his generals whouldn't advise him to make peace with Darius after Alexander entered Egypt.

As for the outrageous claim that conquering the greeks was the hard part I would like to remind that the power of city states was long gone... wasted in the Pelloponizian War.
The Cities NEVER recovered after that after Alexader they were conquered by Rome.

It was Pillip who did the easy job and Alexardrous who did the hard job.Period.All the historians who claim the same arent crazy!

Lets admite it there is no other example in the history of mankind of a general who did something even close to Alexanders Victory.

Alexander gained the Asian empire's lands and the Asian people hearts in a single campain.

If you find someone else that managed something similar please do let me (or should I say us?) know!

 

[Exsanguination]

thank you, Megas Paulos

 

[Troyens]

Everyone should remember that the phalanx reached its peak under Alexander and his father Phillip.

Greek phalanxes should have either a 3 or 4 attack value, but the Macedonian phalanx - the most devastating offensive force of the Age - likely should be a 5. The majority of Alexander's phalanx units were not Macedonian, but those that were were virtually unstoppable.

BTW, Alexander, great as he was, was a neurotic (or worse) megalomaniac with a God-complex, and a rather vicious oiften drunken despot, even for 300 BC standards.

 

[Megas Paulos]

BTW, Alexander, great as he was, was a neurotic (or worse) megalomaniac with a God-complex, and a rather vicious oiften drunken despot, even for 300 BC standards.


Alexader wasnt the son of Phillip... he was conceived in a Bache ritual of his mother Olympia.
The child that was born after this, was supposed to be the son of Zeus.
That caused the God-complex you mention.

Alexader had a rather childish ambition to reach the eastern end of the world.Unlike other children he lived to make his dreams true.And he did this with minimal casualities.
Does that make him megalomaniac? -I dont think so.
I sign as "Megas" Paulos; that makes me megalomaniac but not Alexander.
Actually Alexander clearly stated that the only person he whould willingly trade places with-rank,fame,money, was the Diogenis the Cynic. But of course you dont have any idea what the Cynics were.

Vicious? If he was vicious how was he loved by everyone?

Drunken?People drink to celebrate victories ... the greater the victory the greater the party ... and the drink!
He had the greatest victory a person could have at his lifetime... he got a bit drunk... once and he regreted it bitterly he killed his friend it a drunken fight.Does this make him drunk?
Well he wasnt drunk when he campained ... and he campained for a long time.

Even for 300BC standards...
What standards are you refering?
I have to remind you that the greeks didnt have -and dont have, not to that extened-the moralist preachers of our days that claim that alchohol is "evil".
On the contrary the greeks were the most tolerant people of the time, most of the customs and practises of the native people he conquered were kept as they were.
Very few were banned or changed to become compitable with the greek culture.
There were nations in central Asia that the ritual of passage to adulthood of a boy was to murder his father and marry his mother... only that kind of exterme practises were banned under macedonian rule.
And yes the people that held those practises where reformed they werent eliminated.

On the contrary the westerns were the ones to eliminate entire cultures just for the sport of it ... remeber the native Americans?
If other generals and warleaders lived up to Alexanders example we whould probably live in a better world today.

Neurotic?
I dont have a choice but to assume that you are not familiar with the swift and efficient choices Alexander made on the finacial area when he prepeared the campain.
Or the espionage network he created.Or how many scientis he carried along to give him advice in exterme situations (how to deal with elefants or whales or eclipses being examples).
Advice he seeked with no hesitation or feeling nervous.

As matter of fact we have evidence that he was calm all the time even when he got sick and died.That fact made most people actually believe that there was something otherwordly about him, the son of Zeus at least!(you must keep in mind that the people of the time especially those living in Asia where very superstitious)

I understand that using outragous claims is an effective way to gain attention but when those claims are accompanied with obious ingorance of the facts (major and minor) will probably attract negative attention.Is that what you really want?

Please make some serious research when speaking so negatively about someone-anyone!- who had such a positive affect on the people of his time.

 

[mishmash]

Just wanted to set a few things straight about Ally Boy and his daddy philip.
Philip never actually conquered the Greeks, he simply imposed himself as the leader of an alliance designed to liberate the Greek cities under Persian control in Asia. He had no intentions of conquering the Persian empire. He was killed after he had set his plans in motion, but before he had actually started campaigning. The fact that Alexander managed to keep the alliance together, defeat Thrace (a city which turned against him after incitement from Athens) and start his father's campaign before the Persians had time to get their defenses together, all during the upheaval caused by Philip's death suggests that he was a very able ruler.
As for Alexander's personality, accounts from historians have been widely varied. There has been a trend among recent historians to paint a picture of Alexander in a very bad light as immature and childlike, as being driven mad by power late in his life, as being rash and as being an alcoholic. This is probably due to events like Alexander killing one of his generals, Kleitos the Black during a drunken brawl, deifying himself and making Macedonians prostate themselves in front of him as the Persians did. Things such as these have been made a lot of, especially in accounts written soon after Alexander's death, which were tainted by Kassandros' influence, who hated Alexander and rose to a position of considerable power during the struggle for the empire. It was he, apparently, who killed Alexander's pregnant wife.
However other accounts show Alexander as loved by all his people and as a well balanced character. As Megas said, the only person he said he would trade places with was the cynic Diogenis, surprising considering that the cynics were men who believed in depriving themselves of everything and attempting nothing. And Alexander is said to have put down a mutiny amongst his Macedonian troops, who were jealous of his treatment of the Persians, by simply walking down and speaking to them - an incredible thing to do, what other mutineering army would not have cut down the man they were protesting against first chance they had? As for the severe alcoholism charges, Macedonians were heavy drinkers, but we all know what an alcoholic is capable of, and leading his armies to conquer most of the known world seems unlikely to fall into that. I think a source from the time says that his habit was to sit up talking and drinking till dawn, but never getting drunk. Another source links a contaminated water supply to an increase in wine to the Macedonian army's rations.
I suppose we will never really know the truth about Alexander, as the most contemporary and unbiased histories by men like Ptolemy are long lost, but I believe that he earned his title.
Jeez, sorry about that immense spraff, havent written anything like that since i left school. Hope i havent bored you or wasted too much of your time

 

[Alejandro Magno]

MishMash, I agree with all u said.

The "greek way" to drink wine was 1 part of it mixed in 3 to 5 of water (of course they drink that during hours).
As for the "neurotic, megalomaniac who belive he was God" post, we must think in a 25 yo king with absolute power, well backed, who fought against a HUGE persian army. As far as I know he treated "well" (in ancient-age terms) the regions he conquered, spreading the "Helenist" values and culture, but keeping local leaders, relilgion, etc. He could use fear and cruelty to rule and conquer, but he didnt. Neurotic could be (I am my self one!). Megalomaniac... to build a Piramid???
He named cities "Alexandria", and used to be nodes of culture and wisdom.
He was Pharao of Egypt no cause he thought being a god, much more like an estrategy. The persians (with a strong religion based in the fire) prohibited the cults of that people, producing constant revolutions against them. Alexander accept that title to avoid that and keep they beliefs.
Behind his armies marched a mirriad of followers, merchants, philosopers, etc.
He also was Under the laws, and respect them.

 

[Mad_BOB]

actually, contrary to popular belief, the macedonian phalanx (called the Foot Companions) wasnt the most devastating of Alexanders forces. his Companion Cavelry, has been labled the best heavy cav to have every exisdted by some historians, even better than mongol cav, and the Royal Bodyguard shock troops were the predecessors to the roman legions swordsmen. it was these troops jobs to break and rout an enemy army so that the foot companions could chase them down. the phalanx only really came into play then defending, as its 18 foot sarrissae allowed the first 5 or 6 full ranks of soldiers to fight at the same time, but over rough ground its small shields ment that it quickly broke formation when charging, so would often be routed in this way. this force was only ever defeated once, and then not under alexanders command, by an ambush from forests in modern afganistan.
and yes, alexander did have a bit of a tendancy to get drunk, tho he wasnt exactly an alcoholic.

 

[Penguin-Camel]

Does this come with a new leaderhead for Alexander?

 

[BlanketofFlame]

I think that the Macedonian pike phalanxe should be a 3/4/1 instead of a 2/4/1 unit in regards to A/D/M. The phalanx, due to its organization and inherent strength, defeated even the Persian Immortals. But that is just me. BTW, what unit does it replace?