This will be the thread centered around the Nabataeans. Everything that is worth putting into the game, I will post on the OP. Ethelwulf is here to help us make the nabataeans historically accurate and realistic.
So far our Nabataean Faction emulates the Berber faction from BI. The only Nabataean thing about them is their name along with a few generals names.
They currently control Petra and Bostra, and their military is sort of weak.
Military
Economy
Temples
Names
Character Traits/Ancilaries
Cultural Buildings
Diplomacy
Hello everybody!
I've been researching the ancient near east for over two years now, I'm currently helping with semitic research for Vae Victis (rome 2), Europa Barbarorum 2 (medieval 2) and Age of Bronze (rome 2) and I am glad to be an addition here.
Tomorrow or possibly the day after I'll dump some basic information about the socio-political landscape in Nabataea and its evolution from a semi-nomadic society into a hellenized mercantile kingdom. Hopefully after that we'll be able to restructure the rosters, for which I shall also post information.
I am able to do the rosters in their native Nabataean dialect of Aramaic if that is preferable please let me know.
English would be preferred, with the native language name in the description for educational purposes :)
This is your chance to make a civilization that is very different from all of the others. They are wallowing in money, and knowledge, but because they are so focused on money, their military is weak.
Economy
In ancient Nabataea economy was everything! The Nabataeans were a merchant nation, that relied not so much on their military as on the vast amounts of money they made. Incense was the backbone of their economy, although they traded in many items. Rome was addicted to incense. they burned it in thousands of temples, and in every home before their gods. One Roman General almost bankrupted the empire by burning huge amounts of it before a battle. Nero almost bankrupted the empire by burning so much of it at his wife's funeral pyre. It was also used in medicine. It was the equivalent of oil power today. And only the Nabataeans supplied it to Rome, and only twice a year. So whenever a Roman General attacked the Nabataeans, they paid him off. Soon it became very popular in Rome that generals wanted to be posted to the borders of Nabataea so they could "attack them" and get their share of the wealth. Nabataeans traded in EVERYTHING that could make money, including drugs, prostitutes, gems, and selling knowledge. As a people they kept to themselves and did not intermarry, and were very secritive.
Military
General called a Strategos. Main military unit was two archers on a camel. They supplied 2000 of these at the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD., but they were reluctant to partake in the battle and just watched. They favorite tactic was to ambush people by using their masses of camels to force their opponents towards their hidden foot soldiers and hidden archers. (http://2camelarchers.jpg)
Temples
(Gods were regional, they accepted the gods of other regions)
El-Uzza: the god of power
El-Dushares: the god of Rocks and Mountains (God of Petra)
El-Kutbe: the god of Writing (Merchants were very clever at writing contracts)
El-Manaat: the goddess of Fate.
El-Qaum: the god of War
El-Lat: the goddess of Fertility (they took multiple wives, women had equal status)
Names
I haved attached a book I have written on the nabataeans.
Character Traits/Ancilaries
Quick to withdraw from battle.
Camels hit hard and leave
Had lots of money, I mean lots and lots of money
Had an excellent spy system, since their merchants lived in all the main cities of Rome, and they had an excellent supply route. They did not visit a city and set up a market, rather, when they came to a city, they went to their Nabataean relatives who lived at that city and dropped of foreign goods, and picked up local goods. They were not above pirating or organized crime as long as they profited. Imagine crossing oil sheiks with Russian mobsters, with Jesuit Priests (who were advisers to kings). Because they traveled and were respected, they knew what was happening everwhere. So they would not have a fog-of-war.
Diplomacy
They were a real democracy, the king (sheik) was elected and was evaluated each year. The usual evaluation was on how much money was being made. In effect, each of the tribes would have an elected leader, then all of these tribal leaders would meet twice a year at the festival in Petra which would be the royal court. They would elect a high king or high shiek. That ruler would lead them for many years, often 40 years or more. Coins (with mroe silver or gold than Roman coins) had the image of the king and his wife on it. The term "King" was used by the Romans to describe the man, but it was not necessarily the term they used for their own elected ruler. What is title was is not cleaer. I would call him the sheik.
Cultural Buildings
Royal Courts in Petra,
Warehouse - for storing all the goods
Treasury - for storing all the money
Tomb with dining hall - Because they were so spread out, they buried all their dead in a burial city (Petra was the main one). they would bring all the bones of the dead and put into a family tomb. They would return twice a year if possible (or every couple of years if far abroad) to visit the dead and eat a meal in the dining hall with all their family and then break the dishes.
Pottery Kiln - for making pottery for smashing at the tombs
Market Place - for selling goods, could be set up anywhere
Caravansaries - stopping places for caravans were put up all over the place, and could be used as mobile HQs where they could fight from, and resupply from. Since they had these and attached families in every major city in the Roman world, they could spawn soldiers from them as well.
If you want to make this game interesting, let the Nabataeans own all the Marketplaces in all of the cities... and they sell to other nations from these, and earn money from other treasuries.
Just an idea.
Awesome information Aretas, and thanks for the book, I got it in my email. I think we can definitely toy around with some of the ideas you have to make the Nabataeans unique. One thing you must know is that this game is centered around conquest and warfare. The double mounted archers is hopefully doable and we will look into it!
What I'd need some help with is other troop types, even if basic to round out their roster. Right now we have a very generic roster and they all have turbans, which I don't believe were worn by Nabataeans much, so if you could also inform us on their dress style that would help a lot!
Here is what our current unit roster looks like:
Desert Infantry - spearmen
Desert Axemen
Hillmen - Throw javelins and fight with spears
Desert Archers
Desert Cavalry - Horse Archers
Nabataean Camel Riders - Have a lance
Desert Chieftain - The generals unit which is like a royal guard cavalry.
Bedouin Camel Archers - Allied/Regional unit
Bedouin Camel Warriors - Allied/Regional unit
Mountain Men - Allied/Regional unit
Keep in mind that we had very limited knowledge and kept their roster very vanilla.
Also besides Petra, we gave them Bostra on our Map. Can you list out any other cities or fortresses that we could add onto the map? We are at our 200 limit but we will be simulating more through minor settlement models. If you have some maps or something it'd help us place the sites in the correct location.
Finally each faction has a symbol to represent it by, do you know of any important or cool looking symbol that we could use for them?
Thanks for all your help!
Double mounted archers would probably take quite a complex bit of work; they wouldn't be processable as normal cavalry, I don't think, because the engine only allows one rider per mount.
Where it allows multiples is for chariots and elephants - I think one would have to go for the latter. You'd then have to make a new elephant rider animation file where the riders (who'd normally be standing in the howdah) were given the animations for a sitting horse archer. Then assign three riders per camel, first attachpoint goes way up in the air or underground or something as the first one is always given to a mahout with separate animations who can't shoot, then the second two go on the camel.
Very interesting! Definitely gonna try it
Would you mind providing some sources for the claim that Nabateans used 2-man camel-mounted archers as their main troop type? That's not how DBM treats it--to the contrary, it says they used very few camels. I'm especially skeptical because 2-man mounted cavalry of any sort strikes me as one of the worst possible military units. Expensive, slow, unarmoured, big target...it's like the Damogran Frond Crested Eagle (http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Damogran_Frond_Crested_Eagle) was put in charge of military R&D.
Also, when do the Nabateans appear on the scene as an independent polity?
Tactic: Some Quotes:
Obodas I (96 - 86 BC) became ruler of the Nabataeans, and he continued his father's expansion by moving on northward into Syria as Seleucid rule disintegrated. Obodas managed to ambush Alexander Jannaeus near Gadara, just east of the Sea of Galilee. Using a mass of camel riders, he forced Jannaeus into a deep valley where the Nabataeans completed the ambush and gained their revenge over loosing Gaza.
Another facet of the Nabataean defense was their use of cavalry. They had both camel and horse cavalries, but in the end, horse cavalries were by far more common.
It seems that the Nabataeans had a poor reputation as warriors among both ancient and modern historians. However, the Nabataeans did win their fair share of battles.
In 87 BC the Nabataeans fielded 10,000 cavalry and defeated the Seleucid ruler, Antiochus XII. The Nabataean king, Aretas II, then took control of Damascus and Syria.
Twenty two years later, in 65 BC, Aretas III sent 50,000 horsemen as well as infantry units to support the Jewish prince Hyranus II who was contesting his brother for the throne of the royal house of Judea. The Nabataean army pressed the siege of Jerusalem so vigorously that the Roman envoy Scaurus intervened in the dispute and ordered the Nabataeans to withdraw or be declared an enemy of Rome. The Nabataeans withdrew, as Rome was their principle trading partner. Isolating themselves from Rome would have caused the end of their lucrative trading business.
For historic reference to the two camel riders, check Orientalia Vol 78, No. 3 Page 409 and the reliefs on page 410 and s on. Many of the reliefs show the rear rider facing back and armed with an bow.
Since they bred both horses and camels, they had litterally thousands of these. They were not expensive, and could move through the desert where horses could not. They were unarmoured because they came out of the desert and disapeared again back into the desert much like the North American Indians. They were light cavelry units, and very hard to pursue. Sometimes came around the back of a marching army to harrass it.
the Nabataeans were in Arabia since very early times. They moved into the Edomite Empire after Nebedcenezer took the Israelites captive, and later they moved into Damascus after the disintegration of the Greek generals. During the time of Christ, there was a Nabataean governor in damascus and Knig Herod married a nabataean princess.
Quote from: Aretas on July 23, 2016, 10:38:41 PM
Tactic: Some Quotes:
Obodas I (96 - 86 BC) became ruler of the Nabataeans, and he continued his father's expansion by moving on northward into Syria as Seleucid rule disintegrated. Obodas managed to ambush Alexander Jannaeus near Gadara, just east of the Sea of Galilee. Using a mass of camel riders, he forced Jannaeus into a deep valley where the Nabataeans completed the ambush and gained their revenge over loosing Gaza.
Another facet of the Nabataean defense was their use of cavalry. They had both camel and horse cavalries, but in the end, horse cavalries were by far more common.
It seems that the Nabataeans had a poor reputation as warriors among both ancient and modern historians. However, the Nabataeans did win their fair share of battles.
In 87 BC the Nabataeans fielded 10,000 cavalry and defeated the Seleucid ruler, Antiochus XII. The Nabataean king, Aretas II, then took control of Damascus and Syria.
Twenty two years later, in 65 BC, Aretas III sent 50,000 horsemen as well as infantry units to support the Jewish prince Hyranus II who was contesting his brother for the throne of the royal house of Judea. The Nabataean army pressed the siege of Jerusalem so vigorously that the Roman envoy Scaurus intervened in the dispute and ordered the Nabataeans to withdraw or be declared an enemy of Rome. The Nabataeans withdrew, as Rome was their principle trading partner. Isolating themselves from Rome would have caused the end of their lucrative trading business.
Interesting, thanks for the citations. I think you're misinterpreting Josephus, though. He says Alexander J. was pushed into the ravine by a multitude of camels...not that they were camel cav. I suspect this is why DBM gives them the option of stampeding camels as an expendable unit. In general, your sources seem to point to horse archers as being the primary combat arm, not camels.
Quote from: Aretas on July 23, 2016, 10:38:41 PMFor historic reference to the two camel riders, check Orientalia Vol 78, No. 3 Page 409 and the reliefs on page 410 and s on. Many of the reliefs show the rear rider facing back and armed with an bow.
Since they bred both horses and camels, they had litterally thousands of these. They were not expensive, and could move through the desert where horses could not. They were unarmoured because they came out of the desert and disapeared again back into the desert much like the North American Indians. They were light cavelry units, and very hard to pursue. Sometimes came around the back of a marching army to harrass it.
the Nabataeans were in Arabia since very early times. They moved into the Edomite Empire after Nebedcenezer took the Israelites captive, and later they moved into Damascus after the disintegration of the Greek generals. During the time of Christ, there was a Nabataean governor in damascus and Knig Herod married a nabataean princess.
Well, they'd be hard to pursue with one man on them. With two...not so much.
I'm not at all disagreeing that they had a lot of camels. What I do disagree with is that they used two-seater camels often enough to even make them worth having as a recruitable unit, much less as the primary unit. The citation you pointed to was very interesting, since I've never seen a two-seater camel archer before, but it occurred long before the period our mods cover. Bar Kochva covers the major power conflicts in that region in great detail in The Seleucid Army, and he simply never mentions a unit like that. It clearly existed at some point, but so did chalicotheria. Neither belongs in the Hellenistic Era.
Thank you for clarifying that you are interested in the Hellenistic era. I know nothing about the game you are working on. It sounds like you are an adept historian. I have only studied the Nabataeans and the bedouin of today. The Bedouin are small people, lightly built. Riding two people to a camel is not uncommon. If you have two thousand camels you can have four thousand mounted archers. They also used horses. For instance, there is a relief of a Nabataean cavalryman at the castle in Kerak.
Remember that they usually chose NOT to fight. Outside of their burial cities, national borders meant little to them. They acted more like smugglers in the early days, and later like a secret society in Rome, than a foreign nation. By 120 AD they dissipated their kingdom as most of it was annexed into the Roman Empire. The Roman coins issued in commemoration were different from others that commemorated similar events. Rather than saying Conquered Arabia, the coin said Acquired Arabia. The hint is that the wealthy merchants purchased their way into Roman citizenship while the low-class continued on in Petra. So perhaps you should not include the Nabataeans in the game, as it sounds like it is a military game, and the Nabataeans didn't figure very much in the military history of Rome. If you want other types of units, you could include any mercinaries you wanted, as they had money to purchase whatever they desired.
Anyway, I am heading out for a month long trip, and will be off the radar (ie no emails, phone, fax, etc). Wishing you all the best.
As for the comment about pursuit, think of them like the N.A. Indians who simply disappeared after a battle and assembled somewhere else. Camels can go where horses cannot, and with their hidden water cisterns, the Nabataeans could just ride into the desert where others would die. The desert was their protection, where armies could not penetrate. This is why they were successful at being smugglers and merchants. It was only they who could cross the desert, to bring goods and information from one side to the other. The Roman army took very long to go around the edges. They moved quickly across the desert. they didn't have to defend borders. And as far as the local families in each of the cities, they became wealthy merchants, and usually had the protection of the local rulers. So it is a complex set up and I think not really good for a military game made up of slow moving units intent on taking territory and holding it.
Quote from: Aretas on July 24, 2016, 01:43:30 AM
Thank you for clarifying that you are interested in the Hellenistic era. I know nothing about the game you are working on. It sounds like you are an adept historian. I have only studied the Nabataeans and the bedouin of today. The Bedouin are small people, lightly built. Riding two people to a camel is not uncommon. If you have two thousand camels you can have four thousand mounted archers. They also used horses. For instance, there is a relief of a Nabataean cavalryman at the castle in Kerak.
Oh, sorry. I thought Ahowl had explained that to you before you posted here. I apologize.
And they definitely used a ton of cavalry. I agree with that completely.
Quote from: Aretas on July 24, 2016, 01:43:30 AMRemember that they usually chose NOT to fight. Outside of their burial cities, national borders meant little to them. They acted more like smugglers in the early days, and later like a secret society in Rome, than a foreign nation. By 120 AD they dissipated their kingdom as most of it was annexed into the Roman Empire. The Roman coins issued in commemoration were different from others that commemorated similar events. Rather than saying Conquered Arabia, the coin said Acquired Arabia. The hint is that the wealthy merchants purchased their way into Roman citizenship while the low-class continued on in Petra. So perhaps you should not include the Nabataeans in the game, as it sounds like it is a military game, and the Nabataeans didn't figure very much in the military history of Rome. If you want other types of units, you could include any mercinaries you wanted, as they had money to purchase whatever they desired.
Anyway, I am heading out for a month long trip, and will be off the radar (ie no emails, phone, fax, etc). Wishing you all the best.
Very interesting. Thank you for the explanation. Ideally, it sounds like we should treat that area like a special case of client kingdom, but I don't think we can do that within the confines of the game engine. Well, it's technically possible, but would require more different buildings than I can afford to spare on one area. (There are only 64 sets of 9 related buildings allowed, and I've used up 62 of those sets creating other aspects of the game.)
Quote from: Aretas on July 24, 2016, 01:47:56 AM
As for the comment about pursuit, think of them like the N.A. Indians who simply disappeared after a battle and assembled somewhere else. Camels can go where horses cannot, and with their hidden water cisterns, the Nabataeans could just ride into the desert where others would die. The desert was their protection, where armies could not penetrate. This is why they were successful at being smugglers and merchants. It was only they who could cross the desert, to bring goods and information from one side to the other. The Roman army took very long to go around the edges. They moved quickly across the desert. they didn't have to defend borders. And as far as the local families in each of the cities, they became wealthy merchants, and usually had the protection of the local rulers. So it is a complex set up and I think not really good for a military game made up of slow moving units intent on taking territory and holding it.
Hmmm...if we had the ability to treat the desert like the ocean, we could make that work. Unfortunately, the game mechanics for what you're describing only exist using the deep water in the sea areas of the map. There's no way to limit some regions of the map to certain classes of units. I've had to either make some deserts impassable or make them passable to everyone.
Can we mess around with desert movement rates for armies at all/use traits to tweak that? I can't remember what the options are there.
I believe I can. Aretas is probably on that vacation so he won't see this for another month at least. However I've made the decision to not get rid of Nabataea or any of our current factions. I like our list. We have a mixture of unique factions and I'll keep it that way.
I just need to know what Nabataeans look like so I can change the 400AD Berber units
I can't figure out how. I just did some in-game testing (with the help of the move_character command) and the only terrain that seemed to have a movement effect was "swamp."
Hmm I wonder if its hard coded.. I think it's worth looking into though for sure, because I'd like to make factions and cultures as unique as the game allows us to.
You can limit or boost some factions movement in certain regions using traits, I'm currently working on a movement system that depends on climate, enemy/friendly territory, supplies/logistics and seasons, I could add culture/faction type (to give some factions penalties or bonuses in some or all seasons in some climates) as a 5th factor :) Well actually EB1 has such a (basic) system for steppe factions, but I can make a more dynamic and complex one.
That sounds perfect :)
Yeah that's great! Desert, Steppe, Mountains, Swamp, Forest, and Winter seem like the main areas for strengths and weaknesses
I will try to get back into contact with Aretas to see if he can provide more info!
I am back from a speaking trip to New Zealand and Australia. As I don't know the game you are working on, I am unsure what information you are looking for. The Nabataean uniqueness was what helped them against the established powers of their day. Their empire was different. Check out nabataea.net for some ideas of city names etc. They also had a presence on the seas, but I don't know if your game includes sea units. One of my sons who has had some experience with balancing games mentioned to me that it was purely a military game.
Welcome back :)
RTW is not purely a military game - to explain the "engine", essentially the game is formed of two parts - a strategic map on which the player can move armies around (on both land and sea, navies are included) and manage cities and provinces (with one set city in each province). It's this part that makes the Nabateans perhaps more difficult to represent accurately, as the provincial borders are static and each province *has* to have one main settlement which is set at the start of the game. Gameplay on the strategic map is done in turns. There is also a zoomed-in mode for fighting battles which are done in real time. Hope that helps a little!
Also, Aretas in the campaign there are buildings that can give happiness and trade bonuses as well as population growth bonuses. Also, there are characters - Generals/Family Members which are part of a family tree, and then Spies, Diplomats, assassins, and admirals.
Any characters can have traits, and ancillaries. So there are many unique things that we can do to represent the nabataeans, outside of the battlefield! :)