Greece civ When will it arrive

Age of Empires III: DE III - Discussion
24

Of course, Greece can enter AoE 3 because it became independent from the Ottomans in 1821 (the same year as Mexico -and Peru- from Spain)…

The Kingdom of Greece (Greek: Βασίλειον τῆς Ἑλλάδος [vaˈsili.on tis eˈlaðos]) was established in 1832 and was the successor state to the First Hellenic Republic. It was internationally recognised by the Treaty of Constantinople, where Greece also secured its full independence from the Ottoman Empire after nearly four centuries.

Many revolts were planned across the Greek region and the first of them was launched on 6 March 1821, ## ### ######### principalities](Danubian Principalities - Wikipedia). It was put down by the Ottomans, but the torch had been lit and by the end of the same month the Peloponnese was in open revolt.

In 1821, the Greek-speaking populations of Peloponnesus revolted against the Ottoman Empire. Following a region-wide struggle that lasted several months, the Greek War of Independence led to the establishment of the first autonomous Greek state since the mid-15th century.

Maybe add a Balkan civ that is a successor to the Greeks of AoE 1, AoM and AoEO and the Byzantines of AoE 2 and AoE 4…Maybe add a Balkan civ that is a successor to the Greeks of AoE 1, AoM and AoEO and the Byzantines of AoE 2 and AoE 4…

The same thing doesn’t clash at all within the game…

Either of the two is valid, both as a Greek revolution (1821-1831) and as a Greek civ (1831 onwards)…

Well, but it was a nod to Morgan’s campaign and it also had colonies in the Caribbean, it’s not that bad either… they needed two Mediterranean civs and they included Italy and Malta, which is fine…

Well, but they existed at the time of the discovery of America, so they fit into AoE 3…

He refers to the kingdom of Greece after independence from the Ottomans, not the ancient Greeks of AoE 1…

1 Like
26

Greece should be added as a revolt from Ottomans and Italians

1 Like
27

Yes,I guess Devs has to ottoman’s revolution to Greece ,But The Devs have said that Greece will never be made a complete civ

28

The difference is that the Greeks existed long long before the Mexicans.

2 Likes
29

i dont think they have said that, but it is fairly unlikely.

30

People have been living in what we now know as Greecs for thousands of years, but the Kingdom/Republic of Greece with a Modern Greek identity is a fairly recent construct.

However, I think Greece will never be a civ on its own because it wasn’t even a local power after its independence. Note that this doesn’t mean I don’t want them

1 Like
31

Sorry I know this is a somewhat old post, but Mexico was by no means a “minor regional power” it controlled about a third of the continent, won a war against France, and its revolutions basically cover every significant North American postcolonial power outside of the US and Canada.

1 Like
32

It lost a good portion of that territory as soon as it was contested. Haiti also won a war against France and I wouldn’t say it’s a major power. Even the USA was a only a regional power during the AoE3 timeframe and Mexico was not more powerful than USA.

1 Like
33

That’s all true, but Mexico had a much broader cultural legacy than say, Haiti. Again, the revolution mechanic kind of nods at that. That Mexico itself was fairly unstable, but its instability defined the 19th century for Central America and future western territories of the US

34

That’s only its local region. Hence calling Mexico a “minor regional power” is correct.

35

I’m still getting the impression that hairs are being split here :sweat_smile:. Do you mean that they didn’t have overseas colonies? If that’s the case then Russia was also a “minor regional power” since their empire was contiguous except for Alaska. Plus the German states would have been even more unstable and would have covered even less land than Mexico did. I’m not trying to be argumentative, I just think from a historical perspective that their sphere of influence was pretty massive, even if they failed to hold onto it. I would at least call them a major power at this time just not a major world power.

mex
mex1000×893 148 KB

36

Mexico didn’t have control over Mexico. They controlled most of this territory on paper only. If it wasn’t a complete basket case then it would be a major power, but that’s just not how it went down.

37

On the topic of Greece, I do want to say that there’s really no hard rules about which civs can be added now. Since DE, every implied rule has been broken. a few examples:

  • A civ must have gone to war with at least one of the other existing civs: Hausa breaks this (never fought any of the other civs until the 20th century, well past the game’s typical end point)
  • Postcolonial entities cannot be their own civs: USA and Mexico
  • A civ must have a territory represented on the map: South Africa revolution breaks this and Malta kind of does (The Knightly orders had sites all over Europe, and I guess the map “Mediterranean” sort of counts, but Malta as a map is strangely still absent)

That said, I would still rather see Greece as a revolution, and even if not I’m honestly happy with its representation under Phanar. But all bets really are off now, even if you rightly think some civs are more likely than others, there’s no guarantee what the devs might add.

38

Basket cases can be major powers. Even if it was terribly administered, people’s identification with Mexico and Mexican Culture was very strong throughout its empire even in places where it was utterly lawless. In this context major means “influence” and Mexican influence reached far and wide. If you go the the American Southwest, the traces of the Mexican Empire are still there almost everywhere you look. Mexico had to be taken seriously by other powers, even when they were taking advantage of it.

Greece for example was a lot more vulnerable, and if not for wide European support it would have struggled much more for independence, but Mexico withstood horrendous losses with little to no support and still exists even now. That defines a major power for its era. Think of Late Era Rome, no one would call that “minor” despite its similar and even worse losses.

1 Like
39

No, Spanish influence reached far and wide. Mexico’s empire only ever shrank after independence.

You can see traces of Greek culture everywhere from Sicily to Bactria. Ruins in a foreign country don’t mean anything.

By this definition, Afghanistan is one of the greatest powers of our time. Being an anarchic backwater that’s not worth conquering is not the same as being a regional power.

3 Likes
40

And Mexico is the successor state to the Spanish. Mexico’s character also better synchronizes Native culture than the Spaniards did. Look up the Pueblo Revolts. Not to say Mexico wasn’t as bad at times, but they are a distinct culture from the Spanish. Look at adobe architecture in New Mexico, that is a syncretic Spanish-native architectural style (i.e. Mexican). Then there is Native-Mexican folk Catholicism which is also fairly extant, and so on. You might as well not count Byzantines as a major power either since all they ever did was dwindle their empire if I can use the Roman analogy again (maybe you don’t idk).

I wondered if you’d bring this up. Ancient Greek culture is indeed extant, but Modern Greek culture, excepting some of their food maybe, does not extend very far outside of the Balkans. Although Modern Greeks do share a lot in common with their ancient ancestors, they are also a highly unique culture in the Ottoman and post-Ottoman context that the rest of the world is somewhat unfamiliar with. And if I can exhaust the analogy once again Modern Italian=/=Roman either. Modern Italian Culture is far less influential than Roman. But I would argue that even Modern Italian culture is more extant than Modern Greece’s.

Ok well this one just strikes me as a little insensitive. To both of those countries honestly. In this time period, Russia and Britain both vied for Afghanistan, and France did for Mexico. What you’re saying is frankly a non-sequitur. I’m not arguing that Mexico is still a major power, but it was a serious player in the 1800s even though it fumbled relatively quickly. To go back to the beginning, how can anyone call any of the German States “major” under the same criteria you’re using for Mexico? And yet any historian would talk about the huge influence of the Prussians in Europe even though it was small, had no colonies, and dissolved completely as its own polity (again, my argument is mostly cultural, which accounts for why I feel comfortable calling both Mexico and Prussia major regional powers). My point about Mexico’s ability to withstand conquest was only meant to be further proof of their abilities as a power, but not a final criterion as you are interpreting.

41

Afghanistan in our time. In the timeframe of AoE3, Afghanistan actually was briefly a major power under the Durrani Empire.

I said not worth conquering, not that no one tried to conqure. The fact that France withdrew indicates it wasn’t worth it not that they couldn’t do it.

image

Modern Mexico is way more powerful than Mexico in the 19th and early 20th century. I’d consider it more of a major power now than then.

Prussia was almost constantly expanding and growing in strength against all odds. It didn’t dissolve, it was so successful it founded the Second Reich. Your argument that territory equals major power is just not true. Tiny countries like Portugal and the Netherlands were massively influential even before they had big colonial holdings, and huge countries like Canada were very weak.

1 Like
42

I still think this is an untenable analogy. As I said, winning a defensive war is not the thing that determines what a major power is, only that it helps its cause. If I implied differently I should have worded it better.

You can say that about any lost war. By the same logic the USA was a minor regional power because “it wasn’t worth it” for Britain. That makes Ethiopia minor because the Italians withdrew, you could go on and on

That is the exact opposite of my argument. I said since the beginning that while Mexico failed to maintain its borders, losing them to revolutions, and to war, it maintained a cultural hegemony across its nascent Empire.

43

I agree, but you said (or at least implied) the opposite of that.

I agree 100%. USA was a minor regional power when it got independence. As was Ethiopia when facing the Italians. They were minor regional powers at best, just like Mexico.

This is what makes it a minor regional power. If you want to call a country a major power, it should at least not be in a state of perpetual civil war and invasion.

This is irrelevant. lingering culture is not what makes a major power. For example, there was a united culture over Italy during the Italian Wars even when it was fractured into warring city states.

1 Like
44

Ancient Greek peoples would not view modern Greeks as Greek.

2 Likes