New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Straybow]

In general, Hatte response to these problems remains as stated in post #2855 (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...18#post4525018), back on page 58 (×50 assumed).

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Straybow
The founding of Zariqum with Persian permission providing it does not interfere with border talks implies that the spine remains in Persian control.

Only now I realized the effect of the Persian propaganda. Persia had no right to dispense any permission for Zariqum! I really can't comment each Sinbad's half-truth if he inserts several ones in each sentence...
So I would like everybody asks for clarification before making conclusions from Sinbad's statements.

* The spine was never in Persian control/property).
* We agreed we would base our borders on position of cities that existed just after The War (Tushpa, Kyro, Susa in Persia and Nimrud, Negru, Hekka and Arra in Babylon). I suggested this peaceful procedure: first we should consider all land among these cities to be neutral and to place only weak scouts there. Then we should split this land to Persia and Babylon (in one stroke or gradually as talks advanced).
This is why I asked if Sinbad doesn't object against Zariqum, as it was an expansion from Hekka to north.
But Sinbad didn't follow this polite method and started to expand more rudely from Persian cities to south.

[Straybow]

Persians begin in the Zagros mts, expanded west to Susa and Kyroushata fairly early. Gives them prior consideration to control of the border with former Assyria, IMO.

Or to put it another way, if I were Babylon I would be making no claims to the spine of the Zagros. If I had built Zariqum (I wouldn't have) I would extend my claim only to the Iron deposit.

I would not object to defenders posted at reasonable intervals, but would object to roads and fortresses built within 2 of Zariqum (including the corners) or excessive numbers of defenders such that they could encroach en masse making defense impossible.

[SlowThinker]

"preliminary agreement"

I am releasing next part, as the debate with Straybow moved in that direction:

Originally posted by Sinbad
In one of your previous posts, you mention a "preliminary agreement". What do you mean?

Sinbad, I will remind: there were two periods of border talks:

The second period included the Persian "Tushpa-line" in the middle and the Babylonian "minimal land" in the end.

The first period started soon after The War ended: I sent a proposition of borders and you questioned only three squares (red points on the map). We had some animated talks around, but you didn't have enough of time and so we interrupted the talks without getting a final agreement.
I named it "a preliminary agreement" now, you named it "a rough agreement" in past (see next quotes). Anyway it wasn't binding.

Originally posted by Sinbad
(Sinbad: ) Apparently there was some forgotten talk of borders in the early stages. I do not remember editing any of it, but should ask ST - Is this accurate ?
(ST: ) "Al Kabir. I agree the northern part is Persian. I would like to have a right to check if you are not cumulating armies there. But this is a wish, not a request."

Originally posted by The Immo
>(Sinbad: ) So, I felt we had a rough agreement, if not a firm deal, which was reasonable for both sides.

(ST: ) After The War I sent you a very advantageous proposal where I asked only 1-2 squares of upper Al-Kabir. This was a most concrete point of our rough talks. You didn't have time to talk about it, but apparently you understood it this way: Land that The Immo proposed to be Persian was a 'firm deal' but the proposed Babylonian land would be divided later (now you are claiming 13 squares of it).

If you compare the "preliminary agreement" and the "minimal land" you will see Babylon withdrew and offered 5 squares to Persia.
If you compare the "preliminary agreement" and the "T-line" you will see Persian claims grew by more than 10 squares.

Sinbad, a jolly fellow, says "Persia must take some action to avoid being eaten by continually increasing Babylonian demands".
Then Sinbad throws the helve after the hatchet and says "you have filled this thread with propaganda".

[SlowThinker]

I am surprised that all the linked Straybow's announcement ("We can sympathize with our Persian brothers. The Hatte heartland lacks grasslands etc.") from 2560 is still valid. After this announcement I wondered why Straybow made a conclusion before Babylon posted her own view. Straybow privately answered he only showed his sympathy with a lack of Persian grassland.
Therefore now I was very surprised that Straybow still keeps his strange statement

Originally posted by Straybow in 2560
We believe our Southern ally has driven himself mad trying to make the flat plain into a mountain. He would force neighbors to concede to every fevered demand.

I would like to know if these two sentences are still valid, especially after I explained how Persian demands were increasing.

Originally posted by Straybow now
Persians begin in the Zagros mts, expanded west to Susa and Kyroushata fairly early. Gives them prior consideration to control of the border with former Assyria.

I guess Hekallush, Nimrud and Arraphka existed sooner than Susa and Kyroushata.
Anyway I must repeat: with Persia we agreed on a simple basic principle that we would base our borders on position of cities that existed just after The War (nothing about which cities are older and nothing that who has less Grassland will get less territory).
Although I asked an explanation several times, Sinbad was never able to say how his Tushpa line matched that principle.

[Straybow]

Nimrud, Ekallate, and Arrapkha were Assyrian cities. Are you proposing that Persian borders should contract after the elimination of Assyria??

[Zedd]

I do not know, were there any agreements to the division of assyrian land during the war? I know some negotiation took place on cities to claim etc. but it seems to me that once assyria was over thrown the alliamce should have either divided the lands and announced the boarders or declared it a free for all.

I apologize if this is supposed to be common knowledge, I had a somewhat different viewpoint of that time period.

[Zedd]

I may need to ask for an extension to monday night. (1 more day) New computer and can't find the civ2 CD. I will try to buy a new one tomorrow and install but still need some time to play my turn.

Sorry for the delay.

[Straybow]

Isn't that what bank deposit boxes are for?

You didn't just copy the whole directory from the other comp??

[SlowThinker]

>I may need to ask for an extension to monday night. (1 more day) New computer

I think this is not a big problem: I will be away between about Feb 2th-12th, so even if Zedd played fast now we probably wouldn't be able to run next turn before Feb 2th.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Straybow
Nimrud, Ekallate, and Arrapkha were Assyrian cities. Are you proposing that Persian borders should contract after the elimination of Assyria??

No, contrariwise:
Persia and Assyria had a border agreement. For some reason Sinbad held back existence of this agreement during Bab-Pers border talks until the 2560 conflict, but then he published it: it is attached.
You can see all the narrow spine of Zagros was a part of District of Ekkalate (Assyria). But I think the spine is a natural boundary and so I am proposing the Zagros' narrow spine gets neutral now.

Originally posted by Lycastus
I do not know, were there any agreements to the division of assyrian land during the war?

We agreed on a principle 'first come first serve'. That would imply whole Assyrian district of Ekkalate should fall upon Babylonian administration (as it was liberated only by Armies of Babylonian Front), but Persia and Babylon concluded they would determine borders by a common agreement.

[SlowThinker]

attachment lost due to a preview...

[SlowThinker]

You can see Assyria had access to Lake Urmia.
Babylon never asked access to the lake, because she took in consideration Persian safety: a private lake extremely improves Persian defenses.

[Peaster]

Originally posted by Zedd
I do not know, were there any agreements to the division of assyrian land during the war? I know some negotiation took place on cities to claim etc. but it seems to me that once assyria was over thrown the alliamce should have either divided the lands and announced the boarders or declared it a free for all.

Your memory is correct. We had an agreement about cities, but not about land. There is no "legal" reason why any Assyrian land should go to anyone, and each affected King had to negotiate new borders.

The T-line was a reasonable claim. It's been dignified by statements from our good neighbors Consul Straybow, and the Pharoah of Egypt, and by the passage of over 100 years. I don't think you have stated an opinion, but I hope that you also consider it reasonable. Also, I hope Babylon will respect international opinion and accept this border as law.

For a limited time, I offer this proposal, which is our best chance at peace. Items 2) and 3) are basicly old ideas from Bab-Pers correspondence, which may not have appeared in this thread. I thought we had some understanding about them, but no firm deals. They might be considered small concessions by Babylon. Items 3) and 4) are small concessions by Persia.

------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Babylon accepts the T-line to (133,45) as Persian. Babylon removes her troops from Persia ASAP, and makes no more demands about activities within Persian borders. Likewise, Persia considers lands southeast of the line as Babylonian and will not intrude, or make further claims there.

2) The square (119,33) and the 3 adjacent forest squares are neutral. No king may post troops there. Westward squares near Tushpa and Nineveh belong to Persia and Hattas.

3) The tip of the Arrapkha river is neutral, including (135,45), (134,46) and (136,46) and (138,46). [I do not remember exactly where the ruins of Arrapkha lie... if some of these squares are in its old radius, let's revise this sentence]

4) Persia agrees to cooperate wrt Zariqum security so long as this allows reasonable Persian access to our borders. This statement needs to be made precise (see 4* below).

5) Non-interference wrt all caravans in the southern Al-Kabir region. I am thinking mainly of possible future trade between Persia and Egypt, and am flexible about the wording of this idea.

6) Time: I imagine we might need a few days to make minor changes to this proposal, but I refuse to enter another legalistic quagmire. This offer expires in a week. I imagine that the agreement would last indefinitely, at least as long as we remain at peace.

--------------------------------------------------------

4*) For example - Persia agrees not into move into any of the 3 T-line squares adjacent to Zariqum. Also, we do not forsee the need to post troops permanently on ANY squares of the SE T-line, and we could agree to use these only for quick inspections by Persian skirmishers.

Persia does not fully understand why Zariqum is in danger, since any Persian troops foolish enough to approach the city would probably be slaughtered before they could fortify or attack. But we could agree not to stack units within 2 squares of Z, or to some minor change in our roads (though I cannot find a better roading alternative - Persia really does need road access, to maintain a defense of these mts).

We do not automatically offer ALL the concessions in 4*, but consider them all open to discussion.

[SlowThinker]

Dear Sinbad, you published a long post with an incredible density of accusing half-truths (Old Politus nods his head beatifically). The Immortal thought you wanted to talk and put a lot of effort in the answers.
Now it looks your post was only a propagandistic opening that should be continued by an ultimatum.
We are expecting you will continue the debate you started or you acknowledge you never wantd to talk.

We completed the post #3177, subject: "lies". This post is a part of our answer to the 2-days old Persian message.
We still didn't answer paragraphs of that message about 'threating war' (Achamenes etc.), but we want to give space to Sinbad first.

Edit: a couple isolated words