Are you sure? I just looked it up and that seems contrary to the glossary's definitions of enemy, independent, and neutral.
I agree entirely but that seems to be an error in the wording of these two cards as opposed to their design intent……possibly a legacy of earlier edition card text not updated for current edition terminology?
When researching the apparent contradiction between the play of these two identically worded cards in the 3rd Edition Sample of Play, I found a Consimworld ruling by John Firer, which speaks to the intent of the card and is the only official ruling to be found.
This is from the sample of play errors file I created and has the Consimworld link.
Round 1⁄4 (p27)
Blue plays the Neptolemus event and places his CUs and Minor General in the neutral Minor City space of Amida. The text says “Since there is no control marker in Amida it does not convert”. This is incorrect and Blue should have been able to place a control marker -‐ reference ruling by John Firer at Consimworld : http://talk.consimworld.com/WebXfirstname.lastname@example.orgNos.74@.1dd1...
Note that the Peucestas event has identical wording regarding control marker placement and is played correctly by Black earlier in the Example of Play (Round 4/4, p27)