[R&F] Chandragupta Maurya/India First Look

[Ondolindë]

Definitely one of the most interesting and well-made, compared to surfer Alexander and Gandhi the Alien.

i feel sad to concur, but it is true.

 

[pgm123]

Agreed, way too similar to Cyrus. Here's hoping they change it in the second expansion when they look back. I really think Chandragupta's correspondence with the Greeks, wedding alliances with the Greeks, and/or infrastructural developments need to come to the fore.

Also, they made him look like a Bollywood celebrity rather than a mighty king, which I find disappointing, given that Cyrus at least looks awesome even if his ability and agenda are ahistorical and present Cyrus as some sort of scheming villain.

(Also, I think he was more likely clean-shaven. Are there any depictions of him with a mustache? He would probably look more handsome (to me anyway) without one.)

I don't believe there are any contemporary depictions of him. Google Image search comes up with a modern statue (without a mustache) and a modern book (with one). If he actually retired as a Jain monk (debatable, but makes a good story), he'd have plucked out all his hair strand by strand. You don't want to get lice and accidentally kill one because that violates Ahimsa. Still, no reason for or against him having a mustache that I can see.

It makes sense for him to get a war bonus, just not an exclusive war-based bonus. The treatise for which his UA is named was far more than an Indian Art of War. Chandragupta was known for infrastructural developments, so something like having workers move slightly faster and cost less production during peace time (but not during war) would have made his ability interesting and reflected the dual peace and war strategies of the Arthashastra.

You're right, but I don't think it's bad. You don't want it to be too strong given India's other abilities.

 

[drubell]

As far as his ability coming off as being too similar to Persia's, I agree.

I've been feeling the same way about how many "culture bomb" civs are in Civ 6 including the RAF ones we've seen so far.

It all comes off as a lack of creativity.

 

[Returning Lurker]

Words fail to describe my satisfaction with that stupid meme hermit Gandhi finally getting kicked off his throne for a proper Indian ruler. The closest I can think of is... orgasmic.

 

[Scaramanga]

Words fail to describe my satisfaction with that stupid meme hermit Gandhi finally getting kicked off his throne for a proper Indian ruler. The closest I can think of is... orgasmic.

I think Civ 4 Ashoka already did that.

 

[Returning Lurker]

I think Civ 4 Ashoka already did that.

I know. But it’s always nice when it happens. I look forward to the game where Gandhi finally gets demoted to great person status. Because that’s what he is. A great person, one of the greatest people. Not a ruler.

 

[Morningcalm]

I don't believe there are any contemporary depictions of him. Google Image search comes up with a modern statue (without a mustache) and a modern book (with one). If he actually retired as a Jain monk (debatable, but makes a good story), he'd have plucked out all his hair strand by strand. You don't want to get lice and accidentally kill one because that violates Ahimsa. Still, no reason for or against him having a mustache that I can see.

Most portrayals, including that of the modern temple statue, show him without a mustache. There are a select few showing him with a mustache, but consider that in in Alexander the Great's time, Greeks wrote the following of Indian men: "They frequently comb, but seldom cut, the hair of their head. The beard of the chin they never cut at all, but they shave off the hair from the rest of the face." (from John Watson McCrindle, The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as Described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch, and Justin). So mustaches were rare among ancient Indians (at least according to the Greeks).

The practice of having a mustache alone dates to the Rajputs inspired perhaps by the British.

So to be realistic, I would say Chandragupta could have a beard, but no mustache. Like the priest of Mohenjo-daro and like custom in ancient India, where beards were seen as a symbol of dignity and wisdom. Or he could just be clean-shaven, like the temple statue portrayal, which aligns with most portrayals of Chandragupta Maurya in India. I also note that in Civilization V Pacacuti and Kamehameha's portrayals were taken almost directly from (more modern) statue portrayals of them in their native countries. Why not the same for Chandragupta?

You're right, but I don't think it's bad. You don't want it to be too strong given India's other abilities.

Again, it wouldn't need to be much. As the war bonus is very situational as is, one could make a situational ability that applies only in peacetime as well (which in some ways is more restricted than Gandhi's ability, since even if Gandhi is at war he continues to gain faith from other civs *not* at war who have founded a religion).

 

[pgm123]

As far as his ability coming off as being too similar to Persia's, I agree.

I've been feeling the same way about how many "culture bomb" civs are in Civ 6 including the RAF ones we've seen so far.

It all comes off as a lack of creativity.

I'm ok with variations on a theme because it means more alternative leaders are plausible.

 

[ales_]

I don't know if someone has already noticed it but I was looking at the Civ Youtube page and noticed this: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-lTq9LJCHpQWczMqNZ1ExyvShFli3zG4
Gandhi's and the two Greek videos are the only ones to have the leader name on the thumbnail:

That means that the developers were already planning to have two leaders for India even before releasing the vanilla game.

 

[kaspergm]

Apart from the fact that he looks gooooorgeous, I also like that fact that he's less cartoonish than some of the other leaders. Or at least it feels that way, but maybe it's just because my eyes can't get away from those pecs.

 

[Sagax]

I don't know if someone has already noticed it but I was looking at the Civ Youtube page and noticed this: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-lTq9LJCHpQWczMqNZ1ExyvShFli3zG4
Gandhi's and the two Greek videos are the only ones to have the leader name on the thumbnail:

That means that the developers were already planning to have two leaders for India even before releasing the vanilla game.

Once again time for CivFanatics to feel like idiots for not seeing the clue right under our noses

OR: Can you change thumbnails after upload? Was it the same back then?

 

[pgm123]

Most portrayals, including that of the modern temple statue, show him without a mustache. There are a select few showing him with a mustache, but consider that in in Alexander the Great's time, Greeks wrote the following of Indian men: "They frequently comb, but seldom cut, the hair of their head. The beard of the chin they never cut at all, but they shave off the hair from the rest of the face. The beards were dyed with a variety of colours." (from John Watson McCrindle, The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as Described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch, and Justin).

The practice of having a mustache alone dates to the Rajputs and perhaps the British.

There's a lot the Greeks wrote about Indians that aren't supported by the other evidence such as the idea that there were no slaves. Also, in the case of the invasion of India by Alexander, it mostly refers to Afghanistan. I don't think we can say with certain that it applies to the kings of Pataliputra. It seems like that article about the British influence only talks about stylized mustaches, not necessarily all mustaches.

I think you're probably right about Chandragupta likely not having a mustache. Coins don't seem to have mustaches (though it's hard to tell). The earliest depiction of Krishna with a mustache goes back to the 8th Century. There are statues of the Buddha and the bodhisattvas with mustaches dating back to the Gupta period (maybe earlier). But I don't think we can rule out the idea he had a mustache and looked like this.

Edit: It looks like the Gupta coins all depicted the Emperor with a mustache. Gupta's Chandragupta is shown with a mustache. As is Chandragupta II. I wouldn't put it past Firaxis to use an image of the wrong Chandragupta, but we don't have a depiction of Chandragupta Maurya, do we?

 

[AriochIV]

The new one looks like the Sarnath Lion Pillar, erected by Chandragupta's grandson Ashoka. Modern day Republic of India's emblem is also based off it.
View attachment 483915

The new monument looks literally nothing like that.

 

[Morningcalm]

There's a lot the Greeks wrote about Indians that aren't supported by the other evidence such as the idea that there were no slaves. Also, in the case of the invasion of India by Alexander, it mostly refers to Afghanistan. I don't think we can say with certain that it applies to the kings of Pataliputra. Also, it's possible that article leaves quotes out of context, but it only talks about stylized mustaches, not necessarily all mustaches.

I think you're probably right about Chandragupta likely not having a mustache. Coins don't seem to have mustaches (though it's hard to tell). The earliest depiction of Krishna with a mustache goes back to the 8th Century. There are statues of the Buddha and the bodhisattvas with mustaches dating back to the Gupta period (maybe earlier). But I don't think we can rule out the idea he had a mustache and looked like this.

It's a book, not an article. And while the Greeks may have been wrong about other things, I think visuals are easy enough to tell. We can't say with certainty it applied to kings, but Alexander and his Greeks dealt with higher-up Indian as well as soldiers, both in combat and in diplomacy (re: Afghanistan, Alexander fought King Porus and also there was combat in the Punjab region, and regarding the Punjab, it was the very same region Chandragupta himself later took via an exchange with the Greeks of 500 elephants just years after Alexander died, so judging from Wikipedia it seems there was a lot of combat in the northwest part of the Indian subcontinent proper, and I don't see any mention of Afghanistan in the article on Alexander's Indian campaign).

I think the overall weight of the evidence leans towards Chandragupta not having a mustache. (Notably, the Gupta Empire came hundreds of years *after* (not before) the Maurya Empire, so I don't give it much credence as far as beard history, especially as Chandragupta Maurya was not Buddhist or portrayed as a Buddha like the statue head you linked.)

Of course, all portrayals of Chandragupta Maurya will be speculative as no contemporary portrait of him remains, but within reasonable grounds we can see Chandragupta would not have had a mustache, may have had a beard, and is fairly commonly portrayed as clean-shaven by Indians in India, including in his temple statue (which is also frequently used to present Chandragupta Maurya in online encyclopedia articles, blog articles, and Google images (judging by a quick glance there)).

 

[Ivan Hunger]

I hope not that because it would basically force the player to take him out on sight if he finds him close by. Should be more nuanced than that.

Not that I have any better ideas that aren't already taken by other leaders.

Historical agendas aren't the be-all end-all of diplomacy. It's possible to conflict with a leader's historical agenda but still be on good terms with him, as long as you're doing enough other things to keep him happy.

 

[PhilBowles]

The bonus looks too similar to Cyrus', but the uniques could make it play out sufficiently differently - Varu are much better at early city conquest than Immortals, and the speed boost compensates for their lower natural speed than Horsemen. And, as mentioned, with luck Cyrus' ability will be changed.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I'm glad Chandragupta is officially in now, but that leader bonus does very little to me. </3

 

[liv]

I'm glad Chandragupta is officially in now, but that leader bonus does very little to me. </3

His look makes up for it?

 

[h0nk0815]

Cyrus is a DLC. So the similarity of the abilities could be to give this feature to a greater audience.

Anyhow, I think I'm going to set Chandragupta as fixed AI opponent in every game, so that I won't meet Gandhi ever again.

 

[pgm123]

It's a book, not an article. And while the Greeks may have been wrong about other things, I think visuals are easy enough to tell. We can't say with certainty it applied to kings, but Alexander and his Greeks dealt with higher-up Indian as well as soldiers, both in combat and in diplomacy (re: Afghanistan, that doesn't seem to be the case--Alexander fought King Porus and also there was combat in the Punjab region, and regarding the Punjab, it was the very same region Chandragupta himself later took via an exchange with the Greeks of 500 elephants just years after Alexander died).

I think the overall weight of the evidence leans towards Chandragupta not having a mustache. Of course, all portrayals of him will be speculative as no contemporary portrait of him remains, but within reasonable grounds we can see Chandragupta would not have had a mustache, may have had a beard, and is fairly commonly portrayed as clean-shaven by Indians in India, including in his rather impressive temple statue (which is also frequently used online).

When I speak of the article, I refer to this one from CNN. It seems the Guptas had mustaches, so I question the British origin of mustaches in India. Perhaps as a revival or as an increased emphasis, it seems plausible, but certainly not the origin.

Apologies for using "Afghanistan." I meant Gandhara, which is where Kandahar derives its name. But I guess that's more northern Pakistan. Chandragupta did study at Taxila, according to a number of sources, and raised his army there, but I don't think we can say with confidence that the fashions of the Punjab were the same as the fashions of Magadha. The elephant story comes from Strabo, but there do seem to be other reports of a marriage alliance.

As for the statue, are we sure that's not just a depiction of him as a Jain? He wouldn't have had a mustache later in life because he'd have plucked all his hair out. I think Firaxis probably just used a picture of the wrong Chandragupta--either because there is no good depiction of him or because they didn't know. But I don't think it needs to be changed.