And the Statue of Zeus was one of the seven Wonders of the ancient world, wasn't it? Made by none other than the man who made the statue of Athena. The Parthenon doesn't have to be entirely unique from other ancient Greek temples in order to deserve a spot as a Wold Wonder. At the very least it was the most impressive temple of the Doric order with additional unique elements.
Without discounting the wondrous nature of the Parthenon, how many Greek wonders do we need in the game? We already have two. Meanwhile, Ancient Egypt only has one (where is Karnak or Luxor already?), and the other wonder builder par excellence of the Ancient World, Assyria, also only has two (sorry, Babylon, but the Hanging Gardens, if they existed, were in Nineveh). I freely grant that making the Parthenon a building is weird, though; should have just made it a generic naos as others have suggested.
I find it no different than making the Temple of Jupiter for Rome, a unique building either. Though to be fair, I do find both of those choices weird, at least using the specific names which refer to only one building in real life.
Of course, they needed two buildings in order to make an Acropolis district, so what else than the most famous one located in the most famous Acropolis?
Which is all beside the point. What is the point of any Wonder in the game, is What Does It Bring That Is Different?
I submit that the Parthenon may be the be-all and end-all of Greek Temples, but it is still just another Greek Temple. It could provide a Cultural or Religious or Economic (Greek Temples were bank-like depositories for cash and valuables for both individuals and governments) bonus of some kind, but no real difference from any other Greek Temple.
Of which, theoretically, there could be one or more in each and every Greek city.
In contrast, the Mouseion is absolutely Unique in the Greco-Roman classical world.
As is the Ho Kolossos, or the Ho Pharos
Unless the Civ is Athens rather than Greece, there are simply many more appropriate and distinctive Wonders available if Greece needs any more.
I find it no different than making the Temple of Jupiter for Rome, a unique building either. Though to be fair, I do find both of those choices weird, at least using the specific names which refer to only one building in real life.
Of course, they needed two buildings in order to make an Acropolis district, so what else than the most famous one located in the most famous Acropolis?
Yes, but Athena was specifically the 'patron' Goddess of Athens. There were temples to her in other poleis, but her primary temple was always going to be in Athens.
Fair point. I admit my mind went straight to it just being the largest in Rome (Optimus Maximus), that I did forget there were others located across the empire.
If they wanted something less specific, I might have went with a Caesareum.
Nope, the name Parthenon specifically refers to the temple of Athena in Athens. The name Athena Parthenos actually references this temple, rather than the other way around.
Nope, the name Parthenon specifically refers to the temple of Athena in Athens. The name Athena Parthenos actually references this temple, rather than the other way around.
parthenos, the Greek base word, translates as "maiden, girl" or 'virgin', but the term "Athena Parthenos" is where the debate starts. It has been argued that it refers to the Statue inside the temple, that of Athena the Virgin Goddess, or to the maidens (parthenoi) who served the Goddess in the temple, or to a cult of the Goddess associated with the temple.
The only contemporary (5th century BCE) mentions of the temple building simply refer to it as ho naos -' the Temple'. The first use of the word Parthenon to refer to the temple as a whole is from over a century later, in a work by Demosthenes. A book on Athenian architecture (now lost) apparently referred to it as the Hekatompedos - the "hundred footer", but not because of any dimension, the word simply was a Superlative.
Plutarch, writing over 300 years after the temple construction, called it the Hekatompedos Parthenon, which I suppose covers all the bases.
In a final bit of confusion, when the structure was converted into a Christian temple in the late 6th century, it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary and referred to as the Parthenos Maria
Which is all beside the point. What is the point of any Wonder in the game, is What Does It Bring That Is Different?
I submit that the Parthenon may be the be-all and end-all of Greek Temples, but it is still just another Greek Temple. It could provide a Cultural or Religious or Economic (Greek Temples were bank-like depositories for cash and valuables for both individuals and governments) bonus of some kind, but no real difference from any other Greek Temple.
Of which, theoretically, there could be one or more in each and every Greek city.
In contrast, the Mouseion is absolutely Unique in the Greco-Roman classical world.
As is the Ho Kolossos, or the Ho Pharos
Unless the Civ is Athens rather than Greece, there are simply many more appropriate and distinctive Wonders available if Greece needs any more.
Neither was the Mouseion nor the Library of Alexandria, I think. Yes, its significance was to collect and house all available knowledge. How impressive they were as structures is unknown.
Other Greek temples housed the treasury of their own city, while The Parthenon had the treasury of the whole Delian League, which included a great amount of different city-states. The temple was a symbol of Athenian wealth, prestige, democracy, naval supremacy and political power. It wasn't just a regular temple because it differed in terms of beauty and significance from other temples.
In the end, even if someone considers the Parthenon as just another Greek temple, the whole of the Acropolis of Athens was and still is so unique and beautiful that it deserves a spot as a Greek World Wonder.
Without discounting the wondrous nature of the Parthenon, how many Greek wonders do we need in the game? We already have two. Meanwhile, Ancient Egypt only has one (where is Karnak or Luxor already?), and the other wonder builder par excellence of the Ancient World, Assyria, also only has two (sorry, Babylon, but the Hanging Gardens, if they existed, were in Nineveh). I freely grant that making the Parthenon a building is weird, though; should have just made it a generic naos as others have suggested.
At least another 5 as it is tradition, the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the Lighthouse of Alexandria and the Library of Alexandria.
At least another 5 as it is tradition, the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the Lighthouse of Alexandria and the Library of Alexandria.
Only after we get the Processional Way of Nisan (the Ishtar Gates), the Palace at Nineveh, Etemenanki, Luxor, Karnak, the Apadana of Susa, and Naqsh e-Rustam.
Fair point. I admit my mind went straight to it just being the largest in Rome (Optimus Maximus), that I did forget there were others located across the empire.
If they wanted something less specific, I might have went with a Caesareum.
The Temple of Capitoline Jupiter was the most important temple in Rome. I believe other temples of Jupiter would have looked different and less impressive in other cities across the empire. This temple even appeared on Roman coins.
parthenos, the Greek base word, translates as "maiden, girl" or 'virgin', but the term "Athena Parthenos" is where the debate starts. It has been argued that it refers to the Statue inside the temple, that of Athena the Virgin Goddess, or to the maidens (parthenoi) who served the Goddess in the temple, or to a cult of the Goddess associated with the temple.
The only contemporary (5th century BCE) mentions of the temple building simply refer to it as ho naos -' the Temple'. The first use of the word Parthenon to refer to the temple as a whole is from over a century later, in a work by Demosthenes. A book on Athenian architecture (now lost) apparently referred to it as the Hekatompedos - the "hundred footer", but not because of any dimension, the word simply was a Superlative.
Plutarch, writing over 300 years after the temple construction, called it the Hekatompedos Parthenon, which I suppose covers all the bases.
In a final bit of confusion, when the structure was converted into a Christian temple in the late 6th century, it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary and referred to as the Parthenos Maria
There's so much to represent when it comes to Ancient Greece, and most of the attention reasonably gets diverted to their classical achievements.
Sort of sad to see there's no representation of their many periods of vast colonization. They were contenders with the Phoenicians when it came down to populating the Mediterranean, and yet in Civ VI only one of them got bonuses towards naval settling.
Come to think of it, this sort of reveals some of Firaxis' design philosophy in the new Age system. Even though we're now playing with broader time periods than ever before, time periods that would fit every period of Greek colonization, they still chose to design them based on the classical city-states with unique great people and all. This shows that they're really focused on painting a vivid picture of the Civ at a given time (doubly proven by the civ and leader specific events!), rather than summarizing the span of their entire history.
Whether that's a good or bad decision remains to be seen, but it's definitely in line with their current emphasis on narrative.
"This game really makes you feel like Batmana Greek."
Blasts from the past - I don't think I've read any Pausanias since university when he was one of our sources (with Strabo) for travel times and routes in Greece and Mesopotamia.
But there are two problems in using him as an authority on Greek language/word useage concerning the Parthenon.
First, he wrote after 150 CE - or about 600 years after the temple was built, which makes him a bit like using a modern English dictionary to find the meanings of words used by Chaucer.
Second, in between the 5th century BCE and Pausanias Classical Greek transformed into Koine Greek ("common Greek") largely as a result of the conquests of Alexander and formed by a mixture of several Greek dialects, including Athenian Attic Greek, but also Ionic from Asia Minor and at least two other dialects. That means he is writing about a language that has changed dramatically since the period we are talking about.
I am not by any stretch a scholar of Greek (two college classes in the language and some subsequent study on my own, several trips to Crete and Athens, not exactly an 'immersion'!) so I cannot say whether Pausanias was correct in his assertion, but without other, more contemporary proof/examples, I don't think we can use him as a source for word useage centuries earlier.
I am all for including every Wonder anywhere, any time, in whatever form the game can manage. There are several reasons for my enthusiasm mania:
1. I like the bonuses from them as a player.
2. I like the fact that each Wonder, almost by definition, is a completely Unique Building in or near my city.
3. I especially like Civ VII's mechanic that associates certain Wonders with their civ/culture/country of origin, which reinforces the unique aspects (graphically and hopefully in use) of that Civ.
4. I like the potential flexibility of Wonders on the map. Other structures each have specific requirements for where they can be placed: Urban or Rural Districts, by the sea or river, on or next to Resources, etc. Wonders have a wide variety of placement options, depending on the Wonder, which gives me a whole new element of City and Civ planning to accomplish.
So, just in Athens, bring on the Parthenon, the Temple of Olympian Zeus, Temple of Hephaestus, the Theatre of Herodes Atticus, Theatre of Dionysus, Stoa of Attalos. Anything we don't have room for in the city, we can always farm out to the suburbs!
And don't get me started on Egypt, India, Japan, France or England . . .
Blasts from the past - I don't think I've read any Pausanias since university when he was one of our sources (with Strabo) for travel times and routes in Greece and Mesopotamia.
But there are two problems in using him as an authority on Greek language/word useage concerning the Parthenon.
First, he wrote after 150 CE - or about 600 years after the temple was built, which makes him a bit like using a modern English dictionary to find the meanings of words used by Chaucer.
Second, in between the 5th century BCE and Pausanias Classical Greek transformed into Koine Greek ("common Greek") largely as a result of the conquests of Alexander and formed by a mixture of several Greek dialects, including Athenian Attic Greek, but also Ionic from Asia Minor and at least two other dialects. That means he is writing about a language that has changed dramatically since the period we are talking about.
I am not by any stretch a scholar of Greek (two college classes in the language and some subsequent study on my own, several trips to Crete and Athens, not exactly an 'immersion'!) so I cannot say whether Pausanias was correct in his assertion, but without other, more contemporary proof/examples, I don't think we can use him as a source for word useage centuries earlier.
But, as my old Greek History professor constantly reminded us, only a tiny fraction of the written material from the classical era has survived in any form, and in Greece specifically an enormous percentage of what survived is from Athens, while other city states are sometimes almost entirely silent in the records.
So lack of any mention is, unfortunately, Indicative, but not Proof. And in this particular instance, given the special relationship between Athena and Athens, no mention in any other city state may simply reflect that particular bias - again, we have no confirming evidence one way or the other.
Having both Rome and Greece with temples as one of their unique buildings feel like a waste. I mean all ancient civs have their own gods and temples so you can always use those as "plan B" uniques, but Greece and Rome have a lot of others options to not need to use that "plan B" and to make it more ironic Roman gods are basically just Greek gods.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
