Humankind - Umayyads discussion thread

[grug]

I think they're doing a good job of showing progression for scientific factions. The Babylonians (and Neo-Babylonians) passed on a good deal of their astronomy and philosophy to Hellenistic philosophy. Then the Umayyads saw the start of the Greco-Arabic translation movement, which translated Greek writings from Greek to Syriac to Arabic through the work of Syriac Christians. This preserved Greek teachings and made them accessible to the Abbasids, who with their access to Indian and Persian works were able to expand on them (I would hope that, if the Teutons can be portrayed as the successors of the Franks in the same game era, Abbasids can be added in an expansion).

If the rumored Italian culture is present in Early Modern, I think their role in starting the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution, which introduced both old Greek philosophy and Islamic discoveries in math, technology, medicine, etc. to European natural philosophers and universities would make them an ideal choice for a scientific culture. I think Enlightenment/ Industrial Era France could follow, both due to their role in advancing philosophical and scientific thought and due to the very memorable way their monarchs reaped the consequences of the new lines of philosophical thought.

Not ruling out the Koreans as a second Early Modern scientific culture of course. Given their extensive education system they would make sense, and if they have a Seowon quarter it could be seen as a successor of sorts to the Confucian School quarter for the Zhou culture. Although given that Seowons were modeled after Tang Shuyuan academies, I think including the Tang as well in DLC would also make sense, even if they aren't necessarily scientific.

I would hope that, whatever the Umayyad gameplay bonus is, it also includes some focus on expansion and the Islamic Conquests, especially if the Abbasids are added in as a less expansionist science faction later down the line. Maybe the Greco-Arabic translation movement could mean gaining the technologies of conquered cities in game? Could be a good way for a largely militarist or expansionist culture to catch up in science rapidly, and possibly pivot focus.

 

[Krajzen]

I have just now realized a very good argument against Umayyads being expansionist:
They were very efficiently conquering stuff, but not exactly holding it together under their administration Yes those lands became Islamized but not under Umayyads, their empire was very temporary. Compare with Mongols and Greeks who all don't have Expansionist traits in this game, and Franks - Romans - Persians who do have it.
I'm 99% sure we'll see Expansionist Ottomans in Early Modern so we'll see Muslim Exp culture anyway.

Other reasons to include Umayyads are, particularly important for this game: making for Cool Historical Rivalry with Franks and Byzantines better than Abbasids; weird but still a sort of transition to EM Spain; and maybe devs thinking Abbasids may come in the future and fit other focus better than Umayyads (aestethe, merchant etc).

 

[notNamed]

Not ruling out the Koreans as a second Early Modern scientific culture of course. Given their extensive education system they would make sense, and if they have a Seowon quarter it could be seen as a successor of sorts to the Confucian School quarter for the Zhou culture. Although given that Seowons were modeled after Tang Shuyuan academies, I think including the Tang as well in DLC would also make sense, even if they aren't necessarily scientific.

Seowon is just the Korean spelling of 書院 (shūyuàn), they are the same institution.
Likewise, that's not an education system. These are strictly Confucian cram schools for passing the Imperial Examination. The curriculum involved rote memorisation of Confucian classics (history and governing/strategy philosophy) to pass the test.
It is exactly the same building as the Confucian school of Zhou, except that one was used to teach people how to govern and Seowons were about teaching people to engage in philosophy over said governation and knowing those books by heart.

 

[mitsho]

The seowon though is a good argument for a Emblematic quarter. This can double down on a scientific (or cultural) focus, or it can complement that focus with another and make the culture more diverse.

In that screenshot of all the bonuses, they do both. But Korea seems to me to be a prime exampe for a civ without a scientist trait, but a scientific flavoured emblematic quarter.

 

[notNamed]

Well of course. Heck, if you look carefully at the cover image of the game, you can see structures that look an awful lot like the Korean Confucian Academies in the lower right.
I'm just cautioning against designating them as scientific institutions when their output was purely cultural (providing cushy government jobs/strengthening confucian dogma among people in any position of power).

 

[BuchiTaton]

Umayyads are a great option but I fear their focus on muslim Iberia would overlap with a Medieval Berber culture.
Pre-islamic tribal nations plus islamic Berbers dynasties really deserve their own culture at medieval time.

 

[pineappledan]

Funny that even when picking a Islamic caliphate they elected for the European Caliphate-in-exile. This choice was made notwithstanding caliphates based in Arabia (Rashidun), Egypt (Ayyubid, Mamluk), Tunisia (Fatimid), or Iraq (the contemporaneous Abbasid caliphate which exiled the Umayyads from the heart of the Islamic empire in 750CE). Further, it is strange that they elected to go with a caliphate 300 years before the first crusade, whose main conflicts were a series of civil wars and the conquest of the Gothic Iberian kingdoms, which are not represented in this era. Their only interaction with another culture in this era is the Franks at the battle of Tours. It seems they were only concerned with getting another geographically European culture into the map, over any other concern.

Edit: Before anyone comments, I am aware that the Umayyads ruled the Islamic empire from Damascus in Syria for >80 years before moving to Córdoba.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well of course. Heck, if you look carefully at the cover image of the game, you can see structures that look an awful lot like the Korean Confucian Academies in the lower right.
I'm just cautioning against designating them as scientific institutions when their output was purely cultural (providing cushy government jobs/strengthening confucian dogma among people in any position of power).

They could be like Greece which is scientific but has the cultural Theatron EQ. Let Korea have a scientific trait but the Seowon be a cultural EQ.

 

[Zaarin]

Since we got scientific Umayyads we might still get aesthete Abbasids sometime in the future--I might have reversed those, but arguments can be made for both sides IMO.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

I noticed Conorbebe asked on Twitter why they went with Umayyads instead of Abbasids or Arabia.

I think important factor in the choice of cultures is Cool Historical Rivalry. These are more important in this game because there is very high chance of those rival cultures clashing due to how eras work. So we get
Franks vs Umayyads (Poitiers, Roland)
Franks vs English
Franks vs Vikings
Umayyads vs Byzantium (yeah Abbasids fought them too, but in way less critical dramatic way)
Rome vs Huns vs Goths
Ming vs Joseon vs Japan
maybe Spain vs Aztec in EM
and so on.

That's one part of it.
And while I don't know if this played any part in choosing Umayyad over Abbasid, I'd argue that the history of the Umayyad gives the player some freedom in telling the story of their civilization about whether these are the Umayyad at the height of their power, or after they went into "exile" on the Iberian peninsula.

 

[conorbebe]

I still stand by my opinion that a generic "Arabians" culture would allow the player the most creative freedom, and would be more in line with Humankind's decision to include the Persians and the Celts.

It makes sense to split up dynasties that belong to vastly different time periods, such as the Zhou, Han, Ming etc., or the Harappans, Mauryans, and Mughals. However, all major caliphates fell into the Medieval era (excluding the Ottoman Empire), so distinguishing them feels unnecessary in my opinion, especially when they share common cultural traits. It only makes sense to be this specific if Amplitude intends to include more than one Medieval caliphate in future DLC, but this seems like a waste of a slot considering how many cultures from different parts of the world are still unrepresented entirely.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I still stand by my opinion that a generic "Arabians" culture would allow the player the most creative freedom, and would be more in line with Humankind's decision to include the Persians and the Celts.

It makes sense to split up dynasties that belong to vastly different time periods, such as the Zhou, Han, Ming etc., or the Harappans, Mauryans, and Mughals. However, all major caliphates fell into the Medieval era (excluding the Ottoman Empire), so distinguishing them feels unnecessary in my opinion, especially when they share common cultural traits. It only makes sense to be this specific if Amplitude intends to include more than one Medieval caliphate in future DLC, but this seems like a waste of a slot considering how many cultures from different parts of the world are still unrepresented entirely.

Agree on every point.
I guess devs use Umayyads instead of "Arabs" to make place not for another medieval dynasty, but for a contemporary arabic culture. Still they could have used the "AoE" style like with Teutons and use the "Saracens" for medieval and "Arabs" for contemporary.

 

[Zaarin]

use the "Saracens" for medieval

I for one would have been pretty annoyed if they used "Saracens," which probably originally referred to a specific Arab tribe in the Classical period (the etymology is disputed) but by the Middle Ages meant something along the lines of "all those awful heathens in the Middle East and North Africa." It's not a specific term, and it's flirting on the border of being a slur.

 

[Krajzen]

Agree on every point.
I guess devs use Umayyads instead of "Arabs" to make place not for another medieval dynasty, but for a contemporary arabic culture. Still they could have used the "AoE" style like with Teutons and use the "Saracens" for medieval and "Arabs" for contemporary.

I'm sorry but "Saracens" is just umacceptable, it is basically ignorant
European catch - all term referring to all Muslims and dark skinned people.
Muslims sometimes had habit to refer to all fair - skinned European Christians as 'Romans' (crusaders as 'Roman' invasion) and Saracen culture would be about as sensible as such 'Roman' medieval culture, or like classical 'Barbarian" culture instead of Goths. Or like 'Indian' culture referring to a messy mashup of native American people.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I'm sorry but "Saracens" is just umacceptable

Are you sure about that?
Then why Microsoft endorse the revitalization of a game that use that name?
Also I wonder why on my twenty years of AoE2 I had never saw a complaint about the use of Saracens between the hundreds of threads polemizing about civs like Teutons, Vikings, Celts, Slavs, Indians, etc.

which probably originally referred to a specific Arab tribe in the Classical period (the etymology is disputed)

it is basically ignorant
European catch - all term referring to all Muslims and dark skinned people.

All of Germany is still named after the specific tribe of the Alamanni on many countries, and all we know classical germans were saw as "barbarians".
On Russia and other countries, China is still Китай after the Khitai, even considering that Khitans were not even "proper" Chinese.
Western europeans (or all europeans) were also the "barbarian" "Franks" on the eyes of most asiatic nations. On some of those something european still is "frankish"

but by the Middle Ages meant something along the lines of "all those awful heathens in the Middle East and North Africa." It's not a specific term, and it's flirting on the border of being a slur.

or like classical 'Barbarian" culture instead of Goths. Or like 'Indian' culture referring to a messy mashup of native American people.

On classical, medieval and even modern times almost anything different was seen as "barbarian". What about Germans, Celts, Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Mexicas, Incas, Caribs, Indians, etc. The list of cultures that was seen as "salvages" by any Greco-Romans>Europeans could cover almost all the world.

Now, is true that Saracens could interfere with the implementation of additional medieval arabic cultures, but considering the already know "Celts" and "Persians" I dont see likely a second medieval arab dynasty. Probably the Umayyads on game would still be "the catch all" representation for medieval arabs, or even worse they could be supposed to include the not Arabs like Berbers. If we see more arab cultures they are the contemporary Saudis and maybe the early modern Omanis (islamic Egypt are eclipsed by the ancient Egyptians).

I would be happy of be proven wrong about the representation of medieval arabic cultures, but the election of Umayyads and their in game design dont seems encouraging to me.

 

[Zaarin]

Are you sure about that?
Then why Microsoft endorse the revitalization of a game that use that name?

Age of Kings has some of the dumbest naming schemes of any game I've seen. It shouldn't be used as a justification of anything. I mean, it called the English "Britons"--the name of the people who inhabited England before the English. It used anachronistic "Celts" in place of Irish (and they had their naked "woad warriors" about a millennium too late). It had a civ called "the Slavs" that was clearly supposed to be Kievan Rus'. AoK faction names are a mess.

On Russia and other countries, China is still Китай after the Khitai, even considering that Khitans were not even "proper" Chinese.
Western europeans (or all europeans) were also the "barbarian" "Franks" on the eyes of most asiatic nations. On some of those something european still is "frankish"

And yet we don't have a Khitai culture in place of China, and the only culture called Franks in the game is Francia proper.

On classical, medieval and even modern times almost anything different was seen as "barbarian". What about Germans, Celts, Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Mexicas, Incas, Caribs, Indians, etc. The list of cultures that was seen as "salvages" by any Greco-Romans>Europeans could cover almost all the world.

Your point? None of those names literally means "barbarian" like Saracen does. The better part of them are endonyms. The Celts, Mongols, Tatars, Mexicas, Caribs all called themselves that; the Huns maybe called themselves that; the Inca was what they called their king. "Indian" comes from the Persian name for the Indus River. The only one of those that even comes close to meaning something like "barbarian" is German, whose etymology is unknown (maybe from Gaulish) but whose general classical meaning was "non-Celtic peoples of Northern and Central Europe."

 

[BuchiTaton]

Age of Kings has some of the dumbest naming schemes of any game I've seen. It shouldn't be used as a justification of anything.

The point is that nobody is losing the head neither the game is banned on any country because their use of "Saracens", a historical name widely used at their time that still give an option to a second "Arabs" culture.

And yet we don't have a Khitai culture in place of China, and the only culture called Franks in the game is Francia proper.

Again, modern nations and their people are not offended because they are named by other based on just a small group of their ancestors. Why must be offended by a specific historical period on a videogame?

Your point? None of those names literally means "barbarian" like Saracen does.

Where are the reference of the doubtless original meaning of Saracen as "barbarian"?
Are we sure Saracen dont have some other original meaning?
If the original meaning was not offensive, can we sure that the specific Saracen tribe did not called themselves that way?
Was "Saracen" allways used on a negative way?

Words like Soviet, Muslim, Indian, African are not offensive in their original meaning but for anybody that hate the things related to them their meaning would turn to be something offensive.

Anyway the culture on game is Umayyads, and if there are another it would be not named Saracens.

 

[Zaarin]

Are we sure Saracen dont have some other original meaning?

Of course it has some other original meaning. The exact etymology is unknown, but it may come from an Arabic word meaning "easterners" or South Arabian word meaning "desert migrants." But we're not talking about its original meaning. Meanings change; this shouldn't be a surprise well over a century after Saussure.

Was "Saracen" allways used on a negative way?

It wasn't "deliberately offensive," but it also wasn't neutral or complimentary. And again, the objection isn't only that it's potentially offensive; it's also not specific. Berbers? Saracens. Egyptians? Saracens. Arabs? Saracens. Levantines? Saracens. Turks? Saracens. Persians? Saracens. Any brown-skinned, black-haired Muslim from Morocco to India was a Saracen; any term that broad is utterly useless.

 

[Cerilis]

I guess that cavalry is perfect for... *puts on sunglasses* harasing the enemy.

 

[Jcturmer]

"Moors" also has a pejorative meaning and I have read it many times in this forum to refer to the medieval Muslim presence in Spain ... Umayyad is much more correct, either Almohade or Almoravide to be more specific with the more later Berber dynasties.