Jadiwa is Cute.

[God of Kings]

Gilgamesh (Bilgames) almost certainly existed as king of Uruk. However, the real Gilgamesh is unlikely to have been 2/3 divine, to have rejected the seductive advances of the sex goddess Inanna and subsequently defeated the Bull of Heaven, or to have set out on a quest seeking immortality after the death of his close friend (or seeing a corpse in the river, depending on the version).

... or defeated a demon lurking in a forest of giant cedars

 

[Alexadamz]

Gilgamesh (Bilgames) almost certainly existed as king of Uruk. However, the real Gilgamesh is unlikely to have been 2/3 divine, to have rejected the seductive advances of the sex goddess Inanna and subsequently defeated the Bull of Heaven, or to have set out on a quest seeking immortality after the death of his close friend (or seeing a corpse in the river, depending on the version).


He was king of Uruk; I would not interpret "built the walls of Uruk" as "personally built the walls of Uruk by hand."

Yes, I see it that way also. But the Gilgabro is the legendary one. And his portrait in game is based on this statue, at the University of Sidney: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh#/media/File:Gilagmesh.jpg

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, I see it that way also. But the Gilgabro is the legendary one. And his portrait in game is based on this statue, at the University of Sidney: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh#/media/File:Gilagmesh.jpg

Yes, I did an in-depth analysis of how badly they depicted him.

 

[MarigoldRan]

It's funny to see that a lot of people think that Antiquity was a jungle game. It was not, and it was in fact the sign of civilization, the fact that weaker people could survive because society put their strenght together and allowed feeble but intellectual people to make the civilization prosper.

But even if it was a dog-eat-dog world (which I highly doubt, but I'm no historian), the fact that being always in motion is not sufficient to have such abs as Gilgabro, or even Chandragupta (at least for the poor). Having such a sculpted and defined musculature demand a specific program, and only working in fields or training for battle does not give the same aesthetic. For the poors, it doesn't care if you train all the time, if you don't have enough to eat, you won't grow muscle, and even with enough food, I think those people would have a physique more close to the one of Lautaro (not visible muscle per se but large V torso) than the one of Montezuma.

Sculptures were ideals back then, if I don't say any silliness (but correct me if I'm wrong), and very few people have such defined musculature. They could be large, but fit as f-? I doubt it, especially if they did not pay enough attention to nutritional value.

Dude. Have you read the history of Mesopotamia?

1. The average FARMER had to walk at least 5 miles a day and move heavy equipment (taking plows on and off oxen).
2. The average warrior was like a Navy Seal. They were expected to be able to march 10-15 miles a day in 60 pounds of gear and fight at the end of it. Have you seen the musculature of a Navy Seal? That's what EVERY warrior back then looked like.
3. Sculptures weren't ideals. Those muscles were REAL. Alexander the Great literally scaled a stone wall in 60 pounds of full armor and fought at the top of it in one of his sieges. Ya gotta have muscles to do that.
4. It WAS a dog-eat-dog world. The religion of Mesopotamia worshipped DEATH because it happened so easily.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Yes, I did an in-depth analysis of how badly they depicted him.

I remember reading somewhere that Gilgabro's Akkadian is of the Babylonian dialect. Which, if true, means that Sumeria is effectively an Akkadian blob, using Assyrian clothes, Babylonian speech, and a universal Akkadian structure in the Ziggurat.

From a game design perspective, I think this is borderline genius. Gilgamesh was a folk hero in Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonian culture, and Assyria and Babylon especially revered and mimicked Sumeria. Despite being ethnically distinct, Sumeria really was the ancestral root of the Mesopotamian burgeoning and is an adequate proxy for all three civs. In this respect Sumeria is functioning as an Akkadian blob, repping the entire region for that period by assimilating the stronger aspects from prior Civ incarnations of Babylon and Assyria and eliminating the problem of having to design two distinct and fleshed out Mesopotamian civs. A problem which gets harder with every installment as every aspect of art design becomes deeper and more nuanced in service of distinguishing civs as different personalities.

On top of that, Sumeria holds its own niche in the game as the ultimate beginner civ, which I find quite fitting for a civ which "invented the wheel." It has perhaps the most basic martial and scientific bonuses in VI and is extremely easy to play. And the "I did it first" attitude the design of Sumeria takes toward Assyria and Babylon drives this theme home even further.

So, I understand why historians might be disappointed that a) Sumeria is not Sumeria and b) there probably won't be Assyria or Babylon in VI. But I think as a matter of consolidation I think this was extremely responsible game design. It's not offensively generalist like Polynesia in V; rather it is deliberately painting Sumeria through the eyes of later Akkadian civs. It implicitly encourages the same "cultural throughline" interpretation of the Mesopotamian region in the same way that Chandragupta and Eleanor and subsequent alt leaders expressly emphasize. Perhaps a bit obtuse, but on the spectrum of historical inaccuracy I think this falls under thought-provoking artistic license more than it does blatant or lazy misrepresentation.

 

[universecreep]

Cleopatra is my number 1.

Jadiwa always pisses me off with her complaints about me not having a religion. Go away, J!!!

 

[Ondolindë]

Cleopatra is my number 1.

Jadiwa always pisses me off with her complaints about me not having a religion. Go away, J!!!

Look at it this way. If you became religious, she would love you. Problem solved.

 

[Ondolindë]

By the way, we ALL know that her name is really Jadwiga, right?

 

[Zaarin]

By the way, we ALL know that her name is really Jadwiga, right?

That discussion was handled a few pages back.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

*opens the spoiler and shudders* Okay, can we get back to talking about civ porn.

What? That was an example of it. You know you want to search it.

More seriously, this thread makes me feel pretty robotic. Since they're in a strategy game they're just numbers to me most times. I'm not sure who I'd vote for in context of this thread.

Kind of paints their agendas in an odd light too if you start thinking about it too much. Why IS Tomyris so hung up on loyalty, for example? Isn't Gilgamesh a male version of the same thing? Cleopatra seems like a bully. Catherine is not someone to trust (one of her few shared traits with Civ 4's Russian Catherine). Montezuma is very jealous . Peter is a snob.

 

[pgm123]

I remember reading somewhere that Gilgabro's Akkadian is of the Babylonian dialect. Which, if true, means that Sumeria is effectively an Akkadian blob, using Assyrian clothes, Babylonian speech, and a universal Akkadian structure in the Ziggurat.

From a game design perspective, I think this is borderline genius. Gilgamesh was a folk hero in Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonian culture, and Assyria and Babylon especially revered and mimicked Sumeria. Despite being ethnically distinct, Sumeria really was the ancestral root of the Mesopotamian burgeoning and is an adequate proxy for all three civs. In this respect Sumeria is functioning as an Akkadian blob, repping the entire region for that period by assimilating the stronger aspects from prior Civ incarnations of Babylon and Assyria and eliminating the problem of having to design two distinct and fleshed out Mesopotamian civs. A problem which gets harder with every installment as every aspect of art design becomes deeper and more nuanced in service of distinguishing civs as different personalities.

On top of that, Sumeria holds its own niche in the game as the ultimate beginner civ, which I find quite fitting for a civ which "invented the wheel." It has perhaps the most basic martial and scientific bonuses in VI and is extremely easy to play. And the "I did it first" attitude the design of Sumeria takes toward Assyria and Babylon drives this theme home even further.

So, I understand why historians might be disappointed that a) Sumeria is not Sumeria and b) there probably won't be Assyria or Babylon in VI. But I think as a matter of consolidation I think this was extremely responsible game design. It's not offensively generalist like Polynesia in V; rather it is deliberately painting Sumeria through the eyes of later Akkadian civs. It implicitly encourages the same "cultural throughline" interpretation of the Mesopotamian region in the same way that Chandragupta and Eleanor and subsequent alt leaders expressly emphasize. Perhaps a bit obtuse, but on the spectrum of historical inaccuracy I think this falls under thought-provoking artistic license more than it does blatant or lazy misrepresentation.

I think they missed a good opportunity to use Sargon of Akkad. It's basically the Akkadian civ. Or the Amorite civ. Or really any early Mesopotamian civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Or the Amorite civ.

Who would lead it? Also, given how poorly attested Amorite is, they'd probably still end up speaking bad Akkadian, just like Gilgabro. Sumer was a fine choice; they should have just gone with a better attested leader like Gudea or Ur-Nammu--or Kuĝbau if they want the only female ruler in Mesopotamian history (though we don't know much about her other than she was an alewife and supposedly chosen by the gods to depose a corrupt king).

 

[pgm123]

Who would lead it? Also, given how poorly attested Amorite is, they'd probably still end up speaking bad Akkadian, just like Gilgabro. Sumer was a fine choice; they should have just gone with a better attested leader like Gudea or Ur-Nammu--or Kuĝbau if they want the only female ruler in Mesopotamian history (though we don't know much about her other than she was an alewife and supposedly chosen by the gods to depose a corrupt king).

Hammurabi. I just used Amorite to distinguish from the Neo-Babylonians.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I think they missed a good opportunity to use Sargon of Akkad. It's basically the Akkadian civ. Or the Amorite civ. Or really any early Mesopotamian civ.

But here's the rub.

You as a developer want a Mesopotamian civ that emphasizes the military, scientific and cultural relevance of the region. ONE civ. You expressly want it to be well-rounded as a beginner civ. Akkadia seems the obvious choice to rep both Assyria and Babylon. But Sargon is straight up militaristic. Not a good personality fit for this civ.

But you've also been eyeing Sumeria and its contributions to writing and wheels as a backup option. And then you realize that Gilgamesh is the sort of jack-of-all-trades paragon you are looking for. And then the two ideas begin to coalesce, where Akkadian cities are tied back to Sumeria, and Sumerian heritage is tied forward to Akkadia. And after some heavy streamlining, we get this.

The fact is that Sumeria is pretty solid evidence that this game is undergoing heavy planning and revision stages. And that they didn't go with Sargon or Akkadia doesn't point toward missed opportunities, but rather that the vetting and focusing process is so rigorous that many of the expected historical options are being deliberately passed up. Sargon of Akkadia is another boring militaristic civ, and it was passed up because that role was intended to be filled by whatever kurgan/nomadic civ they settled on (Scythia, in this case). But no one can argue Gilgamesh of Sumeria doesn't nail the flavor of "cradle of civilization." A legendary hero leading a legendary civ.

 

[Pietato]

She is quite cute, for a king.

 

[Depravo]

She is quite cute, for a king.

They should have included to put in Hatshepsut's fake beard back when she was Egypt's LH.

 

[Disgustipated]

Jadiwa always pisses me off with her complaints about me not having a religion. Go away, J!!!

I think her agenda is how much faith you are producing, not whether you have a religion or not.

 

[Nabunaid]

By the way, we ALL know that her name is really Jadwiga, right?

Her original name was Hedvig, the younger daughter of Louis I. of Hungary. Jadwiga's ancestors were from Anjou house.

 

[Zaarin]

Hammurabi. I just used Amorite to distinguish from the Neo-Babylonians.

Hammurabi was Babylonian, though. The Amorites were Northwest Semites who didn't speak Akkadian...Given that Hammurabi conquered the Amorites, that would be rather like making Julius Caesar the leader of Gaul to distinguish him from Imperial Rome.

 

[pgm123]

Hammurabi was Babylonian, though. The Amorites were Northwest Semites who didn't speak Akkadian...Given that Hammurabi conquered the Amorites, that would be rather like making Julius Caesar the leader of Gaul to distinguish him from Imperial Rome.

The First Dynasty of Babylon were all Akkadnaized Amorites. Hammurabi was an Amorite. I should have just said Babylonian. I was trying to distinguish from Chaldaean or other Babylonian kings that came later.