New Civ Game Guide: Abbasid

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Persian dynasty from 224 to 651. Considering them as the Explorian Age civilization will depend on the point of view...

Not my view either.
instead should be a Shia Persia instead. Islamic Schism made a clear divisions between not just Arabs and Persians as people, but also Islamic Schools. While most if not all of Arab World follows Sunnism. Persia became the stronghold of Shi'ism.

 

[Zaarin]

Not my view either.
instead should be a Shia Persia instead. Islamic Schism made a clear divisions between not just Arabs and Persians as people, but also Islamic Schools. While most if not all of Arab World follows Sunnism. Persia became the stronghold of Shi'ism.

Persia only became Shiite under the Safavids.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Persia only became Shiite under the Safavids.

Which would most likely be Modern, regardless.

 

[Zaarin]

Which would most likely be Modern, regardless.

Both Sassanids and Safavids straddle the line--but not nearly so nebulously as the Khmer. I think Exploration Sassanid > Modern Safavid is pretty satisfying, plus we've never actually had a Zoroastrian leader of civ in the game...

 

[pokiehl]

Huh, Xerxes temporarily appeared on Leaders page of Civ 7.

You were right! A new prophet appears!

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Both Sassanids and Safavids straddle the line--but not nearly so nebulously as the Khmer. I think Exploration Sassanid > Modern Safavid is pretty satisfying, plus we've never actually had a Zoroastrian leader of civ in the game...

But Sassanids ended with Islamic Conquest.
Sassanids was Zoroastrian Empire. only some survivors went to India to perpetuate their ages old monotheism. I'm not sure if it lasts even today or even earn international recognition but I don't think there are any Zoroastrian here in Thailand or Siam at any point in Siamese History involving Persians. most of the time Persians in Siamese History was very much associated with Islam. Shi'ism even. the First Patriarch Shiekh of Siam was a persian named Shayk Ahmad, founder of Bunnag noble family.

 

[Zaarin]

But Sassanids ended with Islamic Conquest.
Sassanids was Zoroastrian Empire. only some survivors went to India to perpetuate their ages old monotheism. I'm not sure if it lasts even today or even earn international recognition but I don't think there are any Zoroastrian here in Thailand or Siam at any point in Siamese History involving Persians. most of the time Persians in Siamese History was very much associated with Islam. Shi'ism even. the First Patriarch Shiekh of Siam was a persian named Shayk Ahmad, founder of Bunnag noble family.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but yes, Persia was conquered by the Muslims. Zoroastrianism survives, albeit in small numbers; Freddy Mercury was a Zoroastrian. It's experiencing something of a revival in Iran. At any rate, Persia was ruled by foreigners through most of the Middle Ages between the Sassanids and Safavids, and the Safavids were one of the "gunpowder empires" just like the Mughals, whom we already know to be Modern.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Both Sassanids and Safavids straddle the line--but not nearly so nebulously as the Khmer. I think Exploration Sassanid > Modern Safavid is pretty satisfying, plus we've never actually had a Zoroastrian leader of civ in the game...

I think with Mughal India being confirmed Modern, and presumably the Ottomans whenever they get in, if the Safavids ever appear they would fit in fine. I'd also expect the Abbasids to go into all of these.

But Sassanids ended with Islamic Conquest.
Sassanids was Zoroastrian Empire. only some survivors went to India to perpetuate their ages old monotheism. I'm not sure if it lasts even today or even earn international recognition but I don't think there are any Zoroastrian here in Thailand or Siam at any point in Siamese History involving Persians. most of the time Persians in Siamese History was very much associated with Islam. Shi'ism even. the First Patriarch Shiekh of Siam was a persian named Shayk Ahmad, founder of Bunnag noble family.

No one is wanting to erase Islamic Persia, just move it to the Modern Age. That way a Zoroastrian one could be represented instead, considering you can't get a religion in the first Age.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but yes, Persia was conquered by the Muslims. Zoroastrianism survives, albeit in small numbers; Freddy Mercury was a Zoroastrian. It's experiencing something of a revival in Iran. At any rate, Persia was ruled by foreigners through most of the Middle Ages between the Sassanids and Safavids, and the Safavids were one of the "gunpowder empires" just like the Mughals, whom we already know to be Modern.

Safavids are astrider. so you feel like they should be in Age III rather than II ?

 

[Uberfrog]

But Sassanids ended with Islamic Conquest.
Sassanids was Zoroastrian Empire. only some survivors went to India to perpetuate their ages old monotheism. I'm not sure if it lasts even today or even earn international recognition but I don't think there are any Zoroastrian here in Thailand or Siam at any point in Siamese History involving Persians. most of the time Persians in Siamese History was very much associated with Islam. Shi'ism even. the First Patriarch Shiekh of Siam was a persian named Shayk Ahmad, founder of Bunnag noble family.

This is interesting - I hadn’t known this about Siamese history, but Ahmad would have been born during the Safavid period. You can definitely argue that the Safavids would make a nice Exploration Era civ, it’s just going to be awkward given what we know about the placement of the Mughals.

For a medieval Shia state you only really have the Buyids (who did rule Persia) or the Fatimids in Egypt, but these were not very long lived dynasties.

 

[Zaarin]

Safavids are astrider. so you feel like they should be in Age III rather than II ?

Yes, because they were contemporary in both time and role to the Mughals.

 

[chaosprophet]

Did he? That would be a pleasant surprise; I've given up hope of having a Persian leader in Civ7 at launch.

People think Persia won't get a leader? Lets give them two version of a Persian leader then!!

 

[Zaarin]

People think Persia won't get a leader? Lets give them two version of a Persian leader then!!

I've never been happier to be wrong.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I'd consider them more Turkic than Persia. Most historians agree that the Safavids were the first native Persian dynasty since the Sassanids.

Except they were just as Turkic as the rest.

And the first major native Persian dynasty to hold power in Iran since the Sassanians were the Buyids

 

[Prester John 2]

This is a alternate history simulation game, not a means to right perceived wrongs of history. Many nations were ruled by foreigners for hundreds of years, just consider Egypt or Italy. Nationalism on the other hand, an anti-Islamic Iranian nationalism, even, is a fairly recent innovation from 20th century.

Moderator Action: Deleted quoted post. AH

 

[FishFishFish]

The Abbasid Civ isn't meant to be an extension of the Persian Civ anyway. It is their own thing. If you don't wanna be the Abbasids, then simply switch to someone else.

Also comparing the Abbasids to Nazi Germany is utter nonsense.

 

[Lord Lakely]

. At any rate, Persia was ruled by foreigners through most of the Middle Ages between the Sassanids and Safavids, and the Safavids were one of the "gunpowder empires" just like the Mughals, whom we already know to be Modern.

Persia, much like the rest of the Middle East, struggles with valid representation beyond the first act because ALL roads lead to either the Arab Caliphates or the Turkic Sultanates. Act 2 is a notable crapshoot. The case for Khwaresm as a separate entity is not a very strong one when Abbasids and Mongolia exist, and had a significantly larger impact on history to boot.

At least Persia has a clear out in the third act thanks to the Safavids. In the Middle East however, almost all options lead directly towards the Ottomans. (and in their absense, probably the Mughals by proxy.)

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ Ottomans to be Age 3 civ?

 

[AriochIV]

^ Ottomans to be Age 3 civ?

That would be the obvious pitch, but you have to keep an eye out for the curveball.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

That would be the obvious pitch, but you have to keep an eye out for the curveball.

to me a strider. it could be Age2 or 3. As Age3 the term might not even be 'Ottomans' but instead Turkiye.
Janissary to be UU. it only valid at the first stage. and I prefer them to be in Age 2 and it should begin as mid-Age 2 combined arms infantry (Swordsmen and archers), and then ... musketeers.