New Civ Game Guide: Majapahit

[Zaarin]

I can't agree more, it's the same problem Yazilikaya faces. Sometimes the most basic words of an extinct language are lost to time, and it is impossible to reconstruct a name for a wonder if the surviving historical sources don't mention the name. For the Hittite World Wonder, perhaps the name Hekur Siunas (rock sanctuary of the gods) would fit better, but it is unknown if Firaxis will take that approach, judging by the fact that the Maya World Wonder was named Mundo Perdido.

Yes, unfortunately in the case of the Scythians, their languages are very poorly attested--basically a few glosses in Greek and Middle Persian, some loanwords in the area, and what we can glean from better-attested related languages like Sogdian or their sole surviving descendent, Ossetian. So while naming the Scythian cities after archaeological sites was frankly the worst available choice (we know the names of a few of their cities, and others could at least be named after tribes), I do get the difficulty...

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Could you talk more about this? I know Hinduism is a very varied religion (or set of religions), but I'm only very, very passingly familiar with its expressions outside of India.

Sure. Hinduism is, of course, not what Hindus traditionally called their religion. Rather, this is the following of the dharma, or simply what one practices. As an umbrella term, the term "Hinduism" at times captures many extremely diverse faiths within it - Buddhism, for instance, at times has been considered a variety of Hinduism (though this is contested also, at times). While most Hindu practices have the divinities of Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva, there is a wide range of how these divinities are or are not expressed in the world. But such diversity can rankle colonial or national forces, who seek to regulate and standardize religions. It's a feature of modernity not (always) to eliminate religion, but rather to standardize it, to render it recognizable and a label that one can put on, for instance, the census.

Hinduism reaches Southeast Asia long before these processes start, and before even the movement of Islam into India in the medieval period, so the Hinduism that moves is much less standardized and defined (defined in contrast to Islam, for instance). And it comes as literature and poetry, blending with the local animist practices that it finds in place. In mainland SEA, it becomes associated as the religion having to do with kingship - Theravada Buddhism reached out to villages and the common folk, and Hinduism ("Brahmanism") moved into the palace, cultivating an image of the king as an avatar of Vishnu (Rama, in Thailand's case). In Indonesia, Hinduism remained strong as a religion that defined kingship - when the Majapahit moved to Bali, here, too, came a notion of kingship, godhood, and a glorious past presently in decline that runs through a lot of Balinese texts.

There's still the three main gods (interestingly enough associated with the flow of water from upland springs (creation) to the city center (rule) and out past the city (destruction), but the Indonesian state mandated that all citizens be monotheistic, so the three gods are often talked about as three faces of one divine essence. But there's also local customs and rituals and figures taken from older Hindu beliefs, animist beliefs, and Buddhism that make their way into things.

 

[Zaarin]

Sure. Hinduism is, of course, not what Hindus traditionally called their religion. Rather, this is the following of the dharma, or simply what one practices. As an umbrella term, the term "Hinduism" at times captures many extremely diverse faiths within it - Buddhism, for instance, at times has been considered a variety of Hinduism (though this is contested also, at times). While most Hindu practices have the divinities of Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva, there is a wide range of how these divinities are or are not expressed in the world. But such diversity can rankle colonial or national forces, who seek to regulate and standardize religions. It's a feature of modernity not (always) to eliminate religion, but rather to standardize it, to render it recognizable and a label that one can put on, for instance, the census.

Hinduism reaches Southeast Asia long before these processes start, and before even the movement of Islam into India in the medieval period, so the Hinduism that moves is much less standardized and defined (defined in contrast to Islam, for instance). And it comes as literature and poetry, blending with the local animist practices that it finds in place. In mainland SEA, it becomes associated as the religion having to do with kingship - Theravada Buddhism reached out to villages and the common folk, and Hinduism ("Brahmanism") moved into the palace, cultivating an image of the king as an avatar of Vishnu (Rama, in Thailand's case). In Indonesia, Hinduism remained strong as a religion that defined kingship - when the Majapahit moved to Bali, here, too, came a notion of kingship, godhood, and a glorious past presently in decline that runs through a lot of Balinese texts.

There's still the three main gods (interestingly enough associated with the flow of water from upland springs (creation) to the city center (rule) and out past the city (destruction), but the Indonesian state mandated that all citizens be monotheistic, so the three gods are often talked about as three faces of one divine essence. But there's also local customs and rituals and figures taken from older Hindu beliefs, animist beliefs, and Buddhism that make their way into things.

Thank you! That's very interesting. I'm very familiar with our ancestors' less standardized approach to religion from the history of Christianity. Even when Constantine tried to standardize it in the fourth century, you still had the Miaphysites and Church of the East in Asia, the Donatists in North Africa, and even folk beliefs in Europe. The Church of the East even managed to flourish in the courts of Tang China, until the Song tried to stomp it out as, funny enough, a Buddhist heresy.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Thank you! That's very interesting. I'm very familiar with our ancestors' less standardized approach to religion from the history of Christianity. Even when Constantine tried to standardize it in the fourth century, you still had the Miaphysites and Church of the East in Asia, the Donatists in North Africa, and even folk beliefs in Europe. The Church of the East even managed to flourish in the courts of Tang China, until the Song tried to stomp it out as, funny enough, a Buddhist heresy.

I once sat through an entire lecture on "The Trinitological and Christological Controversies in the Byzantine Church". The lecture was in Emglish, but the entire (graduate) class agreed that it might as well have been in Byzantine Greek: nobody understood one word in ten. The professor then admitted out that the actual point of the lecture was that we couldn't make any sense of it: the population of Constantinople, in contrast, was ready to riot in the streets over these questions, which were extremely important to them, but totally immaterial to us and our lives in the 20th century.

The past is a foreign country - not because they do things differently there, but because they Thought about things differently there.

 

[Zaarin]

I once sat through an entire lecture on "The Trinitological and Christological Controversies in the Byzantine Church. The lecture was in Emglish, but the entire (graduate) class agreed that it might as well have been in Byzantine Greek: nobody understood one word in ten. The professor then admitted out that the actual point of the lecture was that we couldn't make any sense of it: the population of Constantinople, in contrast, was ready to riot in the streets over these questions, which were extremely important to them, but totally immaterial to us and our lives in the 20th century.

The past is a foreign country - not because they do things differently there, but because they Thought about things differently there.

Indeed. I believe the leadership in all of the churches involved have admitted that the Christological debates came down to semantics and they were really saying the same thing. Indeed, now that contact with the Church of the East is more available, there's growing suspicion that Nestorius' teachings were never outside the bounds of orthodoxy and he was just a convenient scapegoat during the crisis. There's also a linguistic component. Greek loves making little nuanced distinctions that don't make sense in other languages, especially, for example, very concrete languages like Syriac. It's really interesting stuff (at least to me).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Indeed. I believe the leadership in all of the churches involved have admitted that the Christological debates came down to semantics and they were really saying the same thing. Indeed, now that contact with the Church of the East is more available, there's growing suspicion that Nestorius' teachings were never outside the bounds of orthodoxy and he was just a convenient scapegoat during the crisis. There's also a linguistic component. Greek loves making little nuanced distinctions that don't make sense in other languages, especially, for example, very concrete languages like Syriac. It's really interesting stuff (at least to me).

The lecture in question was part of a course on developments in Byzantium in the 5th - 10th centuries, and the professor was fluent in Latin, Greek, Turkish, Arabic and Aramaic. His problem was that in discussions about events in the city of Constantinople in this period, it was too easy for the average student to assume that this was 'just like a modern city' since it showed so many of the characteristics of modern urban life - in various cultural, political, and economic aspects. The lecture was his way of showing us that it was NOT a modern city and the population could not be assumed to share the characteristics of a modern population in many important ways.

It worked: I've never forgotten the lesson.

 

[Baudshaw]

Any missing European Civs are probably being saved to sell DLC/Expansions later. If they did that with the non-European Civs, those DLCs wouldn't sell as well.

I always assumed the DLCs were mostly marketed on the new mechanics, not really the new civs

 

[AriochIV]

I always assumed the DLCs were mostly marketed on the new mechanics, not really the new civs

Expansions, yes. But these first two DLC don't appear to have any new mechanics in them. We're going back to the Civ5 days of DLC marketing.

 

[Baudshaw]

Expansions, yes. But these first two DLC don't appear to have any new mechanics in them. We're going back to the Civ5 days of DLC marketing.

Well yeah, these ones are like the alexander and persia pack. But the big expansions are still marketed on mechanics, like gathering storm with climate change

 

[brainwashh]

I suppose, in order of preference, I might put:
Dynasty name (if significant): e.g. Maurya, Chola
Empire name: e.g. Rome
People or culture name: e.g. Greek - a people without a polity can be kind of difficult at times (a "blob" in this forum's parlance), and I'm not that keen on it if avoidable.
Archaeological culture name: e.g. Mississippian

Also, we bend a bit when something is popularly known as one thing rather than another (e.g. Inca instead of Tiwantinsuyu). People here might know, but you imagine the fans going "why did they put Achamaenid in the game, and not Persia!" "What's Kambuja? Where's Khmer?" "What's Hellas? Where's Greece?"

Cool to read about the dev's inner workings. I suppose it all boils down to marketing. I'm Peruvian and even I would be surprised if you picked "Tawantinsuyu" instead of "Inca". It makes sense to call it what most people know it as (its newly released music slaps by the way!).

I still think there's room for "Khmer" in the ancient era and "Angkor" in the exploration era if you want to avoid "Funan". Both Khmer and Angkor are well-known, marketable terms, and it would avoid oddly placing the Khmer Empire and especially Angkor Wat in the ancient era.

Eternally grateful you picked "Majapahit" instead of "Indonesia" for exploration.

 

[AriochIV]

Why Firaxis kept calling the Mapajahit "Indonesia" until now:

We can see what is presumably the Cetbang in this clip... what I had previously thought might be the Chola Kalam.

 

[The_J]

Why Firaxis kept calling the Mapajahit "Indonesia" until now:

God, it's so true.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

We can see what is presumably the Cetbang in this clip... what I had previously thought might be the Chola Kalam.

View attachment 710088 View attachment 710090 View attachment 710091 View attachment 710092

Cetbang can mean either 'cannon' or 'ship'. to be UU and make some sense it should be ship. and this lugsail is Southeast Asian thing.

 

[Waranlee]

We can see what is presumably the Cetbang in this clip... what I had previously thought might be the Chola Kalam.

View attachment 710088 View attachment 710090 View attachment 710091 View attachment 710092

I've explained before in the Chola thread but I think I'll have to explain it here too. These are likely representations of the Indian Ocean and Nusantaran galiot or fusta (both are types smaller than galley). The sail might not be accurate -- Indian Ocean galley would use settee or lateen, while Nusantaran would use tanja or lateen. The images depicted something like a cross between tanja and junk rig - not really based on reality. While several depictions may have drawn lines between the yard (upper sail spar) and boom (lower sail spar), it does not necessarily depict a junk rig but a segmented construction due to the fact that the sail was assembled from several smaller mats -- in junk rig, the seam between those segments is bordered with "bone" or battens, typically made by bamboo. The segmented construction can be seen even in African boats, the lines on the sail do not necessarily depict battens.

Ancient Arabic sail was also constructed this way (see Belitung ship), not as a lateen sail -- lateen being an influence of Portuguese vessels after the 16th century. Arab vessels operating in the Mediterranean could be using lateen earlier, but those operating in the Indian Ocean, before the 1500s, used square sail or settee sail.

File:Galliot and Fusta of Java de Bry.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

File:Fusta by Jan Huygen van Linschoten.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

The reason for choosing is strange. As the dev explained before, they prefer to use "Majapahit" instead of "Java" because a layman might not understand what it is. However, the ship depicted is not period accurate - both are drawn ca. 1596 to 1599 AD after Majapahit had collapsed ca. 1527. The hull is not Indigenous, it is more like Arabian or Mediterranean ship hull - Indigenous Nusantaran vessels usually had their hull pointed on both ends (pointed in the waterline, the structure above the deck may be whatever shape) and the model clearly depicts flat transom hull of European vessel, with European-style rudder too (Nusantaran rudder are carried on their side i.e. they're using quarter rudders, not axial rudder). In general shape, the hull resembles ghali, a ship that only existed AFTER the influence of European and Turkish shipbuilders (that is, after the 1530s). The description of the pages also mentioned that these ships are built according to instruction from Turks living in Banten, not indigenous at all except for the addition of balai fighting platform.

Imagine depicting a unit called Dromon but using the Imperial Roman war galley as the model's base, or using Venetian galley for the base. The dev's previous attempt to model the Indonesian jong is bad too, as the model of the Indonesian jong was based on the Borobudur ship, not actual jong.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I've explained before in the Chola thread but I think I'll have to explain it here too. These are likely representations of the Indian Ocean and Nusantaran galiot or fusta (both are types smaller than galley). The sail might not be accurate -- Indian Ocean galley would use settee or lateen, while Nusantaran would use tanja or lateen. The images depicted something like a cross between tanja and junk rig - not really based on reality. While several depictions may have drawn lines between the yard (upper sail spar) and boom (lower sail spar), it does not necessarily depict a junk rig but a segmented construction due to the fact that the sail was assembled from several smaller mats -- in junk rig, the seam between those segments is bordered with "bone" or battens, typically made by bamboo. The segmented construction can be seen even in African boats, the lines on the sail do not necessarily depict battens.

Ancient Arabic sail was also constructed this way (see Belitung ship), not as a lateen sail -- lateen being an influence of Portuguese vessels after the 16th century. Arab vessels operating in the Mediterranean could be using lateen earlier, but those operating in the Indian Ocean, before the 1500s, used square sail or settee sail.

File:Galliot and Fusta of Java de Bry.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

File:Fusta by Jan Huygen van Linschoten.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

The reason for choosing is strange. As the dev explained before, they prefer to use "Majapahit" instead of "Java" because a layman might not understand what it is. However, the ship depicted is not period accurate - both are drawn ca. 1596 to 1599 AD after Majapahit had collapsed ca. 1527. The hull is not Indigenous, it is more like Arabian or Mediterranean ship hull - Indigenous Nusantaran vessels usually had their hull pointed on both ends (pointed in the waterline, the structure above the deck may be whatever shape) and the model clearly depicts flat transom hull of European vessel, with European-style rudder too (Nusantaran rudder are carried on their side i.e. they're using quarter rudders, not axial rudder). In general shape, the hull resembles ghali, a ship that only existed AFTER the influence of European and Turkish shipbuilders (that is, after the 1530s). The description of the pages also mentioned that these ships are built according to instruction from Turks living in Banten, not indigenous at all except for the addition of balai fighting platform.

Imagine depicting a unit called Dromon but using the Imperial Roman war galley as the model's base, or using Venetian galley for the base. The dev's previous attempt to model the Indonesian jong is bad too, as the model of the Indonesian jong was based on the Borobudur ship, not actual jong.

And actual Jong is sailer. not galley. right?

And what is their contemporary name if Cetbang is a name of naval guns used by their ships?

 

[AriochIV]

The sail segments do appear to have rigid batting, but otherwise the details seem to follow the example fusta quite closely.

In addition to the great crew details, I really appreciate that the sails furl when the unit is set to sentry (there have been several instances of this visible in the gameplay streams). It always irritated me just a tiny bit to see ships sitting in harbor yet under full sail.

 

[Waranlee]

1. And actual Jong is sailer. not galley. right?

2. And what is their contemporary name if Cetbang is a name of naval guns used by their ships?

I've mentioned it somewhere and looking at how easily they dismiss my previous comment/question/explanation it seems not worth mentioning again. But hey you're not dev and asking about it right now (regardless of how the tone of your comment seems to indicate you already knew what it is)

1. Spot on! It's a sailer, not an oared ship. Galley-like vessels are more popular with the Malay and other Sumatrans than the Javanese. And Majapahit is not Malay nor Sumatrans.

2. The name "cetbang" itself is anachronistic. It seems to be used in a 17th-century text mentioning that the land troops of Majapahit used it in the early 16th century. During the Classical-era Java (where Old Javanese was used as the language instead of New Javanese - before the fall of Majapahit) the word used to indicate gunpowder weapons, bedil or bedhil (or its archaic form wedil or wedhil, which are derived from Tamil vetil), has a very diverse meaning. Imagine making a Chinese unit called chong or a European unit called gonne. Bujangga Manik manuscript (ca. 1470) mentioned local watercraft using wedil, which Alexander J. West interpreted as the word that encompasses both cannon and musket, but in the translation of the text itself he used the neutral word "guns" (no, not pistol or handheld small arms, remember we have a term like "siege gun", "field gun", etc. Alex West used the word in a more generic manner). He also explained that "either way would probably have been anti-personnel weapons with small bores, some perhaps shooting arrows or darts." (See West, Alex J. (2021). Bujangga Manik: or, Java in the fifteenth century. page 221).

The cannon model on the ship above seems to be a breech-loading swivel gun. While the breech-loading swivel gun might have reached the Nusantara archipelago after the 1460s, there's no indication that the wedil mentioned in the Bujangga Manik manuscript refers to such a weapon, and Alex West is clearly against it. The weapons brought by the Yuan invasion of 1293 are likely pao ("eruptor", a type of early Chinese cannon) or chong (hand cannon, not "chong" of later era which refer to arquebus, musket, or rifle). From archaeological findings, the cannons used during Majapahit's golden era are likely of huochong or wankouchong type. Huochong is a hand cannon, it fires arrow-like projectiles or co-violative projectiles and round bullets. Wankouchong (bowl-mouthed cannon) fires a large cannonball and used against ships. The breech-loading swivel gun came much later, native gun founder copied it from the Turkish prangi cannon rather than Portuguese berço or Spanish verso (although later, these two also influenced native cannons). The "original cetbang" (properly simply called a "bedil") has much more in common with Korean Chongtong -- after all, they are based on Yuan-Chinese firearms and fire arrow- or dart-like projectiles.

File:Majapahit treasure a pair of Javanese hand cannons.png - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

File:Javanese Kingdom cannon with carrying handle 812231.png - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

Bedil tombak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

File:A bowl-mouthed cannon found in Java, from Julian Permata colllection.png - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

File:Javanese Handcannon from Majalengka.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

I'm reluctant to address the elephant in the room: That cetbang is not suitable for a naval unit's name - because it has been identified early in this and other thread(s). It's like putting the Great Bombard or Dardanelles gun for the Ottomans and making it a naval unit, or putting Verso for the Spanish and making it a naval unit. Not the best idea ever.

It's funny that while the dev chose to limit the name of the civ to the Majapahit era, it used anachronistic building (Borobudur which is earlier) and unit (breech-loading cetbang which is not used in Majapahit expansion, and galley/galiot/fusta-like ship influenced by foreign shipbuilder after the fall of Majapahit itself).

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Cound this be what Majpahit galley should looks like if they ever use any?

This hull form enlarged rather than foreign copied designs shown here ?

 

[AriochIV]

Cound this be what Majpahit galley should looks like if they ever use any?
View attachment 710179
This hull form enlarged rather than foreign copied designs shown here ?

Galleys automatically upgrade to Cogs at the Age transition.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ mmm I'm discussing the other member about what should Majpahit 'gun galley' looks like. I knew that all Age 1 warships became Cogs once Age 2 begins.