Guandao
Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka
Persia's theme in Civ7
New Civ Game Guide: Persia
- Thread starter FXS_Sar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- civ vii game guide
Persia's theme in Civ7
B0RDERL1NE
Firaxian
Commanders keep all their promotions on Age Transition, even if those promotions are free or automatic.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,546
Time travellersLovely, but...why is there an Edwardian woman in ancient Persia?
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka
Why is she barefoot too? Maybe the artist struggled to come up with examples of Achaemenid period clothing for women?
Attestation is pretty limited, but they still could have done better than a badly-designed Ionic chiton. A Mesopotamian tunic and tasseled mantle with curled hair, a circlet, and a veil would at least have been closer. Also, second and third inaccuracy spotted: the brass pot appears to be for coffee, the clay pot for tea; it's too early for either in Persia. (By almost two thousand years for coffee.)
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
According to the Encyclopaedia Iranica (online), in the Achaemenid period women's faces were never veiled, but the typical garment was either a pleated 'court dress' or the 'voluminous Ionian chiton' with a belt usually worn under a cloak or hooded overgarment. Hair was sometimes left uncovered (I suspect only in private settings, as shown in the graphic) but is shown in a single plait down the back. Unfortunately, the website won't let me download the illustrations, but they are largely from contemporary seals, the Satrap's sarcophagus, contemporary descriptions by writers such as Ctesias and Curtius and fragments of clothing found at the fringes of the Empire in Central Asia (Pazyryk tombs)
We have been over this a dozen times people, why on Earth are you unable to grasp it.
None of the images are accurate. There are inventions and inaccuracies in all of them, they're just not going for historical accuracy._
If you accepted the Aksum (Egyptian obelisks), Maya (Lego playset take on Mesoamerican architecture, half-naked dances around fireplaces, that one infamously "ironed" Aztec headdress), Han (upturned eaves, soldiers wearing fantasy Ming armors, plain wooden chariots), Rome (the clothes on everyone, plain white facades, and that fantastical legionary armor and equipment), Greece (gargantuan pedastals for statues, trimmed English gardens,...), Maurya (mostly brownish Hindu temples), Khmer (literally modern buildings, clothes and items with 0 Angkorian elements), Meiji (Chinese fisherman ship, Minka thrown next to Yokohama-ish buildings,...), Chola (Saving Private Dumbo), Spain (hot air balloons for all the authenticity of Poble Espanyol), Norman (weed-overgrown and unpainted main symbol of the royal power at its height,...) and so on. Then you can absolutely accept a random "historically looking" woman in a picture that is very clearly supposed to show an oriental palace kind of setting. Edwardian women cosplaying Greeks goes with that as butter goes with toasted bread.
Seriously, though. Looking for the details, let alone historical details in these paintings is just an overdone joke. You could argue about what they're trying to show or how and why the particular sterotype could be drawing from. Perhaps they are children's drawings redone by a professional artist maintaining the details unchanged? Perhaps they got a local (a normal person, not a historian or a history hobbyist) from each of those cultures to sit down with them and come up with some fitting scene? Etc. They did say it will be obvious these are not AI-generated (nor inspired, presumably) once we see the credits so there is some space for discussion there. But asking if they're not historically accurate is like asking if water is wet.
None of the images are accurate. There are inventions and inaccuracies in all of them, they're just not going for historical accuracy._
If you accepted the Aksum (Egyptian obelisks), Maya (Lego playset take on Mesoamerican architecture, half-naked dances around fireplaces, that one infamously "ironed" Aztec headdress), Han (upturned eaves, soldiers wearing fantasy Ming armors, plain wooden chariots), Rome (the clothes on everyone, plain white facades, and that fantastical legionary armor and equipment), Greece (gargantuan pedastals for statues, trimmed English gardens,...), Maurya (mostly brownish Hindu temples), Khmer (literally modern buildings, clothes and items with 0 Angkorian elements), Meiji (Chinese fisherman ship, Minka thrown next to Yokohama-ish buildings,...), Chola (Saving Private Dumbo), Spain (hot air balloons for all the authenticity of Poble Espanyol), Norman (weed-overgrown and unpainted main symbol of the royal power at its height,...) and so on. Then you can absolutely accept a random "historically looking" woman in a picture that is very clearly supposed to show an oriental palace kind of setting. Edwardian women cosplaying Greeks goes with that as butter goes with toasted bread.
Seriously, though. Looking for the details, let alone historical details in these paintings is just an overdone joke. You could argue about what they're trying to show or how and why the particular sterotype could be drawing from. Perhaps they are children's drawings redone by a professional artist maintaining the details unchanged? Perhaps they got a local (a normal person, not a historian or a history hobbyist) from each of those cultures to sit down with them and come up with some fitting scene? Etc. They did say it will be obvious these are not AI-generated (nor inspired, presumably) once we see the credits so there is some space for discussion there. But asking if they're not historically accurate is like asking if water is wet.
Last edited:
Add the Ottoman mosque in the Abbasid background to the list...We have been over this a dozen times people, why on Earth are you unable to grasp it.
None of the images are accurate. There are inventions and inaccuracies in all of them, they're just not going for historical accuracy._
If you accepted the Aksum (Egyptian obelisks), Maya (Lego playset take on Mesoamerican architecture, half-naked dances around fireplaces, that one infamously "ironed" Aztec headdress), Han (upturned eaves, soldiers wearing fantasy Ming armors, plain wooden chariots), Rome (the clothes on everyone, plain white facades, and that fantastical legionary armor and equipment), Greece (gargantuan pedastals for statues, trimmed English gardens,...), Maurya (mostly brownish Hindu temples), Khmer (literally modern buildings, clothes and items with 0 Angkorian elements), Meiji (Chinese fisherman ship, Minka thrown next to Yokohama-ish buildings,...), Chola (Saving Private Dumbo), Spain (hot air balloons for all the authenticity of Poble Espanyol), Norman (weed-overgrown and unpainted main symbol of the royal power at its height,...) and so on. Then you can absolutely accept a random "historically looking" woman in a picture that is very clearly supposed to show an oriental palace kind of setting. Edwardian women cosplaying Greeks goes with that as butter goes with toasted bread.
By definition, it is not; you cannot generally coat a liquid in another liquid.
