New First Look: Xerxes

[Thenewwwguy]

We must not forget that this point of view isn't incorrect to the core. To the eyes of Herodotus and the Greeks (and the Egyptians and the Babylonians) that faced conquest and possible enslavement if their cities rejected submission, Xerxes I was a tyrant. But not to the eyes of the Persians and Medes who probably thought of him as a capable king that kept his empire stable, much like his predecessors. So, showing him through the eyes of his people rather than his enemies is the correct path.

everyone in the ancient world is a tyrant by these standards

 

[The Fanatical]

everyone in the ancient world is a tyrant by these standards

In reality, all of us hide a little tyrant on the inside.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

We must not forget that this point of view isn't incorrect to the core. To the eyes of Herodotus and the Greeks (and the Egyptians and the Babylonians) that faced conquest and possible enslavement if their cities rejected submission, Xerxes I was a tyrant. But not to the eyes of the Persians and Medes who probably thought of him as a capable king that kept his empire stable, much like his predecessors. So, showing him through the eyes of his people rather than his enemies is the correct path.

Of course! But when it comes to the Persians it seems that all we get are “Xerxes the despotic invader” depictions. This is largely because Herodotus is such a fun read, and this disjuncture between “freedom-loving west and despotic east” becomes foundational to Orientalism in later years.

But that question of Xerxes outside of the Greek wars… that is what I wanted to explore.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Of course! But when it comes to the Persians it seems that all we get are “Xerxes the despotic invader” depictions. This is largely because Herodotus is such a fun read, and this disjuncture between “freedom-loving west and despotic east” becomes foundational to Orientalism in later years.

But that question of Xerxes outside of the Greek wars… that is what I wanted to explore.

For that matter, the Persians in general outside of the Greek/European connection deserve to be better known and studied.
Their relations with Egypt, for instance, were a combination of antipathy (Egyptian Revolts) and cooperation (the career of Udjahorresnet, Egyptian official under Amasis, Cambyses and Darius I).
And the Persian Great Wall they built (post-Achaemenid) against the later central Asian Huns and other pastoral raiders.
And their interactions with India, almost completely unknown to the West and 'classic' scholars.

Reducing so important a people, group, and Empire to a "One Note" Oriental Despotism cartoon is simplistic and more than slightly insulting.

Civ VII's Xerxes, hopefully, is a start down a different path, with a lot more branches to it.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Could not agree more!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

My love for their art and architecture makes me wish culture-oriented modern Qajar Persia to happen... But I'm coming to terms with the Safavids being the more likely option, on the grounds of the Safavids being a considerably greater power in their time.

I must admit I do see a slight chance of having a Modern Age civ called Iran, and it could have both Safavid and Qajar elements in the design, considering the first age civ is only called Persia, and not Achaemenid Persia.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Safavids are imo much more likely on the grounds of, to be honest, having many achievements besides also displaying excellent art and architecture, such as actually being capable of winning wars

Safavids built widely respected state and are responsible for modern borders and incarnation of the concept of Iran, were capable of fighting like equals with Ottoman and Mughal empires at the peak of their power, and overall were not very badly behind the development level of their era. They were also capable of fighting off Portuguese and one of two Russian attempts at invasion (with the second one being fair fight).

Qajar era meanwhile is frankly fairly miserable for Iran outside artistic matters - almost every war they waged was a disaster, they were relentlessly bullied by colonial empires and lost crucial territories to them, failed all attempts at modernization, and were utterly powerless, non-industrialized paper tiger barely surviving as a buffer state between Russian and British interests. I'd honestly say their era was the most miserable in the Iranian history in terms of its international reputation and relative power. Say what you want about the Islamic Republic but it stubbornly holds out while being massive headache for many global powers and having medium, not terrible level of development.

I am well aware of this - the "considerably greater power in their time" was meant to be an euphemism summarising this all

To clarify my position - I am not against the modern age Safavid Persia. Rationally speaking, they are the best Persian representation for the modern era, and I do agree that Safavid artistry and architecture is brilliant as well - I can only imagine how great would Naqsh-e Jahan look as associated Safavid wonder in VII's very beautiful artstyle. It's just my little selfish wish to see Qajar architecture covering the map, since I am personally that charmed by it, and with leaders decoupled from civilisation, I justify the inclusion to myself by thinking that we could potentially get the civilisation without their failed shahs leading them to decline

I must admit I do see a slight chance of having a Modern Age civ called Iran, and it could have both Safavid and Qajar elements in the design, considering the first age civ is only called Persia, and not Achaemenid Persia.

That would be a reasonable compromise in my eyes - though it does bring out the question of who should serve as the exploration era link in the Iranian evolutionary chain under such design.

 

[Zaarin]

though it does bring out the question of who should serve as the exploration era link in the Iranian evolutionary chain under such design.

I suppose you could call the Sassanids "Sassania," but that feels weird sandwiched between "Persia" and "Iran" when the Sassanids already called their kingdom Iran (or Eran, rather) and Westerners still called it Persia.

 

[Xandinho]

I have the impression that, unfortunately, we might not see the Sassanids. I believe there's a chance we might see the Seljuks as a predecessor to the Safavids/Qajar and Ottomans.

 

[Zaarin]

I have the impression that, unfortunately, we might not see the Sassanids. I believe there's a chance we might see the Seljuks as a predecessor to the Safavids/Qajar and Ottomans.

I'd like both TBH.

 

[dagriggstar]

Honestly I look at these agendas and I’m kinda like “gee it would be kinda cool if Xerxes hated you if you two had never had a war before but then respected you if you had”. You know, have him go from warmonger to trade merchant. But then that could apply to Ashoka as well.

The personas kinda highlight the one-note ness of the AI.

 

[AriochIV]

Given the gaping holes that they're going to have with only 10 civilizations per Age on release, it seems extremely unlikely that they'd have two civilizations that controlled the same region in the same Age, at least on release.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Given the gaping holes that they're going to have with only 10 civilizations per Age on release, it seems extremely unlikely that they'd have two civilizations that controlled the same region in the same Age, at least on release.

Whenever the discussions here turn to multiple Civs in the same region/Age Progression I assume they are not limiting themselves to Release, but to hopes for DLC inclusion for years to come. I agree there is simply no way blanket coverage can be provided on release unless they add a multiplier to their proposed number of 30 Civs.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Of course! But when it comes to the Persians it seems that all we get are “Xerxes the despotic invader” depictions. This is largely because Herodotus is such a fun read, and this disjuncture between “freedom-loving west and despotic east” becomes foundational to Orientalism in later years.

I would also blame the modern depiction of the Greco-Persian War (for instance, the notorious 300), since the Persian King that Herodotus disagreed the most was Cambyses, rather than Xerxes. The depiction of Xerxes in Histories is more of a commentary on the Persian kingship from a periphery standpoint (at this time, the Persian Empire was undoubtedly at the center of the political realm, while the Greeks were a peripheral group) rather than commenting on Xerxes as a person, while the depiction of Cambyses, especially how he broke the Persian Nomos countless times, is pretty damaging.

(BTW, the Persian King with the most favorable depiction in Histories is Cyrus the Great, and personally I think Civ 6 did him a little bit poorly. Herodotus even claimed that Cyrus held "telling the truth" in very high regard, therefore he disliked the Greeks who "always tell lies and made false oaths in the agora" - a rare time that Herodotus decided to throw dirt on the Greeks to portray someone else as more worthy.)

 

[Siptah]

I suppose you could call the Sassanids "Sassania," but that feels weird sandwiched between "Persia" and "Iran" when the Sassanids already called their kingdom Iran (or Eran, rather) and Westerners still called it Persia.

If it would just be about naming, there is one time of Persian history, in which the state is commonly referred to something else than Persia and Iran: Parthia.

But I think the Arsacids are unlikely to be in the Exploration age for many reasons. They could be a good fit as a first age alternative to the now revealed Persia (as they are clearly different, probably more so than a hypothetical Sassian civ) going into Mongols at some point in the future. Not likely to happen in the first years of DLCs. But surely not the worst option for an aggressive antiquity civ with mounted bowmen that has something else to offer than the steppe civs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That would be a reasonable compromise in my eyes - though it does bring out the question of who should serve as the exploration era link in the Iranian evolutionary chain under such design.

Ideally I would have gone Achaemenid Persia>Sassanid Persia>Safavid Persia.
The Sassanids could have come with a heavy cavalry Aswaran UU, and a Zoroastrian fire temple unique infrastructure considering religion would be in that age.

Unfortunately that doesn’t look like it might happen and I think that the Abbasids might be the only bridge between the two iterations of Persia/Iran.

 

[Morningcalm]

A sample of his speech. It seems to be the same line for both personae

Alas. Missed opportunity. But I get it would have been more intensive in terms of resources to get voice actors to shift tone and do more lines (requiring more translation, etc).

 

[Zaarin]

If it would just be about naming, there is one time of Persian history, in which the state is commonly referred to something else than Persia and Iran: Parthia.

But I think the Arsacids are unlikely to be in the Exploration age for many reasons. They could be a good fit as a first age alternative to the now revealed Persia (as they are clearly different, probably more so than a hypothetical Sassian civ) going into Mongols at some point in the future. Not likely to happen in the first years of DLCs. But surely not the worst option for an aggressive antiquity civ with mounted bowmen that has something else to offer than the steppe civs.

TBH if the Parthians were included, I would have given them this design (minus the Immortals and plus Parthian Horse Archers) and made the Achaemenids more economic/diplomatic/cultural. Still, I agree that the Parthians would make a nice alternative to the Scythians for the Antiquity steppe civ.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I wonder what's the source/inspiration for the designs on Xerxes the Achaemenid's shawl?

 

[Zaarin]

I wonder what's the source/inspiration for the designs on Xerxes the Achaemenid's shawl?

Rosettes are accurate; I believe they're based specifically on wall tiles from Persepolis.

The crosses, on the other hand, I can't find a source for.