Persia in Civ 5 is not politcally correct

[NovaKart]

The new age movement comes to mind.

 

[Irkalla]

I wouldn't read too much into Alexander being venerated so highly; he certainly has been respected in the west as a Great Man for a long ass time, but I think historians recognize him as a bit of a megalomaniac, and I'd wager that's same general opinion around here (with at least two exceptions who I won't name). If I'm not mistaken, Alexander is viewed pretty similarly as Napoleon, and this is not meant to be endearing.

Also, this particular sub-forum doesn't at all limit itself to talking about things within the context of the Civilization games, which is a good thing, because the Civ games aren't particularly historical at all. My favorite description is 'a solid strategy game with the loosest trappings of history slapped on top'.



Well this seems just completely wrong, and also super racist.

Sociopaths get things done. History proves that they're necessary for the advancement of mankind.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sociopaths get things done. History proves that they're necessary for the advancement of mankind.

Why would a sociopath care about "the advancement of mankind"? And if sociopathy is a virtue, why should any of us?

 

[Kyriakos]

Wars often lead to creating more lethal weapons, though. In that sense they are forcing change, as well as creating it.
That said, wars are not needed for any good change.

 

[ronjon]

Well this seems just completely wrong, and also super racist.

I think I know how that is wrong but how is that racist?

 

[caketastydelish]

Yeah. For clarification, I wasn't making a generalization about all Arab people. I was just saying as far as history is concerned, the Mongol empire had far less of a long-lasting effect on Persia than the Arabs did.

Sure the Mongols killed a lot, but they came and integrated to the Persian ways. The Arabs did not.

 

[History_Buff]

I think I know how that is wrong but how is that racist?

Because it would seem to imply that Arabs (with their upstart religion no less!) showing up and leaving a lasting mark on Persia is a really bad thing, while Mongols showing up and slaughtering them by the millions isn't really so bad.

 

[Kyriakos]

His point is that while there is still an Iran, there isn't still a Sassanid Empire/civ

 

[Louis XXIV]

Nor is there a Saffavid Empire.

 

[History_Buff]

Indeed. And while dynastic power systems come and go, Persian culture persisted through both invasions, and remained a dominant cultural identity throughout.

 

[caketastydelish]

The arabs had their language influence the Persian language, change our writing script to arabic (although obviously we still speak Persian), change our language from Zoroastrianism to Islam, etc. Other than kill, Mongols didn't do anything like that.

 

[History_Buff]

But how exactly is that harmful? Particularly, how is it more harmful than putting whole cities to the sword?


Very few people seem to think of Constantine as some sort of evil conqueror for formally establishing Christianity within the Empire, or Confucious as a butcher for introducing a new belief system. Have the Indians (via the Arabs) done some harm to western society by our adoption of their numbers?

 

[Kyriakos]

While genocide is of another level and form, in the longrun a change of alphabet/language and also in some circumstances (eg in those times) a new religion, can erode the original culture far more.
Persia was the center of its own civ, but after the last (and huge) Byzantine-Sassanid war, the arabs expanded in half of the Byzantine lands, and the Sassanid empire collapsed alltogether and became another islamic realm.

 

[History_Buff]

But becoming another islamic realm (whatever that means) doesn't mean that Persia ceased to be Persian. The current existence of Iran is really the only thing we need to see to know that that is the case.

 

[caketastydelish]

But becoming another islamic realm (whatever that means) doesn't mean that Persia ceased to be Persian. The current existence of Iran is really the only thing we need to see to know that that is the case.

Pre islamic and post islamic persia are totally different. Not the case with pre mongol, post mongol.

While genocide is of another level and form, in the longrun a change of alphabet/language and also in some circumstances (eg in those times) a new religion, can erode the original culture far more.
Persia was the center of its own civ, but after the last (and huge) Byzantine-Sassanid war, the arabs expanded in half of the Byzantine lands, and the Sassanid empire collapsed alltogether and became another islamic realm.

Yeah, this to.

But how exactly is that harmful? Particularly, how is it more harmful than putting whole cities to the sword?

If anything you are the one basing this off race then, not me. Putting whole cities to the sword and intermarrying with the natives (which the mongols did far more than the arabs did to the best of my knowledge) I actually don't mind near as much because culturally they left the area relatively unaffected. Arabs changed their religion, their writing script, etc. It's no more racist than a Mexican who wants to be in touch with aztec roots rather than Spanish catholicism, etc.

Very few people seem to think of Constantine as some sort of evil conqueror for formally establishing Christianity within the Empire, or Confucious as a butcher for introducing a new belief system. Have the Indians (via the Arabs) done some harm to western society by our adoption of their numbers?

No, but Persians 'adopted' these things only by the sword, not the case in your example.

 

[Wrymouth3]

Because it would seem to imply that Arabs (with their upstart religion no less!) showing up and leaving a lasting mark on Persia is a really bad thing, while Mongols showing up and slaughtering them by the millions isn't really so bad.

Yeah because arguing that the policies and treatment of the inhabitants by one civilization were more humane or less harmful than another civilization TOTALLY makes you a racist.