(poll) What civs would you like to see in a hypothetical third expansion?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not saying the Byzzies should be skipped because we've had so many Greeces -I think this is Firaxis's fault for not planning ahead and foolishly adding Macedon to the roster when they easily could've skipped Alexander just like they skipped Catherine and Elizabeth.- but blaming their potential omission on the presence of Canada and Australia is not a flying argument. Blaming the devs otoh...

Greek Egypt would be a better term rather then Egyptian Greece here. And, to be honest, Ancient Egypt with a leader from a Greek dynasty is probably the best one. If anything, her Ptolemaic legacy is almost nonexistent in the game, and we have her speaking Egyptian, making the amount of Greek-speaking leaders three (which, I admit, is still a high number) as opposed to five English speaking ones (counting Gandhi and Laurier).

Macedon was a bit unnecessary though, I'll give you that

Macedon was given to us because there was a good portion of the community that complained that Alexander was leading Greece every time and should lead his own civ of Macedon instead. Now the devs decided the people were right, but that didn't mean they were going to get rid of him and most people still complain about it, except me.
Honestly if it were up to me and we had to get rid of Macedon I would give up Gorgo as well and make Alexander the second Greek leader and he would still give it a more militaristic side like she does.

In short there are really only two Greek Civs in my opinion which is obviously Greece (which only has two leaders) and Macedon. I agree that Egypt in the game doesn't feel like they are portraying anything Greek at all even if Cleopatra had Greek ancestry. If anything the only references to other Civs are to Rome and possibly even England (Shakespeare) in her quotes.

As for the Byzantines, I'm all for them becoming their own Civ with their own uniques. However I also was thinking of a way for them to be put in the game without leaving another fan favorite out because we are obviously going to get at least 3 to 4 new civs in an expansion.
As for unique units, no matter how they get in I would like for them to get a Dromon UU. I've wanted some sort of greek fire animation for them. I definitely would rather that than the Cataphract which indeed were originally Iranian in origin.
The Varangian Guard would be interesting too but I could only see that if Basil II became leader as his UU.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Scythians and Sarmatians are Iranian peoples. Nomads from the north, but still Iranians. So since Scythia is already on game the unit would be for one of the many Persian dynasties that used them.

Sorry, modern anthropologists/archeologists may consider them 'Iranic' or 'Iranian', but their contemporaries the Persians Did Not. That's a little like saying the Greeks should get Legions because, hey, they are similar in culture and language (Indo-European, anyway) to the Romans. Doesn't fly as an argument. The whole point of the game is to find and, if anything, exaggerate the differences between Civs, not borrow from them until they are indistinguishable in game terms.

- Of course most native on NA died from disease. Something that the game lack, even being really relevant not just for America/Eurasia relation, but also for Africa/Eurasia one.
- Most of the history we know and the interaction of NA natives with RTW was after their demise by disease. So the simulation of that become irrelevant. USA and Canada interacted with the post disease natives not the pre-disease. So the result is still Americans rolling over them.

Disease is also very relevant for the European settlement of the Americas, which turned out to be almost impossible in parts of central and south America - disease wiped out large percentages of the European colonists as fast as they could arrive.
However, to argue that because the game does not include Disease all the interaction between NA Natives and Europeans in the game should be based on the surviving population after disease reduced them means I can equally argue that Mongolia is irrelevant to the game because after Gunpowder all the Mongolian and Mongolian-derived military forces were rolled over by gunpowder armies and Mongolia in the last couple of centuries has been just a dependency of either China or Russia - sort of like the First Peoples or Native Americans in North America, in fact.

I wouldn't argue that, because it is no more valid than to say that because Disease made the NA cultures weak versus the Europeans they are less relevant to the game. In fact, one of the strengths of the game is its inclusion of 'little known' or even 'marginal' (in 6000 years of World History, anyway) civilizations. If anything, we need more of them included. After all, IMHO the point of the game is to make the civilization you are playing Important regardless of its real world significance. I take a great deal of pleasure playing as the Cree and winding up with subordinate cities named Ottawa and Washington.

- Still, Central and South America had more advanced civilizations, proper cities, recorded history, armies and interaction with RTW when diseases were expanding.
- You can see on Mann maps that SA agriculture regions is way bigger than east USA. So where are the Tupi, Carib, Ge or Arawak civ? Why not Chichimecs who caused so many problems to Spaniards and Mesoamericans?
- Guarani is the official language on Paraguay, even people that dont look native have it as their first language. The proper Guarani had interaction with Inca, Spaniards and Portuguese. Why not them?

Why not indeed? I would never argue against the inclusion of any civ or culture as long as there is enough information to produce a Civ from them for the game. In many cases, there is more than enough information to do so if someone is willing to do the research. In others, there simply isn't (at this time: more information keeps being discovered about even 'ancient' civilizations all the time). This includes 'European' Civs like one of my favorite 'early European' civilizations, the Minoan Cretans. There just isn't the information we need, like a list of rulers ('Minos' probably wasn't the name of a ruler, from context, it appears now to have been a Title, so we don't have even one Leader for the Civ).
Unfortunately, several fascinating American Native Civs are in the 'Minoan position: Not Enough Information of the kind the game requires for a valid in-game Civ.
The other arguments for or against a Civ's inclusion we've seen on these Forums and in this Thread: Geographical, Ethnic, Temporal diversity, ability to make a Civ Different Enough that it doesn't just repeat the same play style as another Civ already included, and, far from least, Marketing and Sensibilities. Marketing means there will be disproportionately, Civs from areas that now include large numbers of Gamers With Money to spend on the game: that means, inevitably, Europe and other 'First World' areas will be disproportionately represented in the game. Sensibility means that Civs offensive to groups or governments will not be included: Tibet because of China, Nazi Germany because of Everybody.

As for your list of potential Inclusions: Tupi, Carib, Ge, Arawak, Chichimecs, that list can be matched by a European list including Irish, Bohemian, Finnish, Bulgarian, and Swiss. And equal lists from almost anywhere else in Asia or Africa. The argument then, is what makes them worth including in a game which does not and never will have room for every possible Civ? What makes them different, diverse, Unique enough to be chosen over others and would make them Sellable enough for the game to succeed economically?

 

[Xandinho]

Macedon was given to us because there was a good portion of the community that complained that Alexander was leading Greece every time and should lead his own civ of Macedon instead. Now the devs decided the people were right, but that didn't mean they were going to get rid of him and most people still complain about it, except me.

I also don't complain about Macedon, it is more historically appropriate for Alexander to lead his true civilization, and in the game of empires and historical leaders, his inclusion is fully expected. My only complaint is that this was maybe included too early, I don't think we needed another Greek before two expansions, but I have no problems with the inclusion of Macedon itself. Sometimes I think people complain too much.

 

[Patine]

I also don't complain about Macedon, it is more historically appropriate for Alexander to lead his true civilization, and in the game of empires and historical leaders, his inclusion is fully expected. My only complaint is that this was maybe included too early, I don't think we needed another Greek before two expansions, but I have no problems with the inclusion of Macedon itself. Sometimes I think people complain too much.

Of course, by the time of Alexander and Cleopatra, respectively, they weren't REALLY and FULLY their own cultures anymore - Hellenization hit Macedon big time before Philip II was even born, to the point some doubt that he, his son and heir, or Alexander's generals, including those who became the Diadochi, even spoke the nearly unattested Ancient Macedonian language, and Hellenization of Egypt through the Ptolemaic line was very prevalent in Egypt by Cleopatra's time (many even doubt she was fluent in the native Ancient Coptic language of Pharaonic Egypt), and the upper elite class was all Greek, the religious pantheon was reassembled completely to Hellenistic tastes, and the law codes and forms of administration took on a sharply Hellenistic edge.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Of course, by the time of Alexander and Cleopatra, respectively, they weren't REALLY and FULLY their own cultures anymore - Hellenization hit Macedon big time before Philip II was even born, to the point some doubt that he, his son and heir, or Alexander's generals, including those who became the Diadochi, even spoke the nearly unattested Ancient Macedonian language, and Hellenization of Egypt through the Ptolemaic line was very prevalent in Egypt by Cleopatra's time (many even doubt she was fluent in the native Ancient Coptic language of Pharaonic Egypt), and the upper elite class was all Greek, the religious pantheon was reassembled completely to Hellenistic tastes, and the law codes and forms of administration took on a sharply Hellenistic edge.

Doctor Borza, my old professor of all things Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Greek, and Macedonian, used to argue that the Hellenization of Macedon started about 150 years before Alexander, when his ancestor Alexander I connived his way into the Olympic Games by arguing a dubious Greek Ancestry for the entire Macedonian Dynasty! By Phillip's time, let alone Alexander's, Macedonia's policies, politics, diplomacy and culture were thoroughly influenced by Greece and events in Greece, with the major difference that Macedonia in its internal culture and social structure was much closer to the Pre-Classical Greeks than any of the contemporary Greeks were or had been for at least 2 centuries.

You almost have to put "Greek" in quotes when speaking about the Hellenistic period of Alexander and his successors down to Kleopatra, though, because the 'original' Greek culture, religion, etc, had been so heavily overlain and influenced by Non-Greek factors. Just the traditional Greek view of all non-Greek speakers as automatically "barbarians" had taken a huge hit when Alexander and his Successors discovered that you couldn't administer large empires in the Middle East without lots of educated, literate, bureaucratically-experienced 'barbarians'. Greeks simply did not have the administrative experience or knowledge.
The resulting 'fusion' of Greek and non-Greek philosophies, cultures, even religions, really resulted in something very new and not at all like the 'Classical' Greece of Pericles or Leonidas or Gorgo.

This is why, although, yes, we don't need 'another' Greek Leader, I would like to see (Civ VII?) an Alternate Greek Leader from the Hellenistic Era: Antiochus, or Demetrios Poliorcetes, or even Cleo's ancestor Ptolemy Soter. None of them would have the same sort of Cultural, Religious, or Military Uniques you would expect from any of the 'Classical' Greek Pre-Alexandrine Leaders . . .

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I also don't complain about Macedon, it is more historically appropriate for Alexander to lead his true civilization, and in the game of empires and historical leaders, his inclusion is fully expected. My only complaint is that this was maybe included too early, I don't think we needed another Greek before two expansions, but I have no problems with the inclusion of Macedon itself. Sometimes I think people complain too much.

I didn't mind, especially since he came with Persia and one of my other favorite leaders which is Cyrus another "Great". Thematically it worked out well.

 

[Zaarin]

I like Hittites but they would be close to Ottoman and Georgia.

I think that time gap of 2,000 years is kind of significant.

The related Luwians and Hurrians

Uh...the Luwians and Hurrians were not related. The Hurrians spoke the Hurrian language and were ruled over by an Indo-Aryan superstrate in the region of Lake Van; the Luwians spoke the Indo-European Anatolian language of the same name in Anatolia.

They're "Iranic" people, not specifically "Iranians."

No, the preferred term in linguistics and ethnography is Iranian. The term in this context does not mean "a citizen of Iran"; it means "a speaker of an Iranian language," which includes Persians, Dari, Balochis, Kurds, Pashtuns, Ossetians, etc. (and historically Medes, Scythians, Sogdians, and so forth).

Sorry, modern anthropologists/archeologists may consider them 'Iranic' or 'Iranian', but their contemporaries the Persians Did Not.

TBH it's not until the Middle Ages that scholars began noticing the similarities between languages (I believe it started with Jewish scholars noting that Arabic sounds kind of like Hebrew). But even the Persians were aware that their identity was not restricted to people from Pars, otherwise the Parthian-speaking Arsacids would not be considered a Persian dynasty. Also NB that Zoroastrian and Persian identity have always been linked, but the Avesta was written in modern day Afghanistan. The Greeks also noted that the language of the Sogdians sounded like Persian, but I'd take that with a grain of salt--I've noticed that the Greeks thought most "barbarians" sounded like Persian, including Hebrew, which sounds absolutely nothing like any variety of Persian.

Hellenization of Egypt through the Ptolemaic line was very prevalent in Egypt by Cleopatra's time (many even doubt she was fluent in the native Ancient Coptic language of Pharaonic Egypt), and the upper elite class was all Greek, the religious pantheon was reassembled completely to Hellenistic tastes, and the law codes and forms of administration took on a sharply Hellenistic edge.

Not to argue with your broader point (Cleopatra was absolutely 100% Hellenized Macedonian who adopted an Egyptianized identity for political reasons), but do you have a basis for the claim that she was not fluent in Coptic? It was obviously not her first language, but I've never heard her status as a polyglot (I recall reading that she spoke five languages--but what the other two aside from Greek, Coptic, and Latin were I don't know--probably Aramaic for one) contested.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

think that time gap of 2,000 years is kind of significant.

Pretty sure he meant geographically speaking, which indeed would be correct.
The whole Eastern Mediterranean/Middle East could easily be filled up with plenty of Civs regardless of geographical location, as we have several, but I believe we might only get one more if we only get one expansion.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

TBH it's not until the Middle Ages that scholars began noticing the similarities between languages (I believe it started with Jewish scholars noting that Arabic sounds kind of like Hebrew). But even the Persians were aware that their identity was not restricted to people from Pars, otherwise the Parthian-speaking Arsacids would not be considered a Persian dynasty. Also NB that Zoroastrian and Persian identity have always been linked, but the Avesta was written in modern day Afghanistan. The Greeks also noted that the language of the Sogdians sounded like Persian, but I'd take that with a grain of salt--I've noticed that the Greeks thought most "barbarians" sounded like Persian, including Hebrew, which sounds absolutely nothing like any variety of Persian.

I was commenting from the standpoint of the Persian 'order of battle' listing all the contingents of the Persian Army at Gaugamela, which was one of the basic documents for my thesis 60 years ago or so. It was actually an order of march and deployment, but what's important is that it carefully names all the different units in the front line of the army and (in most cases) their commanders, and their nationalities, and it was translated into Greek (and therefore made it into the historical record) by Aristoboulos, a 'Persian Affairs Expert" accompanying Alexander. Aristoboulos was fluent in Persian and possibly other 'eastern' languages, acted as both interpreter for Alexander and as a source of information on Persian customs, court procedures, politics, and other 'foreign' questions.
In that document the Persians carefully distinguish between the various Iranian groups: Bactrians, Sakae, Massegetai, and Scythoi and 'native' Persians (specifically, the Persian 'Guard' noble cavalry). From context, the generic 'Scythoi' appears to refer to the western Scyths north of the Black Sea while the specific Sakae, Massegetai, etc, refer to allied forces from what is now the areas of eastern Iran and Afghanistan. I have no doubt that the Persians knew very well that all of them were speaking related languages and had cultural similarities as well, but that was not enough to make them identical: the Persian document is careful to maintain recognition of their different status.
Another point is that the man responsible for billeting and supplying all these groups was the Satrap of Babylon, Mazaeus (Mazavashta), who was an aristocratic Persian who also happened to have a Babylonian wife and was himself multi-lingual, being fluent in at least Court Persian, street Babylonian, and Greek. It is, therefore, very likely that none of the distinctions made in the document were simply formalities, but important to the man who was responsible for feeding, housing, and preparing these groups for combat (and who also commanded some of them in the right wing of the Persian battle line).
Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I'm boiling down 40+ pages in my original thesis here. The point is that the Persians at the time (4th century BCE) recognized distinctions amongst all the Iranian groups that transcended (for them) any similarity or identity of language alone.

 

[Zaarin]

Pretty sure he meant geographically speaking, which indeed would be correct.

Of course, but I personally find that argument incredibly weak. The Hittites had absolutely nothing to do with the Ottomans or Georgia. Georgia in particularly is neither geographically nor culturally nor mechanically close to the Hittites, but even the Ottomans only happened to occupy the same physical space...1,500 years later. In a game where the Ottomans, two Greeks, Macedon, Hungary, Poland, and Phoenicia all start practically on top of each other, I really don't see the relevance that Hattusa and Istanbul are close neighbors in game terms.

The whole Eastern Mediterranean/Middle East could easily be filled up with plenty of Civs regardless of geographical location, as we have several, but I believe we might only get one more if we only get one expansion.

Yes, unfortunately the current devs seem to undervalue the Ancient Near East.

The point is that the Persians at the time (4th century BCE) recognized distinctions amongst all the Iranian groups that transcended (for them) any similarity or identity of language alone.

Sure, I understand that. My basic point was that ancient peoples tended not to recognize ethnic relationships, even very close ones (e.g., the Hebrews considered themselves to be from a completely distinct lineage from the neighboring Canaanites despite the fact they spoke the same language, nor were they particularly conscious of being more closely related to the Babylonians or Assyrians than they were the Persians or Hittites--although we can see that they considered the Arabs, i.e. "Ishmaelites," distant cousins). Part of the reason we're still arguing about whether the Macedonians were Greeks or Para-Greeks or not-Greeks is because the Greeks Proper didn't consider them Greek, but what little linguistic evidence we have pretty strongly suggests they were very closely related to the Greeks. So I take the distinctions made by ancient authorities with a little caution--not because they didn't exist (closely related peoples can be very different) but because they don't usually see or acknowledge "big picture" relationships.

 

[Patine]

Not to argue with your broader point (Cleopatra was absolutely 100% Hellenized Macedonian who adopted an Egyptianized identity for political reasons), but do you have a basis for the claim that she was not fluent in Coptic? It was obviously not her first language, but I've never heard her status as a polyglot (I recall reading that she spoke five languages--but what the other two aside from Greek, Coptic, and Latin were I don't know--probably Aramaic for one) contested.

As I recall, my source (which I believe was a hardcopy book in a library - the kiddies won't accept that, nowadays ) cast doubt, not that she had learned it or spoke it enough for court and temple ceremony, but she was actually FLUENT in it, basically. And, it was a casting of doubt, not an firm theory flat-out.

 

[Zaarin]

As I recall, my source (which I believe was a hardcopy book in a library - the kiddies won't accept that, nowadays ) cast doubt, not that she had learned it or spoke it enough for court and temple ceremony, but she was actually FLUENT in it, basically. And, it was a casting of doubt, not an firm theory flat-out.

It's very possible. Her "Egyptian" identity is definitely something she adopted as an adult for political gain, not something she was raised with or practiced behind closed doors. I'd still be curious what the reasoning behind that was, though.

 

[Patine]

It's very possible. Her "Egyptian" identity is definitely something she adopted as an adult for political gain, not something she was raised with or practiced behind closed doors. I'd still be curious what the reasoning behind that was, though.

It was a while ago, but it apparently tied to a belief that certain decrees, edicts, and missives that required more involved linguistic knowledge were "obviously scripted," by some official or functionary, because they weren't in the same "style" as her court and temple rote pronouncements and her Latin letters to Mark Antony Julius Caesar. Like I said, it was a while ago I read this. The fact that this linguist was basing all of these documents off copies of copies of copies and translations of translations and obviously didn't have access to the original documents in question, but still confident in his work, but also be taken into account, to be fair. He was going by "writing style," apparently, as he had also worked as a forensic specialist who discerned criminals (like serial killers and organized crime bosses) from posers and imposters by their writing style.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It was a while ago, but it apparently tied to a belief that certain decrees, edicts, and missives that required more involved linguistic knowledge were "obviously scripted," by some official or functionary, because they weren't in the same "style" as her court and temple rote pronouncements and her Latin letters to Mark Antony Julius Caesar. Like I said, it was a while ago I read this. The fact that this linguist was basing all of these documents off copies of copies of copies and translations of translations and obviously didn't have access to the original documents in question, but still confident in his work, but also be taken into account, to be fair. He was going by "writing style," apparently, as he had also worked as a forensic specialist who discerned criminals (like serial killers and organized crime bosses) from posers and imposters by their writing style.

Interesting theory. The 'original' sources on Cleopatra are Cicero (who had met her personally in Rome), Plutarch, and Galen. Galen gives her as a source for some medicinal and cosmetic formulae, and indicates only that he got the material from "her writings" - but none of the originals, presumably in Koine Greek, have survived so we only have his 'paraphrasing' of them. Cicero, unfortunately, mostly repeats the 'official line' of Roman propaganda about her, so most of what he writes about her has to be taken cum grano salus. Plutarch doesn't say anything about her fluency, just that she was the first Ptolemaic ruler to actually learn to 'speak Egyptian', that she learned it as an adult, and that she could also 'speak' Arabic, Aramaic, Syrian (Syriac?), Median, Parthian, Latin, Ethiopian, and her 'native' Koine Greek.
There is also one papyrus scroll, a tax exemption notice from Cleopatra's reign which is signed by an official 'for the queen' but which also has a line below the signature added (in Greek) saying "make it happen" which is generally identified as being in Cleopatra's own handwriting (it was practice in Ptolemaic Egypt to 'countersign' documents to guard against forgeries and lots of papyrus documents from the Ptolemaic period have survived, so we have numerous examples). How fluent or literate she was in all the other languages she was credited with by Plutarch is, of course, another thing entirely.

My basic point was that ancient peoples tended not to recognize ethnic relationships, even very close ones (e.g., the Hebrews considered themselves to be from a completely distinct lineage from the neighboring Canaanites despite the fact they spoke the same language, nor were they particularly conscious of being more closely related to the Babylonians or Assyrians than they were the Persians or Hittites--although we can see that they considered the Arabs, i.e. "Ishmaelites," distant cousins). Part of the reason we're still arguing about whether the Macedonians were Greeks or Para-Greeks or not-Greeks is because the Greeks Proper didn't consider them Greek, but what little linguistic evidence we have pretty strongly suggests they were very closely related to the Greeks. So I take the distinctions made by ancient authorities with a little caution--not because they didn't exist (closely related peoples can be very different) but because they don't usually see or acknowledge "big picture" relationships.

We're arguing past each other, then, because I wasn't commenting about Ethnicity at all, simply the recognition by the ancient contemporaries of a host of 'distinctions' in behavior, culture, language, technology or customs that might be ephemeral or fundamental but which were recognizable and acted upon by them to differentiate themselves from others and others from each other.
Ethnicity is getting tricky, because the increasing ability to extract and analyze DNA from ancient skeletons is starting to throw the 'traditional' Ethnic Studies conclusions out the window. My understanding is that new techniques allow analysis of microscopic amounts taken from very dense bones in addition to teeth, hair, etc. and that they have now obtained specimens from over 4000 ancient skeletal remains. Among other things, they found that the same ethnic group has been living in parts of England since Neolithic times, despite the invasions by Celts, Romans, Germans, Danes and Normans. All the newcomers simply settled nearby, intermarried, but never supplanted the original population. On the other hand, of course, the linguistic and cultural 'artifacts' of that population changed dramatically over the centuries, so there are likely to be more surprising distinctions discovered between cultural/linguistic Ethnicity and Biological Ethnicity all over the world, because, it seems, they do not necessarily coincide at all.

 

[Zaarin]

Syrian (Syriac?)

Fun. I'm in the laborious early process of learning Syriac right now.

Median

Did Median still exist in Cleopatra's time? Even in the Old Persian period it's completely unattested aside from some names and loanwords in Old Persian...

so there are likely to be more surprising distinctions discovered between cultural/linguistic Ethnicity and Biological Ethnicity all over the world, because, it seems, they do not necessarily coincide at all.

Yes. A few decades ago it was a rule of thumb to assume that cultural and linguistic changes happened almost always because of invasions and population replacement (perhaps using the New World as a model?), but modern genetic studies have shown that reality is a lot more messy (and population replacements are pretty rare).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Did Median still exist in Cleopatra's time? Even in the Old Persian period it's completely unattested aside from some names and loanwords in Old Persian...

According to Strabo, who wrote about 20 years either side of year 0 (24 BCE to 24 CE, roughly) ". . . some parts of Persia, Media north of Bactria and Sogdiana . . . these nations speak nearly the same language. . ." (J. R. R. Hamilton's translation). I consider Strabo something of an 'eye witness', since he traveled in the areas he wrote about, rather than relying on 'second hand' reports. The quoted passage means to me that in Cleopatra's time 'Median' was recognized as related to the other Iranian languages but not identical. On the other hand, whether it was really a separate language by then or 'merely' a dialect of Old Persian we just cannot tell, since virtually nothing of Median has survived in separate form - as you mentioned, all we have are some 'loan words' in Persian, no grammar and no real vocabulary.

Yes. A few decades ago it was a rule of thumb to assume that cultural and linguistic changes happened almost always because of invasions and population replacement (perhaps using the New World as a model?), but modern genetic studies have shown that reality is a lot more messy (and population replacements are pretty rare).

I took a course in physical archeology from one of the Originals in the field: Dr. Matson had been part of the major archeological digs in the Middle East in the 1930s (he was Professor Emeritus by the time I took classes from him) and was one of the earliest experts on Carbon 14 dating techniques applied to archeology. He always emphasized that the only evidence we had for culture or race of an ancient peoples were the artifacts they left behind and the interpretation that we at a distance of 3000 - 5000 years attached to those artifacts. Now we don't have to assume that pottery decorated the same way means the same people - always a dubious conclusion - we can actually specify the genetics of the individuals, something not even imagined 50+ years ago.

 

[Zaarin]

According to Strabo, who wrote about 20 years either side of year 0 (24 BCE to 24 CE, roughly) ". . . some parts of Persia, Media north of Bactria and Sogdiana . . . these nations speak nearly the same language. . ." (J. R. R. Hamilton's translation). I consider Strabo something of an 'eye witness', since he traveled in the areas he wrote about, rather than relying on 'second hand' reports. The quoted passage means to me that in Cleopatra's time 'Median' was recognized as related to the other Iranian languages but not identical. On the other hand, whether it was really a separate language by then or 'merely' a dialect of Old Persian we just cannot tell, since virtually nothing of Median has survived in separate form - as you mentioned, all we have are some 'loan words' in Persian, no grammar and no real vocabulary.

Hmm. I would guess what is meant by that then is "the Middle Persian language of Media" rather than "the Old Persian language of the Medes who co-founded the Achaemenid Empire." "North of Bactria and Sogdiana" the language could well be an Eastern Iranian cousin of Bactrian and Sogdian, though if it was recognized as being related to Middle Persian and Parthian then that would imply a Northwest Persian language...

 

[Krajzen]

What are you talking about and how does it relate to thread

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

What are you talking about and how does it relate to thread

My sincere apologies: we appear to have drifted 'way Off Topic.

- Unless, of course, we want to try to include Media, Sogdiana, and several of the Diadochi kingdoms besides Ptolemaic Egypt in the game. Only a good idea if we had Near-Infinite slots for new Civs . . .

 

[Zaarin]

- Unless, of course, we want to try to include Media, Sogdiana, and several of the Diadochi kingdoms besides Ptolemaic Egypt in the game. Only a good idea if we had Near-Infinite slots for new Civs . . .

Actually I'm a long-time proponent of including Sogdiana, which would make an excellent Silk Road/Central Asian civ.

What are you talking about and how does it relate to thread

I think discussing Civ6's lack of Ancient Near Eastern civs is very relevant...