Scythians as presented in Civilization 6

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

1. Do they really have concepts of capitol city? Which "Pokrovka" of the real life did Firaxis uses?
2. Were they the ancestors of modern Ukranians as well as Kazhakstanian?
3. Meanings of stag head emblem that is a racial symbol in this game
4. Were mythical Amazons of the Greek mythology actually Scythians? Were 'Thermiscyra' as presented in both Greek mythology and DC actually a Scythian city?
5. Did they shown up in what's now China as well? Since they're ancient race, What is the name the (more civilized) Han Chinese call them? (And logograms the Chinese wrote to represent Scythians) Did they still exists in the days of Qin Shi Huangdi? Were The Great Wall constructed to deal with them too?
6. If Cossacks originated from runaway serves and slaves of various empires around steppes where Europe and Asia meets and not a name of any tribe (There were Russians, Turks, and maybe other Crimean peoples). Were cossacks also originated from Scythians too?

 

[WorkAccount963]

I think of the them as dothraki from Game of Thrones. Probably can't make a nomadic people work in the structure of Civ though. It would be cool if they were re-worked to feel more unique as GS brought in much more diverse mechanics to the civs vs "regular civ with bonus to ancient horses." Wouldn't be surprised if there are ancient myths created around these people. AFAIK, first and second hand accounts are rare from this region as there isn't an abundance of written records. Even the game's history of Tomyris and Cyrus the Great are not a consensus agreed upon by historians. I believe what is known about Cyrus are from accounts written a few years after his conquest of the Assyrian Empire and nothing has been found written during his lifetime. Pretty much everything that is known is a bit mythical.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

And Cyrus moved north to conquer Scythia? only to lose his head to Tomyris.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

1. Do they really have concepts of capitol city? Which "Pokrovka" of the real life did Firaxis uses?

The Pokrovka they used is simply a modern (Russian) name for a Scythian archeological site. Linguistically, it is impossible that there would be a Scythian town, camp or city with that name. The Scythian 'towns' we do know about are all in Herodotus: Portmei, Roxanaki, Gelonus, and the fortresses of Napit, Palakion and Habei in the Crimea, and Gilea, a religious site that may have not had any actual settlement associated with it.

2. Were they the ancestors of modern Ukranians as well as Kazhakstanian?

Kazakhistani, yes sort of Scythian, somewhat removed by many subsequent overlays of Turkic-speakers who had virtually the same lifestyle and mounted pastoral 'technology' and culture, but modern Ukrainians are genetically Slavs who came down from the forested north, with a dab of Scandinavian ("Rus") mixed in and culturally a large dose of Byzantine Greek.

3. Meanings of stag head emblem that is a racial symbol in this game

Scythian art was heavy with semi-stylized animal motifs. The stag and horse were prominent among them.

4. Were mythical Amazons of the Greek mythology actually Scythians? Were 'Thermiscyra' as presented in both Greek mythology and DC actually a Scythian city?

The Amazon story comes from Herodotus, who lived among the Scythians and Greek colonies bordering 'Scythia' in what is now the Ukraine and Crimea. Everybody thought he was simply spinning a tale until Soviet archeologists unearthed a burial of a Scythian woman who had been buried with over 20 spear or arrow points, armor, horses, saddle, and all the trappings of a mounted warrior. Specifically, Herodotus says that among the Roxolani, a Scythian tribe, the men fought as armored lancers but the women fought as mounted archers, and that the women were not allowed to marry until they proved that they had killed an enemy in battle. Consequently, nobody wanted to fight the Roxolani, because the women would shoot you full of arrows from a safe distance, then close in, cut off a prominent part of your anatomy like your head or your genitals, and take them back as proof of a kill. Nothing sportsmanlike about them at all.

5. Did they shown up in what's now China as well? Since they're ancient race, What is the name the (more civilized) Han Chinese call them? (And logograms the Chinese wrote to represent Scythians) Did they still exists in the days of Qin Shi Huangdi? Were The Great Wall constructed to deal with them too?

The basic horse nomad or pastoral culture and equipment show up from about 800 BCE to 1500 CE in a swath from Mongolia to the southern Ukraine. Everybody on the Eurasian steppe rode horses, herded cattle, hunted and fought with bows and spears. So it didn't matter if they called themselves Cimmerians, Scythians, Hsung-Nu, Huns, Pechenegs, Patzinaks, Turks, Bulgars, Khazars, Uighurs or whatever, they all rode rings around 'civilized' armies and shot them to pieces. On the receiving end of the arrows, they all looked alike and acted alike. Chinese Dynasties directly interacted with, and occasionally married, Hsung-nu, Turks and Uighurs.

6. If Cossacks originated from runaway serves and slaves of various empires around steppes where Europe and Asia meets and not a name of any tribe (There were Russians, Turks, and maybe other Crimean peoples). Were cossacks also originated from Scythians too?

Only distantly. By the time the first Cossack 'Hosts' began to form at Zaporozhe along the lower Dnepr or along the lower Don Rivers, the Scythians had been gone for most 1500 years. But, as stated above, everybody who came after the Scythians pretty much acted the same way on the same terrain, so culturally and technologically the Cossacks were 'descendants' of the Scythians.
Parenthetically, the Civ V and Civ VI depiction of Cossacks is really, really bad. The games show them as 19th century light cavalry, by which time they were practically indistinguishable from every other light cavalry in Europe - better horsemen than most, but armed and organized the same way and used the same way in combat. In their prime in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Cossacks were notorious as light Lancers who could outrun anybody they couldn't cut up and, by reputation that they made the most of, the best pillagers to ever ride a horse. The only thing the games get right is their effectiveness at massacring the wounded and stragglers.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It is tough to make a nomadic horse coalition into a Civ, but in my opinion they did it better this time around than the Huns. Also it's nice to fill in a Central Asian geographical gap that is somewhat lacking with potential civs.

At least with Scythia you can somewhat make a decent city-list with names of possible "settlements." And I believe the "Pokrovka" used is the one in southern Russia, which is close to the border of Kazakhstan, where they seemed to have found a burial mound full of women warriors. This might explain why they chose that particular capital for her.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The Pokrovka they used is simply a modern (Russian) name for a Scythian archeological site. Linguistically, it is impossible that there would be a Scythian town, camp or city with that name. The Scythian 'towns' we do know about are all in Herodotus: Portmei, Roxanaki, Gelonus, and the fortresses of Napit, Palakion and Habei in the Crimea, and Glee, a religious site that may have not had any actual settlement associated with it.



Kazakhistani, yes sort of Scythian, somewhat removed by many subsequent overlays of Turkic-speakers who had virtually the same lifestyle and mounted pastoral 'technology' and culture, but modern Ukrainians are genetically Slavs who came down from the forested north, with a dab of Scandinavian ("Rus") mixed in and culturally a large dose of Byzantine Greek.

What language does Tomyris speaks in game? What are the preferred written languages to describe Scythians since they never develop written language themselves.

The Amazon story comes from Herodotus, who lived among the Scythians and Greek colonies bordering 'Scythia' in what is now the Ukraine and Crimea. Everybody thought he was simply spinning a tale until Soviet archeologists unearthed a burial of a Scythian woman who had been buried with over 20 spear or arrow points, armor, horses, saddle, and all the trappings of a mounted warrior. Specifically, Herodotus says that among the Roxolani, a Scythian tribe, the men fought as armored lancers but the women fought as mounted archers, and that the women were not allowed to marry until they proved that they had killed an enemy in battle. Consequently, nobody wanted to fight the Roxolani, because the women would shoot you full of arrows from a safe distance, then close in, cut off a prominent part of your anatomy like your head or your genitals, and take them back as proof of a kill. Nothing sportsmanlike about them at all.

Did Tsarina Catherine of Russia take Herodotus tale seriously? did she visit Crimea (not sure if that region was already annexed by Russian Empire at that time yet?) to raise 'Amazon' regiments there?

The basic horse nomad or pastoral culture and equipment show up from about 800 BCE to 1500 CE in a swath from Mongolia to the southern Ukraine. Everybody on the Eurasian steppe rode horses, herded cattle, hunted and fought with bows and spears. So it didn't matter if they called themselves Cimmerians, Scythians, Hsung-Nu, Huns, Pechenegs, Patzinaks, Turks, Bulgars, Khazars, Uighurs or whatever, they all rode rings around 'civilized' armies and shot them to pieces. On the receiving end of the arrows, they all looked alike and acted alike. Chinese Dynasties directly interacted with, and occasionally married, Hsung-nu, Turks and Uighurs.

From time to time? Aparts of Yuan and Qing, which era did the descendants of Eurasian steppe peoples ruled over Han peoples?

Only distantly. By the time the first Cossack 'Hosts' began to form at Zaporozhe along the lower Dnepr or along the lower Don Rivers, the Scythians had been gone for most 1500 years. But, as stated above, everybody who came after the Scythians pretty much acted the same way on the same terrain, so culturally and technologically the Cossacks were 'descendants' of the Scythians.
Parenthetically, the Civ V and Civ VI depiction of Cossacks is really, really bad. The games show them as 19th century light cavalry, by which time they were practically indistinguishable from every other light cavalry in Europe - better horsemen than most, but armed and organized the same way and used the same way in combat. In their prime in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Cossacks were notorious as light Lancers who could outrun anybody they couldn't cut up and, by reputation that they made the most of, the best pillagers to ever ride a horse. The only thing the games get right is their effectiveness at massacring the wounded and stragglers.

I've made another discussions about Ukraine potentials as a playable civ in Civ6 (Mod potentials or Firaxis officials) and i've even proposed that their UU is another (And more unique) cossacks, i've pick the name Zaporozhians for them. (Since Imperial Russian Cossacks were 'upgraded' versions).

 

[Victoria]

Specifically, Herodotus says that among the Roxolani, a Scythian tribe,

Sarmatian

 

[Troy Bruckner]

How do the Tartars fit into all of this?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Sarmatian

On a different level: "Sarmatai" or Sarmatians were a Confederation covering, by about 100 - 400 CE, the area from the Vistula to the Black Sea, Crimea to the Don River, and according to Herodotus in his day (about 300 BCE) were 'east of the Tanais' (the Don River). One of their four main 'tribes' were the Roxolani. (The others were the Iazyges, Aorsi and Siraces, according to Strabo). That means the in-game 'Scythians' with a 'capital' at Prokrovka or Prokhorkha were in fact in the territory of the Sarmatians. Since the term Sarmatians seems to be derived from an Indo-Iranian word meaning 'Ruled by Women' (Possibly meaning they were matriarchal, but probably only meaning that women had a much more public role than in other societies, including the Greeks) this is one the game actually got pretty close to right with Tomyris.

Basically, the Scythians and Sarmatians started out almost indistinguishable in many respects: pastoral horse archers, kurgan builders, shared the same pottery style (from the 'Andronovo' culture that preceded them) and Iranian language family. Herodotus already says the Sarmatians were also armored lancers, and by the Imperial Roman times (after about 100 CE) the Roman Army had several auxiliary units of 'Equites Sarmatii' that were all heavily-armored lancers, using a lance called a 'kontos' or Greek for 'barge pole', an indication of just how heavy it was (the same word was used for the lance carried by Alexander's Hetairoi, or Companion Cavalry 400 years earlier)

The Sarmatians are considered to have completely 'replaced' the Scythians by about 200 BCE in what is now the Ukraine and southern Russia, but I doubt that's entirely correct: the two groups were so close in so many aspects of language, culture, combat equipment and technology that I suspect people considering themselves or their Kurgan-interred ancestors 'Scythian' were still riding around the Ukraine for a long, long time after that.

How do the Tartars fit into all of this?

The Tartars or Tatars were a Turkic group that arrived in the area between the Crimea and the Don in about the Renaissance Era - over 1000 years after the Sarmatians were there in strength. They spoke a different language from a different linguistic 'family'. BUT they are real successors, because both the Scythians and Sarmatians moved west from an area south of the Urals (exactly where is another Hot Topic of debate, but the new available of ancient DNA evidence may decide it Soon) or east of there, and so did, later, the Huns, White Sheep Turks, Black Sheep Turks, Seljuk Turks, Ottoman Turks, Tartars, etc.

The Russians later tended to call everything pastoral south of the forest edge (about 200 kilometers south of Moscow) and east of the Dnepr River "Tatar" or 'Tartar', as in Tartar Wall, Tartar Ditch, Tartar Mound - names that appear all over the (Russian) maps. Most of them are only slightly correct, because most of the 'mounds' were, of course, Kurgans, some dating back to the Scythians or Sarmatians, and the Scythians had long preceded the Tartars in fortifying places in the Crimea later called 'Tartar' constructions.

 

[Depravo]

It's well past time Civ added a CENTRAL Asian civ. Perhaps the Uighur, Gokturks, maybe Soghd.

I've modded the unsatisfactory Scythian city list to one based on various mostly Khazar and Bulgar sites for which names are attested. It's far from perfect - apart from the time gap most of these names couldn't possibly have been in use when the Scyths were around - but IMO a city list based on the modern names of dig sites is a bit like if the Roman capital was Housesteads Gift Shop.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

On a different level: "Sarmatai" or Sarmatians were a Confederation covering, by about 100 - 400 CE, the area from the Vistula to the Black Sea, Crimea to the Don River, and according to Herodotus in his day (about 300 BCE) were 'east of the Tanais' (the Don River). One of their four main 'tribes' were the Roxolani. (The others were the Iazyges, Aorsi and Siraces, according to Strabo). That means the in-game 'Scythians' with a 'capital' at Prokrovka or Prokhorkha were in fact in the territory of the Sarmatians. Since the term Sarmatians seems to be derived from an Indo-Iranian word meaning 'Ruled by Women' (Possibly meaning they were matriarchal, but probably only meaning that women had a much more public role than in other societies, including the Greeks) this is one the game actually got pretty close to right with Tomyris.

Basically, the Scythians and Sarmatians started out almost indistinguishable in many respects: pastoral horse archers, kurgan builders, shared the same pottery style (from the 'Andronovo' culture that preceded them) and Iranian language family. Herodotus already says the Sarmatians were also armored lancers, and by the Imperial Roman times (after about 100 CE) the Roman Army had several auxiliary units of 'Equites Sarmatii' that were all heavily-armored lancers, using a lance called a 'kontos' or Greek for 'barge pole', an indication of just how heavy it was (the same word was used for the lance carried by Alexander's Hetairoi, or Companion Cavalry 400 years earlier)

The Sarmatians are considered to have completely 'replaced' the Scythians by about 200 BCE in what is now the Ukraine and southern Russia, but I doubt that's entirely correct: the two groups were so close in so many aspects of language, culture, combat equipment and technology that I suspect people considering themselves or their Kurgan-interred ancestors 'Scythian' were still riding around the Ukraine for a long, long time after that.



The Tartars or Tatars were a Turkic group that arrived in the area between the Crimea and the Don in about the Renaissance Era - over 1000 years after the Sarmatians were there in strength. They spoke a different language from a different linguistic 'family'. BUT they are real successors, because both the Scythians and Sarmatians moved west from an area south of the Urals (exactly where is another Hot Topic of debate, but the new available of ancient DNA evidence may decide it Soon) or east of there, and so did, later, the Huns, White Sheep Turks, Black Sheep Turks, Seljuk Turks, Ottoman Turks, Tartars, etc.

The Russians later tended to call everything pastoral south of the forest edge (about 200 kilometers south of Moscow) and east of the Dnepr River "Tatar" or 'Tartar', as in Tartar Wall, Tartar Ditch, Tartar Mound - names that appear all over the (Russian) maps. Most of them are only slightly correct, because most of the 'mounds' were, of course, Kurgans, some dating back to the Scythians or Sarmatians, and the Scythians had long preceded the Tartars in fortifying places in the Crimea later called 'Tartar' constructions.

If Scythians have survived and progressed into Middle ages and Renaissance, what shall be their best representations? Mediterranean? Russian? or Middle Easterm?
And about their musketmen choice, is it okay to surmise that they dressed up as Janissary too?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If Scythians have survived and progressed into Middle ages and Renaissance, what shall be their best representations? Mediterranean? Russian? or Middle Easterm?
And about their musketmen choice, is it okay to surmise that they dressed up as Janissary too?

The first characteristic of all the nomad/pastoral groups of Eurasia is that none of them were permanent. Every single one of them was displaced by another pastoral group, or conquered a settled group and mingled with them, or, at the end of the Renaissance, were conquered by the settled groups around them that had adopted gunpowder weapons. Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no chance that 'Scythians' are going to last as Scythians for the extra 1500 years or so required to get to the Renaissance.

On the other hand, ALL the pastoral nomads of Eurasia were extremely similar in their technology and elements of their culture. They spoke different languages from different language groups (Iranian, Turkic, Altaic, etc) but they all rode horses, herded and protected their cattle, hunted from horseback, and used very nearly identical composite bows, spears, javelins, and occasionally heavy lances, and wore very similar scale or 'lamellar' metal/bone/horn armor. A Scythian might not be able to talk to Bashkir or a Great Horde Tatar, but they would recognize each other and know pretty much what to expect from each other's behavior in trade and war.

Therefore, we can safely assume that Scythians' that did last an 'extra' 1500 years would look a lot like Timurids or Mongols. IF they had conquered a whole bunch of cities and city-dwellers their musket men might look like Janisseries, but it's more likely they would look like Dismounted Scythians: felt hats or caps, brightly-colored tunics and trousers, cartridge boxes or bandoliers hung about them on leather straps and their musket supplemented by a short curved sword and maybe even a 'target' small round shield slung across their back. Whether they would adopt volley fire and linear firepower tactics would depend on what Outside Influences they had - like the Mongols adopting armored lancers to supplement their horse archery from contact with the Jurchen or (probably) the Sassanid Persian armored lancers influencing the Sarmatians.

 

[The Kingmaker]

My understanding is that they have Tomyris speaking Ossetian in game.

That’s not a language she would have spoken, but it’s (marginally) better than Attila’s broken Chuvash in Civ5.

 

[tat501]

1. Do they really have concepts of capitol city? Which "Pokrovka" of the real life did Firaxis uses?
2. Were they the ancestors of modern Ukranians as well as Kazhakstanian?
3. Meanings of stag head emblem that is a racial symbol in this game
4. Were mythical Amazons of the Greek mythology actually Scythians? Were 'Thermiscyra' as presented in both Greek mythology and DC actually a Scythian city?
5. Did they shown up in what's now China as well? Since they're ancient race, What is the name the (more civilized) Han Chinese call them? (And logograms the Chinese wrote to represent Scythians) Did they still exists in the days of Qin Shi Huangdi? Were The Great Wall constructed to deal with them too?
6. If Cossacks originated from runaway serves and slaves of various empires around steppes where Europe and Asia meets and not a name of any tribe (There were Russians, Turks, and maybe other Crimean peoples). Were cossacks also originated from Scythians too?

Should be barbarians really. Thats basically what they are as represented in game...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Should be barbarians really. Thats basically what they are as represented in game...

They are less barbaric than the Huns who they seemed to have replaced in this game. But yes they can be considered less "civilized" than about any other Civ.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

They are less barbaric than the Huns who they seemed to have replaced in this game. But yes they can be considered less "civilized" than about any other Civ.

Actually, they may be about the same in terms of being 'civilized' - i.e., building cities. Herodotus lists about 3 - 4 'Scythian Cities' by name (one a religious site that may not have had much actual permanent population) and China is now applying for a 'Hunnic City' 'way out in western China to be a UNESCO Heritage Site. Mind you, it was built by the Huns who did not move west with Attila's ancestors, but still, it's a 100% increase over pure Hun cities known before.

The whole discussion simply points up how badly the classic Civ Straitjacket of Civ = City is as a model for most Civilizations in 4000 BCE, the nominal 'start date' for the game. Heck, in 4000 BCE the only 'Civs' that are building cities are Egypt and Sumer: China and Harappa/India's first cities are 1500 years or so in the future. Also, for about the first 2000 years or more of the 'game time', no 'Civ' was more than a City State, because the political/administrative mechanisms for governing more than one city didn't exist yet.

Of all the things discussed/released about the new 4X historical game Humankind, the most interesting to me so far is that all the Civs start as nomadic/pastoral groups in the first Era of the game. I will be very, very interested in seeing how they make it work, because Civ has needed a good Non-City mechanism that provides for Technical (and now Social/Civic) progression and Unit Building before a city is founded. I was hoping Kupe's 'Sea Nomad' start in GS would be a step in that direction, but it's only a baby step: the longer the Maori stay 'nomadic', the further they fall behind.
The game desperately needs something better.

 

[Alexadamz]

Actually, they may be about the same in terms of being 'civilized' - i.e., building cities. Herodotus lists about 3 - 4 'Scythian Cities' by name (one a religious site that may not have had much actual permanent population) and China is now applying for a 'Hunnic City' 'way out in western China to be a UNESCO Heritage Site. Mind you, it was built by the Huns who did not move west with Attila's ancestors, but still, it's a 100% increase over pure Hun cities known before.

The whole discussion simply points up how badly the classic Civ Straitjacket of Civ = City is as a model for most Civilizations in 4000 BCE, the nominal 'start date' for the game. Heck, in 4000 BCE the only 'Civs' that are building cities are Egypt and Sumer: China and Harappa/India's first cities are 1500 years or so in the future. Also, for about the first 2000 years or more of the 'game time', no 'Civ' was more than a City State, because the political/administrative mechanisms for governing more than one city didn't exist yet.

Of all the things discussed/released about the new 4X historical game Humankind, the most interesting to me so far is that all the Civs start as nomadic/pastoral groups in the first Era of the game. I will be very, very interested in seeing how they make it work, because Civ has needed a good Non-City mechanism that provides for Technical (and now Social/Civic) progression and Unit Building before a city is founded. I was hoping Kupe's 'Sea Nomad' start in GS would be a step in that direction, but it's only a baby step: the longer the Maori stay 'nomadic', the further they fall behind.
The game desperately needs something better.

For real, Civ games should start at 2000 BC, and not 4000 BC. Ancient era would last then from 2000 BC to 600 or so BC. Game pace would be more on par with real history - it always bothers me to get to medieval BC, or Renaissance before 1000 AD.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

For real, Civ games should start at 2000 BC, and not 4000 BC. Ancient era would last then from 2000 BC to 600 or so BC. Game pace would be more on par with real history - it always bothers me to get to medieval BC, or Renaissance before 1000 AD.

This would certainly be a change from all the people and Mods that have hypothesized an Earlier Start "Prehistoric Civ" and the like.
No matter when the game nominally starts, it will be inaccurate for every single Civ to start by building a City. For most, it is ridiculously inaccurate to start building a city in 4000 BCE, but since there were 'cities' (most of them about the size of a modern Village) up to another Era's worth of time prior to 4000 BCE in very select parts of the globe, 4000 can be seen as a compromise, just one that is really, really arbitrary.

As stated above, what I'm really looking for is a valid and playable Nomadic Start to Civs, so that Cultural and Technological/Military and even Religious 'Progress' can be made before settling down. That would require a major revision in Basic Civ Games, though, which is why I'm interested to see how Humankind, which will supposedly start everybody as Nomads/Pastoralists in the first Era, handles it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Actually, they may be about the same in terms of being 'civilized' - i.e., building cities. Herodotus lists about 3 - 4 'Scythian Cities' by name (one a religious site that may not have had much actual permanent population) and China is now applying for a 'Hunnic City' 'way out in western China to be a UNESCO Heritage Site. Mind you, it was built by the Huns who did not move west with Attila's ancestors, but still, it's a 100% increase over pure Hun cities known before.

Yes, I am under the impression that they may have even ended up with more actual "cities" than the Cree, Mapuche, and possibly even the Maori. :Each one of these cultures had various tribal villages but a good portion of the Cree and the Mapuche were nomadic as well.

 

[Zaarin]

What language does Tomyris speaks in game?

She speaks Ossetian, which is probably the closest living relative of Scythian.

What are the preferred written languages to describe Scythians since they never develop written language themselves.

If you mean what language is most scholarship on the Scythians in, I would guess Russian and Persian (and perhaps German because the Germans wrote about everything in the 19th century ). If you mean what is the closest written language to spoken Scythian, probably Sogdian or Kwharazmian. Not a lot of literature in either, but...

It's well past time Civ added a CENTRAL Asian civ. Perhaps the Uighur, Gokturks, maybe Soghd.

Sogdiana is just begging to be made into a civ. We don't know much about their leaders, but we don't know much about Amanitore, either, yet here we are. Central Asian, Eastern Iranian, the very heart of the Silk Road...

Should be barbarians really. Thats basically what they are as represented in game...

That's why I'd prefer the Parthians, who would fill a similar niche but actually have city names and historically attested leaders.