I'd like to see Armenia. Although Georgia could be interesting (one of my best friends is from Georgia, the Caucasus country), I'd rather see the ancient Armenian kingdom shown. Tigranes or Tiridates could be leaders (I don't remember which one).
Tigranes would be Zoroastrian, while Tiridates would presumably be Christian (probably Eastern Orthodox in game). He was born when Armenia was primarily under Zoroastrianism but converted to Christianity and made it the first kingdom to have Christianity as it's state religion.
Or an Ancient Ossetic Alan civ. Both may be marred, at tthe moment, by Western political views of the Civil Wars in Georgia, though. Just like the culturally-rich and intriguing hsitories of the multi-ethnic Northeast Caucasus would be marred by current and recent politics, too, unforrtunately.
Neither were Persian even if they ruled much of the same lands and peoples.
Well, the Seleucids, definitely (they were a multi-ethnic empire ruled by a Greco-Macedonian elite - the same kind of Greco-Macedonian elite that Cleopatra belong to). The Parthians seem a bit more unclear. They spoke an Iran language, had Iranian naming styles, practiced Zorostrianism (in a different form), observed a fair number of cultural practices typical of Ancient Iranians, and were intermarried thoroughly with the clans of that Achaemenids and Sassanids. They WERE, however, horse-nomads, rather than the more urban and agrarian Archaemenid, Sassanids, Safavids, and Afsharids, but I'm not convinced that, alone, makes them a completely different people.
They came from a different part of Iran and spoke a different language to the Sassanids and Archaemenids and were more Hellenised than their Persian predecessors or successors.
"The Iranian (or Persian) Peoples were a more diverse and poly-cultural notion than many give credit for today. Also, the concept of ethnicities was not nearly so cut and dry in those days as we view it today. How different the Partians and Sassanids saw each other from each other, as opposed to from non-Iranian speakers, and whether or not being from a different part of a massive empire known for political centrality, or being influenced by a culture that had a massive cultural influence, really had them seeing each other as that distinct has been up for debate. (@Zaarin, where are you?)
In that approach I see the Parthians as similar to the Scythians. The Scythians are also a nomadic group of Iranian people, but were distinct enough that they had their own civilization separate from Persia. In fact I wouldn't mind the idea of Parthia "replacing" Scythia as the Classical Era nomadic civ for Civ 7.
Iranian is a much broader term than Persian at least in the Ancient/Classical Era. If you are going to classify any ancient era Iranian people as Persian you'd have to include the Medes and others as well.
I would have no problem with doing that, given Cyrus regarded the Medean Empire as effectively the bedrock foundations he built his own on.
Actually, there's a strong archaeoloigcal and historical current saying Bactrian and Sogdian WEREN'T the languanges of the Hephthalites, themselves, but just those of the scribes they employed.
That is likely but the problem is that the (last time I checked) the exact affiliation of the Huna is disputed, considering the history of the region is presumable that they were already a mix of Iranian+Tocharian+Yeniseian+Turkic peoples in some degree. Also they stablished their empire's core over Bactria turning the already dominant native language into a necessary administrative, diplomatic and economic tool, so Bactrian is justificable to be the in-game language for Khushnavaz.
A failed leader who helped lead his ciivlization to ruin - effectively on par with Nicholas II of Russia and Cixi and China.
Post-Colonial Construct Civ's should be avoided (even possibly *gasp* America and Gandhi's take on Inida)
If one is going to have Charlemagne, just give him his own, separate Frankish civ. His empire didn't really resemble either later Germany or France (or Italy, or the Low Countries) much at all, to be honest.
