Jump to content


Community Historians
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Genava55

  1. Originally, it seems the Iberians were designed to represent all the tribes from the Iberian peninsula. This is why Viriathus is a playable hero of the Iberians. Here an interview from a pioneer of 0AD who sadly passed away: https://play0ad.com/interview-of-tonto_real/
  2. It is your own decision to flee I gave you an article about a genetic study on 90 individuals, from which 44 are pre-ptolemaic. You made the following unintelligent reply: So your assumed knowledge is simply fact-proof, blindness and bad faith. You even said you read it several times. Please leave the forum, this thread was excellent before your arrival and your BS.
  3. You made the following bold claim: I gave you this: You replied this: and this: Simply from those replies, I know you are a fanatical and lying person. You haven't read nor tried to understand the study. You cannot handle contradiction nor listen to opposite arguments. Remove your posts and leave, we absolutely don't care. We are talking about facts, not about imaginary tales you are making up in your mind.
  4. Rofl from the most childish and unintelligent troll I have ever seen here, this is real hypocrisy.
  5. Full genome sequence is not the same thing than genome wide sequencing. In archeology, full genome sequencing is very rare. However, genome wide sequencing is common now. The difference is that with genome wide sequencing you take various markers at various positions of the genome. I don't see this as an issue, this is far enough for a comparison study. Abusir el-Meleq is a great choice I think. It wasn't a unconnected and remote location in Egypt. It had ties with religious and political powers. I don't think the sample is not representative of the average Egyptian, although they are maybe missing local input from foreign population like it could have been in the South or in the North-East. True, they put all the 44 Pre-Ptolemaic samples in the same group and New Kingdom is only a small part. Good point. Because you are clever and not following ideologies. Listening to the claims of some Black nationalists/supremacists, I have the feelings they believe Egypt was mostly black (aka Sub-Saharan) until very recently. Which is at least contradicted by this study. I entirely agree. This labeling is pure ideology. Ancient Egypt is an African civilization that's all. Even if they weren't as dark of skin as modern subsaharan, they weren't white. And they were dark skinned Egyptians as they were also light skinned Egyptians as well since Egypt is a culture, not a race.
  6. You are really unconvincing. Are you sure you want to continue this shameful exhibition of your ignorance and fanaticism?
  7. Still the article says explicitly that Post-Roman Egypt got more gene flows from Sub-Saharan populations and that New Kingdom Egypt, Ptolemaic Egypt and Roman Egypt were less close to the genome of Sub-Saharan populations than Post-Roman Egypt.
  8. Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694
  9. How is it going ? Just wondering if you succeeded.
  10. For any Principate or Dominate factions that could come in the future, it could be considered. Because it is grounded by historical evidences. However, if we want to portray each civ in a multi-ethnic fashion, it wouldn't be grounded by historical evidences. And this is similar to the gender neutral for the whole roster suggestion. No evidences and purely cosmetic.
  11. That the Earth isn't flat is a fact, not an opinion. Your opinion about it can be wrong or right like you said. Another example, a gender biased society during ancient times and across multiple civilizations is a fact. Your opinion about it can be wrong or right in regards to this fact. Portraying differently the society in 0AD is a choice. Your opinion cannot be right or wrong in regards to a fact. It is easy to critizise when you are not trying to formulate a criterion yourself. You are simply saying the game has inaccuracies and you follow by asking for further inaccuracies. This is a logical loop and there is no criterion in your formulation to bound it. When I gave you nonsense examples like what if the Romans had black powder, it sounded illogical to you. But at no point you were able to formulate a criterion to explain why it sounds illogical. That's the issue with your reasoning and your whole demonstration trying to say there is no absolute rule we follow. Your reasoning and arguments are a pandora's box by itself because you can apply it to any suggestions.
  12. People thinking they are moral zealots. You actually proved this is your motivation by implying there is a wrong and a right opinion. In Switzerland we vote regularly and about numerous things (like laws) and we are used to see the majority not following our own personal view. That's all.
  13. White knights too. Rofl. This is so dumb I won't reply.
  14. Accept it yes. I am Swiss, I am used to live in a real democracy. Support it no. But you can come back for this day, if you happen to be still around in a few years.
  15. In the end, it will be the majority that decides and you will be disappointed.
  16. If the Zapotecs are introduced, it is mandatory they could fight each other. It would be stup*d to forbid one faction to face another. Limiting the game like this would result in a backslash from the community. Thats the difference between self-whacking about fantasies and reality. Nobody planned the Britons to face the Kushites, it simply happen because each of them have good reasons to be included in the game on their own.
  17. What if the Romans discovered black powder? What if the Spartans were bodybuilders fighting naked like in 300? What if this is a pandora box full of nonsenses that knows no end? Maybe you are simply lacking any motivation about history, thats why you are missing the point.
  18. Are you familiar with Hanlon's razor? Personally I don't believe easily in conspiracies.
  19. The problem with your position is that you are nitpicking every details unrealistic or not historical to argue for further unrealistic and not historical details. This attitude is really bothering and you are acting in bad faith. Where is the limit in your view? At which point you are considering that historical accuracy should have a weight in decisions if you consider de facto the game as inaccurate? My position is always the same, the game cannot be totally historical or realistic but we can still portray civilisations the more accurate possible to give a better representation to people of what they looked like. For me, an issue like Britons fighting the Kushites isn't bothering me because at least the civs are more accurate on their own. Britons fighting Kushites is a contextual issue in regards to history. While a gender neutral society for each civ is an issue per se. It will dampen down the accurracy of the civilization portrayed on its own. For such cosmetic changes, I don't see the benefit outweighting the cost.
  20. I was just nitpicking, if the elephants lose their crushing damage, I am fine with it. Their role in siege warfare is minor. But I really object against any gender neutral army, this is going in contradiction with ancient cultures and their beliefs.
  • Create New...