Jump to content


Community Historians
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Genava55

  1. 1 hour ago, Saatamia said:

    Es la elección de los desarrolladores, prefirieron a los íberos a los lusitanos. Si quieres, otro hizo una facción lusitana. 

     Here : For a New Faction: Lusitanian.

    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:



    • Like 1
  2. 27 minutes ago, Mentuhotep said:

    @Genava55Attacking me at the very end, knowing I am not going to be making further post is low....

    It is your own decision to flee

    28 minutes ago, Mentuhotep said:

    I will admit I sometimes will not respond to something knowing its redundancy and simply leave it to myself - to explain the nuance of genetic testing in the new kingdom requires the prerequisites which I am not obliged to give (it is assumed knowledge) it is very lengthy...

    I gave you an article about a genetic study on 90 individuals, from which 44 are pre-ptolemaic.

    You made the following unintelligent reply:

    On 20/07/2021 at 12:44 PM, Mentuhotep said:

    Soo you want to send me an article saying they found 3 individuals dated to the roman era of ancient egypt (the very end of ancient Egypt) and compared it to modern Egyptians as a means to disprove the Blackness of ancient Egypt? Surely you can do better mate. 

    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.

    • Like 1
  3.  You made the following bold claim:

    On 20/07/2021 at 12:36 AM, Mentuhotep said:

    But the overwhelming evidence of the "Blackness" of the OLD and Middle Kingdom is soo overwhelming only willfull ignorance can ignore it. 

    I gave you this:

    On 20/07/2021 at 9:32 AM, Genava55 said:

    Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods


    You replied this:

    On 20/07/2021 at 12:44 PM, Mentuhotep said:

    Soo you want to send me an article saying they found 3 individuals dated to the roman era of ancient egypt (the very end of ancient Egypt) and compared it to modern Egyptians as a means to disprove the Blackness of ancient Egypt? Surely you can do better mate. 

    and this:

    On 20/07/2021 at 4:56 PM, Mentuhotep said:

    Yes I  read it, not my first time as well.

    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.

    • Like 1
  4. 2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    None of those 3 older mummies had full genome sequences because the DNA was too degraded.

    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.

    2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    And all the mumies came from a single location 100 km south of the Delta,

    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.

    3 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    The study involved genetic material from only 3 mummies from the New Kingdom, out of 90 mummies. The other 87 were from later periods, post-New Kingdom.

    True, they put all the 44 Pre-Ptolemaic samples in the same group and New Kingdom is only a small part. Good point. 

    2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    I honestly wouldn't have suspected any common ancestry using the proxies they used...

    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.

    3 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    Perhaps this illustration will emphasize the pointlessness of a "black vs white Egypt"-debate, which isn't only completely anachronistic, as those modern categories meant next to nothing to ancient Nile populations, but also because Ancient Egyptian identity wasn't a racial identity in the first place but a cultural, religious, linguistic and political one. Egypt has always been a crossroads between North Africa and the broader Mediterranean, the Levant and the Middle East in general, and Nubia and Subsaharan Africa.

    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.

    • Like 1
  5. 1 minute ago, Mentuhotep said:

    Yes I  read it, not my first time as well. Ancient Egypt is over 3000 years of history and people want to make their claims during THE LAST dynasty? Doesn't make sense, generally we are talking about the pyramid builders, well that report is fixated on a time 2 thousand years later. You will find many times the information that is dazzling in the limelight on mainstream is usually redundant. For example Gebelain man, when there are literal kings just kept on the shelf (but I digress).

    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.

  6. 3 hours ago, Mentuhotep said:

    Soo you want to send me an article saying they found 3 individuals dated to the roman era of ancient egypt (the very end of ancient Egypt) and compared it to modern Egyptians as a means to disprove the Blackness of ancient Egypt? Surely you can do better mate. 

    Read the article. 



    Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies. The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.


    • Like 1
  7. 3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Could there have been black Roman soldiers? Yes, but they would have been rare.

    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.

  8. 7 hours ago, m7600 said:

    There is a wrong and right opinion. If you say that the Earth is flat, you're wrong. If you say that it's round, you're right. Period.

    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. 

    7 hours ago, m7600 said:

    If you say that you have a non-arbitrary criterion for including some historical inaccuracies in 0 AD but not others, you're wrong. Period.

    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.

    • Like 1
  9. 1 minute ago, m7600 said:

    What's a white knight? I don't know what that is. Is that your secret word for "evil supervillain cultural Marxist that wants to brainwash me with politics?"

    People thinking they are moral zealots. You actually proved this is your motivation by implying there is a wrong and a right opinion.

    2 minutes ago, m7600 said:

    Then why did you say that you're Swiss and that you live in a "real democracy" to begin with?

    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. 

  10. 4 minutes ago, m7600 said:

    Majorities can be wrong. That goes for the community of 0 AD as well as for any other community.

    White knights too.

    4 minutes ago, m7600 said:

    And you shouldn't play the Swiss card here either, Switzerland wasn't exactly "democratic" by not choosing sides in WW2, for example.

    Rofl. This is so dumb I won't reply.

  11. Just now, m7600 said:

    And what if, in the next few yeras, the majority decides that they want female fighters and mixed armies of males and females? Then what, you would accept it? Because judging by how society is nowadays, as some else said in this thread, it is very likely that it will happen at some point.

    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.

  12. 11 minutes ago, m7600 said:

    How about Britons fighting Zapotecs, if the latter get introduced to the main game?

    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.

  13. 3 minutes ago, m7600 said:


    How about Britons fighting Zapotecs, if the latter get introduced to the main game? According to your argument, this is fine in custom battles and multiplayer, and it's not a problem because each civ is being "preserved" in the way that they existed historically, the only detail here is that they didn't fight against each other. Now, according to your argument, this is not the same for a mixed army of males and females, because in that case, we are not "preserving" the way that each civ was in reality. But it's the same thing.

    You say something like "yeah, I know that the Britons never fought the Kushites, or the Zapotecs, but what if they had fought, who would win?"

    And I'm saying "Yeah, I know that the Romans didn't have a mixed army, and the Kushites didn't have a mixed army either. But what if they had such an army, how would good would it be in battle?"

    You see? It's the same thing. You're thinking "what if?" for some cases, and I'm thinking "what if?" for other cases.

    And what if there were black Roman soldiers, or white Kushite soldiers? Would this make any difference? No, I don't think so. Should official campaigns include them in that way? No, I don't think so either. Should they be optional in custom battles and multiplayer? Here is where I say "maybe", and you say "no".

    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.

    • Haha 1
  14. 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.

    • Like 1
  15. 7 minutes ago, m7600 said:

    Come on, man. The way that 0 AD depicts the case of elephants is flat out wrong and you know it. Some obscure reference to Sasanian Persians is not what a typical player thinks about when he sees a group of elephants crushing his fortress. For all we know, that player will end up believing that elephants were actually used that way, just as he/she would believe that Romans had a mixed army of males and females if the latter got implemented in the game. It's all historically inaccurate, just concede that some historical inaccuracies are allowed in 0 AD and others are not, and that this decision is purely arbitrary.

    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. 

    • Like 1
  • Create New...