.jpg.4d575d1d330147616620e755ddb4c44a.jpg)
Genava55
-
Posts
2.067 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Posts posted by Genava55
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
In the end, it will be the majority that decides and you will be disappointed.
-
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, m7600 said:
As if there was some sort of world-wide conspiracy of cultural Marxists who want to weaponize every innocent game like 0 AD, right?
Are you familiar with Hanlon's razor? Personally I don't believe easily in conspiracies.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Yekaterina said:
Surely they aren't as strong as actual rams? So we better nerf their siege ability
Clearly not. They weren't used as siege rams but they have a good pulling power.
-
1 minute ago, m7600 said:
And I take issue with elephants attacking stone fortresses with their tusks, but hey! It's all good! It totally makes sense! Except that it doesn't.
There is some sense in the use of elephants against structure. The Sasanian Persians used them in siege operation against structures according to Procopius. I am just saying it is not totally wrong.
5 minutes ago, Lopess said:I really don't understand until today why the two gendered citizen mod was not added, I believe some civs, merchants and priests could also be of both genders.
For non-military units, I agree with the suggestion.
-
I will go further, I want to see blacks, asians and whites in every civs. Because it is FUN. I want to see white nubians among Kushites and black hastati among the Romans.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, m7600 said:
3) For some mysterious reason, it seems like it's not a problem to accept 1) but it is a problem to accept 2)
Because the Britons have fought the Romans and the Gauls, because Greeks and Carthaginians had knowledge of the Britons. Since the Romans, the Gauls, the Greeks and the Carthaginians are in the game, they can fight each other and the same for the other civs. We shouldn't restrict a civ to fight only a couple of others. If it bother you, the game has even illogical things like the Mauryas, a dynasty founded in 322 BC that could fight the Achaemenid empire that fell in 330 BC. The game portrays historical events occurring between 500 BC to 100 AD approximately. So it is mandatory to broke a bit the reality to fit everything in the game. Both geographically and temporally.
QuoteSo here's a simple question: Why? What criteria are you using for accepting 1) but not 2)?
Name one ancient civilization that employed female fighters in an equivalent amount than the male fighters (even nomads didn't).
An egalitarian society in ancient time isn't something credible.
There is no historical motive for this.
There is no gameplay motive for this.
This is purely political.
At least, the idea that two distant civilizations clash is much more credible than something that wasn't observed anywhere at that time. And like I said, there are gameplay motives for it.
20 minutes ago, m7600 said:1) Historically, Britons did not fight against Kushites.
In the future, there won't be any campaign portraying Britons fighting Kushites. There will be campaigns about real historical events like the Punic Wars, Alexander's conquests, wars between Kushites and Romans, the conquest of Britannia by the Romans etc.
At least those events would be fairly portrayed in the campaigns. For the custom battles and the multiplayer, this is logical they could fight each other to let the player have fun.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, m7600 said:
If 0 AD is supposed to be historically accurate and realistic, then:
It is often phrased that way but indeed 0AD isn't a real portray of history, nor putting historical accuracy above everything else. Actually, the gameplay and the design of the game are above the historical accuracy.
HOWEVER, the gameplay and the game design themselves try to take inspiration from history to create a basic set of rules to follow, a framework. There is a kind of back-and-forth logic in how the game was framed and designed. History and gameplay aren't contradicting each other all the time.
Now this is true the game didn't follow historically accuracy in absolute. But this is like everything in real life, it is rare that something follows an absolute rule. From a more practical oriented phrasing, the community made a huge effort to portray ancient civilizations as accurate as possible without hindering the gameplay and the fun from playing the game.
Obviously there is a line to not cross. If someone argues about naked Conan-like berserkers with giant two-handed axes or to put lorica segmentata on Punic Wars hastati, this should not be ok. Even if it is cool or fun.
-
4
-
-
Munro-Hay, S. (1991). Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity. Edinburgh University Press.
Phillipson, D. W. (2012). Foundations of an African Civilisation: Aksum & the Northern Horn, 1000 BC-1300 AD. Boydell & Brewer Ltd.Hatke, G. (2013). Aksum and Nubia: Warfare, Commerce, and Political Fictions in Ancient Northeast Africa. New York University Press.
all available over z-library
https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/168483/historicity-of-aksum
-
2 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:
For anyone especially interested in the 0AD/sexist thing: it starts at 10:42.
thx a lot
2 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:IMHO not worth the watch. ('No, 0ad is not sexist, men are fighters & builders while women are not into tech and they're nursers & caretakers.')
Indeed, this is a bit of clickbait.
-
Herodotus account:
[60] I cannot give an exact breakdown of how many men each contingent contributed to the total, because not one person has recorded this information, but it turned out that there were 1,700,000 men altogether in the land army. The census was conducted as follows. Ten thousand men were assembled in a single area and packed as closely together as possible; a circle was drawn round the outside of the body of men (who were then dismissed) and a waist-high wall was built around the circle. Then more men were introduced into the enclosed area, and so on until everyone had been counted. After the census, the men were organized into contingents based on nationality.
[61] Here are the peoples which made up Xerxes’ army. First, there were the Persians, dressed as follows. On their heads they wore tiaras, as they call them, which are loose, felt caps, and their bodies were clothed in colourful tunics with sleeves (and breastplates)† of iron plate, looking rather like fish-scales. Their legs were covered in trousers and instead of normal shields they carried pieces of wickerwork. They had quivers hanging under their shields, short spears, large bows, arrows made of cane, and also daggers hanging from their belts down beside their right thighs. They were commanded by Otanes, whose daughter Amestris was Xerxes’ wife. In times past the Greeks used to call Persians Cephenes (even though both they and their neighbours called them Artaei), but then Perseus, the son of Danaë and Zeus, came to Cepheus the son of Belus, married his daughter Andromeda, and had a son, whom he called Perses. Cepheus had no male children, so Perseus left Perses there, and as a result the Persians are named after Perses.
[62] The Median contingent wore the same clothes as the Persians, since it was in fact a Median style of clothing, rather than a Persian one. Their commander was an Achaemenid called Tigranes. Medes used to be called Arians by everybody, but when Medea of Colchis left Athens and arrived in their country—this is what the Medes themselves say—they too changed their name.
The Cissian contingent was clothed and equipped in the Persian style, except that they wore turbans instead of caps. They were commanded by Anaphes the son of Otanes.
The Hyrcanians also had the same equipment as the Persians, and were commanded by Megapanus, who later became the governor of Babylon.
[63] The Assyrian contingent wore on their heads either bronze helmets or plaited helmets of a peculiarly foreign design which is hard to describe. Their shields, spears, and daggers resembled Egyptian ones, and they also carried wooden clubs with iron studs, and wore linen breastplates. These are the people the Greeks call Syrians, but they were called Assyrians by the Persian invaders. Their commander was Otaspes the son of Artachaees.
[64] The Bactrian contingent wore headgear which was very similar to that of the Medes, and were armed with native cane bows and short spears. The Sacae, a Scythian tribe, had as headgear kurbasias whose crowns were stiffened into an upright point, and wore trousers. They carried native bows and daggers, and also battleaxes called sagareis. They were in fact Scythians from Amyrgium, but they were known as Sacae because that is what the Persians call all Scythians. The commander of both the Bactrian and Sacian contingents was Hystaspes, the son of Darius and Cyrus’ daughter Atossa.
[65] Indian gear consisted of cotton clothing, cane bows and cane arrows with iron heads. For the duration of this expedition they were assigned to the command of Pharnazathres the son of Artabates.
[66] The Arians were equipped like the Bactrians, except that their bows were in the Median style. Their commander was Sisamnes the son of Hydarnes.
Also fitted out like the Bactrians were the Parthians and Chorasmians, commanded by Artabazus the son of Pharnaces; the Sogdians, commanded by Azanes the son of Artaeus; and the Gandarians and Dadicae, commanded by Artyphius the son of Artabanus.
[67] Caspian equipment consisted of jackets, native cane bows, and akinakeis. Their commander was Ariomardus the brother of Artyphius.
The Sarangae were conspicuous for their coloured clothing. They wore knee-high boots and carried bows and Median-style spears. They were commanded by Pherendates the son of Megabazus.
The Pactyes wore jackets and were armed with native bows and daggers. Their commander was Artayntes the son of Ithamitres.
[68] The Utians, Mycians, and Paricanians were fitted out like the Pactyes. The Utians and Mycians were commanded by Arsamenes the son of Darius, and the Paricanians by Siromitres the son of Oeobazus.
[69] The Arabians wore belted zeiras and carried on their right sides long, reflexible bows. The Ethiopians were dressed in leopard skins and lion pelts, and were armed with bows made out of palm fronds. These bows were long, at least four cubits in length, and their arrows were short and tipped not with iron but with a head made from sharpened stone—the kind of stone they also use to engrave signet-rings. They carried spears as well, whose heads were made out of gazelles’ horns sharpened like the head of a lance, and also studded clubs. When they go into battle they paint half of their bodies with chalk and half with ochre. The commander of the Arabians and the Ethiopians from south of Egypt was Arsames, the son of Darius and Cyrus’ daughter Artystone, who was his favourite wife. He had a statue of her made out of beaten gold.
[70] So Arsames was the commander of the Ethiopians from south of Egypt, as well as of the Arabians, but there were two lots of Ethiopians in the army. The eastern Ethiopians were assigned to the Indian contingent; these Ethiopians are exactly the same as the others to look at, but they speak a different language and their hair is different. The eastern Ethiopians have straight hair, while the Libyan ones have curlier hair than any other people in the world. The Asian Ethiopians were equipped more or less in the same fashion as the Indians, except that they wore a head-dress consisting of a horse’s scalp, including the ears and mane. The mane acted as a crest, and the horse’s ears were stiffened into an upright position. Instead of regular shields they had targes made out of crane skins.
[71] The Libyans came wearing leather clothing and armed with javelins whose ends had been burnt into sharp points. Their commander was Massages the son of Oärizus.
[72] The Paphlagonian contingent wore plaited helmets on their heads and were armed with small shields, medium-sized spears, and javelins and daggers as well. On their feet they wore native boots which reached halfway up their shins. The Ligyan contingent had the same equipment as the Paphlagonians, and so did the Matieneans, Mariandynians, and Syrians (whom the Persians call Cappadocians). Dotus the son of Megasidrus was in command of the Paphlagonians and the Matieneans, and Gobryas the son of Darius and Artystone was in command of the Mariandynians, Ligyes, and Syrians.
[73] The Phrygians’ equipment was very similar to that of the Paphlagonians, with only minor differences. According to the Macedonians, the Phrygians were called Briges for as long as they lived in Europe next to the Macedonians, but then when they moved to Asia they changed their name along with their country. The Armenians were fitted out just like the Phrygians—but then they were originally emigrants from Phrygia. Artochmes, who was married to one of Darius’ daughters, was in command of both the Armenians and the Phrygians.
[74] The Lydians’ equipment was not very different from Greek. A long time ago, the Lydians were known as Maeonians, but they changed their name when they named themselves after Lydus the son of Atys. The Mysians wore a native style of helmet on their heads and were armed with small shields and javelins whose ends had been burnt into sharp points. They were originally emigrants from Lydia, and are also known as Olympieni, after Mount Olympus. The Lydians and the Mysians were under the command of Artaphrenes the son of Artaphrenes, who was jointly responsible, with Datis, for the invasion at Marathon.
[75] The Thracian contingent wore fox-skin caps on their heads and were dressed in tunics with colourful zeiras on top; their feet and lower legs were covered in boots made out of fawn-skin. They also carried javelins, bucklers, and small daggers. After they moved from Europe to Asia they were called the Bithynians, but, as they say themselves, before that they were called the Strymonians, because they lived on the River Strymon. They say that they were driven out of their original homeland by the Teucrians and the Mysians. These Asian Thracians were commanded by Bassaces the son of Artabanus.
[76] 〈The Pisidae〉† carried small shields of untreated oxhide. Every man among them was armed with two hunting-spears in the Lycian style, and wore a bronze helmet on his head. Each helmet had the ears and horns of an ox, also in bronze, attached to it, and had a crest as well. They wore red cloths wrapped around their lower legs. There is an oracle of Ares in their country.
[77] The Cabalians (who are known as Lasonians, despite being of Maeonian stock) were fitted out in the same way as the Cilicians, and so I will describe their equipment when I come to the Cilician contingent in my account.
The Milyans carried short spears and wore cloaks fastened with a brooch. Some of them had Lycian-style bows and wore on their heads helmets made out of leather. The whole Milyan contingent was under the command of Badres the son of Hystanes.
[78] The Moschians wore wooden helmets on their heads and carried shields and spears which were short, but with long points. The Tibarenians, Macrones, and Mossynoecians had the same equipment as the Moschians. The Moschians and Tibarenians formed a single contingent under the command of Ariomardus, the son of Darius and Parmys, who was the daughter of Smerdis and granddaughter of Cyrus. The Macrones and Mossynoecians together formed another contingent under the command of Artayctes the son of Cherasmis, who was the governor of Sestus on the Hellespont.
[79] The Mares wore plaited native helmets on their heads, and carried small shields of animal skin and javelins. The Colchians wore wooden helmets on their heads, carried small shields of untreated oxhide and short spears, and were armed with knives as well. Pharandates the son of Teäspis was in command of the Mares and the Colchians.
The Alarodian and Saspeiran troops were equipped like the Colchians, and commanded by Masistius the son of Siromitres.
[80] The tribes who had come from the islands in the Red Sea to take part in the expedition—the islands where the Persian king settles the people known as ‘the Dispossessed’—closely resembled the Medes in respect of both clothing and weaponry. These islanders were commanded by Mardontes the son of Bagaeus, who was one of the Persian commanders a year later at the battle of Mycale, where he died.
[81] These were the tribes and peoples who marched by land and were organized into infantry contingents. I have already given the names of the commanders of this division, whose job it was also to organize and count the troops, and to appoint officers to take charge of the brigades of 10,000 and the battalions of 1,000; the leaders of the companies of 100 and the sections of 10 were appointed by the brigade-commanders. There were also other officers in command of the various regiments and tribal units. Anyway, the commanding officers were as stated.
-
4
-
-
-
On 04/05/2020 at 8:24 PM, Nescio said:
For a decent (and recent) discussion of the “kardakes”, I highly recommend: https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.jstor.org/stable/41722251
For those wanting the article, I put it attached with the message.
The Kardakes are part of a real institution of infantry trainees but their role as heavy or light infantry seems to have varied. Probably they are a polyvalent and mobile force. The idea of them being a Persian version of the hoplite is bull***t but they must have been decently armed.
-
2
-
-
According to Trundle in his book about Greek mercenaries, the Ionians didn't serve as hoplites in the Persian army from their integration in the empire during the end of the 6th century BC. This is due notably to the increasing availability of professional mercenaries from mainland Greece, better than levies.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, alre said:
Were hoplites in persian wars always mercenaries? Were they generally ionians? Ionian greeks stayed under persian rule for a long time span, but I don't remember them providing hoplites to persian army, ever. I may very well be missing some known event though.
About the account of the ten thousand yes. They were coming from outside the empire (so not Ionians). However in general the Persian army fielded satrap's troops so kinda like vassal troops. Ionians fall in this category. However it seems they fought as a navy mostly. I am not sure there are accounts of them fighting as heavy infantry.
-
-
1
-
-
Please make it a little less ... sexist
in Help & Feedback
Posted
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.