Jump to content

Differentiating Civilizations: Persian


 Share

Recommended Posts

11 分钟前,borg- 说:

在小冲突中防御而不是对抗敌军,因此用于对抗士兵也没有意义。

如有必要,保卫自己免受侵略者手中的任何武器都是值得的。 仅仅因为我们没有一支由女性组成的波斯军队并不意味着她们从不使用剑、矛或弓箭来保护自己。

这就像说波斯妇女不能骑马,因为我们没有骑马的波斯妇女军队。 如果波斯教育提供骑马和学习射箭,那么这个小小的游戏改变还不够吗?

If resistance with any weapon is justified, or that's the problem, other peoples also hunt with javelins or boomerangs, so why not add these weapons to them for self-defense? Why not give them a chopping axe so they can chop down their enemies?

In addition, when mentioning this kind of education in ancient times, the default is to refer to men, unless women are specifically mentioned, the Han Dynasty also recorded that Xiongnu people learned to ride horses and bows and arrows since childhood, but they only refer to men, and women of nomadic people may ride horses for herding. , but with the exception of the Scythians, they rarely fought with bows and arrows.
And the Persians are not nomads. Their men practiced combat skills from a young age in order to serve the king in the military. Therefore, the king gave the Persians tax-free, and the Persians who were recruited into the army were also men, so women did not need to learn these. Skills that have nothing to do with economic production.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AIEND said:

If resistance with any weapon is justified, or that's the problem, other peoples also hunt with javelins or boomerangs, so why not add these weapons to them for self-defense? Why not give them a chopping axe so they can chop down their enemies?

In addition, when mentioning this kind of education in ancient times, the default is to refer to men, unless women are specifically mentioned, the Han Dynasty also recorded that Xiongnu people learned to ride horses and bows and arrows since childhood, but they only refer to men, and women of nomadic people may ride horses for herding. , but with the exception of the Scythians, they rarely fought with bows and arrows.
And the Persians are not nomads. Their men practiced combat skills from a young age in order to serve the king in the military. Therefore, the king gave the Persians tax-free, and the Persians who were recruited into the army were also men, so women did not need to learn these. Skills that have nothing to do with economic production.

It is because we are talking about a differentiation of one unity and one civilization (persian). It's obvious that an archer can use a sword, a spearman can use an axe, but we can't have all that realism in the game.

Anyway, let's wait for the experts on this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but some Persian women even led armies at that time. Pantea, commander of the Immortal Guard of Cyrus the Great, Artemisia of Helicarnassus, commander in chief of the Persian navy etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, borg- said:

I could be wrong, but some Persian women even led armies at that time. Pantea, commander of the Immortal Guard of Cyrus the Great, Artemisia of Helicarnassus, commander in chief of the Persian navy etc..

Artemisia was Greek fighting for Persians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Artemisia was Greek fighting for Persians.

True tnx,  but I can cite others like Apranik.

I'm looking for information, and although Amazons are part of Greek mythology, there were Amazon women in Persian where they rode horses and participated in hunting. Well, I know it's hunting, but if they had the ability to use a larger bow and arrow than other women at the time, then I think this differentiation is not wrong. Anyway, I'd like the experts' opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, borg- said:

True tnx,  but I can cite others like Apranik.

I'm looking for information, and although Amazons are part of Greek mythology, there were Amazon women in Persian where they rode horses and participated in hunting. Well, I know it's hunting, but if they had the ability to use a larger bow and arrow than other women at the time, then I think this differentiation is not wrong. Anyway, I'd like the experts' opinion.

In fact, a Scythian queen killed the Persian king Cyrus.

Those Scythian tribes can have female warriors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

apart from historical justification, what is the gameplay reason?

I can understand "more varied is better", which is true in between bounds by the way, but why in particular would you give persians eco extra defense? I can't see it.

the same claim about some women fighting and even leading armies could be made for many other civs, like celts and numibians.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, borg- said:

We have any expert in persian civ to be able to clear this doubt for us?

It's pretty clear no one really knows...it's just one person guessing versus another.

Even so, all the civs have such deep histories that you can justify almost anything with some historical context. At some point, this is just a game that we all play to have fun. 

Absent any glaring historical inaccuracies, gameplay should be taken into consideration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@alre i agree. I think the dagger is enough because if we decide to give arrow to Persian women as a defensive mechanism other civs would definitely make the same claims. In ancient Persia, most women was serving as made and workers ( even though there were few champions who were women according to history - Gordafarid ( princess of Persia ) ) and few others. Women in Ancient Persia appeared to have enjoyed power and privileges, The royal Persian women, and non-royal Persian women. But if are to add arrows to Persian women i think it shouldn't have as higher damage as daggers even though they might enjoy a long range bonus. The whole arrow concept isn't a bad idea but i think the Han women were more or less defensive as compared to Persian women. I don't know if its historically accurate :znaika:

saeed-rashvand-godrafarid-r.jpg

saeed-rashvand-sides-render-sheet.jpg

saeed-rashvand-wireframe.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, rossenburg said:

@alre i agree. I think the dagger is enough because if we decide to give arrow to Persian women as a defensive mechanism other civs would definitely make the same claims. In ancient Persia, most women was serving as made and workers ( even though there were few champions who were women according to history - Gordafarid ( princess of Persia ) ) and few others. Women in Ancient Persia appeared to have enjoyed power and privileges, The royal Persian women, and non-royal Persian women. But if are to add arrows to Persian women i think it shouldn't have as higher damage as daggers even though they might enjoy a long range bonus. The whole arrow concept isn't a bad idea but i think the Han women were more or less defensive as compared to Persian women. I don't know if its historically accurate :znaika:

saeed-rashvand-godrafarid-r.jpg

saeed-rashvand-sides-render-sheet.jpg

saeed-rashvand-wireframe.jpg

women as queens had enormous power in Persia.

But they did not have a military role, like most ancient societies.(the common women).

 

PD: The armor looks fancy fantasy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women in ancient Persia were not only highly respected but, in many cases, considered the equals of males. Women could own land, conduct business, received equal pay, could travel freely on their own, and in the case of royal women, hold their own council meetings on policy.

 

Women in the Achaemenid Empire

The Achaemenid Empire followed a patriarchal paradigm but, within that framework, women had more rights and responsibilities than in any other ancient civilization except that of Egypt. Women, like men, were defined by social class and rank within that class. The female hierarchy, from the highest to lowest.

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1492/women-in-ancient-persia/

 

It must be seen from the perspective of these centuries. And not with the idea of modern feminism.

This means that it seemed barbaric to send them to the battlefield.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 小时前,alre 说:

除了历史上的正当性,游戏性的原因是什么?

我可以理解“越多样化越好”,顺便说一句,这在界限之间是正确的,但是为什么您特别要给波斯人生态额外的防御呢? 我看不到它。

一些妇女战斗甚至领导军队的说法也适用于许多其他文明,例如凯尔特人和努比亚人。

Yes, women of other ethnic groups are not incapable of fighting, there is such a thing in the Han Dynasty, seven sisters in a family were armed with JI, shields, bows and swords after their father and brother were murdered by corrupt officials. With Gouxiang (a shield with iron tips and hooks), who ambushed and killed officials to avenge father and brother, the story has been celebrated and sung to this day as a classic case of blood relatives' revenge.cba8be964f29409e86f85a14e97aa289.jpeg.4d214ea639e3c57c0627f2b09c816d8c.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 小时前,Lion.Kanzen 说:

事实上,一位斯基泰女王杀死了波斯国王居鲁士。

那些斯基泰部落可以拥有女战士。

In this case, I don't think it is necessary to make a separate Scythian female warrior unit, just make the Scythian soldiers have both male and female appearances like male and female civilians.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

It's pretty clear no one really knows...it's just one person guessing versus another.

Even so, all the civs have such deep histories that you can justify almost anything with some historical context. At some point, this is just a game that we all play to have fun. 

Absent any glaring historical inaccuracies, gameplay should be taken into consideration. 

I think strong features should have strong motivations. asymmetry in civs should be designed so that players are not confused by features that feel out of place.

For instance, I think it would be immersive and fun to play spartans unlike any other civ, with champs in p1 maybe, and women who can fight, why not, they were actually tought to - not just the men, all the women from spartan family as well.

For Persia instead, the role of women is not associated with war at all. There are exceptions, but it would just play weird to me if they were the only civ where women use bows, that just clashes with the reality of an essentially patriarcal civilization and empire.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 分钟前,borg- 说:

在aoe4中,我们有英国村民用弓箭攻击,这对我来说很有趣。 我选择英国人只是因为防御力与像蒙古人这样的侵略性文明的力量。

In reality, only men in the UK can practice archery to become archers.
So if we really want to give Persian civilians a bow and arrow to strengthen it, then we can only make a male Persian civilian with a bow and arrow. If we introduce the design of male and female civilians, then we can only delete the Persian women's shape , leaving only one type of male civilian with more fighting power, like the "Coureur des Bois" in Age of Empires 3 France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

With this reasoning you can basically say anything goes. There's evidence, there's evidence to the contrary, and then there's a lack of evidence.

I think we’ve seen people claim all three in this one discussion. That suggests either there are a lot of charlatans or people just don’t know 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...