Printable View
Which one of these factions is more "Persian"? Meaning if you wanted to recreate as close to the old Achaemenid Empire as you could get, which faction would you play? We all know the Hai King's claim to the Persian throne, but what of Parthia's claim?
I've tried searching for a topic like this but haven't had any luck.
Hayasdan, definitely. The Parthians are basically the Parni, who were a steppe tribe completely unrelated to the ancient Persians.
I would actually take Pontos. They were pretty persian like too. Had Chariots etc..
:book:
I thought about that, and even though the Pontic Kings were Persian, their military and culture seem a little too Hellenic.Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
The Hayasdan definately, their rulers are the decendants of a Achaemenid satrap.
The Pontic rulers AFAIK were decended from the old Achaemenid governors of Kios a city in Bithynia so if your judging the claim by seniority the Hai win outright.
Parthians in terms of language, Armenians in terms of culture. Didn't help much, did it? :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by jsadighi
You did. Language really means little in the way of things. A bit like how Americans and British speak the same language (Debate all you want about this) but are obviously not the same people.
Damn traitors to the crown!
Fix your teeth first and maybe we can talk. :-p
Why the bugger didn't I mention my own country? Man, you know you're unrecognized when your own people neglect you...
Good question I have had it also. I always have thought in the Hayasdan faction as possible heir of the Achemenids. My next campaing in game will be with them :yes:
Armenians and Persians are not the same people either. There are cultural similarities, but they are two different ethnicities.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
Don't feel too bad all my friends who have been to Vancouver talk of it like the promised land.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
This is a question which isn't supposed to be easily answered due to the inherent "Persian-ness" of the Achaemenid empire; in its western reaches, around Caria and Hellespontine Phrygia, it was profoundly Hellenized, in the rough mid-section in the Near East, the tributaries retained their Jewish and Babylonian character. In the north-east, Iranian speaking horse-tribes hailed. There is no simple answer to this matter, and accordingly to history, it's not supposed to be something which can be easily answered. Historical outcome is that Armenia, ironically by an Iranian dynasty, became a distinct though related culture, cemented by Mashtots' invention of the Armenian script, while the Arsacids basically laid the foundation to what was to become a "medieval" Persia.
This is why we tend to use the loosely defined cultural phrase "Persianate society".
Judging by your signature am I correct in assuming that you would pick Parthia?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
Knowing TPC, you're going to get a torrent of words. Many smart words.
Parthia? Are you confusing this with Pahlava?Quote:
Originally Posted by jsadighi
His sig is due to being on the dev team for the Pahlavan faction. The man knows his stuff when it comes to Iranian history.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsadighi
I guess I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Good to know. That clears that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinusCDXX