Countdown to Open Beta - Pahlava

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheTank

Some germanic tribes painted their hair red but where not naturarlly so.
Gauls and Britons (don't know about the Geals) often bleeched their hair with lime or some other substance maybe this is the reason that Romans imagined that gauls where all fairhaired...

---

I'l just focus on this part, since the Celtic part about Aryans seems answered. This is a poor conception; they're Gaels, not Geals, for one (sorry, that's not my point, but I hate that misspelling). Only Cisalpine Gauls bleached their hair, and only southern Britons. Others didn't. Midland Britons had long dark hair, but they weren't called Celts (considering them Celts emerged in the late 1800s; before that, the iron age Britons were just called Britons, except the southerners, who were, and technically are still, considered Gauls/Gallic-Britons). Transalpine Gauls wore their hair long, and many many of them had blonde hair. This wasn't from bleaching at all; many continental Celts were blonde. For example, in Fayuum, Egypt (where many, many Galatian Celts settled as mercenaries for the Ptolemies), the people are still blonde haired, fair-skinned, and blue eyed. Other hair colors existed among Celts (obviously), but there were huge numbers of them with blonde hair and blue eyes; they would fit the description of 'Aryans' quite well, and they were very likely related to groups like the Skythians.

Of Germans with red hair, it's known from the examining of DNA evidence, that many early Germans did have red hair, it wasn't all dyes, though some tribes did dye their hair.

Of Gaels, Gaelic hair colors varied a bit widely because of the mixture of settlers (Galaecians from Iberia, Gauls, Belgae, various Britons) and the natives of the island. Red hair existed, but was made more prominent by vikings (though pre-viking red haired Gaels existed, mainly in the regions where Belgae had settled); fair brown hair seemed most common at the time, probably because all involved groups likely had this hair color to some extent, but also present was black and dark brown hair in the southwest, where Iberians had settled. However, almost all were very fair-skinned.

Ranika,

Quote:

---

they're Gaels, not Geals, for one (sorry, that's not my point, but I hate that misspelling)

---

My humble apologies for the error.
It was a typo.... ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marinakis

the huns come from north of china, they are decendents of the mongols, i think.

---

I think the word "Hun" was just a general term for some of the tribes that came over into Europe and Iran around the 4th and 5th centuries AD. There were "White" Huns (Epthalites), who took over much of Iran, and there were "Black" Huns (Attila's lot), who were the Asiatic Mongoloid people that we generally associate with the word "Hun", and who came into Europe from the Eurasian steppe. Both the White and Black Huns were steppe nomads, but the White Huns were predominantly Indo-European and the Black Huns were Asiatic in appearance. Most historians believe that the Black Huns were the descendants of the Hsiung-nu (I think this is the right name, might be confusing it with some other tribe), who were an Asiatic steppe people living somewhere around Northern China at some time in the early years of that country. I'm not really sure of all this information, as It's been awhile since I've read anything about this particular era of history, but I think the details are mostly correct.

T.P.C.

The White Huns were recorded as being fairer than the Black Huns, but the colors have more to do with direction than the apearance of the Huns themselves, I believe.

And the Hsiung-Nu theory is far from proven, and many times seems like a stretch. However, many do believe it, and it hasn't been proven or disproven.

from wat i hav heard white huns were termed "white" because of their facial features more than their complection. thats not to say that they didn't hav lighter skin than the black huns, but the most notable difference was the facial features, which resembled those of europeans. of course, i could be and probly am wrong.

i especially like the two handed lance =)

i dont think they had that in the original version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chester

Question- Are huns and sarmatians white or asian?

---

sarmatians were caucasoid. were they white? who knows, probably.

huns, no ones really sure about what they were, id say they were probably a mix of various racial stocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chester

So modern day Iranians are decendents from white boys mixed with arabs? I'm I getting this right? They are very light in skin color. My proffesor looks like an italian or even a jew, but he's Iranian.

I really appreciate the knowledge people here pass around. This is by far one of the best forums, for games, that I've attended.

---

its an interesting subject really.

arab isnt a race, its a culture and a language, you can have caucasian arabs, negroid arabs and racially mixed arabs , which would appear to be the case for most north african and middle eastern arabs today.

it wouldnt surprise me if youve met arabs that could look italian or like ashkenazi jews, ive met a lot of white arabs myself.

historically speaking arabs would look like this a lot.

http://games.rengeekcentral.com/prblms/F36V.html
http://games.rengeekcentral.com/prblms/F38R.html
http://games.rengeekcentral.com/prblms/F44R.html

and their decendants can be seen today in people like

http://www.syriantopmodels.com/html/...ls.php?level=1
http://www.syriantopmodels.com/html/...ls.php?level=3
http://www.syriantopmodels.com/html/...ls.php?level=8

i think its safe to say that a great deal of mixing has gone on.

http://history.missouristate.edu/jch.../Crusades6.jpg

i hope you find this information helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

its an interesting subject really.

arab isnt a race, its a culture and a language, you can have caucasian arabs, negroid arabs and racially mixed arabs , which would appear to be the case for most north african and middle eastern arabs today.

it wouldnt surprise me if youve met arabs that could look italian or like ashkenazi jews, ive met a lot of white arabs myself.

---

There was an original arabic ethnicity, people living in what is now Jordania, Saudi arabia and Yemen are known as "arab" since the highest antiquity, but you're true in saying that most modern arabs are arabs only by language and culture.

By the way this argument is valid for almost any nationality or ethnicity.

Roman of the fourth century weren't "roman" from a genetical point of view.

Turkish tribes weren't all ethnicaly turkish either (like the kirgiz) but as the turks came to be a dominant steppe people, many tribes adopted their languages (and culture, but in the steppe there was one big culture and many differant ethnical groups). Because of that (and of the customs to take women in other tribes) it's difficult to tell what the original turks looked like (although it can be assumed by various sources that they looked asiatic)

I've also read studies who explained that most of the celt of western europe were probably celts only by language and custom too.

It's interesting to try to know how people of ancient times looked like, but it's difficult to tell. By the way considering invaders usualy were dilluted in the original population (because they were far less in numbers) i think most people probably looked like modern people from the same area (with some documented exceptions). Steppe people because they weren't very numerous, weren't settled (and could leave an area en masse) and were probably very mixed are the most difficult to identify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

For example, in Fayuum, Egypt (where many, many Galatian Celts settled as mercenaries for the Ptolemies), the people are still blonde haired, fair-skinned, and blue eyed

---

Well that can be because of galatian who settled there, but are you sure ?
Did they settle in a number large enough to explain people still are born like that ?
Actually they can be anything else, macedonian and even greek could (can) be blonde haired and blue eyed (and they were settled in the fayum too), they can be circassian or descended from other slaves from the medieval/modern period or a mix of all (the most likely genetically speaking with blonde hairs and blue eyes being recessive genes).

I have seen a documentary on blonde and blue eyed people in central asia who lived in an isolated valley and thought they were the last of the greeks who were settled there by Alexander. It was possible, but the greeks weren't the only ethnic group with blonde hairs and blue eyes who had walked in central asia, far from it.

Edit

Colour in the steppe are meant for a direction, a cardinal point. I don't remember wich colour is for wich direction (there is white, black, blue and gold iirc) but i think that the colours in the name of the huns is meant to explain where they lived relatively to each other rather than some physical differences (who could have existed anyway).
And i think the huns were a turkish people.

Keyser, it's more likely they were Scythians or other Iranians if they were blonde and blue eyed.

You are correct, steppe people were very mixed, especially later. Only a very few Mongols were truly of the Mongol tribe. However in the time in question, almost all of the nomads were Iranians without any other sort of mixing. But even at this period, non Iranians start to migrate west.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Well it's a bit difficult, since there were "white" Iranians living in Asia to just say "white" or "asian". But we are not entirely sure what the Huns are. Probably related to the Turks more so than the Iranians. So they were possibly more Asiatic. It is difficult to say, however, since the Romans discriptions really helpful, and I don't think too many burials have been found (unlike say the Iranians and the Turks).

---

I think the term "Mongoloid" fits more in here in anthropological terms. "Asian" is just an American convention used to refer to the peoples of East and Southeast Asia, which causes some confusion as "Asia" technically means the territory east of the Urals, so "Asians" would include peoples like the Iranic and Semitic peoples, who are, in racial anthropology, grouped under the same category as "whites", ie "Caucasoids". It must be remembered that the term "Asia" is Eurocentric in itself, meant to designate a supposedly exotic world different from the "enlightened" Christian West. In this case, the Huns in Europe, at least most of the ruling elite, were Mongoloid, judging from skulls unearthed from Hun tombs in Hungary, as Hildinger notes on p. 60 of his Warriors of the Steppe. He further adds on the previous page that the Huns seemed to be Turkic speakers. So the Hunnic ruling elite were, like the Xiongnu, Turkic peoples. Some of the ruling elite, however, were of mixed blood, ie part Caucasoid, judging from some of facial planes of the skulls. What is more important though was that the "Huns" were a political entity rather than an ethnicity since the only "true Huns" were the ruling elite, and by the time of Atilla or his immediate predecessors, the majority of the Hunnic armies were actually infantry, indicating that their ranks included a large number of Caucasoids, ie Goths, Pannonians, etc. And assuming the Hunnic ruling elite were descended from the remnants of the Northern Xiongnu that had been defeated by the Later Han general Dou Xian in 89 CE and migrated to the west, the Huns may have already included in their political entity in the early days a fairly large number of Iranians and other non-Mongoloid Central Asians, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

And the Hsiung-Nu theory is far from proven, and many times seems like a stretch. However, many do believe it, and it hasn't been proven or disproven.

---

Judging from the skulls of Hun tombs in Hungary, it seems that the Huns were at least part Xiongnu, since the majority of the Xiongnu seemed to have been Mongoloid and, in antiquity, the Xiongnu empire represented the "Mongoloid" empire that extended the furthest west. So it is actually not such a "stretch".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Well there was the Gok "Blue" Turks, that then divided into the Eastern and Western Turkish Khagans who were at war often with the Sassanians, and some probably mixed with Iranian peoples in that area. Then the Arab invasions happened, and the Turks broke up into a whole bunch of tribes.

---

No, the Eastern Kok Turuk (known in Chinese sources as the Eastern Tujue) Kaganate based in the Orkhon valley in Mongolia was conquered by the leading Tang generals Li Jing and Li Shiji during 629-630 CE and was part of the Tang empire for about 50 years. The 8th-century Turkic inscription on the Kocho-Tsaidam also mentions this, apart from the official dynastic histories of the Tang dynasty, the Jiu Tangshu and Xin Tangshu. However, by the end of 682 CE, the Eastern Tujue regained their independence under Kutlugh Kagan and the kaganate was reestablished. This kaganate lasted until one of the Tiele tribes, the Hui (known in later times as the Uygurs) overthrew the II Eastern Tujue kaganate and established their own Uygur kaganate in 744 CE. The Tiele tribes were also another Turkic people but they were not the same as the Tujue and so the Tujue didn't "broke up into a whole bunch of tribes". The Tiele existed before the Tujue and were known in earlier times as the Gaoche, and even earlier, as the Dingling. The majority of the Dingling/Gaoche/Tiele lived around the Lake Baikal area, but a few Tiele had, in earlier times, migrated west into middle Central Asia. There is a possibility that the Onogurs, one of the tribes of the Huns and who later became the Bulgars, may have been a Tiele tribe or at least included some Tiele tribesmen that came from the Tiele in middle Central Asia.

As for the Western Kok Turuks, their khaganate was conquered by the Tang general Su Dingfang in 657 CE when Shabuluo khagan was captured after losing a battle fought near the Issyk-Kol. At this time, the Tang empire extended as far west as the borders of eastern Iran and nominally, their territory stretched as far west as the Caspian Sea. However, the Western Tujue rebelled in 665 CE and regained their independence. By 671 CE, however, the Western Tujue Kaganate was overthrown and was replaced by an empire known as the Turgesh, with the Western Tujue kagan fleeing to Tang China. After losing a battle to the Eastern Tujue in 698 CE, the Turgesh became an Eastern Tujue vassal until 711 CE. In 717 CE, Sulu Kagan became the kagan of the Turgesh. Under his reign, the Turgesh checked the Umayyad Arab expansion in Central Asia and managed to temporarily gain some cities from the Umayyads. He was, however, defeated at Kharistan in 738 CE and returned back to his capital only to be assassinated that year by Bagá Tarkhan Kül Chor, and with that event, the Turgesh empire was engaged in civil war until they were destroyed by the Qarluq Turks in 766 CE.

In short, the Muslim Arab expansion into the Middle East and Central Asia had nothing to do with "the Turks broke up into a whole bunch of tribes". It must also be remembered that the Tujue were not the first Turkic people around; peoples such as the Xiongnu - who established a powerful empire during the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, the Dingling - who existed as early as the Xiongnu, and the Tashtyks - who descended from the peoples of the Minusinsk Basin in southern Siberia, all preceded the Tujue. If you want to know as much as you can about steppe peoples, you can't ignore the Chinese sources, since, for the most part, they give the most detail and info on the steppe peoples compared to most other primary sources of the periods. This may account for the confusion you had regarding the history of the Tujue/Kok Turuks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Many converted to Islam, though some resisted. In fact, Persians (Iranians), Turks and Arabs were the three main Islamic people. They all sort of helped form what Islam was about, militarily and culturally.

---

That was much, much later in history. The Volga Bulgars were the first Turkic people to convert to Islam, which happened in 922 CE. The Oghuz, who were either the descendants of the Onogurs or the Tiele (the latter seems to be more likely), converted to Islam during the 10th-11th centuries when Seljuq Begh started the conversion process in the 10th century CE. The Seljuqs stem from the Oghuz. The Qara-Khanids, a state created by the remnants of the Uygurs that had fled from Mongolia to the Tarim Basin when the Uygur empire was overrun by the Kyrgyz in 840 CE, also converted to Islam during the 10th century CE, but the Islamization of the Uygurs continued until up to the 15th-16th centuries CE. Even today, many of the Turkic peoples that remained on the northeastern steppes and in Siberia aren't Muslim but still follow the native Altaic religious traditions and worship Tengri. The modern-day Mongols, who are the descendants of the amalgamation of the Turko-Mongol peoples that Chinggis Khan had united in Mongolia, are Buddhists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

And I think that there is Turkish blood in many modern peoples, from Asia Minor to Asia and the Middle East. Again, I don't know much about the people in that area after the Middle Ages. ~;)
And a main part of that is that I'm not sure how much each nation makes up of ancient Iran, so I'm not sure which of today's nations that Turks invaded, etc.

---

Modern-day Turkic peoples that look much like their ancestors, ie Mongoloid, include peoples such as the Tuvinians, Yakuts, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, Yugurs (Sarigh Uygurs), Mongols (as in the Mongols who descended from amalgamated Turkic tribes such as the Kereyids) etc. Apparently, many of them still live on the steppe. Other Turkic peoples (especially sedentary peoples like the Uzbeks and the Tarim Uygurs) are mixed with the local populations, which includes the Uzbeks (who are mixed with Indo-Iranians), the Uygurs who live in the oasis city states of the Tarim (who are mixed with Tocharians or their descendants), and the Bashkors (who are mixed with Finno-Uralics, though some can appear quite Mongoloid while some can also appear quite Caucasoid), as well as the Turkmens (who are mixed with a bunch of local Caucasoid peoples, though their mix seems more obvious like the Bashkors) who are the descendants of the Turkomans of "medieval" times. The Turks of Turkey as well as the Tatars in European Russia and other modern-day Turkic peoples of the Near East and eastern Europe look the most Caucasoid out of all the modern-day Turkic peoples; they look almost no different from an average Westerner.

Quote:

---

That was much, much later in history. The Volga Bulgars were the first Turkic people to convert to Islam, which happened in 922 CE. The Oghuz, who were either the descendants of the Onogurs or the Tiele (the latter seems to be more likely), converted to Islam during the 10th-11th centuries when Seljuq Begh started the conversion process in the 10th century CE. The Seljuqs stem from the Oghuz. The Qara-Khanids, a state created by the remnants of the Uygurs that had fled from Mongolia to the Tarim Basin when the Uygur empire was overrun by the Kyrgyz in 840 CE, also converted to Islam during the 10th century CE, but the Islamization of the Uygurs continued until up to the 15th-16th centuries CE. Even today, many of the Turkic peoples that remained on the northeastern steppes and in Siberia aren't Muslim but still follow the native Altaic religious traditions and worship Tengri. The modern-day Mongols, who are the descendants of the amalgamation of the Turko-Mongol peoples that Chinggis Khan had united in Mongolia, are Buddhists.

---

There were Turks who converted to Islam before 922. What of the ghulams, and the many other Turks the Abbasid Caliphate used in their wars?
And I know many Turks did not turn to Islam until much later. However, after the Arab invasions, the conversion of some began.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

There were Turks who converted to Islam before 922. What of the ghulams, and the many other Turks the Abbasid Caliphate used in their wars?

---

No, I'm talking about Turkic peoples as a whole, meaning their political entities, not individuals. If we're talking about individuals, I could argue that there were Iranians who converted to Islam before the Muslim Arab conquests, namely the Iranians who lived on the northern frontiers of Arabia, yet the fact remains that the majority of Iranians converted to Islam after the Muslim Arab conquests of most of the Middle East. The fact remains that the majority of Turkic peoples at this time were non-Muslim and still believed in the native Altaic religious traditions.

Non-Arab troops, who fought mainly as cavalry, only began to be dominant after Al Mamun's victory over his brother Amin in the Abbasid civil war of 811-813 CE. Iranians formed a major part of the Khurasanis and Turkic captives only formed a part of the Khurasanis. As for the ghulams, Nicolle clearly mentions on pp. 14-15 of his Armies of Islam 7th-11th Centuries that the Turkic ghulams employed during this time consisted largely of adult male warriors and sometimes even aristocratic leaders; they were different from the ghulams of later times, who were trained in the Muslim faith since childhood and freed as Muslim warriors. These ghulams only formed a small, but significant part of the Abbasid military forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

And I know many Turks did not turn to Islam until much later. However, after the Arab invasions, the conversion of some began.

---

Again, I'm talking about the Turkic peoples as a whole, not single individuals. If we're talking about individuals, I could argue that some Iranians converted to Islam before the Muslim Arab conquests or that some Germanics converted to Christianity before the Roman empire adopted the Christian faith, but the fact remains that the majority of the mentioned peoples converted to the Muslim and Christian faiths much later in history. No Turkic political entity converted to Islam before 922 CE, and even after that time, the majority of the Turkic peoples weren't Muslim. Neither the Umayyads nor the Abbasids successfully invaded the eastern steppes occupied by Turkic peoples. We have seen, for example, that the Umayyads remained on the defensive in face of the Turgesh invasions under Sulu khagan. Besides, it's a bit oversimplistic to constantly apply the characteristics of one Turkic people to all "Turks", ie, for example, just because the Seljuqs and Ottomans were Muslim doesn't mean that "Turks are Muslim" simply because the Seljuqs and Ottomans don't represent all Turks nor are they the only "Turks" around.

Well, I may be wrong. I don't know as much about Turks as I would like to, I mainly know about Iranians, mainly through the research of this mod.
However, I assure you, I am far more intrested in the Turks that stayed on the steppe and did not convert than the Seljuqs and Ottomans. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

They will have a difficult time of it, which is what in fact happened historically.



*phlw'nyg or Pahlawanig (Pahlavanig) means Parthian in Middle Persian. The name through association with the Parthians came to mean hero, warrior, champion, and variants of this. For example Pahlawan means "hero" in Kurdish which is related to Median and Parthian as part of the Northwestern branch of West Iranian. Persian itself is of the Southwestern branch of West Iranian.

---

Finally this name makes sense. You should include this information in the game!

Oh dear lord(s)! I was about to wirte a post on how these units look an awful lot like EBI units, why already known factions are missing on the map and why this thread isnt in the EBII forum, but then I fortunatly checked the date of the initial post.
Man, necromancy is a wicked craft!

What even happened to khelvan?