if the reduced the 15% discipline for the heavy and the light cav on the Seleucid they still have 15% better moral over the Parthians cav. If not the thenParthian have 5% less cav Discipline and 15% less moral
Imperator - Development Diary 4th of February 2019
- Thread starter Trin Tragula
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
if the reduced the 15% discipline for the heavy and the light cav on the Seleucid they still have 15% better moral over the Parthians cav. If not the thenParthian have 5% less cav Discipline and 15% less moral
Numbers are being tweaked all the time so I would not spend too much time comparing military tradition values between diaries 
Not just poles. Ukrainian Cossacks pretty much straight called themself sarmatians. Some say all Slavs come from sarmatians. Point is, sounds interesting in borders of game world imo.
Pretty sure the Ukrainian Cossacks claimed descent from the Roxolani not from the main branch sarmatians. It's actually one of he suggestions for the etymology of the word Rus that it comes from the Rox (pronounced Rosh) in Roxolani.
IIRC a totalitarian regime is one which dedicates itself entirely to a particular ideology, which is something that only really happened with 20th century Communist and Fascist regimes (although Sparta could be considered a borderline case).
The usage of Scythians there seems to be terribly inconsistent, are Schytians a broad ethnic groups or subjects of the Scythian kingdom? You can't juxtapose one on the other.
Also nothing there proves the existence of a "Scythian empire".
Scythians is a collective term for nomadic iranian tribes on the central asian steppe. But yes it has also been used for those ruled by them, also those have assimilated other peoples as nomads always do when ruling their big diverse empires.
You may ask the same thing about the huns or the mongols. In fact the Scythians were very much the precursor to these two. It also works in reverse, the lingua franca of the hunnic empire was gothic, in fact the hunnic language died out so early we don't even know which lingual group it belonged to. The western scythians and saka may have been quite diffrent before the first scythian kingdom but their cultures were similiar enough after that no one saw a diffrence.
And demonyms are always juxtaposed between "ethnicity" and being subjects.
But it's clear that some people at the time saw Sarmatians as being a non-Scythian group taking over Scythian territory. According to that view the Scythians, IE the specific Easter Iranic nomadic group around the Black Sea, were conquered by Sarmatians.
So those Indo-Scythians don't necessarily have to be the same Scythians whose decline in the Pontic Steppe is being described in the 4th and 3rd centuries, because there are 2 different definitions at play.
I'm not so sure we can call the Huns and the Mongols are successors of Scythians, if anything the connection between the 2 is more indirect through the Iranic element in the Xiongnu and early Eastern nomadic confederations. AFAIK Hunnic is thought to be Oghur Turkic generally.
Ah but that's in a political sense, the Sarmatians were a break of faction of the Scythians, as the Roxolani eventually became a breakof faction of the Sarmatians.
How could it be the same people? Those Scythians had been dead for centuries. I am not my grandfather hence why the very concept of ethnicity is pointless. Culture is meaningful, language is meaningful, ethnicity is a pointless all or nothing concept which doesn't represent anything which actually exists in reality (kind of like race and in many ways it feels like it is just a new name on the concept of race, without updating the thought patterns to modern synthesis or even Mendelian genetics). The closest match from genetics is the demes, but the genes exists on clines not sharp borders or absolutes. Were the Sarmatians related to the scythians? Yes. Were they different? Also Yes. The idea that these are mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy
On the contrary the scythian kingdoms reached the turkic and mongolian homelands and will have influenced these cultures early in their development, also on the flip side these groups also as they expanded assimilated what remianed of the iranian nomads, anywaywe have a large kingdom/empire spanning half a continent with a diverse population and religious and cultural tolerance ruled by a group who made up a very small part of the population.
As for the hunnic language's orgins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunnic_language#Possible_affiliations
The only real reason people think they may have been turkic is because their names could have turkic roots, but they could also been something else and the turks could have gotten those roots from the huns, or we simply got these names (the 'real' names, not the latinized verisons) via turkic speaking sources distorting the picture. In archeology as in all sciences I don't know is always a wise statement unless you know something for certain, and out information on the huns is very limited. Even more so the Scytians and Sarmatians.
It should for an example be noted that the Poles under their era of Sarmatism considered the Sarmatians a turkic tribe, something we today know is not true, and compared their links to the Sarmatians to the Bulgarians link to the Bolhgar.
Truth is we'll likely never know what the Huns were, but the likeliest scenarios are that they were either the last great iranian tribe or the first great turkic one.
Last edited:
It's questionable calling the Sarmatians a breakway faction, because again what is this supposed Scythian empire that included all the Iranic people from Central Asia to the Pontic Steppe?
I'm not sure that if we drop ethcnity we would be able to discuss such things, what's the point of even discussing the nature of the Scythians if one doesn't believe in things like ethnic and political identity?
I'm not partial to any theory, but I've heard that some scholars have reached recently the conclusion that the Xiongnu were at the start a Yeniseian speaking elite that later Turkified linguistically and one branch of this group latter became the Huns, AFAIK it's not just "one theory among many", it's pretty solid and doesn't rely only on linguistics.
I already linked you the article! The burden of proof is on you now.
I would say how can you have a grown up discussion about these things if we assume such things exist? All that really exists are individuals and each is unique, every group of individuals is an artificial construct because dealing with a world of total individualism is inconvenient. But we must never forget that these are constructs and thus subjective. Consider Fritz Haber a famous jewish german scientist and nationalist during ww1. He clearly considered himself German, but the nazis disagreed. There you have the subjectivness where the line between ethnic and political identity represented very well.
Argue with wikipedia or it's sources. Also if it does not rely on linguistics what does it rely on? Relying on liguistics is not something bad, in fact it means you have a source to back up your claim while not relying on linguistics means you've got nothing.
Last edited:
The article doesn't talk about anything like you talked about at the start, nothing about this "large Scythian empire", only about Pontic Steppe kingdoms in contact with the Greeks.
States, governments and all that stuff are constructs too, should we stop talking about them too?
Archaelogy, we can see a archaeological diffussion from East to West roughly following the appearance of the Huns and the described Westwards migrations of the remnants of the Xiongnu.
This quote was from that article
The only one who has been talking about the greeks is you.
We should realize that those terms are subjective. Consider for an example the mongols, it is more or less impossible to hammer out who was part of the mongol empire and who was simply paying them tribute.
Again you claim things without a source.
Last edited:
I checked the source and there is NO mention about any kind of confederation, government, state or anything of the sort ruling over any territory comparable in scale to what you claimed, nothing absolutely.
You are again conflating Scythians, a name given to all nomadic Eastern Iranic people, with Scythians, a name given to a specific group of people under a political entity. Ust ing that logic you could take an out-of-context statement about Germans or Celts and say that a Celtic or Germanic empire controlled all of Central/Northern Europe or something like that.
Just about everyone knows that already.
http://www.academia.edu/15063553/Hu...From_the_Viewpoint_of_Archaeological_Material
the two people that can no longer post in this thread can feel free to PM each other about their... dispute
That is really interesting. All those tribes seem the same for me, so hard to tell the difference tbh. in that case, achievement should to be to conquer all slav lands as samathians. Such pre-slav dominance.
I played Total War Rome and Rome 2 and enjoyed them. Reading this thread, I am again wondering "do I need to do some course in ancient history" to be able to play this game?
Can I just buy this game and play it and within an hour understand it enough to enjoy it?
I don't have any interest in the origins of the Scythians or whether some plot of land should be called xxxx.
Do Paradox wonder about the sanity of people who post on their forums?
I mean I just want to play as Rome vs Barbarians or maybe Britons vs Rome etc.
I wondered why Paradox would want to do a Rome game since the above mentioned are still being played; but my interest is rising as maybe Paradox have a masterpiece here?
I mean, there seems to be a lot of depth in this game?
Can I just buy this game and play it and within an hour understand it enough to enjoy it?
I don't have any interest in the origins of the Scythians or whether some plot of land should be called xxxx.
Do Paradox wonder about the sanity of people who post on their forums?
I mean I just want to play as Rome vs Barbarians or maybe Britons vs Rome etc.
I wondered why Paradox would want to do a Rome game since the above mentioned are still being played; but my interest is rising as maybe Paradox have a masterpiece here?
I mean, there seems to be a lot of depth in this game?
Of course paradox wonders about it. We wonder about it and we are the people doing the posting!
As weird as it sounds, there is DNA evidence to suggest ethnic Poles are the European nation with the most central asian nomad ancestry:
R1A is the haplogroup most commonly interpreted as coming to both Europe and Afghanistan / North Pakistan via ancient nomadic people like the Skythians.
