East Iranian groups apart from Afghans are dying breed even in 867 start date.
Will East iranian culture groups (scythians) be covered in "legacy of persia dlc"?
- Thread starter qaqq2q2
- 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.
People are actually using Northern Lords as an example of a good DLC lol? I thought it was scummy and useless and almost felt a lil scammed since I'd bought Royal Edition and play almost exclusively from 1066 and don't play much in Scandinavia. Something I liked about CK2 DLCs was that even if I didn't play in the area they related to it still felt like they were adding a dynamic that would make it more interesting to play nearby too. With Northern Lords I got literally nothing. It may as well have been a cosmetic pack as far as I'm concerned.
- 3
- 3
- 1
Hahaha alright Herodotus, dont think we will get any Scythians, and I think people are getting too hung up on the PERSIAN name of the DLC. Its going to be about the place Persia, not specifically about PERSIANS. Because guess what, Persia is conquered by Arabs and then Turks within this timeframe. It can very much involve Persian culture and persianization of these peoples, but it is not going to exclude Arabs and Turks as they are the movers and shakers.
Last edited:
- 5
It depends on what exactly they want to focus on for the Persia DLC. The Dev comments we have so far explicitly name the period as one of the 'iranian intermezzo' followed by 'the seljuk empire'. So that's how they conceptualize that time: you have the post arabic persian renaissance and the turkish takeover, which continues that renaissance as the turks turned out to be a bunch of iranoboos. The way I see it any Persia or even 'Caliphate' DLC that doesn't deal with turkish migrations and the rise of turkic slave-soldier military estabilishments in the region would feel incomplete. Not to mention that it would kinda suck if they made a Persia DLC and we still don't get Ghaznavid and Seljuk invasions on the 867 start.
Consider for a second the effort they put to create Regencies. That thing is practically made for the turkish takeover of the islamic world.
Consider for a second the effort they put to create Regencies. That thing is practically made for the turkish takeover of the islamic world.
Last edited:
- 3
- 3
- 1
Well you have actual Zoroastrians and numerous Iranian culture group vassal and top rulers
Arab Domination has ended in 867 where as Turkic Domination in 1066 is gonna keep on chugging for centuries.
- 1
- 1
- 1
Sure, but the ruler of Iran in 1066 isn't just some random guy.
His (and his sons') westward campaigns are, ultimately, the reason the First Crusade happened.
- 2
Sure but this is a flavor pack on Persia, not the Crusades which never touched it outside the crusader State of Edessa in northern Mesopotamia, but that’s past 1066 and never forms in game so that’s definitely not being considered here.
I do think there’s gonna be content for the Persian Turks too but it’s easy to see why 867 would get more content.
Last edited:
Speaking of things that involve both Persians and the Turks I was thinking of cultural units. I wish Persians would get access to Cataphracts (since it's their thing originally) and islamic countries in the regions that border central asia would get access to Heavy Cavalry Archers to represent elite slave soldiers. People tend to think of Horse Archers as a skirmish type unit - the way it exists now for Horse Lord cultures - but from what I understand warriors like the Mamelukes were heavily armored as well and ready to fight in every way like full fledged knights. Futuwaa and its spearmen feels like a weird fit for Persia since Futuwaa societies was a general thing in the region, not really confined to Persia, and not necessarily confined to martial fraternities either.
- 1
- 1
I was under the impression that cataphract cavalry stopped being a mainstay in Iran after the fall of the Sassanids. Did Muslim Persians have such units in their regiments?
I believe you're right, they were probably used by the Umayyads in Perisa for a time but it seems there's little if any evidence to suggest widespread use by the time of CK3. The Byzantines would still make use of them at times, but it seems for the 867 start date they should be "softer" while being more akin to their late antiquity counterparts for the 1066 start if my reading of the Wikipedia article is correct.
If I remember correctly Armenians also made use of Cataphracts, Georgians have Monaspa which is basically their version of Cataphracts, Armenians should probably get them too.
I think the Seljuks and other persianized turks can very well be covered and it would be strange not to cover them.
The flavour pack is very aptly named „Legacy of Persia“ because you don‘t literaly have to be of persian descent/origins to uphold Persias legacy. The seljuks upheld the persian political structures, court language and cultural traditions (poetry etc), thereby making them some of the prime champions of the „Legacy of Persia“.
- 6
These Seljuks need to be Turko-Persian to begin with, saying Seljuks don't belong to Persia is like saying Normans and Nose-Gaels don't belong to a Britannia dlc
- 4
- 1
- 1
I don't think so. Heavily armoured cavalry of various kinds never stopped being used in the region, including the 'fully enclosed' cataphracts. This applies to both the intermezzo and the seljuk periods, but also earlier.
A little bit of googling gives me this depiction of khorasani heavy cavalry (heavily armored cavalier, no armor on the horse) this other depiction of khorasani cavalry (fully enclosed horse armor, heavily armored rider), this third straight up khorasani cataphract from an earlier post sassanid period, this depiction of abassid persian cavalry (armored cavalier and horse, with cloth on top). All reminiscent of the roman cavalry in various ways.
I think only centuries later by the Ottoman period that you see powers in the region opt for mobile light cavalry armies more and more (which is something that would eventually become prevalent in Europe as well), but you still had the ottoman sipahis and the mameluke turks making similar choices when outfitting their heavy cavalry. The timurid cavalry is likewise reminiscent of cataphracts.
Of course you might have noticed there's a lot of variety here and there, but nothing was static. We are not just talking about the differences between auxiliary troops and core soldiers, but also centuries of polities and ways of waging war that vary over time. Rome didn't use the same cataphracts forever, but everyone tried to field the same sort of 'fully enclosed' heavy cavalry.
So really at the end of the day it's not that the arab invasion cleansed the persians of their ability to create cataphracts. Nor did the arabs turn the persians into a realm known for its iconic futuwaa spearmen. What happened is that the iranian empire was dismantled. The ability to field heavily armored cavalry diminished as local structures of political authority and revenue gathering disappeared. But the culture didn't change. Neither did the demands of the 'military meta' of the period, so to speak. Both the arabs and the rising powers of the period would go on fielding cavalry armies, as befit the region, the region's culture, and the region's military needs. With their ability to do so varying greatly over time.
The real changes in the time period isn't the death of the heavily armoured fully enclosed cavalry, but the stylistic changes introduced by the turks and the arabs, a growing demand in both Rome and the Caliphate for cavalry archer mercenaries (mostly turks and turkopoles), the rise of horse cavalry as a key military arm in general, and the Turks bringing their wacky curved swords with them.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1