After 16 years, the Chola navy hoax / Thirisadai hoax has finally been addressed by Indian historian

In 2022, Dynasties of India DLC of AOE 2 DE was released. The DLC added the Dravidian civilization with their unique naval unit, Thirisadai, a large and tanky ship that supposedly reflected Chola / Tamil naval history:

Seize control of the lucrative Indian Ocean trade routes and utilize advanced metallurgy as you build one of the wealthiest sea empires of medieval Asia. The Dravidian unique units are the Urumi Swordsman, a warrior wielding a scathing flexible sword, and the Thirisadai, a massive vessel that dominates the high seas. Thirisadai – Dravidian unique warship that fires multiple projectiles. Strong vs. warships.

Thirisadai were heaviest class known, comparable to modern-era Battleships. Large and heavily armoured, these ships had extensive war-fighting capabilities and endurance, with a dedicated marine force of around 400 Marines to board enemy vessels. They are reported to be able to engage three vessels of Dharani class, hence the name Thirisadai, which means, three braids (Braid was also the name for oil-fire during that period). Though all ships of the time employed a small Marine force for boarding enemy vessels, Thirisadais had separate cabins and training area for them.

Before the DLC was even released, the information and existence of this unit were suspected as a hoax by Reddit user LXT130J, who noted that it was derived from the claims made on the Chola Navy Wikipedia page, which he identified as:
A. The page used fake sources and misattributed sources
B. Lacking additional references for comparison
C. The image that has been used to support the claim is proven to be fraud, it is a copyright violation (taken from a website), what claimed in the caption is not the same as the original description.

Wikipedia editors then investigated this, and found that the page is full of fraudulent claims and sources. After gradual rechecking of the information, the majority of the page’s content has been identified as hoax, even identified as one of the longest lasting hoax in Wikipedia’s internal history.

The story doesn’t end here, of course. Dynasties of India DLC was released anyway without any changes or acknowledgment from the dev’s side. The developer even made an attempt to cover or justify the existence of the unit: In 2023, Sam Levin, Forgotten Empires’ Narrative and Level Design Lead, mentioned that the name Thirisadai came from “trying to be a little cute with historical details”; he mentioned that the ship is attested in a military manual: “we tried to be a little too precise instead of focusing on authenticity - we could have just called the unit battleship”.

The rationalization seems to be deliberately vague, as the developers did not mention what military manual they were referring to. This seems to be done to avoid angering Indian players (there are some member here that even got upset when the unit was pointed out to be a hoax). It’s suspicious, they seem to be trying to save their face rather than providing historical information. Historians did not acknowledge these claims, there are more reputable researches done by proper historians such as Hermann Kulke, Subbarayalu, et al. which explores confirmable Dravidian ships such as marakkalam, toni, kalavam, vedi, and padavu, these names come from inscriptions (which in historiography has a very strong position). A game developer has much lower credibility than a scholar (if there is any credibility at all), their claim is not a prophet’s word.

Finally, in early 2025, a new book was published. This is Lords of Earth and Sea: A History of the Chola Empire by Anirudh Kanisetti. The book explained Chola history in great detail and cleared up the myth associated with the Cholas. The Chola empire which is reflected by the in-game Dravidians, is more like a land-based empire with a focus on infantry and elephantry. The maritime aspect of the Cholas instead refers to the Tamil merchant activities and a narrow 50-year timeframe when the Cholas invaded SEA. This 50 years is a small window compared to the 1000 years of the supposed Chola dynasty’s existence. Original post by benithisrael, all thanks to him for letting us know the existence of the new book !


The critics of the current Chola/Dravidians overview are available on the internet and this forum, but they’re mostly scattered. This one is by benithisrael:

Tamil country is the civilization Cholas represent. Tamils did achieve a great deal of weath by sea bourne trade of pearls, spices and other luxury items of the mideval world. The civ in the game however lacks all late game techs.

Also by benithisrael:

Cholas and tamil peninsular country were never a navy reliant power. So the arguement for keeping them lackluster on land does not hold. Their threats were from north. They dealt with them in a more defensive manner. the gameplay should reflect that

Anirudh Kanisetti pointed out that the debacle was a nationalist feel-good myth, and this is pointed out pretty consistently in his book. The Cholas did not have a navy but relied on / hired merchant ships to ferry their troops across the sea. Chola/Tamil inscription mentioned “army of the sea”, but not naval units.



The Cholas, for most of its existence, relied on the army rather than the navy, and indeed even Kanisetti couldn’t find any reference about the navy or naval units. In land however, some names of army units/regiments can be found, like Karnataka Strongheads and the Malayali Infantry. Elephant is also the Chola army’s main strength, there is even a story of a leader who died when fighting on the back of an elephant. This is Prince Rama, who was immortalized as The Lord Who Died Atop an Elephant (Ānai-merruñjina-devar).



Here is a YT interview with Anirudh Kanisetti about the Chola Navy hoax:

After the publication of this book and the interview with said historian, I hope that the devs acknowledge their mistake and make no further misinformation. The 13 years and 6 months existence of the hoax should not persist in the first place, let alone the 2 years misinformation from the devs.

16 Likes

Overall the naval gameplay is quite far from how it really was. Before the broadside was developped (outside the scope of the game), most naval action was done by ramming & boarding, with archers firing from elevated positions being secondary.

Flamethrowers were a byzantine exclusivity (until they lost the regions required for the components of greek fire) and kamikaze ships
 were an uncommon sight (and couldn’t be steered anymore once set ablaze as the crew usually wants to survive the battle). So the main rock-paper-scissor of the game detours from historical accuracy. Even for the galley lines, the galley and war galley aren’t galleys (I don’t see any oar) and the galleon is premature. The main unit for most civs should be trading cogs drafted as transport ships, with soldiers on it that can defend themselves. So any naval UU has to dance around the very inaccurate naval gameplay.

It wouldn’t be the first time the devs picked cool factor over historical accuracy. The celtic woad warrior is taken from the ancient Picts that raided Hadrian’s Wall instead of medieval Scotland, how William Wallace is portrayed is taken straight from Braveheart, the frankish throwing axeman throws Gimli’s double battleaxe, the malian gbeto is mostly inspired by an unit from the 19th century (that got easily crushed)


8 Likes

I wouldn’t like to take woads and throwing axemen out of the game, because they look cool, but also because they are played (and they have been for 25 years). But the thirisidai, I’m quite sure I haven’t seen any in my last 200 games. So it wouldn’t be a big loss.

3 Likes

This is an oldhat argument that holds no water on comparison.

The difference is that Picts were real, Braveheart was a mainstream film based on a loose pop culture perception of history, francisca axes were themselves real, and these are Western devs handling Western history.

And the devs were knowingly using these ahistorical elements in cartoonish exaggerations for fun.

The “Thirisadai” is a single hoaxer’s invention, using a wrong misappropriated name, which the devs, who are from a distant cultural background with limited cross-language access to info, mistook to be real.

All while the devs, if they didn’t invest enough in research to access an academic paper on Chola ships (there was one available at the time, offering exactly the right info), even if they cheap out, could still have used an available in public domain, noncontroversial name: colandia, from Periplus of the Erytlhraean Sea.

Note:
The relevant book is:
Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: Reflections on the Chola Naval Expeditions to Southeast Asia ed. Hermann Kulke, K. Kesavapany, Vijay Sakhuja.

5 Likes

What % of played maps have significant water, considering how popular Arabia & Black Forest are ? So an unique water unit for a DLC civ (only picked 0.84% of the time) won’t be a common sight.

3 Likes

so no one will miss it in multiplayer, and in campaign it can be replaced with something more appropriate

Your source doesn’t seem to answer the big question:
What exactly is Thirisadai?

The original hoax gave three different explanations (which is itself an alarming sign, showing the hoaxer hadn’t made up their mind). One says it means “three oil”; another says “each Thirisadai is equivalent to three Dharani.”

OK, so the heading thiri must be a Tamil borrowing of the Sanskrit tri for “three” then.

Now, the hoax page offered a full list of its Chola ship ranks, from small to the largest Thirisadai, and Dharani is said to be the second-largest ship.

So what is Dharani? The word is itself a common Sanskrit word:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dharani

Hinduism & Mahayana Buddhism
mantra
Etymology
Sanskrit dhāraáč‡Ä«, literally, act of holding, remembering, from dhārayati he holds

It literally means “holding”, and is usually known as a synonym of “mantra” via the sense of “keeping in memory”.

However, for the given topic, what we need is a feminine form of the word:
Dhāriáč‡Ä« à€§à€Ÿà€°à€żà€Łà„€ “she who holds”.

Dharini is the second-largest ship listed in Yukti-Kalpataru, a statecraft manual from Bhoja, who was a polymath king, a different and significantly more famous figure than the Mihira Bhoja we met in the Dynasties of India campaign.

A paper’s translation:

Translated into a table:

When a FE dev said they found the ship in a real ancient book, this might be a reason: they might have found that “Dharani” appears real, ergo Thirisadai is real.

With this explained, we still don’t know what Thirisadai means, do we?

Well, the answer is simple.

Here’s a paper on her:

Turns out Thirisadai is the Tamil name for Trijata.

If you are not familiar with the story outline of Ramayana, Trijata is a supporting character in the Indian epic. A kind-hearted demoness, she cared for the heroine Sita when she was kidnapped by the demon king Ravana.

The name itself literally means “three hair knots, three braids”.

===
Now you can see what the hoaxer had done. They drew inspiration using the real ship list from Bhoja, perhaps changing some names, and borrowed a legendary character’s name for their fake largest ship, sorta like calling it “Mary Magdalene”. Unlike the real Chola ships which used Tamil, these names are Sanskrit in origin.

7 Likes

Now for a question you don’t want to hear:

Do I care if the devs correct the unit’s hoax name?

My answer is I’ve stopped caring, and the hoax is publicized enough now, its damage is under control.

However, since then, the FE devs have introduced fake authencity through inventing nonexistent ancient words, which are entirely of their own device.

I care more about these cases, because they’ve polluted public resources like Google search.

But I’m also not holding out hope.

Fake Greek in AoM Retold, according to another poster:

Fake Old Norse, which I identified through my own research:

You can also check out the Amharic words in AoE3DE:

The devs’ history of updating for accuracy post-launch:
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/dialogue-languages-that-need-to-be-redone/234679/63

1 Like

Anirudh Kanisetti’s book only once mentioned Yukti Kalpataru, in note form. This is what he wrote:

Chaudhuri, Mamata. ‘Ship-Building in the Yuktikalpataru and Samarangana Sutradhara’. Indian Journal of the History of Science 11, no. 2 (1975): 137–47, 143. These texts date to the same period and were composed at the Paramara court, who were allied, on and off, to the Cholas. While geographically distant, these descriptions were probably based on merchant vessels which plied along the west coast and would undoubtedly have been familiar to the Five Hundred corporation.

The Ainurruvar (“Five Hundred”) is a Tamil merchant corporation, but as he acted as an objective historian, he did not associate the text with Chola outright. He mentioned that the Five Hundred would have been familiar, not that they used (the vessels mentioned in) it — that’s a whole different claim. Just because the Chinese had a rocket in the 10th century doesn’t mean that they made it to the moon — objective reasoning must be made to the claim, and most importantly, a contemporary text collaborating the claim must be found first.

All while the devs, if they didn’t invest enough in research to access an academic paper on Chola ships (there was one available at the time, offering exactly the right info), even if they cheap out, could still have used an available in public domain, noncontroversial name: colandia, from Periplus of the Erytlhraean Sea.

Colandia is also something like the “feel-good” thingy Kanisetti mentioned, this is also a supposedly big ship like the Thirisadai that can be used to bolster nationalist fervor. The colandia is also associated with Chola because of its name, because of this few (or many?) Indian scholars presented it as proof of ancient Indian shipbuilding mastery. However, rechecking of the text does not support this: The “c” in Colandia is not pronounced “ch”, the text mentioned ΚΟΛΑΝΔΙΟϕΩΝ΀Α (kolandiaphonta), not colandiaphonta or cholandiaphonta. The name Kolandiaphonta might be a transcription of the Chinese term Kun-lun po, which refers to an Indonesian-type of vessel.

Here is a publication by Robert Dick-Read, he also mentioned the Yukti Kalpataru, and advised not to take the information in it at face value. Robert DR also criticized Radha Kumud Mukherjee, who started the claim of the Borobudur ship being an Indian ship rather than an Austronesian ship.


The Paramara court, which composed Yukti-Kalpataru also reigned over what later be known as Surat and some parts of Gujarat region. This is a well-known shipbuilding location in medieval and early modern India – the Gujaratis have their big ships built there, and they’re often larger than Portuguese carracks in the 1500s. From Manguin, Pierre-Yves. 2012. “Asian shipbuilding traditions in the Indian Ocean at the dawn of European expansion”, pp. 597–629 :

These Surat-Gujarati ships continued to be relatively large (compared to contemporary European ships) in the early 1600s. Examples are Rahimi and Ganj-i-Sawai.

1 Like

That’s one of the things I’m really afraid of if more African civs are added: that the devs will use Wikipedia as a reference. For general information, Wiki is good, but when it comes to obscure/specific topics, it falls short.

I mean, I myself corrected a few months ago a single word, but that can make all the difference to the hurried reader, on the Malassay page. Imagine how many must have read that page and thought the Malassay were infantrymen. It doesn’t reach Thirisadai’s level of hoax, of course, but it’s just as ridiculous given that their OWN CITED SOURCE said that the Malassay were “chevaliers”! (And the source is available online, which makes me think that the author didn’t even read it!)

How many more things could be wrong that we (and the devs) don’t know about? That’s why I usually cite r/askhistorians or historum.com as they are both public and reliable sources (there are historians on the latter too).

1 Like

Looks like India needs another DLC to fix this mess. To split Dravidians, give Thirissadai to Malays and change the fort based on Golconda to something else.

1 Like

The good thing is there are so many weird weapons from India that finding new UUs would be interesting.

Exotic weapons is the correct term.

1 Like

When an exotic design makes sense it’s copied, at least in part. Can’t say that about the likes of the urumi.

Urumi in real life

Urumi if designed properly should have has ROF of 1 and blast damage of 0.5 to 1 tiles with no armour ignoring ability. For a video game, it should have looked like this

What devs probably thought.

Easy porting job!

1 Like

The term “chevaliers” might probably refers to their identity, title, social status, and not necessarily to them being cavalry, isn’t it?

In my Concepts of new African DLCs, I did design Malassay as infantry. Whether to ride a horse or not is not a big issue to me since there were also occasions when knights needed to dismount and fight, though I also have imagined what if Ghulam was a cavalry and Leitis was an infantry.

1 Like

The charge bar should be used for dodging rather than for additional damage, if it has to choose one.
Those Indian martial masters wore little or no armor, moved agilely, and were able to dodge their opponents’ (ranged) attacks and sometimes their own urumi swords to avoid being hurt by the soft blades’ swinging movements.

2 Likes

I suggest there should be a split to the current Malay Civ making 3 New Civs - Javanese, Cham, Filipinos and reworked Malays.

In addition there should also be a Dravidian Civ split into Tamils and Kannadigas. Kalingans should also get added. New Ship Sails should be created for the Indian Civs.

Together this DLC with 5 new Civs and 2 reworked civs can be named as “The Ocean of Churn” / “Mariners of Nusantara” / “Pearls of the Orient”

The ship Thirisadai should get renamed to something more generic like Outrigger Ship / Warship and it should be shared between Tamils, Javanese, Malays, Filipinos and Chams.

This DLC can be made focused on a massive Naval Rework adding Djongs, Boitas, Catamarans, Dhows from the Indo-Pacific Region as Scenario Editor Units or to the New Civs.

2 Likes

The ship Thirisadai should get renamed to something more generic like Outrigger Ship / Warship and it should be shared between Tamils, Javanese, Malays, Filipinos and Chams.

It would need more than renaming: It also needs resizing and new stats. Outrigger ships as a rule are not big, outriggers started to lose their function in vessels larger than 10 m long. This is because the flotation/stabilization function depends on the volume of the outrigger floats, and above 10 m long the hull of the ship that used it had an exponential increase in volume, thus having inherent stability without the need for using outrigger. Some VERY slender ships still used outriggers even when they were very long because they would capsize without it.

The size and stats of the Thirisadai reflect the real-life Javanese jong, the main warship of the Majapahit Empire and the Demak Sultanate. While the claim of Thirisadai having 400 marines is bonkers, Javanese ships during the era could carry 600–700 passengers, sometimes even 1000. This is about the same size, or even larger than, the flagship baochuan/treasure ship of Zheng He. Zheng He ships did not reach 120+ m in length, this is Chinese propaganda. They are commonly around 50 m long with a 70 m long flagship.

The newly released Civilization 7 did not repeat Microsoft’s mistake. For Chola, they used Kalam for the unique unit, modeling it after the Ajanta Caves painting. However, the devs used an inaccurate age transition art of Chola, featuring a ship with a ramp door (pretty much inexistent until WW2) and Alexander-era linothorax armor.

2 Likes

Modeling on the basis of Ajanta is as inaccurate for Cholas as it is modeling on the basis of Javanese. I mean Cholas had an equidistant trade connections only with both regions. There is also the fact that Ajanta was painted ~ 600 years before the Imperial Cholas.

What do you suggest as a solution to fix this problem in the game?

Discarding the model all together might be too radical of an idea.