Controversial Christian Civilisation Concept

Age of Mythology: Retold Discussion
24

Sure, ok, I’ll be more specific then. You’re proposing a civ based on Christianity (or some version(s) of it), and witches are primarily linked to Christianity through early modern witch trials. To me they feel very out-of-place, both within your concept and within AoM as a whole. (Of course, this is just my opinion and you don’t have to agree.)

Going off-topic a bit here, but I’d be interested to know your source for this. It goes quite strongly against what the OED says: that witch derives from Germanic terms referring to soothsayers, telling the future, and the use of magic. Possibly related to the Germanic word wiele, meaning to practise divination or magic. Nothing Celtic, no relation to wisdom, herbalists, druids, etc, and wicca is an Old English masculine form of witch.

25

I should have prepared a document for when I get asked that. That way, I could simply copy paste a list with books and authors. It’s several books, tho I couldn’t name every single one off the top of my head with the author name as well. I’d have to sort though my bookshelf for that.
Several of them by Dr. Christian Rätsch. He’s easy to remember, because there’s more than one book by him I read or started to read, and a lot of what he wrote really resonates. Wolfgang Behringer is another author, but I still have to finish his book. Got about three quarters through it a couple years ago.
There’s more, but those two I’d consider important sources, when it comes to where I get my informations about witches and the witch trials.

No idea where OED is getting that from. But sources, even primary sources, directly contradicting each other isn’t that rare, when it comes to researching history in depth. A lot of what’s presented in basic education, like in elementary school, as proven fact is often based on assumptions that are based on assumptions that are based on assumptions, and outdated longer than the kids hearing them have been alive.

I’m not putting my hand in the fire that my sources aren’t outdated or biased either. After all, some of those books I’ve owned for more than ten years, and a lot of discoveries and reevaluations can happen in that time.
And admittedly, not all of my sources are considered to be mainstream scientific.

26

There’s literally 0 chance that it will be added, none at all.

Could be someone try making a mod for it, but dont think that is also likely

1 Like
27

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic… If not, I disagree. It’s a web forum, not an academic journal. You can say whatever you like and references aren’t usually required. I was just curious – so thanks for your answer.

For the Old English word, they have examples of its usage in that sense from the 10th/11th centuries, by Ælfric of Eynsham and Canute. It’s an English dictionary, so they don’t list examples from the non-English Germanic languages they mention.

They do actually mention a possible relationship to “wise” that I didn’t pick up on initially, since it’s not explicit. This (quite old) OUP blog is more clear about it:

In the fourth paragraph, the author speculatively links witch to the verb wit and the related Old English words wita, witega, witga, meaning “wise man”. On this, the OED entry (which is newer – last updated 2021) says:

An alternative suggestion that the word reflects earlier Old English witga, a reduced form of witie n. (ultimately < the same Germanic base as wit v.1) does not account for the presumed Germanic cognates.

I don’t really know enough about etymology to be confident what that means – but evidently they consider this suggestion speculative but plausible enough to be worth mentioning.

In any case, I think what the OED says doesn’t contradict what you said – it’s possible that the Old English and related Germanic words are derived from/related to a Celtic word that more specifically referred to wisdom and/or was associated with druids.

Yes, I looked up Rätsch and Behringer, and I see what you mean. Although neither is an etymologist, so whatever etymology they’re suggesting is likely to have come to them from another source, rather than their own research.

1 Like
28

You spent a lot of time writing this. It sounds very interesting

29

I thought about a rather easy solution for the problem of what should be the Major God.
What if there was just 1 Major God and not 3 like for the other Pantheons.
We already have a Pantheon with more gods why not one with less gods?

This could be balanced out by having 3 Age up options every time instead of 2.

1 Like
30

Great idea!

I’ll try to come up with something based on your idea. I would see three different paths of development for this civ:

  1. Fairy tales and legends
  2. Crusaders
  3. Dark Middle Ages

This would have an impact on architecture and units at the moment of choosing the appropriate path to Age Up to Age 2.

31

tbh my problem with it is that it doesnt feel “Classical” which imho should be the sorta feel that AOM civs go for, and by classical i mean a cultural period that comes before a “medieval” period. AOM doesnt have a fixed time period but a lot of what it bases civs around is a sorta idea of classical antiquity.

Christian culture as it developed was a very medieval thing, its going to be very hard make it feel like it works, same with Islam, though a Second temple Judaism that is pre interaction with the Roman empire might work.

This is why with upcoming civs like China or potential civs like Japan, I feel like for China it should be at pre-Tang and for Japan only as far as the Heinan Period.

32

The norse are pretty much 10th century, but they do work as bronze age or “mythical past” ancestors of those.

For the same reason, I think Aztecs could work, even tho they’re chronologically more modern, their technology is arguably further behind, lacking metal tools or weapons, for the most part, so they could work as a stand-in for the Teotihuacán empire, that existed during the 3rd century, since we know nothing about them. All we know is that the Aztecs stumbled upon their ruins, centuries before the arrival of the spanish, that had been abandoned for centuries already, and we have a vague idea of when those ruins were built.

So Chinese using architecture, armor, clothing etc of dynasties as late as Ming, because they’re iconic, not because they’re period accurate, can work.

As long as it invokes the “classical” feel, as you said. Invoking the classical feel doesn’t necessarily mean only using architecture and equipment from classical period.
Using architecture and armor that every child will know at a glance as post-Roman won’t invoke that feeling. You’re right about that. But there are things from way later that still can.

33

The idea of this civ is to be more of a Migration Period and Dark Age looking civilisation then the classic High and Late Medieval that AoE2/AoE4 are focused on.
So the civilisation would look and feel a lot older then what most people think of as Medieval. For most people the Middle Ages only really start at like 1000 AD.

I wonder how their Armoury will look like. I hope they don’t get Copper, Bronze and Iron upgrades like the other civilisations.

Incan can get Copper and Bronze upgrades though.

I don’t think the Chinese should look like Ming Dynasty China.
Earlier China is iconic enough.

I already hate that the Greeks look so Hellenistic and the Norse so Medieval.

34

The reason those influences were picked is because they’re iconic. This isn’t a game about history, but mythology. And not just in the ancient mythology sense, but in the modern sense too.
Hades, as an example, is used as a common enemy faction in the story campaign.
Troy worships Hades, and the only Time Arkantos worships Hades is in a dream sequence where he’s stepping into the role of the bad guys. But the actual “bad god” among the greeks, as the story reveals, is Poseidon.
So using pop culture mythology to introduce people to the real mythology, images that are already established and iconic, as inaccurate as they are, to sell the idea, the fantasy, behind all that, to then let them discover the real thing in an ingame wiki.

35

Well Iconic 20 years ago. The movie Tory released a year after AoM and did not show the Greeks with Hellenistic armour. Though it’s not really Mycenaean either.
The knowledge about Bronze Age Greece has been expanded in the last 20 years and the public perception has also hanged.

Also Total War Troy released 4 years ago and showed historically correct Mycenaean units. So many gamers are certainly aware that Bronze Age Greek amour did not look very Hellenistic.

Also somewhat true for the Norse too. A lot more people are knowledgeable about what period what weaponry belongs to then they were 20 years ago.
Many people have complained about the Norse having Heater Shields.

36

yeah the timing of it is flexible, its more the feeling of it being pre-medieval , Heinan Period japan is also 10th century but its the pre-mediaval for Japan.

conversely though, I feel like Ming stuff for china, while Iconic is definitely too modern feeling/ would definitely want it to be more Han and pre-Tang if possible.

Again its about feel rather then like strict timing, if you are mentioning knights, Charlemagne and the Roundtable, longbow etc and ask people “is this the middle ages??” they would say yes.

If you want to do Christianity, I would rather it be based on the early spread of early Christianity, arguably before it was adopted by the Romans for it work