Returning to the thread
I don’t think there’s cultural appropriation at the moment.
Since the unit, at least “aesthetically,” has many characteristics that are too different from the Khmer Elephant with Siege Crossbow.
But yes, there could be other problems later, but first let’s talk about aesthetics.
1) The Tughlag Ballista Elephant is NOT the Khmer Elephant; it’s another unit.
The Tughlag Ballista Elephant, which is a creative freedom from the developers (not a historically specific unit), uses a medieval Greco-Roman ballista, which the Arabs also used (In fact, the ballista was inherited from the Romans).
It’s been given the role of super-springald for the civil variant, and apparently its armor or heavy armor is very high, like most of the Delhi Sultanate’s elephants.
2) True Khmer Siege Crossbow Elephant
The elephant with a siege weapon from the Angkor Empire, Khmer, uses a “Chinese Siege Crossbow,” or a Chinese-style siege crossbow.
This siege weapon was used in the same role as the Roman ballista, but in China, and its design apparently reached South Asia, first for the Champa, and latter for the Khmer.
About its discovery:
-
The Khmer civilization left no written documents other than a few steles. Most of what is known about it comes from the writings of travelers (Song Dynasty), allies (Chola Empire), or enemies (Vietnam, Ayyutaya, Champa, etc.); as well as archaeological reconstructions of ruins and steles.
-
We know about the elephant because several stelae depict it as a military unit of the Khmer army.
-
Angkor and the Khmer Empire in Cambodia were discovered by French archaeologists. Based on the stele, the elephant was described as the “Ballista Elephant” by “French” archaeologists, who likened this weapon to the Greek ballista, only because they were unaware that a Chinese version of the Siege Crossbow existed.
3).- It wasn’t a 100% Khmer unit, but a “CHAMPA” Unique Unit
As I mentioned before, the Siege Crossbow came from China, but it didn’t arrive first in Cambodia, but rather in the Champa Kingdom via the coast.
The unit was, in fact, a military unit of the Champa Kingdom.
When did it arrive in Khmer?
It turns out that in 1171, a Chinese traveler brought Siege Crossbow technology to the Khmer. By reverse engineering, the Khmer managed to create their own now mobile models, but not on elephants:
In 1177, the Khmer were invaded and defeated by the Champa, their capital, Angkor, was sacked, and their king was killed. During the war, the Champa used elephants with a siege crossbow as their sole unit.
Jayavarman VII, the king’s cousin, rebuilt the army and began a counterattack in 1178, culminating in a naval victory in 1181.
During this period, the Khmer managed to hire Champa mercenaries, who gave them plans for mounting the siege crossbow on elephants, and incorporated it as a unique unit into their ranks.
In 1190, Jayavarman VII ordered the conquest of the Champa Kingdom with his newly strengthened army. The war would not end until 1203, with the total victory of the Khmer Empire.
The Champa would become their vassals, although this would not last long, but that is another story.
4).- The AoE2 version isn’t 100% correct, and in fact, it caused confusion.
The AoE2 version isn’t 100% correct, as it doesn’t use a “Chinese Siege Crossbow” with a double head, but only one. Furthermore, it calls it a ballista elephant, instead of a Siege Crossbow elephant.
So the general error is Age of Empires 2’s fault.
5).- How will both units be included in the game?
Simple, Tughlaq’s elephant remains as is, while the others:
The theoretical “Siege Crossbow Elephant” unit would be a Unique Unit or common unit for the Champa and Khemer, having its Chinese crossbow on its back, perhaps controlled by someone or not.
It could also fulfill the Springald role, but with less armor and HP than Tughlaq’s version. If not, he could act as a super-Crossbow elephant with humongous damage aggainst armored units, with the khmer motile siege crossbow as springald replacement (faster).
It could also have a unique technology to fire two crossbow bolts instead of one; the Chinese siege crossbows could be adapted for that.
6).- Discussion
At the moment, “aesthetically,” I don’t see any cultural appropriation on the part of Tughluq’s unit.
But there may be problems with the name, although the situation is actually more complex than it seems:
French name
-
As I mentioned, the French discovered Angkor, and when they saw the walls, they described the unit as the Ballista Elephant.
-
It’s important to know that historically, Cambodia, the region of the Khmer Empire, was a French colony from 1863 to 1953, and those who began to describe much of Angkor’s past were French archaeologists, not Cambodians.
-
Do foreigners have the right to name things from another country they are subjugating?
-
Even the book I get a lot of information from, “The Armies of Angkor: Military Structure and Weaponry of the Khmers,” is a book written by a Frenchman, not someone from Cambodia.
Champa Culture
-
The Champa, who are supposed to have invented the unit, technically no longer exist as a kingdom or a country, and are in fact currently an ethnic minority living in southern Vietnam.
-
This is because their kingdom was destroyed and annexed in 1471 by the Vietnamese kingdom, and attempted to be wiped off the face of the earth in 1832.
-
Currently, Vietnam is a one-party socialist government. This considers the Champa as one of the 54 tribes that were part of historical Vietnam. In theory, since they are considered…
-
In theory, it should be them, the Vietnamese, especially the ethnic Champa, who should ask for the Ballista elephants in AoE2 to be a unique Champa unit instead of a Khmer one. Although in theory, both civs used the unique unit.
My opinion
I think “Khmer” and “Champa”, should name their elephant the “Siege Crossbow Elephant”.
The Siege Crossbow already exists in Age of Mythology:RE, so it’s no longer possible to say that the model for implementing it in the game doesn’t exist.
In fact, in the future, we should consider replacing the Chinese Springald, and perhaps even the Japanese and Mongols, with the Chinese Siege Crossbow; with the same stats but a different shape.
