Cultural Appropriation Problem

Bro wtf :sob: :sob: :sob:

Conspiracy theories aren’t necessary to challenge academic consensus. There are plenty readily available alternatives that are less biased in regards to what academic circles are researching certain topics. You ain’t need to delve into phoenecian bermuda pyramid aliens to make that case. In fact, it is ridiculous to jump onto the least reliable of sources and compilation of amateur and conspiracy theorist ideas.

Do your research and you’ll find plenty of legitimate, historical perspectives that challenges the status quo.

1 Like

Please, we don’t need Age of Empires to be associated with alternative history. It’s already bad enough that Ensemble made Atlanteans based on modern conspiracy theories.

Alternative history peddlers aren’t your friends and they aren’t interested in history, their only friend and interest is money.

1 Like

Not everything is a conspiracy theory…

NOTE: I didn’t mention anything about aliens.

However, I haven’t followed some of these studies in years. So I don’t know the outcome of some.
I apologize for two serious errors on my part, as I could have checked before speaking.

Let’s look at the two problems and a bonus. rsrsrsrsrs

  • Regarding Brazil and a possible Phoenician colonization. Apparently, there may have been some tampering/fraud, or due to natural erosion, the writing may have been altered to the point of resembling something related to the Phoenicians. But there are some other studies that believe it’s a language from another civilization that already belonged to the region. In this case, I prefer to DISCARD it, just in case.

  • Regarding the Bermuda Triangle, a team used a vessel with technology to scan the ocean floor and believe they located two pyramids. Therefore, since it’s a difficult-to-access location, it requires a very well-equipped team. If more teams could go there and study, we’d have an answer as to whether it’s just someone seeking fame or if something really exists. In this case, I prefer to DISCARD it, just in case.

Note: But if it’s due to a lack of submerged pyramids, we have the submerged pyramids of Cuba, which are very real.

  • Regarding Crimea, at the time it was discovered, the research was publicized, and modern equipment was used to scan the subsurface. Several pyramids were found, and it was even possible to calculate the approximate size of each one. The problem is that excavation wasn’t allowed at the site, and then “the war” broke out (Ukraine x Russians), and Crimea currently belongs to Russia. So, we’ll never have the answer here. Since excavation isn’t allowed at the site, I’m marking it as INCONCLUSIVE.

– As for the other conspiracy theories I mentioned in my last post, they’re actually NOT CONSPIRACY THEORIES, rsrsrsrsr. Because any scientist or archaeologist can go there and study them, see them, and touch them. There may be discrepancies in dating or hypotheses. However, they are real, there is no fraud.

Yes, I understand you.
To summarize, I believe in these types of theories/studies:

There’s a documentary on Netflix that helps give you a sense of what I’m trying to say:
Prehistoric Revelations in the Americas (I don’t know if that’s the exact name in your language)

These aren’t conspiracy theories, they’re real studies, but with different points of view that believe in what ancient people wrote and left as warnings, in addition to analyzing geology and everything else.


But let’s really stop here.

We’re already getting off topic, and everyone can believe whatever study they want. rsrsrsrs

Good luck to everyone.

Now I’m going to play my Age of Empires IV !!! =D

Graham Hancock is the exact type of alt history peddler I’m cautioning about.

These aren’t studies, and Hancock isn’t a Scholar. He’s taking autonomy away from the ancestors of people of color by implying they couldn’t have built what we know they built without being taught by an older and more advance civilization. It’s the same hyperdiffusion idiocy that inspired AoM Atlanteans.
He got humiliated by Flint Dibble, an actual archeologist, who by the way Graham mocked for having cancer.

1 Like

What can I say?
I’ll give an example.

There’s a scientific article that says a certain thing is bad for you and causes a certain type of disease. Then another group of scientists comes along to verify the research and discover it’s true. (This is the famous peer review.)
However, these studies aren’t funded by certain entities, which are exclusively focused on profit.

Soon another scientific article comes along saying it’s good for you and has its verification done as well. However, this second article is sponsored by certain large companies that want to sell this product.

In the end, only the second article counts, and they say the first article is wrong because certain methods weren’t taken into account, and so on.

Over time, the specific type of disease that the first article warned about begins to appear. This problem increases significantly. However, new studies say the problem is coming from elsewhere, not that the first study was correct.


Honestly, there are certain facts that are not accepted… even if there is no fraud… the fact is there, but it is ridiculed and ignored as if it didn’t exist. This is normal and everyone should already know it. That’s why dogma exists. There are things that will never be accepted, but that doesn’t mean they are completely fabricated.

I don’t know what that has to do with Graham Hancock being a sham who makes money off people wanting Atlantis to be real

1 Like

Poor Graham Hancock, let him be happy, rsrsrsrsrs.

You’re mad at the wrong person. Graham Hancock didn’t invent the Atlantis.

You should be mad at Plato, who told details about this lost civilization, Atlantis. Plato is a liar, rsrsrsrsrs.

Actually, people need to understand that it’s difficult to prove the existence of something that’s submerged and partially destroyed by earthquakes or whatever happened, even more so if it is a place that is difficult to access and requires a lot of equipment.

A little story:
Remember that in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, it was believed that the Assyrian and Babylonian civilizations were lies.
A story invented in the Bible.
However, in the mid-19th century, these two civilizations were discovered.
But even so, they began to invent more lies, saying that King Nebuchadnezzar was a made-up character in the Bible. And after a while, they found some rubble with his name written on it. In short, the Bible is correct.
It should be noted that Babylon and the Assyrians are in an easily accessible location, and the remains of its structures were on display.

Let’s not delve into alternate history here. I’ve seen enough of it, and I don’t want to see any more. Academics are more solidly built than you might think.

2 Likes

Well, that’s called the principle of insufficient evidence, or Sagan’s warning:

“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

In fact, this principle is seen several times in history and I will give several examples later.

I remember that.

It turns out that around the 1800s, due to the rise of anti-religious political movements, including Freemasonry, the French Terror, Materialistic Capitalism, and Communism, historians began trying to discredit any historical reference written by someone religious. Literally, an atheistic fanaticism disguised as science, sponsored, as always, by politicians.

And they discredited things like modern-day internet trolls making the Chad and Soyboy meme, but with a religious twist:

- If the Babylonians appeared in the Bible, then they didn’t exist.
- If the pagan gods appeared in the Bible, then they didn’t exist either.
- If the Romans were bad in the Bible, “The Romans were good, and an utopian society.”
- And the worst part: to contradict Spain, a Catholic country, it was even said that the Aztecs didn’t sacrifice people, or that the Mayans were a pacific culture.

But, they were wrong:

1).- Nowadays, it’s known that many pagan demons and gods in the Bible did have temples. Here’s the one for Baal.

2).- That the Babylonians existed, even the Persians boasted of having wiped them off the map. Interestingly, Saddam Hussein commissioned archaeology of his ancient capital.

3).- Roman society can hardly have been classified as utopian, unless one wants to classify slavery as a good thing, or mass crucifixion. I mean, just look at how Spartacus’ rebellion ended:

4).- And recently, the Huey Tzompantli, the place where the Aztecs hung the heads of sacrificed people, was discovered. That and with molecular chemistry techniques, it was discovered that there is also a lot of blood, too much, in the vessels and steps of Nahuatl temples, especially the Aztec ones.

I know, and that’s still happening, although in my field, I know more about what happens for economic and political reasons, mainly in Pharmacy, Biology, and Medicine.

It was recently discovered that Teflon is carcinogenic and that, on top of that, many almost indestructible substances are being released into rivers and even accumulating in human blood, and many companies have covered it up.


Now, since this is a topic to talk about “Cultural Appropriation,” I’ll return to the topic at hand in my next post, which I believe began to change because of something about Hindu technology.

1 Like

As happy as I am with the direction of variants compared to their initial launch, I would give a million Tughlaq variants for one Aztec civilization. Massively missed opportunity from AoE4.

@MadMax8915 Buddy, I’ll say it again. You can find alternative conclusions that challenge real historical claims and consensus that work within the framework of science and proof. You may believe that our formulation of history is just the accumulation of people talking at each other, but the reason we have discovered so much of our ancient past in particular in recent times, is exactly because of scientific methods, peer reviewing and a more global approach towards archaeological research that dismantles biased perspectives in search for a larger picture of how things have come together.

The likes of Gram are scammers that prey on people like you. You don’t seem to respect the sources, but I doubt this is from a lack of interest. Rather, Gram has presented ideas to you in a very palatable way. It is easy to digest what he presents. But, you care enough about history to listen. You care enough about it to play history based games and even engage in a forum dedicated to one.

I’d say all you need is to look at primary sources and see how evidence becomes theory. What we understand about history today, is a great compilation of millions of people’s efforts to gauge the truth.

2 Likes

I agree.

At least for the topic at hand, the era to be portrayed in the game, India between 400 AD and 1650 AD; there’s no need to go into the most speculative period; the period of Antiquity before 500 BC, and there is speculation about when the events of the Mahabharata book took place (3500 BC - 500 BC or even earlier).

In fact, I’d say that among the periods of many Indian cultures that could be included in the game, there are enough written records and ruins to prove their existence, postdating the Indian Dark Ages.


1) Dark Age (India)

For the game’s time period, at least in the Dark Ages (I) 350 AD - 700 AD:

While Rome was being invaded by barbarians, in India… THEY WERE ALSO INVADED BY BARBARIANS.

In fact, they were known as the White Huns (or Hephthalites), and it was speculated that they came, like the Huns, from China (from the Xiongnu), although it is also possible that they crossed paths with the Turkic peoples before becoming a genocidal horde that devastated everything in their path, and they didn’t even stop to mention their real name.

They invaded India, defeated most of the Indian kingdoms, and in fact, “They also exterminated the ruling class.”

There was so much chaos that it was, in effect, a dark age in India. Most historical records were “lost” because only ruins remained.

Taking advantage of the confusion, it is now known that the victorious Hephthalites altered the civil and historical records to proclaim themselves the new “ruling social class by birth”… ​​when in reality, the ruling class had completely perished and was being replaced.

This new caste, the Kshatriya, claimed to be both rulers and soldiers. Other groups that followed their example were the Rajputs, many of whom were mixed race Hephthalites and Hindus, or lower-class Hindus who wanted to change caste, inventing a military past.

The problem is that the common people had to believe it, because in theory, how could they refute it?

  • According to Hindu belief, the ruling class was going to “continue to exist forever”, so their extermination was unbelievable. These guys said that many were “descendants of gods” who had gone abroad at some point, and now “returned” to rule.

2) Medieval India

Between 700 AD and 1200 AD, India theoretically had several Hindu kingdoms:

  • The Rajput kingdoms, several city-states in northeast India
  • The Cholas, in southern India.
  • Sri Lanka, an island, which, being an island, had natural protection until the Chola invasion.
  • Odessa and the eastern kingdoms, where most of the elephants came from.
  • The Chalukya (later the Hoysala) in central India

And everything was peaceful… *well, not really, but they only invaded each other… until 711 AD, when the first Islamic invasions of India began.

These incursions became more open in the 10th century, with repeated attacks by the Ghurid Empire on the Rajputs. And well, these would be the predecessors of the Delhi Sultanate.

And well, the Delhi Sultanate is a civiilization of the Game.


3) Delhi Sultanate 1206-1517

Well, the Delhi Sultanates, the elephant civ. Beginning with the Ghurid anexion of Delhi, they were practically a series of Islamic governments that claimed to be the driving forces behind the expansion of Islam in India, attempting to conquer it completely.

There were five dynasties, including Tughlaq, the most successful.

It should be noted that these dynasties believed that to eradicate the idolatries of Hinduism, all its temples and idols had to be “destroyed.” Many historic Rajput, Chola, Hoysala, and other temples have been destroyed by this dynasty.

Many of these dynasties were also credited with bringing technological improvements to India (hence their free technology bonuses), both economically and militarily.

New kingdoms were also created during this period:

  1. The Rajputs were never completely controlled and rebelled from time to time. Between 1400 and 1600, they reached their peak, even fighting against the Mughal Empire.

  2. The Vijayanagara appeared in central India, having the Southern Tamils ​​(Muvandar) as vassals.

  3. Odessa was sometimes conquered and other times liberated. They continued to export elephants all over the world.

  4. Sultanates: After Tamerlane’s invasion of Delhi, several independent sultanates were created.

And the period after this, the Mughals (1517-1750) and the British colonies, is already in the AoE3 period, so we’ll skip it.


4) Historical Records

The Rajput, Chola, Muvendar, Hoysala, Vijayanagara, and other kingdoms left historical records, writings, or oral traditions narrated by their descendants, as well as testimonies from foreigners (Tang and Song China, Portuguese, Timurids, Mongols), and well, almost everything.

Of course, it must be considered that, in the case of India, it is a “VERY RECENT” country, due to the fact that it was a British colony until 1953. Therefore, archaeology, or the translation of Hindu texts into other languages, is also a “VERY RECENT” science.

There are TOO MANY ruins that have yet to be rigorously investigated, sealed temples, and looted sites. In fact, even one of Delhi’s Landmarks from AoE4 (Sultan’s Palace) has not been fully investigated; many of its halls are still buried.

Thanks to the internet, and to Indian archaeologists who adore their profession, we now know much more about it than the English colonial vision gave us of the country’s history.

But precisely for this reason, we must be diligent if we want to analyze each of its cultures or aspects.


We’ll talk about elephants with ballistae tomorrow; I’m sleepy right now.

1 Like

This is the last time I’ve tried to talk about this subject. Some understood what I said, others didn’t.

I don’t consider academia to be something “solid,” something fixed, something that can stand by its word, keeping it firm without alterations, or something immutable. Academia is a place of study and constant change, due to each new discovery and new studies.

It should be understood that academia was against the existence of the Assyrian city of Nineveh, the existence of Babylon, the existence of King Nebuchadnezzar, and the existence of Troy.

In short, for academia, someone who believes in a scroll, books, or a drawing on stone that tells a story, or the existence of something, can be considered a theorist and a conspiracy theorist. Even if that document is original. History can’t always be proven, as it requires finding the “object in question,” but that doesn’t mean the story is a lie, since the “object in question” may have been lost or destroyed.

The academic community was forced to change its thinking after “theorists” managed to prove the existence of the Assyrian city of Nineveh, Babylon, and King Nebuchadnezzar. And now, a few years ago, they had to accept the existence of the city of Troy, which, until then, was also a fictional city to them.

Academia is not the absolute owner of the truth, as they have been forced to change their opinion several times throughout history.

Another example was the dinosaurs themselves. Initially, academia believed that a two-legged dinosaur walked almost upright. Later, new studies indicated that its posture was different, and this posture has been changed over time. The same goes for the question of whether dinosaurs had lips. Initially, academia was firm in their assertion that they had lips, then changed their minds, saying they didn’t, and now, in recent years, they’ve changed their minds again, saying they do have lips.

– The academic world is constantly evolving and changing. It’s not solid, fixed, or immutable.
And let me be clear: I AM NOT AGAINST academia. I just don’t believe everything they say because they’re constantly changing their points of view. Whereas today they say something, a few years later they say it changed, and now it’s going to be this way. This has been happening throughout academia’s existence.

Thank you, friend, for providing more information.

I don’t believe everything Graham Hancock says is true. I also disagree with many things.

If fraud is proven, because he wants some fame, I hope he’s punished for it at some point.

But I appreciate your attention.

About the Ballista Elephant in Delhi Armies, or “Arrada Elephant”


I’m going to focus on the Delhi Sultanate.

Apparently, they did have elephants with “ballista,” or at least it’s theorized that it was an Arabic ballista.

The full name of the weapon in Arabic was Arrada, which is assumed to be a type of ballista.

  • It’s the Arrada that is mentioned as being charged on top of elephants, which could be acted as mobile siege towers to fire at guards posted on the walls.

  • It’s also mentioned that the weapon was used on the Walls themselves as a defensive siege weapon. Does that sound like the Stone Towers with Springalds from the game?

  • They were light enough to be carried on an elephant’s back, and should not be confused with the manjaniq, which was apparently a heavier mangonel, trebuchet or onager used to destroy walls.

Interestingly, those uses and characteristics are similar to the uses of medieval ballistas, so there’s a pretty strong correlation between the two, and the fact that the Ghurids brought siege weapons to India makes sense that the Delhi Sultanate have them too.

As a side note, the one describing the quote, Amir Khusrau, was a poet and writer who lived between 1253–1325 and witnessed the rise of the Tughlaq Dynasty.

Here’s the page in question (for educational purposes), and you can check the source:



Source

  • Athat Ali, MILITARY TECHNOLOGY OF THE DELHI SULTANATE (13-14th C.), Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 1989, Vol. 50, Golden Jubilee, pp. 166-182

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44146036

1 Like

You don’t have to wait for “proof of fraud”, he’s fumbling his research (or more accurately, showing his lack of research) right now.

And sorry to tell you, but religious texts aren’t reliable sources of information. That’s why we have to doubt everything until we have proof. But Atlantis isn’t even a religious text, it’s a cautionary tale.

And Academia isn’t this immutable organization who refuses to listen to every possibility, convincing you that that’s the case is Hancock’s Modus Operandi.

Thank you for your patience, for the information, and for sharing.
I’ll watch it tonight. =D

My goodness, you did it!
I tried searching and couldn’t find these materials.

Thank you very much for your determination and for taking some of your time to find these relics.

Therefore, we can believe that this Ballista Elephant / Springald Elephant may have actually existed in some regions of India. The Tughlaq Dynasty dominated almost the entire Indian continent, and they must have taken possession of this technology, even if for a short period of time.

I don’t know how your free time is, but if you can:

  • But could you present more studies regarding the use of elephants armed with ballistae and mangonel/catapult (I don’t know if this actually existed) and the regions of India where they used them?

  • Another question: The Chola Dynasty used tower archer elephants… but I believe the look is slightly different from what is seen in northern India, probably with less defenses/armor. I don’t know if you have any information about these Chola Dynasty tower elephants. If so, could you share it?

Well, I tried, but it seems it’s difficult to find clear differences between the war elephants of the different kingdoms of India in general texts.

There are “foreign” authors who are largely ignorant of the differences between the kingdoms of Medieval India, and many have a tendency to “generalize” India as if it were a united country over the past 2,000 years, rather than the different kingdoms into which it was divided.

In fact, I was just tremendously disappointed with Osprey:

  • For example, in Osprey, “War Elephants,” they divide the analysis of war elephants among different kingdoms, such as Carpathian, Cambodia, or Thailand, but they generalize “India” in its 2,000 years as the same thing. In fact, they don’t mention even ONCE the Delhi Sultanate, the Rajputs, the Cholas, or others.

  • In another Osprey book, by Medieval Indian Armies (1) and (2), there is also almost NO mention of the different kingdoms of India, except for a page of Chronology, where it only mentions this: “There was a kingdom called Chola between 800 and 1200.” Nothing more (What a disappointment!). Even worse, they divide their analysis into two books where they separate the armies between Afghan Muslims and Indian Hindus… by race, BY RACE ######, #####, HOW THE HELL DO THEY DO THAT!!! The book is a constant reminder that it is difficult to analyze armies by race… AND WHO ASKED THEM TO DO IT BY RACE?

I’m very annoyed; I’ve honestly never read such nonsense from Osprey.

I’m going to look for other literature, which exists; there are entire books on the Chola dynasty and other dynasties. Take care.


1 Like

Thanks for the information.

It’s really difficult to find documents detailing armaments, elephants, and their weapons in the various dynasties/empires in the interior of India. That’s why I turned to you.

But if you find anything new, please share it. =D