it makes no sense in the context of of AOE3 anyway, all the civs are called by their colloquial term. Italians, Germans, French, Spanish, Dutch, Indians, Japanese and so on. There’s no Tokugawa Shogunate, Hohenzollern, Bonaparte country in the game.
5 Likes
Persians is referring to Ancient Persia though, Iranians is a more accurate term.
1 Like
I think that in real historical terms the Persian faction or Safavid empire is not entirely well founded to be able to enter the timeline of AOE 3, I have researched the history of this civilization and I have found that by the end of the 18th century The empire had already disappeared and it was annexed to part of Russia and the Ottoman Empire.
Absolutely.
From my British person perspective I know that the British equals the whole Tudor, Stuart, Hannover, etc dynasty run-thru. British is finnnnne.
This applies to a fair few other civs. I always see folks wanting separating Ming and Qing Chinas which is mad - it’s still that landmass called China - it’s just various dynasties controlling it.
Sure, Ottomans are the elephant in the room, however it gets a free pass. Why? Because the Ottoman dynasty existed way before the AoE3 timeline and way after!
As for Persia, yep Iran or even fancier - Mamâlek-e Irân - which means Guarded Domans of Iran (which was used from Saffafid to 20th century) is better. Persia is the Western name, but for some reason we go to Persia as it sounds more exotic and less ‘in the news’ than Iran.
1 Like
Indians are a bad civ choice though, Age of Empires need its own DoI.
2 Likes
Not reaaaaally
Persia has always been an exonym and Iran has always been an endonym. It got fixed in the 20th century, but it’s always been called Iran, since ancient times.
This is like, insanely wrong. Like props to at least trying to do some reading on the topic, but besides you not quite getting what the article said (the Zand Dynasty was also Persian), that’s also wrong… since Afsharid Iran was about as large if not larger than the Sassanid, definitely larger than Safavid.
And this boys and girls, is why you don’t do this weird specific dynasty requests instead of just, well, Persia/Iran, you end up thinking the Safavids were the be-all-end-all of the period.
5 Likes
very good, but then how would we justify the Persians in AOE III, I would also like to see them as a playable civilization but for that we need to have information about the historical events of the 18th and 19th centuries that really justify the Persians being able to enter it. late game period 
again, the Afsharid Dynasty.
Nader Shah completely remade the Persian army, modernized it, built a navy, and embarked on a campaign where he went from re-conquering the Caucasus (briefly) up to sacking Delhi.
The entire reign of Nader Shah has more than enough material for a civ. And that’s just one leader.
Again, Persia wasn’t partitioned among colonial powers or whatnot. The rough timeline is Safavids taking over, Afsharids coming after, then Zand, and finally Qajar coming around the 19th century and lasting until the 1920s (then it’s a weird transition period, then Pahlavis and finally modern Iran).
There were changes of Dynasties yes, but there was some sort of “Iran” or "Persia through pretty much the entire period the game covers.
6 Likes
So if a Persian civilization can coexist in the period of AOE III, the only thing missing would be for the developers to decide to add it later. I also imagine that by doing so the Indian civilization would suffer some changes, right?
The Zamburak is the main hindrance. Particularly because it was more of a cannon than the weird, trashy dragoon it is in the India civ for some reason.
Nader Shah made IMMENSE use of Zamburaks, them being basically the backbone of his armies.
Other than that, not really.
2 Likes
ok, well, hopefully next year the developers will reconsider adding the persians and the koreans as playable civilizations, europe will be 100% represented once the civilizations of poland and denmark come out and on the american continent we still need to add canada, brazil, Argentina, Chile and Gran Colombia as playable civilizations, let’s hope that in the future these civilizations will also be present
2 Likes
Just make the revolts more viable and representative of their national characteristics.
The federal civs do not make any chronological sense and are more advanced than everyone else technologically. I’d rather see new civs that aren’t repeats of revolts.
3 Likes
I agree.
I think considering the most truthful way of portraying these Fed state suggestions is from a Spanish(or Port) colony with a regional flavor then gaining their own national feel in later ages, Revolutions encapsulates this perfectly, no?
Otherwise, we end up with all these mysterious civs that are born in the late 1700s/1800 with a skipped timeline, sitting with all these ‘antique’ civs.
1 Like
Yes. I think you are very right about that. Plus it reinvigorates older content that few people use (Many of the revolts).
A bit of topic but wow these miniatures are amazing !
What would be a better name for this unit (instead of Jezail gunner) ?
3 Likes
Jezailchi I guess. They’d most likely be afghan units though.
2 Likes
Persians are fine…they just changed the name to Iranians in 1925…
That’s why you have to include the Qajar dynasty (1789-1925) too…
Yes, put Maratha in the game and rename Indians to Mughals…
Um…all the wars they had with the Ottomans, Indians and Russians (1514-1918)…the reforms of Abbas and Nader Shah, the reforms they had in the 19th century at the hands of the Qajars…
Yes, for now Europe would be complete (you still have minor countries like Switzerland, Serbia, Dubrovnik, Greece, Wallachia, but they can be represented in other ways)… now we have to focus on Asia at least next year: Persia and Oman or Korea and Vietnam in one DLC and Burma and Siam in another…
They just asked other countries to call them “Iran”. They have already used that name themselves since Antiquity
2 Likes
They were always Iranians, they just asked people to call them by their native name one day.
1 Like
This.
20 characters.