The Mesoamerica, the Mesopotamia, and the Celtic Pantheon Problems

Age of Mythology: Retold Discussion
1
  • Be specific and keep them separate just like the current pantheons.
  • Unify them.
0 voters

First and foremost, I would like to thank the developers for creating such a beautiful game. We truly appreciate the effort and passion that went into it. You have delivered something special and the entire team deserves recognition along with everyone who has supported Age of Mythology Retold. Cheers.

Now, onto the topic.

I want to start by saying I am not an expert on mythology, but I would like to open a discussion and hear everyone’s thoughts. Who knows, maybe this conversation could even help the developers decide which pantheon might come next. The developers have dropped a few hints that new pantheons could be considered in the future. Of course we hope that will happen haha.

That brings me to a request I often see in these discussions. Many players ask for the addition of the Mesoamerican, Mesopotamian, and Celtic pantheons. Initially, this sounds exciting but imo it is a bit complicated.

One of the things fans did not like about the original Age of Mythology was that some mythical units were shared across pantheons. For example: manticores, rocs, behemoths, etc… This sort of took away from the sense of uniqueness.

I can’t speak for everyone but I think many people would prefer each pantheon to feel distinct and authentic.

Looking at the three suggestions:

Mesoamerica includes the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas. They have some rich mythology. However, their gods and creatures are very different. While there are deities such as the feathered serpent that appear in multiple cultures, they do come from separate traditions with different origins. I think trying to merge them into one pantheon would feel a bit…forced and dare I say… lazy.

Mesopotamia is probably the safest option for a combined pantheon because the Sumerians, Akkadians, and Babylonians often shared gods with similar traits and their lore is somewhat the “same”. But, there are major differences. For example, the chief god of Babylonia was Marduk, for Assyria it was Ashur, and for Sumer it was Enlil. These differences mattered in their myths, since each culture often elevated its own national deity above the others. cough reading how some of the national patron gods were belittled and embarrassed. cough

The Celtic pantheon is even more confusing. Many players request it without specifying which Celtic pantheon they mean. Irish mythology is the most well known and has a huge body of surviving lore. You probably have heard of some of these figures such as the Dagda, the Morrigan, Balor, and the Fomorians.

On the flip side, most of Gaulish mythology was lost to history, though it included gods such as Cernunnos. Which… dagnabbit, is my favorite Celtic god. Cerunnos, the horned god, just sounds cool and naturey. Still, Cerunnos does not appear in the Irish myth. But if I had a choice I would still prefer the Irish mythology to be represented.

Beyond that, there are also Scottish, Breton, Cornish, and Welsh beliefs and they have their own unique stories. To want a mixture of these “Celtic pantheon” would be inaccurate to the lore and belief.

For these reasons… I think it would be better if fans specified which pantheon they actually want instead of asking for a unified version. None of the existing pantheons in the game are really unified mixes of separate traditions, and it would probably risk creating something that feels disorganized or even disrespectful to the source material. We already have pelnty of that. Now imagine if the Norse mythology were combined with the Slavic mythology simply because both come from northern Europe. They are separate traditions, and it is better to keep them that way.

If I had to choose though it would be this:

Aztecs, because it has always been the #1 most requested choice since the beginning.

The Babylonians would make the most sense since they were the last major Mesopotamian empire and I THINK their era is chronologically closer to the Greeks and the Chinese. Perfect.

However, if the developers were to combine the Mesopotamian cultures into one pantheon, I think the best approach would be to highlight the most significant traits of each. For example, the foundation / starting age could be drawn from the Sumerians, the military traditions could be inspired by the Akkadians, and the technology and architecture could be based on the Babylonians.

As for the gods, the three main ones could be Enlil, Ashur, and Marduk. They are the chief deities of the Sumerians, Akkadians, and Babylonians, respectively. The fourth spot should definitely go to Ishtar just because she is a badass! Still, I think favor the Babylonians to be represented.

As for Celtic mythology, I would choose the Irish pantheon. There is simply much more source material to draw from in terms of deities, creatures, and lore.

Personally, I think merging everything into a single “Celtic” pantheon would likely ruin any chance for the individual traditions to stand on their own. Same thing with the Mesoamerica and Mesopotamia pantheons. For example, if the Aztecs were added but their pantheon also included Inca and Maya creatures, then the likelihood of the Inca or the Maya ever becoming their own playable factions would probably drop to almost zero.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. What are your thoughts?

2

It is unlikely we will get 2 full civ DLCs.

1 Like
3

I agree with the sentiment of your post and the thought you’ve put into this.

However, I would say its a little more nuanced and, for the sake of gameplay, unity would be better. My main point here would be that each of the individual “sub” cultures are influenced by the over-arching mythos. Mesopotamian factions all shared a similar mythos that were tailoured to their specific civilisations, with varying degrees of worship for different gods, retellings of similar mythological tales and invention/adoption of differing creatures. All three mythologies (my knowledge of mesoamerican is less so, so I stand to be corrected), are broadly similar in terms of the gods they worshipped. Cerunnos, for example, is prominent among Gallic, Irish and Gaelic mythologies, as is Dagda. Tarannis, the thunder god, was widely worshipped in Gallic mythology but was known and had reach in Manx, Gaelic and Irish. This is not to say he was the same in all the differing Celtic cultures, he and other gods and myths varied, but his principle was the same. This is also not to say that all Celtic gods were worshipped by all Celts - Irish mythology had gods no others had, likewise Gaelic, Welsh, Manx and Brittanic. BUT a more united version could and should quite easily be possible.

If we take current AOM pantheons, the Japanese, for example, is not one particular religion or mythos of Japanese mythology. The Asura, for example, was Buddhist, and a late addition to Japanese mythology adopted during the spread of Buddhism. It is therefore possible to mix and unify for gameplay and simplicities sake the mythologies.

Egyptian mythology is actually far more complex than folk realise. The pantheon was never set in stone. Ra, for example, is actually many, many different forms worshipped as sometimes a different being dependent on the region and time of Egypt. Likewise Horus is a wholly different god dependent on what time period, dynasty and region one looks at.

Again, I like your post and think it’s good food for thought, but I would disagree with your vote and say a unified Celtic pantheon and Mesopotamian would be entirely possible AND still be faithful to true old Celtic/Mesopotamian myths.

4

I have a third option, with subfractions and sub-pantheons.

Example:
Mesopotamias chooce
Sumerians, Akkadians, and Babylonians

Mesoamerica choose
Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas

While certain units, monsters and powers are shared, certain are unique.

Like if you choose main god, Zeus Hades Poseidon, you choose mayor culture first.
5

Mesopotamians had the same religion despite having different cultures and languages.

Celts have more or less the same religion and language.

Mesoamericans have different cultures, languages and religions with little overlap. That would be like making Indians and Celts the same Pantheon because they have some overlap in Gods.

So I can’t generally answer yes or no to the question.

1 Like
7

Celts have a common origin and started to become more different over time, which is pretty much the same as the Norse/Germanic people.

And same as with the Norse we have very limited information about their mythology from most places so we have to focus on the one place were we know most about, which is probably Ireland, similar to how we know most about Norse Mythology from Iceland.

Aztecs, Mayans, Zapotec, Mixtecs are different cultures that just knew each other and therefor shared a few ideas. That would be like making Greeks and Egyptians the same mythology because they both have the Sphinx. I rather just have one of those mythologies then a strange mix between them.

Incans are on a different continent and have basically no overlap with the others. That would be like making Chinese and Greeks the same pantheon.

But it seems like you agree on that with me.

That’s why I think making one general poll is not a good idea.

But generally I think the best approach is to just make one of them each. Like only Aztecs, Irish and Babylonians.

And then they can always come back later to make Mayans, Gauls and Sumerians. Until then we have to use the existing pantheons as stand ins.

AoM is not based on history anyway. We have 1500 BC Egyptians next to 1500 AD Japanese.

1 Like
8

@PadtheLad12 @Skadidesu

I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I think I understand your point. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Anyway, I would argue that Age of Mythology thrives on distinction and NOT on FULL unification. Each pantheon, Greek, Norse, Egyptian, and Atlantean, feels unique precisely because they are not merged with related mythologies that may deem controversial and “wtf are they thinking?”. If we start blending cultures like the Irish, Gaulish, and Welsh under one Celtic umbrella, it risks becoming the same problem the original game had when myth units were shared across pantheons but at a much worse scale.

Sharing archetypes does not make them the same religion. Zeus, Jupiter, and Perun all control thunder, yet no one would merge the Greeks, Romans, and Slavs into one faction. The same logic applies to Taranis and the Dagda. They serve similar roles but belong to distinct mythic traditions.

As for Japan or Egypt, their variation happened within a single evolving culture, not between entirely different civilizations. In my opinion, merging Irish and Gaulish myth would be like fusing Norse and Slavic because both come from the north. It oversimplifies complex and independent systems.

So if we are fine with unifying Celts for gameplay, should we also unify Greeks with Romans Mesopotamia/Egyptians, Egyptians with Canaanites, Norse with Slavs? If that feels wrong, then maybe cultural distinction should still take priority.

A unified approach may look convenient now, but it limits future potential. Each tradition deserves its own spotlight.

If I recall correctly, none of the current pantheons’ deities were shared across other religions, especially when choosing which major or minor god. Only some of the myth units were shared and even then there were some criticisms.

The Aztecs, the Irish, and the Babylonians each have enough lore and historical material to stand as distinct civilizations. Why should they be merged with pantheons or civilizations that lack comparable depth? If anything, they should be left alone. If the developers feel the need to unify pantheons, then maybe they can do so only with those that have very little lore, rather than forcing together rich and well-documented civilizations. In my opinion, don’t lump them together or dilute their uniqueness.

9

So if there is enough to make a faction just by 1 nation/pantheon, why shouldn’t it work?

10

I would agree. When I say “I want a Mesoamerican or Mesopotamian pantheon” I say it because i’m flexible in which one, not because I want a conglomerate. I think Aztec makes the most sense for Mesoamerican but I could live with Maya as well (I think Inca should be later if it comes, also insert “Inca’s aren’t mesoamerican” sematics here) with Mesopotamian i’d be perfectly fine with either Babylonian or Sumerian, so I say Mesopotamian so as to not sound too picky.

Admittedly I say “Celtic” just because I don’t know enough about the intracacies of Celtic mythology to specify one lol, but even if I did I think i’d probably be more flexible on which specific Celtic option is chosen too.

Luckily for Slavic (the other one of my top 4 desires to see) its easier to just say Slavic and let that be the final answer lol.

Its a good call to bring this up though, because I don’t want some umbrella “Mesoamericans” civ or anything.

3 Likes
11

Sorry. I missed this comment. Yeah, agreed. It’s better to just focus on one civilization at a time given the amount of information of that said civ.

12

I don’t think anyone means to merge Aztecs, Mayans and Incas into one singular Pantheon that’s a mishmash of all their cultures and mythologies, when they ask for a Mesoamerican Pantheon. They mean “Make either Aztecs or Mayans or Incas, either one of them is fine.”
Some people want the Aztecs specifically, others want the Toltecs or the Olmecs and nothing else, even though we know LITERALLY NOTHING about their mythology, their language, their culture, their government… We only have circumstantial evidence about their lifestyle, and know a little bit about when they lived and such, because of their ruins.

Which brings me to the next point: There needs to be enough information on the mythology and culture for a pantheon. Meaning 12 gods, 16 creatures, a few stories around each, as well as a distinct aesthetic for buildings and humans.
But that’s not as clear cut here as I make it sound like. Like, the Leviathan is a biblical creature, not an egyptian one. And more than one myth unit is based on the Mummy trilogy with Brandan Fraiser, rather than actual egyptian mythology.
Them choosing Samurai and Shinobi for Japan is a natural consequence of this.
Who would see a historically accurate depiction of 800 BCE Japanese and recognize them as Japanese, other than someone who studies Japanese History for a living?
Age of Mythology has a balance between mythologically accurate, and popculture. It draws one in with the popculture aproximation and aesthetic, and then teaches about the real thing, to those who take their time to take a second glance.

Another point is this: We have the Greeks. Not the Athenians, the Spartians, the Corinthians, the Macedonians, etc. The Greeks, as one culture to unify them all into one.
Were they the same? They had similar architecture, the same Gods, the same Language, so in that sense, they had a lot in common. But they themselves would enthusiastically disagree with the sentiment that they were the same. To an Athenian, a Spartan is something entirely different, and most of the time, a direct enemy.
Still we treat them all as “The Greeks” because of all the things they had in common.
At what point do we consider two cultures similar enough to make them part of the same Pantheon, and at what point are they distinct enough to warrant a separate one?
Are Romans too similar to Greeks, since 95% of their mythology can be described as “Greek Mythology but different names” and they also use a lot of Greek Iconography in their Architecture and Clothing, even though it’s not exactly the same, and especially their Legionares are very different from Greek Hoplites?
Are Gauls more or less different from Bretons and Irish than Romans are from Greeks?
Where is the tipping point?

My whole point, as a sort of TLDR, is that this is not a hard red line, not a binary yes or no, but a balance act between several factors. And the balance point has to be found for each pantheon individually. The perfect solution for the Celts may be entirely different than the perfect solution for the Mesoamericans.

1 Like
13

it wouldn’t surprise me if they would get unified. I mean we have pop-culture egypt, atleanteans who have a complete identiy crisis and now pop-culture japanese (which are honestly even more creative than the chinese in my opionion which generally speaking is a good thing i would say) so i wouldn’t be surprised or mad if these civs would be somehow thrown together. Maybe Mesopotamia and Celt will be more like egypt and japanese and Mesoamerica more like chinese?

14

I wouldn’t like them to add a pantheon about Mesoamerica because its location doesn’t relate to the other available pantheons. It would be better to add a pantheon whose location is more closely related to the other pantheons in the current game

15

I mean the geographic locations of these pantheons in the game isn’t really a big issue considering how the heroes in the game can traverse to different continents via wormholes/wormtunnels very quickly.

4 Likes
16

can you do out of Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas. 12 gods, 16 creatures ? Than do it.

if not maybe some other civs than can do legit 12 gods, 16 creatures.

17

Literally, the Aztec mod from Age of Mythology Extended :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Especially since developers added the Chinese in the Extended version, and added feudal Japan, which is more than 2,000 years apart from other civilizations. Age of Empires has always been a franchise that mixes different eras and continents. Already in Age of Empires 2, you can have Goths and Huns fighting against Aztecs and Japaneses.

1 Like
18

None of the existing Pantheons have interacted with the Chinese before the addition of the Japanese.

America is next to the Atlantic where the Atlanteans are so there is already a civ that they can interact with.

Not that that really matters because the original AoM campaign is basically entirely mirror matches. It makes little sense for Egyptians and Greeks to go to Scandinavia.

Only really Greeks and Egyptians are close enough to really interact with each other.

1 Like
19

True, which is why I’ve always wondered something; why not try the Canaanite Pantheon? The Phoenicians interacted with both Greeks and Egyptians through trade and colonial ventures, it would make sense for them to interact with the Atlanteans too since they had colonies spanning all the way out to where AoM Atlantis is portrayed to be.

20

Pantheons are not selected by their historical significance but based on their popularity in pop culture.

That is somewhat true for AoE too but for AoM it’s even more the case. AoM completely ignores the time frame of the existing pantheons and gives us civilisations that are more then 1000 years apart historically. 1500 AD Japanese vs. 1500 BC Egyptians.

1 Like
21

Let’s do the socractic approach.

Are you able to come up with 16+ Canaanite unique creatures for the game?

Not just that but among other reasons probably like majority fan interests.