Concerning the Acatziri and other things

[Darios]

Was poking around on the main forums this morning and found this thread: http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...ders-european?

I'm actually not convinced that the Acatziri were the same people as the Agathyrsi but the thread does bring up a very good point - that the late 4th/early 5th century Pontic Steppe was still largely inhabited/ruled by Scytho-Sarmatian tribes of European complexion (Alans, Roxolani, Iazyges, etc) and that the "Black" Huns were the first arrival of Turko-Mongol people in the European theater. Ironically, the Hunnic horde was full of Sarmatians/Germanic tribes and it did not take long for the Huns themselves to begin adopting Germanic names, customs, and methods of warfare once they arrived in Europe.

I say this because the portrayal of the steppe regions in Attila is rather un-historical to the point where it is not even fun to play in the NE regions of the campaign map. There have already been tons of threads concerning the unhistorical appearance of the Alani (and other Sarmatian factions) in the game but I wish that CA would rethink their approach to the steppe factions (including the Huns) in general because it creates the illusion in the game that the 4th century steppe was suddenly swarming with people who looked (for want of a better word) - Chinese. While I believe that subsequent invasions of Turkic and Mongolian peoples (Avari, Khazars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Mongols, Tatars) did add more and more East Asian features/DNA into this particular part of the world, the fact of the matter remains that the region remained overwhelmingly Europoid until this present day.

I like that there are mercenaries of Hunnic complexion in the game but I believe that there should also be mercenaries of Sarmatian/Alanic complexion in Attila as they were an integral part of the Hunnic horde and every kingdom/empire that expanded into that part of the world used them as mercenaries.

[Sagat]

hey OP, cool story

because we reaaaaaaaaaaally don't have enough threads about ethnicity complaints....

[Darios]

because we reaaaaaaaaaaally don't have enough threads about ethnicity complaints....

If the topic in question interests you and you have something to contribute to it then by all means I'd love to hear your response. Otherwise, there's no need to comment. It's really annoying that when someone mentions inaccuracies concerning Eastern Europe/Middle East/the Steppes then their threads are labeled as "ethnicity complaints" or "nationalism." Why should I keep my mouth shut because CA has a tendency to "orientalize" anything that is considered to be 'eastern?'

Remember how the Goths had Hunnic portraits, horse archers, and Greek accents in Barbarian Invasion? These things need to be brought to light and discussed.

[Linke]

I absolutely agree.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The Acatziri were a Hunnic people. The connection between the Agathyrsi and the Acatziri was disproven by Maenchen-Helfen back in 1973 and Etymologists from around the world have rather conclusively determined that their name (Ακατζιροι) is "Akatir"

[Darios]

The Acatziri were a Hunnic people. The connection between the Agathyrsi and the Acatziri was disproven by Maenchen-Helfen back in 1973 and Etymologists from around the world have rather conclusively determined that their name (Ακατζιροι) is "Akatir"

That makes sense. The name sounds quite Turkic.

I actually do not believe that the Agathyrsi of Herodotos' time survived until the Migration Period. What originally differentiated them from their neighbors was that they were Scythians (or even Dacians with a Scythian ruling class) that inhabited pre-Roman Transylvania. It also seems likely that their Scythian material culture would have been increasingly Dacianized with time as Transylvania is extremely hilly, mountainous (in some areas), and at the time - heavily forested. Even after then, great ethnological changes took place among the Dacians as a whole (both east and west of the Carpathians) after the Roman conquest and the people were somewhat Romanized (even Slavicized in Bukovina and Podolia) by the 5th century. I highly doubt if there were Scytho-Dacians still calling themselves "Agathyrsi" by then. The Agathrysi warriors in Attila are a really cool unit, and they're fun to use, but it seems like CA was grasping at straws by creating them. Might have made more sense to refer to them as "Carpi"

[Sagat]

whats there to further contribute with "historical accuracy" threads like this.... it's been beaten to death already, but every once in a while someone oblivious to that fact comes along and creates another thread to put his 2 cents in...
like I said, topic has been beaten to death, you're not bringing anything new to the table...

you have your own sub forum where you can discuss historical stuff and now I see this thread has been moved into that section and out of general where it didn't belong.... good job mods, i exit thy thread


but would like to say that CA will never get it right because nobody is 100% certain of anything, NOT EVEN THE HISTORIANS THAT ARE WORLD WIDE EXPERTS IN THE SUBJECT. What don't you historical accuracy guys don't understand about that ?

[Black9]

whats there to further contribute with "historical accuracy" threads like this.... it's been beaten to death already, but every once in a while someone oblivious to that fact comes along and creates another thread to put his 2 cents in...
like I said, topic has been beaten to death, you're not bringing anything new to the table...

you have your own sub forum where you can discuss historical stuff and now I see this thread has been moved into that section and out of general where it didn't belong.... good job mods, i exit thy thread


but would like to say that CA will never get it right because nobody is 100% certain of anything, NOT EVEN THE HISTORIANS THAT ARE WORLD WIDE EXPERTS IN THE SUBJECT. What don't you historical accuracy guys don't understand about that ?

So you're in a historical discussion subforum complaining about historical discussion threads?

[RightNow0815]

It doesn't have to be a pun against CA here, just a hopefully rewarding and interesting discussion about some history stuff.
I think most people agree that a main-stream game like any Total War Episode isn't meant to be 100% historical correct.

As I'm interested in digging further into those times, where did you get this from:

that the late 4th/early 5th century Pontic Steppe was still largely inhabited/ruled by Scytho-Sarmatian tribes of European complexion (Alans, Roxolani, Iazyges, etc) and that the "Black" Huns were the first arrival of Turko-Mongol people in the European theater. Ironically, the Hunnic horde was full of Sarmatians/Germanic tribes and it did not take long for the Huns themselves to begin adopting Germanic names, customs, and methods of warfare once they arrived in Europe.

Would be interesting to get some additional intel about this topic - a history student always has access to some good libraries Hehe...

Regards.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Otto Maenchen Helfen "On the World of the Huns" is a good start, and to go more in depth anything by Peter Golden, Vovin, Pulleyblank, and of course Dr. Kim's "The Huns, Rome, and the Birth of Europe."

Be wary of Kim's work a little, it's fantastic but IMHO he goes a little too far in what he deems to be "Hunnic." E.g. he claims a lot of Germanic rulers were Hunnic, and claims a lot of Germanic systems of Government, etc. were of Hun influence when in reality they were Roman.