Are you scared to google it?
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
SP - General African Inspired Faction
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Are you scared to google it?
A grave mound in Burkina Faso dated to about 1000 BCE contained an iron sword and 8 iron spearheads and another grave at the same site dated to 1300 BCE contained an iron spear. Furthermore there are irons objects found in Oboui in the Central African Republic indisputably carbon-dated to 2343 to 1900 BCE. These are just a few examples.
The Origins of African Metallurgies
"The Origins of African Metallurgies" published on by Oxford University Press.
Yes, but at Anti-Woke University.
Nevertheless, I'd like to know the actual truth regardless of any culture wars and, most importantly, without having to do my own research.
Eh that's exactly what I said earlier on my post here :
However I can't help you with that, my "field" for a lack of a better word is East Africa.
However I can't help you with that, my "field" for a lack of a better word is East Africa.
actually being black i had quite the afro-centrist phase, i rememer a decade ago when they claim to have found a "ancient furnace" capable of making steel in east africa a decade ago that just so happened to predate the previous persian equivalent by a century. the problem was is that there is never any proof that it was a furnace and it ignored the fact that black africans weren't in that area of east africa at that point and that it's most likely source was indian colonists. you have to admit its a little silly that all of the technological advancements across the rest of the world are all due to other cultures interacting with each other but when it comes to black africa they always did everything themselves 1000 before anyone else but immediately forgot how to. which brings us to adding in a african culture. I personally suggested the malagasy if anything, they have a connection to multiple cultures that have technology like metal armor, steel, and defensive structures without having to repeat the same berber-arabic influence already in game.Yes, but at Anti-Woke University.
Nevertheless, I'd like to know the actual truth regardless of any culture wars and, most importantly, without having to do my own research.
telling other people to google your own evidence means you don't know it you just believe it.
****ing lmao.
you clearly have no clue what a stone age culture looks like do you?
Great Benin, which because of stone age cultural advancement, no longer exists except in the evidence left by the people that conquered it.
vs stone age european settlement, Los Millares
these are both examples of stone age technology as both of the cultures hadn't advanced to the point where they had become self sufficient iron workers. mind you early egypt and dravidia and exploration era mayans would all fit here as well the difference being is that no one is claiming they were on par with renaissance europe or yuan china. say what you will about the mongols they properly adapted chinese technology, the "great" african civilizations everyone is fawns over simply acquired advanced technology by selling slaves, and from what Kentucky has alluded to did so because they appearantly forgot how to make said technology themselves despite having learned it thousands of years before the people they sold their own brethren to acquire it from.
Now that we are past that, even if a full on black west african culture was added to the game, how would you accomplish this considering that millenia of being on the other side of the great horse filter ensured that africans had a entirely alien form of civilization compared to Eurasia. The trade goods in the game don't really match up with west africa. west africa's culture was influenced by the fact that they didn't have to actually process alot of their own trade goods, during the roman era they traded wildlife, during the dark ages they traded raw minerals, and during the renaissance they traded.. humans. how do you apply that into a ingame culture? do you make a generic "exotic animal" resource and add in animal fighting to the tournaments? do we make certain settlements have a gold or diamond resource and make jeweled armors a new form of civilian clothing? do we add a slave trade good that naturally produces prisoners with a easier conversion rate that could be upgraded into black versions of already existing troops? What about architecture, i was a fan of sub-saharan buildings back during my younger years do we just make something that looks vaguely like a european castle but with a broadly african facade or do you go full hotep and have them living in pyramids. perhaps be realistic and make their culture the first to not have stone walls or large multistory buildings, everything could be destructible. what would their swords look like, the congo is a amazing source for hundreds of different short swords and axes, not sure how you would get it to work with the current smithing system considering the numerous ways black africans built swords. actually now that i think about it the kongo would be more appropriate than west africa. they didn't participate in the slave trade anywhere near as much as the sahel kingdoms in west and east africa, they also look different meaning you don't end up with another group of aserai. in addition, unlike horners and west africans they are actually perported to have built sprawling cities. they traded in ivory which means a elephant resource which means war elephants could be a thing, Add in Igbo and nzande influence and you might actually have something. maybe they could focus on a playstyle that doesn't involve proper feudalism, instead of using a bunch of different clans they are technically different cultures localized around a specific city or two at the start, the player bonus would be having a much higher companion count like 30 per clan level and you lose 15 for every other clan in your kingdom. this creates a system where the player would be constantly adding wanderers to his clan instead of other lords, the fights would be smaller but far more numerous, like kicking a beehive, it scales well too as stewardship would constantly be going up for your followers, the negative being that you only have as many armies as you do clans, because i noticed that your followers don't make armies but that could be fixed with minor clans. defensive structures don't exist in africa though, you have thimlich and the zimbabwes but the defensive capabilities of said towns would falter against sappers rather easily so again completely destructible environments.
Kingdoms, not cultures.
this would create a system, assuming my understanding of how the AI works is true, where any invasion into the land would basically kick off a war where lacking a proper planned out invasion, would lead to it being overrun eventually. By having multiple kingdoms with large amounts of clan members and programming them to have little to no acceptance of new clans you now have a system that represents early modern africa. by sharing the culture between kingdoms you make it easier to design troops. armor wouldn't really be a thing while you benin with something that could fit in materially and architecturally benin doesn't really fit in with the more exotics niger-congo region which would actually stand out.
Care to name what particular era are you referring to ? Not sure what do you mean by "Black Africans" not inhabiting that area.
Does it predate the numerous depictions of Subsaharan people from the Egyptians or not ?
Are we talking about freaking Lucy ?
Yeah and there are a lot to unpack on your comments, it's almost like you're discovering that civilizations can fall and technologies can be lost, especially when you didn't plan to have some sort of repositories ( library ). Ask the Caliphates how do they feel about Bagdad.
Wait until you find out that early Medieval Europe wasn't about Republics, luxurious villas, marble made building, and big galleys sailing the seas.
Oh yeah it's almost like we tend to call the next era the Renaissance, the dots are connecting themselves.
Edit : nothing against medieval Europe though, early medieval era buildings weren't looking that comfy in comparison, the difference between a Gaulish building and a Roman one is already huge.
Long story short Europeans had to recreate entire civilizations, often weaker nations, also leading to numerous wars.
Last edited:
Great Benin, which because of stone age cultural advancement, no longer exists except in the evidence left by the people that conquered it.
I can't pinpoint this image exactly, but it's clearly not any depiction of Benin. It's a Zulu kraal.
Benin was a gigantic earthenwork citadel built on layers over hundreds of years, encompassing not just the city but the entire Benin state. Trying to label it as "stone age" or "iron age" or whatever is meaningless because no other precedent for this kind of construction exists anywhere. It's unique in the same way that the Great Wall of China is unique.
I understand that afrocentrism is really stupid and seems to have total disregard for reality, but by crudely reacting against them (or more likely, your cringe former self) you're coming across just as contemptuous of reality. I don't usually tell people to google things, but it was really obvious that you weren't arguing from a place of historical curiosity, you were just trying to reinforce the idea that modern Africans are stupid and backwards and can't shed their fat corrupt cannibal dictators. I mean even if this was correct, it has nothing to do with history.
This isn't correct. There were massive iron foundries in West and Central Africa during the European middle ages. One iron-smelting town in Burkina Faso produced 50,000 tons of slag between roughly 1100 and 1300 (generally the amount of slag produced by iron smelting is about a third of the crude iron generated). Another site in Benin produced 200,000 tons of slag between about 1000 and 1600. There are other known sites all over the Sahel.
Here's a paper on one of them:
Not to mention during the European Renaissance Benin was producing some of the most elaborate bronze art ever created. Not exactly what I'd call "stone age"
firstly this would've been a decade ago but back when i was researching east african ironmaking it occured in kenya but the time period they mentioned it happening in was before the Bantu expansion meaning the inhabitants of that area would have been malagasy or bushmen. honestly at this point im starting to wonder if we use the term sub saharan as a analog for black which is also a analog for west african is a negative for the conversation, so henceforth i'll be describing the subject group by the closest relevant linguistic group i can pin.Care to name what particular era are you referring to ? Not sure what do you mean by "Black Africans" not inhabiting that area.
Does it predate the numerous depictions of Subsaharan people from the Egyptians or not ?
Are we talking about freaking Lucy ?
Yeah and there are a lot to unpack on your comments, it's almost like you're discovering that civilizations can fall and technologies can be lost, especially when you didn't plan to have some sort of repositories ( library ). Ask the Caliphates how do they feel about Bagdad.
Wait until you find out that early Medieval Europe wasn't about Republics, luxurious villas, marble made building, and big galleys sailing the seas.
Oh yeah it's almost like we tend to call the next era the Renaissance, the dots are connecting themselves.
Edit : nothing against medieval Europe though, early medieval era buildings weren't looking that comfy in comparison, the difference between a Gaulish building and a Roman one is already huge.
Long story short Europeans had to recreate entire civilizations, often weaker nations, also leading to numerous wars.
In my experience civilizations don't lose technology people lose civilization, this is why the concept of a lone black african steel worker purposefully making steel and not one of the many more likely reasons for pre-exploration african era steel like people confusing the era of the steel tools which would be easy in a populated area or worst outright numbersfudging, which many people may be willing to do to get themselves into history books.
the former happened in the case of the "egyptian tobbacco" fiasco where people assumed africans reached america first because they found tobbacco and chocolate on mummy wraps, when in reality dock workers smoke cigars while they work and eat chocolate to keep their energy up.
generally speaking the best technology repositories aren't libraries but tradesmen, this is why the mongols killed nobelmen but not the poor, the caliphates complained about baghdad because they lost not because they valued knowledge. as for the difference between a gaulish building and a roman one, that is a hard comparison, rome conquered the most advanced gaulish cities so we don't know how truely advanced they were other than that caesar feared that they were approaching the same levels of social cohesion found in rome and greece, the problem being is that the gauls were a post apocalyptic civilization and were functionally a offshoot of people who migrated from tartessos after the bronze age collapse.
Not cringing at my self, i simply scrutinize african research more because western europeans have a tendency to willingly overlook counter evidence to things that make africa as "advanced" as europe. back when i was younger i would pour overturn of the century books an reports, discovering things like acocanthera poison, which was the actual agent that made the "maasai elephant bow" capable of killing a elephant when previously a group i was in thought the maasai had created a bow with equivalent draw weight to a english longbow. in addition i don't believe their dictators are all idi amin nor have i ever said that, what i did say was many of the great civilizations in africa are simply slave empires, roughly equivalent to oil boom towns, their expanision is fueled by outside influence and thusly they would be a bad fit for a basis for a new group in the game as they were drawing from cultures who have equivalents already in game. this spurred my idea of using the Kongo (tribe) as a basis with their Nigerian cousins for architecture as they were sustained empires with independent cultures disconnected from eurasia almost entirely, in addition the congo (region) was the launching point for the bantu in southern africa which would allow one to create a single culture with a ton of variation and the second culture to have multiple kingdoms but this time it's a strength.I can't pinpoint this image exactly, but it's clearly not any depiction of Benin. It's a Zulu kraal.
Benin was a gigantic earthenwork citadel built on layers over hundreds of years, encompassing not just the city but the entire Benin state. Trying to label it as "stone age" or "iron age" or whatever is meaningless because no other precedent for this kind of construction exists anywhere. It's unique in the same way that the Great Wall of China is unique.
I understand that afrocentrism is really stupid and seems to have total disregard for reality, but by crudely reacting against them (or more likely, your cringe former self) you're coming across just as contemptuous of reality. I don't usually tell people to google things, but it was really obvious that you weren't arguing from a place of historical curiosity, you were just trying to reinforce the idea that modern Africans are stupid and backwards and can't shed their fat corrupt cannibal dictators. I mean even if this was correct, it has nothing to do with history.
1. the argument was rather or not west africa would be a appropriate basis for a culture in the game, i argued no because they weren't consistently on the same technological level as the real life civs that inspired the cultures already in the game. the counter argument against that was that ancient africa had independently adapted steel long before the real life cultures that inspired the in game ones. i retorted that theres no evidence of that, not simply because i believe africans are primatives but because the cultures that may have made that steel, even if they did, did not have the same material culture as the more recent ones being offered as examples for a new fictional civ. this is important because just asking for more black people is a pipe dream, pointing to what you want specifically with examples is proper request and taking early modern africa, which was mostly stone age outside of cities and politically tulmultous to the point where they were literally being kept afloat by selling off political rivals and opposing tribes as slaves (igbo), and in some cases even their own farmers (geechee) leading to centuries of food shortages, as the basis would create a situation where a culture couldn't have the same depth because it's basis wasn't really a functional society to begin with.
in addition slag does not imply that steel existed there, only that iron work was performed, their processes are unknown if im correct so judging the waste production to product output ratio based on modern examples is a little disingenuous on the part of the researcher. also the bronze art of benin was a result of the shear amount of bronze they got via trade and the safety brought along by the depopulation of the slave trade, their bronze work was roughly as sophisticated as the halstatt period celt, who predate them by thousands of years.
Every claim you've made has been proven wrong and you simply respond by moving the goal posts and making more false claims.
Bannerlords is a game that is based on reality, not beholden to every single rule that it has, and especially not if those rules aren't even based on the truth. There is no reason why there can't be a faction that is inspired by an African nation in history, just as there is no reason that there can't be a faction that is inspired by a European nation in history.
Bidz
Recruit
ngl would be neat if we got one faction for every culture but....
a. game is based on medieval setting and that is just europe and the very close stuff, no one but historians or activist care about africa when thinking of this period
b. development has seen enough delay already
c. tinkering cultures to keep the balance would a **** ton of work and probably need to break inmersion or deviate too much from the attempt to be based on reality making it a challenge for desing consistency
a. game is based on medieval setting and that is just europe and the very close stuff, no one but historians or activist care about africa when thinking of this period
b. development has seen enough delay already
c. tinkering cultures to keep the balance would a **** ton of work and probably need to break inmersion or deviate too much from the attempt to be based on reality making it a challenge for desing consistency
While talking about people and geography we use this term, the same way we use Mediterranean civilizations, or Scandinavian people and not " white people " which is very American for you.
Sub-saharan is perfectly valid as it takes both West Africa and East Africa .. well, in Sub-Sahara. So Berbers are not on the table.
"Black" people means nothing and everything, there are "Black People" in Ocenia and India .. if you want to go specific then go ahead and say West Africa, or modern-day Ivory Coast or even better the specific ethnic groups and their tongues.
Again " Black / White / POC / Whatever you can invent " is something I would gladly don't use while talking about human science.
Example : the Yakuts are a turkic ethnic group in Siberia, they are Siberian people. What's the problem in that sentence ?
Emax
Recruit
This discussion is stupid pants. Like all the other SJW crybaby posts around here that call for more inclusion and diversity, which blemish what should be a gloriously based game.
Let's shut everyone up with a pretty simple bit of research you can all do yourselves. Ready?
Load up the game. Look at the map.
WHERE are you going to fit your "african based" faction? Going to squeeze them in with the Aserai? You want a whole new continent added, even further away from the core imperial lands? All for a faction, that quite frankly, few people are going to be interested in playing as?
I really think some of you have no idea just how much work goes into the core systems of a game like this, let alone what an undertaking it would be to add an entire new faction to satisfy your ideals of representing every color of the rainbow in every piece of media you happen to come across.
Let's shut everyone up with a pretty simple bit of research you can all do yourselves. Ready?
Load up the game. Look at the map.
WHERE are you going to fit your "african based" faction? Going to squeeze them in with the Aserai? You want a whole new continent added, even further away from the core imperial lands? All for a faction, that quite frankly, few people are going to be interested in playing as?
I really think some of you have no idea just how much work goes into the core systems of a game like this, let alone what an undertaking it would be to add an entire new faction to satisfy your ideals of representing every color of the rainbow in every piece of media you happen to come across.
Based? Based on what?
I really don't think anyone was saying that. I think people just thought it would be neat to have an African inspired faction in the game.
I mean, the entire point of the thread was thinking that it would be a nice addition to the game. If a new faction were to be added post-release, which could happen in the form of DLCs, then the land of Calradia would have to be expanded.
Also, the point of this thread isn't wanting some political representation, it is just that African culture during this time period hasn't really gotten anything in terms of video games. So, don't make it political. It wouldn't be political if someone were asking for the Nords to be added in, so it isn't political when someone is asking for an African-inspired nation to be added.
