ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
New Faction History and Analysis (Pt 1/2) - Pharaoh Total War
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ส.ค. 2024
- Lore and analysis for the newly announced factions, from a historian of the period. Learn who all these factions are and what their place in history was before taking the reigns yourself. With this video, we have now covered all new factions announced in the Pharoah: Total War expansion, with lore, gameplay speculation, and campaign overview from an historical point of view. Also, unlike most channels, we even review Israel, the faction which has not yet been announced for the game. Give your feedback, is this enough to make you buy TW: Pharaoh, or are you still skeptical.
Link to part 2, covering Mesopotamia in rather more detail, is here: • New Factions Rundown -...
Check out the full Total War Pharaoh Lore playlist here:
• Total War: Pharaoh Lor...
Or check out the Israel playlist mentioned in the episode here:
• Canaan/Israel
Chapters:
0:00 Intro
0:41 Napata
1:41 Baharia & Dungul
2:50 Setnakhte
3:45 Merneptah
4:58 Egypt Summary
5:39 Ugarit
6:57 Byblos
8:17 Emar
9:17 Damascus
10:28 Ashkelon
11:49 Israel
14:26 Carchemish
16:07 Alashiya
17:29 Malidiya
18:37 Sangarian Phrygia
19:51 Cimmerians
21:19 Hype Summary
22:14 Troy
22:41 Mycene
23:11 Aeolia
23:27 Boeotia
23:52 Lydia
24:28 Ithaca
24:49 Thrace
25:19 Closing
CA have said in a recent Q&A that Merneptah's death script is getting removed and adjustable turns per year (up to 12) are being added so it should be possible to play as Merneptah without dying.
I was the one that asked that question
My family discovered the Tzanata tomb on our property in the 90s, I therefore feel legally obligated to be the one Odysseus player
The dev said that Big Daddy don’t die by a script in new expansion, at least not if player choose him to play.
Wouldn't Israelites be more fitting as a faction in the iron age rather than bronze age? Current consensus is that Israelites really separated from the overall Canaanite culture after the bronze age collapse. You could perhaps go by adding the Happiru, but that's an entire other can of worm.
That is definitely one thought, and it has decent support, but there isn't such a strong consensus actually, and I personally found a lot of support for the idea of "Joshua" style conquests just after 1200. See my Canaan/Israel playlist for extensive details on why I say that: th-cam.com/play/PLYVF2lD9MIqwGD8Dhwx5JDCwAYuFJ-XhV.html&si=W55JGJ4M7rq3QU70
I argued on CA’s discord that Merneptah’s faction gets interpreted by Siptah (TWP’s missing pharaoh), which would solve the awkwardness of his faction’s succession… but it sounds like CA simply is making Meeneptah’s death no longer scripted :/
That is just super weird. That plus the Setnakhte issue is going to make the supposed family tree mechanic very strange. They painted themselves into a corner with this one. We will see if it turns out well or not.
@@entirelyalive They could of make Merneptah and Seti one faction and same with Setnakhte and Ramesses (III).
Tô be fair, all Egyptians leaders, are from same family tree
@@Carnakrox Yeah lol
@@entirelyalive Yeah… I think everyone is stuck standing by on the dynastic system. It wasn’t the focus during the recent Q&A.
CA is more focused on adding anachronistic cavalry in the game than adding the historically possible early Israelites.
That cav thing is because old TW fans are super entitled and can’t except a total war game that isn’t Rome, Medieval, Empire, or Shogun
I believe CA Sofia is making Memnon as the leader of Napata.
Basically Confirmed. They said he’d lead an Egypt faction. Aethiopia included Nubia/Kush.. so Napata lol
That is very interesting and something I hadn't thought of. In fairness, there probably isn't a well known figure they can use for this time period aside from Memnon, but I honestly wasn't thinking about the trojan war when doing the Egypt section. I wonder if they will try to integrate Nubian pharaohs into his fluff or just tell the player to race to Greece as a challenge, but either way could be more interesting than I expected.
@@entirelyalive They could use Nubian names like Taharka for Napata for the generals and faction leaders for Napata.
@@entirelyalive My guess is that he’ll be part of the Egypt Royal Tradition. Nothing stopping the player from taking him up to Wilusa though.
Much much enjoyed this breakdown, consider me more hype for the release this week 😎
Oh yeah Lycia (I believe it was called Lukka in the LBA) is supposed to be led by Sarpedon.
As a Carthage fanboy, I'm exited to play as Carthaginians' ancestors
Make sure you grab Bay and Megiddo as Byblos. You can't start as Sidon and Tyre, but grab those then start taking over the Anatolian, Cypriot, Libyan, and Greek coastlines for the colonist experience lol.
Carthago delenda est!
While I don't care much for cavalry, I have to say that I look forward to cavalry becoming available.
make sure you are subbed then - tomorrow we go in depth on the actual historical impact of cavalry, including some alt history about the impact it would have had in 1200 had it existed then.
CA is adding Lycia, not Lydia
Total War: PHARAOH - Dev Update - Campaign
carchemish sounds like Hittite Pontus
I wish ca had based the Greeks on the adventures of the heroes after the fall of Troy, they were very sea-peapole-esque. In addition to the very well known Odyssey, we have Menelaus raiding Egypt, Teucer, brother of Ajax settling in Cyprus, Orestes, son of Agamemnon adventuring in the Black Sea, Diomedes founding many cities in southern Italy and surviving Trojans under Aeneas becoming the progenitors of the Romans. Instead, we get total war Troy, pocket edition
Also, we already have Ioleus in the game leading the Sherden, which was post Trojan War when they settled in Sardinia.
Did ancient ships cross the Mediterranean like in the open sea or did they always stay close to coast?
Stay close to the coast whenever possible.
Baffled by your need for a faction that doesn't exist at that time when I agree with points being deducted for early appearance by others. I suspect the other region on Cyprus is an autocorrect error that should be Maroni a place near the south coast with excavations from the era.
Re Cyprus - I have noticed a lot of faction and province spellings a bit different from the academic standard in English. I think some of it has to do with a different academic transliteration convention in europe, and some is I think someone in CA is trying really hard to get closer to the "original" place names, which is admirable if difficult.
Re Israel - check my Israel playlist, the main podcast spent a year getting deep into historicity. The Israel skeptic position is not an insane fringe theory, but it is weaker than it is often presented in many popular publications. Bronze age israel is the most controversial, but Merneptah himself confirmed some group of Israel existed in some fashion circa 1200, though with out comment on its yahwism or character. th-cam.com/play/PLYVF2lD9MIqwGD8Dhwx5JDCwAYuFJ-XhV.html&si=547UnNNGM78QnW0A
@@entirelyalive I think it's an autocorrect error because I have family in modern day Maroni and that sometimes gets corrected that way while I have never heard of Marion in relation to the island. I've never heard of 'the Israel skeptic position' nor anyone denying the places existence. So why is it cowardly?
@mrmr446 There is an abundance of evidence for some form of an early Israel existing in or close to Canaan. Very unlikely to be monotheistic but that isnt the point. The skeptic belief makes little sense as it calls the Israelite ethnicity a social revolution by a group of canaanites. But then why is there a massive influx of a distinct non-pork eating culture in Judea and Samaria around 1200BC. If Israel was made up in the 9th century, why does Merneptah says he destroyed Israel around 1200BC. Why does the historical account of the Habiru sound similar to the canaanite conquest by the Hebrews. Yes it's likely that Iron Age Israel consisted of previous Canaanite groups, but there is very strong evidence for a non-indiginous Israel of some form migrating west into Canaan around 1200 BC and later. What is cowardly is the fact that any representation of Israel will piss some people off as it conflicts with their religous beliefs. So CA deprives everyone of the fun of playing as the most famous culture of the Iron age to avoid controversy
No to Israel as a force at this time period.
Why? They are in the historical record .. fact. Prof Cline and many others claim Israel was the dominate force in Canaan from 1140 BCE
Cimmerians if already existed at this moment, should be living somewhere between borders of Ukrainie and Kazakhstan, that's very strange choce indeed. I think that we should get Hayasa-Azzi instead of them.
I do think they probably existed by now, at least some proto-group if not the full thing, but you are right, they are way off the map. I am not surprised to see a lack of Hayasa though, I bet they are saving Dorians, Kaskans, and caucus mtn folk for a "northern barbarians" dlc
@@entirelyalive Semi-barbaric Dorians armed with iron weapons and maces led by one of Heraclidae fits well this game as ultimate ravagers of the west, even if "Dorian invasion" is invention of later historians, at least to some degree. I am sure that CA will aim to monetize them, hardcore historical players love Greeks...
There's e fifth version of where Israel (and all other later Moabs etc are). It's called the mixed multitudes thesis. It tries to combine as much evidence as possible from as many other versions as possible. Are they historically right? Idk. They are imo more convincing then others. :)
That is basically what I meant by option 4, though I did cover that whole thing really fast. Basically there was no "Israel" in biblical terms, but there were canaanites and mixed people in the land, and probably polytheist yahwists, with Israel only forming circa 900bce and its yahwist cult coalescing much later. I do think it is probably wrong as a thesis, for reasons I covered in the Israel playlist, but it is an idea many smart people have spent a long time defending, so it is right to keep it open as a possibility until more evidence comes in. Check my Israel series for way, way more on all that: th-cam.com/play/PLYVF2lD9MIqwGD8Dhwx5JDCwAYuFJ-XhV.html&si=547UnNNGM78QnW0A
@@entirelyalive Yeah, listened to your podcast episodes already. Though personally I've listened more times than once to the Hittite episodes, just because that topic is imo more interesting. Though the current focus on Assyria your doing is also interesting. :)
Hittites are my favorite 😁
1v1 me on rust gamer
The idea of playing characters within a country instead of the country brings this game down
I have my criticisms, but in this case I actually think it works well. Even the great empires of the late bronze age were intensely personal in their rule, with many nations (except Egypt) often assuming that treaties expired on the death of the kings involved, not national treaties. Then with the collapse era, you have civil wars on one hand, which are conflicts between individuals, and you have non state actors on the other hand who are almost always small bands led by charismatic leaders. Sea People, for example, were never a unified group, but many, many groups migrating in the same general direction, each band with its own leadership. Same for nearly all of the other migrating groups and fragmenting statelets.
Now, I can see criticisms possible of how the Pharaoh and Great King system were actually implemented, and hopefully there will be a few tweaks and improvements on that front, but overall I am quite positive about the general structure of what CA has put out here.
Have you actually played the game? Its amazing. It makes taking over the country so epic. Ruling as pharaoh feels so much more significant once you win the civil war. You have a much greater sense of “commanding the might of Egypt”. Because this game turns egypt itself into an entire rich universe. Its amazing.