To the Devs about Legacy of Persia - DLC

[Spartacus]

The description makes reference to "the iranian culture" and the "iranian leaders". Since CK3 is often self-proclaimed as being historically accurate, note that "Iran" wasnt an entity until the 1930s when the Shah requested a change in the nation's name and representation at a global stage. You sister game (Victoria 3) does a better job in capturing this more accurately.

Infact, all the modern culture in the country roots back to old Persia and thus why we still call ourselves Persian by culture.

Overall, no one else cares, but we do :)

[Megiddo]

I've head the opposite that Iranians don't like being called Persian because its a western version of their name. Not calling out or anything, i'm actually really interested about the entire thing.

[Owlcoholic]

Exactly as Megiddo said, on the Paradox forums there's people complaining about the name of the DLC having 'Persia' in it, and that it should be renamed to Legacy of Iran. Unfortunately You can't please everyone!

[Razorblade]

Originally posted by Spartacus:

Since CK3 is often self-proclaimed as being historically accurate

Give one example of the devs or marketing material ever calling the game "historically accurate."

Hint: you won't find one.

[Bordric]

Its historically based. Big difference.

[Spartacus]

Originally posted by Owlcoholic:

Exactly as Megiddo said, on the Paradox forums there's people complaining about the name of the DLC having 'Persia' in it, and that it should be renamed to Legacy of Iran. Unfortunately You can't please everyone!

Following History will limit the room for debate. You cant refer to each empire or country based on the original normadic people who were the first settlers. For example, those forums refer to the fact that the original inhabitants of these lands were Aryans (Irani), but Aryans also settled in Europe but you wont ask for Modern Germany to be called Iran because some Aryans did actually settle there too.

The founders of Achaemenid empire, including Cyrus the great had roots connecting them to Pars/Persis region and why Greeks referred to them as Persians, or people originating from Pars/Persis.

Anyways, Persians had Persian kings, not Iranian leaders. If anything ever since this region got called Iran misery followed.

[Late Game Wonder]

This is such an ignorant post

Iran is a much older name than Persia which is an exonym made by the outsiders.

Even with Persis the Aryanamvaja is older than that.

Not to mention if one was to even bother to actually research the subject they would see the name Iran repeated over and over. In parthian and Sassanid coins, on reliefs, in poems, in history books, everywhere you look it is there.

Furthermore the Germans are not Iranians so it makes no sense for them to be calling their country Iran. This is a bad faith argument.

Aryans arr not Germans, Aryans are not Iranians.

Iranians and Germans and a whole other heap of people belong to the aryan peoples.

Germans in fact call their country very much in the same vein as Iran.

Deutschland means land of the people.

Deutsch comes from the proto Indo Europeanbfor a mass of people. Same word can also be found in Persian in Tudeh meaning mass of people.

So Germans call their homeland, land of the people.

Iranians call their country Iran coming from Aryanam+Vaejah meaning land of the aryan people.

The both names refer to the people's land.

Clear signs of familiarity between the two languages yet distinct and different.

This is why Germans will not call their country Iran or vice versr. Because they are not the aryans, they are a sub branch of the people.

[brownacs]

Originally posted by Late Game Wonder:

This is such an ignorant post

Iran is a much older name than Persia which is an exonym made by the outsiders.

Even with Persis the Aryanamvaja is older than that.

Not to mention if one was to even bother to actually research the subject they would see the name Iran repeated over and over. In parthian and Sassanid coins, on reliefs, in poems, in history books, everywhere you look it is there.

Furthermore the Germans are not Iranians so it makes no sense for them to be calling their country Iran. This is a bad faith argument.

Aryans arr not Germans, Aryans are not Iranians.

Iranians and Germans and a whole other heap of people belong to the aryan peoples.

Germans in fact call their country very much in the same vein as Iran.

Deutschland means land of the people.

Deutsch comes from the proto Indo Europeanbfor a mass of people. Same word can also be found in Persian in Tudeh meaning mass of people.

So Germans call their homeland, land of the people.

Iranians call their country Iran coming from Aryanam+Vaejah meaning land of the aryan people.

The both names refer to the people's land.

Clear signs of familiarity between the two languages yet distinct and different.

This is why Germans will not call their country Iran or vice versr. Because they are not the aryans, they are a sub branch of the people.

Not totally sure why you felt the need to revive a 3-year-old post to get this rant off your chest, but okay.

The name Persia derives from Pārsa, a name for the southwestern region of modern-day Iran. Nobody really knows how old the (mythological) term Airyanem Vaejah actually is. The oral composition of the early parts of the Avesta is usually placed sometime between 1500 BCE and 300 BCE, which is quite a large range. The term Ārya first shows up in Vedic Sanskrit, with the earliest Veda (the Rig Veda) thought to have been composed sometime between 1900 BCE and 1200 BCE. But yes, generally Iranians have used the term Iranian (or Airya), and Persia's been the exonym, although some of the earlier Achaemenid writings use both, which is likely where the Greek confusion comes from.

Proto-Indo-Europeans aren't 'Aryans'. That was a pseudo-scientific (racist) belief that derived from early Proto-Indo-European linguistic studies, when people realised the language family existed and built some very strange theories on the back of it. The hypothetical origination point of the linguistic family is debated, with the major theories being the Ponto-Caspian steppe (the Kurgan hypothesis), Anatolia, or somewhere south of the Caucasus. The Yamnaya culture tends to be the most popular example of a possible Proto-Indo-European culture, and you find their sites in modern-day Ukraine and Russia mostly, so the Ponto-Caspian/Kurgan theory, which is the most popular of the theories. Even if we give the term Ārya/Airya the oldest plausible origination date, it's still showing up after these languages have split from the (hypothetical) Proto-Indo-European root, and appears to be a Proto-Indo-Iranian term, with the earliest attestable example being in Vedic Sanskrit. The PIE root would be '*ar-', meaning something like organisation. Had the Proto-Indo-Europeans used something like Aryan as an ethnonym, then it's surprising that the term in that sense has only been preserved in the Indo-Iranian branch, which suggests that this was not the case, and that it's Indo-Iranic. The closest cognate would be, I think, aristos in Greek, which is the root of the English aristocratic, and which isn't an ethnonym.

I'd also note that the existence of Proto-Indo-European is theoretical, so any attempts to reconstruct terms in a theoretical language are doubly so. The notion that there was a singular root dialect isn't very popular nowadays - seems a bit unlikely if we think about it - and thus a singular ethnonym (if they had one at all) is debatable.