View Poll Results: Offensive or Not?
Yes. 8 14.29%
No. 30 53.57%
I don't care. They're all "offensive". 18 32.14%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools
Old May 25, 2002, 13:33   #151
siredgar
Prince
 
siredgar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally posted by Darkworld Ark
You know siredgar, you'd proboly get more support if you dropped the "Holier than thou" attitude, because it's REALLY annoying.
I think you misunderstand me because I am not trying to gain support. I am merely stating my opinion and curious to see what other people's opinions are. I do not, however, appreciate unwarranted insults and unsubstantiated claims.
__________________
"I've spent more time posting than playing."
siredgar is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 13:43   #152
siredgar
Prince
 
siredgar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I won't take position in the argument again, I'll discuss the rhetorics :

That's sad, and Siredgar is a kind of pendant to Hohenzollern : no rational discussion.
Yes, you certainly have brought your own rhetoric into this discussion.

Please show me how I can be compared to someone who continues to use profanities throughout his messages and shows no evidence, while I have generally refrained from such words and given you web links, pictures, and quoted text.

I am being asked why I think the Genghis Khan portrait makes him look like an idiotic monkey. How do you explain this in any kind of way? I have shown you why there is evidence to the contrary.

All I am asking is, "Why don't we see how the Viking leader turns out?" and compare, okay?

A. They were both barbarians.

B. They were both "tall and strong".

C. They both lived under harsh conditions.

I don't see any reason why the Viking leader shouldn't turn out to be a toothless yeti judging by the way the Mongolian leader turned out. That is if there is any kind of fair perception of human beings here.
__________________
"I've spent more time posting than playing."
siredgar is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 15:10   #153
Hohenzollern
Settler
 
Hohenzollern's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 21
funny...
siredgar, you trip over your own mouth when you call the Mongols barbarians. Why are they in civ at all if they are a bunch of barbarian hordes? You dont even know what you are talking about, thats clear.
__________________
Civ Fanatic
aka "Shadow Soldier"
Hohenzollern is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 15:17   #154
Hohenzollern
Settler
 
Hohenzollern's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 21
also
just drop the damn topic, you got your answer, get off the 'high horse of narrowmindedness' and get a life.
thanks.

i cant wait to destroy the Mongols.
__________________
Civ Fanatic
aka "Shadow Soldier"
Hohenzollern is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 15:34   #155
siredgar
Prince
 
siredgar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 543
Yes, I am the one who is "emotive" in this thread...

Nationalist:
Lighten up. Racism is a serious charge, and should not be thrown around lightly.

Grrr:
I find that you are all whining over a silly subject.

AlexNM:
This is silly.

notyoueither:
I prescribe a liberal dose of pills, not too many though. If I were a doctor, you could cash this in at the gates of happy land.

LordAzreal:
Who the hell cares what they look like.

LaRusso: you are trying to pound everyone into submission.

Hohenzollern:
well it appears you are bored or ignorant or both? In closing, you made me really frustrated and slightly offended. I think Genghis having an ugly and rugged face depicts the mongols well. Please, refrain from calling people racist, its a low blow.

This is getting stupid. Drop the crap. shut your damn mouth, nothing worse than a whining child. I AM angry now. it has gone to hell

Just because you are a minority, does not mean you ever had the right(s) to act vengeful. you dont see me flooding the forum with cry baby antics

ITS A DAMN GAME. The vast majority of minorities I know and have befriended dont give a crap about history. The reason is they know its not they way it was anymore. STOP LIVING IN THE PAST AND MAKING PEOPLE FEEL GUILTY ALL THE DAMN TIME WITH RACIST ARGUMENTS. Political correctness is evil. Anyone living today knows the damn diff between racism and jokes. WELCOME TO FASCISM. I am using the caps to make my point clear and get under your skin, because i cannot stand whiners, or worse, bored whiners.

ChaotikVisions:
Ugh, you people who whine over things like this have too much time on your hand. This is ridiculous and a phantom complaint Ok, I don't really care if you find it offensive, I just don't think it is, and along those same lines don't think you should bother posting it here.

notyoueither:
Or are you just dumping a load of psycho-babel cr*p on people who do not agree with you?

Are you trying to piss people off?

Yes, your histrionics are getting rather trying. I'll let you guess where you can shove your psycho-babel. You'd be the expert on it (babble).
__________________
"I've spent more time posting than playing."
siredgar is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 15:49   #156
siredgar
Prince
 
siredgar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 543
Re: also
Quote:
Originally posted by Hohenzollern
just drop the damn topic, you got your answer, get off the 'high horse of narrowmindedness' and get a life.
thanks.

i cant wait to destroy the Mongols.
These posts originating from Canada are truly depressing.

Not surprisingly, Eliminator dropped his Canada location recently after posting an equally low-brow message.
__________________
"I've spent more time posting than playing."
siredgar is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 15:50   #157
siredgar
Prince
 
siredgar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 543
Re: funny...
Quote:
Originally posted by Hohenzollern
siredgar, you trip over your own mouth when you call the Mongols barbarians. Why are they in civ at all if they are a bunch of barbarian hordes? You dont even know what you are talking about, thats clear.
No, I am basing my theory on the assumptions laid by other posters using their logic.
__________________
"I've spent more time posting than playing."
siredgar is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 15:55   #158
Harlan
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
 
Local Time: 17:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
1. I have posted not one but two portraits of Genghis Khan. They look nothing like the Civ3 depiction. I am not arguing that that is exactly what he looked like. But I would say he looked closer to these pictures than he does in the Civ3 version.
Two portraits? If you speak of the link to:

http://www.oars.utk.edu/volweb/Schoo...ing/dustyh.htm

then that makes the other one look good by comparison. That portrait was painted by Europeans without any clue of what he looked like, since he never came near Europe and they never came near him. Its somewhat like a painting of a leader of Atlantis - complete fantasy.

You can continue to post any number of artistic renditions of Ghengis Khan, but the fact will remain that no one knows what he looks like, and none of them will be accurate for that reason. Is that so hard to understand?

2. So, your guesses are better than actual portraits that are supported by Mongolian authorities?

Yes! Mongolian authorities would be the last place I'd look for accuracy on this issue. See the below quote, and see if you think Mongolian authorities would make a good unbiased source.

http://www.fathom.com/feature/35243

Morris Rossabi: The Mongols traditionally think of Genghis Khan as the father of the country. He has been the focus of a kind of cult in Mongolia since the early 1990s, particularly during the first flush of victory over socialism at that time.

An incredible array of institutions, streets and consumer products are named for Genghis Khan. There's a Genghis Khan vodka and beer, and a stamp that commemorates his legacy. His picture is plastered on the currency of the Mongols, and practically every government building has a portrait of him. In fact, we don't even know what he looked like. All of these are later portraits, but there's no direct knowledge of what Genghis Khan looked like.

---

Note that here's a professor of Mongolian history saying no one knows what he looked like. What more do I need to make you understand this?

Quote:
Regardless, you have to understand that leaders are generally better kept than their subjects. For example, not everyone in Elizabethan England looked as properly groomed as their ruler.
Its as if you've barely read anything I've written. I've already made the point that leaders are better kept than their subjects - but he wasn't a prominent leader until he was 40! Prior to that time, he lived a life of incredible suffering and violence. After that time, the evidence suggests that he changed his lifestyle hardly at all, and pretty much ate, fought, hunted, etc in the patterns he was already familiar from as a youth.

Quote:
3. Yes, that is the key factor. That smile makes him look insanely idiotic. I agree with you here.
Glad we agree on something.

Quote:
4. I read books all the time. I do not, however, engage in "probablies" to support an argument. That is called speculation. If I am speculating, then I say so instead of trying to pass it off as fact to a bunch of unsuspecting Apolytoners.
You should say you are speculating, as I have said I am. Because that is all one can do in this situation, if no one knows what he looked like.

I have tried to raise the level of this debate by drawing my opinions on facts and general knowledge of the Mongols, but I think I'll stop as there seems to be some kind of communication or understanding difficulty.
Harlan is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 16:36   #159
Ninot
PtWDG RoleplayC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Ninot's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Centre Bell
Posts: 4,632
Quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
By the way, I don't reply to poorly conceived posts. So, don't worry your feeble little mind, Ninot.
firstly, thats just an insult... but I'll let it pass.

Secondly, you still can't or haven't disputed the fact that Firaxis is displaying Khan as a wartorn leader, which by all accounts, he was.
Ninot is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 16:55   #160
siredgar
Prince
 
siredgar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 543
Re: Well now...
Quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
You seem to think those that disagree with you are being most offensive, while this is not uncommon in arguements don't you think you're taking things a bit personal?
No, I just don't like being told to "shut (my) damn mouth" and "drop the crap" or being called a "silly", "whining", and delusional "idiot" who should be prescribed medication. Nor do I appreciate being accused of slander or "fascism" or "trying to pound everyone into submission". In fact, I am beginning to form these very opinions of some of you.

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions Also, what "primitive logic" has been said? The few insults have been mild, and have came from both sides.
It is apparent that some of you require a sign above Genghis Khan's portrait saying, "This is what all Mongolians look like." in order for it to be considered racist. We are talking about connotations here, not blatant racism. Anyhow, my thread alluded to a "factor", it was not an accusation. It was all of you who took that ball and started running with it. It's truly interesting to note, however, how my general statements were personalized and resulted in frustration and anger for some of you. =P

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
You were told that because many believe you are making something out of nothing. You can stand up for a group of people all you want, assuming that the thing you were standing up actually bothered said people in the first place. And to even consider an offensive portait of a leader to what happened to jews in WW2 is ridiculous, the scale is all wrong. The only thing that is similar is your interpreted racism of the portait and the racism the jews suffered. Again, you are comparing an entire peoples rights movement to an offensive portait, these are similiar only because of racism, not of scale.
It bothers ME. Obviously, I was not comparing on a level of scale.

Yes, they are similar only because of racism. It seems you understand my point more than you think.

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
And no ones claimed ignorance besides Captain as far as I know, and he is supporting you. Who is saying these things? I however do think this absurd and quite silly, you are making something out of nothing.
Yes, I do appreciate the comments from Captain and Carver. They seem to be the most intelligent and well-thought out posts here. Anyhow, I have listed some of the comments I found personally insulting and hostile in nature. Yours are included in this list. It seems that you do not cease to belittle my thoughts and feelings about the matter. And no, I am not making "something out of nothing".

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
The viking leader will not look the mongolian leader because its two different people from two different parts of the world. Tall doesn't really come into it, since they're both just a head. So all thats left for the difference is hair and skin color, since they're both strong.(at least I interpret that from Genghis). And yes, I know Genghis was tall and strong as well, I was just describing the Viking leader, not stating the differences between the two.
These differences in "hair and skin color" seem to be the critical factor for you in determining whether one will look like an idiotic smiling chimp and the other will not. The word prejudice is believed to come from the French (Latin) word "prejuge" meaning, "pre-judged". Do you believe that you have made some pre-judgments here before even seeing what the Viking great leader will actually look like?

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
I don't quite see the relevance of the first link, it looks like someones school project and seems to be inaccurate as well from the second sight you have listed.
Please feel free to list your own web links, pictures, or quoted statements. Anything.

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
And as i've said since they're both mostly barbarian leaders, and depending apon if its the early portait of who established the kingdom, they'll both look pretty mean. The picture we see of Genghis for Civ3 is before he conquered China and Asia, before he was able to get more comforts away from his nomadic life. In which he did lead quite a harsh life.

One of the sites posted describes how his father was killed and his mother and himself left to the elements and their enemies, that doesn't exactly entail a good look soft kid.
Yes, just like the statues we see of Leif Ericsson is after he established himself. We don't have much evidence of what he looked like early in his life either.

Anyhow, sounds like this Viking had a harsh life, too:

"Eric’s father had fled from Norway because he had slain men, and settled in Iceland. Eric established a farm at Erisstadir in the west of Iceland and also lived for a short time on Oexney and Sudurey, two of the islands off the West coast. Like his father, he also became involved in slayings, and was eventually sentenced to three years’ outlawry and exile. Eric sailed to Greenland and spent the three years exploring both the East and West coasts. After a year in Iceland, he then moved permanently to Greenland in either 985 or 986."
http://www.iceland.org/leifur.html

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
And I would say the Vikings did not live in quite a harsh enviroment, though the Mongols did have many fertile areas. Vikings were forced to deal with cold more then heat, which has a different effect. I don't think Genghis looks "idiotic", he just looks like a big mean barb, not necessarily a savage. And you really shouldn't try to put words in my mouth to further your arguement, it won't get you anywhere.
That is your opinion. I have presented mine. Regardless, please tell me where I am trying to put "words in (your) mouth".

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions Well yes, this does not represent the entire mongol race. The race is represented in game by cartoonish face icons in citys, wouldn't this be the thing to complain about, since this would "represent" the people? And no, this is just a game. By no means an educational tool, nor do I think anyone considers Elizabeth, Shaka, or Catherine representives or examples of their various races. Especially since leaders are almost always unique and different.
Apparently, judging from previous threads and posts I have seen here, many would disagree with you and say that they learned quite a bit from Civ 3. It is not "just a game" in some ways because the producers attempt to educate by providing the historical background of civilizations, great leaders, units, concepts, and advances. Anyhow, as I have stated previously, it does not matter. Films, TV advertisements, and toys can convey a message to consumers, whether it is explicit or not.

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions Saying that we think they are all ridiculously portayed appaled you? Simple because we do not see the "offense" you and a few see? I'm sorry it has to be that way.
No, I was shocked and appalled by the vigorously hostile and profane responses from posters. As I have stated before, I did not expect the majority of you to agree with me and I never will. I do not think that 20% is "a few". In fact, it is what I had hoped for, judging by the target audience here.

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions How exactly is it apparent that I don't care what people think? If I didn't, would I be arguing this right now? Wouldn't I have just ignore this and moved on, because what "people" thought didn't matter to me?
ChaotikVisions: "I said you would think me insenstive because I said I didn't care, and still don't care."

Also, when you describe what another person is saying as "whining" and something that should be "laughed at", it is apparent that you have no respect for what he/she is saying.

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaotikVisions Simply because you can only convince a few that this portait is offensive, means that you can't have a meanigful discussion? Most everyone is staying civil, a few insults aside. I simply don't see the offensiveness of this portait, it isn't any more offensive then the others. An effort is only futile if one quits trying, all things can be acomplished eventually.
My intention was not to try to convince anyone of anything, but rather expressing my opinion and backing it up. That is what is I am continuing to do.
__________________
"I've spent more time posting than playing."
siredgar is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 17:33   #161
siredgar
Prince
 
siredgar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally posted by Harlan
Two portraits? If you speak of the link to:

http://www.oars.utk.edu/volweb/Schoo...ing/dustyh.htm

then that makes the other one look good by comparison. That portrait was painted by Europeans without any clue of what he looked like, since he never came near Europe and they never came near him. Its somewhat like a painting of a leader of Atlantis - complete fantasy.
No, I was referring to these two pictures:

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~...ges/genghis.jpg

http://www.mongoliatoday.com/issue/2/true_face.html

They both look similar to the one that you have posted:

http://www.fathom.com/feature/35243

Quote:
Originally posted by Harlan
You can continue to post any number of artistic renditions of Ghengis Khan, but the fact will remain that no one knows what he looks like, and none of them will be accurate for that reason. Is that so hard to understand?
If you wish to engage in a meaningful discussion, please refrain from taking a patronizing attitude. Of course, I understand that these are artistic renditions, just like the statues of Leif Ericsson found in Iceland, etc. Nobody knows for sure what he looks like, but the only evidence we have are these paintings. Whether you or Mr. Morris Rossabi disregard this as reliable evidence or not is up to you. But we do know that people that were close to Genghis Khan described him to the artist to render these paintings. Anyhow, I am more likely to believe that he looked closer to these depictions (or even the Mongolian warrior pictures that you posted earlier) than the one we now see from Firaxis.

Quote:
Originally posted by Harlan
Yes! Mongolian authorities would be the last place I'd look for accuracy on this issue. See the below quote, and see if you think Mongolian authorities would make a good unbiased source.
It would be quite comical if you are saying that you trust Firaxis' interpretation of Genghis Khan rather than actual paintings and government authorities that we have seen here. Apparently, you are:

"Getting back to Firaxis and racism... he's probably one of the more accurate portraits they did."

And yet you contradict yourself:

"The best guess is that he looked much like any other Mongol warrior of the time..."

So, he should indeed look more like the warriors in the picture you posted, not the Firaxis depiction.

Quote:
Originally posted by Harlan
Note that here's a professor of Mongolian history saying no one knows what he looked like. What more do I need to make you understand this?.
You should take into account as many sources as possible when you are putting forth an argument. The testimony of a single person should not convince you one way or another, but depending on his/her reliability, add to the theory.

Quote:
Originally posted by Harlan
You should say you are speculating, as I have said I am. Because that is all one can do in this situation, if no one knows what he looked like.

I have tried to raise the level of this debate by drawing my opinions on facts and general knowledge of the Mongols, but I think I'll stop as there seems to be some kind of communication or understanding difficulty.
I did not speculate. I only posted a web link to a picture and asked people to make a comparison. Since then, I have shown more evidence that may point to a different appearance of Genghis Khan than that depicted by Firaxis. As far as I recall, I never said he "probably" looked like this or that.

Harlan, your opinions are respected and I am glad that you joined the discussion because it is apparent that you have some expertise in this area (judging by the extensive "Again, let's review some history" lecture you gave me earlier). But it also seems that you could also be accused of being intolerant of any disagreement and that your convictions are not as strong as you had previously thought. This judging by the lower intensity of your argument from before and now your willingness to easily give up continuing it.
__________________
"I've spent more time posting than playing."
siredgar is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 17:35   #162
siredgar
Prince
 
siredgar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally posted by Ninot


firstly, thats just an insult... but I'll let it pass.

Secondly, you still can't or haven't disputed the fact that Firaxis is displaying Khan as a wartorn leader, which by all accounts, he was.
I have said that I try to refrain from personal insults, but I will not prohibit myself from engaging in any when warranted.

He looks less like a war-torn leader than a toothless, flat-nosed, ugly, idiotic, smiling chimp.
__________________
"I've spent more time posting than playing."
siredgar is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 18:40   #163
Harlan
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
 
Local Time: 17:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
No, I was referring to these two pictures:
These two pictures, and the one on the link I posted, are all in fact the same picture. That picture is very famous, and has been redrawn and slightly changed many times. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they all go back to the same source, which is the first link you posted, and that source bears little to no resemblance to Genghis.

There is a saying: "repeat a lie frequently and loudly enough, and it becomes fact". People mentally can't stand not having any image at all of Genghis (what would current day Mongols put on their coins, statues, and so on?), so they've latched onto that one, and it has become the popular image of him, but that doesn't change the fact that its inaccurate. Hell, even the page that says there's no way of knowing what he looked like couldn't resist posting a picture of him!

Quote:
If you wish to engage in a meaningful discussion, please refrain from taking a patronizing attitude.
I take a patronizing attitude only when I present some evidence and instead of having other evidence presented to counter that, I just hear the same thing again and again. People who know little about Genghis often assume that portrait of him is accurate, so you'll see it in many places without disclaimers of its accuracy. But for those who do know, such as the academic I quoted, its not a controversial stance. Mr. Rossabi is not some kind of rogue scholar - here's his bio. Any of his fellow experts would say the same thing. What do I have to do to prove this to you - how many references do you need???

Morris Rossabi

Morris Rossabi has traveled extensively in East and Inner Asia. He speaks and reads East Asian, Middle Eastern and European languages and received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in Chinese and Inner Asian history. He is the author of Khubilai Khan, China Among Equals, China and Inner Asia, Voyager From Xanadu and numerous articles and chapters in books. Professor Rossabi offers continued expertise on Mongol and Chinese history.

Professor Rossabi has received fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Smithsonian, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Soros Foundation and the Smith-Richardson Foundation. He was born in Alexandria, Egypt, and is a respected professor of Columbia University's East Asian Languages and Culture Department.

Quote:
And yet you contradict yourself:
I am not contradicting myself, because the Firaxis portrait looks much more similar to the two pictures I posted than the Kublai Khan era portrait. In the Firaxis portrait he's got scars, he's missing teeth, he looks rough, his face is not chubby, he's wearing the steppes-appropriate clothes he would have worn, and so on. Maybe you're focusing on the facial expressions of the various people, and not seeing these other things.

Quote:
So, he should indeed look more like the warriors in the picture you posted, not the Firaxis depiction.
Firaxis makes him look like a Mongol warrior of the steppes. Admittedly one with a silly facial expression, but that's a separate issue.

Quote:
You should take into account as many sources as possible when you are putting forth an argument. The testimony of a single person should not convince you one way or another
My opinions are based on many sources. I'd already stated my opinion before I found the Rossabi reference, based on my previous reading. That merely supports what I already know. Its one thing to point to a few easy to find web references, but I'm not going to go back to the library and reread all the books I've read on this and find the relevant quotes, just to satisfy you. I think I've found enough for any reasonable person to grant me this point about the painting and lack of any real knowledge of what he looked like. If you don't agree, I'm not going to waste any more time trying to show you - go do some research yourself please. For starters, find at least one PhD in Mongolian history to contract Dr. Rossabi.

Quote:
Since then, I have shown more evidence that may point to a different appearance of Genghis Khan than that depicted by Firaxis
What new evidence? Its just the same evidence repeated, different versions of the same portrait.

Quote:
But it also seems that you could also be accused of being intolerant of any disagreement and that your convictions are not as strong as you had previously thought. This judging by the lower intensity of your argument from before and now your willingness to easily give up continuing it.
I'm not intolerant of your viewpoint. I respect that people could have issues with the Firaxis portrait. I have some issues with it too (as I do with virtually all the Firaxis portraits). There are reasons to complain about the portrait's facial expression (though whether that means Firaxis is racist in its charicatures or not is another question). But to say that the portrait is wrong because it doesn't look like how we know Genghis really looked - that's not a viewpoint, that's just an inaccurate statement. We don't know how he looked, we cannot trust the Kublai Khan era portrait, period.

I tire of this discussion not because I don't have convictions, but because it seems a futile jesture to convince anyone on this thread of anything. Most people have gotten very emotional and personal, and once that happens its hard to change opinions. I hope I'm wrong about that.

Last edited by Harlan; May 25, 2002 at 18:45.
Harlan is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 18:54   #164
Harlan
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
 
Local Time: 17:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 1,053
By the way, here's another picture of Genghis Khan. I'm disappointed Firaxis didn't make him look like this, with the big nose and all.



Of course I'm being facetious - my point is anyone can make a portrait of him, but that doesn't mean that he looked anything like that.

If you continue to say, "but the Kublai Khan one is different because it was based on descriptions from people who saw him" then you haven't really been listening to what I've been saying.

The new PtW video also has a few different versions of him, such as Genghis in a business suit.
Harlan is offline  
Old May 25, 2002, 19:07   #165
MarkG
Apolytoners Hall of FameApolyCon 06 Participants
Apolyton CS Co-Founder
 
MarkG's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:01
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Macedonia, Greece
Posts: 24,480
this seems to going nowhere and even worse it seems to have gotten bad at some times...

it would be great if some people read again some of the things they posted and consider it was the best thing to do...
__________________
Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog
MarkG is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:01.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team