-You left survivors that chose a nomad lifestyle.
- Oral history is a thing
- There were 2 crit fails
-Dawn of Civilization
And so what if there are nomads? A lot of people are nomads.
And oral history is going to remember this? Even if it does, who will care? The People maybe, but that is more a founding myth. Other groups aren't going to care about the mythical interactions between some village they have never seen or heard before and a group of hunter-gathers that have effectively ceased to exist. And Dawn of Civilisation means what? If anything, that means it is less likely to be remembered as it will be forgotten over time or twisted into a local myth that while the locals will care, foreigners will not.
I was asking if any of that would matter in history, like how stories of Troy, or myths are shared in stories that do strongly influence civiilizations. I'm not sure I'm comfortable if nomads are locked into only raid mode the same way PoC used them based on the opinion 'history commands nomads will always turn raider'.
It might be a myth, but that isn't guaranteed and even then, it won't be a factor in deciding policy. It might be used as part of a reason to justify a decision, but decision won't be made on what happened in a myth or popular folk story. The Norse or Celts won't make decisions based on a Greek story.
I also think you are overrating how strongly popular stories and myths influence civilisation. They tend to be used to justified decisions made by the locals or twisted to fit the local situation rather than the other way around.
Additionally, that last sentence makes it clear that you haven't read PoC because if you did, you would know that the majority of the Ymaryn interactions with the steppe nomads were peaceful. Most of the time, the Ymaryn or their northern subordinates would peacefully trade with the steppe nomads or absorbed clans and tribes into their nation. It was only a minority of time that the Ymaryn fought the nomads. Since those times involved often involved a lot of intense warfare, they get remembered more often than the peaceful times due to greater player interaction, more memorable moments and being a serious threat rather than being background thing that netted a few extra stats, some better relationships and a lack of hostilities.
Furthermore, nomads will raid and war with farming civs because civs in general end up raiding and warring with each other. Can those be avoided and are unnecessary? Yes, almost all of the time. Does an ancient story of peaceful interaction stop wars from happening? Of course not, that doesn't happen.
Nomads are just more prone to raiding because the steppes are hard to settle on due to the land being bad for farming. Steppe nomads try to settle better lands, but most of the time, that land is taken up by another group of people and those people aren't just about to give up their lands. So the nomads are forced to take those lands by force. After all, if a bunch of nomads came along and told the People to abandon their village so the nomads could have the land, do you think the People or the players would go for it?
Additionally, the more oral and memory-based nature of nomad mean that unless continuality is kept up, good relationships fall to the side as they get mostly forgotten within a couple of generations. This is a thing with all civs, but the lesser ability by the nomads to record history means that it is more prevalent with them. This applies to bad relationships as well as despite bad past interaction, if those negative interactions stop for a few generations due to lack of contact, the nomads tend to forgot about them.
In general, nomads care more about the present than what happened with their great-grand parents as do most civs. Sure they might remember another civ that they haven't had contact with for generations as the bad people they fought with or the friendly people that helped their ancestors. Take PoC for example, we got the Heaven's Hawks due to good relationships and friendly interactions with a tribe of nomads which resulted in their descendants coming back to see the "friendly salt people" that their ancestors got along with.
So no, a local ancient myth won't affect the foreign policy of modern day leaders. The Greeks don't get treated as untrustworthy tricksters because of the Iliad. You can have peaceful interactions with other civs, but those peaceful interactions won't stop wars and conflicts from breaking out in the future. Wars will still be a thing that happen despite the events of latest updates.
Ya long term effects only happen if
A. continual
B. you have writing
I disagree, I subscribe to the theory that Homer didn't write the Illiad, he's was just the best person reciting it at the time somebody wrote it down.
There are multiple repeated verses with varying details that suggest the author who wrote the story was gathering multiple oral versions.
So the story lasted centuries mostly unchanged due to a strong oral tradition, however the onset of writing mostly disrupted and destroyed that tradition.
Secondly plenty of ancient classics are lost. Writing is no guarantee that it will continue to be passed down. And likewise, there where probably many many myths that we just don't know about that didn't survive the death of oral tradition.
Long term effects require much more than one of two things. For starters I'd suggest that they require people to still care about the event and that they care about an accurate and faithful retelling over parable or propaganda.
I am of the opinion that you need continuality. Writing makes continuality easier and more likely, but doesn't guarantee it. You also sometimes get partial continuality where part of the effect remains and gets passed on while the rest of gets forgotten or twisted into something else.
Using the events of the latest updates as an example, the events will probably get remembered, but not as they happened. Details will be forgotten or changes as the story gets passed until you get something similar to what happened, but distinctly different.
