About ethnic groups in China 關於中國境內民族

There are many nationalities in China’s history, including the Xiongnu(Huns), Xianbei, Di, Qiang and Jie in the “Uprising of the Five Barbarians”,
And also the Tibetans and Manchus that aoe2 users want,
I think if we want to avoid Chinese censorship, we can try to call them by ancient names,
For example, Tibetans can use “Di Qiang”, Manchus can use “Xianbei” or “Dong hu”,
I know it’s imprecise, but for that era, the appellations were just a general idea,
Even the living habits, culture and architecture of “Han people” in the north and south of China are quite different,
In fact, I think Chinese can be use into “Han”, In this way, new civilizations in East Asia could be more flexible,
And it can make the history of East Asia more perfect and interesting, and let foreigners know more about Chinese culture.

中國在歷史上有許多的民族,包含五胡亂華時的匈奴、鮮卑、氐、羌、傑,
還有各位AOE2網友們想要的藏人、滿人。
我認為如果要規避中國的審查,可以試著用古代的名字來稱呼他們,
比如藏人可以用"氐羌"、滿人可以用"鮮卑"或"東胡"來稱呼,
我知道這很不精確,但是對那個時代來說,那些稱呼也只是個大概,
甚至"漢人"在秦嶺以北和以南的生活習慣、文化、建築就有很大的差異,
其實,我認為chinese在翻譯時,可以譯成"漢族",而不是中國人,
如此一來,出新文明時比較有彈性,
而且可以讓東亞的歷史更完善與有趣,讓外國人更認識中國文化。

6 Likes

想屁吃,出了这种民族你还想过审?大陆市场不要了?

No, because then every other country would need each ethnic group and you end up with 200 choices.

6 Likes

欸,親,這樣真的繞不過嗎?我原本以為是個好方法…

1 Like

你把這個想法移動到中亞、歐洲甚至非洲都是一樣的
古代階級分出來就是這麼雜亂,何況五胡亂華時的也就匈奴、鮮卑、氐、羌、傑
就很簡單的用同語系來講拿烏拉語,底下就有不同族群馬扎爾 、芬蘭 、薩米 、馬里、愛沙尼亞、莫爾多瓦、烏德穆爾特、卡累利阿等,在歷史上又有各自一段故事。

那為何五胡亂華時這些族或匈奴還是會算在中國史上呢?
其實關鍵就在"中原",匈奴、鮮卑、氐、羌、傑各自立一個個王朝,也就是五胡十六國時期
你想如果歐洲也比照這方式的話,那族群量肯定是幾百為單位起跳~

1 Like

That’s rubbish. The Jurchen were a separate empire and then the Jin Dynasty. The Uighur Khanate in history was a powerful state on its own, and of course the Tibetan Empire was another powerful state which even sacked Tang Dynasty Chang’An. Tibetans should be a separate civilisation for AOE2:DE. The game is not a political game for you nationalists. But history. Learn to live with it.

3 Likes

Tibetans can be a civilisation in AOE2: DE since the Tibetan Empire was in the 7th-9th century period.

3 Likes

In my understanding, the Chinese civilization in the AoE series represents all the ethnicity in China (Zhonghua Minzu), not only Han Chinese.

In AoE II campaigns, some forces like Jin Dynasty (in the Mongol campaign) and Shan people (in the Myanmar campaign) are not created by Han Chinese in history, but they are all Chinese in the game. In AoE III, the game mechanism and arts reflects much about the Qing dynasty, especially the Eight Banners, but the buildings and campaign stories are more about Han Chinese.

As far as we can guess from the information released by Microsoft, the game mechanisms in AoE IV requires significant differences between civilizations. To add one civilization to the game, the game designers may have to think about a massive difference to other civilizations, but still necessary to keep balance. It would be difficult for them. So I believe MSTRSup3rninja and MaxBlackHawkYAO are right.

The whole problem is what should be considered “Chinese civilization” and “China” in the Middle Ages.

The opposite problem exists for “Italians” in AOEII, because no kingdom or empire of “Italy” existed in the Middle Ages: the territory we know as “Italy” (i.e. the “Repubblica Italiana”), in the Middle Ages, has a very complex history, which could become a very long campaign. It was divided into kingdoms and City-States, became part of larger empires, was divided again, and so on; so, neither an “Italian civilization” existed, because the territory passed many times from hand to hand, so it was a continuous merge between civilizations.

But, please, write in English. I’ve tried to use a translator to understand the first sentence, but it doesn’t make sense (how could a gas be eaten?).

我也支持有能力出一个西藏帝国的mod,从历史来讲并没什么问题,但是你不觉得东亚的建筑风格更偏向日本吗,如果西藏帝国能出一个mod。那么汉人也应该需要一个mod

Shan people (in the Myanmar campaign) are not created by Han Chinese in history, but they are all Chinese in the game

To be fair, Shan is Burmese spelling of the word Siam (spelled as Syam but pronounced Shan). The same people were assigned Khmer in the same campaign. So should civs be based on location according to the devs?

這mod會搞掉這遊戲。現在的風向不可行啊。

我当然坚定支持国家统一,仅仅是从游戏性上认为西藏作为一个独特的文明出一个mod是合理的,但是以目前的国际舆论,出这个文明绝对会出问题。

Xiongnu (Huns), Xianbei, and Khitans were Proto-Mongolic people. So Mongol civilization represents all of them.
Manchus and Jurchens are Tungusic people. But their Jin and Qing dynasties are considered as Chinese Dynasties by westerners, so I don’t know if your opinion will succeed.
I personally think Jurchens (Proto-Manchus) and Tanguts (Proto-Tibets) can be really interesting civilizations.

I dont know the cultural differences between the 5 barbarian chinese tribes but afaik Han-Chinese weren´t the dominant ethnicity as it is today. problem is, if the culture was were similar, it does not make sense to split chinese into different factions. but idk tbh. as long as it does not become like in AOE3 where you have to pop up a mixed troup from the barracks, it´ll be fine. that setting was just terrible and for this reason I never played Chinese.

From the mongolian conquest perspective the Liao and the Song are the most important. (first being conquered, second not)