About the Presence of Goths and Huns

The Goths and Huns were a group of people back in the 4-5th century that long ceased to exist. The Huns disappeared into history and Goths blended in with Italian and Spanish culture.

And since the game takes place from the collapse of the Roman Empire to the 16th century period, Goths and Huns present in the time of gunpowder and new technological advancemens seems really off.

I wonder here if anyone thinks the same about such logic.


Where would you put the end of aoe1 and the beginning of aoe2?


End of AoE1:

200-300 AD, Before constantinian revolution and the splitting of the roman empire, similiar to the era of late antiquity beginning and the high roman era ending which is the main flavour for late aoe1.

Beginning of AoE2:

900 AD: After collapse of Frankish empire, as starting time of high medieval France and Germany, First Anglosaxon King in England, Rise of Song Empire etc. i.e. the whole main flavour of AoE2 starts blooming


AoE1.5 covering the whole transition era between fall of ancient empires and rise of medieval empires around the world, like Huns, Goths, Vandals, Franks, Tang, Sassanids, East Romans, West Romans etc.

The eastern Goth Empire ended in 553 and the western Goth Empire ended in 725. But the last gothic speakers lived on crimea in the 17th-18th century.

It is not clear when AoE2 begins. But with Huns and (western) Romans in the game I think it begins around 395.


Yeah, but what do you do about it now? Goths and Huns are an integral part of AoE2 imo. It’s too late by this point.


I would have complained about Huns back then. Now we’re 20 years late.
Goths are completely fit for the game. Kind of minor in importance to be included as one of the first original 13, but certainly not out of place for AoE2


Game needs vandals to complete the fall of rome.


Pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that the time period of the game is 500 - 1500 AD. Also Vikings are in the game and Viking age started 793 AD.


Exactly. Removing them just wouldn’t make sense at this point, especially with them being AoK civs.


Pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that the time period of the game is 500 - 1500 AD.

But it most be later than 1500. Gunpowder civs like Spanish and Portuguese discovered America just in 1492. The Turks defeated the Byzantines in 1453. The bloom of these 3 civs was mostly after 1500.

So in both direction it is bit more than just the middle ages.


Cool, late antiquity is my favourite historical period but since there’s no age 1.5 I guess it has to fall in one of the two.

And Lombards and Saxons too! Three very obvious miss really…

The oldest AI name for Romans is Theodosius the great which ruled since 378, so I guess the current start of aoe2 is just after the battle of adrianople in the same year. Many historians consider the battle the beginning of the disintegration of the western Roman empire and Alaric mention it in the intro slides for the first scenario of his campaign. Personally I would go back to Diocletian or Constantine at least since that is usually assumed to be the start of the late Roman empire and Roman Christianity/Constantinople foundation (284, 313 or 330), also because aoe1 would do a poorer job at representing the 4th century than aoe2 (Huns as Yamato? Hoplites in adrianople?).

From a gameplay standpoint I haven’t any problems with some civs being from somewhat different time periods.

the huns, goths, and romans represent the very earliest of the time period, the portuguese, italians, and spanish are representive of the end of time period. Many other civs fall somewhere in the middle.

Beyond that I think many civs are representative of a range of history. The franks with their throwing axeman are representative of the early middle age, but also with their very strong paladins are representative of the middle/later middle age.

I see no problem with the inclusion of huns and goths. I find it odd that goths have access to hand cannoneers, and I find it odd that Huns, the OG steppe civ originating from from Central Asia, has Central European architecture and doesn’t have the steppe lancer. But the fact that they’re in the game I have no qualms with. And that isn’t nostalgia, I genuinely don’t see a reason they don’t fit into the time period.


Italians are lombard kingdoms Teutons cover saxons I guess.


Lombards are Germanic people, Italians are not I presume lol. It’s like saying that Spanish are Goths.
With Saxons I don’t refer much to Germanic Saxons rather than Anglo-Saxons since Britain from 410 to Hastings is practically a barren land in aoe2…

This is where things get blurry,we have romans italians byzantines sicilians goths all over lapping the same area.

I think aoe2 civs represent people not areas. Romans are not Italians who are not byzantines (mainly Greeks) who are not Goths who are not Spanish etc.


Goths are a AoK civ, and huns are a AoC civ, both are there since more than 20 years and won’t go anywhere.

As why they were chosen, the devs more than once stated than when deciding what civ to introduce, they look at 2 things:

  • how much one civ interacted with the others already in the game
  • do this civ have evocative and cool history, leaders, or moments?

The huns in particular were introduced for how evocative was the name ho Attila. Goths instead initially should had filled the barbarians that settled the iberian peninsula, and to some degree the Italian peninsula too and britannia (saxon aren’t goths, but goths have huskarls) since at the time there weren’t spanish or Italians.

This made actually sense, as during the late antiquity and high medioeval period, goth, romans/byzantines and franks dominated europe, and the huns or other tribes like the avars dominated the european steppe.

Goth have gunpowder because they initially were meant to represent spanish too, and later on kept it as it’s their only answer to enemy champs, alongside scorps.

Although vandals were for sure the culture that dealt the killing blow to the WRE (if ravenna kept carthage and africa it could very well eventually counter attack and stabilize) their impact on the world beside that was very small, as after gaeseric died, it didn’t matter very much anymore.

The lombards were actually the first forgotten civ to be released, and renamed Italians after. To be fair right now lombards would be more fitting, even if the term italian probably evocate the renaissance period better…

Fun fact, at that time the western part of the empire was still considered to be the strongest half, and the battle of adrianopole proved it.

The visigotic kingdom is considered the first spanish kingdom, and on the ashes of the visigotic kingdom will reborn the moder spanish and portoghese that we know.

As for lombards, it was their invasion in the Italian peninsula that prompted the birth of an early italian culture, that was finally separed by the roman heritage, as roman and germanic culture start to mix in.

Ostrogoth on the other hand, while had the strongest roman-barbaric kingdom, had little impact on the Italian history, as giustian made sure that to that.

But with centuries between one and the other.

1 Like

AOE1 was mainly focused on Bronze age and classical era so it makes some sense for AOE2 to start in late antiquity. There were some missions against the Huns in AOE1 but it din’t really do the period justice.

1 Like

All Romance languages ​​did not emerge until the Renaissance. The Spaniards (Visigoths), Portuguese (Suebi), French (Franks) and Italians (Ostrogoths, Lombards) are of Germanic origin.

It’s really strange these days when the French refer to the Gauls as their ancestors and the Italians refer to the Romans as their ancestors.

1 Like

True but you could say the same for Huns and Attila. Imo Gaiseric is too important to just ignore exactly because of what you said so vandals are totally viable as a civ.

Having sforza as a campaign for Lombards? Nah I mean if you use Lombards in its modern sense of Milan and surroundings ok but medieval Longobards were another separate thing. Italians while anachronistic works better for inland north Italy in case one day they wish to add Venetians and Genoans. If you go with Lombards then you have to separate Florence and having Tuscanians maybe it’s a bit too much now lol.

Not sure about that since the eastern part was already the richer since some time. Diocletian put his capital to Nicomedia a century before and Constantine preferred Byzantium to Rome. It’s true that Valentinian choose the western side for himself but maybe it was for other reasons, maybe he wanted to try to improve the situation since he was basically the last emperor to campaign outside Roman borders.

True but Lombards were not Italians, that was my point, as Romans were not. You are not your parents even if you’re a mix of the two.

They are probably a mix genetically speaking but you should also consider the cultural aspect for which Romans arguably left a bigger impact than Germans, at least in Italy. But Italians are neither Romans nor Germanic (Lombards) for sure, like Spanish are not Goths.