Correct.
Term indians would be like having germanic or slavic to represent all of europe.
5 Likes
Exactly what civs did you read about, buddy? It’s just that depending on the civ, you need to look hard. Wiki is deficient in many places. And BTW, lack of info (unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your POV) is not a problem for aoe2. Just look at the Huns, Mayans and Goths, all with very little info.
Why do you think that?
5 Likes
I decided to re-read Armenian history, and I just realized another excellent reason to add Armenians and Georgians:
"In 1071, after the defeat of the Byzantine forces by the Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert, the Turks captured the rest of Greater Armenia and much of Anatolia. (History of Armenia - Wikipedia) So ended Christian leadership of Armenia for the next millennium with the exception of a period of the late 12th-early 13th centuries, when the Muslim power in Greater Armenia was seriously troubled by the resurgent Kingdom of Georgia (Kingdom of Georgia - Wikipedia)."
Furthermore, the Armenians and Georgians share similar pre-history origins, which to my mind, makes more sense if they would be put together in a DLC together.
3 Likes
The Nubians were known as far back as the Ancient Egyptians Old Kingdom era (in fact the Nubians adopted Egyptian culture and customs, and worshipped the same gods as them until Christianity showed up), and they survived well into the medieval era, repulsing Muslim armies sent against them from Muslim Egypt (which was conquered from Byzantine control, and thus severing the Orthodox Christian link that the Nubians enjoyed having with the Patriarch of Constantinople).
This is best illustrated that the Age II hero, Archer of the Eyes in the Saladin campaign, represents Nubian archers that Saladin and his Ayubbid successors hired as mercenaries to their armies due to the famed skill of Nubia’s archers.
Athabaskan peoples of Alaska, the Mississippian peoples of North America, the Eskimos, the Anasazi and “Pueblo” peoples of Southwest United States, … and many others I have looked at at studied. I am not a Native American scholar and do not pretend to be. But I do dabble here and there.
I have also taken a look at several of the Polnesian and Central African civilizations (like the Bantu people) and South African (like the Zulu people) that other persons in this forum have proposed as new civs.
I am certainly not against adding more Native American civilizations or African civs into Age II as long as they have adequate background and would be excellent new additions into the game. Key word: excellent i.e. they need to have
→ a proper Wonder that makes sense for their culture,
→ their military units they produce must make sense for their respective civilization’s abilities (Mayans, Aztecs, and Incans pretty much succeed in that regard because for one, they actually had properly trained militaries that gave the invading European conquerors a run for their money and they were also reasonably well recorded by their own illustrators and artists but also by the Europeans that conquered them)
→ their architecture must also be grounded in reality. (I actually have an issue with Huns sharing Central European architecture as I think they should get the “ruined architecture” that exists in campaign scenarios. Goths are fine as them sharing the Central European architecture alludes to the fact that their descendants became Germans, Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese)
→ the new civs must have something “imperialistic” about them
→ and finally, these new civs history needs to be compelling and fun enough to have an actual campaign made about them.
Aztecs, Incans, and Mayans have well-recorded histories and stories compared to the rest of their Native American brethren, have built buildings that are “Wonder worthy”, have sophisticated militaries and economies, and also were “imperialistic” in the sense they created empires and found other nations and political-warrior entities.
Frankly, so many of the peoples proposed to be “new civs” are too isolated in their cultures, too far away geographically to have been part of the main events that characterized the “medieval world” and/or remained relatively underdeveloped Stone Age societies that merely got by with plain hunting and gathering, fishing and agriculture.
The Mississippian people is by far the closest civilization to fit the bill as a “new Age II civ” as research indicates that they did have something close to sophisticated cities and political organization (where the “imperial” element might come in"). But sadly, we still known so little about the Mississippian civilization as compared to the Aztecs/Mayans to their south.
2 Likes
Etymology of the Name India - World History Encyclopedia
A quick search on the Internet proves you wrong, I’m afraid.
“Indus” was a Greek corruption of the word “Sindu” or “Hindu”, and this was thousands of years before the British Raj came into being.
I have said this before in this forum and I shall say it again:
You cannot dress up just any human civilization and put it into a medieval videogame. Many indigenous peoples of North America, South America, Central America, Polynesia, Central & South Africa and Asia that have “not been made civs yet” are unlikely to EVER be granted their own civilizations in this game.
I stress to you all that this is NOT a game that is designed to be a “Category of ALL peoples who lived in the Medieval era”. Even other prominent video game franchises with medievalism as a theme, like the Sid Meier’s Civilization 6 and Creative Assembly’s TOTAL WAR franchise does not cover every. single. civilization.
Videogames are out to make money…not become history documentaries. …and I say this as a historian who LOVES to watch documentaries and read up on ancient forgotten empires and cultures.
Quite honestly, I would like it if NO more civs are added in this game, as I think there are plenty. But if new civs were to be added then I strongly think that Armenians and Georgians would fit the bill.
2 Likes
The Romans were famous for writing and recording their enemies in detail, hence why we know so much about the Goths and the (Black) Huns, not to mention all the archeological and other written sources that have been found (the Goths did indeed learn how to write, and several of their legal documents have survived). And the Persian certainly wrote much about the White Huns especially given that Persian civilization was completely subjugated by them. Furthermore, the Goths became builders in their own right and established complex nations in Iberia, southern France, and Italy.
The Huns are more of an enigma, it is true… they are only given a Central European build set because (1) they were the primary enemies of the Goths, and the devs probably thought that they should therefore share the same build-set; (2) the Huns invaded and conquered much of Europe, especially southern and Central Europe. The Huns even reached as far as Roman Gaul! And they nearly captured it…so it makes some sense for them to have a architecture build set that is European. Adding the Hunnic Wonder to be a captured Roman arch with loot and plunder piled at the bottom was genius on the devs part, so corners can be cut to make a civilization gain entry into Age II like the Huns were.
But the Huns most certainly are more well known and in the popular mindset of most people, even those who have a basic knowledge of history know have heard of the Huns, then say the Athabascan peoples of Alaska.
These other civs proposed into Age II are certainly interesting if you dive into their history and lore…but unfortunately they do not fit the bill (and cannot make bills 
for the videogame)
This one makes no sense. We have Burgundians in the game already.
Theres plenty of civs that fit all of those. Zimbabwe, Kongo, Somalis, Nubians, Kanembu, Hausa, Songhai, Ghana, Mossi, Benin and Swahili all had/were powerful states (or groups of states) that existed through the middle ages. Heck, even Uganda, Zaghawa, Yoruba (who arent as bad, but they are just like Italians but less important), Sosso and arguably Wolof and Serer fit those standards. In Asia I could keep counting until next week, and even in South America we have multiple civs in Chimu and Wari as well as arguably the Tiwanaku and Muisca and we also had Mapuche who would probably be the american civ we will get despite them not having any state. In Mesoamerica, we have Tarascan, Tlaxcaltecs and Zapotecs/Mixtecs. Also, we already have Goths and Huns in game so relative strength doesnt matter and Im happy with that.
Honestly it just seems like you didnt look at it hard enough.
8 Likes
By this standard why should georgians and arminians get added when there are better and greater empires missing in game? Venice would top these 2 factions anyday.
Georgia was an actual empire and dont have any good civ to represent them
1 Like
Yes. I agree that Nubians are a good candidate for the game. But I meant: why are they the only ones?
Well, I don’t know much about the native peoples of America. But @Szaladon could probably clear up that.
So as @TungstenBoar wrote, there are a lot of civs that fit the game besides Nubians.
(Incidentally, there is not a huge single Bantu people, there are several peoples that developed from the same ethno-linguistic origin, like Zulus — which are Bantu — and Ambundu, for example. Think of something like the English and Persians sharing the same Indo-Aryan origin, but being totally different)
Soon I’ll be posting about Kongo (who I’m reading most of at the moment) and why I think it should be added. Hopefully, I’ll have completed their tech tree by then. For now, I’m only going to answer your questions using only two civs other than Nubians.
I believe, but the problem is precisely this “excellent”. How do we define this?
So, for Kongo there is the Cathedral of Holy Savior/Mbanza Kongo and for Zimbabwe their huge stone buildiings, both made by Abejin in his architecture set. If the devs want, they can “officialize” it like they did with the FE’s Indian set.
Kongo and Zimbabwe fit this criterion. Kongo and the various kingdoms of Zimbabwe were never conquered despite numerous attempts by the Portuguese (Mutapa became a client state of Portugal, but more due to internal struggles than battles against them). Kongo has illustrations of soldiers (below), but Zimbabwe, as far as I know, does not. But we just have to invent a UU, just like the Mayans. Or did you think the “Plumed Archer” was accurately historical? 
(representatives of Kongo (left) and Ndongo (which could be used by other civs, as the costume was common)
Both are imperialists, but I find this criterion a bit weak, as iirc Celts and Japanese did not make empires during the Middle Ages.
And this criterion is very arbitrary. Compelling for whom exactly? Do you find all civs compelling? How do we define this “compellingness”? And fun will depend on gameplay and campaigns.
Depends on which civ you’re referring to, Kongo and Zimbabwe were not isolated. Kongo traded with the interior kingdoms, Zimbabwe with the interior and the Swahili coast (these in turn with India and SE Asia). Both made deals and made war with Portugal. Kongo even allied with Dutch against them.
As for the “medieval world”, what are we talking about exactly? The “Europe+Arab East” area? Because that was already discarded when the devs added Aztecs and Mayans. If it’s about the period 400-1600 AD, well, my suggestions all fall into place.
Finally, I have nothing against your suggestion of Armenians and Georgians. On the contrary, I support it. I was just bothered by the post about the Nubians being the only viable civ to add. And this is not true.
10 Likes
Yeah. I fixed. Thanks
Byzantines can represent them.But as per OP india is all same africa is just tribes etc etc but georgia and armenia are perfect options.
1 Like
Hell no. Thats like representing Somalis with Turks
They are way more unique and way more powerful than Venetians.
1 Like
How would the tech tree differ for georgia?Im assuming they would have good cavalry and fortifications which byzantines cover too.
Powerful is a relative term anyway.
If I had to make them again without any previous civ, they would be closer to Poles than to Byzantines since the Monaspa were midly armoured cavalry. And the civ would be focused on brute force units like knights and militia instead of trash.
I think its fair to call them more powerful when they had ten times the territory of the republic of Venice.
1 Like
for me better options is add one civ from africa and one from america (in case of only 2 civs 
)
1 Like
I’d rather use the names Shona for Zimbabwe and Fon for Benin, although I doubt we will ever get the Fon considering their perfect UU is already used by Malians.
1 Like
I would like it if NO more civs are added in this game
I agree with Georgians and Armenians that they should make it into the game but disagree with this.
There should be more civs along with them, hell, I’ve mentioned this plenty of times before that we need a Forgotten 2.0 DLC with them + the Indian split civs etc, we can have a mixed DLC for once without forcing the regional theme with only 2 civs which feels like a cashgrab at this point compared to the HD DLCs.
4 Likes
Benin is the kingdom of Benin, not actual Beninese. Also, Zimbabweans is just more recognizable