Franks were a germanic people. They most probably came from modern day Germany, settled in what is now the Low Countries when the Romans offered them to become foederati, and then conquered the Gauls/France when Rome collapsed.
Sure, they didn’t replace the whole population with Germanic people aside from the social elites. They mostly created a new culture (or more exactly it created itself) by mixing elements from Germans, Romans, Celts, and whoever was here before the Celts themselves.
Just like… Wait for it… England. Despite the myth that the Anglo-Saxons just slaughtered every single soul in the British island when they arrived, they were more than happy just like most conquerors to have other peoples to work in the fields, mines and other daily jobs. They were just as Germans as the Franks and they conquered a Roman territory that had previously been settled by the Celts. They incorporated less Latin into their language, though a lot of their vocabulary has been influenced by French after William the Conqueror, but they are more or less a mixture of the exact same element.
The similiarities between the two people were even more obvious in the Central and Late Middle Ages, when the Plantagenet Kings of England were nominally French ####### because of all the French duchies they held in which they spent most of their time because those lands were richer and allowed them a more comfortable way of life.
I don’t entirely agree with this… Yes, the French adopted the longbow by the end of the Hundred Years War, but it was after witnessing the English using those en masse and with great results. So I’d say it’s not an exclusivity, but more of an earlier adoption. (I don’t know if French longbowmen had the same intense training as their English counterparts, though)
Because we are more familiar with them. As I said. If you “zoom out” western Europe to the same scale as other parts of the world as they are represented in the game, they become similar.
Sadly I cannot name a lot of differences between Tatars and Cumans because I am not familiar with them. But intuitively if two different peoples occupied very different territories for a different period of time, they should have a lot of differences. I’m actually expecting the gaming and other entertainment media to tell me more about that, not the same English archer vs French knight over and over again.
But what I can make sure is that they are both very different from Mongols.
My point is not that “they are different or not different” but that you can easily find the same number of differences between them just as every modern game can do with English vs French because the developers did the research. We ordinary people who lack the time and energy to research the entire history mostly digest what modern media feed us.
And I can give you an example I actually know better: I’m from China. Southern and northern China are very different culturally, and even more so in history. But almost every historical game tend to make them similar, more similar than “English archer vs French knight” or “English shepherd vs French forager”. But I can easily give a thousand more differences as in-game unique features if there is a game that represent ancient China——and I learned this from class and reading, not modern media. Now imagine most of us who learn the history of other parts of the world mostly from games and movies. Would they think ancient China is less diverse than medieval western Europe?
“Difference” has a scale. If the difference in longbow training can be considered big enough, then there are a lot of other differences in history that could justifiably distinguish a lot of other in-game “civilizations” or potential ones.
For example, even in the same Ming Dynasty China (for a certain period) the North favored cavalry and primitive hand cannons while the South favored infantry and arquebuses (Qi Jiguang wrote about this). That scale of difference is already big enough to make two different factions, even bigger than English vs French.
BTW there is nothing naval about medieval Britain (which is barely one entity at all). They focus more on their mainland holdings.
Only in the early modern period after they lost their entire mainland territories did the English began to develop their naval power. And that is beyond the scope of aoe2.
Just because Europe is the region the medieval world is associated to it doesnt meant it is influential. Their influence was barely felt outside of Europe until Colonialism. The impact of the crusades on Europe is way bigger than its impact in the middle east.
Colonialism after the end of the timeline is irrelevant to the period itself and in any case most european nations are irrelevant to colonialism. If AoE3 ended its timeline in 1789 adding the US would be stupid even if they became relevant after that. South East Asia and Africa are more relevant to the colonial period than the Sicilians too.
Also the game has never really been that coherent
Like your whole argument about adding civilizations seems to be based on the stuff you know about rather than the stuff that is “relevant”. Because theres really little relevant nations in the middle ages as I said. Its a period of regional powers.
The vanilla civs need the most touching
So if these games are so far from complete then how can there be beta testers? Isn’t that a later phase part of game design?
They are probably working on balance while the rest of the team finishes the new campaigns and maybe some graphics
Well if it’s balance work then the leaks probably have a pretty good picture of what is likely the skeleton of the game.
heard we are getting Dromon ?>
Something just hit me, what if the Leaked Castle image was the new Byzantine’s Unique Castle Design? Was there any other leaks/speculation other than that specific image?
Well the image had Centurions near it. Plus the Castle is of a Western Roman building (a fort built in England), not an Eastern Roman one.
Plus it would be a bit weird to just give 1 cv a unique castle, and not all of them.
That was not the argument DynasticPlanet5 used, though. He was focusing on size alone, which is ludicrous.
“Ancestry DNA tests are a fraud.” -ArkadasLlisa, 2022
Where in this thread did I only say size. You know damn well I have a million arguments far greater if you know who I am at all! Am I truly do forgotten!? The important thing is to have many civs. Sometimes it’s tiring to try and make new civs and if you’re trying to single me out For something as a villain when I have committed no crime other than… civ crafting too much? Let’s say we should try and stop this before it becomes too serious.
That was your argument. Only size, nothing else. You can say you used other arguments throughout the thread or you can somehow pretend you never used this one to begin with. But the fact of the matter is that you did use this argument and his reply was completely on point. Maybe if we look at the big picture he’s wrong and you’re right? Maybe. I don’t care. The point is that your argument is there and a judgment on a single part does not necessarily reflect one on the whole and vice-versa. You trying to deflect criticism on this specific argument using other completely unrelated arguments is pointless.
Races doesn’t exist. That is science.
You can see dispersal of genes with those test, but if you do to ancient people the sample is very small. If you do to current populations, you can have incorrect conclusions, borders weren’t very strict and nationalities didn’t exist as we think of them today. DNA can’t match with the identity that you associate.
“DNA tests can have conclusions that don’t align with our individually perceived identities, therefore race is an inherently invalid concept and can never be used.”
I don’t see how the conclusion follows from the premise.
The point is character and reputation assassination isn’t very nice. I’m just trying to fill this game with lots of civs and if my reputation as civ crafter gets hurt by you after decades of civ designing I won’t be happy.
You missed another vital argument. And you are trying to insinuate I’m the evil one with evil arguments!
If I sound livid I am. I’m absolutely furious! Possibly saying thing a bit crazy but you just had to prod crudely and try and call me a bad person!