We already have Vlad Dracula’s campaign but Stephen the Great’s campaign could be a nice addition to the game. He ruled for 47 years and defeated Ottomans, Hungarians, Poles and Tattars. Winning 46 battles out of 48.
You can’t run out of missions content with Stephen the Great. Pope Sixtus IV deemed him verus christianae fidei athleta (true Champion of Christian Faith) despite him not being Catholic.
This seems to be a lot better than my idea for Wallachians:
We dont need a second Wallachian campaign.
Stephen the Great was Moldavian.
I would play a Stephen the Great if it was added. Reading about this guy, he was a military genius. You don’t hear often about a ruler winning 46 out of 48 battles with fewer troops and of worse quality. What he did, is equal to Hannibal.
To be fair, if the game was trying to be as historical as possible, requesting you to win against a much larger force with a much smaller army, I don’t think many players would win.
But it would be very satisfying to play with a small state and beat the Ottomans, Hungarians, Poles and Tattars on numerous occasions.
Imagine a campaign mission based on this battle:
As the video says at the end: Stefan led his armies into battle 48 times, only losing twice. His most notable victories are:
1467 - Battle of Baia vs Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus
1469 - Battle of Lipnic vs the Golden Horde
1475 - Battle of Vaslui vs Ottoman army led by Suleiman Pasha, the governor of Rumelia.
1497 - Battle of Cosmin Forest vs King of Poland John I Albert
If Stephen was lucky enough to be born as the heir of a larger country like England or France, he would have went full Napoleon.
For example in neighbouring transylvania (which was generally a safer and bigger region) they made up ~20% in 1500. I can only link you sources that are not written in english though. For wallachia itself I dont have any population count data, but it was disputed between magyars and bulgarians until the cumans settled it, which then got disrupted by mongol/tatar invasions, so it’s unlikely that anyone in particular was thriving in the area. There were also other tribes intruding in the area, pechenegs, slavs, so for all that we know, vlachs would not have numbered highly until the late medieval period, and even then… as well as the fact that vlachs were known to be very migrational people.
l’m not sure about that: History of Transylvania - Wikipedia
The source you probably have is 1500 - 24% Romanians, 47% Hungarians, 16% Germans, 13% Szekely, Estimation by Elemér Mályusz (1898 - 1989). There is an ongoing dispute between Romanian and Hungarian historians. If you look at the 1436 estimation from Vlad Georgescu is over 50% Romanians and the 1549 estimation from Ioan-Aurel Pop is again over 50% Romanians. They can’t be both right.
The only non-Romanian, non-Hungarians authors I see on the list are Jean W. Sedlar with 66% Romanians in 1241 and George W. White with 60% Romanians in 1600. However, these are again, estimations.
The only fairly trustworthy things we have are the 1730 austrian statistics: 57.9% Romanians, 26.2% Hungarians, 15.1% Germans. And the 1850 census 57.2% Romanians, 26.7% Hungarians, 10.5% Germans. The population of Transylvania before that, the most accurate thing we can say is we don’t know.
They are both the same civ though. We still have multiple civs that need their own campaign before we hsve civs with multiple campaigns
They have a campaign but not a civ. And I doubt a rework for the Vlad Dracula campaign would be made that would replace the player’s civ with the Romanian one for balance reasons.
I would rather have to play the Vlad Dracula campaign as Vlachs and get an additional campaign for Slavs, Turks and Magyars over adding another campaign for Romania.
I would rather get a Romanian/Vlach civ than 2 campaigns but no Romanian/Vlach civ. It really depends on what kind of campaign scenarios you have in mind for the Slavs, Turks and Magyars, I wouldn’t support a campaign just based on the name of the civilzation it came from.
Tbh I would rather stay away of late mefieval Europe for a while but I have some idea for Turks and Slavs:
At some point I thought that a Seljuk campaign could be interesting but a Turkish campaign before the rise of gunpowder doesnt really work imo
Interesting choices, I have some that I would prefer over that but only slightly:
Turks - Mehmed the Conqueror
Most famous for bringing an end to the Byzantine Empire, the Conquest of Serbia against the Hungarians under John Hunyadi, the conquests of Morea and Trebizond who were the last pieces of the Byzantine Empire, the submission of Wallachia against Vlad the Impaler (would be nice to fight a campaign from both sides), the conquest of Bosnia against the Serbs, the Ottoman-Venecian War, the Anatolian conquests, the war with Moldavia (against Stephen the Great, the battle of Valea Alba were Stephen lost), the Conquest of Albania, the Crimean policy, the expedition to Italy.
Slavs - Vladimir of Novgorod
He fought his oldest brother, lost, went back to Norway, returned with an army, defeated his brother and then decided which religion the slavs should have. He settled for Christianity.
Would be nice to have a DLC with Romanians & Swiss and a Slavic & Turkic campaign.
The Swiss may be a small nation but their formation and history are unique.
Amazing, every word you said was wrong.
Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania (that would later form Romania) existed within AoE2 timeframe, for hundreds of years.
Your ignorance is just laughable, the irony is that out of all people in Eastern Europe, the Vlachs are likely the least nomadic. They lived in the region before the Gepids, Huns, Slavs, Avars, Pechenegs, Magyars and Cumans arrived. You couldn’t have been more wrong even if you tried.
They had a back & fourth independence - vassal relation with the Ottoman Empire, and were independent for roughly 150 years, well within AoE2’s timeline.
The Vlachs had 2 independents states (Wallachia, Moldavia) while the Finns lived in the region of today’s Finland but under the Swedes, the equivalent of Vlachs living in the region of today’s Transylvania but under the Hungarians. So, on paper, the Vlachs had everything the Finns had + 2 more independent kingdoms.
OK “Literally any source about the Vlachs, anywhere, ever” are you trolling? The Relativity Theory is also just a theory. The Dacians theory is the most popular and internationally agreed theory about the origins of the Romanians / Vlachs, it’s just a theory because it’s not a proven fact, but it’s the best thing we’ve got given all the circumstancial evidence. You don’t make a theory out of thin air, a scientifc theory is more rigorous and requires a lot of hard evidence to support it and be accepted as a theory than a random theory you or me are making on the spot and calling it “theory”. Our “theory” is merely the equivalent of “hypothesis” in the scientific community. The 2nd most popular theory is the Immigrationist Theory that says the Vlachs used to be Romans living in Moesia who moved north of Danube when the Slavs arrived. I don’t see how this is relevant though.
EDIT: Why isn’t wrong to call them “Romanians” instead of “Vlachs” as a AoE2 civilization? because they called themselves Romanians.
The Germans & Magyars called them “Vlachs”, which came from the old germanic word for “stranger” that was used to describe the Romans. But the Vlachs/Romanians called themselves Romanians. They even called “Wallachia” as “Țeara Rumânească” literally “the Romanian land”.
The name to use should be something everybody can identify them with its how the naming is used for all the civilizations ingame.Do you think indians called themselves indians in the middle ages?
I agree, the reason I posted that is because I assumed there will always be someone saying “they are Vlachs/Wallachians not Romanians”.
Teutons, Franks, Britons, Celts, Slavs, Magyars, Khmer, Poles (this one is a bit more arguable but imo Polish is more recognizable), Sicilians (over Normans I mean), etc?
Honestly your need to make everything barely more marketeable at the cost of it making sense or at the cost of quality will always confuse me.
I think I understand your point, but I’m confused by your examples. You think people don’t understand what those civs are from their names? Even Britons, Celts, Slavs, and Khmer?
Sicilians is a bit weird given that they’re renamed Normans in almost all of their campaign appearances. I figured they did that so people didn’t get confused by their architecture.
I think Scots, English, Russians, and maybe even Cambodians would be more recognizable . Also they picked Vietnamese over Viets and Burmese over Bamars so yeah I think small diferences count. Tbh its a bit weird how the devs picked to go with modern day names but still sticked with Khmer and Berbers
Britons is also recognizable but kinda wrong considering what Briton actually means.
Initially game had historical cultural groups but now its all over the place with modern country names like vietnamese or bulgarians so anything could go now.
They tried to make them more recognizable. A lot of people know that the Britons are the English, the Franks are the French or that Maygars are the Hungarians.
But not many know that the Sicilians are the Normans, or would know that the Vlachs are the Romanians.
At the end of they day, I understand there is a slight disconsistency in naming, personally I’m not that bothered by it but those who are have a valid point. The only naming I don’t like it’s the Slavs, because it covers boardly Slavs rather than the specific Kievans/Russians/Rus they are supposed to cover.
