An analogy for adding the Romans

Imagine the game has Dravidians, Hindustanis, Bengalis, and Gurjaras as civs. Then, they decide they want to commemorate the Indian peoples, so they add a new civ; Indians.

See how silly that would be? Well, that’s what adding the Romans is.

If they want to add a new derivative of the Romans, fine; but they should do it as another offshoot that fits in the right timeframe, like the Corsicans or something, not as a generic civ that already exists in 8 different other civs.

It’s not a generic civ. It very clearly represents the Western Roman Empire, which none of the other civs do directly.


Not true? Italians, Burgundians, Franks, Sicilians, they ALL are the Western Roman Empire.

If they aren’t Romans, then the Indian civs aren’t Indians, and they should rename the Hindustanis to Indians.

1 Like

Everything you said is false. The Byzantines are the Eastern Roman Empire. The Italians are the medieval city-states of northern Italy. The Burgundians are Flanders, Burgundy, and the Low Countries. The Franks are the Carolingian Empire and France. The Sicilians are the Normans and Norman Sicily.

Notice what all of these have in common. None of them are Western Rome.


Indians are a corruption of the word hindustani so its basically the same thing.

1 Like

Oh my god are you people STILL going on about this???


My bad on the Byzantines, but the Italians, Burgundians, Franks, and Sicilians all emerged from the dead corpse of the western roman empire. Many of the people who lived there continued to claim to be romans long after the empires had fallen.

So yes, they ALL are Western Rome. Just as legitimately as the Hindustanis, Bengalis, etc, are all Indians.

A united indian people is modern construct there was no india during the middle ages.

1 Like

Perhaps, but so did half of Europe. Are you going to claim that 90% of the European civs are Western Rome? Because that would be absurd.

Your argument is basically the equivalent of saying that America is Britain. It clearly is not.

Just because people claim to be something, doesn’t mean they are. Besides, the identities of the in-game civs clearly represent later time periods.

1 Like

Sure, but they still changed it so things make more sense, even when they could have just left it the same.

They literally were western romans, lol. Just like the indian civs literally are indians.

And Romans go through the same time period as everyone else; castle age, imperial age, etc, so they must represent the same time period as everyone else.

What’s so bad about giving them a name that fits the time period they’re in? Are you really gonna stop playing a civ because of a name change?

There was no united rome in the middle ages either, lol.

There was the eastern roman empire aka byzantines.


The Romans are Western Rome in-game. No one else. Historical claims are entirely irrelevant.

That is a fallacious argument. The ages represent generic time periods, but civilizations are not bound to the time periods that the ages represent; in fact, many civs are designed in such a way that they could only ever exist in one age, like the Huns. Yet, they can advance just like everyone else. So why must the Romans be medieval? Answer: They aren’t.

They already have a fitting name: the Romans. They represent Western Rome, no one else.


No, I mean they literally were romans. Before the western roman empire fell, they were literally roman citizens. After it fell, anyone who had been a roman citizen had just as much right to claim to be romans as anyone else.

The Huns DID go through those ages; they remained a culturally contiguous people for a thousand years, they just weren’t a great empire anymore. Doesn’t mean they couldn’t have become one, though, if they’d gotten their stuff together.

The western romans, by contrast, could not have done the same, because they literally stopped existing and became something else, by their own actions. They became the burgundians/sicilians/franks/etc. And those civs DID go through the same time periods.

I refer you to my original question; would it make sense to add a new ‘indians’ civ now, that we have 4 discrete indians civs?

What’s the harm in giving them a more historically accurate name, better fitting the time period?

Like I said, that doesn’t matter, because those civs don’t represent Western Rome. They don’t represent any part of Rome. They represent their own medieval kingdoms. How do you not see this?

Doesn’t matter. They don’t represent all of the Huns, just the ones that caused Rome to fall. Their timeline stops after the fall of Rome.

Yes, but they represent the empire before this happened. Those other civs represent their own separate kingdoms after they stopped claiming to be Roman.

No, of course not, but that’s not the situation we have here. We have only two Roman civs, east and west. Then we have a bunch of unrelated medieval kingdoms that merely cropped up after the fall of Rome.

Like I told you, the name they have now is already perfect, because they represent pre-fall Rome, not any form of medieval Rome at all.


I don’t see it because it’s not true. By that logic, the Byzantines don’t represent eastern rome because the named changed.

Each of those civs represents a different way the romans evolved, just like the Indians civs show a different way the ancient Indian peoples evolved. And just like each indians civ has a claim to be indians, each of the derivatives of the western empire has a right to call themselves romans.

Says who? I see no reason to assume that to be the case.

It absolutely is the situation we have here. They are absolutely not ‘unrelated’; they were romans.

I don’t get why this is such a difficult concept.

Except the ages they go through clearly disprove this theory. The pre-fall romans never had a castle or imperial age. Or a feudal age, for that matter. Or a Dark age. Heck, the entire concept of the dark ages is based on the fall of the Roman Empire!

Check the history section.

Maybe at some point, but not doing the Middle Ages. Even if they claimed to be Romans then, that would be false, as the empire collapsed.

I don’t get why the idea that the Burgundians, Franks, etc. represent their own medieval kingdoms and nothing else is such a difficult concept.

The ages are all figurative, dude. They don’t mean anything. At all. They’re just a gameplay element meant to assign rough meaning to the development of your civilization. Don’t look too far into them.

Like I said, the Huns only represent Late Antiquity Huns, as shown by the campaigns, AI names, and history section, and they didn’t go through any of the ages either.


You mean ingame? Obviously they’d stop talking about them, they became a relatively small cultural group. But that doesn’t mean they just died out; they continued existing about as long as the Byzantines did, maybe longer. And critically, they never changed into anyone else.

Uh, no? They had just as legitimate a claim as the Byzantines(who also continued calling themselves the Romans, not the Byzantines). You can’t dictate what an ancient people were called, lol.

Because they were literally the same people, lmao. You literally cannot represent the one without the other.

Ah yes, ignore any gameplay elements that clearly disprove your little theory, they clearly can’t mean anything because they disprove your theory! That’s not circular logic or anything.

The Imperial age has guns. It has halberds, which weren’t invented until the 13th century. It is clearly meant to represent the actual imperial age that actually existed, not some metaphorical imperial age that happens to justify a civilization existing a thousand years outside of its actual timeframe.

They are all later chronologically. The ingame WRE ends basically with the fall of Rome in 476 AD. All of those civs are set much later.