That is true, but it does not matter in this game since the political systems can be different.
The Romans was basically a political system not a pure civ, if you take it exactly. The same can be said of the Sassanids.
And what about Persian dynasties after the muslim conquests then ? Like the Khwarezmians that we see in Genghis Khan 4 ? They cannot be called the Sassanids.
3 Likes
Thank you for that, yes I hope the developers will take care of this.
It is much more synonymous with Anglosaxons or English, than with British or Celts in the game. So you indirectly agree with me, thank you.
The civ name English would also be good, even very appropriate, in any case 100 percent more authentic than British. It is extremely tragic, that the developers make such historical mistakes and have not noticed it for around 24 years.
But the Irish were a subgroup of Island celtic tribes and therefore more British than Continental Celtic. The Irish were much closer to the Britannic tribes than to the Continental Celtic tribes in the Bronze age, long gone in antiquity. So the name of the Celts is completely wrong. If you also want to separate the Irish from the British, you can ask the developers, if they want to have the Irish as another Insular celtic tribe civ alongside the British.
Just not. It is just a historically correct split of the cultural facts at that antiquity time for the overview map in the game. The current split of the overview map by the developers is historically very strange and far to general, how can you twist history facts like your critics here do? Unbelievable bad.
What does the âCoutilierâ have to do with a Burgundian knight? Nothing at all. It was a medieval French career soldier. So the Burgundians are basically French in the game and this is also perceived by many Age of empires 2 players and the press people. You can also read about it on the internet, there are plenty of sources. Historically, the French are more similar to the Spanish and Portuguese than the Franks, yes, so I favor a common architecture set and overview map for these civs. Rather than with the Francs, they do speak a Latin language like Spanish and Portugese, that is where the differences already startâŠ
The English buildings are historically different from the Spanish and Portuguese style, you can also read about it on the internet.
The Teutonic buildings has already the same architecture set in the game as the Vikings. So your statement does not make any sense.
No, I donât agree with you â none of these is the correct name for longbowmen. Longbowmen already have the correct name.
No, both have different downsides: English is more period-appropriate, but excludes the Welsh; Britons is not (very) period appropriate but does include the Welsh. Thereâs no ideal choice.
Even if this is true, it doesnât make them Britons. The Irish are not British â hence, for example, when a form asks me for my ethnicity, âWhite Britishâ and âWhite Irishâ are listed separately.
That doesnât follow from what youâve said. If the civ was called âContinental Celtsâ then fine, but itâs not. If you want a more specific name for Celts, I recommend âGaelsâ.
I donât have to, theyâre already separate.
Iâm guessing English is not your first language, but both of these are massive overreactions.
In the case of the architecture, I misunderstood because youâre using different terminology from whatâs normally used. The usual terminology people use for the existing architecture sets is
- Western European: set currently used by Franks, etc.
- Central European: set currently used by Teutons, etc.
- Eastern European: set currently used by Slavs, etc.
- Mediterranean: set currently used by Spanish, etc.
I guess what youâre actually suggesting is a new set for Spanish, Portuguese and Burgundians, and another new set for Franks, Bohemians and Magyars. I agree that some of the existing sets are used by too many civs (the Eastern European and Mediterranean ones) so Iâd be happy to see some more variety, but I donât really get the way youâve divided them up â I guess at least partly because I donât think Burgundians should be renamed to âFrenchâ.
Yes, but Britons donât currently share architecture with Spanish and Portuguese. The current architecture for Britons is mostly very accurate.
2 Likes
But your penultimate post on the matter says exactly that.
I have never questioned the name of the longbowmen, just that it would go well with the Anglosaxons or English.
I wrote that too.
Sure I wrote that historically the Celts never fit into the game as a civ. They should be renamed to British and the British civ should be renamed to Anglosaxons or English, then the whole game would be more historically correct.
For me not.
Yes that is true, but I have already communicated this in a few posts above this fred.
I try to describe the matter as historically correct as possible and if I get inappropriate criticism, it is only right, that I react to it or, as you put it, overreact.
Yes, that is what I suggest because I have made some basic thoughts about it.
Of course yes, I wanted to point out exactly this issue in this forum entry that the developers should do something in the graphic direction in future updates for the game.
I have broken them down by geographic areas in relation to cultural characteristics. Actually very easy to understand. In addition, the umbrella terms Western European, Northern European, Eastern European, South Asian, East Asian and so on have existed for a long time and are well known.
That is a matter of opinion. I think a renaming makes sense.
The Byzantines and most of their neighbours called them Romans. The term âByzantinesâ was invented by a German historian in 1500s.
Today historians use Byzantine just to draw a line between the medieval Roman Empire as opposed to the one in antiquity. But again - itâs just a scholarly term.
For them to call themselves Late Romans implies that they predicted their own collapse which isnât true. The West Romans kept fighting almost to the bitter end. Romulus Augustulus was deposed in 476, the last attempt at saving the West was in 468 at Cape Bon. Also the division of the Empire didnât mean anything for Roman identity. It was an administrative decision.
A dynasty is a ruling family. The Roman Empire had many dynasties in its history along with many rulers that were not part of any dynasty. The Sasanians were a continuous dynasty. In AoE2 Persian civ is based on the Sasanians, but are also used to represent medieval post-Sasanian dynasties in campaigns.
4 Likes
You said explicitly that Longbowmen should be called Anglo-Saxons:
I guess thatâs not what you meant. But the Anglo-Saxons werenât known for their longbows, and if Britons were designed around the Anglo-Saxons, theyâd be an infantry and monk civ. As it is, their civ design is based on a later period of English and Welsh history. Perhaps the town centre discount is meant to represent Anglo-Saxon burhs reusing material from old fortifications â but thatâs the only Anglo-Saxon thing in there.
Iâll grant you that Woad Raiders are, at best, anachronistic, and that the siege weapon stuff doesnât seem to have any historical basis; but they speak an Irish language and have an Irish wonder. If they were renamed to Britons, theyâd need at least new dialogue and a new wonder. But I guess they would then specifically represent those Celts who spoke Brythonic languages, and youâd end up with a weird situation where they now represent the Welsh but donât get longbows.
The things I donât understand are (a) which of your names for the architecture sets correspond to the sets that already exist (e.g. is âIsland Europeâ the set that Britons and Celts already have?), and (b) why Franks, Bohemians and Magyars are bundled together.
Having a civ called âFranksâ and another called âFrenchâ seems undesirable to me, whereas I donât see any problem with the name âBurgundiansâ.
4 Likes
Add rank so people will play online
I wrote that the longbowmen could be assigned to the Anglosaxons or English but not, that the longbowmen should be renamed. You make a misunderstanding out of it.
Yes, but the Romans still had rulers who belonged to a dynasty especially at the beginning of their story of the Roman republic, which is also contain in Age of Empires 1. The central question from one of the critics in previous entries was, that the Romans are a pure civ, which is not true. It was a political system, that just kept getting bigger and bigger.
I wrote never anything else.
You are agree with me on this question. I think also that the Persians should be renamed to the Sassanids.
Of course it is true. Roman fortune tellers of that time foresaw the collapse of their own empireâŠ
Agree. I remember their historical notes ending in 651 with Muslim conquest.
Byzantines also are not an ethnicity for what I know. You should call them Greeks to be consistent I guess.
I remember hearing that hasburgs were considered as a civ at one point.
Anyway is it really that big of a problem to call a civ after a dynasty when the alternative feels forced? The point of a civ is to represent something historical so as long as it does it why bending our head over consistency with an arbitrary and self imposed standard? Who even said that in aoe2 you must have only civs named on ethnicity as it is a law of physics?
I mean Iâd prefer that but I wouldnât remove a cool civ just because it has a dynastic name⊠It sounds like being bureaucratic and conservative idkâŠ
Seriously dude? People started calling them Byzantines decades after 1453. They called themselves Romans. Ethiopians called them Romans. Chinese called them Romans. Indians, Mingols, Turks. Everyone not in Europe called them Romans. Western Europeans called them Romans until Charlemagne and then they started calling them Greeks
According to who?
To me itâs not
In that case, AoE1 Persians should be renamed to Achaemenids
Do yoy know what a dynasty is?
What?
What we know as the Byzantines is the Roman Empire in the East. In 476 it encompased Greeks, Berbers, Egyptians, Thracian and even more ethnicities. In 1453 ot encompased mostly Greeks. That doesnât mean they should be named Greeks. It was a multiethnic amd multicultural empire. Culturally, it was as Greek as it was Egyptian or Balkanic.
3 Likes
Then why do you call Romans like that? They werenât just the city of Rome right? Byzantines were culturally and linguistically Greeks and it doesnât change anything the fact they had territories outside of Greece.
The chaos regarding the eastern empire identity is mostly due to medieval propaganda and the fact that by the latter part of Hellenism (Roman early imperial days) the greco Roman world somehow ideally merged together (we could say re-merged since Rome originally came from the Greek world). Hence the confusion between Latins and Greeks but byzantines are greek by all means, not Romans. That was eastern propaganda because of Charlemagne etc. Come on after the sack of Constantinople Europeans called their new kingdom the Latin empire because that was enough to distinguish them from Greeks and the new empire of Nicea often stylised itself as the âempire of Hellenesâ.
Also Egypt was Byzantine very shortly if ever, almost the same for Balkans, Africa and Italy. Africa and Italy were way too Latin to the point byzantines were seen as invaders and the Balkans had already started becoming Slavic by the time of Heraclius.
I really donât know why this vision of byzantines being exactly like Romans is so ingrained nowadays but it could be an interesting historical thesis. Iâd say itâs probably due to the fact that it makes one feeling âgrandioseâ, specially if you look at greek nationalism, and makes you dream that Rome never felt somehow or that it lasted longer (one of the themes of my custom campaign). My opinion is that Rome fell with Constantine at the milvian bridge even if its importance was already gone by that time anyway. And then Christianity remade the assets for middle ages. But Iâm conscious my approach would mean looking at history from a completely different pov from what weâre used to so I donât force it. I just state it so maybe people can consider things in a different way.
Egypt and Balkans didnât magically appear in the Byzantine map. They were part of the Unified Roman Empire since centuries before 395.
Again, besides Western Europe EVERYONE in the Old World called them Romans. If less than 20% of the Old World population called this
a spoon, it wouldnât mean itâs a spoon.
1 Like
If you want to distinguish the Eastern Empire from the Holy Roman Empire or the Ancient Empire, you might as well call them âRomaicsâ or âRhomaioiâ, as they called themselves. By the way, the territory of âthe medieval Romansâ was called âRhomaniaâ.
The name âByzantinesâ seems to be nothing more than a derogatory term in Western propaganda. Charlemagneâs descendants wanted to deny the existence of the more legitimate Eastern Empire.
3 Likes
Yes dude.The Byzantians were in the broadest sense Koine Greeks, who also ever held the power of the state. Byzantians was the general umbrella term for people in the Southeastern balkan, which also included Slavic, Romanian and Albanian minorities.
I have described this in previous posts. But again a little bit more accurate: A dynasty is a succession of rulers from the same family, usually in a monarchical system, but sometimes in republics or similar forms of government.
Hmm⊠I mean it in this direction, but if you know better about it, I will gladly accept it.
-Fine, if that is historically correct, then I would like to have Anglosaxons in the game, which are an infantry and monk civilization, that would be nice. The Anglosaxons would at least fit wonderfully into Age of Empires 2, in terms of the historical time frame.
-And further I want to have also Edward Longshanks to be the leader for the Anglosaxons and not for an Island celtic British civ, for whom he did not stand up, on the contrary, he was their enemy, to be historically correct. However, since the Definitive Edition, Longshanks is the leader of the British in their new campaign, which is an nonsense and unfortunately an inexperienced on the part of the devs.
Well then, I would even be in favor of introducing the English as a new civ, with the longbowmen, which you explained it, fit best with the Englishmen. Welsh would then be Island Celts again and probably less appropriate for longbowmen in this age.
At least some of it is in the game. A relic to build on for a new civ.
I would be for it, then the devs have to do to introduce these points, that would be well doable.
I do not think so, the English and the Welsh can be distinguished well, already their languages begin with the simplicity, West germanic and Island celtic background.
Yes the architecture set is for British and Celts, the set which they have already.
They are grouped together because they are geographically close to each other. From my point of view this makes sense, because this situation with these 3 civs has been like this since the 9th century AD, that means since the beginning of Feudal age in Europe, which covers a larger timeframe of the game.
I hope now at least, that my thoughts are clearer to youâŠ
Where people from Alexandria or Jerusalem Byzantines, before the Arab expansion?
But how can âRomansâ be a dynasty then? Antonines or Julio-Claudius were dynasties
1 Like
My suggestion for new civs and campaigns in Return of Rome:
-
They could also finally bring in the game the 3 barbarian civilizations that Romans hard hard time with:
Dacian Kingdom, Germanic tribes and Gauls.
(they could have the same architecture for all 3 and instead of priest at the temple they should have druids at the ponds)
Trajan had a huge war going on in Dacia against Decebalus and we all know about Caesarâs campaigns in Gaul and there was also the legendary fight of Teutoburg forest with Germanic tribes.
So they can easily make 3 campaigns just out of this. -
Another campaign could be made for the roman civil wars, the triumvirates.
-
A campaign about the Chinese epic civil war too.
-
Korean campaign about Choson unification, fighting with the northern nomad tribes (the deadly Jurchen) and the internal fight for the throne.
1 Like
First of all, there is no British civ in the game. If you meant the Britons, ok, I also think English is appropriate for them.
Second, why on Earth should we have to rename the Celts to British? The British identity is from later centuries and their main culture was primarily English.
This is simply false
False, the Romans were not a dynasty. They were even a republic for much of their existence.
Even during the Empire there many emperors that were not psrt of any dynasty, they were just picked by the previous emperor
3 Likes