It says “may refer to the Germanic peoples collectively… or the Germans in particular”… from the perspective of ancient Roman authors. Furthermore “may” means it is possible, but not that is a historical fact. And today we know both latin assumptions are wrong because:
The assumption, that they were refered to the Germanic tribes collectively is wrong since we know there were a lot of other Germanic tribes like Cimbrians, Vandals, Langobards etc… that have to be disinguished. So it does not make sense to play “Franks” and “Teutones” at the same time because that´s basically the same, since “teutonic” Germans are Descandants from the Easter Kingdom of Franks.
The assumption to refer it to the Germans as a whole is wrong too, because not all the Germanic tribes were located in nowadays Germany like the Anglo-Saxons in Britain or Vandals in North-Africa, they also had differences in culture and language. The medieval German Principalties put together with other tribes in the HRE had their own souverignity and should not be confused. An example would be the archduchy of Austria, it is within the HRE, people spoke German, ethnicity was mixed between Marcomanni (Germanic tribe), Bajuwars (Celts), Romans and Slavs. But they have nothing to do with the Teutonic Order, people and State were completely different.
The German Empire was founded relatively lately in 19th century. In medieval there were German people, Balts, Slavs and so on but there were no Teutons in Europe.
Yeah from this ethnical perspective we´d need Italian and Spanish. But the small principalities only existed for a short period of time in the middle ages.
And it makes sense to localize the ages a little bit. Because Spanish (Navarro, Castillan, …) are descandants from a mix of Moors (maybe playable as Arabs) and Visigoths (that are Goths). If they play a role in the campaign, those “non-empires” should be possible to play in a DLC and not as a full-fledged civ. If you play Goths, Celts and Spanish at the same time… Or Huns against Mongols. That´s complete nonsense.
The point not whether “Teutons” as a nation related to ancient ones exist in the Middle Ages, but there is evidence that medieval people call Germanic people as “Teutons” as a whole.
Otherwise one cannot explain how the name “Teutonic Order” came from, as they are not ancient Teutons nor stationed in ancient Teuton territories.
Similarly, Saracens was a relatively narrow term, but medieval Europeans may call all Muslim “Saracens”, while Middle-Easterners called all Europeans “Franks”.
A modern example would be French calling Germans " Allemands", though the identity of Alemanni as an independent people has long ceased to exist, and they inhabited in a much smaller span of territories.
I agree, but the relation from Teutonic order to Teutons is still speculation. And who are “Germanic people”? Do you mean from the Saracens´view? Because if I use the term Teutons as are described it, in Europe, ALL civs descend from Germanic tribes including, Franks, Britons, Goths etc. So they all are Teutons. But it is a single playable Faction along other Teutonic civs.
And it would be reasonable that developers name the civs according to nowadays historical state of knowledge. With Saracens it´s the same. Few people actually know who Saracens are. Otherwise this is quite confusing for a gamer, who is not an history-expert. And the approach to name civs according to generalized medieval assumptions is a contradictive break to the multiple civs from the addons etc.
I assume they just named them this way to sound fancier
I thought the same.
It angered me so much, investing so much efforts and genious to create a wonderful game (which key element is the historical accuracy) and the mess it up with the factions. Too many factions like Warchief and Asian Dynasties mess up the whole game. They were OP and the whole game was not fun anymore at Multiplayer. A few and well differentiated civs are best.
I am happy, that I´ve heard that those factions are much different now so I hope they don´t mess up this time with the civs. If you can play Huns against Mongols again, I´d just kill myself. Or 20 African tribes, that´d be a shot in the knee too.
My answer to your last comment since I can not make any further posts … xD
"Yeah true, in the end they did. Sadly, in an interview about AoE2 though, they said they are proud of their historical accuracy. AoE was the frst game ever with an historical accurate campaign-mode afaik, that was the special about it.
About the nummber of factions, for example AOE3 which plays in the colonial age:
No Russians and Ottomans in the new world, Germans did not play a big role and if you want to have it together with Ottomans, Polish, Habsburger Austrian would be missing. You could bring those in an “napoleon DLC”. And it also brings an unrealistic tilt if you can play American natives as full-fledged factions because they had complete different units and were not equal in combats.
No I don’t really think historical accuracy is really a major consideration… It’s more like they picked some cool elements that have some historical basis and throw them into a big hodgepodge.
Infantry-centered Goths with Norse/Anglo-Saxon huskarls (and co-exisiting with Spanish and Portuguese), Celts with Roman period raiders, schimitar-throwing Saracens, Chinese as a mixture of several dynasties, “Germans” with units and techs from Prussia/Austria/HRE/Hussites/Poland, etc. you name it.
Teutons are used by Germans to describe themselves… Rimini is called Teutonengrill because of all the German tourists getting sunburned there. There is nothing wrong with Teutons = Germans.
„[…] qui Theutonica sive Teutisca lingua loquimur […]“
„[…] die wir Teutonisch oder Deutsch reden […]“
– Notker: Gesta Karoli 1, 10, 24–25
The game is called Age of Empires, not European Medieval History Simulator.
You’re just showing off your ignorance in regards of non-European history.
If the expansions would have only been about Europe, they would have been boring in my opinion. The expansions were all great and I loved every single one of them.
Read books for history
Play video games for fun
AoE never designed for history lessons,it designed for “fun”
I wanna mention my must civs
Some more civs from Middle east and South East Asia.
I think American and African civs will be added as DLC.
If you liked the addons, that´s nice for you but it´s your personal opinion. I didn´t like them for several reasons and I think, everybody has the right to like or dislike certain aspects of a game. I am basically very interested in non-european history and I was refering to the way and impact of its applications ingame.
We might take Turks instead of Kipchaks, Kipchaks were a Turk-civ no? I admit, it´s not easy to restrict to 10 civs if you have Mongols and at the same time Brits at the other end of the world. Because Mongols brought down more than 10 empires. But Kipchaks make sense indeed. Slavs sounds good too. If we focus on the Golden Horde Invasion from a perspective of the people we get:
Srsly… No. It´s German. The quote by Notker is taken out of context. He used the word “teutonic” in a corrupted way to describe people in East-Francia that kinda had the same language. It was made in the Carolingian age while a couple years later the word diutisc (diutisch, tiutsch, diutsch, tiutsch, tiusch) prevailed.
“Teutonengrill” is a malapropism too and “Teutonen” is not a serious description for German people. The Roman also refered to themselves as “Sons of Mars” but we still call them Roman.
In Germany the academic consensus is
Teutons ⊆ Germanic people ∧ Germanic people ≠ German ⇒ Teutons ≠ German & German ≠ Teutons
Oh really the concept of Germans was not present during the Ancient times…
Ofc not. It was the second sound shift that split german from other germanic languages. But to state that teutons have nothing to do with germans is nonsense. As is your attempt to describe it with basic logic.
You said that Teutons have nothing to do but infact they do have things in common. And your logical argument would be better when you treat Germans as a subset of successors of Germanic people… then there might be a an overlap between two subsets…
I never said that they have nothing in common together at all. This is not the first attempt to twist my statements btw. So, I tell you, the derivation you made is taken from too far and speculative. Many civilazations have the same Roots, like German and Indian people both derive from Indo-germanic anchestors, the question is how much you can go back in time. Since the game plays in Medieval, I thought it make sense to not go before 400 AD. Following your logic you could say Spaniards and Greeks are German because they have common Germanic roots (Goths). Or French are German because they both are rooted in the Francian Empire. The intermixture between Germanic, Slavish, Celtic and Roman during the Barbarian Invasion was so significant, that any trial of retracement is just ridiculous. You could see it from a perspective of culture, language and religion at best. Claiming ethical aspects like the Nazis did is just proven to be pseudoscientific. Because the migration of the actual Teutons towards Rome and their extinction afterwards was more than 100 BC.
You equivalated “Teutons = German” which is just wrong.
Assuming it’s in the same timeline as AoE2 (ie. medieval times, middle ages) it has to roughly follow the years 500 AD to 1500 AD.
Sure there’s some leeway but if we stick to that timeline, that would automatically exclude several civs. Remember this isn’t Side Meier’s Civlization, which takes all kinds of civs and posits the question what if.
Based on that we have to automatically exclude civs such as Huns, Goths and Portuguese. They simply weren’t around or impactful enough in that 500-1500 timeline.
But civs that were around and impactful in that timeline are as follows:
Then in the DLC I could see
You might have noticed I did not include civs like the Vikings and Slavs but that’s because their level of development in the middle ages never reached high levels. In fact the Vikings never really got out of the dark/feudal age development wise. And ironically enough these Vikings were pretty much in control of the Slavic lands. The Rus - which formed the word Russia - was a Swedish Viking tribe that formed the leadership of the Slavic Ukrainian and Russian populations in present day Kiev and such.
I really implore all of you to do some studying of the middle ages and not just ramble off your preferred civ. You have to look at medieval history and based on your research decide which civs were most important to the development of the world.
Yeah the lower “cultural development” would be an argument to not have some civs.
Further empires that´d fall into this category (beside Slavs and Hungarian you mentioned) are Polish and the Kievan Rus. I am veeery curious about which civs are going to come and if there are any “Teutons”. Despite the “lower culture” of vikings, they would be a nice option since there were several scandinavian kingdoms that could be subsumed as “vikings”.
But I would leave Aztecs, Incas and Malians (no touchppoints to other civs in the middle ages) but put em into the DLC. And Iberians also do not belong into middle ages. But im not sure. I think Turk is a nice civ too cause there have been some turk-empires that belong to turks like the seljuk who fought against the byzantines. and maybe persians for the abbasids. anyways, really looking forward to it!!
Btw. for the those who said it´s all about fun:
The developers said in their game announcement on gamestars, that they try again to focus more on historical conformity. The units will be highly differentiated and they made a lot of historical research to simulate those correctly. I probably was not the only one who complained about that in AoE3. History is a key element of this game series, otherwise you´d also play games like Warhammer or AoW.
Maybe we have
And the whole game is either about Europe or the Mongolian Invasion.
I can conjecture with absolute certainty:
Holy Roman Empire,
Hungarians have to be added.