BTW some east asian civ is confirmed in behind the scene: https://cdn.ageofempires.com/aoe-forums/original/3X/7/0/70699c35f75ad3f753ca3b471fcc36000f8fccf2.png
2 Likes
On second thought, dropping the Mayans and Aztecs to make room for maybe Brits and probably some form of Slavs or Indians would make the world feel a bit more filled out, even if it misses the Americans.
It’s also weird that I’m still missing any sign of Africa, maybe shift the Middle Eastern hub more into Northern Africa? That still leaves out anything sub Sahara, but at least there’d be something…
Having just 10 civs is hard.
1 Like
My top 8 would be outside of Britain and Mongols:
Europe:
- Holy roman empire (this time correct and not teutons)
- France or Francia
- Castille or Spain
- Byzantines (also sort of asia)
Asia:
- China
- Japan
- Persia
Africa:
- Mali
Isnt there then also a case for the Mapuche? They resisted the Spanish and even managed to exist and be the last natives to be conquered.
1 Like
Aztecs and Incas arent that different they had much in common
They didn’t even made contact with each other. It’s impossible for them to have something in common. Except some generic human behaviors.
That sounds like a good idea, and they also battled the Incas
Good,but so where is the saracens or turks?they are very important for crusades?i can’t imagine a medieval without crusades.
2 Likes
exactly, it’s no fun to play byzantines without turks or arabs. atleast one of them needs to be there.
3 Likes
i prefer arabs to spanish.spanish can bring with a mesoamerican dlc.(prob it will include aztecs-mayans & spanish civs)
3 Likes
This suggestion doesn’t make any sense. What do you mean by “Latins” exactly? All of western Europe was founded by an influx of migrating Germanic tribes that were gradually latinized during the middle ages, including Italians.
Italians are a completely separate people and culture that have absolutely nothing to do with the Romans/Byzantines for most of the period that we know as middle ages.
And Byzantines can’t be just categorized as ‘‘Latins’’ whatsoever.
I could find you texts of Byzantine scholars by the 10th century that call the people of Italy or HRE as “despised Latin heretics” and “Roman impostors”.
Unfortunately those parts of history are unknown for most people and there’s huge misinformation over the use of those terms.
I like how you separate Germany and France as distinct entities, which have way more similarities and common roots, but just use the term “Latins” to group people together that have nothing to do with one another.
OMG !!! What has happened here since I was out ?
1- Mongols were a civilization. Cut the ■■■■■■■■. They were the most organised, most tactically sophisticated army nation of their age. Their armors and weaponry were too advanced.
If you think of Dothraki horde from Game of Thrones when you hear Mongols, thats your own ignorance.
Those ‘‘yurts’’ they live in, are mathematical wonders that can resist to any storm in the steppes.
They were a civilization in sid meier’s civilization series and also age of empires 2 and since the developers already confirmed this, in age of empires 4 as well.
2- No, as I said the last Persian state in medieval times were Sassanids. Which only lapsed with medieval times less than 2 centuries.
Safavids werent a Persian state. They werent Kurdish neither. Thats absolute ballocks. Wikipedia can ■■■■■■■■ when a topic has a political ground.
I, myself am a enthusiast of Safavid history.
The reason they call Shah Ismail a Kurd in wiki is because only one copy of one work(Safvat as-Safa) predating Safavids mentions his 12th great grandfather(Firooz Shah Zarrin Kolah) with the expression ‘‘al-Kurdi’’, apart from this one copy of safvat as safa none of the other works call his 12th great grandfather a Kurd.
Reza Shah Pahlawi’s greatest historian who served significantly to ‘‘iranian identity’’ Ahmed Kesrevi in his work ‘‘Sheikh Safi and His Lineage’’ disproved this theory.
Even if his 12th ancestor was a Kurd, which he wasnt, even his 6th great grandfather Safi-ad-din Ardabili was called Pir-i Turk and Turkish young. So even if his 12th grandfather was a Kurd(again, which he wasnt) by the time of his 6th great grandfather they would be already Turkified.
We know that Shah Ismail’s father Sheikh Haydar was a Turkish speaker. So was his father Sheikh Juneyd. Shah Ismail did not even know any other language other than Turkish until he was 9.
Safavid Empire was founded completely as a Turkmen movement called ‘‘Qizilbash’’. Qizilbash is a Turkish word meaning red head(because of their distinct hats).
These are the Turkmen tribes that founded the Safavid Empire, my father is from Afshār.
- Ustādjlu
- Rūmlu
- Shāmlu (the most powerful clan during the reign of Shah Ismail I.)
- Dulkadir (Arabic: Dhu 'l-Kadar)
- Afshār
- Qājār
- Takkalu
Shah Ismail is also considered on of the 7 holy Turkish poets among Qizilbash Turkmens in Anatolia.
He is renowned for writing all of his poems in Turkish which was considered a peasant language by the other monarchs. Ottoman Sultan Selim I for example wrote his poems in Persian. Because it was considered the language of poetry. Thats how Turkmen Shah Ismail felt.
His mother, Halima Begum was the daughter of great Turkmen king Uzun Hasan of Aq Koyunlu.
His grandmother Khadija Begum was the sister of same Turkmen king Uzun Hasan.
His wife, Tajlu Begum therefore Shah Tahmasb’s mother was also a Turkmen(you wont believe it but she was the granddaughter of Uzun Hasan’s son Yaqup).
I mean I cant tell you how ridiculous it is to call Shah Ismail not a Turkmen. It…is…just…incredible !
Summary: It is calling a Turkmen from father and grandfather and from any matriarchal ancestor and was head of a incredibly pure Turkmen movement a Kurd simply because in one of the copies of one of the works called his 12th great grandfather al-Kurdi which itself was disproved by one of the Iranian historians who worked for a Persian nationalist monarch. Thats how ridiculous it is !
Now why do they do this ? I dont want to get into geo-politics but it is about constructing a Kurdish national identity to strengthen the idea of Kurdistan. Even Saladin, who was from a very mixed family(first Kurdified then Turkified originally a Yemeni Arab family) and only used his Muslim identity became the supreme leader of Kurdish national movement.
3- For the Afshars and Qajars there isnt even a dispute. The name Afshar is one of the 24 Oghuz Turkmen tribes which my father was also part of. ''Nader Shah was born in the fortress of [Dastgerd] into the [Qereqlu] clan of the [Afshars] , a semi-[nomadic] Turkic [Qizilbash] [pastoralist] tribe settled in the northern valleys of [Khorasan] ‘’ Even that asshole wiki admits he was Turkic to the bone. Same with Qajars.
There is this weak Zand Dynasty that only lasted for 43 years and was of Lurs origin which was an Iranian people but they werent Persian and we are talking about a Persian civilization.
4- By ‘‘official language’’ wiki refers to bureucratic language which was Persian even in the Seljuk Empire because Persians were a bureucratic, urban people but these were military empires and in all of their armies Turkish was the language. In Mongol Empire, Uyghur language and alphabet was used because Uyghurs were a bureucratic people at least among other nomads. Does this make Mongol Empire an Uyghur state ?
5- ‘‘architecture is always a good measure to choose culturally diverse civilizations.’’
No it isnt. Today from Brazil to United arab Empirates everywhere is the same concrete tall buildings.
In aoe 3 Portuguese and Ottomans shared the same mediterranian architecture despite perhaps being culturally very far civilizations.
4 Likes
What do you understand by the word civilization?
Oh boi, here it comes. When someone starts having trouble in civ discussions, the “What do you understand by the word civilization?” or “what civilization means to you?” always pop up. This or the definition of empire.
Bruh, we can say the tupi in south america are a civilization, depending on our interpretation. Let’s try not to go that way, otherwise we will find ourselves in a loophole of definitions and arguments, with no one backing down.
1 Like
And why shouldn’t I ask this when someone is arguing that Persians are not a civilization but the dynasty that ruled them determines if the Persians are a civilization or not?
I mean culture, architecture, language makes a civilization or the royal dynasty?
By that logic, what would you say about the Sultanate of Rum? The entire region was greek and armenian, following the orthodox and miaphysite religion. Yet we all know it was an turk, muslin state.
What about the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem? the entire region was “arab”, levantine, whatever you call it. Mostly muslins too.
Greece as a nation in aoe3 would be accurate by that logic, too. They have their language, religion, culture, and the unlucky fact they are under ottodude control.
Emirate of Córdoba: Everyone was visigoth, except their rulers. Everyone was christian, except their rulers. Everyone hated then, except their rulers.
2 Likes
I do prefer to call civilization by its people and not ruler. Mughals are an Indian Empire not Timurid Empire. Mughals dynasty might be the descendants of Timurids but they adopted the Indian culture and blended with it. This is the logic I use to see civilizations.
Your logic may be different. That’s why I asked first. Since you are questioning Wikipedia, I can’t really argue without knowing how you define civilization? There is no point of arguing with a person with completely opposite consideration.
@JoinedClover143 wrote the complete dynastic history about the dynastic ancestry which he tried to bias to link with Turks as many times as possible. He also badmouthed Wikipedia, questioned it’s authenticity and blamed politics. All of this was completely out of context for me.
My defination for civilization is by its people and their culture and not by its ruler.
1 Like
I did not bias anything, I dont even care if they werent Turk. I am just stating the facts.
Shah Ismail wasnt even a good king in my opinion. His performance in Chaldiran was pathetic.
His soldiers Qizilbash Turkmen were so fanatic that Selim I once told to his murmuring Janissaries during a long march ‘’ that heretic has such soldiers that even if he told them to slaughter their own children, they would do it without saying a word’’ and there is a historical proof beneath this too. Qizilbash were Turkmens who were the poorest of Ottoman Empire(in fact this is why they were very discontent with Ottoman Empire) When they defeated Shirvanshahs, for the first time in their life each one obtained an unspeakable loot. They suddenly became incredibly rich. But Shah Ismail hated Shirvanshahs so much that(they were both his fathers and grandfathers killers) he told qizilbash to pour all they obtained, looted, earned to the river. Not even a one Qizilbash doubted this.
Qizilbash understood Islam so heretically that they seriously believed Ismail was Allah.
They were excellent soldiers because of this fanaticism.
Once they defeated 9.000 men as 3.000. In their battle against Shirvanshahs 7.000 Qizilbash defeated 27.000 Shirvanshah soldiers.
Later in 1510 17.000 Qizilbash defeated 27.000 Uzbek cavalry, who were great cavalry themselves.
Shah Ismail lost only one battle among his 17 battles. Battle of Chaldiran. But from his terrible mistakes in this defeat we understand it was the excellence of his soldiers rather than his personal military genious that won him his previous victories.
His 40 or 55.000 men fought against 100.000 Ottomans. They defeated Ottoman cavalry but once they faced artillery and musketeers their horses first time hearing cannons, disobeyed their riders.
1- One of Ismails generals Nur ali Khalipha told him to attack before Ottomans could place properly. Safavid army being a typical Turkmen army(full cav) it was way more mobile. Shah Ismail declined it saying I dont need such petty tactics to win I am Mehdi(sth like Messiah in twelver Shia Islam).
2- He was drunk during the battle and this is confirmed by his son Tahmasp I later.
3- He didnt even have to fight. Ottoman army was on the verge of a riot due to long march into Iran and Safavids were using a scorched earth tactic, Ottoman army was so discontent that it is said even janissaries once shot an arrow to Selim’s tent to warn him. So, Selim was trying to provoke Ismail by insulting him in his letters. If Ismail did not face Selim he would have won easily without fighting. His Mehdi complex and personal ego got better of him and he got provoked by Selim’s letters.
4- He did not adopt gunpowder weapons calling them not chivalrious.
I would have Nader Shah over Ismail I on any day. Nader was a military genious.
''completely opposite consideration.
@JoinedClover143 wrote the complete dynastic history about the dynastic ancestry which he tried to bias to link with Turks as many times as possible. He also badmouthed Wikipedia, questioned it’s authenticity and blamed politics. ‘’
I have read many academic books on this topic. If you consider any of the information I told you wrong I am willing to hear it. Tell me I was wrong about Sheikh Juneyd’s and Haydar’s language being Turkish.
Tell me Reza Shah Pahlawi’s historian ahmed Kesrevi did not disprove Shah Ismail’s 12th great grandfather being Kurdish. Tell me the only language Shah Ismail knew until he was 9 wasnt Turkish. Tell me both his wife and his mother and his grandmother werent relatives of Aq Koyunlu Sultan Uzun Hasan therefore Turkmen. Guess what ? His son Tahmasp I’s wife that borned Ismail II was also a Turkmen, straight from your beloved wiki:
‘‘Sultanum Begum was the daughter of Musa Sultan bin ‘Isa Beg Musullu (Bayanduri), of the [Aq Quyunlu], governor of [Azerbaijan] . Like Tahmasp’s mother [Tajlu Khanum] , Sultanum belonged to the [Turcoman] Mawsillu tribe and was a maternal [third cousin] of her husband.’’
Tell me his 6th great grandfather Safi-ad-din Ardabili wasnt called Pir-i Turk or Turkish young.
Your definition of civilization may be like that. Safavids didnt even start their empire on Persian majority provinces of Iran. They started it on Turkmen provinces.
Look at this video and see exactly where they started (Ardabil)
Then look at the blue part of this picture, thats where Turkmen lived.(Ardabil is in it)
Until Ottomans conquered it their capital was Tabriz. Until 1555.(Ismail died in 1524)
See where Tabriz is:
https://images.app.goo.gl/hDHVv5e7LQPX1Hi9A
Because of Ottoman threat they had to move it eastwards. Second capital was Qazvin.
See where Qazvin is. Still in the blue area. They obviously did their best to keep it in blue spot because thats where their army stock(Turkmens) was.
Qazvin stayed as the capital all the way until 1598. But Ottoman threat grew even higher so they didnt have another choice but to carry the capital to Isfahan.
Yes finally Isfahan wasnt a Turkmen majority state but the Empire was already on its declining century. Plus, you are right about one thing. Isfahan period is indeed marked as when the Persianification of the empire happened.
If Ismail won Chaldiran, he had eyes on Anatolia. So did his child Tahmasp. With both Anatolia and Iran, it wouldnt be a geographically Iran based empire. I am telling you this so you to understand the perspective/mindset of Safavids. They never aimed for a Iran based Empire. Thats what terms forced them to be.Shahs constantly sent Khalipha’s to Anatolia to make Turkmens revolt. They did this despite angering Ottomans. They had eyes on every Turkmen majority lands. They constantly kept in touch with Turkmens of Toros for example. They sent buyruks to Turkmens(buyruk: a Turkic word meaning order) to keep in touch with them.
In this Turkmen rebellion even Ottoman grandvizier died.
There were many Turkic names and titles among noble ladies and generals as well.Khanum, Begum, Quli, Khan etc.
For me, your logic is wrong. Empires are known for being multi-ethnic. Hunnic Empire for example. What should we call it ? Germanic or Roman Empire because it owned those areas and more of those people ?
British Empire ? It owned more India than Britain.
Mughals didnt consider themselves from the Indian stock. Babur wrote his biography in Chagatai Turkic not in Indian. Even Indians today see them as another foreign invaders.
3 Likes
Japan can be swapped with saracens. But i believe that Spain/castille is important in a medieval game and not just for a dlc. My european pics are a must have for Medieval games in my opinion. Arabs are also important and i wanted to add that one nation that conquerd way up to Iberia but forgot the name. Turks in my opinion are less important then Byzantium. They became important when the Ottomans began to rise, but that was late medieval until then they were just a problem for the Byzantines.
I guess you had the Berbers in mind?