It is true, Turks are in Eastern Europe, but are not Eastern Europeans.
Huns and Cumans, however, because they no longer exist, and because they acted mostly in Eastern Europe, do cover the area.
It is not like we can connect them to any still existing people, and say: “These are the Huns and Cumans.”
They were turkics, but have since been crossbred to cultural extinction.
Renames are a bad policy. Ottomans are only at the end of the Middle Ages, and if Turks were renamed, then people would ask for Seljuks, Rum, Uyghurs and Khwarezmians, which Turks are there to cover as an umbrella.
Some of these suggested fictonal civs were just PART of a bigger country, empire, when they fought for the Chiristianity- Bohemians, Serbs and Croatians…And definitely, the Emperor, king of the country wanted that tribes to participate of the battles for Chritianity.
The Bohemians were just part of the Holy Roman Empire and Austro- Hungarian empire. Bohemia is a name af land. It is not a civ… As the Ottomans renamed some of their regions, provinces- Rumelia and Macedonia…
The Croatians were part of the Bizantine Empire and after that - part of Austro- Hungarian empire, when they fought for the Cristianity… Saying that the were civ, is at saying that some village of the Frank empire at 732 AD, made more for the Frank win at the Battle of Tours, also called the Battle of Poitiers -
… or to say that the slavs, who were part of the Bulgarian kingdom made more for the win at Constantinople (717–718 AD) and stop the Arab Muslim Siege of Constantinople
The Hussite Rebellion is similar to the Bogomilism. They were just Rebels.
About the Bohemians, I have Another example. NOW, present days, at Germany, if somebody is opponent of Merkel, he is NOT a new civ. The Hussite were just Rebels as Ivaylo at Aoe 2 DE. He was NOT new civ.
The Great Powers- Great Britain and France destroyed Austro- Hungary empire at 1918 AD after WW1, as they divided Germany at 1945 AD after WW2 to make them weak…
About the Serbs, they were ally of the more powerful countries, who manage to defeat them. The Serbs were part of the Byzantine empire… Their country appeared for only 200 years, AFTER the Bulgarians made a Second kingdom. When the Byzantines empire were weak, the Serbs appeared.
And after the defeat at Battle of Kosovo - 1389 AD-
, the Serbs became ally of their enemy- the Muslim Ottomans. So the Serbs participated at the battle at Ankara - 1402 AD, where the Mongols of Tamerlane defeated the alliance of Ottomans and Serbs.
The Serbs fight agains everybody, until they were defeated.
Here, at the time of Age of Empires 3, at 1885 AD, after the unification of the [Principality of Bulgaria] and the province of [Eastern Rumelia], as some man and woman married, the Serbs attacked them.
That is for the Unification of Bulgaria
And that is for the Serb attack against the united Bulgarians( similar to attacking a man and woman who married ). Before that war, the Serbs have a border, neighbour at South- the Muslim Ottoman empire. So they could attack the Ottomans too. But the Sebs decided to attack the United Bulgarians.
Eastern Rumelia was part of the Muslim Ottoman empire, but the Muslim Ottomans did NOTattack the Bulgarians… In stead of that the Serbs attacked the United Bulgarians.
The Serbs give me very bad examples…
Based on your logic, e.g. Burgundians are not a civ as well, its just a name of land… Vikings were no civ and its not even a land name, they were just raiders. Arbitrary handling…
How would you handle “Italiens” in the game wheee they were also part of HRE, parts of Burgundy was also in HRE…
Thats a view from perspective of Sigismund, the HRE emperor. The fact is it was the first successful rebellion against Catholic church, bringing new religion branch within Christianity and made lands of Bohemia religiously tolerant. Except for this they brought new war tactics, began to employ small gunpowder weapons and even gave world a few new words. Based on your logic we should omit the whole French revolution and its ideas because they were just rebels
Based on both paragraphs, if we say there is a room for more atomized Europe, Bohemia is a good candidate with its unique position (de facto independent) in HRE and its rich history matching AoE2 time frame (campaigns: Ottokar II. or/and John, Charles including battle at Crecy or/and Hussites wars).
Yes, but the Bohemians are not “another German principality”. Otherwise they were not Kingdom to simplify it Moreover, Hussites are Bohemians but Bohemians are not Hussites…
Well, thats not true. In other words you say, there was a common plan how to partition Austria-Hungary before the end of WW1. The armistice was signed on 11 November, but the Czechs proclaimed independence on 28 October based on the declaration of Wilson who had proclaimed “self-determination of nations”. Personally, I do not believe the Austria-Hungary could survive several years after WW1 because almost nobody wanted it (if I exaggerate a little). The dissolution of the empire was uncontrolled and uncontrollable. Read the last chapter here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary
Ignorance is dangerous. Instead of explaining history this forum should be dedicated to discussion if there are enough historical evidence to describe new civs, if we have enough materials for new campaigns, if we are able to ample civ uniqueness, if we can balance those new civs and finally if we can make them unique in terms of game (like Burgundians brought just one “uniqueness” - charges). This is my opinion.
Well, everyone is telling you the same thing: If we’re going to add HRE principalities as civs, things start to get awkward. Besides, there’s still a bunch of civs we could add from Eastern Europe instead of adding HRE principalities as civs.
And even if we add HRE principalities as civs, there are much more prominent and interesting choices than Bohemia…
and then we would start to have all sorts of threads and requests to split xyz civ into their principalities/duchies as well.
While there are quite interesting factions that haven’t been touched on, e.g. Armenians
Example literally in my previous post: Armenia. (Not part of HRE, I know, but much more interesting than splitting Teuton civ into Teutons and Bohemians anyway)
In Campaign scenarios, Teutons represent the HRE. Bohemia is part of HRE, hence the disinterest in adding it as a civ.
For example the Caucasus area has not much representation in game, while central Europe already has several civs: Teutons (Germanic people were present), Magyars, Slavs, Cumans (although they obviously did not originate from Europe, they ended up settling in central europe, esp. in Hungary), Lithuanians, and Huns so it would be refreshing to see a civ from another locality.
I am not saying we dont have any civs to add besides Bohemia. I am saying adding Bohemia makes sense if we say Europe needs to be atomised. You began degrade Bohemians into bunch of rebels. I had to show you are wrong.
Like? I dont see any. Nobody in HRE could match power of Bohemia.
Why not? If somebody propose viable civ with campaing, interesting game mechanics, units etc. why not? Like few people have already proposed Swiss…
Thats incorrect. Just search for “Armenians”. I see at least 5 threads about them or touching them. And I say - why not to add them? But I dont say they are just rebels or I dont degrade them like they are just distant cousines of Byzantines (which is not true).
Plenty of civs were represented by others because they were not in the game yet. Things like Italians, Spanish, Hungarians never used to represent themselves
Moreover, Hussites are Bohemians but Bohemians are not Hussites…