Yes I’ve heard of cities on the Mississippi razed to the ground, but it means very little is known about them, it’s not even close from ancient Mesopotamia. Hard to make a campaign with minimal historical data
There are a lot of civilisations we know little about, one prime example is the Huns.
There are many AoE1 civilisations that we know similarly little about.
There have been a lot of archaeological discoveries about the Mississippian cultures so we know a lot more nowadays.
The Mississippian cultures never completely disappeared, their ancestors are still around today.
I made a thread about that a while ago where I suggested 3 North American civilisations and presented some ideas of how to make them work in AoE2.
1 Like
Yes, because Bohemians civ also includes Silesians who fought the famous Battle of Legnica.
So it is not Mongols that interacted the most?
The devs sadly think otherwise. Any sensible team would have not added Romans, Sicilians and Burgundians to the game.
1 Like
I haven’t done the count for the Mongols as I’m far more familiar with french history, but Franks have 2 advantages that the Mongols do not when it comes to counting :
1- they covered the entire timeline of AOE2, allowing them to meet the earlier civs (Romans Huns Goths…) that were already knocked out by the time the Mongols arrived
2- they have a major presence in Europe which is the most civ-dense region of the game, to the point they effectively met all of them. China is impressive on the map… but it still only counts as one, to quote a famous Dwarf.
On top of that, crusading also meant meeting pretty much every civ in the eastern half ot the Med Sea, with outposts in the Holy Lands (Jerusalem & Antioch notably) and quickly at Constantinople (the Latin Kingdom).
But the Mongols have a greater presence in Asia, meeting most of them (maybe not the Burmese, Khmers, Bengalis, Gurjaras and Dravidians, I’m not sure about them). It will be close.
1 Like
I can agree with Romans, but Sicilians and Burgundians both have a place in the game, representing the Normans and Kingdom of Burgundy respectively.
1 Like
Romans have had their place ever since the Huns were added back in Conquerors, as the Western Empire (quite different from the long-living Eastern Empire).
Burgundians (who are not only Burgundy but all the Low Countries as well as being a good placeholder for the Swiss, effectively making them cover all of Lotharingia) and Sicilians are far enough from the civ they apparently split from, Franks and Italians respectively.
3 Likes
-Huns don’t have a place in the game either. Same mistake as Romans. Neither of them are Medieval.
-Burgundians are just Franks. Lowland people didn’t hold any significance in the Middle Ages
-Sicilians are far different based on what? It was just a place inhabited by Normans, Italians and Saracens, all 3 in the game already.
@TommoChocolate @StoreyedPlate74 , Thanks a lot for the free history lessons. I was sure they are the most interacted civ. But now @DukeOfLorraine made me questioning my little knowledge.
2 Likes
Some cities like Bruges (the Low Countries extend all the way to the northernmost parts of France such as Artois) reached a size similar to Paris, with a very modern early industry notably in textile. Burgundy came very close from becoming a full kingdom, and after that the Low Countries were the economic heart of the Spanish Empire. Not a major power yes but still quite significant, they even were one of the leaders of the failed Nicopolis crusade in 1396 alongside Hungary. To add a bit more meat, they also cover the Burgundians from the Invasions, who were quickly vassalised by the Franks though.
Sicilians are different from the Italians in the sense that it was a feudal kingdom as opposed to mercantile city-states relying heavily on mercenaries. The ingame civ is quite focused on crusading.
And Huns… they are a fan-favourite, more than most civs they are here to stay. Sure they pushed the start of the AOE2 timeline to probably when Constantine chrisitanised the Roman Empire but AOE2 had always aimed at covering the Invasions so I’m not sure they even moved the needle by much, why do you think the Goths were in AOK ? (not for the ones still around in Crimea until the Modern Age…).
1 Like
Let’s say the Mongols definitely interacted with more people than the Franks did (Asian civs tend to be significantly bigger), though I’m not sure they remain on top if you count the ones who lived to tell the tale 
1 Like
After all, my European medieval history class in the US began the study at Constantine, so it’s not that inaccurate from an American perspective.
And Christianity is strongly linked to the middle ages, and as Constantine was the first emperor to converted, spreading christianism even more…
1 Like
Exactly. I could even go back before that with Diocletian’s reforms effectively starting feudalism.
The commonly admitted start of the Middle Ages, the fall of the Empire in 476 when Odoacer deposed the child-emperor at Ravenna (not even the fall of Rome who fell twice to barbarians the decades before that…), is now considered to have been relatively insignificant at the time. Another major game changer would be the muslim conquests after 600.
2 Likes
Mongols did fight (and defeated) the Burmese. The battle is weird as the fighting was in such dense jungle that the Mongols had to dismount. Something that Mongols normally were forbidden from doing.
5 Likes
Thanks, don’t know much about South-East Asian history, which also isn’t the usual focus point when studying the Mongols.
It wasn’t their strong suit either. The Burmese were an outlier for their conquests in the region. The Vietnamese and Malay resisted their attempts at invasions.
1 Like
Not the last time the Vietnamese would beat the ods
Or the first either. They have made a habit of it.
1 Like
An extremely narrow, mountaineous, jungle-covered country and I assume the Red River delta in the north doesn’t hurt defensiveness either. Easy enough to invade right, right ?