Choose a civ, and list all the in-game civs they interacted with in real life

[DukeOfLorraine]

I didn’t count indirect trade, otherwise I’d have added the Chinese and others through the Silk Road.

[UnAutreVoyage]

Actually, there were a Japanese trading post in central Vietnam (Hoian) in the 17th century. Japanese isolation isn’t as strong as we might suppose.

[KarstHillFort77]

@UnAutreVoyage

Actually, there were a Japanese trading post in central Vietnam (Hoian) in the 17th century. Japanese isolation isn’t as strong as we might suppose.

17th century is again outside of the AoE 2 relevant time frame, and doesn’t contradict with what I said earlier.

They were indeed quite isolated prior to the second half of the 16th century. It was only when the Portuguese established contact with them in the middle of the 16th century and brought them into their lucrative trade network that they started to establish formal contact with SE Asia.

[MatM1996]

@KarstHillFort77

Yep, for much of their history Japan was rather isolated and only interacted with Korea, China, and Manchuria

This is supported by the latest genetic research on the bones and skeletons from ancient Japan (Cooke et al. 2021):

Jomon = a highly divergent group of Ancient East Asian, not closely related to any modern population

Yayoi = West Liao River Tungus people from Manchuria mixed with Jomon

Kofun = Yellow River North Chinese + West Liao River Tungus + Jomon

No South Chinese or SE Asian admixture whatsoever

20th century is way outside of AoE 2’s timeline

True, true… but those are already anthropological questions that I don’t know if they are relevant, we have to care about the relationships with the civs and in the saga you have:

AoE 1: Yamato comes into conflict with Shang (China) over Choson (Korea) in the 7th century CE (668 CE) (even in ancient times they did not have much relationship)

AoE 2/AoE 4: Feudal Japan (Kamakura Shogunate) comes into conflict with the Yuan dynasty (Mongols) in the 13th century (1274 and 1281) and then comes into conflict with the Joseon dynasty (Koreans) in the late 16th century ( 1592-1598) (it was no longer the Middle Ages in world terms)

AoE 3:The Japan of the colonial era (Tokugawa Shogunate) became isolated again after the end of the Sengoku period in 1615 and did not become interested in Asia again until the United States forced it to open up in 1853, which was the Bakumatsu era…

@KarstHillFort77

Except that the Ryukyuans aren’t Pacific Islanders but rather East Asians. Culturally and ethnically speaking they are similar to other Northeast Asians like Japanese and Koreans, and linguistically they belong to the Ja()ponic family. They have nothing in common with Pacific Islanders like Micronesians or Polynesians.

If the Ryukyuans were to be introduced into the game, then they could share the same architecture with the Japanese (the current East Asian one, which is actually based on Japanese architecture), whereas a new Pan East Asian architecture set needs to be introduced for Chinese, Vietnamese, and Koreans. And the Mongols need to have their own nomadic set as well.

Yes, I agree, an East Asian dlc with campaigns for Chinese, Koreans and Japanese plus 2 civs like Visayans and Ryukyuans would be good…

@UnAutreVoyage

Actually, there were a Japanese trading post in central Vietnam (Hoian) in the 17th century. Japanese isolation isn’t as strong as we might suppose.

Yes, but it is because Japan left a port open to continue trading with the European powers and the SEA…

@KarstHillFort77

17th century is again outside of the AoE 2 relevant time frame, and doesn’t contradict with what I said earlier.

Yes, from the 17th century onwards it’s all AoE 3…

@KarstHillFort77

They were indeed quite isolated prior to the second half of the 16th century. It was only when the Portuguese established contact with them in the middle of the 16th century and brought them into their lucrative trade network that they started to establish formal contact with SE Asia.

Of course, of course…

[KarstHillFort77]

@MatM1996

Yes, I agree, an East Asian dlc with campaigns for Chinese, Koreans and Japanese plus 2 civs like Visayans and Ryukyuans would be good…

Except that the Visayans aren’t East Asians but rather Southeast Asians or Pacific Islanders.

If anything they should be introduced in a SE Asian DLC, though they aren’t the top priority in that region since I feel that the Siamese, Chams, and Javanese should take precedence over them.

[MatM1996]

Of course… in a certain way, they have to touch that entire area of East Asia and the South Pacific…

[DukeOfLorraine]

If we count Wokou pirates as Japanese, then they very well may have attacked Vietnamese ships and ports, as they went beyond the island of Hainan.

Wokou

But indeed if we go past 1600 the list gets longer, a samurai notably travelled to Europe to meet some kings as well as the Pope, shortly before the shogun banned christianity.

[MatM1996]

True, in fact the Wokou are in AoE 3 and appear in both the Chinese campaign in 1421 and the Japanese campaign in 1600… but it was more because Japan was in civil war, and then with the unification, the Tokugawa Shogunate repressed them and they disappeared…

[KarstHillFort77]

@DukeOfLorraine

If we count Wokou pirates as Japanese, then they very well may have attacked Vietnamese ships and ports, as they went beyond the island of Hainan.

I think I already answered about the Wokou earlier in another thread but I’ll repeat it one more time here.

1. They weren’t officially organized by Japan but were only some defeated Ronins seeking fortunes overseas, hence they didn’t represent formal contact. This was very different from European expeditions that were usually directly sponsored by their kings or queens.

2. Most of the Wokous were actually of Chinese origin. According to a Ming record around 70% of the Wokous were composed of Chinese fishermen and merchants whereas only 30% were Japanese and others. Several important Wokou leaders such as Limahong, Zheng Zhilong, and Wa()ng Zhi were also Chinese. The Wokous were in fact a multinational trade and piracy organization and they weren’t strictly Japanese.

[TyrannoNinja]

@PilotSpider3216

But romanticizing the native americans retroactively from today’s point of view is just plain wrong. They were savages, practicing human sacrifice and while they grouped in large societies, they did not form complex civilizations.

Holy fudge, is this deserving of a flag.

[PilotSpider3216]

How is it deserving a flag? Are you implying it is saying something else than what it says? Why don’t you open up a history book?

Human sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures

[fleuret]

@KarstHillFort77

1593 is at the very end of the AoE 2 period and also the end of the 16th century, so what you said doesn’t contradict what I said earlier that there was no firm evidence of direct contact between Japan and SE Asia prior to the 16th century (or prior to the second half of the 16th century to be more exact). Really I’m not sure why certain revisionists online are trying hard to link Japan with SE Asia when in fact for much of its existence Japan had nothing to do with SE Asia whatsoever.

First, I apologize for blaming excessively @KarstHillFort77 and arguing with your topic @Apocalypso4826. I felt weird thing for the opinion for the direct relationship between nomad and japanese culture at that time.

Then, I’ve never heard that there are revisionists who wanna get closer between SE Asia and japan until 16th century (I’ve heard there are revisionists who wanna consider Ryukyu as a China so China can get Okinawa. Also there are revisionists who wanna consider Japan reigned Ryukyu for a long time).

In my thought, some people (including governments) may count Ryukyu people as Japanese so they consider Ryukyu people who contact with SE Asia people as Japanese. I considerd Ryukyu people had Japanese-based culture and genes (with their arrangements) so I didn’t feel strange.

So Japanese in SE Asia topic may become into whether Ryukyu is considered as a new civ or Japanese. If as a new civ, SE Asia civs don’t count as japanese-related civs in this topic.

[Tyranno13]

@PilotSpider3216

How is it deserving a flag?

I don’t think the human sacrifice bit was the problem…

[TyrannoNinja]

FWIW, I was more bothered by the use of the term “savages”, a term that historically went hand in hand with the genocide Native Americans (and other indigenous groups) suffered at the hands of European colonizers.

[KarstHillFort77]

@fleuret_jp

First, I apologize for blaming excessively @KarstHillFort77 and arguing with your topic @Apocalypso4826. I felt weird thing for the opinion for the direct relationship between nomad and japanese culture at that time.

Thanks for your apology. I also wanna apologize to you for arguing with you excessively on this issue and some of my words might have sounded rather harsh to you. But in the end I think we’ve all learned from one another. I didn’t acquire my history knowledge in one day in fact most of it came from years of surfing on the Internet.

The Japanese may not have had direct relations with the steppe but they were certainly connected to that region through the intermediate kingdoms and polities in Korea and Manchuria. Several kingdoms in Korea and Manchuria had a quite close relation with the Yamato court, including Baekje (Kudara), Gaya (Mimana), and Balhae (not sure how they were called in Old Japanese).

@fleuret_jp

Then, I’ve never heard that there are revisionists who wanna get closer between SE Asia and japan until 16th century (I’ve heard there are revisionists who wanna consider Ryukyu as a China so China can get Okinawa. Also there are revisionists who wanna consider Japan reigned Ryukyu for a long time).

I’ve seen all 3 types of revisionists online. There’re quite a few revisionists on Youtube and on Quora arguing for a South China or SE Asia origin of Japanese, and I’ve often debated with them.

Japanese definitely had a much closer relation to Korea, North China, and Manchuria, I’ve already explained it in my earlier threads so I won’t repeat it again.

The regions with the closest relation to SE Asia are Far South and Southwest China, doesn’t matter from which angle you look at them, be it cultural, linguistic, archaeological, or historical.

Ryukyu was neither a part of China nor of Japan during AoE 2’s time frame they were an independent kingdom. Yes they were one of the tributary states of the Ming, but that doesn’t mean they were ruled by the Ming. It simply means that they exchanged gifts and envoys with the Ming court, and received an honorary title from them.

[KarstHillFort77]

@Tyranno13

I don’t think the human sacrifice bit was the problem…

In fact human sacrifice wasn’t limited to the Americas it was also very common in ancient East Asia.

The Sinitic people practiced human sacrifice from the Shang era all the way to the Ming.

Human sacrifice was also practiced in ancient and medieval Japan, it was known as “Hitobashira”, literally “human pillar”.

[DynasticPlanet5]

Whats more barbaric? Sacrificing, usually a captured prisoner, or witch hunts and the many forms of European “torture but keep you alive” devices?

[SMUM15236]

[DukeOfLorraine]

Numbers for the Inquisition have been greatly exagerated by protestant propaganda. Execution was the exception.

Looking at numbers, it only took months for the French Revolution to do what the Inquisition did in centuries.

[DynasticPlanet5]

I didnt mention that. Im talking anout torture devices that deliberately DO NOT kill. I dont see any remains of torture racks in preSpain Mexico…

And if anyone is offended… why!? This is 500 years before your grandparent’s grandparents were born. Get over yourself!