Division of the slavs

Will the nation of Slavs be divided into Russians, Poles, and Bohemians (Czechs)? After all, their cultures are radically different.

2 Likes

according to the devs, they have no plans to add more civs to the game, so i would say its doubtful.

5 Likes

Slavs= East Slavs
Bulgarians= South Slavs
??? = West Slavs

3 Likes

Bulgarians are Slavs only partialy.

West Slavs can be called Wends, as Slavs were known in HRE. They will include Poles, Bohemians, and few minor westers slavic people (like Sorbian, Obodrites, Silesian, etc).

Focus of civ will be Cavalry + Gunpowder, and with good defences.

1 Like

Slavs Description: While new kingdoms formed from the ruins of the Roman Empire in Western Europe, Slavic tribes settled the rich lands of Central and Eastern Europe and established formidable states of their own. Illuminate your populations with the teachings of Orthodoxy, recreate the rich farming and trade economies of Poland and Kievan Rus, assemble retinues of Boyars and Druzhina to defend the Russian principalities from the Mongols, or lead a charge of Winged Hussars to save Europe from Ottoman conquest! "
AI names:

  • Alexander Nevsky (Александр Невский): Served as Prince of Novgorod (1236–52), Grand Prince of Kiev (1236–52) and Grand Prince of Vladimir (1252–63) during some of the most difficult times in Kievan Rus’ history. He was later declared a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
  • Bolesław the Brave : Duke of Poland from 992 to 1025, and the first King of Poland in 1025. As Boleslav IV, he was also Duke of Bohemia between 1002 and 1003.
  • Casimir II the Great : Possibly refers to Casimir II the Just (1138–1194), Duke of Cracow and senior prince of Poland, or Casimir III the Great reigned as the King of Poland from 1333 to 1370.
  • Oleg the Seer (Ѡлегъ): A Varangian prince (or konung) who ruled all or part of the Rus’ people during the early 10th century.
  • Ottokar I : Duke of Bohemia periodically beginning in 1192, then acquired the title King of Bohemia, first in 1198 from Philip of Swabia, later in 1203 from Otto IV of Brunswick and in 1212 from Frederick. He was a member of the Přemyslid dynasty.
  • Rurik I (Рюрик I): Prince of Novgorod and Ladoga. He is the founder of Rurik Dynasty which ruled the Kievan Rus’ and its successor states. He remained his power until his death in 879 in Novgorod, Kievan Rus.
  • Sviatoslav the Brave (Свѧтославъ Игорєвичь): Also spelled Svyatoslav was a Grand prince of Kiev famous for his persistent campaigns in the east and south, which precipitated the collapse of two great powers of Eastern Europe, Khazaria and the First Bulgarian Empire.
  • Vladimir the Great (Володимѣръ Свѧтославичь): A prince of Novgorod, grand prince of Kiev, and ruler of Kievan Rus’ from 980 to 1015.
  • Wenceslaus I : Saint Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia (907–935 or 929), and subject of a Christmas carol.
  • Wenceslaus the One-Eyed : King of Bohemia from 1230 to 1253.
  • Yaroslav the Wise (Яросла́в Му́дрый): Thrice grand prince of Veliky Novgorod and Kiev, uniting the two principalities for a time under his rule.
  • Yuri II (Юрий II): The fourth Grand Prince of Vladimir (1212–1216, 1218–1238) who presided over Vladimir-Suzdal at the time of the Mongol invasion of Russia.

Slavs esentially cover all of the Slavic states that you named.

8 Likes

Yes, putting Poles and Russians, especially, as one people doesn’t feel good at all. Even if we were to say that Poles and Russians are ethnically very similar it’s not enough to justify putting them as the same “people” or “race” since there is more than genetics that makes up a people. Among these factors are culture, language, religion and politics.

Poland was always aligned with the west and Catholicism while Russia turned inward and to the Greeks concerning religion. Personally I think the Poles have more in common with the Hungarians and the Lithuanians than with Russians. My preferred solutions would be to merge the Polish in with the Lithuanians as they were united in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and then rename the slavs to the Rus, establishing them as the Russian civilization. I think both Poles and Russians would be much more pleased with that arrangement.

2 Likes

Except Rus is a political title, and the civilizational group is actually called Slavs, not Rus.

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is also somewhat after the game’s timespan (1579), and the game wants Medieval civilizations, not Political Groups of the Renaissance.

7 Likes

Except Rus is a political title, and the civilizational group is actually called Slavs, not Rus.

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is also somewhat after the game’s timespan (1579), and the game wants Medieval civilizations, not Political Groups of the Renaissance.

This is very confusing, what do you mean there was a Slav “civilization group”? To me it’s quite apparent that there never was such an entity but rather it’s made up from vastly different “civilization groups” (whatever that term is supposed to mean), you’re not claiming that Poland, Bohemia and Russia was one “civilization” are you?

Slav as I understand it denotes either a lingustic group or an ethnic group, like westerners would talk about germanic languages or germanic peoples or romance languages etc. But it makes no sense to put together Spain, France and Italy as the “Romance civilization” or the whole of Western Europe as “Latins”.

1 Like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs#:~:text=The%20early%20Slavs%20were%20a,of%20the%20High%20Middle%20Ages.

The early Slavs were a diverse group of tribal societies who lived during the Migration Period and the Early Middle Ages (approximately the 5th to the 10th centuries) in Central and Eastern Europe and established the foundations for the Slavic nations through the Slavic states of the High Middle Ages.[1]

They all came from the same culture in the Middle Ages.

1 Like

Sure but using that logic we could merge the Franks, Teutons and Italians as the Germanics since these hail from germanic tribes like the franks, langobards, alemmani and so on. It wouldn’t be wrong per se I think but it’s unsatisfactory to say the least. The Franks in AOE is not just an 7th century tribe but represent the Kingdom of the Franks from ancient times until the renaissance.

These ancient Slavs did not create a unified nation with an identity of it’s own and so it’s not suitable to serve as civilization in AOE. It was clearly done out of neccessity at the time because Forgotten Empires could not cover all the different civlizations of Slavic peoples. But having gotten more specific East European civlizations in the latest expansion I think there is no good reason to have this generic “Slav” civlization anymore.

2 Likes

Except Franks, Teutons and Italians play differently, and there is no way you could make a Western Slavs civ play any different than all the other European civs already in the game.

1 Like

Except Franks, Teutons and Italians play differently, and there is no way you could make a Western Slavs civ play any different than all the other European civs already in the game.

Of course you could but I’m not arguing that we should have more civilizations in the game, it would be great but I don’t see it happening.

I’m just of the opinion that the Poles should be incorporated with the Lithuanians which I think they have more of a history with and number two that the “Slavs” should be the Russian civilization, becoming a “real” nation rather than a generic amalgamation. A simple name change to Rus would give it much more identity. But I have said all I want on the topic so let’s just conclude by saying that we disagree.

2 Likes

Lots of game civis are umbrella civs covering many.Look at Indians Saracens Chinese Vikings they cover many different cultures and peoples.

This game was never historically accurate and never will be so no need to break up current civis when there are many more interesting civs that can be added.

7 Likes

Dude, there was a similar religion, life, land, and culture. If we talk about the Saracens, it becomes clear that they are Arabs (at that time they were not divided, and they aren’t still divided). But if we talk about the battle of Grunwald, which involved poles and Lithuanians (although there were also a lot of Russians on their side), then in the game they are Slavs and Lithuanians (more precisely, the Litvins, the Balts in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was 20%, let’s face it). In the game, the Slavs are Eastern Slavs, the poles did not have Orthodoxy and squads (unique technologies) ever. This was in Kievan Rus. After all, Russians and poles never mixed as one people, like the Chinese, Saracens, and Indians. As for the Vikings, they were not distinguished in the Middle ages, as and the Chinese, Indians and Saracens, but the poles and Russians were always distinguished. Poles aren’t Russians and Russians are not poles.
P. S. Rather, the Lithuanians are even closer to the Russians than the poles)

1 Like

I never understand the reason behind people that argue to have “their” faction made more realistic? Are yall so ignorant of how far off other factions are that you think only “yours” is historically inaccurate?

Meso civs are literally fictional factions with their number of inaccuracies. Mamelukes, jannisaries, monks, architecture, siege weapons, cavaliers, paladins, the lists go on… There’s tons of historical inaccuracies, but no wait let’s fix “your” faction because it isn’t realistic enough…

No offense but the game is almost completely a fictional universe, please stop being offended because “your” faction isn’t realistic enough

Mameluke camels throwing swords at an aztec trebuchet, 25 war elephants on a transport, destroying a castle by hitting it with a sword

10 Likes

Dear friend, this is a historical game, it has its own conventions, I do not dispute. Chinese, Indians, Vikings, etc. - these are the peoples of the middle ages, they have always been generalized. But Kievan Rus and Poland were always distinguished. These Nations are much more important to history than the conventional Malays or Burmese (until I played the Rise of Rajas, I didn’t know who they were). I want the Slavs to be divided at least into Western and Eastern Slavs and the nation of Slavs, which now belongs to the East, that is, we need to add the Western Slavs.
PS I understand that you are already tired of these reviews, that they say the poles in the game are missed, but this is really true. It would be better to add poles than Lithuanians. Bulgarians were added, although they are also Slavs (mostly).
PPS I’m not offended, my nation (the Russians), worked out well, because the Slavs in the game represent the Russians (with their unique units, technologies and architecture). I am for historical justice (as far as possible)

3 Likes

Ehm what ? I would heavily recommend studying history of the middle east because what you said is complete nonsense.
Saracens aren’t even ethnically unified because they represent both Arabs and Kurds, two very different populations.

Arab culture was and still is extremely diverse, there is absolutely no unity of religion in the Arab world. Some were Sunni Muslims, other Chia Muslims, as well as Christan and Jewish minorities.

Furthermore, the Arab world was extremely politically divided (and still is, oh surprise). Yes there were occasional moments of unity under one rule like under the Ayyubid dynasty, but most of the middle ages were spent infighting between the various califates.

So if your take is that Saracens are fine as one civilization but Slavs aren’t, well sorry but you couldn’t be more wrong.

11 Likes

Dear, you don’t know the history of the Slavs. I meant what they say in Europe. In Europe, “Kurds” or “Arabs” never spoke, they were United by one word - Saracens. And by the way, the majority of Kurds professed Islam. However, poles and Russians were never called the same people - the Slavs. They have Poles are Poles, and Russians are Russians.

You know, its eurocentric point of view. This game IS eurocentric, and nothing wll change that, also nothing is wrong with that, but european point of view rarely is equal real situation.
Kurds are big nation separate from Arabs. Arabs are divided. Islam is not homogenues religion, Chia muslims and Sunni muslims in many cases hate each other more than other religions. Malay, or more specific, Majapahit, were very influencial.
Dont even mention India, what is even today ethnicaly divided.

And yes, I will be happy to see West Slavs. But also with Tamils, Tibetans, Armenians and other nations.

11 Likes

Sure lets have poles serbians bohemians prussians for more historical accuracy and have umbrella civi factions for rest of the world.

5 Likes