Italians didn’t exist until 1800, especially during the middle ages in the peninsula there was a lot different states, with really different cultures and really different languages, differences that are still present today.
That’s just an example, but that happens to everyone, it’s like that we look at our own culture-civ game relationship up close, see all the imperfections, inaccuracy and errors of a strange cultural agglomeration that doesn’t represent us, but then we look at other cultures-civs, and we look at them with poor knowledge, stereotypes, like we are looking at them from a great distance, and we can see the imperfections or differences with the same measure of when we were looking up close, or even if we see them, they seem little, or unimportant.
I mean, that it’s aoe2, I literally lost count of how many time people complained about the accuracy of the slavs as a civ, or about celts, or tartars, or the meso civs and so on… onestly I don’t think there is a civ that we can’t find something to complain about.
People still forget that DE is after all a remastered of of AoE2, and we can’t pretend that they change the core dynamics of the game, not for balance, not for historical-cultural accuracy, especially not for one cultural group, and not for the others.
I personally feel the DE civi choices made the issue of historically incorrect arargument worse. They boke mongols and slavic in to factions when there was much better civis to be diversified like the south asian continent or add civis to represent other missing parts of the world.
Vikings were never a people, it was a job.
Viking means Pirate (Technically “Man of the Bay”) and was a profession of the Norse people (or civilization).
Indians only became “united in one people”, by british domination, and much later on than the Middle Ages.
At the time of this game, they were several kingdoms and distinctive Cultures.
Saracens were also never united, and they still are not. The Caliphate of Cordoba was notorious for breaking up into Taifas, and even fighting other Northern African and Levantine invasion.
The Turks and the Persians were at eachother’s throats almost as soon as Mehmed II took Constantinople, and the Turks fought a butal war for territory against the Mamelukes, throughout the entire Middle East.
The Arabs themselves were quite known for revolts that would start entire new Caliphates, aswell as having their faith breaking up in two, as soon as Mohammed died.
In Europe, all muslims were Saracen, including Arabs, Kurds, Levantines, Persians, Berbers, Moors and Turks.
Saracen is French for “without Sarah”, the wife of Abraham. Saracens are Ishmaelites, meaning they descend from Sarah’s slave, Hagar and her son Ishmael.
It is a religious-cultural definition.
For throughout most of Chinese History, there was not one China, but several Chinas.
Chinese History is full of internecene conflict, state seccesionism, and civil wars sparked by ethnic conflict.
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 think this is a very good point. The “Slavs” are essentially Russian already but officially represent Poland as well. It’s almost schizophrenic. I mean “Orthodoxy” as a UT - really? For an umbrella civilization meant to encompass catholic Poland, ridiculous.
It might be Euro-centric to want more accuracy in European nations but guess what, the Middle Ages is a European concept, the period starts at the fall of the Western Roman Empire and ends at the renaissance roughly. AoK as was made by Ensemble was a game about knights, castles and crusades, it never was meant to represent every culture equally nor should it have. There were non-European civliizations of course but they were mainly there because they had contact with medieval Europe. Mongols, Turks and Saracens mainly. Even the name “Saracens” hints at the games Euro-centricity, the term being used by the Europeans to describe arab muslims, not something they would call themselves. It’s only with the new expansions that the game was expanded to encompass civilizations that had next to nothing to do with Medieval Europe.
If you have a problem with attention to a civilization on the grounds that it’s Euro-centric then you have a problem with the classic game itself as it was envisioned and played for 20 years.
It is more indicative of the game’s timespan sensible nomenclature.
Saracen civilization makes sence, because Middle Easterners were called Saracens by a huge number of peoples.
If you look at the European side (Polycarp is right, the game is Eurocentric), the Eastern and Western Slavs throughout their history were radically different (religion, culture, architecture, politics, etc.).). Poles and Russians have always been different Nations for Europeans. If we follow your logic, let’s combine the Franks, Teutons, and Celts and call them “Germans”. Exactly the same situation with the Slavs. And if anything, the Bulgarians (South Slavs) separated from the nation of Slavs (Russian words that changed only the accent). And by the way, the language in the game for the Slavs is also Russian (I understood all the phrases the first time). + Kurds or various Indian tribes did not have a significant impact on world history, as the poles (the battle of Grunwald) or the Russians (the battle of the Ice or the battle of the Neva).
Ok that’s just not true, every culture had its own “impact” on history, you are just want more civs that better reflect the culture you are from.
Well dude, get in line, there are plenty of people who would like to see their favorite civ more accurate, that’s simply aoe, why you or the slavs should be privileged.
If you really care for a historical accurate game, go to the section of AoE4, and ask for more and better culturally divided civs.
i love all these people who bring up historical accuracy, but only as it matters to them. it’s almost like they don’t care about historical accuracy, and are only using it as a crutch to get what they want.
Yeah. I mean, as an Italian I’m bothered by how they make the Italian civ, but I don’t make a topic about it every week complaining and asking for a complete redesign of the game just for one civ.
i mean there is a lot of civs in this game that aren’t historically accurate, and units for that matter.
but i will take gameplay and balance over accuracy any day.
Unfortunately yes, at this point the civs are what they are, no point asking for such drastic changes.
If someone wants something different, they should push the argument in the AoE4 section, as I personally did multiple times, not here on a game 20 years old who is at its last remastered.
i love all these people who bring up historical accuracy, but only as it matters to them. it’s almost like they don’t care about historical accuracy, and are only using it as a crutch to get what they want.
Nah, we are just able to distinguish between minor unrealistic/unhistorical things which are there for reasons of balance or flavor such as the Imperial Knight being named Paladin and major things that are unhistorical but could easily be changed without affecting gameplay negatively such as Russians and Poles sharing the same civilization.
On another note, the comparison between Vikings/Italians to Slavs is really far off. Scandinavian peoples are very similar when it comes to language, religion, culture, ethnicity. A Danish, Norwegian and Swedish civ would look nearly identical. In Italy I understand there is a significant cultural divide between north and south but to compare it to Poland and Russia is apples and oranges and I think anyone who believes they are comparable lacks an understanding of just how much the Orthodox/Catholic schism affected these nations.
the point was that the game is full of inaccuracies. Slavs is hardly the only one to be portrayed “wrong”. and its not just limited to civs. units are inaccurate, campaigns and heroes in campaigns are inaccurate, etc.
this game never claimed to be historically accurate, and if you thought it was, the tutorial alone should have dissuaded you from that. the game as always historically Influenced, but put gameplay and balance over accuracy.
