A Göktürk civ is definitely needed to represent the Turkic peoples in the East, in the early Middle Ages, and who believed in Tengri, such like the Göktürks themselves, Tiele, Türgesh, and pre-Islamic Uyghurs and Karluks.
Yes, the Islamic Turkic peoples in the Central Asia like the Karluks after their Kara-Khanid officially converted to Islam in the 10th century are be well represented by the Tatars.
I just thought the Turks in the game can represent such a context: Oghuz/Turkmens, Seljuk Turks who were originated from Oghuz/Turkmens, and Ottoman Turks who were originated from Seljuk Turks. On the other hand, the Turkmens who believed in Sunni can also be represented by Tatars except by Turks because they were located in Central Asia, while the Turkmens who believed in Shia and were active in Iran are represented by Persians, which is defined in that campaign.
A Turkmen-specific civ was likely considered during the development, but I believe it was dropped for reason maybe like the granularity. If the Turkmens (regardless of sect) were split from the Turks/Tatars/Persians, then the Pechenegs and Khazars could also split from the Cumans, the Uyghurs and Karluks could also split from the Tatars, the Avars could also split from the Huns, and the White Huns/Hunas could also split from the Mongols/Tatars. Although from the perspective of geography, religion, and time, perhaps we only need an Early Medieval Tengri Turkic peoples in the East, and an Early Medieval non-Islamic Eastern Iranic peoples (while the Persians covered the Western Iranic peoples).
Tatars are the Turkic peoples who mixed with the Mongolian nobility and adopted their ideas (the yasa of Genghis Khan, the power of the Great Khan, a descendant of Genghis Khan, and other attributes). Tatars are associated with what had already formed on the basis of the Turkic tribes that lived on the territory of the Mongolian Empire and its fragments (the Golden Horde, Chagatai Ulus, Ilkhanate, and the heirs of Tamerlane). I would not say that Tatars with “keshiks” reflect the early Turkic peoples of Central Asia in full reality, based on the fact that they have the symbols of the Golden Horde, units from the Mongolian uluses, and are also oriented toward the state of Tamerlane and others close in spirit to the Turkic states where the Genghisids ruled.
Yeah but we can rename Keshiks and the UTs to other suitable terms in scenarios. (They should do this in the scenario of Seljuk as they chose the Tatars to represent them rather than choosing the Turks as per tradition.)
Even though they also represent the Mongolized part, the Tatars are still a decent umbrella covering the Islamic Turkic peoples of Central Asia. Otherwise, in a more highly granularized situation, we will have to face the potential of two or even more Central Asian Islamic Turkic civs, not to mention the potential Iranic civs.
I don’t think they should have been added since we already have the Byzantines, but other than that what’s the problem with them?
I don’t see how a small anachronistic appearance in a campaign justifies resurrecting an ancient nomadic Iranian people to represent the Turkic peoples of Central Asia in the Middle Ages
Of course, Scythians is something more for Return of Rome or Chronicles since their peak was from 680 to 310 BC… so no… they were also succeeded by the Sarmatians who in turn were conquered by the Huns… so there they are… and about another DLC in Central Asia I doubt it after TLK, DoI and TMR… there at least you have everything that happens from 1100 to 1600…
1100-1200: Thoros II (Crusades)
1200-1300: Tamar and Kotyan (Turkish and Mongol invasions)
1300-1400: Tamerlane (Timurid invasions)
1500-1600: Ismail and Babur (gunpowder empires)
Now with this Chinese/East Asian DLC they will focus in the pre-Mongol period (1000-1200) and post-Mongol period (1300-1400):
1000-1100: Tanguts/Xia and their struggles with the Song
1100-1200: Jurchens/Jin and their struggles with the Song
1300-1400: Ming and their struggles against the Yuan
Don’t mind that, it’s a mistake, Scythians are ancient people. Romans had the bad habit to call everyone coming from the steppe as Scythians and then Huns so Devs probably read accounts and took them literally.
Those Scythians in Attila 1 and 2 are probably meant to be Sarmatians which could be covered by Alans if they ever add them (right now I’d use Cumans or Bulgarians instead of Mongols).
Of course, the Scythians were assimilated by the Sarmatians in 200 BC and the Sarmatians after the Hunnic invasion of Attila by the Goths, the Alans and the early Slavs… that’s why they could change the name to Sarmatians and use Goths, Slavs, Cumans, Bulgarians or Tatars as other alternative civs for them…
The presence of “Scythians” may seem anachronistic as archaeologists consider that the Ancient Scythians assimilated into the Sarmatians by the 2nd century A.D. However, the Romans continued to use the name Scythians for peoples in the Ukrainian and Romanian steppes, even after the Huns conquered the Sarmatians in the 4th and 5th centuries. Alternatively, the name “Scythian Peoples” is used as a general term for ancient Eurasian steppe peoples, including the Sarmatians and the Ancient Scythians (who are called Pontic or Western Scythians in such cases).
Historically, the Scythians were eastern Iranian nomads from central Asia (here you could use Persians or Tatars). However, in-game, they are represented by the Mongols, possibly because the Scythians were historically known for their mounted archery, light cavalry, and mounted lancers, and the Mongols were the closest civilization to have access to such units (at least before the Definitive Edition with the inclusion of the Tatars)…
Yep, the Scythians are mentioned in the Bible in one of the letters during the time of Rome, probably due to this tendency, and that threw me off too because I assumed it was referring to the literal Scythians. But nope, I think it was being used as a colloquial term for barbarians.