Well if you want to get into such detail what is a nationality? One could say Italians is just an idea, even nowadays Italy is really divided and people speak different dialects from one province to the other (meaning just a few miles). The concept of Italy was forged since the times of Dante traditionally but was “executed” only towards 1850. In early days people in Italy couldn’t understand each other and to create the national identity and sentiment the state had to force it through school and learning, some people even nowadays are convinced independentists like tirolese and Sardinians.
But at this point I don’t know what you want to prove honestly, you could say the same about many other nations, ethnicities exist for sure but it’s not a concept defined once and for all.
I think what people means when saying that Italians weren’t a thing in middle ages was to say that they were not existent in any formal sense (as in mentioned in laws, people, language etc). Until Charlemagne they were just considered Romans even if Roman ethnicity was fading away and it was somewhat incorrect. During romano Germanic kingdoms such the ones of franks, goths, Lombards etc the two ethnicities co-existing in those places where Romans and Germans as the name and laws of that time suggest, no Spanish, Italian or french identity was in any way recognised.
That’s why by the way it makes sense to have Romans in aoe2 to cover the gap before national identities appear and because in the romano Germanic kingdoms Gallo Romans, Hispano Romans, Italo Romans etc were law subjects kept separate from occupiers. There were many Romans existing after 476 of course, it’s not the disappeared instantly and became Italians. I found certified Roman (not greco byzantines but Latin Romans) people as late as the 8th century.
We don’t know when the mix between Germans and Latins exactly happened but by the time of Dante (1300) Romans just meant people of Rome and there was a vague ideal of “Italianity” based on a new language recently evolved from Latin (first examples are sometimes traced as early as the 8th century but experts debate whether to consider the Veronese riddle late vulgar Latin or proto Italian already, as I said lines are always blurry in such things).
So all of this to say Italians during middle ages could either refer to a very abstract idea (like Indians but not so wide) or probably an exonym used to simplify things for foreigners (like Saracens but not offensive).
I’m not arguing that Italians shouldn’t exist in aoe2 specially because it’s tricky to split them and decide who to add (aside from obvious Venetian or genoans but inland things get trickier, maybe Tuscans and Milanese?) But rather just admitting that saying Italians were not a thing it’s correct or at least should be taken into account, it’s not a stupid opinion at all.
As a side note developer sandy Peterson in the famous video was surprised when he heard that Italians were added in game. His first reaction was exactly to say that they didn’t exist yet politically speaking. We know that the forgotten added Slavs and Indians, questionable catch all umbrella terms in hope to cover the most ground possible for big missing civs.
Italians are small if compared to Slavs but I won’t try to argue with such ignorant statements as “villages” etc because they have the same consistence of measuring your pen and say it’s bigger or not and from there deriving a cultural argument.
Again similar argument, why do you say Turks is a perfect name? No it’s not, pan Turkic modern movements consider to be Turk a long series of Turkic nations from khazars to avars, from present day Turks to ancient gokturks… So no Turks is not perfect at all to simply designate Seljuks and Ottomans but again if you consider it as an exonym (for European people, like with Saracens) for people who will conquer Constantinople and establish their nation in Anatolia then yes we all understand that. So like with Italians it’s not correct at all but we all get the point so one could say it’s good enough. It definitely does not justice to their ethnicity in middle ages but one is free to not care as I’m free to not care about south East Asia or Mississippian history, we cannot know everything with the same level of detail and everyone is entitled to their preferences. The only important thing is to not use ignorance as an argument against civs, that’s all.
No I call bullies people who disqualify an entire civ or discussion around it only because of dimensions and other ignorant comments regarding something they clearly don’t know anything about only because it’s not Africa or whatelse. At least @TommoChocolate is willing to discuss it seems…
