They are, or what else are they, farming landlord people? Foot army formation people?
They were sedentary mountain people that were known by their heavy cav and heavy inf and used practically no archers. Not an steppe civ.
By whom? Internet People?
Sources?
In wikipedia it explain with sources.
You don’t have to copy paste Wikpedia page. Wikipedia page show all theories and most of them claim White Huns are descendant of Xiongnu. I read this article long time age. In conclusion, My memory didn’t mislead me. White Huns is Central Asian not Iranian.
You shouldn’t flood this topic I think. You should use personal message to argue with people.
But the Huns in game are not central asian, they are east euro. I’m just anoyed people keep mention Tibetans here and use different standard on Hephthalites, just becase Tibet is more famous in mordern times.
O maybe Tibet existed for way longer and were way more powerful? And honestly the are very unique as well
Tibet as an independent empire is quite short and it’s uniqueness comes mostly from religion and cultural influence. Honestly most of the time they don’t have any military influence outside of the plateau. After the Yuan dynasty they were either controled by Mongol or China until now.
They were independent until the Yuan dynasty (and the Tibetan Empire was still more powerfui and more longlasting than Hephtalites) and after that there were Tibetan dinasties that controlled most of the plateau until the end of the timeline
And Tibet was way more influential than Hephthalites
They influenced what by military power in aoe2 timeline? They didn’t even control the silk road more than 100 years. They did influence the Buddhism in Mongol(different from Zen Buddhism in rest of the east asia) because the Mongols conquered them and like their religion.
If you call them Tufan it might even make more sense cause they were Tufan when they were the most powerful.
What did the Hephthalites influence during the AoE2 timeline to be that much better than the Tibetans then? Because I would take 200 years of a massive empire that constantly interacted with China and which had a culture that persisted for 800 years over 120 years of an smaller one thats only important because they ended the Guptas.
And Tibetans include Tufans obviously
Because this game is mainly about military and empires, and Hephthalites had many iconic things on both while Tibet, as can be seen in your words too, is more of a cultural power. Hephthanlites reached the highest point non-turkic non-islam central asian people had ever reached, and is actually a representative of them as an aoe2 civ. Steppe and oasis states of central asia had a long history of being Buddism and non-turkic, and people often forget that (today when thinking about central asia it’s always the stans and Islam) so I want a civ in aoe2 to represent them. Huns clearly don’t remind people of Buddism and central asia that’s why I don’t want to merge Huns with Hephthalites.
I’m not really oppose Tibetan but I don’t like the idea that Tibetan is more neccessary than any other civ not in the game.
Please ignore my reply of my last post above, it’s probably a bug.
In that case I would rather represent them with Gokturks or Uyghurs who were just better. And Hephtalithes werent buddhists Im pretty sure? And Tibet was a super powerful millitary and a massive empire so I dont know what are you smoking to say that they dont have much going on on that regard.
Tibetans are just the perfect civ to be added. They existed for a long time, cannot be represented by other civs and are probably the second strongest civ that the game is lacking behind only Gokturks, not to mention plenty of campaign potential
And short lasting civs just arent the most interesting thing to get. Would rather get Ghurids over Hepthalites.
Military that spent most time unifying people on the Tibetan plateau(didn’t even do that well for most of the time), which takes less than 1% of world population. Their army can only raid other region when climate is good and can’t even control the region they raided. At least Mongols can rule where they conquered for a period, Tibetans can only rule the empty moutain areas effectively and they were not even unified (at a state similar to HRE) more than 60% of their history.
They were.
They surely weren’t buddhists.
The change of ethnic and religion of central asia is like the change of ethnic and religion of the Iberia Peninsula, things completely changed after the Islamiztion and Turkification.
In Wikipedia it says that thry burned down Buddhist temples and had multiple gods according to Indian and Chinese sources
They were still in plenty of conflicts against outsiders and had a unique military.
That 40%, = 400 years so its still plenty of time. And they fought against Chinese plenty with pretty large armies of 100000 so you are really underselling the power they were able to seize.
Not back then.
Stop underdelling medieval Tibet. They were pretty much one of the most powerful empires of their time.
They do burns temples when they are raiding, like crusaders also burned churches on the way to the holy land for gold. But when Hephthalites settled down, they built their temples and encaraged Buddhism.
Just name it Tufans (or Bod Pa) like the Teutons and it will all be solved. Plus it can even dodge possible political influence. Today’s Tibetan monks don’t even favor their past war history.Their Epic of King Gesar literaly describ Tufan period as times of the evils. If the game add it, the opinions of mordern Tibetan matters more than western players. Really the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee farce should not happen twice.
But dont Tibetans include Tufans? Whats the problem with Tibetans then???
Either way, its probably going to be Tufans instead of Tibetans anyway