Rome is within the timeline.
No itâs not within the timeline.
2 Likes
Attila the Hun disagrees with you.
3 Likes
The Byzantines, Italians, Portuguese, Spanish and Franks agree with me.
1 Like
The coexistence of the Spanish and the Goths in the same game shows that the Romans can coexist with all those other civs you mentioned.
5 Likes
Honestly it does fdel like the devs did it modtly to attract more people to the DLC even when they think Romans dont fit considerung its only for non ranked games
Eh I think Byz vs Romans is diferent from Goths vs Spanush personally
Byzantines are East, Romans are West. They are different people.
1 Like
Nope. The Byzantines never actually called themselves the Byzantines, they called themselves Romans, and they were Romans, they had an uninterrupted line of succession from Augustus. The Byzantines were the âMedieval Romansâ not âEastern Romansâ. So having ancient Rome (even 4th cenutry) and medieval Rome in the same game is like having the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey in the same game as 2 different civs. Or Napoleonic France and the French Republic.
5 Likes
They arent though. The west and east were still extremely similar by the fall of west. And Romans is imo a Multiethnic nation therefore the same civ
1 Like
Because there is a sudden emergence of professional e-historians who learned âwow the Byzantines actually called themselves Romans!â from some tweets or blogposts and they cannot help to spread the word to everyone.
Meanwhile, âsaracensâ.
I think its a bit diferent. Byzantines is a made up word to diferenciate them from ânormalâ Romans.
Saracens is meanwhile a medieval word used for most muslims.
But West and East Roman Empire are still different political entities and had somewhat different culture. Iâd say more different than âFranksâ and âBurgundiansâ or âItaliansâ and âSiciliansâ (their in-game appearances of course).
If you want one word to denote them, not âEast/West Roman Empireâ, âRomansâ and âByzantinesâ would be the only choice. They are well-known names and different enough.
I would not adverse it if they re-named Byzantines to Greeks though.
2 Likes
Not quite. They saw each others as part of the same empire rather than twp doferent ones.
Also they were culturally very very close and to add a civilization that was only slightly diferent culturally from an existing one and lasted less tgan a century seems like a waste.
Burgundians were a bad civ choice imo. And I guess the argument you can make is that Frisians are more diferent to France socially than Byzantines atre to Romans.
They were actually quite diferent. Sicilians were closer to France than to other Italians.
1 Like
Well I wouldnât think two political entities, one covering the entire western Europe and west mediterranean, the other covering the majority of east mediterranean, would be less culturally different than norther/southern ItalyâŠ
Yea I know the Normans. But in that sense, the WRE had more Germanic foederati when ERE had more eastern styled military. So they could still be considered different.
Europe became much more varied after the fall of Rome.
The WRE had more doederati but thats it, thats where the doferences end
1 Like
I think thatâs more of an impression caused by modern nationalism.
Romans didnât alter the local religion or culture. They adopted and merged with them. Egyptian or Gallic religions were preserved. Iâd say they are actually more diverse than after Christianity (which however is initiated by Romans themselves).
Thatâs just one example.
If Sicilians could stand out because its military elites were Norman mercenaries, why canât WRE and ERE be considered different in that regard?
For the same reason the Ukrainian State in 1919 and West Ukranian State in 1919 canât be considered different in that regard. It was basically the same thing. The only difference was administrative.
Ukrainian State became a Soviet Republic and later became independent in 1991. West Ukranian State was eaten by Poland. The only difference between todayâs Ukraine (compared medieval romans - Byzantine) and West Ukrainian State (compared ancient romans - Romans) was time. They were the same people, just at different times. So the Romans were already represented by the Byzantines in game. Unless you want to make different civs for each stage a civilization went in game. Like Castile and Spain.
1 Like
Thatâs not how AoE2 civs work.
AoE2 civs are based on cultural and ethnic lines, not political. Itâs why we have Hindustanis, not Delhi Sultanate. Dravidians, not Chola. Chinese, not Song etc etc.
Byzantines are a totally different group of people than those found in Italy. They didnât even speak the same language for a start.
2 Likes
Arenât you tired of Romans vs byzantines discussions?
2 Likes