There more kings I mention ashoka because he unified india in one rule, Chandragupta Maurya, satvahana kingdom, Samrat harshvardhan ,shalivahan, king Vikramaditya
1 Like
British subjugated all of the indian kingdoms/dynasties and made a unified india which became the current india.If not for the british india would be a diversified continent like europe,which was what it was originally and through out history.
6 Likes
British divided India they divide india in to two parts Pakistan and modern day india they not unified india but there cruel rule unified india more than that
You missed modern day bangaladesh 11
Most of those are ancient (contemporaneous with the Romans who âunitedâ much of Europe). The more recent ones didnât even unify India as you have alleged.
You argued that there is a concept of Bharat, but did you know that there are also concepts of Suvarnabhumi and Europa (and also whiteness but letâs not go there)? Doesnât make Mainland Southeast Asia unified (despite Khmer empire, Bayinnaung, etc.) And the same goes for Europe and India.
The illusion that India has always been a unified single cultural/ethnic/political group throughout history is unfortunately a modern invention by the British (as well as the invention called Nationalism, sometimes attributed to the French Revolution in 1789), hence the reference.
Just look at Myanmar for an example of a modern state without much Nationalism: the frequent fighting and threats of secession, the rifts that run across language and cultural lines, the political power associated with various ethnic groups living in separate states. India, looking at how people with your view exist in significant number, seems to have been much more sedated than Myanmar by that drug called Nationalism.
Iâm not saying that itâs bad, just that itâs an illusion and has no place in a game like Age of Empires IV.
3 Likes
Yeah I see it the same way. I get why people want to be represented in a video game but at the same time their view of the past is often distorted through nationalism. Why does it matter if the Delhi Sultanate was a Muslim empire? Itâs part of the history of modern day India in the same way that Hindu empires are. To me it feels that most of these anti Delhi Sultanate posts are there because of an anti Muslim mindset that is prevalent nowadays. People need to keep in mind that todayâs nationalism is not a good way to look at a countryâs history as this bias leeds to a distortion of the past. It is a fact that it played a role on the Indian subcontinent and is thus not a bad choice for the representation of the region in aoe4. Only because you donât like their religion doesnât mean that they arenât part of your countryâs history.
8 Likes
Its simply because before in AOE3 India was multicultural with the brahmin explorers with urumi, with gurkhas, with urumis, with rajputs.
All of that disappears with the Delhi Sultanate. Only Islamic cultures, techs, etc. Considering modern day India and India back then was majority Hindu with significant sikh populations (both groups that were horribly massacred by the invading Mongolian armies) it is 100% logical that there is this backlash.
Delhi Sultanate can totally exist in this game since it lasted 300 years. But put in the Marathas that lasted 200 years as well and ended Delhi Sultanate rule.
Thats really it. Also consider that this would be similar to representing:
China by Japan since Japan conquered part of China once (rape of Nanjing).
representing France by Germany since Germany took over France during the world wars.
or representing America ONLY with the Confederacy and not the Union.
or representing
Thatâs the main point here. Thats why so many are riled up. The history timeline has always been: India was all disorganized - the muslims and brits conquered it into a unified country. You mention Hindu empires but when have they ever been in the game?
The rich cultures before were many including: Mauryan Empire, Marathas, Cholas, Vijaynagara, etc.
AOE4 should be a game that includes one of these (Marathas being the most time accurate). Its really not Nationalism wholly @EgoTonic but there is a facet of representation of all the cultures of India.
Its the birthplace of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism but the only representation in the game of that region is a Muslim invading force that raped, plundered, burned and enslaved the region into submission - how would that not anger anyone?
Why should maratha represent india in the middle ages?
4 Likes
I donât see anyone being offended because the game includes mongols and not rus, or chinese and not tibetans, even though both groups endured invasions and massacres.
Out of the time frame, and it was the Mughals who defeated the Delhi sultanate.
Those are late modern history events that have nothing to do with this.
It shouldnât anger anyone because itâs just a game, and games canât represent everyone.
2 Likes
Not quite: Marathans conquered much of the Mughal Empire up to Delhi (Around the 1680-1700s was the Mughal Maratha War). History of India: Mughals and Marathas | A Guide by Odyssey Traveller
Im saying representing a country with an invading force isnt doing service to the native population and culture. Please reread if you need to.
The game has Russia. But if instead of France there was German France - that would frustrate people too.
Historical and cultural accuracy is a beautiful thing and does justice to a history based game. If I didnt care about that Id play Starcraft. It wont be perfect but aoe4 is going in a horrible direction with nation and civ accuracy.
Middle ages end in 1500.
Understand your point about timeline now - If AOE4 is strictly adhering to a timeline (vs the previous versions) to the Middle Ages then Vijayanagar Empire that controlled Central and South India at the time would make sense to completely represent India
But similarly I imagine we wonât have gunpowder and cannons or colonialism tech etc in aoe4? Only archers and boats, technically not even Frigates. Because all of that is past 1600. If we do have that then Marathas can be included.
there is as much chance of the marathas being in aoe4 as the U.S.A. or Cuba.
now Iâm not saying I wouldnât be excited to have cowboys vs knights, just that it is extremely unlikely. for the time period the Delhi sultanate makes sense, and as others have said it simply represents the âDelhi Sultanateâ and not âIndiaâ, which did not exist in this time period unlike china, England or the Mongol khanates. there was no medieval Indian empire, just many separate kingdoms, and among them the Delhi sultanate came the closest to uniting India while also interacting with the other civs in the game the most, such as china and the Mongols.
Delhi Sultanate just makes the most sense of all the medieval kingdoms in the subcontinent its no surprise they where chosen as a launch civ. it doesnât preclude other kingdoms from appearing in the future as well.
the holy roman empire gave birth to both France and Germany as well as being the blueprint for medieval Europe, and players would not be upset to see it in game as it had such a large influence in the time period. Charlemagne could in many ways be called the grand father of premodern Europe as the monarchies and kingdoms that sprang up in the aftermath imitated his rule. it would make sense as a medieval civ in this game, unlike the Marathas.
2 Likes
What is it with you people wanting just one civ for South Asia? Is it just Nationalism? Religion? Learned helplessness? It boggles the mind.
This war seems to be the first introduction of gunpowder warfare, later spread by the Mongols. First recorded use is 1132, in the late feudal/early castle age. For context, this is about 70 years earlier than when Fibonacci introduced zero as an actual number (as well as the Hindu-Arabic numeral system) to Europeans.
Regarding colonialism, it depends on if we count contact with the Aztecs as being in the middle ages or not.
Pretty sure people will hate that too how will that be accurate for north india?
Your arguments are just wrong. Again, they are not trying to represent India in the game, is just an empire that was located in modern day India and nothing more, the same way the English faction of the game is not trying to represent modern UK but the medieval kingdom of England. I am still waiting for a reason of why there should be a faction representing India or any other modern country.
I see that you have a problem with the islamic nature of the Delhi sultanate, because it will limit the faction to islamic tech and units, but if it was a faction centered on another religion it would have the same problem and it would limit tech etc. of the faction to that religion. Also if Islam its been a big part of Indian history so I dont see the problem on having an islamic faction from India
The examples that you post has nothing to do whit what is happening. As I said Delhi sultanate is not a representation of India in the game, so if in a second world war game they dont put the french but they put the germans I can assure you there would be no problem of the french playerbase critiquing the game for representing France with Germany, simply they are not in the game because they were not as important as the other factions. The exact same happens here they chose the Delhi Sultante because it was an important empire of his time.
For example, I am from Spain and if the game devs choose to put the Sultanate of Cordoba in their game and not one of the christian kingdoms of the time I wouldnt start saying that they are trying to represent modern day Spain with the Sultanate of Cordoba and that they should put another kingdom instead.
5 Likes
I thought we retired this? I simply said delhi sultanate is not a complete representation of the Indian Subcontinent. It conquered the Rajputs to get to where it was - It conquered and then lost to the Vijaynagara in the south. It was put to rest by the Mughals (many of whom married into Rajputs and were more from the subcontinent than the Turks). Then the Mughals were put to rest by the Marathas and then the British came.
In the timeline of 500-1700 4-5 different big powers were relevant from Afghanistan to Ceylon - One was picked that has a genocidal history. Im saying pick one more. The Cholas existed for longer in the south in the Middle Ages. Im simply saying there should be a second civ in the region. Are you listening OR reading to the previous 100 posts?
As per your example - if they picked the caliphate over what was the Kingdom of Spain back then - Im sure you would be frustrated as well. If not well great but doesnât affect the debate here.
Anyways Im really done with this. Feel what you feel and Iâll feel what I feel ok?
Yes I read it, but why there should be a another faction in the same region when there are other entire regions without a single faction? Also, a genocidal history? jajajaja Or you dont know history or I dont understnad that statement, there are literally 0 countries in the world without blood in their hands.
1 Like
Why should there be two regions in any region then? I mean Europe has England. No need for France? Cool. Glad we agree.
Well, I wanted something else than France, but apparently we need always more European civs than every other civ region.
I honestly never cared about campaigns, so the fact that some regions get completely overrepresented due to that annoys me a lot.
1 Like