The first phrase is a mockery because many talk about mesos as they were the only americans on the continent (some even call the Inca, a south american civ, mesos - thanks, AOE 2).
The second is about how pop culture follows european (and usonian) culture because of their economic power. If native american culture had more space in pop media, you could be sure they would sell as well as middle age norse culture, for example.
1 Like
I quoted your post and said this
Nothing about Vietnam, I just quoted both of your posts on the subject
Then there is nothing to argue, your logic is seriously flawed
The Berbers fielded as many if not more troops than the Battle of Agincourt fielded for both sides? Not silly at all
You avoided the question, how convenient.
Battle of Shiloh can’t be considered a battle because it barely fields 100k for both including both sides.
Battle of Bull Run isn’t a battle, doesn’t field 100k
Battle of Hattin wasn’t a battle, doesn’t field 100k
The list goes on.
1 Like
Dude, uncool, I like Inca in aoe3 de
I like the Inca In aoe 3 too, fun civ to play
Oh wait, we’re you talking about natives in general or Aztec?
I understand where he is going. All he is saying is not to put a value judgement on cultures because people do with what they have and can use.
But from a pragmatic point of view, it doesn’t change the fact mesos didn’t have as much as Europe and Asia. And that is a fact you can’t deny. Having metallurgy doesn’t mean you can build cannons and plate armor. Having wheels doesn’t mean you have cars. See what i mean?
As i said earlier if enough people want mesos ig devs will find a way. Today it’s not the case, all i’m saying.
1 Like
Natives in general, except japan
I haven’t even heard of those. Look, even the Abbasids themselves were sending people in the hundred thousands to central Asia (look at the Battle section) against a Tang Chinese outpost just a few years after Tours. Are you really going to say that Tours was a conquest attempt?
I agree, it’s what i said earlier. Very few people are interested in their culture that’s why they’re not ig.
I do see what you mean, but I still disagree. The Mesoamerica civs had technologies far advanced from Europeans in many ways that have been minimized for centuries. The reason they were defeated had a whole lot more to do with disease and infighting than with weapons that went boom or armor made of metal.
2 Likes
What use do armies have to steel in rain forest, for example? That’s why you can’t say “Europe is more advanced”. Americans had what they needed to live their lives. Europeans had what they needed. Different needs, different tools.
1 Like
For the other two you wouldn’t have heard of them unless you studied the American Civil War. According to you they are not battles because they don’t break 100k but they are totally not considered skirmishes. Unless you wanna argue your case with millions of people around the world…
1 Like
a sustained fight between large organized armed forces.
“the Battle of Shiloh”
Battle definition if you look it on on google, oh look what battle it uses as an example. But according to you, it wasn’t a battle
an episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets.
“the unit was caught in several skirmishes and the commanding officer was killed”
Skirmish definition
I clicked the link you gave in your last post, it says the Abbasid army strength is unknown, so where are you getting your numbers, hmm?
I literally included the instructions in my comment. How much easier can it be?
Compared to larger and more important ones it would be like a mere skirmish, yes.
Chinese:
Delhi Sultanate:
English:
French:
The siege of Tenochtitland was in 1521. It still is in the timeframe of the game.
[EDIT] All captures come from here : Age of Empires IV - Play with Game Pass for PC
5 Likes
The numeric quantities of the combatants involved in the battle of Talas are not known with certainty. The Abbasid army consisted of 200,000 soldiers according to Chinese estimates, which included contingents from their Tibetan ally. On the opposite side, Arab records put the combined Chinese forces at 100,000. But Chinese sources record a combined army of 10,000 Tang Chinese and 20,000 Karluk mercenaries.[11] The Tongdian (801 CE), the earliest narrative for battle itself by either side suggests 30,000 deaths, and the Tangshu (945 CE) counted 20,000 death in this battle.[12] The earliest Arabic account for the battle itself from Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (1231 CE) suggest 50,000 deaths and 20,000 prisoners.[13]
Appears like a lot of contradictions in that one paragraph, not to mention that the page states that the Abbasid army strength and casualties are unknown.
The fact remains that much more effort was spent on central Asia than Western Europe by the Umayyad/Abbasid. Are you still going to keep calling Tours a conquest attempt?
This reasoning is severely flawed. I could take this and say the entire war was one giant skirmish because The Battle of Gettysburg was the largest, so all the others were mere skirmishes compared it it. I don’t know how else to explain it to you, if you can’t see the flaw than I’m afraid nothing can show you the facts. Also, your little invasion of Vietnam is a skirmish as well as the Battle of Gettysburg and your battle you gave both outnumber them in army size 
I don’t believe I ever did call it a conquest attempt, that was JonOil, if I did I was probably just trying to get you to respond. I am trying to change your mind on the definition of a battle.
Well then, that mean we’ve been going pretty off-topic. You should’ve realized why I specifically used the phrasing “mere skirmishes between European tribes” in this forum. It’s about how people view Meso-american civs.
3 Likes
You were already off-topic talking about the Battle of Tours
1 Like