Maybe.
Or maybe I would have had my first years in the job market drowning in debt, and would have never made it from Lower Class poor to Midle Class, like I have while studying to be a Chef, which I was for 7 years, and now an Hotel Manager.
Funny enough, I likely read more books, specially on History, that most people that got a History degree will ever.
BRAVO YOU… You still take jokes WAYYYYY to seriously. Lol. 
Also, you only “drown in debt”, if the degree you get is NOT in STEMM.
Also, it helps to NOT live in America… Lol.
I am confused what you are all arguing about, but I was surprised to read that any of you were claiming that the world’s very first university was founded as late as 500 CE.
It looks like the argument hinges on first agreeing to define the term university. There’s been formal centers of learning for thousands and thousands of years. I don’t know that I am really curious about which one of them was first to drift into what we would now recognize as a university. It seems like the spirit of the inquiry would be missed if the answer came down to semantics.
We describe the centers of learning in Taxila and Nalanda (both in present day India) as universities. Taxila dates back to 500 BCE if not earlier.
There’s also the Platonic Academy in Athens that dated to 387.
Meanwhile, we know Egypt had centers of learning back to about 4,000 years ago – 2,000 BCE.
Here is my source, but it cites many others. Ancient higher-learning institutions - Wikipedia
“To be sure, the Egyptians may not have had exact replica of the modern university or college, but it is certainly true that they did possess an institution that form their perspective, fulfilled some of the roles of higher education institutions. One such institution dating from around c. 2000 BCE was the Per-ankh (or the House of Life). It was located within the Egyptian temples, which usually took the form of huge campuses, with many buildings, and thousands of employees (Lulat, 2005, p. 44).”
And why would they add a mayan campaign back then when no old world civ had any sort of war with them?
Because Age of Empires has never required civilizations connect to the existing ones. It certainly happens frequently, but it is not itself some kind of requirement.
Meanwhile, the most important rule has always been to prioritize gameplay and enjoyment over realism. And the Maya, Inca, and other American empires make an extraordinary case for themselves as providing unique and interesting gameplay and civ design.
This shows how little you know of history. MacArthur wanted to push into China to cut off the communism at its source but he wasn’t allowed. Seriously, if you even bothered to read up on it you would realize that the Chinese would’ve crumbled if MacArthur pushed into China. You obviously know nothing about the Korean War
No more than you are
Like I said, the Chinese obviously weren’t as developed as you claim if the Europeans achieved more than the Chinese did as time went on. They both had access to the same “ground work” as you call it, but who used it better? Europe
I’m sorry, are we talking about capitalism vs communism or inventions and technology development?Those are two things that have very little in common
Because he doesn’t want to use AD/BC? CE/BCE means the same thing, what’s the big deal.
I don’t think the Aztecs ever fought the Spaniards in rainforests as the climate was more subtropical-temperate in the valley of Mexico. It should be noted as well that most Spaniards were not heavily armored in metal, apart from helmets and metal shield (rodela), though some of their shields were of leather. Due to frequency of obsidian arrows aiming for the neck, gorgets were highly prized but not all infantry had them. Only the veterans and captains really had greater protection with metal armor. The average conquistador would wear escaupiles or ichauhuipilli which were cotton armor their Mesoamerican allies also wore and gave to them which was essentially gambeson. While metal weapons and armor were a factor in favor of the conquistadors it was not the main reason they won. It was mainly their Mesoamerican allies which decided to ally with them rather than wipe them out as the Tlaxcaltec decided to do. Diseases also played a big factor during the siege of Tenochtitlan and in the case of other Mesoamericans diseases had affected them before any confrontation happened as occurred with the Maya in Guatemala and the Tarascans which even killed their ruler Zuangua (which ironically was the same ruler that rejected the Aztecs proposed alliance against the Spaniards and Tlaxcaltecs. But back on the metal weapons it is interesting how during the siege the Aztecs adopted Spanish swords they captured and turned them into lances. Would make for a cool unit and shame they never appeared in AOE3.
There also seems to be a misunderstanding about how the Spanish were armored. Many seem to have worn metal armor, but they did not protect them completely, were pierced by Mesoamerican arrows, and were not at all suited for the climate. Many Spanish adopted the quilted cotton cuirasses (ichcahuipilli) that was the basic armor of the time in Mesoamerica which was (as would be expected) effective against the weaponry of the time and place. This was not solely a matter of comfort (and some Spanish continued to wear breastplates over Mesoamerican- or European-style cotton padding), but also stemmed from a lack of adequate supplies or ability to repair damaged steel armors.
if they have no reason to be in the campaigns then they will be added later, the first civs added are campaign related civs
I think you are correct, though I disagree with the decision.
This only has effect on Twitter, not in the real world, and not amongst History Buffs and Gamers.
RTS Gamers are especially immune to the -ists and -phobes.
I’m from Peru so… whatever your take is my dude, but the fact that they chose to first develop the civilizations related to the 100 years war campaign and the mongol invasion of china/middle east is not related to racism.
Exactly. Those are two defining moments of Medieval History, taht shaped the fate of the whole world.
so did the battle of tenochtitlan with the aztecs and spanish
whats your point?¡
We live in a PC world and Microsoft has shown itself to be obliging to it, for better or worse. If they chose not to add Mayans as a launch civ I doubt their decision had anything to do with racism and had everything to do with commercial factors and popularity.
Most people aren’t racist. They’re just more interested in European history. Don’t be so negative. You will drive yourself insane.
That was no longer Medieval History.
That is my point.
Those happen much later in history than the starting period that they’re going for, if anything any south american related campaign will be added later on in a future expansion. Although I doubt it to be honest because the Aztecs and Incas don’t cover the whole period that the age period is about, Mayans maybe the starting ages (not really the later stages though) but the issue is that they cannot add them to the campaigns and that’s what people care about at launch, since the mayans never had contact with old world civilizations.
I do not know why he is making such a fuss. If teh game sells well, they will introduce American civs, with related campaigns, perhaps not even involving the Spanish.
DLC/Expansion civs are usually the most well developed and thoughtout, anyways.
I will probably buy the game, when they add Portuguese, for example.
Ah yes, a DLC that will probably not come out until 2 years, locking them brown people civs behind $$$ and having to wait years for them
