The issue with introducing the Mons isn’t that they were eventually defeated or assimilated, but that they are largely covered by in-game Khmers and Burmese and it’s hard to make them distinct from those two.
This is just one of the reasons, not the only reason.
My understanding is that Mon people are the major ethnic group in Myanmar and Mon culture and script has a place in Myanmar culture. They and the Bamar people are the main parts of the Burmese.
I never said they did not have “any” influence. I said they did not have “very important” influence.
When they were actively interacting with other peoples of the world, it is already the beginning of the AoE3 timeline. That alone gives the Venetians (as well as many potential but currently might not popular splits) better priorities.
I don’t focus on whether they existed before the Middle Ages, because when is the origin is not my focus at all.
My point is that the terms you suggest are specifically used to refer to certain things pre-BC, and are not used at all to refer to those kingdoms in the southwestern part of China during the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages and later, people did not call the people there Dian people or Pu people. The Franks, Persians, Chinese, Berbers, Ethiopians you mentioned are all terms that can correctly refer to people in the Middle Ages and even later, obviously different from those terms you suggest for this civ.
That’s true, at least a Caucasus and African dlc has to arrive… America I doubt it and China is very controversial and risky to do it…
Siamese I agree… Chams according to Wikipedia says they are Malaysians living in Vietnam so I don’t know… Besides that there is no leader who is more or less recognizable…
Moluccans are Malays; Visayans in a campaign against Ferdinand Magellan and the Spanish can be…
According to Wikipedia says that these kingdoms were culturally Chinese…
Yes, it can be… I thought they were Japanese, but they maintained some autonomy prior to 1609…campaigns for them can be Shunten (1166-1237) (cousin of Minamoto ############ where he manages to get control of the islands (it would be a mixture between the campaigns of Ivaylo and Pachacutec) or Sho Shin (1465-1527), the greatest king in the history of Ryuku and who carried out several military campaigns on the islands between 1486 and 1524 (it would be a mixture between the campaigns of Babur and Gajamada)…
Shunten’s enthronement in 1187
Formal royal portrait of King Shō Shin
Ryukuan Shuri Castle in 2016 (before it was destroyed by fire in 2019)
In the Burmese campaign the Mon is represented by the Khmer, while in the Khmer campaign the Mon are the Burmese.
Personally I would like to see the Mon added it the game in the same DLC with the Thai. One step to make them different is to give Siege Elephant but not the Elephant Archer and for the other the other way around.
My suggestion for the campaign would be about Wareru, the founder of the Martaban Kingdom.
I don’t hate the idea of the Austrians, though I wouldn’t say they are on the top of my list. If the Goths represent Early medieval Germans, and the Teutons represent high medieval Germans than the Austrians could fill the late medieval role, having units like landsknechts and dopplesoldners bringing us into the Italian Wars. Again, not one of my top choices but I wouldn’t say no either,
Lately I’ve thought maybe to have more thematic rather geographic DLC.
Maybe a “Children of God” DLC which could include civs with a very religious focus; like the Crusaders who would represent the Outremers kingdoms, crusading orders and northern crusades; the Nizaris who could have the Hashashin as their UU.
Maybe a pirate themed one which includes the Barbary pirates as a much more naval focused Middle Eastern civ, the Wokou from the sea of Japan, or even the Victual brothers (though they were short lived)
A “Merchant Princes” one which could include the Hanseatic League, the Dutch, Novgorod.
Maybe even a “Free Men” one including the Peasant Republics and Cossaacks (though the Cossacks are a bit late)
Still a lot of Europeans civs in there mind. Maybe others could flesh out the themes with civs from other parts of the world.
2 Likes
The Chams aren’t Malays. Although they and the Malays are both Austronesians, they belong to separate sub-branches of the family. Their common ancestor dated back to several thousand years ago, and they migrated to different regions of SE Asia and mixed with different peoples.
The Chams actually had several noteworthy leaders. For instance, king Jaya Indravarman IV who ransacked the Khmer capital at Angkor in 1177, or Prince Harijit who allied with the Viets to fight off the Mongols in 1283, or still king Po Binasuor who led the Chams during the Champa - Vietnamese war from 1367 to 1390, successfully captured the Viet capital Thang Long four times.
No they aren’t, the in-game Malays do not cover the Sultanate of Ternate, it only covers the kingdoms in Java and Sunda such as Srivijaya and Majapahit.
Being culturally Chinese does not mean they were ethnically Chinese. The Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese were all quite heavily influenced by the ancient Sinitic culture, yet they were all ethnically distinct from the Chinese. And also the concept of a unified “Han Chinese” ethnic group is a relatively recent political concept that only dates back to the Republican period in the early 20th century. Before that time the peoples of South and Southwest China had never been called “Han”.
2 Likes
If the devs could somehow make the Mons civ distinct from both the Khmers and the Burmese, then I see no reason why they can’t be added. If that’s the case then I’d like to see them added together in a new SE Asian DLC with the Chams and the Siamese.
True, but the Burmese were late comers to the region and they speak a Sino-Tibetan language, whereas the Mons and the Khmers both speak a Austroasiatic language.
I agree with you on this point, that’s why I said their priority is lower than Chams, Siamese, and Mons.
But still they left descendants who went on to build a quite powerful regional kingdom that was largely independent from the Chinese. I don’t see any problem with using those terms. Again, if you’re really uncomfortable with those terms, then calling them Cuanman is equally acceptable.
Add the oranglaut and we have a raides of the sea dlc.
I think the AoE3 Germans already fulfilled this, so this won’t be considered in AoE2.
The timeline of AoE3 starts from 14XX (15th century). There’s a lot of stuff there from the Italian Wars period and late Middle Ages.
Many of the things you mentioned are also in AoE3, including Barbary pirates, Wokou, Hanseatic League, Dutch, Cossaacks, etc. I think, even if there is a European DLC, it won’t feature duplicates from AoE3.
The concept of Han may be earlier than you think.
Since you are Chinese, here is a link to the Chinese Wiki.
The concept of “Hanren” was drastically different from the modern ethnic concept of “Hanzu”. You cannot simply make an equation between the two.
Nothing proves that the concept of “Hanren” already existed in the Han Dynasty. In fact it was probably more common for Han Dynasty people to refer to themselves by the ancient name of the kingdom in their region of origin rather than calling themselves as “Han”. For instance, in the Three Kingdoms period, when general Zhang Fei introduced himself to Lu Bu, he said he was “Yanren” rather than “Hanren”, “Yan” referred to the ancient Yan kingdom in the Warring States period, which once ruled Zhang’s hometown the county of Zhuo.
The earliest usage of the term “Hanren” was associated with the Xianbei, who used this term to refer to the Xiongnu and their subjects, since the Xiongnu remnants conquered the Western Jin Dynasty and established the Han kingdom in the Yellow River region during the Sixteen Kingdoms period.
Subsequent Sui and Tang dynasties both had heavy Xianbei influences, and this term was preserved and continued to refer to the peoples living in the Yellow River region. However, it did not refer to the peoples living in the south of the Yangtse, as they were referred to by names like Man, Li, Liao/Raeu, etc. or sometimes simply Turen or natives.
Later in the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, the Mongols borrowed this term to refer to the former Jin subjects in the Yellow River region, even some Jurchens and Khitans were included in this category. However, it did not include former Southern Song subjects, who were referred to by the term “Nanren” or southerners.
And it stayed this way until the Qing Dynasty. Even in the Qing Dynasty the Cantonese continued to be referred to as Turen or natives. It was only in the early Republican period that the peoples south of the Yangtse finally gained the designation “Han”.
I don’t believe in political propaganda, and I don’t believe that this forum is the right one to discuss such things.
1 Like
I noticed you’re talking about nations, not only about ethnics. You think it’s so-called political propaganda, well… because the nation is just inherently political, not only in China.
Nationalism was born very late, or in other words, the emergence of the nation itself was for modern politics. As you mentioned, in the 19th and 20th centuries, China wanted to be a modern national country, and only then did it began to redefine the definition of “Han”. But things like this abound all over the world, such as Germans.
Even though the word “Germans” was used for Germanic peoples in Central Europe since the 8th century, but there was no mature concept of Germans in the 16th century. The concepts of “Germans” and “Italians” we are familiar with now were not born until the 18th-19th century in pursuit of unity. Similarly, The concept of “French” can be traced back to the Hundred Years’ War. The people, inspired by Joan of Arc, fought as one “French” for a common “France”. Before that, warfare and politics were the affairs of the nobility, and the people themselves generally probably had no clear concept of nationality of French or Franks. Like, the term “Franks” itself also has different definitions over time.
The sentences of historical literature in the cited notes of that Wikipedia page clearly shows that the medieval Chinese people in different dynasties used the words “Han” (漢) and “Hua” (華) to refer to the group with their culture sometimes, and used some words like “Man” (蠻), “Fan” (番) or “Hu” (胡) to refer to the groups with different cultures. Even though the concepts of using these words each time might not be same, and they are not equivalent to the clear and fixed modern definition of ethnic group or nation, the words were still like a blurred line, providing a similar effect to help to distinguish who share a common or similar culture, history, ancestry and language, long before the germs of nationalism. We cannot deny that.
However, when we use “Franks” as the name of a civilization of France, when we might also accept “French” or “Germans” as a name change for Franks or Teutons (I have seen this opinion in the forum), we can see that the game doesn’t aspire to be serious about this kind of thing.
The name of a historical group with diverse meaning on different occasions can still be used as the name of the civilization, as long as it fits the timeline of the game and people generally believe that they are the major ancestor. The name of a nation can also be used as the name of a civilization of a group, as long as the group is regarded as the major ancestor of the nation, no matter when and how the etymology of the name of the nation originated. I don’t think that “Han” is not valid for AoE2, cuz somehow it played a similar effect to the terms Franks and Germans. Similarly, we can also see that some people propose “Romanians” instead of “Vlachs”. Everyone’s preference is different, but at least both Romanians and Vlachs are valid names in my opinion.
1 Like
I’m not talking about the in-game Chinese civ, I don’t have problems with this civ and I don’t want it to be called “Han”.
I was merely replying to another person’s post saying that the Dians/Baipus and their descendants shouldn’t be included in the game because they were “culturally Chinese”. And I refuted him by saying that 1. Culturally Chinese does not equate to ethnically Chinese. Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese were all heavily influenced by the ancient Sinitic culture yet they were ethnically distinct, so did the people who founded Nanzhao and Dali. 2. It’s debatable that South China and Southwest China was already culturally Chinese at this time, since the peoples living in those regions were never called “Hanren”. In fact the Sinicization process of South and Southwest China took quite long, lasting all the way till the Ming and Qing periods.
I’m not quite sure why every time when I mention that people shouldn’t misuse the term Hanren or Hanzu especially not when referring to the historical peoples of South/Southwest China you react in a very passive aggressive way. Aren’t you Taiwanese? If you’re then you should be happy that I’m not labeling you as “Han” or “Chinese” unlike other Chinese people. I respect the diversity of China and the unique history of South and Southwest China, I don’t want a political term created in the last century to be wrongly applied to peoples that lived a thousand years earlier.
Enough said, now let’s get back on topic shall we?
Yes, just like Wareru was a general of Ramkhamhaeng, you could unite them in a single campaign or separate them into two different campaigns…
They are already represented by the Berbers (both in AoE 2 and AoE 3)…
A half-weird hodgepodge… A DLC of commercial cities of civilizations that are already in the game:Hanseatic League (Teutons),Dutch (Burgundians),Novgorod (Slavs)…
Weird, but the Swiss could fit for example… and yes the Cossacks are very late, they are better for AoE 3 (Cossack Hetmanate for example)…
Well, it may be then…
Yes, it can be…in fact Po Binasuor closes me more for being the largest territorial expansion of Champa and leaves the stage for what would be the campaign of Le Loi 30 years later…
Ah well I don’t get into it then…
Ah well there it can be then… the issue is how China will receive it from being divided in the game…
Of course, the issue would be whether 2 civs or 3 civs would come with the dlc…
Of course, in fact AoE 3 starts in 1421 and covers the entire Renaissance period that AoE 2 could not cover due to technical issues and limitations of the graphics engine…the Germans of AoE 3 have Austrian units and you also have the native Habsburg units on European maps…
Sure, even the name change could correct denominations for classic civs of the game…Franks would allude to the Carolingian Empire (of which there is no campaign of Charlemagne) and Teutons is better for civ of AoE 1, not AoE 2, which there would already be Germans by the Holy Roman Empire,that was Germanic…
Vlachs is better, Romanians is a very modern term (late nineteenth century) …
Your preference is fine and I respect it. What I was proving is that even if you don’t like the name, it’s still somewhat valid in AoE2.
It is of course no problem for current common Chinese civilization to be called “Chinese”. However, if one day we want to introduce more “Chinese civilizations”, such as Khitans, Jurchens, Tanguts, Tibetans, Nuosu, etc., we will most likely need to follow the Indian DLC approach. There is no specific civilization named Indian/Chinese, so it could allow for the interpretation that those civilizations are all Indian/Chinese. This is especially important when used to avoid CCP risks.
Not saying that person is right, but your rebuttal here is flawed in my opinion.
Being influenced by Chinese culture is not the same as being culturally Chinese.
Those peoples in the southwest of modern China were not culturally Chinese in the Middle Ages, nor were the Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese. They are neither ethnically nor culturally Chinese.
No one denies your respect. To be honest, you are admirable for doing this as a Chinese.
It’s just, it’s a game, and as I stated above, doesn’t aspire to be serious about this kind of thing. Besides, any civilization is inevitably an umbrella anyway. Avars are Huns in the game; Kazars are Cumans; Low Countries are Teutons, Franks and Burgundians; Irish and Scots are Celts; French are Franks; Kalmar Union is Vikings; etc.
Unless South China and North China become different civilizations, North China, as the most important region of medieval China, must be the major of this umbrella. Han being the valid name of the North Chinese civilization (you won’t deny this, right?) would also cover the south when being the umbrella.
Calm down please. It is just to seriously discuss an issue, nothing personal.
I don’t think carefully describing what I think is a fact is called “aggressive”, even if what I’m describing doesn’t agree with you. I also don’t object to your right to disagree with me, but I can state that I disagree with you and take responsibility for what I state.
Our Taiwanese identity does not need to be defined by you. Why should I be “happy” with your thoughts on who I am? This makes me feel your attitude is looking down on me, no matter I think I am or not a Chinese.
1 Like
If the devs were to add new civs to SE Asia, then the Chams are definitely a top priority, not just a “maybe”. The issue is how well the Vietnamese community would receive such a civ (there’re a lot of AoE 2 players in Vietnam as well).
The Moluccans are suitable to be added, though they are of lower priority than the Chams, the Mons, and the Siamese.
As long as modern ethnic names like Yi/Nuosu/Bai are avoided then there’s no issue at all. Same for other civs like Gokturks, Jurchens, Khitans, Tanguts, Tubos (ancient name for Tibetans), and Huihus (ancient name for Uyghurs). Even Chinese government-approved textbooks use such names.
Personally I prefer the 3 civ DLC over the 2 civ one.
It’s somewhat valid but far from suitable, if the name of the Chinese civ has to be changed due to the introduction of the civs you mentioned then I prefer the name “Sinitic” rather than “Han”.
That’s what I was always saying, if you agree with me on this point then we aren’t really in disagreement. But TBH the definition of “culturally Chinese” is somewhat murky and isn’t well-defined.
North China was only important for the Sinitic people but not important for others. China isn’t just made up of Sinitic people. And no, Han does not cover the south. Even South China (places like Guangdong, Guangxi, etc.) weren’t culturally Sinitic in the Middle Ages, and the peoples there were never called “Han” at that time.
I’m also being quite serious, the peoples of South and Southwest China were NOT called “Han” in the Middle Ages.
TBH I totally don’t care what you Taiwanese think of yourselves, even if you proclaim yourself as Alien or ET it’s your choice and I respect it, but STOP trying to force the label “Han” onto the peoples of South and Southwest China. We were called Li, Liao/Raeu, Man, or simply Turen (土人) in the Middle Ages, and our ancestors were looked down upon by the Hanren or the Zhongyuanren in Northern China. We don’t like to be called “Han”.
You don’t want your Taiwanese identify to be defined then it’s fine I totally don’t care about it, but why are you always trying to define the identity of us South and Southwest Chinese? We were not Han for much of history and we don’t like to be called Han.
Enough said, now let’s get back to topic.
Huuu… Not really. Joan of Arc’s status as “mother of the nation” is almost as exaggerated as her role as a military leader. Sure she has been used in French propaganda for centuries to the point our country would probably be somewhat different had she never existed, but the common folks didn’t suddenly start feeling French and naming themselves as such because of one individual. Most of the population back then had other concerns in their lives (and to be honest, most French people still do).
Even the idea of France having an earlier concept of national identity because of the Hundred Years War is quite exaggerated. England had lost almost all territories on the continent and had failed to reclaim the French throne, but the state was still closely (and actually more than ever before) tied to the king and no one else. He no longer had any ###### able to challenge his authority, and he now directly controlled almost all of modern France. The idea of a French nation was trully changed with the Revolution, when it became every French person’s affair rather than one man’s property, and its this new idea of the nation as something each of its inhabitants had a relation with which spred to the rest of Europe in the early 19th century. Not that it wasn’t redifined again afterward, obviously.
Sri Lanka is not a part of tamils.If you played the campaign you have to invade the island.
True, the Chams may be regionally related to South Vietnam and I don’t know how they would take it in Vietnam or the government in Hanoi…The people of the south would support it, but the people of the capital maybe not who knows…
Yes, you have to see how the devs are organized… and I said dlcs of 2 civs because that is the tonic in the 2 DE, although they could make one of 3 as DoI…