So the Berbers are obviously in the game, and they represent the Berber people of North Africa, but also (allegedly) represent the Moors of southern Iberia in places like Al-Andalus. I thought maybe there could be some justification for having a separate Moors civ. Part of that change would be Genitours would no longer be a shared unique unit, but a regional one, belonging to the Berbers, Moors, Spanish, and Portuguese.
What do y’all think?
I kinda want a Berber split just to justify a Berber architecture, so I’m not against this.
EDIT: The Castle Age UT got censored, which I figured would happen. Posting a screenshot instead.
I would name them Andalusians instead of Moors. Europeans used to refer Spain and North Africa’s Muslims as Moors when they themselves never called that. Similarly how Saracens was called by Byzantines and Europeans when they called themselves as Arabians.
“Moors” is a way more iconic term than “Andalusians,” even if it’s less precise. And the game itself tends to go with European exonyms rather than endonyms for civilization names, at least for the civs that Europeans had significant contact with.
But that is wrong naming conventions. Moors in theory should be IRL Mauritania civ. Europeans during dark ages thought Muslims of Spain came from Mauritania when they never did. Rather had people from Middle East, North Africa and native Spaniards themselves. Meaning a more Central African civ than a Muslim Spain one. Why use clearly wrong naming convention which they never called themselves? Almost as inaccurate as Saracens. Europeans used to umbrella Indian/Iranian Muslim Empires as Saracens as well but what to do in that case? Why we have Persians and Hindustani then?
I feel like most people are going to know who the Moors are when they’re in the game. At least if they’re called that, they can represent the various Muslims of North African and Iberia rather than exclusively Al-Andalus.
Indeed moors are medieval maurii, that was how Romans called people of Mauritania.
But the same could be said of Berbers which was probably just derived from “barbarians”. Berbers call themselves Imazighen.
Andalusia came from the word “Vandals”. If devs are clever enough we can have Byzantines vs Vandals with civ renamed in campaigns. Many people do call themselves as Berbers/Amazigh interchangebly in North Africa. But from Arabic sources there are almost no instance of calling Andalusians as Moors or anything. Also Arabs used to call Europeans as Firinggi(Franks).
Well, this game often has flat-out wrong civ names just based on popular conception, so “Moors” is not out of place.
Their building and discount bonus are way worse versions of thd Khmer and Portuguese bonus
The castle age UT is probably okay but a bit too situational, the imperial UT is probably too good
Well, I thought it would be interesting to have a bonus on a civ that was halfway between a normal civ and the Khmer. As for the discount bonus…well, it’s hard to come up with a unique cavalry bonus nowadays.
Personally I would use this for a UU.Fits thematically with mamlukes.
Farfanes - Wikipedia(sing.,dynasties%20of%20the%20Western%20Mediterranean.
Oh, I see! To be honest, I felt like there wasn’t much information about the Moors or Al-Andalus compared to most civilizations I brainstorm. I’m glad that you could give me a suggestion for a better UU. I’ll read this later.
Moors would be an easy civi to make also ME buildings(castle and wonder is unique obviously) king and monk speak saracen rest of the units berber.
I am against it because the term “Moors” is not a consensus term. There is no “Moorish civilization”.
The term refers to a set of civilizations that differ according to the period and the person/country who designates them.
Moreover, the term “Moors” seems to be used only by Europeans to designate civilizations that do not consider themselves as such.
Saracens Berber are all european terms so why cant we have moors?
North Africans do call themselves as Berbers. Even Arabs and natives at North Africa interchangeably called themselves as Berbers. I think its somewhat fine compared to Moors and Saracens. Moors accurately refers to Mauritania than Andalusian one.
When i think moors and Berbers I think not just of camel forces but of the armored spear obsessed blackguard.
Personally I always thought if there was ever a civ that could be designed to specifically be called Anti-cavalry it would be Berbers or Moors.
So great Halbs and Camels. Force that Sicilian and Frank player to go for his UU.
Something like this:
-Camels 20% faster. Possibly receives camel scout to capitalize.
-Redemption, Theocracy free
-Spearmen +1 melee armor per age (3 total)
-Villagers carry +10 food (kinda thrown in but it works)
TB: Trade units +2/2 armor
UU: Blackguard - If a Teutonic Knight was less of a swordsman and more of a spearman…
Amazigh - Villagers Cav Archers, Bpackguard and Scouts move 10% faster and are immune to conversion
Iberian Conquest - all units +1 damage vs all armor types.
Missing Techs
Barracks: Champion, Eagle Scout, Gambesons
Archery Range: Arbalest, Elite Skirmisher
Stable: Battle Elephant, Paladin, Steppe Lancer, Hussar
Siege: Siege Onager, Siege Ram, Elephant
Blacksmith: /
University: /
Dock: Dry Docks, Dromon
Monastery: Heresy, Sanctity
Economy: Two Man Saw, Crop Rotation
Not the most balanced but for a ten minute writeup…
Berbers were a real existing civilisation not a mix of several civilisation like Moors. Saracens should me splitted according to me.
Here an interesting post Split the Saracens?