Next youâll tell me Rome, Athens, Palmyra arent in New York and Memphis is in Tennessee. I didnt see any ancient kings buried there except Elvis! Pure revisionist history!
No.
Nope. Fireships should actually be a Byzantine unique unit. There is already Vikings and Britons, why would you want Angles.
Acute perception. Maybe heâs just being obtuse.
What degree of accuracy should we circle back to? Or are you just some squareâŠ
You can just chalk that to poor naming choice. This is the same game that has a civ representing both Gauls and Scottish people like theyâre contemporaries and directly related.
Teutons is actually the medieval name that germanic factions used to describe themselves by.
no. Teutons is the Roman name for a Germanic faction. Itâs a word from the classical period, not the middle ages. Neither did the Allemans or Saxons call themselves Teutons during Roman times, nor did any Germans call themselves Teutons.
The word Teutonic however has been used as a vague exonym for centuries
Donât feed this troll thread attention
This is correct
This is not
For example
and
from here
https://web.archive.org/web/20090225124642/http://walhalla-regensburg.de/deutsch/index.shtml
Teutons was used in the Middle Ages, and as late as the 19th Century to refer to Germans.
you didnât finish reading:
I said Teutons, is from the classical period. Teutonic (the adjective) gets used later to refer to anything vaguely German. There is no people called the Teutons in the middle ages
Thereâs no people called Teutons IN ENGLISH in the Middle Ages.
The word in English has only been attested in English from 1530 as an adjective and as a noun, from 1833. I donât know about the adjective Teutonic.
That doesnât mean they werenât called Teutons in other languages. Germans themselves call themselves Deutsche. Italians called the Kingdom of Germans Rex Teutonicorum near the year 1000.
Maybe they should be called Germans in the English localization but Teutones or Alemanes in the Spanish localization, Tedeschi in Italian, Allemagnes in French and so on.
The issue is that Teutons is an obvious compromise, calling them Germans with goths and Franks around is confusing and Teutons also somewhat encompass the Teutonic order. I guess Alemans could be another ok, maybe even better compromise, one could say itâs too dark age sounding but Teutons could be ancient and again Franks⊠But still itâs a compromise.
It has already been said 100 times, Teutons are similar to Italians, do not make any sense as a national group in middle ages (if not maybe by the end of it or the few times the hre and crusaders acted as one even if it wasnât clearly one whole nationality). But unless you wanna have Swabians, Alemans, Frisians, Swiss etc then Teutons is the best you can do.
If they ever split I think the Teutonic knight should be a regional unit for crusading states since the so called Teutons were not the only people in Europe fighting as crusaders, even if I agree that some Germanic kingdoms like Swabia, alemannia, lotharingia⊠Maybe werenât unique enough to be their own civ, at least personally I have troubles finding an UU for each of them but I may just be ignorant. Another argument for Swiss or Frisians who could easily have their own unique civ.
In the Middle Ages were the Teutons similar to the Italians in terms of various independent states. But I am not saying with this, that this civ should be further divided in the game. They can be divided further, because the Italian peninsula got the Romans and Sicilians. The developers will decide, what they think, is the best for the game.
The Sicilians are the civ in the game, where I do not understand, why they were added to the game, it does just make less sense historically, not even with the Normans as their partly ruling class. The only sense in it, was to continue to pointlessly feed Italy with a unnecessary civ, just because certain graphic designers of the developers wanted to coloring maps for a Mediterranean civ with oranges and olives in the campaigns overview map. It is really unfortunate, to have to say something like that and I think, there is some truth in it.
âBelow you can see a beautiful graphic representation of German and Italian states in the Middle Ages from the Age of Chivalry mod for Age of Empires 2 HD. However it is indeed the case, that they had a lot in common during this time.
at least Romans was a mistake. the civ adds nothing to the game, except for god awful mechanics
somewhat agree, I think if they had just called them ânormansâ that would have made way more sense
I think this all boils down to the core issue of aoe2 civs: What is a âcivâ?
we currently have civs that are: ethnicities, countries, political alliances, modern nation states, exonyms, empires and what ever the hell Celts are (and I am still bitter about Mayans having a made-up name). At this point the designers can add whatever they want and it makes just as much sense as what we have.
So it think new civs should be judged by:
do they represent someone who is underrepresented/misrepresented?
and more importantly: are they fun?
Yes unfortunately is this true. Even the term Roman is simply misleading because we are not in the Antiquity in the game but in the Middle ages. Western Roman Empire would have been appropriate. It would be nice, if they change this in writing and also the associated civ icon, but I have little realistic hope.
A very important question statement⊠For the above mentioned reasons, I had just no fun to play with the Sicilians.
yeah, the answer to this question will be very subjective. I find Sicilians a bit bland, but inoffensive. Georgians, Gujaras, Bengalis, Burgundians are way worse imo
I think, it is because this, that you do not like these two civs from the Indian Subcontinent, because they are simply not known enough for us Europeans. We heard little or nothing about them in history, which is why there is no current reference to finding them interesting or having fun playing with these civs. However they do not have to be bad, they can be very good, if they are well made and historically fit into the game.
I can partly understand, that you do not find good the Burgundians. I am having a bit of trouble with the choosing name of this civ, because the campaign takes place in Flanders respectively Nederlands. The developers could therefore rename the Burgundians to Flemish or Dutch, but of course I am almost certain that they will not do this, but I wanted to mention it anyway.
The Georgians are not so foreign to me, but also not close either. I like the Armenians more, probably because they speak an Indoeuropean language, that is close to the Greek language. I have no such connection with the Georgians, since their language is an Isolate in Europe respectively Western Asia.
A civ is simply some people having a story to tell, civs are never added in a vacuum or for the sake of representation (otherwise we wonât have Sicilians or Burgundians), simply some dev though the hautevilles had a cool story and they added the Sicilians.
I personally donât consider Romans an Italians split but whatever, theyâre an Italian split as much as theyâre a Franks, Spanish, Berbers etc split. Rome was not Italy, specially in late antiquity when central power was disintegrating (since the times of Diocletian or Constantine Italy was just a province among others and Rome was not the capital anymore) and itâs more correct to talk about gallo-romans, romano Britons, italo-romans etc. In the late empire the Roman state was more of a confederation, not too different from the hre, while people of Roman ethnicity were often not found anymore in the army but in religious or aristocratic positions and they gradually extinguished during the dark ages. The Latin peasants mixed faster with Germans until Romans lost their identity to romance people.
Romans belong in game but the civ design is not totally historically accurate and calling them western Romans wouldnât make much sense, thatâs already obvious since eastern Romans are always represented by byzantines, as early as in Alaric.
Iâm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Those might be your reasons for disliking civs from the Indian Subcontinent, but you shouldnât project your reasons onto other people â especially when those reasons are so problematic.
Obviously I canât speak for @TwerDefender (even if you think you can), but my enjoyment of playing as a civ has no relationship whatsoever to how much I know about them from school and my own culture â and I canât see why it would. For example, when AoE2 was new, I had only vaguely heard of the Mongols and knew basically nothing about them, but they quickly became my favourite civ.