Same can be said about rumanians sebs or croats.if there can be a bulgarian civi which is a mix of slavs and bulgers I see no reason to exclude albanians.
Finns should include all the finno tribes and could be a hybrid of vikings and slavs.
Romanians owned important kingdoms - Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia.
Serbs owned an empire and were an important nation in the Balkans. They were a serious enemy to the Ottomans.
The Croats had their own kingdom, which was quite large. They also had a powerful republic that competed with Venice - the Dubrovnik Republic, which existed until the beginning of the 19th century.
Serbs and Croats had large independent states at the same time.
These were really important civilizations. These 3 civs could be the real “Bulwarks of Christendom” DLC.
Bulgarians are not just a mixture of Slavs and Bulgarians. They are Bulgarians who succumbed to Slavization. They mingled with the people they conquered. They later formed a mighty Empire that covered the vast area of the eastern Balkans.
Unfortunately, the Albanians never created a substantial and powerful state. Their kingdom was conquered by the Serbs who dominated the central Balkans.
The Venetians would make more sense than the Albanians (they also ruled Albania).
Exactly. These three civilizations could share a common “Northern European” architectural style. It would focus on wooden architecture.
3 Likes
Those were under someone else like hungary bulgaria or ottomans.those peoples were not even united.
Isnt that the same as mix of slavs and bulgers.
Transylvania=Hungary until Romanians stole it.
1 Like
They were not united, but there may be Romanians civ, which in the campaigns would be called Wallachians, Moldavians and Transylvanians. After all, they spoke the same language and had the same culture. They just had three states that later became dependent. Transylvania from the Hungarians, Moldavia and Wallachia from the Ottomans. Moldova was dependent on Poland for about one hundred years.
A Romanian civ would represent each of these three Romanian states. Just because they were not united does not mean they can have a common civ.
Yes, but from what I understand you described this Civ as simply a mix of Bulgarians and Slavs. And yet it was an important empire. Bulgarians are an interesting civ. It cannot be said that they are simply Slavs. They are as Slavic as they are Turkish. Many Bulgarians look like a typical Turk. I know because my distant cousin, she married a Bulgarian.
Bulgarians are a specific and unique nation. Good thing he’s in AoE 2.
Transylvania was an area that belonged to the Hungarians and the Ottomans. It was mostly inhabited by Romanians. Inside this region there was a large enclave of Hungarians - Székelys, and a large German settlement.
Transylvania = Hungary & Ottomans
It’s hard to say whether the Romanians stole Transylvania from Hungary. It was simply because of the treaty of Trianon that the Crown of Saint Stephen was disintegrated. It’s neither good nor bad. Simply, empires collapsed after the First World War and nation-states were born in their place. Saint Stephen’s crown simply could not survive. It was too multinational. The Romanians simply took over the territories inhabited by Romanians. It wasn’t stealing. It was simply a collapse of the traditional state model.
From the point of view of nations such as Czechs, Slovaks, Croats or Romanians, it was good. Only for Hungarians it was bad. I know that for Hungarians the date of this treaty is a national mourning. Personally, I am not a supporter of nation states as they cause endless conflicts. The Hungarians would like Székelys in their country, while Romania would like to unite with Moldova and recapture Bessabaria from Ukraine. Eternal discontent. I prefer empires where many nations were united by a common ruler. Of course, any nation would deserve extensive autonomy.
The Treaty of Trianon was neither good nor bad.
there is no a country named kurdistan
Really?
This is an example of an empire of Kurdish origins.
The name of the country is not the same as the name of the nations. Example? The Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans are a dynasty.
Are the Americans from the USA called:
USAns?
USAnians?
United Statesians?
United Statesians Americans?
Stole it? That part of land was transferred by treaty of Trianon, am I right?
1 Like
show me where is it on world map so, there was never kurdistan on map for centuries. imaginary country, which it will never happen. they are ethnic group
Georgians were great in the middle ages… they even took part in the crusades… ever heard of David the builder? also Armenians are great too
2 Likes
Saladin is a kurd but under the sarecen umbrella.
1 Like
I think he meant kurds as ethnicity not a country… in modern days there is an autonomous entity in iraq and syria called Peshmerge
1 Like
yeah, they want to build a country called kurdistan at east region of turkey , we “put down” 200 peshmerge every month
He is Turkish. This explains everything.
1 Like
Screw up all the proposals. Who needs more American, African, Asian and Slavic civs? Add every American state as independent civ, because it is much easier to make new civs in aoe2, than in aoe3.
1 Like
Probably not this topic, but I agree with you.
Are you writing about the USA DLC for AoE 3 DE ???
Adding USA as a civ to aoe2 makes the same sense as adding them to aoe3: 0 - So it is logical to have a USA civ in the future for aoe2.
3 Likes
USA defending its democracy against colonists from Europe in 15th century.
Of course, it was so…
Now we need US in AoE2!
1 Like