I agree, but Im going with low standards considering we have got two diferent slightly diferent French civs
A bit later. Uyghurs (the heir of the first Gokturk empire) were around for a while…
Either way Tamils would be the universal Dradivian civ to begin
As a Dutch person I feel like i should be offended at this notion but the I remember I don’t care about patriotism stuff like that so we’re good 11
They could have gone with a more Flemish flavour for Burgundians. I’ve read a book about Burgundy and it was basically an association of Flemish and French cities under one Grand Duke (at least the civ in AOE2 portrays the Grand Duchy of Burgundy, not the older Germanic Kingdom except with a few leader names as well as appearances in the Hun campaign).
And before you go at my throat, I know that Flemish are not exactly Dutch.
Of course I won’t go at your throat, lol. Besides, there was no such thing as the ‘Dutch’ people at that time anyways so Flemish is probably the closest thing to it in the game.
Considering latest developments, I’d love to see afghans and their culture get more space in global conscience. Let’s give them an age-campaign. 
Tbh is all about Fdmish Rev, it would just be weird to have a Flemish and Flanders civ and Flemish Rev
To me at least, “Saxons” means something very different in these two cases. In Hastings it really means Anglo-Saxons. There are some slightly bizarre subtleties about when to use “Saxon” vs. “Anglo-Saxon” in the context of English history (e.g. one almost always uses “Saxon” when talking about church architecture), but I don’t see any particular reason for them to have identified Harold specifically as Saxon. Maybe it was to make it obvious which Harold/Harald was which, and they thought “Harold the Anglo-Saxon” was too long or sounded clunky? Goths was a sensible choice here, though, because of their Huskarls.
Anglo-Saxons also appear in the York historical battle, represented by several different civs. What really gets me about that scenario is that Northumbria are Celts, and therefore can’t get Illumination… but I suspect this is a pretty niche grievance.
Tbh, since they were using Goths to represent it, adding Saxons there would make sense (I guess?). If I had a Saxon civ I would use it for Hastings personally
Maybe im asking an obviously dumb question but are saxons natives of saxony or in other words are they the same thing?
Interesting, I was sort of thinking the opposite because a Saxon civ would (presumably) not have Huskarls. Given that there actually were Huskarls at Hastings (well, “Housecarls”, same thing), it would feel pretty perverse to remove them.
One change I would like them to make to Hastings, now that the scenario editor allows it, is to change the architecture of the Goths to the western European one. It still wouldn’t be totally accurate, but it would be closer.
As far as I know the Saxons were named thus due to their fovoured side arm/knife the Seax.
If Saxony recieved this name after the notation of Saxons living in this area , I do not know.
You can make Saxons play similar to Goths though
That’s definitely not a dumb question. “Saxon” can refer to natives of Saxony (as in Barbarossa 1 & 2), but it can also be used a synonym for “Anglo-Saxon” (as in Hastings in the context of “Harold the Saxon”). The Anglo-Saxons were descended from Saxons from Saxony who migrated to Great Britain, but also from other Germanic peoples – so they’re not the same thing, but they’re closer than a lot of peoples that are currently represented by the same civ.
Yes, fair enough. Anglo-Saxons would be an infantry and monk civ, with terrible cavalry. I don’t know enough about Saxony Saxons to comment about them.
Among these, I’d definitely like to see Tanguts, Jurchens, Thais, and Chams being added into the game, and I’d also like to see more diversity in the Indian subcontinent and in Africa.
It is not a bad choice but I would support it only if Tibetans could not get introduced since it had ethnic relation with Tibetans, founding only 1 small kingdom of Xi Xia, having less influence than Gokturks, Khitans, Jurchens and Tibetans.
I wonder why people keep calling it the Thai instead of the Siamese?
It’s highly unlikely that Tibetans are going to be added to the game. Tanguts are the next best thing that can be added and they can sort of represent the Tibetans. And they had already made an appearance in Genghis Khan’s campaign. The Xi Xia kingdom wasn’t that small, it was only smaller compared to the dynasties in East Asia but put it in any other part of the world at that time it would be a huge empire. And Tanguts had been quite influential in the military and politics of China starting from the late Tang around the 9th century AD all the way till their demise in the 13th century.
And about the Thais you’re right, they should be called Siamese.
You might be right. I just consider that we may have not enough quota for new Inner Asian civs. If Tanguts could represent Tibetan Empire while Tibetans is banned, it will be welcome without a doubt.
My dad has used Tai Siam to refer to modern Thai people but sounds archaic.
Honestly main reason to add Tanguts is just camel mortars
Not to say they arent worth adding for what they did historically, but mortar camels just sound awesome