Yes, but the person above said Rome
Btw I believe we will probably get a Flavius Aetius campaign
Since he was called The Last Roman and hes one of the most influential people of the Western Roman Empire
Also hes in Attila. Ofc they will try to tie the new campIgn with Attila
3 Likes
Why are so many people voting yes? wtf
If you REALLY want to add another Italian civ, add the Venitians, they were way more relevant than Romans for AoE2
2 Likes
I propose adding neither
Rome was all. not just the city.
1 Like
I voted no. But I can see why people voted yes.
Problem is it’s literally whole AOE1 adding into AOE2. AOE1 is more important here than AOE2.
1 Like
Absolutely right. Rome was not just the city, but and idea. That’s why we don’t call it the Ravenna Empire. And that’s why having Constantinople as it’s capital doesn’t make it less Roman
1 Like
Well, WRE breaking apart basically started the whole Early Middle ages period. So I think WRE plays quite a big role in AoE 2 (they even appeared usually as a main antagonists in 2 campaigns) and I don’t mind them being a civ (I voted yes).
and I’m just gonna drop this here just for reference
How “Dark” were the Dark Ages? - Medieval DOCUMENTARY
5 Likes
WRE doesn’t make sense compared to Goths/(even Huns too if you consider Avars and ancestor of Magyars civ) as Middle Age civ. You have to remember Goths survived at one form or another upto Early Middle Ages until Charlemagne conquest of Germany, Anglo Saxon England, North Africa/Spain Al-Andalus.
WRE feels like too odd. WRE is literally the Byzantines.
Also you have to remember late days of WRE was already ruled by Gothic overlords. Just look at politicians and influencial people at its time around WRE. On paper WRE didn’t fall even after sack by Geiseric. Historians marks that as a turning point even though society had far more Gothic influence long before.
This is… extremely inaccurate. Charlemagne never conquered England or North Africa and barely entered Spain, only taking over places so far north they usually aren’t considered as parts of Al-Andalus. Besides, out of all the places you mentioned, Goths only settled in Spain and they had already been mostly conquered by the Umayyad Caliphate. The only place still resisting was the Kingdom of Asturias, which was arguably already on its way to be “latinised” and… Has not been conquered by Charlemagne.
3 Likes
I completely agree with all of this but you should check your sources about what happened to the Goths and the conquest wars of Charlemagne
History doesn’t work with very divided times, usually all are transitions, unlike Age of Empires. Most people lived like the same the day after Columbus took a landing into the Americas, or the day after the French Revolution.
A Roman civ is important bc it represents the end of the “Western Roman Empire”, who was a shadow when it formally fell. But it did exist before, like the conditions that rose to build the (European) Middle Ages before the last WRE king died.
Also a Roman civ can be used to What If scenarios. Remember that we have a lot of time (What if Goths/Huns went to Renaissance)
1 Like
I think you misread me or i failed you to explain. I was referring to Charlemagne conquest of Saxony, Bavaria and others. No I didn’t exactly meant Charlemagne conquering England. I probably should’ve more clear about Anglo Saxon England. Germanic language at England still survived at one form or another until William Of Normandy. Also Umayyads of Spain had Germanic nobles. Al-Andalus came from the word “Vandals”. Umayyads/Arabs did referred to many Visogothic noble as “The Goth”. Goths were migrating people. Wherever they went eventually intermixed with locals. Some still maintained trace of it and can be reflected by civ choices in various campaigns.
Comparing with WRE, I’m not really sure about it. They just feels too much of odd choice when there are far more better candidates to introduce. Would’ve made sense if the devs picked Rome Ad Bellum approach…Not sure how its gonna play out when they themselves represents the conclusion of AOE1.
2 Likes
This makes Emperor Zeno very confused
We already have a Roman civ. For scenarios, I’ll say it again and again, you can change the name of the Byzantines to Romans and make them train Centurions and Legionaries
2 Likes
Reworded.
But Byzantines represents a civ that survived for a lot more of centuries, with different dynamics (integration of new tactics, the recuperation of the use of greek, etc)
Probably the best would have been having an umbrella Roman civ that represented both WRE and ERE, because ERE called themselves Romans, and Byzantine is a later invented historical term.
And yeah, other civs would had been better (Armenians for a empty space in the map, for example). But we are getting WRE, for me it’s fine.
In my humble opinion, being able to play the Romans against the Byzantines or Italians would be awkward. They’d basically be fighting their own descendants.
6 Likes
Nothing new there, the Battle of Frigidus River is basically that (WRE vs ERE)
Frigidus is Late Antiquity Romans vs Late Antiquity Romans
Bizantine VS Romans would be like Choson against Koreans
1 Like
Yeah I know it’s a bit too far, but it’s the closest example I can find since WRE did legalize pagan worship.
The HRE is the succesor of the Carolingian Empire of Charlemagne that had the west territories of the Roman Empire (except Hispania and Britannia)…if the Roman Empire would survive to the Middle Ages,will be the HRE (but with Latin remaining as the official language)…
Yes,the HRE was more “Germanic” version of the Roman Empire,the ERE was more a “Greek” version…but yeah,it confuse have 3 versions of the “same” empire xd…the Russian Empire itself was considered a four version of the Roman Empire (because Vasili III of Moscow was a grandniece of Constantine XI)…the Ottomans do the same after the conquest of Constantinople until 1533…
Yeah the same can be apply in the other way if the devs add aoe 3 civs to aoe 2…how they could balance that with all the gunpowder units of that game?
Yes and the same time,not at all…the Aztecs of AoE 3 are similar to their counterparts of AoE 2,but with the more unique units and the “Communitary Plaza” mechanic;the Mexicans has their revolutionary mechanic in all the ages based on their inestable political post-independence history (the First Mexican Empire,the Santa Anna regime,the Mexican-American War,the Second Mexican Empire to the Porfiriate) and the Spanish are based in their archaic American Conquest-era units (the Rodeleros and their mounted Lancers)…
That’s true…when Columbus reach America,nothing change to one day to other…the Europeans continue with their day to day with commerce and Renaissance Italians politics how be the all Middle Ages period and the Precolumbian civs are centered in their expansion against the Tarascan Empire in the case of the Aztecs and the Mapuche in the case of the Incas…In the case of the French Revolution,all was fine in Europe and their colonies in America until the storm to the Bastille…after that the Montesquieu,Rosseau and Sieyes books began to be burned and prohibited in all the places for be “heretic and for have revolutionary ideas”…In USA the French Revolution was good recibed in the US governement…
1 Like