Throwing axeman (the Franks didn’t have a monopoly on the idea of throwing axes), cataphracts (widely used over all the Middle East and steppes, it means “fully-armoured (cavalry)”), longbowmen (first used by the Welsh, later adopted by the French & Burgundians, and more broadly it’s anyone using a bow over a certain size)… easy to find UUs that were not actually unique to one civ.
1 Like
The current Slavs should be remaned to Ruthenians (medieval name for inhabitants of the Kievan Rus), and a civ added for Serbo-Croats as currently Bulgarians are the best placeholder for them (also a southern slavic people).
But given how Slavs are spread out, it would make little sense to change all slavic civs to give them regional units, it would be similar to doing the same to all Romance civs (Franks Burgundians Spanish Portuguese Italians Sicilians and we can probably throw in the Romans as well) because their languages are related.
As they stand, ingame Slavs cover medieval Russians well, over time new civs (Bulgarians Poles & Bohemians) covered over slavic peoples, it would be easier to fill the last big gaps still missing than reworking heavily civs that don’t need that.
Medieval name given to them by the catholics/ latin people (who they shared little to no history with).
The byzantines/greeks who had much more common interactions called the land Ρωσία (Rousia) and the people Ρως (Rus). Self reference is also rus.
The default units like men-at-arms, pikemen, knights, paladin etc are already all regional to western europe. So really not an issue.
Yes. It would match other exonyms like “Byzantines” (who is also anachronistic) or “Saracens”.
Sure other languages can localise the names as they see fit.
Considering the Bengalis cover Kalingas, Assamese and to an an extent Sinhalese, I would not necessarily call them the smallest. It might depend on if you count by population, area covered or number of civs you could get from a split (in which case I think the Gurjara would actually be the biggest but only because of a high number of relatively insignificant civs compared to what we could get from splitting the other three).
Also I think there are still a few possible civs not covered by any of the current 4, such as Kashmiris and Biharis (who would in turn be an umbrella covering the Gupta Empire and some parts of Nepal in particular).
I had an idea to rework the Boyar into a significantly weaker unit that can’t stand up to the Knight line but they buff the castles and town center they’re garrisoned in and give them aura effect.
This is because of some 19th century phrenologist with weird ######## who thought the Georgian skull in his skull collection was the prettiest.
He created the topic, but we can still reply to each other and discuss points he brought up. Besides, is it a lifeban or a temporary ban?
Ingame sinhaleese are under the dravidians as one AI leader name is a sinhaleese king.
I know, and they appear as Dravidian in Rajendra’s campaign, but trully they’re not Dravidian at all and they should be a separate civ.
And no one can say “Muh we have enough Indian civs” because they’re from Sri Lanka!
(ok, truth be told I know it won’t stop the anti South Asian split crowd)
3 Likes
But the appropriate exonym used by respective contemporaries, greeks, was Ρως. Which is the origin of the term Россия.
There are greek ancient records mentioning a “will of Byzantia”, referring to the government of Constantinople. It was an unofficial name.
Called Σαρακηνή (Sarakene) by greeks though, referring to middle eastern tribes.
1 Like
It’s a life ban. Any new accounts he creates will also be banned if discovered.
“Byzantines” is a historiographical term, not an exonym (and it couldn’t be an exonym either, since it’s a native term).
2 Likes
They called themselves “Romans”. Yes, the name Byzantium dates back to ancient Greece but the name Byzantine Empire wouldn’t be used before the 16th century.
1 Like