Not entirely correct: Bulgars applies to the semi-nomadic tribes that settled during the second half of the 600s, while Bulgarians is used to denote the resulting fusion with the local population, be it of Slavic, Greek, even Thracian and other nomadic or semi-nomadic origin. While this process took centuries, one could indeed argue that the First Bulgarian Empire was Bulgar (until the adoption of Christianity), but the Second Bulgarian Empire which is featured in the Ivaylo campaign is definitely Bulgarian.
Italians into Lombards is just really wrong, the city of Milan and the Lombard territory contribute very little to civ design.
At best they could be renamed longobards, who were the people that migrated there, after the bizzantines lost control of some regions of the peninsula.
Another solution may be to call them Genoese, or with the name of other maritime republics (Venetians, Pisan, Amalfi).
Lombards and longobards are the same.
Indians: I definitely think a rework is required; but Iâd hold off until they add more civs to the sub-continent
Slavs- if the devs carve out a âWendsâ civ for the Western Slavs, then Ruthenes/Ruthenians would make sense. While theyâre still keeping Polish and Bohemian rulers in the AI name pool, not so much
Italians: can go either way, really. Lombardy was a player, yeah. But so were Venice and Genoa, they certainly didnât want to be a part of the same state after Charlemaigne beat down the Langobards. Sicilians with their Byz and North African connections (and the cavalcade of foreign dynasties- Norman, House Anjou, Barbarossaâs kid, the Aragonese) make sense as a separate unit; trying to give all of North Italy the same"political" name? not so much
Celts: I see the logic, I really do. But then youâre leaving Brittany and Spanish Galicia out to dry, and theyâre cool to have in some scenarios.
Javanese/Malay. DOnât know enough about the region to say either way, sorry.
Vikings are fine as they are, imho. If you say Norse, then theyâre automatically pigeon-holed into being pagans (in public perception) , and then what do you do with post-christianity Scandinavians? give them a new civ?
Britons. Technically, thatâs Welsh (who are Celtic-speakers. And the longbow is also Welsh). Trying to say the Welsh are English are major fightinâ words in the Isles.
ESPECIALLY since Edward Longshanks was the one who fully integrated Wales into the English kingdom by conquering it and suppressing 2 rebellions.
2 Likes
The Scots and Picts were different tribes. They eventually intermarried⊠sort of. Back when the Scots inhabited Ireland, the Picts sailed in and wanted to stay. The Scots told them to go to the big Island over there⊠Brittania. Eventually their royal families intermarried and the Scots took over what is now Scotland.
I think Celts is a perfect term. Yes they were widespread, but unless we have civs for the Galatians, Gauls, etc. Then it makes little sense to rename them Gaels. Same with the Indians.
Not really, the first refers to the people of the Duchy of Milan, the second refers to the kingdom that was created by the longobards when they invaded the north Italy and took it from bizzantines.
It was from them that other Italians states like Genoa, Pisa, Florence and even Milan were born from. So longobards is more omni-comprehensive.
It is true that lombards and longobards often referred to the same peoples, and the 2 words are seen as interchangeable, but the lombards term is used often to describe later people too. Itâs like calling the in-game franks as frenchs.