Western Rome and Eastern Rome are more than different halves of a state, they have different cultures, histories and languages, and militaries too. Sicilians and Italians also have vastly different periods, cultures, and customs. All of these lasted for centuries and left lasting marks, and are not just one posse of a warlord which would one day form an ephemeral state.
And in all cases, they lasted for centuries. If you want to split China in a meaningful way, the renames are the way to do it. If one were so inclined, there could be a split alongside time, yes; a Han civilization alongside Song, Tang, etc.
Shu, Wu and Wei are all warlords of the Han. They had their languages, culture, and military careers all part of the Han dynasty, and Shu even officialy claimed to still be the Han Empire. They are not civilizations, they are armies.
A more apt comparision would be with say, a short lived West Roman state, like say the Realm of Stygiarius.
Not around the time of Constantine the great who put the Roman capital into Byzantine. The culture was also one, with the church schism occuring only in the 11th century. The population thought of themselves as universally roman, Justinian being a native latin speakerâŠ
So do you support removing the Romans and Sicilians or not?
(Just pointing out the inconsistent civ choices didnât start with 3K)
Having Shu, Wu, Wei and Chinese is not the same as having Romans and Byzantines. Itâs more akin to having Lancaster, York and Tudor plus the Britons as separate âcivilizationsâ. They are factions in a civil war, not cultures nor civilizations.
An empire broke apart in two and was ruled by two Emperors who still saw themselves as supremes over the original one with otherwise identical or very similar culture, language, religion and tradition. This justifies two civs, even better four.
An empire broke apart in three and was ruled by three Emperors who still saw themselves as supremes over the original one with otherwise identical or very similar culture, language, religion and tradition. This doesnât justify three civs, let alone four.
Whereâs the logic in that?
more akin to having Lancaster, York and Tudor plus the Britons as separate âcivilizationsâ
Sounds like Burgundians vs Armagnacs (Franks) vs Plantagenets (Britons) to me.
This is a bad comparison. The Roman empire didnât break apart, it was divided peacefully into multiple parts because of administrative reasons. This happened multiple times, with the last time being when emperor Theodosius split the empire between his two sons, who ruled separate realms since 395 AD. They did not see themselves as the âoriginalâ one nor did they compete to conquer the other half of the empire. Meanwhile the Han dynastyâs territory was carved up between multiple competing warlords, and only after 220 did the remaining Three Kingdoms start larping as the true and rightful rulers of China. Very different situation from Romeâs.
Not quite, the Western half of Rome was predominantly Latin in culture, with many Celtic and Germanic elements, while the Eastern empire was predominantly Greek. So much so that in the VII century the official State language in the East changed from Latin to Greek, and in later centuries, the Byzantines referred to westerners generically as âLatinsâ, which meant they saw âLatinâ as something different from themselves, despite still calling themselves âRomanâ. Not to mention, Byzantium lasted for a thousand years, and Eastern Rome in 1100 AD is obviously much different from Western Rome in 400 AD, you canât possibly say theyâre the exact same. And on the matter of religion, they were also different, with the early Eastern empire facing multiple heresies, not recognized by the church of Constantinople.
The âlogicâ is that Byzantium lasted about a thousand years since the dissolution of the Western Roman empire in 476, and itâs last rump state fell around 1475. It changed, evolved and adapted multiple times along that timespan, thus justifying the difference between Romans and Byzantines. Meanwhile, Shu, Wei and Wu lasted a couple decades (Shu only had two rulers!), and eventually reunited. They never developed different cultures or religions, and were all ruled by Han Chinese people, and itâs kings saw themselves as the one true emperor of China, wanting to eliminate all their rivals. This didnât happen between East and West Rome.
There is no hair-splitting or faulty logic here, youâre just making a bad comparison, making it seem that these situations are both the same when theyâre actually not. The Three Kingdoms period would be more akin to the Crisis of the Third Century, where Rome was split between 3 usurpers, which all had pretty much no substantial difference between each other, lasted very little time, and were reunited under one State anyway.
Another bad comparison. Those are ethnic groups that lasted centuries and were ruled by various dynasties throughout the Middle Ages. The French were ruled by Capets, Armagnacs, Carolingians, etc but they are still French. There is no âWei peopleâ, only a Wei state.
The reason I mentioned those English dynasties, is because itâs a similar situation to the wars of Three Kingdoms. You have the houses of Lancaster, York and Tudor, who are all English, with English leaders, all vying for control over England. There was a united England before, then civil war split the country, and when the war ended there was still one England. Much like China with Three Kingdoms. The Plantagenets may have wanted French land but they were English monarchs ruling over England and the English people, fielding armies full of Englishmen to fight against the French monarchs, who ruled over France and the French, and recruited Frenchmen.
Wei, Wu and Shu were all Chinese. We already have a Chinese civilization in the game coexisting with them. It would be unthinkable to have Lancaster, York and Tudor PLUS Britons, all in the game as if they were not the same ethnic group.
Whether they fight or not is irrelevant to the question if theyâre separate civs, besides, the two halves actually did fight, most famously being Justinian, or 1204.
the Byzantines referred to westerners generically as âLatinsâ,
You mean franks. Justinian was a native latin speaker himselfâŠ
Eastern Rome in 1100 AD is obviously much different from Western Rome in 400 AD
Now do eastern Rome and western Rome both in 400 AD
The âlogicâ is that Byzantium lasted about a thousand years since the dissolution of the Western Roman empire in 476, and itâs last rump state fell around 1475.
Hence they should be ingame representing the medieval Roman empire. But then why were Romans added again? So that you can build the colloseum wonder in imp (in reality conpleted around 80 AD) while complaining about chinese anachronism? Come onâŠ
Another bad comparison. Those are ethnic groups that lasted centuries and were ruled by various dynasties throughout the Middle Ages. The French were ruled by Capets, Armagnacs, Carolingians, etc but they are still French. There is no âWei peopleâ, only a Wei state.
Good thing Iâm playing age of empires, not age of nations. But how are Burgundians a separate (from Franks) civilization? How are medieval Italians a separate civ from both halves of the roman empire aswell as from their own Italian island, and not a logical continuation of them? How are Poles not Slavs? How are Achamedians not Persians? Etc etc
Achaemenids were designed for Chroniclesâ story.
Also Achaemenids are wildly different from the in-game Persians. Different military structure, different culture and about seven centuries time difference between them.
The Burgundians in-game donât just represent Burgundy, but the Low-Countries. Now Belgium, Luxemburg and the Netherlands.
Donât go off a civâs name to exactly a modern equivalent. Cumania isnât going to pop up on a map.
Those are not fights between Romans and Byzantines.
Not in Justinianâs time, but the Byzantines did call them âLatinsâ in the later Middle Ages, did you read what I wrote?
Now do Cao Wei and Shu Han in 220 AD. The point is that the game has Romans from 400 and Romans from 1100 AD as different factions, but you canât do the same for Three Kingdoms, as they were all contemporary. As in, exclusively contemporary with each other, very different from East and West Rome. Itâs not a hard concept to grasp.
Itâs not anachronistic if the Colosseum existed in the Middle Ages. And considering it still stands today, Iâm pretty sure it was standing back then too. Speaking of anachronisms⊠Why does Wei have a wonder that was built centuries after the Wei kingdom fell? Is that not anachronistic?
Age of âEmpiresâ is just the name of the franchise because it sounds cool, itâs not a hard-rule. I mean the game launched with Celts, and those never had an empire.
Burgundians represent the break-away Duchy of Burgundy, but also the Flemish peoples, and the Burgundian Germanic tribes. Italians represent the Lombards and the States that sprang up after their conquest of Italy, and the Lombards were different from the Romans. Following your logic, we shouldnât have Franks, Spanish, Portuguese and Britons because they were under Romeâs control in the past.
Slavs are Eastern Slavs, Poles are Western Slavs. This means they are not the same because one group represents the Eastern Slavs and the other the Western Slavs, AKA they are different AKA the Polish are not Eastern Slavic but rather Western Slavic, while the Russians are not Western Slavic, but indeed, Eastern Slavic, which is a different group from the Western Slavs. And although they are both Slavic, one is Western and the other Eastern, thus there are differences.
I donât have a problem with eastern Rome being in the game. I donât even mind a different western civ alongside it, to represent an earlier timeframe of the same empire. Same as 3K being meant to represent an earlier timeframe compared to Chinese ingameâŠ
Different.game.mode.
Itâs literally the same game, even the same data file. Both heroes in scenario editor etc. textbook definition of a dlc
Also Achaemenids are wildly different from the in-game Persians. Different military structure, different culture and about seven centuries time difference between them.
And China saw no change whatsoever between 3K and eg Ming?
The Burgundians in-game donât just represent Burgundy, but the Low-Countries. Now Belgium, Luxemburg and the Netherlands.
Okay but during the middle ages, how were Burgundians and Franks a different civilization if they spoke different dialects of same language, were both catholics, Part of the same country and even iirc relatives (amongst royals)?
Aztecs vs Spanish - thatâs a clash of two distinct civs.
Byzantine (Constantinople) became the capital of the Roman empire in 330 AD and thus the Byzantines (citizens of capital Byzantia) representing the whole empire from that moment on.
Where exactly is the timeframe that justifies a Roman civ ingame afterwards? If your wonder is a building from 80 AD that is? Not a hard concept to grasp either
Itâs not anachronistic if the Colosseum existed
Now youâre just dishonest. Unless somehow you play a gamemode where you start in imp with a wonder constructed already while your enemies are in dark ageâŠ
While they were one empire at one stage, they are not the same people.
AoE2 civs are drawn on cultural/ethnic lines, not empires.
Itâs why we have Hindustanis, not Mughals. Dravidians, not Cholas. Bengalis, not Palas. Saracens, not Abbasids. etc etc
Romans represent the continuation of the people from Central Italy, which are distinct from the majority Greek Byzantines and Lombard Italian City-States.
To let us muck around with them and use them.
These civs are only playable in a separate game mode however.
Much less. Units like the Traction Trebuchet, Hei Guang Cavalry, Lou Chuan all carry on into the Tang and Song periods with little changes. With the only major change to the Chinese military being the introduction of gunpowder, and the lack of good quality horses during the Song causing a decline in cavalry.
The current Chinese civ even has a unit made popular during the Three Kingdoms period as their UU.
The religion and relations are uhâŠcommon shared features within Western Europe as a whole.
As for language though, the Burgundians also spoke Dutch as well as French. The Franks also saw the Burgundians as vassals, not part of the Franks proper.
I can appreciate that dissecting and understanding the differences between large branches of a group can be difficult, from the animal kingdom to people. But this is a very simplistic way of viewing things.
Ingame i canât choose branches.
Itâs not Aoe3 or Civ7.
I have hard boolean logic.
And the precedent for civs not based around ethnicity has been set, aswell as precedents based on âanachronismâ - from 80 AD to 1714 AD). Thatâs the hard timeframe the devs have chosen (chronicles aside if you wish) - and we as a community must live with it or move on.
@SchwarzeGarde49 the game has always added ethnicities / cultures rather than states. Roman people outlived the western empire, Burgundians outlived their original Germanic kingdoms etc.
The 3k break that logic (I personally have little problems with the timeframe).
Try to read these and youâll see what I mean:
Also the one you refer to a coliseum is not, itâs just a generic ampitheatre and I agree itâs not a good choice for a late Roman wonder.