Replace Macedonians, Carthagians and Palmyrans

The Phoenicians = Carthaginians statement feels to me exactly like Spain = Mexico or UK = USA.

Carthaginians are descendents of Phoenicians settlers in a separate and disjointed territory than that of the Phoenicians.

Both civilizations are distinct in culture, relations, military, etc

They have coexisted for hundreds of years, I’m talking different peoples with different territories on different ends of the Mediterranean.

As for the Macedonians = Greeks argument, I think all of my previous points still hold, except that there is insufficient historical proof to confirm or reject a broader Greek identity that encompasses both peoples.


Yes, but it is what it is…

That’s true… in AoE 1 the Phoenicians had several leaders who would later become Carthaginians in Rise of Rome…

Yeah sure, they just spoke a different language, had a different type of state, a different army composition and economy…

But sure they seem the same from a modern point of view so why reduce the number of civilizations in the game…

Again, just some centuries of different between the apex of both powers and a completely different region of the mediterranean, why not blend all civs together, in the end we all evolved from apes…


Modern Macedonians are Slavs, ancient Macedonians were Greek.

1 Like

Bro, Carthaginians might be descendants of Phoenicians, but they created a separate identity. There were other Phoenician colonies in the entire Mediterranean that retained connection with mainland Phoenicia, but Carthage became independent.
And what if you have a campaign about the Punic wars, who will fight the Romans, the Phoenicians? Makes no sense.
About Macedonians, I’m unsure whether they are considered entirely Greek or somehow different, but in any case Alexander was so Great (pun not intended) that they deserve their own focus.
Same case with Minoans, not as great as Macedonians, but still a separate identity with loose connections with mainland Greece.

Only somehow agree with Palmyra, but the civ has been in the game for 25 years and has become symbolic for a lame civ. If anything the game lacks civilizations, so removing any makes 0 sense. Besides, you have to remove Queen Zenobia and Zenobia’s tower, which is not cool. And it represents a short lived empire that rose to power and then fell quickly, fits perfectly into the Empires narrative.

And yet you still did “Great” with a capital letter…

Yes, it’s a lame joke, just ignore it focus on the topic.

1 Like

Minoans were very different from the later mainland Greeks that it’s not even an issue.

Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect. Macedonians worshipped the same god. Greece was split to many poleis, just like ancient China, but they were greatly similar in terms of everything.

Did you even read my suggestion?

Carthaginians were literally Phoenicians. Of course they will be Phoenicians.

Arabs also created different identity with Islam
Magyars also created different identity with settling down and adopting Christianity
Warring States of China also changed their identity etc.
but it doesn’t justify giving them seperate civs in their respective aoe games.

Cultures greatly evolve, so did Phoenicians, but that doesn’t mean at every stage they need a different civ.

“Elephant units cost -25%” is clealry based on Carthage also half of Phoenician AI names are Carthaginian. In Trajan’s campaign it is stated Alexander was a Greek. Greek civilization history says: “Greek civilization would reach its peak under Alexander the Great”, which clearly implies that Macedonians were supposed to be covered by the Greeks, rightfully.

Thats why they are not part of this discussion.

1 Like

Cionnamonice brought them up.

Christianity and Islam are not countries.

and? (20 characters)

The comparison is irrelevant. Besides, how do you compare time periods of 2000 years difference?

1 Like

It is not irrelevant. The identity of Magyars, Arabs, Chinese and many others greatly evolved, but they don’t have more civs, unlike Phoenicians. The same way aoe1 compares 500AD with 1500BC.

Phoenicians aren’t the same as Carthaginians. Different location, different armies, different reasons for fame. They were both traders, but only Carthage is remembered as one of the great military powers of Antiquity, and it’s because of the Punic Wars. It really wouldn’t be doing them justice to have them represented by Phoenicians.

Half of the nediterranean worshipped greek gods or similar pantheons, and they were a monarchy with nobles that lived off mostly of agricultural and sheparding, very different from the greek poleis.

And their army, a greek hoplite was nothing like a macedonian phalangite, and macedonian have cavalry, somethings that the greek poleis never had.

And don’t even get me started on the whole hellenistic kingdoms formed after the death of alexander…

In fact we don’t have a civ like sparta or athens, we don’t even have a distinction between the miceneans and classical greece.

1 Like

That’s not entirely true. Cavalry did exist for the Greek Poleis’, but it was sorely underdeveloped, and only used by some of the nobility, totally unlike Macedonian Companion Cavalry.

1 Like

Gameplay-wise, there are some massive differences between the civs. The Greeks are the greek city-states (Athens Sparta you know the list…) while the Macedonians are Macedon (considered half-barbarian by the Greeks) and some successor states like the Seleucids.


:grin::grin::grin: like Sparta I want. It will not fair for my civil

Yes of course the greeks had and used cavalry, but it was never something that really developed, not like the macedoninas for sure.