Berbers live all over North Africa, not just on Morocco
They didn’t live in Sudan and most of Egypt.
I know for a fact there are Berbers in Egypt
Regardless, my point is they don’t live exclusively in Morocco.
Did I say they live exclusively in Morocco?
You realise this game spans like 5000 years of history right? If anything they should add more civs not take some away. To me the Phoenicians are the ancient sea-faring people who settled all along the Mediterranean and set up trading outposts and cities along the coasts including the city of Carthage. The Carthaginians on the other hand are the empire that sprang out of Carthage and then spread to Europe and was contemporary to the Romans.
Then add Zhou, Qin, Wei, Han, Zhao, Yan, Qi, Chu and Han too?
Ok then travel back in time to 1997 and tell them that they will release an Expansion in 1998 that adds the Macedonians and Carthaginians and that they should change those bonuses, descriptions and AI names.
It is understandable to criticise the decision they made.
But it has been 25 years, there is no way they will completely replace multiple civilisations now.
Age of Empires 1 part is more than 10000 years. First age, stone age starts from paleolithic.
I get your point on Carthaginians and Macedonians. You’re tecnically right. They belonged to the same ethnolinguistic group with Phoenicians and Greeks respectively. Still, both qualify pretty well as independent civilizations. Those two are fine.
Palmyrians, on the other hand, are the worst and most arbitrary civ addition, maybe in the whole franchise. What’s the point of adding a roman warring state that existed for barely a couple of decades?
It’s not even THAT famous.
Yes, I’d like to see them renamed to any other middle eastern civilization. Nabateans seems perfect. Only the the war elephants are kind of unfit.
@mattmatt107 there isn’t any modern independent state with the name Macedonia, it’s North Macedonia, a south slavic country. And what kind of civilization an ancient entity was, doesn’t have to do with the borders of modern states.
@DoctBaghi Ancient Macedonians were native Greek speakers, as we know by every archeological evidence and sources. Their royal family, the Argeads, were Dorian Greeks descended from Argos, Peloponnese, southern Greece, as Herodotus tells us, who was famous ancient Greek historian @CanineCrown7153 @RhythmicBoar556 @Ceilort @CinnamonIce6056 @Julix3748 :
Regarding the topic, of course it doesn’t make sense to rename, and change to something else those civs, because they do represent different centers of power. The Greeks are umbrella term for several city states of Bronze and Iron age (Mycenae, Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Miletus, Syracuse and lots other city states). While Macedonians, another umbrella term, represent the successor (diadochi in Greek) kingdoms of Alexander’s empire; Kingdom of Macedon, Seleucid Empire, Ptolemaic Empire, and few others, of Iron age solely:
That was break up actually. To break them up to the aforementioned entities, yes you can, it makes sense. It can be content for a future DLC tho.
It’s indeed a little stupid to have Greeks and Macedonians as different factions in game, since Macedonians were Greeks. It’s like having Italians and Genoese; you would have to break up Italians to have Genoese, because Genoese were Italians.
No they weren’t, they were their neighbours, the Greeks even considered them “barbarians”
They acquired Greek characteristics because of their proximity, but it’s like saying Babylonians and Assyrians are just Sumerians because they were close, shared some of the culture and were their successors
Same thing with Carthaginians, they aren’t even close to the historical Phoenicia from the Levant, they broke away and outlasted their predecessors
Palmyrans I agree are a pretty weird inclusion, but as many said, they do represent the Roman provinces of Asia
Then make a mod to change those names for yourself.
90% of people want it how it is now.
If AoE1 was like AoE2 we would have 10 threads about splitting the Greeks into Sparta, Athens, Thebes, etc.
Also renaming those civilisations would prevent those civilisations being added to the game later on.
Many people want civilisations like the Numidians.
We don’t know about Minoans whether they were culturally different to the subsequent Mycenaean Greeks of the mainland, because we don’t know what language they spoke. In historiography they are considered pre-Greeks.
Anthropologically are confirmed related.
Well, first of all I would take herodotus work with a grain of salt…
Second, by that logic we should have like half the civilizations in the game, as almost all civilizations originated from the same region of the world…
Of course the macedonians had ancestors in common with greece, as much as cartaginians started as phoenicians colonist, but they evolved into a complex and different culture ad state.
Discerning which cultures or states can be made into a civ is always a line in the sand, but there are good reasons to discern the macedoninas from greeks and the cartaginians from phenicians, as they became completely different civs in different time periods, even if they had a common origin.
Then if someone from the outside can’t see this because to their eyes they are the same, well then there isn’t a reason to add other cultures from other regions of the world no? In the end they are all the same to me… the ones who use this argument as a provocation to add more civs to the east asia for example should just focus on suggesting way to add them, not ranting about nonsense…
I’m not against to have Greeks, Macedonians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians as different civs in-game, it’s more than fine. Because each had their own state.
I just corrected your mention about the language Macedonians spoke:
We do have Italians and sicilians…
But I guess as always that if you see them with a modern prospettive, especially if you look at them from outside europe, they don’t make sense as you are picturing the modern Italians, so it’s always relative and depends on which paradigm you are referring to.
Yeah calling it language was a ####### ### they did had a different dialect.
NOTE: I can’t stand this auto correct anymore…
Despite that Sicilians represent the Norman Dynasty of Sicily and not an Italian one for sure, It probably would have been better to not have both Italians and Sicilians as equal entities, like we do have now. “Italians” concept is wide, like “Greeks”, and nowdays civs in-game are more of independent states that might have another that shares the same ethnicity, historically.
@Akos we also head to a route nowdays, that favors the break-up of the umbrella civs like Greeks. We don’t have to merge Macedonians in Greeks, we can have Greeks split.
Breaking up aoe civilizations is the easiest thing to do all they need is a building set change.