The problem is Huskarls have nothing to do with Goths. Just rename the unit.
1 Like
This isn’t the first or the last topic I’ve seen asking specifically for this format:
- Vlachs (Wallachians + Moldavians + Transylvanians + Dracula’s Campaign)
- Serbs (The Serbian Empire)
- Croats (Croats + Bosniaks, it used to own Bosina)
- Rus or Ruthenians as a reworked Slavs civ.
Maybe Venice/Albania as well. Venice was always connected to this region.
And given that in Total War Medieval 2’s modding scene, Total War Tasardoms is the most popular mod at the time, that specifically about Eastern Europe + Balkans show that there’s untapped potential.
EDIT: I took the time to read @Nebular905647’s discussion, and he is right. I bet Nebular is Eastern European but the other 2 users are not Eastern European. The problem is, they try to see the history of Eastern Europe through Western European lens.
There’s a funny saying “for an American the world begins in California and ends in New York”, implying how self-centered they are. The Anglo-Saxon/Western world can be the same in that regard. We in the WEIRD world (white educated industrialized rich democratic) learn history through the Anglo-Saxon lens. And in the Anglo-Saxon lens Eastern Europe is not as important.
Like for example @Nebular905647’s comment that the generals WERE the rulers. In Western Europe, the rulers would stay in the castle most of the time and send generals from there. In Eastern Europe, they weren’t rich & geographically safe enough to afford that luxury. France could fight England for 100 years without having the threats of the Mongols and then the Ottomans at the door.
What I’m saying is, maybe try to understand the circumstances & culture of a region, to more appropriate understand the facts. Otherwise is just Eastern European events with Western European mindset added on top of them, which is not very historically accurate.
2 Likes
Wont this be the case for croats as well?they used to be a hungarian vassal.
Thanks for the kind mention. You know, I think it’s normal when people from another country, and especially from another continent, do not know each other’s history well and especially do not feel it. About 10 years ago, for example, I didn’t know about the Confederate States; we didn’t study that in school. Well, that is, I knew there was a civil war in America, but I didn’t know that it came to the full positioning of two separate Americas. Also, before DLC about India, I didn’t think about the fact that there were different peoples in India. Again, I knew there were several countries, but I myself would not have thought of the need to represent them as different civilizations at the level of mechanics. If you had asked me a couple of years ago, I would have said: “Let’s make several campaigns, but there will be one same ingame civ.” But then I saw 4 different ones - and I just liked it.
So I understand their ignorance. They heard about Kievan Rus and think this was the natural state of this people for the entire period of AoE 2. In fact, it was neither the original nor the final form, it lasted 300 years as a result of conquest and broke up without any glory. At the same time, Rus’ was at different times under the occupation of Mongols and Lithuanians; and Ukraine - by Poles, Galicia, Crimean Khanate and Ottomans. Both countries have retained their uniqueness, language, and architecture even in such conditions. This is just a thing to see and understand, but for some reason some people don’t want to. Yes, Russians and Ukrainians were connected for a long time, but this connection never became natural over the centuries, both peoples did not like each other and continued to abstract themselves. We all need to understand that if 2-3 countries were ruled by one king at some time, this does not mean that they became one country.
1 Like
I agree that it’s normal, but disagree that it’s normal to be arrogant about it.
I met a guy on this forum who was like “Wallachia, wtf? it only had ‘independence’ during the time of Vlad the Impaler and that’s it, wasn’t even independent for 50 years, why should a country so insignificant be in the game?”. First of all what he said was not true, second of all the same person who was ignorant about Wallachia and arrogant about it, wanted an African DLC and was offended that “we don’t know African history”. Oh, the double standards.
I too understand their ignorance, being ignorant is not a choice, but being arrogant is.
There was even a discussion whether Romania is slavic or not slavic. Yes and no. It’s basically this:
6 Likes
Compare apples to oranges. Don’t compare apple to orange tree.
1 Like
Not knowing European history is obviously much more frownable than not knowing an insignificant continent.
1 Like
Except you are not talking about European history but a small insignificant part of Europe only.
1 Like
It’s still part of European history.
1 Like
Then African History is still part of World.
Least significant part of the world.
1 Like
You should really check the definition of country and continent.
Why? because it offends you? Sorry Karen, I already know the definition whether it offends you or not.
1 Like
Nah because it makes no sense. When you are comparing a tree to a fruit.
You should really check the history of Europe and of Africa.
Again saying Europe even though earlier you referred to Romania only. LoL changing topics.
You should really learn geography.
Ok what exactly I need to learn in it?
In which continent is romania located.
So you can use interchangeably Romania and Europe? Bro country and continent are not the same.