Because apparently the Tatars represent the Gokturks.
Except, they shouldn’t, because as already established, the Gokturks had great infantry, and the Tatars have terrible infantry.
1 Like
From this article:
The Gokturks, renowned for their expertise in hand-to-hand combat, never excelled in siegecraft. For this reason Gumilev attributes the taking of Tiflis to the Khazars.[17]
It’s Wikipedia, so be wary, but at least they have a source for the information.
Now, if the Khazars represented the Gokturks, it would be specifically only the Western Gokturks. Meaning, the Eastern Gokturks would still be free to be in the game. So we could have both.
1 Like
Also, they are very culturally diferent imo
Tatars have so many outsider influences (Persians and Mongols) that making them represent the tengri early east asian turks feels wrong. I would rather represent Gokturks with Cumans.
Oh we can have both of them absolutely, they are very dfierent
Couldnt this be in reference to their mounted use of spears and swords tho?
Considering the Cumans (allegedly) also represent the Khazars (which I think they do quite poorly), it would be strange to have the Gokturks (both East and West) and the Khazars represented by the same civ, when, as you stated, they’re quite different.
The great thing about having the Khazars also represent the Western Gokturks is that I could still have Tong Yabghu Khagan as the campaign subject, while the Eastern Gokturks would be free to still be added, with their own campaign.
You know, I hadn’t considered that. Usually, when I hear the term “hand-to-hand,” I think of ground fighting (and the Wikipedia image reinforces this), but I suppose there’s no reason it can’t apply to cavalry.
1 Like
Some Chinese websites state the army of Second Turkic Khaganate consist of 1/3 infantry and 2/3 cavaley. The Kul Tigin steles show that Kul Tigin, a general and a prince of the Second Turkic Khaganate, had charged (maybe with his soldiers) in foot and defeated the Chinese.
Also, some Chinese websites state that Xueyantuo Turks had used dismounted cavalry against the Tang army in 641, though they were defeated in the end. I’m not sure about this but better than nothing.
1 Like
Gokturks and khazars both deserve a civ obviously. Plenty of info you can Google right now on both. The first especially had various khanate stretching from byzantines to China, it’s honestly crazy they’re not in game yet but I guess it’s because they’re earlier than 1000.
I think both sides go too far. Of course there’s a lot to add in Africa but at the same time to say Africa is big hence should have more civs than Europe is utter nonsense. It’s not a matter of how big I am but the accounts and it’s not Eurocentrism to just admit history in Europe is better recorded, which it’s unfortunate. I doubt for example that you could have more than one DLC in South Africa (4 civs maybe?) And south Africa is pretty big but maybe I’m wrong.
I honestly don’t know, at a superficial glance I would have said that there would be more possible civs in america but I think the numbers may be pretty similar.
1 Like
I wouldmt say that Africa needs to have more civs than Europe but considering this is tge time period which aaw the “African golden age” in which Africa was very rich and at sone points had a similar-ish population to Europe I think we can give them decent ammount of civs. I would never expect it to reach the 20 European civs we have rn tho, that seems impossible. But if we were to add decently well recorded civs we should at least get:
- Kongolese
- Somalis
- Nubians
- Kanembu
- Hausa
- Songhay
- Beninese
- Yoruba
We also got some civs with fairly poor records but good enough to get a general picture and campaign such as:
- Zimbabweans
- Ugandans
- Mossi
- Swahili
- Ghana
- Fulani
And theres some nations such as the Bilala, Sao, Sudanese, Akan of which we get a very very rough understanding of them (at lesst I havent found much) in the AOE2 period but from little we get from their neighbours thwy were fairly active
And also have some decently recorded but fairly overlapping or hard to represent nations nations such as Aksumites, Angolans, Wolof, Adalites, Igbo
Im also probably forgetting about someone
5 Likes
I haven’t been able to find much info about their military history either, other than the brief mention that their Haripunjaya kingdom successfully resisted Khmer invasion attempts in the 12th century.
However I think making them a defensive elephant civ is probably quite realistic. Their UU could be the elephant skirmisher; although it sounds kind of like a general Southeast Asian unit, unique units with general names do exist in the game, such as the Armenians’ composite bowman or the Berbers’ camel archer.
1 Like
Some of the ones you mentioned I didn’t know like Uganda and Angola but the Wolof empire should definitely be in game when a Malian split happens. I could add Sosso maybe as another possible split? Just to give sundjata someone to fight…
Same for Aksum and Ethiopians, I’m personally in favour even if it would be similar to split franks and french but I don’t care, to me it makes sense. Yodit could still be the Ethiopian campaign fighting Aksum while giving Aksum a different campaign (set earlier). Yodit was actually from a Jewish tribe I don’t remember the name that could maybe have its own civ to leave the Ethiopian campaign space for later and more documented rulers.
In general I’d say if they wanna add only 2 civs at a time then just either add them to west or east Africa while if they feel like being a bit more generous they can go central or south with 3 or 4 civs. But adding only 2 civs in an isolated region like South Africa would recreate the same issue with the African kingdom DLC, namely boring mirror matches.
2 Likes
I agree with your picks, I also think these 3 are irreplaceable.
Again the reason why I wanna call them Dians (Baipu or Bo could work as well) is to encompass as many natives in that region as possible, and to evade potential bans.
In fact Tufan isn’t correct pronunciation for Chinese word 吐蕃 , the correct one is Tubo which origined from Turkish word Tubod or Tobod as Tibetan people call themself Bod which I think is better to be used in game.
It actually isn’t similar to France, Ethiopia is (and already was at the time) a big multicultural state and the ethnicity of the ruling class was not the same over the course of the Middle Ages, while in France it just evolved. The Aksumite Empire’s culture could be represented by a Tigrayan or a Tigrinya one (if I understood correctly those people were not completely distinct at the time) while the later Ethiopian Empire built by the Solomonid Dynasty would be the Habesha civ.
As for Yodit, she’s part of the Beta Israel (better known as Falasha, but it’s an exonym that’s usually seen as derogatory), which itself is part of the bigger Agaw culture group. I think the Agaw might be an interesting addition, as they could represent both Yodit’s Kingdom of Simien and the Zagwe dynasty.
A last possible split from the Ethiopian (at least the last one that I know of and would see as such, though it might also be seen as a Somali split in a way) would be the Harari, representing the Shewa, Ifat and Adal Sultanates successively.
5 Likes
Last 50 posts are all offtopic for this thread.
2 Likes
More like last 70 comments
2 Likes
I think Nubians would technically be a split from Ethiopians as well, since Ethiopians seem to somehow include Nubians in their umbrella.
Let’s say more like Goths and Spanish maybe? Successor states that aren’t 100% ethnically related.
Dians, Baipu and Bo are not really good choice in my opinion, as they are not the official names of those people in the timeline of the game. But fine I don’t want argue them.
Even they named Nuosu could still cover many native ethnics in the region.
Representing many groups under the name of one of majority group among them is a typical approach in the game, like the Goths representing barbarian Germans.
I don’t think Nuosu would get banned either.
Still too many in your list.
Nubians, Somalis and Kongolese are needed, no need to say.
I’d choose Kanuri rather than Kanembu to represent Kanem–Bornu Empire, though basically either one is okay.
Soninke should be a nice choice to cover those pre-Mali powers, particularly Ghana Empire and Sosso Empire.
Songhai, no need to say too. It’s just that, if there would be miserly slots for the region, Malians might keep covering Soninke and Songhai as an umbrella of the region.
Shona, the majority of Zimbabweans, should be a potential choice especially in the Bantu Africa the powerful representation is lacked other than Kongolese, although with poor records. But again, if it would be miserly, I still can see an umbrella civ, such like Kongolese and simply Bantu, to cover Kongolese and them, . The Shona/Zimbabweans haven’t been in any campaign, so you won’t see a situation that Kongolese act as them.
Similarly, Swahilis might be covered by Somalis due to poor records and similar tech tree, even though we know they are a famous ethnic, interact with Asians and a hot choice in the forum.
I don’t think the rest have a greater impact on their region than the eight mentioned above. The Hausa states and Ife Empire of Yoruba Ife are interesting, but probably no campaign was possible until the 14th or 15th century. The Benin may be considered part of the Yoruba, but besides they are too small, poorly documented and late. Wolof is also relatively small. All in all, the time when they really shine is often in the AOE3 timeline.
In fact this word is also beyond the timeline of the game.The branch of Yi people was called Cuan at that time and they were only a part of Yunnanese people that means this name could hardly cover the people of Nanzhao.
What’s more, people of Nuosu branch mostly leaved in Chuxiong, Kunming , Zhaotong , Liangshan while the core areas of Nanzhao were Dali, Baoshan , Chuxiong, Kunming——that means only two regions were same.
I prefer Yunanese or Yinas(in Yi language), but @KarstHillFort77 stresses that will cause the game banned.Well, at least ,word Dians is another form of word Yunanese .
Information in Wikipedia shows that the rulers of those native kingdoms like Nanzhao spoke Nuosu. I consider that the Nuosu culture may be common so they could use it to rule many peoples even though peoples had their own languages respectively.
I know “Dian” is the abbreviation of Yunnan, but “Dians” sounds not like an official or correct term to refer to the peoples there in English.
That may not be the whole picture.
I guess you might take the paragraph History - Origins in Wiki article Nanzhao as reference.But I am not sure. Excuse me for my presumptuous guessing ,if I am wrong.
Well, at least , it also mentions the dispute about ethnicity of Nanzhao in this paragraph.
“Chinese scholars tend to favour the theory that the rulers came from the aforementioned Bai or Yi groups, while some non-Chinese scholars subscribed to the theory that the Tai ethnic group was a major component, that later moved south into modern-day Thailand and Laos.”
More informations are showed in the later paragraph Language and ethnicity .Different ethnic people claim direct descent from Nanzhao, that is the pluralism fact of Nanzhao or Yunanese ethnic groups.
What’s more , in the article Yi people , it introduces as Nuosu = Yi in the first sentence. However, the next paragraph still says “The prestige variety is Nuosu” about Yi/Loloish languages.
There is also a list of “six mutually unintelligible Yi languages from various branches of the Loloish family”, in which Nuosu is only the name of North branch but not another name of Yi/Lolosih people.
Similar descriptions could be seen in the article Yi script ,either.
Simply speaking, that is why I stress Nuosu and even Yi couldn’t cover Nanzhao. In fact ,there are more references about those , but that will take me a lot of time to find them out among English documents or translate some from Chinese ones.
Besides, I also don’t want talk any more about the dispute about ethnicity of Nanzhao, that should be the job of scholars. I just tell the pluralism of Nanzhao ethnic definity.
The word Yunnan/Yunnanese(so does its Yi language version Yinas) may cover both the multiple ethnic groups of this land( as both they and people of China proper accept the word as their name in most of the ancient times) ,and the factions of this land ——Cuan clan/Cuanman(Cuan became the name of a part of Yi people who lived in the core areas of Nanzhao later and has been still used in books written in Qing Dynasty and even nowadays languages of some other ethnic minorities, as you can see word Cuan Wen which means Yi script in the first paragraph of article Yi script), Nanzhao kingdom , Dali kingdom , governorship of Qarajan, governorship of Lijiang/Mu clan (they were called as ljang by Tibetan people while ljang was used as name of Nanzhao people in Tibetan books) and so on during the game timeline.
Nuosu/North branch
Lalo/Western branch (who claim direct descent from descent from Nanzhao and live in Weishan ,the homeland of royal family of Nanzhao)
Emm…though @KarstHillFort77 think it may not cause the game banned as it has been name of ancient kingdom.I have to say it is still used as an official term which is short for Yunan.Such as——
滇 - Dian nowadays
paper money of Yunnan provide , ROC
Tien
another form of word Dian