Split the Saracens?

Saracens is a name given by the european to refer to all these muslim civilizations, dinasties and caliphates. However, these were different cultures and societies. For example, the Berbers have been already split apart.

My proposal is to divide the saracens and get a new group of civilizations (which might lead to a new DLC), just as they did with the Indians. Those civs would be:

  • Umayyad
  • Abbasids
  • Fatimids
  • Kurds*

*Technically, the kurds have a different origin and were later converted to islam (wololo). They become relevant in the saracen world when Saladin (a kurd sultan) founded the Ayyubid dynasty.

Below there are some suggestions for these new civilizations, as well as some campaign appereances. Feel free to comment, discuss or modify these characteristics.

Infantry and monks

Unique unit: Cavarly with scimitar (name tbd)
Castle unique tech: Barid (outposts give extra speed to nearby land military)
Imperial unique tech: Diwans (villagers generate gold)

  • Farmers collect X% extra food
  • Can build Amsar (building for gathering resources that shoot arrows and can garrison foot units) (works as a mill/mining camp/lumber camp + tower) (it would not replace regular buildings, would be an extra option)
  • Transport Ships have double HP and +5 carry capacity. (current saracen feature)
  • Faster conversion (start at the third conversion interval instead of the fourth)
  • Heresy and Herbal Medicine are free
    Team bonus: Outposts cost no stone and have +2 LOS

Some tech tree characteristics:

  • Full infantry
  • No heavy cav archer, no arbalester, no hand canoneer
  • No paladin, no heavy camel (but regular camel)
  • Full siege (but no Bombard Cannon)
  • Dromon
  • Full monastery techs

Some campaign appearances: El Cid, Tours battle, other


Unique unit: Mamluk (the current saracen UU)
Castle unique tech: Zealotry: Gives camel units +20 HP. (current saracen feature)
Imperial unique tech: Futuwwa: Military buildings work X% faster (would strenghten the civ bonus)

  • The commodity trading fee is 5%.
  • Camel units +10 HP. (current saracen feature)
  • Can build field hospitals (similar to those in AoE III)
  • Cavarly units have +X/Y armor
  • Military buildings work X% faster
    Team bonus: Markets cost 75 wood. (current saracen feature)

Some tech tree characteristics:

  • Full infantry
  • Heavy cavarly archer (with all its related upgrades)
  • Paladins and heavy camels
  • Siege: catapults and rams
  • Have architecture

Some campaign appearances: TBD, other

Naval and archers

Unique unit: Tabardariyya (two-handed axeman); Shini (Galley)
Castle unique tech: Skirmishers train faster
Imperial unique tech: Furusiyya (cavarly attacks X% faster)

  • Archer units have +X LOS
  • University available in feudal age with some techs (ballistics, heated shot, murder holes, treadmill crane)
  • Galleys are cheaper
  • Galleys attack 25% faster. (current saracen feature)
  • Towers have extra bonus against ships
    Team bonus: Foot archers have +3 attack against standard buildings. (current saracen feature)

Some tech tree characteristics:

  • Heavy infantry
  • Good cavarly
  • Full university (but bombard towers)
  • No gunpowder
  • Drommon
  • Full monastery

Some campaign appearances: Saladin, other


Unique unit: Faris (heavy cavarly with interchaengable bow and Shamshir (sword), just like the Bengali Ratha)
Castle unique tech: Cavarly +X/Y armor
Imperial unique tech: Counterweights: Trebuchets and Mangonel-line +15% attack. (current saracen feature)

  • Free loom
  • Build tents instead of houses (cheaper, faster to build, weaker, 5 pop)
  • Cavarly and camels moves faster
  • Cavarly archer have less frame delay
  • Siege weapons have extra bonus against stone defenses
    Team bonus: Spearman line have +X/Y armor

Some tech tree characteristics:

  • Full Spearman with their techs
  • Full cavarly archers with their techs
  • Paladins and heavy camels

Some campaign appearances: Saladin, Barbarossa, other

Bonus civ: Kanem
On my recent post I proposed the Kanem. Check out the discussion.


AOE II civs are not dynasties. So only Kurds is a possibility among them.


Umayyad, Abbasids, Fatimids are just the “Saracens” Civ at different periods of time


You can rename them to Syrians, Iraqi, Egyptians etc if you prefer.

So are Romans, byzantines, Italians etc


I would think a better Saracen “Split” would be along the lines of Kurds, Bedouins, Syrians, Mashriqi, Hejazi, and Egyptians imo. Possibly Yemeni and/or Omani too.

Essentially, think less of dynasties and more of tribes/major islamic cultures.


What language did they speak?

Afaik, they were never independent during AOE II time frame.

1 Like

It’s a workaround to make the civs op theorised to have ethnic names instead of dynastic since that’s how aoe2 usually name civs. Syrians are Umayyads since they were mostly based around Damascus, Iraqi are Abbasids for the same reason, Egyptians for ayubbids etc.

If you have a civi called egyptians who will it represent the copt egypt before arab invasion or ayubbid egypt or the mamluke sultanate?

Byzantines represent the Medieval Greeks who were seperate from the Italians. I don’t like the addition of Romans and think it’s contradictory, but they atleast specifically represent the Roman group of people, the equivalent to your idea would be if the Constantinian, Valentianiac and Theodosian dynasties were all seperate civs.


Teutons bonus

Ethiopians team bonus

I wholeheartedly support splitting the Saracens into the proposed factions. Honestly the term “Saracen” is even borderline offensive and really shouldn’t be in the game anymore. Even the campaigns could benefit from having the different Arab factions. Like that episode where Saladin has to fight the Egyptians who are in fact supposed to be the Fatimids.

But they’re not, Abbasids were actually a sort of Persian reconquesta (I’m simplifying here) and had their origins in the east and took over the Umayyads and then coexisted at the same time as the Fatamids and controlled different territories. So their origins are not the same and their existence did overlap in time.

Exactly. If we can have 3 civs representing Romans at different times no reason to not split the Arab civilisation.

1 Like

Mmm from a purely logical pov you seem to be right but at the same time something tells me that constantinian dynasty is hard to compare to something like a Muslim dynasty.
Maybe you’re right that doing it by dynasties is not correct but I still think Saracens should be split one way or another. Their identity right now to me seems very chaotic, many different bonuses not always coherent with each other…
Would you really tell me it’s ok to represent all middle East from Egypt to Syria, from Iraq to the Arabian peninsula etc and all the time period between Muhammad and the ottoman conquest with just one civ called Saracens?

Yeah I realized that. But my point is AOE II civs are people, not just their ruler. And now those people didn’t have any independent kingdom/empire. So you will just represent the ruler dynasties in the name of a people which I personally think doesn’t fit in AOE II.

1 Like

It’s not three civs representing Romans (byz are greeks and Italians was not a real civ back then ahah) but yes.

1 Like

Umayyads spoke Arabic, Abbasids spoke Persian and Arabic, Fatamids spoke a different dialect of Arabic.

Fine, then how about splitting them based on geography like I proposed in my previous reply?