Oh well, I guess we view Byzantines differently then. My aim is to create the Byzantines as a military focus civ, since they were almost in constant warfare in its entire existence. So my Byzantines civ would have a strong and multipurpose military units, but also very expensive to field and requires a lot of micro, so expensive in fact that it would be catastrophic if you were to lose a lot of your units in a battle, so playing defensively is still needed.
The bow is to harass and soften infantry units so both Horseman (yes, I meant all stable unit in my Byzantine civ would have bows, but it won’t have Horse Archers) and Cataphracts can still engage Spearman at a distance
Horseman can do Parthian tactics, but Cataphracs can’t
Yes, you have to manually switch their stances
So that’s my partial Byzantine civ concept since I haven’t touched it’s economy aspect.
Your aqueduct concept looks interesting, wonder how the devs would make those aquaducts.
I hope they don’t call them the Byzantines. I know there is a lot of nolstalgia from AoE2, but if we follow AoE4’s naming convention, they seemingly go for whatever that people called themselves. English representing a whole bunch of history condensed into a sense of people, same with French, Mongols, Chinese, Rus and so on. There are the odd ones that instead represent a specific nation, like HRE, Ottoman or Abbasids. These are probably named that due to that long lasting presence under those flags.
I think if we follow the naming convention so far, this civilization should IMO be called the Roman Empire–but, will more likely, be called the Eastern Roman Empire. The capital had already been moved before the fall of the west, and the peoples of that region would consider themselves Roman seemingly until the end.
Of course that doesn’t represent the people there today, we wouldn’t call them Roman, but instead various different nationalities that have established themselves. So if we take the same approach as Ottoman, then “Roman Empire” really fits how it has been done so far.
“Eastern” would probably be added for the sake of helping those unfamiliar with history to distinguish between it and the entire piece (in the same way that historians use Byzantine to differ between the West and East). There is no reason to keep using the Byzantine representation, as it strips that vivid imagery of that civilization for those unfamiliar with the term. And it was not a term they themselves used. They, were indeed romans–so let’s keep it like so?
But not a big fan of the armored landsknecht. Seems abusive with little counter and it also makes the man at arm kinda pointless. And also would make the landskneckt seem weak in comparison.
I think instead their unique unit should not be based on aoe, but instead of better armored. Basically I would replace their man at arm by man at arm with a big shield, that have more melee and/or ranged armor than regular man at arm, and maybe a bit slower.
Τhe exact opposite; the historiographical term “Byzantine” was implemented in order to most accurately depict the imagery of that civilization. It literary denotes the state which is centered around the city that was made its capital. Just like saying “Roman” Empire, for the ancient Roman Empire.
In general,
they were not ethnically, nor culturally, related to the ruling class of the ancient Roman Empire, which was Latin. They were only the political-institutional continuation of it.
I don’t want to see them in game, as the ancient Romans of Augustus, who traveled in spacetime and landed in the east, in middle ages… because of some ancient Rome “fanboism”. Medieval, New Rome “fanboism” is the appropriate “fanboism”. I prefer to see them as they truly were, a culturally medieval Greek, Orthodox Christian, Empire (multi-ethnic state), as the 134 bibliographical references of this article richly show:
Contents of the article:
Society (the Poor, Peasantry, Soldiers, Teachers, Women, Entrepreneurs, Clergy)
Culture (Language, Religion)
Identity (Self-perception, Official discourse, Regional identity, Revival of Hellenism, Western perception, Eastern perception)
Nice effort by the original poster, to create the interesting infographic of the civ, tho. Lots of beloved historic elements for the game.
I’m sorry, but your post comes across as unnecessarily condescending. For one, I’m not coming from a place of being a “fanboy” but just following the same logic the game has been using for the other names.
All of these things STILL describe the Romans. The shift of capitals into Constantinople and the legalization of Christianity IS Roman history. The Eastern part lasted for more than a thousand years in that state, and it developed dramatically so. I’m not asking for them to portray Roman legions from the republic, nor ask them to portray their early imperial days. But, to portray them as they were, much like you are suggesting.
That portrayal is still ROMAN however, and this is an important thing that needs to be taught. Calling them the Byzantines for a vague sense of separation is the type of mistake that need not be repeated in 2023. Giving them the “Eastern” description is the better way to do so rather than ascribe to them a meaningless word.
I will take a point off your statement of “they were not ethnically, nor culturally, related to the ruling class”, this is a common thing throughout nations, kingdoms and empires. The question at hand is what that people called themselves, and the answer to that is well known.
I will take your argument and turn it back to you. Why is it that you so distinctively want to safeguard the word Byzantine? You mentioned it in relation to differences between the Eastern Romans and the Western ones, and for sure there were differences. This however did not prevent them from BEING Romans, and considering themselves so, that denotation matters. Yet, you’re expressing that it is vital for their background to be covered up and instead tout the horns of a mystical new culture alltogether–despite it following a very clear lineage. If anything in this sense, you would be more of a “fanboy”, do you not think so?
I sense some sort of attempt at reclaimation at play. To tout that the history is Greek in nature and therefore should override the Roman background entirely. And mind you, I am entirely in agreement that the Eastern Romans developed much differently and encompassed a very different set of values as people than the Western ones. This ultimately does not change the simple fact that they still called themselves Romans, and that is the point.
It makes little sense for someone to start protesting to Relic that the HRE should be renamed Teutonic Germans, because they weren’t Romans. That is what you are trying at here.
AoE4 has made it clear that they use a very different naming scheme to AoE2, and if they are to follow that same pattern as they did with HRE, Franks, English and so on, this civilization would either be called Roman Empire or the Eastern Romans.
“Eastern Roman Empire” is just another historiographical name.
“Empire of the Romans” (Medieval Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων) is the exact translation in English language, of how the empire was known to its inhabitants.
I am aware, the Eastern part of my suggestion is to create the very same separation that “Byzantine” does, but without forsaking the very name of their empire. I find it to be the better compromise.
Great ideas. I would love to see them expand in the Christianity aspect of the empire. Being Greek Orthodox myself Ik the faith has deep history. Would be a cool idea to see them have monasteries instead of churches, the more relics/monks that are garrisoned in them the more faith that generates over time. As the game continues you have benchmarks you hit as your faith accumulates unlock powerful buffs.
I like this alright, but I don’t think flame throwers should replace handguns. Those will be very different units, and especially since they’re about walls and turtling, this would make flamethrowers kind of a nerf instead of an asset. Especially since they and varangian guard seem to heavily overlap as gold heavy close range splash damage.
