That doesnt give him the right to think of HINDUstan as MUSLIM all of a sudden when it is even today majority HINDU and always has been that way
Ignorance is no excuse
It could even be offensive if you call HINDUstan as representing “mainly” indian muslims
The name literally means “Land of the HINDUS” in persian
The name literally means “Land of the HINDUS” in persian
Calling HINDUstan as muslim can be seen as offensive
And if you played Babur campaign, you see that Babur spills Afghan wine and declares himself culturally Indian, mughals were cultually Indian, not Persian or Arabic.
Please get your facts right before making such statements about India.
Also I have to correct you again. Age Of Empire do encompasses invasions.
I’m sorry, what exactly are you correcting me about? Yes, Invasion is a part of an empire. No one disagrees with that. However the empire also has a population and economic and cultural component. Since the game is about more than just invasions, the the population is being represented by means of the Temple.
Because Vikings conquered and settled in Northern england (Norwich etc) are those people called Vikings? Or are they British?
Please apply same courtesy for HINDUstanis, BTW If you’re wondering even the land that is Afghanistan and Pakistan today was majority buddhist and hindu back then in medieval ages.
Just because some muslim from transoxiana comes and conqueres North India doesnt mean the civilization is suddenly Islamic.
Jeez, give me a break. I know that. I’m trying to point out other things out. I was just trying to think what devs had in mind while representing civs. I’m the one who first call it out why it is in the first place.
Various Indian(modern day Pakistan included) Muslims even in past before division did call themselves as Hindustani. From what I see Hindustanis is shown more of an ethnic identity. Four civs of India DLC are representing as various religion. Like,
For that, slight architecture change may work out since AOE4 Delhi Sultanate representing Mosque and other things. Which is far more Islamic focused faction than what we have in AOE2. I don’t know what devs really have in mind. My best guess is that’s what they did. Maybe tried to reintroduce Delhi Sultanate theme in AOE2 via Hindustani. I mean in Mughal vs Delhi Sultanate campaign, they are both represented Hindustanis. Auxilary force is shown as Gurjaras. Opponents in the last campaign was shown as Gurjaras as well.
But the civilization is hindu.
The game history files say it.
Just because the leader name is muslim doesn’t mean that the CIVILIZATION is muslim,
it is rather CLEARLY hindu, just like the Gurjaras are.
Leader names will obviously be muslim because the dynasties were muslim. But the CIVILIZATION is clearly hindu not muslim.
Uhh . . . 
. . . I guess . . . Close this thread.
Basically the Indian subcontinent has always ABSORBED non-native cultures quite well for centuries, rather than repelling them.
Despite having a lot of native cultures, and also! have created New ones, from natives ones, as well as, from the non-native ones. All in all . . . . .
The Indian Sub-continent has its own various architecture forms that were/are pre-dominant! and the foreign influences has only got absorbed into it , or have generated new ones! but never could replaced it.
That’s immaterial. The Hindustani faction is referring to the Islamic factions historically - the factions originating in Afghanistan/Turkestan. The Hindu/Buddhist factions are represented by the other three DLC factions.
Take your crazy drum beating elsewhere please. I see you only appeared on this forum a few weeks ago.
How is this relevant? You can’t just disregard someone’s view because of when they joined the forum, or anything like that. Also, I’m with him, I don’t really care about the historical reasons, architecture sets are purely graphical, and therefore, I want to maximize the coolest looking sets, and South Asian is one of those. Middle Eastern is one of the worst looking in my opinion, so I don’t want that. Also, if you bring in the civ count argument, South Asia needs more, because other wise it only has three, whereas Middle East already has at least 4.
What is “cool” is subjective…I’m not disagreeing on the point per se about sharing the sets but that is a moot point when you have the East Asian/East Europe sets applied to all and sundry civs.
Dravidians also represents the cultural split between north and south India. It’s not only about religion but also ethnicity and language. Dravidians are one of the main language family on the Indian subcontinent, the southern one.
To answer the topic: I think indian architecture suits well the Hindustanis (although I find their castle ugly). Middle Eastern and, at a lesser extent, central Asian architectures have nothing to do with it.
That being said, I would love a Persian rework: central Asian architecture set and some novelty to make them more appealing since the indians civs got so many elephants and unique stuffs. And I would also give the Persians a campaign (like Mayans, Celts, Magyars, Vikings, Slavs, Turks, Chinese, Japanese).
Not here to agree or disagree but to say its probably a redundant argument as developers seem to have no interest in architecture changes anyway.
There were big threads on how Persia should have central asian ‘blue dome’ architecture and how Bohemians should use central european not the eastern european.
There were good points both from a historical point and visual variety (Only two civs in the game use the Central Asia set and Eastern European is already heavily represented at six civs)
Sadly there was no response either way and modding it requires a data mod.
Doesn’t the Hindu in Hindustan refer to the Indus valley/river rather than the people/religion? Sorry if I’m wrong and misinformed, I actually want to know more about it. I even heard the word Hidustan predated the use of Hindu as a religious denomination.
And also because @PeakHornet46539 simply refuses to acknowledge or chooses not to read the history of northern India. All the people even in Mughal empire were Hindus, including the officials of the Mughals.
He also refuses to actually look at the in-game history either which clearly states that Hindustanis was a muslim elite ruling over a vast majority hindu population and culture, and even BABUR HIMSELF spilled Afghan wine and declared himself culturally INDIAN. (Did you even play the BABUR campaign before making such ridiculous distorted demands, which are likely OFFENSIVE to natives of India???)
@PeakHornet46539 So stop spreading misinformation about Medieval India.
You don’t know what you’re getting yourself into. Hindus do not like being called Muslims.
It refers to the people which were Hindus, and Hindu religion came centuries before Islamic and Christain faith. It is older than Buddhism as well.
Good that you are asking politely, unlike some members here who just declare HINDUstan as Muslim for some reason, just because the individual rulers were muslims.
The definition above is a geographical, not religious one. The Persians since ancient times were referring to the “country of the Hindus”, in a geographical sense (people beyond the Sindhu River) and not referring to the religion of the people (Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Parsis, even by then millions of Muslims were living there then in the 16th century). But the time the Persians are making reference to “Hindustan” as above, the area they were referring to was already largely under various Islamic dynasties including Mughals for centuries. During the Delhi Sultanate, when Ibn Battuta visited India, he called it Hindustan and Sultan Muhammad Bin Tughlaq the Sultan of Hindustan (the land).
For completeness, attached below is a map of the Persian empire with the satrapies (they did not call them Stans in Old Persian) but you can see the Persian names for regions below.
On the contrary, please read your history and not just the little cutscenes in the game. 
Babur had little good to say of India except that it had a lot of gold and silver and lots of workers to build his gardens and palaces…
Yeah, I know that the religion itself is older than all of those, what I meant was that I heard the word itself had been applied more recently and Hindu people had a different name in Ancient and Medieval times. Yet again, I could be completely misinformed on this point.
No matter what chart of middle east you throw at me, Hindustan is the land of the Hindus. Having a muslim ruler doesn’t change that fact.
And lol to “Babur had little good to say of India”
What about all this Babur seems to have said according to this London book you are purporting? (which I dont know if it is to be trusted)
“The country of Hindustan is extensive, full of men and full of produce. On the east, south and even on the west, it ends at its great enclosing ocean (muhit-daryasigah). On the north it has mountains which connect with those of Hindukush, Kafiristan and Kashmir. North-west of it lie Kabul, Ghazni and Qandahar. Delhi is held to be the capital of the whole of Hindustan.”
‘In Hindustan, hamlets and villages, towns indeed, are depopulated and set up in a moment! If the people of a large town, one inhabited for years even, flee from it they do it in such a way that not a sign or trace of them remains in a day or a day and a half. On the other hand, if they fix their eyes on a place in which to settle, they need not dig water-courses or construct dams because their crops are all rain-grown, and as the population of Hindustan is unlimited, it swarms in. They make a tank or dig a well; they need not build houses or set up walls with khus-khus grass (Amdropogon muricatum), wood is unlimited, huts are made and straightway there is a village or a town!
These are heaps of praises if anything.
Of-course he points out some negative things, but look at what stuff he is actually saying here.
HE PRAISED HINDUstan, land of the Hindus (please read through)
It looks like you haven’t read the first half of your own source
