Turks i wish it was. My eyes are looking for the TURKS race the most. It’s sure to add color to the game.
3 Likes
Portuguese is the 7th most spoken language in the planet. It’s a huge market.
So no, being represented by Spain is indeed unacceptable.
1 Like
lol are people really advocating for representing Portugal through Spain once again?
Unbelievable. The Iberian Union is also a horrible idea (and anachronistic, considering the time period covered).
I think, more objectively, the priority civs should include Turks, Byzantines, Mamluks, perhaps Ethiopians. That’d be pretty nice.
Personally, though, it’d be awesome seeing both Portugal and Spain included. Separately. To make it even better, include the Umayyads or Cordoba!
2 Likes
Arent the mameluks represented by the abbassid dinasty?
Yep, no reason not to. Would make a great expansion.
With all the toxicity surrounding which civ should or should not be in the game in basically every Age game, I start to think that AOE5 would be better of focusing on the “era of history” (literally nothing) and features human faction 1, human faction 2, human faction 3 with cultural neutral architecture sets.
Is that what you want guys?
And please stop with the Ottoman empire spam. It’s getting obnoxious.
PS: I’m sometimes an offender I admit, but wouldn’t we be all better off if we wouldn’t?
I believe they encompassed several centuries, most notably in Egypt. There might be some overlap with the Abbassids (not sure on that, someone more knowledgeable may correct us), but I think they’re relevant because of their interactions with pretty much all civs I mentioned in the previous post! And civs already included in the game
1 Like
I liked the list, but I confess that I would love to see an 11th position, with Portugal as an independent nation.
Portugal was extremely important in the 14th and 15th centuries, in a way taking the crusading ideals to the far east, where it waged many wars against the Mamluks (which led to the conquest of Egypt by the Ottomans); alongside the Kingdom of Ethiopia (Presto Jhon); against the Ottomans (Diu’s battles are fantastic); against several Indian kingdoms (which resulted in a consolidation of a commercial hegemony that lasted for decades); even conquering very important territories like Malacca.
Even the downfall of the Portuguese Empire was heroic, with the terrible defeat suffered in the Battle of Alcácer-Quibir (Battle of the Three Kings) where the cream of the Portuguese oligarchy was destroyed.
What makes these achievements even more relevant is the fact that Portugal was a small kingdom with a small population, and yet it faced up against many of the giants of its time on an equal footing.
Besides, Portugal was the one who ended the commercial rule of the Muslims, which allowed these kingdoms to have so much power, starting the Muslim decadence that the world saw in the following centuries - something that changed the role world.
2 Likes
@rakowozz The Mamluk Sultanate, definitely has the economic, population, military caliber (4 victories against Mongols in 5 battles) to be in the game. Even much more than some vanilla civs.
Cairo was #2-3 medieval metropolis in the world, only losing to Constantinople/ Istanbul and Beijing. But I thought they stated Abbasids “cover” the Mamluks? Pretty absurd though.
1 Like
Unfortunately, per the in-game text, the Abbasid Dynasty civilization spans the years 750-1517 CE and is based on the Abbasid Caliphate and the Mamluk Sultanate.
Because of this unless they redesign Abbasids, there will be no Mamluks
2 Likes
You got it bruh. Turks for the fighting power, Africa for the cool!
AoE4 can still be saved.
2 Likes
That would be a dream roster! Pure history. Mamluks should never have been excluded as a civ. If lategame Spain and Portugal both in, earlygame Cordoba should in as well. Add Mali for its extreme exoticism, uniqueness and appeal, not to mention peak pop size.
3 Likes
Unfortunately, as brubie99 stated, it’s bad news for the Mamluks.
I’m not the most qualified person in regards to their History, so I don’t know to what extent a proper “Mamluk” identity existed – I mean how they saw themselves as a civilization throughout the centuries. Is the overlap enough to justify the Abbasids representing the entire Mamluk Sultanate?
Especially given how many sources from the Portuguese, Ottoman, French etc. cite the Mamluks as an entity.
I’m not really sure to what extent Mamluks are related to the Abbasids myself although they are one of the successor states. Unfortunately, they are in the game under another name right now per Relic.
Abbasids barely existed as an independent state already in the 1100s, they were mostly just “spiritual” leaders and the Seldjuks respected them enough to continue existing. When the Mongols swept the Seldjuks in the mid 1200s, the abbasids collapsed swiftly after.
Really their hay days were before year 1000, their decline started already back then and they weren’t much more than figureheads for all the dynasties coming and going in the middle east. For instance, Abbasids have 0 to do with the crusades (that is fighting them), other dynasties like Ayyubids, Zengids etc. did all the fighting.
It’s weird to have something that barely existed as an entity let alone an empire, represent an actual Empire, that defeated the crusaders for good and gave a decent showing against the Ottomans. I’m not even sure why Abbasids are representing [sunni] arabs in this game, it’s wholly inappropriate if historical relevance (and fidelity) is concerned. They were an empire for like 200 years and merely dynastical, religious figureheads for the remainder of their existence.
1 Like
Spain is at the top for me, Vikings second, Ottomans third. I think the rest of the list is good, though I don’t care for the order of the rest.
1 Like
Abbasids were more of a cultural, religious, tolerance and soft power umbrella, but militarily unprepared and incompetent. Remember the massive genocide of great Baghdad (the first million-population metropolis), the burning of all libraries by the Mongols.
The Mamluk Sultanate was a much greater power, they humiliated the Mongols 4 out of 5 battles fought. They even dismembered the Mongol commanders and challenged them to try to invade again. The contrast couldn’t be starker.
Cairo, overall an even greater metropolis than Baghdad in the timeframe, was absolutely untouched until it fell to the Ottoman Empire, centuries after Mongols already disappeared from history.
Having the Abbasids represent a separate, much stronger major world power Mamluks (while little kingdom English and minor force Rus are vanilla civs) is simply grotesque.
Welcome back @Vinifrss! again.
2 Likes
I concur with the top 5. The last 5 are fuzzier, could be different in civs/ civ order. Aztecs could be 7, even 6. Minor factions like Majapahit, Norse/Vikings, Khmer, Vietnam, Bulgarians, Lithuania could also be a possibility near the end.
Byzantine, Ottoman, Perse got all almost the same territory, capital and are too seprerate the one from the other in time. If they did it in AoE2 doesn’t mean they have to make anachronism here as well.
Well not that the anachronism is really an issue but empries that succeeded one to the other. Playable in the same time. doesn’t seem really pertinent. If you have to choose one between those three i’ll understand but not all in together.
I agree about japan, really popular choice and can still fit in. if we start at a periode pre-samurai giving Bushi instead of MaA in Feudal Age. Research tech Age III for Katanas and upgrade the Bushi to Samurai…it’ll still seem legit isn’t it ? ^^
And don’t let them have crossbow, the samurai Archer will be here instead and get high damage no bonus on armor. And the Katana WILL get that bonus on armor ! Even if it’s not accurate it’s still fun and will please the weebs lol
Lord. In. The. Heavens.
If you don’t know history, it’s ok. You can still give your valuable contribution to… Starcraft.