Turkic Split

[MatM1996]

@yuksely1992

They were founded 300 years before the end of the game’s timeline?

Yes, the Ottoman empire was created in 1299, round it to 1300, hence it is in AoE 4…

@HuntTreesMineDocksB1

The current game currently uses オスマン帝国 Ottoman Empire (Japanese example, but there are others) for the current civilization, so it’s already represented, yet it is only a tiny facet of the people’s that have broken off from the First Turkic Khanganate, which spanned from Korea to Bulgaria, so as one would imagine without much effort: they were all very different from each other.

Bulgars (proto-Bulgarians) Kipchaks and Cumans are represented more or less but countless others like Khazars, Uyghur, Pechenegs, Tiele, Kyrgysz, that are omitted. Some validly, due to lack of credible information and it’s fine to abandon those, but others still hold real promise with little downside past some people will struggling to try to identify them as “Chinese” or “Turkic” in a modern sense when they are simultaneously in-between linguistically and neither culturally.

Yes, we are missing pre-Ottoman Turks (current Turks)…

@smiki5five

Gokturks for East Asian Turks, Turcomans for Central Asian Turks, current Turks for Anatolian Turks?

Yes, it’s a good option…

@Akleoni

what about Tatars and Cumans?

They would be Turks from Central and North Asia and Eastern Europe, but yes… ultimately there is a lack of Turks from East Asia (Göktürks, Uyghurs, Kyrgyz, Shatuo)…

1. Göktürks (552-744) (defeated by the Uyghurs)

2. Uyghurs (744-1036) (defeated by the Khitanguts xd)

3. Kyrgyz (840-925) (defeated by the Khitans)

4. Shatuo (923-951) (they were Turks but “Chinese” since they formed three Chinese dynasties in the 10th century, so discounted)

@yuksely1992

You propose keeping the Turks, Tatars, and Cumans civs as they are, but adding Gokturks and Khazars?

@HuntTreesMineDocksB1

Uyghurs, Bashkirs, Khazars, Anatolian Turks and Kyrgyz are still all around today, but there were plenty of others with more military prominence that ended up scattered to the wind.

Yes, that would be the idea… Gokturks, Uyghurs, Kyrgyz and Khazars…

@HuntTreesMineDocksB1

I think that the Goturk Khanganate is a very huge domain, and not really great as a singular civ. It would actually encompass modern day Bulgaria and the proto-Bulgars were part of their empire. And yes, I don’t really think the current civs have to be changed at all for this except maybe giving Bulgarians a tiny eco bonus.

There is a lot of history involving the groups that split off from the First Khanganate and much of it is more closely fitting the timeline of most other civs in AOE2. This isn’t to say the First Khanganate is outside the timeline either though.

Yes, it was also a huge empire in the 6th century (it had its maximum in 576 CE)…

@Tyranno13

If we’re looking to add something genuinely missing in this area, then the Hephthalites are the best choice.

Yes, the issue is that the Hephthalites were Huns, but it could be a successor civ of the Huns that we know…

[Tyranno13]

@MatM1996

Yes, the issue is that the Hephthalites were Huns, but it could be a successor civ of the Huns that we know…

The Hephthalites are not Huns.

[MatM1996]

Yes, you’re right…They were Iranian Huns, more similar with the Indians…

[PeakHornet46539]

Khazars, Gokturks and Hephthalites I guess are the only ones with the profile. Uyghurs are the other but there is a problem. Gokturks could represent them.

[Tyranno13]

@MatM1996

more similar with the Indians…

No. Wrong again.

Can we stop being confident with being wrong in here please?

[Akleoni]

Aren’t the Tatars already supposed to cover as an umbrella the Countries which are to the north of Iran and Afghanistan?

[smiki5five]

They were among the many steppe peoples called “Huns” throughout the history, so in some sense it’s correct to call them such. They aren’t Huns in the narrower sense, that is the Huns of the Hunnic Empire stretched from Eastern Europe to Caucasus.

Origin of the Huns

[yuksely1992]

@MatM1996

Yes, we are missing pre-Ottoman Turks (current Turks)…

We don’t know why the Turks civ does not cover the pre-Seljuk era as well in the game.

The only reason I see is that it would mess their architecture otherwise.

[Tyranno13]

@Akleoni

Aren’t the Tatars already supposed to cover as an umbrella the Countries which are to the north of Iran and Afghanistan?

Tatars are more to cover various later Turko-Mongolic groups.

They were used for the Hunas once in the campaigns, but so were the Mongols and Huns. So clearly the devs don’t have a clear civ that’s supposed to fill in for them.

@smiki5five

They were among the many steppe peoples called “Huns” throughout the history, so in some sense it’s correct to call them such.

People also called Mongols and Cumans Tatars. Byzantines, Germans, Turks and Rus called themselves “Roman” at points. People use names for all sorts of reasons, and I generally trust more modern analysis of people groups.

[DynasticPlanet5]

Is there a possible civ for Russified Turkic or steppe peoples that sorta Eurofied? An ideal horse archer and infantry type civ which we have not yet

[smiki5five]

@Tyranno13

People also called Mongols and Cumans Tatars. Byzantines, Germans, Turks and Rus called themselves “Roman” at points. People use names for all sorts of reasons, and I generally trust more modern analysis of people groups.

So what? By this logic, both Iranian Huns and Attila’s Huns were only larpers and only the Xiongnu count as “real Huns”.

I’m not saying Hephthalites are covered by the existing Hun civ as that one is obviously Attila-based, but you can’t just say “they were not real Huns”. Guess what, the majority of modern Turkey’s inhabitants don’t descend from the original Gokturks either, but try telling that to a Turk nationalist.

[DynasticPlanet5]

You guys fight over historical accuracy. I fight because I want more civs with lancer and camel and possibly one who extends south enough into India to ALSO have elephant. Something a meme about how we aren’t the same but I’ll flip the script and say I wish we were because combining fun tech tree permutations is still a viable goal yet unfulfilled

[Tyranno13]

@smiki5five

So what? By this logic, both Iranian Huns and Attila’s Huns were only larpers and only the Xiongnu count as “real Huns”.

I’m not saying Hephthalites are covered by the existing Hun civ as that one is obviously Attila-based, but you can’t just say “they were not real Huns”. Guess what, the majority of modern Turkey’s inhabitants don’t descend from the original Gokturks either, but try telling that to a Turk nationalist.

My point is, if we are calling Attila’s Huns Huns, then by default the Hunas are not. As they are unrelated.

[DynasticPlanet5]

since nobody wants to answer me about which civ would be the more Euro or even Caucified steppes other than Vandals I ask which would be the most Indified? Dare I say some civ close enough to Gujaraland to have Shiv Riders?

Maybe Ghaznavid?

[Tyranno13]

@DynasticPlanet5

since nobody wants to answer me about which civ would be the more Euro or even Caucified steppes other than Vandals I ask which would be the most Indified?

Vandals is possibly it. But more likely just an infantry and cavalry civ.

@DynasticPlanet5

Dare I say some civ close enough to Gujaraland to have Shiv Riders?

Not likely. Infantry around western India is absolutely awful. The terrain kills infantry off, badly. Firstly it’s a ton of flat plains and deserts, easy for infantry to get picked off by cavalry. Secondly the heat makes being heavy infantry near impossible. Even Gujarati heavily armoured cavalry had certain measures to reduce attrition from the enviroment.

[DynasticPlanet5]

I really meant Alans for Cuacufied Steppe peoples.

And it looks like Ghaznavid did take into Gurj lands since wiki lists them as a follow up ruler of the area. A civ with camel, steppe lance, shiv and elephants… sounds unique

[smiki5five]

@DynasticPlanet5

Is there a possible civ for Russified Turkic or steppe peoples that sorta Eurofied? An ideal horse archer and infantry type civ which we have not yet

If the devs are serious about splitting Vikings into separate Nordic nation, so could the Slavs be divided into Ruthenians, Novgorodians, and Muscovites. Muscovy arose on the corpse of the Golden Horde and incorporated various steppe tactics.

@Tyranno13

My point is, if we are calling Attila’s Huns Huns, then by default the Hunas are not. As they are unrelated.

In AoE2 terms, that’s correct (just as Tatars and Cumans aren’t Turks if AoE2 Turks are Ottoman-based). In historical terms, that’s more muddied.

@DynasticPlanet5

I ask which would be the most Indified? Dare I say some civ close enough to Gujaraland to have Shiv Riders?

Maybe Ghaznavid?

Ghaznavid is a dynasty name.

No idea about Shrivamsha (Google shows only AoE2 results) but civs like Sogdians and Afghans could be ones that use both Steppe Lancers and elephant units.

[Tyranno13]

@DynasticPlanet5

I really meant Alans for Cuacufied Steppe peoples.

I’d still point to them as just cavalry. Armenians (despite what the game shows) and Georgians were cavalry focused, despite living in mountainous regions.

@smiki5five

In AoE2 terms, that’s correct (just as Tatars and Cumans aren’t Turks if AoE2 Turks are Ottoman-based). In historical terms, that’s more muddied.

Yeah I’m trying to talk within AoE2’s limits mostly.

Also Tatars and Cumans are not Turks even by historical standpoints, they are Turkic, within a broader scope. Although, new evidence points to Cumans having a slightly different origin than we initially thought.

[Quasibrodo]

@smiki5five

current Turks for Anatolian Turks?

Endlessly fascinating how in a thread called “turkic split” someone can suggest not renaming Turks and no one is remotely confused.

[Akleoni]

Precisely “Turkic“ not “Turk“, different terms encompassing different scopes. “turks” is clearly associated to current country Turkey history and Anatolia, while “Turkic” is a broader term to cover everything between China to Hungary/Romania/Rusia to Iran. Turks are included inside Turkic.