Western Rome started in 395 and in my book you could safely push back to 312 with Stallone’s ancestor embracing christianity.
(Check Constantine’s statues, the ressemblance is uncanny)
But the game doesn’t have the exact same limits depending on the regions. 1600 european warfare was deeply changed compared to 1500 (pike & shot, star forts…) so in Europe it stops earlier. So you do not have to start in 220 in Europe. But even if you do, it’s not a big game-changer (I explained earlier it wouldn’t be that different)
For me it’s a textbook placeholder use. Were I to make a campaign about Rome or the Sassanids at the time, maybe I’d put one scenario bullying the Parthians and done, let’s start 400 years of war between the 2 empires + having other troubles at other borders.
To be honest, Alaric should really be part of the “AoE1 Migration Expansion Pack”. But, it seems that AoE1 efforts have been abandoned.
Actually, can we have an AoE game focused on the Classical Age (between 400 BC to 400 AD)?
The thing is if we do not set a strict timeline, then we can get funny things like the 18th century Luba (Central African civ) fighting 10th century French (Franks), because the tactics and technologies were quite similar.
i really like the Parthians as a choice and the general idea of including more early civs. The 3 new ones are deeply uninteresting in all criteria imo. Parthians are perfect in this context.
Before the industrial age everything goes, Dan Carlin made a podcast of having Alexander and his phalanxes at Hastings instead of William (IIRC Alexander wins).
Overall a drift of 1 century on the limits isn’t that dramatic. But for 18th century this would definitely be AOE3 territory, historical balance be damned (well for AOE3… press F). So while it ends earlier in Europe, some european civs still interact with the ROTW up to 1600 in small numbers, spanish & portuguese expeditions notably. You just don’t see the full might of a 1600 european army.
Parthians are too early, they’d have their place more in AOE1. If I were to picks early civs I’d rather pick some that were significant during the Invasions Period like the Vandals Alans Saxons… rather than a civ on its last legs and finished off after a few years, and that’s if you keep the start date strictly the same everywhere (which is already not an absolute rule). Start the game 5 years later in the Classical World and… no more Parthians at all.
They ruled over Persia so let’s just use Persians for them. Maybe with Armenians as a second player for the Arsacid Dynasty.
The periods classification that we see in school, Antiquity / Middle Ages / Modern Era (starting with the Renaissance), is very insufficient in my opinion. I’d rather split it that way :
Invention of writing - around 1100 ACN : Bronze Age, ending with the BA Collapse
1100 ACN - around 200 AD : Classical Antiquity : new realms forming after the BAC, ending with Rome at its peak, in an hegemonic position. But just starting to decline.
200 AD - 600 AD : Late Antiquity, gradual fall of Rome with its decentralisation in the West into barbarian kingdoms and unending struggle in the East against Persia. Ends with the rise of Islam
With Islam the game is considerably changed and we’re now in the Middle Ages.
AOE1 fits the Bronze Age and Classical Antiquity. Chronicles are at that time.
AOE2 is the Late Antiquity then the Middle Ages.
By not acknowledging this I just missed the occasion to joke on him in the Julian campaign I’m making.
Mr Stallone must have some Illyrian ancestors.
Too late I fear and of the many subkingdoms they left I don’t think there’s much interesting to say or many info to rely on.
That said maybe if you add them as a kind of “late Parthian” thing (the Chosroid dynasty lived on until 800 AD in Iberia/Georgia but it was only a dynasty indeed) it could be but I’d put the clausole to not represent early Parthians (before 220, so already kinda pointless if the game starts exactly there) in the same way aoe2 Romans are not supposed to represent the principate.
We’re speaking about late antiquity/migration era indeed, not classical antiquity.
400 AD is very far from what I’d call “classical antiquity”. If you were alive then you would see pagans being murdered or arrested so not very “classical” or ancient at all in my book. Tables had already turned by the 5th century imo.
Just imagine Constantine using modified Stallone’s one-liners in a campaign
“What matters isn’t how hard the Empire can hit barbarians, what matters is how hard the Empire can get hit by barbarians and keep going ! That’s how saving civilisation is done !”
“It’s not my war my Augustus. The Germans drew first blood”
“I am… THE LAW !” - facing Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge
Even in the old CD version : the Master of the Templars also uses some SW lines, and in Agincourt many lines are taken straight from Shakespeare’s Henry V.
