Yes of course your previous answers, you knows them.
I just answered you factually, what I think about your content, nothing more.
This sentence is of course not insulting. But you seem to be confusing your insulting message with this non insulting message.
Tell me which one. My previous comment was an unrelated comment about a Roman campaign.
You literally assumed I reported your comments. I wouldn’t call this factual.
I haven’t attacked you, I haven’t even mentioned you.
So, please, can you stop attaking me? I said I want nothing to do with your argument
I do not want to start another discussion like the previous again. Some of your replies above were insulting, you know that too.
Read your answers and you will know, which ones I mean. I do not must to quote them.
Yes I assume it.
But what I know, what is factual, that a few of your statements were insulting, I just correctly responded to that. If you can not accept it, is that your issue not mine.
You attacked me in a few sentences and supported the other side.
Of course you mentioned me and several times. You keep quoting me now.
You should stop answering and justifying yourself incorrectly, then it will stop automatically.
Apparently you want to be involved otherwise you would not push it any further.
This is probably because the second part is simply more popular than the third part.
However, I think that the third part will also get more DLCs since the franchise is still popular.
Absolutely wrong. These are historical facts, that the Antiquity is in the time period from 250 to 750 AD. And it is a historical fact, that the Dark Ages range from 500 to 750 AD and thus overlaps with the Late Antiquity. Only after that, the early Middle Ages starts. But the whole thing relates primarily to Europe.
Again very wrong. In this area of history, there is no endless variety but few facts. In your eyes all historians are few people, which is completely wrong, they are many in number. And you have to categorize in order to get order and truth into the matter. With your statement you condemn all school and history books. How can you spout out such nonsense? It is incredible, what kind of people move in this forum.
The realities are concrete states, again you condemn all school and history books. History is experience and they is written down.
If you do not know exactly, what is going on in history, you should not make big speeches about it, as you have done on several occasions on this theme. Contemporary history is written in periodic times, there are no bigger obscurities.
Not that one have to necessarily agree with it but Wikipedia states that
“Ancient history covers all continents inhabited by humans in the period 3000 BC – AD 500.”
Can I ask you out of curiosity from which historian you take the notion that antiquity is from 200 AD to 700 just so I can comprehend the frame you use to assess this?
The 4th century must be covered by Age of Empires 2.
However the entire Iron Age match to the Last age of Age of Empires 1.
The entries on Wikipedia do not always correspond to the historical facts.
Of course yes. It is a scientist, who has a good website about Eurasian cultures, that is, where I got this informations about the time period about the Antiquity. He has also a university degree and is internationally known and in demand in his field.
Sounds interesting, how is he called? Can I research something about him on internet?
It is yes.
I can give you this informations through the imgame mail. But wait a little, I am still annoyed about the exchange of blows last night and I need more silence from now on.
Re Late Antiquity I found a wiki article:
Something general to keep in mind here is that eras and ages don’t have fixed dates but rather a fluent transition so imo it’s just fine to say that antiquity ended with the fall of Rome and the subsequent beginning of the Dark Ages.
Btw: AoE 1’s Yamato campaign already overlaps with some of AoE 2’s campaigns as it spans from 210 BC to 740 AD.
If I could reverse time, I’d tell them to not make those fictional campaigns
I like the historical campaigns in other titles better, but I have a guess for why we ended up with this situation.
I’m pretty sure they chose to go for fictional campaigns because, given the colonial focus of the game on release, doing historical campaigns would mostly mean having one sided fights with Native Americans.
And I’m pretty sure they chose to go for a colonial focus because it would easily justify starting every game with a small civilian population and pretty much no infrastructure despite being at a time when it wouldn’t make sense for European nations. I’d like to say nobody would have cared, but I’ve been on those forums for too long to actually believe it xD
Forgot there was some weird Assassin’s Creed like cult in that campaign. UGH!
I remember Sandy said that originally the game wasn’t going to be an Age game but Ensemble got pressured into making it so
Yes, ######## would be fine…
Lady Six Sky also… she is a Mayan leader in Civ 6…
Yes, Mehmed II will be fine…
Or Flavius Aetius…so you face Attila…
Yes, it is very early considering that AoE 1 (except Yamato campaign) ends in 373…I would leave the fourth century for AoE 1 and yes the fifth century onwards for AoE 2 … it is as if you wanted AoE 2 to reach until 1700 because Ming China and Feudal Tokugawa Japan or AoE 3 to reach the Second World War because machines guns…
I too, Belisarius would be better…
Yes, but Yamato starts in antiquity and reaches the eighth century as a reference to AoE 2…
Me too… but I’m busy porting Morgan’s Blood campaign…
No, because Eastern Rome, at least as we know it, did not exist at that time…
That’s right…
Trebuchets predate the Third Crusade, there are writings that say that Saladin used them in Hattin (1187)… There is little to no consensus as to where and when the counterweight trebuchet, which has been described as the “most powerful weapon of the Middle Ages”,[56] was first developed.[57] The earliest known description and illustration of a counterweight trebuchet comes from a commentary on the conquests of Saladin by Mardi ibn Ali al-Tarsusi in 1187.[58][59] However cases for the existence of both European and Muslim counterweight trebuchets prior to 1187 have been made. In 1090, Khalaf ibn Mula’ib threw out a man from the citadel in Salamiya with a machine and in the early 12th century, Muslim siege engines were able to breach crusader fortifications. David Nicolle argues that these events could have only been possible with the use of counterweight trebuchets. Chevedden argues that counterweight trebuchets appeared prior to 1187 in Europe based on what might have been counterweight trebuchets in earlier sources. The 12th-century Byzantine historian Niketas Choniates may have been referring to a counterweight trebuchet when he described one equipped with a windlass, which is only useful to counterweight machines, at the siege of Zevgminon in 1165.[66] However the source for this was written in the 1180s to 1190s and Niketas may have been placing the engine of his own time anachronistically into the past.[67] At the siege of Nicaea in the First Crusade in 1097 the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos reportedly invented new pieces of heavy artillery which deviated from the conventional design and made a deep impression on everyone.[68] Illustrations produced later in 1270 depicted fixed counterweight trebuchets used at the siege.[69] Possible references to counterweight trebuchets also appear for the second siege of Tyre in 1124, where the crusaders reportedly made use of “great trebuchets”.[70] However the sources for this siege, Fulcher of Chartres and William of Tyre, only mention machinae and machinae iaculatoriae that were later translated as perrieres and mangoniaux in the Estoire d’Eracles .[71] Chevedden argues that given the references to new and better trebuchets that by the 1120–30s, the counterweight trebuchet was being used in a variety of places by different peoples such as the crusader states, the Normans of Sicily and the Seljuks.
You can depict it doing a campaign of Constantine (306-324) for AoE 1/RoR playing with Romans/Greeks against other Romans, Macedonians and Palmyrans or doing a historical battle on the Milvian Bridge (312)…
They will arrive in some dlc… the Britons had no campaign of their own until Lord Edward…
750 AD for Japan, but for me it would be 632 AD with the Arab conquests (end of Sassanid Persia and first decline of Byzantine Empire)…
Yamato campaign already had a kind of remake in 1 DE…
We already have Lord Edward…
It is because the Western Roman Empire disappeared as a political entity that the Middle Ages ended with the fall of Constantinople in 1453…
Yes, besides that AoE 2 campaigns are easier to do… AoE 3 campaigns require in-game cinematics and interesting events to portray…
Late antiquity was the period (c. 300— c. 800) during which barbarian invasions defeated the Roman Empire in Western Europe by the 5th century and Arab invasions ended Roman rule over the eastern and southern Mediterranean coasts by the 7th century.
Late antiquity is the time of transition from classical antiquity to the Middle Ages, generally spanning the 3rd–7th century in Europe and adjacent areas bordering the Mediterranean Basin. The popularization of this periodization in English has generally been credited to historian Peter Brown, after the publication of his seminal work The World of Late Antiquity (1971). Precise boundaries for the period are a continuing matter of debate, but Brown proposes a period between the 3rd and 8th centuries AD. Generally, it can be thought of as from the end of the Roman Empire’s Crisis of the Third Century (235–284) to the early Muslim conquests (622–750), or as roughly contemporary with the Sasanian Empire (224–651). In the West its end was earlier, with the start of the Early Middle Ages typically placed in the 6th century, or earlier on the edges of the Western Roman Empire.
The Roman Empire underwent considerable social, cultural and organizational changes starting with the reign of Diocletian, who began the custom of splitting the Empire into Eastern and Western portions ruled by multiple emperors simultaneously. The Sasanian Empire supplanted the Parthian Empire and began a new phase of the Roman–Persian Wars, the Roman–Sasanian Wars. The divisions between the Greek East and Latin West became more pronounced. The Diocletianic Persecution of Christians in the early 4th century was ended by Galerius and under Constantine the Great, Christianity was made legal in the Empire. The 4th century Christianization of the Roman Empire was extended by the conversions of Tiridates the Great of Armenia, Mirian III of Iberia and Ezana of Axum, who later invaded and ended the Kingdom of Kush. During the late 4th century reign of Theodosius I, Nicene Christianity was proclaimed the state church of the Roman Empire.
The city of Constantinople became the permanent imperial residence in the East by the 5th century and superseded Rome as the largest city in the Late Roman Empire and the Mediterranean Basin. The longest Roman aqueduct system, the 250 km (160 mi)-long Aqueduct of Valens was constructed to supply it with water, and the tallest Roman triumphal columns were erected there.
Migrations of Germanic, Hunnic, and Slavic tribes disrupted Roman rule from the late 4th century onwards, culminating first ## ### ##### of Rome](Sack of Rome (410) - Wikipedia) by the Visigoths in 410 and subsequent Sack of Rome by the Vandals in 455, part of the eventual collapse of the Empire in the West itself by 476. The Western Empire was replaced by the so-called barbarian kingdoms, with the Arian Christian Ostrogothic Kingdom ruling Rome from Ravenna. The resultant cultural fusion of Greco-Roman, Germanic, and Christian traditions formed the foundations of the subsequent culture of Europe.
In the 6th century, Roman imperial rule continued in the East, and the Byzantine-Sasanian wars continued. The campaigns of Justinian the Great led to the fall of the Ostrogothic and Vandal Kingdoms, and their reincorporation into the Empire, when the city of Rome and much of Italy and North Africa returned to imperial control. Though most of Italy was soon part of the Kingdom of the Lombards, the Roman Exarchate of Ravenna endured, ensuring the so-called Byzantine Papacy. Justinian constructed the Hagia Sophia, a great example of Byzantine architecture, and the first outbreak of the centuries-long first plague pandemic took place. At Ctesiphon, the Sasanians completed the Taq Kasra, the colossal iwan of which is the largest single-span vault of unreinforced brickwork in the world and the triumph of Sasanian architecture.
The middle of the 6th century was characterized by extreme climate events (the volcanic winter of 535–536 and the Late Antique Little Ice Age) and a disastrous pandemic (the Plague of Justinian in 541). The effects of these events in the social and political life are still under discussion.
In the 7th century the disastrous Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 and the campaigns of Khosrow II and Heraclius facilitated the emergence of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula during the lifetime of Muhammad. Subsequent Muslim conquest of the Levant and Persia overthrew the Sasanian Empire and permanently wrested two thirds of the Eastern Roman Empire’s territory from Roman control, forming the Rashidun Caliphate.
The Byzantine Empire under the Heraclian dynasty began the middle Byzantine period, and together with the establishment of the later 7th century Umayyad Caliphate, generally marks the end of late antiquity.
Good point… but they can always campaign for AoE 1 in the fourth century… AoE 2 already has the whole fifth century to represent late antiquity…
The same, the first mission much I do not tell too much then it would start in 178 AD…
Yes, besides the campaigns wanted them as in AoM, as people did not like it corrected it in the expansions, which are more historical campaigns (except the Chinese one that forced the inclusion of the Aztecs with the whole issue of the voyages of the treasure fleet) …
I’m kinda have a hard time understand why people hate AOE3 fictional campaign.
No seriously, I have tried looking up on the internet. I only find fictional campaign of AOE3 decent, alright but not too great imo.
I know that. That’s why I’m partial to either a Justinian or an Heraclius campaign. Or at least a Cape Bon Historical Battle. It wouldn’t be the first HB or campaign in which the historical outcome is a defeat
It’s not the fictional campaign per se. We know Arkantos didn’t exist. It’s that it’s fictional in an Age of Empires game. Even Bari gets a little heat around here; imagine a fully fictional campaign.
Yes, that is, they are historical fiction, and they do not fit too well in an AoE game…and Bari at least presents real events…
Heraclius is good, but Justinian is the “restorer of the empire”…
Cape Bon may be the final mission of a Alan-Vandal Genseric campaign…
Yes, and not only since it’s a fictional campaign in a historic game, but also because a lot of people think (and I can include myself) that this approach prevented us from having an actual historical campaign. In the case of the Bari campaign, since we don’t know if we’ll ever have a true Byzantine campaign (Justinian, Komnenian restoration, etc.) and in the case of aoe3 because we probably won’t ever have campaigns about basically any major historical conflict of the Early Modern Era (no 30 Year’s War, no Italian Wars, no French Revolution, no Great Turkish War, etc.), and we’ll only have a campaign about the Fountain of Youth and some fictional Illuminatti-like organization instead and a highly anachronistic plot and setting.