Expansion of the Caliphates, 622–750.
Expansion under Muhammad, 622–632
Expansion during the Rashidun Caliphate, 632–661
Expansion during the Umayyad Caliphate, 661–750
I’m not going down this rabbithole of yours again
3 Likes
Austrias, not Bavarians. The Habsburg were known as the house of Austria.
1 Like
Your map proves my point even at its height the Abbasids didn’t control the Arab world. They didn’t hold Sicily, Spain or morocco.
That’s not a thing and never has been. But yes, Austrians probably would be better
Which is why I said it would have dynasty system like Chinese
Austrians are Bavarians culturally. Austria was just a region of Bavaria. The Habsburgs are actually from Switzerland originally.
I would love to see the old Swiss Confederacy. I didn’t include them because their formation(1300) dates too late compared to the other civs, and before 1300 they were part of other existing civs French and HRE.
Similar reasons than the swiss.
2 Likes
No that’s stupid. Because the different regions have different Arabic cultures with different styles of warfare and achievements that would translate into vastly different mechanics in game.
Like you wouldn’t be fighting a war in Sicily with camel riding archers for instance.
Not really. You pick which region you will focus in and your choices influence how the civ plays out
I know who he is referring to, Teutonic Knights sounds ridiculous as a civ name
I think it is more probable they add Bavarians and Saxons as independent civs in AoE2 than to AoE4.
1 Like
The only problem with the current naming scheme is that some civs are getting the “Empire” or “Sultanate” in their name while others just get a one word description like “Chinese” or “English”.
Just be consistent about it.
What’s wrong with Germans, Abbasids, Delhis and etc?
2 Likes
Abbasid Caliphate instead of dynasty.
I know but one can still hope
1 Like
Abbasids, Delhis, French, are waaay more focused than Germans
The distance between Iraq and Morocco is 4,000 miles.
The distance between France and England is 20 miles.
Surely if it’s okay to represent such a massive group of disparate people with “dynasties” then you will have no problem representing the English as a french subfaction. especially since there’s no functional difference between the two groups at this time period.
imo Germans are fine. When you want to get more specific like the Teutonic Knights for another German civ just call them Teutons.
Same reason we would call Arabs the Abbasids because there will be other arab civs like Ummayad, Saracens, Moors and etc.
1 Like
You have some serious issues. It always comes back to English, doesn’t it?
1 Like
But the Abbasid dynasty were not Iraqis nor Mesopotaminas, they were ethnically Arabs from the Arabian peninsule. So calling the Abbasids, Arabs is the most appropriate term. They can later include other dynasties from Egypt, Iran and the Magreb and call them Egyptians, Iranians, Magrebhi etc.
1 Like
Germans are the Arabs of Europe at this time period however and would have many different civilizations based on the time frame and locations. Saxons, Franconians, Netherlanders, Swabians/Swiss, Bavarians/Austrians. Not to mention if you start discussing who is German then you suddenly have to contend with the fact that you have all these tribes that migrated into other parts of Europe before assimilating or conquering the place such as England, Iberia, France, Jutland and Italy.
Then you have the unique conditions of the Teutonic Knights which I think warrants its own civilization just because of the fact they were a sovereign state formed of a monastic order.
2 Likes
I am totally fine with that and they definitely should be in the game at some point. But not as Teutonic Knights