Which civs from Late Antiquity (3rd-5th centuries) do you think should be added to the game?

They could probably be treasure guardians in AoE3, now that I think of it

Agree on Frisians and Dutch. The latter doesn’t make sense, I mean even Spanish are barely there (it would have been better to have proper medieval Spanish kingdoms) but Frisians or Hollanders or Flemish as a name fit better (I prefer Frisians because it’s coherent with franks or Teutons even if someone would say it’s too dark agey) and there’s a lot of history to cover before 1580 of course.

As for the timeline, there’s just one scenario in aoe1 set in the 4th century where the settings isn’t clear (the DE version is seemingly a “remake” of Attila 5 on the side of Romans but the date is 376 iirc) since you play against goths who are I think Greeks and Huns who are Yamato… I mean lol.
I don’t even think they will port it to Ror because they already ported what they promised but even so I don’t think that should stop them to make a serious attempt to represent the 4th century in aoe2 with Romans, goths, Huns, Persians etc.

I doubt not having a frudal system is an issue since we have none feudal civis ingame eg aztecs mongols huns

End of the 4th century and beginning of the 5th century… which, although very early, I can let you pass…

3rd century CE is AoE 1/RoR (remember Ransom on Ctesiphon (262), Odenathus, Lord of Palmyra (263), Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra (271) and the Palmyra civ itself)…AoE 1/RoR arrives in Europe until 373 CE (the Huns are coming)

The collapse of the Parthian Empire began with the campaigns of the Roman emperor Trajan, under whom the Roman Empire reached its greatest territorial extent in the early second century CE (seen this in the Trajan campaign in RoR). Over the next hundred years, the Parthian Empire was worn down by internal instability and military humiliation at the hands of expansionist Roman emperors. For a moment, it seemed that the Romans might have succeeded in emulating the achievements of Alexander.

Starting in the early third century CE, that all changed, however. The Arsacid dynasty was overthrown by Ardashir I of the House of Sasan at ########## in 224 CE. The new Sasanian dynasty was considerably more efficient than the Parthians in virtually every sphere of governance, and its military systems were far superior as well. The greatest fear of many Romans had been realized—they now had a potent, functioning threat facing them from the East.

The rise of the Sasanian Empire coincided with a period of instability within the Roman Empire known as the Third Century Crisis. The Roman currency was devalued, sending the economy into a tailspin, the military structure decayed, and over twenty emperors ruled within a span of fifty years. On several occasions, eastern campaigns met with disaster. The Sassanid Shapur I (240-272 CE) defeated three Roman emperors while greatly expanding the dominion of the Sasanian Empire. The Roman Emperor Valerian was captured near Edessa and ended his life as a slave, by some accounts being forced to serve as Shapur’s personal footstool and later being stuffed like a taxidermy specimen.

Simultaneously, Germanic incursions across the Rhine and Danube frontiers increased. By 260 CE the empire was in such a volatile condition that portions of it split off, forming the short-lived Palmyrene and Gallic Empires. These states were nominally aligned to Rome, but tended to act predominantly out of their own interests. The Roman Empire barely survived this turmoil but would eventually recover under the effective governance of a series of strong emperors.

In the chaos following the defeat and capture of Emperor Valerian by the Sasanian Shapur I in 260 CE, many of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire fell under the sphere of influence of the city of Palmyra in modern-day Syria. Simultaneously, the Rhine and Danube frontiers were threatened by incursions from the Alemanni (“all men”—a confederation of numerous Germanic tribes) and the Getae (a group of Thracian and Dacian people), respectively.

Septimia Zenobia was the wife of Odaenathus, Lord of Palmyra. She accompanied and assisted her husband on his campaigns. After a successful campaign in Asia Minor against the invading Heruli, Odaenathus was assassinated in 266 CE and was succeeded by his son, Vaballathus. The real power in Palmyra, however, was Queen (and self-proclaimed Empress) Zenobia. In the early 270s CE, she led an open rebellion against the Roman Emperor Aurelian, proclaiming the independent Palmyrene Empire.

Aurelian acted decisively, however. After defeating incursions by the Alemanni and the Getae and earning the title Gothicus Maximus (due to a popular confusion of the Getae with the Goths), he marched an army through the rebel provinces. Most cities surrendered without a fight, but those that resisted were leveled and their populations put to the sword. By 273 CE, the eastern provinces had been restored to Imperial control. The following year, Aurelian would succeed in reconquering the Gallic Empire, another rebel splinter state, and reunifying the Empire. Unfortunately, he was assassinated in 275 CE by the Praetorian Guard.

The legacy of Aurelian and other so-called “barracks emperors” was immense. An able administrator and reformer, Aurelian likely would have succeeded in restoring the Empire to pre-Third Century Crisis levels of stability if not for his untimely death. However, a decade later, the Empire was under the rule of Diocletian, one of the most able emperors in Roman history, ### ########### the Empire into a tetrarchy (four regions controlled by four different leaders) in 293 CE. His successful reforms were continued by the Emperor Constantine, who was best known for his conversion to Christianity and the construction of a new imperial capital at Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul).

By the mid-4th century CE, the Roman Empire had recovered at least partially from the disastrous Third Century Crisis, and its military had seen several necessary reforms that rendered it more able to resist enemy incursions. The vastness of the frontiers remained a problem, however, and it was becoming increasingly difficult to contend with both the Germanic threats to the north and the Sassanid Persian threat to the east. Social concerns, succession crises, and the ensuing civil wars only further complicated things.

The incursion of the Huns into Europe tipped the balance of power against the Roman defense system. The Huns were one of the first groups of Turkic nomads to migrate into the region, and were extremely skilled horsemen and horse archers. In 373 CE, they defeated the Alans at the Tanais river, subduing them and driving westward. Three years later, they had inflicted a widespread slaughter on the Gothic tribes living north of the Black Sea, forcing them to flee west and seek asylum within the Roman Empire.

Faced with the incredible opportunity to peacefully incorporate the militarily-adept Goths as a subject people, Emperor Valens (or, perhaps, his officials) committed a series of grave errors. Hostilities broke out, culminating in the Battle (disaster) of Adrianople in 378 CE, where the Goths wiped out most of the military strength of the eastern half of the Empire. The Romans watched helplessly as they pillaged Greece and the Balkans before moving west towards Rome, which they would sack in 410 CE (seen this in the Alaric campign).

The Huns tended to attack in generational waves. Around 405 CE, they launched another invasion, forcing groups such as the Vandals, Goths, Suebi, and Alans into the Western Empire, while simultaneously pillaging Thrace. The above incursions would cost Rome some of its most valuable provinces. The Hunnic threat intensified under the rule of Attila (r. 434-453), who commanded an immense confederation of Germanic, Turkic, and Alanic groups. Attila first mercilessly attacked the Eastern Empire, forcing them to abort a military endeavor to recapture North Africa from the Vandals, before swinging west into Gaul in 451 CE.

His campaign pitted the deadly Hunnic confederation against the forces of Flavius Aetius, a Roman commander who had grown up among the Huns and had managed to negotiate a loose alliance with several other “barbarian” tribes. They clashed at the Catalaunian Fields, a bloodbath that proved largely inconclusive. The Huns lost the battle from a strategic standpoint, but returned the following year to pillage Northern Italy. The Roman alliance fragmented, and Aetius, the last great Roman general, would be slain in cold blood by Emperor Valentinian III, who was jealous of his success. (Friends of Aetius would later murder Valentinian in an act of retribution.)

Approaching the gates of Rome, Attila was met by Pope Leo I, who persuaded him to turn away from the city (perhaps in the context of the famine and plague that was rampant in the region at the time). Attila returned home in glory, but died in a drunken stupor after the feast in honor of his wedding to the Germanic princess ####### perhaps from a nasal hemorrhage that choked him with his own blood. The Hunnic confederation would not long survive his death, but the Hunnic and Germanic invasions had done their damage. The military strength of the Western Roman Empire, which boasted a standing army of 200,000 nearly five decades earlier, had been nearly entirely erased, and the Western Empire collapsed in 476 CE.

Yamato goes all the way to the 8th century…and AoE3 overlaps but not too much…a single campaign in the 15th century and nothing more…It’s AoE 2 that overlaps over the entire 16th century (early AoE 3 timeline)…

Na, too far back (let’s say that between 224 and 373 it is still AoE 1 and from then on AoE 2 starts) (what AoE 1/RoR lacks is more battles/missions in the mid 2nd to 4th centuries of the barbarian invasions)…you could include historical battles and a Roman/Greek campaign with Constantine…it would be good if they included Celts, Goths, and Huns to fight with the RoR civs…

Yes, I agree…it is not necessary for late antiquity to be in AoE 2, having already RoR that covers that (and Alaric and Attila covering the 5th century in the same AoE 2)…AoE 2 starts from the beginning with the fall of Rome with the barbarian invasions (now with RoR it starts with the definitive division of the Roman Empire in 395 CE) and lasts until the unification of Japan in 1600 and the colonization of the New World (that is, AoE 3 with the Japanese campaign and the same game tutorial) (note that several of the AoE 3 historical maps in KotM cover the entire 17th century)…

  • The Eighty Years’ War (1568-1648): One player must hold off all others on a fortified peninsula.
  • The Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648): Commanding smaller armies, players must capture 20 villages throughout the map. The player with the most captured villages wins the match.
  • The Deluge (1655-1660): Steppes and temperate woodlands are separated by a single trade route. The southern team must defend against early cavalry aggression.
  • The Great Turkish War (1683-1699): One team must defend their great city, while the other attacks. The city is surrounded by woodland and natural resources.

But that is due to the limitations of AoE 1 and AoE 1 DE, which do not exist in RoR…

And well it is what it is…the Western Empire did not last long because it could not stop the barbarian invasions…Also all the AI names are characters from the 5th century…

  • Anthemius: Western Roman Emperor that failed to limit Ricimer’s influence in Rome, reigned 467-472
  • Arbogast: Frankish magister militum who supported Eugenius in The Battle of the Frigidus, died in 394
  • Avitus: Western Roman Emperor of Gallo-Roman origins and Visigothic ties deposed by Ricimer, reigned 455-456
  • Flavius Aetius: Western magister militum who stemmed the Hunnic invasions of Attila the Hun, notably defeating him at The Catalaunian Fields, died in 454
  • Galla Placidia: Dowager empress who was also briefly the Queen consort of the Gothic king Ataulf ## #### #### of Rome](The Sack of Rome | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom), died in 450
  • Honorius: Western Roman Emperor who tried to negotiate with Alaric in Alaric’s Second invasion of Italy, reigned 393-423
  • Majorian: the last Western Roman Emperor that made a concerted effort at restoring the territorial integrity of the empire, reigned 457-461
  • Odoacer: Germanic magister militum and later King of Italy after deposing Romulus Augustulus, which effectively ended the Western Roman Empire, reigned 476-493
  • Pope Leo I: Pope during 440-461 and the pope who met with Attila the Hun.
  • Ricimer: Germanic magister militum and the effective ruler of Rome through several puppet emperors, died in 472
  • Romulus Augustulus: last Western Roman Emperor placed on the throne as a child by his father and dethroned by Odoacer, reigned 475-476
  • Stilicho: half-Vandal Roman general who became one of the most powerful men in Western Roman Empire during his service, died in 408
  • Theodosius I: last Roman Emperor to rule over both halves of the Empire, reigned 379-395
  • Valentinian III: Western Roman Emperor during whose reign Rome lost much of its non-Italian territories to germanic invaders, reigned 425-455

In game, the Romans date back to about 395 C.E., making them contemporaries with the Goths, Celts, Britons, Franks, Persians, etc. By this period in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages – Rome was a crumbling shadow of its former glory. Plagued by an inability to pay its soldiers, lack of manpower, and its older fortifications in disrepair, they could not face the invasions of their former provinces or fend off attacks closer to home.

By the time of Attila, Rome simply couldn’t field any large armies of note, and relied on Germanic tribes to guard their frontiers, but those tribes often went rogue and became as enemies instead. The old Roman-controlled area was inundated with an influx of different peoples who settled the land, bringing their own culture and customs, annihilating the old Roman ways.

By the end, Rome could not overcome a collapsing economy, loss of manpower, an inability to pay troops, plus bad leadership. When the “official” end in 476 came with the ousting of the last Roman emperor by a Germanic king, the Roman Empire had already silently melted away.

But the Gothic wars and Huns arrival are already in Alaric’s and Attila’s campaigns…what is missing is the battle of Adrianople (which I think could be the last historical battle of RoR)…

Proto-Christianity can be symbolized with the temples of AoE 1 or, ultimately, port the Monastery of AoE 2 to RoR…Islam is medieval so it doesn’t fit in RoR anyway…

But the Aurelian missions are already in AoE 1…then you have a Yamato mission in 300 CE and finally the Huns are coming mission in 373 CE…

The Iron Age in Europe and Asia lasts until 800 CE so there is no problem with that… although since the Byzantines are in AoE 2 the game would start in 400 CE…The Byzantine civilization icon in the Definitive Edition is a kite shield like the one used by the Cataphract. It bears the tetragrammic cross, which was used as emblem by the Palaiologos dynasty from the mid-13th century (1261-1453).

There you have material for new expansions in RoR… I remind you that the Yamato period begins in 250 CE…

Well it is what it is…the same the 4th century gives rise to expansions in other areas such as Aksum and the Horn of Africa…

That’s true…that’s why for me AoE 2 ends in 1453 with Joan of Arc’s campaign…the other campaigns after this fall into the Renaissance and the early modern age (that is, AoE 3)…

There’s a reason it’s already in AoE 3…

The francisca (or francesca ) was a throwing axe used as a weapon during the Early Middle Ages by the Franks, among whom it was a characteristic national weapon at the time of the Merovingians (about 500 to 750 AD). It is known to have been used during the reign of Charlemagne (768–814). There’s a reason it’s in AoE 2 and not in RoR…

I say a Deganawida Iroquois campaign between 1534 and 1580 would be fine…

Of course, AoE 2 does not make any reference to the Reformation (the Hussite Wars were prior to that)…

There are actually 2 missions:

  1. The Mountain Temple | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom

Izumo-taisha, 300 CE

It has been many years since the reign of Queen Himiko and war once again grips Japan. Your clan the Yamato, controls the Kansai region, where #### ########### rule a king. Rival lords, however, threaten your rule in this life and the next. They compete with one another over farming lands and the construction of giant burial mounds to house their remains. But you know that the great Shinto shrines are more prized than any rice paddy or mound. Your rivals, the Izumo clan, control one such shrine. Destroy it and build a greater shrine where it once stood to weaken your rivals’ influence, and receive the blessings of the gods.

  1. The Coming of the Huns | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom

Pannonia, 373 CE

A new and more fearsome group of barbarians, the Huns, have been moving west from Central Asia for the past several decades. They are skilled horsemen and are rumored to be nigh invincible! Germanic and Alanic tribes alike flee before them, flooding towards the frontiers of the Empire. The upcoming invasion will be the ultimate test of the strength of the Empire. If you cannot parry their incursions, Rome will be sacked, and the empire overrun!

By the mid-4th century CE, the Roman Empire had recovered at least partially from the disastrous Third Century Crisis, and its military had seen several necessary reforms that rendered it more able to resist enemy incursions. The vastness of the frontiers remained a problem, however, and it was becoming increasingly difficult to contend with both the Germanic threats to the north and the Sassanid Persian threat to the east. Social concerns, succession crises, and the ensuing civil wars only further complicated things.

The incursion of the Huns into Europe tipped the balance of power against the Roman defense system. The Huns were one of the first groups of Turkic nomads to migrate into the region, and were extremely skilled horsemen and horse archers. In 373 CE, they defeated the Alans at the Tanais river, subduing them and driving westward. Three years later, they had inflicted a widespread slaughter on the Gothic tribes living north of the Black Sea, forcing them to flee west and seek asylum within the Roman Empire.

And the same could be said about there being potential that RoR could fill and expand…

Isokelel is from 1628, so I find it difficult to put it in AoE 2 (maybe yes, in AoE 3)… in that region I would go for a Tongan campaign with Momo (end of the 11th century) (1080-1100?) and some more, like a Micronesian campaign:Olisihpa and Olosohpa (1180-1200) (twins sorcerers and builders of Nan Madol)…

I don’t get anything from them, only from Marco Polo…

For some reason they went for the simple ones and brought in the Burgundians to represent that region…

That’s what it’s like to have few civs, that’s why RoR needs more civs…

They are not going to go that far back, simply because those civs already have campaigns in the 5th century (Alaric for the Goths and Attila for the Huns) and in the 16th century (Ismail for the Persians with the last dlc)… they would only be left the Romans without a campaign…also it would be kind of strange for me to have medieval units in late antiquity again…

1 Like

Man there are ways to deliver your point without copy paste things we all already know.

Yamato campaign is in aoe1 but not in Ror so there is currently only one scenario set in the 4th century in aoe2 and it’s laughable for the reasons already mentioned.

You seem to cling to an outdated / debatable view of what the middle ages are and to what the game already is while I try to see the future and how it could change.

This is a 3rd century legionary. Does this look to you more ancient (fitting aoe1 legions) or medieval (fitting aoe2 legionaries)?

I suggest you to watch this video from a lesson in Yale about early middle ages (284-1000) and in general all the course debates the common notion of middle ages being about the fall of Rome etc.

1 Like

Ok good point, but it was always considered the Middle Ages that began with the fall of Rome…the crisis of the 3rd century and the Constantine dynasty is considered late antiquity…early middle ages would be for example the restauratio imperii, the Arab invasions, the Vikings, the Carolingian Empire, the creation of the Holy Roman Empire and so on until we reach the first crusade (that is, everything from 500 to 1100)…

Late antiquity (that it’s AoE 1/RoR) was the time of transition from classical antiquity to the Middle Ages, generally spanning from the late 3rd century up to 6th or 7th century in Europe and adjacent areas bordering the Mediterranean Basin depending on location.[1] Other historians define it between 250-750 (Yamato civ/period for example). 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 150-750. 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 Early Middle Ages (or early medieval period ) (that it’s AoE 2), sometimes controversially referred to as the Dark Ages (first AoE 2 age), is typically regarded by historians as lasting from the late 5th to the 10th century.[note 1] They marked the start of the Middle Ages of European history, following the decline of the Western Roman Empire, and preceding the High Middle Ages (c. 11th to 14th centuries). The alternative term late antiquity , for the early part of the period, emphasizes elements of continuity with the Roman Empire, while Early Middle Ages is used to emphasize developments characteristic of the earlier medieval period. The time between the 8th and 11th centuries (c. 800–1000) is assigned to the Early Middle Ages generally, even by those who extend (late) antiquity to a time well after the 5th century.

I’d say what it’s usually referred as late antiquity could go between 230 circa to 770 at the latest and the dark ages as you said until the first crusade.
I personally distinguish between that and dark ages but usually the two terms are used interchangeably.

Range for the start could vary between Marcus Aurelius (Antonine plague, first Germanic invasions in Italy at the heart of the empire, end of the pax romana) to Constantine with everything in the middle. Marcus Aurelius is the latest AI name for aoe1 Romans, Constantine is the earliest for aoe2 byzantines.

The Roman empire basically disintegrated during the reigns of valerian and gallienus into the Gaul empire and the palmyrene one. It was remade almost from scratch with Aurelian and Diocletian.
The first shifted traditional Roman polytheistic religion (aoe1) to a middle eastern monotheistic one which is the signature of medieval times, even if only Constantine would make it Christianity.
Diocletian officially divided the empire, starting a trend and a feudal conception of power (lords who are not anymore elected by the senate but by the army and only because they’re strong enough to defend a limited piece of land rather than a big empire, Rome is not anymore a republic but rather a “private property”). In economy the latifondi and late Roman villae preferred by aristocrats fugitives running away from barbarians sacking big cities is the foundation of what will be the “encastlement” and the return to a rural economy.

Another important but earlier date is the edict of Caracalla which made all people of the empire from Egypt to Britain legally Romans. This helped the process of barbarisation of the army and administration while Rome itself and being Roman started to become somehow “inflationed” and meaningless.
Constantine disbanded the Praetorian guards in 312 to replace them with the Palatine guards (used in some ways even by Charlemagne). The difference even here is crucial because the former pledged allegiance to Rome and the senate while the latter pledged allegiance only to god and the emperor (medieval absolute conception of power against classical / Hellenic republicanism).
Rome became secondary, other capitals like Milan, Ravenna and Constantinople were way more important than Rome from the 4th century on.
So basically the Roman empire was not anymore “Roman” in a classical sense but it was Roman in a universal, more abstract sense (like Catholic Roman Christianity).
At a certain point in the 5th century there simply was no need anymore for an emperor in Rome but it was not because of a huge battle destroying the empire (like with Sassanids for example). Even before 476 the western empire was left for months without emperors (between honorius and Valentinian) or with usurpers on the throne for years. In 476 Zeno simply decided to reunite the empire under him with Odoacer acting as his own magister militum. Clovis was made Roman patrician and senator and goths were nominally governing Italy in name of the Eastern emperor before the Justinian war (a civil war of sorts).

Anyway I could go on for days… Let’s just say late antiquity encompass romano Germanic kingdoms after the “fall” of Rome where Romans and Germans coexisted like before, the only difference being that the power shifted from west to east (only one emperor) and from the Roman element to the Germanic one.
The last romano Germanic kingdom to fall was the Lombard one in Italy in 776 and with the end of eastern empire’s control of Rome (750 circa), Carthage (698) and Ravenna (751), the Papal states and the holy Roman empire (a German elected “Roman” emperor by the pope! The circle started from Caracalla was completed, being Roman became an idea rather than a something real, like genders or nationalities nowadays one could say) established in the west I think it’s safe enough to say that Europe trespassed into the middle ages proper. More or less in the same period you have the last accounts of Roman people as a distinct ethnic group. Some Roman institutions survived, specially in Constantinople and in the Carolingian empire but they were merely decorative and were abolished by the end of the IX century.

All of that being said if I had to choose if putting late antiquity in Ror or in aoe2 I’d say, despite the “antiquity” in the name, I’d choose the latter cause medieval elements are still more prevalent than classical vestiges.

I didn’t address other big empires of the time like China and Persia but there are common elements of discontinuity even if maybe less accentuated. China disintegrated around 220 and reunited only in 610. Sassanids came to power in 224 (some AI names in aoe2 Persians are from the 3rd century) and fall to Muslims in 651. In 640 at the end of heraclius reign the Roman empire is said to have become byzantine or Greek: no more legions, no more Mediterranean lake, no more Latin as official language but rather the new themata system, greek speaking court and an empire reduced to Anatolia and surroundings.
That’s why, along with Arabs obviously, the 7th century is seen as a turning point even bigger than the 5th and maybe on pair with the 3rd.

1 Like

Yes, the same, you have 5 missions in Yamato campaign after 373 CE:

  1. The Mountain Temple (300/376 CE)
  2. The Canyon of Death (380/587 CE)
  3. Coup (385/645 CE)
  4. Jinshin War (400/672 CE)
  5. Fujiwara Revolts (405/667/740 CE)

But yes, you want them to fill AoE 2 back to 284 (end of the crisis of the 3rd century) and I want them to fill RoR forward to 378 (historical battle of Adrianople) (then this way you connect with Alaric’s campaign)… I hope the devs find a middle ground to represent late antiquity in both “games” (it’s still the same game at the end of the day)…

2 Likes

Is there any info about devs bringing Yamato, Reign of the Hi***tes and even enemies of Rome to ROR? That would be great

1 Like

Maybe in the next dlc for RoR (3 new AoE 2 type campaigns and 4 classic campaigns: Yamato, RotH, Enemies of Rome and perhaps The Rise of Rome campaign…

1 Like

I want Barbar civ, Gaul, German, Pict
And add Goth and Celt in RoR
and more Barbar unit

You mean like a haircut saloon?

I agree with Celts, Germans, Indians (and Harappa?) in ROR.

1 Like

According to archaeologists, yes, but the legend itself takes place in 1500. If we’re going to base the campaign on anything, it should be the legend and not actual history, so it would be set in 1500 and not 1628. Besides, there’s a chance the experts are simply wrong.

It’s frustrating because the main battles between the Mohawks and French-allied Huron happened at the start of the 17th century, right on the verge of French colonization beginning in earnest. Champlain won his major victories in 1609/1610 before getting routed on expedition in 1615, starting the Beaver Wars in turn. You’d want this campaign to end with a climactic showdown, which I don’t think the end of Cartier’s final expedition really matches despite involving Haudenosaunee raids on his fort.

European wars of religion in the 16th century started as early as the 1530s (Count’s Feud in Denmark-Norway), not that I ever expect FE/Microsoft to use them as a campaign premise. It’s less that the Reformation’s too late to matter WRT civ choice/design, more so that the Hussite Wars are an earlier, more striking example of Catholics vs. Protestants which explores more of Central European socio-political changes just prior to the upper Renaissance.

Yeah, it’s fascinating stuff, a mix of post-Hellenic governance only possible because even the Vikings couldn’t overcome the Frisians in battle, leading to the Carolingians (Charles the Fat) freeing them from martial service. After Frankish rule ended in Friesland, the resulting wars between the Geruflings (whose line later became the House of Holland) and other post-Frankish/Lotharangian nobles over Frisia led to a power vacuum by the turn of the millennium. Sometime after (or earlier according to legends), HRE emperor Conrad II affirmed the Karelsprivilege letter, recognizing Frisian freedom from imperial rule and regulation.

From the 1100s until the turn of the 16th century, Frisia essentially operated under a loosely allied network of rural municipalities (grietenij) and well-to-do landowners (haadlingen or hoofdelingen, an evolution of old Frisian headmen). The former elected temporary judges and potestaats (acting generals) while the latter had outsized voting power to elect each district’s mayor (grietmen), but no aristocracy and manorial/vassalage system of their own. Peasants were free from serfdom and instead could have social mobility through economic/monetary means, though nowhere near modern levels. Most people lived in farming communes, villages, and towns, trading between each other and the occasional city like Franeker and Groningen. Annually elected grietmen, judges, and prominent headmen met at the Opstalboom to discuss matters, confirm policies, and settle disputes. Monasteries also had an outsized influence on the region due to a lack of central administration and Papal authority, leaving ecclesiastic and practical matters to monks spread across

Frisian culture and politics changed drastically during the Black Death, which largely didn’t ravage Friesland due to geography, trade isolation, and a dearth of urban centers. Demographic and socio-economic disruptions in adjacent polities opened a gap for ambitious Frisian landowners to grab power and prestige. While the plague occupied the rest of Europe, income inequality and encroachment of feudal norms inflated the conflict between “fat-buyers” (fetkopers, minor headmen and traders/freeholders preferring Frisian self-rule) and “speakers” (skieringers, major headmen and land-owners who sought alliances with foreign rulers/sovereignties). Earlier centuries mainly saw conflict between free armies and mercenaries commanded by the elected potestaat and forces like the Duchy of Holland, but Frisia veered into civil warring towards the latter half of the 14th century due to the class divide and feudal encroachment.

There’s a lot of potential for the Frisians in AoE 2 as a civ specializing in skirmishing and mercenary warfare, a faster neighbor of the Teutons with more cavalry and a navy focused on trade + raiding more than siege (the Victual Brothers and other pirates played a large role in later Frisian/Hanseatic life). Despite a lot of sketchily curated history, we do have enough material for a campaign covering the Tom Brok clan of headmen, from their rise in power over East Frisia to its downfall by the Ukena family and final succession of House Cirksena. (I’ve considered the battles of Dirk III & his grandson Dirk V against the HRE, but a historical battle covering Vlaardingen would just as well suffice.) You could easily include the more obviously Netherlandic elements, too, maybe even the ability to build levees on water maps to temporarily add usable land (obviously a tricky thing to balance, I’ll admit). Little of this overlaps with what FE’s allocated to the Burgundians, either, since the dukes of Valois-Burgundy never concerned themselves with East Frisia.

2 Likes

I’m glad i’m not the only one hoping for ROR DLCs; the fact that none of the “Barbarian” European civs were in AoE 1 is sorta a travesty IMO.

1 Like

If they don’t want to make a new set for them, maybe they can give them the Roman or Greek set, and just confine them to the Tool Age appearance.

Why?
Word limit sucks.

Because that maintains their more primitive appearance and fits them a lot more.

Barbarians such as illirian dacians became hellenized celts germans iberians became romanized.They can keep the current buildings without any issues.Also you cant figure out which age the enemy is in if they have tool age buildings for other ages too.