The term byzantine was created by European scholars meaning an outdated and overly complex system referring to the last struggling vestiges of the empire. The empire itself always refered to themselves as Roman or Greek, was considered the Roman empire.
Calling them the byzantine empire is similar to if future historians called the USA the Yankee republic.
2 Likes
No, the term byzantine existed before, I said why here: Which civs would you like to see added first in DLC? - #445 by LordBelou3
The term byantine was named from the former city of Byzantium but was not used before the 1500s. It’s not hard to look up the origin of the word, not to mention many map games have this argument about what to name the civilization. The name they were actually called/used themselves during the time, or the modern day recognized term
Timurids, Byzantines, Venetians, Genoese, Castille, Genada, Madjapahit, Sri Vijaya
1 Like
Probably either one or the other, but asking for 2 Italians states is too much…
Also, the genoese partially are already included into the French, since the pavise arbaletrie are probably inspired by the genoese and pisan crossbows.
Venice instead is partially included in the form of the Galeass, since it was an invention of the venetians and used mostly by them.
1 Like
it was used by poeple of the city as non official term, like Polis for constantinople.
Do you know who is Ana Komnen, She use it in her book.
And I never read a so dumb argument than the one of yankee republic.
We are literally using Greeks, Persians, and Egyptians all days when they never used it for themself, because it’s useful and efficient terms today for western audience
Again you are mismatching, using Byzantine is not wrong because not used officially by the poeple of Eastern Roman Empire, it was not only a slur, it was used before 1500 anyway …
I think it would be cool they name them Eastern Roman Empire or Romans or Roman Empires in the game, because more accurate with the period, it’s right to call them like this, but your arguments against Byzantine naming are wrong.
Both terminologies works, and are used by scholar for good reasons today.
"The term byzantine was created by European scholars meaning an outdated and overly complex system referring to the last struggling vestiges of the empire. "
Omg, you are mistmatching an expression created by poeple and popular culture with “creating by scholars”, why would scholars need to invent the term byzantine for a nation idiom… lmao.
It’s like saying than An Englishman’s home is his castle or “Dutch uncle” was invented by scholars
Like ALL nation naming, there are multiple meanings, positive ones, and negative btw, through centuries.
And today, byzantine is just a term used by Historians because make easier to distinct two really different periods of the Roman Empire.
For how Byzantine started : according to the Byzantine historian Anthony Kaldellis, Wolf’s use of the term was actually pretty obscure until the 19th century. Before that, historians like Gibbon in the 18th century still considered the Byzantine Empire “Rome” - Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall” goes up to 1453 - but a Rome inhabited by Greeks, not Romans. Kaldellis has recently argued that “Byzantium” was really only popularized in the 19th century because of the political situation in Europe:
“…among the reasons for this switch to Byzantium was the creation of a modern Greek state in the 1820s." .....
ETC ETC
->> Reasons are more complexes and denses, than “byzantine is an insult of 15th century”.
It was a lot of things. through times. Like I said as exemple, greeks was an “insult” in middleage because hellenic romans used greeks for pagans in late empire, is not more an insult today, because it was for a short amount of time in early medieval age
Contradicting the Historians, with the only argument of “they didn’t call themself byzantine” like it was the smartest discovery ever is honeslty a boring debate spawning all the time. ERE or Byzantine works, that’s all.
Well according to historians, * After the Eastern Roman Empire’s much later fall in 1453 CE, western scholars began calling it the “Byzantine Empire” to emphasize its distinction from the earlier, Latin-speaking Roman Empire centered on Rome. Beginning in the 18th century, the meaning of the word byzantine changed to unnecessarily complex or subtle in reference to the complicated politics of the byzantine empire.
Newsflash - majority of people dont actually play AOE competitive. And they are the ones that will end up buying all the dlcs. Most people love to see more choice, more different gameplay between the civilizations. They dont care about what a hardcore scene in Korea thinks.
2 Likes
They did include different Chinese dynasties. It’s a tough call considering history, geography, ethnicity/race, ruling systems, etc… It could’ve been worse and been “Pan Asian” with what is now China, Mongolia, Korea, Japan and SE Asia combined. At least they’ve started with the Chinese dynasties and the Mongols.
Three areas which I think were ignored:
- Africa (specifically northern areas) … I know Egyptian Pharaohs predate this “Age”, but even during the time of the game, northern Africa had global trading influence
- South America (lots of ways to go… given the time of AOE4, the China approach makes sense where you’d combine Aztecs, Incans, and somehow Mayans…) – Native North America and the Caribbean might not have been dynastical enough to create a respectfully encapsulating civ
- Scandinavia (whatever you want to call it … Vikings/Norse, etc… they were kingdoms during the time of AOE4, but many of the royal families were related – even spreading into Russia, Germania (western non-Franco Europe)
It’s interesting how the devs dealt with Arabia, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and what’s modern day India and Pakistan. I work and reside in this area. It’s extremely nuanced. Religion often united some of these empires, and I am sure it was a difficult decision on how to include Arabia, Persia, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia (not even getting into the Caucuses, Central Asia, and the Levantine.
Backtracking a bit, perhaps Japan will get one of the next civs, but it will include more than modern-day Japan – places which Japan influenced pre Western colonialism/imperialism… Again, I think the question is: What “age” is AOE4 meant to represent. Perhaps, as it continues to be fleshed out, ages will be added and it will span centuries… Hard to do, but this is “historically-inspired” fiction, right?
Spain (or name them Castilla if don’t want use the actual country name… Even if they use France and England).
Spain was very important, has no sense don’t see them
1 Like
Give us a Barbaric Civ infantry oriented with 2H axemens/dual wield swords and large/mobile army. A meso civ, a nordic civ (Vikings), an african civs and Legions/Cataphractes with the Byzantines ! Thx
Add an option to go Randomize, SC2 has it.
Byzantine, Ottoman, Spanish, Persian, Mamluke, Mughal, Japan, Polish, Danes.
It would also be nice to see some African factions, at least barbers or “moors”
I don’t know how would new world nations compete with gunpowder empires.
But first additions should be Ottoman and Byzantium.
7 Likes
My preference would be, Other; Celts
defiantly agree, Japanese (East Asia) , Byzantines (Southeastern Europe) , Norse (Northern Europe) best by far!!!
It’s a ridiculous list.
2 Likes
-
China more mixed the dynasties for the sake of a common chinese culture
The pharaos stood (by being generous, really generous) until the arrival of the arabs. Since then, the arabs have reimplaced the locals, so the term pharaos is unaccurate, and most imprtant so: The abassids, representing the Arab culture and dominance covers much of Egypt.
On the other hand, mixing the Aztecs, Incas and Mayans would be a enormous mistake. There is too much differences between them, like wanting to mix Arabs, Persians and Indians, to make a parrallel. -
Well, no, it’s not a historically inspired fiction, there is simply a gap between the skirmiches games and the general game+campaigns.
Yea, why is this joke of a poll still pinned on top forever?
2 Likes