Which factions do you think should be added to Western Asia in RoR? (part II: Southern Near East)

  • Sea Peoples
  • Akkadians [Assyrians/Babylonians/Sumerians]
  • Amorites [Babylonians]
  • Kassites [Babylonians]
  • Arameans
  • Suteans
  • Hebrews/Israelites
  • [Canaanites]
  • Ammonites [Canaanites]
  • Edomites [Canaanites]
  • Moabites [Canaanites]
  • Philistines
  • [Arabs]
  • Adnanites [Arabs]
  • Lakhmids [Arabs]
  • Magans [Arabs/Sumerians]
  • Nabateans [Arabs]
  • Tanukhids [Arabs]
  • Qahtanites/Yemeni [Arabs]
  • Hyksos
  • Lagids/Ptolemies [Egyptians/Macedonians]
  • All of them!
  • None
  • I don’t know
  • I don’t care
  • Other(s)

0 voters

As promised in the first half of this poll, here is the second part. There are far less options available, but then again we already have quite a few civs to represent this area in game.

As usual, in the second poll you can vote for how many civs you want to see in game for those regions:

  • 1-2
  • 3-4
  • 5-6
  • 7+
  • None
  • I don’t know
  • I don’t care

0 voters

I ended up not included Africa in this poll, not that there was no room left but I alread had other plans and I think it will work better this way.
I considered using the thread for part one to add this poll to it but I was afraid some people who already voted would miss it since I’m not sure everybody would come back to it after voting even when the discussion is updated. That being said, there’s also a risk that some people will miss this poll, thinking they already voted for it.
I don’t have much to add aside from what I already said in part I, and hopefully if you’re reading this you already went there. I have a small thing to mention, though: Yes, I’m aware almost all parts of the Arab umbrella aside from Yemeni and possibly Magans are Adnanites. You can see this civ as a sub umbrella, and they are also here for all the tribes in the Najd and Hejaz that are not represented by other more specific civs.

I voted for the Israelites, Canaanites, Philistines, and Hyksos. The first three are because I am a Christian who likes the Old Testament. The last one was because they seem cool.

Edit: Drat! I missed the Arameans. Consider me to have voted for them too.

1 Like

Lakhmids and ghassanids imho are late antiquity civs, they belong to aoe2 since they started being relevant in the 4th century and they were most important during the Byzantine and Persian wars of the 6th century and the early Muslim invasions.

Akkadians are Sumerians
Canaanites are Phoenicians
both are already in the game…
I do miss Seleucids


Carthaginians are also Phoenicians, but they’re in the game.

Macedonians already are Seleucids. Why else do they have elephants in their tech tree?


Carthage became so much different that their ancestral Phoenicians.

1 Like

Yes, and so did the Canaanites. The Phoenicians were not warlike, yet the Canaanites were.


Hmm, this is tricky. I don’t think any of these stand out to me as must-have civs, and I might actually vote none. Many of the civs in the other poll are more interesting to me.

Israelites are an interesting one. I think by any of the usual measures people use to decide if a civ should be added, they wouldn’t qualify – but perhaps their immense (but mostly indirect) influence after the AoE1/RoR time period trumps that. So I’m undecided about them, but not surprised to see that they’re currently winning (admittedly, with a very small number of voters).


Actually aren’t. Sumerian language is a language isolate, Sumerians are just predating a lot of empires in that area. Akkadian is different language spoken in Akkad, Assyria and Babylon (which was supposedly settled by amorites, but the language of Babylon was Akkadian, bit weird)

Phoenicians are Canaanites. In fact, Canaanites are just bronze-age Phoenicians


Ah i see. I once played an AoE2 RoR campaign xD and it showed the creation of the Akkadians.
Well that means Babylon was formed or taken over by Akkadians at some point.

Yes Phoenicians are Canaanites.

1 Like

You must be overjoyed with how far ahead the Israelites are :smile:
For quite some time they had 100% of the votes xD

Can’t you change your votes by clicking “show votes” and picking different options?

Yeah, I mostly put Lakhmids in here because I wanted an Arab civ for the Persian gulf in case people wanted to split the Arabs in small parts :sweat_smile:

They were in the previous poll :wink:

I’m not a life-long player of AoE1, just currently enjoying RoR, so don’t take me too serious:
Instead of being new civs, I’d really like Palmyrians to be renamed into Nabateans or Arabs. The tech tree already fits them really well.

This is something that have bothered me since I have a minimum knowdlege of history. Palmyrians are such a weird choice for a civ. Even half the AI player names are not Palmyrians.

1 Like

I kind of think that Palmyra might be Nabatea in AoE1 or atleast they take that into account like Egyptian tech tree takes into account that Kush is already inside that civ.

I am. I’m glad other people think they’re important to include just as much as I do.

I didn’t know that was a thing until now. I changed my vote.

If the Israelites get added, I think one of their archenemies, the Amalekites, should also be added. They could be the first AoE1 civ to get a unique unit, the Camel Archer, replacing Horse Archers. That would be interesting. (Alternatively, Camel Archers could be a regional unit available to certain desert civs, and the Amalekites would have a bonus to improve them.)

I’ve never used it so I wasn’t sure it would work.

Similarly to Cimmerians / Scythians / Sarmatians / Alans situation, I don’t think we should necessarily try to represent all of these cultures but perceive these as a continuation and evolution of an ethno-cultural complex. For instance, as mentioned before, Canaanites are often used as a name for the bronze-age Phoenician culture, since the distinction between other groups in that time is minimal. With this foreword, lets start:

  1. Canaanites / Israelites / Mobaite / Edomite etc.: All of those are just Canaanites, which include Phoenicians. Israelites are well-known, but their historical influence in this period is barely insignificant, they spend most of their time being conquered, rather than conquering or influencing other polities. If we didn’t have Bible and other preserved texts, we wouldn’t be able to separate them from other Canaanite cultures. So I am strongly against including Israelites, or a bunch of other insignificant states, as this can get out of hand very quickly. We would have to represent every single horse nomad as these had much more significant influence on the region, and there were a LOT of horse nomads.

That said, while indistinguishable in the bronze-age, the Phoenicians did create a different sea-faring culture in the iron-age, which many inland-living Canaanites didn’t participate. So I am not against creating a less sea-faring Canaanites nation to represent all the Cannaanite-speaking people who are not Phoenicians.

  1. Akkadians, Amorites, and Kassites: These are different people with significant influence, but a major part of their influence is connected with Assyrians and Babylonians. So I am kind of undecided if they should be represented.

Starting with Akkadeans, Sargon the Great created one of the first major empires, and Akkadian language became lingua-franca for Assyrians and Babylonians. Note that Sumerians are completely unrelated and are completely different beast.

Amorites were nomadic pastoralist/farmers who expanded during the period of drought when Akkadian and Sumerian cities shrank, as intensive-agriculture was less suitable in this time compared to non-intensive pastoralism. They were perceived as barbarians, but later settled and formed a bunch of powerful cities, such as an important city-state Mari, but also Babylon (which adopted Akkadian culture?).

Kassite history is similar. Originally they were scattered semi-nomadic people who were often hired as mercenaries by Sumerians and especially Babylonians. But they were able to centralize, grow powerful, and form an empire for 500 years ruling from Babylon after ousting out native dynasty and conquering many other Akkadian and Summerian cities.

All of these people are significantly more influential than some other we have represented, or which people want to represent, where popular knowledge, recency bias, and the fact that we have written records from popular nations, make these less-important people significantly more well-known. For instance, Palmyrene Empire existed only for 13 years. Historically unimportant short-lived Roman breakaway state popular only because they wrecked Roman army once.

  1. Sea people: Not a single nation, rather collection of states. Sea people are basically “raiders” that came by sea. Collection of sea-people could be easily represented by Greeks, Phoenicians, Celts, Hatti, Phrygians, and Lydians, depending on the requirement.

  2. Hyksos: Canaanite people who managed to conquer Egypt for a while, and bring some inventions there. So Phoenicnas / Canaanite (if we decide to represent them), or just absorb their influence to Egypt. Which we did, sis Egypt got Chariots.

  3. Arameans: Influential people, their language became lingua-franca in the Neo-Assyrian empire. as well as the wider area of Mesopotamia and Near East. But the way this was achieved was being conquered by Assyrians, resettled all around the Assyrian empire, and then somehow becoming the dominant language. So I don’t think they deserve a representations.

  4. Arabs or one of their forms: I am for it. Arabs were one of the pastoralists who expanded when lands were depopulated by war or from drought, and formed important groups (often as arab-aramean mix), especially later. I wouldn’t include any late-antiquity arabs, rather some of their earlier or proto-form. They were also matri-local or had some form of matridominance, with women having important positions and ruling queens being quite common. Which was of a deep interest by many neighbouring nations, such as the Assyrians, who wrote about this. Nabateans might be interesting choice? We have written records about them from Assyrians, but they existed later as well to fight with Romans.

  5. Lagids/Ptolemies: If we have late-antiquity DLC, we could take all diadochi. Otherwise lets just say that they are a late-form of Egypt. We could really use another “Age” in the stone-tool-bronze-iron, so that we could move cav to Iron, heavy cav to Antiquity, and not have bronze-age cavalry sooner than we can make chariots, makes no historical sense.

TLDR: Canaanites (non-seafaring Canaanites), Nabateans (some form of Arabs/Arameans), and if you really push me for anything else, then Akkadians, Amorites and Kassites, but I am happy to not represent them as they already have some form of representation with Assyria/Babylonia (Akkadians), Babylonia (Amorites) and Babylonia (Kassites).

The Israelites are not Canaanites and never were. They just conquered the area and settled there.


Nonsense. Israelites spoke Hebrew and Hebrew is literally one of the Canaanite languages.

In fact, Wiki clearly states that Canaanite languages could as well be considered dialects as they were mutually intelligible.

Not sure what the second sentence is supposed to mean coz “They” could relate to both Israelites and Canaanites.

1 Like