Which umbrella civs do you think should be split first? (AoE2 only)

  • Aztecs/Mayans (Mixtecs, Tarascans, Zapotecs…)
  • Bengalis (Sinhalese, ######### Assamese…)
  • Berbers (Andalusians, Ifriqiyans, Tuaregs…)
  • Bohemians/Poles (Kashubians, Moravians, Slovaks…)
  • Britons (Saxons, Welsh…)
  • Bulgarians (Chuvash/Volga-Bulgars…)
  • Burgudians (Dutch, Flemish, Frisians…)
  • Burmese (Arakanese/Rakhine, Manipuri, Mons, Shan…)
  • Byzantines/Romans (Gallics, Latins, Romanians…)
  • Celts (Gaels/Irish, Scots, Welsh…)
  • Chinese/Koreans (Jurchens, Tibetans, Tanguts…)
  • Cumans (Kazars, Kipchaks, Pechenegs…)
  • Dravidians (Kannadas, Tamils, Telugus…)
  • Ethiopians (Nubians, Somalis, Swahilis…)
  • Franks (Bretons, Normans, Occitans…)
  • Goths (Lombards, Saxons, Vandals…)
  • Gurjaras (Gujarati, Rajastani, Sindhi…)
  • Huns/Magyars (Avars, Hephtalites…)
  • Hindustanis (Afghans/Khorasanians, Deccani, Punjabi…)
  • Incas (Chankas, Chimu, Muisca…)
  • Italians/Sicilians (Papals, Tuscanians, Venetians…)
  • Japanese (Ainus, Emishis, Ryukuans…)
  • Khmers/Vietnamese (Chams, Mons…)
  • Lithuanians (Curonians/Latvians, Livonians, Prussians…)
  • Malays (Chams, Javanese, Visayans…)
  • Malians (Mossi, Ghanaians/Soninke, Songhais…)
  • Mongols (Kalmyks/Oirats, Khitans…)
  • Persians (Alans, Khwarazmians, Kurds…)
  • Portuguese/Spanish (Aragonese/Catalans, Basque/Navarrese, Castilians…)
  • Saracens (Bedouins, Levantines, Yemeni…)
  • Slavs (Croatians, Rus’/Ruthenians, Serbians…)
  • Tatars (Uighurs, Uzbeks…)
  • Teutons (Alamanni/Swabians, Bavarians, Saxons…)
  • Turks (Azeri, Gokhturks, Pechenegs…)
  • Vikings (Danes, Norwegians, Swedes…)
  • None
  • I don’t know
  • I don’t care

0 voters

Since DE has come out, pretty much all dlc have been about splitting umbrella civs to an extent. So far, the Turks (Cumans, Tatars, Bulgarians), Slavs (Bohemians, Poles, Bulgarians again) and former Indians (Hindustanis, Bengalis, Dravidians, Gurjaras), and to a lesser extent Franks (Burgundians) and Italians (Sicilians), are the one who have been focused on the most, but there’s been a lot of talk about which other civs should receive a similar treatment. I’ve seen calls for certain umbrella splits since the African Kingdoms were announced, and I bet they were actually not the oldest ones, but I was curious to know what the community would request the most if asked directly.

The main difficulty was to answer the question “What is an umbrella civ?”, since it can group different civs based on cultural or geographical proximity, or for other reasons. Ultimately I settled on “could be covered by the same civ in a campaign”, though I sometimes cheated a bit: Hephtalites and Venetians sometimes appear in campaigns and are never features as Huns or Italians, for instance, I just thought it would make more sense to present them this way, and the Africans and American civs represent extremely large umbrellas because those areas are empty so this handful of civs are used as stand-ins for all their neighbours. Also, I grouped some civs together for the poll, usually because they are geographically and/or culturally close enough to be used by the same other civs, and also because I couldn’t find many ideas to split them separately. Arguably, some other pairing (or bigger groups) could have been done, but I think I found a good balance here.

Note that if there’s a civ you want in the game but you don’t perceive it as belonging to the umbrella I associated with, you shouldn’t necessarily vote for it. What I put between bracket are just exemples that don’t necessarily reflect any reality that you should abide to. Also, just because I used a possible civ as an exemple doesn’t necessarily mean I want to see it in the game in the future.


At the very least, I think Malians and Dravidians should be split, but I’d love more civs from the Japanese Archipelago and around China, and also a Berber split if it means an actual Berber arch set

I’d also like more Native American civs


I think the current civs are fine as is. A couple notes:

I think the Saxons and the Alans could easily be introduced without having to split up existing civs. In the case of the Saxons, the current Britons clearly represent post-Norman England and the Welsh, so the Saxons would not be a stretch. The Alans are also different from the current Persians, who mainly represent the Sasanian Empire. Also, the Alans could represent the Sarmatians, who they’re an offshoot of. The Alans themselves are more than just an Iranic subculture and had a legitimate claim to relevance in multiple historical events. Besides, like half the civs in the game are Turkic in origin (that’s a slight exaggeration), so a Persians split is not necessary for the same reason.


Splitting the Burgundians obviously.


There doesn’t need to be new Civs to justify renaming wierd existing Umbrellas like Slavs and Italians.

Im missing the option for a sicilian split

I’m impressed that you managed to come up with possible splits for essentially all civs – but yes, there are a fair few here that I don’t see as splits, and most of the ones I do see as splits I’m not interested in.

I also don’t want any civs split in the way that Indians were. For example, if Chinese are “split” (the current most-voted-for option), I think the current civ should stay as it is – this would really be a case of adding some new civs.

I think adding a civ just called ‘Saxons’ is potentially confusing. Does it refer to Anglo-Saxons or continental Saxons? I think it would be impossible to design them in a way that represents both Anglo-Saxon England and the Duchy of Saxony more accurately than existing civs do – so it would have to be one or the other.

Turks, Tatars, Cumans, sort of Bulgarians, sort of Magyars, maybe Huns but nobody knows. Who have I missed?

What’s weird about Italians? Just the fact that we also have Sicilians now?

1 Like

Malians into Malians and Soninke.
Dravidians into Tamils and Kannadigas.
Malay into Malays, Javanese, Moluccans, Visayans and Chams.
Slavs into Ruthenians, Serbs and Croats.

Others are not umbrella civs.

1 Like

Exactly, isn’t Sicily considered apart of Italy? I never knew we had such staunch Sicilian nationalists here

It is nowadays, but I don’t know whether medieval Sicily was. I think it’s likely that it wasn’t, since there was no single Italian state, and Sicily’s not part of the Italian peninsula, but I really don’t know.

But I was just asking because I thought maybe there was some other problem with it I hadn’t thought of. I’m not a Sicilian nationalist, and I don’t know if that’s even a thing.

1 Like

Just curious what should be the name for italians?

The ingame Sicillians Civ represents what I assume is this area because that’s what was the domain of the Kingdoms of Sicily from Normans to Italian Unification, and is also what’s shown in the Sicillians AOE2 Campaigns. I say Kingdoms because the official name of the Kingdom of Naples during its time after the Island of Sicily revolted and was conquered by the Aragonese, was still Sicily, and when they united the total state was known as Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Which was than later incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy, which is now Modern Italy.

TL;DR Sicillians represent the entirety of Southern Italy, and Sicily was considered part of the Italy when it was reunified


Genoese/Genoans. The entire civ seems to be based on entirely the Republic of Genoa, even outside the obvious example of the UU. These are the examples I could find:

  • Civ Icon is the Cross of Saint’s George, which was the flag of the medieval republic of Genoa and right now of the modern day Genoa region in Italy
  • The Wonder is the Cathedral of Saint Lawrence, which you guessed it is located in the city of Genoa.
  • We know already that the naval and trading bonuses of the Italian Civs is a reference to the various maritime republics of Northern Italy, the most pre-eminent alongside the Venetians was the Republic of Genoa.
  • The Pavise UT is based on the shield of the same name that was most famously used by the Genoese Crossbowmen, that’s what the shield on the back of the UU is also supposed to be.
  • The Silk Road whilst not exclusively serviced by the Genoese, they were still a big part of it, with the numerous trade outposts they had in the near-east facilitating a big part of it. The Black Plague even first started to spread in Europe from ships heading from at the time Genoese Port Town of Caffa in Crimea, after it was sieged by Jani Beg.
  • The historical Condottieri were mainly hired by the northern Italy Maritime Republics to compensate for their small armies, one of whom were Genoa
  • Also the UU is the Genoese Crossbowman, just as an reminder

Maybe some more examples, but I think this is enough to prove that Italians are predominately based on the Genoese

The UU, UTs and Bonuses are all primarily based on the historical Republic of Genoa above all other Italian states. Hence a renamed Italians civ should be called Genoese/Genoans


Alternatively Civs could be split based on the time of the scenario. For example both the Chinese and Byzantines cover a very long period of time. I suspect that the armies of early time period would vary significantly from those of a later time period.

1 Like

As always, thanks to @Temudhun for the nice poll!
My own usage of the term umbrella civ would be much more strict, but I admit it is difficult to define properly.
E.g. while many players - incl. myself - would like to see Jurchens or Tibetians, none of those are a split from (Han) Chinese, and thus the Chinese civ does not need to change. Similar for Ethopians with Nubians and Somalis.
In contrast, Dravidians are a clear umbrella (already by name) as are Malays, whose campaign is actually a Javanese and not Malay campaign, so when Javanese are added, this should swap (Malays could have a campaign about Srivijaya).
Finally, let’s not forget there are also interesting civs who don’t fit under any umbrella civ right now, e.g. Tais.

1 Like

Yeah, Dravidians should definitely be split into at least Tamils and Kannadigas. Maybe Telugu too. Malians currently stand alone for the entire West Africa, which on its own has the potential for twice as much civs as all other parts of Africa combined, so obviously they could be split too. Some argue the Soninke are the only other civ under their umbrella, as both are Mande, but come on… Their UU comes from the Fon (though they are not period appropriate, as they were created in the 17th, and they don’t use the correct weapon).

Even though I put them in the poll, as I know some people have requested them numerous times, I don’t think any of the minor civs from modern day Japan should be added. I may be mistaken, but I don’t think they were involved enough in warfare history or built states strong enough to be considered. China is an entirely different beast obviously, it may need two or three dlc to be entirely covered.

Berbers would be tricky, I don’t know how they could be split in order to represent them in all their variety. There is the regional solution, with Andalusians, Moroccans, Ifriqiyans… but Andalusians would actually be a Berber/Saracen hybrid covering some states very predominently Arabs and other mostly Berbers. As for the Magreb, confederations, states and subcultures can hardly be defined by modern day borders, which doesn’t help. There’s also the solution of using the main confederations (Zenatas, Sanhajas and Masmudas), but it would leave out quite a few important factions that are not properly covered by any of those. Not mentioning there are historical figure and entire state whose origin we don’t really know nowaday.

That would be quite nice.

The Saxons would be more of a problem for the Goths, actually. The current civ is better at representing Saxons than real life Goths and should be entirely reworked if such a civ was introduced.

Yeah, I mostly put them here because they were an Iranian people, but if they were introduced I don’t think they would really constitute a split. Come to think of it, maybe I should put the Tabaris and the Balochi instead.
That being said, if like you and many other say the Persians can’t properly represent anything except the Sassanian Empire, I wonder how the Buyid, Kakuyid, Saffarid, Samanid or later Safavid empires would appear in game. Would they need an entire new civ for muslim Persians ?

I don’t know if you’re sarcastic, but some people are actually asking for at least one Low Country civ to be split from Burgundy.

I guess so, but that’s not really what I was asking about x)
Regarding the Italians, I think the name could also refer to the Italian kingdom, so the HRE part of the peninsula. That being said, Venice and the Papal States were not part of it.

They’re right there, grouped together with the Italians.

I have to admit some of those are quite a ######## but I didn’t want to leave a civ out and have people complain about it, so here we are xD

Not all splits need to be like the Indians, look at how it was done for the Slavs and Turks.
That being said, I think the Slavs should actually have been “Hindustanised” into the Ruthenians, with the Boyar being turned into a regional replacement for the knight line and replaced by the Stretsly as an UU.

I tend to agree, the Saxons have a problem of identity. There’s also the fact that, as I said earlier, the Goths are already better at representing Saxons (both Anglo-Saxons and pre christianisation North German ones) than historical Goths. It’s a little bit of a mess.

Hindustanis I guess. They’re kind of a Turk/Persian/Indian hybrid.

If you say so…

It may be better to just have the identity of some civs evolve more depending on the age, though it would cause some balance issues.
There would also be the solution of splitting the game into two parts, but we’re a little bit late for that.

You’re welcome, thank you for the nice comment!

I agree entirely, but I had to make the definition looser for the poll’s purpose. That being said, Jurchens (and Tanguts) are currently represented as Chinese in campaigns, so there’s that.

Yeah, I putposefully avoided putting the Tai in the poll, aside from the Shans more for regional than cultural reasons xD
Note that the Tai themselves would be an umbrella for Siamese, Lao, Shans and Lan Na.

1 Like

I am, I just don’t see any point of splitting more civs while there’s loads of valid requests out there that aren’t considered splits (Tibetans and Jurchens for example). Endless Italian split requests after getting Romans…Maybe FE decided that the Romans are the Italian “split”? :sweat_smile:

1 Like

I think there could be a Beninese civ as well, the Gbeto would at least fit better with them

I would also like to see the Yoruba and Songhai, possibly the Hausa, Mossi and Jolof too, but it may already be too much. And that’s counting the Kanuri out to put them with the East African civs.
Igbo is also a possibility, but they were probably too weak. As for the Akan/Ashanti and maybe the Fulani, I guess they would better fit AoE3.

After researching African empires, the relevance goes in West Africa:

  1. Malians
  2. Kanembu
  3. Songhai
  4. Ghana
  5. Hausa
  6. Benin
  7. Mossi
  8. Yoruba
  9. Jolof
  10. Igbo
1 Like