And it’s likely that Persians will keep the ME architecture set since Iran is in the ME. So, if Kurds or some other civ within the range of West Asia gets added, then we’d see 5-7 civs with the ME architecture.
Historically, they should get them. The Thai/Siamese used both bows and polearms from atop elephants, meaning they should get Battle Elephants too.
Their Blacksmiths would be broken and they could research steel versions of all their ships.
Picking possible unique civs for the future new ones in the world scale i could only suppose these: Kongo, Makuria, Serbia, Tibet. However, i am not pretending to be an expert.
Here’s to Okinawans being next /s.
Is one of their UT’s going to be Di’s Nuts?
Tibetans aren’t known for using elephants historically AFAIK. They were known for their lancer cavalry and infantry as well as horse archers and slingers.
They probably used some elephants although they were more famous for their archers and for their leather-armored infantry. Javelin infantry was likely another one of their specialties, as numerous Sinitic records mentioned that the southwest tribes were quite adept using javelins and shields.
The original Sino-Tibetan people likely came from the upper or the mid reaches of the Yellow River valley in North or Northwest China, and this has been confirmed by 2 separate studies from China’s Fudan university and Germany’s Max Planck institute. Genetically speaking the early Sinitic people from the Yellow River region were quite northern and were closely related to other Northern Asian peoples, with subclades of Q-M242 such as Q1a1a1-M120 and subclades of N-M231 such as N1a-F1998.
Southwest China wasn’t Sino-Tibetan originally, it was either Austroasiatic or Hoabinhian before the Tibeto-Burman people migrated southward from Northwest China and either assimilated them or drove them away to SE Asia. Though there’re still a few Austroasiatic tribes living in Southwest China, such as the Ava and the Bulang.
The domestication of sugar canes likely originated from either East Indonesia / Papua New Guinea or SE Asia. It was likely spread by the Austronesians. Neither the Austronesians nor the Papuans have anything to do with Sinitic or Sino-Tibetan.
Chicken was likely domesticated in SE Asia some 8,000 years ago. At that time it was still Austroasiatic or Hoabinhian and had nothing to do with Sino-Tibetan.
3 Likes
- Tibetan used to control north India and Nepal, they of course had elephants.
- Just come to southwest China and take a look of their traditional weapons, not sure if they often use javelins. I just suggest you come and take a look.
- The orginal Sino-Tibet ruins locate in NL30, which is southwest China, and the origin of Yellow river and Changjiang river all locate in southwest China. The offcial text book given by Chinese government is not true, because they hope Chinese people believe they have the same ancestor, but a lot of proofs like Seima-Turbino crafts in north China show that a high percentage of northern Chinese are from Altay races. We even found statues to prove that.
- In India, they call sugar “sarkara” or “sini”, “sarkara” use the same root of Chinese “satang” and “sini” means “from China”. However, in our text book we said Indians invented sugaring. (Southwest China have nature gas wells for refining, and even in the modern time you can see nature gas wells in farmland.)
Why not come can take a look. Other than being a “well-known” man to show off,
Many things of so called history still exist in modern time, just come and take a look, other than reading some articles from wikipedia. Western Chinese are still alive, we are not disappeared. Why not come to our place and take a look by your eyes?
And the cultural relic in Vietnam from stone age to bronze age are completely the same to what we found in southwest China. And the first dynasty of Vietnam should be Shu Dynasty (The story of Venlang Dynasty came very late).
The sino-tibet race, Xia people found the 1st dynasty in China in more than 4000 year ago, and one of their capital is San Xing Dui. The founder of Xia is called Yu, and the first empiror of Xia is Qi (and he is also called Kai).
The offspring of Qi called Kaiming clan, they found Kaiming empiror in southwest China from BC600 to BC300, until Qin Dynasty conquered them.
One son of the 13rd Kaiming empiror called Shu Pan escaped to Vienam (which was a province of Xia and Kaiming empiror) and found Shu Dynasty in Vietnam.
Vietnamese emphasize Venlang Dynasty because they don’t want to be thought as Chinese, they need an independent origin. And Chinese government claim they didn’t find any clue of Xia, is because many thing found don’t match their official ideology. Because they hope all Chinese believe they have the same ancestor and from Henan area and then spreaded to other places.
When? (Except that one Pala empire squabble that was more like a raid for tributes)
Nepal is a mountainous country similar to Tibet, and I don’t think elephants are found there.
As for North India I don’t think it was ever under direct Tibetan control.
I know a lot about that region and I even have ethnic minority friends there. Their traditional weapons include javelins, darts, crossbows, and even bolas / meteor hammers. And their use of javelins is further corroborated by historical records, for instance Song records mentioned that the Guangxi rebel Nong Zhigao’s army was equipped with javelins and pavise shields.
I trust modern science more than your own intuition. The origins of Yellow and Yangtse rivers are both found high up on the Tibetan plateau, which isn’t traditionally considered a part of Southwest China.
I don’t think Germany’s Max Planck institute is in any way affiliated to the Chinese government.
And nope we don’t believe that we all share the same ancestor or all belong to Sino-Tibetan. South and Southwest Chinese have significant genetic and cultural / linguistic contributions from local Tai-Kradai and Hmong-Mien groups.
North Chinese are actually closer to the original Sino-Tibetan Neolithic Yellow River farmers. According to recent genetic tests done by well-renowned Chinese geneticist Fu Qiaomei (who is a student of the worldly renowned geneticist David Reich), the Neolithic Yellow River farmers were predominantly of Northern Asian origins and carried Northern Asian Y-haplogroups like C2b1, Q1a1a1-M120, and N1b1.
The Tibeto-Burman peoples who subsequently migrated to Southwest China have mixed with indigenous Tibetan hunter-gatherers as well as some Austroasiatic and even Hoabinhian natives.
I probably know more about Southwest China than you do. I have ethnic minority friends there and I know words in Tai-Kradai and Hmong-Mien languages.
And most of my knowledge came from peer-reviewed archaeological and genetic papers, not from Wikipedia articles.
The legend of the Van Lang dynasty may be fake, however the Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of Vietnam were indeed closely related to those found in Far South China and Southwest China. Though none of those cultures were Sino-Tibetan, they were likely Hoabinhian, Austroasiatic, and Tai-Kradai, judging by available genetic and archaeological evidence.
Modern Vietnamese is still fundamentally an Austroasiatic language despite their numerous Sinitic borrowings. This is evident from their cardinal numbers 12345 Mot, Hai, Ba, Bon, Nam, which are completely different from ancient Sinitic Qlig, Nis, Suum, Hljids, Nga.
Nothing suggests that San Xing Dui was Sinitic. And the so-called Xia dynasty is mythical with no actual evidence proving its existence. San Xing Dui’s artefacts are pretty distinct from the ones found in the Central Plains and North China.
They are indeed not Chinese. They have borrowed many Sinitic words, however their origin is Austroasiatic and their fundamental vocabulary (numbers, body parts, natural objects, etc.) are of Austroasiatic origins.
And the Chinese government actually recognizes the existence of the Xia since it fits with their ideology that all Chinese originated from Henan, it’s the archaeologists from other countries that don’t recognize its existence.
Not true, South Chinese especially those from Guangxi and Guangdong are largely of native origins based on genetic evidence.
1 Like
What civs are going to get the “Hei Guang Cavalry” in your opinion?
They’re an East Asian heavy cavalry available in stable. Chinese, Koreans and Vietnamese won’t get them according to patch notes.
I’m not sure i’d be 100% about that, I’m not sure that the devs put every detail in those patch notes.
That being said, it isn’t a unique unit, maybe its scenerio-only for the Xie An scenerio? Or maybe its a regional that is geared for the Jurchens/Tanguts/Khitans?
I dunno
It’s based on a type of armored cavalry from the Northern and Southern dynasties period, so Xianbei is a possibility.
Oh…
The wonder shown in the screenshot was built by a Xianbei dynasty
Im not sure I want a separate Xianbei and Khitan civ, but seems likely that we are getting that (unless the Khitans are just modified Xianbei with nest of bees which seems unlikely, also they probably want a Kushluk campaign)
What is the source for that?
1 Like
That still haven’t happened. Chinese experts recognize Xia according to the logic that: Since Shang was a bronze culture, there must be a Neolithic culture before them. There were many sites of Neolithic culture discovered in China and mass of them lay in Henan, so Xia as the predecessor of Shang probably existed at Henan.
Any hints about the new campaigns?
Playing new campaigns is allowed in Purism?