I know Abbasid and Dehli is just a period of their history ，but China also has many dynasties ，but it’s still China ，why ？
using the name of one civilization instead the specific dynasty name is aoe’s tradition from aoe1，why broke it？
4 Likes
I agree. It may be impossible to reconcile.
3 Likes
They broke it because teh vast majority of their playerbase is nationalist, and wants divided nations to play with, and not juts broad culture groups like Saracens or Celts.
Most of the civs they are adding to AoE2, right now, are very specific nations. This is what the playerbase wants, THEIR nation, in the game.
1 Like
“Indians” is too broad a term. There was not anything like a single “Indian” nation or civilization before modern era.
Arabs or saracens, despite having a large unified empire in the middle ages, were still too diverse to be represented by one faction.
2 Likes
- They added sicily and burgendy in dlc1, but there is no nation of these two currently
- They added Poland and Bohemia in dlc2，which are nowadays Poland and Czech
1 Like
yes, but you see there are also diverse periods for china and russia, like Song dynasty and three kingdoms, and kiev rus and Grand Duchy of Moscow, yet they still using Chinese and Russian,
I think they can use specific dynasty or civilization,
but they should use it for all factions, not mixed.
1 Like
Inconsistency of naming is a different problem here.
Also that might be a problem particular to India. For example, all the Chinese dynasties in the game except Song at least occupied the majority of China at some time period, and they all consider themselves as the legit successors of “China”, or “The Central Kingdom”. However the Delhi Sultanate or any other medieval “Indian” nation did not conquer the majority of present-day India. So there isn’t really a good naming for a medieval “Indian” faction.
Idk how they are naming the “Russian” civilization. If they are called Rus or Slavs they encompass both Novgorod and Kievan Rus. “Russian” might be too modern for the time period.
3 Likes
there are also fractured periods in Chinese history other than unifying nations such as three kingdoms and "five dynasties ten nations” I am pretty sure about it because I am a Chinese
they call it Rus from the spoiled image
Three kingdoms is out of the scope of the game. Five dynasties and ten kingdoms did not last long, and was eventually unified again.
I can see your point, but there were unified “Chinese dynasties”, but there wasn’t a unified “Indian dynasty”.
BTW I’m also Chinese.
“Rus” is at least more relevant than “Russians”. Also, both Novgorod and Kievan Rus were “Rus”, but again there wasn’t a medieval “Indian” nation.
1 Like
中国人就用中文回吧，英文打着累,rus 和Russian 基本可以视为一个意思，沙俄就是 Tsardom of Russia or Tsardom of Rus’
虽然语源一样，但英文里Rus主要指特定时期的“罗斯人”，就像你在中文里说“罗斯人”也是和近现代的“俄罗斯人”区分开的。
“Rus” in English mostly refers to the medieval “Rus” people.
我是觉得既用中国人，法国人，蒙古人，又用神罗，阿巴斯和德里苏丹是一种相当不一致和混乱的行为，可以都用文明或者朝代名，你叫卡佩王朝，宋朝，蒙古帝国也是可以的，混用就特别让我这种强迫症难受
这个的确，但有些势力确实无法用“XX人”来表示。
比如说神罗，Germans显得太“现代”了，但像帝国2那样叫teutons又太狭义了。
德里苏丹主要还是因为并没有一个中世纪的“印度文明”。
反过来说，如果法国叫“卡佩王朝”，那加洛林时期又怎么算呢。英格兰的王朝更多，还有anglo saxons时期，如果只用一个王朝的话也没法全部包括进去。
古代的“国家”“民族”概念本来就很模糊，所以强求一致性有点困难。
I am not sure that is true, but I defer to our Indian friends for help. In my experience designing the Indians for AoEO, which is set around 1500 BCE to 500 CE, I spoke with a number of people who know a lot more about Indian history than me. Overall, I get a very strong sense that people who identify themselves today as Indian trace that connection back through the beginning of time. The present Indian flag includes the Ashoka Chakra, which culturally draws a through line from at least the Mauryan Empire (around 200 BCE) through today.
I’m not Indian so I’ll accept any correction from true Indians.
But Mauryan dynasty was long before the scope of the “middle ages”. In middle ages there was not an “Indian dynasty” that controls the majority of India as the “Chinese dynasties” do in China, so using “Indians” to describe all these medieval nations might be too broad.
1 Like
Delhi Sultanate is in fact the turkish Muslims that invaded India
1 Like
Yes, I am aware of this much. I guess I am curious of whether a civ based in southern india during 900 CE to 1500 CE would be properly labeled as “the Indians”
because China uses dynasties as a system, therefore it cant use them as name?
Gosh, that’s yet another good reason to call it the Abbasid Caliphate.
It should be Arabs and Indians. Using individual dynasty’s name is stupid.
1 Like