We’ve got another expansion to make, so where to start! We’re all joyously filled with crazy, weird ideas, bouncing them off the wall and eachother. But we’ll have to squeeze those ideas into a proper game. So where to start? Just like last time, it starts with the core of the new content, the new civilizations.
A Theme
In Age of Empires II HD: The Forgotten, we were presented with a rather obvious civ choice. Ensemble Studios had left hints behind on which civs they would’ve loved to add to the game. Some were nations that appeared in campaigns but were never turned into a proper, playable civ. Those were the easy choices, but now that we’ve used the most obvious ones, where do we go next? Over the last year(s), we’ve received a lot of feedback from players on possible new civilizations. Ranging from Medieval powerhouses like the Normans and the Khmers to less obvious or specific suggestions such as the Kingdom of Jerusalem or the Principality of Pannonia. But unlike our broader approach to AoF, we’ve decided to build out more of a thematic flair and pay a visit to a continent south of Europe with a rich history: Africa. We’ll be covering civilizations both born within the content, as well empires that held great power in the region – including one that has been requested many, many, many times by the fans.
But to keep things a bit exciting, they will all be revealed over the coming weeks, so feel free to speculate 😉
Oh except for the first one!
The Berbers
The Berbers (~700 AD) are the first African civilization to be seen in the new expansion pack. We caught a glimpse of them in the original El Cid campaigns in “The Conquerors”, where they are portrayed in a more generic term as Saracens. Berbers, however, are more than worthy of becoming an Age of Empires civilization. With dynasties across Northern Africa, the ancient Berbers will primarily be a Cavalry & Naval civilization. They’ll have 2 unique units and will also feature a unique technology that affects the entire team.
Since we’re early in development, we don’t have a lot of screenshots yet, but the Camel Archer is already properly functional in the game and looking good. As if it has always been hopping around in the Age of Empires II universe. It was of course teased with the overall expansion announcement.
And last but not least, the Berbers will have their own campaign, but we’ll share more on that later as well.
So this will be it for the first dev blog, it’s more of a tease than a proper “dev” blog, but we’ll certainly dig a bit deeper in the next episodes. We’re hoping to do these monthly, make sure you don’t miss out 😉
I hope to see at least 1 pre columbian civi, If not would be so bored and not worth it.
there are already 3 precolumbian civs ( Mayans, Aztecs and Incas) what other you want? you will be bored you moron im not.
Why not vandals! Seems only they are missing. I would love to see polish whit their winged hussar as special unit.
Slavs right now has the winged huszar. I want to see the slavs divided in Russia Poland and Bulgar. But this will not happen in this expansion.
The Vandals would be really cool, but I don’t think they’re from the appropriate time period. It would be like having Ancient Greece in the game, it just doesnt make sense.
http://www.ancient.eu/timeline/vandal/
Their timeline eds in 534 CE
534 CE
Justinian of the Byzantine Empire conquers the Vandal kingdom in Africa.
yep, that’s right – my understanding of the AoE2 time period is that it starts with the fall of Rome and ends around the Enlightenment period. The Vandals were around for the first part but were gone by the time of the “Feudal/Castle Age” in AoE2 (though the same can be said of the Huns) Aside from that, The Vandals are definitely associated more with Civilizations like Rome and Gaul then they are with Medieval Civilizations. And aside from that, We already have one North African Civ confirmed. Theres probably gonna be 4 or 5 new civs are there are… Read more »
Well, the Goths didn’t last long after the fall of the Vandals. And it would be a nice way to bring justice to the now extinct Eastern Germans, since in AoE the Goths stand for the Germans from the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages but are closer to the Western Germans and especially North Sea Germans (infantry-based army and housecarls as a special unit) than to what actually were the Goths and other Easter Germans (more horsemen than walkers).
Winged Hussars are from a time period after the period represented in AoE2. They first show up in the late 1570s.
Instead, Hussars could be limited to only the Magyars, (Polish), (Serbs), (Vlachs), and Byzantines, with the Maygars having their unique variant (and the Polish getting a bonus of some kind). That would accurately represent the employment of hussars prior to the mid-1500s.
Pointless to add Portuguese when you already have Spanish who represent all the old Iberian kingdoms: León (which included Portugal/Galicia and Asturias), Castille, Navarra and Aragon (which included modern Catalonia).
PS: I’m Portuguese myself.
I’d love to see the Moors get camel gunners 🙂
Vandals would also be nice
Also would be nice to see the Nordic swordsmen, Eastern swordsmen etc from the campaign factored into the game, maybe as a skin for the basic sword units.
Y de repente aparece un comentario en español pidiendo que pongan más campañas, mucho más interesantes, por favor.
Y si,¿no?. Pero me pareció interesante la de Dracula.
Las campañas del forgotten me dan asco. No tienen sonido ni dibujos en las presentaciones y tenes que pasar las partes de la presentacion con un boton. Son injugables sin sonido. Espero que en esta nueva expansion arreglen eso.
¿Tenes el parche 3.5? digo, yo también pensaba eso pero lo jugué y me di cuenta que si hay dibujos,pero el estilo de pasar y narrar del conquerors seria mejor, ¡uyt! me lo imagine, seria hermoso
Please add Poland :),
PLEASE NO! Africa? There was no worse choice (maybe except Native Americans). European civs are designed in a messy way, without including some important ones (Holy Roman Empire, Portuguese, also the Slavs are a huge mistake – they should be divided into Ruthenians, Poles, Bulgars and probably Bohemians), the European civs should be put into order in the first place, other continents would go next. Also, the Forgotten buildsets look quite poor, and they need a remake (I’m making a new Mediterranean set myself because I can’t stand the current one). Mediterranean set should be applied to Spanish, Byzantines, Italians… Read more »
Teutons represent the holy roman empire.
They seem to be more of the Teutonic Order, not the Holy Roman Empire, but I think I must get used to them representing all the Germanic peoples of Central Europe…
Even if we accept the Teutons there still are many important civs lacking. Maybe one day I’ll learn how to mod and introduce them…
If you play the campaing of Barbarrosa you will see why there are also the holy roman empire. I agree there is a lack of civs. I would like to see the Slavs divided in Poland for western slavs(mixed with goths or teutons). Russia for eastern slavs(mix with vikings, byzantines and mongols) and Bulgar for southern slavs(with a mix of byzantines, huns or magyars). I agree Normans(or the kingdom of Sicilia) and Portuguese must be in the game. But others continents deserve attention too. Africa had great empires. I also would like to add at least 2 more civs from… Read more »
It may sound harsh, but I don’t think Native Americans deserve their own civs, they weren’t developed well enough in the period. Europe lacks some ethnic groups. If we’d go into civs (what I proposed before) we would go into too much detail. If the Teutons are meant to represent all the German-speaking peoples, then renaming Slavs to Ruthenians and including West Slavs, South Slavs, Balts and Vlachs would make the ethnic map of Europe almost complete. If we decide to include civs as ethnic groups, not as countries, then there’s no place for Portuguese – they can be played… Read more »
Teutons are not all the Germanic peoples. Frank, Goths, Britons(Anglo-saxons) and even Vikings can be considered Germanic Peoples. And thats one of the reason i think portuguese deserves to be in the game. They are the same ethnic people than spanish maybe but they have their own culture and language. And they influence in Africa and fought to berbers. I agree dividing the slavs peoples would be good. Also dividing Indians and Chinese would be great. But I just saying not in this expansion since there are plenty of civs in Africa to add to the game. The same happen… Read more »
“And thats one of the reason i think portuguese deserves to be in the game. They are the same ethnic people than spanish maybe but they have their own culture and language.” There is no one single Spanish people, there are several nations like the Basques and the Catalans and the Galicians and Andalusians and they are ethnically diverse, this isn’t as much the case with the Portuguese who are fairly homogenous (and very close to the Galicians ethnically). There is no closeness to the Spanish because the Spanish are themselves quite different ethnically, but genetic markers do help show… Read more »
It’s really funny you talk about me saying non-sense (besides your generally aggressive attitude towards people who you disagree with), yet you bring a genetic study from 1997(!!!) which is so outdated it’s not even worth reading, especially when simply looking for genetic markers from a few populations and drawing conclusions from them. Go look at newer papers, like Haak et al. 2015, for instance. http://eurogenes.blogspot.pt/ is a good place to learn a thing or two. A lot has evolved on genetics study over the last 18 years. For instance, west Iberians – not just Portuguese and Galicians – generally… Read more »
You know what doesn’t make your threat of “ignoring” me from now on very credible ? Starting your comment with ” I’m done talking to you”, indicating disengagement, and then proceeding to write five large paragraphs re-engaging fully. I know you’re going to read this, if your last comment is an indication of anything it is of the emotional engagement. I’ll say it again, you absolutely are talking out of your bottom. I wouldn’t go as far as calling you a lost cause, but I don’t see the point of continuing this either. P.S: We’ve spoken in Portuguese to each… Read more »
please explain what is wrong with the African theme. Is there any valid reason for them not to do it?
The main reason is already existing continents should be fixed before new ones are added.
ok… ok see, these are the little complaints that people have been bringing up for more than a decade now. Most fans don’t think the existing continents have to be “fixed,” and demanding absolute accuracy from a game like this is pointless. If you want to play a game that focuses on Europe and includes every obscure faction you’re talking about, play the Age of Chivalry mod. don’t you think the – a b s e n c e – of non-European civs is a more pressing concern than the – p r e s e n c e –… Read more »
You might have noticed I don’t see a need to fix original civs, only the Forgotten ones (and it’s only about graphics and naming), maybe a buildset for Vikings would be nice, but that’s all. I see a need for new civs from Eastern Europe, and that’s the theme I would pick prior to Africa, because it fills the huge hole in the ethnic map between Turks/Byzantines and Teutons/Vikings/Goths. Africa isn’t represented at all and that wasn’t a problem for me – for some reason the game wasn’t African-oriented, I got used to it. With the Forgotten on the horizon… Read more »
please, by all means make your own mod, got nothing against that. the main objections some people have against the Slavs and other civs is that they’re too generalizing; in your case that the Slavs should be broken down into multiple civs. But the devs (both ES and this new team) have said many times that the civs an AoE2 are meant to be amorphous and broad. That’s why The Teutons are able to represent the HRE, or how the Saracens are able to represent /all/ Arab Empires across the span of 5 centuries and 3 continents. The Slavs are… Read more »
lol messy? then let’s talk about the indian, the mayans or the sarracens…
There are wnough european civs, and I rather a Benin bronze swordsman or Djenne as a wonder than more copy pastes of existing european civs. Stop being so eurocentric dammnit
I hope you add the Khmers, the Ethiopians and the Mali
More civs, cool. but i would really like some new stuff such as : – a new technology (in university or towcenter) so that ur house can support like 20 (+30 with updates) populations. -> its really annoying to built 100 houses when max pop is 500 or +. // or .. building 1 decorative building (use the ones from the campains) give like + 5 of pop to each new house. (Of couse each buidlings are only available in imperial) – a new technoloy (in university) : if ur dock is destroyed, it exploses just like a demolition ship.… Read more »
I made this quickly on mspaint to illustrate something. It’s a map that shows the approximate location of all the civs in AoE2.
Hmm, it would appear that one continent is drastically over-represented, and another is critically under-represented. Please keep this in mind when you’re requesting that the devs add Guelders or Saxony or whatever.
thankfully it looks like this new expansion is going to redress the balance somewhat.
Why is Edinburgh the Celtic capital?
i said clearly that it’s a map that shows the – a p p r o x i m a t e – locations of the civs. if you guys are splitting hairs about the map itself, rather than what the map is meant to illustrate, idk what i can do.
Ah that’s fair enough. I got your first point anyway.
i just hope the point is getting across to other people: there’s already a whole bunch of dots in Europe, and there are comparatively few in the rest of the world. Adding new European Civs when there is such a huge deficiency elsewhere (read: Africa) doesn’t seem right to me.
Edinburgh? that dot covers half the flippin island, how did you reach that conclusion?
no need to be – r u d e – bro
Why you mark Arabia? Saracens were in Egypt ant the Levante. There is no Arab civ in the game right now. I hope they add it in this expansion. Also I think you put an extra mark in the Netherlands. There is no civ in the game from there.
Saracens are meant to represent all the Arab nations and Arabs are native to the Hejaz (Saracen’s in-game voices are Arabic, idk if you realized that…). Suggesting that the Saracens are meant to be specifically Egyptian or Levantine is woefully inaccurate; ffs their wonder is the Minar of Samarra, which is neither in Egypt nor the Levant. In any case, i explicitly say that these are – a p p r o x i m a t e – locations, so splitting hairs about the exact location of the dots is pointless. There are 23 civs in the game, there’s… Read more »
Ok you are right Saracens are representing some Arab countries but not all the muslims since we have persians, turkish and also now the berbers from the magreb. I thought Saracens were Egyptian because the Mamelukes who govern in Cairo and the campaign of Saladin who was Sultan of Egypt didn’t notice their wonder is in Irak, ok. So the Saracens were representing Moors, Egypt and Mesopotamian, same way slaves were representing polish bulgars and russians and more examples like chinese or indians representing lot of kingdoms. But I think with this expansion being themed in Africa. And having split… Read more »
The 5 civs I would add to this expansion. are Mali, Berbers, Portuguese, Ethiopians and Arabs. If I could add more than 5 I will probably also include Bantu and Kanuri. I think we will need another expansion for IndoChina splitting some kingdoms from india and china and adding the Khmers an maybe the Javanese. Then other for America, adding Iroqueses, Guaranis and Sioux. And then another expansion for Europe splitting the slavs kingdom and adding Normans and others powerhouses.
Bantu aren’t a civilization, but plenty of them. In that case, I’ll pick Benin or Mutapa
medieval Sioux just don’t have sense. They couldn’t be as powerful and iconic as they are in AoE3, since those Sioux are XIX century Sioux…way out the AoE2 timeline.
If i pick another Native american civilizations for the expansion i could suggest to put just one of the Following: Mixtecans, Zapotecans ( mesoamerica), Anazazi ( from Utah): Chankas or Tiwanaku ( from the Andes),
The Iroquopis Sioux and Guaranis make no sense for this game since those tribes flourished too late from the time the game is ambiented.
I don’t know about DLCs, they have such a bad reputation. I know you and I and some hardcore fans wouldn’t mind, but there’s a legions of haters out there that would rip them a new one if they went from old school add-on like they were done back in the good ol days to minor or cosmetic DLCs.
If they can earn a comfortable living doing what they love and take their time to develop these correctly, I say keep on fixing the game and releasing more addons.
Maybe Cherokees or Inuit instead of sioux?
Cherokees are the same story…But inuit are a great choice…they had their history with the vikings in Greenland
Cherokees and inuit is the same case, even worse the inuit have never participated in larger wars so also these two are very unlikely civs in an aoe II expansion.
I could replace Arabs with Khmers ( an asian middle age powerhouse in Indochina) since Arabs are implied to be ” saracens” already, the other ones you mention seems good to me.
But Khmers doesn’t influence Africa. I hope they make an expansion about indochina in the future where they include the Khmers and split chinese or indians who represent now more than one civilization the same way I expect now they split the Saracens. I know that adding berbers they are already split them into Mashrek and Maghreb. But It would be cool a campaing of how the mahoma and the first califas conquer the north of africa, and for that it seems to me they need to spare the Arabs from the Arabia peninsula and the others in Egypt and… Read more »
yes khmers doesn’t influenced africa but the same is true for the huns that doesn’t influenced the New world ( and remember the conquerors was themed mostly featuring the conquest of mesoamerica), my prediction for this games is the following: Berbers, Mali & Ethiopians ( africans with a new arquitecture style)
Khmer (Asian arquitechture style)
Portuguese ( west european or mediterranean style, maybe they could have their own arquitechture style)
And again there is no need to divide the Saracens.
I think it’s firmly established in almost all AoE2 players minds that Saracens are meant to represent any possible Arabic Speaking faction. Since The Berbers have been confirmed, i don’t think any more North-African Civs are needed, not when there is plenty to work with in East and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Actually, Saladin was Kurd, not Arab. Kurds are an Iranian people, so from an ethnical standpoint they have nothing to do with Saracens.
Arabian Bonus – Petards do 1000% more damage
Lol JK
It’ll be more accurate if you can “explode” any unit like a petard and do area damage 😀
the arabs are Saracens.
Generally speaking the problem with your view is that you’re arguing from a moral standpoint. “Europe is already heavily represented, so there SHOULD be more civilizations from other parts of the world! “. This is a video game and it has a theme that it needs to stay true to. Any non European civilization can be added as long as it contributes to a fun gaming experience that is in line with the theme of the game. Adding civilizations on the basis of a moral argument just to prove the point not only harms the game but does nothing to… Read more »
Art matters.
The Middle Ages is a specific period of European history. Measuring African or Meso-American civilizations by the “Middle Ages” yardstick is silly because it is a concept that only makes sense within the European context. Nowhere am I saying that great kingdoms never existed outside of the European continent during the period known as the Middle Ages (MA), but were they Medieval Kingdoms as you state? No, of course they were not. The theme of AOE is centered around the MA experience, so feudalism and the type of structured society that went with it: from the peasantry to the soldiers,… Read more »
well I’m glad you clarified this “””””theme””””” You should go back in time and inform ES that they weren’t staying true to the theme of aoe2 back when they were developing it! Vanilla AoK features the Chinese, Persians, Byzantines, Japanese, Mongols, and other Eastern civs that progressed separately from europe. AoK bases itself around cultural/technological progression as Europe experienced it. Non-European civs didnt go through a ‘dark age,’ ‘feudal age,’ and so on – that’s a strictly European view of advancing that has been projected onto all the non-euro civs in the game. That’s always been in aoe2, everyone’s accepted… Read more »
For someone who was using theme in brackets as if it was a product of my imagination (in what universe would a game have an underlying theme! Alert the elders!) you seem like you abide by the notion quite well, given how much you’ve elaborated on it in your response. This discussion has become completely sidetracked though, no I’m not telling you to use AOE as an academic source in your thesis (???) and yes I’m sure that Age of Chivalry is a great mod but no thank you I don’t want to play it. Anyway, you think that this… Read more »
cmon bro, i was making the point that aoe2 has always been eurocentric. That doesnt change the fact that non-European civs are in the game, and always have been. What exactly IS your point? should the Japanese, Persians, Indians, etc be removed from the game?
Also, im glad to see you’re also on the “games aren’t art” side, which is on the wrong side of history.
Nothing wrong with a game being pseudohistorical, as long as people are aware of it. Look, AOE is not here to teach you about history. You can learn in school or uni or by yourself, but it’s not AOE’s responsibility to teach you anything, so you can’t criticize it for being pseudohistorical. Same thing with your euro-centric view, its completely misplaced. A video game is not meant to provide you with a completely degendered, politically correct and equal representative view of the world. If it were, a game like GTA wouldn’t exist for all its violence against women, racial biases… Read more »
???? really beginning to question your reading comprehension. Youre saying that the game is pseudohistorical and eurocentric; I’m agreeing! I don’t care about that, because its always been a part of the game. That’s not the issue here. That’s what ive been saying this whole time. You’re acting like that is some kind of revelation, but thats what i prefaced this entire fuqing discussion.with. Youre the one saying that AoE2 has to stay true to a Europe-based theme, but you just said that the Japanese and Persians and Aztecs shouldnt be removed. Why the double standard? what’s so different about… Read more »
Can’t say I’m too surprised that you’ve descended into abuse, it is the internet after all. My comprehension skills are just fine, thank you. Listen, I’ve already articulated my view several times. In every single one of your responses all you do is twist my words and attempt to assign outrageous arguments to me. Examples include: Me urging you to use AOE as an academic source in your thesis, and me claiming that the Japanese, Aztecs and Persians be removed from the game. How old are we, eight ? I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, we can… Read more »
ik ik, im the angry one i still dont know what your point is. This is how discussion works. to recap, so we’re clear 1) I make a comment about how there are lots of civs in Europe and comparatively few elsewhere, so this upcoming expansion is a good idea. 2) You reply that African civs can be added, but it shouldnt be on “moral” grounds and should be in keeping with the AoE2 theme. 3) I ask you what this theme is, and elaborate that i don’t just think it’s a “moral” thing to add african civs, it’d just… Read more »
” In every single one of your responses all you do is twist my words and attempt to assign outrageous arguments to me” I just had to read the first few paragraphs and the last two sentences to see that this is again what you’re doing, except now you’re taking it to a whole other level, re-writing the entire conversation. “so forgive me if im getting frustrated” Yes, you clearly are frustrated, I noticed that when your “argumentation” became about twisting my arguments and shouting abuse. Frustrated people over the internet never let things go, this isn’t even about the… Read more »
look im sorry, but you immediately hit a nerve when you said that “…you feel like you’re actually fighting a meaningful battle by posting these comments, sticking up to the man and being a voice for underprivileged nations, when in reality you’re not helping anyone (though you may be making yourself feel good by doing it). Why don’t you actually do something that will help create a fairer world instead of doing this ?” which is a direct attack, your tone might be more polite than mine but the insult is still there, that im somehow delusional and that I… Read more »
I realize you aren’t going to listen, because you haven’t listened to anyone else but…. What he is trying to say is that up to this point, Civilizations have really only been included if they either had a feudal system at some point or if they directly impacted a culture that had that particular type of growth structure.
this is 5 months old man, but-
The Malians and Berbers and Ethiopians are all going to be in the upcoming expansion, and they fit your description 100x more than the Huns or Aztecs or Mayans.
Just to be sure, the dots on Swiss and Netherland represent Huns and Goths? I’m not sure your dot system is really fair, since some factions spread more than others (either due to nomadism, acculturation or natural increase), so half of Asia could actually be covered by Turks, Saracens and Chinese markers. Even though India could be split into several civs and we still lack some East Asian factions (especially in South-East Asia), it’s not surprising to see a higher dots concentration in some part of the world. However, I see your point, Africa was really left out and it’s… Read more »
the placement of dots in Europe was kind of arbitrary, and I made sure to originally say that these are *approximate* locations. The goths could really have been placed anywhere in western or central Europe. geographic accuracy wasn’t the goal here, and im glad you understood that the point was to illustrate the imbalance in representation that exists currently. and again, Saracens can (and will in the upcoming expansion) be broken down into multiple factions. as can Chinese and Persian. the Indian subcontinent can be broken down into just as many factions as there are in Europe currently. That’s not… Read more »
I just realised we probably don’t think of the same thing when we seak about civs that should be split or broken down. Saracens or Chineses can currently be used to represent other cultures, but they also refer to real civilization, with their own artisctical and military traditions and political entities. Indians, however, are just a mash-up of different factions with different languages, cultures, religions and so on which were never really united back in the medieval era (and are still not yet).
Saracens is a mash-up as well. aside from being a general term used archaically to refer to Muslims and Middle Easterners. the historical factions that fall under the “saracen” label are incredibly diverse.
Even though it was often used to mash-up every muslim people altogether because western Europeans didn’t give a fuck about ethnology and terminology, Saracens originally refers to the Adnanites tribes. It was later extended to the other bedouin tribes (Qathanites, also known as Yemenites) and to the peoples from Mashriq and sometimes Maghreb which adopted Arabic language and traditions besides Islam. Even though various ethnicities cohabited within the Levant in the Early Middle Age, the region was mostly dominated by the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires until the Arabs took it over, and then I don’t remember any native people taking… Read more »
I always figured that (in aoe2, which is coming from a western perspective) the term was being used in it’s medieval European context, which would mean that in the strictest possible sense, ‘saracen’ would refer to any faction that was primarily Arab. That would include the later Caliphates, as well as the Rashidun, as well as the innumerable Tribes, Clans, and Emirates that have existed in the region (Arab society was very decentralized before Islam, and even after it’s advent, the Arabs weren’t a monolith). Speaking of Arabic, that is another issue, because the expansion of the Arab empires did… Read more »
“Because Arab is an ethnolinguistic label, rather than a racial one” => Every civilization is built on culture and ethnolinguistic in the first place, the racial component is relevant only when it’s culturaly considered as such. By the way, aside from America, Oceania and Japan, I don’t think any population has ever been entirely supplanted by another. Even in Latine America, natives were mixed to the settlers rather than erased, and the so-called great migrations from the end of the Western Roman Empire did few to nothing to the genome of western european countries (which actually is mostly the same… Read more »
This is how I always imagined the ‘saracen’ description in the original game: imagine if AoE2 had been developed by Arabs, and they divided the Middle East much more accurately, with attention to different cultures and languages and all that. Then when they got to allocating civs in Europe, the Teutons, Franks, Britons, Goths, and Celts were all put into one civ, called “Faranj.” fans of European History might justifiably complain. In the original campaigns, the saracen civ was used to represent Berbers, non-Arab Mesopotamians, pre-islamic Egyptians, and so on. if you look at player made campaigns from back then… Read more »
Here in Uruguay the population was full replaced. The europeans kills all the natives. We talk about the “charruas” and we said we have the “garra” but actually almost nobody have charrua origin. 90% of population is european origin. 5% african origin. And the rest 5% are minority groups like Asians, Semits or Mestizos. So I’m pretty sure exist others countries too were the population was also replaced.
I realise after re-reading myself that I was unclear. When I said that “Even in Latine America, natives were mixed to the settlers rather than erased”, I meant “some parts of Latine America”, such as Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Bolivia or Paraguay. In other countries, the situation of the natives is the same as in the USA, and sometimes they were entirely eradicated. But it wasn’t the point actually, what I wanted to say was that Arabs didn’t replaced the populations from Middle East, but they acculturated them and mostly substituted their language, religion, customs and traditions to the older ones… Read more »
Chinese, sarasen and slavs are also a big mash up of kingdoms culture and religions which were never united In medieval era.
most of the civs are like that to some degree – again, that was intentional on the part of the developers, because it allows larger time periods and regions to be represented.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I see the Chinese civ as the Han ethnic group, which was mostly united several time during the medieval era. Even though religion is a complex topic in China, Hans shared a language and a culture. Saracens were (and still are) used as a big mash up to speak about the whole muslim world, but as I sayed before, it originally refers to the Adnanite Arab tribes, which means the Arabs from northern and central Arabian Peninsula (the southern tribes being known as Qahtanites or Yemenites). They conquered a giant empire going from Spain and Maghreb… Read more »
You’re indeed mistaken. China is not as homogeneous as you think. The term for the Han Chinese ethnic group appeared relatively late. It was mostly a creation of the Late Qing or Early Republic revolutionaries, influenced by western nationalism and by their hate against the Manchus. The so-called Han Chinese is basically a mixed hodgepodge of various assimilated groups of people throughout history. Different Han Chinese ethnic groups from different regions of China speak different dialects, sometimes they are so distinct from one another as to be mutually unintelligible, and you might as well consider them as different languages. And… Read more »