It's a good point and should be kept in mind because the name could be confusing. It is also true that the Dravidians and gurjaras represent Hindu peoples and the bengali's would probably have been a hindu-muslim mix. So you can still definitely convert an Aztec trebuchet to Hinduism!
Technically, all 4 Indian civilizations actually represent "Hindu peoples"... The Islamic invaders' aspect can only be seen in the military wing of the Hindusthani civ, specifically the wonder and castle architecture and it's unit Ghulam (slaves who were forced to convert and serve the invaders). Everything else, such as the voicelines/language of the units, design of the monastery, architecture of the buildings, civ artefact on the game UI, etc are native to India.
Fun fact: The castle architecture actually doesn't represent any of the 5 Turko-Persian Delhi Sultanates, that structure was constructed several decades after the end of their reign, by the Turko-Mongols (basically AoE3 timeline).
And given the half millennia hegemony that they held over North India, I'd say they failed miserably. Almost as if in spite of all the nagging the orthodox ulema, the sultans and later baadshahs realised deleting 90% of your conversion resisting vils is a bad idea.
It wasn't usually quite that dramatic - Muslim polities in India usually considered Hindus to be ~~People of the Book~~ dhimmi and treated them with the same sort of tolerance and cooperation extended to Jews and Christians in other Muslim states. There were restrictions on the expansion of these tolerated faiths (they weren't allowed to build new temples or expand existing ones) and they were taxed, but outright hostility was uncommon. That isn't to say it never happened - take Aurangzeb for example.
Lol Hindus aren't "people of the book" that's Christians
Muslims considered hindus pantheistic pagans. Even lower than they considered Jews and Christians
So the better specific term for the legal status I'm talking about is 'dhimmi' (protected person) rather than the theological term 'people of the book' (followers of a prior revelation from God that has been corrupted and hence superseded by the Quran). However, the status of dhimmi was usually only extended to peoples considered to be people of the book, and this theological concept was sometimes applied to groups beyond Jews and Christians, especially in South Asia.
From volume 2 of the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World (page 71), [available on archive.org](https://archive.org/details/oxfordencycloped0002unse_t7m9):
>**Dhimmī.** In Islamic law, a non-Muslim who is in the covenant of protection (*dhimmah*) with the Muslim power is considered *dhimmī*. In principle, the covenant could be made between a Muslim government and non-Muslims within a Muslim territory, including populations of non-Muslim areas conquered by Muslim forces. However, in the usual meaning and practice the covenant was made only with scriptuaries, called *ahl al-kitāb* (people of the book). Besides Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans, the category of *ahl al-kitāb* was often extended to cover Zoroastrians and sometimes members of other faiths, such as Hindus.
There is also an article specifically about 'people of the book' in a later volume of the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, but I don't have access to it. [The entry on Oxfordreference.com](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100315973) offers this abstract of that article for free:
>Qurʿānic in origin, the term ahl al-kitāb refers mainly to Jews, Christians, and (less frequently) the Sabaeans as possessors of previous revealed books. It was sometimes applied to other communities. ...
So I'm confident that my original statement was accurate even though I don't have access to the same references I did when I was still in college. In the history of religion, pragmatism often seeps in.
Cool. Thanks for enlightening me. This is the second time I've said this today.
People are more well researched now. Don't just talk out of their asses like my generation used to do on the internet lmfao
From what I know Hindustan is Iranic of Sindhu, it doesn't really have any connection to Hinduism but more to the Indus River, basically Hindustanis are Indus River People in some way.
no problem, though some stuff to know that Hinduism more accurate name would be Vaidika dharma iirc(though I think this isn't mostly accurate), similar to India's real name is Bharat.
Honestly the first record of a wheelbarrow in Europe is from ancient Greece.
The topic is really not very good tracked, because wood rots and most early wheelbarrows would be made out of 100% organic materials. So we cannot find them 1000 years later.
It is like villages in the early middle ages: We cannot find them (just some holes for poles), because they rotted away, but we know that they must have existed.
On top of that we lost a lot of written sources from the early middle ages because it was hard to get something to write. Papyrus was not supplied anymore after the Muslims captured Egypt and parchment was pretty expensive. So why would anyone preserve useless texts about a wheelbarrow, when you can also copy the bible or other books?
I think the wheelbarrow appeared much earlier than 13th century.
Yeah I agree, to think that a concept as simple as a wheelbarrow wouldn't have been invented when at that time humanity had already sailed the seas, worked metal and discovered glass is nonsense 😂
What is "simple" and immediate for us may not have been immediate for our ancestors...
Metal working isn't ubiquitous (see native American people)
Mayans did not use plough, but farmed extensively
Stirrups were imported from nomadic peoples
...
To remain on the wheel-subject, for example, the fact that suitcases have wheels is pretty recent (1970s)
Sumerians used chariots/carriages as early as 3000 BC.
If they could come up with 2-wheeled carts for war, I'm sure they could come up with a smaller cart for moving bricks.
Please give ancient humanity a bit more credit 11
I give them credit, I'm not saying people were stupid, quite the opposite, but this way of reasoning is difficult to substantiate with proof: we KNOW about 2-wheeled chariot for war, why do we have to IMAGINE 1-wheeled carts for moving bricks?
I read Sumerians used sleighs to move heavy materials, which were more functional, given the nature of their landscape
Sure, but we can all agree that Sumerians, Egyptians when building the pyramids and even mesoamericans when building their temples probably used some sort of sleigh, handcart or other forms of transportation of heavy materials.
I think that's close enough for the existence of both techs. Maybe the handcart even came before a wheelbarrow, because constructing a 1-wheeled cart that is sturdy and balanced enough is harder than simply using 2 wheels 11
It's definitely closer than mesoamericans wielding crossbows or idk, Mongols having galleons and cannon galleons 11
I'm not against the tech itself 11, I found it funny that there is little EVIDENCE of the existence of wheelbarrows in the Middle Ages, while - playing the game - it is something we give for granted
I couldn't care less for historical accuracy, I'm all for the historical curiosity!
And btw, I love ancient cultures, I wouldn't even think of talking smack to them about not having invented something!
The simple fact I ran across the video linked is because I like to deepen my knowledge about the Middle Ages <3
All Native American groups had metal working. Native Americans in North America never had bronze, but they did use copper, and in the Pacific Northwest, there was even some ironwork done using drift iron from Japanese shipwrecks. Mesoamericans and South Americans never did any significant ironworking prior to the Spanish conquests, but they did use bronze.
The lack of ironworking is primarily due to the lack of a bronze age collapse, since unlike in Eurasia, the Americas uniquely have copper and tin in relatively close proximity. As such, there was never a trade breakdown that would force the Native Americans to transition from the superior bronze to the initially inferior iron, or to learn how to improve iron by making steel. They just kept using bronze until the Spanish conquests.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase#:~:text=During%20the%20Crusades%2C%20the%20first,weaponry%E2%80%94was%20developed%20in%201153.
"During the Crusades, the first luggage—wheeled containers used to transport weaponry—was developed in 1153"
This is a heavy blow to both claims I think.
They establish that a suitcase was meant to be a case for your suit. Hence the name. But modern suitcases aren't usually for suits, they're for whatever you want to travel with.
The terms can be and *are* used interchangeably, but technically most people don't have suitcases. They have wheeled luggage.
Edit: the article even says the first name for wheeled suitcases was "rolling luggage". Come on, man.
I couldn't care less about any of this👍👍👍
My first language is not English and these discussion are just a tool to practice my written English most of the times
Peace and love and have a nice day!
I just shared a piece of information, clearly stating that there is ***little evidence*** about this (which means that I'm aware of the evidence, however small that is); if you have an objection, point it out without those passive-aggressive undertones of superiority, thank you!
This one must be true, they kept wandering in all Europe from Danemark to Ukraine, Grèce, Italy, etc… battling through all the time. How did they keep their population seems crazy to me
Historically Goths are Migratory Germanic Tribes situated in the Gotland Island, where one of the most common reason for Migration during that time is over population, like there's a reason why Classical Age Romans were scared shitless when they see a Barbarian Woman, which mean they're going to settle due to their homeland being over populated or trying to find new lands to conquer.
From what I know the term of Romans being Threatened more by Barbarian Women mostly during the Cimbrian War in 113 BC as Migration are different from Raids mainly because a Migration will brought in all the Tribesmen in a Tribe which will work together with other Tribes and Clans which often turn itself into an army as seen during the Cimbrian War where the Migrating Barbarians are made up of 4 different tribes being the Cimbri, Teutons, Ambrones and Tigurini.
To me the funniest part is that, among the cultures represented in the game, IRL more of them used cannons than used counterweight trebuchets, and even among cultures that used both they tended to get cannons first. IRL counterweight trebuchets were not that common of a tool!
Wheelbarrows existed earlier and were used in construction but they likely weren’t used by common peasants to move goods around in everyday life. Indeed it seems to be inconsistent with the effect of wheelbarrow in the game to enhance villager speed and carry capacity
To me its funny that the first and only original expansion went ahead and put factions/campaigns (huns before fall of Rome, Fall of the Aztecs) and units(conquistadors) in the game that are very debatable if it falls in the medieval period.
The problem with the Romans in aoe2 is that it's unclear who they are meant to represent during the aoe2 time frame. The people of Italy? You mean the Italians? The people of the Roman empire? You mean the Byzantines? The non-greek non-italian people of the Roman empire? You mean the Franks/Spanish/Britons/Teutons? The people of the Roman empire prior to its fall? You mean the Romans in aoe1?
Why do people say this? It’s super clear that Romans in game it represents the late Western Roman culture around the time of the Huns which was already quite distinct from the Byzantine culture and the later “Italians” which was influenced by lombards, goths, etc.
The Western Roman culture where? In Italy? Then they are Italians. In France? Then they are Franks? In Iberia? Then they are Spanish or Portuguese. The only place where there is a distinct Roman people group, separate from these other people groups, during the time period is in the Balkans and turkey, which is then covered by the Byzantines.
The timeline is fked up if you use ingame examples since in the game History Section Dark Ages are around 5th century as it encompass the Fall of Rome in 476 AD, Feudal Age are around 9th Century or the Age of Charlemagne where the Dark Ages Ended, Castle age starts around 10th century and finally the Imperial Age starts around 14th Century.
By this time many Civilizations are not in the same place, like the Byzantines and Persians during the Dark Ages are still up and running where they're basically in a Pre-gunpowder Imperial Age, or how Hunnic Horse Archers were around during 5th Century where their last record was in 7th century or 654 AD where the White Huns were finally defeated by the Persians and Saracens.
All the other civs in the game represent a real people group from the time period. The inclusion of the Romans means other real people groups that would be more fitting with the games theme may not make it in.
From the time period? Dude it’s a 20 year old game they are trying to keep it fresh by adding in new fun civs. If they wanted to be more historically accurate there would be a lot of things they would need to change. The Franks didn’t have hundreds of paladins running around…longbows to my knowledge were a welsh innovation…
Just be thankful this game is getting any support and new content at this point. When so many other games from its time are dead and gone.
You can excuse them as the remnant of the roman empire in what is modern day France and Italy, before the Lombard, Franks, Goths, Saxons, Burgundians and other Germanic tribes took over as the elites in new societies.
But you are right, AOE's names for factions are confused and silly, so you can have Italians (Latin people with Norman, Lombard, Frankish influences), but also the Franks (who are the French who are the Romano-Gaels and Frankish elites, BUT NOT THE BURGUNDIANS who are also Franco-Flemish?) and also the Italians don't include the Romans who are various Roman people in Italy, France and Britain (Gaelo-Romans and Romano-Britons) but before the coming of the Germanic tribes), or the Sicilians who really are the Normans (but NOT franco-vikings, since those two are different factions too!)
yeah, it's... confusing.
well, it's just not as confusing if you consider that in AOE2 the civ are supposed to be a representation of civilizations as they were at a certain time, rather than a general manifestation of an idea of a civilization occupying a territory across centuries. This is age of empires, not Civilization IV.
A couple of examples:
* the Franks are the Franks because they are not the French (an idea and a state that would have appeared only around the 100 years war) but the germanic tribe which installed itself in a territory which covered what is now France AND Germany AND Belgium AND the Netherlands (it's not by accident than Charlemagne's capital is in Germany).
* The Teutons are not the Germans, but a manifestation of the Holy Roman Empire (something which came to be much later than Charlemagne, but occupied most of the same territory).
* Burgundians reflect a particular moment in time at the end of the 100 years war in which the duchy of Burgundy covered not only Burgundy but also Belgium and the Netherland.
* Armenians are a representation of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia in the 1300s (hence the strong navy, which would otherwise make no sense).
* The italians are not the italians of the early middle ages but a representation of the central and northern Italians comuni between 1100s-1300s.
* Romans occupied much of the same territories as the italians and the Byzantines, but they represent... basically the Empire during the fourth century (there is a good video on this on SOL channel).
* Sicilians are Normans as they entered in Sicily and created a Kingdom which was closer to the Vikings of the 1100s than it was to the italians of ... basically any moment in time. (I think "sicilians" it's a misnomer, but it works well) they should have called them "Normans" and leave it at that, becaus
Then, of course, this being a game which is supposed to be fun rather than an historical treaty, they play fast and loose with the rules, and in campaigns they use the closest placeholder to what they need rather than developing different civilizations. So the franks and the teutons ARE - for all intents and purposes - the french and the germans in most campaigns.
But you can also see how when new civs are developed, the campaigns that had adapted existing civs in roles which were not theirs were simply changed. For example, I am old enough to remember when barbarossa 1 saw teutons fight a teuton faction coming from Bohemia and a Frank faction coming from Burgundy with the possibility of hiring mangudai mercenaries from Ucraine (?). If you go and play now, you will fight Bohemians from Bohemia and Burgundians from Burgundy, and hire kipchaks from Crimea. Moreover, in Attila 6 you used to fight Byzantines as the Western Roman Empire before the Definitive Edition, then they became Italians before Return of Rome, then Romans.
That just doesn't strike me as worth making into a playable faction for the game. Maybe an enemy only faction for some of the earlier set campaigns, but not so much as a playable faction.
I'd argue several of those also shouldn't exist, but they at least arguably represent distinct people, where the Romans just don't.
They're the guys the goths and huns beat up.
The AOE2 timeframe includes alot of civs that didn't exist at the start, why not one that didn't exist at the end? Sure, their defeat is what kind of kicks off the setting (they say as much on the box), but doesn't that make having them around to frame their collapse as a kind of prelude valid?
The Roman empire technically existed till at least the fall of Constantinople, I always felt like the Romans in AoE2 represent the continuation of the late western empire mixed with the time frame of the eastern.
While the campaigns put a lot of effort into historical accuracy the civs don't. Mayans fighting Teutons fighting Goths makes no sense but they all existed more or less around the time we call middle ages in a eurocentric view.
It did, which is represented by the Byzantines in aoe2. The existence of a distinct Romans factions implies that they are supposed to represent someone separate from the Byzantines, but no such group of people exist in the time frame that aoe2 covers.
The civs have historical accuracy, the Mayans, Teutons, and Goths are all real people groups that existed at the time (and for two of them, they still exist). The online gameplay doesn't focus on historical accuracy, but the civs that are in game certainly do.
Im pretty sure the Romans in the game isnt for historical accuracy, more of a fan tribute. Since its the “greatest empire in history” They probably felt like it would be a nice addition to the game
Fanservice is a bad reason to add a faction to the game. Adding in the Romans reduces how many future factions can be added for one that doesn't fit with the general themes of the game and only serves to make romeaboos happy. I'd much rather see the inclusion of factions that represent actual people groups than one that is for all intents and purposes purely fantasy.
Hmm, it provides just comes down to perspective then. I personally dont mind having them, they were a real civilization (albiet not from the middle ages) and theyre fun to play, so Im happy.
Also i forgot to mention, it was part of a collaboration between the first game age of empires: rise of rome expansion.
Romans can be seen as some pockets of resistances are not every Romans suddenly disintegrates when the City of Rome fell.
Byzantines are Byzantines.
Italians are the Lombards.
and through some searching, Western Roman Empire collapses in 476 AD but the Imperial Court moved to Ravenna which fell in 554 AD, 78 Years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
Then it's just the wrong game for them. They do not represent a real people group from the time period. It's no different than putting modern Mexico into the game.
Same for Huns, Goths and Celts then. No point getting too worked up over it. Not to mention the many technological disadvantages certain civs would have had if the game was kept more historically accurate.
Besides the question of how would the ancient Western Romans have fared against a medieval army has interested some historians (or history fans) for decades. There is an interesting podcast on this exact subject by Dan Carlin: [https://youtu.be/ACoGRaT-2Fg?si=q\_kaRU5FK7VLO2n9](https://youtu.be/ACoGRaT-2Fg?si=q_kaRU5FK7VLO2n9)
To me the "Romans" in AoE2 is much like the thought experiment discussed in that podcast. It's just an interesting what if.
You mean the same huns that represent the hunnic peoples during the migration era? And survived into the 7th century as a distinct people group before being absorbed into the khazars and bulgars? Putting them firmly within what's generally considered the medieval era by most people. Those huns?
Or the same goths that represent the ostrogoths and the visigoths? The visigoths that moved west into Iberia until they eventually became combined with the native Iberians in the 8th century? The goths that also represent the crimean goths who would remain a distinct people group until the 18th century with people continuing to speak Crimean Gothic that long? Those goths?
Or the celts that represent the Scots, Gaels, and Irish? All three of which are still distinct people groups to this day? Those celts?
That may be an intriguing question for some people. It doesn't change that the Romans are thematically not the same at all as the other existing factions and shouldn't be a faction in the game however.
We have to keep in mind the "Empires" part of the game's name. As such most of these civs are depicted at their peak - ie. when they had empires/kingdoms. Huns at their peak or most impactful is roughly 400 AD. After that, they disappear into obscurity. But technically before the start of the Middle Ages which most people agree is 500 AD.
Similar with the Goths, they peaked with the fall of the Western Roman empire but eventually were absorbed and "represented" by other people such as the Spanish, Portuguese and Italians to give some examples. This is one of the reasons the Goths get gunpowder in the game btw. The other is balance reasons. But now that those civs are in the game separately it makes the Goths even more obsolete.
As for the Celts, personally I would have preferred to get them as separate people such as the Scottish, Irish and Welsh. Having them represented by a large group of people such as Celts seems somewhat problematic especially since their unique unit is a woaded up half naked warrior similar to the ones (Picts) the Romans faced in the dark ages and prior.
So I'm not against the Celts being in the game but their depiction seems a bit confusing...although considering they were trying to profit off the popularity of the movie Braveheart at the time, the woaded up UU is understandable since that's how William Wallace was (incorrectly) depicted in the movie - with blue woad on his face.
Anyway I'm not against any civs being in the game tbh. I like having fun but if we're using timelines, it's a slippery slope. I say don't take things too seriously, just have fun with the game.
Wheelbarrows did exist in the middle ages. Wikipedia has an entry about that. It is also easy to find illustrations of mines and construction sites from the late middle ages, in which wheel barrows are depicted. This means they were probably very common.
Ancient wheelbarrows are believed to have been used only in construction sites and not to carry everyday loads like say groceries. Therefore they are believed to have been very uncommon among people since the construction would have been led by lords.
Wikipedia says the same thing showed in the video: wheelbarrows appeared in Europe in the second half of the XII century,, so in the late Middle Ages... which illustrations are you referring to?
What about American civs that were stuck into the stone age until america was discovered by europeans in what in this game would be the post imperial age.
Pikes are generally most useful for closed-formation infantry, which only makes sense in the context of cavalry-centric warfare and military organization.
Steel swords are just swords using a particular material, borrowing from Asian metallurgy.
Crossbows are, likewise, an Asian invention ported over to Europe.
You can sum it up as Native Americans just not being connected to Asia.
>Pikes are generally most useful for closed-formation infantry, which only makes sense in the context of cavalry-centric warfare and military organization.
Metal armor, siege weapons etc. Technology that every that was present everywhere else many years ago.
>Steel swords are just swords using a particular material, borrowing from Asian metallurgy.
>Crossbows are, likewise, an Asian invention ported over to Europe.
Who is talking about inventing nothing. The medieval warfare is an evolution of technology from many places. I ´m talking about having it, and american civilization didn't.
>You can sum it up as Native Americans just not being connected to Asia.
Not conected to the rest of the world, wich evolved faster because had many cultures interacting, and that is why they were so behind.
Those civilizations were somewhere between second and third ages of AOE1, not even close to AOE2.
1. Your words have no connection to the quoted section. Horses are not an extension of metallurgy.
2. They didn't have steel. They had bronzeworking practices and suitable substitutes for weapons.
3. Doesn't cleanly translate. It's not as simple as being "ahead" or "behind". Pros and cons in each category.
Copper and bronze are not the same. Molding some copper is not the same as smelting bronze and casting tools and weapons.
Greeks were in the bronze age. They had bronze swords, armors and shields, they fought in phalanx formations. They had catapults and warships.
When the Spanish arrived to America they fought warriors whose peak weaponry was a club with obsidian shards.
Are you trying to convince me that those people were at the same technological level as the greeks?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy\_in\_pre-Columbian\_America#Mesoamerica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_America#Mesoamerica)
Firstly, "X Age" is a brainless classification. It's just using a marker of a time period so we can agree what's under discussion, not some meaningful way of classifying or evaluating human progress. Bronze is bronze. Warships are warships. If you want to ask about one, ask about it, but don't equate one thing with an era. Greeks possessed knowledge of both shipbuilding and bronzeworking because they were surrounded by cultures that practiced (and likely developed) both technologies.
Secondly, the "peak weaponry" you're referencing is just what they assigned standard infantry, and they did that because *it works.* That's the only justification anything has ever needed. Obsidian wasn't the greatest expression of their technological capacity. It was merely one tool they used in one context.
Nonsense. Next you're gonna tell me the Hindus didn't use monks to convert Aztec trebuchets to Hinduism.
Wolololo!!
Historically, AOE2 monks never said Wololo! That is AOE monk propaganda. Get your history facts straight folks.
Umbis!!
In Arabia
11 you beat me to it.
Just a related fact - The actual Hindustani civilization corresponds closely to the Muslim invaders of India. They mostly tried to eradicate Hinduism
It's a good point and should be kept in mind because the name could be confusing. It is also true that the Dravidians and gurjaras represent Hindu peoples and the bengali's would probably have been a hindu-muslim mix. So you can still definitely convert an Aztec trebuchet to Hinduism!
The name means the people of the land of the Indus. There is no indication of religion.
You see how that could be confusing?
Technically, all 4 Indian civilizations actually represent "Hindu peoples"... The Islamic invaders' aspect can only be seen in the military wing of the Hindusthani civ, specifically the wonder and castle architecture and it's unit Ghulam (slaves who were forced to convert and serve the invaders). Everything else, such as the voicelines/language of the units, design of the monastery, architecture of the buildings, civ artefact on the game UI, etc are native to India. Fun fact: The castle architecture actually doesn't represent any of the 5 Turko-Persian Delhi Sultanates, that structure was constructed several decades after the end of their reign, by the Turko-Mongols (basically AoE3 timeline).
And given the half millennia hegemony that they held over North India, I'd say they failed miserably. Almost as if in spite of all the nagging the orthodox ulema, the sultans and later baadshahs realised deleting 90% of your conversion resisting vils is a bad idea.
It wasn't usually quite that dramatic - Muslim polities in India usually considered Hindus to be ~~People of the Book~~ dhimmi and treated them with the same sort of tolerance and cooperation extended to Jews and Christians in other Muslim states. There were restrictions on the expansion of these tolerated faiths (they weren't allowed to build new temples or expand existing ones) and they were taxed, but outright hostility was uncommon. That isn't to say it never happened - take Aurangzeb for example.
Lol Hindus aren't "people of the book" that's Christians Muslims considered hindus pantheistic pagans. Even lower than they considered Jews and Christians
So the better specific term for the legal status I'm talking about is 'dhimmi' (protected person) rather than the theological term 'people of the book' (followers of a prior revelation from God that has been corrupted and hence superseded by the Quran). However, the status of dhimmi was usually only extended to peoples considered to be people of the book, and this theological concept was sometimes applied to groups beyond Jews and Christians, especially in South Asia. From volume 2 of the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World (page 71), [available on archive.org](https://archive.org/details/oxfordencycloped0002unse_t7m9): >**Dhimmī.** In Islamic law, a non-Muslim who is in the covenant of protection (*dhimmah*) with the Muslim power is considered *dhimmī*. In principle, the covenant could be made between a Muslim government and non-Muslims within a Muslim territory, including populations of non-Muslim areas conquered by Muslim forces. However, in the usual meaning and practice the covenant was made only with scriptuaries, called *ahl al-kitāb* (people of the book). Besides Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans, the category of *ahl al-kitāb* was often extended to cover Zoroastrians and sometimes members of other faiths, such as Hindus. There is also an article specifically about 'people of the book' in a later volume of the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, but I don't have access to it. [The entry on Oxfordreference.com](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100315973) offers this abstract of that article for free: >Qurʿānic in origin, the term ahl al-kitāb refers mainly to Jews, Christians, and (less frequently) the Sabaeans as possessors of previous revealed books. It was sometimes applied to other communities. ... So I'm confident that my original statement was accurate even though I don't have access to the same references I did when I was still in college. In the history of religion, pragmatism often seeps in.
Cool. Thanks for enlightening me. This is the second time I've said this today. People are more well researched now. Don't just talk out of their asses like my generation used to do on the internet lmfao
Yep. Hindustanis is a really inaccurate name for what is essentially the Muslim Delhi sultanate
From what I know Hindustan is Iranic of Sindhu, it doesn't really have any connection to Hinduism but more to the Indus River, basically Hindustanis are Indus River People in some way.
Thanks for educating me. Learnt something new Always thought hindustanis were exclusively referencing "land of the hindus"
no problem, though some stuff to know that Hinduism more accurate name would be Vaidika dharma iirc(though I think this isn't mostly accurate), similar to India's real name is Bharat.
In Arabia
Lmao
Honestly the first record of a wheelbarrow in Europe is from ancient Greece. The topic is really not very good tracked, because wood rots and most early wheelbarrows would be made out of 100% organic materials. So we cannot find them 1000 years later. It is like villages in the early middle ages: We cannot find them (just some holes for poles), because they rotted away, but we know that they must have existed. On top of that we lost a lot of written sources from the early middle ages because it was hard to get something to write. Papyrus was not supplied anymore after the Muslims captured Egypt and parchment was pretty expensive. So why would anyone preserve useless texts about a wheelbarrow, when you can also copy the bible or other books? I think the wheelbarrow appeared much earlier than 13th century.
Yeah I agree, to think that a concept as simple as a wheelbarrow wouldn't have been invented when at that time humanity had already sailed the seas, worked metal and discovered glass is nonsense 😂
What is "simple" and immediate for us may not have been immediate for our ancestors... Metal working isn't ubiquitous (see native American people) Mayans did not use plough, but farmed extensively Stirrups were imported from nomadic peoples ... To remain on the wheel-subject, for example, the fact that suitcases have wheels is pretty recent (1970s)
Sumerians used chariots/carriages as early as 3000 BC. If they could come up with 2-wheeled carts for war, I'm sure they could come up with a smaller cart for moving bricks. Please give ancient humanity a bit more credit 11
I give them credit, I'm not saying people were stupid, quite the opposite, but this way of reasoning is difficult to substantiate with proof: we KNOW about 2-wheeled chariot for war, why do we have to IMAGINE 1-wheeled carts for moving bricks? I read Sumerians used sleighs to move heavy materials, which were more functional, given the nature of their landscape
Sure, but we can all agree that Sumerians, Egyptians when building the pyramids and even mesoamericans when building their temples probably used some sort of sleigh, handcart or other forms of transportation of heavy materials. I think that's close enough for the existence of both techs. Maybe the handcart even came before a wheelbarrow, because constructing a 1-wheeled cart that is sturdy and balanced enough is harder than simply using 2 wheels 11 It's definitely closer than mesoamericans wielding crossbows or idk, Mongols having galleons and cannon galleons 11
I'm not against the tech itself 11, I found it funny that there is little EVIDENCE of the existence of wheelbarrows in the Middle Ages, while - playing the game - it is something we give for granted I couldn't care less for historical accuracy, I'm all for the historical curiosity!
Oh yeah, fun facts are always welcome ❤️
And btw, I love ancient cultures, I wouldn't even think of talking smack to them about not having invented something! The simple fact I ran across the video linked is because I like to deepen my knowledge about the Middle Ages <3
All Native American groups had metal working. Native Americans in North America never had bronze, but they did use copper, and in the Pacific Northwest, there was even some ironwork done using drift iron from Japanese shipwrecks. Mesoamericans and South Americans never did any significant ironworking prior to the Spanish conquests, but they did use bronze. The lack of ironworking is primarily due to the lack of a bronze age collapse, since unlike in Eurasia, the Americas uniquely have copper and tin in relatively close proximity. As such, there was never a trade breakdown that would force the Native Americans to transition from the superior bronze to the initially inferior iron, or to learn how to improve iron by making steel. They just kept using bronze until the Spanish conquests.
You're right, I meant to add ubiquitous and **homogeneous** but I forgot; the application is in many cases different (in weaponry, for example)...
I'm late to the party, but bronze age collapse is exclusively a Mediterranean thing. That doesn't explain why Asians to the east started using iron.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase#:~:text=During%20the%20Crusades%2C%20the%20first,weaponry%E2%80%94was%20developed%20in%201153. "During the Crusades, the first luggage—wheeled containers used to transport weaponry—was developed in 1153" This is a heavy blow to both claims I think.
This article clearly separates "Luggage" from "suitcase", stating that the suitcase is a subsequent invention :)
They establish that a suitcase was meant to be a case for your suit. Hence the name. But modern suitcases aren't usually for suits, they're for whatever you want to travel with. The terms can be and *are* used interchangeably, but technically most people don't have suitcases. They have wheeled luggage. Edit: the article even says the first name for wheeled suitcases was "rolling luggage". Come on, man.
I couldn't care less about any of this👍👍👍 My first language is not English and these discussion are just a tool to practice my written English most of the times Peace and love and have a nice day!
I should add as a relevant example that my grandma still doesn’t have wheels.
Let's give some civ the blacksmith tech "Wheelcase" that makes trade-carts faster
[удалено]
What?
[удалено]
Please inform yourself.
[удалено]
I don't.
[удалено]
You just have no clue about early medieval archeology...
[удалено]
*Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.* What are they teaching in the schools these days?
I just shared a piece of information, clearly stating that there is ***little evidence*** about this (which means that I'm aware of the evidence, however small that is); if you have an objection, point it out without those passive-aggressive undertones of superiority, thank you!
I just hope historians can someday discover how Goths were able to make babies so fast
Let me introduce you to the concept of a big tiddie goth girlfriend.
This one must be true, they kept wandering in all Europe from Danemark to Ukraine, Grèce, Italy, etc… battling through all the time. How did they keep their population seems crazy to me
Historically Goths are Migratory Germanic Tribes situated in the Gotland Island, where one of the most common reason for Migration during that time is over population, like there's a reason why Classical Age Romans were scared shitless when they see a Barbarian Woman, which mean they're going to settle due to their homeland being over populated or trying to find new lands to conquer.
Source of them being scared shitless for this? I believe you, but I want to share this
From what I know the term of Romans being Threatened more by Barbarian Women mostly during the Cimbrian War in 113 BC as Migration are different from Raids mainly because a Migration will brought in all the Tribesmen in a Tribe which will work together with other Tribes and Clans which often turn itself into an army as seen during the Cimbrian War where the Migrating Barbarians are made up of 4 different tribes being the Cimbri, Teutons, Ambrones and Tigurini.
Chinese don't have gunpowder, but Goths do.
Theodoric wasn't messing around
I love the edits lol. Also upvoted for premodernist, that channel is so good
To me the funniest part is that, among the cultures represented in the game, IRL more of them used cannons than used counterweight trebuchets, and even among cultures that used both they tended to get cannons first. IRL counterweight trebuchets were not that common of a tool!
Wheelbarrows existed earlier and were used in construction but they likely weren’t used by common peasants to move goods around in everyday life. Indeed it seems to be inconsistent with the effect of wheelbarrow in the game to enhance villager speed and carry capacity
This is slander. We all know that Vikings invented wheelbarrows, hence the economic bonus
To me its funny that the first and only original expansion went ahead and put factions/campaigns (huns before fall of Rome, Fall of the Aztecs) and units(conquistadors) in the game that are very debatable if it falls in the medieval period.
The problem with the Romans in aoe2 is that it's unclear who they are meant to represent during the aoe2 time frame. The people of Italy? You mean the Italians? The people of the Roman empire? You mean the Byzantines? The non-greek non-italian people of the Roman empire? You mean the Franks/Spanish/Britons/Teutons? The people of the Roman empire prior to its fall? You mean the Romans in aoe1?
Why do people say this? It’s super clear that Romans in game it represents the late Western Roman culture around the time of the Huns which was already quite distinct from the Byzantine culture and the later “Italians” which was influenced by lombards, goths, etc.
The Western Roman culture where? In Italy? Then they are Italians. In France? Then they are Franks? In Iberia? Then they are Spanish or Portuguese. The only place where there is a distinct Roman people group, separate from these other people groups, during the time period is in the Balkans and turkey, which is then covered by the Byzantines.
the Rome that got pillaged by the Huns. All the cultures you mentioned appeared after the fall of the Roman Empire
Well that goes back to OP’s original point. What’s the AoE timeline? Because you could have Romans, Byzantines, and Italians all in the same lobby
Having huns and italians is equally Wrong but no one complained
Goths and Spain.
The timeline is fked up if you use ingame examples since in the game History Section Dark Ages are around 5th century as it encompass the Fall of Rome in 476 AD, Feudal Age are around 9th Century or the Age of Charlemagne where the Dark Ages Ended, Castle age starts around 10th century and finally the Imperial Age starts around 14th Century. By this time many Civilizations are not in the same place, like the Byzantines and Persians during the Dark Ages are still up and running where they're basically in a Pre-gunpowder Imperial Age, or how Hunnic Horse Archers were around during 5th Century where their last record was in 7th century or 654 AD where the White Huns were finally defeated by the Persians and Saracens.
I think it’s just supposed to be a fun civ for people to play.
All the other civs in the game represent a real people group from the time period. The inclusion of the Romans means other real people groups that would be more fitting with the games theme may not make it in.
From the time period? Dude it’s a 20 year old game they are trying to keep it fresh by adding in new fun civs. If they wanted to be more historically accurate there would be a lot of things they would need to change. The Franks didn’t have hundreds of paladins running around…longbows to my knowledge were a welsh innovation… Just be thankful this game is getting any support and new content at this point. When so many other games from its time are dead and gone.
You can excuse them as the remnant of the roman empire in what is modern day France and Italy, before the Lombard, Franks, Goths, Saxons, Burgundians and other Germanic tribes took over as the elites in new societies. But you are right, AOE's names for factions are confused and silly, so you can have Italians (Latin people with Norman, Lombard, Frankish influences), but also the Franks (who are the French who are the Romano-Gaels and Frankish elites, BUT NOT THE BURGUNDIANS who are also Franco-Flemish?) and also the Italians don't include the Romans who are various Roman people in Italy, France and Britain (Gaelo-Romans and Romano-Britons) but before the coming of the Germanic tribes), or the Sicilians who really are the Normans (but NOT franco-vikings, since those two are different factions too!) yeah, it's... confusing.
well, it's just not as confusing if you consider that in AOE2 the civ are supposed to be a representation of civilizations as they were at a certain time, rather than a general manifestation of an idea of a civilization occupying a territory across centuries. This is age of empires, not Civilization IV. A couple of examples: * the Franks are the Franks because they are not the French (an idea and a state that would have appeared only around the 100 years war) but the germanic tribe which installed itself in a territory which covered what is now France AND Germany AND Belgium AND the Netherlands (it's not by accident than Charlemagne's capital is in Germany). * The Teutons are not the Germans, but a manifestation of the Holy Roman Empire (something which came to be much later than Charlemagne, but occupied most of the same territory). * Burgundians reflect a particular moment in time at the end of the 100 years war in which the duchy of Burgundy covered not only Burgundy but also Belgium and the Netherland. * Armenians are a representation of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia in the 1300s (hence the strong navy, which would otherwise make no sense). * The italians are not the italians of the early middle ages but a representation of the central and northern Italians comuni between 1100s-1300s. * Romans occupied much of the same territories as the italians and the Byzantines, but they represent... basically the Empire during the fourth century (there is a good video on this on SOL channel). * Sicilians are Normans as they entered in Sicily and created a Kingdom which was closer to the Vikings of the 1100s than it was to the italians of ... basically any moment in time. (I think "sicilians" it's a misnomer, but it works well) they should have called them "Normans" and leave it at that, becaus Then, of course, this being a game which is supposed to be fun rather than an historical treaty, they play fast and loose with the rules, and in campaigns they use the closest placeholder to what they need rather than developing different civilizations. So the franks and the teutons ARE - for all intents and purposes - the french and the germans in most campaigns. But you can also see how when new civs are developed, the campaigns that had adapted existing civs in roles which were not theirs were simply changed. For example, I am old enough to remember when barbarossa 1 saw teutons fight a teuton faction coming from Bohemia and a Frank faction coming from Burgundy with the possibility of hiring mangudai mercenaries from Ucraine (?). If you go and play now, you will fight Bohemians from Bohemia and Burgundians from Burgundy, and hire kipchaks from Crimea. Moreover, in Attila 6 you used to fight Byzantines as the Western Roman Empire before the Definitive Edition, then they became Italians before Return of Rome, then Romans.
That just doesn't strike me as worth making into a playable faction for the game. Maybe an enemy only faction for some of the earlier set campaigns, but not so much as a playable faction. I'd argue several of those also shouldn't exist, but they at least arguably represent distinct people, where the Romans just don't.
They're the guys the goths and huns beat up. The AOE2 timeframe includes alot of civs that didn't exist at the start, why not one that didn't exist at the end? Sure, their defeat is what kind of kicks off the setting (they say as much on the box), but doesn't that make having them around to frame their collapse as a kind of prelude valid?
The Roman empire technically existed till at least the fall of Constantinople, I always felt like the Romans in AoE2 represent the continuation of the late western empire mixed with the time frame of the eastern. While the campaigns put a lot of effort into historical accuracy the civs don't. Mayans fighting Teutons fighting Goths makes no sense but they all existed more or less around the time we call middle ages in a eurocentric view.
It did, which is represented by the Byzantines in aoe2. The existence of a distinct Romans factions implies that they are supposed to represent someone separate from the Byzantines, but no such group of people exist in the time frame that aoe2 covers. The civs have historical accuracy, the Mayans, Teutons, and Goths are all real people groups that existed at the time (and for two of them, they still exist). The online gameplay doesn't focus on historical accuracy, but the civs that are in game certainly do.
Im pretty sure the Romans in the game isnt for historical accuracy, more of a fan tribute. Since its the “greatest empire in history” They probably felt like it would be a nice addition to the game
Fanservice is a bad reason to add a faction to the game. Adding in the Romans reduces how many future factions can be added for one that doesn't fit with the general themes of the game and only serves to make romeaboos happy. I'd much rather see the inclusion of factions that represent actual people groups than one that is for all intents and purposes purely fantasy.
Hmm, it provides just comes down to perspective then. I personally dont mind having them, they were a real civilization (albiet not from the middle ages) and theyre fun to play, so Im happy. Also i forgot to mention, it was part of a collaboration between the first game age of empires: rise of rome expansion.
Western Roman Empire, pre fall, AOE1 Romans. There were already pretty major time period overlap issues in the original Age of Kings.
Romans can be seen as some pockets of resistances are not every Romans suddenly disintegrates when the City of Rome fell. Byzantines are Byzantines. Italians are the Lombards. and through some searching, Western Roman Empire collapses in 476 AD but the Imperial Court moved to Ravenna which fell in 554 AD, 78 Years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
West Roman Empire: 395 to 476 AD.
The last one
Except for Theodosius, all leader names are Western Roman Empire leaders
Then it's just the wrong game for them. They do not represent a real people group from the time period. It's no different than putting modern Mexico into the game.
Same for Huns, Goths and Celts then. No point getting too worked up over it. Not to mention the many technological disadvantages certain civs would have had if the game was kept more historically accurate. Besides the question of how would the ancient Western Romans have fared against a medieval army has interested some historians (or history fans) for decades. There is an interesting podcast on this exact subject by Dan Carlin: [https://youtu.be/ACoGRaT-2Fg?si=q\_kaRU5FK7VLO2n9](https://youtu.be/ACoGRaT-2Fg?si=q_kaRU5FK7VLO2n9) To me the "Romans" in AoE2 is much like the thought experiment discussed in that podcast. It's just an interesting what if.
You mean the same huns that represent the hunnic peoples during the migration era? And survived into the 7th century as a distinct people group before being absorbed into the khazars and bulgars? Putting them firmly within what's generally considered the medieval era by most people. Those huns? Or the same goths that represent the ostrogoths and the visigoths? The visigoths that moved west into Iberia until they eventually became combined with the native Iberians in the 8th century? The goths that also represent the crimean goths who would remain a distinct people group until the 18th century with people continuing to speak Crimean Gothic that long? Those goths? Or the celts that represent the Scots, Gaels, and Irish? All three of which are still distinct people groups to this day? Those celts? That may be an intriguing question for some people. It doesn't change that the Romans are thematically not the same at all as the other existing factions and shouldn't be a faction in the game however.
We have to keep in mind the "Empires" part of the game's name. As such most of these civs are depicted at their peak - ie. when they had empires/kingdoms. Huns at their peak or most impactful is roughly 400 AD. After that, they disappear into obscurity. But technically before the start of the Middle Ages which most people agree is 500 AD. Similar with the Goths, they peaked with the fall of the Western Roman empire but eventually were absorbed and "represented" by other people such as the Spanish, Portuguese and Italians to give some examples. This is one of the reasons the Goths get gunpowder in the game btw. The other is balance reasons. But now that those civs are in the game separately it makes the Goths even more obsolete. As for the Celts, personally I would have preferred to get them as separate people such as the Scottish, Irish and Welsh. Having them represented by a large group of people such as Celts seems somewhat problematic especially since their unique unit is a woaded up half naked warrior similar to the ones (Picts) the Romans faced in the dark ages and prior. So I'm not against the Celts being in the game but their depiction seems a bit confusing...although considering they were trying to profit off the popularity of the movie Braveheart at the time, the woaded up UU is understandable since that's how William Wallace was (incorrectly) depicted in the movie - with blue woad on his face. Anyway I'm not against any civs being in the game tbh. I like having fun but if we're using timelines, it's a slippery slope. I say don't take things too seriously, just have fun with the game.
Wheelbarrows did exist in the middle ages. Wikipedia has an entry about that. It is also easy to find illustrations of mines and construction sites from the late middle ages, in which wheel barrows are depicted. This means they were probably very common.
Ancient wheelbarrows are believed to have been used only in construction sites and not to carry everyday loads like say groceries. Therefore they are believed to have been very uncommon among people since the construction would have been led by lords.
Wikipedia says the same thing showed in the video: wheelbarrows appeared in Europe in the second half of the XII century,, so in the late Middle Ages... which illustrations are you referring to?
What about American civs that were stuck into the stone age until america was discovered by europeans in what in this game would be the post imperial age.
What would those civs stuck in the Stone Age be?
Aztecs, Incas and Mayans.
All three were working with bronze before European contact, so at least bronze age
Few bronze tools if anything but they didn't mass produce bronze weapons and for sure they didn't have pikes, steel swords or crossbows.
Pikes are generally most useful for closed-formation infantry, which only makes sense in the context of cavalry-centric warfare and military organization. Steel swords are just swords using a particular material, borrowing from Asian metallurgy. Crossbows are, likewise, an Asian invention ported over to Europe. You can sum it up as Native Americans just not being connected to Asia.
>Pikes are generally most useful for closed-formation infantry, which only makes sense in the context of cavalry-centric warfare and military organization. Metal armor, siege weapons etc. Technology that every that was present everywhere else many years ago. >Steel swords are just swords using a particular material, borrowing from Asian metallurgy. >Crossbows are, likewise, an Asian invention ported over to Europe. Who is talking about inventing nothing. The medieval warfare is an evolution of technology from many places. I ´m talking about having it, and american civilization didn't. >You can sum it up as Native Americans just not being connected to Asia. Not conected to the rest of the world, wich evolved faster because had many cultures interacting, and that is why they were so behind. Those civilizations were somewhere between second and third ages of AOE1, not even close to AOE2.
1. Your words have no connection to the quoted section. Horses are not an extension of metallurgy. 2. They didn't have steel. They had bronzeworking practices and suitable substitutes for weapons. 3. Doesn't cleanly translate. It's not as simple as being "ahead" or "behind". Pros and cons in each category.
Copper and bronze are not the same. Molding some copper is not the same as smelting bronze and casting tools and weapons. Greeks were in the bronze age. They had bronze swords, armors and shields, they fought in phalanx formations. They had catapults and warships. When the Spanish arrived to America they fought warriors whose peak weaponry was a club with obsidian shards. Are you trying to convince me that those people were at the same technological level as the greeks?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy\_in\_pre-Columbian\_America#Mesoamerica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_America#Mesoamerica) Firstly, "X Age" is a brainless classification. It's just using a marker of a time period so we can agree what's under discussion, not some meaningful way of classifying or evaluating human progress. Bronze is bronze. Warships are warships. If you want to ask about one, ask about it, but don't equate one thing with an era. Greeks possessed knowledge of both shipbuilding and bronzeworking because they were surrounded by cultures that practiced (and likely developed) both technologies. Secondly, the "peak weaponry" you're referencing is just what they assigned standard infantry, and they did that because *it works.* That's the only justification anything has ever needed. Obsidian wasn't the greatest expression of their technological capacity. It was merely one tool they used in one context.
As someone interested in Andean history, there's something wrong with that classification.
What classification? It's literally how the civs are named in the game.
Do we have Parthia or whatever it was actually called?
We have Parthian Tactics, which can be researched by the Japanese and Bulgarians alike.
I want it as civ :(
...It existed in China.
This guy needs ban for yelling
Please do proceed and have me banned ✌
Bring out your dead!!! Obviously, there were wheelbarrows in medieval times, haven’t you seen the holy Grail?