Thanks for mentioning me once again, I'm always happy to discuss history with you and have an oportunity to spend a lot of time by someone who isn't instantly bored by me nerding out :D
Awesome content as always. Yes I believe the Persians do deserve a split, personally I'd like to see the Alans, the Sogdians, and the Afghans in the game.
Just chiming in on what was said at 24:05 Maces were some of the most common weapons in the americas. Cultures from the aztecs, to the Mapuche, Taino even Inuit peoples used maces. (Though the difference between clubs and maces can be highly debated so keep that in mind)
Fun video sir. Persian Rework. I completely agree with most of your views sir, I too disliked that the devs still tried to force the square shaped Safavid peg into the round Sassanid Persian hole with the Citadels tech. The Persains NEED a split. I too subscribe to the idea that ''Knights,Cavalier,Paladin'' should only be allocated to Western/Central/Northern (And some eastern) European civs, and the rest should be allocated with: ''Medium Cavalry,Heavy Cavaley, *any specialised cavalry such as Savar'' I'd love to have detailed battles with the Sassanid Persians and completely differing battles with the Safavid Persians. 1.Sassanid Persians - Early to high medieval Eco+land army Civ. Sassanid encounters: Romans, Huns , Byzantines, Saracens,Kurds, Seljuks, Franks, Levanteens,Teutonic Order, Mongols,Khazars Order of Assassins, Tatars, Berbers, Genoise, Armenians,Georgians, Cumans,Sicilians and Britons. 2.Kwarasmian/Safavid Persians - High to late medieval Centralised eco Camel/Trade/Gunpowder civ. Safavid/Kwarasim encounters: Venetians,Mongols,Tatars,Ottomans,Egyptian Mamluk Sultanate, Afghans/Saffarids/Pashtunes/Kabul Shahi/Ghaznavids ,Karamanids, Bengalis, Hindustanis,Kingdom of France, Hapsbergs and Berbers See my full builds for the Sassanids+Safavids+Afghans+Kurds Here: Mamluks of the Middle East / Sultans of the Sands DLC docs.google.com/document/d/1HEj8YbpGI-031-D_ejJ8zoRutJeorQw8Xs19yu_G9nQ/edit?usp=sharing See my full builds for the Alani/Alans here: Marauding Migrations DLC docs.google.com/document/d/1GWg8u2qPA3iYBGh1CzBRd4__31SlTp3AIm5-AE8KZXI/edit?usp=sharing
This kinda mixes up concepts of "Persian" and "Iranian", in my mind, which I do see as separate. I guess it arises from the Persian culture being dominant in Iranian lands, in this time period, although there are some offshoots. I personally do think Huns could be seen as Iranian based on what we know of their genetics, as an offshoot that was not as heavily Persianized, and used as a civ to represent the Huns of Central Asia as much as Attila's empire. It is an example of an Iranian civ that isn't really Persianized. Another would be Alans. Another thing, Pashtuns and Afghans as a concept is technically encompassed by the HIndustanis civ, although I guess it is a weird attempt to encompass much of northern India up to the Afghanistan region. So if there is to be any splitting of northern parts of the Indian region, I think it would go there rather than into the Persian lineup, simply because of the current connections. So from my perspective, there are two Iranian, or proxy-Iranian I guess, groups in the game other than Persians, in Huns and Hindustanis. As for the lineup, I mostly approve of everything from Mid and above. Azeris are one I'm not sure I qualify as a Persian offshoot as I mostly encompass the local culture with the states of Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu, so I usually end up mixing these into a Turkomen/Azeris civilization. I wonder if we could get away with having this one be a mixed group, encompassing the two groups into one, in a similar vein to how Bulgarians encompass Slavic and Turkic peoples. I also see Tajiks as being on the top of the list since we don't really have an adequate later period nomadic Iranian civ. Huns (early on) and Persians (settled) can only go so far. And, well, they are an eastern Iranian group, giving some more wiggle room between Hindustanis and Persian proper. I would also say that they could encompass the Ghurids, who were supposedly of Tajik origin. I also might bump Daylamites up, but that's very esoteric, indeed.
In general I see the current Persians being used to represent almost all Iranian peoples, so while it would be reductive to say the two are the same it's definitely how the game kind of treats them now! The Afghans are definitely kind of a mix of the Persians, Hindustanis, and Turks. They, much like the Azeris, could totally fit into a different split presentation. I just chose to do it this way because I thought it was a better use of space given that these videos can sometimes get pretty long, plus when reviewing the history I felt like the Azeris in particular became slightly more Persian than they were Turkic, at least by the time of the Safavids. Completely a judgment call though.
I think your "How much can we split" videos are my favorite. I'm intrigued with the teased Turk split video. I think a Spanish split video might be interesting too. I've never been pro-spanish split, but.......I might be coming around. A chinese "split" video might be interesting too. In reality i think at most tanguts and nanzhao could be split off and that depends on exactly what you think in game chinese represents. Everybody else is just china adjacent. Jurchens, Khitans, Qocho/Gansu Uyghurs, Tibetans. But still I think it could be interesting.
I'm glad to hear you say it my friend! These videos are much, much easier for me to make than full civilization builds and tend to do a bit better in the RU-vid algorithm, so I've been enjoying mixing them in there. Spanish, Chinese, and much more are all planned!
@@robbylava IDK the etymology, but Qocho, perhaps you've heard them referred to as the Kara-Khoja, was a Uyghur Kingdom in the Tarim Basin. After the Yenisei Kirghiz booted the Uyghurs from the Mongolian plateau, many relocated to the Tarim Baisn. If you use Audible I'd suggest the "The Barbarian Empires of the Steppes" by Kenneth W. Harl and the Great Courses (which I've listened to), or if not I'd suggest the book version "Empires of the Steppes" also by Kenneth W. Harl (which I haven't read or listened to). While the Khaganate might be more representative of Uyghurs as a whole, I think Qocho is more unique. I think they'd be 1/3 Chinese, 1/3 Mongol/Tatar, 1/3 Saracen.
Great video man! But why are you angry? Alans berserks are pretty accurate. No? Oh damn! The civilizations that you bring to the table should be in the game. If I must say which MUST be in it, I would choose Alans, Khwarazmians and Shirvan. The Afghans could be a good pick. Before you talk about them, I thought about the Sogdians. The problem with them would be their lack of military power. They were a trader civilization and they could have some huge bonus around this topic, but I don't see them really have something on the military side. The daylamites are basicaly the people who gave the Sassanid empire an infantry able to face the legions. Not the most known people but it could be nice to have them. I agree with the cataphracts and the macemen and I would be curious to see what it gives.
Devs should finally make aoe2 civs look unique. I’m talking about using proper units for certain civs: 1. Vikings should get Norse warrior and jarls 2. mesoamerican civs should get iroques warrior, amazon warrior, amazon archer and canoes. 3. Japanese should get ninjas 4. Chinese should get flame thrower and dragon ships. 5. Middle eastern civs should get eastern swordsman 6. Nerf elite Teutonic knight’s attack to 12 and non to 10 and give to teutons a crusader knight upgrade for knights. 7. Give sogdian cataphract and qizilbash warrior to persians 8. Give heavy pikeman to all European civs 9. Give heavy swordsman to Romans and bizantines 10. Use proper hero units’ skins for generic units to make them look like regional units.
Persian Rework. I completely agree with most of your views sir, I too disliked that the devs still tried to force the square shaped Safavid peg into the round Sassanid Persian hole with the Citadels tech. The Persains NEED a split. I too subscribe to the idea that ''Knights,Cavalier,Paladin'' should only be allocated to Western/Central/Northern (And some eastern) European civs, and the rest should be allocated with: ''Medium Cavalry,Heavy Cavaley, *any specialised cavalry such as Savar'' I'd love to have detailed battles with the Sassanid Persians and completely differing battles with the Safavid Persians. 1.Sassanid Persians - Early to high medieval Eco+land army Civ. Sassanid encounters: Romans, Huns , Byzantines, Saracens,Kurds, Seljuks, Franks, Levanteens,Teutonic Order, Mongols,Khazars Order of Assassins, Tatars, Berbers, Genoise, Armenians,Georgians, Cumans,Sicilians and Britons. 2.Kwarasmian/Safavid Persians - High to late medieval Centralised ecco Camel/Trade/Gunpowder civ. Safavid/Kwarasim encounters: Venetians,Mongols,Tatars,Ottomans,Egyptian Mamluk Sultanate, Afghans/Saffarids/Pashtunes/Kabul Shahi/Ghaznavids ,Karamanids, Bengalis, Hindustanis,Kingdom of France, Hapsbergs and Berbers See my full builds for the Sassanids+Safavids+Afghans+Kurds Here: Mamluks of the Middle East / Sultans of the Sands DLC docs.google.com/document/d/1HEj8YbpGI-031-D_ejJ8zoRutJeorQw8Xs19yu_G9nQ/edit?usp=sharing See my full builds for the Alani/Alans here: Marauding Migrations DLC docs.google.com/document/d/1GWg8u2qPA3iYBGh1CzBRd4__31SlTp3AIm5-AE8KZXI/edit?usp=sharing
Overall a great video. I really enjoyed it. However, an Afghan civilization would likely be a cavalry civilization with a power economy. They would actually be pretty close to the Persian civ in the game. Afghanistan was a major trading center and the birthplace of empires like the Ghaznavids and the Ghurids, the latter of which would found the Dheli Sultanate. Afghans were known for their heavy cavalry, and this would likely be the basis for their unique unit. Dynasties like the Ghurids and Ghaznavids were founded by invading Turks who would likely contribute cavalry archers and steppe lancers. Their connections with India would contribute camels and elephants. Access to important trade routes would likely mean the caravanserai would be added. They basically end up as a hybrid between the Persians and the Hindustanis.
Good clarification! That would make a lot of sense. I would personally want to see an Afghan civilization also tackle a little bit of subsequent Afghan Empires like the Sur, just to get them a little splash of gunpowder.
You got it backwards. We should merge the Celts, Franks, Burgundians, Sicilians, Spanish, Teutons, and Britons into a big "Franks" civilization to reflect their common denominators.
@@gaius_iulius_megas In one book of Phocas ( I'm quoting of memory I can fall the name of the author, but I can confirm later ) the autor mentions a flametrower in the formations of the infantry ( inside a big square of infantry whit "gates" , laps in the formation, so the cavalry enters and leaves the square)
Completely agree, but I'm trying to stick with the paradigm that the current game has of using ethnic naming conventions. If I had my way though, we would definitely be doing dynastic in many cases!
I could see there being close alternatives that wouldn't be nearly as offensive though, some other major players during Islam's earliest days. The Rashidun caliphate was pretty powerful and had all sorts of fascinating people within it.
Me is a muslim, First, this is truly offensive, I will not be happy to see the prophet himself or any event related to him personally to be in the game. However, I'd like to see a 10-scenario campaign about the islamic conquests in general despite the fact that the berbers campaign is a part of that, the first may be the conquest of the the arabian peninsula itself (this happened afther the death of the prophet) before fighting the persians and the byzantines
I have split viking cvi into 7 Civilizations. Svear. Guts. Does. Daner .The norm. Iceland. The Faroe Islands. And Italy in 3. Florence. Milan. venice +
Not necessarily! I talked about this a bit in my video on the Persians. Aswaran often would serve a similar role but had a pretty remarkably varied arsenal that I think makes them distinct enough that I would personally have them as a separate unit. Don't get me wrong, I like how the current build tries to represent them as a knight upgrade, certainly better than nothing. I just think the unit can be made more interesting than that.
They could easily put Afghans,as many of us suggeested, Basic history storylines available..Alauddin khilji..Turko Afghan warlord...defeated even the early non muslim mongols.. but... don't take it otherwise...just joking... Uncle Sam never creates a game civilization of people who defeated him previously....😂😂😂😂😂😂
