There's too many civs, eliminate some

[Freezing_Point]

If we only need one civ per branch of the Proto-Indo-European language family, then clearly we must start by cutting down all these excess Romance language civs. Franks, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, even Byzantines considering they speak Latin rather than more accurate Greek. Just rename Byzantines as Latins, and remove the redundancies.

 

[drunkenhalb]

If we only need one civ per branch of the Proto-Indo-European language family, then clearly we must start by cutting down all these excess Romance language civs. Franks, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, even Byzantines considering they speak Latin rather than more accurate Greek. Just rename Byzantines as Latins, and remove the redundancies.

but to be fair, these civilizations influenced Europe more than the rest... In many ways they shaped and guided Europe out of the dark age/medieval (wtv)

 

[drunkenhalb]

I think you guys misunderstood me. I said, that slavic and baltic languages experienced/lived through same language development somewhere in past. It is absolutely understandable, that today, after two thousand years of development, baltic and slavic are not mutually understandable.However, what I meant is, that at certain point in time, two groups were living close to each other to such degree, that their languages were developed in similar ways, with a lot of common phonological, lexical and morphological similarities. According to Jānis Endzelīns, lithuanian linguist, slavonic languages are closest to baltic languages. According to Casimir Buga, there are many slavic loanwords in lithuanian from pre 1200AD era. Antoine Meillet, french linguist refuted balto-slavic unity in prehistoric era. Reaction came from Reinhold Trautmann who claimed there was existence of separate balto-slavic branch. Nevertheless, the issue among linguists is about existence of separate balto-slavic branch, not the fact, that balts and slavs are linguistically close. That balts and slavs were very close since ancient times is indisputable. Some scholars suppose two groups strongly influenced each other during their ethnogenesis during classical and early medieval period. (1)
One of highest deities of Lithuanian pantheon was Dievas, later used as synonym to "god". In slavic, direct translation of god is simply bog/boh (g changed to h in west slavic around 12th century) but older variant of god was Divъ /Diva. Both Dievas and Div have same roots, that is protoindoeuropean Dyēus meaning simply "god" and/or "sky". (compare latin deus, iranian daeva, etc.)
Despite having common root, you will not understand it today, simply because slavic languages, under influence of christianity, denoted Div/Diva to use for demons, lower deities. Today, It may appear we differ very much, while in reality, our past is closely tied.
Lets take a look at God of thunder, war. Belief in thunder deity, the one fighting with serpent like creature, whose sacred tree was oak, has its common roots in proto indo european. While scandinavians had Thor, Greeks had Zeus, Celts had Taranis (to some degree), there is striking similarity betwen baltic and slavic people. Lithuanian Perkunos, Old Prussian Perkuns and Slavic Perun are very similar. Then there is god of underworld/death, that goes by name Veles/Volos in Slavic, same as lithuanian vele, which means spirit of death. Both those words have roots in PIE uel, which means death. It is possible that vele was lithuanian god of death as well as in slavic, but under influence of christianity semantic shift has occured.
There is just too many similarities among slavic and baltic people in prehistoric era. Just take a look at mythology studies. While both slavic and baltic people share those similarities with other european people due to common Indo-European heritage, it is undeniable, that baltic and slavic people share more similarities with each other than they share with other europeans (but also iranians, etc.) Here is picture with relation to slavic mythology and relations to other ethnic groups. It is clear, that we have closest relation wtih baltic people, followed by Germans and Iranians.(2)
View attachment 178599
This close relations, which has began long before current era, has continued all the way until present times. Yes, languages evolved and as you said, during 19th century, there were some very initiative nationalists, who often "purged" their languages of any foreign influence, creating new words and simply changing language too much. So much actually, that lithuanians who came into US after those changes were introduced, they had problems understanding their own kin who came into US before those changes.(3) No wonder lithuanian and slavic are so different today, that we do not understand each other.

This case is very similar to Slovak and Hungarian or rather Magyar relations. We can not understand each other. Magyar language is simply so foreign to us, that we can not understand it. Yet, if you look at our culture (with exception of language), and especially folk culture, they have so many similarities it is unbelievable at times. If you look at "appearance" (which is basically genetics, dunno why are we afraid to use such term), you will not be able to distinguish among Slovaks and Magyars. If you go deep enough, then yes you will find many differencies, but I would not dare to say that we are (to paraphrase you) "completely different."

My point is or rather was, that people of European descent are culturally, genetically and linguistically very close to each other and that baltic and slavic people are much closer to each other then they are to other europeans. By no means I tried to somehow say that baltic people are slavic or something. As nationalist I think every nation has its core values/culture/language that makes it unique. And so does Lithuania. A distinct flavour on its own. But then there is outer layer, which is influenced by all other people living for thousands of years in close proximity. It is only logical, that biggest influence on batlic people would come from slavic people who live next to each other for milenias.

(1) SENN, Alfred. On the degree of kinship betwen slavic and baltic In Slavonic yearbook. Cambridge, 1941, p.251-265.
Paper that is actually critical towards baltio-slavic unity in prehistoric era, so hardly a biased. Nice resume of previous research on this topic.
(2) SENN, Alfred. The historical development of Lithuanian vocabulary In Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America. New York, 1943, p. 946-969
This one goes into detail how much was Lithuanian influenced not only by slavic but also German and other languages.
(3) VÁŇA, Zdeněk. Svět slovanských bohů a démonů. Praha, 1990, 280 p.
All those can be found online. First two are in english language.

oh damn...he busted out a venn diagram. Shots fired .

 

[IvIaximus]

If we only need one civ per branch of the Proto-Indo-European language family...

Where did you get this from?

 

[Adalolf]

I want there to be a Norway civ. The term ''Vikings'' is a stereotypical generalization and frankly racist. And I want the Unique Unit to be ''Troll''.

 

[Freezing_Point]

Where did you get this from?

From all the complaints that Bulgarians and even Lithuanians are unnecessary when Slavs already exist.

 

[AmazonButterfly]

From all the complaints that Bulgarians and even Lithuanians are unnecessary when Slavs already exist.

maybe we should change their name to Bulgars to avoid these complaints?

 

[Hunyadi_]

Just some clarifications here on Huns and Magyars.

Huns are a people that disappeared from the records of history even before the Medieval period began. Now remember AoE2 is a video game that references the Medieval period first and foremost.

The reason Ensemble Studios decided to include the Huns over the Magyars in the Conquerors expansion that came out in 2001 is because people would recognize Huns and Attila the Hun better leading to more sales. So they did it, not for historical accuracy, but for selling out reasons.

And to be honest this was a shitty reason, there was no way to prove people would buy a game more if they saw Huns rather than Magyars. It was pure speculation and insulting to boot. The Magyars (Hungary) did much to help protect Europe from various invading threats...sometimes successfully, sometimes not so much. But they tried and then to be by-passed for the Huns by some greedy westerners, well it's frustrating.
And don't forget the Huns contributed next to nothing culturally and architecturally. Did you ever look at their wonder? It's a Roman building with skulls on the ground. That's their wonder, somebody else's building with skulls. Which some might say, oh yeah they're baddass, death and destruction rah rah heavy metal bro.

And that's fine, but that's not a civilization. That's just a band of marauders (lul UT).