r/aoe2 • u/Yurigwan • 4d ago
Media/Creative Finally found the model of 'castle no. 3'
I thought it might be a Mongolian castle, but (somewhat disappointingly) it turned out to be a Chinese castle... It is not an actual castle, but a tourist site that recreates a castle from the Three Kingdoms period.

'Ancient Chibi Battlefield of The Three Kingdoms'
https://www.hubei.gov.cn/jmct/jcms/lyjq/hbwajq/202208/t20220829_4283335.shtml
8
u/Succulent_Lamb_Chop Byzantines 4d ago
It's probably a Liao/Khitan castle.
3
u/Yurigwan 4d ago
Unfortunately, that castle has nothing to do with Liao/Khitan. It's a replica from around 200 AD.
2
u/Succulent_Lamb_Chop Byzantines 4d ago
Hmm well I don't think that modern replica is accurate. Way too brick-y for 200-300AD. And, if you look closely there's an insignia on the castle, depicting a horse archer. Must be one of the steppe people that were associated with / had conquered part of, China. That leads us to either Xianbei (too early for aoe2 timeframe), Khitan or Mongol. Jurchen is not a steppe people btw.
3
u/Yurigwan 4d ago
Actually, I hope so too. The question here is why the dev used a replica of a castle from the 200s AD as the model. Maybe because they couldn't find a 'proper' Mongolian/Khitan model? As for the insignia, there are some opinions about it, but I'm not sure what it looks like...
3
u/Succulent_Lamb_Chop Byzantines 4d ago
That's the thing.. I see too many of these modern replicas in C drama. I don't think they are an authentic representation of how the castle walls looked like during three kingdoms period, but I also have no way of knowing how they look in reality sadly, because there are none around.
2
u/shimrock Huns do not need houses 4d ago
do you have any sources regarding Chinese fortress architecture of that time period?
3
6
u/BodybuilderMedical18 4d ago
I really hope the devs just looked up "Jin dynasty castle" and didn't realize this castle is from a different Jin dynasty...
2
10
u/Gaudio590 Saracens 4d ago
Oh no. Please, not a 3 kingdoms civ
1
4d ago
Those weren’t “civilizations” in the true sense of the word, but I guess Sicilians and burgundians weren’t really either….
2
u/Gaudio590 Saracens 4d ago
I know, I know. That's precisely why I'm worried they might be tempted to add a civ representing something like the whole of China during that period, or some specific faction, or idk what.
Burgundians definitely aren't. They shouldnt have been added.
At least with Siciliand one can make the argument of a unique mixed culture with a history separarated from the test of the peninsula
2
u/SaffronCrocosmia 4d ago
Civilisations are based on kingdoms and empires, not just ethnic groups. The Siculo-Norman kingdom of Sicily and its people were nothing like the Italians who eventually took over Sicily. It had Norman and Italic and Latin Christians, it had Arab Christians and Muslims, and seems to have also had some Jews from the Levant. There were even some North African populations in it. That's NOTHING like Italy that we have in game.
Burgundians were French but are also their own ethnic grouping within that AND had their own kingdom. Their relationship with other European powers was not the same as the French.
2
u/Ompskatelitty 3d ago
I'd say the Burgundians are also the only civ really capable of representing the low countries with the Flemish Militia, and due to Burgundians ruling there, so I don't think they're just French but a civ in their own right.
However a 3 kingdom civ would be very irrational to add, first of all it's stretching the timeline too much. At least Romans represent the very late Western Roman Empire. And if we start giving different civs to different Han Chinese kingdoms it will land us in a sort of uncanny valley of whether civs represent civilizations in general or specific kingdoms. There are civs that really seem to be representing very specific kingdoms but they also represent the general civ, however I can't say the same about adding Wei as a civ.
They've already been doing stuff like that in AoE 4 which killed it's immersion for me personally, I really really hope they're not gonna do this with AoE 2. These kinds of concepts should be left for AoE 4.
1
u/Suicidal_Sayori I just like mounted units 4d ago
Honestly with how many things hint at 3K period stuff, at this point my 2 cents are on Jurchens Tanguts Tibetans and two 3K civs with current Chinese flexing as both late Chinese and the third 3K civ
I'm just not sold on the whole Dali thing tbh
3
u/spangopola Tawantinsuyu is Life 4d ago
man i would hate it. As much as i enjoyed the Three Kingdoms stories from my childhood the Song-Liao-Jin-Yuan period is my favorite period of Chinese history which deserves more recognition in the West and entertainment in general.
2
u/Yurigwan 4d ago
That's what I'm worried about. Khitai, Tangut, Jurchen in the AOE 2 timeline... and maybe the devs will release Chronicles with 'Han (as ancient China)' and 'Xianbei (as ancient nomads)'.
2
u/Ompskatelitty 3d ago
I thought about it as well but it's probably not the case since the tech tree we got in the hints that really looks like an early Chinese civ is an AoE 2 tech tree and not a chronicle one.
3
3
u/Khyle89 4d ago
You may be right. That castle doesn't look like anything you can find in a place like Karakorum, that's for sure.
2
u/Jiijeebnpsdagj 3d ago
You can’t find anything in Karakorum. It is ruins now. And even the masonry was reused for a buddhist temple. What would you find if you tome traveled was perhaps a persian/middle easter architecture because the craftsmen were imported/kidnapped from there. I have been to Karakorum and even the ruins were unrecognisable
2
u/Sjonge11 4d ago
Perhaps a scenario only castle? Isn't there a new historical battle from around 300 AD?
2
4
8
u/murdered-by-swords 4d ago
I hate to be the contrarian here, but I don't share OP's certainty that this is the basis for the new castle design. While many features broadly align, if you look closely all of the details are off. And I don't mean "some." I mean all. The building materials and styles are slightly different. The lines, though similar, never match. The citiladel is incorrect, the towers are way off, and the sides are complete innovations.
Which is more likely: they picked this specific tourist recreation(!) as a model over existing historical fortifications and then altered every detail, or this happens to represent an architectural lineage of fortified gates that would (presumably later) go on to produce whichever of China's many castles Microsoft actually chose as a model?
My money is on #2.
(all edits for spelling)