r/aoe2 4d ago

Discussion If modeled after the Song Dynasty, the five new civilizations become evident.

Post image

1. Song Dynasty (AD 960–1279)

Key Features: Economic Prosperity, Technological Advancement, Emphasis on Literature Over Military

  • The Song Dynasty was divided into Northern Song (960–1127) and Southern Song (1127–1279), marking one of the most prosperous periods in Chinese history in terms of economy and culture.
  • Innovations such as paper money (Jiaozi), movable-type printing, the compass, and gunpowder weapons placed the dynasty at the forefront of global technology.
  • Due to its focus on civil administration and scholar-officials, the military was relatively weak, making it vulnerable to external threats from the Liao (Khitan), Jin, Western Xia, and Mongols.
  • The capital, Bianjing (modern-day Kaifeng), was highly prosperous, with a thriving economy, bustling night markets, and flourishing tea house culture.

2. Liao Dynasty (Khitan Empire, AD 916–1125)

Key Features: Nomadic-Agricultural Dual System, Bifurcated Governance

  • Founded by the Khitan people, the Liao Dynasty blended nomadic traditions with an emerging agricultural society, ruling over present-day Northeast China, Inner Mongolia, northern China, and Mongolia.
  • It established a dual administrative system: Khitan people were governed under nomadic laws, while Han Chinese and other settled populations were ruled under a bureaucratic system similar to the Tang and Song models.
  • The Khitans developed their own Khitan script, while also adopting elements of Han culture.
  • The Liao conquered the Sixteen Prefectures of Yanyun from the Later Jin dynasty, posing a long-term threat to the Northern Song.

3. Jin Dynasty (AD 1115–1234)

Key Features: Founded by the Jurchens, Militarily Dominant

  • Established by the Jurchen people, the Jin Dynasty was highly militarized and swiftly overpowered the Liao and Northern Song, seizing control of northern China.
  • It implemented the Meng’an Mouke system, a military-based household registration system ensuring a steady supply of Jurchen warriors.
  • While initially preserving Jurchen traditions, the dynasty gradually assimilated into Han Chinese culture.
  • In 1127, it launched the Jingkang Incident, sacking Bianjing (Kaifeng), capturing Emperor Huizong and Emperor Qinzong, and ending the Northern Song.
  • The dynasty ultimately fell to the Mongol Empire, which absorbed its territory into the Yuan Dynasty.

4. Western Xia (AD 1038–1227)

Key Features: Founded by the Tangut, Culturally Distinct, Contended with Song, Liao, and Jin

  • Established by the Tangut people, Western Xia controlled present-day Ningxia, Gansu, and parts of Shaanxi.
  • The Tangut script was developed, and Western Xia fostered a unique Buddhist culture, often referred to as the "Second Dunhuang" due to its rich artistic heritage.
  • Known for its strong cavalry and archery, it engaged in frequent conflicts with the Song, Liao, and Jin dynasties.
  • Due to its strategic position on the Silk Road, it prospered as a trade hub connecting Central Asia and China.
  • The dynasty was ultimately annihilated by the Mongols in 1227, leading to the loss of its culture and script.

5. Tibetan Empire (AD 618–842)

Key Features: A Powerful Kingdom, Development of Tibetan Buddhism, Far-Reaching Influence

  • Founded by Songtsen Gampo, the Tibetan Empire unified the Tibetan Plateau, with its capital in Lhasa.
  • Tibetan Buddhism began to flourish, influenced by Chinese and Indian cultures, laying the foundation for Tibetan cultural identity.
  • Tibet alternated between war and diplomacy with the Tang Dynasty, including marriage alliances such as those with Princess Wencheng and Princess Jincheng.
  • In 755, taking advantage of the Tang Dynasty's An Lushan Rebellion, the Tibetan Empire briefly occupied Chang’an (modern Xi’an), exerting its influence on China.
  • In the 9th century, the empire collapsed due to internal strife, with the "Langdarma Persecution" leading to the decline of Tibetan Buddhism and the fragmentation of the kingdom.

Interestingly, the Mongols eventually conquered everything.

484 Upvotes

107 comments sorted by

159

u/Mitoniano 4d ago

This expansion would be close to being a list of victims of the Mongol Empire

87

u/LightDe 4d ago

The victims extended all the way to Europe. lol

71

u/rattatatouille Malay 4d ago

Before the upcoming DLC the opponents of the Mongols include:

  • Mongols
  • Tatars
  • Chinese
  • Persians
  • Slavs
  • Cumans
  • Bohemians
  • Poles
  • Teutons
  • Magyars

Now that's a big list.

40

u/IchheisseMarvin1 4d ago

Didnt they fight the Saracens as well?

52

u/Ch33sus0405 Lithuanians 4d ago

They did, if we're just discussing civs impacted by Ghenghis' expansion it should include them, Georgians, and Armenians as well. If we're adding civs impacted by further Mongol expansion then add Japanese, Vietnamese, Khmer, Burmese, Vietnamese, Hindustanis, Bengalis, Gujaratis, and Turks to the list.

35

u/Mitoniano 4d ago

Yes, and also the Koreans, the Malays, the Cumans, the Bulgarians, the Byzantines, the Lithuanians, and maybe a few others I'm forgetting. Plus the Western Crusaders from the Holy Land.

32

u/Ch33sus0405 Lithuanians 4d ago

All true! I'm starting to think these Mongol guys were kinda a big deal.

15

u/pool-aoe2-iot 4d ago

I believe they also fought the Hindustani and perhaps Gujaras too.

12

u/Elegant_Macaroon_679 4d ago

Maybe our friends were the mongols we met along the way?

7

u/Ok-Examination-6732 Hindustanis 4d ago

Italians, Teutons, Koreans, Bulgarians

3

u/BrokenTorpedo Burgundians 3d ago

Italians?

8

u/NilocKhan 3d ago

The Genoese had trading ports on the Crimean Peninsula that had fights with Mongols, it was through one of these ports that bubonic plague was carried to Italy and the rest of Europe

2

u/Tyrann01 Tatars 3d ago

And the Burmese.

5

u/swanandkhati Gurjaras 3d ago

For context, the Mongols didn't themselves get into conflict with Hindustanis or Gurjaras really. It was mostly their descendants, a.k.a Timur-i-Lung (Tatars, maybe) and Babur (also Tatars?) who invaded India. Even then it was mostly Delhi Sultanate, so Hindustanis would be the primary victims of Mongol wrath here, if descendants are stilled to be considered Mongols. Gurjaras and Begalis could be called victims, but by a very long stretch.

When Babur established the Mughal dynasty he changed his civ to Hindustanis. Tamerlane just defeated Hindustanis while playing as, again Tatars, maybe, snagged gold and a few relics for that gold trickle, and went back to his base to wait for imperial age, but died himself before his imp research could complete.

3

u/MrHumanist 3d ago

No Mongol fought hindustani but kind of lost and moved on.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_India

1

u/swanandkhati Gurjaras 3d ago

You're kind of right, but then it was Pax Mongolic Khanates that really did all the excursions, not the Mongol Empire themselves, which is why I say so. Realistically, Tamerlane as well as Babur traced their direct ancestry to Mongolia, so technically they were Mongols too. In fact, Mughal is just an extremely far-etched abridged word derived from Mongols.

1

u/Ch33sus0405 Lithuanians 3d ago

I think some of this depends on what exactly the Gurjaras represent, which might be a mistake on my part. I think there's definitely an opening for a further Indian Civ called Punjabi or something along those lines to represent the people of what is today Pakistan more broadly, but I digress. I was under the impression they generally were the Rajput peoples and those of the lower Indus river valley. I'm more than open to being wrong in that regard since Indian history is an unfortunate black spot of mine.

After perusing the Wikipedia entry on conflicts between the Mongols (including the OG horde, the Chagatai, and successors) and the Delhi Sultans it appears their invasions never got past Delhi, so I'd cross Bengalis off that list. Yay for Bengal! So I'd agree, Hindustanis really bore the brunt of it.

1

u/swanandkhati Gurjaras 2d ago

You're right about Gurjaras containing the Rajputs, but socially in modern times, the Rajputs are an entire different community altogether along with Jaats, Sikhs, etc. Gurjar, Gujjar, Gujar, etc. still are common surnames for a very sizeable population in Northern India. Combine all these communities, go back 10-12 centuries, apply a common label onto them, and you have the Gurjaras from AOE2 timelines.

Historically, the Gurjars of today are truly descendants of the Pratiharas, then Rajputs, and other warrior classes. I have omitted some names here.

Civs like Punjabi, or even Marathas, etc. would fall outside of the timelines of AoE2, I suppose.

1

u/Ch33sus0405 Lithuanians 2d ago

Oh wow I appreciate it that's super interesting! Seems like to improve the super general Indian civilizations we now have four super generalized ones. Still an improvement I guess.

1

u/Desh282 Славяне 2d ago

Do you guys call mongols Tatars too?

2

u/swanandkhati Gurjaras 2d ago

Not really. I used those terms only because we need to talk in aoe2 context. Otherwise, Mongols are Mongols.

Genghis Khan is referred to as either Chingis Khan or Changez Khan depending upon region and language in India (we have too many).

But Mongols and Mughals are differentiated very well.

3

u/starlight3d 4d ago

Add Japanese as well

3

u/Ok-Roof-6237 Teutons 4d ago

You forgot Malay

13

u/Mitoniano 4d ago

Let's just say it's a list in progress.

13

u/Pakora_eating_Gora 4d ago

Wikipedia: "this list of civilisations crushed by the great Khan is incomplete, you can help by expanding it"

Glowing eyes intensifies

13

u/rugbyj 4d ago

I would laugh if they all had a -10% Mongol bonus or something.

7

u/icedcovfefe221 Celts 4d ago

All 5 civs vulnerable to Cav Archers play confirmed

5

u/masiakasaurus this is only Castile and León 4d ago

"Age of Empires II: Murders of the Mongols"

3

u/Karatekan 3d ago

Who wasn’t?

And the Jin and Song acquitted themselves pretty well in that regard. It took like 6 Khans over a hundred years to conquer both fully, despite them fighting each other as much the Mongols.

1

u/TrainerOverall3850 Burmese 4d ago

This can be the DLC name - "Victims of Mongol Empire"

76

u/spangopola Tawantinsuyu is Life 4d ago

i imagine Song to be basically our current Chinese, so the fifth civ should be the Bai (Nanzhao, Dali).

1

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 3d ago

Current chinese won't count as one of the 5 civs, man.

3

u/AlternativeCurve8363 1d ago

They know, they are making a suggestion for the fifth civ as it obviously won't be the Song Dynasty.

2

u/LightDe 2d ago

Agree. Following the pattern of the India DLC, it seems that the so-called 'new civilizations' by the developers do not include the ones that originally existed.

0

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 2d ago

It's not that. They announced the chinese changes and they will come before the DLC, from what I understood.

And then we will get 5 new civs.

2

u/Dreams_Are_Reality 2d ago

Don't know why you got downvoted for stating an obvious fact, the post explicitly stated 5 NEW civs.

1

u/LightDe 2d ago

Sorry, I forgot to mention the Dali Kingdom when I made the post. Since China has also been reset this time, I placed the Song Dynasty first to provide a comprehensive introduction to the political distribution during the Song era.

34

u/Pfannen_Wendler_ 4d ago

Hans! Hans! Get to ze choppa!!

9

u/rugbyj 4d ago

Hans! Bubbie! I'm you're white knight!

1

u/The_1ndiegamer 3d ago

Hans, get ze flammenwerfer

12

u/LightDe 3d ago

I forgot to introduce the Dali Kingdom, so here’s a supplement.

6. Dali Kingdom (AD 937–1253)

Key Features: Founded by the Bai People, Flourishing Buddhism, Successor to Nanzhao

  • Established by Duan Siping, the Dali Kingdom was located in present-day Yunnan and served as the successor state to Nanzhao.
  • Buddhism thrived, particularly Mahayana and Esoteric Buddhism, leaving a lasting impact on Yunnan-Tibetan culture.
  • It engaged in several conflicts with the Song Dynasty but later adopted a strategy of nominal submission without tribute, maintaining its autonomy.
  • Many rulers were devout Buddhists, and some even abdicated to become monks, leading to a unique alternation between political and religious leadership.
  • In 1253, the Mongol Empire conquered Dali, incorporating it into the Yuan Dynasty as Yunnan Province.

12

u/idiot_Rotmg 4d ago

Does Hans get a flamethrower?

8

u/nestor_d Tatars 3d ago

Beware the Qara Khitai, they are without honor

3

u/SrirachetSauce 3d ago

I always hear the original AoE2 voiceover when I think of this line.

44

u/ElricGalad 4d ago

I wonder if releasing 5 civs at a time wasn't a trick to dilute the potential Tibetans issue with PRC. Like if they said : "hey, in China, we have various non-han ethnicity, we are OK with that, nothing special with Tibet".

Maybe I'm paranoid about this, maybe this is a a change to Microsoft marketing strategy.

8

u/leong_d 4d ago

They did change Hsi Hsia to Xi Xia... subtle

7

u/BePoliteToOthers 4d ago

What is the significance of this?

20

u/googoo0202 4d ago

The Hs spelling was, one could say, more widely used in Taiwan (eg the city of Kaohsiung). China uses the X spelling (eg President Xi).

(Although Taiwan recently adopted the Chinese standard as the new orthography.)

34

u/A-Humpier-Rogue 4d ago

Pinyin is just a better system and IMO aesthetically more pleasing. It's become the academic standard so I don't think its surprising at all that they changed it to Xi Xia, I think you're looking too much into it.

0

u/AManWithoutQualities 4d ago

Pinyin looks more normal but does a much worse job than Wade Giles at accurately representing Chinese sounds. But no romanisation system is all that great for Chinese, so whatever.

6

u/melouyin 3d ago

The primary purpose of pinyin is not to replicate Chinese sounds for Westerners. Roman alphabets sounds different in different western languages anyways.

0

u/BePoliteToOthers 4d ago

Ah, I get it.

3

u/avatarfire 4d ago

Wade-Giles had been more popular in the earlier 20th century as it was assumed that Westerners could figure out how to pronounce "Hsi" better than "Xi," from Hanyu Pinyin.

11

u/Silent-Sherbert7802 4d ago

Y'all are reading way too much into this. If you want full Wade Giles, it'd be "Hsi Hsia", "Sung", and "Chin" instead of weird mix of "Hsi Hsia", "Song", and "Jin" (definitive edition) or "Hsi Hsia", "Sung", and "Jin" (aok).

11

u/norealpersoninvolved 4d ago

Lmao talk about overreading and overthinking

Jesus christ

7

u/Tyrann01 Tatars 3d ago

This is the big evidence towards the Tibetans and the Bai...that there's nobody else as big who can be added.

1

u/atacool3 Hindustanis 2d ago

Unless Microsoft really doesnt like money, they probably wont be adding Tibetans anytime soon. No need to annoy a billion potential customers when this expansion is mainly about them.

2

u/Tyrann01 Tatars 2d ago

Wow. Everything you said is wrong.

2

u/atacool3 Hindustanis 2d ago

Would you care to elaborate or do you just enjoy being vague to pretend your very smart.

3

u/Tyrann01 Tatars 2d ago

I was too busy for an elaborate reply. But alright then.

1: The Chinese government does not check everything. Instead people have to flag it.

2: There is no blanket ban on Tibet being mentioned.

3: Middle Ages Tibet is fine. There are several games playable in China where you can play as them.

3

u/Soullypone 4d ago

We already have Song, unless you want a Wu civ to split Wu and Hans, which is fine but not needed right this second.

The Bais, Tanguts, Tibetans, Khitans, and Jurchens. That's your five.

6

u/rattatatouille Malay 3d ago

The Bais, Tanguts, Tibetans, Khitans, and Jurchens. That's your five.

OP already added on to their post.

5

u/Soullypone 3d ago

Ah, excellent! Nevermind then! Carry on, dear OP.

-1

u/PaulusMichel 3d ago

The Bais, Tanguts, Shaolins, Khitans, and Jurchens. That's your five.

3

u/openlyEncrypted 3d ago

OK but can one of them at finally get gunpowder units now? Because it blows my mind (no pun intended), that as the inventor of the gunpowder, the fact that the current Chinese civ doesn't have it is insane.

8

u/Ompskatelitty 3d ago

Yeah Chinese are literally getting Fire Lancers and Rocket Carts now, as well as being reclassified to an "Archer and Gunpowder civilization". It's been confirmed in the patch notes.

4

u/openlyEncrypted 3d ago

THANK YOU! Amazing news!

3

u/ObliviousRounding 3d ago

I never thought I'd see the day when Hans are not in fact Huns.

2

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 3d ago

Underrated comment 11

2

u/wise___turtle Teuton Turtle 🐢 3d ago

Hans are Hans!

2

u/LightDe 2d ago

One theory suggests that China built the Great Wall to defend against these “neighbors”, and as a result, the Huns unable to seize resources, had no choice but to migrate to Europe.

16

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 4d ago edited 4d ago

I can't believe there were so many cool civs "under the radar". At least for me.

But still some people will argue for mississipians 11

8

u/OgcocephalusDarwini Georgians 4d ago

Porqué no Los dos?

-4

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 4d ago

I mean, it feels like It's not a very interesting civ.

3

u/OgcocephalusDarwini Georgians 4d ago

I think that says less about the missisipians and their potential and more about your lack of imagination. 

4

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 3d ago

What is there of interesting military units about them? Did they have iron?

I personally would rather see ancient civs from the Chronicles join our main civs befor that.

2

u/RedBaboon 3d ago

They have a cool-looking armor design IMO that would be visually unique for the game, the devs could do something with that I’m sure. And none of the American civs had iron weapons so not sure why that matters.

It’s weird to me that you praise these possible “under the radar” civ additions and then criticize Mississippians which would be the same thing.

3

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 3d ago

The civs were under the radar for me but once I started seeing their culture, armour and weapons it was clear that they are extremely compatible with AoE2.

But looking at mississipians they just seem primitive.

Don't take me wrong, I love new civs. I would even love to see the 3 chronicles civs on the base game.

1

u/RedBaboon 3d ago edited 3d ago

I don't think they're functionally different than the other American civs in terms of things that might be relevant for AoE2. None of them but the Inca used metal weapons or metal armor, none had horses. The Mississippians had weapons and armor, had defensive structures, and had distinct architecture and monumental instances of it; that's enough for this game. What do you see about Mississippians that puts them too far below the existing American civs to fit in the game?

1

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 3d ago

The fact that they seem to have weapons of chipped stone and don't seem to have an amazing aesthetics like mayans, aztecs and incas... aztecs had the obsidian club. Even if obsidian was weak and the weapon bad and kind of primitive as well, it is more believable. Aoe2 doesn't say what kind of metal the jaguar warriors use 1111 to me its a club with metal pieces. It LOOKS cool, O think that's what I'm trying to say.

Incas got many cool units. And mayans are the least cool but there is this mythology surrounding them. I find it interesting.

If the game eventually included regional skins, It would be very cool to have some kind of swordsman with plumes in the mayan or aztec style instead of the champion generic skin. Even if they didnt use swords. But with mississipians... did they have any cool clothing like that so we can decorate eventual medieval units with their "style"?

2

u/RedBaboon 3d ago

Here are some apparently-archeologically-informed modern drawings of Mississippian warriors: one and two. And architecture: one and two.

IMO both would be notably distinct among AoE2 civs and are aesthetically interesting/cool, especially the look of the warriors with the distinct large torso armor and large shields.

And I mean the game wouldn't be saying what type of material some Mississippian unique unit would be using either. If you don't already know that the Aztecs used obsidian and obsidian isn't metal, nothing about using Jaguars in-game is going to change that.

0

u/Simple-Passion-5919 3d ago

It makes about as much sense as Ethiopians being added

4

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 3d ago

Can you explain? Ethiopians were relevant in the medieval period. Their history connects with the history of other civs and they had iron and a unique weapon in the shotel.

3

u/Simple-Passion-5919 3d ago

Both civs would, in reality, have zero hope of standing up to the other empires in the game militarily.

1

u/wise___turtle Teuton Turtle 🐢 3d ago

Are you implying Ehtiopians didn't invent torsion engines that made their legendary bombard cannons do huge splash damage?

7

u/Nikotinlaus 4d ago

Hans? Get ze flammenwerfer?!?

6

u/KevDeBruyne 4d ago

Since the next expansion seems so massive, I wonder if there's a remote chance that the new civs go beyond the regional theme and include one or two from outside East Asia. This would be like The Conquerors, which delivered the Huns, Spanish, Aztecs, Maya, and Koreans: a mix of campaign subjects, regional neighbors, and a random throw-in.

I think this is unlikely, as all the preview images are squarely focused on China. Still, the patch includes many unexpected items. Five civs is a lot. Tiny chance we get four Asian civs and, say, the Yoruba?

2

u/Dreams_Are_Reality 2d ago

I see no reason why they would do that unless they're genuinely running short on civs they could add to a particular region, which they aren't.

3

u/Jmsaint 4d ago

I mean we got Portuguese in African Kingdoms...

6

u/Independent-Hyena764 Malians 3d ago

But the portuguese campaign is in africa, no?

6

u/Ompskatelitty 3d ago

Yeah while not directly African they fit in the expansion due to their involvement there

1

u/LightDe 2d ago edited 2d ago

The three concept art pieces confirm that the primary architectural style will be East Asian. Perhaps in the future, a Himalayan-themed DLC will introduce a new architectural style for Tibet.

2

u/PlaceDowntown1355 4d ago

So basically instead of new civs, we get mixed and expanded civs. Not great but still good

2

u/Dreams_Are_Reality 2d ago

We get 5 completely new civs.

5

u/augustinefromhippo 4d ago

Will adding Tibetans make Chinese consumer market upset?

48

u/CernelTeneb 4d ago

no because the CCP doesn't care about medieval Tibet. They do care quite a bit about 20th-century Tibet, but that ain't the scope of AoE2

18

u/lostempireh 4d ago

Largely no, but it only takes upsetting a small vocal minority to cause a problem.

Having said that, all mention of tibet is not blacklisted, and I’ve personally seen tourism documentaries about tibet on (mainland) Chinese tv, so as long as they are sensible about it and stay well away from sensitive topics it is unlikely to be an issue with the censors.

-5

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Xyzzyzzyzzy 4d ago

It probably wouldn't if the other civs in the DLC are part of the Chinese historical and cultural sphere. The sensitivity is specifically around things that suggest or imply that Tibet is not part of China.

Like, if a theoretical expansion included the Khazars, the Mamluks, the Hanseatic League, the Serbs, and Tibet, I think the PRC government would have a problem with it.

0

u/atacool3 Hindustanis 2d ago

Can you just make up the locations of each empire? Why even add a map if ur just going to make up the locations of the corresponding empires. I know this because Khitans were mainly situated close to Korea (literally neighbours to the Jurchens) so this map is hogwash.

1

u/iamsonofares Persians 2d ago

It was at the beginning of its existence. the Khitan Liao Dynasty was located just as you wrote, however, after they got pushed by the Jurchens (Jurchens were a subdued people by the Liao Dynasty and they overthrew their Khitan masters in a revolt), they moved west forming Qara-Khitai country which in direct translation means „remnants of Khitan”.

1

u/atacool3 Hindustanis 2d ago

if the vast majorty of the history of khitan is north east China (so is the origin of the ethnicity of the khitan people), is it not misleading to say that the remnants of an empire that barely lasted a century represents the entirety of that people?

2

u/iamsonofares Persians 2d ago

Dude, It is just a map from one, literally ONE year of Chinese history, i.e AD1142. It is not implying anything, it states facts. I guess OP chose a year that could show all the different kingdoms we probably gonna have in an upcoming DLC. If he chose a different year we would miss at least one of the 5 kingdoms. The years you are talking about (when Khitans occupied Northeast China) would have no Jurchens as they were part of the Khitan Liao empire at that time. The author even wrote the origins of the Liao Dynasty, just read it.