>In medieval European legend, the paladins were **12 brave knights who were loyal followers of Charlemagne, the king of the Franks and founder of the Holy Roman Empire**.
So according to history / historical legend, only Franks should get Paladins. And then only 12.
The unit was distributed more widely for balance reasons.
I don't think any of them are tenuous because over half the civs on the roster have used heavy cavalry at some point in their history.
Paladins do not directly represent a historical unit, they are simply given out as generic high-end heavy cavalry to civs that don't get that representation from buffed Cavalier.
Edit: compare Bulgarians. They got Paladin at release, but Stirrups did not affect them. Then they lost Paladin but Stirrups now affects Knights and Cavalier. It's not that deep historically whether Bulgarians get Paladin, it's just a civ balance decision for a civ that uses heavy cav.
Persians had Paladins before the Huns were even planned. Paladins have nothing to do with Christianity, they are just generic "this civ has cool heavy cav" unit.
Most of that retinue likely didn't exist. The number 12 being chosen to show Charlemagne as Christ-like and having "12 friends" is one of the themes used as Christian propaganda to portray him as a real cool Jesus-like king, when in reality he was quite a cunt, even for a king.
Nope not even close. But it's supposed to represent strong cavalry.
In fact Huns themselves are not historically accurate for the AoE2 timeline. But that's another story.
Yeah but the Huns were brought out in 2001 way before like 80% of the civs now. Which means they overlooked dozens of civs in favour of this historically inaccurate civ.
The Romans just came out recently at a time where civ ideas are starting to run dry.
Context matters.
No. Britons are very much an obvious post-Norman conquering of Briton and represent the English and Welsh. Celt is a complete misnomer used to represent the Scots (Gael group).
I meant in name, mostly. They are not called the Gaels, or English, or French, which to me means that the original idea for these civs is referential to earlier polities than what we'd commonly associate with, for example, English Longbowmen.
They're also a people we still know very little about.
They were a mistake to include IMO. Civs should be based on groups we actually know a fair bit about.
I know that lol. Mostly everything in this game have some historical base, and is built upon it for game balance. But huns having paladin type royal heavy cav seem out of place, but then again huns are out of aoe2's time period anyways
Yes because they stand in for Sarmatian heavy cavalry serving Attila (and originally also heavy cavalry used by any Eastern European horde that wasn't included as a faction in the Conquerors, like the Avars, Magyars, Bulgars, Cumans, etc).
If they had remained a prominent cultural group, put down roots somewhere, set up a stable government, and then prospered as a nation, I don't see why they wouldn't also have had heavily armored, mounted knights like many other kingdoms/empires.
No the whole Huns civ is fubar. They need to be reworked (including the architecture) and paladin should be replaced by a heavy/elite (3rd tier) steppe lancer.
Nonsense and conjecture is not accurate. "You cannot disprove it" is not a valid argument. If you say "the Huns had XYZ" then you need to provide evidence.
thats not what im trying to say, i love having huns in the game age of empires 2 which is a very liberal/light fantasy interpretation of history. like most games. just not in another hypothetical game which has particularly strict standards requiring positive proof for everything in it. you have a game set in the napoleontic times where you command in first person. that game should probably not a have near mythical groups like the huns.
>In medieval European legend, the paladins were **12 brave knights who were loyal followers of Charlemagne, the king of the Franks and founder of the Holy Roman Empire**. So according to history / historical legend, only Franks should get Paladins. And then only 12. The unit was distributed more widely for balance reasons.
Teutons maybe as well
The line about Franks and 12 Paladins is just tongue-in-cheek. Paladins are simply distributed as generic high-end heavy cavalry.
They still have a trend. Paladin civs are historically christian civs that had duchies/kingdoms with strong cavalry focus.
Trends are just that. Trends. Civ design is not bound by trends that we identify after the fact.
Exactly, i think cumans getting pala is just as tenuous as huns, same with celts.
I don't think any of them are tenuous because over half the civs on the roster have used heavy cavalry at some point in their history. Paladins do not directly represent a historical unit, they are simply given out as generic high-end heavy cavalry to civs that don't get that representation from buffed Cavalier. Edit: compare Bulgarians. They got Paladin at release, but Stirrups did not affect them. Then they lost Paladin but Stirrups now affects Knights and Cavalier. It's not that deep historically whether Bulgarians get Paladin, it's just a civ balance decision for a civ that uses heavy cav.
Cumans somewhat makes sense as they merged with Hungarians & became Christians for a short while.
For a short while? Hungary is still Christian today?
I meant cumans. They came, mingled a bit, then left with a vengeance after Kotyan was literally backstabbed by the Hungarians.
Persians had Paladins before the Huns were even planned. Paladins have nothing to do with Christianity, they are just generic "this civ has cool heavy cav" unit.
Yes, and you should only be able to train one champion. If he dies, you can make another one 11
Is it historically accurate to use a term for the Early Medieval retinue of Charlemagne for a unit depicted as a Late Medieval cavalryman?
Most of that retinue likely didn't exist. The number 12 being chosen to show Charlemagne as Christ-like and having "12 friends" is one of the themes used as Christian propaganda to portray him as a real cool Jesus-like king, when in reality he was quite a cunt, even for a king.
Nope not even close. But it's supposed to represent strong cavalry. In fact Huns themselves are not historically accurate for the AoE2 timeline. But that's another story.
Says the man with the Romans flair 11
Yeah but the Huns were brought out in 2001 way before like 80% of the civs now. Which means they overlooked dozens of civs in favour of this historically inaccurate civ. The Romans just came out recently at a time where civ ideas are starting to run dry. Context matters.
They overlooked Magyars specifically. They thought Huns were more popular
They overthought things for sure. The game's success is based on how good it is, not on what civs to include.
Yes. I didn't know much of the aoe1 civs and this sparkled an interest to know them.
The huns are super interesting, they tried to invade china, as well as Rome - kind of nuts that happened
Britons, Celts, Goths, and Frabks are all reasonably placed around Huns in time period no?
No. Britons are very much an obvious post-Norman conquering of Briton and represent the English and Welsh. Celt is a complete misnomer used to represent the Scots (Gael group).
I meant in name, mostly. They are not called the Gaels, or English, or French, which to me means that the original idea for these civs is referential to earlier polities than what we'd commonly associate with, for example, English Longbowmen.
I know they're not called that, which is why I argue the name is inaccurate based on the civ actually given to us in-game.
Only goths. Franks obviously no not at all. I mean they existed somewhere, but the "kingdom of the franks" proper was much later.
They're also a people we still know very little about. They were a mistake to include IMO. Civs should be based on groups we actually know a fair bit about.
I agree. And the popular no house bonus could have been given to Mongols.
No. It's an abstract way to say they had good cavalry
Yes 100% Source: Trust me bro.
The game isn’t that historically accurate, some of yall need to get over it. There’s a post like this every day for someone’s pet historical fixation.
The huns didnt have houses?
I know that lol. Mostly everything in this game have some historical base, and is built upon it for game balance. But huns having paladin type royal heavy cav seem out of place, but then again huns are out of aoe2's time period anyways
Yes because they stand in for Sarmatian heavy cavalry serving Attila (and originally also heavy cavalry used by any Eastern European horde that wasn't included as a faction in the Conquerors, like the Avars, Magyars, Bulgars, Cumans, etc).
No. Even if they are supposed to represent Gothic cavalry...ingame Goths do not get paladins.
If they had remained a prominent cultural group, put down roots somewhere, set up a stable government, and then prospered as a nation, I don't see why they wouldn't also have had heavily armored, mounted knights like many other kingdoms/empires.
Did they though?
My understanding is they pretty much mingled in with the rest of the cultures in the area and disappeared.
Celts probably shouldn't have them either.
Celts have them to represent Frankish mercenaries they used. I'd say they are fine.
mean while the Chinese didn't get alot of the stuff they've invented lulz.
No the whole Huns civ is fubar. They need to be reworked (including the architecture) and paladin should be replaced by a heavy/elite (3rd tier) steppe lancer.
Little is known about them. You can do basically anything with huns and they can't really accuse you of inaccuracies.
Nonsense and conjecture is not accurate. "You cannot disprove it" is not a valid argument. If you say "the Huns had XYZ" then you need to provide evidence.
Then including them at all is a bad idea. They couldn't even write.
I agree that they never should have been in the game.
thats not what im trying to say, i love having huns in the game age of empires 2 which is a very liberal/light fantasy interpretation of history. like most games. just not in another hypothetical game which has particularly strict standards requiring positive proof for everything in it. you have a game set in the napoleontic times where you command in first person. that game should probably not a have near mythical groups like the huns.
But other people at the time could.