Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I've only ever seen a Wiki article and a lot of popular media referencing him. I've not come across any history books referencing him.
The guy was a 188 cm (6 foot 2 inch) beast, as most African slaves the Portuguese brought them were pretty tall. Considering the average height of the Japanese at the time was 157 cm, he would have stood out even if his skin wasn't as black as charcoal.
At the very least, I think it'd be cool if someone modded it into the game. It's historically accurate, and exactly the sort of cool thing I would have figured I'd have learned from a Total War game first anyway.
Portugese didn't typically import slaves to Japan after all.
But, if such a unit was created, why would one stop there? There were several non-japanese samurai, most notably from Korea. In fact, a couple from Europe itself, such as Jan Joosten van Lodensteijn or William Adams.
We might as well also make a unit based off lost sailors now in service of Japanese clans.
Who knows, after Attila and now Three Kingdoms, maybe CA will revisit the region in another instalment that reaches the scope of Rome 2.
:)
You will never see a game with Korean "collaborators" working for Japan. And you'll never see the Imjin War (Japanese invasion of Korea) in a game where you can play as either side. Korean nationalists will never accept a representation of collaborators, even though South Korea was founded by men who fought in the Japanese army in WW2. And they'll never accept a game where Japan could defeat Korea, or a game where Koreans aren't 20 feet tall and can kill 500 craven Japanese samurai with a single punch. Even if SEGA banned selling the game in South Korea, Korean nationalists would still create a political correctness campaign in Western countries to try and get such a game banned. I'm surprised they haven't discovered the Morning Sun mod and organized a campaign against it. I'm also surprised that they haven't tried to get Shogun 2 banned for correctly naming the Sea of Japan instead of using the Korean term "the East Sea."
Newbs necro'ed a 2 year old topic MpL...
If this was earlier in development and CA had hired a black person we would have had loads of black units, like women generals in Rome2 cause CA hired women :D
Right, because you know, Boudicca never existed
It's similar with queen Zenobia of Palmyra, or Cleopatra of Egypt: these were political figures, not warriors serving as tactical commanders, let alone what we would call, in our own age's terminology, a "general," responsible for the "theater level" direction of "armies," holding a "field command," etc.
What I've told people before is to look at a figure such as Margaret Thatcher, in order to get a better grasp on this. Thatcher was the political leader in the UK, and by virtue of status and office, nominal leader of the UK military too, after the monarch of course. Like the monarch, she was in command in a nominal and titular sense; less titular than the queen, but actually even more in the nominal sense.
Anyway, what should be obvious here, is that Margaret Thatcher was not directing the operations of the UK fleet and troops, in any kind of a tactical or theater-strategic sense. She wasn't a general.
But a thousand years from now, she'd be declared as having been one, using the same logic people are using today to retroactively make Zenobia, Boudicca et al into "generals" or "warriors."
Using that "logic," then we'd infer that Margaret Thatcher conducted the Falklands campaign, that she "lead the troops" onto the beaches, that she was ducking from Argentine air strikes on the fleet, etc. But she didn't and she wasn't.
It is pointless to introduce it. Nobody was complaining, it was just stated, then you had had to bring in some nonsense.