Romans vs. Italians and Byzantines

[James3157]

Besides the obviously different tech trees, different civilization bonuses, and different unique units I wonder what the real differences are between these three. Take for example from Hun campaign the Romans involving the Western Roman Empire are actually Italians from the DE version, but from the Bulgarian campaigns the Romans are actually Byzantines which it is also worth pointing out as well that historically speaking Byzantium was also known as the Eastern Roman Empire after the split took place in the Roman Empire. Also, Italians I think are based on both before the Western Roman Empire fell but after the Roman Empire had officially split where from the Hun Campaign for example the Italians are actually the Western Roman Empire/Eastern Roman Empire (but still kind of confusing as well) and even after the Western Roman Empire had fallen as well.

If the Italians for example did in fact participate in the crusades involving the Saladin campaign it would have taken place after the Western Roman Empire had officially fallen meaning that Italians from Italy participating in the crusades are not called "Romans" anymore from that point onward. And so, this only leaves Romans left from RoR, but at least one theory I have about the Roman civilization (but not confirmed) is that the Romans are based on the entire Roman Empire for both before and even after the split between the two empires but before the Western Roman empire had officially fallen as well where Romans are pretty much the same civilizations as Italians and Byzantines, but more generalized with different tech tree, different civilization bonuses, and different unique units. The difference between Romans vs. Italians and Byzantines I think is best described as confusing since technically speaking the Italians and Byzantines could also be called Romans or at least similar to the new Roman civilization from RoR despite having different civilization bonuses, unique units, and tech tree.

[Crossil]

The history section says it pretty clearly, although I'd disagree with it on some points.

Romans refers to the Western Roman Empire after its division into east and west. It is the predominantly Latin part of the empire. It came to an end when the WRE fell, although Romans remained as a people for several centuries after this event. Italians in the Tariq campaign are actually supposed to be Romans rather than Italians. I don't know why the devs didn't change this. Italians wouldn't be present in Iberia, only Hispano-Romans.

Byzantines are the Eastern Roman Empire that has historiographically been referred to as the Byzantine Empire after the fall of its western twin. It became hellenized over the Medieval time period, giving it a relatively distinct identity. It's named as Romans in Ivaylo (the Bulgarian campaign) because the developers decided to add in this detail. It's not wrong, but it does cause some confusion. But as a civ, it's accurate to portray these Romans as Byzantines.

Italians are the transformed Roman people of Italy, following the occupation of the area by Goths, Langobards, Franks and the HRE. All of this culminating in creation of an Italian kingdom within the HRE, which itself split into different city states following the weakening of Imperial power in the region. The reason why they remain in Alaric (in Attila they've been replaced completely by the Romans) is because the devs chose to have more civs than just the Romans in some scenarios.


I think it has to be specifically stated, the reason why you see some weird civ selections in some scenarios is because the devs decided to have more civs present in different scenarios, not because it's accurate. Although in some cases, like the Byzantines in Ivaylo, it seems weird due to the terminology, but those are Byzantines historically. Now, technically, the Romans might also appear as part of the Eastern Roman Empire, simply because the latin influence in the area was still relatively strong before the Fall of the Western Roman Empire. Greek language was turned into the official language of the Byzantine Empire in 610, for instance, while the Byzantine Renaissance occurred in the 9th century. Although for simplicity it can be just made so all of Eastern Roman Empire is Byzantine anyway. Although it wouldn't be inaccurate to have some Romans in the first couple scenarios that feature the Eastern Roman Empire in Attila and Alaric.

[James3157]

I will honestly admit that I have not played the Hun campaign remake yet, the Tariq campaigns, or the campaigns involving Alaric. I was unaware of Italians being replaced with Romans since the recent addition of RoR from May of 2023. Italians are known to be included in at least the Alaric campaigns, Bulgarian campaigns (especially the last campaign), apparently Tariq campaigns (although I have not played this yet similar to Attila remake and Alaric), and Saladin campaigns as well. Romans were actually around long before the empire split (which would also explain why they exist in AoE: DE as well), but I believe that you might have cleared up at least some confusion between these three. Thanks.

[Heimdall313]

Italians aren't Roman. Living in Rome doesn't make you Roman.
Byzantines, a word never used during the time period, were generally more Greek than Roman.
Ethnicity is a funny thing

[James3157]

I forgot about the Italian campaign. I have not played that yet either. So that involves at least four campaigns involving the Italians.

[tiberiansun371alexw]

The answer is "for fun" same reason why we don't give Chinese Gunpwoeder Units, you want civlizations with variety and are balenced. I wouldn't call the Romans "balenced" by any strech given their infantry behave like jaguar warriors, but people who know better than me (I'm not good at the game at all) apparently think it's fine. Bascially fun > Theme fitting.

[Mia Wallace]

There was a reason why the romans shouldn't actually be integrated into ranked games. I really hope they will be nerved or are taken out again. 5% faster resource gathering is just way too strong

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by Mia Wallace:

There was a reason why the romans shouldn't actually be integrated into ranked games. I really hope they will be nerved or are taken out again. 5% faster resource gathering is just way too strong

Other civs have way stronger bonusses than that.

[Blackout4711]

I don't know, I don't really get it personally. Like we call the Byzantine Empire that now but back then it was all still Rome. They called themselves Romans, Byzantine is a retroactively applied name which applied mostly to the eastern part of the empire, but that's because at the time there was little semblance of a western empire for the period, so having both a Roman and Byzantine civ is kinda just silly. Its pretty clear Romans as a civ was only added as a token on top of the Return to Rome expansion which primarily was about putting Age 1 in Age 2.

I can get behind Italians more because that actually makes sense. Hell if you really wanted to stretch things you can pretend Huns work in period context and are a stand in for the Avar Khaganate and stretch the Goths to be Vandals or Gepids, but its harder to do that with Romans considering there's literally already Romans in the game and the Romans they're trying to depict are literally just Italians.

[Crossil]

I don't know why you insist on listing the Italian campaign appearances, but they appear in:

Saladin 6
Barbarossa 3, 4
Alaric 3, 5
Bari 1, 2, 4, 5
Vlad Dracula 5
Sforza 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Tariq 1, 2
Tamerlane 3
Ivaylo 5
The Hautevilles 1, 5
Jadwiga 5
Jan Zizka 3

This is after the Romans were added, of course. Before that they were also in Attila 6 and Alaric 4.

[James3157]

Originally posted by Crossil:

I don't know why you insist on listing the Italian campaign appearances, but they appear in:

Saladin 6
Barbarossa 3, 4
Alaric 3, 5
Bari 1, 2, 4, 5
Vlad Dracula 5
Sforza 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Tariq 1, 2
Tamerlane 3
Ivaylo 5
The Hautevilles 1, 5
Jadwiga 5
Jan Zizka 3

With so many campaigns including Italians already which most of them I was not aware of it would make perfect sense actually for the Italians to be replaced with actual Romans from the Hun campaign.

[James3157]

Originally posted by Mia Wallace:

There was a reason why the romans shouldn't actually be integrated into ranked games. I really hope they will be nerved or are taken out again. 5% faster resource gathering is just way too strong

I actually watched a youtube video with Roman unique units vs. all unique units. Even with legionary and centurion combined they not surprisingly lost against the Byzantine cataphracts. I would also argue as well that perhaps the Byzantines are actually more Greek than Italian or Roman similar to what Heimdall313 had mentioned previously especially after the Western Roman empire had fallen. It would still be called the Eastern Roman Empire for a very long period of time (which would perhaps also help explain why Byzantines are called Romans from the Bulgarian campaign) until falling to the Ottomans, but the Greeks apparently played an important role as well from the Eastern Roman Empire.

[Crossil]

Originally posted by Blackout4711:

I don't know, I don't really get it personally. Like we call the Byzantine Empire that now but back then it was all still Rome. They called themselves Romans, Byzantine is a retroactively applied name which applied mostly to the eastern part of the empire, but that's because at the time there was little semblance of a western empire for the period, so having both a Roman and Byzantine civ is kinda just silly. Its pretty clear Romans as a civ was only added as a token on top of the Return to Rome expansion which primarily was about putting Age 1 in Age 2.

Well for one, you have the Byzantines which called themselves Roman Empire while being hellenized, then you have the Germans which called their state the Holy Roman Empire because of the Pope granting that title to the Carolignians.

Same as how there was a Kingdom of Sicily, with Aragon claiming the title of Kingdom of Sicily and the island of Sicily, while mainland part of the kingdom remained as a separate state that also called itself the Kingdom of Sicily (historically called Kingdom of Naples). So when the two kingdoms were later reunited they called it the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, despite there being only one Sicily.

[Kyris]

Personally I think with the inclusion of the "Romans" Both civs should be renamed to Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire respectively.

The fundamental differences between the three are " Romans" Empire West = at the time or close to year 410 when it officially folded as Western Roman empire.

Byzantines or Empire East as they are represented in game while technically the " Eastern Roman Empire" are portrayed more in the later period of the Eastern Roman Empire, Cataphracts (( Legion system had since broken down and replaced with Byzantine Themes )) rather than at the same period as their Western counterparts.


Italians represent Medieval Italy well after Rome's fall and emergence of the various medieval Italian trading states (( Genoa specifically )) and Northern Italy.

Southern Italy typically was contested by the Normans , Saracens (( Berbers technically )) and Byzantines by this period and thus the Sicilians are southern Italian faction a hybrid Norman (( viking ancestry )) and local Sicilians.

As for the usage in campaigns I wouldn't read to much into them a lot of it is down to flavor for scenario and to give you a wide variety of opponents; Huns you saw Scythians (( represented as mongols )) , Alans represented as Vikings , and other weird combos.

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by Kyris:

Personally I think with the inclusion of the "Romans" Both civs should be renamed to Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire respectively.

The fundamental differences between the three are " Romans" Empire West = at the time or close to year 410 when it officially folded as Western Roman empire.

Byzantines or Empire East as they are represented in game while technically the " Eastern Roman Empire" are portrayed more in the later period of the Eastern Roman Empire, Cataphracts (( Legion system had since broken down and replaced with Byzantine Themes )) rather than at the same period as their Western counterparts.


Italians represent Medieval Italy well after Rome's fall and emergence of the various medieval Italian trading states (( Genoa specifically )) and Northern Italy.

Southern Italy typically was contested by the Normans , Saracens (( Berbers technically )) and Byzantines by this period and thus the Sicilians are southern Italian faction a hybrid Norman (( viking ancestry )) and local Sicilians.

As for the usage in campaigns I wouldn't read to much into them a lot of it is down to flavor for scenario and to give you a wide variety of opponents; Huns you saw Scythians (( represented as mongols )) , Alans represented as Vikings , and other weird combos.

In AoE 2, civs are named by ethnicies instead of empires.

[James3157]

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

In AoE 2, civs are named by ethnicies instead of empires.

In AoE II: DE especially the Italians are apparently not an empire anymore when Romans were officially added earlier this year besides the Alaric and Tariq campaigns as mentioned previously by Crossil. Also worth pointing out are the Burgundians because they were later added from a dlc, but they never really had that big of an empire if you can even call it that. I think that at least part of the reason why Burgundy eventually became a part of modern day France where the Burgundians are now known as French because they never really were that big of a civilization to begin with. Also, the Franks and many other civilizations on AoE II: DE were originally an ethnicity as well instead of an empire, except for maybe the Byzatines who were first known as Romans before the Roman Empire split instead of Byzatines. The Romans for example contrary to the Byzantines (whose ethnicity I think were mostly just Romans and Greeks from those who had control over the Eastern Roman Empire) were around even before they had an empire yet.