New DLC: Slavic Nations Pack

[Darios]

Where do you get the idea that they weren't powerful enough back then? Slavs back then were as they are now (in eastern europe) a mix of aryan (r1a) and thraco/dacian/celtic tribes.

I'm not sure if I like where this is going....best to just ignore this statement.

If anything the Slav DLC should give very powerful cavalry to them because they're the offspring of like how I just said scytho-sarmatians (the europoid ones who had around 50 to 80 percent r1a) primarily. And if you heard the bogatyr legends/myths apparently those guys could hold a wooden log on their shoulders with like 2 to 4 guys sitting on it in total. So yeah the offspring of the Aryans were indeed powerful both infantry and cavalry wise.

If anything, the early Slavs probably did have a connection with the settled agricultural classes of the Scytho-Sarmatians and there is tons of linguistic and circumstantial evidence to support this statement. It still doesn't mean that the Slavs should have awesome cavalry. There is the theory that the Antes were a Slavicized Alanic tribe with a Sarmatian ruling class but even so, Maurikios stated that the Slavs were mostly forest dwellers - spearmen, skirmishers, and ambushers and lacked significant cavalry. As late as the late 1200s the medieval Rus principalities still struggled to field significant cavalry of their own without hiring runaway Polovtsi.

[C.Maximus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw

[Darios]

Watching the Antean stream now....Darren went horde, tried to migrate west, and got swarmed by the Roxolani, Budinians, and Thuringians, quickly getting destroyed. It made for very painful watching. Some things I noticed:

1) There are no regional Slavic mercenaries...the only mercenary options remain Germans and Huns... *sigh*
2) It makes no sense to migrate with any of the Slavic tribes early game. I would stick to defending my settlements, slowly research and build up your civilization, weather the storm of the migrators, THEN begin colonizing the rest of the map once the migrators have been destroyed/moved on.
3) Darren tried to fight battles with the Slavs as one would a Germanic faction...it seems that it would make more sense to focus more on skirmishers and archers and less on melee.
4) The Roxolani are still Huns....*sigh* How difficult would it be to give them a copy/paste Alanic roster? If I worked at CA then I would be ashamed to present this as my game.
5) The CAI still seems to have a thing for hunting down the human player. Even Darren was wondering what was going on... *sigh*

In the Sclavenian twitch stream I noticed that when Slavic regions rebel "East Germanic Separatists" still show up. Maybe the saved game that Darren played was from an earlier build but I'm starting to wonder if this new DLC is half-baked due to the idea that it might have been given away for free through MWNL. I can live with the fact that the Slavic factions have very few unique units, that the Sclavenii are portrayed as "anti-Hun horse hewers," and that the diplomacy is really weird (The Antes and Venedians hate each other due to "cultural differences" o.O and the Roxolani hate the Antes (historically, the Antes were originally a Sarmatian group that became Slavicized, if anything they should enjoy a cultural affinity), but I had hoped that this DLC would add more diversity (rebels, mercenaries) to the regions where the Slavic factions are located. Hopefully I will be proven wrong but Darren's streams did not really show me anything beyond new playable factions, the cool feature that restores fertility, and a couple of unique units.

[FrozenmenSS]

Well renaming and changing the unit roster for the east Germanic rebels can be fixed in 2 min.

[AK47]

If anything, the early Slavs probably did have a connection with the settled agricultural classes of the Scytho-Sarmatians and there is tons of linguistic and circumstantial evidence to support this statement. It still doesn't mean that the Slavs should have awesome cavalry. There is the theory that the Antes were a Slavicized Alanic tribe with a Sarmatian ruling class but even so, Maurikios stated that the Slavs were mostly forest dwellers - spearmen, skirmishers, and ambushers and lacked significant cavalry. As late as the late 1200s the medieval Rus principalities still struggled to field significant cavalry of their own without hiring runaway Polovtsi.

That is basicly what I mean, they were much more stronger later on but not as much during Attila's time frame.
The Arab faction pack was more interesting & I find the Garamantian Berber units more interesting as well such as Shawia guard elite spearmen & the Noble Numidian Cav.

[213]

will these wonders show up in charlemagne campaign map?

[RandomPerson2000]

This may go off topic but
there is a an absolute ton of dislikes on the slav dlc video.
Well then it looks people are still angry with the chaos pre order thing.

[The Chocolate Jesus]

This may go off topic but
there is a an absolute ton of dislikes on the slav dlc video.
Well then it looks people are still angry with the chaos pre order thing.

I wouldn't like that much into it. Every single video by CA that announces DLC of some kind gets a ton of dislikes.

[FrozenmenSS]

I wouldn't like that much into it. Every single video by CA that announces DLC of some kind gets a ton of dislikes.

this started when Rome 2 Came out.

[The Chocolate Jesus]

this started when Rome 2 Came out.

Yeah. People are still butthurt over Rome II it seems.

[The Despondent Mind]

Well renaming and changing the unit roster for the east Germanic rebels can be fixed in 2 min.

Knowing CA they probably won't even bother with that.

[keona]

Slavic pack is available on steam for pre-order with 10% discount like always.

[Impresario]

looks interesting, no bulgars as of yet. they came later didn't they?

[vin2579]

Awesome! Just picked it up!

[FrozenmenSS]

looks interesting, no bulgars as of yet. they came later didn't they?

They were already in Eastern Europe when the huns came.

[Charerg]

looks interesting, no bulgars as of yet. they came later didn't they?

They were already in Eastern Europe when the huns came.

Or they were a successor state of the Huns, or they came later....depends on which interpretation you believe. The history and the origins of the steppe Bulgars is a highly debated subject.

In any case, the "Bulgars" that gave their name to the modern country weren't a Slavic people (at least most scholars agree about that, there's a lot of dispute about who they were, though).

[The Chocolate Jesus]

Or they were a successor state of the Huns, or they came later....depends on which interpretation you believe. The history and the origins of the steppe Bulgars is a highly debated subject.

In any case, the "Bulgars" that gave their name to the modern country weren't a Slavic people (at least most scholars agree about that, there's a lot of dispute about who they were, though).

The ride never ends...

[FrozenmenSS]

looks interesting, no bulgars as of yet. they came later didn't they?

They were already in Eastern Europe when the huns came.

Or they were a successor state of the Huns, or they came later....depends on which interpretation you believe. The history and the origins of the steppe Bulgars is a highly debated subject.

In any case, the "Bulgars" that gave their name to the modern country weren't a Slavic people (at least most scholars agree about that, there's a lot of dispute about who they were, though).

Totally outdated Statement by at least 30 years from the Scientific Comunity - like from the Historians and archaeologists and others .You are forgetting the Armenians from the Armenian cultural Golden Age who in that time wrote about it on the subject a lot.


The origin of the Bulgarians from before the 460s AD is a problem that still provokes discussions among the Historians and Scientists even to the present day. The Bulgarians were mentioned for the First time and entered the European History by the name Bulgarians in the Chronography of 354 AD, writen by an anonymous Latin Chronographer, created for a wealthy Roman Christian named Valentinus. The Supposed proto-Bulgarian ethnicity was formed somewhere in Central Asia (East Kazakhstan) between the Caspian Sea and the mountain Imeon (Pamirs, Tian Shan and Hindu Kush). Other possible areas proposed by the Modern Historians are the mountain Altai or Western Siberia, the Tarim basin, western Mongolia, southern Siberia and upper reaches of the river Irtysh. There were multiple migrations from Central Asia into the steppes just north of the Caucasus mountain probably as early from the 3rd,4th,5th, till the late 6th century AD by the Bulgarian Kutigurs, Utigurs, Onogondurians and other minor tribes.Since the late 16th century there have been offered various hypotheses, some of which attract with their whimsicality and stubbornness in defending them. Most authorities reject the concepts of aboriginal (or Thracian), Slavic, Tatar and Finno-Ugric origin of the Bulgarians. More popular, but also challenged are the Hunnic and the Oguric options of the Turanian hypothesis. Some scientific papers and amateur research in the late 20th century revived another hypothesis according to which the Bulgars were mixed Hunic-Iranian speaking Scytian population.The various theories about the origin of the Bulgarians can generally be assigned to two directions - first to the Altaic ethnogenesis and, secondly the Arian/Baktrian ethnogenesis. Third thesis advocates their mixed formation as a nation. Each of the first two theories does not exclude participation as influences, assimilation, etc. population determined to be dominant than the other direction. Actually, the difference between them is not only whether the dispute are Arians or Proto-Turkic-Mongols,but what is the primary source. In this sense, the most accurate to speak of is the mixed origin theory - who first formulated by some serious scientists as a distinct third theory, that dont denies or contradicts the other two mutually challenging theories. It focuses not on how started the process and the result of it - The ancient proto-Bulgarians.The term Bulgars is a term coined in the 19th century by the historical science at that time (just like the Term Byzantine empire) to distinguish the people founded and ruled the First Bulgarian Empire – from 681 AD onwards and before they merged with the Slavs and the,the remains of the ancient Thracians and Gothic population and the formation of the Modern Bulgarian nation. Today its often replaced by the term Proto–Bulgarians, old Bulgarians and even just Bulgarians.It was Documented by the Armenian Chronologists Mouses Khorentsi, Vardan the Great, Michael the Syrian and others that after the Fall of the Parthian Empire(198ad) in the third Century that the Bulgarians "Onoghontor-Blgar" led by a ''Burdjan Shah'' (Bulgarian king) migrated from the Gorges of Baktria/Balhara, the Pamir, Hundu-Kush and/or the Tien Shan Mountains into the Pontic Steppes just north of the Caucasus Mountains in Sarmatia Asiatica by passing the land of the Armenians peacefully and some even settled on the shores on the lake Van in Armenia.The Armenians by being neignbours of the Bulgars and the Alans just south of the Caucasus Mountains reported that the Bulgars formed their own States,had highly developed civilisation with walled cities made of stone (same said for the Alans as well,this statement is quite unique for nations that were mentioned as nomads in that epoch) Some of them were settled and others were migrating with their herlds. That the Bulgars were also allies with the Armenians when going to war.Also the Bulgarians helped the rebelled Armenians for its defense of their Christian faith against their masters - Zoroastrian Persia. After the Great battle of Avarayr in 451 AD between Armenia and Sassanid Persia 5000 Bulgarians Helped the Armenian cause under the Leadership of the Bulgarian Vanand. The fallen Bulgarians,who were on the Side of Armenians were canonized by the Armenian Church as declaring them as Great Marturs. The Armenians wrote also in the 370s AD with the arrival of the Huns in Eastern Europe, the Bulgarians were one of the first who joined the Hunnic Confederation ,with or without their own will is not known yet, but by the looking into the past - the Bulgarians then did the right choice and survived from the Hunnic wrath by being one of their most loyal allies till the Death of Attila in 453. In the 380s AD the Bulgars attacked the Crimean Goths by crossing the Kerch straith and also the Armenians in 395-8 AD with the Huns.Until the death of Attila the Bulgars were united,but after he died they formed 3 groups - the Onogondurians (the Inner Bulgars)the biggest mass of the bulgars and was the most peacefull but the most developed and forming a state living near the Caucasus Mountains ,the Utigurs (the outer Bulgars) living east of the Don river, and the Kutigurs(the few bulgars) the most warlike ones who were the most proud of the legacy of the European Huns living west of the Don river. The Bulgarians that Followed the Hunic Confederation since the 370s AD westwards migrating, went back to the eastern steppes near the northern Caucasus to their Relatives.The third son of Attila – Ernak after 454 AD as part of the disintegrating Hunnic Empire, unlike his brother Dengizich,he managed to come to peace terms with the Byzantine Empire and his domaign was known as Patria Onogunduria .Ernak is considered to have succeeded his brother Dengizich as king of from what was left of the Hunnic Empire in the Pontic Steppes. According to the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans from the 8th century, where he is called Irnik, he lived the legendary 150 years ,while his father Avitohol - 300 years (153-453 AD),who is though to have been Attila Himself. In 479 AD the Roman Emperor Zeno paid the Bulgarian Kutigurs to attack Theoderic the Great, who was leading the Ostrogoths in the Balkans and by doing so he was forced to invade the Kingdom of Odoacker in Italy due to the Romans and their Roman Allies.After that from 493AD onwards the Kutigurian Bulgarians started raiding the Eastern Roman Empire across the Balkans each year for the next 50 years.The Kutigurs even started to settle in the Balkans as Foederati to the Romans and even helped the rebelious roman general Vitalian in Moesia.This process stopped only temporeraly when Justilian the Great started on one hand the civil wars between the Kutigurs and the Utigurs and the arival of the Avars from Central Asia and after them the Turkic Khaganate from Another.By 632ad the Bulgarians threw the Vassalage Yoke of their Avar and Turkic masters and formed Great old Bulgaria led by Kan Kubrat who helped even the Byzantine empire fighting the Muslim Arabs,but the main enemy were the Khazars. After the Fall of the eastern half of Great old Bulgaria with the death of Kubrat by the Khazars, smaller groups of Bulgarians Migrated in the middle Volga region,southern Italy,Armenia and Macedonia, but the biggest migrating group,where the governmental Institutions of Great old Bulgaria, led by Asparukh formed the First Bulgarian Empire in Modern northern Bulgaria in the Balkan in 680/1ad – the 3rd European Superpower after the Franks and the Romans with a cultural legacy shaping the Eastern Slavic world just as much as the Vikings up to the present day.

[Hresvelgr]

Paragraphs are a thing, you know.

[FrozenmenSS]

Paragraphs are a thing, you know.

Sometimes they're not needed