I'd like to return to this point because I've noticed my message wasn't understood. When I say that Euler represents a school of thought from the mid-20th century, I don't mean that he originated from that era, but rather that he is associated with that methodology. Wolfram Euler is a German linguist specializing in Indo-European languages, whose work is rooted in the tradition of classical philology. An independent but prolific researcher, he distinguishes himself through an approach based on traditional comparative analysis, the study of hydronyms, and internal reconstruction, rather than the multidisciplinary methods that dominate the field today (such as phylogenetic modeling, computational linguistics, or historical sociolinguistics). This methodological orientation, rigorous yet conservative, gives his publications strong internal consistency while placing him on the fringes of mainstream theoretical trends. His best-known contributions concern the history of Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages, where he defends several minority positions: a prolonged cohesion of West Germanic, a location of the Germanic Urheimat in Central Germany rather than Scandinavia, an internalist interpretation of Germanic innovations, and a critique of the existence of a unitary Proto-Balto-Slavic language. He also adopts a late chronology for the formation of Proto-Slavic, following the thesis of Georg Holzer. While these propositions are rigorously argued, they stand in clear opposition to the prevailing consensus and are regarded as heterodox contributions rather than authoritative reference models. For these reasons, Euler cannot be presented as a representative of the general scientific community's viewpoint. His work is respected for its erudition and precision, but it does not form the basis of the reconstructions accepted by the majority of Indo-Europeanists. His adherence to an ethno-historical lens, which explains linguistic shifts primarily through population movements and ethnic continuities, stands in sharp contrast to the modern archaeological and linguistic 'caution' (notably due to the rejection of the Siedlungsarchäologie). Coupled with his ties to conservative intellectual circles (like the Bibliothek des Konservatismus in Berlin), this methodological stance consigns his work to the margins of mainstream academia, even as the erudition of his research remains recognized. Personally, I don't think this is a figure to be put forward as an absolute reference in a debate. 

don't buff persians  plus persians can cumulate theses 2 solutions  btw corals

I know, I saw the repo. This is a good idea but again I want to advise you that you should really avoid carving up certain civs just to force them into one side of the fence. For example, with the Germanic peoples, I find it clumsy to restrict oneself to representing either the period before our era or the period after our era. You will have this problem with other civs like the Dacians and the Parthians. It's best to put these kinds of civs in Empires Besieged rather than Empires Ascendant. Since Empires Besieged is a kind of expansion, it is less of a problem to have a civ that includes some of its elements that date back to the period before our era. I understand that you did not want Empires Ascendant to extend into the period of our era. It seems that this is the key point of contention. So it's better to accept some overlap in the other direction. If the mod includes civs with characters and references that span both periods, it's much less of a problem than if it were the base game.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone and I actually started the mod on Gitea but we haven't committed anything yet.

It's good to return to a more reasonable position. I would remind you that in 2021, there were proposals to replace Boudicca in order to respect this cutoff. Especially if the team members decide to make Empires Besieged an official mod that simply adds content (notably new playable civilizations), it has to be flexible. Historical cultures that fall on both sides of this arbitrary boundary will pose a problem otherwise.