View Full Version : MOD: The Turks 1.0

The Splang
Dec 01, 2001, 12:21 AM
I recently got bored so I decided to create a Turkish civ. This mod changes the following

Persians to Turks, Janesairy replaces Imortal (uses same graphic though) and now replaces knights instead of Swordsmen. its stats are:
ADM 5/2/2

The Turks are Militeristic, Comercial. (start with Warior code and alphabet)
Rome becomes Militaristic, Industrius
China becomes Scientific, Industrius'

Now heres where I need the communities help. I Need to know:

2-4 Great Leaders (got 2, but 1 is ify, the other isn't really all that famous)
Any obscure but Turkish sounding cities (I have enough, but it always helps to have more)
A site with a brief Turkish history.

and most of all, I need to know how to
A: Upload it to this site (preferably as Zip)
or B: I need to know someone (preferably a webmaster or admin) that I can send it to so THEY can upload it in Zip format (you see, I dont know HOW to upload any files, ive never done it before but I do know that Zip is a easier/smaller way to D/L it)

Basically, any help on how to convert something to Zip and upload it to this site would be apreciated.

Thanks! :D

Dec 01, 2001, 12:30 AM
Dont know any Turkish leaders

Constantinople, Izmit, Izmir, Ankara, Kars, Istanbul, there are more,

I think you should have left Rome and China's Unique abilities alone, they were fine.

To zip: Put the file in a compress folder(Right Click, and got to "send to".

To upload, when posting, go to the Attach file icon, press browse, and look for the file. press ok, and when you post, it will be there if in a zip file:)

Dec 01, 2001, 02:31 AM
Sorry to be so picky, but Istanbul is Constantinople...:) . Which one did you use, Splang?

I know next to nothing about the Turks, but for obscure cities and stuff, maybe look up old maps of Turkey (maybe Ottoman Empire) on your next web search.

Dec 01, 2001, 10:18 AM
Well, let the Turk speak for it :) First of all I don't think "commercial" fits Turkish Civilization. Chose two from expansionist, militaristic and religious. Special unit is ok. But I think replacing the Japanese will fit better. Here is a site in which you can make a brief summary:

Don't forget to remove Seldjuks from the barbarian list ;)


Title: Sultan
name: Osman (founder of the Ottoman Empire) or Mustafa Kemal (Founder of Turkey) or Fatih Mehmet (Conquered Istanbul - Empire at its peak)

Great Leaders: (Assuming Fatih Mehmet is the Sultan)

Yildirim Bayezid
Yavuz Selim
Kanuni Suleyman
Mustafa Kemal
Ismet Inonu
Kazim Karabekir



51 city names is enough I guess :)

The Splang
Dec 01, 2001, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Qelebex
Well, let the Turk speak for it :) First of all I don't think "commercial" fits Turkish Civilization. Chose two from expansionist, militaristic and religious. Special unit is ok. But I think replacing the Japanese will fit better. Here is a site in which you can make a brief summary:

Don't forget to remove Seldjuks from the barbarian list ;)


Title: Sultan
name: Osman (founder of the Ottoman Empire) or Mustafa Kemal (Founder of Turkey) or Fatih Mehmet (Conquered Istanbul - Empire at its peak)

Great Leaders: (Assuming Fatih Mehmet is the Sultan)

Yildirim Bayezid
Yavuz Selim
Kanuni Suleyman
Mustafa Kemal
Ismet Inonu
Kazim Karabekir

51 city names is enough I guess :)

Thank You!!!!! That was just what I needed!

dannyevilcat-I used Istanbul (they never contolled Constantinople, it was switched to Istanbul the second the Turks controlled it)

Ohwell- I changed China and Rome because I didn't want 2 Millitaristic Commercial civs. Ill upload 2 versions if you want...
And ill see if I can upload it the way you said in my next post.

Qelebex-Turky, from what I understand, was Comercial more than expansionist (all there Expansion (once they became the Ottomans) was Militaristic). And they were an important trading center, being the crossroads between Asia and Europe. But if you can prove me wrong, I have no problem with changing it...

The Splang
Dec 01, 2001, 04:03 PM
OK here it is (I hope...)

The civlopedia is still the Persian history :(

But I now have 51 cities, 5-6 leaders, and a bunch of other things. :)

well, I guess all I can say is...Enjoy!

Note:If anything wierd happens, tell me. I doubt anythings wrong but if somthing is, I wanna fix it.:egypt:

The Splang
Dec 01, 2001, 04:07 PM
OK, I just D/l'ed it and everything works OK!

If any Moderaters wanna put this somwhere on the site so it can be D/L'ed by anyone, feel free!

Dec 01, 2001, 04:09 PM
u have done a great work i was bored playing with Rome
it will be prefect if u go on working on it
if you need help i m here

Dec 02, 2001, 12:58 AM
are you putting the Turks in Anotolia or in their ancestrol homeland Central Asia? I recommend Central Asia, otherwise you will incorporate cities that are often identified with other civilizations.


Alma Ata
Ulan Ude

thats all that comes to mind off the top of my head


Timur-Lenk (Tamerlane)
Mehmed II
Selim the Grim
Sulieman the Magnificent
Some Moghul Leaders:

Keep in mind putting the Turks can be tricky, in that Turkic people have created empires from China to Europe and also in Africa.
If you want to just creat the Ottomans, then the list of cities listed above (Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir etc) will do fine.

Dec 02, 2001, 10:05 AM
yup, it is tricky. you can even mix them up with the mongols ;)

Dec 02, 2001, 04:54 PM
There are so many incidents where Mongols are called Turks, or Turks are called Mongols, or even Tartars (suppose to be a mix of Mongols and Turks). Some say Genghis Khan's mother was a Turk, some say Timur-Lenk (Tamerlane) was a Mongol, other say he was a Tartar and some that he was a Turk. Point is that it seems to be different every book I read.

What I do know for sure is this, when Genghis Khan united the tirbes of Mongolia they were Mongolian and Turkic. Furthermore Turkish was the language of the Mongolian Empire. The Mongols themselves spoke MOngolian but for some reason Turkic seem to dominate as the primary language of their empire. I think that the difficulty in determining who was Turkish and who was MOngolian made people come up with the term Tartar (I am guessing here).

Anyhow, as far as Civ is concerned I think they should throw the Turks in Central Asia, but them right besides the Mongols. Let them war until one comes to dominance. If either civilization takes over the other they will assimulate the others people etc. Thats what happened in history (kind of, the Mongols took over the Turks, but somehow the Turks assimulated many of the Mongols - I believe it was due to the cultural depth of the Turks over the Mongols - great you can adjust the Turkish Civilization to emphasize more cultural).

The Splang
Dec 02, 2001, 05:05 PM
I was basically going for a transitional turkish empire. Like:

first they represent a band of random nomads
then Seljuks
then that short period were they weren't really mongels anymore but were still Seljuks
then the Ottomans
then modern day turks

Thats the reason there Comercial instead of expansionist/religius.

Ill probably create many more civs because this is extreemly cool. But im not sure about the next one. Any Ideas? Both my home countries are already in (Im an American with German blood). Maybe spain or the vikings...But my #1 problem is, what will be there UU's?Hmmmm...

Dec 02, 2001, 05:32 PM
The "only" two nations calling themselves as Turk today are Turkey turks and Northern Cypriots. Uzbeks call themselves Uzbek, Azeris call themselves as Azeri, etc.

Turkish civilization should be referred to Anatolian Turks, beginning with Seldjuks then Anatolian Seldjuk State.

The Splang
Dec 02, 2001, 05:33 PM
1.1 is up!

This only does 2 things

1: Turkey isn't spelled Turky (come on, didn't ANYONE see that!)
2: They build more artillery and focus more on production if AI controled.

1 is good for the WHOLE game. 2 helps the AI fight better and more historicaly (they were the FIRST nation in Europe to use artillery against enemy troops and they built severel MASSIVE guns that they used against Constantinople)

Dec 02, 2001, 05:40 PM
"2: They build more artillery"

Good point..

Dec 02, 2001, 06:42 PM
Arabs? Who are they, are they Jordanian? Saudi? Egyptian? Algerian? Point is they are all Arabs, sure with some differences but generally they are accepted as Arabs. My point earlier was that Turks do not only pertain to Turkey, all you need do is go to any websites, history books, whatever and you will find material to back up this fact. The various Arab countries lets say we could call them clans, different houses whatever, the same goes with the Turks. I have an Uygur friend, guess what he accepts himself as Turkish but as an Uygur Turk. IF you are going to use the term Turk it would be incorrect to apply it only to the Anatolian Turks.

Osmanli Turks
Seljuk Turks
Uygur Turks
Kirgiz Turks
Azeri Turks and so on are all part of the "TURKIC" family.

that being put aside :)

I am working ona very huge map/scenario. There will be some changes, I plan on having the following civilizations in it:

East Indians
Abysinians (Ethiopian-they have a very ancient civilization since the time of Egypt, though they hardly expanded they did deal the Italians in World War I a nasty blow)
and this last one I am not sure on....

For now though, I do need help with one thing, if anyone likes, I am working on a map which would be accurate in size, shape, resources etc. Already for hours I looked through maps etc for information on world resource distribution, vegetation, Wildlife etc. Its a lot of work and a lot of time, but in the end it would perhaps the most accurate world map out there for Civ 3.

let me know if you can assist

BTW, I am in a rush when I write these replies so excuse my spelling!:crazyeyes

Dec 02, 2001, 07:35 PM
Well Arab case is different. Those borders are drawn by imperial powers. In fact they are the same family, share the same language and culture. But Turkish case is different.

An Azeri and an Anatolian Turk can hardly understand each other and me being an Anatolian, cannot understand even a single word of the Uzbeks. The culture also have very little similarities. The race have even less in common.

Central Asian Turks were nomads and closer to Mongols. Antolian Turks are far different. They mixed with cultures here and build their own culture. Hard to find anything left from the Kokturks of Central Asia, but Middle Asia and Balkans are full of Seldjuk and Ottoman architecture.

So when you don't welldefine the concept "Turk" you face two civilizations completely different. We are as "Central Asian Turk" as the Hungarians ;)

Dec 03, 2001, 01:40 AM
My research of information does not agree with what your are stating. Do you have some references, books etc where you are getting your information from? I can provide you with a multitude of sources showing a strong relationship between the various nations in Central Asia and Turkey. You are right in that the there are some differences from the Turkish spoken in Turkey with that of the Central Asian republics, but no more so than the english spoken in America with that in England. I have heard Turkic from asia and though a little hard to adjust it is most definately understandable. As you probably guessed I am Turkish, and I am by no means trying to thrust my opinions on others, on the contrary I seek only the truth, especially in matters concerning my heritage. Civ 3 format my not be the apropriate place to do so and I apolgize for going into depth about the roots of modern day Turks in Turkey. Furthermore I would like to point out one thing, all these republics in Central Asia (Kazakistan, Uzbekistan etc) were all originally called "TURKISTAN", now why would they do that? - cause they are Turkish. Many people are not aware of the true number of Turkic nations in the world, I suppose the Russians and Chinese were successful in their efforts to create disunity amongst the Turks. Turkistan try to break away from Russian earlier in the century, the Russians crushed the uprising and to ensure they would not pose a threat again they spilt up Turkistan into many nations as you see today.

check out the following places on the web for further details:

Just to note, currently there is a Turkic state that is being oppressed by the Chinese government, Uyguristan people are one of the most ancient of the Turkic clans and they face complete cutural annilation. Along with the Tibetans they need outside support, and thus this is the reason I feel compelled let you know that Turks are more than the Anatolians, forgetting that we are Asian is just like denying our history. Dont just look west, times are changing now we must look East.

if you like to discuss this further please direct your email to me directly, that way we dont take up all kinds of space here :)

Dec 03, 2001, 03:08 AM
I am not denying the facts. I know we have roots in Central Asia. I am Turkish too :) and I have read whole of Kamuran Gurun's "Turks and Turkish States' History". I know all you are talking about.

It is my own view that we are too much focusing on our Central Asian roots, even ignoring the cultures we are mixed here in Anatolia. Again my own view here is, other Turkic states should be referred as cousins not brothers. Azeris are exceptional may be :)

Anyway, I don't think this discussion is useless. Your posts are very informative for the others. :)

Dec 06, 2001, 01:23 AM
Its going to be my first post to these forums actually, but I'm glad to see that someone is actually working on integrating the Turks into the game.

My friends call me patriotic, which I am at a level which everybody should be, but to be honest, I have to agree that the Turks should not be considered as the Anatolian Turks only.

It is essential to keep in mind that the great wall of China was built to prevent the Turkish (and Mongolian) raids.

However, the power of the Ottoman Turks cannot be underestimated, which became one of the most feared nation in the whole known world for several decades (actually, just one or two).

When leaders where chosen for the civs in the game, they were not necessarily the formers of those civs, but were great leaders.

I assume Mehmed II, the Conquerer (Fatih Sultan Mehmet) would be a VERY good choice as a leader.

Although the greatness of Ataturk cannot be denied by my Turkish friends here, I think it should only be a normal leader name.

Also, why not mix Anatolian names and Central Asian names together?

By the way, I can understand an Azeri, even though I am Anatolian, come on :)

Great Leader names would be (as proposed earlier)

- Mehmed II, the Conquerer
- Suleiman, the Magnificent
- Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (the one who brought democracy to modern Turkey)

One last note:

The Seljuk Turks were not that Anatolian after all, most of their lands did even spread down to India and up to the borders of modern Russia.

If we are speaking about Turks here, the Huns should be considered as well :) See? Everyone just forgot about the Huns...

Dec 06, 2001, 06:37 AM
Turkish history I find to be very complex. The reason being that there were so many different clans, but with enough research you can get a picture of where the Turks came from and their impact/contribution to the world we live in today. The one question though that my studies has never indicated is the cause for such a large scale migration of people. Some blame it on the Mongols, but the fact is that Turks were very integrated in the Mongol Empire, to the point where Turkish was the language used within its borders. The Huns, Avars, Khazars, Kipchaks, Kazaks, Uygurs and the list goes on, where did these people come from? Why such a large scale exodus from Asia into China, India, Europe and the Middle East? Anyways, back to CIV :)

I made a scenario; it is just completed and has the following changes done to it:

1- I revised a map of the world that is extremely accurate. The resources are in right locations, rivers are detailed and the terrain is accurate as its going to get. Spent hours going over maps, atlases, and history books ensuring the proper placement for everything.

2- Races: Turks, Arabs, Abyssinians, Mongols, Zulu, Egypt, Greeks, Romans, French, German, English, Russians, Indians, Chinese, Japanese & Persians. The Turks start in Central Asia, wanna be the Ottomans then you must pave the way with the Seljuks first :)

Starting Locations:

American/Turkish X124 Y52
Russians X106 Y46
Germans X96 Y50
French X88 Y58
English X89 Y51
Baby./Arabs X109 Y83
Aztecs/Abssyinians X111 Y95
Chinese X155 Y61
Japanese X161 Y69
East Indians X128 Y82
Persians X114 Y68
Romans X92 Y62
Greeks X98 Y66
Egypt X100 Y76
Irq./Mongols X136 Y46
Zulu X104 Y 136

3- All resources reflect that actual place they are found in the world, or their historical starting places. I made one exception however; at times certain cities would not grow, like Rome. I could not play around too much with the map, there is not much land to change around Rome anyway... so what I did was to add fish, cattle etc to bump up the population. But the cities are in the right starting locations and they have enough resources to prosper into the true great cities they were meant to be. I did not adjust all cities however, some like Karakorum was never a real large scale city like Rome.

4-Leader no longer builds armies or hurries production, instead they have been seriously beefed up so that IF you are lucky enough to acquire it, you will have a devastating force at your disposal, 10 attack - 10 defense. This is I think correct since many of the worlds greatest conquests have been the result of a great leader. So let's say you are the Greeks and you get Alexander the Great, well you most definitely can embark on a conquest, after all what is to stop you? Maybe a leader from another Civilization :)

5-There are two new Governments, one a Dictatorship/Fascist, another a religious government.

6- Much larger hit points have been given to more experienced units. And Settlers are EXTREMELY expensive to build. This causes less cities popping up and thus less scattered empires - what I mean by that is you don’t have one piece here then another there - now you get empires that are connected.

7- You can pretty much play any race you would like, all you need is the civ3mod file I will provide shortly, and then follow the instructions above.

Feel free to change anything you want, will be posting this mod file soon..

Dec 06, 2001, 06:48 AM
Not sure if this is going to post right - test 1

Dec 06, 2001, 02:55 PM
if you take whole Turkish tribes as one nation, then you should also consider the norwegian and the swedish, the russian and the ukrainian, and even Chinese and Japanese as the same nation ;)

Spincrus, yes you can understand an Azeri (and make fun of it :D). They are Oguz just like the Anatolians. though you cannot understand Uzbek. At least I was not able to catch only a single word of the Uzbek president's speech and he was using an interpreter :D

"Turk" is the term used for citizens of the republic of Turkey. When you refer the term to central asian tribes, it causes discrimination against some of our citizens ;) You make them to use another to identify themselves. They did't "come" here. They were.. and are and were a part of this civilization.

Dec 06, 2001, 04:20 PM
Any Turkish person should be under the realization that they are related through language to the people from Central Asia. To contest this is to deny your heritage. There are multitude of websites to look at this for futher proof or just check out a copy of Encarta and go to the language feature. There you will be able to make comparisons between Turkish in Turkey and Turkish in Uzbekistan - hardly ANY difference. The fact that this is being debated shows the success of non-turkish people to create disunity amongst Turks.

The following is take from a website:

A Note from the SOTA's Founder:
On the usage of the Term Turkish/Turkic World

Turkic people do not distinguish between Turkish and Turkic. For most of them, there is only one Turkish people from Sakha to the Balkans/Europe, who speaks different dialects of one Turkish Language. The distinction between Turkish and Turkic is artificial and is a fabrication of Stalin Era politics of divide et Impera.

"It should be noted that in no Turk dialect is there any such differentiation as Turkic and Turkish. This distinction is a new introduction into the politics of nationalities, and exists in some Western languages as in Russian ..."

"Only since the soviet language reforms especially of the 1930s, have the dialects been asserted to be individual and unrelated Central Asian languages" They are, with exception of Yakut and Chuvash, which are considered as separate languages in Turkish Language family, mutually intelligible."

I have insisted long in usage of Turkish instead of Turkic. But meanwhile I have ascertained that this distinction is so widespread that to insist only creates confusion. Only for this reason we shall make in our English contributions the same distinction.

Here is another Website worth visiting on this subject:

and here is something Azerbaijan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan addressed to the Secretary General of the United Nations:

Declaration 3.
Having expressed deep satisfaction with cooperation in the area
of science, culture and education, the Heads of State called for the
further expansion and strengthening of those ties between their
countries and for the popularization of the great cultural and
historical heritage of the Turkish peoples.

The Heads of State stressed that the TURKSOY organization has
important tasks before it in the further development of cooperation based on the commonality of culture, language and spiritual values of the peoples of the Turkish-speaking countries, and consider it necessary to enhance the effectiveness of this organization.

Clearly there is undeniable evidence supporting that fact that Turks are more than just the Anatolian Turks. Furthermore I never stated that Uzbekistan and Turkey were one nation, I said there were very strong similiarities between the people, language and culture.

Dec 06, 2001, 04:33 PM
With out getting into this subject too much, I do awknowledge Qelebex's point that Turkey has more than just Turks within its borders. Jewish, Greek, Armenian and Kurds all live within Turkey, so if Turk implies peope from Turkey thus these people have to call themselves non-Turks - point understood. Politics is not my thing, I suppose these minorities are in the same boat as the Russians in Kazakistan or Uzbekistan. They call themselves Kazaks (I think they do) yet they are otherwise. Politics!

Hey I am writing all this JUST to let people know what Turk means the history of the Turks etc, no POLITICS please :)

anyways got to get back to work


Dec 06, 2001, 06:22 PM
thanks for the info :)

Dec 16, 2001, 01:51 PM
i can VERY easily communicate with other Turkic people, theres not much difference in language or culture. Anyway no matter what kind of Turk youre talking about, they all have asian language, culture, and maybe even food.

so if youre gonna make the Turks put them near the chinese border :)

good luck

Dec 21, 2001, 02:30 AM
Here is an internet adress for the guys who want to learn more about Ottoman Empire:

Dec 21, 2001, 05:34 PM
thank u very much otto, nice site

Dec 28, 2001, 08:04 AM
Suleiman the Magnificent would be a good name for the "emperor" (player).

How about the Armenian genocide as a wonder, removing (destroying) all foreign nationals?

Dec 29, 2001, 06:59 AM
"How about the Armenian genocide as a wonder, removing (destroying) all foreign nationals?"

This one is a great lie and unfortunately Armenian diaspora is strong enough to spread over lies...

There wouldn't be any Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, Armenians, Albanians, Romanians left after a 600 years of Ottoman control if Turks have had a habit of genocide.

Dec 29, 2001, 07:59 AM
Not really, Ottoman massacres were very common, infact massacres were the way of the world.

Nothing special every empire had its genocides, just some are more famous then others. My ancestors (though not armenian) were massacred by turks, as were many serbs and greeks (and the greeks themselves massacred many turks in former smyrna).

The world is an ugly place.

The wonder would be iron and useful, if it converts half foriegn nationals into your nationality and uses the rest for shields.

I mean there should be an option to rid one's self of the pesky foriegn nationals anyway.

Dec 29, 2001, 10:39 PM
who the f cares who turks are or who lives there or what nationality or which arabs live there or middle east or whatever, the fact is majority is muslims and thas all that matters, this nationalism bs is what got us in such a ****hole

Dec 30, 2001, 03:40 AM
If you want to make a Turksih civilization you should select the age.
If you want ancient ages, you should make the middle asian Turks
If you want middle age, you should make Ottomans
If you want modern ages, You should make Turkish Republic(which exists today)

And I played the turkish mod, the capital was Istanbul.
İstanbul is capital for Ottomans
Turkish Republic's capitol is Ankara as you know
And you can ask anything about Turks to me because I'm a Turk:cool:
I can give any info about every age of the Turks

Jan 02, 2002, 08:31 AM
thanks for this mod.
i can say that if you wat to made a turk mode, u will use bot the ideas, turks in anatolia, and center asia. Both are true.

i want to say that, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is hero and leadder of modern Turkey, if u use Modern turks the leadder must be Ataturk. But Fatih Sultan Mehmet(Conc.) is Middle ages hero and leadder.

The Greathest cities in Turkey:

thanks, i'll try the mod.

Jan 02, 2002, 02:28 PM
thanks for turkish mod

i think best leader of the Turks is Yavuz Sultan Selim in middle ages.:cool:

he made very good jobs in 8 years which can made in 100 years! he went to egypt with his army from istanbul in one month! passed from desert and didn't lost his way or part of his army! with weak army he take control of egypt. and he had a project like open a suez canal isn't he better than Fatih Sultan Mehmet:cool:

note:sorry for mistakes

Jan 11, 2002, 11:28 PM
axe-man, for hundreds of years the minorities of the Ottoman Empire lived in peace. It was not until the 1900's that the Turkish language was even required in school and minorities began to get abused.

so have some respect mkay

Apr 09, 2004, 05:23 AM
I'm a Greek ... and as I know the 1910's were the balkanian wars ... At the 1900's most of the Balkan nations were indepedent ... Only the Arabs were still under Ottoman rule...
As axe-man said , massacres were very common to the old Empires , ex. the British in India , the French in Algeria ...
As for the Turks , remember the massacre of Chios ...
The Armenian genocide is recognised by most of the European nations as a fact .
Anyway , Turkey has done big steps the latest years ( in order to enter the EU , of course ) ...
no offence ...

P.S. The European Union could be a good tech advantage for your civ ... What do you think ? :goodjob:

Apr 09, 2004, 06:17 PM
Ugh you put a 2 year old thread on the top of the thread list....the horror!

Apr 28, 2004, 08:53 PM
Every military in the world has had it's massacres,but empires there massacres are infamous and many.

Apr 29, 2004, 12:17 AM
He was never defeated in battle.

Mongols of the Golden Horde and Ottomans both very powerful empires at the time fell to him with ease.

Never since Genghis Khan had the world seen one like him.

No Turkish leader compares, least not on the battliefield.

He died on his way to conquer China.

Only Alexander the Great & Genghis Khan are in his league.

Just my opinion! :king:

May 22, 2004, 10:43 AM
Here is a good web site about the Ottoman Empire (

This is also an another web site containing information about Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkiye (

Jun 03, 2004, 12:36 PM
The Ottoman Empire... Rise and fall...Like all other nations

Jul 07, 2004, 05:08 PM
Most posts I've read on this thread have said something along the lines of Constantinople being renamed to Istanbul the second Mehmed II walked into the place. From what I've heard. the city continued to carry the name of Constantinople until the 1800s when the local greek slangword for the city, Istimpol (meaning, as I recall "in the city" or was it "to the city") was so common that it became the name of the city, having been turkified over the years into Istanbul. But perhaps this tale was falsely taught or wrongly remembered. Beh.

As for Ottoman genocides. Well, I'm unsure what their actions against armenians were, but they were certainly not aggressive against all minorities within their borders. Most notably: the Albanians, who could rise fairly easily into possitions of power in the Ottoman world despite their ethnic, historical and usually religious difference (most of them being followers of the Bektashi Dervish tarika).

My suggestion for the leader would be Suleyman the Magnificent: who ruled the ottoman empire at it's peak. Though Timur-i-Lenk is also a great choice (Him being the superturk and all, kicking Byezid the Thunderbolt's ass, as I recall). I also suggeest that when adding to the list of great leaders that the early seljuq leaders should not be forgotten (though I'm ashamed to say that off hand I have)... ehh... Alp Arslan comes to mind, though there are several others left to mention.

A suggestion for a scientific great leader: Sinan. One of the worlds greatest architects who was inspired by the two architects of Hagia Sofia and who inturn created structures that became the awe and archetypes of most western builders and architects from the high renaissance and onwards. Plus, does it no make sense that he can help build great wonders?

By the by, talks about turkish unity is not something restricted to these forums (as some would have us assume). Just take the the flag of modern turkey and change the background color from red to light blue (celeste, I believe) and who get what some identify as the symbol of greater eastern turkey. Sh, though... plenty of chinese may dissagree.

Johan Båge (not a turk, so I'm bound to litter my posts with errors of all sorts)

Jul 28, 2004, 12:56 AM
I have been searching on the net and came across here and realised that u guys were having a bit of trouble about identifying Turks well, let me tell you who are turks as i have done much years of research about Turks,

Huns are Turks--> huns were the earliest turks, The first Turkish tribe that is mentioned in history is the Huns. Clear records about the Huns made their appearance in the 8th century B.C. Chinese sources refer to the Huns as Hiung-nu and in time, some of the Huns migrated to the West.Which were called Seljuqs and then they kept separating and had different names, ie:Gokturks, Karahans, Ottomans etc. You all know Atilla the Hun, well, Atilla is a name only used in Turkey and in Hungary(Where some huns migrated into), for God's sake my uncle's name is Atilla.

Believe me Huns are also turks and in turkish history they are referred as the Hun Turks.

So Huns are turks.

Mongols are Turks--> In history Genghis Khan (Cengiz Han in Turkish) is considered to be a Turkish leader and in turkish movies ( dont think it is not a fact just because it is in da movies) they always kept saying " our turkish leader Cengiz Han" etc, or "as turks, we will continue on the path of Cenghiz han".

Also so many words from mongolian are in turkish, The name Cengiz (Genghis) it self, the name Kubilai, the name Cagatay, or the name Cihan or Cihangir, the word kurultay which means like a meeting in turkish same meaning in mongolian, also mongols were a cavalry race using a curved compsite bows, same for Turks. And today many mongolian and turksh customs are the same.

So believe me, Mongols are Turks

Tatars are turks--> Not much to say about them other than they are turks that were in russia and ukraine, and they had been oppressed.

Saracens are turks --> Saracens were the name given to mainly turks during the crusades but there was a part of arabs also called saracens.

Finally today in the world there are about 250 million Turks split all over Asia and Europe. Mongols,Huns, the Ottoman turks (including the anatolian turks), they were all turks except as turks are an invading race when they started invading they , mongols, huns and turks took different paths while invading but they all came from the same place, Central Asia. They are all turks.

Here are countries that are turks in todays world:

Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Kirghizistan, Hungary (although its culture is mainly European, it is originally turkish)

It is a fact that if you know any turkish you would be able to understand and communicate in all these countries (except hungary), if u stay in any of these countries for a month may be even less you should be able to easily communicate with them and understand them.

some interesting facts about turks-->

Turks invented the Scimitar (scimitar name coming from a turkish city thought to be Izmit (almost pronounced like smit)) and the ottoman sabre (well guess where the name is coming from, Ottoman turks), the yatagan short sword used in navy and in very close combat. Turkish cavalry archers could shoot thirty arrows every minute at a distance of 400 yards.

(So when u are making a race for the game, u can just call them Turks and they can have units from all the races above)

I hope I was able to enlighten u all.

If u have any questions u can email me at

Jul 28, 2004, 07:38 AM
hi Kara,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge, however some of the points you have made are not entirely correct.

1. Huns were a Turkic - you are right.

2. Mongols are from the same language branch with the Turks however they are not Turkic.

3. Tatars are Turkic/Mongol people. A mixture of both since for ages both Mongols and Turks lived side and marriages were common between both. For example, there is some speculation that Genghis Khan's mother was Turkish. We do know that one of his wives so there is a possibility but no way to be certain.

4. Saracens are not Turkish. Turks may have been mistakenly called Saracens however that does not make them so.

5. The list of nations is correct except for Mongolia and Hungary. Hungary originally over 1500 years ago may have been Turkish but today's Hungary is not. Also you did not factor in the Magyars who migrated to the area as well. Same goes for the Mongols, they do not see themselves as Turkish and they are not.

Khazars were also Turkic. They adopted Judaism and there is much speculation that Jews from Eastern Europe and Russia may be linked to them. Turks are a people who have a rich history. Turkiye is only one part of that history. However I think it necessary to point out over sights. Some of the things you mentioned I have heard before, but research shows that it was not so.

Jul 28, 2004, 01:09 PM
Hungarians are not turks or turkish, their language is in Uralic group, Turkish is in altaic language group. Huns were not turkish, they were turkic. Azeris are not turkish they are turkic. Swedes are not Norwegian, they're norse, croats are not serbs, they are slavs. There is a difference between being same nation and being in same family group. Please don't settle down with the only education you get (which can be quite subjective) and investigate, learn, explore. Same goes for the armenian kids posting about a so-called genocide of which he got no clue except his grandpa's bed time tales, as well as the greek kid reviving the thread after 2 years with his silly post: "Chios Massacre". Guess what, nobody knows Chios massacre, nobody believes magyars are turkish, so cut the stupid discussion all of you ok. Well done to all turning a gaming thread into stupid fanaticism contest.
I got so appalled by the illeteracy and subjectivity that I had to register on this board to post a reply.

Jul 28, 2004, 02:13 PM
You insult people's intelligence by assuming that we all accept any post in this forum like it was the gospel itself. People often make mistakes in the information they put forth. Often others correct this information by providing facts etc. This in my mind constitutes a healthy debate and nothing more.

I see no fanaticism here in this forum except with your overzealous, judgmental attack on discussion of history. I definitely do not see any reason to get upset and if you just registered only to make this one post – well then I find you to be the fanatic here and not us.