I was playing and this came to my mind... I am not complaining or requesting anything. Just want to know why Rhye's changed the original Ottoman Empire to Turkey? :mischief:


PS: I'm sorry if this was already discussed/answered, i didn't search... :blush:

because Turk is a broader word.
Ottoman is limited to the dinasty that ruled 1200-1918, more or less.

Turkey comprehends the turkish peoples such as the Seljuks, then the Ottomans, and finally modern Turkey and various other turkish states

Okay, makes sense. :)

Thanks, i was with this doubt.

I hace changed most of the names myself to ones that I like better :)

May I then ask why the Scandinavians are still the Vikings? That's a pretty similar situation.

(No, I'm not gonna mention Britain and England, that's a whole other topic)

mick

They were the Vikings before they became Scandinavians. Likewise, the Turk identity existed without a nation for quiet some time.

Yes, but vikings specifically means the "inhabitants of the area today called Scandinavia of the ages ~700 until 1200 AD". Imho - and most Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, ... would probably agree with me - that Scandinavians is a better term. After all, Vikings just originally means "Sea Raider".

mick

I like the name Vikings, but I dont have a reason why...

i like the name "Turks" because it does encompass more than a name given by enemies/others or merely a specific dynasty. it is amazing how widely spread the "Turk"-ish ethnogenesis has become. yes, i know there is a difference between Turk with an omlaut, and Turk without, but I don't have that easily on my keyboard and similarly Civ should not worry so much either :p
"Many attempts have been made to identify 'Turks' before the sixth century, but the earliest clearly attested use of the ethnonym, 'Turk' (T'u-chueh in Chinese), occurs in Chinese sources of the sixth century describing the creation of the first Turk empire. Like the Hsiung-nu or Scythian empires, that of the Turk was ethnically and linguistically heterogenous" (Christian, A History of Russia Central Asia and Mongolia, 248).
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/44182/turk.jpg
I scanned this map because I just think it is too cool ;)

i definitely agree that Scandanavia is more politically correct since "Vikings" does not mean all Scandanavians in many cases (sometimes just Danes, sometimes just Norweigans, ect.) and it is more of an invention of propoganda.

In Old English, the Widsith lay in the Exeter Book mentions:
wicinga cynn (47) as a distinct people separate from Hrothwulf ond Hrothgar (45) who would definitely represent important Scandanavians of the Viking era/Dark Ages. There are many other Scandanavian tribes also mentioned by the author as distinct from the "Vikings."
"Wiking certainly in O.E. comes to mean a Scandanavian pirate: but there is much evidence that, so far from being a Scandanavian loan word, it existed in West Germanic languages before the Viking era. [...] The original meaning seems to have been "warrior," but the word came early to be connected with the sea: cf. saewicingas, Exodus, 333" (Chambers, Widsith, 205).

I think the term and connotation of pirate as in Viking might offend some people and is not really the name of a state/people. I DO like the term though, probably for the same reasons the pirates/raiders did too- it worked! People did shake. :twitch: :run:

And the era that the Vikings really exist the Viking Civ does nothing... just raze/control a civ in Inverness or raze a city in Dublin.

The Viking Civ is more "active" in the Discovery era... and in the Modern Era with the WW ( if you are playing as Germany ).