A couple of simple issues and gripes

[Lockesdonkey]

All right, here are my pet peeves about Civ that could be solved tomorrow.

First, why are the Ottomans not the Turks? Their city names are all in modern Turkey, their units speak Turkish, and there is no indication whatever that they are not supposed to represent the civilization of the Turkish people. And it's not like they all of a sudden became Turks when Ataturk took over or the name "Turkey" was invented in 1923. The country was historically just as likely to be called "Turkey" as "the Ottoman Empire" in daily conversation in the West, not least because it's easier to say. So: Why not just call them "Turks" and the civilization "Turkey?" It just makes sense.

Second, the Aztecs. There are two good solutions to the rather obvious lack of a country name for them, and while they do have political implications, they make sense.

First, if one keeps the term "Aztec," one could justifiably have the country called "Aztlan," following the legend and the fact that that's how Nahuatl place-name construction works. It's kind of shrouded in myth and (today) nationalism, but whatever. Second, one could change the name of the civilization to that of its ruling people, the Mexica, and just call the civilization Mexico. Easy-peasy.

Third, "Native America" is a cop-out. It fails to adequately represents the diversity of the indigenous people of North America and amounts to throwing them a bone. Either you go by tribe or not at all.

There are about four possibilities here, representing different regions and lifestyles: the Iroquois, for northern Eastern Woodlands, any one of the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes" for the southern Eastern Woodlands and general Southeastern (with Cherokee and Seminole being the most famous) who might conceivably be allowed at least some of the Mississippian city names, the Sioux (who have their own set of problems in finding good city names in that they were semi-settled at best), and one of the Southwestern peoples, either Southern Athabaskans--Navajo or Apache--(for their size and large crop of famous leaders) or one of the Puebloan peoples (for their settled lifestyle, relatively high level of sophistication, and their connections to the Mesoamerican civilizations to their south).

[/rant]

 

[Shurdus]

Meh.

If Ottoman and Turkey were pretty much used as different names for the same region and people, why would you even care what they are called? Edit them to Turkey if you must, you are basically saying that both are fine. Why change anything then?

The same goes for the rest. We all know what is meant with the 'Aztec' people, just because you could give them other names does not mean that that is more desirable. Same for the Native Americans. So they are thrown a bone you say... Why? These people are included in the game, so what if they may be split up in different tribes?

Who do you not make a point for the germans then, who arguably may be split up in Germanic tribes as well. One has to end somewhere, and reasonably so they ended these debates by settling on the names Aztec, Ottoman and Native Americans... which you pretty much said was fine.

[/counter rant]

 

[Camikaze]

Whatever with the Aztecs. I would prefer they are still called the Aztecs, because AFAIK, the Aztecs were actually a different to Mexicans (am I missing something about 'Mexica' here?).

As for the Ottomans, well, they are more easily recognisable as an empire and civilization of note than Turkey. The Ottoman Empire covered a further reaching area than Turkey does, and therefore they aren't the same thing. A better solution would be to expand the city list, or something, to include non-Turkish Ottoman cities (I haven't checked, but I was pretty sure it already did. Meh). The Ottoman Empire does warrant inclusion in the game. Turkey doesn't.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Whatever with the Aztecs. I would prefer they are still called the Aztecs, because AFAIK, the Aztecs were actually a different to Mexicans (am I missing something about 'Mexica' here?).

More or less, yes. "Mexica" (pronounced "Me-shi-ka") is the name of the ruling tribe/people of the Aztec Empire. If you asked someone living in Tenochtitlan what his people was called, there's a good chance that he or she would say "Mexica," and I'd wager it would be more likely than "Aztec" (which was more the name of the polity than anything).

As for the Ottomans, well, they are more easily recognisable as an empire and civilization of note than Turkey. The Ottoman Empire covered a further reaching area than Turkey does, and therefore they aren't the same thing. A better solution would be to expand the city list, or something, to include non-Turkish Ottoman cities (I haven't checked, but I was pretty sure it already did. Meh). The Ottoman Empire does warrant inclusion in the game. Turkey doesn't.

I think we have a difference of opinion here in what constitutes a civ. As far as I'm concerned, civs refer to distinguishable nations or at least groups recognizable as such. The Ottoman Empire was a multiethnic empire, including Greeks, Arabs, Albanians, Slavs, Romanians, and so on, with variable borders. By the end of the Empire, however, it was more or less restricted to the Arab lands, Armenian lands, and the Turkish lands. The Arabs already being represented, and the Armenians loth to include themselves in anything remotely Turkish, the Turks are left. Besides, the Turks are before and after the Ottomans: the Ottomans are but one dynasty of the overarching Turkish civilization. It would be rather like calling France "the Bourbon Kingdom" or Germany "the Hohenzollern Empire." Sure, they lasted longer than most dynasties in history (especially if you leave East Asia out of the mix), but does that really change anything? The Ottomans are only a phase in the history of the Turks, and the proper name for a land inhabited by Turks would be Turkey.

 

[Camikaze]

When you start throwing around the idea of 'nations' things get a little sticky. The Ottoman Empire was a clearly defined empire that lasted for a long period of time. Empires generally are multinational. Take the English Empire, for example (which substitutes for the British Empire in the game). It had Indian people in it, for instance. Chinese. Spanish. Kenyan. etc. But having this empire makes more sense than having England as the one entity and nation in the game. Same with the Ottoman Empire. The developers are not attempting to put the nation of Turkey in the game. They are trying to put the Civ that was defined by the scope of the entire Ottoman Empire in the game. Not just the Turkish bit.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

When you start throwing around the idea of 'nations' things get a little sticky. The Ottoman Empire was a clearly defined empire that lasted for a long period of time. Empires generally are multinational. Take the English Empire, for example (which substitutes for the British Empire in the game). It had Indian people in it, for instance. Chinese. Spanish. Kenyan. etc. But having this empire makes more sense than having England as the one entity and nation in the game. Same with the Ottoman Empire. The developers are not attempting to put the nation of Turkey in the game. They are trying to put the Civ that was defined by the scope of the entire Ottoman Empire in the game. Not just the Turkish bit.

But only the Turkish bit was in any way unique, and the core of the Empire was the Turks. And like I said, calling the Ottoman Empire "Turkey" was not in the least bit unusual while the Empire existed--and it was in fact more usual to call the people running it "the Turks" than "the Ottomans"--so why mangle the language?

 

[Camikaze]

The Ottoman Empire was rather unique, though, as it was rather large. It would make no sense having a part, albeit a central one, of an empire, in the game, without having the empire that it was part of.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

The Ottoman Empire was rather unique, though, as it was rather large. It would make no sense having a part, albeit a central one, of an empire, in the game, without having the empire that it was part of.

So England should have Delhi, China should have Hanoi, America should have Manila, and France should have Algiers? What matters is the degree to which the empire made the lands they ruled their own; the Ottomans never really did that outside of what we would recognize roughly as modern Turkey any more than the aforementioned empires did to the aforementioned cities.

The Ottomans are a Turkish dynasty; the term "Ottoman Empire" was a convenience to distinguish the Ottoman Turkish sultanate from the myriad others that existed at the time. The name stuck to the polity long after the other Turkish sultanates were long gone (generally absorbed by the one ruled by the House of Osman), but that's not the issue. The issue is that the Ottomans were a family, the House of Osman, who ruled the Turks. Do we call Persia the "Achaemenid Empire" simply because we only ever use Persian rulers (and, for that matter, city names) from the Achaemenid period? No. Why should the Turks be any different?

 

[duckstab]

I'm basically with Lockesdonkey. I also find it particularly grating when Ragnar says "Vikings thanks you," or some AI refers to "our friends, the tiny nation of Inca." But the larger subject of what to name which civs has largely been done to death.

Really, I'd like to see the dynamic civ names mod approach (also used in RFC) appropriated somehow. Names could be sensitive to things like era, number of cities, choice of civics, and so on. So maybe Turkey would go from "Sultanate of Istanbul" to "Ottoman Empire" to "Republic of Turkey" over time.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm not saying that the English empire should have Delhi as a city, no. I'm saying that despite the city name list, the English Empire in the game represents the body that controlled the whole Empire, centred in England. It wouldn't be in the game if it was just England itself. And neither would Turkey. The game specifically includes the empire that ruled various places outside of Turkey, although it was centred within Turkey. The Ottoman Empire is a correct and accepted term for this empire. Turkey does not refer to the empire, however. So seeing as it is the empire that is being represented, then calling it the Ottoman Empire makes much more sense.

 

[Takhisis]

Actually, instead of Inca (the name of the ruler), the proper name is Tawantinsuyu (present-day speeling) or Tahuantinsuyo (pre-reform spelling).

Back on topic, in the British Empire there were Englishmen, and then the rest of the population, just as in almost every empire the conquerors were obviously favoured by official law.