Civ V Civilizations Roster
- Thread starter Opera
- Start date
Huayna Capac357
Deity
What about the Selimiye Mosque? Or conquering all of the Middle East and half of Europe? Or having ended the Roman Empire? Or their culture? Or Janisseries? Or Topkapi Palace? Or one of the largest empires ever? Or spreading Islam to Southeastern Europe?
AlphaShard
Emperor
I thought the Goths ended the Roman Empire? Didn't they sack Rome?
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Rome wasn't the capital, and the Western Roman Empire was only part of the empire.
The Roman Empire continued as a state until 1453.
The Roman Empire continued as a state until 1453.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
Well, "Roman" in this case means "Byzantine". Yes, yes, I know all that debate about whether Byzantines were Roman or Greek or neither or whatever, but all I want to say is that what he meant.
What about being one of the only empires to have a good track record for the most part regarding their rulers? Most Ottoman Sultans did fairly well IMO, as far as domestic policy. Also, Suleiman's law code is a basis for the US constitutional law. He, along with Hammurabi and some famous Greeks, are displayed in the US Supreme Court building as pioneers of law. Being one of the most liberal states at the time deserves it's merit, and being one of, if not the most, tolerant empire in history also deserves points. They never tried to do what crusaders did in the Levant, AKA convert everybody or put them to the sword. The Ottomans where a major power from the early 1400s atleast until the 1800s, and on and off until 1918. The Sultan was also Caliph, or the leader of the Sunni Muslim world. I think that makes them atleast important, not counting what is posted above me by Huayna Capac357
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
I would dispute whether their rulers having "a good track record for the most part", but I do agree that they are a lot better than that ridiculous stereotype of the fat jolly sultan in the harem with tons of half-naked girls. They managed to keep together a multi-ethnic Empire for several centuries, which is not an easy thing to do; they were pioneers in gunpowder and siege weaponry; and they essentially were the greatest threat to Europe from the 1400s all the way to the 1600s.
I would like to add that I love the Byzantines way more than the Ottomans, especially since I sort of idealize the Byzantines as the epitome of the idea of having a "last stand" - but even so, the Ottomans must be given credit for something.
I wouldn't call it as much a last stand as a slow, painful drowning, but yes, the Byzantines held out much longer than anybody would have thought. Especially after being partitioned.......But the Ottomans, in my opinion, are the third Rome. Just because Islam is not the religion of the time in Europe doesn't make them not the Third Rome. The way of life of the people in Constantinople/Istanbul was much more European than Central Asian/Arab/Other type of denomination for Turks. As I consider Byzantines=Romans, but Romans at their lowest point, I think that continuity should be observed and whatever Western historians call Eastern Rome be damned.
But the Ottomans are WAY more important than the Byzantines/Eastern Romans had been since the reign of Basil II, debatably the last time the Byzantines where powerful. Since I know Fireaxis will split Rome, I'll consider any period post the reign of Justinian the Byzantines for what I'm going to say. Justinian spoke Latin, later emperors spoke Greek. So if Fireaxis splits Rome, then the Byzantines are DEFINETLY less important than the Ottomans, if not, I'll be happy to see both appear(Romans/Ottomans, not Byzantines/Romans)
But the Ottomans are WAY more important than the Byzantines/Eastern Romans had been since the reign of Basil II, debatably the last time the Byzantines where powerful. Since I know Fireaxis will split Rome, I'll consider any period post the reign of Justinian the Byzantines for what I'm going to say. Justinian spoke Latin, later emperors spoke Greek. So if Fireaxis splits Rome, then the Byzantines are DEFINETLY less important than the Ottomans, if not, I'll be happy to see both appear(Romans/Ottomans, not Byzantines/Romans)
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
the ottoman Empire has no legitimate claim to the third Rome ( although.. mehmed II was related to a Byzantine Emperor..and he kept the capital at Constantinople, kept the name, kept the History intact...) .... alright i see your point, the Ottoman Caliphate is third Rome but the Russian empire was also third Rome.
i have no idea who is more deserving of it.
i have no idea who is more deserving of it.
The Ottomans actually own Constantinople and where the immediate conqueror of Constantinople, while the Russians claim inheritance of the title via a niece of a Byzantine emperor? Was that niece even the niece of the last emperor, or a previous emperor? Wouldn't that disqualify them via technicality? Although, the Russians never even controlled Constantinople....
mythmonster2
BEC NOIR! RUN!
EDIT: Must remember to look back some pages before posting.
I agree that the Ottomans are more important than the Byzantines, but I'm just gonna put in my three cents (inflation) and say that I really want Byzantium too. Though probs for the first or second expansion, not important enough for vanilla. And I'd disagree on your cut-off line on Byzantine power - the empire experienced a slight resurgence under the Comneni. My cutoff for Byzantine irrelevance would be 1204, when the fourth crusade sacked Constantinople. After that they kept declining until the Ottomans.
Also, I consider Justinian a Byzantine ruler, if only geographically - Rome was so far lost by his time that one of his major accomplishments was the retaking of Ravenna! My cutoff for Rome-Byzantium is after Theodosius, the last unified ruler of Rome - though that's probably a bit early.
The Russian claim for Moscow being the third Rome was religiously-based - they needed a religious capital after Constantinople fell to the Ottomans, they chose Moscow 'cause they didn't like the Catholics so Rome was out.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
I do agree that a better cut-off for Byzantine irrelevance is 1204, because even up to a couple years before then they were still extremely powerful and an important player in Europe and the Middle East.
Personally though I really admire the Byzantines and think they're the most awesome Empire ever, I will have to admit that, yes, the Ottomans are more "important" - though barely, in my opinion. Although I... really consider it kind of irrelevant at least for the case of the Ottomans and the Byzantines, since both were extremely long-lasting Empires that influenced many civilizations and cultures, they both had their important contributions to history.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Absolutely not, but that never mattered to the developers in the past ...
History buff33
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 287
Things are looking up for my dear Ottomans/Turks To finally get their due and become a vanilla civ. And boy has it been a long-time coming...
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Arg. I like the Turks, I really do, but they just aren't vanilla level, I think. Oh well, there's always expansion packs and mods.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
then who will represent the Anatolia? the Arabs wont do, Greece wont do, Rome wont do, etc
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Well, who's supposed to represent South America?
History buff33
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 287
I think we need to throw out the Spanish, not include the Vikings, Keep the Arabs and Persians, and give a spot to my Ottoman Turks. As for s.america, keep the inca.
