Yes, Haida or Tlingit are a good idea...and i think that one that deserves not to be in is the Inuits (cover all the arctic polar circle): igloo, inuksuk...
Civ V Civilizations Roster
- Thread starter Opera
- Start date
Yes, Haida or Tlingit are a good idea...and i think that one that deserves not to be in is the Inuits (cover all the arctic polar circle): igloo, inuksuk...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamerlane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayezid_I
Tamerlane : English of the name "Timurlenk", which is a nickname for Turkish-Mongol leader Timur Khan. He is not persian, his empire was in geographical persia.
Timur is famous with the Battle of Ankara (1402) where he defeated Ottomans. Ottoman sultan "Bayezid I" got imprisoned after the battle and he committed a suicide in his cell, drinking the poison in his ring. It took a decade for Ottomans to recover after that battle.
In that century, there were a few more Turkish states in mid-east. Some turkish allies of Ottomans changed sides in the battle, joining Timur. And it is told that, this was the main reason for the defeat.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Obviously, if I suggest Tamerlane, I'm probably aware of his ethnic origin. That's pretty irrelevant though, just like Catherine the Great's German ethnicity doesn't stop her representing Russia (or Cleopatra Egypt, and so on). Persia's period of Turkic domination is a legitimate part of Persian history, and he is as much a Persian ruler as any other.
in those years, citizens of turk & mongol origin also lived in persia, not only ethnic persians. and the dynasty of Timur's empire was completely turco-mongol.Obviously, if I suggest Tamerlane, I'm probably aware of his ethnic origin. That's pretty irrelevant though, just like Catherine the Great's German ethnicity doesn't stop her representing Russia (or Cleopatra Egypt, and so on). Persia's period of Turkic domination is a legitimate part of Persian history, and he is as much a Persian ruler as any other.
today, at least 10mio turks still live in today's persia/iran.
So I can't find any reason for Timur being a persian leader. He could be picked as Turkish or Mongol leader.
Catherine is a different case. She, born German, just moved into Russia. Both the dynasty and the citizens were complete Russian.
Many leaders of historical european states were relatives anyway. So this was normal.
Also, mothers of most (maybe 90%) ottoman sultans were european.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Mongol? I don't think so.
Representative of a central Asian Turkic civ, sure ... but we ain't gonna get the Timurids as a new civ. And why do we need one. It's Persia:
A rose by another name ...
I get it though. You think the leader has to be Persian ethnically to be a Persian leader in the game. That's not what the developers think, nor what I think (c/f Catherine, Cleopatra, and so on).
I agree though that having leaders like Tamerlane for Persia makes the need to make city-lists leader-dependent greater. Hopefully that's a change we'll see.
I get it though. You think the leader has to be Persian ethnically to be a Persian leader in the game. That's not what the developers think, nor what I think (c/f Catherine, Cleopatra, and so on).
Catherine, Cleopatra, etc were good rulers and did much for their countries. Tamerlane, he, well, basically plundered Persia to enrich his own city of Samarkand. He was a foreign ruler whose rule was highly destructive to Persia - an Ashurbanipal rather than a Cleopatra.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
The same thing is just called "taxation" in the Byzantine Empire ...
In seriousness, the best parallel would be William the Conqueror. Would you be comfortable adding him (let alone future Norman/Angevin monarchs) as English ruler? I think most people would. And if they would, they should see the case for Tamerlane.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
The same thing is just called "taxation" in the Byzantine Empire ...
In seriousness, the best parallel would be William the Conqueror. Would you be comfortable adding him (let alone future Norman/Angevin monarchs) as English ruler? I think most people would. And if they would, they should see the case for Tamerlane.
i didnt realize Byzantium plundered its enemies lands.
The same thing is just called "taxation" in the Byzantine Empire ...
This is a bit like if the Byzantines invaded Bulgaria, kill a million people, sack their capitals, destroy their farms, and cart off all the gold and all the artisans to Constantinople. Generally it's called plundering.
William I was a very different sort of conqueror from Tamerlane. Though rebellious areas of course were razed without mercy, he was still interested in preserving England as a country with an economy. If William did what Tamerlane later did, he would pillage all of England, build a pyramid of skulls in the ruins of London, take all the gold, enslave anyone who wasn't dead or hadn't managed to flee, and sail them back to Normandy.
And, the English accepted William as a legitimate king, yes? I doubt the Persians see Tamerlane in the same light.
map you pasted already proves what i say.
samarkand is an important city in turkish history. central-asia is the origin of turks and mongols.
i don't say that the leader has to be persian in origin, to be a persian leader. in my point of view, catherine is a russian leader who is german in origin. but the difference is that catherine moved into an existing russian dynasty, while timur -like most other turkish tribes- raided towards west and conquered all persia.
if Timur has to be considered Persian by what you say, then Mehmed II should be considered a greek leader and serbian leader and/or wherever Ottoman Empire ruled in his time.
turkish and mongol tribes founded empires in many places, in where they moved. this was national character in medieval era. that is also why horse is so important in turkish cultures.
kublai (grandson of Genghis) founded in china. attila founded "western hun empire" in eastern europe. similarly some turkish and mongol empires were founded in anywhere conquered. india, persia, mid east, balcan peninsula (avars) and even egypt.
samarkand is an important city in turkish history. central-asia is the origin of turks and mongols.
i don't say that the leader has to be persian in origin, to be a persian leader. in my point of view, catherine is a russian leader who is german in origin. but the difference is that catherine moved into an existing russian dynasty, while timur -like most other turkish tribes- raided towards west and conquered all persia.
if Timur has to be considered Persian by what you say, then Mehmed II should be considered a greek leader and serbian leader and/or wherever Ottoman Empire ruled in his time.
turkish and mongol tribes founded empires in many places, in where they moved. this was national character in medieval era. that is also why horse is so important in turkish cultures.
kublai (grandson of Genghis) founded in china. attila founded "western hun empire" in eastern europe. similarly some turkish and mongol empires were founded in anywhere conquered. india, persia, mid east, balcan peninsula (avars) and even egypt.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
and.... was that standard procedure?
Dragonflow
Emperor
Weren't the Avars Slavs? Aslo, I don't think that Timur should be a Persian leader. It's like making a Khan of the Golden Horde a Russian leader. The Persian have enough great Kings and Conquerors of native origins to be their leaders.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Camarilla, you're just really repeating what you already said. I understand and respect your position (from a Turkish point of view). \
Tamerlane's trepidations were exaggerated by his foreign enemies in order to delegitimize the claims of his successors, a task made easier by stereotypes about Turks and Mongols which some modern writers buy into like the suckers they are.
And actually, William's reign was the way you imagine Tamerlane's (though William was a Norman rather than a Conan the Barbarian). As in the Harrying of the North ... the English who did not accept William were killed on a genocidal level. Persian nobility survived Tamerlane in large numbers ... the English nobility did not survive William (or at least his son Rufus). Probably the only difference in perspective is that England was Normanised successfully, whereas Persia was not Turkified (coming down to the fact that "William" is now a common English name, not a barbaric one like Timur).
Tamerlane's trepidations were exaggerated by his foreign enemies in order to delegitimize the claims of his successors, a task made easier by stereotypes about Turks and Mongols which some modern writers buy into like the suckers they are.
And actually, William's reign was the way you imagine Tamerlane's (though William was a Norman rather than a Conan the Barbarian). As in the Harrying of the North ... the English who did not accept William were killed on a genocidal level. Persian nobility survived Tamerlane in large numbers ... the English nobility did not survive William (or at least his son Rufus). Probably the only difference in perspective is that England was Normanised successfully, whereas Persia was not Turkified (coming down to the fact that "William" is now a common English name, not a barbaric one like Timur).
no, avars are mongol, I think or maybe turkish. Mongols and Turks (including me) are roughly cousins anyway, both are central asian origin and very similar cultures. all turkish/mongol countries believe so.
Also 1 more issue. Most historicians also believe Magyars and Bulgars are 2 of the ancient Turkish tribes migrating to Europe from central asia. They have changed much culturally and combined with Slavs. Todays Hungary and Bulgaria don't accept this or even may consider this as an insult.
The migration to Europe included both mongol and turkish tribes while the biggest force who migrated was soldiers of Attila, he is turkish, western hun empire.
i was aware that some turkish historical/cultural values are considered "persian" in europe. so i'm not shocked after seeing Timur considered a Persian leader.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
is there any ethnic group who inst, in any way related to the Turks?
You are just trying to ignore a simple truth. Timur invaded Persia. He is not Persian. When he settled with his tribe in Persia, also Persians were living there. But that doesn't make him Persian.
Catherine didn't invade Russia. She just moved to Russian dynasty.
There are many princesses or high society girls moving to another country's dynasty. This is very common in Europe. So it is very different than Timur or any other Turco-Mongol leader's invasion.
For your point of view, Genghis has to be considered a leader of many asian civilizations. He conquered roughly 2/3 of asia in his time.
I'm not trying to exaggurate anything here. You can find any knowledge I give you in wiki or any other encyclopedia. Most are considered a historical fact and some are half agreed, half disagreed by historicians. I also highlight which ones aren't agreed by whole thinkers.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
You're saying firstly he isn't Persian, and then because of the examples of Catherine and Cleopatra that that doesn't matter, what matters is whether one invades or not. You didn't really deal with the William the Conqueror argument, but there you go. Summarising your understanding of European dynastic practices in the 18th century is pointless. This is just arguing for the sake of it.
Either one thinks Tamerlane is a justifiable leader for Persia, or one doesn't, or one is in two minds.
You don't think he should be a Persian leader. I get that. It's no big deal.
It was merely a hypothetical. Chill.
Tamerlane's trepidations were exaggerated by his foreign enemies in order to delegitimize the claims of his successors, a task made easier by stereotypes about Turks and Mongols which some modern writers buy into like the suckers they are.
The destructiveness of Tamerlane's conquests was widely recorded. Yes, yes, he was a patron of the arts and a cultured man who built many fine buildings - but these were limited to his powerbase in Central Asia, in particular Samarkand. Elsewhere, in war, he was utterly brutal, and Persia was left a ruin by the end of his reign.
I'm not disputing the severity of the wars, or the numbers of people killed. I'm saying that the nature of William's and Timur's conquests were very different. William ended up ruling England - rather harshly, yes, but that makes him more like a Stalin or a Mao Zedong rather than a Tamerlane. During Tamerlane's reign, Persia is treated more like a colony that was plundered and whose resources were siphoned off to enrich a far away land (alright, so Tranoxiana isn't really that far away, but still).
Tamerlane is only justifiable if the only criterion for justification is that he ruled Persia. He did rule Persia, but it's like Victoria ruling India, and Victoria's government did much more for India than Tamerlane for Persia. Timur ruled Persia, but he was not a Persian leader.
Ok, enough about Timur. I'm not his personal lawyer anywayYou're saying firstly he isn't Persian, and then because of the examples of Catherine and Cleopatra that that doesn't matter, what matters is whether one invades or not. You didn't really deal with the William the Conqueror argument, but there you go. Summarising your understanding of European dynastic practices in the 18th century is pointless. This is just arguing for the sake of it.
Either one thinks Tamerlane is a justifiable leader for Persia, or one doesn't, or one is in two minds.
You don't think he should be a Persian leader. I get that. It's no big deal.
at least, I see most guys agree with me here.well, I don't know much about William. I have to read some docs. That's why I didn't make any comment.
What I know about english history is this; ancestors of ENglish were mostly germanic and less partly celtic with some cultural influence from romans.
When germanic tribes first settled the british isles, they fighted each other.
So normans (norse/viking), angls, saxons, goths (visigoth, ostrogoth) are all germanic anyway, as far as I know.
