AlphaShard
Emperor
That would be rather pointless, to show us some nice cgi of Vikings and then say they aren't in the game.
Civ V Civilizations Roster
- Thread starter Opera
- Start date
That would be rather pointless, to show us some nice cgi of Vikings and then say they aren't in the game.
@calgacus
where do you get so many wrong ideas? you have transformed this thread into a history discussion thread.
1) Ali is Mohammed's relative, they are both arabs. You have the same Timur approach for Ali now
however, this is even worse. islamic state expanded lands into west and east, including Persia.
Why Persia became Ali supporters (shi'i sect)?
after 4 caliphates, Islam seperated into 2 sects. sunni sect was represented by Muaviye and Ummayyad Dynasty, a dynasty of arabic nationalists/extremists. So Persia's becoming shi'i was mostly a national pride. but both sect's leaders were always arabs. none of them had persian origin. and the shi'i sect capitol was not in Persia neither, it was in Iraq. The holy places for shi'i sect is still in Iraq. So there is no direct connection between Ali and Persia. Only that, today's Persia/Iran is the most populous country of Shi'i sect. Ali's successors also claim that they are Mohammed's relatives, which means they claim to be Arabs.
2) Turks in central asia were always turks, not turkified mongols.
you might can argue that central asian turks and Turks in Turkey don't look like each other. Well, that's mostly because that Turks in anatolia have combiend with many other nations for a millenium. So central asian turks are genetically more "pure".
3) Tajiks and Pushti people (Afghans an some citizens of Pakistan) are of persian origin.
4) Ancient Turks' religion was Tengriism just like mongols. It is a type of shamanism. It is similar to paganism but it is not paganism. Turks mostly turned to Islam. And the ones who have turned to Christianity are generally "lost" within other cultures.
The city with minarets seems really like Istanbul and Hagia Sophia. I also can see the coast in the left. So the "old Istanbul" part within city walls is there.
It is told that Byzantine emperor have closed entrance of channel "Halic" with his ships so ottoman ships would not be able to bombard from close. And Fatih Sultan Mehmed (mehmed II-the conqueror) have made the ottoman ships carried on chains (skiing on chains and pulled by men) up on the hills directly into the Halic channel. It's legendary.
where do you get so many wrong ideas? you have transformed this thread into a history discussion thread.
1) Ali is Mohammed's relative, they are both arabs. You have the same Timur approach for Ali now
however, this is even worse. islamic state expanded lands into west and east, including Persia. Why Persia became Ali supporters (shi'i sect)?
after 4 caliphates, Islam seperated into 2 sects. sunni sect was represented by Muaviye and Ummayyad Dynasty, a dynasty of arabic nationalists/extremists. So Persia's becoming shi'i was mostly a national pride. but both sect's leaders were always arabs. none of them had persian origin. and the shi'i sect capitol was not in Persia neither, it was in Iraq. The holy places for shi'i sect is still in Iraq. So there is no direct connection between Ali and Persia. Only that, today's Persia/Iran is the most populous country of Shi'i sect. Ali's successors also claim that they are Mohammed's relatives, which means they claim to be Arabs.
2) Turks in central asia were always turks, not turkified mongols.
you might can argue that central asian turks and Turks in Turkey don't look like each other. Well, that's mostly because that Turks in anatolia have combiend with many other nations for a millenium. So central asian turks are genetically more "pure".
3) Tajiks and Pushti people (Afghans an some citizens of Pakistan) are of persian origin.
4) Ancient Turks' religion was Tengriism just like mongols. It is a type of shamanism. It is similar to paganism but it is not paganism. Turks mostly turned to Islam. And the ones who have turned to Christianity are generally "lost" within other cultures.
I don't think Firaxis will officially confirm any civ before the game release. so tht's what we have until then. i suppose, the above civs are guaranteed now.
The city with minarets seems really like Istanbul and Hagia Sophia. I also can see the coast in the left. So the "old Istanbul" part within city walls is there.
It is told that Byzantine emperor have closed entrance of channel "Halic" with his ships so ottoman ships would not be able to bombard from close. And Fatih Sultan Mehmed (mehmed II-the conqueror) have made the ottoman ships carried on chains (skiing on chains and pulled by men) up on the hills directly into the Halic channel. It's legendary.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
so is the last stand of 7000 men men against a force more than 10 times their size. i think what the Byzantines did was legendary, the things that ottomans did don't count.
both were legendary.
that much difference in soldier numbers were normal because the byzantine empire only had the capitol and no land else while ottoman had anatolia and balcans in 1453.
It could be very hard to take well-walled and well-positioned cities like Constantinople even with a numerically vastly superior force.
yep. constantinople during 1453 is above
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantine_Constantinople_eng.png
what i meant as "Halic channel" is named as "golden horn" in the picture. the chain is also shown in the picture.
now, that region within walls is nicknamed old city. maybe 1/10 of Istanbul pop live there. recent pic of istanbul is below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Istambul_and_Bosporus_big.jpg
i live in Izmir which is 1 of the most liberal and modern cities. i love visiting Istanbul once in 1/2 years.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
actually im sure Byzantium had all of Spartan Greece, centered in mistras.
sure. clearly shown in wiki in another linked map to what i pasted. you will see that byzantine had sparta peninsula and constantinople only. sparta peninsula was captured later than 1453.
what i was trying to tell was that Byzantium Byzantine was 1of the longest lasting empires. and it had already lost most of its superior power in 1453. it was a much postponed siege. so 7000men were reasonable.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
7000 men barely managed to guard the outermost wall. you Turks got in because of a simple mistake: we left a gate unlocked. had that gate was locked it is likely the seige would have lasted much longer. more so if Mistras had sent help ( the ottoman blockade was just sad, a bunch of genoese ships got in, and later retreated.)
my point is: you would have failed the siege if it wasn't for that little gate.
my point is: you would have failed the siege if it wasn't for that little gate.
Have you guys seen the trailer today ?
http://uk.pc.ign.com/dor/objects/62...announce_022510.html;jsessionid=11u2gndkdgrq1
We can deduce there are Egypt, Mongols, China, Vikings, Japan.
I haven't follow the thread so you might have already posted that...
To your thought.
http://uk.pc.ign.com/dor/objects/62...announce_022510.html;jsessionid=11u2gndkdgrq1
We can deduce there are Egypt, Mongols, China, Vikings, Japan.
I haven't follow the thread so you might have already posted that...
To your thought.
i'm sure a 2nd siege would soon come again.
but i think discussing this is meaningless. like in "back to the future", you can't know what would really be then. i could argue that if european allies didn't help Austria in defense, siege would be successful. that siege was also an important turn point.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
i dont consider the siege a turning point. everyone knows that if the tcity is taken, a counter attack is definitively possible.
in my opinion, and feel free to dispute that, the ottomans were doing just fine without Constantinople. after they took it i felt that they just shot themselves in the foot.
honestly i have a real hard time trying to respect the ottoman Empire ( btw, turkey gets a lot of respect) because of various factors, including how quickly it got obsolete and how chronically unstable it seemed to be. i have yet to find a single good thing that they did to the world at large.
your carcasm won't get u anywhere.
Turkey already competes with G8 according to its declared parameters. Besides, what has been declared is much less than the unrevealed.
aarocks
Chieftain
hey camarilla mathalamus and taillesskangaru could you guys cut it out with this whole byzantine vs. persian argument spanning about 4 pages? thanks its kinda bugging other people who are subscribed to the thread in order to read it for the title, predictions of the Civ V Roster...
i agree. arguement started with Timur first and then the "city with minarets" image in the trailer.
anyway, it seems if we don't have a surprise, 18 is roughly clear. In this thread I listed as the below before in post #357
18 civs for civ5 vanilla
American
Arabian
Aztec
Chinese
Egyptian
English
French
German
Greek
Indian
Japanese
Mongolian
Turkish
Persian
Roman
Russian
Spanish
Zulu
I think, Vikings will be in. So maybe either Zulu or Arabs will be out instead of Vikings.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
@calgacus
where do you get so many wrong ideas? you have transformed this thread into a history discussion thread.
1) Ali is Mohammed's relative, they are both arabs. You have the same Timur approach for Ali now
Why Persia became Ali supporters (shi'i sect)?
after 4 caliphates, Islam seperated into 2 sects. sunni sect was represented by Muaviye and Ummayyad Dynasty, a dynasty of arabic nationalists/extremists. So Persia's becoming shi'i was mostly a national pride. but both sect's leaders were always arabs. none of them had persian origin. and the shi'i sect capitol was not in Persia neither, it was in Iraq. The holy places for shi'i sect is still in Iraq. So there is no direct connection between Ali and Persia. Only that, today's Persia/Iran is the most populous country of Shi'i sect. Ali's successors also claim that they are Mohammed's relatives, which means they claim to be Arabs.
2) Turks in central asia were always turks, not turkified mongols.
you might can argue that central asian turks and Turks in Turkey don't look like each other. Well, that's mostly because that Turks in anatolia have combiend with many other nations for a millenium. So central asian turks are genetically more "pure".
3) Tajiks and Pushti people (Afghans an some citizens of Pakistan) are of persian origin.
4) Ancient Turks' religion was Tengriism just like mongols. It is a type of shamanism. It is similar to paganism but it is not paganism. Turks mostly turned to Islam. And the ones who have turned to Christianity are generally "lost" within other cultures.
@camarilla, while I can appreciate where you are coming from, you haven't really been grasping the points I made. That's alright though. Taillesskangaru understood what I was saying and still disagreed!
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
If the Vikings/Scandinavians are in the game, that bodes ill for the chances of other non-European civs to get in. This is how I see it - if there are the Vikings, one civ will have to be kicked out...
American civs: Since America is already in, and the Aztecs are almost certainly in too (judging from the Jaguar Warrior pic on the Firaxis website), that could mean that there won't be any other American civs, such as the Incas or Iroqouis.
Mediterranean civs: Rome, Greece, and Egypt are definitely in, so they're probably safe.
European civs: The Spanish could get kicked out, like they were in Civ3, but frankly I think Spain takes precedence over the Vikings, so they'll probably will still be in.
MidEastern civs: In previous games there were usually only two Middle Eastern civs in the Vanilla game (i.e. like Babylon and Persia in Civ3, and Persia and Arabia in Civ4). I really hope they don't leave only one Middle Eastern civ, because that would be more than a slap to the face to all of Middle Eastern history.
Asian civs: China, Japan, and India are safe so far as I know. The Mongols may be cut out like in Civ4.
African civs: Even though it may be tempting to remove an African civ like the Malians or the Zulus, I feel that just for political correctness at least one African civ will have to be in, no matter what.
Conclusion: IF - and that's an IF - the Vikings/Scandinavians really ARE in (and I'm really hoping that they aren't, and that that's just a trailer), I'm betting that most likely an American civilization (i.e. either Incas or Iroqouis or Sioux) will be kicked out. The second most likely option in my opinion is the Mongols. Regardless, I really hope they save the Vikings/Scandinavians for an expansion... My gods - 18 civs is so limiting!
Thoughts?
American civs: Since America is already in, and the Aztecs are almost certainly in too (judging from the Jaguar Warrior pic on the Firaxis website), that could mean that there won't be any other American civs, such as the Incas or Iroqouis.
Mediterranean civs: Rome, Greece, and Egypt are definitely in, so they're probably safe.
European civs: The Spanish could get kicked out, like they were in Civ3, but frankly I think Spain takes precedence over the Vikings, so they'll probably will still be in.
MidEastern civs: In previous games there were usually only two Middle Eastern civs in the Vanilla game (i.e. like Babylon and Persia in Civ3, and Persia and Arabia in Civ4). I really hope they don't leave only one Middle Eastern civ, because that would be more than a slap to the face to all of Middle Eastern history.
Asian civs: China, Japan, and India are safe so far as I know. The Mongols may be cut out like in Civ4.
African civs: Even though it may be tempting to remove an African civ like the Malians or the Zulus, I feel that just for political correctness at least one African civ will have to be in, no matter what.
Conclusion: IF - and that's an IF - the Vikings/Scandinavians really ARE in (and I'm really hoping that they aren't, and that that's just a trailer), I'm betting that most likely an American civilization (i.e. either Incas or Iroqouis or Sioux) will be kicked out. The second most likely option in my opinion is the Mongols. Regardless, I really hope they save the Vikings/Scandinavians for an expansion... My gods - 18 civs is so limiting!
Thoughts?
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Cybrxkhan, are you not tempted to believe they'll just go with the civs from Civilization Revolution? Plus Persia maybe, and one more?
